- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2470 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: RENUKAMMA W/O. LATE K.PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT: NO.310, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 079. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE) AND: B.C. MURULIDHAR S/O. LATE B.P. GOPALAKRISHNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 EYARS, R/AT: NO.103, BRINDAVANA MODEL HOUSE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAKASH B N., ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4520/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. AND ETC. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2023 in O.S.No.4520/2021 on the file of XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'). By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction, asserting ownership and possession over the suit property purchased under registered sale deed dated 25.03.1981. It is averred that plaintiff has been in lawful - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023 possession and enjoyment of the suit property including a small house let out to tenants. The allegation of the plaintiff is that the defendant in collusion with the plaintiff's son obtained an agreement of sale dated 14.07.2020 and is attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the tenants who are residing in the suit property. 3. The defendant contended that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property for consideration of Rs.56,00,000/- and executed a registered agreement of sale dated 14.07.2020. Rs.55,00,000/- was paid in part performance including Rs.5,00,000/- through RTGS favouring plaintiff's son. The defendant denied interference but admitted that the plaintiff is in possession. 4. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff is in possession which is not disputed by answering issue No.1 in the favour of plaintiff. However, concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove any interference by the defendant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has ignored crucial evidence Exs.P6 to P11 - photographs, the damage of compound indicates interference. It is contended that the Trial Court having held that the plaintiff is in possession erred in denying injunction dismissing the suit for injunction. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the plaintiff is admittedly in possession of the suit property, however, the suit for injunction is not maintainable in the absence of proof of interference by the defendant. It is contended that plaintiff executed registered agreement of sale dated 14.07.2020 in favour of the defendant, agreeing to sell the suit property for total consideration of Rs.56,00,000/-. The plaintiff having failed to perform her part of contract was issued a legal notice calling upon her to come forward to execute the sale deed. Only thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for injunction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023 7. The respondent has already filed suit in O.S.No.6653/2022 seeking specific performance of the said agreement which is pending adjudication before competent Court. It is argued that the Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly held that no interference by defendant has been established. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: 'whether plaintiff proves any interference by the defendant ?' 9. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property. It is the case of the defendant that the registered agreement of sale dated 14.07.2020 has been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and in part performance the sale consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- has been paid to the plaintiff, are subject matter in O.S.No.6653/2022. This is a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023 suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish her possession is lawful and any interference by the defendant. 10. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property however, from the material placed by the plaintiff herself, the Trial Court found that the plaintiff has failed to prove any interference by the defendant. Exs.P6 to P11 - photographs produced by the plaintiff does not establish that the damage was caused by the defendant. It is also noticed that no police complaint is lodged alleging damage caused by the defendant nor the tenant’s testimony was brought forth. In the absence of the cogent material placed by the plaintiff to support the allegation of interference, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove any interference by the defendant. The manner in which the Trial Court has considered the entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the same does not warrant any interference and the point for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023 consideration is answered accordingly. Hence, this Court pass the following; ORDER i) This Regular First Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii) The Judgment and Decree of the trial Court stands confirmed. Sd/- ___________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11