- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1683 OF 2016 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI A.M. PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, R/AT NO.48 & 49 MUNESHWAR BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, AMRUTH NAGAR, AMRUTHAHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560092. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI T.V. NANJUNDA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O T.N. VENKATASWAMAPPA, R/AT NO.46/2, G. BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560092. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI BHANU PRASAD K., ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4955/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIVTH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2016 in O.S. No.4955/2009 on the file of XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the suit for permanent injunction came to be decreed restraining the defendant/appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Plaint averments: 2. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner in possession of Site Nos.32 and 33, corner sites formed in Survey No.96 of Amrutha Halli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North, purchased under a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1993 executed by Sri D.M. Venkataramanappa through his GPA Sri M. Sriramulu and M.N. Narasimharaju. It is stated that the layout in which the suit sites are formed originates from the land bearing Survey Nos.96, 97/3, 98/1, measuring 3 acres 39 guntas. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 After purchase, the plaintiff got all the revenue entries mutated in his name with the Village Panchayath, later by Narayanapura CMC and subsequently by the BBMP. That the plaintiff is in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the sites for more than a decade, without interruptions and objections from anybody including the defendant. The defendant, who is the nephew of the petitioner’s vendor, began to interfere with the plaintiff's possession by asserting that an excess strip of land measuring 8 feet x 50 feet exists between Site No.34 and the plaintiff's site, and demanded that the plaintiff shift his boundary further north. The defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction. Written Statement averments: 3. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s purchase and about Site Nos.32 and 33 exist in Survey No.96 as contended by the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff’s documents are not genuine and the plaintiff has no title or - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 possession over the suit property. It is stated that after the death of the defendant’s father, an oral partition took place on 02.06.1983 between his mother (as natural guardian) and his paternal uncle D.M.Venkataramanappa (vendor of the plaintiff), under which 01 acre 21 guntas in Survey No.97/3 fell to defendant’s share. His mother thereafter obtained conversion order on 22.12.1992 for converting Survey No.97/3 for non-agricultural use and subsequently, she executed a GPA in favour of Sri M. Sriramulu and Sri M.N. Narasimharaju (the same GPA holders of the plaintiff’s vendor) for 30 guntas, while the defendant and his mother retained 31 guntas. It is stated that out of 31 guntas in Survey No.97/3, the defendant claims to have formed several residential sites, including Site Nos.32, 33, 34, 39 to 43 and 45 to 49, and that these properties continue to remain in their possession. The defendant contended that the plaintiff is falsely claiming that the suit sites were formed in Survey No.96, whereas the actual site Nos.32 and 33 are located in Survey - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 No.97/3, carved out from his family property and therefore, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. 4. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has proved lawful possession through Ex.P.1 and other corroborative revenue and tax documents. D.W.1, in his cross-examination admitted that, ‘the plaintiff is the owner of Site Nos.32 and 33 in Survey No.96’. Further, the Conversion Order-Ex.P.6 clearly records that out of 3 acres 39 guntas of land, 2 acres 29 guntas pertain to Survey No.96 and only 3 guntas pertain to Survey No.97/3. Thus, the defendant's claim of having formed 32 guntas of residential sites out of 3 guntas was false and improbable. The Trial Court found the report of the Court Commissioner inconsistent with the official records and therefore, declined to accept it. Applying Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (‘SR Act’ for short) and relying upon the decision of the Apex - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs and Others1 (Anathula Sudhakar), the Trial Court observed that the plaintiff was entitled for perpetual injunction without seeking declaration and by the judgment and decree, restrained the defendant permanently from interfering with the plaintiff’s possessions of Site Nos.32 and 33 in Survey No.96. Aggrieved by which the defendant is before this Court in this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that Site Nos.32 and 33 are not situated in Survey No.96 but were formed in Survey No.97/3, and that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the Commissioner's sketch-Ex.C.1 (which according to the appellant, shows the formation of several sites in Sy. No.97/3). It is argued that the oral partition of 1983 and subsequent formation 1 AIR 2008 SC 2033 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 of layout in Survey No.97/3 show that the suit sites fall within the appellant's retained property. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the appellant has produced no document whatsoever to establish that Site Nos.32 and 33 form part of Survey No.97/3. The respondent places strong reliance on Ex.P.1-the registered sale deed dated 27.03.1993, which clearly records that Site Nos.32 and 33 were carved out of Survey No.96. The respondent further contends that Ex.P.6, the conversion order dated 22.12.1992, demonstrate that out of total extent of 3 acres 39 guntas, 2 acres 29 guntas pertain to Survey No.96 and only 3 guntas pertain to Survey No.97/3, and 1 acre 7 guntas pertain to Survey No.98/1, making it impossible to form multiple residential sites including Site Nos.32, 33, 34, 39 to 43 and 45 to 49 in an extent of merely 3 guntas. 8. Reliance is placed on Exs.P20 and P21, the registered GPAs executed by the original vendor in favour - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 of Sri M. Sriramula and Sri M.N. Narasimharaju, which demonstrate that the same GPA holders executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent further points out that Ex.C.1-the Commissioner's Report is inconsistent with Ex.P.6 and with the undisputed land extent, and therefore, was rightly discarded by the Trial Court. More importantly, in paragraph No.9, D.W.1 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that Site Nos.32 and 33 are indeed situated in Survey No.96 and no documents exist to show the formation of sites Nos.32, 33, 34, 39 to 43 or any other site in Survey No.97/3. The respondent therefore contends that the appellant's entire defence is contrary to his own admission, unsupported by documentary evidence and is an afterthought intended only to assert an unfounded interest in the plaintiff's property. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 “Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court warrants any interference in the present facts and circumstances of the case?” 10. The plaintiff claims his lawful possession over Site Nos.32 and 33 through a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1993. The defendant-D.W.1 in his cross- examination admitted that Site Nos.32 and 33 are situated in Survey No.96 belonged to the plaintiff. In the written statement of the defendant at paragraph No.9, he has admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of Survey No.96 in which ‘Site Nos.32 and 33 are carved out’ and the defendant is owner of Survey No.97/3 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas which facing towards western side of Survey No.96. Further at paragraph No.16 of the written statement, the defendant submits that the defendant is the absolute owner of Sy. No.97/3 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas. 11. In his cross-examination, DW.1 has admitted as under: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 “The plaintiff is the owner of site Nos.32 and 33 in Sy. No.96, now he is making a claim of site No.32 and 33 in Sy. No.97.” Further, in his cross-examination, at paragraph No.34 he has stated as under: “34. It is true to suggest that, the plaintiff have filed the complaint. I have produced the document to show that the plaintiff have trespassed in survey No.97/3. It is not correct to suggest that. I have not produced any document in this regard. It is not correct to suggest that, in July 2009. 1 entered the property of the plaintiff and tried to take over the same. I have entered my property in the month of July 2009. The photographs produced by the plaintiff relates to our property and the plaintiff has taken the photographs. It is true to suggest that, site No.32 and 33 are situated in survey No.96. It is true to suggest that, the suit schedule property comes in survey No.96. It is not correct to suggest that without any justification we are interfering with the plaintiff.” (emphasis supplied) 12. These admissions conclusively establish that it is impossible to form a residential site much less site Nos.32, 33, 34, 39 to 43 and 45 to 49 in an extent of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 nearly 3 guntas. D.W.1 further admitted that he has no document whatsoever to show that any of the alleged site numbers were formed in Survey No.97/3 nor is there any conveyance executed by his mother or by himself in respect of such sites. He further admitted that the Commissioner's report-Ex.C.1 does not tally with the conversion order-Ex.P.6, which reinforces the Trial Court's conclusion and the Commissioner's report could not be relied upon. The admissions of D.W.1 are indirect conflict with the defence theory and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in discarding the defendant's version as false and unsubstantiated. 13. In light of his unequivocal admissions, the plaintiff's title and possession, as evidenced in Exs.P.1 and P.6, remain completely unshaken and finding of interference made fully established. The Trial Court rightly held that the defendant’s claim is an afterthought intended to encroach upon the suit sites and the Commissioner’s - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47574 RFA No. 1683 of 2016 Report being inconsistent with the statutory record cannot be relied upon. 14. The principles laid down in Anathula Sudhakar’s case, justifies the grant of permanent injunction when the plaintiff’s title and possession are clear and the defendant's claim is merit-less. The findings of the Trial Court are based on proper appreciation, evidence, and free from perversity, jurisdictional error, or misreading of records, warranting no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court stands confirmed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83