- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33652 RFA No. 1595 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1595 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI B.S. MALLESH S/O. SRI H.M. SHIVAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 1ST FLOOR, EAT STREET, GANDHI BAZAAR, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004. REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER SRI B.S. RAKESH S/O H.B. SHIVAMALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1/1, EAT STREET, GANDHI BAZAAR, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004. …APPELLANT (BY SRI N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI K.M. SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O. LATE H.K. MUNIVENKATASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5/25, 3RD CROSS, 10TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011. 2. M/S. MYTRI BUILDERS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM GAVUBG REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.10, ‘SAI NILAYAM’, 6TH ‘B’ CROSS, AGS LAYOUT MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33652 RFA No. 1595 of 2025 BENGALURU-560006. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI VIJAY SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. SRI MUNIRATHNAM. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4822/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, 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 29.10.2025 in O.S.No.4822/2017 on the file of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-25) (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff seeking relief of perpetual injunction with costs. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33652 RFA No. 1595 of 2025 2. The said appeal is accompanied by I.A.No.1/2025 seeking to condone the delay of 1249 days in preferring the present appeal 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. In support of I.A.No.1/2025, an affidavit is sworn in by one Sri B.S. Rakesh as a special power of attorney holder for the appellant. The relevant portion of the affidavit is culled out and extracted hereunder: “8. I submit that the appellant could not able to approach due to his ill-health and the appellant unable to appear before the counsel immediately on dismissals of the suit. Later the appellant has executed SPA in favour of Sri.B.S.Rakesh and immediately he has applied certified copy on 06.05.2025 and got the certified copy on 19.05.2025 and immediately he approach the counsel and requested to prepare the appeal on behalf of the appellant. Though the Judgment and Decree passed on 21.10.2021 and signed the decree on 11.11.2021. All these facts came to know through the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33652 RFA No. 1595 of 2025 9. I submit that the delay in filing of the above appeal is more than three years and got certified copies only in the month of May-2025. The appellant is seriously ill-health due to old age ailments, hence the delay has been caused and said delay kindly may be condoned and I have file this appeal and there is a delay in filing the appeal. Hence it is just and necessary to condone the delay in filing of the above appeal.” 5. The substance of the reasons assigned therein is that the appellant, on account of his advanced age and ill-health, was unable to approach the Court within time. It is further stated that after executing a special power of attorney in favour of B.S. Rakesh, the certified copy of the judgment was applied for and obtained, and only thereafter the present appeal came to be filed. It is relevant to note that the affidavit not accompanied by any medical document or supporting material to substantiate the plea of ill-health. The explanation offered is vague and does not disclose or explain the inordinate delay of 1249 days. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33652 RFA No. 1595 of 2025 6. It is well settled proposition of law that the existence of "sufficient cause" to the satisfaction of the Court is the condition set for the Court to exercise its discretion in the matter of condoning delay. The law equally requires that such cause must be bonafide and not in a casual manner. 7. In the present case, delay is not a few days but of more than three years. The reasons urged, being unsupported by any material, do not inspire confidence. The appellant, who was the plaintiff before the trial Court, contested the matter on merits and was aware of the judgment and decree. No sufficient grounds are made out to condone the inordinate delay. 8. Even otherwise, in order to ensure the matter is not dismissed on technical grounds alone, this Court has also examined the merits of the appeal. 9. The suit was one for relief of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33652 RFA No. 1595 of 2025 schedule ‘B’ property and obstructing to enjoy Schedule ‘B’ property by the plaintiff. 10. Suit schedule ‘A’ property is a land bearing Sy.No.6/1 measuring 20 guntas situated at Arehalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Suit schedule ‘B’ property is a portion of the property in katha No.6/1 measuring East to West Northern side 26 feet, Southern side 22 feet and North to South 94 feet, situated at Arehalli village. 11. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule ‘B’ property, pursuant to the Gift Deed dated 29.05.2017 and schedule ‘B’ property stands in his name. The trial Court on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence recorded clear findings that: i. The plaintiff failed to establish that his father lawfully retained schedule ‘A’ property after - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33652 RFA No. 1595 of 2025 acquisition, or that he had valid title enabling execution of the alleged Gift Deed (Ex.P1). ii. The execution of the Gift Deed was not proved in accordance with law, nor was any possession of schedule ‘B’ property as described. iii. The suit framed as one for bare injunction without a declaration of title was not maintainable when the defendants had specifically denied both the plaintiff’s title and the very existence of schedule ‘B’ property. 12. These findings go to the root of the matter and conclusively demonstrate that the plaintiff was neither in lawful possession or entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. The dismissal of the suit by the trial Court is thus well founded in law and fact. 13. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed not only on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay, but also on merits, as no error or - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33652 RFA No. 1595 of 2025 perversity is made out in the trial Court’s judgment. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected, appeal stands dismissed, both on ground of delay/laches and on merits. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22