- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30757 RFA No. 2911 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2911 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.M. NANJEGOWDA S/O MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.200, B CHANNASANDRA BANSWADI, KALYAN NAGAR POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TLAUK, BANGALORE–560 043. 2. SRI B. BAYYANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT B. CHANNASANDRA, BANASWADI, KALYAN NAGAR POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE–560 043. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH M. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. GANGA ENTERPRISES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, M.V. KARTHIK, S/O SRI M.V. VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30757 RFA No. 2911 of 2024 OFFICE NO.1418, 1ST MAIN, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, NEAR GT MALL, VIDYARANYA NAGARA, BANGALORE–560 023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE C/R) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8754/2019 ON THE FILE OF XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS 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 defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2024 in O.S. No.8754/2019 on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-30) (‘the Trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction. 2. Brief facts: Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with its lawful - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30757 RFA No. 2911 of 2024 possession and enjoyment of the site bearing No.5M-689, bearing BBMP Katha PID No.88-255-5M-689 situated at Ward No.27, Old Madras Road, Banasawadi Road Layout (OMBR Layout), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’ for short). The plaintiff is the proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor who claims to be the absolute owner in possession of the suit property. The suit property was originally allotted in favour of one B.R. Chennudiyappa vide allotment dated 01.08.1985. A lease-cum-sale agreement was executed on 27.11.1987 and possession was delivered to the allottee by the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short). On 27.09.2018, the BDA executed a registered sale deed in favour of B.R. Chennudiyappa, and the katha was mutated in his name. On 27.05.2019, B.R. Chennudiyappa executed a registered sale deed in favour of one D. Mohan. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from D. Mohan under a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2019, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30757 RFA No. 2911 of 2024 pursuant to which, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment. 3. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement, inter alia, contending that Sy. No.53 of Banaswadi is a burial ground and the residents of B. Channasandra, Chikka Banaswadi, Pillareddynagara, Lalbahadur Shastrynagara, Kasthurinagara and OMBR Layout have been using Sy. No.53 of Banaswadi village as a burial ground forming part of public property. The defendants denied the BDA had allotted the suit property in favour of B.R. Chennudiyappa or that any valid sale deeds existed in chain of title leading to the plaintiff. 4. In order to substantiate their claim, the proprietor of the plaintiff firm examined himself as PW.1 and marked documents at Exs.P1 to 22. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 examined themselves as DW.1 and 2 and marked documents at Exs.D1 to D38. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30757 RFA No. 2911 of 2024 5. The Trial Court, considering the oral and documentary evidence, more particularly the sale deed dated 13.06.2019, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has established his lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants failed to substantiate their plea that the suit property was a burial ground or public property. Consequently, the suit was decreed and the defendants were restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants, other than raising the various contentions, would mainly urge that the appellants have already initiated proceedings before the Special Court under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 in LGC (G) No.845/2021 against the plaintiff and the government officials, which are presently pending adjudication. It is submitted that the order granting the injunction in favour of the plaintiff should not come in the way of the competent authority/Special Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30757 RFA No. 2911 of 2024 in considering and deciding appellant’s complaint, on its own merits and in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and has established his lawful possession over the suit property, having acquired it through a valid chain of title beginning with BDA allotment and plaintiff purchasing under a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2019. It is contended that initiation of the proceedings under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act are separate and the appellants are at liberty to prove their case before the Special Court, however, such proceedings do not affect the plaintiff’s right to protect their possession through a suit for injunction. 8. The nature of the present suit being for permanent injunction, the trial was justified in examining the factum of possession rather than the title. The documents produced by the plaintiff particularly Ex.P1- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30757 RFA No. 2911 of 2024 registered sale deed dated 27.09.2018 executed by the BDA in favour of B.R. Chennudiyappa, Ex.P2-sale deed dated 27.05.2019 executed by B.R. Chennudiyappa in favour of D. Mohan, Ex.P8-sale deed dated 13.06.2019 executed by D. Mohan in favour of the plaintiff, in addition katha extracts and tax paid receipts, Ex.P19-building plan issued by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, BBMP, Ex.P.20-building licence, Exs.P11 and 12 are the preliminary notification dated 26.07.1984 and the final notification dated 18.12.1986 wherein the acquisition proceedings were initiated for the benefit of OMBR layout support the finding that the plaintiff is in lawful possession. 9. The appellants have filed a complaint before the Special Court and the same is pending adjudication. Any proceedings under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act are independent and it is for the appellants to establish their claim therein in accordance with law. There is no infirmity in the findings of the Trial Court - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30757 RFA No. 2911 of 2024 warranting any interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 08.08.2024 in O.S. No.8754/2019 on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-30) stands confirmed. ii. It is needless to observe that decree of injunction shall not come in the way of the Special Court constituted under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act adjudicating the proceedings independently in accordance with law. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15