- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26971 RFA No. 879 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 872 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2020 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 872 OF 2020 (INJ) IN RFA NO.879 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. G.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE GURUMURTHY BHOVI, R/AT GARVEBAVI PALYA HONGASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI – 560 068 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 2. G.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE GURUMURTHY BHOVI, R/AT GARVEBAVI PALYA HONGASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI – 560 068 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 3. G.GOPAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE GURUMURTHY BHOVI, R/AT GARVEBAVI PALYA HONGASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI – 560 068 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 4. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O MANJUNATH R/AT GARVEBAVI PALYA HONGASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI – 560 068 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26971 RFA No. 879 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 872 of 2020 5. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O LATE KRISHNA R/AT GARVEBAVI PALYA HONGASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI – 560 068 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M., ADV. AND SRI.G.MANIVANNAN, ADV.) AND: A.C.CHETAK S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.381, 42ND CROSS 9TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 041 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.ANUPARNA BORDOLDI, ADV.) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.25455/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. IN RFA NO.872 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. G.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE GURUMURTHY BHOVI, R/AT GARVEBAVI PALYA HONGASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI – 560 068 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 2. G.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26971 RFA No. 879 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 872 of 2020 S/O LATE GURUMURTHY BHOVI, R/AT GARVEBAVI PALYA HONGASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI – 560 068 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 3. G.GOPAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE GURUMURTHY BHOVI, R/AT GARVEBAVI PALYA HONGASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI – 560 068 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 4. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O MANJUNATH R/AT GARVEBAVI PALYA HONGASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI – 560 068 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 5. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O LATE KRISHNA R/AT GARVEBAVI PALYA HONGASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI – 560 068 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M., ADV. AND SRI.G.MANIVANNAN, ADV.) AND: A.C.DEEPAK S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.381, 42ND CROSS 9TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 041 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.ANUPARNA BORDOLDI, ADV.) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26971 RFA No. 879 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 872 of 2020 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.25454/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) These appeals are filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2019 in O.S.No.2545/2008 and O.S.No.25455/2008. 2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that Sri. Gurumurthy Bhovi and defendant No.6 Sri.Chinnappa @ Chinniga were the absolute owners in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.116 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas. On 20.12.1985 they handed over the possession of land to Sri.I.V.Pillaiah, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26971 RFA No. 879 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 872 of 2020 Sri. V. Narayanappa, Sri. Thimareddy and Sri. I.M. Shetty Raju. Later on, Gurumurthy Bhovi and Chinnappa executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 22.10.1987 in their favor, empowering them to enter into sale, gift, lease and alienating the property and delivering the title documents. After the execution of General Power of Attorney, Gurumurthy Bhovi, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and husbands of defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 declared that they have received the entire sale consideration through an affidavit dated 29.08.1988 before the Notary. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that they had purchased the property from Sri.N.Muniswamy Reddy through registered sale deed dated 17.02.1994. After urbanization of the lands, the respective plaintiffs have paid betterment charges to the City Municipality Corporation. They have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties from the date of its purchase. Further, they constructed a compound and also a shed in the scheduled property. 5. It is further case of the plaintiffs that even though the defendants filed an application under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1974, for cancellation of alienation of Sy.No.116 before the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26971 RFA No. 879 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 872 of 2020 Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South, against the vendors of the plaintiff, the said application came to be dismissed on 31.12.2004, the same has been attained finality. 6. Such being the fact, the defendants without having any right, title or interest over the properties of the plaintiffs in both the suits, tried to demolish the compound and to remove the existing gate on 01.03.2008 and on 08.03.2008. The plaintiffs in both the suit with great difficulty resisted their acts. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have approached the jurisdictional police. 7. After filing of the suit, the Trial Court framed three issues and two additional issues and proceeded in accordance with law. After analyzing the facts and circumstances and also evidence on record opined that the issues framed by the Trial Court have been answered in the affirmative. However, the additional issue Nos.1 and 2 have been in the negative. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court the points which are arised for my consideration are : 1. Whether the Trial Court is justified in granting the relief as prayed for. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26971 RFA No. 879 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 872 of 2020 2. What order ? 9. As regards the possession of the property is concerned, the plaintiffs have contended that the vendor had obtained the title of the property through registered General Power of Attorney from Sri.Gurumurthy Bhovi and Chinnappa. His vendor had executed two sale deeds i.e., Ex.Nos.P.6 and P.37 respectively. On the possession of said sale deed, khatas were changed in the name of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are in possession of the schedule property. On the Contrary, the contentions of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 is that suit scheduled properties were actually part and parcel of Sy.No.116 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas. The land bearing Sy.No.116 measuring 4 acre 7 guntas was granted by the Government under the scheme of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Such being the fact, the property ought not to have been alienated for certain period. Therefore, the sale stated to have been taken place during the non-alienation period is held to be void. Therefore, the said sale deeds are not binding. 10. The Trial Court after examining the evidence of all the witnesses both oral and documentary on record opined that, in a suit for injunction the Court has to consider only - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26971 RFA No. 879 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 872 of 2020 possession of the property. If that possession is lawful, the plaintiff is entitled to get relief. 11. It is not in dispute that suit scheduled properties are the part and parcel of Sy.No.116 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas of land. It is also an admitted fact that the site was granted by the Government in favor of the Gurumurthy Bhovi and Chinnappa. According to the plaintiffs, Gurumurthy Bhovi and Chinnappa had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favor of I.V.Pillaiah, V. Narayanappa, Thimmareddy and Shetty Raju as per Ex.Nos.-P.3 and P.36. On perusal of these documents, it is obvious that the said Gurumurthy Bhovi and Chinnappa have jointly executed General Power of Attorney in favor of I.V.Pillaiah, V.Narayanappa, Thimma Reddy and Shetty Raju on 22.10.1987. 12. On careful reading of the contents of these General Power of Attorney, it is obvious that, before execution of General Power of Attorney on 22.10.1987, Gurumurthy and Chinnappa have delivered the actual and physical possession of 4 acres 7 guntas of land to all the four persons. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26971 RFA No. 879 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 872 of 2020 13. On perusal of Ex.P.4, P.5 and P.7 to P.12, it is obvious that on the possession of the sale deeds, khata and records, were changed in the name of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are paying the taxes. Encumbrance certificate are also standing in their names. The record would indicate that the properties are standing in the name of plaintiffs from 1994. In addition to the documents stated above the plaintiffs have further produced photographs marked at Ex.P.31 to P.34 and P.62 to P.65. These photographs would indicate that the suit scheduled properties have been protected by the compound wall. The Trial Court after having perused all the documents and also evidences of the witnesses, opined that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled properties right from the purchase. Hence, the findings of the Trial Court in granting the relief appears to be appropriate and proper. Therefore, interference with the said findings in my considered view is not necessary. 14. As regards interference by the defendants in the property of the plaintiff is concerned, the evidence of the plaintiff and also the photographs would indicate that the defendants are illegally trying to demolish the compound wall - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26971 RFA No. 879 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 872 of 2020 and also trying to dis-possess them from the suit schedule properties. Having considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellants have not made out a case to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court passing the decree. Therefore, I answer the above points as follows: Point No.1 : In the Affirmative. Point No. : As per the final order. 15. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeals stands dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26971 RFA No. 879 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 872 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [G NAGARAJ AND OTHERS VS. A C CHETAK] 07.08.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORDERS ON ‘FOR BEING SPOKEN TO’ Today, the learned counsel for the respondent filed a memo for being spoken to. The paragraph No.1 of the judgment dated 18.07.2025 reads as under: ‘These appeals are filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2019 in O.S No.2545/2008 and O.S.No.25455/2008.’ However, there is a typographical error crept in the said judgment. Instead of mentioning as O.S No.25454/2008, it has been wrongly mentioned as O.S No.2545/2008. Henceforth, the same is corrected and read as ‘O.S No.25454/2008’ for all practical purpose. SD/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN, List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1