- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28321 RFA No. 836 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2020 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT.H.A.PREMA W/O LATE H.C.SHEKARAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.140, II CROSS NEAR MARIAMMA TEMPLE HOODI VILLAGE MAHADEVAPURA POST BANGALORE – 560 048 … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANKARA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.NETRAVATHI D/O LATE VENKATESH REDDY W/O SRIRAMACHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.205, I CROSS HOODI VILLAGE MAHADEVAPURA POST BANGALORE – 560 048 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.GIRISH M.S., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.5306/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28321 RFA No. 836 of 2020 BENGALURU CITY (CCH NO.25) DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.07.2025 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) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2020 passed in O.S.No.5306/2018 by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH- 25), wherein the Trial Court decreed the suit with cost. 2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience. The factual matrix of the case are as under: 3. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant and her men, restraining them from interfering with suit schedule properties bearing khata No.6/4 in Hoodi village, measuring 84 feet x 13 feet and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28321 RFA No. 836 of 2020 khata No.29 in Hoodi village measuring 84 feet x 30 feet, both are situated in Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. 4. The respondent being the plaintiff, is stated to be the owner of the suit schedule properties and had acquired the same under the Release Deed dated 07.11.2013 from her mother. The appellant being the defendant in the Trial Court, denied the said Release Deed and she claimed to be the owner of the properties and demanding the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the same to the defendant. The cause of action arose on 01.07.2018. Therefore, the respondent / plaintiff filed a suit seeking for permanent injunction claiming that she is in possession of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule Properties as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the unlawful interference? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28321 RFA No. 836 of 2020 4. What Order or Decree? 5. The Trial Court after having considered the rival contentions of both the parties, answered all the issues in the ‘affirmative’ and granted the permanent injunction. Hence, the defendant is before this Court seeking to set aside the said judgment and decree. 6. Heard Sri Shankara, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Girish M.S., learned counsel for the respondent. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is illegal, perverse and without any basis. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. It is further submitted that the claim of ownership by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties is severely disputed by the defendant and also the existence of the suit schedule properties within the described boundaries. Though, the plaintiff claimed that she had acquired the suit schedule properties from her mother under the relinquishment deed, however, she had not produced any documents to prove that she had any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28321 RFA No. 836 of 2020 subsisting right, title or interest over the schedule properties along with her mother. Further, no documentary evidence has been produced to establish that she is the daughter of Smt. Chandramma, who is alleged to be the mother of the plaintiff. 9. It is further submitted that the disputed properties are situated in two different places, however, a single khata is produced which creates doubt. The plaintiff has admitted that, the defendant is in possession of 13 feet x 99 feet in Item No.1 and 8¼ feet x 99 feet in item No.2 of the suit schedule properties along with a four-storied building in Item No.2. Further, when the plaintiff has admitted that, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties, injunction ought not to have been granted in respect of the suit schedule properties. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff admitted that, since it is a vacant land, she has produced certified copies of the partition deed dated 30.09.1955 - Ex.P2, release deed dated 07.11.2013 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28321 RFA No. 836 of 2020 some documents relating to the construction of four square Mangalore tiles roof in the khata No.29 in Item No.2 property. Ex.P4 is the property register of the suit schedule No.1 properties bearing khata No.6/4. 11. It is further submitted that these documents would indicate that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and also got the electric connection to the said house. Since all the documents would indicate that the plaintiff is in possession of the property, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is absolute and appropriate. There is no reason to interfere with the said findings. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court, in a suit for bare injunction, possession of the property assumes greater significance. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the properties, made available certain documents to demonstrate the ownership and possession of the property. The defendant filed the written statement denying possession and cause of action and she also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28321 RFA No. 836 of 2020 claimed that the suit is barred by limitation. Further, the defendant contended that the plaintiff is a stranger to the defendant and the alleged interference in the suit schedule properties is made for the purpose of filing the false suit. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points which would arise for my consideration are: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is a lawful owner of the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit and also further proves that, the defendant is interfering with the possession? (ii) Whether the findings of the Trial Court in granting the decree are justified? (iii) What Order? 14. As regards point No.(i) is concerned, the plaintiff has produced khata certificates of the property and was paying tax to the BBMP in respect of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has also produced electric - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28321 RFA No. 836 of 2020 connection bills and also encumbrance certificate up-to- date. The plaintiff also obtained loan from the private financial institutions by pledging the original documents and constructed the structure thereon. 15. Having considered the documents available on record and also the evidence adduced by the respective parties, I am of the considered opinion that, the point No.(i) has to be answered in the ‘affirmative’. 16. As regards point No.(ii) is concerned, since I answered point No.(i) in the affirmative, the justification of the findings of the Trial Court is relentlessly followed. Therefore, point No.(ii) also has to be answered in the ‘affirmative’. 17. In the light of the observations made above, the points which arose for my consideration are answered as: Point No.(i) in the “affirmative” Point No.(ii) in the “affirmative” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28321 RFA No. 836 of 2020 18. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The Regular First Appeal stands dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 04.03.2020 passed in O.S.No.5306/2018 by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-25), is confirmed. (iii) No order as to cost. (iv) Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records forthwith. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43