- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2798 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ADILAKSHMI WIFE OF SRI KUPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.60, 2ND FLOOR 7TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN SRIRAMANAGARA, ITTAMADU BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 060. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.S.RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHIVA KUMAR S/O SRI RAJE URS AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2661 5TH MAIN, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 078. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N.N. RAJ URS, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.09.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.2754/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT Captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.2754/2019 who instituted the suit for injunction simpliciter restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property described as Site No.28. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Facts leading to the case are as under: Plaintiff claims to be absolute owner of site No.28 formed in a layout carved out by one Krishnappa. Plaintiff's contention is that Krishnappa originally owned larger extent of land and formed a layout in 1998 as per Ex.15. Under Ex.P16 dated 30.6.2004, Krishnappa sold 11 sites to Munirajappa. Plaintiff in turn purchased site - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 No.28 from Munirajappa under registered sale deed dated 6.2.2006 evidenced at Ex.P2. Plaintiff based on the title documents asserts that she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Reliance is also placed on revenue records and tax paid receipts and construction of compound wall around the property. Plaintiff has also stated that she mortgaged the property with India Infoline Housing Finance Limited by depositing title deeds on 10.5.2018. Present suit is filed alleging that on 6.3.2019, defendant trespassed and claimed right over the suit schedule property. 4. Per contra, defendant upon receipt of summons entered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant however, asserted title based on registered sale deed dated 10.3.2008. Defendant asserts that he has purchased site No.47 from Krishnappa. According to defendant the land bearing Survey No.69 was allotted to Krishnappa under registered partition deed dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 19.12.2003 and thereafter Krishnappa obtained approved layout on 15.10.2004 and defendant has purchased Site No.47. The primary defence of the defendant is that Site No.28 and 47 are not adjacent and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Trial Court based on rival pleadings formulated issues. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 in support of their claim led in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court while answering Issue No.1 though held that documents adduced by plaintiff indicate plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property, in view of conflicting claims by plaintiff and defendant, suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable. It is in this backdrop, trial Court held that it is not possible to decide as to who is in actual possession and proceeded to dismiss the suit. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant. This Court has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 independently perused the pleadings and carefully scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties. 7. Having heard the learned counsel, the following points would arise for consideration: "(i) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for injunction simpliciter in view of conflicting sale deed of plaintiff and defendant suffers from perversity and warrants interference? (ii) Whether the existence of two layouts, one prior to partition( Ex.P15 dated 3.12.1998) and another approved layout dated 15.10.2004(Ex.D7) post registered partition deed, materially affects the identification of the suit schedule property? (iii) Whether the trial Court failed to appreciate that the prior sale deed dated 6.2.2006 in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 favour of the plaintiff cannot affect subsequent sale deed dated 10.3.2008 executed by the same vendor in favour of defendant? (iv) What Order?" Findings on Points (i) to (iii): 8. It is not in dispute that one Krishnappa was the original owner. It is also not in dispute that Krishnappa formed a layout which was not approved, evidenced at Ex.P15. He sold 11 sites to one Munirajappa on 30.6.2004 evidenced at Ex.P16. The plaintiff purchased site No.28 from Munirajappa under registered sale deed dated 6.2.2006. Post sale, plaintiff's name was mutated and tax paid receipts also demonstrates that the transfer of title was conveyed by the local authorities. 9. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff and defendant trace their title through common source. The original owner Krishnappa appears to be the main culprit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 and responsible for this multiple litigations by the site purchasers. The evidence on record reveals the existence of two distinct layouts. Even before partition in the family, Krishnappa formed a layout in 1998 which is evidenced at Ex.P15. He sold 11 sites to Munirajappa under Ex.P16. 10. Later, Krishnappa is allotted the very same land under registered partition deed dated 19.12.2003 evidenced at Ex.P5. Krishnappa who was aware of the earlier alienations mischievously obtains approval of a fresh layout which is evidenced at Ex.D7 and reassigns site numbers though the spatial location of the sites reflected in the earlier layout fundamentally remained same. Site No.28 in the unapproved layout is now assigned Site No.47 in the approved layout. 11. This Court has compared the layouts marked at Exs.P15 and D7. The emergence of two layouts has substantially introduced confusion regarding site numbering and identification. However, on meaningful - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 analysis of both the layouts formed at the instance of Krishnappa, this Court is more than convinced that Site No.28 is renumbered as Site No.47. It is quite interesting to note that defendants have placed reliance on the filing of the suit by the owner of Site No.48 against plaintiff herein. The plaint averments may not come to the aid of the defendant but strengthen plaintiff's contention that the site purchased by the plaintiff under an unapproved layout is now numbered as Site No.47 in the approved layout post partition deed. If plaintiff was not in possession of Site No.47, the plaintiff in O.S.No.5614/2021 had no cause of action to file an injunction suit against present plaintiff. 12. This Court deems it apposite to extract relevant paragraphs in the plaint and also the schedule indicated in the plaint, which is as under: "8. The Plaintiff submits that defendant has illegally encroached and have built a compound Wall by Cement Bricks / Blocks, on the South East measuring East to West 14 feet (E & F) and North to South 31 feet (D & G), totally measuring-434 Square feet. The Sketch of the entire measurement of Suit Schedule Property 'A' along with - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 Illegally encroachment, is marked as D, E, F & G is hereby furnished and marked as Document No.10, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court and called as Suit Schedule Property 'B'. Thus the plaintiff prays for a direction to the defendant to demolish the compound wall that was built by the defendant in Suit Schedule Property - 'B'. 9. The Plaintiff submits that immediately, the Plaintiff approached the Jurisdiction Thalaghattapura Police station, on the same day 08-10-2021 and the Police officer has informed that since the nature is of Civil in Nature and as such the Police do not interfere in Civil matter and instructed the plaintiff to Approach the Civil court for proper relief and remedy and a such the plaintiff having no other alternative and efficacy remedy is approaching this Hon'ble court for the relief of 1) Declaration, 2) Possession 3) Mandatary Injunction and 4) Injunction." "SCHEDULE-'A' All that piece and parcel of Vacant Site No.48, formed in Sy. No. 69, Anjanapura Village, Katha No. 69, B.B.M.P. Ward No. 196, measuring East to West 25 feet and North to South 62 feet, totally measuring about 1550 Square feet and bounded on as follows: East by:- Site No. 46 & 47 West by: Road North by: Site No.49, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 South by: B.D.A. Property." "SCHEDULE-'B' All that piece and parcel of portion in Vacant Site No.48, measuring East to West 14 feet (E & F) and North to South 31 feet (D & C) totally measuring 434 Square feet as shown in the sketch which is marked D,E,F & G, formed in Sy. No. 69, Anjanapura Village, Katha No. 69, B.B.M.P. Ward No. 196 and bounded on as follows: East by:- Site No. 46 & 47 West by: Road North by: Remaining Portion of the same Site No.48, belonging to the Plaintiff South by: Remaining Portion of the same Site No.48, belonging to the Plaintiff" 13. On reading the plaint averments in O.S.5614/2021, though plaintiff asserts title over site No.28, the present suit schedule property bearing Site No.28 under earlier layout corresponds to Site No.47 in the later approved layout. The mischief appears to originate from the original owner Krishnappa himself in renumbering the sites differently after partition. Therefore, plaintiff's title over Site No.28 which now - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 corresponds to Site No.47 being prior in point of time, prima facie prevails over the subsequent sale deed executed by original owner Krishnappa. The original owner Krishnappa having sold 11 sites to one Munirajappa under registered sale deed dated 6.2.2006 had no saleable title which he could have conveyed to defendant. The adjoining site owner who is plaintiff in O.S.No.5614/2021, filed the suit alleging encroachment not against defendant but against plaintiff and therefore, an inference can be drawn that despite reassigning site numbers based on subsequent layout which is though approved, the location of Site No.28 and its topography clearly stood unchanged. 14. The plaintiff's vendor Munirajappa purchased 11 sites from Krishnappa including Site No.28 in 2006. Therefore, even if Krishnappa had a imperfect title and acquired valid right and title post allotment of Survey No. 69 under registered partition deed, the first transferee Munirajappa and the present plaintiff can claim benefit of Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and therefore, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 the sale deed executed by Krishnappa in favour of defendant pertaining to Site No.47 suppressing formation of layout and alienation of 11 sites in favour of Munirajappa is without saleable title insofar as 11 sites are concerned. 15. Therefore, plaintiff by producing the registered sale deed, formation of layout on 3.12.1998 evidenced at Ex.P15, tax payments evidenced at Ex.P11, construction of compound wall evidenced at Ex.P10, mortgage by deposit of title deeds evidenced at Ex.P8, coupled with the suit filed by the adjoining owner of Site No.46 in O.S.5614/2021 has clearly demonstrated his lawful possession. Accordingly, point Nos.(i) and (iii) are answered in the "Affirmative" and point No.(ii) is answered in the "Negative". Conclusions and reasons for reversal. 16. The recurring dispute appears to stem from irregular layout formation by original owner Krishnappa, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 who formed layout even prior to crystallization of title under partition deed. The multiplicity of litigation (O.S. 5614/2021 and withdrawn O.S. 711/2025) demonstrates necessity for comprehensive adjudication. 17. On a careful re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit for injunction cannot be sustained. The Trial Court has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the plaintiff was not in possession as on the date of suit, without examining the documentary evidence in its proper perspective and without correlating the surrounding circumstances. 18. The plaintiff has traced her title through a registered sale deed dated 06.02.2006 (Ex.P2), executed by Munirajappa, who in turn derived title from Krishnappa under registered sale deed dated 30.06.2004 (Ex.P16). The partition deed dated 19.12.2003 (Ex.P5) clearly - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 demonstrates that Krishnappa was allotted the property in question. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff’s sale deed is prior in point of time to the defendant’s sale deed dated 10.03.2008. When both parties trace title to a common vendor, the earlier registered conveyance ordinarily prevails, subject to identification of property. This vital chronological aspect has been completely overlooked. 19. The evidence on record unmistakably reveals the existence of two layouts, one formed in 1998 (Ex.P15) and another approved layout dated 15.10.2004 (Ex.D7). The material indicates possible re-numbering of sites after approval. The surrounding circumstances, particularly the pleadings in O.S.No.5614/2021 filed by the adjoining site owner alleging encroachment by the present plaintiff, strongly suggest that the dispute is one of overlapping and identity rather than absence of possession. The Trial Court failed to frame or consider a proper issue on identity of the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 property and mechanically concluded that the plaintiff was not in possession. 20. The documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff namely mutation entries, tax paid receipts, mortgage by deposit of title deeds, and construction of compound wall were not adequately evaluated. When a third party alleges that the plaintiff has constructed a compound wall and encroached, such allegation itself presupposes physical control over the property. The Trial Court extracted a portion of cross-examination in isolation and failed to weigh the cumulative effect of the evidence. 21. The contention advanced under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 also required serious consideration. If Krishnappa had formed the earlier layout before formal allotment under the partition deed and subsequently acquired complete title, the doctrine of “feeding the grant by estoppel” could validate earlier transfers. The Trial Court has not adverted to this - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 statutory principle at all. Non-consideration of a material statutory provision amounts to a serious error in law. 22. The dismissal of the suit solely on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession, without resolving the core dispute relating to layout renumbering and overlapping claims, has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The reasoning adopted is neither comprehensive nor consistent with the documentary evidence. The approach of the Trial Court suffers from misapplication of law and misappreciation of evidence. 23. In an appeal under Section 96 of CPC, this Court, being the final Court on facts, is duty-bound to independently assess the evidence. Upon such reassessment, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are perverse to the extent that relevant material evidence has been ignored and improper inferences have been drawn. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 24. For all the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and decree of dismissal warrant interference and cannot be allowed to stand. The conclusions of the Trial Court are set aside as being legally unsustainable and contrary to the weight of evidence on record. Finding on Point No.(iv): 25. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 20.9.2024 passed in O.S.No.2754/2019 by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction is decreed. The defendant and his agents are hereby restrained - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14610 RFA No. 2798 of 2024 from interfering with the plaintiff's lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. (iv) Office to draw the decree accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 115