- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1133 OF 2012 BETWEEN: SRI SRINIVAS REDDY @ MARI REDDY S/O LATE B VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O NO. 343/3, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH MAIN, 100 FEET ROAD, B V REDDY CORNER, DODDA BANASAWADI, BANGALORE-560 068. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRIKAR KRISHNA B.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. S. SUGUNA W/O. K. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.12, 1ST CROSS, LAL BAHADUR NAGAR, B. CHENNASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 043. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2012 PASSED IN O.S.1692/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH:15), BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2012 passed in Original Suit No. 1692/2008 on the file of VIII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH15), at Bengaluru by which, the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction is decreed as prayed for. 2. Subject matter of the suit is property being house site bearing BBMP No.2A, old House List No.772/1 situated at 10th Main, 100 Ft. BDA Road, Banaswadi, Bangalore, measuring East-West on the Northern side-6 feet, on the Southern side-52 feet and North-South on the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 Eastern side-70 feet and on the Western side-65 feet, with boundaries,- EAST: Anniah Reddy Property, WEST: 100 Ft. BDA Road and 10th Main Road; NORTH: Road and Anniah Reddy Property; SOUTH: Remaining land of Venkataswamy Reddy property now in possession of Defendant." 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the said property originally belonged to one B.Venkataswamy Reddy, who conveyed the same in favour of the plaintiff in terms of deed of sale dated 15.05.1989 and delivered the possession to the plaintiff. Plaintiff obtained her name registered / mutated in the revenue records of the then Banaswadi Grama Panchayath, later, in the records of Bangalore City Corporation. The Bangalore City Corporation has assigned Municipal No.2A to the schedule property after collecting the betterment charges. The plaintiff has been paying the property tax over the same. Plaintiff while preparing for putting up construction over the suit property, defendant interfered with her possession - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 claiming rights adverse to interest of the plaintiff, constraining her to file the suit for injunction. 4. Written Statement filed by the defendant denying the plaint averments, contented that suit property formed part of land is No.345 of Banaswadi, which belonged to father of the defendant, namely B.Venkataswamy Reddy. Plaintiff who was otherwise, related to the family of the defendant, taking undue advantage of the relationship, fabricated the document. There was no consideration passed on, in terms of the document. The said sale deed is sham, nominal and inconsequential. 5. It is further contended that part of the land bearing Sy.No.345 was under Notification for acquisition issued by the Bangalore Development Authority between the year 1977 to 1993. As such, the father of the defendant could not have conveyed valid title in favour of the plaintiff. A Will dated 02.02.1995 was executed by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 said B.Venkataswamy Reddy, bequeathing the suit property in favour of Vinaykumar Reddy, who is the son of the defendant. Said Vinaykumar Reddy had demolished the shed that was existing on the suit property and had made arrangement to put up construction of a new building thereon. The revenue records standing in the name of B.Venkataswamy Reddy. That since the title was not conveyed, even if it was any, stood extinguished in the light of Provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of the Limitation Act. Hence, for dismissal of suit, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the date of suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction sought? " 6. Plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and PW.2, another witness and exhibited 20 documents as Ex.P1 to P20. Defendant examined himself as DW.1 and another witness as DW2, exhibited 56 documents as Ex.D1 to D56. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 7. On appreciation of evidence, trial Court answered Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and consequently, decreed the suit as prayed. Being aggrieved, defendant is before this Court. 8. Counsel for the appellant/defendant, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submits that since the land was admittedly under the acquisition process by the Bangalore Development Authority, during the period when the deed of sale dated 15.05.1989 was executed by B.Venkataswamy Reddy, no valid title could have been conveyed / conferred on the plaintiff, as such, he submits the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is of no consequences. That since no valid title was conveyed, B.Venkataswamy Reddy was entitled to dispose the suit property as he deemed appropriate. Accordingly, for the reasons thereof, he has executed a Will dated 02.02.1995, bequeathing the property in favour of the son of the defendant, who has not been made part of the suit. He submits DW.2, who is none other than the tenant of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 defendant occupying the suit property has categorically deposed confirming he being in possession of the suit property as a tenant under the defendant. Thus, the trial Court has not appreciated these aspects of the matter even while decreeing the suit as sought for warranting interference at the hands of this Court. 9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff on the other hand, justified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court submits that since the defendant has admitted execution of deed of sale by his father B.Venkataswamy Reddy in favour of the plaintiff, the plea of document being sham and inconsequential is not justified. He draws attention of this Court to the suggestion made to the witness PW.2 on behalf of the defendant recorded on 31.07.2010 at paragraph 8, in which, PW2 who is attesting witness to the sale deed has confirmed, he being present at the time of execution of the document and delivery of possession. He also refers to the deposition of defendant-DW1 recorded on 22.11.2011. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 Drawing attention of this Court to the paragraph Nos. 24 to 29 of the deposition, he submits that the said witness has categorically admitted that he has no concern of any nature whatsoever either with the property or the documents being claimed by the plaintiff. He also points out that defendant has categorically admitted plaintiff being in possession of suit property. Thus, he submits that in the light of the title documents and the deposition of the witness admitting the case of plaintiff, there remains nothing further to be determined. According to him, the trial Court has come to just conclusion in decreeing the suit, warranting no interference and seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records. 11. The points that arise for consideration is: (i) "Whether the plaintiff has proved, she is the owner in possession of the suit property? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 (ii) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit?" 12. There is no dispute on the fact that suit schedule property originally belong to B.Venkataswamy Reddy, who is a vendor of the plaintiff and father of defendant. It is also not in dispute that said B.Venkataswamy Reddy had indeed executed deed of sale dated 15.05.1989, produced at Ex.P1. Though in the written statement, a feeble attempt is made by the defendant to contend that the said document is sham, nominal and inconsequential, without giving any further explanation in that regard. Though a specific contention is urged that the suit schedule property was under the process of acquisition, admittedly, the acquisition process has ended up in the authorities dropping the acquisition resulting in title reverting to the original owner. Admittedly, possession had not been taken by the authorities. It always remained with the owner. The trial Court, therefore, has declined to accept the said contention urged by the defendant with regard to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 ineffective conveyance of the title by B.Venkataswamy Reddy in favour of the plaintiff. 13. This Court do not see any reason to find it otherwise. Thus, plaintiff has proved due execution of deed of sale, more particularly, in the absence of defendant, discharging the burden of the said document being sham, nominal and inconsequential as alleged. 14. As regard to possession, though the plaintiff has produced revenue documents in the nature of Khata Registration Certificate, Khata Certificates, Khata Extract, Tax paid Receipts as per Ex.P8 to Ex.P17, the very admission on the part of the defendant as found in the deposition recorded on 22.11.2011 leaves no semblance of doubt with regard to plaintiff being in exclusive possession. Paragraph Nos. 24 to 29 of the deposition Ex.P.4 reads as under: "24. I do not know whether the Corporation has given number as Site No.2A to the suit schedule property. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 25. I do not know whether the boundaries of the suit property differ from the boundaries of the property bearing No. 51. 26. I am unconcerned with the property shown in Exhibit P9. It is true that I am unconcerned with the property described in Ex.P1. 27. It is not true to suggest that the final Notification was not issued in respect of the acquisition of the land bearing Sy. No.345. It is not true to suggest that the said land is not acquired. It is true that my father has not received compensation in respect of that land. It is not true to suggest that the Government has given up acquisition in respect to that land. It is true that the BDA has not taken possession of that land so far. 28. It is true that all the documents produced by me are unconcerned with the suit schedule property. 29. It is not true to suggest that the plaintiff has possession over the suit schedule property. It is not true to suggest that when the plaintiff went to construct the building in the year 2007, I obstructed him. It is not true to suggest that even on 16,2,2008, I obstructed the plaintiff when she wanted to construct the building in the suit schedule property. It is not true to suggest that because of that obstruction, the plaintiff has filed this suit. " 15. Oral and documentary evidence led in by the plaintiff read in the light of the aforesaid deposition of defendant unequivocally admitting the possession of the plaintiff and also consciously deposing that he has no - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 concern with regard to the suit property would only go to strengthen the case of the plaintiff being the owner in possession of the property. 16. That being so, defendant propounding the Will purportedly executed by B.Venkataswamy Reddy in favour of his grandson Vinaykumar Reddy, who is the son of defendant cannot be countenanced. 17. Nonetheless, the trial Court has taken note of the fact that neither the original of the Will was produced nor the witnesses as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, were examined. Since the defendant has setup a case of his son being the owner of the property in view of the Will allegedly executed by B.Venkataswamy Reddy, it was incumbent upon the defendant to have led some evidence in this regard. 18. Though the suit is one for the injunction, plaintiff having established the title and possession over - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7278 RFA No. 1133 of 2012 the property was indeed entitled for the relief of injunction as rightly granted by the trial Court. 19. Points raised above are answered accordingly:- Appeal fails. Same is dismissed. Judgment and decree dated 03.04.2012 passed in O.S.1692/2008 by VIII Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH:15), Bangalore, is confirmed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6