- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25764 RFA No. 1704 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 1704 OF 2020 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI R RAMESH BABU S/O LATE D RAMAIAH AR PRESENT AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT No.93, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD SRIRAMAPPA BUILDING, K R PURAM BENGALURU-560 036. …APPELLANT (BY SRI N V MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. L RAVICHANDAR S/O LATE LEVELAN DORAI AT PRESENT AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 2. SMT. P. NIRMALA RAVICHANDAR W/O DR. L. RAVICHANDAR AT PRESENT AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.1 AND 2 R/AT: PC-10, HAL QUARTERS VIMANAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.02.2020 PASSED IN Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25764 RFA No. 1704 of 2020 O.S.No.27410/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 73RD ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT BENGALURU (CCH-74), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. 2. The decree passed in O.S.No.27410/2012 dated 29.02.2020 by the LXXIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has been challenged in this appeal by appellant/defendant No.1. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that respondents/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 under the guise of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.27410/2012 are trying to interfere in the possession of his property situated in Sy.No.33/3 (new No.33/08). He further submits that plaintiffs have constructed compound wall around his property and also constructed building within the said compound wall and he has no claim over the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25764 RFA No. 1704 of 2020 property of the plaintiffs which is bounded by compound wall measuring 30 x 35 feet. 4. Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs submits that plaintiffs are not interfering in the property of the appellant/defendant No.1 on the basis of decree passed in O.S.No.27410/2012. He further submits that respondents/plaintiffs will not interfere in the possession and enjoyment of the property of appellant/defendant No.1 which is situated on the southern side of the schedule property. 5. Considering the above aspect, there is no grievance of appellant/defendant No.1 against the decree passed by the trial Court. Considering the same and accepting the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DKB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10