- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 605 OF 2010 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, K.P. WEST, BENGALURU-560020. 2. THE ENGINEER-MEMBER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, K P WEST, BENGALURU-560020. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. DEEPTI A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. G.SHASHIKALA, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE B.GOPALAPPA, GOPALAPPA COMPOUND, VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA POST, BENGALURU-560034. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Smt.Deepti A., counsel for the appellants; Sri.M.S.Varadarajan, counsel for caveator/ respondent No.1 and Sri.K.P.Yoganna, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2, have appeared in person. 2. The present appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 04.01.2010 passed by the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in O.S.No.16432/2001. 3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 4. The plaint averments are these: The plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction. By way of the said relief, the plaintiff - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 prays that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the suit-scheduled property, whether by conducting any auction or otherwise, from disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof, and from causing any damage to the property or to the structures standing thereon. It is stated that the plaintiff is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Survey No.20/5 of Rupena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 10 guntas (out of the original extent of 22 guntas), which is described as a suit schedule property for over 40 years. Originally, the land comprised in Survey No.20/5 of Rupena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, to the entire extent of 02 acres 06 guntas was held by one Mr Srinivasa Rao, under whom the plaintiff was a tenant to the extent of 22 guntas. It is stated that the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru, South Taluk granted 22 guntas of the land in favor of the plaintiff in LRF 583/74-75 dated 16.09.1981. The original owner filed an appeal before the High Court in Writ petition No.29073/1981, and the matter was remanded. After the remand, the Tribunal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 disposed of the matter on 01.04.1997. The Khata of the property was standing in the name of the plaintiff, and he has been exercising all his rights of ownership over the suit- schedule property for the past 40 years. It is stated that the BDA notified the entire extent of 02 acres 06 guntas of land in Survey No.20/5 for the formation of a Ring Road. The BDA, by its notification, de-notified an extent of 10 guntas of land out of 22 guntas held by the plaintiff. The 10 guntas of land are thus in possession of the plaintiff. It is also stated that the plaintiff has divided the said property into sites of equal dimensions among his four daughters. There exists an old structure and two fruit-yielding coconut trees. As the matter stood thus, defendants Nos.2 and 3 threatened to auction the suit schedule property on 15.10.2001 for the formation of HSR Layout, and the plaintiff’s property was shown in the paper publication. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had de-notified the suit schedule property, yet no notice was issued, and no opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff regarding the proposed acquisition of the property. Contending that such conduct on the part of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 defendants was high-handed and contrary to law, the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction. Upon service of summons, defendant No.1 remained absent and was accordingly placed ex parte. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 entered an appearance through counsel, filed a detailed written statement, denied the plaint averments, and contended that the plaintiff had failed to issue notice as contemplated under Section 64 of the BDA Act. They further asserted that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property, denied that the alleged Pahani and Khata conferred any right upon the plaintiff, and maintained that the suit schedule property was not part of the de-notified land but stood vested in the Authority. Urging other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues, the parties led evidence and documents were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree, dated 04.01.2010, decreed the suit. Hence, defendants 2 and 3 are before this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 5. Counsel for the appellants and the respondents presented several contentions. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is opposed to the facts, the law, and the probabilities of the case, and has thereby resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice, since the Court below was not legally justified in granting a decree of permanent injunction. Next, it is urged that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the factual position borne out by the record, namely, that the suit-scheduled property had been acquired for the formation of a layout known as HSR Layout and stood vested with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). It is vehemently contended that, in such circumstances, the first respondent had no manner of right, title, or interest in respect of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the Trial Court overlooked the element of “Public Purpose” involved in the acquisition and nevertheless proceeded to grant the relief of permanent injunction. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 Lastly, counsel submitted that an application in I.A. No.1/2026 has been filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking production of documents. It is further submitted that the Special Additional Land Acquisition Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority has sworn to an affidavit narrating the reasons for producing the additional documents. Counsel, therefore, prays that the said application be allowed. By way of reply, counsel for the respondent drew the Court’s attention to the impugned Judgment and submitted that the plaintiff had filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, calling upon the defendants to produce documents pertaining to the acquisition proceedings in respect of Sy.No.20/5 of Rupena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, as well as the de-notification of the said land. It was argued that the authority had filed objections contending that it was for the plaintiff to produce the documents, that they would not produce any further documents, and that they did not object if the Court were to draw an adverse inference against them. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 In the present case, it was pointed out that the land had admittedly been de-notified and that possession was never taken over by the BDA. The RTC records also reflected the plaintiff’s name. Counsel submitted that the Trial Court extensively referred to the material on record and rightly decreed the suit. Lastly, it was submitted that the appellants had not satisfied the criteria enumerated under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants had been afforded an opportunity before the Trial Court to furnish the documents, but they chose not to do so. Hence, they cannot now be permitted to produce additional documents by filing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Counsel, therefore, prayed that the application be dismissed. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the papers and records with care. 7. The following points would arise for consideration: (1) Was the Trial Court justified in decreeing the suit? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 (2) Whether the appellants have made out a case to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC? 8. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the grant of an injunction and the production of additional evidence. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of an injunction. As could be seen from the nature of the lis between the parties, the suit is one for a bare injunction based on possession as of the date of filing of the suit. The right to an injunction is based on a prima facie right. The issue revolves around the factum of possession as of the date of filing of the suit. It would be relevant to see that in a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must prove her/his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property as of the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff filed a simple suit for a bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit-scheduled property. Plaintiff contended that he is in possession to an extent of 10 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 guntas out of Survey No.20/5 of Rupena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Suffice it to note that an extent of 02 acres 06 guntas of land in Survey No.20/5 of Rupena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, was notified for acquisition for the formation of Ring Road. However, an extent of 10 guntas of land was de-notified (out of the total extent of 22 guntas). The authority contended that ten guntas of land had not been de-notified, that sites had been formed therein, and therefore asserted that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property. They adhered to the same contention before this Court as well. However, such contention cannot be accepted, for the reason is apparent. A perusal of the notification dated 11.12.1996 makes it evident that the de-notification was issued by the Bangalore Development Authority, and at Sl.No.542, the name of the plaintiff, along with others, is shown as Khata holders. The extent of land withdrawn from acquisition is recorded as 1 acre 20 guntas out of Survey No.20/5 of Rupena Agrahara Village, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. This fact has been admitted by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 through the testimony of DW.1. The suit is one for bare injunction. What is required to be considered is the possession as of the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff has established possession as of that date. The Trial Court extensively referred to the material on record and rightly decreed the suit. 9. Next, let me consider the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Mamatha Kumari - working as Special Additional Land Acquisition Officer, has sworn to a declaration of fact by way of an affidavit and attempted to furnish certain documents viz., the Mahazar, Survey Sketch and Possession handover dated:18.11.1999. I have perused the application and also true copies of the documents filed along with the application. Under Rule 27 of Order 41, production of additional evidence, whether oral or documentary is permitted only under three circumstances which are: (1) the Trial Court had refused - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 to admit the evidence though it ought to have been admitted (2) the evidence was not available to the party, despite the exercise of due diligence; and (3) the Appellate Court required additional evidence to enable it to pronounce better judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. The true test is whether the Appellate Court can pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. When the Appellate Court finds itself unable to pronounce judgment owing to a lacuna or defect in the evidence as it stands, it may admit additional evidence. Perused the application and the reasons narrated in the affidavit. It is noted that Mamatha Kumari, the Special Additional Land Acquisition Officer of the Authority, has sworn to a declaration of facts in the form of an affidavit. It has been stated in the affidavit that, during the preparation of the present appeal and upon further verification of the official records, certain documents were traced and made available for the first time in the appeal. The non-production of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 these documents before the Trial Court, it is averred, was neither deliberate nor intentional, nor was it with a view to filling up any lacuna in the appellants’ case. Therefore, the appellants contend that they may be permitted to rely upon these documents to establish that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property as of the date of filing of the suit. This contention must necessarily fail. The reason is apparent. The Judgment itself makes it evident that, despite being allowed to furnish the documents, the appellants/ defendants did not produce them before the Trial Court. On the contrary, they proceeded with the matter and categorically submitted that they would not produce any further documents and did not object if the Court were to draw an adverse inference against them. If such was the stand taken by the appellants/ defendants before the Trial Court, they cannot now be permitted to improve their case by subsequently assigning reasons and seeking permission to produce additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. I am of the view that the production and leading of evidence in the Appellate Court, whether oral or documentary, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 is not a matter of right, nor does it follow ipso facto. Parties are entitled to produce additional evidence only when the conditions prescribed under Rule 27 of Order XLI CPC are satisfied. In the present case, the reasons advanced for the production of additional evidence do not meet the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27. Furthermore, the law is well settled that the power to admit additional evidence is discretionary and must be exercised on sound judicial principles. In my considered opinion, the appellants/ defendants have failed to satisfy the conditions laid down under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code. Hence, I decline to exercise the discretionary power, and accordingly, the application stands rejected. Accordingly, the points are answered. The Trial Court has referred to the material on record and justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. I find no infirmity in the Judgment and Decree. 10. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is rejected. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32492 RFA No. 605 of 2010 Because of rejection of the appeal, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79