- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.79 OF 2018 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. R. INAYATHULLAH SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE ABDUL REHMAN, R/AT NO.15, 8TH CROSS, TANK GARDEN, SOMESHWARANAGAR, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIRAJU REDDY, R/AT DODDANAGAMAGALA VILLAGE, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 100. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD E., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.01.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5882/2011 BY THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH 227) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.5882/2011 by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the defendant therein has preferred this appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. O.S.No.5882/2011 was filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction based on his ownership and possession over the suit schedule property. 4. The schedule of the suit schedule property reads as under:- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing site No.72, Katha No.99/67/1 and Assessment No.67/1, (recently included into the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike), assigned with new number by the B.B.M.P. as Sl.No.859, measuring East to West 43+44/2 Feet and North to South 66+55/2 feet, totally measuring 2631.75 Sq. Feet, situated at Bommanahalli village, BBMP Ward No.175, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and bounded by as under: EAST BY : Site No.71 WEST BY : Site No.73 NORTH BY : Road SOUTH BY : Site No.83. 5. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant has tried to illegally interfere with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and he was constrained to file O.S.No.5882/2011. 6. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the property from one Krishna Reddy, through his GPA Holder B.Nanjappa Reddy, under a registered sale deed dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 20.01.2011, registered as Document No.BMH-1-08028-2010-11 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru City .It is submitted that all the revenue documents like 'B'-Khata and tax paid receipt are standing in his name and the encumbrance certificate also reflects the said transaction. 7. Per contra, the case of the defendant is that he purchased the suit schedule property from Krishna Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 12.02.1985, registered as Document No.6921/1984-85 in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Bangalore South Taluk. It is contended that the same person, who is said to have sold the property in favour of the plaintiff, has sold it to the defendant. It is submitted that the defendant is also having the khata standing in his name in respect of the property and also paying the necessary taxes in this regard and the encumbrance certificate also reflect the same. It is further contented that as the defendant had purchased the suit schedule property much earlier to the purchase by the plaintiff, he is the true owner of the property and hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 8. Based upon the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- ISSUES "1. Does the plaintiff prove that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of suit? 2. Does the plaintiff prove that there is interference by the defendant to his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property? 3. Does the plaintiff prove that he is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant? 4. What order, or decree?" Addl. Issue - 1. Whether the defendant proves that suit for injunction without seeking a relief of declaration of title is maintainable, when the title is disputed? 9. The aforementioned issues have been answered as follows:- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 Issue No.1 In the positive Issue No.2 In the positive Addl. Issue No.1 In the Negative Issue No.3 As per final order Issue No.4 As per final order 10. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P93. 11. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D53. In addition to the above, Exs.C1 and C2 have been marked on behalf of the Court. 12. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let-in by the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit and passed the following order:- ORDER "The suit is decreed. No order as to costs. The defendant, his authorised agent, representative, servants, assignees, administrators if any, or anybody claiming rights under him; are hereby permanently restrained from causing interference, in any manner in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 respect of peaceful possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule property. SUIT SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the residential property, bearing site No.72, khatha No.99/67/1 and Assessment No.67/1, (recently included into the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike), assigned with new number by the BBMP as Sl.No.859, measuring East to West 43+44/2 ft. and North to South 66+55/2 ft., totally measuring 2631.75 Sq.Ft., situated at Bommanahalli village, BBMP Ward No.175, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and bounded by as under- East by : Site No.71 West by : Site No.73 North by : Road South by : Site No.83 Draw decree accordingly." 13. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the defendant. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 14. It can be seen from the pleadings that the case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the site bearing No.72, Bommanahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, formed in Survey No.67/1 of Bommanahalli Village. The defendant is also claiming right in respect of the same property. However, it is contended by the plaintiff that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant pertains to Site No.72 situated in Survey No.67/3 of Bommanahalli Village and not Sy.No.67/1 and thereby, the defendant has no right, title or interest in respect of the suit schedule property. 15. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are not disputing the sale deeds executed in each other favour respectively, either by the erstwhile owner Krishna Reddy himself, or through his GPA holder. Both plaintiff and defendant are also not disputing the 'B' khata issued in favour of them. They are also not disputing the fact that both of them have paid taxes regularly. The case of the plaintiff is that he is owner of Site No.72 situated in Survey No.67/1 of Bommanahalli Village and that the sale deed of the defendant pertains to Site No.72 situated in Survey No.67/3 of Bommanahalli Village. Whereas, it is the contention - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 of the plaintiff that his sale deed also pertains to Site No.72 situated in Survey No.67/1 of Bommanahalli Village and his sale deed being executed at an anterior point of time, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the fact that subsequent sale deed has been executed in favour of the plaintiff by the erstwhile owner does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the defendant. 16. The trial Court based upon the pleading and the evidence let-in by the parties, came to the conclusion that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant pertains to Site No.72 situated in Survey No.67/3 of Bommanahalli Village and it does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the defendant in respect of the Site No.72 situated in Survey No.67/1 of Bommanahalli Village. For the said reason, the trial Court held that, prima facie, the plaintiff had establish his title in respect of the property concerned and any interference made by the defendant is illegal and hence, the suit was decreed as prayed for. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 17. The question that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the property sold in favour of defendant is situated in Sy.No.67/1 or Sy.No.67/3 of Bommanahalli Village. 18. The schedule of the property as described in Ex.P1 (sale deed of the plaintiff), reads as under:- THE S C H E D U L E All that piece and parcel of the Residential Vacant Site bearing No.72, Katha No.99/67/1 and Assessment No.67/1, presently comes under the Jurisdiction of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore, having S.L.No.859, Situated at BOMMANAHALLI Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, bounded on: EAST BY : SITE NO.71 WEST BY : SITE NO.73 NORTH BY : ROAD SOUTH BY : SITE NO.83 MEASURING: EAST TO WEST : TOWARDS NORTHERN SIDE 43 FEET TOWARDS SOUTHERN SIDE 44 FEET NORTH TO SOUTH : TOWARDS EASTERN SIDE 66 FEET TOWARDS WESTERN SIDE 55 FEET IN ALL MEASURING : 2631.75 SQUARE FEET - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 19. The schedule of the property mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant, as per Ex.D1 -sale deed is as follows:- Schedule "All that piece and parcel of property bearing katha No.109/67-3 Site No.72, situated at Bommanahalli, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 45X70 feet the building constructed about 1 1/2 squares, Mud with bricks, and roofed by Mangalore title, constructed about 10 years back, and bounded on the East by: property No.71 West by: property No.73 North by: Road South by: property No.83. The present market value of the schedule property is Rs.20,000/- only." 20. As can be seen from the said sale deeds, the schedules do not mention that the survey number of the property from - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 which the Site No.72 is carved out. However, the schedules mention the assessment number and the khata number. The khata number mentioned in the plaintiff's sale deed is No.99/67/1 and the assessment number is 67/1, whereas the khata number mentioned in the defendant's sale deed is No.109/67-3 and the assessment number is 67/3. 21. However, the khata number and assessment number alone cannot determine the survey number in which the site is situated. There is no mention of the survey number either in the body of the sale deeds of both the plaintiff as well as the defendant. 22. However, Ex.P80 is the survey sketch produced by the plaintiff, which mentions that the suit schedule property as described in the sale deed of the plaintiff is situated in Survey No.67/1. Further, Ex.P5 is the GPA executed by the common vendor, Sri.Krishna Reddy in favour of B.Nanjappa Reddy, who has sold the said property in favour of the plaintiff. The said document is not disputed by the defendant and it clearly mentions that GPA was given by Krishna Reddy in favour of the B.Nanjappa Reddy to sell Site No.72 situated in Survey No.67/1 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 of Bommanahalli Village. Pursuant to which, the suit schedule property has been sold in favour of the plaintiff. 23. Exs.D3 to D8 are the record of rights in respect of Sy.No.67/1 for the period from 1979-1980 to 2010-2011 and they do not show the name of the defendant. Exs.D11 and D12 are the tax paid receipts produced by the defendant in respect of his property and it shows the same pertains to the property situated in Sy.No.67/3 and not Sy.67/1. Ex.D22 is the encumbrance certificate produced by the defendant for the period 01.04.1973 to 11.09.1985, which shows that Site No.72 in Sy.No.67/3 was purchased by the defendant from the vendor of the plaintiff and the defendant. 24. Ex.D28 is the Form 'B' Property Register standing in the name of the defendant as on 04.08.2011, which shows property bearing No.72 purchased by him is in Survey No.67/3. 25. Ex.D29 to Ex.D32 are the tax paid receipts in respect of the period subsequent to filing of the original suit, which also show that the defendant has paid taxes in respect of property situated in Survey No. 67/3. Ex.D48 is the tax paid register for - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 the period 2004-05, which also shows that the property of the defendant is situated in Survey No.67/3. Ex.D49 is the encumbrance certificate for the period 01.04.1984 to 31.03.2004, which reflects the sale of Site No.72 situated in Survey No.67/3 is sold in favour of the defendant. Similarly, the case with Ex.D50 which is also an encumbrance certificate for the period 01.04.2004 to 02.08.2011. 26. Further, though the khata numbers and assessment numbers do not necessarily reflect the survey number in case of revenue sites generally as in the instant case, they do contain the survey number of that village and in the case of the plaintiff, the khata number and assessment number ends with Sy.No.67/1, whereas in case of the defendant, it ends with Sy.No.67/3. 27. The aforementioned exhibits clearly establish that the plaintiff purchased Site No.72 situated in Survey No.67/1, whereas, the defendant purchased Site No.72 situated in Survey No.67/3, based on which, the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree. I do not see any error in the same. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31315 RFA No. 79 of 2018 28. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant/ appellant submits that liberty may be reserved to the appellant to institute a comprehensive suit for declaration. It is needless to state that the appellant is at liberty to avail all the remedies available to him in accordance with law including proceeding against his vendor if required. 29. As I do not see any error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appeal stands dismissed. 30. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8