- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2294 RFA No. 1193 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1193 OF 2018 (INJ) BETWEEN: SHARADA B SHETTY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O B.R. SHETTY R/AT NO.35 AND 36 NAGASHETTI HALLI KASABA HOBLI-560021, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S KARNATAKA MILK CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KMF COMPLEX DR. M.N. MARIGOWDA ROAD, D.R. COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU-560029 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2408/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2294 RFA No. 1193 of 2018 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2408/2008 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. 2. In terms of the aforementioned judgment and decree, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of the property bearing Nos.35 and 36, Khata No.285 of Nagashettihalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The property measures east-west : 60 feet and north-south : 80 feet. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the property by virtue of sale deed dated 27.01.1990. Plaintiff claims to have purchased from the lawful owner one Sri. N. Ramakrishnaiah. 3. The defendant disputed the said sale deed and claimed title and possession in terms of acquisition proceeding. According to the defendant, the property in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the final - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2294 RFA No. 1193 of 2018 notification was issued on 08.03.1978 and in terms of the said acquisition proceeding, award was also passed on 05.06.1979. Compensation is paid by the beneficiary and beneficiary is put in possession of the property and possession is transferred on 15.04.1978. Thus, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The Trial Court has considered the evidence placed on record in the light of issues framed before it. Issue No.1 is relating to the lawful possession over the suit schedule property and issue No.2 is relating to alleged obstruction. Issue No.3 is relating to non-compliance of requirement of issuance of statutory notice under Section 125 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959, as the defendant is a Federation registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. 5. The Trial Court has found that there is no need to issue the notice in a situation brought in before the Court. However, on appreciation of the evidence has concluded that the acquisition of land in favour of the defendant is very much established and it is also noticed by the Trial Court that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2294 RFA No. 1193 of 2018 acquisition proceedings are not questioned by the original land owner. Thus, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that original land owner could not have transferred the title in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The following point arises for consideration: "Whether the appellant/plaintiff has made out a case to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the suit for bare injunction in the light of valid acquisition proceeding and transfer of title in favour of the defendant?" 8. This Court having gone through the evidence based on record and the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit for bare injunction is in accordance with law. It is also relevant to notice that though there was an order in W.P.No.19526/2002, wherein the acquisition proceeding was set aside, on a writ appeal filed by the beneficiary, in W.A.No.4829 of 2010, the order of the learned Single Judge - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2294 RFA No. 1193 of 2018 was set aside and acquisition proceeding is upheld. The said order has attained finality. Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim title and possession based on a sale deed in respect of the property which is acquired before the said sale. 9. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 10. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4