- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 654 OF 2025 (INJ-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.VASEEM BANO, W/O. P. M. IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. SRI. NOOR MOHAMMED ARSHAD, S/O.P. M. IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. SMT. SHAISTA AKTHAR W/O. NOOR MOHAMMED ARSHAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. SMT. SADIA SADAR, W/O. SYED YOUSUFF ALI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 5. SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFER WAIZ, S/O.P. M. IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.38/14, PARK VIEW APARTMENT, 2ND PHASE, KEMP ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005 REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI. P.M. IQBAL S/O LATE S. ABDUL HAMEED AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS NO.38/14, PARK VIEW APARTMENT, 2ND PHASE, KEMP ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. K. SHIVARAJU, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 AND: C. SAMPANGI S/O.CHINNAVAN, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs 1. SMT.KRISHNAVENI, W/O.LATE C.SAMPANGI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 2. SRI. GNANVEL S., S/O. C. SAMPANGI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SRI. MARVEL S., S/O. C. SAMPANGI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4. SMT. SAVITHA S., D/O. C. SAMPANGI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 5. SRI. AMARVEL S., S/O. C. SAMPANGI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 6. MS. SABITA S., D/O. C. SAMPANGI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE LIST NO.1434/1454/3, KADUGONDANAHALLI, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU – 560 045 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. H. RAMU, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.26643/2013 ON THE FILE OF XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.44), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 THIS APPEAL IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV JUDGMENT This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.26643/2013 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.12.2024 passed by the XLIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the appellants – plaintiffs against the respondents – defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was dismissed by the trial court. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to their respective rankings before the trial court. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- The appellants – plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents – defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs interalia contending that they are the absolute owners in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule immovable property bearing BBMP No.61/726/47, old Kanushmari - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 No.726, Now 61/726/47/1 measuring East – 36.25 ft, West – 77 ft, North – 50+30 ft and South – 62.6 + 18 ft, in all measuring 5188 sq.ft situated at Nagavara Main Road, Kadugondanahalli Gramathana, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It was contended that the plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule property vide registered sale deed dated 29.05.2012, pursuant to which, they applied for bifurcation of khata into their names by the BBMP which bifurcated the khata of the entire property comprising of the suit schedule property and the portion retained by the vendor by name Syed Nizamuddin and assigned No.61/726/47/1 to the suit schedule property. It was contended that the plaintiffs are in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and since the defendants attempted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment, plaintiffs filed the instant suit. 4. The defendants filed the written statement and contested the suit disputing the denying the allegations and claim made by the plaintiffs. It was contended that the plaintiffs’ vendor Syed Nizamuddin did not have any right over the suit schedule property and the earlier suits in O.S.No.555/1992 filed by the defendants herein against Syed Nizamuddin who also instituted a suit in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 O.S.No.4307/1988 culminated in favour of defendants against Syed Nizamuddin vide judgment and decree dated 04.07.2001 and 30.08.2003 respectively and confirmed by this Court in RFA No.814/2001 and RFA No.1486/2003 in favour of the defendants against the said Syed Nizamuddin. It was contended that the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of property bearing House list No.1434/1454/3 situated in Sy.No.45 having acquired the same under ‘Hakkupatra’ of the year 1977 and the plaintiffs do not have any right or possession over the said property. It was therefore contended that the plaintiffs did not have any right or possession over the suit schedule property and the suit was liable to be dismissed. 5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues for consideration: (i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in actual possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by defendant? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed? (iv) What order or decree? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 6. The plaintiffs examined Sri.P.M.Iqbal as PW-1 who is none other than husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs 2, 4 and 5 and father-in-law of plaintiff No.3 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P29 were got marked by them. The defendants examined defendant No.1(b) as DW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.D1 to D42 were marked on their behalf. 7. After hearing the parties, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs who are before this Court by way of the present appeal. 8. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 9. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal: (i) Whether the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 (ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal? Re:Point Nos. 1 and 2: 10. Since both the points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration. 10.1 A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree would indicate that the trial court has come to the conclusion that in view of the defendants having succeeded in the earlier round of litigation, which culminated in favour of the defendants against the plaintiffs vendor in RFA No. 1486/2003 c/w RFA No. 814/2001 dated 17.09.2012, the plaintiffs were not in lawful possession or enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial court also came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not established the identity of the suit schedule property and the suit was liable to be dismissed on this ground also. 10.2 In this context, the trial court failed to consider and appreciate that the suit schedule property purchased by the plaintiffs from their vendor Syed Nizamuddin vide sale deed at - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 Ex.P2 dated 29.05.2012 excluded the property of the defendants as per the ‘Hakkupatra’ marked as Ex.D1 dated 10.11.1977 relied upon by the defendants. This fact also stands established by the other material on record comprising of the khata certificate at Ex.P3, khata extract at Ex.P4, tax paid receipts at Ex.P9, proceedings before the revenue authorities at Exs.P10 to P12, photographs, all of which cumulatively established that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have also produced the documents issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in favour of PW-1 who was running carpentry business in the suit schedule property, thereby establishing the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. 10.3 In addition thereto, while the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs specifically indicates that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.47 with the kanushmari / khata No.61 / 726 / 47 / 1 with specific measurements and boundaries, the defendants claimed the adjacent property situated in Sy.No.45 bearing House list No.1434/1454/3 under the ‘Hakkupatra’ at Ex.D1 dated 10.11.1977; further, while the plaintiffs claim the suit schedule - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 property measuring an extent of 5188 sq.ft, the defendants claim only an extent of 46ft x 24+32/2 ft of the adjacent property and not the entire property claimed by the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court fell in error in failing to appreciate that the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of only 46ft x 24 + 32/2 ft and the plaintiffs were in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment over the remaining extent / portion of the suit schedule property over which, the defendants did not have any claim, right or possession and the failure on the part of the trial court to appreciate this, has resulted in erroneous conclusion. 10.4 The trial court has placed reliance upon the judgment and decree passed in O.S.no.555/1992 filed by the original defendant, Sri.C.Sampangi against Syed Nizamuddin vendor of the plaintiffs whereby the trial court decreed the said suit in favour of the Sampangi against Syed Nizamuddin as well as the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4307/1988 filed by Syed Nizamuddin against Sampangi for permanent injunction which was dismissed against the said Nizamuddin and both the said judgment and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 decree having been confirmed by this Court in RFA No.1486/2003 c/w RFA No.814/2001 dated 17.09.2012. 10.5 In this context, the trial court failed to consider and appreciate that the aforesaid litigations between the defendants herein Sampangi and Syed Nizamuddin – vendor of the plaintiffs were in relation to and limited / restricted to the property claimed by the defendant in House list No.1434/1454/3 situated in Sy.No.45 measuring 40ft x 24+32/2 ft and the said judgments / orders of the trial court and this Court would not come in the way nor operate as res Judicata for the plaintiffs to put forth a claim for injunction based on lawful possession in respect of the suit schedule property situated adjacent to the said property involved in the previous round of litigation, particularly when the defendants had not produced any legal or acceptable evidence to claim any property in excess of the property acquired by them under the ‘Hakkupatra’ at Ex.D1 dated 10.11.1977 measuring 40ft x 24+32/2 ft and consequently, the previous round of litigation between the original defendant Sampangi and the plaintiffs vendor Syed Nizamuddin could not made the basis for the trial court to come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not in lawful possession of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 suit schedule property excluding the said portion acquired by the defendants. 10.6 It is also pertinent to note that except producing the Hakkupatra at Ex.D1 and revenue records at Exs.D2 and D3 which do not contain the measurements of the property claimed by the defendants, they have not produced any other legal or acceptable evidence to establish their lawful possession over the suit schedule property in excess of 40ft x 24+32/2 ft. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court misdirected itself in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. 10.7 Upon reconsideration, re-evaluation and re- appreciation of the material on record comprising of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, I am of the view that the trial court committed an error in failing to consider and appreciate that the plaintiffs are in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property excluding property acquired by the defendants under the Hakkupatra at Ex.D1 dated 10.11.1977 measuring 40ft x 24+32/2 ft and consequently, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for permanent injunction in respect of the suit - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15232 RFA No. 654 of 2025 schedule property excluding the said extent by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court and partly decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Accordingly, Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered partly in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 11. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 07.12.2024 passed in O.S.no.26643/2013 by the trial court is hereby set aside. (iii) The suit of appellants - plaintiffs is partly decreed by granting a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the appellants – plaintiffs restraining the respondents - defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property excluding the property acquired by the defendants under the ‘Hakkupatra’ at Ex.D1 dated 10.11.1977 measuring 40ft x 24+32/2 ft. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SRL