- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5315 RFA No. 1383 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1383 OF 2007 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT GANGAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS (ALREADY ON RECORD AS A2 AND A3) 2. SRI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE SUBBA RAO 3. SMT MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE SUBBA RAO BOTH R/AT NO.116 6TH MAIN ROAD 3RD BLOCK, T.R.NAGAR BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. BINDU U.,ADVOCATE FOR A2 & A3(VC); V/O DATED 04.04.2022, A1 IS DEAD AND A2 & A3 ARE LRS OF DECEASED A1) AND: 1. SMT SEETHALAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS R2 TO R5 (ALREADY ON RECORD) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5315 RFA No. 1383 of 2007 2. SRI NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O VENKATASAMAIAH 3. RAMAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O VENKATASAMAIAH 4. SMT PADMAVATHY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O PRAHLADA RAO 5. SMT. SAVITRI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O KRISHNAMURTHY ALL ARE R/AT NO.116 6TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, T.R.NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 028. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA DESHPANDE .,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.V. NAGARAJA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.03.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.1873/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, CCH.NO.2, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5315 RFA No. 1383 of 2007 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT Defendants in O.S.No.1873/1999 are before this Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 15.03.2007 passed on the I Additional City Civil and Sections Judge, Bengaluru City (for brevity the 'trial Court'), whereby the trial Court had partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The above suit was originally filed by the plaintiffs seeking following reliefs; "a) a declaration declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of half- share in the 'C' Schedule property. b) a partition and separate possession of 'C' Schedule property by partitioning the property by putting a bifurcation wall measuring East to West 6'6" on the North Western Corner to the defendants. c) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or servants or persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of 'C' Schedule property and restraining the defendants from disturbing the Plaintiffs and egress in respect of the 'C' Schedule property. d) for costs and such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5315 RFA No. 1383 of 2007 3. However, by the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court has passed the following decree; "(i) The suit of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule 'C' property is hereby dismissed. (ii) The suit of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction is hereby decreed. (iii) The defendants, their agents or anybody claiming through them are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'C' schedule property and also restrained from disturbing the plaintiffs of their ingress and egress in respect of the suit schedule 'C' property. (iv) Both the parties shall bear their own costs. (v) Draw a decree accordingly." 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the only dispute which requires consideration is; "Whether the trial Court could have passed a decree of injunction as noted above in respect of 'C' schedule property which is admittedly a common passage?" 5. Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for counsel for the appellants through video conference and Sri.Prasanna Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents submit in unison that both the plaintiffs and the defendants do not have any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5315 RFA No. 1383 of 2007 objection in clarifying the decree considering 'C' schedule property to be maintained and retained as a common passage. Both counsel for the appellants and respondents submit that the measurement of the scheduled property given and the measurement provided in the plaint schedule also requires modification, wherein instead of an extent of 22 feet East To West, it should be read as 16 feet. Rest of the description of the plaint schedule property shall remain intact. 6. Upon the joint submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs and since no other issues raised or any other arguments are addressed, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions; (i) Schedule 'C' property shall hereinafter be read as under: Vacant land with a Well located measuring 16 feet East to West and 13 feet North to South in the property bearing No.116, 6th Main Road, 3rd Block, T.R. Nagar, Bengaluru- 560 028, bounded on: East by : Portion of property allotted to the defendants under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5315 RFA No. 1383 of 2007 deed of settlement dated 23.02.1966. West by : 6th Main road, measuring 13 feet East to West North by : Sreekantaiah's property South by : Portion allotted to the plaintiffs under the deed of settlement dated 23.02.1966. (ii) Since the Schedule 'C' property is admittedly a common passage used for ingress and egress by both the plaintiffs and defendants, the same shall be used jointly by both the plaintiffs and defendants, without one interfering with the other's peaceful enjoyment to the extent of ingress and egress of Schedule 'C' property. (iii) Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants shall park any vehicles on the Schedule 'C' property. However, they can take their vehicles for the limited purpose of picking up and dropping. No vehicles should be parked on the schedule 'C' property other than for the limited purpose. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5315 RFA No. 1383 of 2007 (iv) There shall not be any construction by either of the parties. The said Schedule 'C' property shall be kept open to the sky for all time to come. (v) Though there is difference of opinion with regard to existence of a Well which according to learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendants is an open Well which is now closed and according to the plaintiffs there is a Borewell, however both the counsel submit should there be Well either Borewell or the open Well any benefit derived thereof shall be utilised jointly by the parties on mutual understanding. (vi) Neither of them shall cause any damage to any of the amenities such as electricity meter or staircase as the case may be, in and around the Schedule 'C' property to be utilized by the respective owners thereof. (vii) The gate which is installed at the entrance of the Schedule 'C' property shall be maintained by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5315 RFA No. 1383 of 2007 both the plaintiffs and the defendants each having common keys. (viii) The walls around the Schedule 'C' property shall be maintained jointly by them and each one should cooperate with other for the purpose of maintenance. (ix) Registry to draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21