- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2012 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. 1(A) 1(B) 1(C) 1(D) SRI M B RAMACHANDRAN S/O LATE BYRAPPAAGED SINCE DEAD BY LRs SMT. M. HEMALATHA W/O LATE M.B.RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046. SRI. R.PRAVEEN S/O LATE M.B. RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046. SMT. PAVITHRA .R D/O LATE M.B.RAMACHANDRAN W/O Y. SURENDRA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046. ALSO AT NO.33, 13TH CROSS AECS LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR BENGALURU-560 094. SMT. PALLAVI .R D/O LATE M.B.RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.55 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H.R. ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BENGALURU J.C.ROAD, N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-560002. 2. SRI. R.N. GANGADHARAIAH S/O K.V. NARASIMHAIAH MAJOR R/A NO.39, III CROSS ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET SHESHADRI ROAD BENSON TOWN POST BENGALURU-560 046. 3. SMT M B PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE B KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS [R3 DELETED V/O DATED 12.04.2017] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BATHEGOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 12.04.2017, R3 IS DELETED) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2012 PASSED IN O.S.3151/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE,DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT Captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.3151/2002, wherein plaintiff’s suit for injunction simpliciter restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession is dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.3151/2002 claiming that the suit schedule property was purchased by his grandfather, Munimarappa, under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1908. According to the plaintiff, the property covered under the said sale deed corresponded to Survey No.101 (old), which was subsequently renumbered - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 as Survey Nos.101/1 and 101/2. It is pleaded that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the property was not assigned specific survey numbers and was identified only by boundaries. The plaintiff further pleaded that one Appayyanna, a close relative, had purchased an extent of 1.09 acres in Survey No.101/1 under a sale deed dated 17.07.1946 from one A. Anthony Michael, and that the said purchase was for and on behalf of the plaintiff and other family members. 4. The plaintiff further averred that after the coming into force of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, “the Inams Act”), he had filed an application seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the suit schedule property and that the said application is pending consideration before the competent authority. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the second defendant, who has no right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property, is asserting a false claim of ownership on the basis of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 fabricated and concocted documents, despite the matter being seized of by the Special Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiff further alleged that he has erected sheds and enclosed the suit schedule property with a compound wall, and that the defendants are attempting to interfere with his possession. 5. It is also the plaintiff’s case that the second defendant has neither claimed tenancy rights nor filed any application before the Land Tribunal or the Deputy Commissioner seeking grant of occupancy rights, and yet is asserting both possessory and proprietary rights on the strength of fabricated documents. 6. In response to the suit summons, defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written statements, whereas defendant No.3, despite service of summons, remained absent and was placed ex parte. Defendant No.1 denied the entire claim of the plaintiff and, on the contrary, asserted absolute title over the suit schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 property, contending that a road was formed in its own land and that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff at all. 7. Defendant No.2 also filed a written statement asserting title and possession over a residential site bearing No.48/6 (Old No.27) and contended that he is in lawful possession of the property. Both defendants sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit. 8. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff had also instituted another suit in O.S.No.8814/1999, seeking a direction against the local authorities not to effect any change of khata in respect of the suit schedule property pending adjudication of the dispute. Both suits were clubbed, common evidence was recorded, and by a common judgment, the Trial Court dismissed both the suits. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3151/2002, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal in R.F.A.No.226/2012. The appeal filed in R.F.A.No.225/2012, arising out of O.S.No.8814/1999, was dismissed as withdrawn. During the pendency of this appeal, the original plaintiff has died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, placed reliance on certain collateral proceedings, particularly the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.5678/1996 and connected matters, to contend that the parties were directed to maintain status quo. On that basis, it is urged that this Court should direct the parties to maintain status quo pending disposal of the plaintiff’s application for grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Act. It is further contended that even assuming - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 the rebuttal evidence of defendant No.2 establishes possession over certain portions, the remaining vacant portion of the land requires protection until the occupancy rights proceedings attain finality. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.2, placing reliance on the rebuttal evidence marked as Exs.D10 to D17, contended that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish lawful possession as on the date of institution of the suit. It is submitted that the documentary evidence conclusively establishes exclusive possession of defendant No.2, and therefore, the suit for bare injunction, without establishing possession or seeking declaratory relief, was not maintainable. It is argued that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and that no interference is warranted. 11. Having heard the learned counsel and upon careful re-appreciation of the material on record, the following points arise for consideration: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 "(i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit? (ii) Whether the Trial Court was right in holding that mere pendency of the plaintiff’s application for grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Act does not confer either title or possessory rights so as to seek injunctive relief? (iii) Whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court regarding possession suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court? (iv) What order?" FINDINGS ON POINTS (i) to (iii): 12. Before this Court adverts to the case on hand, it would be apposite for this Court to reiterate the principles - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 governing the grant of injunction which is discretionary in nature. It is trite that in a suit for injunction simpliciter plaintiff must independently establish the following three foundational requirements; (i) Lawful possession as on the date of the institution of the suit; (ii) threat or interference by the defendant, and (iii) the balance of convenience. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of Judgments has consistently held that lawful possession is sine qua non for grant of injunction. A mere assertion of title or pendency of proceedings for statutory rights does not confer a right to injunction. The Court has also consistently held that injunction is a discretionary and equitable relief and cannot be granted when plaintiff approaches the Court without establishing a clear legal right. 14. In the case on hand, this Court has carefully examined the pleadings in the plaint and the evidence let in by the plaintiff. It would be apposite for this Court to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 extract the relevant paragraph of the plaint which clinches the core controversy regarding possessory rights. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are relevant, and the same are extracted as under: "4. The plaintiff further submits that apart from this land, the family consisting of plaintiff's father and his brother, owned vast properties in K.G.Baiderahally village. The said lands have been inherited by plaintiff and his cousins. After the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act came into force, an application had been made by the plaintiff to register the said land along with other lands. Various proceedings took place and it is necessary at this juncture to state that with regard to this land and other lands, writ petition in W.P.No.11564 of 1979 was filed by the plaintiff and his brother against the State and others and the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court has remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for adjudication afresh. Against the said order, a Writ Appeal was filed and the Writ Appeal was dismissed. At present, the matter is pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, for consideration of the applications. The learned Special Deputy Commissioner should enquire into the matter and confer occupancy rights. The civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain any claim or suits with regard to lands situated in Kayamgutha or jodi village. The 2nd defendant has no right, title or interest in or over the said - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 land. The documents of title claimed by the predecessors- in-title of the 2nd defendant and the alleged contract, is not a genuine document and is a fabricated and forged one. 5. When the matter is pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner, it is not open to the City Corporation to determine the question of title or make out the katha in favour of any other person. The IL & RR stands in the name of the plaintiff and other members of his family. The Faisal Patrika stands in the name of the plaintiff's uncle Sri Venkataswamappa. The Kayamguttadar has furnished to the Government a list of persons who are in actual and factual possession of the various lands in K.G.Baiderahally village. A copy of the list containing such names with relevant survey numbers, is produced herewith. In respect of lands bearing Survey No.101/1, it shows that Sri Venkataswamappa has been in possession of the land. The Kayamguttadar has filed an appeal against the order making entries in the name of Sri Venkataswamappa, and ultimately the Collector held that the name of the Jodidar should be deleted and Sri Venkataswamappa's name should be entered as a permanent tenant. An appeal was lodged by the Kayamguttadar, which came to be dismissed. The proceedings indicate that the plaintiff and members of his family are the owners. Smt. Parvathamma is impleaded as a defendant, as a portion of the land is gifted to her; but the entire properties are shown in the schedule." (Emphasis supplied) - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 A careful reading of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint, extracted supra, would unequivocally demonstrate that the plaintiff’s claim over the suit schedule property is still inchoate and contingent upon the outcome of statutory proceedings under the Inams Abolition regime. Though the plaintiff has asserted that an application seeking grant of occupancy rights is pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, the plaint is conspicuously silent with regard to the date of filing of such application, the nature of the claim, the stage of proceedings. Except making a bald assertion that proceedings are pending, the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor produced any material particulars to substantiate either his claim of title or his assertion of possession. 15. Pendency of an application seeking conferment of statutory occupancy rights, by itself, does not vest either title or possessory rights in favour of the applicant. On the contrary, defendant No.2 has produced cogent and overwhelming rebuttal evidence demonstrating settled - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 possession much prior to the institution of the suit. The sanctioned building plan (Ex.D10), municipal tax paid receipts (Exs.D11 to D13), electricity, water and telephone connection records standing in the name of defendant No.2, as well as mutation and khata entries effected long prior to the filing of the suit, clearly establish that defendant No.2 was in actual, physical and juridical possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, except resting his case on the pendency of statutory proceedings, has failed to place any independent documentary evidence to demonstrate possession as on the date of institution of the suit. 16. The contention urged by the plaintiff at the appellate stage that defendant No.2 is in possession of only a portion of the property and that the remaining portion is vacant land cannot be entertained, as there are no pleadings, no issues, and no evidence laid to that effect before the Trial Court. This plea is a clear attempt to improve the case at the appellate stage. More importantly, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 the plaintiff has categorically admitted during the course of trial that the land in question stands converted, and this admission, when read in conjunction with the sanctioned plan at Ex.D10, municipal records and evidence of construction of a residential house, completely demolishes the plaintiff’s plea that the suit schedule property is vacant land. 17. This crucial admission strikes at the very root of the plaintiff’s case and is fatal to the assertion that he was in possession as on the date of filing of the suit. The formation of road by defendant No.1 is also candidly admitted by the plaintiff. The cumulative effect of the rebuttal evidence discussed supra unmistakably establishes that the defendants are in settled and lawful possession of the suit schedule property. The sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 itself refers to the remaining portion of the vendor’s land in the schedule, further fortifying the defence case. In such circumstances, when the plaintiff’s title itself is yet to be adjudicated by the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 competent statutory forum, grant of an order of status quo would virtually amount to granting an injunction in favour of a party who has failed to establish possession, which is impermissible in law. 18. This Court, being the final fact-finding authority under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has independently re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. Upon such re-appreciation, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusions reached by the Trial Court. In view of the overwhelming rebuttal evidence adduced by defendant No.2, the plaintiff has failed to establish either lawful possession or any enforceable legal right warranting grant of injunctive relief. Pendency of an application for grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act does not, by itself, create any vested right in favour of the plaintiff. 19. The contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that the Inams Act does not provide protective - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 remedies akin to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, also cannot be accepted at this stage. In a bare suit for injunction, the burden squarely lies on the plaintiff to establish lawful possession as on the date of institution of the suit and the factum of interference. Mere assertion of possession is not sufficient. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to establish both the foundational requirements, namely, lawful possession and alleged interference. Any right claimed by the plaintiff over the suit schedule property would necessarily be subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, and a legally enforceable right would accrue only if the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in such proceedings. 20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. Mere pendency of the plaintiff’s application for grant of occupancy rights before the Inams Abolition Authority - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012 does not confer either title or possessory rights so as to seek injunctive relief. Defendant No.2, by producing unimpeachable rebuttal evidence, has clearly displaced the plaintiff’s claim of possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Accordingly, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the affirmative and point No.(iii) is answered in the negative. Finding on Point No.(iv): 21. For the forgoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17