- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3742 RFA No. 254 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2018 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI M GOVINDARAJU, S/O LATE S. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.632, NETHAJI CIRCLE, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE 560054. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED). …APPELLANT (BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI M V ANOOP KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT RAJESHWARI, W/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HAVING BUSINESS OF "FIREWOOD DEPOT" NO.34, 15TH CROSS, NEAR SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL MATHIKERE, BANGALORE 560054. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ASHOK PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.11.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.8411/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE [CCH-32] BANGALORE CITYDECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3742 RFA No. 254 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is a defendant's appeal against the decree for injunction. The property is an immovable property. In terms of the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court has restrained the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant would submit that in the cross examination as well as in the evidence, the plaintiff has admitted that he is the tenant under the defendant. As such the decree for injunction is not maintainable and at the most, the trial Court could have restrained the appellant/defendant from evicting the plaintiff without due process of law. Thus, he would urge that the impugned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3742 RFA No. 254 of 2018 decree has to be modified and the protection relating to the possession should be granted till the plaintiff is evicted in due process of law in an appropriate legal recourse initiated by the defendant. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant would urge that the plaintiff never admitted the relationship of tenant and landlord between the plaintiff and defendant and he has not admitted the title of the defendant over the property. The suit was only for bare injunction and the Court has rightly restrained the defendant from interfering the plaintiff's possession over the property as the plaintiff is in possession. 5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 6. The following point arises for consideration: "Whether the appellant has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree?" - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3742 RFA No. 254 of 2018 7. Admittedly, this is suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff respondent. Thus, the contention that the defendant/appellant is the owner of the suit property cannot be adjudicated in this proceeding. If at all, the appellant claims to be the owner of the property, he has to establish the same in the manner known to law in an appropriate proceeding. 8. If such proceeding is initiated, it is open to the plaintiff/respondent to take all defence available under law. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not indicated that the appellant has title or the property. 10. In case, the defendant/appellant establishes title of the property, then the appropriate consequential relief if sought, shall be considered in accordance with law notwithstanding the present decree for injunction which is under challenge. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3742 RFA No. 254 of 2018 11. Under the circumstances, the decree for permanent injunction is modified by holding that the defendant is restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the property, till the *plaintiff is evicted in due process of law. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not observed that the plaintiff has title over the suit property as same is beyond the scope of this proceeding. The finding relating to the plaintiff's possession over the suit property is affirmed. 13. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE brn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 *Page No.5 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 19.02.2026.