- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6767 RFA No. 1607 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1607 OF 2022 (INJ-) BETWEEN: SMT N NETHRAVATHI W/O SRI PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT DODDAMMA DEVI TRUST, TEMPLE STREET, AMRUTHAHALLI BANGALORE-560092 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAYA KUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. KUMARA & SRI. SHIVA KUMAR G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT JEROMIA W/O HENRE JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.1485, TEACHERS COLONY KACHANAYAKANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560043 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M.,ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CAL FOR THE ETIRE RECORD IN O.S.NO.8721/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE VIII ADDL. CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-15) AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED: 17.02.2022 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUIENTLY DECREE THE SUIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND LAW. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6767 RFA No. 1607 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.8721/2016 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.02.2022 passed by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH- 15) Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the said suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondent-defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Learned counsel for respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellant-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent- defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the respondent defendant the trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether plaintiff proves her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6767 RFA No. 1607 of 2022 2. Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference of the defendant over the suit schedule property? 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for? 4. What order or decree?” 4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documentary evidence at Exs.P-1 to 12, while the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.D-1 to 14. 5. At the time of final argument, the respondent- defendant produced documents to contend that the suit schedule property that Survey No. 31/1, out of which the suit schedule property is said to have been carved out was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority for formation of Arkavathy Layout in the year 2014 and as such, the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. In this context, the Trial Court holds as under: “18. Further more, during arguments, the defendant's Counsel has produced a copy of the Gazette notification – which shows that as per the final notification bearing No.UDD.426.MNJ.2011, dated 18.6.2014 of the issued by the Urban Development Secretariat, Survey No.31 measuring 13 acres 07 gunta of Geddalahalli village and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6767 RFA No. 1607 of 2022 some other lands have been acquired by the Government for formation of Arkavathi Lay-out. Therefore, it appears that the entire Survey No.31 of Geddalahalli village has been acquired by the Government for the formation of Arkavathi Lay-out in the year 2014. When such being the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff's contention that out of the lay-out formed in Survey No.31/1 by Byregowda, he has purchased site No.64 vide sale deed dated 27.3.2015, appears to be incorrect. Since prior to the sale deed of the plaintiff the entire land in Survey No.31 has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi Lay-out, it clearly shows that no land in Survey No.31 was available with Byregowda or his successors to form any lay-out or sell sites formed in such lay-out, as contended by the plaintiff. Therefore, when the legal representatives of Byregowda themselves were not possessing any property in survey No.31/1, though the plaintiff got executed a sale deed dated 27.3.2015, the plaintiff will not get any right over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff being in possession of the suit schedule property does not arise at all. Therefore, when the plaintiff has failed to produce evidence regarding his possession over the suit schedule property, the question of the defendant interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property does not arise at all. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as claimed in the suit. Therefore, Issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered as above.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6767 RFA No. 1607 of 2022 6. As can be seen from the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the said documents which were sought to be produced by the respondent-defendant at the stage of final arguments have not been marked, but they were simply produced before the Trial Court and the same were not marked or exhibited in evidence and the appellant was not provided an opportunity to have his say in this regard. 7. Under these circumstances, in order to provide one more opportunity to the appellant as well as to the respondent to put forth all their contentions in relation to the existing documents as well as additional documents, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, by allowing the appeal. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6767 RFA No. 1607 of 2022 (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 17.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.8721/2016 by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15), Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. (iv) Both parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 23.02.2026, without awaiting further notice from the Trial Court. (v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. (vi) In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2016, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vii) It is further directed that till disposal of the suit as stated supra, the parties shall maintain status quo, in all respects, as on today, in relation to the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6767 RFA No. 1607 of 2022 schedule property, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22