Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), RFA No.793 of 2023 (INJ), decided 21.08.2025 by K.S. Hemalekha J (oral judgment): Regular First Appeal under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 CPC by the plaintiff (Sri Madhuri s/o Shanmugam) against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2023 in O.S.No.716/2020 (LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) dismissing his suit for perpetual injunction against the respondent (Smt. Sujatha .P W/o Prabhu), who was served but unrepresented. Per the brief facts, the plaintiff took the ground floor on lease, claimed to have built the first floor at his own cost (Rs.2,16,000/-) with payments aggregating Rs.4,25,000/-, and was in possession since 2014 running a shop; he alleged attempted illegal dispossession through false police complaints leading to criminal cases. The Trial Court found the alleged lease deed Ex.P.1 undated, unregistered and disputed as forged per the plaint averments and hence unproved; Ex.P.2 photographs and Ex.P.3 newspaper extract insufficient to establish the first-floor construction; the lease period expired in December 2020 with no evidence of renewal; and no independent evidence of construction or purchase of building materials — concluding the plaintiff had not established lawful possession or entitlement to injunction. On the framed point (whether the dismissal warrants interference), this Court found no reason to disturb those findings and held the dismissal of the injunction prayer justified. However, addressing a principle the Trial Court had not addressed, the Court held that possession, once admitted or established, cannot be disturbed except by authority of law; even assuming the lease expired or title is disputed, the landlord/owner's remedy is to institute appropriate proceedings for recovery of possession, forcible dispossession being impermissible — relying on Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh, AIR 1968 SC 620 and Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131 (even a trespasser in settled possession is entitled to protection against forcible dispossession and the true owner must take recourse of lawful proceedings), principles which apply with greater force to a tenant or lessee whose possession, though disputed, has not been shown to be lawfully terminated or recovered through due process. Finding the appellant's induction and long actual possession undisputed and the absent respondent to have demonstrated no lawful recovery action, the Court disposed of the appeal: dismissal confirmed, with an express observation that the appellant-plaintiff shall not be dispossessed except in accordance with law and through due process of a competent Court, and without prejudice to the respondent's right to seek recovery of possession by filing appropriate proceedings.
