Dismissed

K L Vidyashankar v. Janapriya Heights Flat Owners Association

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2026RFA/103/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Flat owner sued the apartment owners' association for permanent injunction and damages, alleging nuisance by neighbours, non-maintenance, and disconnection of utilities. The High Court held the injunction claim infructuous as he had sold the flat, and found no evidence linking alleged nuisances to his heart ailments, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; professional fees of Rs.20,000 directed to be paid to the Amicus Curiae.

K L Vidyashankar Vs Janapriya Heights Flat Owners… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.103 OF 2021 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K L VIDYASHANKAR

¶9

S/O LATE SHRI K L NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.181/2, 4^TH MAIN, I CROSS, MADHURA NAGAR, NAGARABAVI MAIN ROAD, MOODALAPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 072.

¶10

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADEESH MUNDARAGI, AMICUS CURIAE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

JANAPRIYA HEIGHTS FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, SY NO.80/IA, AND 80 IC, MALLASANDRA HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 057.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. ARAVIND BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 5 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4133/2007 ON THE FILE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff calling in question the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.4133/2007 by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15) at Bengaluru¹ , thereby, the suit filed for permanent injunction and for damages was dismissed.

¶25

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶26

It is the brief case of plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of Flat No.3332 situated at 3^rd Floor, 3^rd Block, Jayapriya Heights Apartments, Bengaluru, which is taken

¶27

1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

care of by the defendant association. The plaintiff is living in the said flat along with his family members. The defendant association is collecting monthly maintenance of Rs.350/- from the owners of the each flat for the maintenance of the entire apartment, but the defendant association has not performed its duties. Due to which, the entire apartment has been turned into a garbage den and has caused inconvenience to the residents of the entire apartment.

¶31

Further, it is the case of plaintiff that Flat Nos.3331-A and 3326 are the immediate neighbours of the plaintiff’s flat and they are causing nuisance and troubling the plaintiff by obstructing the movements of the plaintiff and his family members, throwing garbage all around the corridor, causing sound pollution by intentionally talking in a high-pitched voice and talking over mobile phones in high-pitched voice and making children play games such as cricket and football on the rooftop, which are all against the bye-laws of the defendant association. Due to which,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the plaintiff has developed heart-related deceases and is unable to bear the continuous disturbance; therefore, lodged a complaint before the Police.

¶36

Further, it is submitted that when the plaintiff has requested the defendant association to correct all these ill-measures alleged above, the defendant association has not taken any action but developed enmity with the plaintiff and disconnected the water, electricity and other basic amenities, by which the plaintiff has suffered much. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction and also subsequently amending the plaint prayed for the relief of damages of Rs.12,00,000/-.

¶37

The defendant association has entered

¶38

appearance and filed a written statement admitting that the plaintiff is the owner of Flat No.3332, but denied all other averments such as causing nuisances, non-maintenance of the apartment, turning the apartment

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

into a garbage den etc. Therefore, the defendant association has completely denied the plaint averments except that the plaintiff is the owner of Flat No.3332. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶43

Upon the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

¶44

ISSUES

¶45

�� ೕ��ವಂ� ಈ �� ವ �ಲ�� ಯ ಅ�� ಸ��ನ�� ಆತನ ಹ#�ನ ಉಲ�ಂಘ&'() ಎಂ, ಅವ� -.ೕ/ಪ123�45ೕ?

¶46

�� ೕ��ವಂ� 6ಶ�ತ ಪ8 �ಬಂಧ�;< ಮ/� ಆ>< ಪಕ ಪ8 �ಬಂಧ�;< ಯ ಪ@�ರಗ�C ಅವ� ಅಹD4ೕ?

¶47

' ಆ)ೕಶ ಅಥ� 1#8 FಡHೕ�?

¶48

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

¶49

1. Whether plaintiff proves that due to sustained harassment by the defendant, the plaintiff has undergone multiple surgeries and he was subjected to humiliation by the defendant Association, due to which it resulted in distress sale of plaintiff’s flat?

¶50

2. Whether suit is barred by limitation?

¶51

3. Whether Court fee paid by plaintiff is not sufficient?

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages and litigation expenses as claimed?

¶56

In order to prove the case, the plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and got marked the documentary evidence as Exs.P-1 to P-46. On behalf of the defendant, an authorized representative of the defendant association is examined as DW-1 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.D-1 to D-6(a).

¶57

The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It is observed that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had sold Flat No.3332 and thus the relief of injunction had become infructuous; therefore, the relief of injunction was dismissed. Further, the relief of claiming damages was dismissed on the reason that when several groups of persons are residing in an apartment, quite naturally some small disturbance occurs and children playing does not amount to causing nuisance. Therefore, it was observed that the plaintiff had failed to prove what the nuisances

¶58

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

were and how by such nuisances, the plaintiff developed heart related diseases. Hence, the claim for damages was dismissed.

¶61

Being aggrieved by this, the appellant/plaintiff

¶62

has preferred this Regular First Appeal by raising various grounds.

¶63

Sri. Jagadish Mundaragi, learned Amicus Curiae, is appointed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. Accordingly, Sri. Jagadish Mundaragi, learned Amicus Curiae, being appointed by this Court has addressed and has meticulously argued that the defendant association has not maintained the apartment neatly and cleanly despite collecting the maintenance amount and when the inaction of the defendant association was questioned by the plaintiff, some of the neighbours of the plaintiff’s flat and the defendant association developed enmity with the plaintiff and disconnected the water supply and electricity supply, thereby causing the plaintiff to be deprived of

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

basic facilities and suffer. Therefore, being unable to bear the said nuisances, the plaintiff was constrained to sell the flat. Hence, the plaintiff suffered much loss and therefore, claimed the relief for damages of Rs.12,00,000/-, but this was not correctly appreciated by the Trial Court. Hence, prays to grant damages as prayed for.

¶67

Further, it is submitted that due to the nuisances and inconvenience created by the defendant association, the plaintiff has developed heart related problems, for which he has been admitted to the hospital and undergone angiogram and angioplasty surgeries; therefore, in spite of documentary evidence produced such as discharge summary and medical records, the Trial Court has not appreciated these evidence properly. Hence, prays to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and grant damages as prayed for by the plaintiff by allowing the appeal.

¶68

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/defendant association submitted that the relief of injunction has become infructuous as the plaintiff sold Flat No.3332; therefore, the relief of injunction has become infructuous. It is further submitted that there is no evidence at all by the plaintiff that due to the alleged nuisances the plaintiff has developed heart related diseases. Just because the children are playing does not amount to causing nuisance and inconvenience. Further, it is submitted the plaintiff has installed rotating gates, which does not amount to causing nuisance; therefore, it is submitted that there is absolutely no evidence as to how the plaintiff has developed heart related diseases due to the defendant association. Hence, the Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to claim damages. Accordingly, justifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶71

10 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Upon hearing the arguments of both the

¶75

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the following points arise for my consideration:

¶76

(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for?

¶77

(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that due to the defendant association he has developed heart related diseases and is entitled to damages of Rs.12,00,000/- from the defendant association?

¶78

(iii) Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court require interference?

¶79

The relief of injunction prayed by the plaintiff

¶80

has become infructuous for the reason that the plaintiff has sold his Flat No.3332 during pendency of the said suit, which is not in possession of the plaintiff; therefore, the relief of injunction has become infructuous. For claiming

¶81

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

relief of injunction, it is stated that there are some allegations of disconnection of water supply, electricity supply, etc., but when the plaintiff has sold the flat and is not in possession of the flat, the said relief of injunction has become infructuous and this has been rightly appreciated by the Trial Court while answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in the judgment.

¶84

So far as the claim for relief of damages by the plaintiff is concerned, it is the case of the plaintiff that the neighbourers of the flat owners are talking in high-pitched voice causing disturbance to the plaintiff. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that the neighbourers of the plaintiff’s flat are allowing the children to play cricket and other games in the corridor and on the rooftop of the apartment and it is also submitted that the neighbouring flat owners have restricted the movement of the plaintiff and his family members. Upon all these allegations, it is the allegation of the plaintiff that these are the nuisances caused to the plaintiff; therefore, the plaintiff has

¶85

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

developed heart related diseases and has undergone surgery for his heart related diseases. Therefore, for claiming damages, in this regard, the plaintiff has produced the discharge summary as Ex.P-29 (copy of discharge summary) and Ex.P-30 (copy of angiography report) and other medical records.

¶88

Considering these averments in the plaint, there is no evidence by the plaintiff that the neighbourers are talking in high-pitched voice causing nuisance to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not examined any independent witnesses and whatever evidence given by the plaintiff is only self-explanatory in nature without any corroboration from other independent evidence. Furthermore, it is quite natural that children are playing games either on the rooftop or in the corridor; just because children are playing games does not amount to causing nuisance and inconvenience and it is not established that it has caused or aggravated nuisance and developed heart related problems to the plaintiff.

¶89

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

Furthermore, it is admitted that the plaintiff

¶92

himself has incorporated rotating gates and likewise the neighbouring flat owners have also installed rotating gates. Hence, in what way the movement of the plaintiff and family members of the plaintiff are restricted, there is no evidence and no independent witnesses and whatever evidence given by the plaintiff in this regard quite naturally self-explanatory and in support of his contention he has deposed, but the evidence of the plaintiff does not have any corroboration to prove that the plaintiff has suffered heart related diseases because of the nuisance of the neighbouring flat owners. Hence, in this regard, the plaintiff has produced discharge summary (Ex.P-29) and angiography report (Ex.P-30), but that due to the nuisances created by the neighbouring flat owners only the plaintiff has developed heart related problems, absolutely there is no evidence at all in this regard.

¶93

It is quite natural that persons may get diseases, but what is the connection of developing heart

¶94

14 -

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

related diseases between the plaintiff and the

¶98

neighbouring flat owners, there is no evidence in this regard. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in appreciating the evidence on record and has rightly dismissed the suit. Therefore, there is no merit found in the grounds raised and submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i), (ii) and (iii) in the Negative. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶99

20. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶100

Sri. Jagadish Mundaragi, learned Amicus Curiae, has assisted the Court in a lucid manner and his assistance is appreciated; therefore, the Court places its appreciation on record. Hence, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is requested to pay professional fees of Rs.20,000/- to Sri. Jagadish Mundaragi, learned Amicus Curiae.

¶101

NC: 2026:KHC:26468 RFA No. 103 of 2021

¶102

15 -

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed off.

¶105

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶106

SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

K L Vidyashankar v. Janapriya Heights Flat Owners Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K L Vidyashankar v. Janapriya Heights Flat Owners Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. John Iman Vellu J Vs Smt. Hemalalatha K M

Sri. B. a. Bhakthavatsala Vs Smt. R. Bhuvaneshwari

Sri Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri G Govindaraju

Smt D Sheela Pillai Vs Sri Syed Shabbir

Mrs Leena Issac Vs Mrs S Mounica

Sri Junjapap K S Vs K S Munihanumaiah