Defendants appealed against a decree of permanent injunction restraining interference with the plaintiff's possession of a vacant site. The High Court found cogent evidence of settled possession via municipal records and held that complicated questions of title belong in a pending comprehensive title suit. The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 1044 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1044 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R/AT SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE
NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 1044 of 2021
HC-KAR
JALAHALLI WEST AND POST BENGALURU-560 015.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY .P.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BENGALURU-560 073.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR .K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.03.2021 PASSED IN OS.No.5963/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is by the defendants directed against the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.5963/2016, whereby plaintiff's suit seeking injunction simpliciter is decreed and defendants are
HC-KAR
restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
to as per their rank before the trial Court.
The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction simpliciter restraining the defendants from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of vacant Site No.86, forming part of Sridevi Layout, situated at Medarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 1044 of 2021
HC-KAR
deeds. Insofar as the suit schedule site is concerned, it is contended that Ramaiah executed a registered sale deed dated 10.06.2004 in favour of Ganeshaiah. Pursuant to the said conveyance, Ganeshaiah, in turn sold the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 17.03.2005. Plaintiff is stated to have secured mutation of his name in the records of Abbigere Grama Panchayat and to have paid property taxes. Plaintiff further asserts that he had availed loan by way of mortgage on suit schedule property and has closed the housing loan.
HC-KAR
have collected property taxes from him in respect of the
suit property.
the plaintiff has approached the Civil Court seeking protection of his possession by way of a decree of permanent injunction.
entered appearance and filed their written statement, stoutly denying the averments made in the plaint. The
HC-KAR
defendants specifically contended that one Ramaiah was the absolute owner and in possession of land bearing Sy.No.10 measuring 3 acres 35 guntas. It is their case that Ramaiah had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of G. Ramesh. Owing to certain disputes between Ramaiah and the said GPA holder, and in view of an earlier agreement of sale dated 08.10.1994 executed by Ramaiah agreeing to sell the entire extent of Sy.No.10 for a total consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-, out of which Rs.15,00,000/- was received as advance, the said G. Ramesh instituted a suit in O.S.No.520/2008 against Ramaiah and his sons seeking enforcement of his rights. The said suit, according to the defendants, culminated in a compromise and a compromise decree came to be drawn. Basing their claim on the said compromise decree, it is contended that G. Ramesh acquired valid rights over the property and thereafter conveyed the same in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 under a registered sale deed dated 26.09.2016. On these assertions, the defendants sought
NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 1044 of 2021
HC-KAR
dismissal of the suit, disputing both the plaintiff’s title and possession.
NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 1044 of 2021
HC-KAR
plaintiff had proved the alleged interference at the hands of the defendants. Consequently, the suit for permanent injunction came to be decreed.
(i) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and that the defendants interfered with such possession, thereby entitling the plaintiff to a decree of perpetual injunction, suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court?
(ii) What order?
NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 1044 of 2021
HC-KAR
Finding on Point No.(i):
and the material placed on record by both the parties, certain foundational facts emerge as undisputed. It is not in controversy that one Ramaiah was the original owner of land bearing Sy.No.10, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings, and also Sy.No.11. It is further not in dispute that the Land Tribunal, by its order passed in the year 1992, conferred occupancy rights in favour of Ramaiah in respect of the said lands. While the plaintiff traces his title directly through the original grantee Ramaiah, the defendants seek to trace their title through
one G. Ramesh, who claims to have obtained a General Power of Attorney and an agreement of sale from Ramaiah as early as in the year 1994. The defendants contend that since the grant of occupancy rights was accompanied by a
non-alienation clause, Ramaiah could not have executed an outright sale deed at that point of time and, therefore, executed a GPA coupled with an agreement of sale in
NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 1044 of 2021
HC-KAR
favour of G. Ramesh. It is further their case that the said G. Ramesh instituted a suit in O.S.No.520/2008 and, by virtue of a compromise recorded therein, acquired title over the property, which was subsequently conveyed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3.
NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 1044 of 2021
HC-KAR
BBMP demonstrate that subsequent to the registered conveyances, the name of the plaintiff’s predecessor-intitle was entered in the municipal records. Exs.P-11 to P-19, Exs.P-6 to P-7 and Exs.P-9 to P-10, being tax paid receipts and building plan and license issued by the local authority, further disclose that a residential structure exists on the suit property. These documents, read cumulatively, probabilise the plaintiff’s assertion of settled possession as on the date of suit.
is evident that the defendants have instituted a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and consequential relief's by impleading not only the present plaintiff but also several other purchasers of sites formed in Sy.No.10. The said suit is pending adjudication. A perusal of the compromise decree in O.S.No.520/2008, marked at Ex.D-7 and D-8, reveals that G. Ramesh had
NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 1044 of 2021
HC-KAR
instituted the said suit not for specific performance, but for bare injunction. Ramaiah was arrayed as defendant No.4 in the said proceedings. It is seen that during the pendency of the said suit, a compromise was entered into between G. Ramesh and Ramaiah, wherein Ramaiah is stated to have received the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/out of the total consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- and acknowledged the claim of G. Ramesh.
HC-KAR
sale deed in favour of Ganeshaiah on 10.06.2004, had subsisting right, title or interest thereafter, and whether any subsequent acknowledgment in a compromise decree could divest the rights already conveyed. These are intricate and serious issues touching upon the validity of competing chains of title. Equally, the contention of the defendants that the earlier sale deeds are hit by Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 on account of violation of the non-alienation clause also entails detailed examination of statutory provisions, the terms of the grant, and the nature of transactions.
NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 1044 of 2021
HC-KAR
original grantee in 1999, followed by subsequent
registered transactions in 2006, all of which are anterior in point of time to the sale deed dated 26.09.2016 relied upon by defendant Nos.2 and 3.
NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 1044 of 2021
HC-KAR
learned counsel for the defendants, which pertain to cases involving adjudication of title in appropriate proceedings, do not advance the defendants’ case in the present appeal arising out of a suit for injunction simpliciter. Accordingly,
Point No.(i) is answered in the Negative .
Finding on Point No.(ii):
ORDER
Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
CA List No.: 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's finding that the plaintiff was in lawful possession and entitled to a perpetual injunction suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference?
What order should be passed on the appeal?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Ramesh .G S/O Late P.Gowdaiah
Sri Manjunath S/O Late Muniyappa
Sri Manjunath .R S/O Sri Ramakrishnaiah
Sri Chandrappa D M S/O Late Muniyappa
Sri Parthasarathy .B.L S/O Late B.M.Lakshman Swamy
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
