Dismissed¶129

Sri M B Ramachandran v. the Corporation of the City of Bengaluru

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2026RFA/226/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Injunction simpliciter; lawful possession on date of suit; occupancy rights application; Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act 1954; Inams Act; Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams; pendency confers no title or possession; status quo refused; Section 96 CPC; final fact-finding authority; re-appreciation of evidence; rebuttal evidence Exs.D10 to D17; sanctioned building plan; khata and mutation entries; improvement of case at appellate stage; admission of land conversion; Corporation of the City of Bengaluru; RFA No. 226 of 2012; NC: 2026:KHC:5018; Karnataka High Court.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. Points (i) and (ii) answered in the affirmative, point (iii) in the negative. ¶129

Sri M B Ramachandran Vs the Corporation of the City of Bengaluru — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. Points (i) and (ii) answered in the affirmative, point (iii) in the negative.

¶129

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit? +2 more

¶71

Court's answer

In a suit for injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff must independently establish three foundational requirements: lawful possession as on the date of institution of the suit, threat or interference by the defendant, and balance of convenience.

¶80

Ratio / Principle

Pendency of an application seeking conferment of statutory occupancy rights, by itself, vests neither title nor possessory rights in the applicant; the plaintiff's claim over the suit property remained inchoate and contingent on the outcome of statutory proceedings under the Inams Abolition regime.

¶98

Key takeaways

Defendant No.2 discharged cogent rebuttal evidence (sanctioned building plan Ex.D10, municipal tax paid receipts Exs.D11 to D13, electricity/water/telephone records in his name, and mutation and khata entries effected long prior to the suit), establishing actual, physical and juridical possession much prior to the institution of the suit, while the plaintiff produced no independent documentary evidence of possession.ratio¶102
The plaintiff's appellate-stage contention that defendant No.2 occupied only a portion and the remainder was vacant land could not be entertained, as there were no pleadings, no issues and no evidence before the Trial Court; it was an attempt to improve the case at the appellate stage.ratio¶103

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC by the legal representatives of the unsuccessful plaintiff against dismissal of O.S.No.3151/2002, a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter. Held: (a) a plaintiff seeking injunction must independently establish lawful possession as on the date of suit, threat or interference, and balance of convenience; (b) mere pendency of an application for grant of occupancy rights under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 confers neither title nor possessory rights, the plaintiff's claim remaining inchoate and contingent on the statutory proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner; (c) defendant No.2 established settled, actual, physical and juridical possession through the sanctioned building plan (Ex.D10), tax receipts (Exs.D11-D13), utility records and prior mutation/khata entries, while the plaintiff's own admissions of land conversion and road formation were fatal to his possession claim; (d) a status quo direction to a party who has failed to establish possession is impermissible; (e) a plea of partial vacancy raised for the first time in appeal, without pleadings, issues or evidence, cannot be entertained. Points (i) and (ii) answered in the affirmative, point (iii) in the negative; appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2012 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M B RAMACHANDRAN S/O LATE BYRAPPAAGED SINCE DEAD BY LRs

¶9

1(A) SMT. M. HEMALATHA W/O LATE M.B.RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046.

¶10

1(B) SRI. R.PRAVEEN S/O LATE M.B. RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046.

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

1(C) SMT. PAVITHRA .R D/O LATE M.B.RAMACHANDRAN W/O Y. SURENDRA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046. ALSO AT NO.33, 13^TH CROSS AECS LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR BENGALURU-560 094.

¶13

1(D) SMT. PALLAVI .R D/O LATE M.B.RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.55

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. H.R. ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BENGALURU J.C.ROAD, N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-560002.

¶21

SRI. R.N. GANGADHARAIAH S/O K.V. NARASIMHAIAH MAJOR R/A NO.39, III CROSS ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET SHESHADRI ROAD BENSON TOWN POST BENGALURU-560 046.

¶22

SMT M B PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE B KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS [R3 DELETED V/O DATED 12.04.2017]

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. BATHEGOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 12.04.2017, R3 IS DELETED)

¶25

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2012 PASSED IN O.S.3151/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE,DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.3151/2002, wherein plaintiff’s suit for injunction simpliciter restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession is dismissed.

¶33

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶34

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶35

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶36

The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.3151/2002 claiming that the suit schedule property was purchased by his grandfather, Munimarappa, under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1908. According to the plaintiff, the property covered under the said sale deed corresponded to Survey No.101 (old), which was subsequently renumbered

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

as Survey Nos.101/1 and 101/2. It is pleaded that at the

¶40

time of execution of the sale deed, the property was not assigned specific survey numbers and was identified only by boundaries. The plaintiff further pleaded that one Appayyanna, a close relative, had purchased an extent of 1.09 acres in Survey No.101/1 under a sale deed dated 17.07.1946 from one A. Anthony Michael, and that the said purchase was for and on behalf of the plaintiff and other family members.

¶41

The plaintiff further averred that after the coming into force of the Mysore (Personal and

¶42

Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, “the Inams Act”), he had filed an application seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the suit schedule property and that the said application is pending consideration before the competent authority. It is the specific case of

¶43

the plaintiff that the second defendant, who has no right,

¶44

title, or interest over the suit schedule property, is asserting a false claim of ownership on the basis of

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

fabricated and concocted documents, despite the matter being seized of by the Special Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiff further alleged that he has erected sheds and enclosed the suit schedule property with a compound wall, and that the defendants are attempting to interfere with his possession.

¶48

It is also the plaintiff’s case that the second defendant has neither claimed tenancy rights nor filed any application before the Land Tribunal or the Deputy Commissioner seeking grant of occupancy rights, and yet is asserting both possessory and proprietary rights on the strength of fabricated documents.

¶49

In response to the suit summons, defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written statements, whereas defendant No.3, despite service of summons, remained absent and was placed ex parte. Defendant No.1 denied the entire claim of the plaintiff and, on the contrary, asserted absolute title over the suit schedule

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

property, contending that a road was formed in its own land and that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff at all.

¶54

Defendant No.2 also filed a written statement asserting title and possession over a residential site bearing No.48/6 (Old No.27) and contended that he is in lawful possession of the property. Both defendants sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit.

¶55

It is relevant to note that the plaintiff had also instituted another suit in O.S.No.8814/1999, seeking a direction against the local authorities not to effect any change of khata in respect of the suit schedule property pending adjudication of the dispute. Both suits were clubbed, common evidence was recorded, and by a common judgment, the Trial Court dismissed both the suits.

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3151/2002, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal in R.F.A.No.226/2012. The appeal filed in R.F.A.No.225/2012, arising out of O.S.No.8814/1999, was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶59

During the pendency of this appeal, the original plaintiff has died and his legal representatives have been brought on record.

¶60

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, placed reliance on certain collateral proceedings, particularly the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.5678/1996 and connected matters, to contend that the parties were directed to maintain status quo. On that basis, it is urged that this Court should direct the parties to maintain status quo pending disposal of the plaintiff’s application for grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Act. It is further contended that even assuming

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

the rebuttal evidence of defendant No.2 establishes possession over certain portions, the remaining vacant portion of the land requires protection until the occupancy rights proceedings attain finality.

¶65

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.2, placing reliance on the rebuttal evidence marked as Exs.D10 to D17, contended that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish lawful possession as on the date of institution of the suit. It is submitted that the documentary evidence conclusively establishes exclusive possession of defendant No.2, and therefore, the suit for bare injunction, without establishing possession or seeking declaratory relief, was not maintainable. It is argued that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and that no interference is warranted.

¶66

Having heard the learned counsel and upon careful re-appreciation of the material on record, the following points arise for consideration:

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

"(i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in

¶71

dismissing the suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit?

¶72

(ii) Whether the Trial Court was right in holding that mere pendency of the plaintiff’s application for grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Act does not confer either title or possessory rights so as to seek injunctive relief?

¶73

(iii) Whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court regarding possession suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court?

¶74

(iv) What order?"

¶75

FINDINGS ON POINTS (i) to (iii):

¶76

Before this Court adverts to the case on hand, it would be apposite for this Court to reiterate the principles

¶77

10 -

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

governing the grant of injunction which is discretionary in nature. It is trite that in a suit for injunction simpliciter plaintiff must independently establish the following three foundational requirements; (i) Lawful possession as on the date of the institution of the suit; (ii) threat or interference by the defendant, and (iii) the balance of convenience.

¶81

The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of Judgments

¶82

has consistently held that lawful possession is sine qua non for grant of injunction. A mere assertion of title or pendency of proceedings for statutory rights does not confer a right to injunction. The Court has also consistently held that injunction is a discretionary and equitable relief and cannot be granted when plaintiff approaches the Court without establishing a clear legal right.

¶83

In the case on hand, this Court has carefully examined the pleadings in the plaint and the evidence let in by the plaintiff. It would be apposite for this Court to

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

extract the relevant paragraph of the plaint which clinches the core controversy regarding possessory rights. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are relevant, and the same are extracted as under:

¶88

"4. The plaintiff further submits that apart from this land, the family consisting of plaintiff's father and his brother, owned vast properties in K.G.Baiderahally village. The said lands have been inherited by plaintiff and his cousins. After the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act came into force, an application had been made by the plaintiff to register the said land along with other lands. Various proceedings took place and it is necessary at this juncture to state that with regard to this land and other lands, writ petition in W.P.No.11564 of 1979 was filed by the plaintiff and his brother against the State and others and the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court has remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for adjudication afresh. Against the said order, a Writ Appeal was filed and the Writ Appeal was dismissed. At present, the matter is pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, for consideration of the applications. The learned Special Deputy Commissioner should enquire into the matter and confer occupancy rights. The civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain any claim or suits with regard to lands situated in Kayamgutha or jodi village. The 2nd defendant has no right, title or interest in or over the said

¶89

12 -

¶90

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

land. The documents of title claimed by the predecessorsin-title of the 2nd defendant and the alleged contract, is not a genuine document and is a fabricated and forged one.

¶93

5. When the matter is pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner, it is not open to the City Corporation to determine the question of title or make out the katha in favour of any other person. The IL & RR stands in the name of the plaintiff and other members of his family. The Faisal Patrika stands in the name of the plaintiff's uncle Sri Venkataswamappa. The Kayamguttadar has furnished to the Government a list of persons who are in actual and factual possession of the various lands in K.G.Baiderahally village. A copy of the list containing such names with relevant survey numbers, is produced herewith. In respect of lands bearing Survey No.101/1, it shows that Sri Venkataswamappa has been in possession of the land. The Kayamguttadar has filed an appeal against the order making entries in the name of Sri Venkataswamappa, and ultimately the Collector held that the name of the Jodidar should be deleted and Sri Venkataswamappa's name should be entered as a permanent tenant. An appeal was lodged by the Kayamguttadar, which came to be dismissed. The proceedings indicate that the plaintiff and members of his family are the owners. Smt. Parvathamma is impleaded as a defendant, as a portion of the land is gifted to her; but the entire properties are shown in the schedule."

¶94

( Emphasis supplied)

¶95

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

A careful reading of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint, extracted supra, would unequivocally demonstrate that the plaintiff’s claim over the suit schedule property is still inchoate and contingent upon the outcome of statutory proceedings under the Inams Abolition regime. Though the plaintiff has asserted that an application seeking grant of occupancy rights is pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, the plaint is conspicuously silent with regard to the date of filing of such application, the nature of the claim, the stage of proceedings. Except making a bald assertion that proceedings are pending, the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor produced any material particulars to substantiate either his claim of title or his assertion of possession.

¶98

Pendency of an application seeking conferment of statutory occupancy rights, by itself, does not vest either title or possessory rights in favour of the applicant. On the contrary, defendant No.2 has produced cogent and overwhelming rebuttal evidence demonstrating settled

¶99

14 -

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

possession much prior to the institution of the suit. The sanctioned building plan (Ex.D10), municipal tax paid receipts (Exs.D11 to D13), electricity, water and telephone connection records standing in the name of defendant No.2, as well as mutation and khata entries effected long prior to the filing of the suit, clearly establish that defendant No.2 was in actual, physical and juridical possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, except resting his case on the pendency of statutory proceedings, has failed to place any independent documentary evidence to demonstrate possession as on the date of institution of the suit.

¶103

The contention urged by the plaintiff at the appellate stage that defendant No.2 is in possession of only a portion of the property and that the remaining portion is vacant land cannot be entertained, as there are no pleadings, no issues, and no evidence laid to that effect before the Trial Court. This plea is a clear attempt to improve the case at the appellate stage. More importantly,

¶104

15 -

¶105

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

the plaintiff has categorically admitted during the course of trial that the land in question stands converted, and this admission, when read in conjunction with the sanctioned plan at Ex.D10, municipal records and evidence of construction of a residential house, completely demolishes the plaintiff’s plea that the suit schedule property is vacant land.

¶108

This crucial admission strikes at the very root of the plaintiff’s case and is fatal to the assertion that he was in possession as on the date of filing of the suit. The formation of road by defendant No.1 is also candidly admitted by the plaintiff. The cumulative effect of the rebuttal evidence discussed supra unmistakably establishes that the defendants are in settled and lawful possession of the suit schedule property. The sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 itself refers to the remaining portion of the vendor’s land in the schedule, further fortifying the defence case. In such circumstances, when the plaintiff’s title itself is yet to be adjudicated by the

¶109

16 -

¶110

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

competent statutory forum, grant of an order of status quo would virtually amount to granting an injunction in favour of a party who has failed to establish possession, which is impermissible in law.

¶113

This Court, being the final fact-finding authority under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has independently re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. Upon such re-appreciation, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusions reached by the Trial Court. In view of the overwhelming rebuttal evidence adduced by defendant No.2, the plaintiff has failed to establish either lawful possession or any enforceable legal right warranting grant of injunctive relief. Pendency of an application for grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act does not, by itself, create any vested right in favour of the plaintiff.

¶114

The contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that the Inams Act does not provide protective

¶115

17 -

¶116

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

remedies akin to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961,

¶119

also cannot be accepted at this stage. In a bare suit for injunction, the burden squarely lies on the plaintiff to establish lawful possession as on the date of institution of the suit and the factum of interference. Mere assertion of possession is not sufficient. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to establish both the foundational requirements, namely, lawful possession and alleged interference. Any right claimed by the plaintiff over the suit schedule property would necessarily be subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, and a legally enforceable right would accrue only if the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in such proceedings.

¶120

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. Mere pendency of the plaintiff’s application for grant of occupancy rights before the Inams Abolition Authority

¶121

18 -

¶122

NC: 2026:KHC:5018 RFA No. 226 of 2012

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

does not confer either title or possessory rights so as to

¶125

seek injunctive relief. Defendant No.2, by producing unimpeachable rebuttal evidence, has clearly displaced the plaintiff’s claim of possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Accordingly, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the affirmative and point No.(iii) is answered in the negative.

¶126

Finding on Point No.(iv):

¶127