Sri. R. N. Nanjundappa Vs Bangalore Mahangara Palike — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri. R. N. Nanjundappa Vs Bangalore Mahangara Palike — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC; impugned judgment and decree modified to that extent. Recorded undertakings of respondent No.2 Trust: arrange proper parking beyond trust property towards the under bridge with a security guard and free flow on Vishwanatha Rao Road; no parking of two/four wheelers before the Sabha Bhavan, Temple or blocking the appellant's house entrance; manual band (dhols/drums) only two days a year during the visit of their spiritual gurus, at low/basic volume without attached loud speakers; low sound levels in early morning (6 am-10 am) and evening (5 pm-10 pm) on those days; no mobile sound-system trucks; no inconvenience, noise pollution or traffic hazard during gatherings/processions of 50 or more people; no marriages or ceremonies at the Sabha Bhavan, Temple or adjacent trust facilities; no loud speakers except on the said two days. Appeal dismissed against respondent No.1 (I.A.No.1/2026 allowed) with the settlement not to affect respondent No.1's claim/action over the property; BBMP's rights regarding building-plan violations expressly preserved.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 (Bangalore Mahanagara Palike) should be deleted from the array of the appeal, as sought in I.A.No.1/2026. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the appellant does not wish to proceed against respondent No.1, the appeal is dismissed as against respondent No.1 with the clear observation that the settlement to be recorded between the appellants and respondent No.2 will not abide or affect any claim/action of respondent No.1 over the property; accordingly I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Key takeaways

The impugned judgment and decree are modified to the above said extent.ratio¶89
Protective caveat: this order/judgment based on settlement between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 Trust must not be construed as having held that respondent No.2 is permitted to use the ground floor of the premises for any purpose other than that sanctioned in the plan approved by respondent No.1-BBMP; in case of any violation of the building plan, BBMP's right to take any action as advised in law is not diluted or taken away.obiter¶85
Further caveat: this Order should not be construed as having held that respondent No.1 is restrained from proceeding against respondent No.2 in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA No. 78 of 2018 (DEC/INJ), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.), decided 25.02.2026 (NC: 2026:KHC:11717). Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2017 of the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S.No.1461/2008, which had dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction and declaration (described elsewhere as declaration and mandatory injunction) premised on respondent No.2, M/s. Vasupujya Jain Trust, using the ground floor of a structure put up in the suit property contrary to the BBMP-approved and sanctioned building plan. Disposed of on compromise: (i) I.A.No.1/2026 allowed and appeal dismissed as against respondent No.1 (Bangalore Mahanagara Palike), with the express observation that the settlement between the appellants and respondent No.2 will not abide or affect any claim/action of respondent No.1 over the property; (ii) appeal against respondent No.3 stood abated vide order dated 23.01.2024; (iii) compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC recorded, wherein respondent No.2's Trustees undertook to arrange parking beyond the trust property towards the under bridge with a security guard, prevent traffic jams on Vishwanatha Rao Road, refrain from parking vehicles before the Sabha Bhavan, Temple or the appellant's house entrance, confine manual band/dhols/drums to two days a year during the visit of their spiritual gurus at low volume without loud speakers, prohibit mobile sound-system trucks, avoid noise pollution and traffic hazard during processions of 50 or more persons, and hold no marriages or ceremonies at the Sabha Bhavan, Temple or adjacent trust buildings; affidavits of eight Trustees taken on record. Caveats recorded: the settlement-based order must not be construed as validating use of the ground floor for any purpose other than the BBMP-sanctioned plan; BBMP's right to act against building-plan violations is neither diluted nor taken away, and BBMP is not restrained from proceeding against respondent No.2 in accordance with law. Impugned judgment and decree modified to the above extent; appeal disposed of.