Murali, Vs H.B. Lokesh

ALL ARE R/AT NO.1/9 FLOUR MILL, THIMMAIAH BADAVANE NAGADEVANAHALLI GOLLARAHATTI, NEAR RING ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 056.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. KALLEGOWDA .S.K, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

H.B. LOKESH S/O M. BASAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NO. 52/26, 1^ST MAIN ROAD MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 040.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH .P.H, ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:7595 RFA No. 788 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2022 PASSED IN OS No.4351/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

The captioned appeal is by the defendant Nos.3 and 4 assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.4351/2014, wherein the trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff thereby restraining the defendant Nos.3 and 4 from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The defendants are in appeal.

¶27

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶28

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶29

The plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction simpliciter in O.S.No.4351/2014, alleging unlawful interference by the

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7595 RFA No. 788 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

defendants with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of

¶33

the suit schedule property. The plaintiff traced his title to the original allottee, Aboobakkar Haji, and specifically pleaded that the suit property bearing Site No.245, corresponding to TMC Katha No.2431/245, measuring East–West 30 feet and North–South 40 feet, situated at Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, was a site formed by the Jagajyothi House Building Co-operative Society.

¶34

According to the plaintiff, the land bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 9 acres 26 guntas was initially proposed for acquisition by the BDA; however, pursuant to de-notification proceedings, Aboobakkar Haji, a member of the said Society, was allotted the suit site. It was pleaded that he paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.26,000/and obtained a registered sale deed dated 24.04.1993.

¶35

The plaintiff further asserted that Aboobakkar Haji conveyed the property to K.G. Manjula under a registered sale deed dated 24.03.1994, who in turn sold the property

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:7595 RFA No. 788 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

to the present plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/under a registered sale deed dated 06.01.1999. On the strength of these documents, the plaintiff claimed lawful possession and alleged that the defendants, being total strangers to the property, were attempting to dispossess him, thereby necessitating the suit for injunction.

¶40

During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 died. Their children, defendant Nos.3 and 4, entered appearance and filed written statements. The defendants disputed the very foundation of the plaintiff’s title, contending that the alleged GPA, based on which the Housing Society claimed to have derived rights over the property originally held by their father (defendant No.1), was a concocted and fabricated document. It was contended that all subsequent transactions flowing from the disputed GPA were vitiated. The defendants further asserted that Junjamma, the mother of defendant No.1, was in exclusive possession of 30 guntas in Sy.No.7,

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7595 RFA No. 788 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

which, according to them, was never the subject matter of any valid alienation. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit was sought.

¶44

Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and produced nine documents, marked as Exs.P-1 to P-9, in support of his claim. Though defendant Nos.3 and 4 had filed written statements disputing the plaintiff’s title and possession, they did not choose to enter the witness box or adduce any rebuttal evidence. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had established lawful possession as on the date of the suit and decreed the suit by granting an order of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.3 and 4 from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.3 and 4 and the learned counsel for the

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:7595 RFA No. 788 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

plaintiff. This Court has independently examined the

¶50

pleadings, as well as the oral and documentary evidence on record, and has given its anxious consideration to the material placed by the plaintiff. The following points arise for consideration:

¶51

i) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit and the alleged interference suffers from perversity and warrants interference?

¶52

ii) What order?

¶53

Finding on Point No.(i):

¶54

The plaintiff, while tracing both title and possession, has produced a provisional allotment letter issued by the Jagajyothi House Building Co-operative Society, which is evidenced at Ex.P-1. The plaintiff has further placed on record the registered sale deed dated 24.04.1993 executed in favour of the original allottee Aboobakkar Haji, which is marked as Ex.P-2. The

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:7595 RFA No. 788 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

subsequent chain of conveyance is also duly established by production of the registered sale deed dated 24.03.1994 executed in favour of the plaintiff’s vendor K.G. Manjula, marked as Ex.P-3. The plaintiff has finally

¶59

traced his title to the registered sale deed dated 06.01.1999 executed by Manjula in his favour. These documents, when read conjointly, demonstrate an unbroken chain of transactions culminating in the plaintiff’s acquisition of the suit schedule property.

¶60

In addition to the aforesaid title documents, the plaintiff has produced seven tax paid receipts marked at Ex.P-7, encumbrance certificates at Ex.P-8, and five

¶61

further tax paid receipts marked at Ex.P-9. These documents are not only contemporaneous in nature but also span a period anterior to the institution of the suit. The cumulative effect of these documents clearly establishes that the plaintiff was in lawful and settled possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the evidence placed on record

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:7595 RFA No. 788 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

by the plaintiff satisfies the requirement of demonstrating possession founded on lawful title, which is sufficient for the grant of relief in a suit for injunction simpliciter.

¶66

Defendant Nos.3 and 4, while filing their written statement, raised a specific plea that 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.7 belonged to their grandmother and that the said extent was never the subject matter of alienation by their father, namely defendant No.1, in favour of the Housing Society. It was contended that the Housing Society had allegedly encroached upon this extent and thereafter formed a layout and sold sites. Having raised such a categorical and specific plea, the burden squarely lay on defendant Nos.3 and 4 to substantiate the same by producing cogent oral and documentary evidence.

¶67

However, despite having taken such a defence, defendant Nos.3 and 4 have not chosen to enter the witness box nor

¶68

have they produced any material to establish either the alleged ownership of their grandmother over the said 30

¶69

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:7595 RFA No. 788 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

guntas or the alleged encroachment by the Housing Society.

¶72

On the contrary, the plaintiff has produced registered sale deeds tracing title from the original allottee to himself. Significantly, defendant Nos.3 and 4 have not challenged the registered sale deed dated 24.04.1993 executed in favour of Aboobakkar Haji, nor the subsequent sale deeds dated 24.03.1994 and 06.01.1999, under which the plaintiff derives his title. These documents have remained unassailed. In the absence of any challenge to these registered instruments, defendant Nos.3 and 4 cannot, by way of a mere bald assertion in the written statement, dispute the plaintiff’s title and at the same time assert a competing right over the very same property.

¶73

This Court is conscious of the limited scope of adjudication in a suit for injunction simpliciter. Nevertheless, where the plaintiff’s possession is traceable to registered title documents and is supported by revenue

¶74

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:7595 RFA No. 788 of 2023

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

records and tax paid receipts, and where the defendants have neither rebutted the evidence nor substantiated their own pleadings, the Court is entitled to incidentally examine title for the limited purpose of ascertaining lawful possession. Viewed in that light, the plaintiff has not only succeeded in establishing his lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit, but has also demonstrated the act of interference by the defendants. The very act of disputing the plaintiff’s title, despite the existence of unchallenged registered sale deeds executed through the Housing Society, itself constitutes interference with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession.

¶77

In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that both the essential ingredients for grant of injunction, namely lawful possession as on the date of the suit and interference by the defendants, stand duly proved. Consequently, the conclusions and findings recorded by the Trial Court while answering Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative are based on proper appreciation of evidence

¶78