Dismissed¶110

Sri. Hanumaiah v. Smt. Jayamma

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2026RFA/956/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, Sachin Shankar Magadum J., 19-01-2026, RFA No. 956 of 2010 (INJ): plaintiffs' appeal against dismissal of permanent-injunction suit (O.S.No.5888/2005) concerning Sy.Nos.17/1 and 17/2, Kothnur Village, Bangalore; PW.1 admitted 80-feet BDA road formed in suit land; BDA acquisition and approved-layout documents corroborated; lawful possession not proved; no perversity in trial court decree; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiffs have failed to establish their lawful possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit. ¶96

Sri. Hanumaiah Vs Smt. Jayamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶110

Issue for consideration

Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit suffers from perversity or calls for interference by this Court? +1 more

¶71

Court's answer

The plaintiffs have failed to establish their lawful possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit.

¶96

Ratio / Principle

PW.1 (plaintiff No.1(c)) made a categorical and unequivocal admission in cross-examination that an 80-feet wide road was formed in Sy.Nos.17/1 and 17/2.

¶77

Key takeaways

The admission elicited from PW.1 is not a stray or casual statement but a substantive piece of evidence going to the very root of the plaintiffs' claim of possession.ratio¶82
Lands bearing Sy.Nos.17/1 and 17/2 were subjected to acquisition proceedings and thereafter utilized for the formation of a road, and the road formation is reflected in the approved layout plan.ratio¶95
The statutory/public documents produced carry a presumption of correctness and lend corroboration to the admissions made by PW.1.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA under S.96 r/w O.XLI R.3 CPC by the plaintiffs (legal representatives of deceased original plaintiff Hanumaiah) against judgment and decree dated 04.02.2010 of the XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.5888/2005 dismissing their suit for permanent injunction in respect of retained portions of Sy.Nos.17/1 and 17/2 of Kothnur Village, Bangalore. Dismissing the appeal, held: (i) PW.1 made a categorical and unequivocal admission in cross-examination that an 80-feet wide road had been formed in the suit schedule properties; (ii) statutory/public documents and the approved layout plan showed the lands had been acquired by the BDA and utilized for road formation, corroborating the admission; (iii) in a bare suit for injunction the burden lies squarely on the plaintiff to prove lawful possession as on the date of suit and an act of interference by the defendant; the plaintiffs having failed to prove subsisting lawful possession, the question of interference did not arise; (iv) the Trial Court's finding involved no perversity, illegality or material irregularity; Point No.i answered in the negative; appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 956 OF 2010 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. HANUMAIAH S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶9

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED 42 YEARS

¶10

SMT. H. SAVITHRAMMA AGED 40 YEARS

¶11

SMT. H. NANJAMMA AGED 38 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE D/O LATE HANUMAIAH ALL ARE R/AT NO.85, SBM COLONY CHUNCHANAGHATTA II MAIN ROAD KONANAKUNTE POST, BANGALORE-560062.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. AJAY .M.D, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. JAYAMMA AGED 50 YEARS HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI. ABBAIAH AGED 53 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS

¶22

SRI. VENKATESH AGED 30 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS

¶23

SRI. RAJAPPA AGED 55 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS

¶24

SRI. DEVARAJ AGED 35 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS

¶25

SRI. CHANNAPPA AGED 40 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS

¶26

SMT. RAMAKKA AGED 65 YEARS HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS

¶27

SRI. PRAKASH AGED 47 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS

¶28

SRI. CHANNAPPA AGED 42 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

SRI. SAMPANGI AGED 40 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS

¶33

SRI. DORESWAMY AGED MAJOR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS

¶34

SRI. RAMA AGED MAJOR S/O MOTAPPA

¶35

ALL RESIDENTS OF ASHRAYA COLONY LOTTEGERE POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE-560 083.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT. VASANTHA LAKSHMI .H.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4, R5, R6, R8, R11; R1, R3, R7, R9, R10 AND R12 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶38

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W O-XLI R-3 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.5888/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶45

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.5888/2005, wherein plaintiffs suit for injunction simpliciter is dismissed. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiffs.

¶46

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

¶47

to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶48

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶49

The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking relief of permanent injunction contending that the original plaintiff, late Hanumaiah, was the absolute owner of lands bearing Sy.Nos.17/1 and 17/2 of Kothnur Village, hereinafter referred to as plaint schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. It was pleaded that the original plaintiff had alienated a portion of the said lands and had retained the remaining extent. The plaintiffs further asserted that a road had been formed not

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

only in the adjoining survey numbers but also through a

¶54

portion of the suit schedule properties.

¶55

It was specifically alleged that the defendants, who are stated to be residents of Ashraya Colony, Uttarahalli Hobli, situated to the west of schedule ‘B’ property, were issued Hakku Patras and are residing in the said colony. According to the plaintiffs, taking undue advantage of the suit schedule properties being vacant, the defendants attempted to trespass upon the suit schedule properties and commenced construction thereon, thereby necessitating the filing of the present suit for injunction.

¶56

During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff Hanumaiah passed away and his legal representatives were duly brought on record and prosecuted the suit.

¶57

The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, stoutly denying the entire plaint

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

averments. The defendants specifically contended that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had acquired the lands in question, formed an approved layout, and that the allottees have already put up constructions. It was further pleaded that roads have been formed by the BDA in Sy.Nos.17/1 and 17/2, and therefore, the defendants neither have any intention nor occasion to encroach upon the plaintiffs’ alleged properties.

¶62

Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues and both parties were afforded full opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon appreciation of the entire material on record, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their lawful possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit.

¶63

This Court has heard the learned counsel

¶64

appearing for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

appearing for the defendants and has carefully perused the records.

¶69

At this stage, the defendants have filed a memo placing on record material to demonstrate that lands bearing Sy.Nos.17/1 and 17/2 have been utilized by the BDA post acquisition, and that roads have been formed therein as part and parcel of an approved layout.

¶70

In the light of the rival contentions urged and the material available on record, the following points arise for consideration:

¶71

i. Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit suffers from perversity or calls for interference by this Court?

¶72

ii. What order?

¶73

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Finding on Point No.i:

¶76

On a closer and careful scrutiny of the entire

¶77

records, this Court has independently and meticulously examined the oral evidence adduced by both parties. Though the plaintiffs have vehemently asserted exclusive possession over the suit schedule properties, such assertion does not stand the test of cross-examination. Significantly, plaintiff No.1(c), who was examined as PW.1, has made a categorical and unequivocal admission during the course of cross-examination regarding the formation of an 80-feet wide road in Sy.Nos.17/1 and 17/2.

¶78

The said admission assumes considerable importance, as it directly militates against the plaintiffs’ plea of continued and exclusive possession over the suit schedule properties. The formation of a public road of such width necessarily implies divestment of possession and user, particularly when such formation is asserted to have been undertaken by a statutory authority pursuant to

¶79

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

acquisition and layout formation. This Court is therefore of

¶82

the considered view that the admission elicited from PW.1 is not a stray or casual statement, but a substantive piece of evidence which goes to the very root of the plaintiffs’ claim of possession as on the date of institution of the suit.

¶83

In order to appreciate the evidentiary value of the said admission in its proper perspective, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW.1, which reads as under:

¶84

"It is true I also included the suit schedule property in my partition suit. As per the said compromise in my partition suit, the suit schedule property was equally fallen to shares of all of my family members including step mother and her children in all 9 shares. The 80' road is formed in our suit schedule properties. I do not know in which Sy.No. the Ashraya colony is situated. The Ashraya colony is situated adjacent to the suit schedule property. The boundaries to the land in Sy.No.17/1 is east:road, west:Ashraya colony, north:lands of Jadiyappa and Muniyappa in Sy.No.17/1, south:lands in Sy.No.72. The boundaries to the land in

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Sy.No.17/2 is east by BDA road, west:Ashraya colony, north: remaining land of Sy.No.17/1 and south by: Government's cart way or Sarkari oni. I do not know the measurement of the property acquired by the BDA for the purpose of formation of road. Witness submits her father the deceased plaintiff knows. The BDA acquired the eastern side of the property for forming the road. After acquiring the land by the BDA, the remaining land measuring 17 guntas in Sy.No.17/1 and 20 in Sy.No.17/2 exists.

¶89

I do not know the measurement of the property in between the BDA road and Ashraya colony. It is incorrect to say the Ashraya colony and BDA are adjacent to each other. It is incorrect to say the BDA road is situated on the eastern side of the Ashraya colony. I do not know when the Ashraya colony was formed by the Government."

¶90

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶91

If the admissions elicited from PW.1, as noticed hereinabove, are conjointly read with the documents now produced before this Court, which indisputably partake the character of public documents, it becomes manifest that lands bearing Sy.Nos.17/1 and 17/2 were subjected to

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

acquisition proceedings and thereafter utilized for the formation of a road. The said formation of road is also duly reflected in the approved layout plan. These documents, being statutory in nature, carry a presumption of correctness and further lend corroboration to the admissions made by PW.1 during the course of crossexamination.

¶96

In the light of these unimpeachable circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their lawful possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit. Once it is demonstrated that the

¶97

suit schedule properties stood acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and were put to use for formation of a public road, the very foundation of the plaintiffs’ claim of possession stands displaced. This Court is constrained to observe that suppression of material facts relating to acquisition proceedings and utilization of the land for a public purpose renders the suit not only

¶98

12 -

¶99

NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

misconceived but also frivolous. Neither the original plaintiff nor his legal representatives have been able to discharge the burden cast upon them to prove subsisting and lawful possession as on the relevant date. In such circumstances, the question of interference by the defendants with the alleged possession of the plaintiffs does not arise for consideration at all.

¶102

It is trite law that in a bare suit for injunction, the burden squarely lies upon the plaintiffs to establish both lawful possession as on the date of institution of the suit and an act of interference by the defendants. Mere assertions of ownership or prior possession, without cogent proof of actual and lawful possession, would not suffice. In the present case, the Court of first instance, upon a careful appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim of possession over the suit schedule properties. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:2702 RFA No. 956 of 2010

¶104