SRI B M GURURAJ vs SRI PAPANNA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56983
RFA No. 422 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010193162021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2021 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI B M GURURAJ
S/O SRI B MANJUNATH BHAT
AGEDA BOUT 51 YEARS
ST
R/O NO.36, 1 FLOOR
ST
1 A CROSS, P VEERAPPA ROAD
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 091.
REP BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI B MANJUNATH BHATT.

2. SRI GOPI PARAMPALLI
S/O SRI VISHWANATH AITHAL P
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TH
R/O NO.29/B, 10 CROSS
TH
5 MAIN, R K LAYOUT
ST
1 STAGE, PADMANABHANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 070.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI PAPANNA
S/O LATE SRI VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS
DIED ON 08.12.2022.

2. SRI RAMAMURTHY S/O SRI PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

3. SRI RAVI S/O SRI PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS












Digitally
signed by
VANDANA S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56983
RFA No. 422 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010193162021


4. SMT PARVATHAMMA
W/O SRI UMASHANKAR
DO SRI PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

R-1 TO R-4 ARE
R/O NAGARAWARA VILLAGE AND POST
KASABA HOBLI, BANGALROE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 045.

R-2 TO R-4 TO BE TREATED AS
LEAGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF R-1
AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED: 29.02.2024.


5. SRI VENKATACHALAPATHY C
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKAVENKATESHAPPA
@ CHIKKAVENKATESHAIAH
AGEDA BOUT 51 YEARS
R/O NO.286, II FLOOR, NAGAWARA MAIN ROAD
NAGAWARA ARABIC COLLEGE POST
BANGALORE-560 045.

6. SRI VISHWANATH KUMAR
S/O SRI M RAJA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O NO.81, II CROSS
RMV II STAGE, 80 FT. ROAD
SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 094.

7. SMT PADMAVATHI
D/O LATE SRI KAPANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O TCH COLLEGE ROAD
NAGAWARA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST
BANGALORE-560 045.

8. SRI D R VIJAYASARATHI
S/O SRI D S RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O NO.43, MARUTHI HBCS LTD.
TH
16 MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 034.

REPRESENTED BY HIS REGISTERED
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI G PRASAD REDDY

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56983
RFA No. 422 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010193162021


S/O SRI G SRINIVASA REDDY
AGEDA BOUT 56 YEARS
TH RD
R/O NO.659, 5 CROSS, 3 BLOCK
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.

9. M/S FOYER CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD.
PENT HOUSE, CASA DI MODA
APARTMENTS NO.3, GREEN GARDEN LAYOUT
MUNEKOLALLA, BANGALORE-560 037
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR M KONDAL RAO.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. R.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5 & R-2 TO R-4 & R-9
SRI. N. GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-7
R-8 SERVED, VIDE ORDER DATED: 29.02.2024
R-1 DEAD, R-2 TO R-4 ARE THE LR’S OF DECEASED R-1)


THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC,
1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2021 PASSED IN
OS.No.4385/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4385/2013 is directed
against the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.02.2021
passed by the V Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore,
whereby the said suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs
filed by the appellants against the respondents in relation to the suit
schedule immovable properties was dismissed by the Trial court.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56983
RFA No. 422 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010193162021


2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents for
permanent injunction interalia contending that they were the
owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
bearing site No.186 having acquired the same vide registered sale
th
deed dated 30.11.2004 executed by 8 defendant -
D.R.Vijayasarathi represented by his Power of Attorney Holder -
G.Prasad Reddy in favour of the plaintiffs. It was contended that
th
the 8 defendant acquired the suit schedule property vide
registered sale deed dated 08.04.2004 executed in his favour by
the Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., (VHBCS),
which had issued a possession certificate also dated 08.04.2004 in
his favour. It was also contended that the BDA had issued Khata
certificate dated 24.01.2005 in favour of the plaintiffs and collected
property taxes upto 01.04.2007, subsequent to which, the property
came within the territorial jurisdiction of the BBMP which had
collected taxes upto 2013 from the plaintiffs. It was therefore
contended that by virtue of the aforesaid documents, the plaintiffs
were in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56983
RFA No. 422 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010193162021


3. The plaintiffs further contend that the defendants do not
have any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit
schedule property, despite which, various documents comprising of
sale agreements, sale deeds, conversion orders etc., came into
existence inter se between the defendants in relation to Sy.No.79,
on the basis of which, the defendants attempted to illegally and
highhandedly interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It was contended that for
the purpose / benefit of VHBCS, the State Government acquired a
total extent of 164.26 acres of land across various survey numbers
including Sy.No.79 in the year 1986, in pursuance of which, an
approved BDA Layout was formed and after obtaining necessary
clearances, approvals, VHBCS as well as the Developers i.e., Sree
Shakthi Promoters & Developers formed a residential layout after
obtaining an approved layout plan from the BDA and sold various
sites including the suit schedule property in favour of various
th
persons including the 8 defendant. It was accordingly contended
that the various documents executed inter se between the
defendants did not confer any manner of right, title, interest or
possession over the suit schedule property in their favour and since

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56983
RFA No. 422 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010193162021


they attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs possession and
enjoyment over the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs instituted
the aforesaid suit against the defendants.
4. Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 filed separate written
statements / additional written statement disputing and denying the
allegations and claim made by the plaintiffs and sought for
dismissal of the suit. It was contended that there have been various
rounds of litigation before this Court and other Courts including the
Apex Court in respect of the acquisition proceedings in relation to
the VHBCS and the alleged Layouts formed by it which culminated
in orders dated 02.02.2012 and 07.02.2012 passed in SLP
Nos.7425-26/2002 and Civil Appeal No.1930/2012, wherein the
Apex Court directed restoration of the lands to the owners within
three months, in pursuance of which, the Deputy Commissioner
addressed a communication dated 29.03.2012 to the Tahsildar with
a direction to restore the lands including land bearing Sy.No.79
back to the land owners. It was contended that in pursuance of the
same, the BDA passed a resolution deciding to cancel the layout
plan approved in favour of VHBCS and accordingly, cancelled the
layout plan and in pursuance of the same, the Khata in respect of

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56983
RFA No. 422 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010193162021


st
land bearing Sy.No.79 was mutated into the name of the 1
defendant and various suits in relation to the said Sy.No.79 having
been dismissed, the claim of the plaintiffs in the present suit is also
liable to be rejected. It was also contended that since the entire
acquisition proceedings including the preliminary notification, final
notification etc., have been set aside and the layout plan has been
cancelled by the BDA, coupled with the fact that there was a
serious cloud with regard to the alleged right, title, interest and
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, in
respect of which, there was a serious dispute as regards its
location, identity, schedule, extent, boundaries etc., the present suit
for bare / permanent injunction simpliciter was not maintainable
without seeking appropriate / comprehensive reliefs and as such,
the suit was liable to be dismissed.
5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial court framed
the following issues:-
(i) Whether the plaintiffs prove their lawful possession
over schedule property?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove the interference by the
defendants?

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56983
RFA No. 422 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010193162021


(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for reliefs sought
for?
(iv) What order or Decree?

6. The GPA Holder of the plaintiffs was examined as PW-1
and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P39 were marked on their
th
behalf. The 5 defendant examined himself as DW-1 and
documentary evidence at Exs.D1 to D57 were marked on their
behalf. After hearing the parties, the Trial court proceeded to pass
the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the
plaintiffs by holding that having regard to the rival claims put forth
by both sides, a suit for bare / permanent injunction simpliciter
without seeking comprehensive / appropriate reliefs was not
maintainable; the Trial court also came to the conclusion that there
was a serious dispute in relation to identity, location, measurement,
schedule, boundaries etc., in respect of the plaint schedule
property claimed by the plaintiffs and the property claimed by the
defendants which was also incapable of being adjudicated upon in
a suit for bare / permanent injunction simpliciter without seeking
appropriate / comprehensive reliefs. The Trial court also took note
of the various litigations pertaining to acquisition proceedings etc.,
in respect of VHBCS and other parties in relation to the lands in

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56983
RFA No. 422 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010193162021


question including the orders passed by the Trial court, this Court
and the Apex Court for the purpose of coming to the conclusion
that the scope of the instant suit for permanent / bare injunction
was limited and it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to file an
appropriate suit seeking comprehensive / suitable reliefs in relation
to the suit schedule property. In this context, it is also pertinent to
note that in the plaint itself, the plaintiffs have not only referred to
their claim for permanent injunction based on title but have also
assailed the title of the defendants by putting forth various
allegations and urging several contentions to challenge the
documents relied upon by the defendants as can be seen from the
plaint averments; as against this, the defendants have not only
disputed and denied the alleged title and possession of the
plaintiffs but also the identity, location, measurements, boundaries,
schedule etc., as claimed by the plaintiffs; interestingly, the plaint
schedule property is described as Site No.186 carved out of
various survey numbers including Sy.No.79 in the Layout formed
by VHBCS.
7. Under these circumstances, the cumulative effect of the
pleadings and evidence of the parties and the material on record

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56983
RFA No. 422 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010193162021


including the earlier litigations before the Apex Court, this Court
and Trial court is sufficient to come to the conclusion that as rightly
held by the Trial court in the impugned judgment and decree
placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Anatullah Sudhakar vs. Buchi Reddy - (2008) 4 SCC 594, in the
facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the present
suit for bare / permanent injunction simpliciter would not be
maintainable and the present appeal deserves to be disposed of
without interfering with the impugned judgment and decree and by
reserving liberty in favour of the appellants - plaintiffs to institute
another suit seeking comprehensive reliefs and by issuing certain
directions in this regard.
8. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby disposed off without interfering with
the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial court.
(ii) It is however made clear that the present suit being a
suit for bare / permanent injunction simpliciter, the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court and the present judgment and decree will
not come in the way of the appellants – plaintiffs instituting another

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56983
RFA No. 422 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010193162021


suit seeking appropriate / comprehensive reliefs including
declaration, possession, etc., in respect of suit schedule property.
(iii) Liberty is accordingly reserved in favour of the
appellants-plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit, subject to all just
exceptions, limitation and all other defences available to the
respondents – defendants.
(iv) All rival contentions between the parties in such a suit
to be instituted by the appellants – plaintiffs against the
respondents-defendants are kept open and no opinion is
expressed on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions.



Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE

SV/SRL
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1