Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anusuyamma vs Sri. Sampangirama on 21 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3536
RFA No. 1584 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1584 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA
W/O LATE SEENAPPA @ CHINAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO 130, MARUTHINAGAR
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD
SAHAKARANAGAR (P)
BENGALURU-560 092.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGESHA .B.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SAMPANGIRAMA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO 185, MARUTHINAGAR
Digitally signed KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH
SAHAKARANAGAR POST
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 092.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
PROPERTY NO. 3
DEVANGA SAMAJA ROAD
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. P. ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI. BATHE GOWDA .K.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3536
RFA No. 1584 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2024
PASSED IN OS.NO.25416/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL
UNIT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is by unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No. 25416/2016 wherein plaintiff's suit for injunction simpliciter is dismissed with costs.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.25416/2016 seeking the relief of permanent injunction simpliciter. It was her specific case that she is the absolute owner of the residential property bearing No.130, Khata -3- NC: 2026:KHC:3536 RFA No. 1584 of 2024 HC-KAR No.48/262/433, situated at Maruthinagar, Kodigehalli Main Road, Sahakaranagar. Tracing her title through the Village Panchayat, the plaintiff asserted that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The grievance projected in the plaint is that defendant No.1, who owns the adjoining property on the western side of the suit schedule 'A' property, has commenced construction without leaving the mandatory setback. It was further pleaded that there exists a common pathway between the properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and that despite lodging complaints before defendant No.2-Authority regarding the alleged unauthorized construction, no action was taken, which compelled the plaintiff to institute the present suit.
4. Defendant No.1, upon service of summons, entered appearance and filed a written statement vehemently denying the allegations of encroachment and interference. Defendant No.1 not only disputed the existence of any common pathway or setback, but also -4- NC: 2026:KHC:3536 RFA No. 1584 of 2024 HC-KAR seriously questioned the very title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It was specifically contended that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor in lawful possession of the suit property and, therefore, is not entitled to the relief of injunction.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues, which were subsequently reframed on 23.03.2021. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the material on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce cogent title documents indicating the actual measurements and extent of the property allegedly owned by her. The Trial Court, on examination of Exs.P1 to P18, recorded a categorical finding that the property does not stand in the name of the plaintiff and that the revenue records disclose one T. Chinnaiah as the owner of the property. The Court further observed that, in the absence of specific measurements and credible title -5- NC: 2026:KHC:3536 RFA No. 1584 of 2024 HC-KAR documents, even the Commissioner's report did not advance the plaintiff's case. Consequently, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a setback or common passage, her lawful possession over the same, and the alleged interference by defendant No.1. On these findings, the suit came to be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.2. The entire records of the Trial Court have been carefully perused.
7. In the light of the submissions made and the material placed on record, the following points arise for consideration:
"(i) Whether the Trial Court having held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving her lawful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule "A"
property erred in recording a finding that plaintiff has failed to substantiate the illegal construction -6- NC: 2026:KHC:3536 RFA No. 1584 of 2024 HC-KAR by defendant No.1 by encroaching over schedule 'B' property, which is the disputed property?
(ii) Whether the finding of the trial Court that plaintiff has not produced any title documents to substantiate the actual measurement of the suit schedule property and therefore, the alleged construction leading to encroachment is not substantiated suffers from perversity?
(iii) What Order?"
Finding on Point Nos.(i) and (ii):
8. The plaintiff has approached the Court with a specific allegation that defendant No.1 has put up construction by encroaching upon a setback area measuring 3 ft. × 10 ft. situated on the western side of the suit schedule 'A' property. However, a careful scrutiny of the record would indicate that the plaintiff has failed to place any cogent material before the Court to demonstrate the actual measurement, extent, and boundaries of the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:3536 RFA No. 1584 of 2024 HC-KAR residential house claimed by her as Schedule 'A' property. In a suit for bare injunction, the initial and primary burden squarely rests on the plaintiff to establish her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit, and the second mandatory requirement is to prove the alleged act of interference by the defendant. Though the plaintiff has produced as many as eighteen documents in support of her claim, the foundational document evidencing the precise measurements of Schedule 'A' property is conspicuously absent.
9. The photographs produced at Ex.P12, even if taken at face value, do not answer the core issue as to whether defendant No.1 has encroached upon the alleged setback area measuring 3 ft. × 10 ft. The existence of a setback presupposes proof of the extent and measurements of the plaintiff's property and compliance with statutory building norms. Significantly, during the course of cross-examination, the plaintiff has candidly admitted that the measurements of Schedule 'A' property -8- NC: 2026:KHC:3536 RFA No. 1584 of 2024 HC-KAR are not reflected in the Panchayat records relied upon by her. In the absence of reliable documentary evidence establishing that the plaintiff had, in fact, left the setback area as claimed, the question of granting a perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.1 from construction does not arise. Added to this, the very documents on which the plaintiff places reliance disclose that one T. Chinnaiah is shown as the owner of the property, which further casts a serious cloud on the plaintiff's claim of lawful possession.
10. On an overall and independent re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court finds that the plaintiff's case is fraught with serious infirmities. Despite producing several documents, the plaintiff has failed to establish the exact measurements and identity of the suit schedule property. In the absence of documents depicting the precise extent of the property, the Court is left with no objective material to ascertain whether any setback existed or whether the same has -9- NC: 2026:KHC:3536 RFA No. 1584 of 2024 HC-KAR been encroached upon by defendant No.1. The plaintiff's assertions in the plaint remain unsubstantiated by acceptable evidence. Consequently, the essential ingredients necessary for grant of relief in a suit for injunction, namely lawful possession and alleged interference, are not proved.
11. The very edifice of the plaintiff's case rests on the allegation that defendant No.1 has encroached upon a passage measuring 3 ft. × 10 ft. Since this crucial and foundational fact is not established by the plaintiff through cogent evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and do not suffer from perversity, illegality, or arbitrariness. No ground is made out for appellate interference. Accordingly, this Court affirms the findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3536 RFA No. 1584 of 2024 HC-KAR Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are accordingly answered in the negative.
Finding on Point No.(iii):
12. In view of findings recorded on point Nos.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20