Karnataka High Court
Ramesh Kumar P C vs Smt N Gowramma on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14800
RFA No. 252 of 2023
C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2023 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2023 (INJ)
IN RFA No. 252/2023
BETWEEN:
RAMESH @ RAMESH KUMAR P C
S/O LATE DASACHARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.1289,
3RD CROSS, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560026
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VAIJAYANTHIMALA B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by SMT. N. GOWRAMMA
SUMA W/O SRINIVASAIAH,
Location:
HIGH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
COURT OF RESIDING AT NO.1319, 3RD CROSS
KARNATAKA 40 FEET ROAD, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560026
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KAMALESHWARA POOJARY, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2022 PASSED IN
OS.NO.859/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14800
RFA No. 252 of 2023
C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
INJUNCTION.
IN RFA NO. 256/2023
BETWEEN:
RAMESH KUMAR P C
S/O LATE DASACHARI
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1289,
3RD CROSS, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560026
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VAIJAYANTHIMALA B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. N. GOWRAMMA
W/O SRINIVASAIAH,
AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1319, 3RD CROSS
40 FEET ROAD, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560026
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KAMALESHWARA POOJARY, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF
CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2022
PASSED IN OS NO.784/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14800
RFA No. 252 of 2023
C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023
HC-KAR
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL JUDGMENT
RFA No.252/023 is filed by the defendant in O.S No.859/2014 on the file of XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-43), Bengaluru challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2022.
2. RFA No.256/2023 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S No.784/2014 on the file of XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2022.
3. The appellant in these two appeals shall be referred by his name so as to avoid confusion while narrating the facts. Likewise, the respondent in these two appeals shall be referred by her name. Sri.Ramesh is the appellant and Smt.N.Gowramma is the respondent.
4. (i) Smt.N.Gowramma filed a suit in O.S No. 859/2014 for perpetual injunction to restrain Sri.Ramesh from -4- NC: 2026:KHC:14800 RFA No. 252 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023 HC-KAR putting up construction over his property without leaving setback of 2 ½ feet as agreed in O.S No.7857/2013. She claimed that she was the owner of the suit property and that Sri.Ramesh is her neighbour on the eastern side. She claimed that Sri.Ramesh attempted to put up construction on his property without leaving 3 feet set back as contemplated under the building bye-laws framed under the KMC Act and without obtaining a sanction of the plan and license from the BBMP. She therefore lodged a complaint before the Executive Engineer, BBMP and claimed that the officials of BBMP failed to take any action against Sri.Ramesh. She therefore had filed O.S No.7857/2013 to restrain Sri. Ramesh from putting up any construction over his property without leaving 3 feet set back. In the said suit, Sri.Ramesh appeared and filed the written statement agreeing that he will put up construction over his property by leaving 2 ½ feet set back.
(ii). Accordingly, a joint memo was filed by both the parties and the case was listed before the Lokadalat, where both the parties and their counsel were present and both of them agreed that 2½ feet shall be left as setback by Sri.Ramesh. Consequently, the suit in O.S No.7857/2013 was -5- NC: 2026:KHC:14800 RFA No. 252 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023 HC-KAR disposed of. Smt.Gowramma claimed that despite the undertaking given by Sri.Ramesh, he proceeded to put up construction in violation of his undertaking. Therefore, she was advised to file a suit in O.S No.859/2014 for perpetual injunction to restrain Sri.Ramesh from putting up construction without leaving the setback area.
(iii). The suit was contested by Sri.Ramesh, who claimed that he was the owner of the property on the western side of the property of Smt.Gowramma. He claimed that an old building existed on the property and that he after demolishing the existing building, obtained a plan from the BBMP and was constructing on his property. He alleged that Smt.Gowramma without any right, title or interest tried to encroach his property from the eastern side. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the Assistant Executive Engineer BBMP, contending that Smt.Gowramma had put up construction without leaving setback towards his property. However, he claimed that no action was taken by BBMP against the plaintiff.
(iv) Sri.Ramesh further contended that Smt.Gowramma had filed O.S No.7857/2013 and that his advocate had colluded -6- NC: 2026:KHC:14800 RFA No. 252 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023 HC-KAR with Smt.Gowramma and they brought about a joint memo dated 13.11.2013, wherein it was allegedly stated that Sri.Ramesh would leave set back of 2 ½ feet on the western side of his property. He claimed that he had agreed to leave only ½ feet as per the sanction plan and permission and that plaintiff and his advocate had inserted the number "2" in front of ½ feet. He therefore contended that the suit filed by Smt.Gowramma for perpetual injunction on the premise that compromise was already entered into in O.S No.7857/2013 was not maintainable. He also claimed that his advocate filed an application to recall the order accepting the joint memo in O.S No.7857/2013 and that the same was registered as miscellaneous petition. With these contentions, he claimed that plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs.
5. Based on these contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues in O.S No.859/2014:
"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendant without leaving 2 ½ feet set back towards the western side of her property as agreed -7- NC: 2026:KHC:14800 RFA No. 252 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023 HC-KAR in O.S No.7857/2013 if allowed to construct the structure which would affect her right to enjoy the suit property the light and air from that side?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference to her enjoyment by the defendant?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?
4) What order or decree?"
6. Sri.Ramesh also filed suit in O.S No.784/2014 against Smt.Gowramma for perpetual injunction to restrain Smt.Gowramma from interfering with the ongoing construction in his property. Smt.Gowramma contested the suit and reiterated the statements made by her in O.S No.859/2014.
7. The trial Court after considering the contentions, framed the following issues in O.S No.784/2014: -8-
NC: 2026:KHC:14800 RFA No. 252 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023 HC-KAR "1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant has interfered with his enjoyment and caused obstruction for construction of the building in the suit schedule property as per approved plan and permission?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?
4) What order or decree?"
8. In the suit filed by Smt.Gowramma in O.S No.859/2014, she was examined as PW.1 and she marked documents as Exhibits P1 to P11. Sri. Ramesh did not adduce any evidence, though Exhibits D1 to D3 were confronted by him to PW.1 and were marked. In the suit filed by Sri.Ramesh, he was examined as PW.1 and he marked documents as Exhibits P1 to P38. Smt.Gowramma was examined as DW.1 and she marked documents as Exhibits D1 to D6.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:14800 RFA No. 252 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023 HC-KAR
9. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Smt.Gowramma and Sri.Ramesh had earlier entered into settlement in O.S No.7857/2013 in terms of which, Sri.Ramesh had agreed to leave 2 ½ feet setback on the western side of his property and therefore, decreed the suit filed by Smt.Gowramma and injuncted the defendant from putting up any construction in 2 ½ feet on the western side of his property and dismissed the suit filed by Sri.Ramesh. Being aggrieved by the same, Sri.Ramesh has filed these two appeals.
10. The learned counsel for Sri.Ramesh submits that Smt.Gowramma and the advocate for Sri.Ramesh had conspired to bring about an unconscionable settlement in O.S No.7857/2013. She contends that Sri.Ramesh had agreed to leave setback of only ½ feet and that Smt.Gowramma and the advocate for Sri.Ramesh were instrumental in adding the number "2" in front of ½ thereby making it seem as if Sri.Ramesh had agreed to leave 2 ½ feet set back on the western side of his property. She therefore contends that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit filed
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14800 RFA No. 252 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023 HC-KAR by Smt.Gowramma be dismissed and the suit filed by Sri.Ramesh be decreed.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for Smt.Gowramma submits that when the suit in O.S No.7857/2013 was referred for mediation, Sri.Ramesh was also present along with his advocate. He submits that in view of the settlement arrived at before the Lokadalat, Sri.Ramesh was not well advised to file a fresh suit for perpetual injunction. On the contrary, he must have gone before the same Court in O.S No.7857/2013. He submits that so long as the joint memo in O.S No.7857/2013 is in force, the suit filed by Sri.Ramesh is not maintainable while the suit filed by Smt.Gowramma is maintainable and she is entitled to an order of injunction to restrain Sri.Ramesh from putting up construction in an area measuring 2 ½ feet on the western side of his property.
12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for Sri. Ramesh and Smt.Gowramma and also perused the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14800 RFA No. 252 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023 HC-KAR
13. The only question that arises for consideration in these appeals is, "whether the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit filed by Smt.Gowramma and dismissing the suit filed by Sri.Ramesh?"
14. The suit filed by Smt.Gowramma was for perpetual injunction to restrain Sri.Ramesh from putting up construction on the western side of his property was based on a joint memo filed by both of them in O.S No.7857/2013, in terms of which, Sri.Ramesh had agreed to set apart 2 ½ feet on the western side of his property as a setback area. Sri.Ramesh has now contended in the present suit that Smt.Gowramma and his advocate had conspired to file a false joint memo. He claimed that he had agreed to leave setback of only half feet and that his advocate and Smt.Gowramma have tampered the joint memo to seem as if Sri.Ramesh had agreed to leave 2 ½ feet set back. When once an earlier dispute filed by Smt.Gowramma against Sri.Ramesh was settled amongst themselves before the mediation and Sri.Ramesh had agreed to set apart 2 ½ feet on the western side of his property as a setback area, he cannot turn around and claim that the said settlement was unconscionable or fraudulent. Sri.Ramesh did not lead any
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14800 RFA No. 252 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 256 of 2023 HC-KAR evidence in O.S No.859/2014 filed by Smt.N.Gowramma and this made the situation worse for Sri.Ramesh. As a matter of fact, it appears that Sri.Ramesh had filed an application in O.S No.7857/2013 for recalling the acceptance of the joint memo and that the trial Court had registered it as a miscellaneous petition. However, there is no mention as to what happened to that miscellaneous petition.
15. In that view of the matter, Sri.Ramesh could not have challenged the correctness of the compromise decree entered in O.S No.7857/2013 in view of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit filed by Smt.Gowramma and dismissing the suit filed by Sri.Ramesh. Hence, these appeals lack merit and are dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29