Bangalore District Court
Jayadeep Reddy V N vs Shekar K on 1 September, 2025
/ 1 / O.S.No.7019/2022
KABC010290512022
IN THE COURT OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-43)
- : PRESENT :-
Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv
XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 1st Day of September, 2025.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.7019/2022
Plaintiffs :
1. V.N.Jayadeep Reddy, 48 Years,
S/o.Late V.N.Nehru Reddy @
V.Narayana.
2. Smt.V.N.Swetha D/o. Late V.N.Nehru
Reddy @ V.Narayana, 40 Years.
3. Pradeep S/o. Thammaiah Reddy,
45 Years.
4. Smt.Varalakshmi W/o.V.N.Nehru Reddy
@ V.Narayana, 78 Years.
/ 2 / O.S.No.7019/2022
All are R/o.No.22, Doddakatappa
Road, Halasuru, Bengaluru -560 008.
[By Sri.Bhanuprakash V.G., Advocate]
/ VERSUS /
Defendants :
1. K.Shekar S/o.Krishna Reddy.V., 61 Years.
2. Gaurav S/o.Shekar K., 22 Years.
Both are R/o.No.21, Doddakatappa
Road, Halasuru, Bengaluru - 560 008.
[By Sri.S.S.K., Advocate]
Date of Institution of the suit :
31.10.2022
Nature of suit : Suit for permanent and
mandatory injunctions
Date of commencement of : 28.04.2025
evidence
Date on which the judgment : 01.09.2025
is pronounced
Duration taken for disposal : Years Months Days
02 10 01
***
/ 3 / O.S.No.7019/2022
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction and for the relief of removal of encroachment with respect to the suit schedule property more specifically described in the plaint and with costs of the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as under : -
Suit schedule 'A' property bearing Plot No.4 in Sy.No. 7 was originally purchased by one Smt.Jayamma W/o. M.Venkatappa under sale deed dated 2.3.1955. She died in the year 1969. Her husband succeeded to the said property. Her husband M.Venkatappa sold the said property in favour of K.P.Narayana Rao under sale deed dated 26.3.1980. He also executed release deed dated
3.5.1979 with respect to the suit schedule 'C' property in / 4 / O.S.No.7019/2022 favour of his son V.N.Nehru Reddy @ V.Narayana. So, by virtue of the said release deed, father of the plaintiffs V.N.Nehru Reddy became owner and possessor of the suit schedule 'C' property. After the death of V.N.Nehru Reddy, they succeeded to the suit schedule 'C' property.
3. It is further case of the plaintiffs that, suit schedule 'B' property is fallen to the share of Krishna Reddy V., the brother of V.N.Nehru Reddy and defendants are in possession of the suit schedule 'B' property. It is further case of the plaintiff that, there is a 5 feet common passage towards the southern side of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and now the defendants are trying to encroach the common passage and trying to put up their building over the common passage. Plaintiffs requested them not to encroach the common passage, but the / 5 / O.S.No.7019/2022 defendants are not ready to heed them. Plaintiffs approached the jurisdictional police, but it is in vain. Hence, cause of action arose to the plaintiffs to file this suit on 1.7.2023 when the defendants forcibly made pillar marking in the common passage. So, the plaintiffs prayed to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the common passage and suit schedule 'C' property. They also prayed to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any sort of construction over the suit schedule 'C' property and they also prayed seeking directions to remove any encroachment over the common passage.
4. On service of suit summons, both the defendants appeared through their advocate and filed written statement. In the said written statement they / 6 / O.S.No.7019/2022 have admitted that, plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule 'C' property and they are in possession of suit schedule 'B' property. But, they denied that they are putting construction over the common passage. They denied right of the plaintiffs over the common passage. They specifically contended that the suit for bare injunction without the relief of declaration is not maintainable. They also contended that the plaintiffs have already approached BBMP and also the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing writ petition. Hence, they cannot approach this Court seeking the relief as claimed. From para Nos.10 to 21 of the written statement they denied the contents of the plaint in para- wise. They denied the release deed in favour of the father of plaintiffs. They also denied that plaintiffs are using common passage and they are interfering said / 7 / O.S.No.7019/2022 common passage by trying to put up construction over the same. They denied cause of action also and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are enjoying the common passage as contended in the plaint ?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendants are trying to put up construction over the entrance of 'C' schedule property and common passage and interfering with the plaintiffs right in enjoyment of the common passage ?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendants are to be directed to remove the encroachment made in entrance of 'C' schedule property and the common passage ?
/ 8 / O.S.No.7019/2022 (4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for permanent injunction relief as sought for ?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as sought for ?
(3) What order or decree?
6. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.23. He also got marked Ex.P.24 and P.25 photographs through the cross of D.W.1. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiffs, the special power of attorney holder of defendants got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.3 to D.10 and Exs.D.1 and D.2 through cross of P.W.1.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and he relied on the citation passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Regular Second Appeal / 9 / O.S.No.7019/2022 No.688/2001 between Kesaridevi and another Vs. Gangawwa & others.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants and he relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A. No.732/2004 (INJ) between Hassan Basari @ Babjan & others Vs. Khadarsha.
9. Perused the pleadings, issues, evidence oral and documentary on record and the citations relied by both sides.
10. My answers to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the negative.
Issue No.3 : In the negative.
Issue No.4 : Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.5 : Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per the final order for
the following:
/ 10 / O.S.No.7019/2022
REASONS
11. ISSUES NO.1 TO 3 : - Looking to the pleadings and evidence on record, the following points emerges as admitted facts :
(1) Jayamma had four sons and four daughters. (2) Among them, father of the plaintiffs Sri.V.N.Nehru Reddy and father of defendant No.1 - Sri.Krishna Reddy V were brothers. (3) Suit schedule 'A' property was originally purchased by Jayamma. After her death, her husband M.Venkatappa succeeded to the said property as legal heir.
(4) Suit schedule 'A' property was entire property measuring 40 x 100 Ft.
(5) Suit schedule 'C' property is belonging to plaintiffs. Suit schedule 'B' property is adjoining to main road of Doddakattappa road and belongs to defendant. The suit schedule / 11 / O.S.No.7019/2022 'C' property is situated towards East of the suit schedule 'B' property.
(6) Towards South of suit schedule 'C' property as well as 'B' property, the common passage of 5 Feet is left.
So, these are the admitted facts. The burden of proving Issues No.1 to 3 is upon the plaintiffs. In order to discharge the said burden, they relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, who filed evidence affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint and relied on Ex.P.1 to P.25. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 2.3.1955 in favour of Jayamma with respect to suit schedule 'A' property. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.3.1980 executed by M.Venkatappa, the husband of Jayamma in favour of K.P.Narayana Rao. Ex.P.3 is the release deed executed by M.Venkatappa in favour of his / 12 / O.S.No.7019/2022 son V.N.Nehru Reddy with respect to suit schedule 'C' property. Ex.P.4 is the rectification deed.
12. Ex.P.8 is the copy of complaint filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants before the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru stating that defendants are demolishing their old building and it is causing nuisance to them. It contains acknowledgment. In this complaint it is alleged that defendants are demolishing their old building and hence, there is crack in the house of the plaintiffs due to JCB work. Ex.P.9 is the endorsement issued by the police which discloses that police have secured the defendants and advised them not to cause damage to the house of plaintiffs.
13. Ex.P.10 to P.12 are the complaints given by the plaintiffs before the BBMP stating that the defendants / 13 / O.S.No.7019/2022 have taken up illegal construction of balcony work in the passage space without leaving set-back. Ex.P.15 and 16 are the temporary orders issued by the BBMP calling upon the defendants to stop construction as their construction is in violation of bye-laws or set-back rules.
14. Ex.P.17 are the photographs of house of plaintiffs as well as defendants. Ex.D.1 and 2 marked through the cross of P.W.1 are also the photographs of house of plaintiffs and defendants. Ex.D.1 shows that rare side the house of defendants the house of the plaintiffs is situated and towards front side of the road, the house of the defendants is situated. Cream colour house is the house of the plaintiffs and under construction house is the house of the defendants. Plaintiffs have already constructed three storied building. In front of their house they have left portion for passage / 14 / O.S.No.7019/2022 and on the passage they have constructed two steps to enter their house. Defendants have constructed their house by leaving 5 Feet passage. It appears that, their first floor balcony comes on passage. The balcony of the plaintiffs also comes on the passage area. The house of the plaintiffs of first and second floors cover the entire passage. Whereas, the first floor of the defendants has covered lessor area of the passage. It is specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are constructing on the passage. But, during the cross-examination of P.W.1, he has admitted that defendants have left common passage and there is no physical encroachment. The specific admission is as under :
"ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗಳು ತಮ್ಮ ಗ್ರೌಂಡ್ ಫ್ಲೋರ್ ಕಟ್ಟು ವ ಕಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ನಾವು ಹೇಳಿದ ಪ್ಯಾ ಸೇಜ್ ಮೇಲೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಅತಿಕ್ರಮಣ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ."
His further admission is as under :
/ 15 / O.S.No.7019/2022 "ಆ ಮೆ ಟ್ಟಿಲುಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ಸಜ್ಜ portico ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆ ಮೂರು ಮಹಡಿಯ ಮನೆ ಇದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ಮೂರು ಮಹಡಿಗಳು ಸಜ್ಜ portico ಆ ಪ್ಯಾ ಸೇಜ್ ಮೇಲೆ ಬಂದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆ portico ಗೋಡೆಯಿಂದ ಸುಮಾರು ಒಂದೂವರೆ ಅಡಿ ಇರಬಹುದು."
He further admitted as under : -
"ಈಗ ನಾನು ನೋಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ನಿಡಿ.1 ಭಾವಚಿತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ portico ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗಳು ಬಿಟ್ಟ portico ನೋಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದು ಅವರ portico ನಮ್ಮ portico ದಿಂದ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಒಳಗಡೆ ಇದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ portico common passage ಮೇಲೆ ಬಂದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ."
So, looking to the admissions given by P.W.1 it is crystal clear that the defendants have not constructed their ground floor by physically encroaching the common passage. But, it appears that their portico on the first floor comes on the passage area. But, the portico of the plaintiffs also comes on the passage itself. Plaintiffs have also constructed their first and second floor of portico area covering passage and without leaving any set-back and by following the same, defendants have also / 16 / O.S.No.7019/2022 constructed their first and second floors by covering common passage area. So, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants have aerially encroached the common passage. The photographs discloses that the defendants have demolished old building and have taken construction of new building on the existing area. Plaintiffs themselves have not left set-back aerially. So, now they cannot complain that the defendants have encroached the common passage aerially. If the entire plaint is read, there is no allegation that the defendants have encroached common passage aerially. But, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are trying to encroach 5 Feet common passage of their southern side. But, P.W.1 during his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defendants specifically admitted that the defendants have not at all encroached / 17 / O.S.No.7019/2022 said common passage. In release deed - Ex.P.3 the southern side is shown as 2 ½ Feet common passage. So, in front of the house of the plaintiffs, common passage is left and it is being used by the plaintiffs. But, the plaintiffs have constructed their first and second floors and put up portico on this common passage or by covering common passage. So, now they cannot complain that defendants are constructing their house or constructed their house by encroaching the common passage aerially.
15. The prayer claimed by the plaintiffs is to restrain or the defendants from putting up construction by any kind over entrance of suit schedule 'C' property. But, the defendants have not constructed anything on common passage which is used by plaintiffs to reach their house i.e. suit schedule 'C' property.
/ 18 / O.S.No.7019/2022
16. D.W.1 during his cross-examination specifically admitted that plaintiffs are using the common passage and the measurement of the said passage is 5 Feet width. He also cross-examined stating that he has constructed first floor by encroaching common passage aerially, but he has stated that, he demolished his old house and constructed new house in the same area. He has also deposed that plaintiffs have also put up their construction by encroaching common passage aerially. Plaintiffs as well as defendants have put up their constructions by leaving common passage on the ground floor, but they have used this common passage by putting balcony or portico. Plaintiffs have not claimed removal of aerial encroachment and they have not pleaded specifically that defendants have aerially encroached the common passage. The suit schedule 'C' / 19 / O.S.No.7019/2022 property is belonging to the plaintiffs. Towards the south of their property should have been described as common passage. But, they described as private property. Towards South of suit schedule 'B' property they have described exclusively common passage for bearing No.22 to 26 i.e., plaintiffs. Defendants have left this southern side common passage without any physical encroachment. Ex.D.5 - gift deed executed by Krishna Reddy V in favour of defendant No.2 and Ex.D.6 - gift deed executed by Krishna Reddy V in favour of defendant No.1 discloses that, towards the south of suit schedule 'B' property of gift is shown as common passage. So, defendants cannot construct over this common passage. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issues No.2 and 3 in the negative.
/ 20 / O.S.No.7019/2022
17. ISSUES NO.4 AND 5 : - Plaintiffs have
successfully proved that there is a common passage towards the suit schedule 'B' property. Defendants cannot construct or encroach the common passage. Plaintiffs are using this common passage to reach main road. Hence, I hold that, plaintiffs are entitle for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any sort of construction over the common passage. Hence, I answer Issues No.4 and 5 partly in affirmative.
18. ISSUE NO.6 : - In view of my findings on Issues No.1 to 5 as supra, I proceed to pass the following : -
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed in part with costs.
/ 21 / O.S.No.7019/2022
Defendants are restrained from
interfering the peaceful use and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs' common
passage runs through suit schedule 'B' property by granting the decree of permanent injunction.
The relief of removal of encroachment of common passage is rejected as plaintiffs have not claimed the relief of removal of aerial encroachment and defendants have not physically encroached the common passage.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected the same directly on computer, signed and then pronounced by me, in open court on this the 1st day of September, 2025).
(Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv), XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
***
/ 22 / O.S.No.7019/2022
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff :
P.W.1 : V.N.Jayadeep Reddy
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 : C/c of sale deed dated 2.3.1955 Ex.P.2 : C/c of sale deed dated 26.3.1980 Ex.P.3 : C/c of release deed dated 3.5.1979 Ex.P.4 : C/c of rectification deed. Ex.P.5 : C/c of encumbrance certificate Ex.P.6 : Death Certificate of V.Narayana Ex.P.7 : Affidavit of Genealogical tree sworn by plaintiff No.1 Ex.P.8 : Complaint submitted to police Ex.P.9 : Endorsement issued by Halusuru police station Ex.P.10 to 13: Copies of complaint submitted to police Ex.P.14 & 14(a) : C/c of sale deed dated 27.3.1981 and typed copy.
Ex.P.15 & 16 : Temporary order passed by BBMP dated 20.2.2023 and obtained under RTI Act / 23 / O.S.No.7019/2022 Ex.P.17 & 18: 4 Photographs & CD Ex.P.19 : Undertaking given by V.Krishnareddy.
Ex.P.20 : Khata certificate
Ex.P.21 : Khata extract
Ex.P.22 & 23 : C/c of encumbrance certificates Ex.P.24 & 25 : Photographs
3. List of witnesses examined for the defendants :
D.W.1 : Dhanush Kumar S.
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants :
Ex.D.1 & 2 : Photographs
Ex.D.1(a) & (b),
D.2(a) : Marked portions in Ex.D.1 & 2
Ex.D.3 : Special power of attorney
Ex.D.4 : C/c of sale deed dated 27.3.1981
Ex.D.5 : Digitally obtained gift deed dated
1.3.2017
Ex.D.6 : Digitally obtained gift deed dated
27.11.2019
Ex.D.7 : Digitally obtained sanctioned plan
Ex.D.8 : Digitally obtained tax paid receipt
/ 24 / O.S.No.7019/2022
Ex.D.9 : Digitally obtained e-khata
Ex.D.10 : Certificate under Section 65-B Evidence Act.
(Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv), XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
***
/ 25 / O.S.No.7019/2022
Judgment pronounced in open Court [vide separate judgment] :
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed in part with costs.
Defendants are restrained from interfering the peaceful use and enjoyment of the plaintiffs' common passage runs through suit schedule 'B' property by granting the decree of permanent injunction.
The relief of removal of encroachment of common passage is rejected as plaintiffs have not claimed the relief of removal of aerial encroachment and defendants have not physically encroached the common passage.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv), XLII ACC&S Judge, Bengaluru City.