Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Development Authority vs Sri. Narendra L Daivagna on 9 July, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24996
RFA No. 402 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER).
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AJAYKUMAR.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. NARENDRA.L.DAIVAGNA
S/O L.N.DAIVANGNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.491, MANDARA,
Digitally signed by 9TH MAIN ROAD, II BLOCK,
THEJAS KUMAR N HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU-560 097.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER
XLI RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24996
RFA No. 402 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Ajaykumar.M., counsel for the appellant, has
appeared in person.
2. Notice to the respondent was ordered on
26.09.2019. A perusal of the office note depicts that the
respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither
engaged the services of an advocate nor represented himself as
a party in person.
3. This is an appeal from the court of LXV Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-66).
4. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to
as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.
5. The plaint averments are as under:
It is stated that the plaintiff became the owner of the
scheduled property by purchasing the same under a registered
sale deed dated 24.05.2010 from its owner,
V.N.Lakshminarayana, for a valuable consideration. The
property comes within the jurisdiction of BBMP, and ever since
the purchase, the plaintiff has been in uninterrupted possession
NC: 2025:KHC:24996
HC-KAR
and enjoyment of the property. It is contended that the official
of BDA came near the suit property on 25.09.2015 and
30.09.2015 and tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and threatened
to dispossess. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to take
shelter under the Court of law and filed a suit seeking the relief
of an injunction.
After service of the summons, the defendant appeared
through its counsel and filed a written statement denying the
plaint averments and sought dismissal of the suit.
The Trial Court framed issues. The plaintiff examined
himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as exhibits. On
the other hand, the defendant neither adduced oral evidence
nor furnished documentary evidence. The Trial Court vide
Judgment dated 17.12.2016 decreed the suit and the defendant
or anybody under him was restrained by an order of permanent
injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and
enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence, the
defendant has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of
CPC.
NC: 2025:KHC:24996
HC-KAR
6. Counsel for the appellant urged several contentions.
Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the
records with care.
7. The short point that requires consideration is
whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court requires
interference.
8. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require
reiteration. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the
plaintiff seeking the relief of an injunction. As could be seen
from the nature of the lis between the parties, the suit is one
for a bare injunction based on possession as of the date of filing
of the suit. The right to an injunction is based on a prima facie
right. The issue revolves around the factum of possession as of
the date of filing of the suit. It would be relevant to see that in
a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must prove her/his lawful
possession and enjoyment over the suit property as of the date
of filing of the suit. In the present case, the plaintiff has met
the criteria. It is pivotal to note that, except for filing the
written statement and denying the plaint averments, the
defendant did not step into the witness box to disprove the
NC: 2025:KHC:24996
HC-KAR
plaintiff's case. The Trial Court extenso, referred to the material
on record and rightly decreed the suit. There is nothing much
to discuss about the issue because the pleadings are simple,
the documents are minimal, and the Trial Court referred to the
material on record and rightly decreed the suit. The conclusion
and the findings are just and proper. I find no error in the
judgment of the Trial Court. The appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
9. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
