[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Elements 5 Development Consultants vs The Commissioner on 19 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
RFA No. 2169 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2169 OF 2023 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S ELEMENTS 5 DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
A REG. PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO. F 133, 7TH CROSS
MANYATHA RESIDENCY NAGAVARA
BENGALURU - 560045.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI NARESH DANDAPAT
AND SRI ASHFAQ RAUF
2. M/S INDUS VALLEY HOMES PVT LTD
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
Digitally signed by AT NO. 6/A, 2ND FLOOR
AL BHAGYA KABRA EXCELSIOR, 7TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KORAMANGALA
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560034.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S ELEMENTS 5 DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI NARESH DANDAPAT AND SRI ASHFAQ RAUF
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRA SHEKAR .R, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
RFA No. 2169 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
NOW CALLED AS BBMP
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SATYANAND .B.S, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.08.2023
PASSED IN OS.NO. 25347/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXIV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUCNTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
Captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff
directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.8.2023
passed in O.S.No.25347/2019 whereby the plaintiff's suit
seeking permanent injunction against the BBMP is
rejected.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
HC-KAR
3. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that plaintiff
No.1 purchased Schedule 'A' property under a registered
Sale Deed dated 07.10.2013. It is their specific assertion
that the land in question had already been converted from
agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose by
virtue of an Official Memorandum dated 14.12.2009. The
vendor of plaintiff No.1 is stated to have derived title
under a registered Partition Deed. Plaintiff No.2 claims to
have acquired Schedule 'B' property under a registered
Sale Deed dated 18.06.2015 from his vendor, who in turn
had purchased the same under a prior registered Sale
Deed. The plaintiffs further contend that they have jointly
purchased Schedule 'C' property under a registered Sale
Deed dated 11.12.2015. On the strength of these
registered conveyances, the plaintiffs assert lawful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
4. The present suit is instituted on the specific
allegation that during the first week of 2018, officials of
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
HC-KAR
the defendant-authority, accompanied by men and
machinery, allegedly attempted to interfere with and
dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties
without authority of law. The plaintiffs claim to have
caused issuance of a legal notice dated 07.12.2018 calling
upon the defendant not to interfere with their peaceful
possession. It is further alleged that on 21.02.2019, the
officials of the defendant once again threatened
dispossession, thereby compelling the plaintiffs to institute
the present suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction.
5. Upon service of summons, the defendant -
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) entered
appearance and filed a detailed written statement, stoutly
denying the plaint averments. The defendant contended
that the suit is wholly misconceived and instituted only to
thwart lawful action initiated against the plaintiffs, who,
according to the defendant, have encroached upon an
existing 20 feet Government road leading to Bellandur
village and serving as an access road. It is specifically
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
HC-KAR
pleaded that the existence of the 20 feet road is reflected
in official records and that the plaintiffs have suppressed
this material fact while seeking equitable relief. On these
grounds, the defendant sought dismissal of the suit.
6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial
Court framed appropriate issues for consideration. Both
parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in
support of their respective claims.
7. During the course of trial, a Court
Commissioner was appointed, who conducted local
inspection and submitted his report. The Trial Court, upon
appreciation of the oral evidence, documentary material,
and the Commissioner's report, dismissed the suit holding
that the defendant had successfully substantiated the
existence of the 20 feet road by producing cogent rebuttal
evidence and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to
the relief of perpetual injunction.
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
HC-KAR
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs and the defendant/BBMP. Perused the records of
the Trial Court.
9. In the light of the rival submissions and
material on record, the following points arise for
consideration:
"(i) Whether the finding of the Trial Court
that the defendant has proved the existence
of the 20 ft. road and consequently that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of
perpetual injunction suffers from perversity or
illegality warranting interference?
(ii) What order?"
Finding on Point No.(i):
10. On a careful consideration of the pleadings of
the rival parties, the core controversy that emerges for
adjudication is with regard to the existence of a 20 feet
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
HC-KAR
Government road, which according to the defendant-
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), runs on the
southern side of the suit schedule property and leads
towards Bellandur village. The plaintiffs have not stepped
into the witness box and have chosen to prosecute the suit
through their GPA holder, who was examined as P.W.1.
Before adverting to the documentary evidence and the
Commissioner's report relied upon by the defendant, it is
necessary to scrutinize the material admissions elicited
during the cross-examination of P.W.1.
11. P.W.1 has categorically admitted that on the
western side of the suit property, Doddamma Devi Temple
is situated. At that juncture, he was confronted with the
photographs marked as Ex.D1 (a-g). Upon confrontation,
P.W.1 admitted that a road passing on the southern side
of the suit property is visible in the said photographs. This
admission is clear, unambiguous, and strikes at the very
root of the plaintiffs' case. Though, in the latter part of the
cross-examination, P.W.1 made a feeble attempt to dilute
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
HC-KAR
the impact of this admission by denying the existence of a
tar road, such subsequent denial cannot efface the earlier
categorical admission. It is a settled principle that
admissions made in cross-examination constitute
substantive evidence and bind the party unless
satisfactorily explained.
12. Another significant admission elicited from
P.W.1 pertains to the filing of O.S.No.1947/2016 by local
residents alleging obstruction of the very same road by the
plaintiffs. This admission assumes considerable
importance. The plaintiffs, while seeking an equitable relief
of injunction, have not disclosed this litigation in the
plaint. Suppression of a material fact, particularly when
the relief sought is discretionary and equitable in nature,
disentitles a party from claiming such relief. The non-
disclosure of the earlier suit clearly undermines the bona
fides of the plaintiffs.
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
HC-KAR
13. Having examined the admissions elicited in
cross-examination, this Court now turns to the
documentary evidence and the report of the Court
Commissioner. The Commissioner's photographs, forming
part of Ex.C1, unmistakably depict the existence of a road
running east to west on the southern side of the plaintiffs'
property. The mahazar drawn at the spot further
corroborates the physical existence of the said road. What
is more damaging to the plaintiffs' case is that the
sketches marked as Exs.P21 to P23, produced by the
plaintiffs themselves, clearly indicate the existence of a 20
feet road on the southern side of the suit property. These
documents, emanating from the plaintiffs, directly
contradict their plea that no such road exists. In addition,
the photographs produced by the defendant at Exs.D5 and
D6 also depict the temple structure and the abutting road
running east to west, thereby lending further corroboration
to the defendant's case.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
HC-KAR
14. On an overall assessment of the oral and
documentary evidence, particularly (i) the categorical
admissions of P.W.1, (ii) photographs at Ex.D1 series, (iii)
Google Map imagery placed on record, (iv) the
Commissioner's report and photographs at Ex.C1, (v) the
plaintiffs' own sketches at Exs.P21 to P23, and (vi) the
defendant's photographs at Exs.D5 and D6, this Court
finds that the existence of a 20 feet road running on the
southern side of the suit schedule property, leading
towards Doddamma Devi Temple and Bellandur village,
stands conclusively established. The evidence, when read
conjointly, forms a consistent and unimpeachable chain
pointing to the existence of the public road. The finding
recorded by the Trial Court on this aspect is thus firmly
rooted in rebuttal evidence and does not suffer from
perversity.
15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the
plaintiffs' case is bound to fail. The essential ingredients
for grant of a perpetual injunction namely, proof of lawful
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
HC-KAR
possession and credible threat of unlawful interference are
conspicuously absent. The plaintiffs have failed to
establish lawful possession over the disputed portion
abutting the road. On the contrary, the material on record
probabilises the defendant's case that the plaintiffs have
encroached upon a public road. The defendant, being a
statutory authority entrusted with the maintenance and
protection of public roads, is well within its powers to
remove encroachments in accordance with law. Courts
cannot grant injunction to protect an encroachment over
public property. An equitable relief cannot be extended to
a party whose claim is tainted by suppression and contrary
to the record.
16. The learned Trial Judge has meticulously
appreciated the entire material on record and has arrived
at the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish
lawful possession or illegal interference by the defendant.
The findings recorded are based on proper appreciation of
evidence and do not warrant interference by this Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10325
HC-KAR
Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the
'Negative'.
Finding on Point No.(ii):
17. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
