Sri M Govindaraju vs Smt Rajeshwari
2026 Latest Caselaw 436 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri M Govindaraju vs Smt Rajeshwari on 22 January, 2026

                                        -1-
                                                      NC: 2026:KHC:3742
                                                  RFA No. 254 of 2018


              HC-KAR



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                     BEFORE
               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2018 (PAR/INJ)
              BETWEEN:

              SRI M GOVINDARAJU,
              S/O LATE S. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
              AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
              R/AT NO.632, NETHAJI CIRCLE,
              MATHIKERE, BANGALORE 560054.
              (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED).
                                                           ...APPELLANT
              (BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
               SRI M V ANOOP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

              AND:

              SMT RAJESHWARI,
              W/O NARAYANAPPA,
              AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
Digitally     HAVING BUSINESS OF "FIREWOOD DEPOT"
signed by     NO.34, 15TH CROSS, NEAR SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL
PRAMILA G V   MATHIKERE, BANGALORE 560054.
Location:                                                 ...RESPONDENT
HIGH COURT    (BY SRI ASHOK PATIL, ADVOCATE)
OF
KARNATAKA          THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.96 OF CPC.,
              AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.11.2017
              PASSED IN OS NO.8411/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX
              ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE [CCH-32] BANGALORE
              CITYDECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

                   THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
              DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2026:KHC:3742
                                          RFA No. 254 of 2018


HC-KAR



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the

appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

2. This is a defendant's appeal against the decree

for injunction. The property is an immovable property. In

terms of the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial

Court has restrained the defendant from interfering with

the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

suit property.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

defendant/appellant would submit that in the cross

examination as well as in the evidence, the plaintiff has

admitted that he is the tenant under the defendant. As

such the decree for injunction is not maintainable and at

the most, the trial Court could have restrained the

appellant/defendant from evicting the plaintiff without due

process of law. Thus, he would urge that the impugned

NC: 2026:KHC:3742

HC-KAR

decree has to be modified and the protection relating to

the possession should be granted till the plaintiff is evicted

in due process of law in an appropriate legal recourse

initiated by the defendant.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant would urge

that the plaintiff never admitted the relationship of tenant

and landlord between the plaintiff and defendant and he

has not admitted the title of the defendant over the

property. The suit was only for bare injunction and the

Court has rightly restrained the defendant from interfering

the plaintiff's possession over the property as the plaintiff

is in possession.

5. The Court has considered the contentions raised

at the bar and perused the records.

6. The following point arises for consideration:

"Whether the appellant has made out a case to

interfere with the impugned judgment and decree?"

NC: 2026:KHC:3742

HC-KAR

7. Admittedly, this is suit for injunction filed by the

plaintiff respondent. Thus, the contention that the

defendant/appellant is the owner of the suit property

cannot be adjudicated in this proceeding. If at all, the

appellant claims to be the owner of the property, he has to

establish the same in the manner known to law in an

appropriate proceeding.

8. If such proceeding is initiated, it is open to the

plaintiff/respondent to take all defence available under

law.

9. It is made clear that this Court has not

indicated that the appellant has title or the property.

10. In case, the defendant/appellant establishes title

of the property, then the appropriate consequential relief if

sought, shall be considered in accordance with law

notwithstanding the present decree for injunction which is

under challenge.

NC: 2026:KHC:3742

HC-KAR

11. Under the circumstances, the decree for

permanent injunction is modified by holding that the

defendant is restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's

possession of the property, till the defendant is evicted in

due process of law.

12. It is made clear that this Court has not

observed that the plaintiff has title over the suit property

as same is beyond the scope of this proceeding. The

finding relating to the plaintiff's possession over the suit

property is affirmed.

13. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of with the

aforesaid observations.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

brn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36