Bangalore District Court
Mr. D. V. Ramana Reddy vs Mr. Purushotham Reddy on 8 April, 2021
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for Judgment in suit
(R.P. 91)
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL
BENGALURU, (CCH73)
Present:
Sri.AbdulRahiman. A. Nandgadi,
B.Com, LL.B., (Spl.,)
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021.
O.S.No.27043/2012
Plaintiff: Mr. D. V. Ramana Reddy,
Aged about 69 years,
S/o Late D. Venkata Swamy Reddy,
ExServiceman,
Door No.41DN75,
Devinagar Colony,
Ramakrishnapuram Post,
Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh,
Pin Code No.5600056,
Now presently at Bangalore City.
[By Sri. C. R. Raghavendra Reddy Adv]
V/s
2
OS No.27043/2012
Defendant: Mr. Purushotham Reddy,
Aged not known,
S/o not known,
R/at HNo.88/89, 7th Cross,
Singasandra Village,
Bommannahalli,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
[By Sri. T. Seshagiri RaoAdv]
18.10.2012
Date of Institution of the suit
Nature of the (Suit or pronote, suit
for declaration and possession, Permanent Injunction Suit
suit for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of 26.03.2014
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was
08.04.2021
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 08 05 20
LXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
3
OS No.27043/2012
JUDGMENT
Present suit is filed by the Plaintiff for the relief of Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendant, his workmen, his agents or any person/s claiming under him from interfering with the peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property and to direct the Defendant to pay damages of Rs.2,50,000/ for illegal demolition of the compound wall and shed, situate in the Suit Schedule Property.
2. Facts of the Plaintiff's case are as under:
It is the case of the Plaintiff that, he and his son are the owners in Possession of the Suit Schedule Property, as the same is purchased by them under the Registered Sale Deed dtd.24.02.2012. Originally Suit Schedule Property is carved out of a layout formed by the AECS in the property bearing No.666/1442/A, in Sy Nos. 6/1, 6/2, 8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/4, 8/5, 8/6, 10/1, 10/3, 15/1P, 15/2P, 17P, 18, 19, 21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 22/1, 22/2, 23/1 to 23/13, 25/1 to 25/6, 26/1P, 26/3, 27/1A, 27/1B, 27/2, 4 OS No.27043/2012 28/1A, 28/1B, 28/2 to 28/5, 25/6, 29/2, 30/1, 30/2, 31, 32/2, 32/3, 36, 38, 39, 43/1, 44, 46, 61/1, 61/2, 62, 63, 64, 67/1 to 67/6, 68/1, 72/1 to 72/4, 73, 74, 75/1 to 75/19, 76/1, 76/3, 76/4, 77/1 to 77/6, 78, 79/1, to 79/9, 80, 81, 81/1, 81/2A, 81/2B, 81/2C,81/3B, 83, 84, 85, 91/1, 91/2, 94/1, 94/2, 95, 96/1P, 96/2, 96/3, 97/1B, 97/2, 102/1, 102/2, 103/1, 103/3, 103/4, 103/5B, 106, 104/2, 105/1P, 105/2, 105/3, 106/1P, 106/2P, 106/3 to 106/6, 109, 111/1 and 111/2 of Singasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk presently coming under BBMP limits, Bengaluru. The said layout plan of AECS Society is approved by the Bengaluru Development Authority vide its Order No.BDA/TPM/DD/1263/9293 dtd.12.11.1992. The Plaintiff under took work of the construction of the compound wall and shed in the Suit Schedule Property, in the month September 2012, the same was demolished on 30.09.2012 by the Defendant without any manner right, title or interest, by interfering in his peaceful Possession and enjoying of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule 5 OS No.27043/2012 Property. The Plaintiff has incurred loss of Rs.2,50,000/ towards demolition of the said compound wall and the shed, situated in the Suit Schedule Property. The Contractor of the Plaintiff had lodged a Criminal Complaint against the Defendant. The Defendant on and often interferes with the peaceful Possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property. Having no other alternative remedy, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of Permanent Injunction. Hence prayed to allow the suit.
3. Suit Summons and Notice of IA No.1 was issued to the Defendant. Defendant appeared through his counsel on 06.11.2012. the Defendant has filed his Written Statement on 09.01.2013.
Defendant has denied all the allegations made by the Plaintiff in the Suit Plaint and has specifically contended that, he is the lawful owner in physical possession of the land bearing Sy No.27/1, measuring 2 Acre 28 Guntas situated at Singasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South 6 OS No.27043/2012 Taluk, which is bounded on East: by property of Sampangi; West: by property Sanoabgu; North: by property of Doddavenkatappa; and South: by property of Pilla Reddy. The said property originally belongs to his mother Muniyamma @ Ammayamma, during her lifetime he has effect Partition in the said land inbetween her children, as per Partition Deed dtd.29.11.2000. In the said Partition, the property referred above has fallen to the share of the Defendant, and the name of the Defendant is appearing in the records of the said property.
The Air Craft Society Employees Ltd., in collusion with the Land Acquisition Authority, got notified the lands in and around Singasandra Village under Secs. 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Without issuing any award notices, nor by taking physical Possession as per law, the Society has formed some fictitious layout by obtaining layout plan approved by BDA, before that some of the land owners have challenged the said notifications before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP Nos.33566/2004 to 33567/2004. The said writ 7 OS No.27043/2012 petitions were allowed by quashing the notifications issued under Sec 16(2). The same was challenged by the Air Craft Society in Appeal. The said appeal came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the said orders the land owners have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has now stayed the Judgment and has also issued interim order Plaintiff statusquo.
When the Possession was not taken, aas laid down under Sec 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, such notification is not in accordance with law. The Defendant is in physical Possession of the property. The vendors vendor of the Plaintiff namely, Air Craft Society has not taken any physical Possession and whatever the Possession claimed by the Plaintiff or his vendor, is fictitious one.
The Defendant has filed a suit OS No.6484/ 2001 before the Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH2), Bengaluru. The said suit came to be decree against said Air Craft Society Ltd., inrespect of land bearing Sy No.27/1A, measuring 2 Acres 27 Guntas. So the present Plaintiff who claims trough the vendor 8 OS No.27043/2012 of vendors has not derived any manner of right, title or interest, muchtheless the Possession over any portion of the land formed in Sy No.27/1A. Hence prayed to reject the Suit Plaint.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor in office, has framed following Issues on 10.12.2013 as under:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitle for damages of Rs.2,50,000/ for illegal demolishing of Plaintiff's compound?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, Defendant interfering his peaceful possession?
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction?
4. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, he is in physical possession of the schedule property?
5. Whether the Defendant proves that, Defendant is in lawful possession of the property?9
OS No.27043/2012
6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief's sought for?
7. What order or decree?
5. Initially the case was madeover to CCH
20. The same was transferred to this Court on 05.09.2018 by virtue of the notification No ADM I(A)413/2018 dated 31.07.2018.
6. The Plaintiff initially got examined his Power of Attorney holder, as PW1 and has got marked 5documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P5. Thereafter again the Plaintiff got examined himself as PW.2 and got marked 20documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. PW.2 was cross examined on behalf of the Defendant 05.09.2018 and 16.10.2018.
Per contra, the Defendant has got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked 16documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D16. DW.1 was cross examined on behalf of the Plaintiff on 24.01.2020 and 11.02.2020.
10OS No.27043/2012
7. The matter was posted for Arguments. Heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant.
8. My findings on the above said issues are as under:
Issue No 1 :
In the Negative;
Issue No 2 :
In the Affirmative;
Issue No 3 :
In the Affirmative;
Issue No 4 :
In the Affirmative;
Issue No 5 :
Does not arise for consideration;
Issue No 6 : Partly in the Affirmative; Issue No 7 : As per final order for the following;
:R E A S O N S:
9. ISSUE Nos.4 and 5:
Both these issues are taken for joint discussions, as they are interlinked with eachother, inorder to avoid repeatation and confusion in the discussion.
9.01. The Plaintiffs contend that, he and his son Harish Kumar Reddy are the owners of the 11 OS No.27043/2012 Suit Schedule Property as they have purchase the said property under Registered Sale Deed dtd.24.02.2012, from Krishnaiah.
9.02. Further the Plaintiff contends that, originally agricultural lands bearing Sy Nos.
6/1, 6/2, 8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/4, 8/5, 8/6, 10/1, 10/3, 15/1P, 15/2P, 17P, 18, 19, 21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 22/1, 22/2, 23/1 to 23/13, 25/1 to 25/6, 26/1P, 26/3, 27/1A, 27/1B, 27/2, 28/1A, 28/1B, 28/2 to 28/5, 25/6, 29/2, 30/1, 30/2, 31, 32/2, 32/3, 36, 38, 39, 43/1, 44, 46, 61/1, 61/2, 62, 63, 64, 67/1 to 67/6, 68/1, 72/1 to 72/4, 73, 74, 75/1 to 75/19, 76/1, 76/3, 76/4, 77/1 to 77/6, 78, 79/1, to 79/9, 80, 81, 81/1, 81/2A, 81/2B, 81/2C,81/3B, 83, 84, 85, 91/1, 91/2, 94/1, 94/2, 95, 96/1P, 96/2, 96/3, 97/1B, 97/2, 102/1, 102/2, 103/1, 103/3, 103/4, 103/5B, 106, 104/2, 105/1P, 105/2, 105/3, 106/1P, 106/2P, 106/3 to 106/6, 109, 111/1 and 111/2 of Singasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, where acquired by the BDA Authorities inorder to house Air Craft Employees Society Ltd.,. The said society has sold the Suit 12 OS No.27043/2012 Schedule Property to M. Dayanandan under Registered Sale Deed dtd.03.09.1997. Inturn the said purchaser Dayanandan sold the said property to Smt. Lakshmi and Smt. Babyrani, under Registered Sale Deed dtd.04.07.2007. Inturn the said purchasers sold the said property to Anusuya, Parvathi and M. Chandrika under Sale Deed dtd.03.08.2011. Inturn the said purchasers sold the said property to Krishnaiah under Registered Sale Deed dtd.19.11.2011. The said Krishnaiah is the vendor of the Plaintiff and his son Harishkumar Reddy.
9.04. The Plaintiff contends that, he is in Possession of the Suit Schedule Property from the day of its purchase made by him and his son. Inturn his erstwhile owners where in Possession of the said property and initially the Possession of the said property was delivered by Air Craft Employees Society Ltd., on formation of the sites in the land acquired by the BDA Authorities.
9.05. Further the Plaintiff contends that, after purchasing the said site he undertook work of 13 OS No.27043/2012 construction of a compound wall and a shed into the Suit Schedule Property in the month of September 2012. but the Defendant has demolished the said compound wall and the shed on 30.09.2012, by causing interference in his peaceful Possession and enjoyment over the property. Due to such interference of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for the relief of Permanent Injunction and damages.
10. Percontra, the Defendant would contend that, originally the land bearing No.27 of Singasandra Village belong to his mother Muniyamma @ Ammayamma. After her death there was a Partition inbetween the heirs of Muniyamma @ Ammayamma on 29.11.2000 and in the said Partition he received the land bearing Sy No.27/1A measuring 2 Acres 28 Guntas, out of total land bearing Sy No.27. Since then he is Possession of the said land.
10.01. The BDA Authorities behind his back and without his knowledge, as well as without knowledge of his mother Muniyamma @ 14 OS No.27043/2012 Ammayamma, got notified the said lands for acquisition under Sec 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act. Even a final notification was issued under Sec 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act. Some of the land owners have challenged the said notification before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka under Writ Jurisdiction, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to quash the notification issued under Sec.16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Against the said order the Air Craft Society went in appeal and appeal came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the same the land owners again approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court is pleased to stay the Judgment and also passed an interim order of statusquo. The physical Possession of the lands sought to be acquired under Secs.4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, where not taken by the authorities, as per law. When the Possession is not taken, as per law, then the said society cannot deliver the same to the so called purchasers of the sites. Inturn the erstwhile owners of the Plaintiff did not received the Possession of the Suit Schedule 15 OS No.27043/2012 Property, so ultimately the Plaintiff also did not received the same.
11. The Plaintiff has produced the following documents:
a) Registered Sale Deed dtd.24.02.2012 at Ex.P2 got marked through PW.1. As per this document, it is seen that, G. Krishnaiah has sold the property bearing Site No.1442/A in BlockA in AECS Layout formed in BBMP property No.666/1442/A formed in Sy Nos. 6/1, 6/2, 8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/4, 8/5, 8/6, 10/1, 10/3, 15/1P, 15/2P, 17P, 18, 19, 21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 22/1, 22/2, 23/1 to 23/13, 25/1 to 25/6, 26/1P, 26/3, 27/1A, 27/1B, 27/2, 28/1A, 28/1B, 28/2 to 28/5, 25/6, 29/2, 30/1, 30/2, 31, 32/2, 32/3, 36, 38, 39, 43/1, 44, 46, 61/1, 61/2, 62, 63, 64, 67/1 to 67/6, 68/1, 72/1 to 72/4, 73, 74, 75/1 to 75/19, 76/1, 76/3, 76/4, 77/1 to 77/6, 78, 79/1, to 79/9, 80, 81, 81/1, 81/2A, 81/2B, 81/2C,81/3B, 83, 84, 85, 91/1, 91/2, 94/1, 94/2, 95, 96/1P, 96/2, 96/3, 97/1B, 97/2, 102/1, 102/2, 103/1, 103/3, 103/4, 103/5B, 106, 104/2, 105/1P, 16 OS No.27043/2012 105/2, 105/3, 106/1P, 106/2P, 106/3 to 106/6, 109, 111/1 and 111/2 of Singasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 60 feet, within the boundaries, to the East: by Site No.1442; to the West: by Site No.1443; to the North: by Road; and to the South: by Site No.1444, to D. V. Ramanna Reddy the Plaintiff and Mr. Harishkumar Reddy, for the valuable consideration Rs.28,80,000/. These documents also evidences that, the purchasers have been put in to actual Possession of the purchased property, on the day of its purchase. Further this documents also evidences that, sites were formed by the Air Craft Employees Cooperative Society Ltd., and the scheduled property under the Sale Deed was allotted and registered in the name of Dayanandan S/O: Late K. Narayanan, and Possession of the said site was delivered to the said allottee. The said Air Craft Employees Cooperative Society Ltd., has also issued no objection certificate dtd.08.10.2001 in the name of Sri. N. Dayanandan for transferring the Khatha pertaining to the said 17 OS No.27043/2012 site. This document also evidences that, the said N. Dayanandan sold the scheduled property to Smt. Lakshmi W/O: Sri. Venkatesh and Smt. Babyrani W/O: Sri. Srinivas, under the Registered Sale Deed dtd.04.07.2007. Inturn the said persons have sold the said property to Smt. Anusuya W/O: M. Ramesh;
Smt. Parvathi W/O: M. Ramesh; and Smt. M. Chandrika D/O: Muniyellappa, under Registered Sale Deed dtd.03.08.2011. Further the said purchasers sold the property to Sri. G. Krishnaiah S/O: Sri Chinnabba Naidu under Registered Sale Deed dtd.09.11.2011, who is the vendor under this deed.
b) Registered Sale Deed dtd.19.11.2011 at Ex.P5 marked through PW.1. As per this document, it is seen that, property bearing No.1442/A measuring East to West:40 feet and North to South:60 feet came to be sold by Anusuya W/O M. Ramesh; Smt. Parvathi W/O: M. Ramesh; and Smt. M. Chandrika D/O: Muniyellappa to Krishnaiah for the valuable consideration of Rs.28,80,000/. This document also evidences that, the purchaser has been put into 18 OS No.27043/2012 Possession of the purchased property, on the day of its purchase.
c) Registered Sale Deed dtd.03.08.2011 marked through PW.1 at Ex.P4. As per this document, it is seen that, Smt. Lakshmi W/O:
Venkatesh and Smt. Babyrani W/O: Srinivas sold property bearing No.1442/A measuring East to West:40 feet and North to South:60 feet to Anusuya W/O: M. Ramesh; Parvathi W/O: M. Ramesh; and M. Chandrika D/O Muniyellappa for the valuable consideration of Rs.21,60,000/. This document also evidences that, the purchasers have been put into actual Possession of the purchased property, on the day of its purchase.
d) Registered Sale Deed dtd.04.07.2007 marked through PW.1 at Ex.P3. As per this document, it is seen that, Sri. N. Dayanandan sold property bearing No.1442/A measuring East to West:40 feet and North to South:60 feet to Smt. Lakshmi W/O: Venkatesh and Smt. Babyrani W/O:
Srinivas for the valuable consideration of 19 OS No.27043/2012 Rs.16,80,000/. This document also evidences that, the purchasers have been put into actual Possession of the purchased property, on the day of its purchase.
e) Encumbrance certificate for seven years running from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.2004 at Ex.P3, marked through PW.2. This document evidences about a transaction of sale dtd.03.09.1997 inbetween the AECS Ltd., represented by its Hon'ble Secretary and N. Dayanandan, which is registered as Document No.4253/9798, inrespect of Site No.1442/A, blockA, measuring 60 X 40 feet.
f) Encumbrance certificate from 03.08.2011 to 03.08.2011 at Ex.P4, marked through PW.2. This document evidences about a transaction of sale dtd.03.08.2011 inbetween the 1) Smt. Lakshmi W/O:
Venkatesh; 2) Smt. Babyrani W/O Srinivas; and 3) Bhagya W/O B. S Aswathnarayana (confirming party), on one hand and 1) Smt. Anusuya W/O M. Ramesh; 2) Smt. Parvathi W/O M. Ramesh; and 3) Smt. Chandrika D/O: Muniyellappa, which is 20 OS No.27043/2012 registered as Document No.BMH103826201112, inrespect of Site No.1442/A, blockB, measuring 60 X 40 feet.
g) The Plaintiff has produced the extract from the Assessment Register for the years 201213 inrespect of the property bearing 1442/A of Singasandra. As per this document it is seen that initially the name of Dayanand N was appearing in as the owner of the said property, his name was deleted and the names of Laxmi & B S Baby Rani came to be entered, in the owners column, as owners of the said property. Thereafter their names came to be deleted and the names of Anusaya; Parvathi; and M Chandrika came to be entered in the owners column, as owners of the said property. Further their names came to be deleted and the name of G Krishnaiah came to be entered in the owners column, as owner of the said property. And still further the name of G Krishnaiah came to be deleted and the names of the Plaintiff and Harish Kumar Reddy came to be entered in the owners column, as owners of the said property. Further as per column No 26, 21 OS No.27043/2012 the said entry of names of the owners the Plaintiff has come into effect from 01.10.2007.
12. Further the Defendant has produced the below mentioned documents:
a) Extracts of Akar band and revenue settlement records pertaining to the land bearing Sy No 27/1 of Singsandar village, at ExD2 to ExD5. As per these documents it is seen that the land bearing Sy No 27/1 is bifurcated into two parts, one part is measuring 2 Acres 09 gts (Incl of 005 gts p.k) and and other part measuring 2 Acres 26 gts (Incl of 0 07 gts p.k).
b) True copies of the Notifications issued by the BDA U/Secs 4(1) and 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act at ExD12 & ExD13; Wardi given by the Revenue Inspector dated 22.01.2009 at ExD14. As per these documents it is seen that, the lands have been notified to be acquired by the BDA for formation of sites by the Air Craft Employees Cooperatives Society Ltd. The land bearing Sy No 27/1 is shown 22 OS No.27043/2012 at Sl No 25, shown to be notified under the said notifications.
c) Certified copy of the Ordersheet in WP No 41629/2015 (LARES) pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru at ExD15. As per this document it is not clear whether the said Writ Petition pertains to the land bearing Sy No 27/1 of Singasandra village; and whether the present Defendant is the party to the said proceedings.
d) Office copy of the letter issued by the Defendant to the SLAO, Bengaluru dated 28.10.2015 at ExD16. As per this document it is seen that a request is made by the Defendant to the SLAO that on acquiring the land belonging to his mother, measuring 2 Acres 19 gts (Incl of 007 gts p.k), for formation of layout by the Air Craft Employees Co operatives Society Ltd., and an award was passed for Rs 99,000/ in this regard and it was mentioned that an amount of Rs 50,000/ out of Rs 99,000/ was sent to his mother by Cheque bearing No 87993 dated 02.06.1988, but no such cheque has been 23 OS No.27043/2012 received either by him or his mother, as well as even balance amount of Rs 49,000/ is not paid to them.
e) Certified copy of the Partition Deed dated 29.11.2000 at ExD6. As per this document it is seen that there is partition inbetween the Defendant and his siblings inrespect of their property and in the said partition the Defendant has received an area measuring 2 Acres 26 guntas out of Sy No 27/1A of Singasandra village, which is shown as Item no 4 of Schedule B Property. Further there is note found on the foot, after the description of the said property, which reads as, "In future any problem arises in this Sy No. Sri Venkatesh and others have no any responsibility, only the Schedule Owner shall lookafter all the problems". Such type of remarks/note is not found inrespect of any other lands mentioned in the entire deed, but found only inrespect of the said land.
13. As per the above documentary evidence, it can be concluded that the land bearing Sy No 27/1A, measuring 2 Acres 19 gts (Incl of 007 gts p.k) of 24 OS No.27043/2012 Singasandra village beloned to Muniamma @ Ammaiamma and the said land was notified alongwith other lands U/Sec 4(1) and 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act, as per ExD12 & ExD13, by the BDA for formation of layout by the Air Craft Employees Cooperatives Society Ltd.
As per ExD15Certified copy of the Ordersheet in WP No 41629/2015 (LA RES), it can be said that the said Writ Petition was filed for quashing of the Notifications dated 15.04.1988 and 28.04.1989.
And an award of Rs 99,000/ is passed for acquiring the said land belonging to the mother of the Defendant, which can be seen as per the letter issued by the Defendant, got marked at ExD16.
Further a partition is got effected by the Defendant and his siblings as per ExD6Partition Deed dated 29.11.2000. The event of said partition is taken place after notification of the land bearing Sy No 27/1 of Singasandra under ExD12 & ExD13.
Now let us analyses the case under background of the above facts and circumstances.
25OS No.27043/2012
14. The learned Counsel for the Defendant would contend that the property shown by the Plaintiff, as the Suit Schedule Property is an unascertained property. He has invited the attention of this Court, by tallying the boundaries of the Schedule of Property shown under ExP3Sale Deed dated 04.07.2007 with that of the Schedule of Property shown under ExP2Sale Deed dated 24.02.2012; or with the Schedule of Property shown under ExP5Sale Deed dated 19.11.2011; or with the Schedule of Property shown under ExP4Sale Deed dated 03.08.2011.
14.01. Under ExP3Sale Deed dated 04.07.2007, the boundaries of the Schedule Property is shown as, to the East: by Road; to the West: By Site No 1444; to the North: By Site No 1442; and to the South: By Site No 1443.
14.02. Whereas, as per ExP2Sale Deed dated 24.02.2012; ExP5Sale Deed dated 19.11.2011; ExP4Sale Deed dated 03.08.2011, the boundaries of the Schedule Property are shown as, to the East: by Site No 1442; to the West: By Site No 26 OS No.27043/2012 1443; to the North: By Road; and to the South: By Site No 1444.
14.03. Coming to the ocular evidence, on this point, more specifically,
a) cross examination of PW1 at Page No.10, Para No 3, which reads as under:
"I can tell the boundaries and measurements of the suit property. Its measurement is: East to West : 40 ft, North to South : 60 ft and its boundaries are to east : Site No.1442, to the west: site No. 1443, to the north : road, and to the south : site No. 1444. "
b) cross examination of PW1 at Page No.14, Para No 1, which reads as under:
"On questioning the witness by showing Ex.D1 whether your plot is bounded by site No.1444 to its south. Witness replies I do not know. But witness says that my plot is bounded by road to its north, site 1442 to its east and 1443 to its west. It is false to suggest that as per Ex.D1 plot No. 1444 is located towards the southern side of plot No.1443. It is false to suggest that the suit schedule property is not in existence as on the date of the suit."27
OS No.27043/2012
c) cross examination of PW1 at Page No 15, Line Nos 6 to 13, which reads as under:
"... It is true to suggest that Ex.D1 plan is a modified plan of earlier plan. It is false to suggest that suit schedule property was not in existence as per 2001 plan. Existence of my suit schedule property is on the basis of plan dt. 12.11.1992 bearing No. B.D.A./TPM/DD/ 1263/199293. It is false to suggest that the above mentioned plan is not in existence and the concerned B.D.A. authorities have never sanctioned such plan. ...."
15. Further coming to the documentary evidence, on this point, which can be seen as per the Site formation plan, produced by the Defendant, which was got confronted to PW2/Plaintiff, in his cross examination, which is marked as ExD1.
15.01. Coming to the ocular evidence, inrespect of ExD1, which can be seen,
a) as per the cross examination of PW1 at Page No 13, Para No 2, which reads as under:
"I have not verified the plan dt. 23.04.2008, but I have seen the said plan. Now the said plan is 28 OS No.27043/2012 shown to the witness plot No. 1442A location is shown to the witness in the said plan. Witness admits the location of the said property in the said plan. Hence, the said plan is marked as ExD1 and the said portion is marked with green ink, as ExD1(A)."
b) the cross examination of PW1 at Page No.11, Para No 4, Line Nos 3 to 8, which reads as under:
"..... I am further not aware whether approved plant dt.
14.03.2011 is the subject matter of Writ Petition. I am not aware whether the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, had directed to BDA and AECS to get revised the approved plan dt. 14.03.2011, in accordance with law."
16. Further the position and nature of the property can be ascertained, as per the ocular evidence, more specifically,
a) the cross examination of DW1 at Page No 18, Para No 1, Line Nos 3 to 6, which reads as under:
".... It is true to suggest that the Suit Schedule Property come within the limits 29 OS No.27043/2012 of BBMP authorities., but I do not know as to when it has come into the limits of BBMP authorities."
b) the cross examination of DW1 at Page No.18, Para No 2, Line Nos 2 & 3, which reads as under:
".... Sy No.27/1A has not retain its agricultural use."
c) the cross examination of DW1 at Page No 21, Para No 3, which reads as under:
"Ex.D13 is a notification passed for acquiring the land. We have challenged the said notification. Our land is acquired under Ex.D13. As per Ex.D13, AECS Society has acquired our land for formation of layout. It is false to suggest that AECS Society was put into possession of the acquired lands under Ex.D13Notification. "
d) the cross examination of DW1 at Page No.19, Para No 1, which reads as under:
"It is true to suggest that Air Craft Employees have have formed a residential layout under the name Air Craft Employees House Building Co operative Society Ltd., in Singasandra 30 OS No.27043/2012 Village. The said residential sites is formed about 10 years back. It is true to suggest that sites have been allotted and the allottees have constructed a residential buildings in the said sites. I am not aware as to how many residential sites have been formed in the said layout. I do not know whether the Air Craft Employees Association have purchase the agricultural lands from the agriculturists and formed the said layout."
17. As per the above documentary and ocular evidence, it can be concluded that the Air Craft Employees Cooperative Society Ltd., has formed the layout as per ExD1Layout plan. And the plot bearing No 1442/A is located in it, as shown as ExD1(A), as per the suggestion made to the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant. Suggestion is nothing but admission on the part of the person, on whose behalf, it is made. So the Defendant admits that plot bearing No 1444/A is located in layout, as per ExD1(A). On perusal of the location of the plot bearing No 1444/A as per ExD1(A), it can be said that it is having following boundaries, to the East: By Site No 1442; to the West: By Site No 1443; to the 31 OS No.27043/2012 North: By Road; and to the South: By Site No 1444. The said boundaries has been deposed by the Plaintiff, in his cross examination, referred to supra.
17.01. Though the Defendant contended that the Hon'ble High Court is pleased to direct the Air Craft Employees Cooperative Society Ltd., to get revised the layout plan, but no such materials are produced by the Defendant.
17.02. Further the Defendant himself has produced the letter given by him to the SLAO as per ExD16, which suggest that an award is passed on acquiring the land of his mother bearing Sy No 27/1A of Singasandra village, but has not received the amount. Well that can be agitated by the Defendant, before the Competent forums and before the Competent authorities.
18. Further the Learned Counsel for the Defendant, tried to create a doubt in the case of the Plaintiff, by contending that, if the sites were formed, as per the plan, then why the property shown as the 32 OS No.27043/2012 Suit Schedule Property was allotted with Site No 1444/A. 18.01. On careful perusal of the document got marked by the Defendant on confrontation to PW1, at ExD1, it can be seen that, it is not the the suit site, which is shown as the Suit Schedule Property by the Plaintiff in this suit, having such numbers, there are other sites also which have been numbered as 1529/A, 1595/A, 1596/A, 1649/A, 1650/A, 1849/A, 1849/B, 1912/A, 19/13/A, etc.
19. Thus it can be concluded that when on getting produced the Plot formation Sketch by the Defendant as ExD1 and getting depicted the location of the site bearing No 1444/A, by the Defendant as ExD1(A), then the Defendant knows as to the location of the site, shown as the Suit Schedule Property by the Plaintiff, in this Suit. So under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the property shown as the Suit Schedule Property by the Plaintiff is an unascertained property.
33OS No.27043/2012
20. Further, as per the documents produced by the Plaintiff like ExP3Saledeed dated 04.07.2007; ExP4Saledeed dated 03.08.2011; ExP6Saledeed dated 19.11.2011; ExP2Sale deed dated 24.02.2012, coupled with other materials on record, it can be said that the the lands were acquired by the BDA for formation of sites by the Air Craft Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. On formation of sites, possession of Site No 1444/A was delivered to N Dayanandan, as per the Saledeed dated 03.09.1997, which can be witness as per ExP3Encumbrance Certificate, got marked through PW2. Thereafter the said Dayanandan N transfered the possession of the said Site to Smt Laxmi W/O:
Venkatesh and Smt B S Babyrani, under the Registered Saledeed dated 04.07.2007ExP3. Inturn the said purchasers Smt Laxmi W/O:
Venkatesh and Smt B S Babyrani, transfered the possession of the said site to Anusaya W/O: Ramesh; Parvathi W/O Ramesh and M Chandikar D/O: Muniyellappa, under the Registered Saledeed dated 03.08.2011ExP4. Further the said 34 OS No.27043/2012 purchasers Anusaya W/O: Ramesh; Parvathi W/O Ramesh and M Chandikar D/O: Muniyallappa, transfered the possession of the said site to Sri Krishnaiah, under the Registered Saledeed dated 19.11.2011ExP5. And lastly the said Krishnaiah transfered the possession of the said site to the Plaintiff and his son Harish Kumar Reddy, under the Registered Saledeed dated 24.02.2012ExP2.
20.01. Thus the Plaintiff has shown his possession over the Suit Schedule Property. Since this is a suit filed by the Plaintiff for the Relief of Injunction, it will be only for the Plaintiff to prove his possession over the Suit Schedule Property. And since the Defendant has not filed/claimed any Counter Claim in this suit, then the Defendant needn't prove that he is in possession of the Suit Schedule Property.
Hence, I answer ISSUE NO.4 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND ISSUE NO.5, AS DOES NOT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION.35
OS No.27043/2012
21. ISSUE NO. 1:
The Plaintiff has contended in Para Nos 3 & 10 of the Suit Plaint that the Defendant has demolished the Compound wall and the shed constructed by him in the Suit Schedule Property.
21.01. The Plaintiff has produced the positive photographs at ExP18 & ExP19 and CD at ExP16, to show that the Defendant has demolished the compound wall and the Shed constructed by him, in the Suit Plaint.
21.02. Coming to the ocular evidence, on this point, more specifically, cross examination of DW1 at Page No.23, Para Nos 1 & 2, which read as under:
"Plaintiff has not constructed compound wall over the Suit Schedule Property. It is false to suggest that I have tried to destroy the compound wall constructed by the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property.
Now a positive Photograph is shown to the witness which is marked as Ex.P18 and questioned to the witness, compound wall seen in the said photo is constructed by the Plaintiff. Witness replies in the negative. I have produced Ex.D1 Layout Plan in this case. Ex.D1 Layout Plan is approved by the AECS Society. I do not know whether my land 36 OS No.27043/2012 bearing Sy.No. 27/1A is shown in Ex.D1 Layout Plan. It is false to suggest that as per the Layout Plain Ex.D1 AECS Society has allotted the sites to its members." As per this evidence, the Defendant has denied the fact of construction of the Compound wall and the Shed by the Plaintiff."
When the Defendant has denied the same, then it is for the Plaintiff to prove the said fact of construction of compound wall and the Shed by him, in the Suit Schedule Property.
21.03. The Plaintiff has not produced any cogent evidencedocuments like., building/shed and compound wall construction permission/sanction, approved plan, to show the construction of the Compound wall and shed; the estimation for constructing the shed and compound wall.
21.04. Though, the Plaintiff has produced the Positive Photographs with CD at EXP18, ExP19 & ExP16, respectively, but the Plaintiff has not proved the said documents, by examining the person, who has taken the said photograph and as to who has developed the same under the CD, which was required as per the decision of the Hon'ble High 37 OS No.27043/2012 Court of Gujarath, in the case of State of Gujarath Vs Bharat, reported in 1991 Cr L J 978 (Guj).
21.05. So also the Plaintiff has not produced any evidence either in the form of documents or ocular evidence to show that the Defendant has demolished the Compound wall and the Shed constructed in the Suit Schedule Property.
21.06. When the Plaintiff has failed to show that:
a) he has constructed a Compound wall and a shed in the Suit Schedule Property;
b) cost of construction of the Compound wall and a shed in the Suit Schedule Property;
c) the defendant has demolished the said Compound wall and a shed constructed in the Suit Schedule Property;
d) estimated loss of demolition of the said Compound wall and a shed in the Suit Schedule Property, then under such circumstances, the Plaintiff will not be entitled for any damages from the 38 OS No.27043/2012 defendant, much the less as claimed by him, in the Suit Plaint.
Hence, I answer ISSUE NO.1 IN THE
NEGATIVE.
22. ISSUE NO. 2:
Under this issue, the Plaintiff has to prove the alleged interference of the Defendant over the Suit Schedule Property. The Plaintiff has asserted in Para Nos 10 of the suit plaint that, the Defendant has demolished the Compound wall and the Shed constructed by him, in the Suit Schedule Property and further apprehends the interference of the Defendant, in his possession over the Suit Schedule Property.
23. Coming to the ocular evidence, on this point, more specifically,
a) cross examination of DW1 at Page No.21, Para No 4, which reads as under:
"The Plaintiff has filed this present suit, when I have stopped his work of constructing a compound wall, in our land. It is true to suggest that the Plaintiff has resisted my 39 OS No.27043/2012 obstructions contending that he has purchased the site from the person to whom the said site was allotted by AECS Society. It is false to suggest that Plaintiff has not stated that he has purchased the Suit Schedule Property from Krishnaiah under the registered Sale Deed dt. 24.02.2012. It is false to suggest that Plaintiff is in possession of the Suit Schedule Property from the day of its purchase."
b) cross examination of DW1 at Page No.22, Para No 4, which reads as under:
"I do not know one Srinivas Reddy. It is true to suggest that Srinivas Reddy has lodged a Police Complaint against me with the Parappana Agrahar Police Station, on 01.10.2012. Since I had stopped the construction work of Srinivas Reddy, he has lodged a Police Complaint against me. I do not know whether the said Srinivas Reddy is the contractor for construction of a building, belonging to the Plaintiff."
c) cross examination of DW1 at Page No 24, Para No 1, which reads as under:
"It is false to suggest that Plaintiff is in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and I am trying to interfere with his possession over the Suit Schedule Property. It is false to suggest that I do not have any right, title and interest over the lands which have been 40 OS No.27043/2012 acquired by the AECS Society under Ex.D13 Notification."
23.01. As per these ocular evidence, it can be said that there are certain actions of the Defendant, which show the intention of the Defendant and the apprehension in the mind of the Plaintiff, which will lead to interference.
24. Thus apprehension of injury or belief on the part of the Plaintiff coupled with the Intention of the defendant, to do certain act, which harms the Plaintiff, amounts to interference by the defendant. Since the act apprehended by the Plaintiff and intended by the defendant is such that, if completed, give a ground for action, there is a foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction. Thus it amounts to interference. Hence, I am of the firm opinion that Plaintiff has proved that the prospect or apprehension and belief coupled with intention of the defendant, if completed will give rise to a cause of inflicting injury or receiving injury to the him. I find support to my above said view in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 41 OS No.27043/2012 ILR 1978 Page 1560; in the case of Gopal M Hegde & Ors Vs U F M Narasimha Ganap Bhat & Ors, wherein it is held that, "When the Plaintiff proves the intention on the part of the defendants to do an act or existence of the act, which in the opinion of the Court, if completed, give ground of action, there is foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction".
For the above said reasons I answer ISSUE NO. 2 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
25. ISSUE NOS.3 & 6:
Since, both these Issues are interrelated to each other, inorder to avoid repeatation and confusion in the discussion, the said issues are taken at once for there discussion.
25.01. Now the question before the Court is, Whether the suit of the Plaintiff for the relief of bare Injunction is maintainable, in view of the Defendant, merely raising the cloud as to title of the Plaintiff, without any cogent evidence?42
OS No.27043/2012 25.02. My answer to the said question in the present case, will be in the Negative, for two reasons.
25.03. Firstly, The Defendant has only contended that he has received the said property under the Partition Deed dated 29.11.2000, as per ExD6, but has not shown that the Acquisition proceedings takenup under the Notifications ExD12 & ExD13, have been quashed by the Competent Courts of law. He has neither led the oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence, much the less to show that acquisition proceedings have been diluted. So such contention of the Defendant will amount to merely raising of cloud, as to the title of the Plaintiff, which is not sufficient, but the same is to be coupled with some cogent and believable evidence, then only the suit for bare Injunction filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable otherwise, it is maintainable. I find force to my said opinion as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs Didar Singh & anr (Civil Appeal No 8241/2009. Date 43 OS No.27043/2012 of Disposal 09.10.2018) as well as in the case of Anatullah Sudhakar Vs P. Bucchi Reddy & Anr reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033.
25.04. Secondly, when the Defendant by producing the letter at ExD16, has brought on record that after acquisition of the land bearing Sy No 27/1A of Singasandra belonging to his mother, an award of Rs 99,000/ was passed and has requested the said authorities to release the said award amount, in his favour. Then U/Sec 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, possession of the mother of the Defendant is deemed to be taken and is vested with the Government. And the BDA having acquired the lands for formation of the layout by the Air Craft Employees Cooperative Society Ltd; layout of sites is formed as per ExD1 and the site bearing No 1444/A is allotted to the erstwhile vendor of the Plaintiff by the said Air Craft Employees Cooperative Society Ltd., and possession of the said site is flown from to the Plaintiff.
44OS No.27043/2012 25.05. Thus when the Plaintiff has shown his possession over the Suit Schedule Property coupled with interference of the defendant over it, then he is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction.
25.06. But the Plaintiff has failed to prove Issue No 2, so he will not be entitled for the relief of Compensation/damages, as claimed by him.
Hence, I answer ISSUE NO.3 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND ISSUE NO.6 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
26. ISSUE NO 7:
In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 to 6, the defendant, his henchmen, agents or any other person/s acting on his behalf, is required to be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property, by issuing an order of Permanent Injunction. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:45
OS No.27043/2012 ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is decreed, inpart.
In the consequences, an order of Permanent Injunction is issued against the defendant, restraining him, his henchmen, agents or any other person/s acting on his behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff, over the Suit Schedule Property.
Relief of Damages of Rs 2,50,000/ claimed by the Plaintiff is Rejected.
No order as to costs.
Draw Decree, Accordingly.
- (Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer system, computerized by her and print out taken by her, after correction, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of April, 2021.) [AbdulRahiman. A.Nandgadi] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH73) 46 OS No.27043/2012 :Schedule 'A' Property:
All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing Site No. 1442/A in Block'A' in AECS Layout, presently BBMP Property No.666/1442/A. Formed in Sy Nos.6/1, 6/2, 8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/4, 8/5, 8/5, 10/1, 10/3, 15/1P, 15/2P, 17P, 18, 19, 21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 22/1, 22/2, 23/1 to 23/13, 25/1 to 25/6, 26/1P, 26/3, 27/1A, 27/1B, 27/2, 28/1A, 28/1B, 28/2 to 28/5, 26/5, 29/2, 30/1, 30/2, 31, 32/2, 32/3, 36, 38, 39, 43/1, 44, 46, 61/1, 61/2, 62, 63, 64, 67/1 to 67/6, 68/1, 72/1 to 72/4, 73, 74, 75/1 to 75/9, 76/1, 76/3, 76/4, 77/1 to 77/6, 78, 79/1 to 79/9, 80, 81/1, 81/2A, 81/2B, 81/2C, 81/3B, 83, 84, 85, 91/1, 91/2, 94/1, 94/2, 95, 96/1P, 96/2, 96/3, 97/1B, 97/2, 102/1, 102/2, 103/1, 103/3, 103/4, 103/5B, 103/6, 104/2, 105/1P, 105/2, 105/3, 106/1P, 106/2P, 106/3 to 106/6, 109, 111/1 and 111/2 of Singasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District, presently comes under BBMP Limits, Bangalore in the Layout Plan of AECS Society approved by the Bangalore Development Authority vide Order No.BDA/TPM/DD/1263/92 93, dated 12.11.1992 related to the plots of lands as mentioned in the deed above, site measuring East to West:400 Feet or 12.195 Meters and North to South:600 Feet ir 18.293 Meters, in all 24000 Square Feet or 266.67 47 OS No.27043/2012 Square Yards or 223.08 Square Meters, BBMP Ward No.191, and Bounded on the:
East by: Site No.1442.
West by: Site No.1443.
North by: Road.
South by: Site No.1444.
[AbdulRahiman. A.Nandgadi] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH73) 48 OS No.27043/2012 ANNEXURES: LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1: Harish Kumar Reddy.
PW.2: Ramana Reddy.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Documents marked as per PW.1. Ex.P1: GPA.
Ex.P2 to 5: Certified copies of four absolute Sale Deeds.
Documents marked as per PW.2. Ex.P1: Certified copy of Absolute Sale Deed dtd.24.02.2012.
Ex.P2: Police endorsement.
Ex.P3 & 5 to 6: Encumbrance Certificates. Ex.P4: Form No.15.
Ex.P7: BBMP receipt of Khatha transfer Rs.4,005/. Ex.P8: Uttara Patra.
Ex.P9: Certificate issued BBMP dtd.22.08.2012. Ex.P10: Property register extract Ex.P11: Bank Challan.
Ex.P12: Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P13 to 15: Certified copies of Absolute Sale Deeds. Ex.P16: C.D. Ex.P17: Challan.
Ex.P18 & 19: Two photographs. Ex.P20: Property tax paid receipt.
LIST OF WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1: H. Purushothama Reddy.49
OS No.27043/2012 LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Ex.D1: Layout plan.
Ex.D2: Certified Copy of the Hissa Form Sy No.27/1. Ex.D3: Certified Copy of the Akar Band with sketch of Sy No.27/1.
Ex.D4: Certified copy of Hissa Tippani of Sy No.27/1. Ex.D5: Certified copy of Tippani of Sy No.27 issued by the Department of Survey Settlement and Land Records.
Ex.D6: Certified copy of Registered Partition Deed dtd.29.11.2000.
Ex.D7: MR. No.29/200607.
Ex.D8 & 9: Certified copies of two settlement Akar Bandhs withregard to Sy No.27. Ex.D10: 16 R/R extracts of Sy No.27/1A. Ex.D11: Encumbrance certificate. Ex.D12: Certified copy of the Preliminary Notification. Ex.D13: Certified copy of the Final Notification. Ex.D14: Certified copy of the Waradi with sketch and mahazer.
Ex.D15: Certified copy of the Ordersheet in WP No.41629/2015.
Ex.D16: Office copy of the letter dtd.Nil/10/2015.
[AbdulRahiman. A.Nandgadi] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH73)