Bangalore District Court
Rama G vs Ashwath Narayana on 24 March, 2025
1 O.S.No.7409/2016
KABC010246742016
Presented on : 21-10-2016
Registered on : 21-10-2016
Decided on : 24-03-2025
Duration : 08 years, 05 months, 03 days
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH.76) AT: BENGALURU
PRESENT: Sri. SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE,
B.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
LXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025
ORIGINAL SUIT No.7409/2016
PLAINTIFF: 1. G.Rama,
S/o. Late Shri.Giriyappa,
Aged about 54 years,
Residing at No.15,
14th Cross, 2nd Circular Road,
FTI Colony, Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru-560096.
(By Sri.Rajeswara P.N., Advocate.)
:VERSUS:
2 O.S.No.7409/2016
DEFENDANTS: 1. Ashwath Narayana,
S/o. Puttarasaiah,
Aged about 37 years,
2. Srinivasa,
S/o.Puttarasaiah,
Aged about 33 years,
Both are residing at
Pattanagere Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru, South Taluk.
(By Sri. J.C.Kumar., Advocate for D-1 & D-2.)
**********
Date of Institution of the suit 21.10.2016
Nature of the suit Suit for Permanent
Injunction
Date of commencement of 08.04.2021
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced 24.03.2025
Total Duration Years Months Days
08 05 03
Digitally signed by
SHIVANAND SHIVANAND MARUTI
MARUTI JIPARE
Date: 2025.03.24
JIPARE 13:26:25 +0530
(SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE)
LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
3 O.S.No.7409/2016
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction, with costs.
2. The brief facts averred in the plaint are as follows:
That the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of suit schedule property i.e. bearing residential site No.2, formed in Sy.No.54, New Khatha No.1094/872/723/2, Sl.No.1135, situated at Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring East to West: 46 feet and North to south: 30 feet, in all totally measuring 1,380 Sq. ft. The plaintiff has purchased said site from Kumari P. Usha for a valuable consideration, under sale dated:
24.11.2006. From date of purchase, the plaintiff is actual, physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The vendor of the plaintiff has acquired the title and actual physical possession of the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated: 20.10.1995 from Smt.Shivamma, W/o.Shivanna, and her four sons 4 O.S.No.7409/2016 namely Mahadevaiah, Rudrappa, Gurupadaiah, and Parameswaraiah, represented by their registered General Power of Attorney holders namely Puttarasaiah, S/o.Ramaiah, R.Venkatesh S/o.Ramaiah, and Ramaiah S/o.Late Venkatanarasappa. Before formation of the suit schedule property and other sites in Sy.No.54, the aforesaid Mahadevaiah has got converted land to non-
agricultural residential purpose as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District dated:
29.08.1994. The office of Pattanagere Panchayath, Kengere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk has sanctioned layout plan for formation of the residential layout. The plaintiff has paid taxes regularly towards the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is holder of khatha standing in his name. After formation of the residential layout in the said survey number, above named General Power of Attorney holders have sold the sites to various persons. The purchasers though they purchased the sites from the above named General Power of Attorney holders in their representative capacity as General Power of 5 O.S.No.7409/2016 Attorney holders of the owners of site were put in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. Some sites owners have constructed houses and are residing. They have got electricity, water, gas and telephone connections and the vendor of plaintiff is one such person who purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed from the above named General Power of Attorney holder in their capacity of General Power of Attorney holders of the original site owners and the she has transferred the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been actual, physical possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants who had no right, title, interest, charge and possession of whatsoever manner with respect to entire aforesaid residential layout of Sy.No.54 and suit schedule property are claiming the same as if they are the owners.
That on 15.10.2016, the plaintiff has gone to visit his suit schedule property for cleaning the same for digging of a bore well to carry out the constructions activities in the suit schedule property. On that point in time, the 6 O.S.No.7409/2016 defendants and their supports and followers, have stated that the suit schedule property belongs to them and they threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences and interfere with the same, he/she would be taught a lesson not only by physical assault and also try under appropriate law. On 15.10.2016, the plaintiff has approached the jurisdictional Police for assistance and protection to his life and to suit schedule property and he lodged complaint for Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police station, Bengaluru. The defendants are the strangers to the suit schedule property. The defendants have no right, title, charge, interest over the suit schedule property and they have been trying to knock-off the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants are economically sound having political influence and local support. At any moment they can do anything having unlawful and political influence, and if they are allowed to do so, the plaintiff will be put to great hardship, irreparable loss, injury and mental agony. The 7 O.S.No.7409/2016 cause of action to file this suit is arisen on 15.10.2016 and subsequently. Hence, this suit.
3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant No.1 and 2 have appeared through their learned Counsel. The defendant No.1 has filed written statement and the defendant No.2 has adopted said written statement filed by the defendant No.1.
4. The defendant No.1 and 2 have denied the averments of plaintiff in toto. The defendant No.1 and 2 contend that the suit is not maintainable. The defendant No.1 and 2 denies that the plaintiff is sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has purchased said site from Kumari P. Usha for a valuable consideration, under sale deed dated: 24.11.2006 and from date of purchase, the plaintiff is actual, physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants contend that, either the said vendor of plaintiff namely Kumari P.Usha or the plaintiff have no right, title and interest in respect of any portion of the 8 O.S.No.7409/2016 land in Sy.No.54 and either the vendor of the plaintiff or the plaintiff was / is not at all in possession or enjoyment of the alleged suit schedule property. The defendants denies that vendor of the plaintiff has acquired the title and actual, physical possession of the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated: 20.10.1995 from Smt. Shivamma, W/o.Shivanna, and her four sons namely Mahadevaiah, Rudrappa, Gurupadaiah, and Parameswaraiah, represented by their registered General Power of Attorney holders namely Puttarasaiah, S/o.Ramaiah, R.Venkatesh, S/o.Ramaiah, and Ramaiah S/o.Late Venkatanarasappa and before formation of the suit schedule property and other sites in Sy.No.54, the aforesaid Mahadevaiah has got converted land to non- agricultural residential purpose as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District dated:
29.08.1994. The defendants contend that they had no knowledge about conversion of land as well as layout plan obtained by said Mahadevaiah and after coming to know the alleged conversion in respect of Sy.No.54 of 9 O.S.No.7409/2016 Pattanagere village in favour of Mahadevaiah, the defendants have challenged the said conversion order before the competent Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending for consideration. The defendants denies that the plaintiff is possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants who had no right, title, interest, charge and possession of whatsoever manner with respect to entire aforesaid residential layout of Sy.No.54 and suit schedule property are claiming the same as if they are the owners. The defendant No.1 and 2 contend that the land bearing old Sy.No.8 and new Sy.No.11 and after phodi and durasth assigned new survey No.54, measuring 2- acres 4 -guntas was granted in favour of the great grandfather of them viz.
Venkatarasa alias Venkatadasa and his name was entered in the IL and RR and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said land during his life time. Said venkatadasa @ Venkatarasa, during his life time had one son by name Ramaiah. The said Venkatadasa alias Ventakarasa and his son Ramaiah died, leaving behind his wife Hanumakka as 10 O.S.No.7409/2016 his legal heir. Through Hanumakka, the said Ramaiah during his life time had two sons by name Puttarasaiah and R.Venkatesh. Puttarasaiah got 7 children, out of them, four sons and three daughters and also R.Venkatesh, his brother, got three children and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the said land even till today after the death of their ancestors. After the death of Venkatarasa alias Venkatadasa, his son Late Ramaiah sold the said lank in survey No.54 measuring 02- acres in favour of Shivanna under the registered sale deed dated: 27.12.1957. Subsequently, said Shivanna in turn sold the same in the said survey number in favour of Hanumakka, who is the wife of Ramaiah and also the grandmother of the defendants herein on 30.04.1964. Then and there, said Shivanna had lost his alleged right, title and possession in respect of the said land, through he had purchased in violation of the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. On 24.08.1968, the said Hanumakka sold the above said land in favour of one Sanjeevaiah and thereafter, said Sanjeevaiah in turn sold the same in 11 O.S.No.7409/2016 favour of G.Nagaraj on 08.09.1969. The said G.Nagaraj executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of Hanumakka on 29.09.1971. After coming to know about the illegal sale transactions and after coming into force of the provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, the then Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, recommended to the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, has issued show cause notice to Shivanna, as his name was entered in the revenue records in respect of survey No.54 of Pattanagere Village even after selling the said land as per sale deed dated: 30.04.1964 in favour of Hanumakka, who is the grandmother of the defendants. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner called for an explanation from Shivanna, who has been made as respondent in the said proceedings, as to why land should not be restored in favour of to original grantee or his legal heirs. In response 12 O.S.No.7409/2016 to the said show cause notice issued by Assistant Commissioner, vide No.SC:ST(D)100/79-80, said Shivanna on 22.04.1981 appeared and submitted his reply that he was the grantee to an extent of 04- acres of land out of gomal land of Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, at an upset price of Rs.4/- per acre and thereafter, after the Pakka Phodi, the same was assigned as survey No.56 of Pattanagere Village, measuring 04- acres and also stated that he has not at all purchased the land measuring 02- acres 04 -guntas from the petitioner therein Venkatadasa in the said Sy.No.8, also he has stated that he has not at all got any right, title and interest over the said land, which was granted to Venkatadasa in the said Sy.No.8. After receiving the reply filed by said Shivanna on 22.04.1981, the Assistant Commissioner was pleased to order for restoration of the land in Sy.No.54 to the original grantee or in case if he is not alive to his legal heirs and also directed the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, to take eviction proceedings to evict the respondent therein from the said land and the 13 O.S.No.7409/2016 land restored o the original grantee or his legal heirs on 04.10.1982 in case No.KSC:ST:100/1979-80. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bengaluru, restored the land in Sy.No.54 after evicting the unauthorized persons in the said land and the same has been mentioned in column No.11 of RTC in Sy.No.54. Above facts clearly go to show that: (1) Shivanna has no manner of right, title or interest in respect of Sy.No.54 measuring 02 -acres 04 - guntas, (2) he was the grantee in respect of Sy.No.56 and old Sy.No.8 and not Sy.No.54 as per his own statement of objections filed before the Assistant Commissioner in case No.SC:ST:100/1979/80 dated: 22.04.1981, (3) all the sale transactions have been set aside and restored the same in favour of the defendants' family. Accordingly, the khatha and revenue entries have been transferred in favour of the father of defendants and his family members from 1982 till today and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 2 -acre 4 -guntas in Sy.No.54 and also they have put up residential house in a portion of the said 14 O.S.No.7409/2016 property and also have put up compound wall and constructed a shop and A.C sheet sheds are in existence even prior to filing the suit. Thus, the defendants and their family members are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. Said property is still having agricultural character and no layout is formed in the said land or any portion thereof. For the convenience of the defendants and their family members, they have put up residential house in the portion of the said land with drainage for flow of the water. The second defendant has also obtained the water connection. Except the defendants and their family members, no other persons are in possession in the said property or any portion thereof. The plaintiff or any of his alleged vendors are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or they do not have any manner of right, title and interest. On 30.04.1964, the husband of Shivamma and father of Mahadevaiah, Rudrappa, Gurupadaiah, and Parameshwaraiah namely Shivanna had in turn sold the land in favour of the grandmother of 15 O.S.No.7409/2016 the defendants Late Hanumakka, under the registered document No.616/1964-65 and therefore, said Shivanna lost his right, title and possession over the said land. When such being the above facts, after the death of said Shivanna, his wife Shivamma, and his children's do not have any right, title or possession over the land. The fact of the alleged conversion order, revenue entries and alleged approved layout plan, etc. have no legal sanctity, as the defendants and their family members are in possession and enjoyment of said land, being absolute owners. Taking undue advantage of the innocence and lack of worldly knowledge of the defendants and their family members, the LRs of said Shivanna have managed to obtain the revenue entries. The defendants have no exclusive manner of right in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.54 measuring 02 -acres 04- guntas, as it belongs to Joint Hindu Undivided Family property. The defendants and their family members have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of said land. Hence, the alleged sale deed executed by the vendors of the plaintiff 16 O.S.No.7409/2016 will not confer any manner of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property. Shivanna and his children have got right over the land in Sy.No.56 measuring 04- acres of Pattanagere and not in Sy.No.54. Hence they ought to have executed documents, if any, only in respect of their land in Sy.No.56 and not in Sy.No.54, which absolutely belongs to the predecessors in title of the defendants and their family members. This suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary and proper parties. In view of Section 11 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law. Hence, defendants pray to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, following Issues have been framed by my learned Predecessor in Office.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit?
17 O.S.No.7409/2016
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants with respect to the suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as claimed in the suit?
4. What order or decree?
6. In support of the case, the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked 46 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.46 and closed his side evidence. In rebuttal, the defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.21 and closed their side evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of both learned Counsels of both parties at length and perused the materials on record.
8. My findings on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : As per the final order
18 O.S.No.7409/2016
for the following:
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.1: The plaintiff has asserted that, he is the sole and absolute owner of suit schedule property. The plaintiff has purchased said site from Kumari P. Usha for a valuable consideration, under sale deed dated:
24.11.2006. From date of purchase, the plaintiff is actual, physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has paid taxes regularly towards the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is holder of khatha standing in his name. The plaintiff has been actual, physical possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
10. The defendants have contended that khatha and revenue entries have been transferred in favour of the father of defendants and his family members from, 1982 till today and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 2 -acre 4 -guntas in Sy.No.54 and also they have put up residential house in a 19 O.S.No.7409/2016 portion of the said property and also have put up compound wall and constructed a shop and A.C sheet sheds are in existence even prior to filing the suit. Thus, the defendants and their family members are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendants and their family members have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. Hence, the alleged sale deed executed by the vendors of the plaintiff will not confer any manner of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property.
11. In order to substantiate the contention, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief and he is examined as P.W.1. The P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint. The defendant No.1 has filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief and he is examined as D.W.1. The D.W.1 has reiterated the contents of written statement.
12. The plaintiff has relied on documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.46.
20 O.S.No.7409/2016
13. The defendants have relied documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.21.
14. The plaintiff has relied on Ex.P.1 -Original sale deed dated: 24.11.2006, Ex.P.2 - Original sale deed dated: 20.10.1995, Ex.P.3 -Property register extract, Ex.P.4 - Khatha certificate, Ex.P.5 - Certificate issued by B.B.M.P, Ex.P.6 to 10 - Tax paid receipts, Ex.P.11 to 19
-Property tax paid receipts, Ex.P.20 - photograph, Ex.P.21
- CD of the photograph, Ex.P.22- Studio bill for having taken photograph, Ex.P.23 - Copy of application for having applied for drilling of bore-well, Ex.P.24 - Acknowledgement for having received Ex.P.23, Ex.P.25 - Copy of police complaint, Ex.P.26- Copy of Endorsement issued by Police, Ex.P.27- Letter received by Geological department, Ex.P.28- Letter of appellate tribunal, Ex.P.28(a)- True copy of Memorandum annexed to Ex.P.28, Ex.P.29- Nil Encumbrance certificate, Ex.P.30 - Encumbrance certificate, Ex.P.31- Endorsement issued by the Police, Ex.P.32- Certified copy of Judgment in 21 O.S.No.7409/2016 O.S.No.10019/2015, Ex.P.33- Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.10019/2015, Ex.P.34- Certified copy of orders passed by Assistant Commissioner in No.K.S.C.T(S)/21/2015-16, Ex.P.35 to 38- 4 Property tax paid receipts, Ex.P.39 - Certified copy of sale deed, dated:
21.10.2020, Ex.P.40 - Certified copy of sale deed, dated:23.02.2005, Ex.P.41 - Certified copy of sale deed, dated: 23.02.2005, Ex.P.42 - Certified copy of sale deed, dated: 23.02.2005, Ex.P.43 - Certified copy of Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in RFA.No.2000/2017 (INJ), Ex.P.44 - True copy of FIR, Ex.P.45 - True copy of statement and Ex.P.46 - Certified copy of sale deed, dated:23.02.2005.
15. The defendants have relied on Ex.D.1 and 2 - photographs, Ex.D.2(a)- C.D, Ex.D.3- Certified copy of sale deed dated: 27.12.1957, Ex.D.3(a)- Typed copy, Ex.D.4- Certified copy of sale deed dated: 30.04.1964, Ex.D4(a)- Typed copy, Ex.D.5- Certified copy of sale deed dated: 24.08.1965, Ex.D.5(a) - Typed copy, Ex.D.6- Certified copy of sale deed dated: 08.09.1969, Ex.D.6(a)- 22 O.S.No.7409/2016 Typed copy, Ex.D.7 - Certified copy of Encumber certificate, Ex.D.8 - Certified copy of order passed in A.C. Bengaluru in KSCT 100/1979/1980, Ex.D.9 - Certified copy of the survey sketch, Ex.D.10 - Karnataka revision settlement Akara Band, Ex.D.11 - Certified copy of official memorandum issued by A.C, Bengaluru as per No.KSC/ ST/ 100/79-80 dated: 15.06.2009, Ex.D.12 - Certified copy of official memorandum dated: 18.06.2009, Ex.D.13
- Certified copy of the Judgment rendered in O.S.No.4665/2010, Ex.D.14 - Certified copy of the decree rendered in O.S.No.4665/2010. Ex.D.15 - Certified copy of the Judgment rendered in O.S.No.4666/2010 on 20.11.2019, Ex.D.16- Certified copy of the decree rendered in O.S.No.4666/2010, Ex.D.17 - Certified copy of the Judgment rendered in O.S.No.26213/2010 on 12.09.2017, Ex.D.18- Certified copy of the decree rendered in O.S.No.26213/2010, Ex.D.19- Certified copy of mutation register dated: 30.03.2010, Ex.D.20- Certified copy of RTC pertaining to Sy.No.54 for the year 2016-17, Ex.D.21- Certified copy of the order of D.C of 23 O.S.No.7409/2016 Bengaluru Urban dated: 20.02.2020 in Revision Petition No.176/2010-11.
16. The learned Counsel Sri.Rajeswara P.N, appearing for plaintiff has vehemently argued that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of suit schedule property. The plaintiff has purchased said site from Kumari P.Usha for a valuable consideration, under absolute sale deed dated: 24.11.2006 and from date of purchase, the plaintiff is actual, physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has paid taxes regularly towards the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is holder of khatha standing in his name. The plaintiff has been actual, physical possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants who had no right, title, interest, charge and possession of whatsoever manner with respect to entire aforesaid residential layout of Sy.No.54 and suit schedule property are claiming the same as if they are the owners. The learned Counsel Sri.J.C.Kumar, appearing for defendants has vehemently argued that 24 O.S.No.7409/2016 khatha and revenue entries have been transferred in favour of the father of defendants and his family members from, 1982 till today and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 2 -acre 4 -guntas in Sy.No.54 and also they have put up residential house in a portion of the said property and also have put up compound wall and constructed a shop and A.C sheet sheds are in existence even prior to filing the suit and the defendants and their family members are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendants and their family members have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land and the alleged sale deed executed by the vendors of the plaintiff will not confer any manner of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property.
17. The learned Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon following decisions:
1. (2008) 4 SCC 594, in case of Anathula Sudhakar
-Vs- P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others. 25 O.S.No.7409/2016
2. (2019) 17 SCC 692, in case of Jharkhand State Housing Board -Vs- Didar Singh and Another.
3. ILR 2005 KAR 5155, in case of Putlabai -Vs-
Vaijnath and others.
4. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in Regular Second Appeal No.125/1997 in case of Romeo M.F.Aquinas and others -Vs- Florina Mothias and others.
I have bestowed my anxious considerations to the principles emerges from these respected decisions.
18. The learned Counsel for defendants has relied upon following decisions:
1. AIR 2008 SCC 2033, in case of Anathula Sudhakar -Vs- P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others.
2. (2012) 8 SCC 148, in case of Union of India -Vs-
Ibrahim Uddin and Another.
3. 2004 (1) KCCR 662, in case of K.Gopala Reddy (deceased) by LRs -Vs- Suryanarayana and others.
26 O.S.No.7409/2016
4. AIR 2001 KARNATAKA 141, in case of R.L.Pinto and another -Vs- F.F.Menzes and another. I have bestowed my anxious considerations to the principles emerges from these respected decisions.
19. On perusal of Ex.P.1 which shows that, Kumari P.Usha has executed sale deed on 24.11.2006 in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property for sale consideration of Rs.8,28,000/-. On perusal of Ex.P.2 which shows that, Smt.Shivamma W/o. Late Shivanna, Sri.Mahadevaiah S/o. Late Shivanna, Sri.Rudarappa S/o.Late. Shivanna, Sri.Gurupadaiah S/o. Late Shivanna, Sri.Parameswaraiah S/o.Late Shivanna represented by Power of Attorney holder by Sri.Puttarasaiah S/o.Sri.Ramaiah, Sri.R.Venkatesh S/o.Sri.Ramaiah and Sri.Ramaiah S/o. Late Venkatanarasappa have executed sale deed in favour of vendor of plaintiff by name Miss.P.Usha on 20.10.1995 in respect of suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P.3 to 5 which show that, suit schedule property is standing in the name of plaintiff. On 27 O.S.No.7409/2016 perusal of Ex.P.23 which shows that, plaintiff has submitted application for digging bore-well. On perusal of Ex.P.25 which shows that, the plaintiff has lodged complaint against defendants. On perusal of Ex.P.28(a) which shows that, Mahadevaiah has got converted land to non- agricultural residential purpose as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District in No.BDS/ALN/SR(S) 33/94-95 dated: 29.08.1994. On perusal of Ex.P.32 which shows that suit in O.S.No.10019/2015 filed by Sri.B.R.Venkatram S/o.Late.Ramappa against defendant No.2, Ramesh and defendant No.1, seeking relief of permanent injunction, which is decreed on 12.07.2019. On perusal of Ex.P.34 which shows that, the defendant No.1 has filed petition seeking to cancel alleged sale deed transactions executed in favour of the respondent No.1 to 22 before Assistant Commissioner, South Sub-Division Bengaluru in No.K.S.C.S.T.(S) 21/2015-16 against respondents along with plaintiff, which is dismissed on 07.01.2019. 28 O.S.No.7409/2016
20. On perusal of Ex.D.3 which shows that, Ramaiah has executed sale deed dated: 27.12.1957 in respect of Sy.No.54, measuring 2 -acres, situated Pattanagere, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru in favour of Shivanna. On perusal of Ex.D.4 which shows that, Sri.Ramaiah has executed sale deed in favour of Smt. Hanumakka on 30.04.1964 in respect of Sy.No.54, measuring 2- acres, situated Pattanagere, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. On perusal of Ex.D.5 which shows that, Smt.Hanumakka has executed sale deed, in favour of Sanjeevaiah on 24.08.1986 in respect of Sy.No.54, measuring 2 - acres, situated Pattanagere, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. On perusal of Ex.D.6 which shows that, Sri.Sanjeevaiah has executed sale deed in favour of G.Nagaraj, dated: 08.09.1969 in respect of Sy.No.54, measuring 2 - acres, situated Pattanagere, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. On perusal of Ex.D.7 which shows that, sale transactions which took place in respect of survey No.54 measuring 2- acres situated at Pattanagere, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. On perusal of Ex.D.8 which shows that, 29 O.S.No.7409/2016 the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru, Sub-Division, Bengaluru was passed order for restoration of the land in Sy.No.54 to the original grantee or in case if he is not alive to his legal heirs and also directed the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, to take eviction proceedings to evict the respondent therein from the said land and the land restored to the original grantee or his legal heirs on 04.10.1982 in case No.KSCT:100/1979-80.The defendants have relied documents at Ex.D.13 to Ex.D.18. On perusal of Ex.D.19 which shows that, names of Puttarasaiah S/o. Ramaiah and Susheelamma W/o. Late R.Venkatesh jointly are mutated in respect of survey No.54 measuring 2- acres situated at Pattanagere, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru as per M.R.No.17/2009-2010. On perusal of Ex.D.20 which shows that, names of Puttarasaiah S/o. Late.Ramaiah and Susheelamma W/o. Late R.Venkatesh are appearing as possessors and cultivators in respect of survey No.54 measuring 2- acres situated at Pattanagere, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru for the year of 2016- 2017. On perusal of Ex.D.21 which shows that, Revision Petition 30 O.S.No.7409/2016 No.176/2010-2011 C/w SC.ST (Appeal) 172/2010-11 filed before Deputy Commissioner, Urban District Bengaluru, which are dismissed and the order dated: 04.10.1982 in K.SC.ST 100/1979-80 passed by the 1 st respondent is hereby up-held and consequently, the order of mutation in M.R.No.17/2009-10 effected by the 2 nd respondent is hereby confirmed.
21. So far as oral evidence of both parties is concerned to lis the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint. The P.W.1 has admitted in cross examination that: "ನ.ಪ.2 ರಲಲ ಸರರರ ನನ.54 ನನನ ಶವಣಣರವರನ ದದ 27.12.1957 ರನದನ ಕಕಯಕರಕ ಪಡರದರನತತತರರ ಎನದನ ನಮಮದನ ಇದರ ಎನದರರ ಸರ." The defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1 and D.W.1 has reiterated averments of written statement.
22. The defendants have contended that, suit schedule property is not existence and in view of Section 11 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, 31 O.S.No.7409/2016 the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law. On perusal of Ex.D.8, 11 and 19 to 21, the defendants are possession of said property of survey No.54, measuring 2- acres situated at Pattanagere, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. Though the plaintiff has relied Ex.P.1, Ex.P.3 to 19, and Ex.P.35 to 38 which are not helpful to him.
23. By considering entire evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and documents exhibited on both sides, on close scrutiny of pleadings of both parties and on careful appreciation of evidence, the plaintiff has not proved that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Negative.
24. ISSUE NO.2: It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants who had no right, title, interest, charge and possession of whatsoever manner with respect to entire aforesaid residential layout of Sy.No.54 and suit schedule property are claiming the same as if they are the owners. That on 15.10.2016, the plaintiff has 32 O.S.No.7409/2016 gone to visit his suit schedule property with cleaning the same for digging of a bore well to carry out the constructions activities in the suit schedule property. On that point in time, the defendants and their supports and followers, have stated that the suit schedule property belongs to them and they threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences and interfere with the same, he/she would be taught a lesson not only by physical assault and also try under appropriate law. On 15.10.2016, the plaintiff has approached the jurisdictional Police for assistance and protection to his life and to suit schedule property and he lodged complaint for Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police station, Bengaluru. The defendants have no right, title, charge, interest over the suit schedule property and they have been trying to knock-off the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and at any moment, the defendants can do anything having unlawful and political influence, and if they are allowed to do so, the plaintiff will be put to great 33 O.S.No.7409/2016 hardship, irreparable loss, injury and mental agony. The defendants have denied these facts. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Under the circumstances, the question of interference by the defendants does not arise. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove the interference by the defendants. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in the Negative.
25. ISSUE NO.3: In a suit for permanent injunction what are required are, the possession of the plaintiff and interference by the defendants. At the outset it is for the plaintiff to prove his case. The plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the defendants. At this juncture it is useful to refer the decision reported in 2011 (3) CIVIL COURT CASES 446 (S.C.), Rangammal -Vs- Kuppuswami and Another, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
34 O.S.No.7409/2016
Evidence Act, 1872, S.101- Burden of proof-Always lies upon the person who asserts - Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case.
Evidence Act, 1872, S.101- Plaintif has to establish its case on the basis of materials available and it cannot rely on the weakness or absence of defence to discharge onus.
The ratio laid down in this decision is aptly applicable to this suit.
26. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is trite that failure to prove the possession over the suit schedule property, injunction cannot be granted. This well settled legal principles is fortified from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2008 Supreme Appeals Reporter (CIVIL) Page 401. (Sri.Thimmaiah -Vs- Shabira and others) which reads thus:
35 O.S.No.7409/2016
"(A) Injunction-Suit for permanent
injunction-Before an injunction can be
granted it has to be shown that the plaintif was in possession-Trial court held that plaintifs had failed to prove their possession-Held that a plaintif not in possession is not entitled to the relief without claiming recovery of possession." Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2007 (1) KCCR 42 (Smt. Nirmala -Vs- Sri. Naveen Chhaggar and another) has held thus:
"SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 SECTION 38-CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908- Order 39, Rules 1 and 2-In a suit for bare injunction the plaintif must prove that he is in factual durable possession of the suit schedule property. A mere fact that the plaintif might have good title to the property that by itself automatically does not establish his possession of the property unless such possession is actually pleaded and proved by evidence. In a suit for bare injunction, unless the possession of the plaintif is 36 O.S.No.7409/2016 independently established, there is no way of the suit being decreed."
27. The plaintiff has failed to prove the interference by the defendants. At this juncture it is useful to refer the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in:
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in AIR 1981 Karnataka page 208 (R.G.Jantakal -Vs- M/S Bharat Parikh and Co and another) has held thus:
"An injunction can be granted only proof of actual interference or threat of interference and not in the absence of it."
Hence, in view of the principles enunciated in the above referred decisions, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative.
28. ISSUE NO.4: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
37 O.S.No.7409/2016
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III directly on computer online, typed by her corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 24th day of March, 2025) Digitally signed by SHIVANAND SHIVANAND MARUTI MARUTI JIPARE Date: 2025.03.24 JIPARE 13:27:24 +0530 (SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE) LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : G.Rama S/o. Late Giriyappa LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Original sale deed dated: 24.11.2006. Ex.P.2 : Original sale deed dated: 20.10.1995.
Ex.P.3 : Property register extract.
Ex.P.4 : Khatha certificate.
38 O.S.No.7409/2016
Ex.P.5 : Certificate issued by BBMP.
Ex.P.6 to : Tax paid receipts.
Ex.P.10
Ex.P.11 to : Property tax paid receipts.
Ex.P.19
Ex.P.20 : Photograph.
Ex.P.21 : C.D.
Ex.P.22 : Studio bill for having taken photograph.
Ex.P.23 : Copy of application for having applied for
drilling of bore-well.
Ex.P.24 : Acknowledgment for having received
Ex.P.23.
Ex.P.25 : Copy of police complaint.
Ex.P.26 : Copy of endorsement issued by police.
Ex.P.27 : Letter received by Geological
department.
Ex.P.28 : Letter of appellate tribunal.
Ex.P.28(a) : Memorandum annexed to Ex.P.28. Ex.P.29 : Nil Encumbrance certificate. 39 O.S.No.7409/2016
Ex.P.30 : Encumbrance certificate.
Ex.P.31 : Endorsement issued by the police.
Ex.P.32 : Certified copy of Judgment in
O.S.No.10019/2015.
Ex.P.33 : Certified copy of decree in
O.S.No.10019/2015.
Ex.P.34 : Certified copy of orders in K.S.C.S.T(S)
21/2015-16 passed by Assistant
commissioner, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.35 to : Property tax paid receipts. 38 Ex.P.39 : Certified copy of sale deed dated:
21.10.2020.
Ex.P.40 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated:
23.02.2005.
Ex.P.41 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated:
23.02.2005.
Ex.P.42 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated:
23.02.2005.
Ex.P.43 : Certified copy of Judgment in RFA.
No.2000/2017 (INJ), dated: 27.11.2023 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
40 O.S.No.7409/2016
Ex.P.44 : True copy of FIR.
Ex.P.45 : True copy of statement.
Ex.P.46 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated:
23.02.2005.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : Ashwathnarayana, S/o. Puttarasaiah. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 & 2 : Photographs.
Ex.D.2(a) : C.D.
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of sale deed.
Ex.D.3(a) : Typed copy of Ex.D.3.
Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of sale deed dated:
30.04.1964.
Ex.D.4(a) : Typed copy of Ex.D.4.
Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of sale deed dated:
24.08.1968.
Ex.D.5(a) : Typed copy of Ex.D.5.
41 O.S.No.7409/2016
Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of sale deed dated:
08.09.1969.
Ex.D.6(a) : Typed copy of Ex.D.6.
Ex.D.7 : Certified copy of Encumber certificate.
Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of order passed in A.C.
Bengaluru in KSCT 100/1979/1980.
Ex.D.9 : Certified copy of the survey sketch.
Ex.D.10 : Karnataka revision settlement Akara
Band.
Ex.D.11 : Certified copy of official memorandum
issued by A.C. Bengaluru as per No.KSC/ ST/ 100/79-80 dated: 15.06.2009. Ex.D.12 : Certified copy of official memorandum dated: 18.06.2009.
Ex.D.13 : Certified copy of the Judgment rendered in O.S.No.4665/2010.
Ex.D.14 : Certified copy of the decree rendered in O.S.No.4665/2010.
Ex.D.15 : Certified copy of the Judgment rendered in O.S.No.4666/2010 on 20.11.2019. 42 O.S.No.7409/2016 Ex.D.16 : Certified copy of the decree rendered in O.S.No.4666/2010.
Ex.D.17 : Certified copy of the Judgment rendered in O.S.No.26213/2010 on 12.09.2017. Ex.D.18 : Certified copy of the decree rendered in O.S.No.26213/2010.
Ex.D.19 : Certified copy of mutation register dated:
30.03.2010.
Ex.D.20 : Certified copy of RTC pertaining to survey No.54 for the year 2016-17.
Ex.D.21 : Certified copy of the order of D.C. of Bengaluru Urban dated: 20.02.2020 in Revision Petition 176/2010-11 C/w SC.ST (Appeal) 72/2010-11.
Digitally signed by
SHIVANAND SHIVANAND
MARUTI MARUTI JIPARE
JIPARE Date: 2025.03.24
13:27:35 +0530
(SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE)
LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.