Bangalore District Court
Sri. Chunnilal Suthar (Huf) vs Smt. Vijayalakshmi Patil on 1 February, 2023
KABC010187102018
IN THE COURT OF THE VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.No.19)
Dated: This the 1 st day of February, 2023.
PRESENT
SMT.S.G.SUNITHA, B.Sc., LLB.,
VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.4948/2018
Plaintiffs : 1. Sri. Chunnilal Suthar (HUF)
S/o Late Sri. Premji Suthar,
Aged about 60 years,
R/o No.4, 12th Cross,
Vasanthnagar,
Bengaluru - 560 052.
2. Smt. Rukmini Devi Suthar
W/o Sri. Chunnilal Suthar,
Aged about 55 years,
R/o No.4, 12th Cross,
Vasanthnagar,
Bengaluru - 560 052.
(By Sri.K.N. Phanindra., Advocate)
V/S
Defendants : 1. Smt. Vijayalakshmi Patil
W/o Sri. Chandrashekar Patil,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o No.G2, 'Sri Shankara Mansion',
2
OS.NO.4948/2018
N-23, L.G. Halli, Dollars Colony,
RMV 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 560 094.
2. Sri. Deveeda Raj @ David C
S/o Late Sri. D. Chowrappa,
Aged about 63 years,
R/o Mariyannana Palya,
Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
3. Smt. Reena Lethisiya
D/o Sri. Daveeda Raj @ David C,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o Mariyannana Palya,
Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
4. Sri. Denzi Lawrance
S/o Sri. Daveeda Raj @ David C,
Aged about 26 years,
R/o Mariyannana Palya,
Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
Defendant No.2 to 47 are also at
C/o 'D Souza Manor',
No.215/2 'D' Block,
Sahakara Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 092.
(By Sri.A.N. Anand., Advocate)
Date of institution of suit 10-07-2018
Nature of the suit Declaration and Injunction
Date of commencement of 22-04-2022
recording of evidence
3
OS.NO.4948/2018
Date on which Judgment was 01-02-2023
pronounced
Days Months Years
09 05 04
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against defendants for a judgment and decree, declaring that the plaintiff No.1 is the lawful and absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule 'A' property and suit schedule 'B' property.
For a judgment and decree declaring that the plaintiff No.2 is the lawful and absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule 'C' property and suit schedule 'D' property.
For a judgment and decree of perceptual/permanent injunction, restraining the defendants either by themselves or through their agents, workmen, or anyone claiming through them etc., from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
Consequently, for a judgment and decree, declaring that the alleged sale deed dated 07.06.2013 executed by the defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the land measuring 3 acres in Sy No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bengaluru North Taluk is not binding upon the plaintiffs and award cost of the proceeding in the interest of justice and equity.
4OS.NO.4948/2018 SUIT SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the residential vacant site bearing No.768 measuring East to West 30 ft. (19.14 mtrs) and North to South 26 ft. (7.92 mtrs) in all totally measuring 780 sq. ft. (72.39 sq. mtrs) carved out in Sy Nos.24/5, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 25, 26/1, 2, 3B, 33/1, 34/1, 2, 35/1, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 37/2, 3, 6, 38/1, 48/1B, 49/3, 50/4, 51/2, 52/1, 76/3A, 3B, 77/3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 78/2, 79, 81/1 (Part), 85/8, 86, 87/1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 87/3, 4 and 88/5, situated at Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in the layout formed the Vyalikaval Housing Building Co-operative Society Ltd., bounded on;
East by : Road
West by : Private Property
North by : Site bearing No.769
South by : Site bearing No.767
SUIT SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the residential vacant site bearing No.769 measuring East to West 30 ft. (9.14 mtrs) and North to South 36 ft. (10.97 mtrs) in all totally measuring 1080 sq. ft. (100.26 sq. mtrs) carved out in Sy Nos.24/5, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 25, 26/1, 2, 3B, 33/1, 34/1, 2, 35/1, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 37/2, 3, 6, 38/1, 48/1B, 49/3, 50/4, 51/2, 52/1, 76/3A, 3B, 77/3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 78/2, 79, 81/1 (Part), 85/8, 86, 87/1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 87/3, 4 and 88/5, situated at Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in the layout formed the Vyalikaval Housing Building Co-operative Society Ltd., bounded on;
5
OS.NO.4948/2018
East by : Road
West by : Private Property
North by : Road
South by : Site bearing No.768
SUIT SCHEDULE 'C' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the residential vacant site bearing No.766 measuring East to West (36.00 + 32.00)/2 ft. or (10.97+9.75)/2 mtrs and North to South 26 ft. (7.92 mtrs) and thereby totally measuring 884.00 sq. ft. (82.05 sq. mtrs) carved out in Sy Nos.24/5, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 25, 26/1, 2, 3B, 33/1, 34/1, 2, 35/1, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 37/2, 3, 6, 38/1, 48/1B, 49/3, 50/4, 51/2, 52/1, 76/3A, 3B, 77/3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 78/2, 79, 81/1 (Part), 85/8, 86, 87/1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 87/3, 4 and 88/5, situated at Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in the layout formed the Vyalikaval Housing Building Co-operative Society Ltd., bounded on;
East by : Road
West by : Private Property
North by : Site bearing No.767
South by : Site bearing No.765
SUIT SCHEDULE 'D' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the residential vacant site bearing No.767 measuring East to West 32 ft. (9.75 mtrs) and North to South 26 ft. (7.92 mtrs) and thereby totally measuring 832 sq. ft. (77.22 sq. mtrs) carved out in Sy Nos.24/5, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 25, 26/1, 2, 3B, 33/1, 34/1, 2, 35/1, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 37/2, 3, 6, 38/1, 48/1B, 49/3, 50/4, 51/2, 52/1, 76/3A, 3B, 77/3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 78/2, 79, 6 OS.NO.4948/2018 81/1 (Part), 85/8, 86, 87/1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 87/3, 4 and 88/5, situated at Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in the layout formed the Vyalikaval Housing Building Co-operative Society Ltd., bounded on;
East by : Road
West by : Private Property
North by : Site bearing No.768
South by : Site bearing No.766
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case is as follows;
The 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of 2 (Two) residential sites bearing No.768 & 769 in the layout formed by Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd and falling in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. The said layout has been approved by the Bangalore Development Authority under resolution dated 12/09/2003. The 2nd plaintiff who is the wife of the 1st plaintiff, is the absolute owner of 2 (Two) residential sites bearing No.766 & 767 in the layout formed by Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd and falling in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. The said layout has been approved by the Bangalore Development Authority under resolution dated 12/09/2003. The 1st plaintiff has purchased for valuable consideration, the residential site bearing No.768 measuring East to West 30 Feet (9.14 Metres) and North to South 26 Feet (7.92 Metres) and thereby totally measuring 780 Square Feet (72.39 Square Metres) in the layout formed by 'Vyalikaval House Building 7 OS.NO.4948/2018 Co-Operative Society Ltd.' in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 04/06/2009 from one Smt. B.S.Geetha. The aforesaid site No.768 is morefully described in the 'A' Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as 'Schedule 'A' Property'. The 1st plaintiff had been put in possession of the Schedule 'A' Property under the terms of the registered sale deed/registered document and continues to be in possession of the said Schedule 'A' Property. The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Paka under the Order dated 02/03/2012 bearing No.DA.23/PR 186711-12 has also issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Schedule 'A' Property in favour of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff has also been paying the property taxes in respect of the Schedule 'A' Property and continues to remain in possession of the same. Smt. B.S.Geetha (vendor of 1st plaintiff) had in turn purchased the Schedule 'A' Property (Site No.768) for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 14/02/2008 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited & Sree Shakthi Promoters & Developers. The said Vyalikaval House Building CoOperative Society Limited had put the said Smt. B.S.Geetha in possession of the Schedule 'A' Property and had also issued the Possession Certificate dated 15/02/2008. The Khata in respect of the Schedule 'A' Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority vide its Order bearing Sl.No.BDA/KAM/U/C3/768/07-08 dated 28/02/2008 in favour of Smt. B.S.Geetha. Subsequently, the BBMP under the Order dated 06/06/2008 bearing No.DA. 83/08-09 8 OS.NO.4948/2018 had also issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Schedule 'A' Property in favour of Smt. B.S.Geetha. Similarly, the 1st plaintiff has purchased for valuable consideration, the residential site bearing No.769 measuring East to West 30 Feet (9.14 Metres) and North to South 36 Feet (10.97 Metres) and thereby totally measuring 1,080 Square Feet (100.26 Square Metres) in the layout formed by 'Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd.' in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 14/08/2008 from Smt. B.S. Geetha. The aforesaid site No.769 is morefully described in the 'B' Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as 'Schedule 'B' Property'. The 1st plaintiff had been put in possession of the Schedule 'B' Property under the terms of the registered sale deed / registered document and continues to be in possession of the said Schedule 'B' Property. The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) under the Order dated 06/10/2008 bearing No.145/08-09 has issued the Uttara Patra in respect of Schedule 'B' Property in favour of the 1st plaintiff. Further, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the Order dated 06/10/2008 bearing No.DA. 145/08-09 has also issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Schedule 'B' Property in favour of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff has also been paying the property taxes in respect of the Schedule 'B' Property and continues to remain in possession of the same. Smt. B.S.Geetha (vendor of 1st plaintiff) had in turn purchased the Schedule 'B' Property (Site No.769) for valuable consideration under a 9 OS.NO.4948/2018 registered sale deed dated 14/02/2008 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited & Sree Shakthi Promoters & Developers. The said Vyalikaval House Building CoOperative Society Limited had put the said Smt.B.S.Geetha in possession of the Schedule 'B' Property and had also issued the Possession Certificate dated 15/02/2008. The Khata in respect of the Schedule 'B' Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority vide its Order bearing SI.No.BDA/KAM/U/C3/769/07-08 dated 28/02/2008 in favour of Smt. B.S.Geetha. Subsequently, the BBMP under the Order dated 06/06/2008 bearing No.DA. 82/08-09 had also issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Schedule 'B' Property in favour of Smt. B.S.Geetha. Similarly, the 2nd plaintiff has purchased for valuable consideration, the residential site bearing No.766 measuring East to West (36.00+ 32.00)/2 Feet or (10.97 +9.75)/2 Metres and North to South 26 Feet (7.92 Metres) and thereby totally measuring 884.00 Square Feet (82.05 Square Metres) in the layout formed by 'Vyalikaval House Building Co- Operative Society Ltd.' in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 06/04/2009 from one Smt. B.Sharadamma. The aforesaid site No.766 is morefully described in the 'C' Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as 'Schedule 'C' Property'. The 2nd plaintiff had been put in possession of Schedule 'C' Property under the terms of the registered sale deed registered document and continues to be in possession of the Schedule 'C' Property. The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) under the Order 10 OS.NO.4948/2018 dated 25/06/2018 bearing No.DA.W23 has also again issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Schedule 'C' Property in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff has also been paying the property taxes in respect of the Schedule 'C' Property and continues to remain in possession of the same. Smt. B.Sharadamma (vendor of 2nd plaintiff) had in turn purchased the Schedule 'C' Property (Site No.766) for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 14/02/2008 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited & Sree Shakthi Promoters & Developers. The said Vyalikaval House Building CoOperative Society Limited had put the said Smt. B.Sharadamma in possession of the Schedule 'C' Property and had also issued the Possession Certificate dated 15/02/2008. The Khata in respect of the Schedule 'C' Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority vide its Order bearing SI.No.BDA/KAM/U/C3/766/07-08 dated 28/02/2008 in favour of Smt. B.Sharadamma. Subsequently, the BBMP under the Order dated 06/06/2008 bearing No.DA.84/08-09 had also issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Schedule 'C' Property in favour of Smt. B.Sharadamma. Similarly, the 2nd plaintiff has purchased for valuable consideration, the residential site bearing No.767 measuring East to West 32 Feet (9.75 Metres) and North to South 26 Feet (7.92 Metres) and thereby totally measuring 832.00 Square Feet (77.22 Square Metres) in the layout formed by 'Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd.' in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk 11 OS.NO.4948/2018 under a registered sale deed dated 14/08/2008 from Smt. B.Sharadamma. The aforesaid site No.767 is morefully described in the 'D' Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as 'Schedule 'D' Property'. The 2nd plaintiff had been put in possession of the Schedule 'D' Property under the terms of the registered sale deed/registered document and continues to be in possession of the said Schedule 'D' Property. The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) under the Order dated 06/10/2008 bearing No. 147/08-09 has issued the Uttara Patra in respect of Schedule 'D' Property in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. Further, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the Order dated 06/10/2008 bearing No.DA. 145/08-09 has also issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Schedule 'D' Property in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff has also been paying the property taxes in respect of the Schedule 'D' Property and continues to remain in possession of the same.
Further submitted that, Smt. B.Sharadamma (vendor of 2nd plaintiff) had in turn purchased the Schedule 'D' Property (Site No.767) for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 14/02/2008 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited & Sree Shakthi Promoters & Developers. The said Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited had put the said Smt. B.Sharadamma in possession of the Schedule 'D' Property and had also issued the Possession Certificate dated 15/02/2008. The Khata in respect of the Schedule 'D' Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority vide its 12 OS.NO.4948/2018 Order bearing SI.No.BDA/KAM/U/C3/767/07-08 dated 28/02/2008 in favour of Smt. B.Sharadamma. Subsequently, the BBMP under the Order dated 06/06/2008 bearing No.DA.84/08-09 had also issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Schedule 'D' Property in favour of Smt. B.Sharadamma. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had passed the resolution dated 12/09/2003 approving the Layout plan submitted by Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited in respect of Land measuring 98 acres 21 guntas in Nagavara village. Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara village is a part of the said approved layout plan & the Suit Schedule Properties, i.e., Site No.766, Site No.767, Site No.768 & Site No.769 are comprised within the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, as could be clearly seen from the approved layout plan. Pursuant to the purchase of the residentiality Schedule Properties under the Registered Sale Deeds, the 1st & 2nd plaintiffs had been put in possession of the same and continue to remain in possession till date. Such being the facts, to the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiffs, on 15/06/2018, the defendant No.1 along with her agents, henchmen and workers, numbering more than 50 in number had all of a sudden, tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs in and over the sites / Suit Schedule Properties belonging to the plaintiffs and started to proclaim that she was the owner of the entire land comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. The plaintiffs with the help of the neighbouring site owners, somehow managed to resist the interference and managed to protect their possession. The 13 OS.NO.4948/2018 plaintiffs were orally informed by the defendant No.1 and her group of persons that certain other adjacent site owners had filed suits before this Hon'ble Court and that they were awaiting for court orders and that since the plaintiffs had not filed any suit before this Hon'ble Court, that the plaintiffs had lost their right, title and interest and they were bound to handover possession of the suit schedule properties to the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs immediately went to the jurisdictional police station on 15/06/2018 to lodge and file police complaint regarding the illegal and high handed action on the part of the 1st defendant and her henchmen but the police personnel refused to entertain any complaint and refused to even receive the complaint and orally intimated to the 1st plaintiff that several disputes were pending in the Civil Court regarding the title of adjacent site owners in respect of Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village and that the dispute was civil in nature and advised the plaintiffs to approach the civil court and get the necessary orders from the court and only thereafter that they would provide police protection. Immediately thereafter, the 1st plaintiff made enquiries with the adjacent land owners to find out about the right of the 1st defendant and her henchmen and also about the proceedings pending before this Court in identical matters. The 1st plaintiff only thereafter learnt about the entire background facts and how the 1st defendant had been attempting from 2015 to get possession of the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village through clandestine manner. The 1st plaintiff has reliably learnt that the 1st defendant and her henchmen were 14 OS.NO.4948/2018 provided with police protection and assistance by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bengaluru and the Station House Officer, K. G. Halli Police Station. The Defendant No.1 with her agents and henchmen had carried out demolition of compound walls of several other adjacent site owners. The defendant No.1 had attempted to take over the possession of several other adjacent from the respective site owners but the same was ably resisted by them though the defendant No.1 had the active support of Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore and the Station House Officer, K. G. Halli Police Station, who had been directed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District to provide police protection to the defendant No.1 to put up the compound wall around the property measuring 3 Acres in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. Several other adjacent site owners were furnished with the copy of the complaint dated 04/07/2015 filed by the defendant No.1 before the Station House Officer, K.G. Halli Police Station, wherein, the defendant No.1 has claimed to have purchased an extent of 3 Acres of land in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk under a sale deed dated 07/03/2013 from defendant Nos.2 to 4 herein. The 1st plaintiff secured the copy of the said complaint from the adjacent site owners who have filed suits before this Court. The plaintiff has also secured the copy of a petition dated 22/06/2015 filed by the defendant No.1 before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore, seeking for police protection to put up a 15 OS.NO.4948/2018 compound wall in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. In the said petition dated 22/06/2015, the defendant No.1 had referred to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in respect of the very same land, i.e., Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, directing the police authorities to provide police protection for erecting the compound wall. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff immediately made enquiries and obtained from the owners of the 2018 copy of the Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. It is shocking to observe that the Deputy Commissioner without even looking into the records, had accepted the claim of some stranger by name Sri. Arifullah Sheriff that the land acquisition in respect of Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village had been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and that the land had to be restored in favour of the original land owners. The Deputy Commissioner has under the said order dated 13/06/2014, directed the police authorities to provide police protection to the said persons to erect compound wall. Under such circumstances, several other owners of adjacent sites located in land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, had filed Writ Petitions bearing W.P.Nos.29139-143/2015 on 13/07/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, challenging the Order dated 13/06/2014 that had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore & for other consequential reliefs. The defendant No.1 herein had been impleaded as the 5th respondent in W.P.No.29139-143/2015. The plaintiffs herein were not parties in the said writ petitions since they 16 OS.NO.4948/2018 were not aware of the said events and their possession in and over the suit schedule properties was not interfered with or disturbed by the 1st defendant during 2015 or later and the interference was only attempted for the 1st time on 15/06/2018. The learned single judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had issued the Notice to the respondents therein and had also granted an interim order dated 16/07/2015 in W.P.No.29139- 29143/2015, staying the operation of the Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and had also directed the defendant No.1 herein (5th respondent therein) not to interfere with the writ petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment over the sites bearing No.770, 771, 788 & 789 and other sites, formed in land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. Ultimately, the said W.P.No.29139- 29143/2015 had been connected to W.P.No.28388-28401/2015 and was finally heard by the learned single judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the said Writ Petitions came to be allowed by the Final Order dated 19/07/2016 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore reserving liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Para 5 of the said Final Order dated 19/07/2016 also observed that the aggrieved party has to approach a civil court for appropriate reliefs and in the said case, the party concerned has to seek a direction for police protection. On the basis of the order of the civil court, the official respondent 17 OS.NO.4948/2018 can consider grant of police protection. In terms of the Final Order dated 19/07/2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.29139-29143/2015, several other parties have approached this Court by filing suits seeking for declaration of title and such other consequential and appropriate reliefs due to the illegal and high handed actions on the part of the defendant No.1. The said suits are numbered as O.S.No.6826/2016, O.S.No.2431/2017, O.S.No.7132/2017 & O.S.No.3825/2018 and are still pending consideration before this Court. The plaintiffs were never aware of the sale deed being executed in favour of 1st defendant nor were they aware of the actions on the part of the 1st defendant to take possession of the entire land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village during 2015. The 1st defendant had never come near the sites belonging to the plaintiffs in 2015, 2016 or 2017. It is only during June 2018 that for the 1st time that the 1st defendant and her henchmen attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs possession in and over the suit schedule properties by claiming to be the owner of entire land in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs somehow have managed to protect their possession and after having learnt about the activities of the 1st defendant, have now filed the present suit. The plaintiffs also had to also arrange for funds for the purpose of payment of court fees and fee for the counsel. The Defendant No.1 is still proclaiming that she is the owner of the land and that she would dispossess the plaintiffs from their residential sites. The plaintiffs are in continuous possession 18 OS.NO.4948/2018 and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 is not in possession of the Suit Schedule Properties and has been trying to interfere with plaintiff's possession and is attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Properties. The very fact that the defendant No.1 had approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore under the petition dated 22/06/2015 seeking police protection to put up the compound wall in and over land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, would clearly reveal that the defendant No.1 is not in possession of the said property. The Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore has also been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.29139-29143/2015. Therefore, the defendant No.1 cannot interfere with plaintiff's possession in and over the Suit Schedule Properties nor can the defendant No.1 dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Properties. It is a well settled proposition of Law that a person in possession of a land (be it even a trespasser) cannot be dispossessed except in due course of Law. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are in possession of the residential sites bearing No.766, 767, 768 & 769 i.e., Suit Schedule Properties by virtue of a registered sale deeds and the vendors of the plaintiffs had been put in possession of the very same Suit Schedule Properties under Possession Certificates and registered sale deeds executed by Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited. Further, the defendant No.1 claims to have purchased an extent of 3 Acres of land in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara 19 OS.NO.4948/2018 Village under the Sale Deed dated 07/03/2013 executed by the defendant Nos.2 to 4 who allegedly claim to be the son and grandchildren respectively of one Sri. D.Chowrappa, S/o Sri. Daveedappa. The said Sri. Daveedappa claimed to be the son of one Sri. Aryogyappa, the original land owner of land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. The said persons, i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 4 could have never executed the sale deed in respect of the said lands since the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village to an extent of 6 Acres 36 Guntas had been acquired under the Final Notification dated 21/02/1986 issued under Sec.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & the defendant Nos 2 to 4 had never challenged the acquisition proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The defendant No.1 could also not have been put in possession of the said land since the plaintiffs were already in possession of the same since the entire extent of land in Sy.No.49/3 had been acquired on 21/02/1986. Further, the very sale deed dated 07/03/2013 executed in favour of the defendant No.1 is a document that is 'Void Ab-initio' since the land in question, i.e., Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village had been acquired by the State Government in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited by the Final Notification dated 21/02/1986 issued under Sec.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Further, the Bangalore Development Authority has approved the layout plan in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited as far back as on 12/09/2003. Thus, the said sale deed dated 20 OS.NO.4948/2018 07/03/2013 executed in favour of the defendant No.1 is not binding upon the plaintiffs since the persons executing the said sale deed to the defendant No.1, admittedly, did not have right, title or interest in and over land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village as on that date since their title had been extinguished due to acquisition of land by the State Government. Moreover, the alleged sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.1 is much later in point of time compared to the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs herein.
Facts relating to land acquisition of Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bengaluru North Taluk The State Government had originally initiated acquisition proceeding in 1984 under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire lands in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. (VHBC). One acquisition proceedings was for around 428 acres of land comprised in Devarachikkanahalli, Kodichikkanahalli & other villages in Bangalore South Taluk. The other acquisition proceeding was to an extent of about 164 acres in Nagavara Village in Bangalore North Taluk. The State Government issued the Final Notification on 21/02/1986 published in the Gazette on 24/02/1986 under Sec.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring an extent of about 164 Acres of land comprised in various survey numbers in Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. It is relevant to state that the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 measuring to an extent of 6 Acres 36 Guntas was acquired under the aforesaid Notification dated 21 OS.NO.4948/2018 21/02/1986 and the same is found at Sl.No.43 of the said Notification. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had also issued the Notification under Sec. 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the gazette on 05/05/1988 intimating that the lands comprised in various survey numbers in Nagawara village had been taken possession for the purpose of M/s. Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. The land bearing Sy.No.49/3 is mentioned at Sl.No.34 of the said Notification dated 05/05/1988. The acquisition proceedings in respect of Devarachikkanahalli, Kodichikkanahalli & other villages in Bangalore South Taluk in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. were challenged by Narayana Reddy and others & the entire acquisition of lands was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide judgement reported in ILR 1991 (3) KAR 2248 (Narayana Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka). The said judgment was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgement dated 21/02/1995, reported in 1995 (3) SCC 128 (Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs. Narayana Reddy and others). It is relevant to submit that the acquisition in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village was not involved in the aforementioned judgments. In the meanwhile, one Sri. R. Jojappa and his sons, by names, Sri. J.Burnad Sri.J.Sandyagappa claiming to be the owners of land measuring to an extent of 1 Acre 26 Guntas comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village had filed a Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.9815/1994 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, challenging the acquisition notification dated 22 OS.NO.4948/2018 21/02/1986 to that extent of land only. The said W.P.No.9815/1994 had been connected to W.P.No.6421-28/1994 & connected matters. The Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had passed the Final Order dated 18/02/1997 in the aforesaid Writ Petitions and while setting aside the acquisition proceedings impugned therein, has categorically held at Para 6 of the order that the acquisition notifications are quashed only in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners therein. It is submitted that the acquisition proceedings relating to an extent of land comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village, allegedly belonging to David Raj @ David, S/o. D. Chowrappa, had never been questioned in any Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The above facts would become much clearer and specific upon the perusal of the Sec.6(1) Acquisition Notification dated 21/02/1986. The land bearing Sy.No.49/3 has been notified at Sl.No.43 therein to an extent of 6 Acres 36 Guntas and 14 Guntas of Kharab. At Column No.3 of the said Notification pertaining to 'Anubhavadar', the name of 'Jojappa' has been shown. Therefore, the acquisition of land in Sy.No.49/3 had been set aside under the order dated 18/02/1997 passed in W.P.No.9815/1994 only in so far as the extent of land belonging to Jojappa and the extent allegedly belonging to David Raj was never involved in the said Writ Petition. Similarly, it is submitted that a few other persons had challenged the acquisition proceedings in respect of certain pieces of land in Nagavara village (prior to 1999) and thus about 52 acres 17 guntas from out of about 164.26 acres 23 OS.NO.4948/2018 had been either set aside or de-notified. Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society had thus approached the Government with the request to acquire even the remaining extent of 52 acres 17 guntas in Nagavara village including an extent of 1 Acre 26 Guntas in Sy.No.49/3. The State Government had thus issued a Notification dated 28/07/1999 under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire an extent of 52 acres 17 guntas comprised in various survey numbers in Nagavara village including the portion of Sy.No.49/3 measuring to an extent of 1 Acre 26 Guntas. Since the State Government did not proceed with the acquisition of 52 acres 17 guntas of land in Nagavara village under the Notification dated 28/07/1999, the Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, seeking for a direction to the State Government to complete the acquisition proceedings. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had upheld the said Notification dated and had issued a direction to the State Government to take steps to issue the final Notification under Sec.6(1). The said judgment is reported in 2006(1) KLJ Pg.233 (B. Anjanappa & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others). It is relevant to submit that in the very 2nd para of the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has very clearly observed that the appellants in Writ Appeal No.2532/2004 are the owner of particular pieces of lands and one such land is clearly specified as, Sy.No.49/3 measuring 1 Acre 36 Guntas. The aforesaid judgment (2006(1) KLJ Pg.233) 24 OS.NO.4948/2018 had been challenged by Anjanappa and others (including Jojappa) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case bearing C.A.No. 1930-32/2012. It is important to observe that the son of Jojappa by name Sri. J. Sandhyagappa had filed an affidavit dated 23/03/2006 in the said S.L.P.(C) No.24972/2005 (subsequently converted to C.A.No. 193032/2012) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, declaring that he had settled the matter out of court and withdrawing the said Special Leave Petition pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 measuring 1 Acre 26 Guntas of Nagavara Village. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed the judgment dated 07/02/2012, reported in 2012 (10) SCC Pg.184 (B. Anjanappa Vs. Vyayalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Others). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the acquisition proceedings was bad and at Para 27 of the Judgement specifically directed that if Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. was in possession of any portion of the acquired land, then the same to be returned to the land owners and to file a compliance report before the Hon'ble Court. Para 27 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"Para 27: If respondent 1 is in possession of the acquired land or any portion thereof, then the same shall be returned to the land owners concerned within a period of two months from today. This direction shall apply not only qua the appellants but other land owners who may not have filed Writ Appeals or Special Leave Petitions, may be due to poverty, illiteracy or ignorance. However, it is made clear that the above mentioned directions shall not apply to such of the land owners who have 25 OS.NO.4948/2018 withdrawn the Special Leave Petitions. If any of the land owners has received compensation from the State, then the latter shall be free to recover the same in accordance with Law."
(Emphasis supplied) In accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anjanappa's case (2012 (10) SCC Pg.184) Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. had filed the compliance report in C.A.No.1930/2012, furnishing the details of the land acquisition involved under the Notification dated 28/07/1999. The details pertaining to land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village is found at Sl.No.17 at Para 8 of the compliance report submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It has been clearly stated therein that the S.L.P. pertaining to Sy.No.49/3 measuring 1 Acre 26 Guntas had been withdrawn. Further, the report also furnishes the details of the total extent of land measuring 98 Acres 21 Guntas comprised in various survey numbers of Nagavara Village in the layout plan that had been submitted for approval to the Bangalore Development Authority. Sy.No.49/3 measuring to an extent of 5 Acres 10 Guntas is shown at the table attached therewith. Therefore, it becomes clear and specific that the land measuring 5 Acres 10 Guntas comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village is included in the layout plan (DOCUMENT '5' herein) approved by the Bangalore Development Authority on 12/09/2003. Considering the said compliance report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has passed the Order dated 24/04/2014 in C.A.No.1930/2012 and at Para 11 of the said Order, 26 OS.NO.4948/2018 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically clarified that the said Court in the case of B. Anjanappa (2012 (10) SCC 184) has confined the land in dispute to 52 acres 17 guntas only and had also placed reliance on the State Government proceedings dated July 2012 and has confirmed the same. The BDA on a mistaken notion, had passed a resolution dated 16/05/2012, revoking the layout plan that had been approved in respect of Nagavara Village and had also issued certain orders and endorsements. The aforesaid order and action of the BDA was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by Smt. Akkamma and others in W.P.No.27725/2013 & connected matters. It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has passed the Final Order dated 25/09/2014 in W.P.No.27725/2013 & connected matters, setting aside the aforesaid resolution dated 16/05/2012 of Bangalore Development Authority. It is relevant to mention that in the meanwhile, several petitions had been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, challenging the acquisition proceedings dated 21/02/1986 pertaining to lands comprised in Nagawara Village. The Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 14/07/2011 in has passed the Judgment dated W.P.No.11910-914/2009 and connected Writ Petitions and after referring to all the previous judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has specifically clarified at Para 38 of the judgment (internal page 41) that neither the High Court nor the Apex Court has quashed the acquisition notifications in respect of Nagawara Village in Toto. The Hon'ble High Court has 27 OS.NO.4948/2018 also clarified at Para 39 of the judgment that Narayana Reddy case (ILR 1991 (3) KAR 2248 & 1995 (3) SCC 128) was relating to acquisition pertaining to Cholanayakanahalli Village in Bangalore South Taluk and not to Nagawara Village. Ultimately, all the Writ Petitions challenging acquisition of lands pertaining to Nagawara Village have been dismissed. Therefore, the understanding and perusal of the above documents and judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India would make it clear that the acquisition of land in respect of Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village in favour of M/s. Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited has never been set aside and that the same has attained finality. Thus, the residential sites bearing No.766, 767, 768 & 769 (Suit Schedule Properties) belonging to the plaintiffs have legally vested with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have the right, title and interest over the said properties.
FACTS RELATING TO DISPUTE IN QUESTION Once the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated and completed under Sec.4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, any subsequent proceedings relating to change entries in the RTC or in the revenue records or any subsequent sale by the erstwhile land owners whose lands have been acquired, would all be rendered void ab-initio and would be of no consequence. The defendant No.1 has apparently/allegedly purchased the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 measuring 3 Acres under the sale deed dated 07/03/2013 by placing reliance on the judgment dated 07/02/2012 28 OS.NO.4948/2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A.No. 1930/2012 (Anjanappa case, referred to supra). The said transaction is a void transaction since the land in question i.e., Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village had been acquired way back on 21/02/1986. The possession of the lands had also been taken on 05/05/1998 19/02/1988 as evidenced in the Notification dated (DOCUMENT '13' herein). Therefore, the defendant No.1 does not have any right, title or interest over the Suit Schedule Properties in question and further, the said sale deed dated 07/03/2013 is not binding upon the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs have acquired title to the Suit Schedule Properties under registered sale deeds from the vendors who had in turn purchased the said Suit Schedule Properties from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited in whose favour, the entire land comprised in Sy.No.49/3 (in which the sites / Suit Schedule Properties are situated) of Nagavara Village had been acquired on 21/02/1986, the plaintiffs are the lawful and legal owners of the Suit Schedule Properties and they cannot be dispossessed by the defendant No.1 who has absolutely no right, title or interest over the properties in question. The defendant No.1 is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Properties & was also trying to dispossess similarly situated adjacent site owners by relying upon the Order dated 13/06/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. Fortunately for the plaintiffs and the other similarly situated adjacent site owners, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has quashed the said Order dated 13/06/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner. It is 29 OS.NO.4948/2018 submitted that after the passing of the Final Order dated 19/07/2016 by the learned single judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.29139-143/2015 & connected matters, the defendant No.1 is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Properties by using the aid and assistance of rowdy elements and goondas and such an attempt was made on 15/06/2018. The police authorities are not entertaining the complaints of the plaintiffs. There is every possibility that the defendant No.1 would use her power and might and dispossess the plaintiffs from their possession in and over the Suit Schedule Properties. Hence, the plaintiffs have instituted the Jul 2018 present suit. CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 15/06/2018 when the defendant No.1 attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Properties with the aid and assistance of her henchmen and goondas and when the police authorities refused to entertain and receive the police complaint that was sought to be filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the same was in the nature of a civil dispute and the threat being made out subsequently. The entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. JURISDICTION: The suit schedule properties are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court. Therefore this Court has the jurisdiction to deal with and to decide the suit and grant the relief sought for.
30OS.NO.4948/2018
3. On issuance of summons, defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement. In the written statement as contended as follows;
The suit filed by the plaintiffs are wholly misconceived, devoid of merits and untenable in Law. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The very suit of the plaintiffs for the alleged relief of declaration and not binding on the plaintiffs and consequent relief of the permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property against defendants is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. The present suit is most frivolous, vexatious and baseless claim with a sole intention of harassing the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have indulged into the malpractice of misusing and abusing the due process of law and the same has to be viewed very seriously by this Hon'ble court and may have to be reprimanded suitably by this Hon'ble court. It is submitted that the plaintiff is guilty of SUPPRESSIO VARIE AND SUGGETIO FALSIE and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief in respect of suit schedule properties. The averments made in paragraphs-3 to 15 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not within the knowledge of the defendant No.1 and the same are not correct and the same are hereby denied as false and incorrect. The averments of the plaintiffs that First plaintiff is the owner of two residential sites bearing No.768 and 769 acquired under registered sale deed dated: 04/06/2009 and 14-08-2008 in the alleged layout said to have been formed by Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. Society Ltd, hereinafter referred as Society in the land Sy No. 49/3 31 OS.NO.4948/2018 of Nagawara Village, Bengaluru North taluk, described as suit schedule A and B properies, from one Smt.B.S.Geetha are not correct and the same are hereby denied. It is submitted that, on the material on record, it is evidenced that the said B.S.Geetha is not bonafied allottee and she is not even member as per the as per the Societies act, who is eligible or entitled any suit as there is no layout called Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. Society Ltd,. It is false to state that B.S.Geetha purchased the Schedule A and B properties from Vyalikaval House building Co-Society ltd and Sri. Shaskti promoters and developers vide sale deeds dated 14/02/2008 and he was put in possession and khatas were mutated in his name. The schedule A and B properties described in the Memorandum of plaint, stating that, the alleged residential sites bearing No.768 and 769, is comprised in several survey number lands, on the face of the records is not identifiable and stretch of imagination the plaintiff can contend that the alleged site is comprised and formed out of land Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village. The alleged residential site described in the schedule of the Memorandum of Plaint is non existing property and the same is not identifiable in the facts and circumstances that, no revenue sketch of City Survey Sketch is produced for identification of the location of the alleged site. The averments made by the plaintiffs that, he is put in possession of the schedule A and B properties and that, the BDA, Bangalore has issued katha certificate in respect of the schedule A and B properties in favour of the plaintiffs and the documents produced by the plaintiffs in that behalf are 32 OS.NO.4948/2018 incorrect and the same are hereby denied. The alleged sale deed relied upon by the plaintiffs is illegal and untenable and as such, the plaintiffs did not derived any lawful rights, title and interest and much less possession over the alleged site under the alleged sale deed dated: 04/06/2009 and 14-08-2008. Therefore, the khata certificate tax paid receipts based on alleged illegal sale deeds are untenable and do not confer any rights, title and interest much less lawful possession over the alleged site claimed by the plaintiffs. The averments of the plaintiff that, second plaintiff is the owner of two residential sites bearing No.766 and 767 under registered sale deed dated: 06/04/2009 and 14/08/2008 in the alleged layout said to have been formed by Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. Society Ltd, hereinafter referred as Society in the land Sy No. 49/3 of Nagawara Village, Bengaluru North taluk, described as suit schedule property, from one Sri.B.Sharadamma are not correct and the same are hereby denied. On the material on record, it is evidenced that the said B.Sharadamma is not bonafied allottee and she is not even member as per the as per the Societies act and bylaws of the society, who is eligible or entitled any suit as there is no layout called Vyalikaval House Building Co-op.Society Ltd,. It is false to state that B.S.Geetha purchased the Schedule C and D properties from Vyalikaval House building Co Society Ltd and Sri. Shaskti promoters and developers vide sale deeds dated 14/02/2008 and she was put in possession and khatas were mutated in her name. The schedule C and D properties described in the Memorandum of plaint, stating that, the alleged residential 33 OS.NO.4948/2018 sites bearing No.766 and 767, is comprised in several survey number lands, on the face of the records is not identifiable and at no stretch of imagination the plaintiff can contend that the alleged site is comprised and formed out of land Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village. The defendant no.1 submit that, the alleged residential site described in the schedule of the Memorandum of Plaint is non existing property and the same is not identifiable in the facts and circumstances that, no revenue sketch of City Survey Sketch is produced for identification of the location of the alleged site. The averments made by the second plaintiffs that, she is put in possession of the schedule C and D property and that, the BDA, Bangalore has issued katha certificate in respect of the schedule C and D properties in favour of the plaintiffs and the documents produced by the second plaintiff in that behalf are incorrect and the same are hereby denied. The alleged sale deed relied upon by the plaintiffs is illegal and untenable and as such, the plaintiffs did not derived any lawful rights, title and interest and much less possession over the alleged site under the alleged sale deed dated 06/04/2009 and 14/08/2008. Therefore, the khata certificate tax paid receipts based on alleged illegal sale deed are untenable and do not confer any rights, title and interest much less lawful possession over the alleged site claimed by the plaintiffs. It is relevant to submit here that all the above said transaction are illegal and against to the bylaws of the society. The averments made in the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the katha certificate, katha extract and payment of property taxes to BBMP, 34 OS.NO.4948/2018 Bangalore, are of no consequence as the alleged sale transaction claimed by the second plaintiffs is illegal and sham transaction and the plaintiffs did not derive any right, title or interest much less lawful possession over the alleged sites described as schedule properties. The alleged documents referred by the plaintiffs are untenable and of no consequence. The averments made in paragraph-17 of the plaint are all specifically denied as false and incorrect. It is false to state that the resolution dated: 12-09-2003 passed by the BDA, Bangalore. The plaintiff has suppressed subsequent events and made misrepresentation of facts with ulterior motive before this Court. The averments made in paragraph 18 that the plaintiffs are put in possession of the schedule properties and continuous to remain in possession till date are not correct and the same are hereby denied.
Further submitted that, The averments made in paragraph 19 and 20 that t he plaint are specifically denied as false and incorrect. It is to state that on 15-6-2008, the defendant No.1 along with her agents, henchmen and workers ,numbering than 50 in number and sudden swooped down on the site proclaiming she was the owner of the entire land bearing Sy No.49/3 with police and other averments. The Plaintiffs have narrated a cooked up story to maintain suit before this court. After the purchase of the property during the year 2013, immediately she had put up Zinc Sheet compound wall all round her property and she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and as such, there is no question of defendant No.1 putting up compound wall, demolition 35 OS.NO.4948/2018 of compound walls. The averments made in paragraphs-21 to 24 Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The defendant No.1 submits that her worker while making arrangements to put up brick wall compound replacing the Zinc sheet compound, some unknown persons came the land tried to obstruct and make galata and in the said circumstances, defendant No.1 was constrained to submit complaints seeking protection of safe guard her property when some unknown third parties illegally attempted to interfere in the quiet enjoyment of defendant No.1 of her property and attempted to make galata. The averments of the plaintiffs that an order is passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru for police protection are not correct. It is only forwarding communication letter dated: 13-06-2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru based on a representation on behalf of adjacent land owner Chowrappa. The communication letter is only forwarding letter to police for taking necessary action. The averments made in paragraph-25 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to writ proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are matter on record. The averments made in paragraph-26 and 27 of the Memorandum of Plaint are also matter on record. It is however submitted that, the interim order granted was an exparte order on suppression of material facts and misrepresented of facts made by the writ petitioners, however, the Hon'ble High Court has not given any protection or given any decision with regard to alleged lawful rights, title and interest and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the property allegedly 36 OS.NO.4948/2018 claimed by her and rightly passed final order disposing of the writ petitions holding that, the same is civil dispute in relation of the property in question. The averments made in paragraph 28 of the Memorandum of plaint except with regard to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in writ petitions, the further averments made therein are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments of the plaintiffs that, plaintiffs continued to remain in possession of the suit schedule property and their possession was also protected by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are not correct and the same are hereby denied. It is submitted that, the alleged residential site claimed by the plaintiffs is non-existent, imaginary property and the same is not comprised in land Sy. No. 49/7 formerly Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village in an extent of 3-00 acres belonging to defendant No.1 at any stretch of imagination. The averments of the plaintiffs that it is comprised in land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village is wholly unfounded, imaginary, without any basis and without any material on records. The same is concocted created and imaginary for claiming the alleged residential site in the property belonging to defendant No.1. The averments made in paragraphs-29 of the Memorandum of Plaint are incorrect. It is specifically false to state the plaintiffs are not aware of the sale deed in favour of the Defendant No.1 and they came to only during June 2018 is nothing but buddle of falsewood made with sole intention of covering the limitation. The plaintiffs being well aware that the Defendant No1 is the owner of Sy No.49/3 measuring 3 acres through registered and creating 37 OS.NO.4948/2018 false set facts to cover of latches. Theaverments made in paragraph-30,31,32 and 33 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The averments made in paragraphs-34, 35, and 36 of the Memorandum of Plaint are incorrect. Which are nothing but a flimsy story to cover up limitation to file suit. Land bearing Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village to an extent of 6 acres 36 gunats had been acquired under final notification dated: 22-01-1986 issued U/s 6 (1) of Land Acquisition Act and defendants No.2 to 4 never challenged the acquisition proceedings are incorrect and the same are hereby denied. It is submitted that, the family members of defendants No.2 to 4 had challenged the acquisition proceedings in batch of writ petitions WP No. 6421-6428/1994 and connected writ petitions and the acquisition proceedings are quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru vide order dated 18- 02-1997. It is further submitted that, thereafter, placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government having exercised its eminent domain issued Government order dated: 05-02-2009 and in proceedings initiated by the Special land Acquisition the land in question is restored to the erstwhile land owners on collecting the award amount received by them and SubarduPatraa dated: 25-03- 2009 is issued and subsequently Revenue Authorities have conducted mutation and RRT proceedings passed orders recording the entries in the name of Daveed Raj @ David C. In respect of 3-00 Acres of land. Thus, the vendors of defendant No.1 38 OS.NO.4948/2018 were absolute owners in lawful possession and enjoyment of the extent of 3-00 acres comprised in land Sy.No. 49/3 purchased by defendant No.1 the vendors of defendant No.1 executing the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 were the absolute owners having all rights, title and interest over the land bearing Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village measuring an extent of 3-00 Acres. The averments made in paragraph-37 of the Memorandum of Plaint referring to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is matter on records. The averments made in paragraphs-38 of the memorandum of plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. It is submitted that, the challenged to acquisition made by family member of vendors of defendant No.1 shall accrued to the benefit of the vendors of defendant no.1 there is no valid acquisition proceedings in respect of land Sy.No. 49/3 presently Sy.No. 49/7 of Nagawara village having regard to the State Government issued Government Order dated: 05-02-2009 canceling the acquisition proceedings.
Further submitted that, the averments made in paragraph-39 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the interpretation of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court, contending that, extent of land belonging to Daveeda Raj was not involved in the writ petition are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-40 of the Memorandum of Plaint are matter on record and it may be seen that the land in Sy.No. 49/3 is also referred to in the said notification dated: 28-07-1999. The averments made in paragraph 40 and 41 of the memorandum of 39 OS.NO.4948/2018 plaint with regard to the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are matter on record, however the further averments made by the plaintiffs with regard to the affidavit filed by J Sandhyagappa said to be son of Jojappa are not correct and the same hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-42 of the memorandum of plaint with regard to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is matter on record. The averments made in paragraph-43 of the Memorandum of plaint with regard to the compliance report said to have been filed by the Society the name is factually incorrect and as such the contents of the said report are incorrect and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-44 of the Memorandum of plaint with regard to order passed on 24-04-2014 by the Hon'ble Apex Court is matter on record. The averments made in paragraph-45 of the Memorandum of plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. It is submitted that, there is no valid approved layout plan issued by competent Local authority, BDA, Bengaluru as on date and as such the alleged residential site is unidentifiable in the absence of Revenue sketch or city survey sketch and at any stretch of imagination the alleged residential site is not comprised in land Sy No.49/3, presently Sy No.49/7 of Nagawara village, belonging to defendant No.1. That with regard to the averments made in paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Memorandum of plaint the interpretation sought to be made with regard to the decision of Hon'ble High Court, is self serving and the same is not correct and not accepted and admitted by the defendant No. 1. the defendant 40 OS.NO.4948/2018 No.1 submits that the averments made in paragraph 36 of the Memorandum of plaint with regard to judgment dated: 14-07-2011 passed in WP Nos. 11910-914/2009 and connected Writ Petitions, the land owners therein have preferred WA Nos. 1681-16814/2000 pending consideration before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and the Writ Appeals are admitted and posted for hearing. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and the granted interim order of stay on 05-02-2013 and as such the said findings recorded and judgment passed by Learned single judge has not reached finality and the same is under challenge before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In that view of the matter, the contentions of the plaintiffs placing reliance on the said judgment are untenable and liable to be rejected. The averments made in paragraph 48 and 49 of the Memorandum of plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-50 of the Memorandum of plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. There is no cause of action for filing the suit and the one alleged in paragraph-51 of the memorandum of plaint are not correct. The alleged cause of action is concerned and created without any basis for filing the suit.
True facts of the case by the Defendant No.1 Land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village originally measurement and extent of 7 Acres 10 guntas including 14 guntas of karab land belonging to the family of Arogyappa. That Daveedappa is son of Arogyappa who died leaving behind his son Chowarappa, who also died leaving his son David Raj @ David.C. 41 OS.NO.4948/2018 It is submitted that, the names David Raj @ David C son of D.Chowrappa, Chowrareddy son of Thomasappa and R. Jojappa were the joint kathedars shown and reflected in the revenue records as on were year 1984-86. In the partition taken place in the family of Deveed raj @david.C. Sy,No.49/3 is also subjected in the partition deed dated 23/08/1961and in the said partition an in the Sy.No.49/3 is fallen to the share of Daveed raj @ David.C. When the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Authorities and the state Government for the benefit of the society. The alleged preliminary and final notifications said to be issued U/s 4 (1) and 6 (1) of Land Acquisition Act are illegal and unsustainable in Law. The alleged notification said to have been issued by the Special land Acquisition Officer U/s 16 (2) of land Acquisition Act is illegal, unfounded and based on no material records. It is submitted that, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Apex court has criticized that allotment of lands in favour of the society is illegal and declined to accept the contention of the Society that, the possession of the lands had been taken under the alleged notification of the issued U/s 16 (2) of Land Acquisition Act. the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has conclusively held that the possession of the lands were not taken by the State Government and handed over the society in accordance with law and quashed the acquisition proceedings in the proceedings initiated by the land owners. The Land bearing Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village had been acquired under final notification dated: 22-01-1986 issued U/s 6 (1) of Land Acquisition Act. Being a aggrieved by the said 42 OS.NO.4948/2018 acquisition the family members of defendants No.2 to 4 had challenged the acquisition proceedings in batch of writ petitions WP No. 64216428/1994 and connected writ petitions and the acquisition proceedings are quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru vide order dated 18-02-1997. It is further submitted that, thereafter, placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government having exercised its eminent domain issued Government order dated: 05-02-2009 and in proceedings initiated by the Special land Acquisition Officer the land in question is restored to the erstwhile land owners on collecting the award amount received by them. Based on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government exercising the power of eminent domain passed order No. RD 134 LAQB 2007 dated: 05-02-2009 and directed that the Lands be restored to the erstwhile Land owners. That in compliance of the Government order the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru, has taken steps and on redeposit of compensation amount awarded in a sum of Rs.17,63,022/- in respect of three items of lands including lands Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village, measuring an extent 6 Acres 36 guntas and 0-14 guntas kharab land, issued Subardu Patra dated: 25-03-2009, handing over the possession to the land owners. Thereafter, RRT proceedings initiated by Daveeda Raj @ David C, in case No. RRT (DJ) (CR) 24/2011-12 before the Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru North Taluk on holding enquiry passed order for effecting mutation and issue of RTC in 43 OS.NO.4948/2018 respect of portion of Land measuring 3-00 acres in Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara villag belonging to his family. Accordingly, mutation is effected RTC is issued in the name of Daveeda Raj @ David C. S/o. Late D Chowrappa. Thus vendors of defendant No.1 have became absolute owners having all rights, title and interest over the land bearing Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village measuring an extent of 3-00 Acres. She has purchased an extent of 3-00 acres of land, portion of land Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara Village, belonging to Daveed Raj @ David C. Under registered sale deed dated: 07- 03-2013 by paying valuable sale consideration of Rs.5,62,50,000/- and based on the registered sale deed the revenue Authorities have mutated and recorded the name of defendant No.1 in respect of an extent of 3-00 acres of land in Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village, assigning further sub division of an extent of 3-00 acres of land belonging to defendant No.1. The purchase of 3-00 Acres of land under the said registered sale deed is legal and valid in Law and the defendant No.1 has acquired absolute rights, title and interests and lawful possession over the said extent of 3-00 acres of land. All revenue records as on date are in the name of defendant No.1 in so far as land measuring 3-00 acres presently Sy.No. 49/7 formerly portion of Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village. Defendant No.1 is absolute owner having all rights, title and interest and she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of land measuring 3-00 Acres with specific boundaries comprised in Sy.No.49/7 formerly Sy.No. 49/3. The defendant No.1 after 44 OS.NO.4948/2018 purchase of the land in question to safeguard her property, she and put up Zinc Sheet compound.
Further submitted that, In the background of the above proceedings the society did not have any right, title and interest much less lawful possession over any part of land Sy.No.49/3, presently Sy.No. 49/7 of Nagawara village measuring an extent of 3-00 Acres belonging to defendant No.1 and the alleged allotment issued and sale deed executed in favour of G. Prasada Reddy, from whom the plaintiffs are claiming alleged rights, title and interest over the alleged residential site are all without any Authority of Law and the Plaintiffs did not derive any rights, title or interest much less lawful possession over any portion of land Sy.No. 49/3 presently Sy.No. 49/7 of Nagawara Village. Therefore, on the face of materials on record the plaintiff has no manner of any right, title and interest much less lawful possession over the schedule property said to be comprised in land Sy.No.49/3, presently Sy.No. 49/7 of Nagawara village. With regard to the alleged acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government for the benefit of the Society has checkered History as details hereunder.
a) That land owner Smt. Puttamma filed writ petition No.8194/1987 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the acquisition proceedings and the acquisition proceedings were quashed against which the society preferred in W.A.No. 506/1996 and Connected writ appeal before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which came to be dismissed. Copy of the 45 OS.NO.4948/2018 reported decision in 1999 (4) Kar. LJ 143 (DB) is produced as Document No. 11. The society preferred SLP No.16196/1998 before Hon'ble Apex Court which came to be dismissed on 07-04- 1998.
b). The acquisition proceedings initiated by the Authorities and the State Government were subject matter of challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in batch of writ petitions, which Land Sy.No. 49/3 was involved in batch of writ petitions in WP No. 9815/1994 by the family members of Late Arogyappa and the acquisition lands including land Sy.No 49/3 of Nagawaravillage vide order dated: 18-02-1997.
b) The Society preferred writ appeal No. W.A.Nos. 23362343/1997 and connected writ appeals before Division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which came to be dismissed by Judgement dated: 05-03-1998 and copy of the Judgement is herewith produced as Document No. 14. The SLP (Civil) No. 495-498/1999 filed by the Society before Hon'ble Apex Court were dismissed by order dated: 14-07-1999.
c) The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed Judgement in WA No. 2188/1998 filed by Land Owner, H. Narayanappa quashing the acquisition proceedings under Judgment dated: 17-01-2000 and copy of the said Judgement is produced as Document No. 16. It is submitted that while passing the judgment, division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, on detailed consideration of the matter at para-5 of the judgment held that, the society is a bogus 46 OS.NO.4948/2018 society" the Society preferred Civil Appeal No. 902/2001 before Apex Court which came to be withdrawn, and order passed on 26- 07-2007.
d) That land owners V. Chandrappa and N. Anjanappa preferred WA. No. 2294/1999 which came to be allowed by judgement dated: 17-01-2000 before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Society preferred Review Petition No.156/2000 which Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the reported decision ILR 2002 KAR 2113.
e) That arising out of the judgment passed in writ Appeal No. 2294/1999 and Review Petition Nos.2086-2087/2004 before Hon'ble Apex Court which is decided on 02-02-2007, dismissing the Civil Appeals, reported on 2007 AIR SCW 1164. Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance on decision of Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Narayanareddy Vs State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1991 KAR 2248, decision in W.A.No.2336- 2434/1997, decision in the case of HMT HBSC vs. Syed Khader and Ors. Reported in (1995) 2 SCC 677 and decision in HMT HBSC Vs. M. Venkateswamappa&ors. Reported in (1995)3 SCC 128 categorically laid down and recorded finding at para 6 of the judgment holding that, when the acquisition has been found totally malafied and not for bonafied purpose, the ground of delay and acquiescence in the case has no substance. It is further held that, the issue of notification was malafied and it was not for public purpose.
47OS.NO.4948/2018
f) That one Smt. Lakshmamma and another filed Contempt Petition (C) No. 288-295/1999 in respect of land Sy. No. 24/1 and 78/7 of Nagawara village before Hon'ble Apex Court, and Revenue complaining against the then chief Secretary Authorities that, in the revenue records of the lands belonging to the petitioners, their names are not mentioned and recorded. That on submissions made by the respondent/s State Authorities in the said proceedings stating that compliance has been made the contempt notice are discharged under Order Dated : 12-09-2000.
g) The plaintiffs are not bonafied purchaser of alleged residential site claimed by them in the suit they did not derived any rights, title and interest over the alleged residential site claimed by them in view of undisputed fact that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government and the Authorities for the benefit of the Society are held to be null and void, visited by fraud and malafide. The State Government has taken decision complying the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex court, restoring the lands to the erstwhile land owners on recovering the amount of compensation paid to the land owners pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. Therefore the society had no legal rights, title and interest and compensation to form layout and dispose the alleged residential site. The alleged sale deed said to be executed by the Society in favour of B.S.Geetha and B.Sharadamma and in turn alleged to be purchased by the plaintiffs. through whom the plaintiffs allegedly claim rights, title and interest over residential 48 OS.NO.4948/2018 site, are all illegal and null and void in lawful possession and enjoyment of the alleged residential site as claimed by them at any point of time and the alleged residential site is not comprised in land Sy.No. 49/3, portion of land measuring an extent of 3-00 acres belonging to defendant No. 1 re-assigned as land Sy.No. 49/7 of Nagawara Village, as falsely claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. The defendant No. 1 is in lawful possession and enjoyment of an extent of 3-00 acres of land, Sy.No.49/7 formerly portion of Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara Village. As already stated Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in batch of Writ Petitions in W.P No.6421- 28/1994 and connected Writ petitions passed order on 18-02-1997 categorically recording a finding that there is no material to show that the Government has taken possession from the land owners and quashed the acquisition proceedings wherein land Sy No.49/3 is also involved.
h) The Society had filed O.S. No. 1475/2000 before this Hon'ble High Court and on trial this Hon'ble Court dismissed the suit by passing judgment and decree dated 21-02-2008, copies of the judgment and decree are produced as Document No.22 respectively. The defendant No. 1 submits that the Society filed another suit in O.S.no. 1174/2001 before this Hon'ble Court and upon trail of this suit Hon'ble Court passed judgment and decree on 01-08-2009.
i) The alleged action of the Society in making use of the land for the public purposes is apparently not in accordance with law and the residential site claimed by the plaintiffs was not allotted to the 49 OS.NO.4948/2018 members of the Society and 100s of sites are allotted to one G. Prasad Reddy who is a Land Developers and he is not a member of the Society and no enquires made it is learnt that bulk allotment of sites on record is said to be made in favour of the said G.Prasad Reddy. In fact B S Geetha and B Sharadamma from whom the plaintiffs are claiming rights are also illegally purchased the sites contrary to byelaws. Two sites cant be allotted to one person as per the bylaws. and therefore, it is apparent on the face of the records that the be land notified for acquisition for public purposes has been sought to be diverted for wrongful gains to enrich a developer who in turn, executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged documents, katha certificate issued and tax paid receipts are all only paper documents arising out of sham and illegal transaction and the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of any portion of land belonging to defendant no.1. It is submitted that the number of sites allotted to B.S.Geetha, B Sharadamma G.Prasad Reddy can ascertained from the society who has the custody of all records and in spite of making requested the society is not disclosing the information and furnishing the records as the transaction between the society and B.S.Geetha and B Sharadamma are illegal, collusive and for extraneous considerations made for illegal entichment of the office bearers of the Society, the Development SreeShakthi Promoter and developers and the Developer the said G.Prasad Reddy. It is submitted that there is no proper approved layout plan identifying the residential site claimed by the plaintiffs. the layout plan said to 50 OS.NO.4948/2018 have been sanctioned and approved by Bengaluru Development Authority had been cancelled subsequently and as such the alleged residential sites claimed by the plaintiffs is not identifiable on the spot.
j) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of B. Anjanappa Vs. Vyalikaval HBSC Ltd. &ors. Reported in (2012) 10 SCC page 184, the Apex Court allowed the Civil Appeals holding that, there is no prior approval sanctioning the housing Scheme in favour of the Society and acquisition proceedings are vitiated and issued direction to the Society, 1st respondent therein holding that this direction shall apply not only to the appellants, but other land owners who may not have challenged the acquisition proceeding. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Bengaluru City Co-Operative Housing Society Vs. State of Karnataka &ors. Reported in AIR 2012 SC page 1395 also held para 42 of the judgments that, acquisition proceedings initiated in favour of the said Society are malafied and vitiated and issued similar directions at para-43 the judgment. The State Government having considered the Law laid down in the case of V. Chandrappa and B. Anjanappa stated supra and other decisions of this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Apex Court having given deliberate consideration obtaining legal opinion from the then Advocate general and Law Department of State Government rightly passed Government order dated 04-06-2013 for restoration of lands to the erstwhile land owners after recovery of compensation amount. It is clear from the said Government Order that Government order dated: 05-02-2009 51 OS.NO.4948/2018 is received and thereby action already taken under the said Government order are also ratified and confirmed. Therefore, the action of State Authorities in restoring the land Sy.No. 49/3, presently Sy No.49/7 of NagawaraVillage to the erstwhile land owner is just and proper and in accordance with law.
k) The Government order dated 04-062013 being subject matter of challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P Nos.32482- 485/2013 and the order passed in the Writ Petition is subject matter of challenged in SLP No. 36857860/2014 before Hon'ble Apex Court and the said matter is pending consideration, wherein interim order of stay of the operation of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court is issued. In this context, some persons claiming as allottees of residential sites, similarly that of plaintiffs approached Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 35381-35389/2015 (LA-RES) sought for issue direction to the Revenue Authorities, to update and to revise the revenue records in respect of land Sy. No.78/6 of Nagawara Village in accordance with final notification dated: 21- 02-1986 issued by the State Government. Hon'ble High Court on the affidavit submitted by the State Authorities declined to issue direction and passed order disposing of the Writ petitions on the ground that the very subject matter is pending in adjudication before Hon'ble Apex Court.
She is in lawful possession and enjoyment of her property, presently land Sy No.49/7 formerly portion of land Sy No.49/3 of Nagawara village and as such there is no question of the defendant No.1 attempting to disposes the plaintiffs from the suit 52 OS.NO.4948/2018 filed against the defendants is wholly misconceived and untenable in Law. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is with malafide intention with ulterior motive to harass the defendants for collateral and extraneous consideration illegally to extract money. The defendant No.1 being a actual possession of Sy.No.49/3 new No.49/7 measuring 3 acre of Nagawara village. The plaintiff being utter stager of suit schedule property might have created some documents and filed the above false suit with an intention to knock of the valuable property. On the face of the records the alleged residential site is not comprised in the property belonging to defendant No.1, purchased form defendant No.2 to 4 and as such, the defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings of the suit and the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and therefore, liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff allegedly claiming the alleged residential site said to have purchased from the society, who are necessary and property parties to the proceedings of the suit and the suit filed without impleading necessary and proper parties is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. On the material on record it is evidenced that the plaintiffs are not allotee from Vyalikaval House building society, though the said B.S.Geetha and B Sharadamma were not even members of the society, society has allotted more that 133 sites. the said G. Prasad Reddy is not bonafied allottee and he is a developed having acquired more than 133 sites in the alleged layout of the Society. The schedule properties described in the Memorandum of plaint, stating that, the alleged residential site 53 OS.NO.4948/2018 bearing No.766, 767, 768, and 769 is comprised in several survey number lands, on the face of the records is not identifiable and at no stretch of imagination the plaintiff can contend that the alleged site is comprised and formed out of land Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village. The defendant no.1 submit that, the alleged residential site described in the schedule of the Memorandum of Plaint is non existing property and the same is not identifiable in the facts and circumstances, no revenue sketch of City Survey Sketch is produced for identification of the location of the alleged site. That apart no title deeds, allotment orders are not placed before this court to established the alleged right of the plaint. The alleged Layout Plan relied upon by the plaintiff said to have been approved by BDA, subsequently came to be cancelled with immediate effect under resolution in Subject No.115/2012 in the Authority Meeting of BDA held on 16-05-2012. BDA having reconsidered the matter pursuant to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru and Hon'ble Apex Court, has passed the said resolution and communication letter dated: 21-06-2012 has been addressed to the society and thereby the resolution has been given effect. Therefore, there is no valid approved sanctioned layout plan by the competent Planning authority, BDA identifying the residential site claimed by the plaintiff. That upon the resolution passed by the BDA, Local Authority namely Bruhath Bengaluru MahanagaraPalike initiated proceedings for cancellation of kathas, issuing notices to such persons claiming as allottes/ purchasers of sites. The defendant No.1 being absolute owner having a right, 54 OS.NO.4948/2018 title, interest over the schedule property had approached Deputy Commissioner Bangalore for seeking conversion of the Sy.No.49/7, old Sy.No.49/3 of the Nagawara village. After spot inspection and payment of request fee the land bearing Sy.No.49/7 old NO.49/3 measuring 3 acres has been converted for non agriculture purpose vide No.ALN(NK)SR/18/2016-17 dated 20/01/2017. The plaintiffs are not approached with clean hands, with an intention to knock off the suit schedule properties which is not at all existence has failed to produced material documents to prove her alleged right on the suit schedule property. On the other hand he has made contradictory averment about the quashing of acquisition proceedings and other actual facts intentionally therefore the plaintiffs is guilty of suppression of true facts. The plaintiffs has failed to prove their title much less possession over the property and not entitle for of the relief sought for. The state empowered by the high court and court judgments, has taken back the compensation amount and returned lands and possession to the vendors of the Defendant No.1. When the compensation is also taken back by the state, the claim of the plaintiffs against the Defendants is not maintainable. If at all plaintiffs has grievance, she should filed against the government, but not on the defendant No.1 who is boanfide purchaser from rightful owners. Therefore very suit of the plaintiffs is bad in the eyes of law. The Plaintiffs has not properly valued the suit and the valuation made in paragraph
-44 of the Memorandum of plaint and the valuation slip filed are incorrect and contrary to material on records and the prevailing 55 OS.NO.4948/2018 guidance value prescribed by the State Government Under notification No.CVC 25/2014-15, Bengaluru, dated:28-03-2016 came into effect from 01-04-2016. It is submitted that, the market value prescribed as per the guidance value of Housing society site is Rs.35,600/- per square meter and the dimension of alleged residential sites in four numbers claimed by the plaintiffs is each is totally 3576 square feets. The guidance value per square foot is Rs.3,307,32 Ps and as such the market value based on the guidance value of the alleged residential sites is approximately 1,20,25,900/- However, the market value stated by the plaintiff which is erroneous, incorrect and on the lower side contrary to the guidance value prescribed by the state Government. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is liable to pay Court Fee as provided Under Section 24(a) of KCF and SV Act as the plaintiffs are not in lawful possession and enjoyment of the alleged suit schedule property. Therefore, the court fee paid by the plaintiff for seeking the reliefs is insufficient and the plaintiff are bound to make property valuation and pay property Court Fee. The defendant No.1 humbly prays for preliminary issue with regard to the valuation and payment of Court fee and decide the same before proceeding with the suit. The plaintiff have no manner of any rights, title or interest much less possession over the alleged suit schedule property as per records as on date of filing the suit and the alleged residential site is not comprised in land Sy No.49/3, presently S No.49/7 measuring an extent of 300 Acres belonging to defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiffs not entitled for the relief 56 OS.NO.4948/2018 prayed in the suit. The suit liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. On Limitation: The present is hit by law of limitation as the Plaintiffs are not the bonafide purchasers as they are having full knowledge of the litigation and pendecy of the proceedings had purchased the suit schedule property. More over being aware about the registered sale deed in the name of defendant No10703- 2014 have not filed the above suit with time frame of law of limitation. On this count the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. Non-joinder of Necessary parties: based on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government exercising the power of eminent domain passed order No. RD 134 LAQB 2007 dated: 05-02-2009 and directed that the Lands be restored to the erstwhile Land owners. That in compliance of the Government order the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru, has taken steps and on redeposit of compensation amount awarded in a sum of Rs.17,63,022/- in respect of three items of lands including lands Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village, measuring an extent 6 Acres 36 guntas and 0-14 guntas kharab land, issued Subardu Patra dated: 25-03-2009, handing over the possession to the land owners. But the plaintiff intentionally not made government or Special land acquisition officer as parties to supress true facts before the court. On this count the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. The various factual averments and allegations made in the memorandum of plaint which are not specifically traversed herein are not correct and the same are hereby denied. In the facts and circumstance of the case, if the 57 OS.NO.4948/2018 above case is decreed the defendant No.1 will be put to grate hard ship and injury. On the other hand if the same is dismissed no hard ship will be caused to the plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs suit with exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Based on these pleadings, this court has framed issues as under:
1. Whether plaintiffs proves that 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule 'A' property and schedule 'B' property ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs proves that 2nd plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of suit schedule 'C' property and schedule 'D' property?
3. Whether the plaintiffs proves that alleged sale deed dated 07.06.2013 executed by defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of defendant No.1 of land in Sy No.49/3 is not binding upon them ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perceptual permanent injunction against defendants as prayed in the suit ?
5. Whether the defendants proves that the suit is barred by limitation ?
6. Whether defendants proves that suit is not maintainable as to non joinder of necessary parties ?
7. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the suit ?
8. What order or decree ?58
OS.NO.4948/2018
5. Plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked as many as 51 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.51 and closed his side of evidence. The defendants did not adduce their side of evidence and did not exhibit any documents on their behalf.
6. Heard the arguments. I have carefully scrutinized entire records before me.
7. My findings on the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 to 5: Donot arise for consideration;
Issue No.6 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.7 : Donot arise for consideration;
Issue No.8 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.6: This being vital issue taken
first.
9. This suit is filed for Declaration and injunction. This being a right in REM, it is necessary for the plaintiff's to prove their title to suit schedule properties and also that their vendor's had a good title to suit schedule properties to convey the same in favour of plaintiff's.
10. Plaintiff's case that the Plaintiff No.1 had purchased schedule 'A' and 'B' property from BS Geetha on 04.06.2009 and 14.02.2008 respectively for valuable consideration, Who in turn had purchased the schedule 'A and 'B' property from The Vyalikaaval House Building Co-Operative 59 OS.NO.4948/2018 Society Limited and Sree Shakthi Promoters and Developers as developer/promoter on 14.02.2008 under the registered sale deed. Further that plaintiff No2 had purchased schedule 'C' and 'D' properties under registered sale deed from Smt.B.Sharadamma on 06.04.2009 and 14.08.2008 respectively, who in turn had purchased the schedule 'C' and 'D' property from The Vyalikaaval House Building Co-operative Society Limited and Sree Shakthi Promoters and Developers as developer/promoter on 14.02.2008 under the registered sale deed. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had passed the resolution dated 12/09/2003 approving the Layout plan submitted by Vyalikavai House Building Co-Operative Society Limited in respect of Land measuring 98 acres 21 guntas in Nagavara village. Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara village is a part of the said approved layout plan.
11. To be noted , in this suit BS Geetha said to be vendor of Plaintiff No.1 vendor and Smt.Sharadamma vendor of plaintiff No.2 said to have purchased the suit schedule properties from Vyalikaaval House Building Co-operative Society Limited and Sree Shakthi Promoters and Developers ® Partnership Firm called as developer/promoter who all have not been made parties to this suit. As said above, this being suit for declaration of title, Plaintiff's vendor are necessary parties to this suit where this being declaration suit which is a right in rem, Plaintiffs have to prove their title through their 60 OS.NO.4948/2018 vendor's to show that their vendor had a good title to convey suit schedule properties.
12. Before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No.5755-5756/2011 in Moreshar s/o Yadaorao Mahajan Vs Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi(D) THR. Lrs. & Others (DB) dated 27.09.2022 - held in para 18 that necessary party is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.
13. Though the authority is pertaining to suit for specific performance, it holds good to this suit as without making their vendor's Vayalikaaval House Building Society as parties to this suit without whom no effective order can be passed by this court, this suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, concluded that defendant No.1 proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Accordingly, Issue No.6 is held in the affirmative.
14. ISSUE NOS.1 TO 5 AND 7: For my findings on Issue No.6 , these issues donot arise for consideration.
15. ISSUE NO.8: In view of my finding on Issues Nos.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following:
61OS.NO.4948/2018 ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw Decree accordingly.
*** (Dictated to the Stenographer computerized and print out taken by him, revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court today the 1 st day of February, 2023).
(S.G.SUNITHA) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiffs:
PW.1 : Chunnilal Suthar
Witness examined on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 Sale Deed dated 04.06.2009 as to site No.768
Ex.P.2 Certificate by BBMP dated 02.03.2012 as to site
No.768
Ex.P.3 Tax register extract
Ex.P.4 Property tax receipt as to site No.768 (7 in Nos)
Ex.P.5 Form-15 encumbrance (3 in Nos)
62
OS.NO.4948/2018
Ex.P.6 Sale deed dated 14.02.2008 of site No.768
Ex.P7 Possession Certificate dated 15.02.2008 of site
No.768
Ex.P8 Khatha certificate as to site No.768 dated
28.02.2008
Ex.P9 Sale deed dated 14.08.2008 of site No.769
Ex.P10 Uttara Patra dated 06.10.2008 as to site No.769
Ex.P11 Certificate by BBMP dated 06.10.2008 as to site
No.769
Ex.P12 Tax register extract as to Site No.769
Ex.P13 Property tax receipt of site No.769 (7 in Nos)
Ex.P14 Form-15 encumbrance of site No.769 (3 in Nos)
Ex.P.15 Sale deed dated 14.02.2008 of site No.769 Ex.P16 Possession Certificate of site No.769 dated 15.02.2008 Ex.P17 Khatha patra of site No.769 dated 28.02.2008 Ex.P18 Certificate by BBMP dated 06.06.2008 as to site No.769 Ex.P19 Tax register extract as site No.769 Ex.P20 Sale Deed dated 06.04.2009 of site No.766 Ex.P21 Certificate by BBMP of site No.766 dated 25.06.2018 Ex.P22 Tax register extract as to site No.766 Ex.P23 Property tax receipt as to site No.766 (7 in Nos) Ex.P24 Form-15 encumbrance (3 in Nos) Ex.P25 Sale Deed dated 14.02.2008 of site No.766 Ex.P26 Possession Certificate of site No.766 dated 15.02.2008 Ex.P27 Khatha certificate of site No.766 dated 28.02.2008 Ex.P28 Tax register extract as to site No.766 63 OS.NO.4948/2018 Ex.P29 Sale Deed dated 14.08.2008 of site No.767 Ex.P30 Uttara Patra of site No.767 dated 06.10.2008 (2 in Nos) Ex.P31 Tax register extract of site No.767 Ex.P32 Property tax receipt of site No.767 (7 in Nos) Ex.P33 Form-15 encumbrance (3 in Nos) Ex.P34 Sale Deed dated 14.02.2008 of site No.767 Ex.P35 Possession certificate of site No.767 dated 15.02.2008 Ex.P36 Khatha certificate of site No.767 Ex.P37 Certificate by BBMP dated 06.06.2008 of site No.767 Ex.P38 Tax register extract of site No.767 Ex.P39 Certified copy of residential layout plan Ex.P40 Copy of sale deed dated 07.03.2013 of Sy No.49/3 Ex.P41 Copy of order sheet of WP NO.2913-29143/2015 Ex.P42 Copy of order in WP No.28388-28401/2015 dated 19.07.2016 Ex.P43 Copy of gazette notification dated 21.02.1986 Ex.P44 Copy of Gazette notification dated 05.05.1988 Ex.P45 Copy of order in WP No.6421-28/1994 dated 18.02.1997 Ex.P46 Copy of Gazette notification dated 28.07.1999 Ex.P47 Copy of compliance report in Civil Appeal No.1930/2012 Ex.P48 Copy of affidavit in support of compliance report Ex.P49 Copy of order in Civil Appeal No.1930/2012 Ex.P50 Copy of order in WP NO.27725/2013 Ex.P51 Copy of order in WP No.11910-914/2009 dated 14.07.2011.64
OS.NO.4948/2018 Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
VII. ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.