Bangalore District Court
Hari B S N vs Government Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2025
KABC010179492020
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI,
B.A. LL.B.(Spl)
O.S.No. 4968/2020
PLAINTIFF Sri. B.S.N. Hari
S/o Late B.N.Sathyanna
Aged about 66 years,
R/at No.473, 9th Cross, 1st Block,
Near Madhavan Park, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560011.
[By Sri. Y.N.S.R., Advocate]
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1 Government of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretory,
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560001.
2 SDS Tuberculosis Research Centre &
Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Chest
Diseases, Government of Karnataka
Hosur Road, Bengaluru - 560029.
Rep. by its Director
(D-1 - By IV ADGP)
[D2 - By Sri. Chittiappa, Adv.]
2
O.S.No.4968/2020
Date of Institution of the suit : 13.10.2020
Nature of the Suit : Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of : 16.01.2023
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 09.12.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
5 1 29
(GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI)
VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, General Power of Attorney Holders or any body acting on their behalf in any way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiff.
2. It is averred that, plaintiff is absolute owner, in possession and enjoyment of vacant residential site property 3 O.S.No.4968/2020 bearing No.35/1, formerly having No.486, present PID No.62- 134-35/1 measuring East-North: 48.6 feet and East-South:
63.3, South-West:33.9 feet and West- North:24.6+38.6/2 in all measuring 2,520 square feet situated at 9 th Cross, I Block, Jayanagar, BBMP Ward No.62 Bangalore-11 which is suit property. Plaintiff has purchased the suit property under registered sale deed dated 15.03.2018 from Sri. S.R.Sridhar, Geetha.S.Murthy, Dr.H.S.Ramesh and Bhagyashree.S.Ramesh for valuable consideration which has been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Shantinagar vide document No.BNG(U)/SHR/2017-18. The name of plaintiff has been transferred in the BBMP records and khata certificate has been issued by BBMP on 05.04.2018. He has been paying taxes in respect of suit property. Originally suit property was allotted in favour of Mir Jaffer Ali as per allotment letter dated 19.03.1973 by then CITB and suit property was measuring 266.3 square yards. On the basis of allotment letter, possession certificate issued in his name in No.CR 3/1973-74 dated 04.07.1973 and khata has been transferred in his name in the records maintained by 4 O.S.No.4968/2020 Bangalore City Corporation as per endorsement bearing No.B/17/KTR/60/1973-74 dated 13.08.1973 and said site property has been given with Municipal Khata No.486/351/1. Bangalore City Corporation has issued sanctioned plan dated 21.10.1982 as per L.P.No.3083/1982- 83 for the construction of the building on the said site property in favour of Mir Jaffer Ali. Subsequent to the allotment letter, lease cum sale agreement was executed in favour of said document was registered in the office of Sub-
Registrar, Jayanagar vide document No.936/1973-74 and subsequently a regular sale deed has been executed by CITB in favour of said Jaffer Ali as per document No. 420/1973-74 Book No.1 Volume No.237 at page No.73 and 74. The said document was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Jayanagar and accordingly, CITB conveyed ownership over the suit property in favour of Mir Jaffer Ali. He died on 08.11.1982. After his death, his wife and children have succeeded to the suit property and accordingly, they were in possession and enjoyment of suit property. They entered into an agreement of sale in respect of suit property with one 5 O.S.No.4968/2020 K.V.Shiva Kumar on 28.04.1998 and they have also executed two GPA in favour of K.V.Shiva Kumar on 28.04.1998 and 01.10.1998. The wife and children of Mir Jaffer Ali have executed registered sale deed in favour of Sri. Suhas.S.Uliyar and Deepika Suhas Uliyar which has been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Jayanagar vide document No.928/2000-01 Book No.1 Volume No.2226 at page No.56 to 63 in which General Power of Attorney Holder K.B.Shiva Kumar has signed the sale deed as a consenting witness and subsequently, there is also rectification deed executed by children of Mir Jaffer Ali on 25.07.2002 and said document was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Jayanagar vide document No. BNG(U)/JNGR/1969/2002-03 and accordingly, said Suhas.S.Uliyar and Deepika.Suhas.Uliyar became absolute owners in respect of suit property and based on the registered sale deed. Khata has been transferred in their names as per khata certificate issued by BBMP dated 20.02.2001 and they were paying the taxes in respect of suit property.
6
O.S.No.4968/2020
3. Sri. Suhas.S.Uliyar and Deepika.Suhas.Uliyar have jointly sold the suit property in favour of Sri. S.P.Sridhar, Geetha.S.Murthy, Dr.H.S.Ramesh and Bhagyashree Ramesh under registered sale deed dated 25.06.2014 and said document was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar vide document No.3643/2014-15 and based on the registered sale deed, khata in respect of suit property came to be transferred in the name of Sri.S.P.Sridhar and others as per khata certificate issued by BBMP in No. BMP/REV/2015-16/KC/950305 dated 06.05.2015 and accordingly, they were paying taxes in respect of suit property for want of their family and legal necessities have jointly sold the suit property in favour of plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 15.03.2018 and accordingly, plaintiff has become absolute owner in respect of suit property. Plaintiff applied for the plan for the purpose of construction and he has also paid necessary charges for obtaining necessary plan and license and paid the amount to Karnataka State Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board and BBMP after verifying records has issued plan and license in favour of 7 O.S.No.4968/2020 plaintiff in order to put up construction consisting of 1 stilt floor+ 1 ground floor+ 2 floors as per license No.BBMP/CC/2310/2019-20 and L.P.No.BBMP/Ad.Com/SUT/0423/2019-20.
4. Plaintiff in order to put up construction over the suit property has dug foundation over suit property based on the sanctioned plan and license issued by BBMP. At the time of digging the foundation, defendants and its officials attempted to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiff and also stopped the construction activities being done in the suit property. The defendant No.2 lodged a complaint before jurisdictional police and plaintiff has furnished all relevant documents pertaining to the suit property to the police.
5. The police authority virtually supported defendant No. 2 and prevented the plaintiff from doing the construction work. The plaintiff has borrowed the loan from various financial institutions in order to develop and put up construction over 8 O.S.No.4968/2020 the suit property in order to stay there along with his family members. He stored construction materials on the spot. But the defendant No. 2 and its officials are threatening the plaintiff not to indulge in construction work. Even though defendant No.2 has no right, title, interest or possession of any kind over the suit property or any portion thereof and has no right to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and from doing construction activities in the suit property. But acts of defendant No. 2 are contrary to law for which plaintiff issued legal notice dated 14.11.2019 calling upon the defendants not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and not to interfere in development activities in the suit property. The said notice is served upon the defendant No.2 who has sent a letter dated 28.11.2019 calling upon the advocate of the plaintiff to furnish the copies of the documents referred in the notice dated 14.11.2019 for scrutiny. Accordingly the advocate of the plaintiff sent photocopies of all the documents pertaining to the suit property to the defendant No.2 by registered post on 9 O.S.No.4968/2020 16.12.2019 which is acknowledged by the defendant No.2. Inspite of receiving notice and documents, the defendant No.2 and its officials are making arrangements to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiff on 08.05.2020 and tries to disturb the possession. The plaintiff with the help of his men resisted the acts of the defendant No. 2 and they were away from the spot stating that they would come once again with police and disturb the activities of construction by the plaintiff on the property. If the defendant No.2 and its officials were successful in their activities in disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff, he would be put to great hardship and inconvenience, for which he is constrained to file this suit against the defendants.
6. The defendant No.2 filed written statement and denied the contents of the plaint. It is contented that the suit is devoid of merits, false, frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed in limine. The defendants have not received any notice from the plaintiff as contemplated under Section 80 of 10 O.S.No.4968/2020 CPC and suit is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of Section 80 of CPC. In the year 1944, the government of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore with the intention to establish Tuberculosis Sanatorium for public purpose by exercising the power conferred under Section 4 (2) of Land Acquisition Act and Section 5A(4) of Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act acquired several survey numbers of Siddapura and Byrasandra villages with total extent of 100 acres. Survey No. 24 of Siddapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North, Taluk to the extent of 4 acres including 18 gunta Kharab lands among lands acquired for the said purpose. The acquisition of the land was strictly in accordance with law. In the said acquisition, land was taken from owner Smt.Muninanjamma after payment of compensation of ₹ 2,070/- and enhanced compensation amount of ₹1,958.10 paisa as per the award passed by the court was also paid and possession was taken. The defendant No.2 institution established by the State Government during the year 1965. All around compound was constructed by PWD in respect of the land acquired. Several institutions such 11 O.S.No.4968/2020 as NIMHANS and Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health are also established. The defendant No. 2 got the land surveyed and boundaries came to be fixed by the authorities and survey was conducted by the survey department as per the instructions of defendant No. 2. During survey, it was found that, the extent of 22.5 meters is encroached by the plaintiff under the guise of development and this act is deliberately suppressed by the plaintiff and he filed the false suit by misrepresenting the facts. The said land is within Survey No. 24 of Lalbagh-Siddapura Village, against which plaintiff has made an attempt to encroach and it is exclusively belonged to the defendant No.2 and ownership vested with the State Government in the year 1944. This portion of the property in Survey No. 24 is not the subject matter of acquisition either by then CITB or present BDA and plaintiff has no kind of right, title or interest over the property to the extent of 22.50 square meters in Survey No. 24 of Siddapura Village. The plaintiff appears to have misrepresented local authorities and obtained approved plan and license and such issue of license or plan in favour of the plaintiff cannot cloth him with power 12 O.S.No.4968/2020 to encroach extent of 22.50 square meters in Survey No. 24 of Siddapura village which absolutely vested with the defendants. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. Hence, he is not entitled for equitable relief of injunction and he with an ulterior motive of grabbing valuable property to the extent of 22.5 meters belonged to the State Government has filed this suit and there is no cause of action. Therefore it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
7. Defendant No. 1 filed memo and adopted the contents of written statement filed by defendant No.2.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this Court has framed following issues.
I SSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that as on the date of filing this suit, the plaintiff was in lawful and peaceful position of suit property?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference?
13
O.S.No.4968/2020
3) Whether the defendants No. 1 and 2 prove that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has failed to issue notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendants?
4) Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 prove that the suit property was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
6) What order or decree?
9. Plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked ExP.1 to 19 documents and closed evidence. The defendants have examined Dr. Shashi Bhushan B.L as DW-1 and got marked ExD-1 to 3 and closed the evidence.
10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and learned DGP on main suit and perused the evidence on record.
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the "Affirmative" Issue No.2 : In the "Affirmative" 14
O.S.No.4968/2020 Issue No.3 : In the "Negative"
Issue No.4 : In the "Negative"
Issue No.5 : In the "Affirmative" Issue No.6 : As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
12. Issue Nos.1, 2 and 4: These issues are interlinked with each other and they are taken together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
13. According to the evidence of PW-1, he is absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the vacant residential site bearing 35/1, Old No. 486 present PID No. 62-134-35/1 measuring North- East 48.6 feet, East-South 63.3 feet, South-West 33.9 feet North-West 24.6+38.6/2 in all measuring about 2,520 square feet situated at 9 th Cross 1st Block Jayanagar BBMP Ward No. 62. He has stated about mode of acquisition of the said property in Para No. 3 of chief examination affidavit stating that he purchased the said 15 O.S.No.4968/2020 property from Sri. S.R.Sridhar, Geetha.S.Murthy, Dr.H.S.Ramesh and Bhagyashree.S.Ramesh under the registered sale deed dated 15.03.2018, vide document number BNG(U)/SHR/3841/2017-18 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Shanthinagar and on the basis of the sale deed, khata of the said property transferred in his name and khata certificate has been issued by BBMP on 05.04.2018 and he has been paying taxes in respect of the said property.
14. With regard to the previous ownership of said property, he has deposed in Para No.4 of chief affidavit that, originally suit property was allotted to Mir Jaffer Ali as per Allotment Letter dated 19.03.1973 by CITB and it was measured in yards measuring 266.13 square yards and based on said allotment letter, possession certificate was issued to him in CR No.3/1973-74 dated 04.07.1973. Subsequently khata in respect of the said property was transferred in his name by the Bengaluru City Corporation as per endorsement bearing No.B/17/KTR/60/1973/74 dated 13.08. 1973 and Municipal Khata No. 486/35/1 was given to the said property. In para 16 O.S.No.4968/2020 No.5 of his chief examination affidavit, he has deposed about license applied and approved by Bangalore City Corporation vide sanction plan dated 21.10.1982 as per LP No. 3083/1982-83 for the construction of the building on the said site property and as per Allotment Letter, Lease Cum Sale Agreement was executed in favour of Mir Jaffar Ali on 27.03.1974 in respect of the suit property, which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Jayanagar vide document No. 936/1973-74 and subsequently, the lease cum sale deed has been executed by CITB in favour of Mir Jaffar Ali, as per Document No. 420/1973- 74, Book No. 1, Volume No. 237 at Page No.73 and 74, in the office of Sub-Registrar Jayanagar and CITB conveyed the ownership over the said property in favour of Mir Jaffar Ali, who died on 08.11.1982 and after his death, his wife and children have succeeded to the said property and they were in possession of the said property.
15. In Para No.6 of chief affidavit, he has stated about purchase of the said property by K.V.Shivakumar. He has 17 O.S.No.4968/2020 deposed that, wife and children of Mir Jaffar Ali entered into sale agreement in respect of the said property in favour of K.V. Shivakumar on 28.04.1998 and executed two GPA in his favour on 28.04.1998 and 01.10.1998 and they executed registered sale deed in favour of Suhas.S.Uliyar and Deepika Suhas Uliyar on 14.06.2000 in the office of Sub-Registrar Jayanagar, vide Document No. 928/2000-2001, Book No. 1, Volume No. 2226 at Page No. 56 to 63, and K.B. Shivakumar as a GPA Holder signed to the sale deed as a consenting witness. There is also rectification deed executed by children of Mir Jaffer Ali on 25.07.2002 in the office of Sub Registrar Jayanagar vide document No.BNG(U)/JNGR/1969/2002-03 and accordingly, Suhas Uliyar and Deepika Suhas Uliyar became the absolute owners of the said property and Khata was transferred in their names and Khata certificate was issued by BBMP on 22.02.2001 and they were paying the taxes in respect of the said property. He has further stated that Suhas S. Uliyar and Smt. Deepika Suhas Uliyar have jointly executed the sale deed in favour of S.R.Sridhar, Geetha S.Murthy, Dr.H.S.Ramesh and Bhagyashree S.Ramesh under 18 O.S.No.4968/2020 the registered sale deed dated 25.06.2014 which is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Jayanagar vide Document No. 3643/2014-2015 and on the basis of sale deed, khata has been transferred in their names and Khata certificate issued by BBMP bearing No. BMP/REV/2015-16/KC/950305 dated 06.05.2015 and they were paying their taxes in respect of the said property and he purchased the said property from them and became the absolute owner of the said property.
16. He has stated about a license applied by him from BBMP and started putting up construction by digging foundation and at that time, defendant No. 2 and its officials attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property and stopped the construction work and defendant No.2 lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police and he furnished all the relevant documents in respect of the suit property to the police authorities who virtually supported the defendant No. 2 and prevented him from doing construction work.
19
O.S.No.4968/2020
17. He borrowed the loan from various financial institutions to put up construction and develop the schedule property in order to reside with his family members and stored construction materials and defendant No.2 and his officials threatened him not to interfere in construction activities and without having any kind of right, title or interest or possession over the said property, the defendant No. 2 tried to interfere with the said property for which he has issued legal notice to the defendant No.2 on 14.11.2019 calling upon them not to interfere with peaceful possession of the said property and not to interfere with the development activities. The said notice is served upon the defendant No.2 who sent letter on 28.11.2019 calling upon advocate of plaintiff to furnish the copies of the documents which were sent by registered post on 16.12.2019 which is acknowledged by the defendant No. 2. But the defendants have caused obstruction to the possession of the suit property.
18. The plaintiff has produced a certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.03.2018, Khata Certificate, Khata Extract, 20 O.S.No.4968/2020 certified copy of the sale deed dated 25.06.2014, certified copy of the sale deed dated 14.06.2000, certified copy of the allotment letter, Lease cum sale agreement, certificate copy dated 07.06.1973, certificate copy of the sale deed dated 02.07.1974, encumbrance certificate for the period from 01.04.1974 to 31.03.2004, encumbrance certificate for the period from 01.04.2004 to 02.01.2020, Office copy of legal notice, reply notice sent by the defendant No.2, office copy of letter issued by the learned counsel for plaintiff with documents to the defendant No.2. Postal acknowledgments and postal covers and RPAD cover which are marked as ExP- 1 to 13. He has also produced digitally signed sanction plan as per ExP-16.
19. According to the evidence of DW-1, in the year 1944, Government of His Highness Maharaja of Mysore established Tuberculosis Sanatorium for public purpose under Section Section 4(2) of Land Acquisition Act and under the provisions of Section 5A and sub-section 4 of Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act and acquired several survey numbers of 21 O.S.No.4968/2020 Siddapura and Byrasandra villages to the total extent of 100 acres and Survey No. 24 of Siddapura village Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk to the extent of 4 acres including 18 gunta Kharab land is also one among the lands acquired for the said purpose. The acquisition of the land was strictly in accordance with law and possession of the land was taken from its owner Smt. Muninanjamma after payment of compensation of ₹2,078/- and enhanced compensation of ₹ 1,958.10 paise as per the award passed by the court was also paid and possession was taken. He has also stated that, the defendant No. 2 institution was established by the State Government in the year 1965 and all around compound was completed by PWD for the land so acquired and several institutions such as NIMHANS and Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health were also established. It is further deposed by him in his chief affidavit that, the defendant No. 2 got surveyed the land and fixed the boundaries and as per the instruction of defendant No.2, survey was conducted by Survey Department and during the course of survey, it was found by the authorities that an extent of 22.5 meters 22 O.S.No.4968/2020 encroached by the plaintiff under the guise of development and this fact is suppressed by the plaintiff deliberately by misrepresenting the facts. In the para No. 5 to 7 of Chief examination affidavit, he has denied the contents of plaint and it is also contended that, plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and he has misrepresented the municipal authority and obtained approved plan and licence to cloth him with the power to encroach the extent of 22.50 square meters in the R.S.No.24 of Siddapura Village.
20. On appreciating the cross-examination of DW-1, he has admitted that, on 28.11.2019, previous director of SDS TRCRGICD Bangalore sent a letter as per Ex.P12 requiring the plaintiff counsel to send the copies of the document and as per Ex.P13, plaintiff advocate sent copies of documents to his office which is received by his office on 18.12.2019. The concerned cross-examination portion is as under:
It is true to suggest that on 28.11.2019 previous director of SDS TRCRGICD Bangalore sent letter as per Ex.P10 23 O.S.No.4968/2020 requesting the plaintiff's advocate to send the copies of the documents. It is true to suggest that as per Ex.P13 the plaintiff advocate sent copies of documents to our office which is received by our office on 18.12.2019.
21. In further cross-examination, he has admitted that, land bearing Survey No. 24 measuring 4 acre 18 gunta has been acquired by for SDS TRCRGICD Bangalore. He doesn't know the chakabandi of 4 acre 18 gunta land. The land bearing Survey No. 24 has been acquired as per the Mysore Government Notification dated 29.09.1944. He has admitted that said land was in the possession of the government. He has also admitted that as per Ex.D1, land bearing R.S.No.24 along with other lands have been acquired. The concerned cross-examination portion is as under.
It is true to suggest that land bearing No. 24 measuring 4 acre 18 gunta has 24 O.S.No.4968/2020 been acquired by for SDS, TRC, RGICD. I do not know the chakabandi of 4 acres 18 gunta land. Land bearing Sy.No. 24 has been acquired as per Mysore Gazette notification dated 29.09.1944. It is true to suggest that said land was in the possession of the government. It is true to suggest that as per Ex.D1 along with R.S.No.24, other lands have been acquired.
22. He has admitted that in respect of acquired land, Government has constructed stone compound wall surrounding the said lands. The concerned cross examination portion is as under:
It is true to suggest that in respect of acquired lands, Government has constructed stone compound wall surrounding the said lands. It is true 25 O.S.No.4968/2020 to suggest that compound wall is constructed in the year 1965.
23. In further cross-examination, he has admitted that, compound wall constructed by department in the year 1965 is still in existence. He has also admitted that, BDA has not demolished compound wall and not encroached the property. The concerned cross-examination portion is as under.
It is true to suggest that compound wall constructed by our department in the year 1965 is still in existence. It is true to suggest that BDA has demolished our compound wall and not encroached our property.
24. In further cross-examination, he has admitted that, the plaintiff has already constructed building in the suit property and residing in the said property. The concerned cross- examination portion is as under.
26
O.S.No.4968/2020 It is true to suggest that the plaintiff has already constructed building in the suit property and residing in the said property.
25. In the cross-examination, one photograph was confronted and he admitted that compound wall of the defendant No. 2. In further cross-examination, when road was shown in the photograph which is marked as Ex.P19, he has admitted that, towards the west of property bearing Sy.No. 24, some persons constructed the house and residing in the said house. He has also admitted that, as per Ex.P19, there is road towards East of the suit property and there is compound of the defendant No.2 after the road. The concerned cross-examination portion is as under:
It is true to suggest that, towards the west of our property Sy.No.24, some persons constructed house and residing in the house. It is true to suggest that as 27 O.S.No.4968/2020 per Ex.P19, there is road towards east of the suit property. It is true to suggest that there is our compound after the road.
26. On appreciation of cross-examination of the plaintiff, he has stated that, he has purchased the suit schedule property from S.R.Sridhar and S.R.Sridhar has purchased the said property from Suhas S. Uliyar and Smt. Deepika Suhas Uliyar who had purchased the said property from Mir Jaffar Ali which was allotted by CITB. In his cross-examination, he has stated about description of the suit schedule property which is bounded on East by Road, West by Site No.473, North by Site No.474 and South by Mantri Apartment and total extent of the suit schedule property is 2520 sq.ft. He has denied that he has encroached 22.5 meters of land in Sy.No.24 and the defendant No.2 surveyed the said land and thereafter, issued notice to him for having encroached 22.5 meters of land. He has also denied that, to knock off the valuable property of the defendants, he has filed the false suit.
28
O.S.No.4968/2020
27. On appreciating the documents produced by the plaintiff, he has produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.03.2018 executed by S.R.Sridhar, Geetha S.Murthy, Dr.H.S.Ramesh and Bhagyashree S.Ramesh who executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the vacant residential site bearing No.35/1, Old No.486 measuring 2520 sq.ft. situated at 9th Cross, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, Ward No.62, having PID No.62-134- 35/1 measuring North to East 48.6 feet, East to South 63.3 feet, South to West 33.9 feet, West to North 24.6+38.6/2 feet, in all measuring 2520 sq.ft and bounded on East by Road, West by CITB Property, North by Site No.471 & 472 and South by Site No.485. He has also produced the Khata certificate and as per the said document, the property bearing PID No.62-134-35/1, Municipal No.35/1, Old No.486, 9 th Cross, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, is standing in the name of the plaintiff and he has also produced the khata extract as per Ex.P6 which is standing in his name. He has produced the certified copy of the sale deed executed by Suhas S.Uliyar and Smt. Deepika Suhas Uliyar in favour of 29 O.S.No.4968/2020 S.R.Sridhar, Smt.Geetha.S.Murthy, Dr.H.S.Ramesh and Smt. Bhagyashree S.Ramesh and they sold the said property in favour of Sridhar and others for consideration of Rs.2,24,02,800/- and in respect of very same property with similar description, he has also produced the rectification deed . He has produced the certified copy of the sale deed marked as Ex.P5 dated 14.06.2000 executed by wife and children of Mir Jaffar Ali and they executed the sale deed in favour of Suhas S.Uliyar and Deepika Suhas Uliyar in respect of the said property and GPA holder Shivakumar also signed to the document and description of the said property is clearly shown in the sale deed. He has also produced the lease cum sale agreement executed by Bengaluru City Improvement Trust Board in favour of Mir Jaffar Ali in respect of the property bearing No.486, Block-I, Jayanagar which is bounded on East by Road, West by CITB property, North by Site No.471 and 472 and South by Site No.485 measuring east to west 63 feet and north to south 40 feet with total 2522 sq.ft. The CITB has also executed the sale deed in favour of Mir Jaffar Ali as per Ex.P8 in respect of the 30 O.S.No.4968/2020 said property with similar description. He has produced the encumbrance certificate as per Ex.P10 in which there is a clear entry about the sale deed executed by S.R.Sridhar, Geetha.S.Murthy, Dr.H.S.Ramesh and Bhagyashree S.Ramesh in favour of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed. The plaintiff has issued legal notice to the defendants as per Ex.P11 and he has also sent photocopy of the document sought by the defendant No.2 and to that effect, postal receipts are produced. The plaintiff has also produced the photos of the said property which are marked at Ex.P17 to 19 by confronting in the cross-examination.
28. On appreciating oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff, it clearly established that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property which has been purchased by him under the registered sale deed and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendants have produced Gazette Notification dated 12.10.1944 about acquisition of property for the purpose of construction of Tuberculosis Sanatorium and in the said 31 O.S.No.4968/2020 acquisition, land of Muniyamma bearing Sy.No.24 measuring 4 acres 18 guntas has been acquired and the compensation of Rs.2070/- and additional compensation amount of Rs.1958/- has been deposited in the court. DW.1 has produced the survey sketch as per Ex.D3 and as per the said document, LA34, CTS No.608, 607, 606, 605, 604 and 606, 603, 610, 611, 612 some portion of property come within the Sy.No.24. But the said survey authorities are not summoned and examined by the defendants and they have not proved that the suit schedule property is shown as part of their property in the said sketch. They would have summoned and examined the author of Ex.D3 and they failed to show that the suit schedule property is encroached by the plaintiff. Hence, the contention of the defendant is not acceptable. Plaintiff has proved that, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property on the basis of the registered sale deed. So I answer issue No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and issue No.4 in the Negative.
32
O.S.No.4968/2020
29. Issue No.3 : The defendants have taken contention that, the plaintiff has failed to issue legal notice under Section 80 of CPC and the suit is not maintainable. But this contention of the defendants is not at all acceptable. Because the plaintiff has issued legal notice to the defendants as per Ex.P11 and it is served on the defendant and to that effect, postal receipts and acknowledgments are produced and the defendant No.2 requested to send the documents which are sent by issuing notice. When the legal notice has been issued by the plaintiff which is served upon the defendants, the contention of the defendants is not acceptable. So I answer issue No.3 in the Negative.
30. Issue No.5 : In view of my discussion, I hold that, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. So, I answer issue No.5 in the Affirmative.
31. Issue No.6 : For the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following :
33
O.S.No.4968/2020 ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
Decree of permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, GPA holders or anybody acting on their behalf from any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
Decree of permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, GPA holder or anybody acting on their behalf from any way disturbing with the development activities being done by the plaintiff over the suit schedule property No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 9th day of December, 2025) (GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.34
O.S.No.4968/2020 AN NEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s P.W.1 : B.S.N. Hari
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff/s Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 15.3.2018 Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of Khata certificate Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Khata extract Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 25.6.2014 Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 14.06.2000 Ex.P.6 : RTI Copy of Allotment register Ex.P7 Certified copy of Lease cum sale agreement dated 6.6.1973 Ex.P8 Certified copy of sale deed dated 27.03.1974 Ex.P9 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P10 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P11 Copy of legal notice dated 14.11.2019 Ex.P12 Reply notice issued by defendant No.2 Ex.P13 Letter dated 16.12.2019 Ex.P14 Postal acknowledgment Ex.P15 Postal receipt Ex.P16 Copy of digital sanctioned plan Ex.P17 Photographs
3. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant/s DW.1 : Shashi Bhushan B.N. 35 O.S.No.4968/2020
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Defendant/s Ex.D1 : True copy of Gazette Notification dated:.12.10.1944 Ex.D1(a) The relevant entry in Ex.D1 Ex.D2 Certified copy of order about payment of compensation Ex.D4 Attested copy of survey sketch VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.