Bangalore District Court
M.T.B.Anantha Unnathi vs Sathish.N on 9 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE 42nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO.43).
PRESENT:Sri.Bailur Shankar Rama,
B.Sc., M.A., LL.B.(Spl).,
42nd Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 9th day of August 2016.
O.S.No.4493/2015
Plaintiff:- M.T.B.Anantha Unnathi,
Educational Trust (R)
No.69, Manjunatha Nilaya,
Garudacharpalya,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560 048.
Represented by its Secretary
& Chief Executive Director,
Sri.Neetish Purushottama B.N.
S/o.Sri.N.Nagaraja,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at "Manjunatha Nilaya",
No.69, Garudacharpalya,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560 048.
(By - Sri.Umashankar.M.N., Adv.)
v.
Defendants:- 1. Sathish.N.,
S/o.Late Nararaj,
Major in Age,
Patel S Narayanappa Building,
Neat St.Anne's High School,
Ganesha Sagar Layout,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560 048.
2 O.S.No.4493/2015
2. Kantharaj.N.,
S/o.Late S.Narayanappa,
Major in Age,
#1, Ashirvad Nilaya,
Ganesha Temple Road,
Lakshmi Sagar Layout,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560 048.
3. Shekar.N.
S/o.Narayan,
Major in Age,
Raghavendra Nilaya,
Near St.Anne's High School,
Lakshmi Sagar Layout,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560 048.
4. Krishnaveni,
W/o.Late Gangaraj,
S/o.G.Narendra,
Major in Age,
No.39, Om Shakthi Nilaya,
9th Cross,
Ganesha Temple Road,
Lakshmi Sagar Layout,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560 048.
5. Magadi Rangaiah,
S/o.Kale Gowda,
Major in Age,
R/o 8th Cross,
Ganesha Temple Road,
Lakshmi Sagar Layout,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560 048.
6. Lakshman Dasappa,
Father's name not
known to the plaintiff,
Major in Age,
3 O.S.No.4493/2015
Garudacharpalya,
Near Public Library,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560 048.
7. S.Ravi,
S/o.Late Sapangappa,
Major in Age,
No.42/3, 11th Cross,
Maleswara Nilaya,
Garudacharpalya,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560 048.
(Defs.1 to 5 - Exparte
D6 & D7 -Sri.Chandra Shekar.L, Adv.)
Date of institution of the suit : 28.05.2015
Nature of the suit : Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of : 21.07.2016
recording of the evidence
Date on which the judgement : 09.08.2016
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
01 02 11
(BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA)
42nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
4 O.S.No.4493/2015
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction and costs
2. The brief facts as averred in the plaint are that:-
The plaintiff is an Educational Trust established on 27.03.2002 to promote education and was reconstituted on 16.02.2012, appointing new Trustees to the Board. M.T.B. Jyana Jyothi Vidhyaniketan School has been established in the year 2002 by the Trust which is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education and at present there are more than 800 students. The school has been constructed in the area measuring 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy.No.30/2 of Mahadevapura Village, Lakshmisagar Layout, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The land measuring 3 acres 15 guntas was purchased by Smt.Shantha Kumari, one of the Trustee under the Registered Sale Deed dated 10.02.1982 and was converted for non-agricultural purpose on 06.03.2009. In the said property wherein school is established, there is no public road or pathway as per the CDP. It is submitted that Secretary of the school has 5 O.S.No.4493/2015 received a letter dated 14.11.2014 from the Block Education Officer informing him that the school has been constructed in the area of 3 acres 15 guntas of land having huge play ground, but compound wall was constructed partially and informed the Authorities to maintain safety of the students and advised to construct full compound wall in and around the school building. That is in accordance to the Government Circular dated 23.07.2014 to provide protection to the students from sexual and physical harassment. The Commissioner of Police has also passed Order dated 26.07.2014 informing the School Authorities to provide necessary safety measures to the students. The school is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. It is submitted that as per the CDP though there is no pathway or road in the entire 3 acres 15 guntas of land, however to help the residents the Trust has provided the land measuring 548.4 square metres on the right side of the school to enable the general public to reach their destination and residences. The Trust had executed Relinquishment Deed in favour of Corporation relinquishing totally 548.4 square metres area free of cost. It is 6 O.S.No.4493/2015 submitted that left side of the school compound there is minor urban road measuring 12 metres and also small drainage, since the public are passing through the school.
It is suggested by the Block Education Officer in the order that the school authorities have to maintain full pledged playground with full compound wall to avoid unnecessary interference from the public and to have protection. Thus, the school authorities have taken steps to construct the full compound wall around the school building. The BBMP has permitted the school authorities to construct compound wall. Even Tahasildar, Bangalore East also informed BBMP and School Authorities to take safety measures. The plaintiff submits that the defendants who have no right whatsoever to demand pathway in the playground of the school, are causing interference in construction of the compound wall, the Plaintiff Trust has already left substantial portion of the land on the right side of the school for the purpose of road to enable the public who have access to their residence. The defendants are unnecessarily causing obstructions and interfering in the construction work of the compound wall. The plaintiff Trust is not 7 O.S.No.4493/2015 utilizing any portion of Government land or public property, the defendants cannot demand pathway as a matter of right in the school playground. If full compound wall is not provided, students will be adversely affected. The Plaintiff Trust is constructing the compound wall legally. The alleged interference by the defendants caused impediment for the Plaintiff Trust to take safety measures as per the Government Circular and directions given by the various Departments. Without the aid of the court order, they cannot resist the high handed activities of the defendants at the spot. Hence, the suit.
3. Along with the suit I.A.No.2 application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, an exparte ad-interim T.I. was granted, directing the defendants 1 to 7 to maintain status quo and the said order is still in force. Even after the service of suit summons and I.A. Order the defendants remained absent, as such they were placed exparte. The case is proceeded with for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. Secretary and Chief Executive Director of Plaintiff Trust got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P37 and closed his side.
8 O.S.No.4493/2015
4. After the closure of evidence, heard the arguments.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are that:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendants causing obstruction to put up compound wall around the suit schedule property and insist to have a road way across the playground?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction?
4. What order?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1:- In the affirmative.
Point No.2:- In the affirmative.
Point No.3:- In the affirmative.
Point No.4:- As per final order,
for the following:-
9 O.S.No.4493/2015
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1 TO 3:-
For the sake of convenience these points were taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff Trust represented through its Secretary and Chief Executive Director for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their henchmen, followers from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment over the suit schedule property and put up compound wall to carry out the instructions given by way of Circular and informed by the various Authorities to take safety measures for the children who are studying in the school over 800 from physical and sexual harassment. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that entire extent of 3 acres 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.30/2 bounded on all the 4 sides within the boundary specified is in lawful possession and enjoyment by the Plaintiff Trust.
8. In the evidence of PW-1, he has produced the certified copy of the Trust Deed dated 27.03.2002. 10 O.S.No.4493/2015 Thereafter, the said Trust has been reconstituted on 16.02.2012 as evidenced by the Reconstitution of Trust Deed - Ex.P2. PW.1 has deposed the facts averred in the plaint in his evidence. By reading Ex.P1 and P2, it is clear that the plaintiff is an Educational Trust established to promote education at all levels in any field concerning only education.
9. The main object of the Trust includes to promote charitable and benevolent services to the poor, sick, distress, destitute, orphans, homeless and also disabled persons. Therefore, as per the Trust Deed itself PW-1 being the Secretary and Chief Executive Director is authorized to institute the suit and appear before the court in legal proceedings relating to the Trust and its property. The Trust has started M.T.B. Jyana Jyothi Vidhyaniketan School in the year 2012 affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. The evidence goes to show that school has been constructed in an area measuring 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy.No.30/2 as same was purchased by Smt.Shantha Kumari, one of the Trustee under the Registered Sale Deed dated 10.02.1982 and the said land was converted on 11 O.S.No.4493/2015 06.03.2009 for non-agricultural purpose. PW-1 has categorically stated in his evidence that in the entire land measuring 3 acres 15 guntas i.e. the suit schedule property wherein school building was erected there is no public road or any pathway as per CDP. Therefore, the case of the Plaintiff Trust that the entire area of 3 acres 15 guntas covered within the boundary shown in the schedule has been in their lawful possession and enjoyment including the building standing therein, wherein about 800 students are studying presently. The school has got huge playground. As per the Government norms to maintain safety of the students who are studying in the said Institution the Plaintiff Trust intended to put up compound wall around the suit schedule property which is in their lawful possession and enjoyment. It has been pleaded and deposed by PW-1 that on 14.01.2014, the Block Education Officer had written a letter to the school informing to maintain safety and also protect the interest of the students and advised to construct compound wall around the suit schedule property. He has also produced the Conversion Order dated 06.03.2009 at Ex.P3, evidencing the conversion of suit schedule property 12 O.S.No.4493/2015 into non-agricultural land and it was given for the purpose of establishing the school, can very well be gathered with certain conditions. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 10.02.1982, evidencing purchase by Smt.Shantha Kumari from its erstwhile vendor. Therefore, agricultural land was purchased for establishment of the school and it was converted into non-agricultural land as per Ex.P3 and Plaintiff Trust have erected the school building and students are studying in the said school, as such entire 3 acres 15 guntas of land is in possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff Trust can very well be gathered. The Block Education Officer had visited the school on 14.11.2014 and observed that partial compound was put up and issued a letter to the Secretary of the Trust to put up compound wall around the entire extent of land in the best interest and safety of the students as per Ex.P5. The basis for informing PW-1 to take measures of safety of children was based on the Circular issued by the Education Department dated 23.07.2014 for the safety of the school children against the physical and sexual harassment. Therefore, again Ex.P6 is the letter issued by the Police Commissioner, Bangalore, 13 O.S.No.4493/2015 also insisted the School Authorities to take safety measures. Basing on the increase in reports of school children were exposed to such kind of atrocities physical and sexual harassment, even specifying the measures to be taken as per the Government Guidelines was impressed on the School Authorities. PW-1 has deposed that the said school run by the Trust is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education and Condition No.20 in the affiliation that "School will strictly adhere with all the Rules regarding safety of the students including Fire Fighting, Drinking Water, Sanitation, Transportation etc." Therefore, it is clear that they will abide by the Circulars, Notifications issued by the Government and the concerned Education Department, Police Department from time to time to implement the same by taking such safety measures to protect the children who are studying in the school. Therefore, they have taken up the construction work of putting up compound wall around the suit schedule property by taking permission from the Local Authorities and the Department is concerned, can very well be gathered. The RTCs produced at Ex.P11 to P24 pertains to 3 14 O.S.No.4493/2015 acres 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.30/2 i.e. suit schedule property is standing in the name of Smt.Shantha Kumari w/o. N.Nagaraju, who is one of the Trustee as per Reconstitution of Trust Deed - Ex.P2. Therefore, throughout from the date of purchase the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property to the entire extent of 3 acres 15 guntas, can very well be gathered. Ex.P27 is the photo which shows that existence of school building in the suit schedule property and other photos produced at Ex.P25, Ex.P26, Ex.P28 to P30 shows the playground and other surroundings. The contention of the plaintiff that for the use of public at the right side of the school building in the suit schedule property they left a road way to reach their residence. That is also seen in the photographs. CD is produced at Ex.P31. Ex.P32 is the letter written by Assistant Executive Engineer dated 17.01.2015 regarding the inspection made at the spot as obstruction raised by the public. Ex.P35 and P36 are also the photographs to show that topography of the ground and the access to the school. Ex.P33 is the Katha Certificate standing in the name of Smt.M.Shantha Kumari and Ex.P34 is Assessment Register 15 O.S.No.4493/2015 Extract. Therefore, it is needless to say that suit schedule property is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff Educational Trust.
10. PW-1 in his evidence has categorically stated that there was no public road or any path way as per CDP in the land measuring 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy.No.30/2 where the school building has been constructed. The Block Education Officer has made spot inspection and informed the Management that some of the residents of the Village have objected for full construction of wall, they claim cart road across the playground in the suit schedule property. He has also deposed that to help the public an extent of land measuring 548.4 square metres has been transferred by relinquishing in favour of BBMP for the purpose of providing a pathway on the right side of the school for the use of the residents of that area even though there is no pathway in and around the suit schedule property much less across the playground. Ex.P8 is the CDP plan in respect of suit schedule property. There is no mention of any roadway existed across the suit property. Likewise Ex.P9 is the Google Map also shows no such existence of the pathway or 16 O.S.No.4493/2015 cart way for the use of the public across the suit schedule property and never been used by the public. Therefore, the photographs produced would go to show that even though there is no roadway in the suit schedule property, the Plaintiff Trust has provided certain area which is part and parcel of the suit schedule property, measuring 548.4 square metres on the right side of the school building to enable the general public to reach their destination. The Plaintiff Trust has executed Relinquishment Deed in favour of Corporation, relinquishing totally 548.4 square metres free of cost i.e. for the purpose of maintenance of the roadway for the use of the public to reach their destination that was the duty cast on the Corporation and necessary arrangement was thus being made by the Plaintiff Trust. The existence of such roadway left out to the right side of the school building can very well be gathered from the photographs produced. Therefore, under what circumstances the Plaintiff Trust have taken steps to put up compound wall i.e. to comply the directions issued by the Government, Education Department and Officials Superiors including the police. That is for safety of the children who 17 O.S.No.4493/2015 are studying in the school, that they should not be exposed to any kind of sexual or physical harassment and such step taken cannot be said that it is arbitrary or they violated any law or rules. In fact, after taking permission from the Local Authorities they started put up compound wall and villagers cannot interfere with such steps taken by the Plaintiff Trust, which is a lawful act and the assertions made at the spot while interfering by the defendants and other public alleging that they are having roadway across the suit schedule property and by putting up such construction wall it will be blocking of their use of such roadway, is baseless. More particularly Ex.P7 - Letter written by Tahasildarr, Bangalore East Taluk to Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP after having spot inspection to Sy.No.30 of Mahadevapur Village that no such cart way is in use by the public. On the contrary, the School Authorities have left 2475.72 square feet to use the general public to have access and to reach their destination. For the purpose of safety of the children studying in the school, permission can be granted by the BBMP to put up compound wall around the entire extent of suit schedule property in possession of the Plaintiff Trust. 18 O.S.No.4493/2015 Therefore, when the responsible Officer after making visit opined that no such cart way is in use or found in existence and also the relinquishment made by the plaintiff leaving certain area to use as a roadway by the Villagers, certainly defendants have no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as well as to put up compound wall for the benefit of the school children for their safety in compliance to the Guidelines issued by the Government and there is a cause of action for the plaintiff to file a suit for the relief of injunction against the defendants. As there is actual interference made by the defendants and there is threat of interference also which need to be prevented by means of an order of permanent injunction as prayed in the suit. In this case, though at the spot the defendants have created problems and such indulgence by the defendants was reported to the Higher Authorities including the Revenue Department and after making such spot inspection Authorities have accorded permission to the Plaintiff Trust to put up compound wall around the suit schedule property for the benefit and safety of the children who are learning in the said school more 19 O.S.No.4493/2015 than 800. The defendants knowing fully well that the plaintiffs have filed this suit and obtained a temporary injunction order against them, but they did not come forward to get the T.I. order vacated or even failed to file written statement or not raised any contest. That means, they are creating problems at the spot, but keeping away from the court and such attitude by the defendants should be curbed by passing an order of injunction, restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property and also to put up compound wall around the suit schedule property. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 3 in the affirmative.
11. Point No.4:- For the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendants, their agents, servants, supporters, henchmen, representatives or anybody claiming on their behalf, are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 20 O.S.No.4493/2015 schedule property or in any manner detrimental to the construction of the compound wall in and around the suit schedule property by way of permanent prohibitory injunction.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, typed by her, the transcript corrected and then pronounced by me, in open Court, this the 9th day of August 2016).
(BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA) 42ND ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
PW.1 - Sri.Neetish Purushottama.B.N.
(b) Defendants' side: Nil II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Trust Deed dated
27.03.2002
Ex.P2 : Certified copy of Reconstitution of
Trust Deed dated 16.02.2012
Ex.P3 : Conversion Order dated 06.03.2009
21 O.S.No.4493/2015
Ex.P4 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
10.02.1982
Ex.P5 : Letter dated 14.11.2014
Ex.P6 : General Order dated 26.07.2014
Ex.P7 : Letter dated 13.01.2015
Ex.P8 : CDP Plan
Ex.P9 : Geogle Map
Ex.P10 : Mutation Register Extract
Ex.P11 to 24 : RTCs
Ex.P25 to 30 : 6 Photos
Ex.P31 : CD
Ex.P32 : Letter dated 17.01.2015
Ex.P33 : Katha Certificate
Ex.P34 : Assessment Register Extract
Ex.P35 & 36 : 2 Photos
Ex.P37 : CD
(b) Defendants' side: Nil.
42nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
22 O.S.No.4493/2015
(Judgment pronounced in open
court and order portion of the same
is extracted as under)
ORDER
Suit filed by the plaintiff
against the defendants is hereby
decreed with costs.
The defendants, their agents,
servants, supporters, henchmen,
representatives or anybody claiming
on their behalf, are hereby
restrained from interfering with the
plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule
property or in any manner
detrimental to the construction of
23 O.S.No.4493/2015
the compound wall in and around
the suit schedule property by way of
permanent prohibitory injunction.
Draw decree accordingly.
(BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA)
nd
42 A.C.C. & S.J., Bengaluru City.