Bangalore District Court
Anuradha Suvarna vs Smt. Vijayalakshmi Patil on 1 February, 2023
KABC010253332017
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.7132/2017
Plaintiffs : Anuradha Suvarna
W/o Sri.Rami Rao,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o No.10, CQAL Layout,
Sahakaranagar, Near Ganesh Temple,
Bangalore - 560 092.
(By Sri.S.H. Raghavendra., Advocate)
V/S
Defendants : 1. Smt. Vijayalakshmi Patil
W/o Sri. Chandrashekar Patil,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o No.G2, 'Sri Shankara Mansion',
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,
2
OS.NO.7132/2017
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 17-10-2017
Nature of the suit Declaration and Injunction
Date of commencement of 22-04-2022
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment was 01-02-2023
pronounced
Days Months Years
16 08 05
3
OS.NO.7132/2017
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against defendants for a judgment and decree, declaring that the plaintiffs are the lawful and absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule 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 property.
Consequently, for a judgment and decree, declaring that the alleged sale deed dated 07.03.2013 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.
SUIT SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the residential vacant site bearing No.770 measuring East to West 60 ft. (18.28 mtrs) and North to South 40 ft. (12.19 mtrs) in all totally measuring 2400 sq. ft. (222.83 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 4 OS.NO.7132/2017 layout formed the Vyalikaval Housing Building Co-operative Society Ltd., bounded on;
East by : Site bearing No.789
West by : Road
North by : Road
South by : Site bearing No.771
SUIT SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the residential vacant site bearing No.771 measuring East to West 60 ft. (18.28 mtrs) and North to South 40 ft. (12.19 mtrs) in all totally measuring 2400 sq. ft. (222.83 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 : Site bearing No.788
West by : Road
North by : Site bearing No.770
South by : Site bearing No.772
SUIT SCHEDULE 'C' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the residential vacant site bearing No.788 measuring East to West 60 ft. (18.28 mtrs) and North to South 40 ft. (12.19 mtrs) in all totally measuring 2400 sq. ft. (222.83 sq. mtrs) carved out in Sy Nos.24/5, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 25, 5 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 : Site bearing No.771
North by : Site bearing No.789
South by : Site bearing No.787
SUIT SCHEDULE 'D' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the residential vacant site bearing No.789 measuring East to West 60 ft. (18.28 mtrs) and North to South 40 ft. (12.19 mtrs) in all totally measuring 2400 sq. ft. (222.83 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 : Site bearing No.770
North by : Road
South by : Site bearing No.788
6
OS.NO.7132/2017
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case is as follows;
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of 4 (four) residential sites bearing No.770, No.771, No.788 & No.789 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 plaintiff has purchased for valuable consideration, the residential site bearing No.770 measuring East to West 60 Feet and North to South 40 Feet and thereby totally measuring 2400 Square Feet 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 21/05/2005 from one Sri. G.Prasad Reddy. The aforesaid site No.770 is more fully described in the 'A' Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as 'Schedule 'A' Property'. The 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 Bangalore Development Authority under the Order dated 23/06/2005 bearing No.BDA/RON/C3/770/05-06 issued the Khata BENUA VEY Certificate in respect of the Schedule 'A' Property in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) under the Orders dated 26/02/2008 bearing No.DA.27/07-08 & 05/10/2015 bearing No.DA.23/ G/PR/335/15-16 has also issued the Khata Certificates in respect 7 OS.NO.7132/2017 of the Schedule 'A' Property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also been paying the property taxes in respect of the Schedule 'A' Property and continues to remain in possession of the same. It is relevant to submit that Sri. G.Prasad Reddy (vendor of plaintiff) had in turn purchased the Schedule 'A' Property (Site No.770) for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 31/03/2004 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited. The said Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited had put the said Sri. G.Prasad Reddy in possession of the Schedule 'A' Property and had also issued the Possession Certificate dated 17/04/2004. The Khata in respect of the Schedule 'A' Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development bearing Authority vide it's Order SI.No.BDA/ KAM.AA(W)/C3/770/04-05 dated 01/03/2005 in favour of Sri.G.Prasad Reddy. Similarly, the plaintiff has purchased for valuable consideration, the residential site bearing No.771 measuring East to West 60 Feet and North to South 40 Feet and thereby totally measuring 2400. Square Feet 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 21/05/2005 from Sri. G.Prasad Reddy. The aforesaid site No.771 is morefully described in the 'B' Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as 'Schedule 'B' Property'. The 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 8 OS.NO.7132/2017 the said Schedule 'B' Property. The Bangalore Development Authority under the Order dated 23/06/2005 bearing No.BDA/RON/C3/771/05-06 issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Schedule 'B' Property in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the Orders dated 26/02/2008 bearing No.DA.27/07-08 & 05/10/2015 bearing No.DA.23/G/PR/334/15-16 has also issued the Khata Certificates in respect of the Schedule 'B' Property in favour of the plaintiff. Sri. G.Prasad Reddy (vender of plaintiff) had in turn purchased the Schedule 'B' Property (site No.771) for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 31/03/2004 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited. The said Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited had put the said Sri. G.Prasad Reddy in possession of the Schedule 'B' Property and had also issued the Possession Certificate dated 06/04/2004. The Khata in respect of the Schedule 'B' Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority vide its Order bearing SL.No.BDA/RON/C3/771/0405 dated 10/06/2004 in favour of Sri. G.Prasad Reddy. Similarly, the plaintiff has purchased for valuable consideration, the residential site bearing No.788 measuring East to West 50 Feet and North to South 40 Feet and thereby totally measuring 2400 Square Fest in the layout formed by Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Socisty Ltd. in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore forth taluk under a registered sale deed dated 21/05/2005 from Sri. G. Prasad Reddy. The aforesaid site No.788 is morefully described in 9 OS.NO.7132/2017 the C Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as Schedule C Property. The plaintiff had been put in possession of the Schedule C Property under the terms of the registered sales deed/registered document and continues to be in possession of the said schedule C property. The Bangalore Development Authority under the order dated 23/06/20052 bearing No.BDA/RON/C3/788/05-06 issued the khatha certificate in respect of the schedule 'C' property in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the Orders dated 26/02/2008 bearing No.DA.27/07-08 & 05/10/2015 bearing No.DA.23/G/PR/336/15-16 has also issued the Khata Certificates in respect of the Schedule 'C' Property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also been paying the property taxes in respect of the Schedule 'C' Property and continues to remain in possession of the same. Sri. G.Prasad Reddy (vendor of plaintiff) had in turn purchased the Schedule 'C' Property (site No.788) for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 31/03/2004 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited. The said Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited had put the said Sri. G.Prasad Reddy in possession of the Schedule 'C' Property and had also issued the Possession Certificate dated 05/04/2004. The Khata in respect of the Schedule 'C' Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority vide its Order bearing Sl.No.BDA/RON/C3/788/0405 dated 10/06/2004 in favour of Sri. G.Prasad Reddy.
10OS.NO.7132/2017 Further submitted that, the plaintiff has further purchased for valuable consideration, the residential site bearing No.789 measuring East to West 60 Feet and North to South 40 Feet and thereby totally measuring 2400 Square Feet 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 21/05/2005 from Sri.G.Prasad Reddy. The aforesaid site No.789 is more-fully described in the 'D' Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as 'Schedule 'D' Property'. The 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 Bangalore Development Authority under the Order dated 23/06/2005 bearing No.BDA/RON/C3/789/05-06 issued Certificate in respect of the Schedule 'D' Property in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the Orders & 26/02/2008 bearing No.DA.27/07-08 05/10/2015 bearing No.DA.23/G/PR/333/15-16 has also issued the Khata Certificates in respect of the Schedule 'D' Property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also been paying the property taxes in respect of the Schedule 'D' Property and continues to remain in possession of the same. Sri. G.Prasad Reddy (vendor of plaintiff) had in turn purchased the Schedule 'D' Property (site No.789) for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 31/03/2004 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited. The said 11 OS.NO.7132/2017 Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited had put the said Sri. G.Prasad Reddy in possession of the Schedule 'D' Property and also issued the Possession Certificate dated 17/04/2004. The Khata respect of the Schedule 'D' Property had been issued by the Bangalore Order bearing Development Authority vide SI.No.BDA/KAM.AA(W)/C3/789/04-05 dated 01/03/2005 in favour of Sri. its or had G.Prasad Reddy. 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.770, Site No.771, Site No.788 & Site No.789 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 residential sites / Suit Schedule Properties under the Registered Sale Deeds, the plaintiff had been put in possession of the same and continues to remain in possession till date. Such being the facts, to the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiff, on 04/07/2015, the defendant No.1 along with her agents, henchmen and workers, numbering more than 50 in number had all of a sudden swooped down on the sites / Suit Schedule Properties belonging to the plaintiff 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 defendant No.1 and 12 OS.NO.7132/2017 her group of persons were provided with police protection and assistance by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore and the Station House Officer, K. G. Halli Police Station. The defendant No.1 with her agents and henchmen had carried out demolition of the compound walls of several other adjacent site owners. The defendant No.1 attempted to take over the possession of the Suit Schedule Properties from the plaintiff but the same was ably resisted 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. The plaintiff and several other site owners in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village immediately approached the Station House Officer of K.G.Halli Police Station and sought their protection in the matter and submitted a complaint in writing. Unfortunately, the Station House Officer of K.G. Halli Police Station refused to receive the complaint and intimated to the plaintiff and others that he had received instructions from the Deputy Commissioner of Police as well as the Deputy Commissioner 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. To the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiff and several other adjacent site owners, they 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 13 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 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 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 adjacent sites, the copy of the Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. The copy of the said order / communication dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT '9'. It was 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 14 OS.NO.7132/2017 protection to the said persons to erect compound wall. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff herein along with 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 plaintiff herein was the 7th writ petitioner in W.P.No.29139-143/2015. The defendant No.1 herein had been impleaded as the respondent in WP No.29139-143/2015. 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 plaintiff's (petitioner No.7 therein along with others) peaceful possession and enjoyment over the sites bearing No.770, 771, 788 & 789 (Suit Schedule Properties herein) 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 15 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 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, the plaintiff has thus approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the present suit seeking for declaration of title and such other consequential appropriate reliefs due to the illegal and high handed actions on the part of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff has continued to remain in possession the Suit Schedule Properties and her possession was also protected by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the interim Order dated 16/07/2015 passed in W.P.No.29139-29143/2015, whereby the defendant No.1 had been restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties, i.e., residential sites bearing No.770, No.771, No.788 & No.789 comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village in Bangalore North Taluk. The plaintiff is a home maker and had to legal advise in filing the above suit and also had to also arrange for funds for the purpose of payment of court fees and fee for the counsel. In these circumstances, since the plaintiff had to arrange for funds and also since the plaintiff had to secure the copies of all relevant 16 OS.NO.7132/2017 documents, that some time has been consumed in filing the suit though there has never been any intentional or deliberate delay in approaching this Court. The Defendant No.1 is still proclaiming that she is the owner of the land and that she would dispossess the plaintiff from her residential sites. The plaintiff is in continuous possession 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 plaintiff 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 (DOCUMENT '8' herein) 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 (DOCUMENT '9' herein) 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 plaintiff from the Suit Schedule Properties. It is a well settled proposition of aw that a person in possession of a land (be it even a trespasser) cannot be dispossessed except in due course of Law. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in possession of the residential sites bearing No.770, 771, 788 & 789 i.e., Suit Schedule Properties 17 OS.NO.7132/2017 from 21/05/2005 onwards by virtue of a registered sale deeds and the vendor of the plaintiff had been put in possession of the very same Suit Schedule Properties under Possession Certificates and registered sale deeds executed by Vyalikaval House Building CoOperative 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 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 exterit 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 plaintiff was 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 18 OS.NO.7132/2017 favour of Vyalikavai 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 Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited as far back as on 12/09/2003. Thus, the said sale deed dated 07/03/2013 executed in favour of the defendant No.1 is not binding upon the plaintiff since the persons executing the said sale deed to the defendant No. 1, admittedly, did not I 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 Isale 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 plaintiff herein.
Facts relating to land acquisition of Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bengaluru North Taluk The State Government had originally initiated acquisition 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 19 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 21/02/1986 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 SI.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 20 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 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 tha the acquisition proceedings re 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 at DOCUMENT '12'. 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 21 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 had been either set aside or de-notified. Vyalikaval House the State Building Co-Operative Society had thus approached 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) In the very 22 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 owners 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) 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 Judgment 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:
23OS.NO.7132/2017 "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 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 SI.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 measuring to an extent of 5 Acres 10 Guntas is shown attached therewith. Therefore, it becomes clear and specific that the land 24 OS.NO.7132/2017 measuring 5 Acres 10 Guntas comprised in S No 49/3 of Nagawara Village is included in the layout plan approved 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically clarified that the said Court in the case of B. SCO 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 or 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. Akkarnma and others in W.P.No.27725/2013 & connected matters. 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 Writ 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 has passed the Judgment dated 14/07/2011 in W.P.No.11910-914/2009 and connected Writ 25 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 (internal page 41) that neither the High Court nor the Apex Court quashed the acquisition notifications in respect of Nagawara Village Toto. The Hon'ble High Court has also clarified at Para 39 of the judgment that Narayana Reddy case (ILR 1991 (3) KAR 2248 & 1995 (3) SCCA was relating to acquisition pertaining to Cholanayakanahalli Village Bangalore South Taluk and not to Nagawara Village. Ultimately, all Writ Petitions challenging acquisition of lands pertaining to Nagawa Village have been dismissed. Therefore, the understanding and perusal of the above 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.770, No.771, No.788 & No.789 (Suit Schedule Properties) belonging to the plaintiff has legally vested with the plaintiff and the plaintiff has 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 of entries in the RTC or in the revenue records or any subsequent sale by the 26 OS.NO.7132/2017 erstwhile land owners whose lands have been acquired, would all be rendered void abinitio 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 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 19/02/1988 as evidenced in the Notification dated 05/05/1998. 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 plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has acquired title to the Suit Schedule Properties under registered sale deeds from the vendor who fa 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 plaintiff is the lawful and legal owner of the Suit Schedule Properties and she 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 by colluding with the police officials had been trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the Suit Schedule Properties in question by relying upon the 27 OS.NO.7132/2017 Order dated 13/06/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. Fortunately for the plaintiff, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has quashed the said Order dated 13/06/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner. 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 plaintiff from the Suit Schedule Properties by using the aid and assistance of rowdy elements and goondas. The police authorities are not entertaining the complaints of the plaintiff. There is every possibility that the defendant No.1 would use her power and might and dispossess the plaintiff from her possession in and over the Suit Schedule Properties. Hence, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit. CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 04/07/2015 when the defendant No.1 attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the Suit Schedule Property with the aid and assistance of the police authorities based on an order dated 13/06/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and pursuant to the Final Order dated 19/07/2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.29139-143/2015 and the threat being made out subsequently in second week of September 2017 also by the defendant No 1 to dispossess the plaintiff from the Suit Schedule Properties. The entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.28
OS.NO.7132/2017
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 signs suit of the plaintiffs for the alleged relief of declaration ₁ and not binding on the plaintiffs and consequent relief of the permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property against the 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. 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 property. The averments made in paragraphs-3 to 5 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not within the knowledge of the defendant No.1 and the same are not correct and thereby denied as false and incorrect. The averments of the plaintiff that, the she has purchased residential sites bearing No.770,771,778 and registered sale deed dated: 789 under correct and the same 21-05-2005 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 29 OS.NO.7132/2017 Nagawara Village, Bengaluru North taluk, described as suit schedule property, from one Sri. G. Prasad Reddy are not are hereby denied. It is submitted that, on the material on record, it is evidenced that the said G. Prasad Reddy is not bonafied allottee and he is a developed having purchased more than 133 sites in the alleged layout of the Society. The schedule property described in the Memorandum of plaint, stating that, the alleged residential sites bearing No.770,771,778 and 789, 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 plaintiff that, she is put in possession of the schedule property and that, the BDA, Bengaluru has issued katha certificate in respect of the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and the documents produced by the plaintiff in that behalf are incorrect and the same are hereby denied. The alleged sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is illegal and untenable and as such, the plaintiff did not derived any lawful rights, title and interest and much less possession over the alleged site under the alleged sale deed dated: 21-05-2005. Therefore, the khata certificate tax paid receipts based on alleged illegal sale 30 OS.NO.7132/2017 deed are untenable and do not confer any rights, title and interest much less lawful possession over the alleged site claimed by the plaintiff. The averments made in paragraph-6 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the katha certificate, katha extract and payment of property taxes to BBMP, Bengaluru, are of no consequence as the alleged sale transaction claimed by the plaintiff is illegal and sham transaction and the plaintiff did not derive any right, title or interest much less lawful possession over the alleged site described as schedule property. The alleged documents referred by the plaintiff are untenable and of no consequence. The averments made in paragraph-7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,16,17,18and 19, of the plaint are all specifically denied as false and incorrect it is false to state that G.Prasad Reddy purchase the Schedule A to D properties from G.Baskar Reddy vide sale deed dated 31/03/2004 and 21/05/2005 and he was put in possession and khatas were mutated in his name it is relevant to submit here all the above said transaction are illegal and against to the by laws of the society. The averments made in paragraph-20 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, Bengaluru. The plaintiff has suppressed subsequent events and made misrepresentation of facts with ulterior motive before this court. The averments made in paragraph 21 that the plaintiff is put in possession of the schedule property and continuous to remain in possession till date are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in 31 OS.NO.7132/2017 paragraphs-22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The defendant No.1 submits that, 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 compound wall, demolition of compound walls. With regard to averments made in paragraph-26 of the memorandum of Plaint are denied as false and incorrect. The defendant No.1 submits that her persons came worker while making arrangements to put up brick wall compound replacing the Zinc sheet compound, some unknown the land tried to make obstruct and 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 plaintiff 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-27 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-28 of the Memorandum of Plaint 32 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 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-29 of the memorandum of plaint are matter on record. The averments made in paragraph 30 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 plaintiff that, she continued to remain in possession of the suit schedule property and his 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 plaintiff 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 plaintiff 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 falsely claiming the alleged residential site in the property 33 OS.NO.7132/2017 belonging to defendant No.1. The averments made in paragraph- 31 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct except the fact that, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed order on 13-06-2014 disposing off the writ petitions. The averments made in paragraphs-32 and 33 of the and therefore liable to be rejected.
The averments made in paragraph-34 of the Memorandum of Plaint that, 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 Officer the land in question is restored to the erstwhile land owners on collecting the award amount received by them and Subardu Patraa 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 34 OS.NO.7132/2017 Acres of land. Thu Thus, the vendors of defendant No.1 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 averments made in paragraph-35 of the Memorandum of Plaint are incorrect, false and hereby denied. The said averments are untenable in Law. It is submitted that, 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 paragraphs-36,37 and 38 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the plaintiff are put to strict proof of the same. The alleged preliminary and final Land notifications said to be issued U/s 4 (1) and 6 (1) of 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 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.
35OS.NO.7132/2017 Further submitted that, the averments made in paragraph-39 of the Memorandum of Plaint referring to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is matter on records. The averments made paragraphs-40 of the memorandum of plaint are not correct a the same are hereby denied. 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 cancelling the acquisition proceedings. The averments made in paragraph-41 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-42 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 43 and 44 of the memorandum of plaint with regard to the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are matter on record, however the further averments made by the plaintiff 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-45 of the memorandum of plaint with regard to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is matter on record. The averments 36 OS.NO.7132/2017 made in paragraph-46 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-47 of the Memorandum of pliant with regard to order passed on 24-02-2014 by the Hon'ble Apex Court is matter on record. The averments made in paragraph-48 of the Memorandum of plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. 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 49 and 50 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 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 37 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 51 and 52 of th Memorandum of plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-53 of the Memorandum pliant are not correct and the same are hereby denied. 33. The defendant No,1 submits that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and the one alleged in paragraph-54 of the memorandum of plaint are not correct. The alleged cause o 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. It is submitted that, the names of David Raj@ David C son of D.Chowrappa, Chowrareddy son of Thomasappa and R. Jojappa son of Rajappa were the joint kathedars shown and reflected in the revenue records as in the 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 extent of 3 acres in the Sy.No.49/3 is fallen to the 38 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 Land notifications said to be issued U/s 4 (1) and 6 (1) of 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. 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 taken under the alleged possession of the lands had been 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 final notification Nagawara village had been acquired under dated: 22-01-1986 issued U/s 6 (1) of Land Acquisition Act. Being a aggrieved by the said 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. Thereafter, placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government having 39 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 stored to the erstwhile and land owners on collecting the award amount received by them. Based on the I decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, the erstwhile State Government exercising of eminent domain the power 05-02-2009 and passed order No. RD 134 LAQB 2007 dated: Land directed that the Lands be restored to the owners. That in compliance of the Government order the Special steps and on Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru, has taken of in a sum redeposit of compensation amount awarded items including of lands Rs. 17,63,022/- in respect of there lands Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village, measuring an extent Acres 36 guntas and 0-14 guntas kharab land, issued Subardu Patra dated:
25-03-2009, handing over the possession to the land owners. The Defendant 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 respect of portion of Land measuring 3-00 acres in Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawar village belonging to his family. Accordingly, mutation is effected and 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 39. that extent of 3-00 Acres. She has purchased an extent of 3-00 acres 40 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 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. The defendant No. 1 is absolute owner having all rights, title and interest and she 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 and defendant No.1 has produced Hissa Tippani, Patta Book (Form -5), Akar Bandh Extract as Document Nos 8, 9 & 10 respectively. The defendant No.1 after purchase of the land in question to safeguard her property, she and put up Zinc Sheet compound. 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 41 OS.NO.7132/2017 issued and sale deed executed favour of G. Prasada Reddy, from whom the plaintiff is claiming alleged rights, title and interest over the alleged residential site are all without any Authority of Law and the plaintiff 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 WP 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.
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: 18-02-1997.42
OS.NO.7132/2017
b). The Society preferred writ appeal No. W.A.Nos.2336- 2343/1997 and connected writ appeals before Division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which came to be dismissed by Judgment dated: 05-03-1998 and 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 Judgment in WA No. 2188/1998 filed by Land Owner, H. Narayanappa quashing the acquisition proceedings under Judgment dated: 17-01-2000 and 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 society" the Society preferred Civil Appeal No.902/2001 before Hon'ble 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 judgment dated:
17-01-2000 before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Society preferred Revision 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. 2086-2087/200 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 43 OS.NO.7132/2017 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, has no the ground of delay and acquiescence in the case substance. It is further held that, the issue of notification was malafied and it was not for public purpose.
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, complaining against the then chief Secretary and Revenue 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 plaintiff is not bonafied purchaser of alleged residential site claimed by him 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 in complying the judgment 44 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 G. Prasad Reddy and in turn alleged to be purchased by the plaintiffs. through whom the plaintiffs allegedly claim rights, title and interest over residential 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,. The defendant No.1 Submits that 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 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 involved.
h). The Society had filed O.S. No. 1475/2000 before Hon'ble High Court and on trial this Hon'ble Court dismissed the suit by passing 45 OS.NO.7132/2017 judgment and decree dated 21-02-2008. The Society filed another suit in O.S.No.1174/2001 before this Hon'ble of this suit Hon'ble Court passed 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 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 and therefore, it is apparent on the face of the records that the 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. The number of sites allotted to G.Prasad Reddy can be 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 G.Prasad Reddy 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. There is 46 OS.NO.7132/2017 no proper approved layout plan identifying the residential site claimed by the plaintiff. the layout plan said to have been sanctioned and approved by Bengaluru Development Authority had been cancelled subsequently and as such the alleged residential site claimed by the plaintiff 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 of 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 restoration of lands to the erstwhile land owners 47 OS.NO.7132/2017 after recovery of compensation amount. It is clear from the Government Order that Government order dated: 05-02-2009; order 05-02-2009 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 Nagawara Village to the erstwhile land owner is just and proper and in accordance with law.
k). The Government order dated 04-06-2013 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 pending consideration, wherein interim order of stay of the operation of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court is issued and copy of the stay order is produced as Document No.25. 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.
48OS.NO.7132/2017 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 plaintiff from the suit filed against the defendants is wholly misconceived and untenable in Law. The suit filed by the plaintiff 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 defendant No.1 further submits that, 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 nonjoinder of necessary parties. On the material on record it is evidenced that the plaintiff is not allotee from Vyalikaval House building society, though the said G.Prasad Reddy is not even member of the society, society has allotted more that 133 49 OS.NO.7132/2017 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 property described in the Memorandum of plaint, stating that, the alleged residential site bearing No. 770,771,778 and 789 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. that, the alleged residential site described in the schedule Memorandum of Plaint is non existing property and the identifiable in the facts and circumstances, no the sketch of City Survey Sketch is produced for identification location of the alleged site. That apart no title deeds, allotn orders are not placed before this Hon'ble court to established alleged right of the plaint. The alleged Layout 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 50 OS.NO.7132/2017 Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike 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, title, interest over the schedule property had for seeking approached Deputy Commissioner Bangalore 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 agriculture for purpose non vide No.ALN(NK)SR/18/2016-17 dated 20/01/2017. The plaintiff is not approached with clean hands, with an intention to knock off the suit schedule property witch 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 plaintiff is guilty of suppression of true facts. The plaintiff has failed to prove his title much less possession over the property and not entitle for any of the relief sought for. State empowered by the high court and apex 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 plaintiff against the Defendants is not maintainable. If at all plaintiff 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 plaintiff is 51 OS.NO.7132/2017 bad in the eyes of law. State Government Under notification No. CVC 25/20 Bengaluru, dated:28-03-2016 came into effect from 01- 04 It is submitted that, the market value prescribed guidance value of Housing society site is Rs.35,600/- per squ meter and the dimension of alleged residential sites in numbers claimed by the plaintiffs is each 40ft x 60 ft. total are 9600 sq ft. The guidance value per square foot is Rs.3,307,32 and as such the market value based on the guidance value of alleged residential site is Rs.79,37,570/- for each site 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 plaintiff 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 plaintiff is not entitled for the relief prayed in the suit. The suit liable to be dismissed with 52 OS.NO.7132/2017 exemplary costs. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation and also liable to dismissed for non joinder of the necessary parties. 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 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 plaintiff 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 she is the lawful and absolute owner in possession of suit schedule properties ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs proves that alleged sale deed dated 07.03.2013 executed by defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of land Sy No.49/3 is not binding upon them ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual/permanent injunction as prayed in the suit ?
4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit is barred by limitation ?
5. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties ?53
OS.NO.7132/2017
6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the suit ?
7. What order or decree ?
5. Plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked as many as 46 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.46 and closed her 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 4: Donot arise for consideration;
Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.6 : Donot arise for consideration;
Issue No.7 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.5: Being vital issue taken first.
This suit is filed for Declaration and injunction. This being a right in REM, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove his title to suit schedule properties and also that his vendor had a good title to suit schedule property to convey the same in favour of plaintiff.
9. Plaintiff's case that she is the owner of suit schedule properties under a registered sale deeds dated 21/05/2005 purchased for valuable sale consideration from 54 OS.NO.7132/2017 G.Prasad Reddy in the layout formed by "Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., and had been put in possession of the Suit Schedule Property under the terms of he registered sale deeds/registered documents and continued to be in possession of the said Suit Schedule Property. Katha standing in her name and she has been paying property taxes and continue to remain in possession of the same.
10. Further that, Sri.G.Prasad Reddy (vendor of Plaintiff) had in turn purchased the Suit Schedule Properties for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 31/03/2004 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited. The said Vyalikaval House Building Co-
Operative Society Limited had put the said Sri.G.Prasad Reddy in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and Khata in respect of the Suit Schedule Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority vide its Order bearing Sl.No.BDA/RON/C3/784/2004-05 dated 10/06/2004 in favour of Sri. G.Prasad Reddy. 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 & the Suit Schedule Property, i.e., Site No.784 is comprised within the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, as could be clearly seen from the approved layout plan.
55OS.NO.7132/2017
11. To be noted, in this suit G. Prasad Reddy said to be Plaintiff's vendor and he said to have purchased the suit schedule properties from Vayalikaval House Building Society 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 and Vayalikaval House Building Society are necessary parties to this suit where this being a right in rem, Plaintiff has to prove her title through her vendor to show that her 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 specific performance, it holds good to this suit as without making her vendor G. Prasad Reddy and 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 56 OS.NO.7132/2017 proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, Issue No.5 is held in the affirmative.
13. ISSUE NOS.1 TO 4 AND 6: For my findings on issue No.5 , these issues donot arise for consideration.
14. ISSUE NO.7: in view of my finding on issues No.1 to 6 , I proceed to pass the following:
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 : Anuradha Suvarna
Witness examined on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
57
OS.NO.7132/2017
Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of sale deed dated 21.05.2005 as to site No.770 Ex.P2 Khatha as to site No.770 Ex.P3 Certificate issued by BBMP dated 26.02.2008 Ex.P4 Certificate issued by BBMP dated 05.10.2015 Ex.P5 Tax register extract (2 in Nos) Ex.P6 Property Tax receipt (2 in Nos) Ex.P7 Certified copy of sale deed dated 31.03.2004 as to site No.770 Ex.P8 Certified copy of sale deed dated 21.05.2005 as to site No.771 Ex.P9 Khatha certificate as to site No.771 Ex.P10 Certificate by BBMP dated 26.02.2008 as to site No.771 Ex.P11 Certificate by BBMP dated 05.10.2015 as to site No.771 Ex.P12 Tax register extract (2 in Nos) as to site No.771 Ex.P13 Property tax receipt of site No.771 (2 in Nos) Ex.P14 Certified copy of sale deed dated 31.03.2004 as to site No.771 Ex.P15 Certified copy of sale deed dated 21.05.2005 as to site No.788 Ex.P16 Khatha as to site No.788 Ex.P17 Certificate by BBMP dated 26.02.2008 as to site No.788 Ex.P18 Certificate by BBMP dated 05.10.2015 as to site No.788 Ex.P19 Tax register extract as to site No.788 (2 in Nos) Ex.P20 Property tax receipt (2 in Nos) as to site No.788 Ex.P21 Certified copy of sale deed dated 31.03.2004 as to site No.788 Ex.P22 Certified copy of sale deed dated 21.05.2005 as to site No.789 58 OS.NO.7132/2017 Ex.P23 Khatha as to site No.789 Ex.P24 Tax register extract as to site No.789 Ex.P25 Certificate by BBMP dated 26.02.2008 as to site No.789 Ex.P26 Certificate by BBMP dated 26.02.2008 as to site No.789 Ex.P27 Tax register extract as to site No.789 Ex.P28 Property tax receipt (2 in Nos) as to site No.789 Ex.P29 Certified copy of sale deed dated 31.03.2004 as to site No.789 Ex.P30 Form-16 encumbrance Ex.P31 Layout plan Ex.P32 Certified copy of sale deed dated 07.03.2013 of Sy No.49/3 Ex.P33 Certified copy of order sheet of WP NO.29139- 29143/2015 along with order on IA No.2 Ex.P34 Certified copy of order sheet of WP No.29139- 29143/2015 Ex.P35 Certified copy of order dated 19.07.2016 in WP No.29139-29143/2015 Ex.P36 Certified copy of gazette notification dated 21.02.1986 Ex.P37 Certified copy of gazette notification dated 5th May 1988 Ex.P38 Certified copy of order in WP No.6421-28/94 dated 18.02.1997 Ex.P39 Certified copy of gazette notification dated 28.07.1999 Ex.P40 Certified copy of compliance report dated 07.05.2012 Ex.P41 Certified copy of affidavit in support of compliance report Ex.P42 Certified copy of order in Civil Appeal No.1930/2012 Ex.P43 Certified copy of order in WP NO.27725/2013 dated 25.09.2014 Ex.P44 Certified copy of order in WP No.11910-914/2009 dated 14.07.2011 59 OS.NO.7132/2017 Ex.P45 Letter by the bank dated 04.10.2017 to site No.788 and 789 Ex.P46 Letter by bank dated 04.10.2017 of site No.770 and 771 Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
VII. ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.