Bangalore District Court
Krishnakumar V vs Sree Mahalakshmi Devasthana Seva ... on 1 August, 2025
/ 1 /
O.S.No.4346/2014
KABC010019462014
IN THE COURT OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-43)
- : PRESENT :-
Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv,
XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 1st Day of August, 2025.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.4346/2014
Plaintiff :
Sri.V.Krishnakumar S/o. Venkatabhovi,
45 Years, R/o.No.159, 8th C Cross, 3rd
Main, J.S.Nagar, Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 096.
[By Sri.K.B.Naveen Kkumar Advocate]
/ VERSUS /
Defendants :
1. Sree Mahalakshmi Devasthana Seva
Samithy (R), No.50, 4th Cross, Ganesha
Block, Mahalaxmipuram, Bengaluru-96.
/ 2 /
O.S.No.4346/2014
Represented by its Trustee/ Chairman,
Sri.K.N.Narasimhaiah.
2. K.N.Narasimhaiah
[Dead]
3. Ramdas S/o. Not known to plaintiff,
Major, Secretary, R/o.No.27/6/5, 5th Cross,
Ganesha Block, Mahalaxmipuram,
Bengaluru - 560 096.
4. S.Keshava Murthy, BBMP Corporator,
Major, R/o.No.19K, 1st Block, Opp. SBM,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010.
5. Smt.Kempanarasamma @ Rajeshwari
W/o. Not known to plaintiff, Major,
R/o.No.1/38-36, 5th Cross, Ganesha Block,
Mahalaxmipuram, Bengaluru - 560 096.
[Sri.D.R.B., Advocate for D.1, 3 and 4
Defendant No.2 - dead]
Date of Institution of the suit : 12.06.2014
Nature of suit : Suit for permanent injunction
Date of commencement of
evidence : 26.06.2016
/ 3 /
O.S.No.4346/2014
Date on which the judgment
is pronounced : 01.08.2025
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
11 01 20
***
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and not to install the Gods' statues in the suit property bearing Site No.1/57 situated at Jarakabande Kaval Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk more specifically described in the plaint schedule.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under :
The suit property was originally belonging to one Venkatesh and said Venkatesh gifted the said property to his / 4 / O.S.No.4346/2014 wife Smt.C.Rathna and said C.Rathna executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 16.9.2010. So, the plaintiff became owner and possessor of the suit property. The vendor of the plaintiff and his wife tried to interfere the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and hence, he filed O.S.No.2255/2011 for the relief of permanent injunction and said suit has ended in compromise. It is further case of the plaintiff that, even after compromise, the vendor and his wife by colluding with the defendants No.2 to 5 are again trying to interfere the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. Plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police, but they are not ready to take any action against the defendants on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. It is further case of the plaintiff that, he filed Writ Petition No. 5407/2012 against the defendants No.3 to 5. But, it was / 5 / O.S.No.4346/2014 rejected on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature and hence, plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.
3. It is further case of the plaintiff that, from 14.6.2014 to 16.6.2014 defendants tried to install statues of Lord Venkateshwara, Mahalaxmi and other Gods and tried to open a temple in the suit property and function was held by inviting MLA, MPs , police officers, etc., If the defendants install the Gods' statues in the suit property, then the right of the plaintiff over the suit property will be deprived. Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed and by virtue of Civil Court Decree. But, the defendants without having right, title or interest are trying to interfere the said possession and trying to put up temple over the suit property. Hence, the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit.
/ 6 / O.S.No.4346/2014 So, plaintiff prayed to grant permanent injunctions as stated above.
4. Defendant No.2 died during the pendency of the suit.
5. On issuance of suit summons remaining defendants appeared through their Advocate and defendant No.3 filed written statement. Later, defendants No.1 and 4 adopted the said written statement and filed additional written statement. In the said written statement they have denied the case of the plaintiff in para-wise. They denied that the suit property was in the name of Venkatesh and he gifted the same to his wife - Smt.C.Rathna. They also denied that plaintiff has purchased the suit property from said Smt.C.Rathna under registered sale deed. They denied the ownership as well as possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
/ 7 / O.S.No.4346/2014
6. They have specifically contended that the son of Venkatamma and Papaiah by name Venkatesh appeared in LAC No.28/1987 and received compensation awarded by B.D.A. So, the suit property was acquired by B.D.A. and owner has received compensation and hence, he had no right to execute gift deed dated 22.5.2010 in favour of his wife and in turn, his wife had no right to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff. They also contended that the vendor of plaintiff got created BBMP records in her name and BBMP have filed police complaint against her before Nandini layout police station and criminal case is pending before the 7th ACMM. They also contended that plaintiff never came into possession of the suit property. His sale deed is paper sale deed and it does not create any right, title and interest.
/ 8 / O.S.No.4346/2014
7. They further contended that, the original owners Papaiah and his mother Venkatamma have executed agreement of sale dated 30.1.1974 in favour of Sree Mahalakshmi Devasthana Seva Samithy (defendant No.1) property to the extent of 135 x 110 Ft and by virtue of said agreement of sale Sree Mahalakshmi Devasthana Seva Samithy i.e., defendant No.1 came into possession of the said property. It laid foundation stone to put up Sree Mahalakshmi Devasthana long back. So, defendant No.1 came into possession of the suit property in the year 1974 itself and also installed statues of Lord Venkateshwara, Saibaba, Ganesha, Eshwara and already several functions were held in the said temple. Plaintiff never came into possession of the suit property and hence, he cannot claim the reliefs claimed in the plaint. They have denied the contents of the plaint in para-wise / 9 / O.S.No.4346/2014 including cause of action and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
8. Defendant No.4 in his written statement additionally contended that the suit property is gomala land and hence, he lodged a complaint to jurisdictional police complaining that plaintiff and his vendor are trying to encroach the suit property. He has also contended that local persons are performing pooja in the temple and as on the date of suit the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. Hence, not entitle for any reliefs in the suit.
9. On the basis of the pleadings, my predecessor in office framed the following issues and additional issues :
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for ?
(2) What order or decree?
/ 10 / O.S.No.4346/2014 Additional Issues :
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as alleged in the plaint as on the date of filing of the suit ?
(2) What the plaintiff proves that defendants interfered with the plaintiff's possession as alleged in the plaint ?
10. In order to prove the case, plaintiff has got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7. Later he got examined his GPA holder as P.W.2 and got marked GPA as Ex.P.8. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiff, defendant No.3 got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.7 through cross of P.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.8 to D.35.
11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed written argument and argued orally also. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants.
/ 11 / O.S.No.4346/2014
12. Perused the pleadings, issues, evidence oral and documentary, written argument filed by advocate for plaintiff and materials on record.
13. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the negative.
Addl.Issue No. 1 : In the negative.
Addl.Issue No.2 : In the negative.
Issue No.2 : As per the final order for the
following:
REASONS
14. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1 : - The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed written argument and orally argued that plaintiff has purchased the suit property under registered sale deed and he is in possession of the suit property. He also argued that, defendants have not proved the agreement of sale i.e., Ex.D.8 and hence, he prayed to decree the suit. The learned counsel for the defendants argued that, plaintiff / 12 / O.S.No.4346/2014 himself has admitted about the construction of the temple and installing of Gods' statues in writ petition and temple is open for public use and hence, plaintiff is not entitle for the reliefs claimed.
15. The burden of proving Additional Issue No.1 is upon the plaintiff. The prayer column discloses that plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering his possession over the suit property by encroaching or installing Gods' statues. In order to prove the same, plaintiff has relied upon the evidence of his GPA holder and Ex.P.1 to P.8. Initially plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1, but he has not undergone cross-examination. So, later he examined his P.A. holder as P.W.2. It is specific case of the plaintiff that, defendants are trying to install the Gods' statues in the suit property and thereby, interfering his possession over / 13 / O.S.No.4346/2014 the suit property. But, during cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defendants at page No.7, P.W.2 has specifically admitted that, already Gods' statues are installed by the defendants and already temple is inaugurated. He has admitted the photographs shown to him as per Ex.D.1 to D.7. The relevant admissions are as follows :
"zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è K¤zÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉǹµÀ£ï£À°è EzÉÝÃ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÊmï PÉýzÀgÀÄ PÉÆqÀ®è JA¢zÀÝPÉÌ zÉêÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ PÀÆj¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQëUÉ K¼ÀÄ ¨sÁªÀavÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è zÉêÀgÀÄ ¸ÁÜ¥À£É ªÀiÁrzÀ ¨sÁªÀavÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë ¨sÁªÀavÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¨sÁªÀavÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤.r.1 jAzÀ 7 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ªÁ¢ ªÀiÁ£Àå ºÉÊPÉÆÃmïð£À°è jmï ¦nõÀ£ï £ÀA. 5407/2012 (f.JA-¥ÉÇðøï) ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj jmï ¦nõÀ£ï£À°è 2012 gÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°è EzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë E®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
16. Ex.D.1 to 7 photographs discloses that, the statues are already installed and already temple is inaugurated and / 14 / O.S.No.4346/2014 public are attending this temple and offering prayer. So, the case of the plaintiff that the defendants shall be restrained from installing the Gods' statues in the suit property becomes infructuous. His case that, he is still in possession of the suit property also becomes infructuous. He has not sought the relief of mandatory injunction. The application filed by him for the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the statues was rejected by this Court on 3.4.2025, but, thereafter the plaintiff has not challenged the said order.
17. Ex.P.1 is the gift deed in favour of Smt.C.Ratna from her husband. In this gift deed it is stated that the property under the gift was originally belonging to his grandmother Venkatamma and after her death it is inherited by her son Papaiah and after the death of Papaiah, his son Venkatesh inherited it. Later, he gifted the said property in favour of his / 15 / O.S.No.4346/2014 wife. Later rectification deed is executed by Venkatesh by describing the measurement of the property as 63 Ft. x 50 Ft. instead of 92 Ft. x 25 Ft. Ex.P.2 is the sale deed executed by Smt.C.Rathna in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P.4 is the encumbrance certificate. Ex.P.5 is the Order Sheet in O.S.No.2255/2011. Ex.P.6 is the compromise petition in the said suit. All these documents are not at all sufficient to hold that originally Venkatesh was in possession of the suit property and thereafter his wife came into possession and later, plaintiff came into possession of the suit property. Plaintiff has not at all produced any document either revenue records or BBMP records to show that suit property was standing in the name of Papaiah and thereafter entered in the name of Venkatesh and thereafter, name of his wife Smt.C.Rathna was entered on the basis of gift deed. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No. 2255/2011 / 16 / O.S.No.4346/2014 against Venkatesh and his wife and got it compromised by advancing the case. He filed said suit on 22.3.2011, summons was issued, but he advanced the case on 2.4.20211 and got compromise decree. So, it appears that said decree is collusive decree obtained by him. The said decree is not sufficient to hold that plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff has not at all produced any documents to show that on the basis of sale deed - Ex.P.2, his name was entered in the revenue records and he is paying tax to BBMP. But, he has not produced any document to show that he applied for change of khata in his name and it is accepted by BBMP. So, it appears, he has just got executed the sale deed, but he never came into possession of the suit property.
18. Ex.D.10 - affidavit filed by Venkatesh before LAC Court discloses that he has stated that his land bearing Sy.No.1, / 17 / O.S.No.4346/2014 Block No.67 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas was acquired by B.D.A. for formation of Nandini Layout. He has deposed in para No.4 which is as under : "I submit that the said land in question came to be acquired by B.D.A. for formation of Nandini Layout. I submit that, I am the owner of the land, I have delivered the possession of the land to the Respondent." So, by filing this affidavit he has admitted about the acquisition of the land by BDA and grant of compensation to him. Defendants have produced Ex.D.9 Award in LAC No.28/1987 which discloses that at Sl.No.115, the name of the claimant was shown as Venkatamma W/o. Hanumantha Bovi since deceased by her legal heir Venkatesh S/o. Papaiah, Bovipalya. Venkatesh has received Rs.3,52,578/- as compensation from B.D.A. Page No.9 of the Award shows that 2 aces of land was acquired by B.D.A. So, it appears that Venkatesh is claiming remaining 20 guntas / 18 / O.S.No.4346/2014 of land. But, no documents are produced before the Court to show that the present suit property is part and parcel of unacquired land. So, considering these materials on record I hold that the plaintiff has not at all proved the possession of his vendor Smt.C.Rathna and that of her husband Venkatesh and he has also not proved his possession over the suit property. As per Ex.D.14, the criminal case is registered against Smt.C.Rathna W/o. Venkatesh for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC on the ground that she has encroached the gomal land of the BBMP and still the said case is pending. Ex.D.19 photographs produced by the defendant discloses that the foundation stone was laid for Mahalaxmi Temple long back. So, the case of the plaintiff that defendants recently started establishment of temple over the suit property by encroaching does not appears probable. So, / 19 / O.S.No.4346/2014 the materials on record shows that before filing of the suit, the defendants have installed Gods' statues and inaugurated the temple and opened it for public use. Plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction and not for the relief of mandatory injunction. In the writ petition filed by him bearing No.5407/2012 he has admitted about completion of the construction of the temple and installation of Gods' statues. The writ was filed in the year 2012, but all along he has not chosen to seek the relief of mandatory injunction. But, at a belated stage he filed I.A.No.13 for amendment of the plaint and sought mandatory injunction. But, the said I.A.No.13 was rejected by this Court. So, considering the materials on record I hold that the plaintiff has not at all proved his possession over the suit property.
/ 20 / O.S.No.4346/2014
19. The suit of the plaintiff itself is not maintainable. Looking to the materials on record it appears that title of the plaintiff is denied by the defendants. So, there is a cloud over the title of the plaintiff. So, appropriate remedy available to the plaintiff is to file a suit for declaration of title and seek the possession of the suit property. On this point I rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033 in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Ors.. wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as hereunder : -
"11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful / 21 / O.S.No.4346/2014 possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
20. In this case the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit property. The argument of the / 22 / O.S.No.4346/2014 plaintiff that, the defendants have not proved agreement of sale has no consequence in the suit because, the plaintiff has approached the Court with specific pleadings and prayer. The burden is upon the plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit property. Defendants have not sought for counter claim. So, considering this fact, I hold that the contention of the plaintiff cannot be accepted. In the suit for bare injunction the plaintiff has to prove his possession over the suit property. But, as above stated, plaintiff has not proved his possession over the suit property. Hence, I answer Additional Issue No.1 in the negative.
21. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.2 : - Plaintiff has not at all proved his possession over the suit property. Hence, the question of interference to the said possession does not arise. Accordingly, I answer Additional Issue No.2 in the negative.
/ 23 / O.S.No.4346/2014
22. ISSUES NO.1 AND 2 : - Plaintiff has not at all proved his possession over the suit property and hence, he is not at all entitle for any relief in this suit. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected the same directly on computer, signed and then pronounced by me, in open court on this the 1st day of August, 2025).
(Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv), XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff :
P.W.1 : V.Krishna Kumar
P.W.2 : V.Raja Bhovi
/ 24 /
O.S.No.4346/2014
2. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 : C/c of gift deed dated 22.5.2010 Ex.P.2 : Original sale deed dated 16.9.2010 Ex.P.3 : Original rectification deed dated 16.9.2010 Ex.P.4 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.5 & 6 : C/c of order sheet and compromise decree in O.S.No.2255/2011 Ex.P. 7 : pamphlet Ex.P.8 : Original GPA dated 23.8.2017
3. List of witnesses examined for the defendant :
D.W.1 : Ramadas
4. List of documents exhibited for the defendant :
Ex.D.1 to 7 : Photographs Ex.D.8 : Original sale agreement dated 30.1.1974 Ex.D.9 : C/c of orders passed in LAC No.28/1987 Ex.D.10 : C/c of evidence affidavit of P.Venkatesh in LAC No.28/1987 Ex.D.11 : C/c of vakalath Ex.D.12 : Copy of letter dated 14.9.2011 issued by ARO to Nandini Layout police Ex.D.13 : C/c of order passed in Cr. No.163/2011.
Ex.D.14 : Copy of FIR
Ex.D.15 : ಸಹಕಾರ ಇಲಾಖೆ ಯವರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿ ರುವ 2 ಸ್ವೀಕೃತಿ ಪತ್ರಗಳು
Ex.D.16 to 18 : 3 Audit reports
/ 25 /
O.S.No.4346/2014
Ex.D.19 : 9 photographs and CD
Ex.D.20 : Electricity bill and receipt
Ex.D.21 : List of members of Sree Mahalakshmi
Devasthana Seva Samithy
Ex.D.22 : 6 Pamphlets
Ex.D.23 to 25 : C/c of registered sale deeds dated
23.5.2011, 2.2.2002 and 18.9.2006.
Ex.D.26 : 4 BSNL Bills and receipts. Ex.D.27 : Notice dated 10./2.2021 issued by ARO
Ex.D.28 to 30 : Permissions issued by Nandini Layout police Ex.D.31 : Copy of complaint dated 12.12.2023 issued to Nandini Layout police.
Ex.D.32 : Invitation
Ex.D.33 : Application for permission to instal
speakers
Ex.D.34 : Invitation of Mahashivaratri Pooja
celebration
Ex.D.35 : Copy of complaint dated 12.9.2013 issued
to Nandini Layout Police
(Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv),
XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
***
/ 26 /
O.S.No.4346/2014
Judgment pronounced in open Court [vide separate judgment] :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv), XLII ACC&S Judge, Bengaluru City. / 27 / O.S.No.4346/2014