Bangalore District Court
Amrutha V vs Anthony on 12 June, 2025
1
KABC010028202018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH30)
Present: Srinivasa Gowda.C. B.A.L.L.L.B
XXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH30)
Dated this the 12th day of June 2025.
O.S.No.735/2018
PLAINTIFF/S: Smt.V.Amrutha,
Aged about 62 years,
W/o B.R.Nanjundappa,
R/at No.652/8, Bandeppa street,
Yeshwanthapura,
Bangalore - 560 022.
(By Sri.CRS, Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANT/S: Sri.Anthony,
Major in age,
Father's name not known to the
plaintiff,
Petty shop No.8,
Subedar Chatram road circle,
Near government school,
Yeshwanthapura,
Bengaluru - 560 022.
(Exparte)
2
OS.No.735/2018
Date of institution of the : 27.01.2018
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on : Declaration & Injunction
pronote. Suit for
declaration and
possession suit for
injunction, etc.)
Date of the : 09.08.2019
commencement of
recording of the evidence.
Date on which the : 11.06.2025
judgment was pronounced
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
07 04 15
(Srinivasa Gowda.C)
XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and for vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has also sought for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from 3 OS.No.735/2018 interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has also sought the damages of Rs.5,000/ per month from the date of suit till handing over of the vacant possession of the suit schedule property.
2. The plaintiff submits that during 1914, the then government has allotted the property bearing Sy.No.43 of Yeshwanthpur village in favour of Chikkabandeppa. The said Chikkabandeppa had six sons i.e., B.Ramaiah, B.Narayanaswamappa, B.Lakshmaiah, B.Krishnamurthappa, B.Srinivasa Murthy and B.Govindaraju. Chikkabandeppa died intestate leaving behind his six children. After his death, his six sons have inherited the aforesaid property. The portion of the property bearing Sy.No.43 was given to construct the school in the locality and remaining portion of the said land was divided among six sons of Chikkabandeppa. Under the said partition the property bearing Sy.No.43 measuring 16 guntas of Yeshwanthpur 4 OS.No.735/2018 bounded on the east by property of Narayanaswamappa, west by road, north by road and south by road fell to the share of B.Ramaiah. The officials of the corporation of city of Bangalore have tried to interfere with possession of the said land, the legal representatives of B.Ramaiah filed the suit in O.S.No.4660/1987 seeking relief of declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of aforesaid property and consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. They have also filed another suit against the city corporation, Bangalore in O.S.No.4553/1989, seeking relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to mutate the katha in their name. The said suits were dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1996. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of B.Ramaiah have preferred Regular First Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.205/1997 and 206/1997. The other legal representative of Chikkabandeppa 5 OS.No.735/2018 have also filed Regular First Appeal with respect to Sy.No.43 of Yeshwanthpur. The Regular First Appeal filed by the legal heirs of B.Ramaiah and other legal heirs of Chikkabandeppa were disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.2001. The Bangalore City Corporation has challenged the said judgment and decree before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition No.1467014675/2001, the said SLP were dismissed on 10.9.2001. Therefore the Bangalore City Corporation has no manner of right or interest over the property bearing Sy.No.43 of Yeshwanthapura.
3. It is further stated that one Gangadhara Swamy Varthakara Sangha, Bangalore, filed suit in O.S.No.1550/1985 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore seeking relief of declaration to declare that the schedule shop and other shops consisting of 165 petty shops are not unauthorised construction and the same are not liable to be demolished. The legal 6 OS.No.735/2018 representatives of Chikkabandeppa were impleaded and they have also contested the matter. In the said suit, Gangadhara Swamy Varthakara Sangha has stated that the property bearing Sy.No.43 belonged to the family of Chikkabandeppa, who permitted the shop keepers to construct shops in the said property and to carry on the business. Indeed the suit in O.S.No.1550/1985 was partly decreed and it is held that the shops constructed in Sy.No.43 are not unauthorised construction and the Bangalore City Corporation has no right over the said properties. The Bangalore City Corporation was restrained by way of permanent injunction from initiating any action with respect to the aforesaid property without issuing the notice to the concerned.
4. The plaintiff has further stated that she has purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 16.7.2005, the revenue records have been mutated in her name. The plaintiff has ascertained that 24 persons are in unauthorised possession and occupation of 24 petty shops 7 OS.No.735/2018 existing in the suit schedule property. Therefore the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 7.8.2018 calling upon them to vacate and to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. The legal notice was served on the defendant, but defendant has failed to vacate the same. The defendant is in unauthorised occupation of the suit schedule premises. Therefore he is liable to pay damages of Rs.5,000/ from the date of suit till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. Accordingly the plaintiff has prayed to decree the suit with costs.
5. The suit summons was duly served on the defendant. He has not chosen to represent in the present suit, hence the defendant was placed exparte.
6. The General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20.
7. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. 8
OS.No.735/2018
8. The following points arise for my consideration :
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in permissive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that she has terminated the permissive possession of the defendant by issuing legal notice dated 7.8.2017 ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay damages of Rs.5,000/ per month from the date of suit till the date of handing over of possession of the suit schedule premises?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule premises ?
(5) What order or decree ?
8. My answer to the above points are as under: 9
OS.No.735/2018 Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Affirmative Point No.5: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 4: These points are interconnected with each other, therefore they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
10. PW1 has deposed that Chikkabandeppa had six sons, i.e., B.Ramaiah, B.Narayanaswamappa, B.Lakshmaiah, B.Krishnamurthappa, B.Srinivasa Murthy and B.Govindaraju. During 1914 the then government has allotted the property bearing Sy.No.43 of Yeshwanthapura in the name of Chikkabandeppa. He died intestate leaving behind his six children. The six sons of Chikkabandeppa have got divided the family properties. The property bearing 10 OS.No.735/2018 Sy.No.43 measuring 16 guntas fell to the share of B.Ramaiah. The officials of Bangalore City Corporation have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No.43 measuring 16 guntas of Yeshwanthapura village. Therefore the legal heirs of B.Ramaiah have filed the suit in O.S.No.4660/1987 seeking the relief of declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of property bearing No.43 measuring 16 guntas of Yeshwanthapura village and to restrain the defendant from trespassing into the said property. The legal heirs of B.Ramaiah have also filed suit in O.S.No.4553/1988 seeking relief of mandatory injunction to direct the Bangalore City Corporation to mutate the katha in the name of legal heirs of B.Ramaiah. The said suits were dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1996. The legal heirs of B.Ramaiah have challenged the aforesaid judgments in RFA No.205/1997 and 206/1997 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The said Regular appeals were allowed and 11 OS.No.735/2018 directed the Bangalore City Corporation to mutate the katha in the name of legal heirs of B.Ramaiah. The judgment and decree passed in RFA No.205/1997 and other Regular First Appeals were challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.1467014675/2001, the said Special Leave Petitions were dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2001. Gangadhara Swamy Varthakara Sangha, Bangalore has filed suit in O.S.No.1550/1986 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, wherein the Sangha has stated that the property bearing Sy.No.43 of Yeshwanthapura belonged to the family of Chikkabandeppa, who have permitted the shop keepers to construct shops in the said property and to carry on the business. Accordingly the shop keepers have constructed and they have been in permissive possession of their respective shops. The plaintiff has purchased the schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 16.7.2005. The revenue records have been mutated in her name. The plaintiff has ascertained that 22 12 OS.No.735/2018 shop keepers are in unauthorised occupation, therefore she got issued the legal notice dated 17.8.2017 and calling upon them to handover the vacant possession of their respective shops. The said notice was duly served on the defendant, despite the defendant has failed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises.
11. In support of oral evidence, PW1 has produced the certified copy of General Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff in his favour, the same is marked as Ex.P1. The certified copy of registered sale deed dated 16.7.2005 is marked as Ex.P2, it shows that the plaintiff herein has purchased the property bearing corporation No.37, measuring east to west on the southern side 117 feet, north to south towards eastern side 220 feet and western side 229 feet situated at Subedar Chathram road, Yeshwanthapur, Bangalore. In pursuance of the said sale deed, the katha was mutated in the name of plaintiff, the same is evident by Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. The certified copy of the plaint in 13 OS.No.735/2018 O.S.No.1550/1985 is marked as Ex.P10. It indicates that Gangadhara Swamy Varthakara Sangha, Bangalore, i.e., society registered under Societies Act filed a suit against corporation of City, Bangalore and others. In the said suit the society has stated that the land bearing Sy.No.43 belong to the family of Chikkabandeppa, who have permitted various shop keepers to construct their respective shops in the said property and to carry on the business. The suit in O.S.No.1550/1985 was partly decreed and held that the suit schedule shops are not unauthorised construction as they existed at the time of taking over of property by city corporation. The city corporation was restrained by way of permanent injunction from initiating any action in respect of the schedule premises without giving prior notice to the occupants. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1550/1985 was not challenged by Bangalore City Corporation, indeed it attains finality. On appreciation of the averments of the plaint and the judgment passed in 14 OS.No.735/2018 O.S.No.1550/1985, it clearly establishes that originally the property bearing Sy.No.43 belonged to Chikkabandeppa. Chikkabandeppa has six sons, i.e., B.Ramaiah, B.Narayanaswamappa, B.Lakshmaiah, B.Krishnamurthappa, B.Srinivas Murthy and B.Govindaraju. After the death of Chikkabandeppa, his six sons have got divided the family properties under the registered partition deed. The certified copy of the partition deed is marked as Ex.P15. As per Ex.P15 the property bearing Sy.No.43 measuring 16 guntas fell to the share of B.Ramaiah. Ex.P11 is the Demand Register Extract, which shows that the katha of the property bearing Sy.No.43 measuring 16 guntas mutated in the name of B.Ramaiah. The legal heirs of B.Ramaiah have executed the registered sale deed dated 16.7.2005 in favour of plaintiff herein with respect to property bearing corporation No.37, measuring east to west towards southern side 117 feet, north to south towards eastern side 220 feet and western side 229 feet, i.e., part and parcel of property bearing Sy.No.43. The 15 OS.No.735/2018 suit schedule premises herein is the portion of the property bearing Sy.No.43, municipal No. 37, measuring east to west 10 feet, north to south 10 feet. The averments of plaint in O.S.No.1550/1985 discloses that the family members of Chikkabandeppa have permitted the shop keepers to construct their shops in Sy.No.43 and to carry on the business. As such the defendant got constructed the petty shop measuring 10 x 10 feet, i.e., shop No.8 in the property bearing Sy.No.43 and he has been in possession of the same. Since the family members of Chikkabandeppa have permitted to construct shop in Sy.No.43 the defendant has constructed the same. The legal heirs of B.Ramaiah have alienated the property bearing corporation No.37 in favour of plaintiff herein. The suit schedule premises is part and parcel of the said property. The plaintiff has requested the defendant herein to vacate and handover the possession of the said premises, but he has not come forward to handover the same. Therefore the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 7.8.2017 16 OS.No.735/2018 calling upon the defendant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises, the legal notice is marked as Ex.P16. The said legal notice was duly served on the defendant, the postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P17. It shows that though the legal notice was issued and the permissive possession was revoked, the defendant has not chosen to vacate the suit schedule premises. The plaintiff being the owner of the suit schedule premises, she is entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule premises.
12. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has sought for damages of Rs.5,000/ from the date of suit till the date of handing over of the possession. As discussed above, the defendant is in unauthorised occupation of the suit schedule premises. The suit schedule premises is consisting of 10 feet x 10 feet. The suit schedule premises is situated in Subedar Chatram road, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore. It shows that the suit schedule premises is situated in the commercial locality. If the schedule premises is let out to the tenant, it 17 OS.No.735/2018 will definitely fetches the rent of Rs.5,000/ per month. In such circumstances, it is just and proper to award damages of Rs.5,000/ per month from the date of suit till handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises and she has revoked the permissive possession or licence of the defendant with respect to the suit schedule premises. The plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule premises and damages of Rs.5,000/ per month from the date of suit till handing over of the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. Accordingly I hold point No.1 to 4 in the Affirmative.
13. Point No.5 : In view of discussion made on Point No.1 to 4, this court proceed to pass the following:: 18
OS.No.735/2018 ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendant is hereby directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within three months from this day.
The defendant is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/ per month as damages from the date of suit till handing over of vacant possession of the suit schedule premises.
Draw decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade1, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Court by me on 12th day of June, 2025.) (Srinivasa Gowda.C) XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru.19
OS.No.735/2018 ANNEXURE WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
PW1 : B.R.Nanjundappa DOCUMENTS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney Ex.P2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 16.07.2005 Ex.P3 : Certified copy of Katha certificate Ex.P4 : Certified copy of Katha extract Ex.P5 : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P6 : Certified copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.P7 : Certified copy of Judgment and decree in RFA No.206/1997 Ex.P8 : Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.1550/1985 Ex.P9,10 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.1550/1985 Ex.P11 : Certified copy of settlement register extract Ex.P12,13 : Certified copy of 2 Pahanies 20 OS.No.735/2018 Ex.P14 : Certified copy of tax paid receipts obtained under RTI Ex.P15 : Certified copy of Partition deed dated 10.05.1962 Ex.P16 : Legal notice dated 7.8.2017 Ex.P17 : Returned postal cover Ex.P18 : Postal receipt Ex.P19 : Returned postal cover Ex.P20 : Certified copy of Orders in SLP No.1467014675/2001 WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
Nil DOCUMENT EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Nil (Srinivasa Gowda.C) XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru.
21 OS.No.735/2018 (Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate judgment) ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendant is hereby
directed to vacate and handover
the vacant possession of the suit
schedule premises to the
plaintiff within three months
from this day.
22
OS.No.735/2018
The defendant is hereby
directed to pay a sum of
Rs.5,000/ per month as
damages from the date of suit till
handing over of vacant
possession of the suit schedule
premises.
Draw decree accordingly.
XXIX A.C.C & S.J., Bengaluru