Bangalore District Court
Amidias Mathews P vs Ibrahim C V on 1 July, 2025
KABC010149702000
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8)
PRESENT
SRI. B.DASARATHA., B.A., LL.B.
XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2025
O.S. No.3989/2000
Plaintiffs: 1. Mr. F.Amidias Mathews,
Age: Major,
S/o. Mr. A.Francis,
No.21/1, S.K.Garden,
15th Cross, ITI Layout,
Bengaluru - 46.
2. Mr. L.Kumar,
Major,
S/o.Lakshman,
No.38, Seppings Road,
Bengaluru -1.
3. Mrs. Sagaya Mary Premila,
W/o. Maria Anthony,
Major,
No.21/1, 1st Main Road,
2 O.S.No.3989/2000
S.K.Garden, 15th Cross,
ITI Layout, Bengaluru-46.
4. Mr. Malai Arasan,
S/o. Mr.Arasan,
Major,
No.20, Hennur Road Cross,
8th Cross, Bengaluru - 84.
5. Mr. D.James,
S/o. J.David,
Major,
Residing at No.34A,
Munireddy Street,
M.R.Palya, Bengaluru.
6. Mrs. S.Vijayakumari,
Major,
W/o. B.S.Selvam,
No.21/1, 1st Main Road,
15th Cross, ITI layout,
Bengaluru - 46,
7. Mrs. Arokia Mary,
Major,
W/o. Mr.J.Susainathan,
Residing at No.21/1,
1st Main Road, 15th Cross,
ITI Layout, Benson Town Post,
Bengaluru - 560 046.
(By Adv. Sri.H.A.Purushothama Prasanna)
Vs.
Defendant: Sri. C.M.Ibrahim,
Ex-Civil Aviation Minister,
No.81, Benson Cross Road,
3 O.S.No.3989/2000
Benson Town Post,
Bangalore - 46.
(By Adv. Sri.K.V.Shyama Prasad)
Date of institution of the suit : 13.06.2000
Nature of the suit : Declaration, Possession,
Mandatory Injunction,
Damages & Mesne Profits
Date of commencement of : 23.02.2008
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 01.07.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
25 00 18
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction for demolition of alleged illegal constructions, compensation/ damages for wrongful use and occupation, declaration that defendant's sale deed dated 24.03.2007 is not binding and mesne profits concerning properties in Survey No.22/1, Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
4 O.S.No.3989/20002. The brief averments of plaint is as follows:-
The plaintiffs claim absolute ownership of vacant sites in Survey No.22/1, Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, purchased from Smt.Puttamma through the registered sale deeds or agreements between 1993 and 1995. These properties are described as Schedules 'A' to 'G', with details supported by sale deeds, encumbrance certificates, GPAs, affidavits and indemnity bonds.
2(a). In June 1998, the plaintiffs discovered unauthorized construction on their properties. Initially, they filed a suit in O.S.No.4827/1998 against Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. Society Ltd., obtaining a status quo order on 23.02.1999. Despite this, construction continued and the plaintiffs later learned that the defendant, along with his agents, was responsible for trespassing, fencing and illegally constructing on their properties.
2(b). The plaintiffs lodged a complaint on 13.04.2000, for contempt of the status quo order and issued a legal notice to the defendant on 01.05.2000, requesting him to stop illegal activities. The defendant responded with an unsuitable reply on 10.05.2000, denying the plaintiffs' claims.
2(c). The defendant claims ownership of 2 acres in Survey No.22/1 under the sale deed dated 27.08.1998, while the plaintiffs' properties 17 guntas are carved out of the remaining extent in the same survey number. The defendant 5 O.S.No.3989/2000 allegedly relies on sale deed of the year 2007 from Smt.Jayamma, daughter of Smt.Puttamma, which the plaintiffs contend is invalid as Smt.Puttamma had already sold the properties to them in 1993.
2(d). The cause of action arose in December 1993 upon the plaintiffs' purchase, escalated in April 2000 with the defendant's illegal construction, and continued with the defendant's dispossession of the plaintiffs in August 2001 and completion of construction by March 2002.
2(e) The plaintiffs seek:
a) permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from further illegal construction.
b) mandatory injunction to demolish the unauthorized structures at the defendant's cost or through court processes.
c) declaration of their title to Schedules 'A' to 'G' properties.
d) Recovery of vacant possession of the properties by dispossessing the defendant.
e) declaration that the defendant's sale deed dated 24.03.2007 for 17 guntas is not binding on the plaintiffs.
3. The brief averments of the Written Statement of defendant is as follows:-
The suit for injunction by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed due to misjoinder of parties, 6 O.S.No.3989/2000 as the plaintiffs claim ownership of different properties and should have filed separate suits.
3(a). The defendant denies the plaintiffs' claims of absolute ownership over the suit schedule properties vacant sites in S.No.22/1, Nagawara Village, Bangalore North Taluk purchased under alleged sale deeds. The defendant asserts these claims are false or untenable.
3(b). The land in S.No.22/1, 2 acres 17 guntas is agricultural and not converted for non-agricultural use under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The plaintiffs' alleged layout plan is unapproved and prepared solely for the suit, lacking legal validity.
3(c). The defendant, as the President of Karnataka State Muslim Federation, claims ownership of S.No.22/1, purchased through the registered sale deed dated 27.08.1998. The property was later transferred to the Federation through Hiba- Bil-Iwaz (gift with consideration) on 18.05.2000.
3(d). The Federation is in possession of S.No.22/1, with sanctioned building plan from the Byatarayanapura City Municipal Council (CMC). The defendant paid developmental charges of ₹9,67,950/- and building plan fees of ₹1,17,750/- and construction for educational institution has commenced.
3(e). The defendant disputes the validity of plaintiffs' sale deeds, General Powers of Attorney, affidavits and agreements, 7 O.S.No.3989/2000 contending that they do not convey title. The encumbrance certificates cited by the plaintiffs are irrelevant, as they do not pertain to S.No.22/1 or identifiable properties.
3(f). The plaintiffs' suit schedule descriptions and boundaries are misleading and imaginary. The defendant alleges that the suit is a result of collusion with the Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society, referencing a prior suit in O.S.No.4827/1998 unrelated to the defendant.
3(g). The plaintiffs' claimed cause of action of December 1993 is false, as they failed to act since then. The suit lacks a valid cause of action and is barred by limitation, warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC.
3(h). The plaintiffs admit the defendant's institution is constructing on S.No.22/1, confirming the defendant's possession. The plaintiffs lack any right, title or possession over the suit properties.
3(i). The suit is filed with malafide intent, misrepresenting facts and suppressing material details. The defendant, as a public-interest institution, has invested significantly in the property. The defendant prays for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs, asserting it is frivolous, baseless and not maintainable.
4. The brief averments of Additional Written Statement of defendant is as follows:-
8 O.S.No.3989/2000The defendant asserts that the suit is not maintainable in law and should be rejected in limine. The defendant relies on the detailed written statement previously filed, incorporating it to avoid repetition of facts. The plaintiffs' amended prayers for declaration, mandatory injunction and possession are barred by limitation and are not maintainable. The suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient.
4(a). The plaintiffs are unaware of the location of their alleged suit properties. The defendant denies their title over the properties in S.No.22/1, Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore. The defendant purchased the entire S.No.22/1, 2 acres 17 guntas under two sale deeds, constructed buildings, and is running HKBK College of Engineering. No vacant land exists in S.No.22/1 and the plaintiffs' claim that their properties are carved out of 17 guntas on the southern side is false and denied.
4(b). Denial of specific allegations:-
The claim that the defendant asserts rights over 17 guntas is false. The allegations that Mrs.Jayamma had no right, title or interest in S.No.22/1 (17 guntas) are denied. The plaintiffs claims that Mrs.Puttamma executed sale deeds in 1993 in favour of the plaintiffs are false. The defendant denies the plaintiffs' assertion that his sale deed from Mrs.Jayamma lacks sanctity or was executed after 17 years. No valid sale deeds for S.No.22/1 have been produced by the plaintiffs and their claim over 17 guntas is baseless.9 O.S.No.3989/2000
4(c). The plaintiffs' claim over 17 guntas is time-barred, as the defendant has been in possession for over 12 years, with a college building constructed. A time-barred claim cannot be introduced through amendment.
4(d). The original plaint described the properties as sites, but the amended plaint claims 17 guntas as Schedule 'B' property, which is inconsistent and unsupported by documents. The claim is imaginary and involves properties allegedly owned by multiple persons without proof. All averments in the amended plaint not specifically addressed are false and denied. The defendant prays for the dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
5. The brief averments of Additional Written Statement Dated 30.05.2019 is as follows:-
The suit is not maintainable in law and is liable to be rejected in limine. The defendant relies on the previously filed written statement, incorporating it to avoid repetition of facts. The plaintiffs' amended prayers for declaration, mandatory injunction, possession and mesne profits are barred by limitation and are not maintainable. The suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient.
5(a). The plaintiffs' claims of the defendant's unlawful trespass, illegal construction and possession of the suit schedule properties are false and denied. The demand for compensation/ damages of ₹1,000/- for plaintiffs No.2 to 7 and 10 O.S.No.3989/2000 ₹2,000/- for plaintiff No.1 from 01.03.2002 is baseless and denied. The defendant asserts lawful possession and construction on the property.
5(b). The plaintiffs are not entitled to declaration, mandatory injunction, possession or mesne profits, as they lack ownership and possession of the suit properties. The plaintiffs' amended plaint, changing their claims, is false and unsustainable, as they are neither owners nor in possession of the suit properties. All averments in the amended plaint not specifically addressed are false and denied. The defendant prays for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity.
6. The brief averments of Additional Written Statement dated 22.11.2022 is as follows:-
The suit is not maintainable in law and is liable to be rejected in limine. The defendant purchased the entire S.No.22/1 2 acres 17 guntas, Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore under two sale deeds, constructed buildings and is running HKBK College of Engineering. The area is fully built-up, and no vacant land remains.
6(a). The plaintiffs' claim that their suit properties are carved out of 17 guntas on the southern side of S.No.22/1 is false and denied. The assertion that the defendant owns only 2 acres and encroached on 17 guntas is incorrect; the defendant owns the entire 2 acres 17 guntas. The allegations of illegal 11 O.S.No.3989/2000 construction on Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties are denied, as no such separate land exists.
6(b). The plaintiffs' alleged complaint dated 13.04.2000 is a fabricated document, created for the case and they are put to strict proof. The suit lacks a valid cause of action and the plaintiffs' claims are time-barred. The defendant's possession and construction for over 12 years bar the plaintiffs' claims, especially for Schedule 'B' properties.
6(c). The defendant relies on the previously filed written statement, incorporating it to avoid repetition. The plaintiffs are not owners of the suit schedule 'B' property and the suit is not maintainable. The defendant prays for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity.
7. The brief averments of the Rejoinder/Reply to the Additional Written Statement filed by plaintiffs is as follows :-
The plaintiffs deny the defendant's claim of owning the entire S.No.22/1, 2 acres 17 guntas through two sale deeds and constructing HKBK College of Engineering. The defendant failed to produce these sale deeds to prove ownership of the full extent, contrary to his earlier claim in the 2000 written statement of owning only 2 acres.
7(a). The plaintiffs assert that the defendant illegally encroached upon 'B' Schedule property, 17 guntas, where their purchased sites are located. The defendant's sudden claim to the entire 2 acres 17 guntas, without documentary evidence, is 12 O.S.No.3989/2000 false and raised only after the plaintiffs highlighted the 'B' Schedule property.
7(b). In the 2000 written statement, the defendant admitted owning only 2 acres, with the remaining 17 guntas described as "the remaining portion of S.No.22/1." This supports the plaintiffs' claim that the defendant encroached on 17 guntas, using political influence and power as a prominent figure as State President of Janata Dal (S) and former Minister.
7(c). The plaintiffs deny the defendant's claim of denying their title. They assert lawful ownership and possession of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties from the date of purchase until dispossessed by the defendant. 'A' Schedule covers the entire extent, while 'B' Schedule is the encroached 17 guntas.
7(d). The plaintiffs confirm a valid cause of action, supported by their complaint dated 13.04.2000. The suit is filed in time and the defendant's claim that it is barred by limitation is false. The plaintiffs' reply notice also refutes the defendant's claim of owning only 2 acres.
7(e). The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's claim to the entire 2 acres 17 guntas is based on bogus documents, as no evidence was produced. The defendant's earlier admission of owning only 2 acres undermines his current claim. The plaintiffs request the court to consider their amended plaint and the defendant's prior written statement 2000 as part of this rejoinder to avoid repetition, reinforcing that the defendant's claim to 17 13 O.S.No.3989/2000 guntas is inconsistent and false. The plaintiffs pray for the rejection of the defendant's additional written statement and for the suit to be decreed as prayed, in the interest of justice and equity.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my predecessors-in-office have framed the following preliminary issues and additional issues for determination:-
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
1. Whether the defendant proves that the suit for mere injunction without seeking appropriate reliefs is not maintainable?
2. Whether he further proves that the suit as brought is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?
3. What order?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that during the pendency of the suit he was criminally trespassed into the schedule properties and put up illegal constructions thereon?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant for the demolition of the existing building on the suit schedule 'A' to 'G' properties?
14 O.S.No.3989/20004. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the recovery of the actual vacant possession of their respective properties from the defendant No.1?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the compensation/ damages for the wrongful use and occupation of the schedule property at the rate of ₹1,000/- per month to the plaintiffs 2 to 7 and ₹2000/- to the plaintiff No.1 from 01.03.2002 till the recovery of the vacant possession of the suit property?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the mesne profits from the defendant? If so at what rate?
7. Whether suit is barred by limitation?
8. Whether court fee paid is insufficient?
9. After settlement of issues, the plaintiff No.2, 3, 4, 6 and GPA Holder of plaintiff No.7 have entered into the witness box as PW.1 to PW.5 and Ex.P.1 to P.27 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. The GPA Holder of defendant has entered into the witness box as DW-1 and Ex.D.1 to D.28 were marked on behalf of defendant.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiffs and defendant. The defendant relied on following citations:
(a) Union of India v. Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd.;
(AIR 2014 SC 937): Plaintiffs must prove title independently with clear evidence; revenue records alone are insufficient.
15 O.S.No.3989/2000(b). H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society v. Syed Khader ; (ILR 1995 KAR 1962): Invalidates acquisitions without Government approval, potentially challenging co-operative society involvement.
(c). John Sylem v. Chanthanamuthu Pillai; (AIR 2003 Madras 374): Requires clear property identification.
(d). Yamuna Nagar Improvement Trust v. Khariati Lal; (AIR 2005 SC 2245): Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving title and possession.
(e). T.L. Nagendra Babu v. Manohar Rao Pawar; (ILR 2005 KAR 884): Emphasizes valid GPAs and verified pleadings.
(f). Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana; (AIR 2012 SC 206): GPAs do not convey title without registered deeds.
(g). Smt. Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma; (2023 SCC OnLine SC 7): Reinforces plaintiffs' burden to prove superior title.
(h) LC Hanumanthappa v. HB Shivakumar; (AIR 2015 SC 3364): Limitation for declaration suits.
(I) Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India; ([2011] 15 (Addl.) SCR 299): Suits beyond limitation or with unclean hands are liable to be dismissed.
16 O.S.No.3989/200011. My findings on the above preliminary issues and additional issues are as under:-
Preliminary Issue No.1: In the negative.
Preliminary Issue No.1 In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Addl. Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Addl. Issue No.3: In the affirmative, with
modification.
Addl. Issue No.4: In the affirmative.
Addl. Issue No.5: In the affirmative, with
modification.
Addl. Issue No.6: In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.7: In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.8: In the negative.
Preliminary Issue No.3: As per final order below for the following:
REASONS
12. Preliminary Issue No.1:- The defendant argues that the suit is for mere injunction, lacking reliefs for title or possession, rendering it non-maintainable. The plaintiffs' evidence, including the amended plaint, shows they seek declaration of title, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction, compensation and declaration against the defendant's sale deed of the year 2007 - Ex.P.27. The original suit in the year 2000 sought the relief of permanent injunction, but amendments after 2000 incorporated comprehensive 17 O.S.No.3989/2000 reliefs, aligning with Anathula Sudhakar decision, which permits injunction suits to include title claims when disputed. The defendant's testimony as DW-1 and documents at Ex.D.1- Ex.D.28 do not refute the plaintiffs' inclusion of these reliefs. The defendant's objection is misconceived, as the plaint addresses the title dispute comprehensively. Hence, the defendant has not proved that the suit is not maintainable. Hence, above Preliminary Issue No.1 is answered in the negative.
13. Preliminary Issue No.2: - The defendant alleges that the suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, which prohibits subsequent suits for claims omitted from an earlier suit arising from the same cause of action. The defendant points to O.S.No.4827/1998 against Vyalikaval House Building Co- operative Society, claiming the plaintiffs omitted relevant claims. The plaintiffs' evidence, including the status quo order at Ex.P.19 and complaint at Ex.P.15, shows that O.S.No.4827/1998 targeted different parties and construction activities, unrelated to the defendant's alleged trespass in 2000-2001. The present suit encompasses all claims arising from the defendant's actions, as evidenced by the plaint, legal notice at Ex.P.16 and complaint at Ex.P.15. The defendant's testimony as DW-1 and documents at Ex.D.1- Ex.D.28 provide no evidence of omitted claims from the same cause of action. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal; (AIR 1964 SC 1810), Order II Rule 2 applies only when claims are split, which is not the case here. Hence, the defendant has not 18 O.S.No.3989/2000 proved that the suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. Hence, above Preliminary Issue No.2 is answered in the negative.
14. Additional Issue No.1: The plaintiffs seek declaration of title to Schedules 'A' to 'G', comprising 17 guntas in Survey No.22/1, based on certified copies of registered sale deeds at Ex.P.1, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.13 dated 1993 for Schedule 'A' (Sites No.43, 44), Schedule 'B' (Site No.47), Schedule 'C' (Site No.52) and GPAs, affidavits and indemnity bonds at Ex.P.5- Ex.P.7, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.21-Ex.P.24 dated 1994-1995 for Schedule 'D' (Site No.13), Schedule 'F' (Site No.56) and Schedule 'G' (Site No.42), all purportedly from Smt.Puttamma. Encumbrance certificates at Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.14 from 1984-1998 reflect transactions in their favour and sketch plan at Ex.P.18 demarcates the properties. However, the sale deeds do not explicitly reference Survey No.22/1, relying instead on site numbers. No title deeds, Record of Rights, RTCs, or mutation records establish Puttamma's ownership of Survey No.22/1.
15. PW.1 - L.Kumar admitted in the cross-examination to being uneducated, not verifying Puttamma's title and lacking evidence of possession, such as khatha or construction. PW.2
- Sagaya Mary Premila admitted limited literacy and similar deficiencies in verifying Puttamma's title or proving possession. PW.3 - Malai Arasan relied on an unregistered GPA without the sale deed and showed ignorance of Puttamma's title. PW.4 - S.Vijayakumari and PW.5 - Francina were not cross-examined, 19 O.S.No.3989/2000 but their affidavits lack specific property descriptions and evidence of possession or Puttamma's title.
16. The unregistered GPAs for plaintiffs No.4, 6 and 7 do not convey title, as held in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana; (AIR 2012 SC 206). The sketch plan at Ex.P.18 is not approved by any authority, failing to adequately identify the property. The plaintiffs' evidence is weakened by the absence of documents proving Puttamma's title and lack of possession evidence, such as tax receipts or site photos, with their claim of possession until 2001 uncorroborated.
17. The defendant claims title to 2 acres 17 guntas in Survey No.22/1 through sale deeds from Smt.Jayamma: Ex.D.8 dated 27-08-1998, 2 acres and Ex.D.28 dated 24-03-2007, 17 guntas. Supporting documents include RTC extracts at Ex.D.2- Ex.D.7, khatha certificates at Ex.D.10, Ex.D.11, Ex.D.15, Ex.D.20, Ex.D.22, Ex.D.23, building licenses at Ex.D.12, Ex.D.13, Ex.D.16- Ex.D.18 and encumbrance certificates at Ex.D.25-Ex.D.27. DW.1 - Syed Haroon Rasheed, the GPA holder of defendant, affirmed possession since 1998 and lawful construction with municipal approvals.
18. However, DW-1's testimony revealed inconsistencies:
- The sale deed of the year 2007 at Ex.D.28 was produced belatedly in 2023.
- No GPA evidence supports Jayamma's alleged authorization to Thambidurai.20 O.S.No.3989/2000
- DW-1 admitted limited knowledge of Jayamma's title or family details.
- DW-1 conceded that documents Ex.D.10-Ex.D.23 primarily pertain to 2 acres, not explicitly to the 17 guntas.
- The defendant's 2000 written statement admitted ownership of only 2 acres, describing the 17 guntas as "the remaining portion," suggesting the 17 guntas were distinct from the 2 acres claimed under the 1998 sale deed.
19. The sale deed of the year 1998 at Ex.D.8 is clearly covering 2 acres, but the sale deed of the year 2007 at Ex.D.28 is suspect due to its delayed production, lack of GPA evidence and absence of proof of Jayamma's title after 1993. No clear evidence establishes Jayamma's title to Survey No.22/1 or her inheritance from Puttamma.
20. As per Union of India v. Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd.; (AIR 2014 SC 937) and Smt. Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma; (2023 SCC OnLine SC 7), the plaintiffs must prove superior title to succeed in their claim for declaration. The plaintiffs fail to establish Puttamma's title to Survey No.22/1, as their sale deeds omit explicit reference to the survey number and no title deeds, RTCs or mutation records support Puttamma's ownership. The unregistered GPAs further weaken their case, as they cannot convey title. The lack of possession evidence, such as khatha, tax receipts or construction, undermines their claim (John Sylem v. Chanthanamuthu Pillai).
21 O.S.No.3989/200021. Similarly, the defendant's claim to the 17 guntas under the sale deed of the year 2007 at Ex.D.28 is weak due to the absence of proof of Jayamma's title, delayed production of the sale deed and lack of GPA evidence. The sale deed of the year 1998 at Ex.D.8 supports the defendant's title to 2 acres, but the admission in the 2000 written statement and DW-1's testimony suggest the 17 guntas were not included in the 1998 transaction. The defendant's possession evidence, including municipal approvals and construction since 1998, is stronger than the plaintiffs' but does not conclusively extend to the 17 guntas.
22. The plaintiffs' transactions from 1993-1995 predate the defendant's 1998 and 2007 transactions, potentially giving them "first in time" advantage under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, if Puttamma's title were established. The registered sale deeds at Ex.P.1, Ex.P.3, Ex.P.13 carry a presumption of correctness under Section 60 of the Registration Act and encumbrance certificates at Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.14 support their transactions. Conversely, the defendant's sale deed of the year 2007 is questionable and the 2000 written statement limits their claim to 2 acres, undermining their assertion over the 17 guntas.
23. The plaintiffs' registered sale deeds at Ex.P.1, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.13 and encumbrance certificates at Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.14 from 1993-1995 suggest transactions in their favour, but the omission of Survey No.22/1 in the sale deeds 22 O.S.No.3989/2000 and the absence of proof of Puttamma's title weaken their claim. Unregistered GPAs at Ex.P.5, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.21 do not convey title and the lack of possession evidence i.e., khatha, tax receipts or construction further undermines their case. The sketch plan at Ex.P.18 is not authoritative.
24. The sale deed of the year at Ex.D.8 strongly supports the defendant's title to 2 acres, corroborated by RTCs, khatha certificates and building licenses. However, sale deed of the year 2007 at Ex.D.28 for the 17 guntas is suspect due to delayed production, lack of GPA evidence and no proof of Jayamma's title. DW-1's admission that most documents at Ex.D.10-Ex.D.23 cover only 2 acres and the 2000 written statement limiting the claim to 2 acres weaken the defendant's claim to the 17 guntas.
25. Neither party conclusively proves their vendor's title Puttamma for the plaintiffs, Jayamma for the defendant. The plaintiffs' prior transactions 1993-1995 and the presumption of correctness of their registered sale deeds give them a slight edge, particularly given the defendant's weak claim to the 17 guntas. The defendant's possession evidence is stronger but primarily relates to the 2 acres, not the disputed 17 guntas. The plaintiffs' earlier transactions invoke the "first in time, first in right" principle under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, tilting the balance in their favour for 17 guntas, despite the lack of definitive title proof for Puttamma (Civil Appeal No.1573/2023 dated 19-07-2024).
23 O.S.No.3989/200026. Given the plaintiffs' prior transactions 1993-1995, supported by registered sale deeds and encumbrance certificates and the defendant's weak claim to the 17 guntas due to the questionable sale deed of the year 2007 and the 2000 written statement, the plaintiffs have a marginally stronger case for the disputed 17 guntas. Although neither party conclusively proves their vendor's title, the plaintiffs' "first in time" advantage and the defendant's limited claim to the 17 guntas justify granting the declaration of title to Schedules 'A' to 'G', 17 guntas in Survey No.22/1 in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, above Additional Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
27. Additional Issue No.2:- The plaintiffs allege the defendant trespassed and constructed HKBK College on their 17 guntas between 2000 and 2002, relying on the affidavits of PW-1 and PW-2, complaint at Ex.P.15 dated 13-04-2000, legal notice dated 01-05-2000 at Ex.P.16 and the status quo order from O.S.No.4827/1998 dated 23-02-1999 at Ex.P.19. PW.1 - L.Kumar testified to trespass and dispossession in August 2001, with construction completed by March 2002. PW.2 - Sagaya Mary Premila corroborated this, noting the college's main gate near her plot in her cross-examination. The complaint and notice indicate construction in 2000 and the defendant's reply at Ex.P.17 disputes title but does not deny construction. The status quo order was against Vyalikaval Society, not the defendant, limiting its applicability.
24 O.S.No.3989/200028. The defendant counters with possession since 1998 Ex.D.8, supported by RTCs at Ex.D.2-Ex.D.7, khata certificates at Ex.D.10, Ex.D.11 and Ex.D.15 and building licenses at Ex.D.12, Ex.D.13 and Ex.D.16-Ex.D.18. DW-1 testified the college was operational by January 2001 Ex.D.14, predating the alleged dispossession. Cross-examination of DW.1 revealed the defendant's documents primarily cover 2 acres, not the 17 guntas. The plaintiffs' lack of possession evidence i.e., no khatha, construction or tax receipts weakens their claim, as does their failure to enforce the status quo order against the defendant. However, the defendant's 2000 written statement, admitting ownership of only 2 acres and the questionable sale deed of the year 2007 at Ex.D.28 suggest the 17 guntas were not under his lawful control in 2000-2001. The plaintiffs' prompt action Ex.P.15, Ex.P.16 supports diligence.
29. The complaint at Ex.P.15 and notice at Ex.P.16 show timely action against construction. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 corroborate trespass and dispossession in 2001. Defendant's 2000 admission limits his claim to 2 acres, supporting trespass on the 17 guntas.
30. The written statement of defendant of year 2000 and questionable sale deed of the year 2007 weaken the claim to the 17 guntas. No specific evidence refutes construction on the plaintiffs' 17 guntas. Hence, the plaintiffs have proved the defendant's trespass and construction on the 17 guntas during 25 O.S.No.3989/2000 the suit's pendency, as the defendant's claim to the 17 guntas is unsubstantiated for 2000-2001. Hence, above Additional Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
31. Additional Issue No.3:- The plaintiffs seek mandatory injunction to demolish the defendant's constructions, alleging they are illegal. Mandatory injunction is granted only for clearly illegal constructions causing irreparable harm. The plaintiffs' evidence PW-1, PW-2, Ex.P.15, Ex.P.16 establishes trespass and construction on the 17 guntas and their title is upheld in Additional Issue No.1. The defendant's construction, though supported by municipal approvals Ex.D.12, Ex.D.13, Ex.D.16- Ex.D.18, is on the plaintiffs' 17 guntas, rendering it unauthorized. The testimony of DW-1 confirms the college's operation since 2001, but his admission that documents cover only 2 acres weakens the claim to the 17 guntas. However, demolishing the operational educational institution serving public interest is inequitable, given the defendant's investment ₹9,67,950/- + ₹1,17,750/-, as per written statement and long possession. The courts may award compensation in lieu of demolition to balance equities.
32. Proved trespass and construction on their 17 guntas. Title to 17 guntas upheld in Additional Issue No.1, supporting the illegality of the construction. Construction on the 17 guntas is unauthorized due to the plaintiffs' prior title. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory injunction, but it is substituted with compensation to avoid demolition due to public 26 O.S.No.3989/2000 interest. Hence, above Additional Issue No.3 is answered in the affirmative, with modification.
33. Additional Issue No.4: - Recovery of possession under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, requires proof of title or lawful possession. The plaintiffs' evidence Ex.P.1, Ex.P.3, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.5, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.21 establishes title to the 17 guntas and their testimonies confirm dispossession in August 2001 due to the defendant's trespass. The defendant's evidence Ex.D.8, Ex.D.10-D.23 shows possession since 1998, but the sale deed of the year 2007 at Ex.D.28 is weak and the 2000 written statement limits his claim to 2 acres. The cross- examination of DW-1 dated 03-07-2024 admits documents primarily cover 2 acres, not the 17 guntas. However, immediate eviction of educational institution requires balancing equities, addressed via compensation.
34. The plaintiffs proving title to 17 guntas. Testimonies and documents Ex.P.15, Ex.P.16 confirm dispossession in 2001. The defendant's weak claim to 17 guntas due to the 2007 sale deed's issues and 2000 admission. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession of the 17 guntas. Hence, above Additional Issue No.4 is answered in the affirmative.
35. Additional Issue No.5:- The plaintiffs claim compensation at ₹1,000/- per month for plaintiffs No.2 to 7 and ₹2,000/- for plaintiff No.1 from 01-03-2002 for wrongful occupation, supported by the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 27 O.S.No.3989/2000 alleging dispossession in 2001. The defendant's unlawful possession of the 17 guntas is established in Additional Issue No.2 and 4. However, the plaintiffs provide no evidence of market rents or property valuation to justify the claimed rates. The defendant's evidence at Ex.D.12-Ex.D.18 shows a functioning college, indicating commercial use, but DW-1 offers no counter-evidence on rental value. The compensation must be based on reasonable market rent. Given the lack of specific evidence, a lump-sum compensation of ₹20,00,000/- is equitable, considering the property's location, the defendant's long possession and the plaintiffs' loss, balancing equities. Proved unlawful possession by the defendant. Testimonies confirm dispossession and loss since 2001. No counter- evidence on rental value or justification for occupying the 17 guntas. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation, but not at the claimed rates. A lump-sum of ₹20,00,000/- is awarded. Hence, above Issue No.5 is answered in the affirmative, with modification.
36. Additional Issue No.6:- Mesne profits under Section 2(12) of the CPC compensate for wrongful possession. The plaintiffs' evidence establishes the defendant's unlawful possession of the 17 guntas, but they provide no evidence of profits derived by the defendant or market rental value. The lump-sum compensation awarded under Additional Issue No.5 adequately addresses their loss, making a separate award of mesne profits redundant. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 do not quantify profits and the defendant's evidence and 28 O.S.No.3989/2000 Ex.D.14 confirms the college's operation without specific profit details. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to separate mesne profits, as the lump-sum compensation suffices. Hence, above Additional Issue No.6 is answered in the negative.
37. Additional Issue No.7:- Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, declaration suit must be filed within 3 years from the denial of title. For possession, Article 65 allows 12 years from adverse possession. The plaintiffs' evidence at Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16 shows the cause of action arose in June 1998 construction discovery, April 2000 trespass and August 2001 dispossession. The suit, filed in 2000, is within 3 years for injunction and declaration and 12 years for possession. The amendments for declaration and possession relate back to the original plaint, as per Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The defendant's claim (DW-1) of limitation from 1993 is baseless, as no denial of title occurred then and Ex.D.1- Ex.D.28 do not establish adverse possession for over 12 years. Timely filing in 2000, supported by complaint at Ex.P.15 and notice at Ex.P.16. Amendments relate back to the original cause of action. Hence, the suit is not barred by limitation. Accordingly, above Additional Issue No.7 is answered in the negative.
38. Additional Issue No.8: - The plaintiffs paid court fees based on the market value of 17 guntas under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, as evidenced by the plaint. The defendant's objection, DW-1's affidavit is vague, lacking evidence of deficiency. The plaintiffs' valuation aligns 29 O.S.No.3989/2000 with the reliefs sought and no contrary evidence is produced. Court fees paid based on market value, consistent with the plaint. Hence, court fee paid is not insufficient. Accordingly, above Additional Issue No.8 is answered in the negative.
39. Preliminary Issue No.3:- The plaintiffs have proved title to the 17 guntas, trespass and entitlement to possession and compensation, but demolition is substituted with compensation due to public interest in the educational institution. The suit is partly decreed in the interest of justice and equity. In view of the above discussions, this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed with costs.
The plaintiffs are declared the lawful owners of the suit schedule properties (Schedules 'A' to G, 17 guntas in Survey No.22/1, Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk).
The defendant's sale deed dated 24.03.2007 - Ex.D.28 for 17 guntas in Survey No.22/1 is declared not binding on the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs are entitled to recover vacant possession of the suit schedule properties - 17 guntas from the defendant after three months.
In lieu of mandatory injunction for demolition, the defendant shall pay ₹20,00,000/- as compensation to the 30 O.S.No.3989/2000 plaintiffs within three months, failing which the plaintiffs may seek demolition through court processes.
The plaintiffs' claim for mesne profits and monthly damages of ₹1,000/- and ₹2,000/- is dismissed, as the lumpsum compensation suffices.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 1st day of July, 2025) (B.DASARATHA) XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs:-
PW.1 : Sri. L.Kumar
PW.2 : Smt. Sagaya Mary Premila
PW.3 : Sri. Malai Arasan
PW.4 : Smt. S.Vijayakumari,
PW.5 : Smt. Francina
List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs:-
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 16.12.1993 Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 16.12.1993 Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of Encumbrance 31 O.S.No.3989/2000 Certificate Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Affidavit Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of Indemnity Bond Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of Agreement of Sale dated 16.08.1995 Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of Affidavit Ex.P.11 & 12: Certified copies of General Power of Attorneys Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 27.12.1993 Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.15 : Complaint Copy dated 13.04.2000 Ex.P.16 : Office copy of Notice Ex.P.17 : Reply dated 10.05.2000 Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of Plan Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of Order Sheet in O.S.No.4827/1998 Ex.P.20 : Acknowledgment given by police Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney Ex.P.22 : Certified copy of Sale Agreement dated 16.08.1995 Ex.P.23 : Certified copy of Indemnity Bond Ex.P.24 : Certified copy of Affidavit Ex.P.25 : Certified copy of RTC Ex.P.26 : General Power of Attorney Ex.P.27 : Digital copy of Sale Deed dated 24.03.2007 List of witnesses examined for defendant:
DW.1 : Sri. Syed Haroon Rasheed List of documents exhibited for defendant:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of General Power of 32 O.S.No.3989/2000 Attorney Ex.D.2 to 7 : 6 Certified copies of RTC Extracts Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 27.08.1998 Ex.D.9 : Tax Exemption Certificate date 19.06.2004 Ex.D.10 & 11: Khata Extracts Ex.D.12 : Building License issued by CMC Ex.D.13 : Building License dated 04.04.2000 issued by CMC Ex.D.14 : Certificate dated 27.06.2008 issued by BBMP Ex.D.15 : Khata Extract Ex.D.16 : Building License issued by BBMP Ex.D.17 : Receipt issued by BBMP Ex.D.18 : Plan issued by BBMP Ex.D.19 : Certified copy of Endorsement dated 04.06.2014 issued by Deputy Commissioner Ex.D.20 : Khatha Certificate dated 22.05.2014 issued by BBMP Ex.D.21 : Khatha Extract issued by BBMP Ex.D.22 : Khatha Certificate dated 19.07.2022 issued by BBMP Ex.D.23 : Khata Extract issued by BBMP Ex.D.24 : Letter dated 13.04.2022 issued by HDFC Bank Ex.D.25 to 27: Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D.28 : Digital copy of Sale Deed dated 24.03.2007 XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signed by DASARATHA B DASARATHA B Date:
2025.07.03 10:30:56 +0530