Venkatesulu vs The Corporation Of The City Of B'Lore on 3 June, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Venkatesulu vs The Corporation Of The City Of B'Lore on 3 June, 2008

Bench: N.Ananda

us: THE HIGH coum' 012* KARNATAKA AT   A"

DATED THIS THE 03:6 DAY '()3-'-JIAJNLE  A:   A

BEFORE 
THE HoN*BL1: MR.V§3{f_3!fICEA.N.ANA}§DA':~   

BETW EN :
Shri Venkatcsulu  H

S/0.   V

W1AeLat¢%%Sh»ri vmkamsuau 
Agedabant7:3ysaa~sT%&* 

b) Sm 1%  %
S] o=Latr: 

  
 Aixéuniswafmapga Street
 Murﬁttddypalyam


By (ﬁlly cosiistiilntcd
Att6mey'Sri.--R.N. Gmgadhmdah
S/o. ii:.V;Narasixnhaiah

 "'NoT.39,  Road
 é  amppa Garden, Benson Town

    Smcvataa Associates: Sri S.Sree-vatea. Sr. Advocate)

 



  ;:ea:~.geped"me ibllgwing:

 é9..i1.1999 passed in O.S.No.10365]1995 by xxvm
'   ;§c'id_1.r.City Civil and Scssims Judge, May-ohail, Bangzon.

1.

Thcﬂorporation ofthe City o2i"Bai11g.*a1o;m .3 V CorporationBuildings .. ' V' J.C. Road, Bangalore ' '

2. The Asst. Rcvcnuc Oﬁoer Corporation of City pf "~ Division No.83 ' V ' ' Queens Road * Bangnlorg: .9 V' ";.'.V;VRcspondcnts (By Sri 1-. V 96 and order 41 of CPC against" "ﬂit: jucigmcm and decree dated 29.11.1999 passed in O.'S.No;wf[()365/'1995'by xxvm Add}. City Civil and Sessiona>-Judge,' ~Bémgak>te City, Dismissing thn suit for poascﬁsian and permanent injunction and etc, ' V '--

}°'I'h_i.:s: appealA§.?dm*ir:g' on for final hearing this day, the Court A i§3 'aATplaintiﬂ's appeal against judgment and decree Inthisappea1,pa11:k:swil1bcm&rred tobytheiranay ,{\;<Cs/élvpﬁvx,-~j...~. , before: trial Court.

pmperty of Bangalore City Corponartion, Si1l€:.§"!l;'t'?.'.'#:. The suit scheduic property is ' ' _ Corporation School. The schopl the year 1960. The school Minister late sxi S.Nijalingappa.""' -- 'V % Aﬁcr the plaint' ﬁled additional that phinﬁﬂ is not en't:it1cd iﬁﬁncﬁon, declaration pleadings, trial Court has fiamad foliiitﬁng ' A V. A_ 1. proves that he is the ahsoluin A % suit schedule property?

_.2'.' f]:V1e:v is entitled for possession of .' A property?

V -V 3. \.V'hzct3:1g=:1*'"the plaintiff is entitled for permanent , «. .. VTi11juz'14::i':ion as sought for'? igigether the plaintiﬁ is entitled for declaration of title to the suit schedule: property?

"SQ Whether suit is pmpcrly valued and Court £56 paid is stlﬂicicznt? =

6. what order or decwc?" 9\,ué4~

6. On behalf of plainﬁﬂl one power of attorney holder of plaintiff was _ The domnnents ﬁled on bchglf Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.2l. O13 of the Corporation were examined as DEV; ﬁled an behalf of dcfcngiatfta .}g§TEx,b. 3, E:-:.D. 19.

7. 'I'Ii *:',_ V. of impugned 4 against pla?mtiﬁ' md dismisséd Jtbcw 'I%%r§¢% Court hm held plalntﬂ" ' has :9 p1'of{ri-3 he absolute owner of suit schedule V, _pmpc .:'1'13s: Ina' 2!" Ctiiiit disbchcvt-A' the evidence of plm'nt1'ﬁ' of building by defendants. The trial since 1960, defendant is running the school! suijfschedule property is situaﬁc in the compound of % if

8. I have heard Sri Sﬁmevatsa, learned senior Counsel A' for plaintiff and Sri Tdayaplakash, learned Counsel for defendants.

IV. The deﬁzndants having contended property T * acquiwd somewherefin mm , have not pmduccd ' The Hicfcndant hei#g_ swam should have " suit schedule pmpctliiy; ;._h.-3 purpose of as it coukl be. by the State, grallhcd dccmc Ear possession of suit sctmulc ; 'ED. Per zxmtra, Vécamed Counsel for defendants has L' or pmpcuy. The um: Court hatfmg fmmd A was cstablishcd in the year 1960, has lightly " » fheld that vendor of plamia' namely A.Anthony Michca1_ had not aoquiwd title to suit schedule property. The trial Court has heki Sak: Certiﬁcate marked as Ex.P.20 a'\}. ﬁx' W11» ' property. Therefore. it is for the plaintiﬁ' to "Establish his case. The plainﬁﬁ' cannot be head to say

3. Whether trial Cmxrt has appreciated pmpcr perspective and arrived at

4. Whether impugned judgxncnt " ,_ Ifso,wl1ato1dc1'?" >[ ' A' 1 L

12. Before advcnring points formulated above. it is of the Supreme (in the case of Moran .Bfar___ 3'5. Revllarpoulose V _ ejectxxnent suit must sung-Veedé oI1__ﬂ::§:V. of his own tit}:-:. This can dong suﬁcicnt evidence to 'ttacvgpins that is on him irmapective of the deﬁendant has pmvvd his case cur destruction of the dcfcndanfs tiﬁc, j_a}§scnoc of establishment of his own title plainﬁﬁ nowhere... ."

x 'T «.,_InNthe case on hand, piainﬁﬂ has asscriscd his light to evidence had by defendants is not suﬂicient to establish its 110836' The kamncd Counsel mtbning to aﬁdavit the applicaticm ﬁled under 0111:: 6 Rule dispossessed front: suit schedule property. The am-:.».;{w;t has been marked as Ex.D.8. tit}: to suit property. In this backgrcmnd, let N oral and documentary evidence.

13. Sri S.SIt:cvatsa, learned would submit since mgistmmz' dgtcii" f . marked as Ex.P.2, contains jproP€1'tY. trial Court pnwcd, did not have any has failed to prove his pmpexty.

Counsel rm dcﬁzndmts would 7 was ﬁled ibr pcmamm injuncti§i1;* ﬁled an applicaiiem undcr meg v:»Ru1e to include relief of dccnnaticm of title 17 UPC'-iﬁézﬂil submit, in the amtiavit phaintiﬁ' has not smtcd The contents of aﬁiavit mad:-1 thu.-s:~ - purchaser of suit schedule: prcrwrty. 311113' 1::

gc of Badcrhal11,' Bangalore C1v1l' ' and " " 9* : 'Ma&da.. E-an in-Upparahalh,' North by Dcvarajccvanahalli.

we ﬁnd land in sumey No.15 of Kaymgutta Baidcrhaﬂi village was not an lnam land. The M to suit schedule property. The earlicst documcmé ' From this document, we ﬁnd V' was passed in favour of one ._ and Daddy Appayyanna 'V L' ﬁled by Daddy Vev;-;;;.atapy;vai;iii -- "L11;ctt.§r" "anti; Daddy Appayyanna Chctty, 8 then'.-in for sale of their name of ' Bangalore. Daddy Appayygnnai bidder and he by virtue of this docume1:;t"-- in Execution Application No.}.901 indicate Daddy Appayyanna Chctty was Miﬁtazy bounded on East by Cantonment, West by V 17. Fﬁrom the documentary evidence made: availabk. by N .

omgntg land in survey No.15 & 1 acre 24 guntas is a sarlcari land. The record of rights do not show that 'V Vv .V title of plaintiﬁhad any manner of right over " survey No.15. Under section 133 of Karnataka . 'i_§Vaa':1xi'A"éRcvenue Act, 1964, then: is a pxcaumption %tiin.g made in record of rights, but such pmmpaiou 1;

V Icbuttablc. in my oonsitlcrcd opinion, evidence adduced by

20. In View of mcifals found in MA plasma' site No.4 iormed in sm§§5}::ﬁa_,£«5 A.Amhony Michael to plaintiﬁ' dcﬁzndants have not disputcei 'V 17.06.1971, executed of plainﬁﬁi In the held that father of A.A11 ths§§13*_ VA did not have title to :_ ,1 vmagc. 'lhcmfoze. plaintiff suit property under

21.' '1" produced documents such m r\'>. c,£'-"'9'm/dﬂh ' em-hedaiic by a xmsxtcmd sale deed dated ..L-~%&«1kr:4,_o5.197%1. 1 hold plaintiifhaa ham to pzmvc his _V K pmpexty notwithstanding the fact j have not adduced aatisfacimy evidence to n that had in survey No.15 was acquired dufmg year 1930. W. <2.»/€«-v=M'°£'"' plaintiff is not suﬁcicnt to rebut .. under section 133 of the

22. During pendcncy ef' an 'V appiication under {)nier- Rule tot Faisal Patxika of This document survey No.15 in an V035: as khmab land. It was to how and when this kharab ofhis predecessors in title vi' We tfic discussion, 'a 'm not péésible1'{;§:":he2111é/ﬁ§gin@'s"'véj1dor had title to suit schedule f_.dc1'ived title md possession of suit

23. In View of the discussion made point Nos.1 & 2 in negative. I do W interfere with the judmcnt of "ye »_sT pass the folbwingz- .

o1a'1) i%iiFR.._"_' V The app-ml is 'm o.s.ne.1os5s/1995 Civil and Sessions ' Having mgani to of the case, paI11c' Sd/-2 Iudgﬁ'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court