Bangalore District Court
Krishna Kumari vs Umashankar on 13 August, 2025
1 O.S.No.4766/2016
KABC010150412016
Digitally
signed by
SHIVANAND
SHIVANAND MARUTI
MARUTI JIPARE
JIPARE Date:
2025.08.13
17:56:16
+0530
Presented on : 30-06-2016
Registered on : 01-07-2016
Decided on : 13-08-2025
Duration : 09 years, 01 month, 14 days
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH.76) AT: BENGALURU
PRESENT: Sri. SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE,
B.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
LXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4766/2016
PLAINTIFF: Smt.Krishna Kumari,
W/o. Sri.Gopal Setty,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at. No.27, 2nd Main,
1st Block, 3rd Phase,
BSK 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru-560085.
(By Sri.Prashanth C.N., Advocate.)
:VERSUS:
2 O.S.No.4766/2016
DEFENDANTS: 1. Sri.Umashankar,
S/o. L.Munnibyirappa,
Since dead by LRs.
1(a). S.R.Rajeshwari,
W/o. Late Umashankar,
Aged about 50 years,
1(b). Tejaswini U,
D/o.Late Umashankar,
Aged about 22 years,
1(c). Sri.Sujan U,
S/o. Late Umashankar,
Aged about 22 years,
Defendant Nos.1(a) to (c) are
residing at No.85, Pattanagere
Village, Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bengaluru-560098.
(By Sri.Chandrashekaran., Advocate for D1(a) to D1(c).)
**********
Date of Institution of the suit 30.06.2016
Suit for Permanent
Nature of the suit Injunction
Date of commencement of
01.12.2021
recording of evidence
3 O.S.No.4766/2016
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced 13.08.2025
Total Duration Years Months Days
09 01 14
Digitally
signed by
SHIVANAND
SHIVANAND MARUTI
MARUTI JIPARE
JIPARE Date:
2025.08.13
17:56:24
+0530
(SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE)
LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
*************
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction, with costs.
2. The brief facts averred in the plaint are as follows:
That the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e. vacant site bearing No.550, situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, in a layout formed 4 O.S.No.4766/2016 by Vishwabharathi House, building Co-operative Society Ltd., in V Phase of Vishwabharathi Housing Complex Layout, Sachidanandanagar, measuring East to West: 30 feet, and North to South: 40 feet. The suit schedule property originally belongs to Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. The said Society has formed a layout in lands bearing Sy.No.212, 213, 216, 233, 233/1, 234, 235, 236, 237/1-A, 237/1-B, 237/2, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242/1, and 242/2 of Halagevadeyarahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, classified as residential area in the comprehensive development plan prepared by the planning authority and approved by the Government of Karnataka vide order No.HUD 3/TTP 83/84-85 dated: 12.10.1984 and deemed urbanized. The said Society sold various numbers of sites which formed in the said lands to the prospective purchasers. After attaining the membership, the plaintiff has been allotted the site No.550. A letter of provisional allotment of site was issued to the plaintiff dated: 01.02.1995 and she has paid full amount as insisted by the Society on different 5 O.S.No.4766/2016 dates. After the full payment, the Society executed the sale deed dated: 24.03.1995, vide registered document No.14072/94-95, Book No.I, registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Kengeri, Bengaluru. After the registration, the Society put the plaintiff in physical possession of the site by issuing the possession certificate dated:
19.05.1999. The plaintiff has paid up-to date taxes to the concerned authorities and Khatha certificate from the BBMP in respect of the suit schedule property is issued in her name. The plaintiff is intending to put up a residential house over the schedule site and has arranged all the materials which are required for the foundation work.
Accordingly, when the plaintiff after performing Bhoomi pooja was about to start the work, a group of 5 to 9 people came and obstructed the work of construction by saying the defendants have purchased the agriculture land which is coming under Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli village. The Society has formed layout very long back which has been duly approved by the concerned authorities and after the formation of layout 6 O.S.No.4766/2016 none of the lands remained as agricultural. The Society has provided infrastructures to the layout by providing electricity, sanitary, water and roads etc, finally the plaintiff came to know that, Late defendant in collusion with the revenue officials have managed to get the entries of their vendors by fabricating documents and got the sale deed registered showing the property as an agricultural land. The BDA has issued an endorsement through the RTI stating that the lands in Sy.Nos.212 to 242 a residential layout has been formed and no piece of agricultural land has remained in the same. But in the layout hundreds of allottees have put up construction of buildings and have been very much residing in their respective houses. The plaintiff has been a bonafide purchaser without notice and very much in possession of the schedule property. Having no manner of right, title or interest whatsoever over the schedule property, Late defendant is making efforts to grab the same from the plaintiff. The said Society has purchased the entire land in Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli through irrevocable 7 O.S.No.4766/2016 General Power of Attorney dated: 03.03.1983 and sale agreement dated: 10.04.1975 formed the layout, in accordance with law and sold the suit schedule site formed in the said survey numbers, the question of any other person including the original owners of the land claiming any right, title, or interest over the same does not arise. Further, on 26.06.2016, Late defendant came near the schedule property and trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property without having any manner of rights, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff had approached the jurisdictional Police for help and the said Police advised her to approach the civil Court, since the dispute is civil in nature. Again on 27.06.2016 at about 11:00 am, Late defendant along with supporters and rowdy elements came to the suit schedule property and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and they have threatened her with dire consequences. The defendants are very powerful persons in the locality having the support of anti-social elements and support of 8 O.S.No.4766/2016 politically ill-motivated people. She resisted their illegal activities with the help of the well-wishers and neighbors. Further, the defendants may obstruct her possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff prays to decree the suit.
3. In pursuance of the suit summons, Late defendant had appeared through his learned Counsel and filed written statement. During the pendency of this suit, the defendant is died and his LRs i.e. defendant No.1(a) to 1(c) are brought on record.
4. The defendant has filed written statement and denied the plaint averments in toto. The defendant denies that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant contends that Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Limited never acquired the land or formed site No.550 in the alleged acquired land, as such the question of alienating the suit schedule property by the Society in favour of the plaintiff is 9 O.S.No.4766/2016 mischievous and untenable. The defendant denies that the suit schedule property originally belongs to Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., and the said Society has formed a layout in lands bearing Sy.No.212, 213, 216, 233, 233/1, 234, 235, 236, 237/1-A, 237/1-B, 237/2, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242/1, and 242/2 of Halagevadeyarahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, classified as residential area in the comprehensive development plan prepared by the planning authority and approved by the Government of Karnataka vide order No.HUD 3/TTP 83/84-85 dated:
12.10.1984 and deemed urbanized and the said Society sold various numbers of sites which formed in the said lands to the prospective purchasers and after attaining the membership, the plaintiff has been allotted the site No.550 and a letter of provisional allotment of site was issued to the plaintiff dated: 01.02.1995 and she has paid full amount as insisted by the Society on different dates and after the full payment, the Society executed the sale deed dated: 24.03.1995 and after the registration, the 10 O.S.No.4766/2016 Society put the plaintiff in physical possession of the site.
The defendant contends that the Society has not acquired the land in question and the consequential formation of layout and selling the schedule site to the plaintiff are unlawful and the plaintiff does not get lawful title over the schedule site. The defendant has purchased land in Sy.No.242/2 measuring 1 -acre 17 -guntas from Munivenkatappa S/o. Chikka Arasa for valuable consideration and the vendor of the plaintiff had no title to alienate the land in Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevadera Halli. The sale deed executed by the Society in favour of the plaintiff is a sham document and the possession of the site and the revenue records got up on the basis of the alleged sale deed and taxes paid do not clothe the plaintiff with title of the schedule property as she has purchased the property from the Society, who has no title over the property sold. On a perusal of the sale deed dated: 24.03.1995 executed by the Society in favour of the plaintiff, there is no mention as to how the Society acquired the land on which the schedule site was formed. 11 O.S.No.4766/2016 The plaintiff has purchased the schedule site without properly verifying the ownership/title of her vendor. The defendant denies that the plaintiff is intending to put up a residential house over the schedule site and has arranged all the materials which are required for the foundation work and when the plaintiff after performing Bhoomi pooja was about to start the work, a group of 5 to 9 people came and obstructed the work of construction by saying the defendants have purchased the agriculture land which is coming under Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli village. The defendant contends that Society was not the owner of the land in Sy.No.242/2 in as much as the General Power of Attorney stated to have been executed on 03.03.1983 being unregistered document and it cannot pass on legal right to the Society to alienate the property as the Society cannot execute and register any sale deed on the basis of unregistered General Power of Attorney under Section 32 R/w/Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908. The defendant had gone to Court for decree of declaration and permanent 12 O.S.No.4766/2016 injunction against the person who had encroached upon his land in the same Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli claiming that he had purchased a site from Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. His contentions were also similar to that of the plaintiff herein. The defendant herein had filed original suit No.6995 of 2011 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The suit was decreed in favour of this defendant on 11.07.2017 declaring that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, canceled the sale deed executed by the Society, directed the purchaser of the property from the Society to demolish the construction put up by him and to handover vacant possession to the defendant and also permanently restrained the purchaser of the property from the Society from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the defendant. Further, the defendant contends that, on 08.01.1964 the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk had issued an endorsement, granting occupancy rights in 13 O.S.No.4766/2016 respect of 4 -acres of land in Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, in favour of Muniya son of Chikka Arasa. Pursuant thereto the name of Muniya has been entered as Kabjedar in column No.9 of the Record of Rights for the period from 1969-1970 to 1999-2000. After the death of said Muniya, his legal heirs entered into a registered partition deed dated: 18.03.1981, as per the partition Sri.Munivenkata S/o.Muniya got to his share the land measuring to an extent of 1- acre 17 -guntas in Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli and the same was mutated in M.R.No.6/1987-88 in the name of Munivenkata. The said Munivenkata and his family members have jointly sold the said land bearing Sy.No.242/2, measuring 1 -acre 17- guntas in favour of the defendant through registered sale deed dated:
31.5.2006 and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri as document No.BNG(U)KNGR/1183/2007-2008, and stored in C.D.No.KEND 386 on 28.06.2007 for valuable sale 14 O.S.No.4766/2016 consideration and handed over the physical possession of the said land along with relevant documents. Ever since the date of purchase of the said land, he is in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land by exercising rights of ownership over the same as an absolute owner thereof. Subsequent to the purchase, the defendant's name has been mutated in mutation and RTC extracts. Before purchasing the said property, the defendant made a thorough enquiry with the concerned Sub-Registrar and after getting confirmed that there were no encumbrances of whatsoever pertaining to the said property stretched over a period of 30 years from 01.09.1980, the defendant got the said property registered in his name. Thereafter, the defendant moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District for converting the said property into non-agricultural residential purpose. The Town Planning Member of Bengaluru Development Authority and Special Land Acquisition Officer of B.D.A. have given no objection certificates. Further, the South Taluk and Assistant 15 O.S.No.4766/2016 Tahsildar, Bengaluru Commissioner, Bengaluru South Taluk has issued endorsement with respect to Sec.79(A) and (B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The defendant remitted an amount of Rs.77,592/- towards the conversion charges. The Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk conducted the survey concerning the said property. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District vide Official Memorandum bearing No.ALN(S)SR(K) 40/2008-09 dated:
02.03.2009 accorded sanction for converting the said property into non-agricultural residential purpose.
Recently, the grand children of Sri.Munivenkata have also executed a registered Consent deed in favour of the defendant on 09.07.2009 confirming the sale deed executed by the vendors of defendant vide registered document No.RRN-100773/2009-10 stored in C.D.No.RRND 21 dated: 10.07.2009, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, R.R.Nagar, Bengaluru. Ever since the date of purchase of the above said property, the defendant has been in exclusive physical possession and enjoyment of the same as the absolute owner thereof till this date 16 O.S.No.4766/2016 without any let or hindrance from anybody. The plaintiff is an utter stranger without having any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the above said property at any point of time. The plaintiff along with her followers came near the above said property and tried to measure the portion of the above said land and started digging foundation in order to put up construction over portion of the above said land measuring to an extent of East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 40 feet, when the defendant questioned the illegal acts of the plaintiff, the plaintiff informed that she has purchased alleged site bearing No.550, measuring East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 40 feet, out of portion in Sy.No.242/2 Halagevaderahalli village from Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Bengaluru. The plaintiff had allegedly purchased the schedule property from Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society and had obtained alleged revenue documents in her name and illegally claiming right over the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the defendant enquired into the 17 O.S.No.4766/2016 matter and came to know that the said Society has allegedly created revenue documents through acquisition proceedings illegally and unlawfully in respect of the above said land and other surrounding lands. In that connection said alleged Society had sought for direction to Government for issuance of Final Notification for the acquisition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.18584 of 1989, the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 27.08.1996. Thereafter, the said Society filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.8766 of 1996 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, the same was also dismissed on 04.12.1996 observing that 'the well settled position of law is that the Court cannot give any direction compelling the state to acquire the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act' and with a direction to the Land Acquisition officer to refund the amount deposited by the said Society. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition officer issued Official Memorandum to the Society directing to withdraw the deposited amount and the said Society by its president had received and 18 O.S.No.4766/2016 acknowledged the same by executing an Indemnity bond. Further, the said land is not notified and also not at all taken possession of the above said land by the Government and the vendors of the defendant or the defendant has not at all handed over possession of the above said land to any authority or to the Society or to the plaintiff or executed any document in favour of any body at any point of time. The Town Planning Member of the B.D.A. issued a letter to the Additional Commissioner, BBMP, R.R.Nagar, Bengaluru to demolish the unauthorized layout. The said Society or the plaintiff have no manner of right, title or interest and much less possession over the suit schedule property or the above said land bearing Sy.No.242/2, measuring 1 - acre 17 - guntas of Halagevaderahalli village at any point of time. The defendant got issued a legal notice to the BBMP dated: 24.07.2010 not to register any khatha or any other revenue documents in respect of the above said property in the name of any third parties. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit schedule property from 19 O.S.No.4766/2016 Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. (VHBCS) on 24.03.1995 under a registered sale deed. But the said Society, who is the vendor of the defendant, has never acquired ownership title over the suit schedule property. Final Notification for acquisition of the land in Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South taluk for the benefit of the members of VHBC Society was not issued by the Government. The vendor of the plaintiff who had deposited certain amount in the State for acquisition of the land has withdrawn the amount. The possession of the suit schedule property remained with the vendors of the defendant. Therefore, the sale deed dated: 24.03.1995 executed by VHBC Society in favour of the plaintiff is a sham document and does not transfer valid and legal title over the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is claiming right over the suit schedule property by creating false and fictitious documents from the revenue authorities of the BBMP illegally and unlawfully with an intention to get unlawful gain. The new Executive Committee of 20 O.S.No.4766/2016 Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society has published in 'Prajavani' daily news paper dated:
05.03.2012 that in respect of his property and the surrounding properties, the Society had not acquired ownership and illegally executed about 200 sale deeds in respect of sites formed in the unauthorized layout and that the new committee desire to do justice to such of the purchasers, who are victims of the fraud played by the previous committee. The plaintiff has filed the present suit only for injunction without seeking declaration of title. Hence, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, following Issues have been framed by my learned Predecessor in Office. I have framed Recasted Issues.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession of suit property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant interfered with her possession? 21 O.S.No.4766/2016
3. Whether the defendant proves that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought?
5. What order or decree?
RECASTED ISSUES FRAMED ON 12.08.2025
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on date of filing of this suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that alleged interference by the defendants over suit schedule property?
3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought?
5. What order or decree?
6. In support of the case, plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked 49 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.49 and closed her side evidence. In rebuttal, the defendant 22 O.S.No.4766/2016 No.1(a) is examined as D.W.1 and got marked 19 documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.19 and closed their side evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of both learned Counsels of both parties at length and perused the materials on record. The defendants have filed written arguments.
8. My findings on the above Recasted Issue are as under:
Recasted Issue No.1 : In the Negative Recasted Issue No.2 : In the Negative Recasted Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative Recasted Issue No.4 : In the Negative Recasted Issue No.5 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
9. RECASTED ISSUE NO.1: The plaintiff has asserted that, she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property originally belongs to Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. The said Society 23 O.S.No.4766/2016 has formed a layout in lands bearing Sy.No.212, 213, 216, 233, 233/1, 234, 235, 236, 237/1-A, 237/1-B, 237/2, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242/1, and 242/2 of Halagevadeyarahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, classified as residential area in the comprehensive development plan prepared by the planning authority and approved by the Government of Karnataka vide order No.HUD 3/TTP 83/84-85 dated: 12.10.1984 and deemed urbanized. After attaining the membership, the plaintiff has been allotted the site No.550. A letter of provisional allotment of site was issued to the plaintiff dated: 01.02.1995 and she has paid full amount as insisted by the Society on different dates. After the full payment, the Society executed the sale deed dated: 24.03.1995. After the registration, the Society put the plaintiff in physical possession of the site by issuing the possession certificate dated: 19.05.1999. The plaintiff has paid up-to date taxes to the concerned authorities and Khatha certificate from the BBMP in respect of the suit schedule property is issued in her name.
24 O.S.No.4766/2016
10. Per contra, the defendant No.1(a) to 1(c) have contended that, Society was not the owner of the land in Sy.No.242/2 in as much as the General Power of Attorney stated to have been executed on 03.03.1983 being unregistered document and it cannot pass on legal right to the Society to alienate the property as the Society cannot execute and register any sale deed on the basis of unregistered General Power of Attorney under Section 32 R/w/Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908. On 08.01.1964, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk had issued an endorsement, granting occupancy rights in respect of 4 -acres of land in Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, in favour of Muniya son of Chikka Arasa. Pursuant thereto the name of Muniya has been entered as Kabjedar in column No.9 of the Record of Rights for the period from 1969-1970 to 1999-2000. The said Munivenkata and his family members have jointly sold the said land bearing Sy.No.242/2, measuring 1 -acre 17- guntas in favour of the defendant through registered sale 25 O.S.No.4766/2016 deed dated: 31.5.2006 and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri as document No.BNG(U)KNGR/1183/2007-2008, and stored in C.D.No.KEND 386 on 28.06.2007 for valuable sale consideration and handed over the physical possession of the said land along with relevant documents. Ever since the date of purchase of the said land, he is in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land by exercising rights of ownership over the same as an absolute owner thereof. Thereafter, the defendant moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District for converting the said property into non-agricultural residential purpose. Further, the South Taluk and Assistant Tahsildar, Bengaluru Commissioner, Bengaluru South Taluk has issued endorsement with respect to Sec.79(A) and (B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Recently the grand children of Sri.Munivenkata have also executed a registered consent deed in favour of the defendant on 09.07.2009 confirming the sale deed executed by the vendors of 26 O.S.No.4766/2016 defendant vide registered document No.RRN- 100773/2009-10 stored in C.D.No.RRND 21 dated:
10.07.2009, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, R.R.Nagar, Bengaluru. Ever since the date of purchase of the above said property, the defendant has been in exclusive physical possession and enjoyment of the same as the absolute owner thereof till this date without any let or hindrance from anybody. The plaintiff is an utter stranger without having any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the above said property at any point of time. The said Society or the plaintiff have no manner of right, title or interest and much less possession over the suit schedule property or the above said land bearing Sy.No.242/2, measuring 1 - acre 17 - guntas of Halagevaderahalli village at any point of time.
11. In order to substantiate the contention, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief and she is examined as P.W.1. The P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint. The defendant No.1(a) has filed an 27 O.S.No.4766/2016 affidavit as examination-in-chief and she is examined as D.W.1. The D.W.1 has reiterated the contents of written statement.
12. The plaintiff has relied on documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.49.
13. The defendant No.1(a) to 1(c) have relied on documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.19.
14. The plaintiff has relied on Ex.P.1 - Letter issued by the Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., to husband of plaintiff Gopala Setty dated:
01.02.1995, Ex.P.2 - Certified copy of sale deed dated: 24.03.1995, Ex.P.3 - Certified copy of possession certificate dated: 19.05.1999, Ex.P.4 - Certificate issued by the BBMP dated: 26.02.2011, Ex.P.5 - Demand extract issued by the BBMP dated: 26.03.2011, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7
- Encumbrance certificate, Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.12 -Nil Encumbrance certificate, Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.16 - Self assessment of property tax receipts, Ex.P.17 to Ex.P.23- 28 O.S.No.4766/2016
Property tax paid receipts, Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25 - Photographs, Ex.P.26 - Compact disk, Ex.P.27 - Certified copy of agreement of sale dated: 10.04.1975, Ex.P.28 - Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated:
03.03.1983, Ex.P.29 - Certified copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.P.No.7910/1986 dated: 08.03.1990, Ex.P.30 - Certified copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.1844/1990 dated:
27.11.1991, Ex.P.31 - Certified copy of Letter issued by the Pattanagere Gramapanchayathi dated: 30.08.1993, Ex.P.32 - Certified copy of layout plan, Ex.P.33 - Certified copy of certificate issued by the Pattanagere CMC, Bengaluru dated: 01.08.2001, Ex.P.34 - Certified copy of information furnished by the BDA, Bengaluru under RTI Act dated: 16.01.2009, Ex.P.35 - Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.2355/2001 dated: 12.04.2005, Ex.P.36 - Certified copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R.F.A.No.1628/2005 C/w RFA. No.1121/2005, Ex.P.37 - 29 O.S.No.4766/2016
Certified copy of order passed in SLP.No.5582-5583/2010 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Ex.P.38 - Certified copy of Letter of Lokayukta dated: 27.10.2010, Ex.P.39 - Certified copy of letter of BBMP dated: 04.11.2010, Ex.P.40 - Certified copy of letter of Sub-Registrar dated:
13.01.2011, Ex.P.41 - Certified copy of letter of AEE, BESCOM dated: 28.02.2011, Ex.P.42 - Certified copy of letter of approval by Karnataka Electricity Board dated:
25.08.1995, Ex.P.43 - Certified copy of letter of BBMP under RTI Act dated: 30.09.2008, Ex.P.44 - Certified copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.P.No.18584/1989, Ex.P.45 - Certified copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.A.No.8766/1996, Ex.P.46 - Certified copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in MFA.No.3918 C/w 5160/1999, Ex.P.47 -
Certified copy of interim order passed in Special Leave Petition CC.No.4434-4435/2001 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Ex.P.48 - Certified copy of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal 30 O.S.No.4766/2016 Nos.2171-2172/2002 and Ex.P.49 - Certified copy of record proceedings of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.10901-10902/2001.
15. The defendants have relied on Ex.D.1 - Sale deed dated: 31.05.2006, Ex.D.2 - Mutation register extract for the year 2007-2008, Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 - Encumbrance certificates, Ex.D.5 - Khatha registration dated: 21.04.2014, Ex.D.6 - Khatha certificate dated:
07.05.2014, Ex.D.7 to Ex.D.13 - Property tax receipts, Ex.D.14 - Official Memorandum dated: 02.03.2009 issued by the Special District Collector, Bengaluru, Ex.D.15 -
Consent deed dated: 09.07.2009, and Ex.D.16 to Ex.D.19
- RTCs pertaining to Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli, Bengaluru South.
16. The learned Counsel Sri.Prashanth C.N, appearing for plaintiff has vehemently argued that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has been allotted the site No.550 and letter of provisional 31 O.S.No.4766/2016 allotment of site was issued to the plaintiff dated:
01.02.1995. After the registration, the Society put the plaintiff in physical possession of the site by issuing the possession certificate dated: 19.05.1999 and when the plaintiff after performing Bhoomi pooja was about to start the work, a group of 5 to 9 people came and obstructed the work of construction by saying the defendants have purchased the agriculture land which is coming under Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli village. The learned Counsel Sri.Chandrashekaran, appearing for defendant No.1(a) to 1(c) has vehemently argued that the Society was not the owner of the land in Sy.No.242/2 in as much as the General Power of Attorney stated to have been executed on 03.03.1983 being unregistered document and it cannot pass on legal right to the Society to alienate the property as the Society cannot execute and register any sale deed on the basis of unregistered General Power of Attorney under Section 32 R/w/Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908 and ever since the date of purchase of the said property of Sy.No.242/2 measuring 32 O.S.No.4766/2016 1-acres 17-guntas, the defendant has been in exclusive physical possession and enjoyment of the same as the absolute owner thereof till this date without any let or hindrance from anybody and the plaintiff is an utter stranger without having any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the above said property at any point of time. The said Society or the plaintiff have no manner of right, title, interest and much less possession over the suit schedule property or the above said land bearing Sy.No.242/2, measuring 1 - acre 17 - guntas of Halagevaderahalli village at any point of time.
17. The learned Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon following decision:
1. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7245/2015 (CPC) C/W Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7246/2015 (CPC), in the case of Sri.Arun Kumar S.N, S/o. Late S.S.Nagarajan -Vs- Sri.Deepak M.R, S/o.
Late M.D.Rama Setty and another.
I have bestowed my anxious considerations to the principles emerges from this respected decision. 33 O.S.No.4766/2016
18. On perusal of Ex.P.1 which reflects that suit schedule property is allotted to the husband of plaintiff on 01.02.1995 by the Vishwabharathi House Building Co- Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru. On perusal of Ex.P.2 which shows that Vishwabharathi House Building Co- Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru represented by its Secretary by name K. Shankaranarayana has executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 24.03.1995 in respect of suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P.3 which shows that possession certificate is issued to the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property on 19.05.1999 by the Vishwabharathi House Building Co- Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru. On perusal of Ex.P.4 which shows that suit schedule property is standing in the name of the plaintiff as on 26.02.2011. On perusal of Ex.P.5 which shows that the suit schedule property is standing in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has relied documents at Ex.P.8 to 12 - Nil encumbrance certificates. The plaintiff has relied document at Ex.P.27 - 34 O.S.No.4766/2016 Certified copy of sale agreement dated: 10.04.1975. On perusal of Ex.P.28 which shows that General Power of Attorney is executed to B.Krishna Bhat by Munivenkatappa and Venkatappa. I have gone through the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.P.No.7910/1986 which is filed by the Vishwabharathi House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru against Bengaluru Development Authority, which is allowed as per Ex.P.29. I have gone through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.1844/1990 which is filed by the Bengaluru Development Authority against the Vishwabharathi House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru, which is dismissed as per Ex.P.30. The plaintiff has relied documents at Ex.P.31 to Ex.P.34. I have gone order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Civil Leave Appeal No. (CC 5582-5583/2010), which are dismissed as per Ex.P.37. The plaintiff has relied documents at Ex.P.38 - Certified copy of complaint. I have gone through order 35 O.S.No.4766/2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.P.No.18584/1989 which is filed by Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru against State Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru and others, which is disposed off as per Ex.P.44. I have gone through judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.P.No.8766/1996 which is filed by the Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru which is dismissed as per Ex.P.45. I have gone through order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2171-2172/2002 which are allowed as per Ex.P.48.
19. On perusal of Ex.D.1 which shows that, Sri.Munivenkata, his wife Smt.Venkatamma and Sri.M.Puttaswamy, Sri.M.Nagaraj, Smt.Bhagyamma, Smt.Chikkamma and Smt.Yashodha have executed sale deed on 31.05.2006 in favour of Late defendant - Umashankara in respect of survey No.242/2, measuring 36 O.S.No.4766/2016 1- acre, 17 -guntas situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. On perusal of Ex.D.2 which shows that, the name of Late defendant is mutated from Munivenkata S/o.Chikkarasa, in respect of survey No.242/2, measuring 1 -acre, 17- guntas situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The defendant No.1(a) to 1(c) have relied documents Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4- Encumbrance certificates. On perusal of Ex.D.5 which shows that, Khatha is registered in the name of deceased defendant in respect of survey No.242/2, measuring 1- acre, 17- guntas situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. On perusal of Ex.D.6 which shows that, survey No.242/2 is standing in the name of deceased defendant. On perusal of Ex.D.14 which shows that, survey No.242/2 measuring 1- acre 17 -guntas is converted in non- agriculture by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru in No.ALN(S)SR(KEM) 40/2008-09 dated:
02.03.2009. On perusal of Ex.D.15 which shows that, consent deed is executed in favour of deceased 37 O.S.No.4766/2016 defendant in respect of survey No.242/2 measuring 1-
acre, 17 -guntas situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. On perusal of Ex.D.16 to Ex.D.18 which shows that, name of Late defendant appearing as possessor in respect of land measuring 1- acre, 17- guntas situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
20. So far as oral evidence of both parties is concerned to lis that plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint. The defendant No.1(a) is examined as D.W.1 and D.W.1 has reiterated averments of written statement.
21. At outset, the plaintiff has not produced any documents that, Vishwabharathi House Building Co- Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru, has not acquired said land or formed site. As per Ex.P.28 which demonstrates that, the General Power of Attorney stated to have been executed on 03.03.1983 infavour of the Society cannot pass any legal right to the Society. Hence, it is clear that 38 O.S.No.4766/2016 plaintiff has purchased suit schedule property from Vishwabharathi House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru, who have no title to sell the suit schedule property.
22. By considering entire evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and documents exhibited on both sides, on close scrutiny of pleadings of both parties and on careful appreciation of evidence, the plaintiff has not proved that, she is possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on date of filing of this suit. Hence, I answer Recasted Issue No.1 in the Negative.
23. RECASTED ISSUE NO.2: The plaintiff has contended that she is intending to put- up a residential house over the schedule site and has arranged all the materials which are required for the foundation work. Accordingly, when the plaintiff after performing Bhoomi pooja was about to start the work, a group of 5 to 9 people came and obstructed the work of construction by saying the defendants have purchased the agriculture 39 O.S.No.4766/2016 land which is coming under Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli village. The Society has provided infrastructures to the layout by providing electricity, sanitary, water and roads etc, finally the plaintiff came to know that, Late defendant in collusion with the revenue officials have managed to get the entries of their vendors by fabricating documents and got the sale deed registered showing the property as an agricultural land. The BDA has issued an endorsement through the RTI stating that the lands in Sy.Nos.212 to 242 a residential layout has been formed and no piece of agricultural land has remained in the same. But in the layout hundreds of allottees have put up construction of buildings and have been very much residing in their respective houses. Having no manner of right, title or interest whatsoever over the schedule property, Late defendant is making efforts to grab the same from the plaintiff. The said Society has purchased the entire land in Sy.No.242/2 of Halagevaderahalli through irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated: 03.03.1983 and sale agreement dated: 40 O.S.No.4766/2016
10.04.1975 formed the layout, in accordance with law and sold the suit schedule site formed in the said survey numbers, the question of any other person including the original owners of the land claiming any right, title, or interest over the same does not arise. Further, on 26.06.2016, Late defendant came near the schedule property and trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property without having any manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property.
Thereafter, the plaintiff had approached the jurisdictional Police for help and the said Police advised her to approach the civil Court, since the dispute is civil in nature. Again on 27.06.2016 at about 11:00 am, Late defendant along with supporters and rowdy elements came to the suit schedule property and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and they have threatened her with dire consequences. The defendants are very powerful persons in the locality having the support of anti-social elements and support of politically ill-motivated people. She resisted their illegal 41 O.S.No.4766/2016 activities with the help of the well-wishers and neighbors and the defendants may obstruct her possession over the suit schedule property. The defendants have denied these facts. The plaintiff has failed to prove that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Under the circumstances, the question of interference of defendants does not arise. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove the interference by the defendants. Hence, I answer Recasted Issue No.2 in the Negative.
24. RECASTED ISSUE NO.3: The LRs of defendant have contended that, bare injunction suit is not maintainable without seeking relief of declaration of title. The plaintiff has denied these facts. Since, title of plaintiff is dispute, then plaintiff has to seek relief of declaration. Hence, the bare injunction suit is not maintainable. The defendants have proved this Issue. Hence, I answer Recasted Issue No.3 in the Affirmative. 42 O.S.No.4766/2016
25. RECASTED ISSUE NO.4: In a suit for permanent injunction what are required are, the possession of the plaintiff and interference by the defendants. At the outset, it is for the plaintiff to prove her case. The plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the defendants. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the decision reported in 2011 (3) CIVIL COURT CASES 446 (S.C.), Rangammal -Vs- Kuppuswami and Another, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
Evidence Act, 1872, S.101- Burden of proof-Always lies upon the person who asserts - Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case.
Evidence Act, 1872, S.101- Plaintiff has to establish its case on the basis of materials available and it cannot rely on the weakness or absence of defence to discharge onus.
The ratio laid down in this decision is aptly applicable to this suit.43 O.S.No.4766/2016
26. The plaintiff has failed to prove that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is trite that failure to prove the possession over the suit schedule property, injunction cannot be granted. This well settled legal principles is fortified from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2008 Supreme Appeals Reporter (CIVIL) Page 401. (Sri.Thimmaiah -Vs- Shabira and others) which reads thus:
"(A) Injunction-Suit for permanent
injunction-Before an injunction can be
granted it has to be shown that the plaintiff was in possession-Trial court held that plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession-Held that a plaintiff not in possession is not entitled to the relief without claiming recovery of possession." Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2007 (1) KCCR 42 (Smt. Nirmala -Vs- Sri. Naveen Chhaggar and another) has held thus:
44 O.S.No.4766/2016
"SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 SECTION 38-CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908- Order 39, Rules 1 and 2-In a suit for bare injunction the plaintiff must prove that he is in factual durable possession of the suit schedule property. A mere fact that the plaintiff might have good title to the property that by itself automatically does not establish his possession of the property unless such possession is actually pleaded and proved by evidence. In a suit for bare injunction, unless the possession of the plaintiff is independently established, there is no way of the suit being decreed."
27. The plaintiff has failed to prove the interference by the defendants. At this juncture it is useful to refer the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in:
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in AIR 1981 Karnataka page 208 (R.G.Jantakal -Vs- M/S Bharat Parikh and Co and another) has held thus: 45 O.S.No.4766/2016
"An injunction can be granted only proof of actual interference or threat of interference and not in the absence of it."
Hence, in view of the principles enunciated in the above referred decisions, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, I answer Recasted Issue No.4 in the Negative.
28. RECASTED ISSUE NO.5: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Typist directly on computer online, typed by him corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 13th day of August, 2025) Digitally signed by SHIVANAND SHIVANAND MARUTI MARUTI JIPARE JIPARE Date:
2025.08.13 17:56:41 +0530 (SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE) LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.46 O.S.No.4766/2016
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Smt.Krishna Kumari,
W/o. Sri.Gopal Setty.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.P.1 : Letter issued by the Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., to husband of plaintiff Gopala Setty dated: 01.02.1995.
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated:
24.03.1995.
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of possession certificate dated: 19.05.1999.
Ex.P.4 : Certificate issued by the BBMP dated:
26.02.2011.
Ex.P.5 : Demand extract. Ex.P.6 and : Encumbrance certificates. Ex.P.7
Ex.P.8 to : Nil Encumbrance certificates.
Ex.P.12 Ex.P.13 :
to Self assessment tax paid receipts.
Ex.P.16
Ex.P.17 :
to Property tax paid receipts.
Ex.P.23
47 O.S.No.4766/2016
Ex.P.24
and : Photographs.
Ex.P.25
Ex.P.26 : Compact disk.
Ex.P.27 : Certified copy of agreement of sale dated:
10.04.1975.
Ex.P.28 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated: 03.03.1983.
Ex.P.29 : Certified copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.P.No.7910/1986 dated: 08.03.1990.
Ex.P.30 : Certified copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.1844/1990 dated:
27.11.1991.
Ex.P.31 : Certified copy of Letter issued by the Pattanagere Gramapanchayathi dated:
30.08.1993 Ex.P.32 : Certified copy of layout plan.
Ex.P.33 : Certified copy of Certificate issued by the Pattanagere CMC, Bengaluru dated:
01.08.2001.
Ex.P.34 : Certified copy of information furnished by the BDA, Bengaluru under RTI Act dated:
16.01.2009.48 O.S.No.4766/2016
Ex.P.35 : Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.2355/2001 dated: 12.04.2005.
Ex.P.36 : Certified copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R.F.A. No.1628/2005 C/w RFA.No.1121/2005.
Ex.P.37 : Certified copy of order passed in SLP.No.5582-5583/2010 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Ex.P.38 : Certified copy of Letter of Lokayukta dated:
27.10.2010.
Ex.P.39 : Certified copy of letter of BBMP dated:
04.11.2010.
Ex.P.40 : Certified copy of letter of Sub-Registrar dated: 13.01.2011.
Ex.P.41 : Certified copy of letter of AEE, BESCOM dated: 28.02.2011.
Ex.P.42 : Certified copy of letter of approval by Karnataka Electricity Board dated:
25.08.1995.
Ex.P.43 : Certified copy of letter of BBMP under RTI Act dated: 30.09.2008.
Ex.P.44 : Certified copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.P.No.18584/1989.
Ex.P.45 : Certified copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.A.No.8766/1996.
49 O.S.No.4766/2016Ex.P.46 : Certified copy of Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in MFA.No.3918 C/w 5160/1999.
Ex.P.47 : Certified copy of interim order passed in Special Leave to Appeal CC.No.4434- 4435/2001 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Ex.P.48 : Certified copy of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.2171-2172/2002.
Ex.P.49 : Certified copy of record proceedings of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.10901- 10902/2001.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : Smt.S.R.Rajeshwari,
W/o. Sri.Umashankar.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Sale deed dated: 31.05.2006.
Ex.D.2 : Mutation register extract for the year
2007-2008.
Ex.D.3
and : Encumbrance certificates.
Ex.D.4
50 O.S.No.4766/2016
Ex.D.5 : Khatha registration dated: 21.04.2014.
Ex.D.6 : Khatha certificate dated: 07.05.2014
Ex.D.7 to : Property tax paid receipts.
Ex.D.13 Ex.D.14 : Official Memorandum dated: 02.03.2009 issued by the Special District Collector, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.15 : Consent deed dated: 09.07.2009. Ex.D.16 : RTCs pertaining to Sy.No.242/2 of to Ex.D.19 Halagevaderahalli, Bengaluru South.
Digitally
signed by
SHIVANAND
SHIVANAND MARUTI
MARUTI JIPARE
JIPARE Date:
2025.08.13
17:56:49
+0530
(SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE)
LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.