Bangalore District Court
Sri.Rangappa vs Sri.Muni Anjanappa on 5 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH.32), BANGALORE CITY
Present
Sri. V.B.Suryavanshi, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),
XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
O.S.No.395/2011
Plaintiff: Sri.Rangappa,
S/o. Late Venkatappa,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at No.23, 12th Cross, 4th Block,
Peenya, Bangalore-560 058.
(by-Sri.K.H.Ramu, Adv.)
/VS/
Defendant: Sri.Muni Anjanappa,
S/o Late Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at 13th Cross, Near Ganapathi
Temple, Peenya 4th Stage,
Bangalore-560 058.
(by Sri M.N.Ravishankar, Adv.)
Date of Institution of the suit 12.01.2011
Nature of the suit Injunction
Date of commencement of
10.11.2014
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 05.02.2016
pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
05 00 23
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction.
O.S.395/2011
2. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, the suit schedule property originally belongs to the mother of the plaintiff - Smt.Muniakkayamma and she was staying in the said property and also constructed a house and the said property was allotted by the Government of Karnataka to the site less persons and Government had also issued order on 07.11.1995 and Government had also issued directions to the Bangalore City Corporation to fix the assessment. Accordingly, the Corporation prepared the sketch in respect of the schedule property where the plaintiff mother and his family members are residing and they allotting CTS No.1323 and also issued a copy of the construction of house and holding certificate. Smt. Muniakkayamma was died and thereafter, the Corporation authority had issued a holder khatha in favour of Sri Rangappa i.e., in favour of the plaintiff and given the property identification No.IPD 112/23.
O.S.395/2011 2(a). The defendant is making hectic efforts to take possession of the suit schedule property and trying to damage the schedule property and accordingly, the plaintiff had lodged the police complaint and also constrained to file this suit against the defendant for permanent injunction.
3. On the contrary, the defendant has filed his written statement and denied the case of the plaintiff that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and it is the specific assertion of the defendant that, the suit schedule property is not at all in existence in the address shown and the plaintiff filed suit only in order to knock off the public road and the documents produced by the plaintiff are fictitious and there is no cause of action to file the suit and hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the rival pleadings of the both the parties, the following issues have been framed by the court on 24.01.2014:
O.S.395/2011
1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendant is true?
3. What order or decree?
5. The plaintiff himself has been examined as PW.1 and one Mr.Sampangi has been examined as PW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P25 and closed plaintiff's side evidence. The defendant himself has been examined as DW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D1 to D6.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the
below mentioned
O.S.395/2011
Reasons
8. Issue Nos.1 & 2: Since, these issues being
interconnected and interlinked to each other, to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, I have taken these issues together for common consideration.
9. This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction.
10. It is the specific assertion of the plaintiff that, by virtue of the order passed by the Government of Karnataka, the suit property was allotted to the mother of the plaintiff and after death of mother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and his family members are in possession of the same. The defendant without having any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property is trying to interfere in the suit schedule property, hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit against the defendant for permanent injunction.
O.S.395/2011
11. On the contrary, the defendant who had filed the written statement had specifically contended that, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of injunction because the suit schedule property itself is not in existence, hence prays for dismissal of the suit.
12. The plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and he has reiterated the contents of the plaint averments in his oral testimony and one Mr.Sampangi has been examined as PW.2 and he has produced Ex.P1 to P25.
13. On the contrary, the defendant himself has been examined as DW.1 and he has reiterated the contents of the written statement in his oral testimony and also got produced Ex.D1 to D6.
14. It is very significant to note that, the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for permanent injunction and it is the specific assertion of the plaintiff that, the suit schedule property was allotted by the O.S.395/2011 Government of Karnataka in favour of the plaintiff's mother and the suit schedule property bearing No.23 situated at Harijana colony, Peenya village, Bangalore with the specific boundaries. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P2 i.e., the copy of the order passed by the Government of Karnataka on 27.01.1997, Ex.P3 is the certificate issued in respect of CTS 1321 in the name of Smt.Muniakkayamma, Ex.P4 is the khatha extract issued in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.P5 is the holder khatha certificate issued by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and Ex.P6 to P9 are the Tax paid receipts, Ex.P10 is the property register standing in the name of the mother of the plaintiff, Ex.P11 is the CT certificate, Ex.P12 is the enquiry report, Ex.P13 is the notice issued by the BBMP authority and Ex.P16 is the certified copy of the FIR, Ex.P17 to P25 are the original electricity bills and receipts in the name of the plaintiff.
O.S.395/2011
15. So, if the reliance is placed on the Ex.P1 to P25, it is evident that, the suit schedule property was allotted to the mother of the plaintiff by Karnataka Government and after her death, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.
16. The defendant who has denied the case of the plaintiff and contended that, the suit schedule property is not at all in existence and the plaintiff has filed a false suit.
17. During the course of the cross examination of DW.1, the DW.1 has admitted about the issuance of Ex.P3 and P4 and also Ex.P5 in favour of the plaintiff and also the DW.1 admitted that the address shown in Ex.P4 is the place where the suit schedule property is situated.
18. So, on perusal of the evidence of the PW.1 and also DW.1 and also keeping in mind the cross O.S.395/2011 examination of the DW.1 wherein, it is evident that though the defendant has denied the case of the plaintiff that, the suit schedule property itself is not in existence. But apart from denying the averments of the plaint, the defendant is not claiming any suit schedule property and the plaintiff by virtue of the orders passed by the Government of Karnataka under Ex.P2 claims to be in possession of the suit schedule property. So, once the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of the khatha certificate issued by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in respect of the suit schedule property, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property has to be protected.
19. Moreover, it is very significant to note that, on perusal of the entire case of the defendant, the defendant is not claiming any suit schedule property and the defendant has specifically contended that the O.S.395/2011 suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground that the suit property itself is not in existence.
20. The learned counsel for the defendant has relied on the rulings reported in ILR 1978(2) Karnataka 1560, 1981 KLJ 365 and AIR 1981 Karnataka 208. Keeping in mind the dictum laid down by their lordships in the supra rulings and also facts of the case in hand, I am of the considered opinion that when the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the property by virtue of the allotment by the government and his possession has to be protected and the defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and the dictum laid down by their lordship in the supra rulings is not applicable to the present case on hand.
21. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the conduct of the defendant, the defendant is trying to interfere in the O.S.395/2011 suit schedule property, hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendant, so I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff had proved that he had prima facie case in his favour and also balance of convenience lies in his favour and the documents produced by the plaintiff goes to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and this suit is mere suit for injunction and when the plaintiff proves his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit, then his possession has to be protected. So, I answer issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
21. Issue No.2: In view of finding on issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
22.Issue No.3: In view of finding on issue No.3, I proceed to pass the following O.S.395/2011 ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendant or anybody on his behalf are restrained permanently from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to pay their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 5th day of February, 2016) ( V.B.SURYAVANSHI ) XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff :
PW.1 : Sri.Rangappa PW.2 : Sri Sampangi N O.S.395/2011 List of documents marked for the Plaintiff :
Ex.P1 Genealogical tree Ex.P2 Order Dt.27.01.1997 Ex.P3 Certificate issued by Government Ex.P4 Khatha extract Ex.P5 Khatha of property issued by BMP
Ex.P6 to 9 Tax paid receipts ( 4 in Nos) Ex.P10 Property register Ex.P11 CT certificate Ex.P12 Enquiry report Ex.P13 Notice issued by BBMP Ex.P14 Electricity bill Ex.P15 Caste certificate Ex.P16 Certified copy of FIR & statement Ex.P17 Electricity bill Ex.P18 to Electricity receipts 22 Ex.P23 to Electricity bills 25 Witnesses examined for the defendant:
DW.1 Sri Muni Anjanappa Documents marked for the defendant:
Ex.D1 C/c of sale deed Dt.27.02.1975
Ex.D2 C/c of sale deed Dt.13.07.1989
Ex.D3 Form No.15
Ex.D4 Form No.16
Ex.D5 Khatha register
Ex.D6 Khatha extract
( V.B.Suryavanshi )
XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY O.S.395/2011 Judgment pronounced in the open court ( vide separate order) Order The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendant or anybody on his behalf are restrained permanently from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to pay their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XX ACC & SJ,B'lore