Bangalore District Court
Rekha P vs Chandramma on 2 February, 2026
/ 1 / O.S.No.8356/2023
KABC010341452023
IN THE COURT OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-43)
- : PRESENT :-
Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv,
XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 2nd Day of February, 2026.
Original Suit No.8356/2023
Plaintiff :
Rekha.P. W/o. Chandru, 43 Years,
R/o.No.160, 3rd Cross, Pragathipura,
Kanakapura Main Road, Banashankari,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
[By Sri.K.Dilip Kumar, Advocate]
/ VERSUS /
Defendants :
1. Smt.Chandramma W/o. Late Mani, 50
Years, Old No.164, New No.159,
R/o.No.160, 3rd Cross, Pragathi Pura,
/ 2 / O.S.No.8356/2023
Kanakapura Main Road, Banashankari,
Bengaluru - 70.
2. Karnataka Slum Development Board,
No.55, Abaya Complex, 3rd Floor,
Reshedar Street, Seshadripuram,
Bengaluru - 560 020.
[Sri.R.D.Vishwanath, Advocate for D.1
Sri.Shashidhar AGA., Advocate for D.2]
***
Date of Institution of the : 20.12.2023
suit
Nature of suit : Suit for mandatory injunction
Date of commencement of : 22.09.2025
evidence
Date on which the : 02.02.2026
judgment is pronounced
Duration taken for disposal : Years Months Days
02 01 10
***
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of mandatory injunction with respect to House No.160 situated at Banashankari Sub- Division, Banashankari Temple, Jaraganahalli Village more specifically described in the plaint schedule.
/ 3 / O.S.No.8356/2023
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under: -
Plaintiff has purchased the suit property from one Lakshmamma under sale deed dated 22.8.2019. She became absolute owner and possessor the suit property. It was originally allotted by Slum Board in favour of vendor of the plaintiff. The neighbouring site towards the Western side is also allotted by Slum Board in favour of the defendant. Plaintiff is residing in the house purchased by her, but defendant No.1 constructed new house on her site without living 5 Ft. set-back and defendant No.1 has encroached portion of the suit property aerially to the extent of 2 Ft. x 6 Ft. Defendant No.1 has constructed her building by violating BBMP rules and regulations. Plaintiff has questioned the same before BBMP and before defendant No.2, but no action is / 4 / O.S.No.8356/2023 taken by the defendant No.2. Hence, plaintiff is constrained to file this suit. So, plaintiff prayed to grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1 to demolish the projection wall which was constructed by her by aerially encroaching an area measuring 2 Ft. x 6 Ft. Plaintiff also sought for demolition of encroached structure.
3. On service of summons, defendant No.1 appeared through her advocate and filed written statement. She has denied the case of the plaintiff in para-wise. She has contended that she is in possession of the site allotted to her and she has constructed her building within her area. Plaintiff herself has encroached portion of her site belonging to her and she never encroached the portion of the suit property. She claimed / 5 / O.S.No.8356/2023 counter claim directing the plaintiff to demolish the encroached portion of 2 Ft. x 10 Ft. towards Eastern side. She prayed to dismiss the suit with costs and allow her counter claim.
4. Defendant No.2 though appeared has not filed written statement.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1 st defendant has encroached 1 ½ feet in the eastern side of the schedule property by putting up the projection wall (RCC molding) as contended in the plaint ?
(2) Whether the defendant No.1 through counter claim proves that the plaintiff has illegally encroached the portion of the site of the defendant No.1 as contended in para 6 of the written statement ?
/ 6 / O.S.No.8356/2023 (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction reliefs as sought for ?
(4) Whether the defendant No.1 through counter claim is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the counter claim ? (5) What order or decree ?
6. In order to prove the case, the GPA Holder of plaintiff has got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.3. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 got examined herself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.8.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the pleadings, issues, evidence oral and documentary and the materials on record.
8. My findings to the aforesaid Issues are as under:
/ 7 / O.S.No.8356/2023 Issue No.1 : In the negative.
Issue No.2 : In the negative.
Issue No.3 : In the negative.
Issue No.4 : In the negative.
Issue No.5 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
9. ISSUES NO.1 AND 2 : - Since the reasoning for these issues are interrelated and overlap with each other, to prevent repetition of facts and for convenience and appreciation of evidence, they are taken together for consideration.
10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit property and defendant No.1 has aerially encroached the portion of the suit property to the extent of 2 Ft. x 6 Ft. It is also her case that defendant No.1 has not left set-back. Looking to the materials on record it is not in dispute that / 8 / O.S.No.8356/2023 defendant No.2 - Slum Board has allotted site in favour of defendant No.1 and also in favour of vendor of plaintiff Lakshmamma. Plaintiff has pleaded that she is owner of the suit property by virtue of absolute sale deed, but she has not produced the said sale deed. Ex.P.1 is the special power of attorney given by the plaintiff in favour of her husband. Ex.P.2 is the Khata Registration Certificate issued by BBMP in favour of Lakshmamma, the vendor of the plaintiff. It is not in the name of plaintiff. Ex.P.3 is the registered Agreement of Sale dated 22.8.2019 executed by original allottee Smt.Lakshmamma in favour of plaintiff - Smt.Rekha.P. So, plaintiff has contended that this agreement of sale is her sale deed. But, this document is agreement of sale and not the sale deed. In this deed at last page there is a specific reference that / 9 / O.S.No.8356/2023 this agreement of sale is without possession. So, under the agreement of sale the possession of the suit property is not at all delivered to the plaintiff. It appears that, plaintiff by virtue of agreement of sale came in possession of the suit property and residing in the said tin sheet house. But, on the basis of agreement of sale it cannot be held that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. Plaintiff has sought the relief of mandatory injunction. So, she has to prove her ownership over the suit property. But, plaintiff by producing agreement of sale just proved that she is intending purchaser of the suit property and not as a owner of the suit property. P.W.1 during his cross-examination by the learned counsel for defendant No.1 has specifically admitted that the khata of the suit property is standing in the name of / 10 / O.S.No.8356/2023 the original allottee Smt. Lakshmamma. He also admitted that Ex.P.3 - agreement of sale is without any delivery of possession. He has specifically admitted that no sale deed is executed by the original owner in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff has not filed the suit for specific performance of contract. He also admitted that, original owner of the plaintiff while constructing her house has not left set-back. It was also suggested that the original owner has encroached portion of the property of the defendant bearing No.159, but he denied it. So, looking to the documents produced by the plaintiff and the admissions given by P.W.1 it is crystal clear that plaintiff has not proved her ownership over the suit property. P.W.1 has admitted that defendant is the owner and possessor of Municipal No.159. Ex.D.1 is the said / 11 / O.S.No.8356/2023 Khata Certificate got marked as Ex.D.1 through cross of P.W.1. It is standing in the name of defendant No.1 - Smt.Chandramma. Ex.D.2 is the Registration Certificate of hut, which contains photograph of the plaintiff, her husband and child. Ex.D.3 is the Sketch furnished for obtaining water connection. Ex.D.5 are the Tax Paid Receipts standing in the name of defendant No.1. Ex.D.6 is the nil Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.D.7 is the Hand Sketch of the property of the plaintiff and defendant. Site No.159 is allotted to defendant No.1 from defendant No.2
- Slum Board. Her name is appearing in khata extract. Ex.D.8 is the E-Khata extract of property No.159 standing in the name of defendant No.1. So, considering these documents I hold that, defendant No.1 has proved her ownership and possession over the Site No.159. She has / 12 / O.S.No.8356/2023 contended that the vendor of the plaintiff has encroached property No.159, but defendant No.1 has not produced any evidence to prove the said contention. Plaintiff has also not proved that defendant No.1 has aerially encroached the property of the plaintiff. Plaintiff as well as defendant have claimed the relief of mandatory injunction. Both of them have not chosen to appoint the court commissioner to measure the suit schedule property and prove the allegations of the alleged encroachments. The evidence on record discloses that defendant No.1 was originally residing in hut and the Slum Board has allotted the said hut in favour of defendant No.1 and later defendant No.1 got constructed the house. Slum Board also allotted a hut in favour of one Lakshmamma and plaintiff has agreed to purchase / 13 / O.S.No.8356/2023 the said hut or tin sheet house. But, no sale deed is executed by the original owner. But, it appears that the plaintiff has occupied the said old house and continued her possession. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 has not left set-back. But, looking to the measurement of the suit property and since it is allotted by the Slum Board, it appears that leaving set-back from all corners of the house is highly impossible. One cannot expect leaving of set-back in such a small area allotted by the Slum Board. Plaintiff as well as defendant have not proved the alleged encroachment as against each other. Hence, I answer Issues No. 1 and 2 in the negative.
11. ISSUES NO.3 AND 4 : - Plaintiff as well as defendant have not proved the encroachment against each other. Hence, both of them are not entitle for any / 14 / O.S.No.8356/2023 reliefs claimed. Accordingly, I answer Issues No.3 and 4 in the negative.
12. ISSUE NO.5 : - In view of my answers to Issues as supra, I proceed to pass the following : -
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
The counter claim of the defendant No.1 is also dismissed with costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected the same directly on computer, signed and then pronounced by me, in open court on this the 2nd day of February, 2026).
(Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv), XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff :
P.W.1 : D.Chandra
/ 15 / O.S.No.8356/2023
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 : Special power of attorney
Ex.P.2 : Khata registration certificate
Ex.P.3 : Sale agreement dated 22.8.2019
3. List of witnesses examined for the defendants :
D.W. 1 : Smt.Chandramma
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants :
Ex.D.1 : Khata registration certificate dated 16/12/2020 Ex.D.2 : Registration certificate issued by Slum Board.
Ex.D.3 : Rough Sketch for water connection
Ex.D.4 : Death Certificate of A.Mani
Ex.D.5 : 3 Online tax paid receipts
Ex.D.6 : Nil encumbrance certificate
Ex.D.7 : Hand sketch
Ex.D.8 : E-khata.
(Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv),
XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
***
/ 16 / O.S.No.8356/2023
Judgment pronounced in open Court [vide separate judgment] :
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiff is
dismissed with costs.
The counter claim of the defendant
No.1 is also dismissed with costs.
(Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv),
XLII ACC&S Judge, Bengaluru City.