Bangalore District Court
In Sri.V.S.Gangadhar Math vs In All The The Karnataka Slum Area on 18 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY (CCH No.8)
Dated this the 18th day of April 2016.
PRESENT:
S.V.KULKARNI, B.Com., LLB(Spl)
XI Addl.City Civil Judge, B'lore city.
O.S.No.7553/12, 7557/2012 &7562 of 2012
Plaintiff in Sri.V.S.Gangadhar Math
O.S. No. 7553/2012: S/O Sri. Late Shankaraiah,
aged about 86 years,
Residing at Gangadhara
Building, Shivagiri,
Dharwada-07
Plaintiff in Smt. Leela Hirremath
O.S. No. 7557 of 2012: W/O C.S.Chikmath,
aged about 61 years,
Residing at No.43,
Sai Nilaya, Eurekha Orchids,
Dharward-01
Represented by its S.P.A Holder,
Smt. Shantha R.Hiremath,
W/O Syamsundar Joshi,
aged 68 years,
Residing at No.23, RBI Colony,
Ananda Nagar Hebbal,
Bengaluru-24
Plaintiff in Smt. Jyothi Rao,
O.S. No. 7562 of 2012: W/O Sri. Jayaprakash,
aged about 41 years,
2 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
RBI Colony, Anandanagara,
Bengaluru-24
(Sri. T.Sheshagiri Rao advocate
for plaintiff in all the cases)
: Vs :
Defendants in all the The Karnataka Slum Area
cases:- ( Improvement and clearance)
Board, Platform road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru.
Represented by its Secretary.
[Sri.B.Ramaswamy Iyengar,
advocate for defendant in all the
three cases]
Date of the institution of suit in all 19.10.2012
the cases:
Nature of the suit in all the cases : Permanent injunction
Date of the commencement of 8.1.2015
recording of the evidence in all the
cases :
Date on which the judgment 18.4.2016
was pronounced in all the cases :
Total duration in all the cases: Year Months Days
03 05 29
XI Addl.City Civil Judge,
B'lore city.
3 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
COMMON JUDGMENT
O.S. No. 7553 of 2012
This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant
seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and dispossessing
the plaintiff from the suit schedule property without due
process of law and to grant any other reliefs as this court
deems just and necessary including the costs of the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint briefly
stated as follows:-
The subject matter of the suit is in respect of residential
site bearing No.s 47 and 48 formed in Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village together measuring east-west
60+58/2 feet and north-south 40+37/2 feet situated at
Chikkabommasandra village, Yelahanka Hobli , Bengalure
North Taluk bounded on
East by: Road,
West by: Site No.49
North by: Road and
South by: Site No.61 and 62
It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in lawful
possession and enjoyment of site No.47 and 48 formed in
4 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village together measuring
east-west 60+58/2 feet and north-south 40+37/2 feet situated
at Chikkabommasandra village, Yelahanka Hobli , Bengalure
North Taluk and plaintiff further stated that he succeeded to
the property from his late wife namely Smt.Shakuntala
Gangadhar Math as she passed away on 29.5.1998 and said
Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math was a member of
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., and the
said society was involved in forming of housing layout in and
around Bengaluru and one such layout was formed by it at
Chikkabommasandra village in land bearing Sy.No.17 and the
said society on 25.1.1983 had intimated the wife of plaintiff
stating that they had allotted site No.47 and 48 in favour of
plaintiff's wife Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math and called
upon her to pay the full value of the site allotted to her within
15 days from thereof and to get the sale deed executed from
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., . Plaintiff's
wife Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math had paid full value of
the site to the said society and after receiving money of site
value from Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math on 6.5.1983
society has issued possession certificate to plaintiff's wife and
put her in possession of the schedule property by issuing
possession certificate and plaintiff has relied upon the
possession certificate issued by Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., and later plaintiff made necessary
5 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
application before the local authority with a request to enter
her name as kathedar of property, wherein the local authority
considering the request filed by the plaintiff and on perusing
the documents produced by her order to accept the katha of
the schedule property in her name. The assessment register
extract i.e., katha issued by the Byatarayanapura Grama
Panchayath relating to schedule property and also the tax
paid receipt are herewith produced fore kind perusal of of
this court. This being every fact that up till 1993, the
property was coming within the local limits of
Byatarayanapura Grama Panchayath and subsequently it was
included within the local limits of T.M.C, Yelahanka. The
T.M.C, Yelahanka subsequently in the year 1993-1994 have
entered the katha of the schedule property in the name of
plaintiff's wife as kathedar of the suit schedule site and
pursuant to the katha entries made in her name in the T.M.C
records, wherein the T.M.C authority has collected an amount
of Rs.5,276/- on 2.1.1996 towards betterment charges from
plaintiff's wife Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math and
accordingly, the T.M.C, Yelahanka had entered the name of
plaintiff's wife in respect of katha entries in the revenue
records maintained by it and since 1995-1996 the katha of
the suit schedule property stands in the name of
Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math in the records maintained
by T.M.C, Yelahanka and after obtaining possession of the
6 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
schedule property, plaintiff's wife had put up fence to the
schedule site with barbed wire and stone pillars are
installed/fixed as boundaries to her sites and even she has
planted 5 coconut trees in the schedule site and presently the
trees are aged about 19 years and which are fruit yielding
trees and plaintiff further alleged that after demise of his wife,
the plaintiff herein being her husband has been in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property more
precisely he succeeded to the suit schedule property on the
death of his wife and plaintiff is paying tax to the local
authority. However, katha of the schedule property still
continued to remain in the name of his wife and plaintiff has
made application before local authority seeking for transfer of
katha in his name. For various reasons, the katha of the
schedule property did not changed by the local authority
from deleting the name of plaintiff's wife. Hence, plaintiff
claims to be the husband of deceased Smt.Shakuntala
Gangadhar Math and on her death, he succeeded to the
schedule property and there cannot be any dispute with regard
to the succession. Hence, plaintiff claimed that he is in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and
suit schedule property is portion of land bearing Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalure
North Taluk and Sy.No.17 was totally measuring 29 acres 4
guntas in extent out of which the holding of Sri.
7 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Y.V.Anjanappa was measuring 4 acres 8 guntas and after the
Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force, the Deputy
Commissioner for Urban Land Ceiling initiated proceedings
against original owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa under Urban Land
Ceiling Act 1976 and ordered to acquire an area measuring
16,806.28 square meters out of land Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village and the area ordered to acquire
was equivalent to 4 acres 8 guntas and it is seen from the
revenue records that the Deputy Commissioner for Urban
Land Ceiling Act, wherein after holding proceedings under
ULCR Act declared the said extent of 16,806.28 square meters
as excess holding possessed by Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa under the
provision of ULCR Act and ordered to acquire the said excess
land by the Government and after the said ULCR proceedings,
wherein the defendant Board requested the Government to
give the said land to the slum Board for rehabilitating the slum
dwellers. Some sort of proceedings was held in between the
Government and defendant slum board and it is also born out
from the record that the Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk
claims to have delivered possession of land bearing Sy.No.17
to defendant slum board on the day, when Tahasildar claims
to have delivered possession in respect of portion of land in
Sy.No.17 out of total extent measuring 17 guntas in Sy.No.17
of Chikkabommasandra village till proceedings held by the
Deputy Commissioner for Urban Land Ceiling discloses that
8 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Tahasildar could not have delivered 17 guntas of land in
Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village since by then it was
fully developed portion of land . One of the report of the
Tahasildar, wherein he has reported that 17 guntas of land
was fully developed in Sy.No.17 and the same was conveyed
to Deputy Commissioner as well as Government and
irrespective of the same, the plaintiff 's wife, who was in
possession of schedule property from the date of her purchase
till her death and after her death, plaintiff succeeded to the
schedule property and he is in lawful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property and Tahasildar had
not put the defendant board in possession of said 17 guntas of
land in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and suit
schedule property comes within 17 guntas of Sy.No.17 and as
such, the defendant board did not came in possession of the
suit schedule property and defendant board is not in
possession of suit schedule sites has no right to interfere with
plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of suit schedule sites.
Defendant board did not interfered with the possession of the
plaintiff from 1996 to till 27.9.2012, wherein on 27.9.2012 the
officers of the defendant board came near the schedule
property and informed the plaintiff stating that it is their
property and directed the plaintiff to vacate and hand over
vacant possession of the schedule property to the defendant's
board and plaintiff has questioned the authority of defendant
9 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
board in interfering with possession and defendant board
informed that the property, which was belongs to original
owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and it was acquired under the
provision of ULCR Act and Urban Land Ceiling authority in
turn handed over the same to defendant board and as such,
defendant board claims the ownership over an extent of 4
acres in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and it is
only at that point of time, plaintiff came to know the intricacy
of the matter and immediately he has approached this court
seeking for permanent injunction against defendant's board
and plaintiff also alleged that original owner namely Sri.
Y.V.Anjanappa had executed an agreement of sale and power
of attorney in favour of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative
Society ltd., on 1.2.1983 and on the basis of these
documents, Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd.,
had formed layout, which is private layout formed on the
authority given by original owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., after
formation of private layout by forming revenue site sold all the
sites formed therein in portion of land Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village have sold the sites to purchasers
and plaintiff's wife was also one of the purchaser and allottee of
site from Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd.,
i.e., plaintiff's wife came in possession of suit schedule sites
and acquired possessory title to the suit schedule sites and
10 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
after the death of plaintiff's wife namely Smt.Shakuntala
Gangadhar Math, now the plaintiff succeeded to these schedule
properties and accordingly, plaintiff claims to be in lawful
possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties and
plaintiff also alleged that ULCR authorities did not acquire
entire extent of Sy.No.17 and since by then, a portion of land in
Sy.No.17 , it is also developed as house construction have
come up in 17 guntas of land and as such, consequently he
could not deliver possession of the land to the revenue
authority and revenue authority did not handed over
possession to defendant's slum board of area measuring 4
acres 8 guntas out of Sy.No.17 and defendant board has not
taken possession of the land measuring 4 acres 8 guntas or 17
guntas a developed portion of land and if defendant board
wants to take possession of the suit schedule property from the
plaintiff, they should resort due process of law and defendant
board cannot oust the plaintiff from the schedule property and
by use of force to take possession and hence, the interference
by the defendant's board amounting to illegal interference over
the settled possession of the plaintiff and the act of defendant
board and its officials amounting to illegal interference in the
possession of plaintiff and officials of defendant board on
27.9.2012 came over the schedule property and threatened the
plaintiff of dispossession and directed him to vacate the
schedule property and during the year 1996, the defendant
11 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
created problems to some of the site holders in land Sy.No.17,
wherein they have approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing
writ petition in W.P.No. 5807-883/1996, wherein the Hon'ble
High Court ordered that holders of site in Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village can approach the civil court to
establish their right, title and interest as well as their
possession in respect of their property in Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village and as such, the plaintiff herein
is similarly placed person and he appeared before this court in
pursuance of direction given by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in W.P.No.5807-833/1996 . Henc,e plaintiff alleging
cause of action for the suit arose to him on 27.9.2012, on
which date, the officers of the Defendant board came and
obstructed and interfered in his possession and also
threatened with dire consequences of the possession of the
plaintiff from the schedule property. Hence, the suit.
3. The defendant Board after receipt of summons issued
by this court appeared through counsel and filed written
statement and contending that at the out set, suit filed by the
plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction is not
maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is bad for
mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Defendant
denied the averments made by the plaintiff in para No.1 to 5 of
the pleadings are specifically denied and plaintiff's possession
12 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
of site No.47 and 48 formed in Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village and also denied specifically that
after demise of plaintiff's wife Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar
Math, plaintiff succeeded to schedule property on the basis of
succession as husband of deceased Smt.Shakuntala
Gangadhar Math and defendant also denied that
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., had
acquired Sy.No.17 a portion of land from original owner
Y.V.Anjanappa and on the said authority, Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., had formed revenue sites
in Sy.No.17 and the said society had allotted sites to its
members and plaintiff's wife is one of the member, who has
obtained site from that society by way of allotment and
defendant also denied that Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., had informed the plaintiff's wife on
25.1.1983 had intimated her of allotment of site No.47 and 48
and it is contended that there is no mention of execution of
registered sale deed from Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., in order to acquire title in respect of
these two sites. Hence, defendant denied the possession of
plaintiff's wife during her life time nor plaintiff's possession
after her demise in respect of suit schedule sites and
defendant also denied that alleged possession certificates
referred by the plaintiff are all concocted and plaintiff getting
the revenue records from the Grama Panchayath authorities
13 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
have created documents, which are not documents of title and
even plaintiff has created certain documents when this
property was taken over back by Byatarayanapura Grama
Panchayath and hence, defendant board has denied the entire
plaint allegations and acquire title by plaintiff's wife as
registered member of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative
Society ltd., and defendant specifically denied the allegations
of plaintiff that plaintiff succeeded to schedule property after
demise of his wife and he is in lawful possession and
enjoyment of suit schedule sites and defendant also denied the
allegations made in para No.6 to 10 by denying specifically the
possession of plaintiff in respect of site No.47 and 48 in
Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and also denied
cause of action as stated by the plaintiff and it is contended
that the suit filed by the plaintiff is speculative in nature.
Some how to knock of the valuable property belonging to
defendant board in the guise of an injunction suit.
The defendant in para No.7 of written statement pleaded
true facts that Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village is
having total extent of 29 acres 49 guntas and out of that
extent, 4 acres 8 guntas of that survey number of
Chikkabommasandra village near Yelahanka Satellite town,
Bengalure North Taluk was declared as an excess vacant land
and stood vested and acquired by the Government of
Karnataka under the provisions of Urban
14 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and thereafter, it was
ordered and handed over to the defendant board vide
Government order No.HUD.108 MCF95 dated 31.5.1995 for
the purpose of rehabilitating the slum dwellers and further
there was order by the Spl . Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
vide his letter No.ULC/CR/112/95-96 dated 5.10.1995
conveyed the approval to the Tahasildar, Bengalure North
Taluk to take over the possession of the land in view of Gazette
Notification published vide ULC 432/92-93 dated 27.2.1995
by the Spl . Deputy Commissioner and further to hand over
possession of the land to defendant board and consequently,
the Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk handed over possession
of the portion of land, which was declared as excess land
measuring 4 acres 8 guntas to the defendant on 11.12.1995
and accordingly, the defendant board is in possession and
enjoyment of the land granted to it measuring 4 acres 8 guntas
and as such, defendant board has denied the plaintiff's alleged
possession in respect of schedule site in Sy.No.17 and inspite
of plaintiffs not in possession of schedule property. But still
plaintiff is misleading this court in order to squat over the
property and plaintiff illegally attempting to come over the
property on false and imaginary grounds and defendant is not
aware of illegal transaction said to have been taken place by
real owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., and which is now defunct the
15 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
society and not in existence at present and earlier owner had
no rights over the vested land in Sy.No.17, which was vested
in favour of Government and suit schedule property comes
squarely within the Government land and as such, plaintiffs
have no right to claim plaint schedule property as belongs to
Government and defendant has denied the cause of action as
alleged in the plaint and as such, defendant claims title and
possession in respect of portion of land Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village measuring 4acres 8 guntas as
per the grant made on 11.12.1995 in order to rehabilitate
slum dwellers by the defendant board and defendant board
contended that an area measuring 4 acres 8 guntas has been
transferred by transferring the possession by the Government
of Karnataka and ULC authorities, wherein an extent of land
out of Sy.No.17 measuring 17 acres 8 guntas was already
declared extra vacant land under the provision of ULCR Act
1976. Hence, defendant denied the alleged cause of action and
alleged interference and dispossession of the plaintiffs from the
schedule property and also denied the claim of Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., that on the strength of
authority executed by original owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa, the
society had formed residential sites out of Sy.No.17 and
plaintiff' s wife was an allottee of this site in the layout formed
therein. Hence, defendant board contended that the suit is not
maintainable and also plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of
16 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
permanent injunction much less other consequential reliefs.
Hence, defendant pray for dismissal of the suit with exemplary
costs in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 7557/2012 has filed this suit
through her S.P.A holder namely Smt. Shantha R.Hiremath
wife of Syamasundar Joshi, wherein the plaintiff Smt. Leela
Hiremath filed this suit through her agent against defendant
slum board in respect of suit schedule property bearing No.60
said to have been formed in Sy.No.17 measuring east-west 40
feet and north-south 30 feet situated at Chikkabommasandra
village, which is described in the schedule annexed to the
plaint and site No.60 described by the plaintiff reads as under:-
SCHEDULE
Site bearing No. 60 formed in Sy.No.17 measuring
east-west 40 feet and north-south 30 feet situated at
Chikkabommasandra village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalure
North Taluk bounded on:-
East by: Site No.61
West by: Site No.59,
North by: Site No.49,
South by: Road.
17 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
and plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction
against defendant board.
And on perusal of the pleadings filed by this plaintiff in
O.S. No. 7557/2012, wherein the plaintiff has pleaded the
same set of pleadings as that of plaintiff in O.S. No.
7553/2012 , wherein plaintiff in this suit also pleaded that
she was the member of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative
Society ltd., and the said society was involved in forming of
housing layout in and around Bengaluru city and one of such
layout, which was formed by Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., is in respect of Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village , Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalure
North Taluk and said society on 20.2.1983 had intimated the
plaintiff stating that it had allotted site No.60 to her and
called upon her to pay full value of site allotted to her within
15 days from thereof and to get the sale deed from
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., and as
such, plaintiff claims to have purchased the schedule site
No.60 after paying its full value of the site to Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., and on 6.5.1983 she
obtained possession certificate and put her in her of schedule
site and plaintiff claims that her name has been mutated in
site No. 60 in Grama Panchayath records from
Byatarayanapura as site No.60 vested with jurisdiction of
18 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Byatarayanapura Grama Panchayath and subsequently the
Sy.No.17 was vested with jurisdiction of T.M.C, Yelahanka and
schedule property site no.60o was vested with jurisdiction of
T.M.C, Yelahanka and on 2.1.1996, T.M.C. Yelahanka had
collected Rs.2,800/- towards betterment charges and
thereafter, it had created katha in the name of plaintiff and
plaintiff's name mutated as katha holder since the year 1995-
1996 in the records maintained by T.M.C, Yelahanka and
hence, plaintiff claim her lawful possession and enjoyment of
suit schedule property in respect of site No.60 and plaintiff
also pleaded that there was proceedings held under ULCR Act
against original owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and Spl. Deputy
Commissioner had passed order declared an area
approximately 4 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.17 as excess vacant
land in Sy.No.17 and ordered to take possession of this excess
vacant land under the provision of ULCR and directed the
Tahasildar to take possession, but 16 guntas of land in
Sy.No.17 was already developed. Hence, Tahasildar could not
obtain possession and accordingly, he informed the Deputy
Commissioner of this fact and plaintiff claims that she is in
lawful possession and enjoyment of site No.60 and though
there was order for grant of 4 acres, 8 guntas of land to
defendant board, but defendant board did not obtained
possession of this extent of land and defendant is not in
possession of any extent of land Sy.No.17, but defendant board
19 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
on 27.9.2012 illegally interfering in her possession and also
threatening the plaintiff of dispossession from the schedule
property and as such, plaintiff on the alleged cause of action
as stated in para No.11 of the plaint constrained to file the suit
for permanent injunction against defendant board.
The plaintiff further alleged that original owner
Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa executed an agreement of sale and power
of attorney in favour of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative
Society ltd., on 1.2.1983 and Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., on the basis of power of attorney given
by late Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and his children formed private
layout in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and sold
all the sites so formed by them including the suit schedule
property to the plaintiff and plaintiff was one of the allottee
from Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., and
that is how the plaintiff came in possession of suit schedule
property and acquired possessory title to the suit schedule
property and accordingly, plaintiff has been in lawful
possession of the suit schedule property bearing No.60 formed
in Sy.No.17 of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society
ltd., was not party to the ULCR proceedings held before
Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and
ULCR authorities did not acquiring the entire extent of land
Sy.No.17 since by then portion of land Sy.No.17 houses have
20 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
come up. Consequently they could not deliver possession
of the land to the revenue authorities and revenue authorities
in turn did not put the defendant board in possession of
entire extent of Sy.No.17 and accordingly, the defendant board
came in possession of the entire extent of land Sy.No.17 and
defendant board having not taken possession of suit
schedule property, which is part of Sy.No.17 cannot contend
that the property, which is in the possession of plaintiff is one
belonging to them and if defendant board wants to take
possession of the suit schedule property from the plaintiff, they
should resort to due process of law and they cannot
dispossess a plaintiff, who is in lawful possession and settled
possession of property in a barbarous or arbitrary manner. In
that view of the matter, the attempts made by the officers of
the defendant board on 27.9.2012 is illegal, unjust and
improper and hence, plaintiff constrained to file the suit for
permanent injunction and further plaintiff also pleaded that
during the year 1996, the defendant board created problems
to some of the site holders in land bearing Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village , they in order to protect their
property have approached Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
filing W.P.No.5807-833/1996 before Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka, wherein Hon'ble High Court has ordered that the
holders of the site No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village to
approach the Civil Court to establish their right, title and
21 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
interest as well as their possession in respect of properties in
Sy.No.17 and as such, plaintiff herein is similarly placed
person and accordingly, plaintiff has filed this suit for
permanent injunction in pursuance of the direction given by
the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.Nos.58-7-883/1996. Hence,
plaintiff in the suit alleging cause of action one arose on
27.9.2012 on which date, the defendant's officials came near
the schedule property and made illegal attempt to dispossess
the plaintiff from the suit schedule sites. Hence plaintiff
constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction against
defendant board.
4. On perusal of the written statement filed in this suit
by the defendant board, wherein the defendant board has
taken preliminary objections contending that at the threshold
the suit is not maintainable as the suit is bad for mis-joinder
and non-joinder of necessary parties and further defendant
filed written statement, which is similar to that of written
statement filed in O.S. No.7553/2012, wherein the defendant
board denied the entire case of the plaintiff and also denied
plaintiff's title and possession in respect of site No.60 alleged
to have been carved out in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra
village and also specifically denied the plaintiff's lawful
possession or settled possession over the site No. 60 and
further defendant specifically denied the allegations that
22 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
original owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and his children have
executed GPA and affidavit in favour of Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., on 1.12.1983 in respect
of Sy.No.17 for its development and thereafter, on the
strength of alleged GPA and affidavit executed by Sri.
Y.V.Anjanappa, Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society
ltd., had formed revenue layout in Sy.No.17 out of its total
extent in portion of the land and sold sites to different
purchasers and plaintiff is one of the aspirant to purchase the
site from Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd.,
and as such, defendant board denied the title and saleable
right of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd.,
and formation of the sites in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra
village and defendant also denied the allegations that though
a portion of land measuring 4 acres 8 guntas was ordered to
be allotted in favour of defendant board, but portion of 17
guntas of land out of Sy.No.17 was already developed as
houses have been constructed in said portion of land and as
such, the Tahasildar could not deliver possession because of
development in portion of 17 guntas of land and hence,
defendant also denied the allegations that Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., was not party to the
ULCR proceedings and on the contrary, the defendant
specifically pleaded that land to an extent of 4 acres 8 guntas
in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village, near Telahanka
23 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Satellite town, Bengalure North Taluk was declared as an
excess vacant land as per the orders of Spl. Deputy
Commissioner in ULCR proceedings held against original
owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and others and thereby the
Government passed order allotting 4 acres 8 guntas of land to
defendant slum board for the purpose of rehabilitating the
slum dwellers and according to the orders of Spl. Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru dated 5.10.1995 conveyed the
approval to the Tahasildar , Bengalure North Taluk to take
over the possession of the declared land and in view of
Gazette Notification published vide No.ULC-432/92-93 dated
27.7.1995 issued by Spl. Deputy Commissioner, wherein, the
Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk handed over possession of
the land Sy.No.17 to this defendant on 11.12.1995. Hence,
the defendant denied the plaintiff's possession in respect of
suit schedule property by denying the plaintiff's alleged lawful
possession or settled possession over the suit site and further
defendant denied its knowledge regarding any illegal
transaction said to have been taken place between original
owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., and it is also contended that the said
Housing Co-operative Society , which has now become defunct
and not in existence at present. Hence, defendant denied the
cause of action alleged by the plaintiff and the one alleged is
24 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
false and fictitious and hence, with this defense, defendant
contested the suit and pray for dismissal of the suit with costs.
5. The plaintiff in O.S. No.7562/2012 filed this suit for
permanent injunction against defendant slum board alleging
that plaintiff is the owner and in lawful and settled possession
of suit schedule property bearing site No.28 having C.M.C
katha No.17, measuring east-west 30 feet and north-south 42
feet situated at Chikkabommasandra village, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk within the boundaries as shown in the
schedule of the plaint:-
SCHEDULE
House property bearing site No.28 having CMC katha
No.17, measuring east-west 30 feet and north-south 42 feet
situated at Chikkabommasandra village, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bengalure North Taluk bounded on:-
East by: Site No.27
West by: Site No.29,
North by: 25 feet road,
South by: Site No.44.
The plaintiff herein also pleaded that she is the purchaser
of site No.28 formed in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra
25 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
village from Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society
ltd., , wherein plaintiff has acquired title to the suit schedule
property by virtue of issuance of possession certificate dated
22.4.1984 and plaintiff has relied upon the Xerox copy of
possession certificate contending that the original possession
certificate has been produced by the vendor of the plaintiff
herein in O.S. No.7345/1996 and plaintiff undertakes to
produce the original possession certificate after obtaining
return of the original possession certificate from that court
with the assistance of her vendor. Hence, plaintiff claims for
dispensation of production of original possession certificate
and plaintiff also alleged that when she purchased site no.28 at
that time, this property Sy.No.17 was coming within the
jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura village and on the basis of
possession certificate, Grama Panchayath, Byatarayanapura
entered the name of plaintiff as katha holder in respect of site
No.28 in the name of Smt. Shankaramma, the vendor of the
plaintiff herein and later, they have entered the name of
plaintiff on the basis of sale deed dated 17.7.2006 executed by
Smt. Shankaramma in favour of present plaintiff and plaintiff
has relied upon katha certificate in respect of site No.28 and
plaintiff stated that on the basis of sale deed, she regularly
paying tax to the local authority to the schedule site property
and plaintiff has relied upon the tax paid receipts and other
revenue documents in respect of her title and possession and
26 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
plaintiff stated that suit schedule site is part of Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village, wherein it is totally measuring
29 acres 4 guntas and out of this extent, the holding of Sri.
Y.V.Anjanappa was 4 acres 8 guntas and after coming into
force of ULCR Act 1976, the Deputy Commissioner for Urban
Land Ceiling initiated proceedings against Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa
and ordered to acquire an area measuring 16,806.28 square
meters out of Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village
belonging to Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and the area ordered to be
acquired was equivalent 4 acres 8 guntas and plaintiff also
stated that as per the records of the Government, wherein the
Government ordered to hand over 4 acres 8 guntas of land to
defendant slum board for rehabilitating the slum dwellers and
some sort of proceedings was held between Government and
defendant board and it is also borne out from the records
that the Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk and delivered
portion of land bearing Sy.No.17 to defendant board and an
area measuring 17 guntas in Sy.No.17 was developed land
as houses have been built therein and Tahasildar reported the
matter to the Deputy Commissioner and accordingly, the
Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk did not delivered the
possession of 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.17 and suit schedule
property, which is the subject matter of suit comes in said 17
guntas of land of Chikkabommasandra village in Sy.No.17 and
plaintiff also pleaded that the defendant board way back in
27 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
the year 1996 once interfered with the possession of persons,
who have constructed houses in Sy.No.17 and at that time, the
said persons have approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing
writ petitions in W.P.No.5807-833/1996 , wherein Hon'ble High
Court by order dated 17.9.1996 had disposed of all the writ
petitions and directed the petitioners to resolve their disputes
by approaching Civil Court by establishing their right, title and
interest including possession over the sites, which are formed
in Sy.No.17 and plaintiff also pleaded that the defendant board
did not interfered with her possession during1996 till
27.9.2012 on the basis of interim order granted in the writ
petitions and on 27.9.2012 the officers of defendant board
came near the schedule property and informed the plaintiff
stating that it is the property belongs to defendant's board and
directed the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the vacant
possession of the suit schedule property to them and plaintiff
also alleged that there was document executed by original
owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and his children in favour of
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., on
1.12.1983 by execution of GPA and affidavit for the purpose
of development of Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village
and on the basis of power of attorney given by Sri.
Y.V.Anjanappa, Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society
ltd., had formed sites and allotted to various persons and
plaintiff's father was none of the allottee from Malleshwaram
28 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., and she transferred her
title to the plaintiff under sale deed and hence, plaintiff claims
to be in possession of schedule site bearing No.28 under
registered sale deed and also claimed settled possession in
respect of site No.28 and further contended that though
defendant obtained land to the extent of 4 acres 8 guntas of
land, which is declared excess under the provisions of ULCR
Act by the orders of Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, but the
defendant board did not came in possession of the said extent
of land in Sy.No.17 and there is no delivery of possession of 4
acres 8 guntas of land to the defendant board by recourse to
Land Acquisition Act and though there was order by the
Spl.Deputy Commissioner directing the Tahasildar, Bengalure
North Taluk to hand over possession of the declared land
Sy.No.17, but a portion of land out of Sy.No.17 to the extent of
17 guntas was already developed and at that point of time by
raising houses in 17 guntas of land and as such, the
Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk could not handed over
possession of entire extent of land to defendant board and as
such, plaintiff alleged that defendant board did not came in
possession of the alleged piece of land in Sy.No.17 and on the
contrary, the officers of defendant board under the guise of
allotment of land to the extent of 4 acres 8 guntas , which is
declared as excess holding out of ULCR proceedings is causing
interference and also threatening the plaintiff of dispossessing
29 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
the plaintiff from peaceful possession of site No.28 and also
defendant and its officers are threatening the plaintiff with dire
consequences of dispossession. Hence, plaintiff has alleged
cause of action dated 27.9.2012 and there is threat over the
possession from the defendant and its officers and hence,
plaintiff constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction
against defendant and its officers in respect of suit site No.28.
6. The defendant board filed written statement and on
perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant, wherein
this written statement is also similar to that of the written
statement filed in other connected suits O.S. No.7553/2012
and 7557/2012 , wherein the defendant denied the case of the
plaintiff in toto and also denied the title and possession of the
plaintiff in respect of suit schedule site No.28 said to have
been formed in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village
measuring 30'X42' and defendant also specifically denied that
there was document executed by Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa in favour
of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., on
1.12.1983 and on the strength of GPA and affidavit,
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., formed
sites in Sy.No.17 and allotted to different persons and
plaintiff's vendor is one of the allottee purchased site No.28
from Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., and
as such, defendant contended that the plaintiff's vendor did
30 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
not acquire any title under sale deed dated 17.7.2006 and as
such, defendant in the written statement contended that the
Government has initiated ULCR proceedings as original owner
Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village
under the provisions of ULCR Act 1976 and thereby the
Government had passed orders declaring that an area
measuring 4 acres 8 guntas is excess holding in the hands of
original owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and accordingly, Spl. Deputy
Commissioner had ordered to take possession of this excess
holding under the provision of ULCR Act and directed the
Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk to take possession of the
land and to hand over the same in favour of defendant board,
which is allotted to this slum board for the purpose of
rehabilitating the slum dwellers to some extent of land.
Hence, defendant denied the title and alleged lawful
possession and settled possession in respect of site No.28
formed in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and on the
contrary, defendant denied the plaintiff's possession and title
in toto and also contended that defendant is not aware of any
illegal transactions that have taken place between Sri.
Y.V.Anjanappa and his children with Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., . Hence, defendant denied the cause
of action and also denied alleged interference to the plaintiffs
on 27.9.2012 and on the contrary, defendant specifically
contended that by virtue of orders of Spl. Deputy
31 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Commissioner , Bengaluru dated 5.10.1995 conveyed the
approval to Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk to take over
possession of the land and also there was gazette notification
published under ULC 432/92-93 dated 27.7.1995 by the Spl.
Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru and to hand over the
possession to the defendant board and on 11.12.1995 the
Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk has handed over possession
of the land allotted to the defendant's board on 11.12.1995
and as such, defendant claims to be in possession of land to
the extent of 4 acres 8 guntas and as such, defendant denied
the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e.,
site No.28 and also contended that cause of action is non
existence one and it is false and fictitious . Hence, defendant
prays for dismissal of the suit.
7. Based upon these pleadings of the parties, the
following issues are framed in all the cases :-
O.S. No. 7553/2012
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the
alleged interference of the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
reliefs sought for?
32 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
4. What order or decree?
O.S. No. 7557/2012
1 Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property?
2 Whether the plaintiff further proves the
alleged interference of the defendants?
3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
sought for?
4 What order or decree?
O.S. No. 7562/2012
1 Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property?
2 Whether the plaintiff further proves the
alleged interference of the defendants?
3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
sought for?
4 What order or decree?
8. In order to prove their respective cases, the plaintiffs
have given their evidence, wherein in main suit, plaintiff Sri.
V.S.Gangadhar Math has filed his affidavit evidence and also
further examined as P.W.1 in continuation of his affidavit
33 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
evidence and P.W.1 further examined and got marked
documents Ex.P.1 to P.26 and with this evidence, plaintiff side
evidence is closed and on behalf of defendant board, one
Sri.H.D.Subramanayam working as Asst., Executive Engineer
in defendant's board is examined as D.W.1 and in his
evidence in main suit documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5 are came to
be marked.
And in O.S. No.7557/2012, the plaintiff's S.P.A holder
Smt. Shantha R.Hiremath is examined as P.W.1 and she filed
her affidavit evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief on
8.1.2015 and P.W.1 further examined and got marked
documents Ex.P.1 to P.21 and closed her evidence and in this
suit, the very witness Sri.H.D.Subramanayam working as
Asst., Executive Engineer working in defendant slum board is
examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5 in his
oral evidence and with this evidence, defendant side is closed.
In O.S. No.7562/2012 the plaintiff Smt. Jyothi Rao wife
of Sri.Jayaprakash has given her evidence by filing affidavit
evidence filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and P.W.1 further
examined and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.18 and with
this evidence, her side evidence is closed and in this case also
defendant board examined its official working in this slum
board namely Sri.H.D.Subramanayam working as Asst.,
34 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Executive Engineer, who has deposed on behalf of defendant
board by examining himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1
to Ex.D.5 in this case and with this evidence, defendant side
evidence is closed.
9. The learned counsel appearing for plaintiff cross
examined to D.W.1 in detail in O.S. No.7553/2012 and a memo
is filed in O.S. No.7557/2012 and 7562/2012 to adopt the
cross-examination of D.W.1 directed to the said witness in
O.S. No.7553/2012 to other two cases i.e., O.S. No.7557/2012
and 7562/2012 respectively and this memo filed by the
plaintiff's counsel dated 2.3.2006 is taken on record and cross-
examination directed to D.W.1 in main case is adopted in
respect of the other two cases also and after closing the
evidence of both the parties, these three cases are posted for
arguments.
10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the plaintiff, wherein he has relied upon the
following 4 citations in support of his arguments addressed in
respect of these three cases and on the other hand , I have
heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the
defendant slum board and heard his arguments and he relied
upon one decisions are as follows:-
35 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
The counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the following
decision in support of his case:
1 AIR 1989 S.C 2097(Krishna Ram
Mahale(Dead) n by his LRs Vs. Mrs.
Shobha Venkat Rao)
2 2011(5) S.C.C 386( Prahlad Singh and
others Vs. Union of India and others)
3 AIR 1975 S.C 1767 ( Balwant
Narayana Bhagde Vs. M.D.Bhagwat
and others)
4 ILR 1995 Karnataka 183( C.Bhaskar
Vs. State of Karnataka)
The advocate for plaintiff has produced the
certified copy of order dated 31.7.2015 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.638/2013 is as follows:-
1 RFA No.638/2013 C/W others suits
( The Karnataka Slum Areas Vs.
S.Umesh and others)
The counsel for defendant has relied upon the following
decision in support of his case:
1. ILR 2007 Karnataka 5121
(M.B.Bettaswamy Vs. The Commissioner,
36 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
BDA and another)
11. After hearing the reply arguments and on
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, and also perused the citations left by the counsel for
plaintiff, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has disposed of batch
of RFA No.611 and other connected appeals by judgment
dated 31.7.2015 and counsel for plaintiff has filed certified
copy of judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court in RFA
No.611/2013 and connected batch of RFAs order dated
31.7.2015 along with memo in this case and hence, after
perusal of pleadings, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and considering the "P" series
and "D" series documents and also considering the citations
and other arguments materials, I answer the above issues in
all the cases are as follows:-
Issue No.1 in all the In the negative;
cases:
Issue No.2 in all the In the affirmative;
cases:
Issue No.3 in all the The plaintiffs in all the suits
cases: are entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction against
defendant board not to
dispossess the plaintiffs from
the suit schedule property until
37 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
and unless following due
process of law;
Issue N.4 in all the The suits filed by the plaintiffs
cases: deserve to be decreed against
defendant without any order as
to costs for the following
reasons:-
REASONS
12. Issue No.1 in all the cases: The plaintiffs in all the
three suits have filed these suits for the relief of permanent
injunction against defendant board in respect of suit schedule
property as described in the schedule annexed to the plaint,
wherein it is the case of the plaintiff in O.S. No.7553/2012,
wherein plaintiff pleaded that his wife was the member of
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., wherein
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., had
formed residential layout in Sy.No.17 Chikkabommasandra
village , Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalure North Taluk after
acquiring land from its original owner one Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa
and after formation of residential layout, Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., has allotted a residential
site in favour of plaintiff's wife late Smt.Shakuntala
Gangadhar Math and deceased wife of the plaintiff had paid
sale consideration amount as fixed by the Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., in respect of suit
38 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
schedule sites bearing No. 47 and 48 formed in Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village measuring east-west 60+58/2
feet and north to south 40+37/2 feet situated within the
boundaries to the east by road, west by site No.49, north by
road, and south by site No.61 and 62 and it is the case of the
plaintiff that that Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative
Society ltd., had issued possession certificate , allotment
letter and put the plaintiff in possession of the allotted site and
thereafter, name of the deceased wife Smt.Shakuntala
Gangadhar Math was entered in the Grama Panchayath
records of Byatarayanapura and plaintiff's wife was paying tax
to the property and as such, the plaintiffs has alleged that his
wife, who came in possession of schedule site obtained from
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., and
accordingly, she was paying tax during her life time and her
name was mutated in the revenue records pertaining to the
schedule site and thereafter, the schedule property was vested
with jurisdiction of C.M.C, Byatarayanapura and plaintiff's
wife was paying tax to C.M.C, Byatarayanapura and now
after demise of Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math, the plaintiff,
who is the Legal Representative of deceased wife
Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math has succeeded to the
schedule property and as such, plaintiff alleged interference
by the defendant board to his possession, wherein defendant
board is trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit
39 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
schedule property and trying to assert its title and possession
alleging that the defendant board was granted with 4 acres 8
guntas of land by the orders of Spl. Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru as 4 acres and 8 guntas of land was declared as
excess holding under the provision of ULCR Act 1976 in which,
ULCR proceedings were initiated against original owner Sri.
Y.V.Anjanappa and in the said ULCR proceedings an area
measuring 4 acres 8 guntas was declared as excess land as
per Sec.10 of ULCR Act 1976 and Spl. Deputy Commissioner
in his order to take possession of the said extent of land to
Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk, who in turn had obtained
possession of the said land in view of letter dated 5.10.1995
and accordingly, the Tahasildar has taken possession of the
excess holding in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village by
drawing mahazar on 11.12.1995 and the said land was
granted by the Government to the Secretary of defendant
board for the purpose of rehabilitation of slum dwellers and as
such, defendant on the strength of alleged grant or allotment
of land in Sy.No.17 is causing obstruction and interference
and attempted to dispossess the, plaintiff wherein defendant
and its officials came over the schedule property on 27.9.2012
made attempt to interfere in the possession of plaintiff over the
suit schedule property and tried to dispossess him from the
suit schedule property. Hence, plaintiff constrained to file the
suit against defendant board.
40 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
13. O.S. No. 7557/2012 is filed by the plaintiff in
respect of site No.609 carved out in Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalure
North Taluk measuring 40X 30 feet, wherein plaintiff also
pleaded that she is the member of Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., and she has paid consideration
amount as fixed for site No.60 measuring 40X 30 feet and
purchased the site from Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative
Society ltd., and plaintiff also alleged that defendant board
asserting its title in respect of 4 acres 8 guntas of land in
Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village on the premises of
the grant of land by the Government of Karnataka in favour of
defendant board and possession was handed over on
11.12.1995 and there is interference to her possession by the
defendant and its officials and plaintiff has alleged the
interference dated 27.9.2012 and defendant's officials tried to
dispossess her from the suit schedule property and hence,
plaintiff apprehending illegal dispossession by the defendant
and its officials has constrained to file the suit for permanent
injunction relief.
14. In connected suit O.S. No.7562/2012, the plaintiff
Smt.Jyothi Rao claims to be the purchaser of site No.28 under
sale deed dated 17.7.2006 , wherein plaintiff's vendor one Smt.
41 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Shankaramma, wife of S.Lingappa was the owner of the said
site No.28 carved out in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra
village and site No.28 having C.M.C katha No.17, measuring
east-west 30 feet and north-south 42 feet situated at
Chikkabommasandra village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalure
North Taluk and plaintiff claims to have purchased the said
property under sale deed dated 17.7.2006 and claims her title
and possession over the suit schedule site and she also alleged
that the defendant board is causing obstruction and trying to
oust/dispossess her from the suit schedule site. Hence,
plaintiff alleged cause of action and interference to her
possession on 27.9.2012 , wherein the officials of defendant
board came near the schedule property and informed her
stating that, it belongs to defendant board and directed the
plaintiff to vacate and hand over the possession of the
schedule property. Hence, plaintiff apprehending dispossession
from the suit schedule property constrained to file the suit for
permanent injunction.
15. The defendant board in all the suits appeared and
filed written statement, wherein the defense filed by the
defendant board is one and the same in all the cases,
wherein defendant board claims that Sy.No.17 was originally
belongs to one Muniyappa measuring 29 acres 4 guntas and
out of it, 7 acres was belongs to Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and there
42 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
was ULCR proceedings initiated against Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa
and others under the provisions of ULCR Act by the Spl.
Deputy Commissioner (ULCR), Bengaluru and after conducting
proceedings under ULCR Act, the Spl. Deputy Commissioner
held that 4 acres 8 guntas of land was found to be excess
holding in the hands of Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and accordingly,
the Spl. Deputy Commissioner ordered to take possession of
this excess holding of 4 acres 8 guntas and directed the
Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk to take possession of this
land as it is vested in Government and accordingly, the
Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk after conducting mahazar
had taken possession of the excess holding declared under the
ULCR proceedings to the extent of 18,806.28 square meters of
excess holding corresponding to 4 acres 8 guntas of land in
Sy.No.17 and the said land was handed over to Karnataka
Slum Board for rehabilitating the slum dwellers and hence,
defendant board claims that plaintiffs are not in possession of
any portion of land and as such, defendant board asserted its
title and possession over Sy.No.17 to the extent of 4 acres 8
guntas of land and denied the possession of plaintiffs in all the
three suits and also denied their title claimed by the plaintiff
in all the cases. Hence, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff in
all the three suits that they should established their valid title
in respect of the site properties involved in all the 3 sites and
also to prove their lawful possession as on the date of suit
43 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
including interference/obstruction for their alleged possession
by the defendant board.
16. In O.S. No.7553/2012, the plaintiff himself is
examined as P.W.1 through affidavit evidence filed under
Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC in lieu of examination-in-chief and on
perusal of the affidavit evidence filed by the plaintiff in this
case, wherein he deposed that his wife Smt.Shakuntala
Gangadhar Math was the member of Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., and she has obtained site No.47
and 48 from Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society
ltd., wherein the said society was involved in forming of
housing layout in and around Bengaluru and one of such
layout formed by it at Chikkabommasandra village in land
bearing Sy.No.17 of that village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalure
North Taluk and on 25.1.1983 the Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., had informed his wife stating that
they had allotted site No.47 and 48 to her and called upon her
to pay the value of the sites allotted to her within 15 days and
got the sale deed executed from the society and accordingly, in
pursuance of the said intimation, plaintiff's wife had paid full
value of the site to the said society and upon receiving the
consideration in respect of site allotted to her, Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., allotted suit schedule
property site in favour of Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math
44 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
and issued possession certificate on 6.5.1983 and put her in
possession of site No.47 and 48 and as such, P.W.1 in his
affidavit evidence stated that his wife was in enjoyment of
schedule site till her death as she passed away on 29.5.1998
and after her demise, husband of Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar
Math has been lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property and accordingly, plaintiff's name came to be
entered in the records of Grama Panchayathm
Byatarayanapura and thereafter, this property was
subsequently included within the local limits of T.M.C,
Yelahanka and in the year 1993-1994, the name of
Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math, the name of
Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math was entered as katha holder
of these two sites and she was remitting tax to T.M.C,
Yelahanka and she paid tax during her life time and thereafter,
plaintiff's name came to be entered after demise of his wife on
29.5.1998 and P.W.1 stated that he succeeded to the suit
schedule property on the death of his wife and now he is
paying tax to the local authority and his name came to be
entered in katha extract as per the application made by him
and P.W.1 stated that the defendant and its officials are
interfering in hi possession and hence, P.W.1 stated that
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., had
acquired property from one Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and formed
sites in Sy.No.17 and allotted to its members and P.W.1 also
45 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
stated that Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa executed an agreement of sale
and power of attorney in favour of Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., on 1.12.1983 and on the basis of
power of attorney given by Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and his children,
the said society formed residential layout and distributed and
allotted sites to its registered members and plaintiff's wife is
one of the member of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative
Society ltd., and she obtained site for value allotted to her and
as such, P.W.1 in his affidavit evidence stated that in the year
1996, the defendant created problem to some of the site
holders in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and
allottes of sites in order to protect their respective sites have
preferred writ petition before Hon'ble High Court in
W.P.No.5807-833/1996 and Hon'ble High Court disposed of
these batch of writ petitions and ordered that site holders in
Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village shall approach Civil
Court to establish their right, title and interest as well as
their possession in respect of their site properties allotted to
have been carved out in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra
village and accordingly, P.W.1 stated that similarly he placed
as person an allottee of site in Sy.No.17 and hence, on the
basis of direction issued in the writ petition, he has
constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction. Hence,
P.W.1 deposed his evidence by way of this affidavit evidence
and stated that he is the successor to the suit schedule sites
46 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
bearing No.47 and 48 carved out in Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village and hence, P.W.1 prays to
grant permanent injunction relief claiming that he is in settled
possession having title and lawful possession over the suit
schedule properties as on the date of suit and P.W.1 got
marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.26, which are marked through
his evidence. The said documents are as follows:-
Ex.P.1 Katha certificate issued by ARO
Yelahanka Sub Division BBMP
Bangalore dated 26-6-2013
Ex.P.2: Endorsement issued by the
corporation dated 26-6-2013
Ex.P.3: Extract of assessment of buildings
and open sites for the year 2013-2014
issued by the BBMP dated 26-6-2013
Ex.P.4: Acknowledgement for the year 2013-
2014 dated 25-6-2013
Ex.P.5: Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.6 & P.7: Judgment and decree in
O.S.No.7111/1996 of CCH-12
Ex.P.8: Intimation letter dated 25.1.1983
Ex.P.9: Possession certificate dated
6.5.1983(Carbon Copy)
Ex.P.10: Katha extract for the year 1991-1992
Ex.P.11 & 12: Tax paid receipts(Two numbers)
Ex.P.13: Assessment extract of the year 1995-
1996
Ex.P.14: Certificate of death dated 2.7.1998 in
respect of wife of P.W.1
47 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Ex.P.15: Certified copy of tax receipt dated
14.7.2009
Ex.P.16 to 19: 5 acknowledgments issued by
BBMP dated 14.7.2009 and on other
dates regarding the receipt of demand
drafts.
Ex.P.20 to 22: 3 certified copies of tax receipts
Ex.P.23 to 26: 3 photographs and CD
17. The counsel appearing for the defendant cross
examined P.W.1 in O.S. No.7553/2012, wherein P.W.1 claims
that he is the owner of two sites bearing No.47 and 48
claiming that he has purchased these two sites from
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., However,
he admits that he is not member of Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., whereas his wife Smt.Shakuntala
Gangadhar Math was the member of Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., and P.W.1 stated that he do not
know whether he has produced any documents in this suit
and his wife was member of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., and P.W.1 stated that his wife had
purchased schedule site out of converted land, but he has not
produced any documents to show that the schedule sites are
formed out of conversion land by the Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., . However, P.W.1 stated that
48 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., has
formed residential layout by forming about 100 to 200
residential sites and also obtained approved layout plan in
respect of formation of layout, but P.W.1 admits that he has
not produced any such approved layout map approved by the
competent authority for the formation of sites and P.W.1
admits that he has verified about title documents in respect
of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., having
title over Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and P.W.1
undertaken to produce the approved layout map in respect of
formation of layout in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village
and P.W.1 admits that there is no sale deed executed by
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., in favour
of his wife Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math and P.W.1 denied
that Ex.P.8 and P.9 are not documents of title and they have
been created and produced for the purpose of this case and
P.W.1 admits that he has not constructed any building over
site No.47 and 48. However according to P.W.1 he has
maintained garden in these two sites by retaining possession
and P.W.1 denied that he is not in possession of site No.47
and 48 in Sy.No.17 at any point of time as this land has been
allotted by the Government in favour of defendant board and
P.W.1 denied that the revenue documents marked at Ex.P.4
will not create any title and he further denied that Ex.P.10 to
P.22 are created documents by him for the purpose of this
49 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
case and P.W.1 denied that Ex.P.26 the photographs are not
pertaining to schedule site and P.W.1 admits that he has not
produced any documents to show that Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa has
sold Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village in favour of
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., and he
has not produced any documents to show that Tahasildar
could not obtain possession of 17 guntas of land out of
Sy.No.17 and P.W.1 denied that in the total extent of land in
Sy.No.17 wherein an area measuring 4 acres 8 guntas land is
defendant board and P.W.1 denied that he is not in lawful
possession of suit schedule sites.
18. P.W.1 in O.S. No.7557/2012, who is the S.P.A
holder of original plaintiff, wherein P.W.1 on the strength of
S.P.A executed by original plaintiff Smt.Leela Hiremath in her
affidavit has deposed through affidavit evidence filed under
Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and this affidavit evidence is treated as
examination-in-chief of P.W.1, wherein on perusal of this
affidavit evidence filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, wherein
the S.P.A holder of plaintiff has deposed in her affidavit
evidence that plaintiff is the owner of site No.60 carved out in
Sy.No.17 measuring east-west 40 feet and north-south 30 feet
situated at Chikkabommasandra village , Yelahanka Hobli,
Bengalure North Taluk and presently this property is
belonging to Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society
50 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
ltd., , wherein she was the member of Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., and that society had the object of
acquiring lands and to develop the same by forming residential
layout and distribute sites to its members and as such, P.W.1
stated that on 20.2.1983 , Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., had intimated her regarding allotment
of site No.60 to her and called upon to pay full value of the site
allotted to her within 15 days and to get execute sale deed from
the society and hence, P.W.1 stated that she was issued with
possession certificate on 6.5.1983 and put her in possession of
site No.60 allotted to her and accordingly, the name of plaintiff
came to be mutated in the records maintained by the Group
Panchayath Byatarayanapura and subsequently it was
included within the limits of T.M.C, Yelahanka . Subsequently
in the year 1993-1994 have entered the katha in the name of
plaintiff as kathedar and plaintiff used to pay tax to the local
authority i.e., previously to Grama Panchayath,
Byatarayanapura T.M.C, Yelahanka and as such, T.M.C ,
Yelahanka had collected a sum of Rs.2,800/- on 2.1.1996
towards betterment charges and she has paid the said charges
and hence, P.W.1 in her affidavit evidence deposed by
reiterating the facts as stated in the plaint. Hence, she claims
title over site No.60 and also claims possession over site No.60
as on the date of suit and P.W.1 deposed that there is
interference in her possession by the defendant board and its
51 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
officials and hence, P.W.1 has filed his affidavit evidence and
deposed her evidence relying upon the plaint averments filed in
this case and P.W.1, who is P.A holder of original plaintiff has
got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.21 in her oral evidence,
when P.W.1 examined on 20.4.2015. Ex.P.1 to P.21, which are
marked through P.W.1 are as follows:-
Ex.P.1 SPA deed dated 2-1-1997 executed in
favour of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 Intimation letter dated 20-2-1983 issued by
MT Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Ex.P.3: Possession certificate dated 6-5-1983
Ex.P.4: Extract of demand register
Ex.P.5: Receipt dated 14-10-1991 issued by
Secretary GP Byatarayanapura,
Ex.P.6: Another receipt dated 10-3-1993
Ex.P.7: Assessment of tax extract for the year
1995/1996 issued by Chief officer CMC
yelahanka,
Ex.P.8: Tax paid receipt issued by corporation
dated 18-6-2009
Ex.P.9: Acknowledgement issued by tax inspector
BBMP
Ex.P.10 to 3 Tax paid receipts
P.12:
Ex.P.12 to 3 Acknowledgements issued by BBMP
P.15:
Ex.P.17 & Certified copy of judgment and decree in
18: O.S.No.7111/1996 (CCH-12 )
52 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Ex.P.18 to Three photographs in respect of schedule
P.21 site along with C.D
Hence, P.W.1 relying upon her oral evidence and coupled
with the above marked documents from Ex.P.1 to P.21. Hence,
she prayed for grant of permanent injunction in order to
protect her settled possession over the suit schedule property.
19. The counsel for the defendant cross examined to
P.W.1 in this suit on 20.8.2015 , wherein P.W.1 admits that
original plaintiff is related to her sister and schedule site is at a
distance of 7 K.Ms from her residence and recently during
last month, she had visited the schedule site and P.W.1 stated
that she is aware of the facts of the case and she deposed that
this suit is filed in respect of site No.60 situated in land
bearing Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and schedule
site is measuring 40' X 30' and P.W.1 stated that in all, there
are 83 sites have been formed in Sy.No.17 by Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., and allotted to its
members and these sites are having different dimensions,
wherein the schedule site No.60 is facing towards south and
P.W.1 admits that there are approved layout plan/map
prepared by Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society
ltd., . But she has not produced any approved layout map
prepared by Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society
ltd., and she has not produced other connected documents
53 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
regarding approval for the approved layout map and P.W.1
stated that original plaintiff had obtained membership of
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., . But she
has not produced any documents in this case to show that
plaintiff was member of this housing society. However P.W.1
voluntarily stated that she can produce documents of
membership of the plaintiffs and P.W.1 admits that plaintiff
has not produced documents to show that she has received
Ex.P.2 and P.W.1 stated that original plaintiff might have
collected this intimation letter Ex.P.2 by approaching
personally before the office of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., and P.W.1 admits that she has not
produced any documents in the form of receipt to show that
plaintiff has deposited the amount as called in Ex.P.2 and
P.W.1 undertakes to produce the receipt to show that plaintiff
has paid full value of the alleged site on the next date of
hearing, but plaintiff failed to produce any such document
standing in the name of plaintiff and P.W.1 stated that plaintiff
has paid Rs.11,000/- to Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative
Society ltd., and plaintiff has not signed on Ex.P.3 for having
taken over possession of the schedule site and P.W.1 stated
that she has not produced any documents to show that how
much extent of land was in possession of Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., in entire Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village and P.W.1 stated that plaintiff in
54 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
order to prove her title has relied upon marked documents in
this suit and P.W.1 denied that Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., was having authentication to sell the
sites to its registered members and P.W.1 admits that
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., has not
executed any sale deed in respect of schedule site No.60 in
favour of original plaintiff and P.W.1 denied the suggestion
that Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., has
not executed any GPA or sale deed in favour of original
plaintiff and P.W.1 denied that land measuring 4 acres 8
guntas was allotted in favour of defendant board by the orders
of Government and P.W.1 denied that her examination-in-chief
affidavit contained with false information and P.W.1 denied
that plaintiff has obtained the documents filed and got marked
in this case by suppression of facts from the local authorities
and P.W.1 denied the suggestion that plaintiff has filed this
suit only with an object of snatching valuable property, which
belongs to defendant board and P.W.1 admits that she has
not produced the judgment copy in W.P.No.5807-833/1996
and P.W.1 denied that plaintiff is not in lawful possession of
suit schedule sites and as such, she is not entitled for any
relief of permanent injunction.
20. The plaintiff in O.S. No.7562/2012 has given
evidence as she has examined in the suit as P.W.1 by way of
affidavit evidence filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and on
55 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 filed in the form of affidavit,
wherein P.W.1 stated in para No.2 of her affidavit evidence that
she is the absolute owner of house property bearing site No.28
having C.M.C katha No.17 measuring east-west 30' and
north-south 42' situated at Chikkabommasandra village ,
Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalure North Taluk having purchased the
said property under sale deed dated 17.7.2006 from its vendor
Smt. Shankaramma wife of S.Lingappa, residing at No.164,
3rd Main Road, Gangenahalli, and hence, P.W.1 stated that
she has acquired title to the schedule property by virtue of
possession certificate issued by Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., dated 22.4.1984 and P.W.1 stated that
her name has been mutated in the Grama Panchayath records
of Byatarayanapura on the basis of possession certificate
issued by Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd.,
dated 22.4.1984 and her vendor was paying tax to the schedule
property and her vendors name was also entered in the Grama
Panchayath records on the basis of sale deed dated 17.7.2006
and hence, P.W.1 stated that after she purchased the schedule
property under sale deed dated 17.7.2006 from its vendor, her
name has been mutated as katha holder of this house site
No.28, C.M.C Katha No.17 and she is paying tax to the C.M.C,
authority and P.W.1 made reference regarding filing of writ
petition by the writ petitioners before Hon'ble High Court in
W.P.No.5807-833/1996 order dated 17.9.1996, wherein in this
56 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court directed the writ
petitioners to approach civil court to establish their right, title
and interest as well as their possession in respect of their
properties said to have been carved out Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village and in the said writ petition, it
was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the counsel
representing the slum board had taken shelter under Sec.
66 of Karnataka Slym Area (improvement and clearance)
Board Act 1973 and further observed in the writ petition and
granted interim orders and disposed of these writ petitions on
17.9.1996 directing the parties to approach civil court and
subsequently to the writ proceedings, she has purchased the
schedule property from Smt. Shankaramma. Hence, P.W.1 in
her affidavit evidence deposed that she is having title and
lawful possession in pursuance of the sale deed dated
17.7.2006. Hence, P.W.1 in her affidavit evidence stated the
facts as per the pleadings filed in this suit and P.W.1 in her
evidence got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.17 and P.W.1
relying upon her oral evidence and documentary evidence
marked through P.W.1 as per Ex.P.1 to P.18 are as follows:-
Ex.P.1 Intimation letter dated 20-2-1983 issued
by MT Co-operative Society Ltd
Ex.P.2: NOC issued by MT CS dated 22-4-1984
Ex.P.3: Extract of demand register for the year
1992-1993
57 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Ex.P.4: Tax paid receipt dated 9-12-1993
Ex.P.5: Assessment extract dated 29-7-1996
Ex.P.6: Original sale deed dated 17-7-2006
Ex.P.7: Khata extract
Ex.P.8: Extract of building and open site dated 19-
7-2011
Ex.P.9 to P.11 Three tax paid receipts
Ex.P.12 to P.15 Three acknowledgments
Ex.P.16 & P.17: one photographs of schedule site along
with its C.D
Ex.P.18: Certified copy of possession certificate
obtained from O.S. No.7345/1996
Hence, P.W.1 prays for grant of a decree for permanent
injunction against defendant's board
21. The counsel appearing for defendant board cross
examined to P.W.1, wherein she admits that there is distance
of 7 K.Ms from her residential address to that of suit schedule
property. P.W.1 admitted that she has purchased the schedule
property from one Shankaramma in the year 2006, which is
residential site and P.W.1 admits that prior to purchase the
schedule property, she has consulted lawyer and obtained
legal opinion in order to purchase the schedule property and
P.W.1 denied that in the year 2006, when she purchased the
schedule property, it was part of agricultural land and P.W.1
stated that she has verified the title of her vendor, wherein she
58 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
had acquired title over the property from Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., , wherein Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., had acquired title to this
property through original owner one Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and
she has verified the documents in respect of transfer of title
from Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa in favour of Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., and P.W.1 denied that Sri.
Y.V.Anjanappa had got excess land and the said excess land
has been acquired under the provisions of ULCR Act by the
Government and after such acquisition, it was handed over to
the possession of Government and P.W.1 admits that the
schedule property coming in the jurisdiction of
Chikkabommasandra village in Sy.No.17 and total extent of
Sy.No.17 is measuring 29 acres 5 guntas and P.W.1 admits
that she has verified the documents GPA and sale agreement
executed by Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa in favour of Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., , but she do not know
whether she has produced any alleged GPA and agreement of
sale documents executed by original owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa
in favour of Secretary, Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative
Society ltd., and except GPA and agreement of sale executed
by Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa in favour of Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., she do not know in respect of the
other documents and P.W.1 denied that the plaintiffs are
claiming rights in the schedule property to the extent of land
59 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
acquired by the Government from Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa under
ULCR Act as it was excess holding held by original owner Sri.
Y.V.Anjanappa to the extent of 4 acres 8 guntas and P.W.1
admits that she has deposed in para No.6 of her affidavit
evidence in respect of ULC proceedings held in respect of
Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and P.W.1 denied
that the Government has allotted the said excess land declared
under the provisions of ULCR Act in respect of 4 acres 8
guntas in favour of defendant board for the purpose of
allotment of sites to poor people and P.W.1 admits that she
has not produced any layout map or plan to show that
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., had
formed sites after obtaining approval from the competent
authority in portion of Sy.No.17 and P.W.1 admits that there
is no sale deed executed by Secretary, Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., in favour of her vendor Smt.
Shankaramma. But according to witness, her vendor was
issued with possession certificate and P.W.1 denied that she is
not the owner of schedule site. Hence, she is not entitled for
the relief of permanent injunction.
22. The defendant, who is common in all the three suits
has examined the Asst., Executive Engineer working in
Karnataka Slum Board by name H.D.Subramanya son of late
B.V.Devisiddegowda is examined as D.W.1 in all the three
60 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
suits and on perusal of the evidence of D.W.1 filed by way of
examination-in-chief in all the three suits under Order 18 Rule
4 of CPC, wherein the evidence of D.W.1 is common and
defense filed by defendant board in the written statement and
in the oral evidence of D.W.1 is common and hence, the
evidence of D.W.1 is discussed in main case No.7753/2012,
wherein D.W.1 also relied upon common documents, which are
marked in his evidence in the main case as per Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.5. Hence, D.W.1, who is an official witness working in the
Karnataka Slum Board at Bengaluru at present has given
evidence by filing affidavit evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of
CPC and on perusal of his evidence, wherein D.W.1 has denied
the claim of title and possession of plaintiffs in all the three
suits and also denied alleged interference dated 27.9.2012 and
D.W.1 also denied the title of Secretary, Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., to form any residential
sites/layout in portion of Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra
village and hence, D.W.1 in his rebuttal evidence denied the
alleged possession of plaintiffs in respect of site No.47, 48, site
No.60 and site No.28 and corresponding to C.M.C katha No.17
carved out in Sy.No.17 a portion of land in the portion of
original owner Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa measuring 17 guntas and
hence, D.W.1 in his rebuttal evidence denied the documents
relied by the plaintiffs contending that they are not the
documents of title and they have been created documents in
61 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
collusion with panchayath authorities and D.W.1 stated that
as per the orders of Spl. Deputy Commissioner (ULCR Act
1976, wherein the Government has initiated proceedings
against Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and his sons in respect of Sy.No.17
and after conducting detail proceedings under the provision of
ULCR Act, it was noticed that the original owner Sri.
Y.V.Anjanappa retained 7 acres of land out of total extent of
29 acres 4 guntas in Sy.No.17 and the Government has
noticed that original owner was holding excess possession of
agricultural land other than the prescribed limit to possess
agricultural land and as such, the Government has noticed
that the defendant, who was possessed extra holding to the
extent of 4 acres 8 guntas and accordingly, Spl. Deputy
Commissioner ordered to take over the possession of excess
holding of 4 acres 8 guntas corresponding to 16,606 square
meters in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village by his
letter No.ULC/CR/112/95-96 dated 5.10.1995 conveyed the
approval to the Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk and
directed him to take over possession of this land and also
published gazette notification vide No.ULC 432/92-93 dated
27.7.1995 by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru and
further to hand over possession to the defendant.
Consequently, the Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk has
handed over possession to defendant Board on 11.12.1995 and
as such, D.W.1 claims that Karnataka Slum Board is in
62 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
possession of the portion of Sy.No.17 and the said land was
granted to the Karnataka Slum Board in order to grant sites to
the beneficiary under the scheme called JNNURM ( Jawaharlal
Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission) Bengaluru and D.W.1
also stated that this portion of 4 acres 8 guntas of land was to
be utilized for the benefit of slum dwellers and for providing
infrastructure works at an estimated cost of Rs.1.65 crores.
D.W.1 in his evidence stated that the plaintiffs have no
manner of right, title and possession over the lands and as
such, D.W.1 in his rebuttal evidence denied the case of the
plaintiffs and also denied their alleged possession including the
alleged title of the plaintiff and possession over the same in the
evidence of D.W.1, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5 are came to be marked.
The said documents marked through D.W.1 are as follows:-
Ex.D.1 is the certified copy of in Government
proceedings in No.HUD 108 Malleswaram Co-operative
Society/95 dated 31.5.1995 in respect of allotment of land to
Karnataka Slum Board and Ex.D.2 is the certified copy of
letter dated 5.1.1996 regarding delivery of possession of land
to Karnataka Slum Board and Ex.D.3 is the certified copy of
letter dated 12.1.1996, wherein under this document, the Spl.
Deputy Commissioner had called upon the Secretary of
Karnataka Slum Board calling upon him to pay an amount of
Rs.5-/ per sq.ft. an amount of Rs.84,031/- in respect of this
granted land and to deposit this amount under account
63 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
No.1475 -Other General Economic Servides-201 -Land Ceiling-
03-being the cost of the land and Ex.D.4 is the letter
addressed by the Commissioner for Karnataka Slum Board
addressed to Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural
District dated 24.3.2010 and Ex.D.5 is another letter dated
20.4.2010, wherein this letter is written by the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru District to the Tahasildar,
Bengalure North Taluk in respect of Sy.No.17 measuring 4
acres 8 guntas calling upon Tahasildar to produce the
necessary documents for having handed over possession of
this land in favour of Karnataka Slum Board. Hence, D.W.1 in
all the cases got marked these documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5
and pray for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs and on
perusal of the evidence of D.W.1 in other connected two suits,
wherein D.W.1 also relied upon some set of documents, which
are marked in other two suits and Asst., Executive Engineer
working in Karnataka Slum Board, who has deposed in other
two connected suits by filing affidavit evidence in lieu of
examination-in-chief and hence, it is material to consider the
cross-examination directed by the plaintiff's counsel in O.S.
No.7553/2012, wherein D.W.1 admits that he has joined the
service of State Government in the year 1992 and since 1992,
he is an employee working under defendant board and D.W.1
admits that he is aware of entire proceedings held in respect
of Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village, wherein total
64 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
extent Sy.No.17 is measuring 4 acres 8 guntas and he has
deposed the extent of the land Sy.No.17 on the basis of records
as it is measuring 4 acres 8 guntas and he has verified RTC
extract and mutation register extract of Sy.No.17 and he knew
the boundaries of this land, wherein Sy.No.17 is bounded on
the east road and he do not know the name of the road,
towards west road and thereafter, private sites and he do not
know the name of the road existed on the western side and
towards south, there exists road leading the Jalahally, but
D.W.1 do not know the name of northern side road and
towards south, there is property belongs to Muslim
community, but he do not know the name of the owner of that
property situated towards south and D.W.1 denied that he is
aware of the fact in respect of Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village and he do not know the total
extent of Sy.No.17 and a suggestion was made to P.W.1 stating
that Sy.No.17 measuring 29 acres 4 guntas in total extent,
but witness denied his knowledge about the total extent of
Sy.No.17 measuring 29 acres 4 guntas and even he do not
know how many persons are the owners of Sy.No.17 and D.W.1
stated that 4 acres 8 guntas of land was given to the defendant
board and this land was originally belonging to one Muniyappa
and according to D.W.1 4 acres 8 guntas is held to be excess
land and declared under the provision of ULCR Act and D.W.1
admits that there was notification published in respect of 4
65 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
acres 8 guntas of land as it is declared as excess land and he
has produced gazette notification and he do not know whether
no notification published in the official gazette in respect of
declaration of 4 acres 8 guntas of land under the provision of
ULCR Act and he do not know whether ULCR authority have
issued notification as required under Sec. 16(2) of Land
Acquisition Act in respect of Sy.No.17 and D.W.1 denied the
suggestion that no proceedings were held before ULC
authorities concerned to Sy.No.17 and D.W.1 stated that
revenue authority handed over possession of 4 acres 8 guntas
to defendant board on 11.12.1995 and Spl. Deputy
Commissioner has handed over possession of this portion of
land and D.W.1 stated that he was not serving in the
defendant board on 11.12.1995. Hence, he cannot say on that
day, the slum board was in possession of suit schedule
property and he do not know in the portion of Sy.No.17 already
layout has been come up and many persons have constructed
houses. However, witness after perusal of Ex.D.4 now he
admits that the text of this correspondenced letter made by the
Commissioner to the Spl. Deputy Commissioner , wherein the
defendant board is not in possession or custody of the
mahazar documents drawn on 5.10.1995 and on 11.12.1995
in respect of handing over possession of portion of property
land Sy.No.17 to defendant board and he do not know as on
11.12.1995, Sy.No.17 was in the possession of revenue
66 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
department and many persons have already constructed
houses and have occupied the said house and D.W.1 admits
that he has not prepared any sketch or map on 11.12.1995
and D.W.1 admits that none of the documents at Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.5 there are boundaries to identify the land given to
defendant board measuring 4 acres 8 guntas in entire
Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village to identify in which
direction the said extent of land is existed and D.W.1 admits
that they have not concerned with the land belonging to one
Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and he do not know whether the suit filed
by the possession is in respect of portion of Sy.No.17 originally
belonging to one Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and D.W.1 admits that
as per the records, Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa had entrusted to work of
developing the land Sy.No.17 to Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., and thereby the said society had
developed the land belonging to Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and D.W.1
admits that the property developed by the Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., and the land granted to
the defendant board, there is no nexus or any concerned and
D.W.1 admits that plaintiffs are the purchasers of sites from
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., and they
are in possession and D.W.1 further admits that the plaintiffs
are in possession of their respective sites and witness
volunteers that there are about 81 persons, who are in
possession of sites formed in Sy.No.17. D.W.1 denied the
67 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
suggestion that defendant board has no any concern to the
suit schedule property involved in the suit and D.W.1 also
denied that on 27.9.2012, the officials of defendant board have
caused interference over the plaintiffs possession in respect of
schedule site properties.
23. The counsel appearing for the plaintiffs had filed
memo to adopt the cross-examination done in O.S.
No.7553/2012 of D.W.1 in connected suits O.S.
No.7557/2012 and 7562/2012. For this memo, the counsel for
defendant submitted no objections and accordingly, the cross-
examination directed to D.W.1 by counsel for plaintiff is
adopted for other two suits.
24. On appreciation of the evidence placed on record in
all the three cases, wherein the plaintiffs are claiming their
alleged title and lawful possession in respect of schedule site
properties, wherein the plaintiff in O.S. No.7553/2012 claiming
title in respect of two site properties bearing site No.47 and 48
formed in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and
wherein plaintiff in O.S. No.7557/2012 is claiming title and
possession in respect of site No.60 in Sy.No.17 to the extent of
40'X30' and in O.S. No.7562/2012, plaintiff is claiming her
right, title and interest in respect of suit schedule site
properties in respect of site No.28 having C.M.C katha No.17
68 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
measuring east-west 30' and north-south 42' situated at
Chikkabommasandra village , Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalure
North Taluk within the boundaries shown in the plaint
schedule. But on perusal of documentary evidence marked
through P.W.1 of each case, wherein though plaintiffs/P.W.1,
who have given evidence before the court in all the three
suits, wherein they have not produced any documents of title
in the form of sale deed or any other title deeds executed by
Secretary, Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd.,
in respect of alleged sites involved in these suits namely site
No.48 and 49, site No.60 and alleged site No.28, C.M.C katha
No.17. Though P.W.1 in O.S. No.7562/2012 has relied upon
the original sale deed executed by her alleged vendor
Smt. Shankaramma wife of S.Lingappa produced at Ex.P.6
dated 17.7.2006, wherein on perusal of the sale deed Ex.P.6 in
the entire sale deed description or recitals, there is no mention
of Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bengalure North Taluk and it is not proved by P.W.1 in O.S.
No.7562/2012 that her vendor Smt. Shankaramma wife of
S.Lingappa had title and lawful possession in respect of
alleged site bearing katha No.17, site No.28 carved out in
Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and though the
names of deceased Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math was
appearing in respect of the site bearing No.48 and 49 said to
have been carved out in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra
69 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
village by Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd.,
and now P.W.1 in O.S. No.7553/2012 claims title and
possession of site No.48 and 49 by way of succession after
demise of his wife Smt.Shakuntala Gangadhar Math and has
produced the documents, which are marked in the evidence of
P.W.1. But these documents relied by the plaintiffs in each
case are not the documents of title to hold that the respective
plaintiffs have acquired title in respect of suit schedule
properties. On the contrary, it is the case of the plaintiffs that
the entire extent of Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village
was measuring 29 acres 4 guntas out of which, one
Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and his sons are the owners of 7 acres of
land, wherein the Spl. Deputy Commissioner had initiated
proceedings under the provision of ULCR Act against
Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa as the original Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa was
holding excess land for the little extent of land in Sy.No.17
under the ULCR Act and thereby the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner has ordered that Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa was having
excess extent of land to the extent of 4 acres 8 guntas of land
corresponding to 16606 square meters of land and ordered to
take possession of this portion of land from the Tahasildar
concerned and Tahasildar has taken possession by drawing
mahazar on 11.12.1995 and handed over possession in the
presence of witnesses to the defendant board by orders of Spl.
Deputy Commissioner and accordingly, defendant board
70 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
claims to be in possession of an extent of 4 acres 8 guntas of
land in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village . Though
D.W.1 has given evidence, who is officials working under
defendant board, but D.W.1 got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5 in
main case and the same documents are produced and marked
in other connected cases, wherein as per the documents
relied by D.W.1, wherein it is a fact that the Government has
allotted 4 acres 8 guntas of land to Karnataka Slum Board for
the purpose of rehabilitating slum dwellers and this land was
ordered as excess holding under the provisions of ULCR Act
1976 by the orders of Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
dated 5.10.1995 and it is admitted fact that out of Sy.No.17 an
area measuring 17 guntas was already developed and
residential buildings have come up in this extent of 17 guntas
and there is no documents produced by the defendant board
in the form of mahazar drawn on 11.12.1995 in respect of
taking over possession of entire 4 acres 8 guntas into the
possession of slum board in respect of Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village and even defendant board has
not produced any gazette notification or mandatory notification
issued under Sec. 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 in order
to take possession of the entire extent of 4 acres 8 guntas to
the actual physical possession of defendant board on
11.12.1995. On the contrary, as per the Tahasildar report,
wherein he could not hand over the entire possession of 4
71 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
acres 8 guntas to the slum board in pursuance of the
direction of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner under ULCR Act
and 17 guntas of land was already developed as many
purchasers of site have already constructed buildings.
Though D.W.1 has admitted the plaintiffs status in these cases
as purchasers of site properties in respect of sites formed in
Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village. But plaintiffs have
not produced any title documents like sale deed or any other
registered deeds obtained by them from Malleshwaram
Tailoring Housing Co-Operative Society ltd., and on the
contrary the plaintiffs have relied upon the possession
certificate dated 6.5.1983 and allotment letter/intimation
letter of allotment of sites by Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., . But on perusal of the pleadings filed
by the plaintiffs, wherein they have pleaded that Sri.
Y.V.Anjanappa, who was original owner of Sy.No.17 to the
extent of 4 acres 8 guntas had executed registered GPA
coupled with agreement to sell dated 1.2.1983 authorizing the
Secretary of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society
ltd., to develop the portion of land Sy.No.17 and to form
respectively layout and to sell the sites formed therein in favour
of purchasers and accordingly, Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., had formed residential sites by forming
layout in 4 acres 8 guntas of land and sold the sites in favour
of purchasers, wherein purchasers in O.S. No.7557 and
72 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
7562/2012 are the purchasers of sites and plaintiff in O.S.
No.7553/2012 claims that his late wife Smt.Shakuntala
Gangadhar Math was the member of Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Operative Society ltd., and she had purchased site No.48
and 49 from Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society
ltd., but none of the plaintiffs in all the three cases have
produced any documents to show that they are the registered
members of Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd.,
and there is no title deed produced by the plaintiffs to prove
their contention that they have paid valuable consideration
and purchased their respective sites. On the contrary, the
portion of land Sy.No.17 measuring 4 acres 8 guntas was held
as excess holding under the provisions of ULCR Act 1976 and
as per the order of Spl.Deputy Commissioner, the
said extent of land was ordered to be vested to the Government
and that portion of land becomes the land of State and its
disposal, wherein though defendant board claims that it has
obtained 4 acres 8 guntas of land through allotment made by
the State Government for the purpose of rehabilitating the
slum dwellers. It appears that the defendant board has not
taken possession of 4 acres 8 guntas of land in accordance
with law as per the proceedings contemplated under Sec. 16(2)
of Land Acquisition Act and on the contrary, there are some
purchasers of sites have constructed building in Sy.No.17 and
as such, there is no valid possession handed over to defendant
73 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
board by the Tahasildar, Bengalure North Taluk , but P.W.1 in
all these cases have not produced any documents of title and
except producing possession certificate and allotment letters
in respect of allotment of sites and these two documents are
not documents of title and in the absence of any registered sale
deed or any other registered deed, the court cannot accept the
title of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property involved in
all these three cases . On the contrary, the transaction of
execution of GPA and sale agreement dated 1.2.1983 between
Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and his sons and Secretary of
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd., is not a
legal transaction, wherein the land was declared as excess
holding under the provision of Sec.10 of ULCR Act 1976 by the
Spl. Deputy Commissioner and as such, any alienation of
land by the original owner i.e., Sri. Y.V.Anjanappa and his sons
by execution of alleged GPA and agreement to sell his hit by the
provision of ULC Act as the land belongs to State Government.
Hence, Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-Operative Society ltd.,
has not acquired any title to form any residential layout in an
extent of 4 acres 8 guntas of Chikkabommasandra village ,
Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalure North Taluk and plaintiffs have
not established their title and lawful possession in respect of
suit schedule site properties involved in all these three suits
as on the date of suit. But however the names of plaintiffs
have been mutated in the revenue records , wherein initially
74 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
the site properties are vested with jurisdiction of Grama
Panchayath limits of Byatarayanapura and thereafter, C.M.C
and now the jurisdiction is vested in BBMP and though
plaintiffs have produced property tax paid receipts and other
documents. But there is no title documents placed on record
by the plaintiffs in order to prove their lawful valid title and
lawful possession in respect of schedule sites. However, the
names of the plaintiffs have been mutated in the revenue
records without any title deeds and as such, considering the
documents placed on record, wherein the purchasers of site
properties have already approached the Hon'ble High Court by
filing writ petition in W.P.No.5807-833/1996 before Hon'ble
High Court in respect of an extent of land in Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village and Hon'ble High Court disposed
off these batch of writ petitions on 17.9.1996 directing the
petitioners/purchasers of sites to approach civil court to
establish their title and possession and accordingly, the
plaintiffs herein and other purchasers of sites have filed suits
before civil court for the relief of permanent injunction, but
these three suits are filed only for the relief of permanent
injunction. But these three suits are filed only for the relief of
permanent injunction, but plaintiffs have not prayed for
declaration of their title in respect of the suit schedule
properties involved in these three suits. Though defendant
board has taken up specific contention that the defendant
75 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
board is in possession of an extent of 4 acres 8 guntas of land.
But there is no satisfactory document to show that the
defendant board has taken possession of 4 acres 8 guntas of
land on 11.12.1995. But on the contrary, there are
constructions and dwelling houses have been constructed
existed in Sy.No.17 and also it is proved fact that Sy.No.17 to
the extent of 17 guntas was already developed land and
hence, there is no documents produced by the defendant to
show that the defendant board was put in possession of 4
acres 8 guntas of land on 11.12.1995. However, the plaintiffs
are held to be in possession, but their possession in respect of
these site properties are not lawful possession and recognized
possession under law. Though the said possession can be
termed as settled possession, but plaintiffs have no documents
of title to sustained their possession over the schedule
property. However, it can be safely held that plaintiffs are in
settled possession of these site properties carved out in
Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village as on the date of suit
and as such, plaintiffs failed to prove Issue No.1 against
defendant board, but however in view of the admission made
by D.W.1 regarding the possession of plaintiffs over the
respective site properties, wherein it can be safely recorded by
this court that plaintiffs are in each case are settled possession
in respect of site properties, but that cannot be held to be
legal possession or lawful possession as plaintiffs have not
76 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
proved that title by producing in the title deeds executed in
their favour by Secretary, Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
Operative Society ltd., having right, title and interest in respect
of these site properties.
25. The counsel appearing for the plaintiff relying upon
4-5 citations of Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Courts
contended the plaintiffs are in settled possession of the suit
schedule properties and in order to protect their possession,
the interference of this court is very much necessary and
permanent injunction relief deserves to be granted in favour of
plaintiffs in order to protect their possession unless and until
plaintiffs are evicted from the schedule properties by due
process of law by the defendant board and counsel for plaintiffs
also produced the certified copy of order passed by the Hon'ble
High Court in batch of RFAs preferred by the Karnataka Slum
areas ( Improvement and clearance) Board , Bengaluru in RFA
No.611 and other connected 1st appeal of 2013 and Hon'ble
High Court disposed off these batch of RFAs on 31.7.2015 by
common judgment, wherein in this judgment, the Hon'ble High
Court disposed off these 1st appeals holding that the appellate
board has to resort to take possession of the properties
involved in these 1st appeals under the provision of Karnataka
Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act
1974. Hence, counsel for plaintiffs also produced the common
77 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
judgment rendered by our own High Court in RFA
No.638/2013 and other connected batch of RFAs for kind
perusal of this court.
26. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant
board has produced one citation of Karnataka High Court
reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka page 5121 in the case of
M.B.Bettaswamy Vs. The Commissioner, BDA and another
and contended that even though the plaintiffs are held to be
in possession in Sy.No.17 in respect of alleged site properties,
but said constructions amounting to unauthorized
construction and court should not show any sympathy
against plaintiffs in granting injunction order, wherein the
plaintiffs possession is unauthorized occupants and they can
be thrown away and that possession cannot be termed as
settled possession.
27. On considering the above citations referred by the
counsel for the plaintiffs and also citations referred by the
counsel for defendant board , wherein in this case, this court
though recorded negative finding on Issue No.1 holding that
plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and lawful possession
in respect of suit schedule site properties, but there is
interference by the defendant and its officials to the plaintiffs
alleged possession and the law of the land i.e., ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even the possession of
trespasser cannot be taken away by forcible possession unless,
78 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
he is evicted by due process of law and hence, considering
citations referred, wherein the defendant board cannot take
possession forcibly or without any due process of law against
plaintiffs and though plaintiffs have failed to prove their title
and lawful possession, but plaintiffs are in possession of suit
schedule site properties without any valid title and as such, the
defendant board, who has obtained the land measuring 4 acres
8 guntas allotted by the Government for the purpose of
rehabilitating the dwellers in that land and as such, defendant
shall have to take resort to dispossess the plaintiff in order to
take possession only by recourse to law and though plaintiffs
possession is held to be unauthorized possession, but limited
injunction order deserves to be granted by molding the relief
as per Orders 7 Rule 7 of CPC instead of dragging, the
plaintiffs to file another suit against defendant board, wherein
the court has got discretion to mould the relief as per Order 7
Rule 7 of CPC, wherein the plaintiffs possession over the
schedule properties is amounting to settled possession and
as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent
injunction only for limited extent and purpose against
defendant board, wherein the defendant board has got right to
evict the plaintiffs from the schedule properties by recourse to
law and also to initiate proceedings under the provisions of
KPP Act 1974.
79 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
28. So far as interference as alleged by the plaintiffs,
wherein D.W.1 in each case have deposed before this court
that there is threat of dispossession and interference by the
defendant board and its officials, wherein in all the three suits,
plaintiffs have deposed regarding interference by officials of
defendant board by specific date of interference on 27.9.2012,
wherein defendant officials came over the schedule property
and asserted title of defendant board and also directed the
plaintiffs to vacate and surrender the possession of suit
schedule site properties to the defendant board. Hence with
these apprehension, the plaintiffs in respective suits have
approached this court seeking the relief of permanent
injunction at the hands of this court in order to protect their
possession. Hence, D.W.1 himself admits that there are some
residential buildings which are constructed in Sy.No.17 of
Chikkabommasandra village and D.W.1 also admits the
possession of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule properties
and though D.W.1 admits the status of the plaintiff as
purchasers of site properties. But plaintiffs have not produced
any documents of title or sale deed to show their status as
purchasers of site properties, whereas the documents relied by
the plaintiffs only revenue documents, wherein these
documents are not amounting to title documents. However,
the possession of plaintiffs and their settled possession
deserved to be protected by grant of permanent injunction for
80 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
limited extend holding that the defendant shall have the right
to evict the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties by
following due process of law in order to take possession from
the plaintiffs. Hence, with these observations, I hold that
plaintiffs have failed to prove Issue No.1, but plaintiffs have
proved the alleged interference dated 27.9.2012 by defendant
and its officials in their settled possession over the schedule
properties. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in negative and
Issue No.2 is answered in affirmative.
29. Issue No.3: The plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction only for limited extent as against
defendant board and this relief of permanent injunction is
granted in favour of plaintiffs under the powers vested in this
court under Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC holding that the defendant
board shall have the right to evict the plaintiffs by following
due process of law in respect of suit schedule properties .
Hence, with these observations, Issue No.3 is answered in
affirmative.
30. Issue No.4: In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to
3, and for the reasons recorded on Issue No.1t o 3, wherein
the suit filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be decreed partly
against defendant board without any order as to costs and
81 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction only
for limited extent. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.7553/2012, 7557/2012 and O.S. No.7562/2012 and decreed partly against defendant board without any order as to costs.
Plaintiffs are granted with permanent injunction relief against defendant board not to oust or dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule site properties without following due process of law.
However, defendant board shall have the right to take possession of the schedule property from the plaintiffs by resorting the legal procedure to obtain possession of the alleged site properties carved out in Sy.No.17 of Chikkabommasandra village and for this limited purpose, permanent injunction relief is granted in favour of plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC reserving right of the defendant board to proceed against each plaintiff for taking possession in accordance with law in respect of suit schedule properties.
82 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &7562/2012 Draw decree accordingly.
{Dictated to the Judgment writer , transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this 18th day of April, 2016.} (S.V.Kulkarni) XI Addl.City Civil Judge Bangalore city.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff in O.S. No. 7553 of 2012:-
P.W.1 V.S.Gangadhar math List of documents exhibited for plaintiff in O.S. No. 7553 of 2012:-
Ex.P.1 Katha certificate issued by ARO Yelahanka Sub Division BBMP Bangalore dated 26-6-2013 Ex.P.2: Endorsement issued by the corporation dated 26-6-2013 Ex.P.3: Extract of assessment of buildings and open sites for the year 2013-2014 issued by the BBMP dated 26-6-2013 Ex.P.4: Acknowledgement for the year 2013-
2014 dated 25-6-2013
Ex.P.5: Tax paid receipt
83 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
Ex.P.6 & P.7: Judgment and decree in
O.S.No.7111/1996 of CCH-12 Ex.P.8: Intimation letter dated 25.1.1983 Ex.P.9: Possession certificate dated 6.5.1983(Carbon Copy) Ex.P.10: Katha extract for the year 1991-1992 Ex.P.11 & 12: Tax paid receipts(Two numbers) Ex.P.13 Assessment extract of the year 1995-
1996 Ex.P.14: Certificate of death dated 2.7.1998 in respect of wife of P.W.1 Ex.P.15: Certified copy of tax receipt dated 14.7.2009 Ex.P.16 to P.19 4 acknowledgments issued by BBMP dated 14.7.2009 and on other dates regarding the receipt of demand drafts. Ex.P.20 to P.22: 3 certified copies of tax receipts Ex.P.23 to P.26: 3 photographs and CD List of witnesses examined for defendant in O.S. No.7553 of 2012:
D.W.1 Sri. H.D.Subramanya List of documents exhibited for defendant in O.S. No.7553 of 2012:-
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of government order in proceedings HUD No.108MCS/95 dated 31-5-1995 allotting the land to KSCB Ex.D.2: Certified copy of letter 5-1-1996 regarding delivery of possession of land to KSCB Ex.D.3: Certified copy of letter dated 12-1-1996 demanding value of the land by KSCB 84 O.S.No.7553, 7557 & 7562/2012 from Special DC Bangalore Ex.D.4: Office copy of letter dated 24-3-2010 addressed to Special Deputy Commissioner Ex.D.5: Certified copy of correspondence letter dated 20-4-2010 List of witnesses examined for plaintiff in O.S. No. 7557 of 2012:-
P.W.1 Smt. Shantha.R List of documents exhibited for plaintiff in O.S. No. 7557 of 2012:-
Ex.P.1 SPA deed dated 2-1-1997 executed in favour of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 Intimation letter dated 20-2-1983 issued by MT Co-operative Society Ltd., Ex.P.3: Possession certificate dated 6-5-1983 Ex.P.4: Extract of demand register Ex.P.5: Receipt dated 14-10-1991 issued by Secretary GP Byatarayanapura, Ex.P.6: Another receipt dated 10-3-1993 Ex.P.7: Assessment of tax extract for the year 1995/1996 issued by Chief officer CMC yelahanka, Ex.P.8: Tax paid receipt issued by corporation dated 18-6-2009 Ex.P.9: Acknowledgement issued by tax inspector BBMP 85 O.S.No.7553, 7557 & 7562/2012 Ex.P.10 to P.12: 3 Tax paid receipts Ex.P.12 to P.15: 3 Acknowledgements issued by BBMP Ex.P.17 & 18: Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.7111/1996 (CCH-12 ) Ex.P.18 to P.21 Three photographs in respect of schedule site along with CD List of witnesses examined for defendant in O.S. No.7557 of 2012:
D.W.1 Sri. H.D.Subramanya List of documents exhibited for defendant in O.S. No.7557 of 2012:-
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of government order in proceedings HUD No.108MCS/95 dated 31-5-1995 allotting the land to KSCB Ex.D.2: Certified copy of letter 5-1-1996 regarding delivery of possession of land to KSCB Ex.D.3: Certified copy of letter dated 12-1-1996 demanding value of the land by KSCB from Special DC Bangalore Ex.D.4: Office copy of letter dated 24-3-2010 addressed to Special Deputy Commissioner Ex.D.5: Certified copy of correspondence letter dated 20-4-2010 List of witnesses examined for plaintiff in O.S. No. 7562 of 2012:-
P.W.1 Smt. Jyothi Rao W/o Sri.Jayaprakash 86 O.S.No.7553, 7557 & 7562/2012 List of documents exhibited for plaintiff in O.S. No. 7562 of 2012:-
Ex.P.1 Intimation letter dated 20-2-1983 issued by MT Co-operative Society Ltd Ex.P.2: NOC issued by MT CS dated 22-4-1984 Ex.P.3: Extract of demand register for the year 1992-1993 Ex.P.4: Tax paid receipt dated 9-12-1993 Ex.P.5: Assessment extract dated 29-7-1996 Ex.P.6: Original sale deed dated 17-7-2006 Ex.P.7: Khata extract Ex.P.8: Extract of building and open site dated 19- 7-2011 Ex.P.9 to P.11 Three tax paid receipts Ex.P.12 to P.15 Three acknowledgments Ex.P.16 & P.17: one photographs of schedule site along with its C.D Ex.P.18: Certified copy of possession certificate obtained from O.S. No.7345/1996 List of witnesses examined for defendant in O.S. No.7562 of 2012:
D.W.1 Sri. H.D.Subramanya
87 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012
List of documents exhibited for defendant in O.S. No.7562 of 2012:-
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of government order in proceedings HUD No.108MCS/95 dated 31-5-1995 allotting the land to KSCB Ex.D.2: Certified copy of letter 5-1-1996 regarding delivery of possession of land to KSCB Ex.D.3: Certified copy of letter dated 12-1-1996 demanding value of the land by KSCB from Special DC Bangalore Ex.D.4: Office copy of letter dated 24-3-2010 addressed to Special Deputy Commissioner Ex.D.5: Certified copy of correspondence letter dated 20-4-2010 (S.V.Kulkarni) XI Addl.City Civil Judge Bangalore city.88 O.S.No.7553, 7557 &
7562/2012