Karnataka High Court
Sri. Y Munireddy vs State Of Karnataka on 15 November, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46586
MFA No. 6575 of 2024
c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
MFA No.6599 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6575 OF 2024 (CPC)
CONNECTED WITH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6584 OF 2024 (CPC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6599 OF 2024 (CPC)
IN M.F.A.No.6575/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. Y MUNIREDDY
S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
by DEVIKA M
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/A NO.166, 5TH CROSS
KARNATAKA 1ST MAIN ROAD
DODDANEKKUNDI
BANGALORE 560 037
2. SRI HARSHA
S/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
3. SMT. SANDYA
D/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46586
MFA No. 6575 of 2024
c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
MFA No.6599 of 2024
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.152/2
ADJACENT SAI VAIBHAVA HOTE
DODDEKUNDI CIRCLE
1ST MAIN ROAD
DODDANEKKUNDI
BANGALORE 560 037
4. SRI N VINAY
S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5. N VIKAS
S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
PLAINTIFFS 4 & 5 ARE R/AT NO. 4,
KOMAL NIVAS, 1ST MAIN ROAD
DODDANEKUNDI MAIN ROAD
OPP TO HI CHOICE HOME NEEDS
BANGALROE 560 037
6. SRI Y NARAYANA
S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 152/2
NEXT TO RADHAKRISHNA CLINIC
DODDANEKKUNDI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE 560 037
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI CHANDRA SHEKAR R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMETN OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDI
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:46586
MFA No. 6575 of 2024
c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
MFA No.6599 of 2024
BANGALORE 560 001
REPARESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
PODIUM BLOCK
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. LRDE EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO OPERAT IVE
SOCIETY LTD
C/O LRDE, DRDO COMPLEX
C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4. MRS. RUPSI CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
W/O LAWTE J M CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
DRDO TOWNSHIP
PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
5. MR. DILIP CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
DRDO TOWNSHIP
PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
6. MR. SIDDHARTH CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 306
SAI KRUPA HEERA
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:46586
MFA No. 6575 of 2024
c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
MFA No.6599 of 2024
C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
7. H SUNIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O SRI K HEMA REDDY
RESIDING AT NO. 139/1-1
SHARADAMMA LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 071
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI SHIVAPRASAD E AND SUDARSHAN B N, ADVOCATES
FOR R7)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.04.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.5
IN O.S.NO.3008/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, (CCH-19) AND ETC.
IN M.F.A.No.6584/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. Y MUNIREDDY
S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST
R/A NO.166, 5TH CROSS
1ST MAIN ROAD
DODDANEKKUNDI
BANGALORE 560 037
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:46586
MFA No. 6575 of 2024
c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
MFA No.6599 of 2024
2. SRI HARSHA
S/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
3. SMT. SANDYA
D/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.152/2
ADJACENT SAI VAIBHAVA HOTE
DODDEKUNDI CIRCLE
1ST MAIN ROAD
DODDANEKKUNDI
BANGALORE 560 037
4. SRI N VINAY
S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5. N VIKAS
S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
PLAINTIFFS 4 & 5 ARE R/AT NO. 4,
KOMAL NIVAS, 1ST MAIN ROAD
DODDANEKUNDI MAIN ROAD
OPP TO HI CHOICE HOME NEEDS
BANGALROE 560 037
6. SRI Y NARAYANA
S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 152/2
NEXT TO RADHAKRISHNA CLINIC
DODDANEKKUNDI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE 560 037
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI CHANDRA SHEKAR R, ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:46586
MFA No. 6575 of 2024
c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
MFA No.6599 of 2024
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMETN OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE 560 001
REPARESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
PODIUM BLOCK
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. LRDE EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO OPERAT IVE
SOCIETY LTD
C/O LRDE, DRDO COMPLEX
C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4. MRS. RUPSI CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
W/O LAWTE J M CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
DRDO TOWNSHIP
PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
5. MR. DILIP CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
DRDO TOWNSHIP
PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:46586
MFA No. 6575 of 2024
c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
MFA No.6599 of 2024
6. MR. SIDDHARTH CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 306
SAI KRUPA HEERA
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR
C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
7. H SUNIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O SRI K HEMA REDDY
RESIDING AT NO. 139/1-1
SHARADAMMA LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 071
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI SHIVAPRASAD E AND SUDARSHAN B N, ADVOCATES
FOR R7)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.04.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.2
IN O.S.NO.3008/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, (CCH-19) AND ETC.
IN M.F.A.No.6599/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. Y MUNIREDDY
S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:46586
MFA No. 6575 of 2024
c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
MFA No.6599 of 2024
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST
R/A NO.166, 5TH CROSS
1ST MAIN ROAD
DODDANEKKUNDI
BANGALORE 560 037
2. SRI HARSHA
S/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
3. SMT. SANDYA
D/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.152/2
ADJACENT SAI VAIBHAVA HOTE
DODDEKUNDI CIRCLE
1ST MAIN ROAD
DODDANEKKUNDI
BANGALORE 560 037
4. SRI N VINAY
S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5. N VIKAS
S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
PLAINTIFFS 4 & 5 ARE R/AT NO. 4,
KOMAL NIVAS, 1ST MAIN ROAD
DODDANEKUNDI MAIN ROAD
OPP TO HI CHOICE HOME NEEDS
BANGALROE 560 037
6. SRI Y NARAYANA
S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:46586
MFA No. 6575 of 2024
c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
MFA No.6599 of 2024
RESIDING AT NO. 152/2
NEXT TO RADHAKRISHNA CLINIC
DODDANEKKUNDI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE 560 037
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI CHANDRA SHEKAR R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMETN OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE 560 001
REPARESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
PODIUM BLOCK
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. LRDE EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO OPERAT IVE
SOCIETY LTD
C/O LRDE, DRDO COMPLEX
C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4. MRS. RUPSI CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
W/O LAWTE J M CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
DRDO TOWNSHIP
PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586
MFA No. 6575 of 2024
c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
MFA No.6599 of 2024
5. MR. DILIP CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
DRDO TOWNSHIP
PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
6. MR. SIDDHARTH CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 306
SAI KRUPA HEERA
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR
C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 093
7. H SUNIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O SRI K HEMA REDDY
RESIDING AT NO. 139/1-1
SHARADAMMA LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 071
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI SHIVAPRASAD E AND SUDARSHAN B N, ADVOCATES
FOR R7)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.04.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1
IN O.S.NO.3008/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, (CCH-19) AND ETC.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586
MFA No. 6575 of 2024
c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
MFA No.6599 of 2024
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed challenging the order dated 04.09.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 5 in O.S.No.3008/2024 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the appellants before the Trial Court is that one Yellappa Reddy who is the father of plaintiff Nos.1 and 6 and grandfather of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 was the absolute owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of dry agricultural land bearing Sy.No.89/2 totally measuring 1 acre 19 guntas which is morefully described in the schedule and out of 1 acre 19
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586 MFA No. 6575 of 2024 c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024 MFA No.6599 of 2024 guntas, 1 acre 13½ guntas has been acquired by defendant No.1 and same was handed over to defendant No.3 and defendant No.3 formed the sites and sold the same. It is also the claim of the appellants that to the remaining land of 5½ guntas which was notified, no award has been passed and the plaintiffs are in possession of entire extent of 5½ guntas of land in Sy.No.89/2 which was subsequently phoded as Sy.No.89/3 and same is vest with the Yellappa Reddy and his legal heirs. The said Yellappa Reddy died in the year 1994 and consequently, his elder son Nanjunda Reddy died on 03.05.2001 leaving behind his legal representatives that is plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 respectively. As a result, they became the owners of 5½ guntas land, thus, defendant Nos.1 to 3 cannot claim any right in respect of 5½ guntas of land. Thus, being the state of affairs, defendant No.7 being a stranger, having no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property made an attempt to encroach upon the portion of suit schedule 'A' property in the third week of January 2024
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586 MFA No. 6575 of 2024 c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024 MFA No.6599 of 2024 and the said attempt was restrained and by that time he was kept quiet and later on, he made an attempt to put up the construction in the encroached portion illegally in the middle of the 'A' schedule property without having any rights. Hence, without any other alternative, the plaintiffs have approached the Court seeking the relief of possession in respect of the encroached portion, declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Inter alia sought for the relief of not to alienation and also not to put the construction.
4. Defendant No.7 appeared and filed the written statement contending that he had purchased the property from his vendor that is site No.8 and all the documents of site No.8 are in his name. The very contention of the plaintiffs that defendant No.7 is making an attempt to put up the construction is erroneous and the plaintiffs have deliberately suppressed the fact and not approached the Court with clear hands and obtained an exparte interim injunction and the Trial Court after considering the defence
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586 MFA No. 6575 of 2024 c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024 MFA No.6599 of 2024 which has been taken, vacated the interim order in coming to the conclusion that plaintiffs have not made out any prima facie case.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that there is no dispute with regard to the retaining of property to the extent of 5½ guntas and also specific pleading is made in the plaint itself that defendant No.7 is making an attempt to put up construction and also encroached the portion of the 'A' schedule property that has been shown in 'B' schedule property and also sought for the relief of possession. The Trial Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the suit, passed an impugned order in coming to the conclusion that Sy.No.89/2 was acquired to the extent of 1 acre 13½ guntas and also the site No.8 is formed in Sy.No.89/2 but fails to take note of the fact that Sy.No.89/3 is remains with the appellants and the Trial Court has rightly held in paragraph 26 of the impugned order that whether the property claimed by defendant
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586 MFA No. 6575 of 2024 c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024 MFA No.6599 of 2024 No.7 is situated in the acquired portion of the land or whether it is in the un-acquired portion of the land is a matter of fact which is to be proved only after full fledged trial. When such conclusion arrived by the Trial Court, ought to have granted the relief of not to alienate and not to put up the construction. The counsel also would vehemently contend that even if defendant No.7 proceeds to construct the building, if the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that 'B' schedule property comes within the Sy.No.89/3 which has been retained by the appellants, then defendant No.7 cannot seek any equity in future.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently contend that it is a specific case of defendant No.7 that he had purchased the property from his vendor and site No.8 is also formed in the portion of the land which was acquired i.e., to the extent of 1 acre 13½ guntas. In order to substantiate the case that the site No.8 comes within the remaining portion of 5½ guntas, nothing is placed on record except self-
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586 MFA No. 6575 of 2024 c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024 MFA No.6599 of 2024 styled pleading made by the appellants. The counsel also would vehemently contend that owners of site Nos.7 and 9 have filed suit against this defendant and same was decreed in favour of the owners and an order has been passed to deliver the possession of the property which was in occupation of these appellants and the said order has been challenged before this Court and this Court granted stay in the respective RFAs. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to notice of this Court the depositions in the other suits wherein categorically admitted that his vendor had constructed the building on his own land and not encroached upon the property of the appellants and he has been in possession of the property. When such statement was made in the earlier suit stating that this respondent not in possession of the property and his vendor is in possession of the property, now he cannot claim the relief of injunction not to put up the construction and the earlier admission takes away the case of the appellants.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586 MFA No. 6575 of 2024 c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024 MFA No.6599 of 2024
7. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the property was acquired and now the dispute is with regard to the acquisition of the property to the extent of 1 acre 13½ guntas and the appellants also not disputes the same and said acquisition was made in favour of respondent No.3 and sites were formed and sold and site No.8 comes within the area of 1 acre 13½ guntas and not in the remaining extent of land which was not acquired. The counsel also submits that with regard to the identity of the property is concerned, the Trial Court has already made an observation that it requires full fledged trial and hence, the question of interference does not arise.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that it is the case of the appellants that site No.8 comes within the area of Sy.No.89/3 which has been retained by the appellants. On
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586 MFA No. 6575 of 2024 c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024 MFA No.6599 of 2024 the other hand, the respondent submits that said site No.8 comes within the area of 1 acre 13½ guntas which was acquired by defendant No.1 and sites are formed by defendant No.3 and the vendor of the defendant has delivered the possession in respect of defendant No.7. It is also brought to notice of this Court by the respondent counsel that in the earlier proceedings, the very appellants have admitted that the vendor of defendant No.7 is in exclusive possession of his property that is site No.8 and he has not encroached any of the property of the appellants herein. When such admission is there in the earlier proceedings initiated by the appellants in respect of site Nos.7 and 9, in this proceeding, the appellants cannot contend that defendant No.7 has encroached the portion of 'A' schedule property. No doubt, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was stayed by this Court. In view of unequivocal admission in the earlier proceedings that vendor of respondent No.7 is in actual possession of the property which was allotted to him, the
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586 MFA No. 6575 of 2024 c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024 MFA No.6599 of 2024 appellants cannot claim that site No.8 which was purchased by defendant No.7 comes within Sy.No.89/3 and in order to substantiate the same, no material is placed except contending that it comes within the purview of Sy.No.89/3. Thus, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the matter requires full fledged trial with regard to identification of property is concerned to know that whether it comes in Sy.No.89/3 un-acquired area or whether it comes within the area of 1 ace 13½ guntas which was acquired, formed sites and sold in Sy.No.89/2. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and allowing I.A.No.5 since, the very identity of the property is in dispute.
9. The counsel for the appellants submits that in case, if the appellants succeeds and defendant No.7 put up construction in the property of Sy.No.89/3 which was acquired, he cannot claim the equity and the said submission disputed by the counsel for the respondent stating that there is unequivocal admission given in the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586 MFA No. 6575 of 2024 c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024 MFA No.6599 of 2024 earlier suit and hence, the appellants cannot sought for such direction. Having considered the prima facie material available on record with regard to the admission on the part of the appellants before the other proceedings when the suit was initiated by the owners of site Nos.7 and 9 wherein specifically admitted that the vendor of respondent No.7 he is in exclusive possession of the property which he had purchased, the question of considering the submission of the appellants does not arise. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the appellants' counsel to make such observation in the order.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The miscellaneous first appeals are dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and the observation made by this
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46586 MFA No. 6575 of 2024 c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024 MFA No.6599 of 2024 Court shall not influence the Trial Court in considering the matter on merits.
The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties are directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the suit at the earliest.
In view of dismissal of the main appeals, I.As. if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN