Bangalore District Court
Manjunath.S vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara on 2 August, 2016
Form No.9
(Civil) Title
Sheet for
Judgment
in Suits
R.P. 91
PRESENT: SRI S.H.HOSAGOUDAR,
B.Sc.,LL.B.,[Spl]
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
C/c XVI Additional City Civil
Judge, Bangalore City.
Dated this the 2nd day of August 2016
PLAINTIFFS: 1. Manjunath.S.
S/o Late S.Subbanna,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at
#49, 2nd Cross,
15th Main, HMT Layout,
Mathikere,
Bangalore-54.
2. Ramesh.S.
S/o Late N.Subbanna,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at # 49, 2nd Cross,
15th Main, HMT Layout,
Mathikere,
Bangalore-54.
3. Nalini Kumari
Aged about 44 years,
D/o Late N. Subbanna,
Residing at
#49, 2nd Cross,
15th Main, HMT Layout,
Mathikere,
Bangalore-54.
2 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
4. Vijayalakshmi
Aged about 43 years,
S/o Late N.Subbanna,
Residing at #966,
Bale Anjaneya Temple
Street, Hoora Bedi,
Yelahanka,
Bangalorel-54.
[By Sri Venkataraman Naik, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike, Represented by its
Executive Engineer,
Byatarayanapura Division,
[Exparte]
Date of institution of the : 19/3/2015
suit
Nature of the suit : For injunction
Date of commencement of : 1/7/2016
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 2/8/2016
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
1 4 14
(S.H. Hosagoudar)
C/c XVI ACCJ: B'LORE.
3 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
Plaintiffs have filed this suit against defendant
for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the
defendant or anybody claiming under him from
causing / interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule
property.
2. In brief, the plaintiffs case is as under:
That the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of suit
schedule property and plaintiffs have inherited the
suit schedule property by way of Gift Deed executed
by their grandmother Smt.Lakshmamma to her sons
namely A.N.Subbanna, Narasimhaiah and Jayamma.
The father of the plaintiff was died on 21/12/2000
leaving behind plaintiffs as his legal heirs. The
plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property. That the defendant had
proposed to construct the hospital in the suit
schedule property. In this regard, plaintiffs have
4 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
submitted a application under RTI Act seeking
information about the property in which defendant is
constructing hospital. It is informed that hospital is
built in the Gramtana property and not it will built in
survey no.2 of Doddabommasandra village. That on
13/3/2015, defendant and their officials have visited
the site with intention to start work and plaintiffs
have managed them to prevent them with great
difficulties. In this regard, plaintiffs have approached
police and police have informed them that they have
to approach Civil Court as this is a civil in nature.
Hence this suit.
3. In response to the suit summons issued by
the Court, defendant did not appear and contest the
case of the plaintiff. Hence, defendant is placed
exparte.
4. Thereafter the plaintiffs in order to prove
their case, among them plaintiff no.1 examined
himself as PW.1 and produced 5 documents which are
5 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and closed their side of
evidence.
5. Heard the arguments and perused entire
records of the case.
6. On perusal of the records of the case, the
following points those arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether plaintiffs proves that
they are in lawful possession
and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property as on the
date of suit?
(2) Whether plaintiffs prove the
alleged interference?
(3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled
for the relief of Permanent
Injunction as sought for?
(4) What order or decree
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No. 1) ............ In the negative;
Point No. 2) ............ In the negative;
Point No. 3) ............ In the negative;
Point No. 4) ............ As per final order for
the following:
6 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
8. POINTS NO.1 TO 3 : Now I will consider
points 1 to 3 together for the sake of brevity.
9. In this case, plaintiff no.1 examined himself
as PW.1. He filed affidavit evidence in lieu of
examination-in-chief. In his examination-in-chief, he
reiterated the plaint averments. He produced in all five
documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.
10. In this case, inspite of service of summons,
defendant did not appear and contest the case of
plaintiff. Hence defendant is placed exparte.
11. In this case plaintiffs sought for the relief of
Permanent Injunction in respect of the property
bearing survey no.2 situated at Doddabommasandra
village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North taluk
measuring 1 acre.
12. In this case plaintiffs have produced copy of
the Gift Deed which is marked as Ex.P1. It shows that
grandmother of the plaintiff by name
7 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
Smt.Lakshmamma has executed Gift Deed in respect
of property bearing survey no.2 measuring 2 acres 2
guntas situated at Doddabommasandra village,
Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore in favour of her sons by
name A.N.Subbanna, Narasimhaiah and Jayamma.
Hence by virtue of said Gift Deed, all the three
children of Lakshmamma became absolute owners of
the suit schedule property.
13. In this case, plaintiffs have produced RTC
extract which is marked as Ex.P2. On perusal of the
same, it shows that Narasimhaiah, Subbanna and
Jayalakshmi are the owners and in possession and
enjoyment of the survey no.2 of Doddabommasandra
village measuring 2 acres 2 guntas.
14. It is pertinent to note that, above said
Subbanna is the father of plaintiffs. In this case
plaintiffs sought relief of Permanent Injunction only in
respect of one acre of land in survey no.2. But, RTC
extracts i.e., Ex.P2 produced by the plaintiffs
8 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
themselves shows that Narasimhaiah and Subbanna
are in possession of 2 acre 2 guntas including 18
guntas of kharab land.
15. In this case, plaintiffs have not produced
any documentary evidence to show that they are in
possession and enjoyment of 1 acre of land in survey
no.2 of Doddabommasandra village. Ex.P2 itself
clearly shows that the father of the plaintiffs one
Narasimhaiah and Jayalakshmi are the joint owners
of survey no.2 measuring 2 acres 2 gunts aof
Doddabommasandra village. In this case, plaintiffs
have not produced any documentary evidence to show
that above said property was divided among
Subbanna, Narasimhaiah and Jayalakshmi and father
of the plaintiff has got 1 acre of land in the said
survey number in the partition or family settlement.
Hence, in the absence of documentary evidence it
cannot be said that the plaintiffs are in possession of
9 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
1 acre of land in survey no.2 of Dodda Bommasandra
village.
16. In this case, plaintiffs have furnished
boundaries to the 1 acre of land. But, plaintiffs have
not produced any documentary evidence to show that
they are in possession of 1 acre of land in survey no.2
as contended by them as per boundaries mentioned in
the schedule to the plaint. Ex.P2 itself shows that
father of the plaintiff and Narasimhaiah and one
Jayamma are the joint owners of survey no.2
measuring 2 acres 2 guntas including 18 guntas of
kharab land. In this case, Narasimhaiah and
Jayamma who are owners of the said property are not
made as a party to the suit. Even in this case, there is
no evidence on record to show that father of the
plaintiff and Narasimha and Jayalakshmi was effected
partition and in the said partition, 1 acre of land was
came to the share of father of plaintiff. The evidence
on record clearly shows that father of the plaintiff
10 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
admittedly died on 21/12/2000. It appears that after
the death of their father, plaintiffs have not got
changed the katha of the suit schedule property in
their names. Hence, in the absence of revenue
documents, it cannot be said that plaintiffs are in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. Moreover, there is no cogent evidence on
record to show about identification of suit schedule
property. Plaintiffs have not produced any
documentary evidence to prove the identification of 1
acre of land in survey no.2 of the Doddabommasandra
village. Therefore, plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove
the identification of suit schedule property. Admittedly
survey no.2 measures 2 acres 2 guntas including 18
guntas of kharab land. But there is no evidence on
record with regard to identification of 1 acre of land
which is claimed by the plaintiffs. Hence in the
absence of cogent evidence with regard to
identification of suit schedule property, it cannot be
11 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
said that plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property.
17. In this case, even though plaintiffs have
contended that defendants are causing interference in
their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property, but plaintiffs have not adduced
any cogent evidence to prove the alleged interference
by the defendants. In this case, there is no cogent
material on record to show that defendant or Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike is trying to put up
construction in survey no.2 of the
Doddabommasandra village. Even Ex.P4 shows that
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has no idea to
put up hospital in survey no.2. Under such
circumstances, it cannot be said that defendant or its
officials are trying to interfere in the plaintiff's
peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule property. Plaintiffs failed to prove
identification of the suit schedule property in survey
12 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
no.2. Hence, plaintiffs failed to prove their lawful
possession over the suit schedule property. Further,
plaintiffs also failed to prove alleged interference by
the defendants. When plaintiffs have failed to prove
proper identification of property, the question of
granting Temporary Injunction for non-identification
of property does not arise at all. Therefore, plaintiffs
are not entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction
as sought for. Accordingly, I answer points 1 to 3 in
negative.
18. POINT NO.4: From my above discussions
and reasoning, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be
dismissed. In the result, I pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiffs hereby
dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances
of the case, there is no order as to
costs.
13 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
Draw decree accordingly.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of August 2016.] [S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] C/c XVI Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 Majnjunath.S.
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL.
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P 1 Copy of the Gift Deed Ex.P 2 RTC extract Ex.P 3 Death certificate Ex.P 4 Reply given by Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Ex.P 5 Office copy of the legal notice 14 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Nil.
[S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] C/c XVI Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
...Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiffs hereby dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] C/c XVI Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
17 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_ 18 CT0028_O.S._2652_2015_Judgment_ fdfdf ffdfdfd