Bangalore District Court
Mahadev N B vs Rajalakshmi V L on 3 September, 2025
1
OS NO. 1560/2018
KABC010058172018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY: (CCH.7)
Dated this the 03rd day of September, 2025.
PRESENT
SRI. VIJETH.V, B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S. NO.1560/2018
Plaintiffs : 1. N.B.Mahadev
S/o.Late Rajamma & Late
N.C.Basavarajappa
Aged about 60 years
R/a.No.110/1, VII Cross, 1st Main Road
Chamrajpet
Bengaluru-560 018.
(By Sri.D.V.P., Advocate)
V/s.
Defendants : 1. Smt.V.L.Rajalakshmi
W/o.Sri H.C.Sathyanarayana
Aged about 57 years
57
O.S. No.1560/2018
2. H.C.Sathyanarayana
Aged about 64 years
S/o.Late Chinnusa
Both R/a.No.945/69
III Main Road
III Cross, Vijayanagara
Bengaluru-560 040.
(By Sri.S.M., Adv. for Def. No.1 & 2)
Date of Institution of the suit : 26.02.2018
Nature of the suit : Injunction
Date of commencement of : S.H.Puttagangaiah
recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment : 03.09.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
07 06 07
(VIJETH.V)
XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents or any person claiming under him from interfering with 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as under; The plaintiff is the co-owner of the property bearing Sy. No.17, situated at Magadi Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Chord Road Layout Extension, Bengaluru-40 measuring approximately 15 guntas. The schedule property was belonged to one K.M.Nanjundaiah who acquired the same from Munishyamappa through registered sale deed dated 06.02.1963. The mother of the plaintiff by name Smt.Rajamma had purchased the schedule property from K.M.Nanjundaiah for valuable consideration through registered sale deed dated 06.03.1972. The mother of the plaintiff Sri Rajamma had applied for khatha pursuant to the sale deed dated 06.03.1972 and the mutation was entered as per M.R. No.2/1995-96. The Suit Schedule Property over a period of time came under Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and thereafter to the jurisdiction of BBMP. Periodically the mother of the plaintiff has paid tax to the concerned 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 authority by exercising her right of ownership. The father of the plaintiff by name N.C.Basavarajappa passed away on 15.11.2017 and their mother Smt.Rajamma passed away on 13.11.2007 leaving behind their children namely Sri N.B.Mahadev, N.B.Manjula and N.B.Manjunatha. After the death of Smt.Rajamma the plaintiff is looking after all the properties. In the year 2010, the Suit Schedule Property has been surveyed by the BBMP. When the matter stood thus, the defendants having no manner of right, title or interest with respect to the Suit Schedule Property started to make construction in the Suit Schedule Property by putting columns. The plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police, the police authorities had summoned both the defendants and warranted them not to make any construction in the Suit Schedule Property. Thereafter, the defendants kept quite for some time and again trespassed the Suit Schedule Property and started erecting structures in the Suit Schedule Property. Immediately, the plaintiff and his family members rushed to the spot and resisted the illegal and high handed acts of the defendants. Again the plaintiff approached the 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 jurisdictional police for necessary help and for protection, but the police have advised them to approach Civil Court as the matter is Civil in nature. The cause of action arose on 21.02.2018 when for the first time the defendants have started erecting columns in the Suit Schedule Property and further on 24.02.2018 when the plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police to lodge complaint and the police have instructed to approach Civil Court. Hence prays to decree the suit as prayed for.
3. After service of suit summons, the defendant No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their common written statement.
4. The sum and substance of the written statement filed by the defendants is as under;
The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit as he is not the owner and in lawful possession of the Suit Schedule Property. The alleged vendor of 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 mother of the plaintiff had no right to alienate the land bearing Sy No.17 of Agrahara Dasarahalli. Sy. No.17 of Agrahara Dasarahalli is a Govt. Kharab Land (Sarakari Halla) and the said land is acquired by the Bengaluru Improvement Trust Board way back in the year 1962 itself. The Khatha was not changed to the name of Smt.Rajamma. The tax paid receipts produced by the plaintiffs were much later to the date of death of Smt.Rajamma & the tax was paid in the name of dead persons. The suit is not maintainable as all the legal heirs of Smt.Rajamma are not made as parties. The defendant has not erected any structure on the Suit Schedule Property as alleged by the plaintiff.
Further, the land bearing Sy. No.17 measuring 17 guntas is kharab land (Sarakari Halla) and it does not belong to either the plaintiff or to any one of his predecessors. The vendor of Smt.Rajamma had no land available to sell the same to Smt.Rajamma. The mother of the plaintiff will not derive any title as the said land was already acquired by the Trust Board. The defendants have purchased the written statement schedule property 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 bearing Municipal No.1/4 (Old No.1/1), (later 1/1 and 1/5) with PID No.36-29-1/4 within the jurisdiction of BBMP situated at first cross, M.C. Industrial Extension, Magadi Road, Chord Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru - 40, BBMP Ward No.36, New No.104 (Govindarajanagara), and measuring east to west 120 ft., and north to south 23 ft in total 2760 sq. ft. bounded on east by road, west of compound wall of Veeresh theater, north by passage and factory & south by toilet vacant space and others property. The defendants have purchased the written statement schedule property from their vendor in title by name Dilip Kumar M J and Smt.M.D.Kavitha under registered sale deed dated 08.06.2015. After the purchase the khatha with respect to the Suit Schedule Property were changed to the name of the defendants. The vendors of defendants have purchased the written statement schedule property from their vendor by name V.Nagaraj under a registered sale deed dated 09.11.2012. Khatha was transferred to the name of V.Nagaraj. The written statement schedule property lies in Sy. No.16 and is entirely different from the Suit Schedule Property. The Suit Schedule 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 Property as described in the schedule to the suit lies far away from the written statement schedule property and these two properties were not adjacent to each other. The plaintiff approached this Court with mistaken identity. The written statement schedule property is carved out of Sy. No.16 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village measuring east to west 173 + 127/2 and north to south 198 +188/2 which was re-conveyed and allotted in favour of one V.M.Narasimhaswamy S/o.Muninarasappa and possession was also delivered to Narasimhappa under possession certificate dated 25.11.1962. The said B.M.Narasimhaswamy sold one half of the written statement schedule property in favour of Y.Shivashankar under registered sale deed dated 05.12.1980 and the other half of written statement schedule property was sold by B.Narasimhamurthy infavour of Y.Solabesha on the same day i.e., on 05.12.1980. Further, Y.Shivashankar sold the half portion of the written statement schedule property which was purchased by him to one B.Thanmal under registered sale deed dated 21.03.1983. Similarly, Y.Solabesha has sold the other half portion of written statement schedule 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 property in favour of one B.Thanmal on 21.03.1983. The said Thanmal sold two portions of property in favour of one M.Srinivasa under Registered sale deed dated 01.12.2004. The said M.Srinivasa sought for amalgamation of both the sites into one unit and the same has been accepted by BBMP. Thereafter, he has sold the written statement schedule property in favour of V.Nagaraja on 09.11.2012. The said V.Nagaraju sold the written statement schedule property in favour of one Dilip Kumar and Kavitha under registered sale deed dated 09.11.2012 and the said Dilip Kumar and Kavitha sold the written statement schedule property in favour of present defendants through registered sale deed dated 08.06.2015. There is no land in Sy. No.17. The CTS No.1143 allotted to Sy. No.20 stands in the name of Hombegowda Trust and the plaintiff is nothing to do with it. The CTS no allotted to Sy. No.16 belongs to B.M.Narasimhaswamy is 1142 now which belongs to defendants. When the written statement schedule property was purchased by the defendants their existed a old structure with vacant land surrounded by compound wall. Due to the heavy rain the entire compound wall 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 was collapsed and the mud that was stored on the neighbouring land adjacent to this compound wall fell on the compound wall and the compound wall merged with the mud. Hence, in order to protect their property the defendants started to built compound wall by erecting pillars to raise compound wall. The suit filed only for the relief of permanent injunction without seeking the relief of declaration and possession is not maintainable. Hence, among all other grounds prays to dismiss the suit.
5. On the above pleadings the following issues were framed;
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit by virtue of registered sale deed dated 06.02.1963?
2. Whether the Plaintiff further proves the alleged obstruction by the defendants over the suit schedule property ?
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
57
O.S. No.1560/2018
4. What Order or Decree?
6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and produced & got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31 documents & closed his side evidence and closed his side evidence. On the other hand, substantiate the contention of the defendants, the defendant No.2 got himself examined as DW-1 and produced & got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.27.
7. Heard arguments & perused the materials placed on record.
8. My findings to the above issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1 : As affirmative
ISSUE NO.2 : As affirmative
ISSUE NO.3 : As affirmative
ISSUE NO.4 : As per final order, for the
following;
57
O.S. No.1560/2018
REASONS
9. Issue No.1:- The learned Advocate for plaintiff contended that the plaintiff is the co-owner of the property bearing Sy. No.17, situated at Magadi Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Chord Road Layout Extension, Bengaluru-40 measuring approximately 15 guntas. The schedule property was belonged to one K.M.Nanjundaiah who acquired the same from Munishyamappa through registered sale deed dated 06.02.1963. The mother of the plaintiff by name Smt.Rajamma had purchased the schedule property from K.M.Nanjundaiah for valuable consideration through registered sale deed dated 06.03.1972. The mother of the plaintiff Sri Rajamma had applied for Khatha pursuant to the sale deed dated 06.03.1972 and the mutation was entered as per M.R. No.2/1995-96. The Suit Schedule Property over a period of time came under Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and thereafter to the jurisdiction of BBMP. Periodically the mother of the plaintiff has paid tax to the concerned authority by exercising her right of ownership. The father of the plaintiff by name N.C.Basavarajappa passed away on 15.11.2017 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 and their mother Smt.Rajamma passed away on 13.11.2007 leaving behind their children namely Sri N.B.Mahadev, N.B.Manjual and N.B.Manjunatha. After the death of Smt.Rajamma the plaintiff is looking after all the properties.
10. On the other hand the learned advocate for defendants contended that the alleged vendor of mother of the plaintiff had no right to alienate the land bearing Sy No.17 of Agrahara Dasarahalli. Sy. No.17 of Agrahara Dasarahalli is a Govt. Kharab Land (Sarakari Halla) and the said land is acquired by the Bengaluru Improvement Trust Board way back in the year 1962 itself. The Khatha was not changed to the name of Smt.Rajamma. The tax paid receipts produced by the plaintiffs were much later to the date of death of Smt.Rajamma & the tax was paid in the name of dead persons. The suit is not maintainable as all the legal heirs of Smt.Rajamma are not made as parties. The defendant has not erected any structure on the Suit Schedule Property as alleged by the plaintiff. 57
O.S. No.1560/2018 Further, the land bearing Sy. No.17 measuring 17 guntas is Kharab land (Sarakari Halla) and it does not belong to either the plaintiff or to any one of his predecessors. The vendor of Smt.Rajamma had no land available to sell the same to Smt.Rajamma. The mother of the plaintiff will not derive any title as the said land was already acquired by the Trust Board. The defendants have purchased the written statement schedule property bearing Municipal No.1/4 (Old No.1/1), (later 1/1 and 1/5) with PID No.36-29-1/4 within the jurisdiction of BBMP situated at first cross, M.C. Industrial Extension, Magadi Road, Chord Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru - 40, BBMP Ward No.36, New No.104 (Govindarajanagara), and measuring east to west 120 ft., and north to south 23 ft in total 2760 sq. ft. bounded on east by road, west of compound wall of Veeresh theater, north by passage and factory & south by toilet vacant space and others property. The defendants have purchased the written statement schedule property from their vendor in title by name Dilip Kumar M J and Smt.M.D.Kavitha under registered sale deed dated 08.06.2015. After the purchase the 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 khatha with respect to the Suit Schedule Property were changed to the name of the defendants. The vendors of defendants have purchased the written statement schedule property from their vendor by name V.Nagaraj under a registered sale deed dated 09.11.2012. Khatha was transferred to the name of V.Nagaraj. The written statement schedule property lies in Sy. No.16 and is entirely different from the Suit Schedule Property. The Suit Schedule Property as described in the schedule to the suit lies far away from the written statement schedule property and these two properties were not adjacent to each other. The plaintiff approached this Court with mistaken identity. The written statement schedule property is carved out of Sy.No.16 of Agarahara Dasarahalli Village measuring east to west 173 + 127/2 and north to south 198 +188/2 which was re-conveyed and allotted in favour of one V.M.Narasimhaswamy S/o.Muninarasappa and possession was also delivered to Narasimhappa under possession certificate dated 25.11.1962. The said B.M.Narasimhaswamy sold one half of the written statement schedule property in favour of Y.Shivashankar under registered sale 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 deed dated 05.12.1980 and the other half of written statement schedule property was sold by B.Narasimhamurthy infavour of Y.Solabesha on the same day i.e., on 05.12.1980. Further, Y.Shivashankar sold the half portion of the written statement schedule property which was purchased by him to one B.Thanmal under registered sale deed dated 21.03.1983. Similarly, Y.Solabesha has sold the other half portion of written statement schedule property in favour of one B.Thanmal on 21.03.1983. The said Thanmal sold two portions of property in favour of one M.Srinivasa under Registered sale deed dated 01.12.2004. The said M.Srinivasa sought for amalgamation of both the sites into one unit and the same has been accepted by BBMP. Thereafter, he has sold the written statement schedule property in favour of V.Nagaraja on 09.11.2012. The said V.Nagaraju sold the written statement schedule property in favour of one Dilip Kumar and Kavitha under registered sale deed dated 09.11.2012 and the said Dilip Kumar and Kavitha sold the written statement schedule property in favour of present defendants through registered sale deed dated 08.06.2015. 57
O.S. No.1560/2018 There is no land in Sy. No.17. The CTS No.1143 allotted to Sy. No.20 stands in the name of Hombegowda Trust and the plaintiff is nothing to do with it. The CTS no allotted to Sy. No.16 belongs to B.M.Narasimhaswamy is 1142 now which belongs to defendants.
11. In order to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff has filed examination in chief on oath as PW-1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31 documents. Ex.P.1 is the General Power of Attorney Executed by plaintiff, Ex.P.2 is the C.C. of sale deed dated 06.02.1963 executed by M.Muniyappa S/o.Mayanna in favour of V.M.Nanjundaiah with respect to Sy.No.17 measuring 17 guntas, Ex.P.2(a) is typed copy of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 is C.C. of sale deed dated 06.,03.1972 executed by K.M.Nanjundaiah in favour of Smt.Rajamma with respect to Sy. No.17 measuring 15 guntas out of 17 guntas of Agarahara Dasarahalli Village, Ex.P.3(a) is typed copy of Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4 is the E.C. with respect to Sy. No.17 from 01.04.1950 to 30.09.1966 which reveals that Muniyappa 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 executed sale deed in favour of K.M.Nanjundaiah with respect to Sy. No.17 measuring 17 guntas, Ex.P.5 is the E.C. with respect to Sy. No.17 from 01.05.1971 to 31.03.2004 which reveals that on 106.03.1972 K.M.Nanjundaiah executed registered sale deed in favour of Smt.Rajamma with respect to Sy. No.17 measuring 15 guntas, Ex.P.6 & Ex.P.7 are also the E.C.'s pertaining to Suit Schedule Property, Ex.P.8 is the C.C. of M.R. No.2/1995-96 which reveals that the revenue documents pertaining to Sy. No.17 measuring 15 guntas was mutated to the name of Smt.Rajamma, Ex.P.8(a) is typed copy of Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9 & Ex.P.10 are the Endorsement given by Asst. Revenue Officer to the legal heirs of Smt.Rajamma stating that as the property is above 6,000 sq. ft. as such 'B' khatha cannot be entered without conversion of land, Ex.P11 is the circular dated 25.08.2009 pertaining to BBMP stating that unless the revenue lands measuring more than 6000 sq. ft. were not converted, 'B' khatha cannot be issued, Ex.P12 is the Gazette Notification dated 19.12.1961 with respect to acquisition of lands for the purpose of formation of layout by CITB, Ex.P13 is the 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 notice issued by Asst. Director of Land Records, Ex.P14 is the order passed by Asst. Director of Land Records, Ex.P.15 is the requisition given by the GPA of plaintiff to Joint Director of Land Records, Bengaluru, Ex.P16 is the Mahazar, Ex.P17 is the copy of order sheet in CTS (B) Dvn., 16/1920 before the Court of Joint Director, Land Records, South Zone, Bengaluru, Ex.P18 is the a Sketch, Ex.P19 is the Copy of LAC Register Extract, Ex.P20 & 21 are the news paper editions with respect to issuance of notice to Hombegowda Trust to appear and to raise their objections if any, Ex.P22 is the photographs in Nos.11, Ex.P.22(a) is CD, Ex.P23 is the tax paid receipts standing in the name of Smt.Rajamma in Nos.12, Ex.P24 is the C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.16 of Agarahara Dasarahalli Village for the year 1955-56 to 1971-72, Ex.P25 is the C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.17 of Agarahara Dasarahalli Village for the year 1955-56 to 1971-72, Ex.P26 is the C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.18 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village for the year 1955-56 to 1971-72, Ex.P27 is the C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.19 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village for the year 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 1955-56 to 1971-72, Ex.P28 is the copy of book of detail mapping of City of Bengaluru with respect to CTS 1143 of Agrahara Dasarahalli, Ex.P29 is the Original Tippani, Ex.P30 is the City Survey with respect to CTS No.1143 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village, Ex.P31 is the City Survey with respect to CTS No.1143 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village.
12. On the other hand the defendant No.2 filed his examination in chief on oath as DW-1 and reiterated the averments of his written statement. He has also produced and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.27 documents. Ex.D.1 is the C.C. of agreement of sale dated 24.06.2014 executed by plaintiffs & their family members in favour of Shafeeq Ahmed and Saleem Pasha, Ex.D2 is the C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.17 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village for the year 1971-72 to 1974-75, Ex.D3 is the order passed by Joint Director of Land Records in City Survey in CTS (B) Revision 16/2019-20 dated 21.05.2020, Ex.D4 is the Order passed in Addl. Director Land Records in SSLR/TNL/RVN-01/2020-21 dated 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 23.06.2022, Ex.D5 is the Original sale deed dated 08.06.2015 executed by one Dilip Kumar and Kavitha in favour of defendants with respect to written statement schedule property , Ex.D6 is the Khatha Certificate standing in the name of Dilip Kumar & Kavith with respect to written statement schedule property, Ex.D7 is the Khatha Certificate with respect to Written statement schedule property standing in the name of present defendants, Ex.D8 & Ex.D9 are the Khatha extract pertaining to written statement schedule property presently standing in the name of defendants, Ex.D10 is the tax paid receipts in nos.8 with respect to written statement schedule property, Ex.D11 is the re-conveyance deed executed by CITB in favour of one Narasimhaiah with respect to written statement schedule property, Ex.D12 is the Original Sale deed dated 05.12.1980 executed by B.M.Narasimhaswamy in favour of Y.Shivashankar with respect to half portion of written statement schedule property, Ex.D13 is the Original Sale deed dated 05.12.1980 executed by B.M.Narasimhaswamy in favour of Y.Solabesha with respect to half portion of written statement 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 schedule property, Ex.D14 is the original sale deed dated 21.03.1983 executed by Y.Shivashankar in favour of Thanmal with respect to half portion of written statement schedule property, Ex.D15 is the original sale deed dated 21.03.1983 executed by Y.Solabesha in favour of Thanmal with respect to half portion of written statement schedule property, Ex.D16 is the is the original sale deed dated 01.07.2004 executed by Thanmal in favour of one Srinivas with respect to written statement schedule property, Ex.D17 is the original sale deed dated 24.09.2007 executed by M.Srinivas in favour of V.Nagaraj with respect to written statement schedule property, Ex.D18 is the letter issued by Asst. Revenue Officer dated 22.12.2006, Ex.D19 is the original Sale deed dated 09.11.2012 executed by V.Nagaraj in favour of Dilip Kumar and Kavitha with respect to written statement schedule property, Ex.D20 is the Sketch pertaining to the layout formed by CITB, Ex.D21 & Ex.D.22 are the City Survey Register Extract, Ex.D23 is the copy of Mula Prathi book with respect to Sy. No.17, Ex.D24 is the copy of letter of Smt.Rajamma sent to SLAO BDA Bengaluru dt.18.03.1987 & its 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 reply, Ex.D25 is the property card pertaining to written statement schedule property, Ex.D26 is the objections filed by Special Land Acquisition Officer in SSLR/TNL/RVN - 01/2020-21, Ex.D.27 is the Photographs in Nos.3 Ex.D27(a) is CD.
13. The learned Advocate for plaintiff has produced and relied on the following citations;
1 2016 (4) KCCR 3369 in between Mohammed Haji V/s. Managing Director, NEKRTC Central Office, Kalaburagi wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that - 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - Suit for injunction - Denial of relief- If proper - Plaintiff in possession and enjoyment of suit property as lessee - Defendant denying possession of plaintiff and creating counter plea-Virtually amounts to interference in law - Appellate court interfering with relief grant by Trial Court on ground that plaintiff did not show interference by defendant - Not justified - Once possession is proved, it has to be protected by granting injunction - Judgment of Trial Court restored.
2 2018 (1) AKR 756 in between State of Karnataka V/s. R.M.Meenakshi Sundaram wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that - 'Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S-38
- Suit for permanent injunction - Restraining 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 defendant from interfering with possession of plaintiff - Suit property adjacent to property acquired by Government - Under grab of acquisition defendants interfering with plaintiff's possession - Plaintiff by producing document clearly establishing that property purchased by plaintiff is not subject-matter of acquisition-Permanent injunction granted in favour of plaintiff. Appeal dismissed.' 3 2018(3) AKR 840 in between Harilala Lakshman Naik V/s. Mahantesh S/o.Malla - Appa Hadagali wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that - ' Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S-38 - Suit for permanent injunction - Restraining defendant from interfering with peaceful possession of suit property - plaintiff claiming title on basis of registered sale deed in his favour by vendor - Defendant pleading that he is in possession of suit property on basis of unregistered agreement - Vendor admitting execution of sale deed and denying any unregistered sale agreement in favour of defendant - Failure of defendant to produce document to establish their possession of suit land - Permanent injunction granted'.
'The plaintiff has become owner of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, registered sale deed is a lawful and genuine document regarding the transfer of title in favour of the person with respect to immovable property. In the registered sale deed, there are clear recitals regarding passing over of the title and handing over the possession of the suit 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 land by the original owner i.e., defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff. Appeal dismissed.' 4 AIR Online 2020 KAR 2096 in between Basappa Veerappa Baliger and Others V/s. Saidabi Hasansab Doddamani wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that - 'Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S-38 - Suit for permanent injunction -To restrain defendants from obstructing peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property by plaintiff - Possession of plaintiff based on a sale deed executed in her favour - Defendants also aware of such sale deed and never challenged it - Merely because plaintiff had filed police complaint seeking for possession through hands of the police, it cannot be construed as admission that plaintiff was out of possession - Defendants restrained from interfering with possession of plaintiff. Appeal dismissed.' 5 2021 (2) AKR 288 : AIR on Line 2020 KAR 2479 in between Basanagouda Sangappa Kusalapur V/s. Muregappa Shankarappa Dodamani wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that - ' Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S- 38 - Suit for permanent injunction - Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art . 65 -Permanent injunction
- Grant of - Defendants did not specifically state as to when they came into possession of suit property and started enjoying adversely to interest of real owners - Necessary ingredients required to prove plea of adverse possession not pleaded - Title of plaintiff established by registered sale deed and entries in revenue 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 records - Grant of permanent injunction, just and property. The regular second appeal is rejected. No order as to costs'.
6 (2021) 2 SCC 718 in between Iqbal Basith And Others V.s. N.Subbalakshmi & Others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that - 'A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 - S. 38 - Permanent injunction against interference with possession of plaintiff Entitlement to Whether necessary for plaintiff to establish full ownership and title over suit property, when defendant cannot establish any title or claim to suit property whatsoever - Establishment of possessory title by plaintiff in such circumstances, if enough, particularly when no issue as to (full) title framed by trial or appellate court.
In present case, the issue of full title was not an issue framed either by the trial court or the High Court, even though the documentary evidence on record appears to be sufficient to establish full title of plaintiffs - Yet, this was not necessary for determining the question whether permanent injunction against interference with possession of plaintiffs could be granted, when the plaintiffs had clearly established at least their possessory title over the suit property, if not their full title, when respondents could establish no title or claim to the suit property whatsoever Hence, held, appellant-plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction against respondent-defendants against interference with plaintiffs' possession of suit property- Respondent-defendants had no concern with suit property Respondents were owners of 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 another property at a distance of 103 ft, with intervening properties also - Respondents illegally attempted to encroach on appellants- plaintiffs' property Photocopies of documentary evidence produced by appellant-plaintiffs to prove title over suit property - Aforesaid documents were produced from proper custody along with explanation for not producing originals Two reports of Pleader Commissioner also confirmed possessory title of appellants along with property tax registers and municipal tax receipts - Appellants had more than sufficiently established their lawful possession of suit property - Respondents did not claim any title in themselves to suit property, but feebly sought to question appellants' title in a vague manner - Contention of respondents feebly seeking to question title of appellants was rejected by courts below holding that they had nothing to do with suit scheduled property and that their conduct was questionable - However appellants were wrongly denied relief of permanent injunction - Trial Court and High Court both posed unto themselves wrong question venturing to decide title of appellants, and arrived at an erroneous conclusion - Trial court & High Court both posed unto themselves wrong question venturing to decide title of appellants and arrived at an erroneous conclusion - Held appellant - Plaintiffs were entitled for permanent injunction'.
17. On the basis of the aforesaid admission, the materials and evidence on record. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders is 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 missing the suit and the appeal are therefore not sustainable. We therefore set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court dismissing the suit and allow the appeal.
7 AIR 2023 Karnataka 229 in between
Basavanneppa Neelappa Kulkarni V/s.
Abdulghani Husenamiya Asundi wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that - 'Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.38 - Suit for injunction - Un authorised construction - Defendant claimed title over suit property by virtue of sale deed and contended that possession was handed over and with permission of plaintiff - No specific clause in agreement of sale regarding handing over of possession - It was no where asserted as to when defendant had come in possession of suit scheduled property - Defendant had not acquired any title under agreement of sale and had not obtained any permission for construction from competent authority -
Defendant not liable to proceed with construction - Suit decreed in favour of plaintiff, proper'.
8 AIR 2023 (NOC) 174 in between Shivaiah V/s. Ashok Venkatesh Shet wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had held that -
'Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.38 Suit for injunction - Both parties claiming their respective rights based on sale deed, one executed by power of attorney holder and another executed by original owner - When suit is filed for relief of bare injunction, it is left open to parties to file comprehensive suit with regard 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 to declaration of their right - If defendant is claiming right based on sale deed, subsequent to sale deed in favour of plaintiff, it is for him to seek relief of declaration - In suit for bare injunction, plaintiff has established possession by relying upon document that he was in possession as on date of suit, Courts have to take note of same whether plaintiff was in possession as on date of suit and whether there is any interference - When such fact has been established, Trial court rightly granted decree'. 'The plaintiff has established the possession by relying upon the document that he has been in possession as on the date of the suit and also the Courts have to take note of the same whether the plaintiff was in possession as on the date of the suit and whether there is any interference. When such fact has been established, the Trail Court rightly granted the decree'.
9 W.P. No.10824/2009 (LA-BDA) in between Savithramma and others V/s. State of Karnataka and others wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that - 'Aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in not de-notifying the lands, the petitions on the ground that respondent NO.2 as per Section 27 of BDA Act is required to execute the scheme within a period of 5 years and in the instant case it has not done so because of which the scheme lapses and the provisions of Section 36 of BDA Act becomes inoperative, filed the above writ petition praying for setting aside the preliminary and final notification by which the properties in question were acquired.
57
O.S. No.1560/2018
19. The petitioners have contended that for acquisition to be completed actual vesting has to take place in the authority. In the instant case, the Mahazar of taking possession of the property has been drawn only on 07.08.2008 which is about 23 years after the final notification is issued. In this regard, the petitioners relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in (2011) 5 SCC 386 (Prahlad Singh and others vs. Union of India and others.
Paragraph 13 of the judgment reads as under:
13. We have given our serious thought to the entire matter and carefully examine the records.
Section 16 lays down that once the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he can take possession of the acquired land.
Simultaneously, the section declares that upon taking possession by the Collector, the acquired land shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. In terms of the plain language of this Section, vesting of the acquired land in the Government takes place as soon as possession is taken by the Collector after passing an award under Section 11. To put it differently, the vesting of land under Section 16 of the Act presupposes actual taking of possession and till that is done, legal presumption of vesting enshrined in Section 16 cannot be raised in favour of the acquiring authority.'
20. The petitioners have also contended that when the land has not vested with the BDA and 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 when the scheme has not been substantially implemented within the time period under Section 27 of the BDA Act, the acquisition becomes inoperative and the scheme and acquisition in respect of the lands in question will lapse. In this regard, the petitioners have relied upon the following decisions:-
a) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2011) 3 SCC 139 (Offshore Holdings vs. BDA and others), paragraphs 38, 39 and 93 reads as under:
38. On a conjunctive reading of the provisions of Sections 27 and 36 of the State Act, it is clear that where a scheme lapses, the acquisition may not. This, of course, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Where, upon completion of the acquisition proceedings, the land has vested in the State Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act. An argument to the contrary cannot be accepted for the reason that on vesting, the land stands transferred and vested in the State/Authority free from all encumbrances and such status of the property is incapable of being altered by fiction of law either by the State Act or by the Central Act.
Both these Acts do not contain any provision in terms of which property, once and absolutely, vested in the State can be reverted to the owner on any condition. There is no reversal of the title and possession of the State. However, this may not be true in cases where acquisition 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 proceedings are still pending and land has not been vested in the Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act.
39. What is meant by the language of Section 27 of the BDA Act i.e., "provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative", is that if the acquisition proceedings are pending and where the scheme has lapsed, further proceedings in terms of Section 36(3) of the BDA Act i.e., with reference to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act shall become inoperative. Once the land which, upon its acquisition, has vested in the State and thereafter vested in the Authority in terms of Section 36(3); such vesting is incapable of being disturbed except in the case where the Government issues a notification for revesting the land in itself, or a corporation, or a local authority in cases where the land is not required by the Authority under the provisions of Section 37(3) of the BDA Act.
93. The BDA Act is a social welfare legislation intended to achieve social object of planned development under the schemes made by the Authority concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The fact that this subject falls within the legislative competence of the State is unquestionable. The attempt of The State legislation is to provide complete measures and methodology to attain its object by establishment of a single authority to check haphazard and irregular growth and to formulate and implement schemes providing for proper amenities and planned development of the city of Bangalore. Acquisition of land is not 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 its primary purpose but, of course, acquisition of some land may become necessary to achieve its object which is to be specified at the outset of formation of schemes in terms of Section 16 of the BDA Act. Thus, acquisition of land is nothing but incidental to the main object of the State law."
b) Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2005 KAR 295 (D.Narayanappa vs. State of Karnataka and others) at paragraphs 7(v), (vi) and (vii) reads as under:
(v). It is no doubt true that under Section 19 of the 1945 Act and under Section 27 of BDA Act the scheme would lapse if it is not implemented substantially within the specified period. But, what should happen to the lands acquired by the erstwhile CITB for the scheme and not utilized for several years despite the scheme is substantially executed in respect of other lands?
If the acquired lands are not utilized for the purpose for which they were acquired within a reasonable period (for example within a period of 10 years from the date of final notification), it shall be held that such lands are not required for the purpose for which they were acquired and the same are abandoned. In such cases, it has to be held that the acquisition proceedings automatically lapsed on account of abandonment of the same for decades and the original owners of such lands can exercise full ownership rights upon such lands. Otherwise, neither the original owners nor the authority for which the land was acquired will use the land and the valuable lands remain un-utilised even 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 for several decades. That results in defeating the very object and purpose for which the land was acquired under the guise of public purpose on the one hand and on the other hand the owners of the lands are deprived of their valuable rights of enjoying and exercising their ownership rights. Therefore, an end has to be put to such a situation so that lands are utilized properly either by the owners or acquired body or Authority in whose favour lands are acquired.
vi) If the acquired land is not utilized for several years by the acquired body or authority for the purpose for which it was acquired, it has to be held that the acquired body or authority failed to exercise its rights over the land. In such a situation, the right of the land owner revives. In the instant case since the petitioner is in settled possession upon the land, he has acquired a valuable statutory right as held in James case. Hence the officers of the BDA should not have demolished the existing structures upon the land in question by using force without taking possession of the land from the petitioner with due process of law as held in several decisions.
vii) For the reasons stated in paragraphs (i) to
(vi) above, in the instant case the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question are not in force as the acquisition proceedings have lapsed and the B.D.A. has abandoned its scheme due to non-utilization of the land in question for nearly four decades. The BDA has no right to exercise its power over it at this stage as the petitioner has acquired a valuable statutory right upon the land in question. 57
O.S. No.1560/2018 Accordingly, point (b) is answered against the B.D.A.'
22. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2018 KAR 2144 (BDA V/s. State of Karnataka and others) at Paragraphs 5 to 8 reads as under;
"5. It is no longer res-integra that power conferred on any authority be exercised reasonably and reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a reasonable period. An acquisition proceeding once initiated has to be completed by passing an award and paying compensation followed by taking over possession within a reasonable period. This has to be strictly followed even in the absence of any statutory limit prescribed for passing of award and completing the acquisition proceedings.
8. In the present cases, though final notification was issued in the year 1971 so far, neither award has been passed nor possession has been taken over by paying compensation. Therefore, the acquiring body has neither exercised its powers in a reasonable manner nor has it completed the acquisition proceeding within a reasonable period. Hence, acquisition having been abandoned stands lapsed on account of omission and commission on the part of the CITB/BDA in respect of writ petitioners/respondents' herein in so far as the land is concerned."
23. To sum up the ratio laid down in the aforementioned decisions states that the 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 purpose of BDA is to ensure organized development of the city of Bengaluru. In order to achieve it, it can acquire lands but land acquisition is not the main purpose of BDA. When it acquires land pursuant to a particular scheme and that scheme is not implemented within a time frame as prescribed in Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, the scheme lapses. If a scheme has lapsed and the lands sought to be acquired has not already vested with the BDA, acquisition proceedings in respect of those lands cannot proceed and the right of the land owners in respect of those lands revives.
14. The learned Advocate for plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property originally belongs to one Mayanna and after his death his son M.Muniyappa has sold land bearing Sy. No.17 measuring 17 guntas in favour of one K.M.Nanjundaiah under registered sale deed dated 06.02.1963. The mother of the plaintiff by name Smt.Rajamma had purchased the suit schedule property from one K.M.Nanjundiah on 06.03.1972 under registered sale deed. From the date of sale deed the mother of the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 owner, the revenue documents were also mutated to the name of Smt.Rajamma.
15. On the contrary, it is the contention of the defendant that the land bearing Sy. No.17 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village is not a cultivable land and it is a Sarkari Halla. Further, the said land has been allotted to one Hombegowda Trust. The plaintiff nor their vendors had no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property & the plaintiff wrongly claiming that CTS No.1143 and land bearing Sy. No.17 are one and the same is not proper. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property as alleged by the plaintiff and the suit schedule property is acquired by the CITB for formation of layout.
16. In order to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff to show that the vendor of Smt.Rajamma had title & possession over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has produced the C.C. of sale deed dated 06.02.1963 through which one Muniyappa S/o.Mayanna has sold land bearing Sy. No.17 measuring 17 guntas 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 in favour of V.M.Nanjundaiah. The plaintiffs also produced the C.C. of sale deed dated 06.03.1972 through which the mother of the plaintiff Smt.Rajamma has purchased land measuring 15 guntas out of 17 guntas of Sy. No.17 of Agrahara Dasarahalli in her favour. The plaintiffs also produced Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.7 which are the encumbrance Certificates which reveals that one Muniyappa has sold land bearing Sy. No.17 measuring 17 guntas in favour of Nanjundaiah and thereafter Sri Nanjundaiah has sold Sy. No.17 measuring 15 guntas in favour of Smt.Rajamma. The plaintiffs also produced the C.C. of mutation extract pertaining to M.R. No.2/1995-96 marked at Ex.P.8 through which the revenue authorities have passed Order to enter the name of the Smt.Rajamma with respect to land measuring 15 guntas in Sy. No.17 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village.
17. On the contrary, the learned Advocate for the defendant has produced and got marked Ex.D.2 C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.17 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village for the year 1965-66 to 1975 -76 wherein Sy. No.17 is shown as Sarkari Halla and in the 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 cultivators column the name of one Trust Board is shown. As such, the learned Advocate has contended that the Sy. No.17 is a Sarakari Halli and the same is acquired by Trust Board. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for plaintiff also produced C.C.s of RTC Extract pertaining to neighbouring Sy. Nos. i.e., 16, 18 and 19 which are marked at Ex.P.24, 25, 26 and 27 for the year 1965-66 to 1971-72 wherein also in the cultivator Column one Trust Board is mentioned as in possession of the suit schedule property.
18. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has produced the Gazette Notification marked at Ex.P.12 dated 19.12.1961 through which some of the lands were acquired for formation of layout between Magadi Road and Chord Road. When we meticulously gone through the said notification Sy. No.17 is measuring 17 guntas and bounded east by Jeda halli boundary, west by Sy. No.20, north by Sy. No.16 and south by Sy. No.18. No where in Sy. No.17 there is mentioning of Sarakari Halla. The document produced by the plaintiff is of the year 1961 which is at the earliest point of time, 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 clearly reveals that there is no halla in Sy. No.17 and moreover one Muniya @ Mayanna who is said to be the father of vendor of Nanjundaswamy is shown as Temporary Occupant. But the documents produced by the defendants are subsequent documents, as such the document i.e., Ex.P.12 being the oldest document produced can be considered. Moreover, the plaintiffs also produced one LHC Register Extract pertaining to Sy. No.17 wherein also the father of vendor of Muniswamy by name Muniya @ Mayanna is shown as temporary assessment and the said document also reveals that there is no sarakari halla in Sy. No.17. This is one aspect.
19. The learned Advocate for defendant contended that the plaintiff is wrongly claiming Sy. No.17 as CTS No.1143 and there is no existence of such land. On the other hand the learned Advocate for plaintiff contended that Sy. No.17 is CTS No.1143 and there is existence of suit schedule property. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has produced Bengaluru City Survey document which is marked at Ex.P.18 which reveals that CTS No.1143 is situated 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 adjacent to CTS No.1142. Further, Ex.P.30 clearly reveals that Sy. No.17 is pertaining to CTS No.1143. Further, the Addl. Director of Land Records in his orders dated 23.06.2022 clearly observed that there are some tampering of documents and it is also observed that nod document was available with respect to land bearing Sy. No.17 was allotted to any trust board. It is further significant to note that the plaintiff also taken paper publication against Hombegowda Trust to appear and raise any objection vide Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21 News Papers. But no one has appeared to raise objections on behalf of Hombegowda Trust. As such, at this juncture it can be inferred that the land bearing Sy. No.17 measuring 17 guntas is not granted in favour of Hombegowda Trust and the sketch produced by the Court Commissioner who is appointed by this Court also reveals the existence of CTS No.1143, as such this Court came to the conclusion that CTS No.1143 belongs to Sy. No.17 and the suit schedule property is in existence.
57
O.S. No.1560/2018
20. Further, the learned Advocate the defendant contended that as the land is acquired for formation of layout by the CITB, there is no existence of suit schedule property. On the contrary, the learned Advocate for plaintiff contended that even though the proceedings were conducted for acquisition of lands, but the suit schedule property is not utilized by CITB for formation of layout. It is significant to note that the defendant himself has produced plan with respect to formation of layouts by the CITB produced at Ex.D.20, but the said plan clearly reveals no residential layout is formed either in CTS No.1143, 1139, 1142, 1140, 1141.
21. Learned Advocate for defendant contended that when once the competent authority has acquired the lands, the plaintiff lost all kind of right, title and possession over it.
22. The learned Advocate for plaintiff produced and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.10824/2009 between Savithramma and others V/s. State of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In the said 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 decision the Hon'ble High Court has clearly held that - 'The purpose of BDA to ensure organized development of City of Bengaluru in order to achieve it, it can acquire lands but land acquisition is not the main purpose of BDA. When it acquires land pursuant to a particular scheme and that scheme is not implemented within a time frame as prescribed under Section 27 of BDA, the scheme lapses, if the Scheme has lapsed and the lands sought to be acquired has not already vested with BDA, acquisition proceedings in respect of those lands cannot proceed and the right of land owners in respect of those lands revives'.
23. In the present case also The land Acquisition proceedings took place in the year 1961 but as per the document produced by the defendant marked at Ex.P.25 itself clear that the SLAO is not yet completed the acquisition proceedings. As such, in view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Savithramma V/s. State of Karnataka the right of land owners in respect of acquired lands revives. As such the contention of the learned Advocate for 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 defendant stating that as the land was acquired by the BDA the plaintiff has no right in the suit schedule property is not acceptable.
24. The learned Advocate for defendant contended that the plaintiffs have already executed agreement of sale dated 24.06.2014 in favour of one Sri Shafeek Ahmed and Saleem Pasha. As such, the plaintiffs have no right in the suit schedule property and in support of his contended he has produced Ex.D.1 C.C. of the Registered Agreement of Sale dated 24.06.2014 which was executed by plaintiff along with one Smt.Manjula and Rashmi & Manjunath in favour of Shafeek and Saleem Pasha. But the said agreement of sale is crystal clear that no possession was handed over under the said document. Moreover execution of agreement of sale deed does not confer any title in favour of the agreement holder. As such, the contention of defendants holds no water.
25. Learned Advocate for defendant contended that all the children of the Smt.Rajamma is not made as parties in the present 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 suit. As such, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties which was denied by the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs only for the relief of permanent injunction and the plaint also clearly reveals that he has filed the present suit on behalf of all the members of the family. It is well settled of principle of law that any one co-owner of the property can file a suit for permanent injunction. As such, there is no necessity to bring all the children of Smt.Rajamma in the suit. As such, the contention of the defendants is not acceptable.
26. Hence, the plaintiff through sufficient title, documents and also through revenue documents clearly established that the mother of the plaintiff and after the death of the mother of the plaintiff Smt.Rajamma now the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property as one of the legal heir of late Smt.Rajamma in suit schedule property. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 as affirmative.
27. ISSUE No.2 :- The learned advocate for plaintiff contended that the defendants having no manner of right, title or interest in the 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 suit schedule property were started constructions by putting columns in the suit schedule property . The plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police and the police authorities have summoned both sides and warned the defendants stating that they should not construct. Thereafter, the defendants kept quite for some time and again trespassed the suit schedule property and started to erect structures which was resisted by the plaintiff and the name was denied by the defendant.
28. It is significant to note that the defendant specifically pleaded and also admitted in the cross-examination that he is not having any relations with Sy. No.17 and he has nothing to do with Sy. No.17. But the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.22 photographs in nos. 8, 10 and 11 which clearly reveals that the defendant is trying to put up compound wall besides their earlier compound wall which clearly reveals that the defendant is making attempt to construct compound wall. At the same time, it is significant to note that the defendant is denying the possession over the suit schedule property 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 as per the decision of Hon' ble High Court reported in 2016 (4) KCCR 3369 between Mohammed Hazi V/s. Managing Director NEKRTC Central Office, Kalaburgi where in the Hon'ble High Court has held that the defendant is denying the possession of the plaintiff virtually amounts to interference. In the present case also as the defendant is clearly denying the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property as such it is clearly clear that he is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. As such I answer Issue No.2 as affirmative.
29. ISSUE No.3:- In view of my findings on issue No.1 & 2 as affirmative, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for. Hence, I answer issue No.3 as affirmative
30. ISSUE No.4:- In view of my findings on issue No.1, 2 & 3 as affirmative, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs.57
O.S. No.1560/2018 The defendants are here by restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner by way of permanent injunction.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, revised by me and after corrections pronounced in the open court on this the 03 rd day of September, 2025.) (VIJETH.V) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
PW.1: S.H.Puttaganaiah List of documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 General Power of Attorney dated 08.03.2019 executed by plaintiff Ex.P.2 C.C. of sale deed dated 06.02.1963 executed nu M.Muniyappa in favour of 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 K.M.Nanjundaiah in respect of the suit schedule property Ex.P.2(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.2 Ex.P.3 C.C. of sale deed dated 06.03.1972 executed by K.M.Nanajundiaah in favour of Smt.Rajamma (Mother of plaintiff) in respect of the suit schedule property Ex.P.3(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.3 Ex.P.4 E.C. from 01.04.1950 to 30.09.1966 in the name of K.M.Nanajundaiah Ex.P.5 E.C. from 01.05.1971 to 31.03.2004 in the name of Smt.Rajamma Ex.P.6 E.C. from 01.04.2010 to 16.05.2017 Ex.P.7 E.C. from 01.04.2004 to 01.07.2018 Ex.P.8 C.C. of MR No.2/1995-96 Ex.P.8(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.8 Ex.P.9 & 10 Endorsement given by Asst.
Revenue Officer to the legal heirs of Smt.Rajamma stating that as the property is above 6,000 sq. ft.
as such 'B' khatha cannot be
entered without conversion of land
Ex.P.11 Circular dated 25.08.2009
pertaining to BBMP stating that
unless the revenue lands
57
O.S. No.1560/2018
measuring more than 6000 sq. ft.
were not converted, 'B' khatha
cannot be issued
Ex.P.12 Gazette Notification dated
19.12.1961 with respect to
acquisition of lands for the
purpose of formation of layout by
CITB
Ex.P.13 Notice issued by Asst. Director of
Land Records
Ex.P.14 Order passed by Asst. Director of
Land Records
Ex.P.15 Requisition given by the GPA of
plaintiff to Joint Director of Land
Records, Bengaluru
Ex.P.16 Mahazar
Ex.P.17 Copy of order sheet in CTS (B)
Dvn., 16/1920 before the Court of
Joint Director, Land Records,
South Zone, Bengaluru
Ex.P.18 Sketch
Ex.P.19 Copy of LAC Register Extract
Ex.P.20 & 21 News paper editions with respect to issuance of notice to Hombegowda Trust to appear and to raise their objections if any Ex.P.22 Photographs in Nos.11 Ex.P.23 Tax paid receipts standing in the name of Smt.Rajamma in Nos.12 Ex.P.24 C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.16 of Agarahara 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 Dasarahalli Village for the year 1955-56 to 1971-72 Ex.P.25 C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.17 of Agarahara Dasarahalli Village for the year 1955-56 to 1971-72 Ex.P.26 C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.18 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village for the year 1955-56 to 1971-72 Ex.P.27 C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.19 of Agrahara Dasarahalli Village for the year 1955-56 to 1971-72 Ex.P.28 Copy of book of detail mapping of City of Bengaluru with respect to CTS 1143 of Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru Ex.P.29 Original Tippani, Ex.P.30 City Survey with respect to CTS No.1143 of Agraharadasarahalli Village Ex.P.31 City Survey with respect to CTS No.1143 of Agraharadasarahalli Village, Bengaluru.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants:
DW-1 H.C.Sathyanarayana
57
O.S. No.1560/2018
List of documents exhibited on behalf of the defendants:
Ex.D.1 C.C. of agreement of sale dated
24.06.2014 executed by
plaintiffs & their family members
in favour of Shafeeq Ahmed and
Saleem Pasha
Ex.D.2 C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining
to Sy. No.17 of Agrahara
Dasarahalli Village for the year
1971-72 to 1974-75
Ex.D.3 Order passed by Joint Director
of Land Records in City Survey
in CTS (B) Revision 16/2019-20
dated 21.05.2020
Ex.D.4 Order passed in Addl. Director
Land Records in
SSLR/TNL/RVN-01/2020-21
dated 23.06.2022
Ex.D.5 Original sale deed dated
08.06.2015 executed by one
Dilip Kumar and Kavitha in
favour of defendants with
respect to written statement
schedule property
Ex.D.6 Khatha Certificate standing in
the name of Dilip Kumar &
Kavith with respect to written
statement schedule property
Ex.D.7 Khatha Certificate with respect
to Written statement schedule
property standing in the name of
57
O.S. No.1560/2018
present defendants
Ex.D.8 & 9 Khatha extract pertaining to written statement schedule property presently standing in the name of defendants Ex.D.10 Tax paid receipts in nos.8 with respect to written statement schedule property Ex.D.11 Re-conveyance deed executed by CITB in favour of one Narasimhaiah with respect to written statement schedule property Ex.D.12 Original Sale deed dated 05.12.1980 executed by B.M.Narasimhaswamy in favour of Y.Shivashankar with respect to half portion of written statement schedule property Ex.D.13 Original Sale deed dated 05.12.1980 executed by B.M.Narasimhaswamy in favour of Y.Solabesha with respect to half portion of written statement schedule property Ex.D.14 Original sale deed dated 21.03.1983 executed by Y.Shivashankar in favour of Thanmal with respect to half portion of written statement schedule property Ex.D.15 Original sale deed dated 21.03.1983 executed by 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 Y.Solabesha in favour of Thanmal with respect to half portion of written statement schedule property Ex.D.16 Original sale deed dated 01.07.2004 executed by Thanmal in favour of one Srinivas with respect to written statement schedule property Ex.D.17 Original sale deed dated 24.09.2007 executed by M.Srinivas in favour of V.Nagaraj with respect to written statement schedule property Ex.D.18 Letter issued by Asst. Revenue Officer dated 22.12.2006 Ex.D.19 Original Sale deed dated 09.11.2012 executed by V.Nagaraj in favour of Dilip Kumar and Kavitha with respect to written statement schedule property Ex.D.20 Sketch pertaining to the layout formed by CITB Ex.D.21 & 22 City Survey Register Extrac Ex.D.23 Copy of Mula Prathi book with respect to Sy. No.17 Ex.D.24 Copy of letter of Smt.Rajamma sent to SLAO BDA Bengaluru dt.18.03.1987 & its reply Ex.D.25 Property card pertaining to written statement schedule 57 O.S. No.1560/2018 property Ex.D.26 Objections filed by Special Land Acquisition Officer in SSLR/TNL/RVN - 01/2020-21 Ex.D.27 Photographs in Nos.3 Ex.D.27(a) Compact Disk (VIJETH.V) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.