Bangalore District Court
Poornaprajna House Building Co ... vs Puttamma on 30 September, 2024
1 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
KABC010176962012
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2024
PRESENT: SRI. GANGADHARA.K.N., B.A.,LLM.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.6525/2012 C/W. O.S.No. 4986/2014
PLAINTIFF : Poornaprajna House Building
Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Having its office at
No.390, 9th Main Road,
Sri Kumaraswamy Temple Road,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bengaluru 560 019.
Represented by its
Secretary/Manager :
L. Nanjappa,
S/o. N. Lakshmaiah.
(By Sri.B.M. Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Puttamma,
W/o. Late Pillamuniyappa,
2 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
aged about 68 years.
2. Munirathnamma,
D/o. Late Pillamuniyappa,
aged about 50 years.
3. Kamalamma,
W/o. Vajrappa,
aged about 46 years.
4. P. Somashekar,
S/o. Late Pillamuniyappa,
aged about 41 years.
Defendant No.1 to 4 are r/at
Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru 560 061.
5. Y.K. Bhaskara,
S/o. Late Y.C. Krishnamraju,
aged about 44 years,
R/at No.47/1, 13th Main,
17th Phase, J.P. Nagar,
Bengaluru 560 078.
6. B.S. Venkataswamy Naidu,
S/o. Subbaiah Naidu,
aged about 59 years,
R/at No.11/18, 1st A Cross,
Banashankari 3rd stage,
5th Block, 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
7. K.S. Venu,
3 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
S/o. K. Sreeramalu,
aged about 38 years,
R/at No.65/2, 2nd Cross,
6th Main, 4th Block,
Thyagarajanagar,
Bengaluru 560 028.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
8. M. Lavanya,
W/o. K.S. Venu,
aged about 34 years,
R/at No.65/2, 2nd Cross,
6th Main, 4th Block,
Thyagarajanagar,
Bengaluru 560 028.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
9. N.R. Siddappa,
S/o. Late Rangappa Naidu,
aged about 59 years,
No.1, G. Vittala Nagara,
HBCS Layout, Bikasipura,
Bengaluru 560 078.
10. B.S. Vimala,
Father's name not Known,
Major, No.9, Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
11. N. Manjula,
Father's name not Known,
Major, No.9, Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
4 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
12. C, Bhagya,
W/o. Beeraiah,
aged about 33 years,
No.9, Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
13. R. Thara,
W/o. Gurumurthy C.
aged about 32 years,
R/at No.9/A,
Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
14. Shanthamma,
W/o. N.J. Rajanna,
aged about 37 years,
No.20/B, 1st Cross,
2nd Main, Kathriguppe East,
3rd Stage, Banashankari,
Bengaluru 560 085.
15. P. Ramanjulu Naidu,
S/o. P. Venkatadri Naidu,
aged about 48 years,
R/at No.54, 4th Cross,
1st Main, Subramanyapura
Main Road, Muneshwara Nagara,
Bengaluru 560 061.
16. Shambashiva Naidu B.
S/o. Doreswamy Naidu,
aged about 55 years,
R/at No.11, Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
5 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Bengaluru 560 061.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
17. B. Madavi,
W/o. Shambashiva Naidu,
aged about 48 years,
R/at No.37, Srinivasa nilaya,
Hanumagirinagara,
Chikkakallasandra main Road,
Subramanyapura Post,
Bengaluru 560 061.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
18. Sathya P.
W/o. Mahesh P.G.
aged about 26 years,
R/at No.38, Kailasam Road,
10th Cross, Bendre Nagar,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 070.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
19. T. Saritha,
W/o. T. Ramesh,
aged about 26 years,
R/at No.23, 9th A Cross,
Balajinagara,
Near Chowdeshwari School,
Ittamadu, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
20. K. Shivaprasad,
S/o. K. Anjaneyalu,
aged about 51 years,
R/at No.3, TTD Staff Quarters,
6 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Vyalikaval,
Bengaluru 560 003.
21. C.M. Jayalakshmi,
W/o. Nagaraja,
aged about 53 years,
R/at No.16,
Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
22. Parvathamma,
W/o. Late Mariyappa,
aged about 38 years,
Arehalli village,
Subramanyapura Post,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru 560 061.
23. Nagaraja,
S/o. Late Kempegowda,
aged about 63 years,
R/at No.393, 2nd Cross,
5th Block, 3rd Phase,
Banashankari,
Bengaluru 560 085.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
24. Parvathamma,
W/o. M. Balaiah Naidu,
aged about 51 years,
R/at No.74/A,
3rd Main Road,
Bank of Baroda Colony,
Puttenahalli,
J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase,
7 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Bengaluru 560 078.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
25. Poornima,
W/o. B. Duruvasulu,
aged about 37 years,
R/at No.34/12,
Ittamadu main road,
15th Cross,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
26. S. Harish,
S/o. K.V. Subramanya,
aged about 31 years,
R/at No.13, 16th Main,
Near Akshara Vidya Samsthe,
A.G.S. Layout, Arehalli,
Bengaluru 560 061.
27. Manjunatha C.N.
S/o. Narasimha Gowda,
aged about 30 years,
R/at No.94, 4th Cross,
1st Main, Ittamadu Main Road,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
28. C. Somashekar,
Father's name not Known,
Major, No.20,
Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
8 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
29. C. Latha,
Father's name not Known,
Major, No.20,
Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
30. R. Chowdary,
S/o. P. Rajendra Naidu,
aged about 31 years,
R/at No.5/2,
Hanumagirinagara,
5th Cross, Chikkakallasandra,
Subramanyapura Post,
Bengaluru 560 061.
31. Rajendra,
S/o. Late Linge Gowda,
aged about 57 years,
R/at No.72, 3rd Cross,
1st Main, 6th Block,
3rd Phase, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
32. P.G. Dharmendra,
S/o. Late Gurappa,
aged about 47 years,
R/at No.124/6, Arehalli,
(Vaddarapalya),
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru 560 061.
33. Jyothi,
9 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
W/o. N. Ramesh,
aged about 37 years,
R/at No.6, 9th Cross,
5th Main, R.K. Layout,
Bengaluru 560 070.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
34. C. Eshwaramma,
W/o. Narasimha Reddy,
aged about 35 years,
No.22, Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
35. Muralidhar Kudligi,
S/o. K.N. Raghavendra Rao,
aged about 46 years,
R/at No.37, Model LIC Colony,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru 560 079.
36. N. Jayashankar,
S/o. Chinnappa Mandadi,
aged about 38 years,
No.23, Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
37. T. Arunachalam,
Father's name not Known,
aged about 27 years,
No.23/A, Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
10 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
38. Meena,
D/o. T. Yathiraj,
aged about 28 years,
R/at No.17/1,
Rajarajeshwari Nilaya,
22nd Main, 12th Cross,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bengaluru 560 070.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
39. Vinoda,
W/o. T. Yathiraj,
aged about 45 years,
R/at No.17/1,
Rajarajeshwari Nilaya,
22nd Main, 12th Cross,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bengaluru 560 070.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
40. Prabhavathi,
Father's name not Known,
Major, No.25,
Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
41. S. Subramani,
Father's name not Known,
Major, No.26,
Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
11 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
42. K. Sumathi,
W/o. K. Balaji Naidu,
aged about 42 years,
R/at No.25, 1st Cross,
Hindustan Granite Road,
Anjaneya Temple Road,
Mallayya Layout, Uttarahalli,
Subramanya Post,
Bengaluru 560 061.
43. Sulochana,
W/o. T. Eshwarnaidu,
aged about 63 years,
R/at No.34, Kalingarao Cross,
Subramanyapura main road,
Kaderanahalli,
Bendre Nagar,
BSK II Stage,
Bengaluru 560 070.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
44. Narasimulu Naidu,
S/o. Govinda Naidu,
aged about 57 years,
R/at No.922, 7th Cross,
BSK 1st stage, 2nd Block,
Bengaluru 560 050.
45. V. Jayachandra Naidu,
S/o. V. Purushotham Naidu,
aged about 33 years,
R/at No.444, 7th A Cross,
Bhuvaneshwaranagar,
BSK 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
12 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
46. B. Chitti Babu,
S/o. Muniswamy Naidu,
aged about 37 years,
R/at No.113/122,
KSRTC Layout,
Chikkakallasandra, SBM Road,
Uttarahalli Main Road,
Bengaluru 560 061.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
47. Gayathri R.
W/o. Dr. Ravindra Babu,
aged about 28 years,
R/at No.15, Sapthagiri,
G.K.M. College Road,
Jaraganahalli, J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru 560 078.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
48. Purushotham Naidu,
S/o. T. Srinivas Naidu,
aged about 54 years,
R/at No.48, 2nd Phase,
Marenahalli, J.P. Nagar,
Bengaluru 560 078.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
49. C. Asha,
W/o. C.R. Chandrashekar,
aged about 39 years,
R/at No.6/7, 7th main,
Kathriguppa,
Banashankari 3rd stage,
Bengaluru 560 685.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
13 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
50. M. Shankar,
S/o. Late A. Mani,
aged about 48 years,
R/at No.29, 2nd Cross,
Ittamadu Main Road,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
51. Shylashree Jayaraj,
D/o. Dyamappa,
aged about 41 years,
R/at No.35, 1st A Cross,
5th Block, 3rd Phase,
BSK 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
52. Vinutha J.
Father's name not Known,
aged about 22 years,
No.35, Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
53. Impana,
Father's name not Known,
aged about 20 years,
No.35, Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
54. V. Bujji,
W/o. Jai Jai Rao,
aged about 42 years,
R/at No.61, SBM Road,
Uttarahalli,
14 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Bengaluru 560 061.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
55. B. Eshwari,
W/o. B. Changalaraya Naidu,
aged about 52 years,
R/at No.28-752,
Kannaiah Naidu Colony,
Chittoor.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
56. Pandith Aradhya,
W/o. Late Shivanna,
aged about 50 years,
R/at No.329, 4th Cross,
Bengaluru 560 019.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
57. V. Nalina,
W/o. C.P. Hariprasad,
aged about 37 years,
R/at No.56, Sy.No.14/2,
Canara Bank Colony,
Uttarahalli,
Subramanya Main Road,
Bengaluru 560 061.
58. S.M. Sheela,
W/o. A.D. Jagadish,
aged about 27 years,
R/at No.12, 4th Cross,
Near Webster School,
Ittamadu,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
15 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
59. A.D. Jagadish,
S/o. Lt. Devegowda,
aged about 36 years,
R/at No.12, 4th cross,
Near Webster School,
Ittamadu,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
60. B.A. Shobha Kumar,
W/o. Kumar B.A.
aged about 24 years,
R/at No.101/1,
Akshaya Complex,
22nd Main, 11th Cross,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bengaluru 560 070.
61. G. Gopi,
S/o. G. Padmanabha Naidu,
aged about 35 years,
R/at No.4262, 65th Cross,
2nd Stage, Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bengaluru 560 078.
62. B.N. Madhu sudhana,
S/o. Nanarayana Naidu,
aged about 40 years,
R/at No.45, Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya,
Bengaluru 560 061.
63. C. Narasimhulu Reddy,
S/o. Ramulu Reddy,
16 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
aged about 45 years,
R/at No.49 'A', Sy.No. 11/1,
Opp. BHCS Layout,
Vallaba Nagar,
Subramanyapura post,
Bengaluru 560 061.
64. M. Manohar,
S/o. Late M. Venkatesh,
aged about 35 years,
R/at No.16/A,
Adjacent to KSRTC Layout,
Uttarahalli Main Road,
Bengaluru 560 061.
65. H. Ramesh,
S/o. Lt. Hanumaiah,
aged about 39 years,
R/at No.94,
Old Post Office Road,
Thyagarajanagara, 2nd Block,
Bengaluru 560 078.
66. Hemambara Naidu,
S/o. Siddaiah Naidu,
aged about 45 years,
R/at No.20/A, 18th Main,
R.K. Layout, 3rd Stage,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bengaluru 560 070.
67. V. Prakash Babu,
S/o. H.A. Veerabhadrappa,
aged about 45 years,
R/at No.806, 19th cross,
16th Main Road,
17 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
BSK II Stage,
Bengaluru 560 070.
68. Shanthamma,
W/o. H.A. Veerabhadrappa,
aged about 70 years,
R/at No.806, 19th Cross,
16th Main Road,
BSK II Stage,
Bengaluru 560 070.
69. V. Mohan Babu,
S/o. H.A. Veerabhadrappa,
aged about 48 years,
R/at No.806, 19th Cross,
16th Main Road,
BSK II Stage,
Bengaluru 560 070.
70. S.C. Krishnappa,
S/o. S.C. Chinnappa,
aged about 69 years,
R/at Plot No.P-2,
Dwaraka Main,
No.15 & 16, Vajpai Nagar,
Uttarahalli Main road,
Bengaluru 560 061.
71. Jagannath,
S/o. Late M. Narayana Swamy,
aged about 54 years,
R/at No.14, 11th cross,
Bhendre Nagar, BSK II Stage,
Bengaluru 560 070.
72. B. Dharani,
18 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
W/o. C. Kiram Kanth,
aged about 29 years,
R/at No.38, New No.1415,
Hemavathi Layout,
Adjacent to Poorna Prajna Layout,
Banashankari V Phase,
Bengaluru 560 098.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
73. T. Vijaya,
W/o. Babu Naidu,
aged about 29 years.
74. T. Kavitha,
W/o. T. Kokarakshaka Naidu,
aged about 31 years.
(Decreed on 08.08.2015)
Both are r/at No.12,
1st Main road,
Hemavathi Layout,
Vaddarapalya,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Subramanyapura post,
Bengaluru 560 061.
75. V. Shobha,
W/o. Srinivas K.S.
aged about 36 years.
76. Divya K.R.
W/o. Srikanth K.S.
aged about 28 years.
Both are R/at No.55/28,
7th Main, 7th Cross,
19 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Sriramnagar, Ittamadu,
BSK II Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
77. C.M. Sukanya,
W/o. H.K. Nagaraju,
aged about 41 years,
R/at No.188, 4th Main,
4th Block, 3rd Phase,
BSK III Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
78. A. Venkatesh Babu,
S/o. A. Ananda Naidu,
aged about 43 years,
R/at L.T. Bld, No.20,
Room No.21, Vijayanagar,
Society, Marol-Maroshi road,
Andheri-East,
Mumbai 400 059, M.P.
79. C. Venkata Reddy,
S/o. Aswathareddy,
aged about 34 years,
R/at No.48, Opp. Church,
Uttarahalli,
Bengaluru 560 061.
80. Lakshmamma,
W/o. Siddagangappa,
D/o. Late Pillamuniyappa,
aged about 52 years,
R/at site No.24/2,
Vaddarapalya village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
20 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Bengaluru 560 062.
81. Vajramma,
W/o. D. Narayana,
D/o. Late Pillamuniyappa,
aged about 62 years,
R/at No.55,
Near Sarakki Apartment,
Shivanahalli, Vaddarapalya,
Kengeri,
Bengaluru 560 060.
82. Munikrishna,
S/o. Late Vajrappa &
Kamalamma,
aged about 32 years,
R/at. Hemavathi Badavane,
Vaddarapalya Village,
Bengaluru 560 061.
83. Lokesh,
S/o. Nanganna & Late Marakka,
aged about 35 years.
84. Shashikumar,
S/o. Nanganna & Late Marakka,
aged about 33 years.
85. Guru,
S/o. Nanganna & Late Marakka,
aged about 31 years.
Defendant No.83 to 85 are
R/at No.55,
Near Sarakki Apartment,
Shivanahalli, Vaddarapalya,
21 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Kengeri,
Bengaluru 560 060.
86. Nagarathna,
W/o. Krishnappa,
D/o. Late Pillamuniyappa,
aged about 55 years,
R/at No.5/PF, 11th Main Road,
Chandranagar,
Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
J.P. Nagar,
Bengaluru 560 078.
87. M. Thimma Naidu,
S/o. M. Changama Naidu,
aged about 79 years,
R/at Kondapuram Chivvada (Post)
Thiruttani (Taluk),
Thiruvallavur (District)
Tamil Nadu 631 201.
(D1 : By Sri. B.S.L.
D4, 7 to 9 : By Sri. H.N.
D67 & 69 : By Sri. S.V.B.
D12 to 14, 16 to 19, 21, 23, 25,
28, 29, 34, 36, 43, 46, 49 to 54,
56, 57, 62, 64 to 66 :
By Sri. K.T.D. Advocates
D3 & 5 : Ex-parte)
O.S.No. 4986/2014
PLAINTIFF : Poornaprajna House Building
Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Having its office at
22 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
No.390, 9th Main Road,
Sri Kumaraswamy Temple Road,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bengaluru 560 019.
Represented by its
Secretary/Manager :
L. Nanjappa,
S/o. N. Lakshmaiah.
Aged about 41 years.
(By Sri. K.K.R. Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. M. Vara Prasad Reddy,
S/o. Hanuma Reddy,
aged about 40 years,
R/at No.102, Gangothri Enclave,
22nd Main, Raghavendra Layout,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bengaluru 560 070.
2. Leela Kanwar,
W/o. Bheemaraj Surana,
aged about 45 years,
R/at No.T-1, 3rd Floor,
Varsha Nivas,
Haripriya Partment G.S. Road,
Doddamavalli,
Bengaluru 560 004.
3. Manoharlal,
S/o. Mangilal,
aged about 42 years,
R/at No.5/1, 7th Cross,
5th Main, Kathariguppe East,
23 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Bengaluru 560 085.
4. Kamal Kumar,
S/o. Late Mittal Lal Jain,
aged about 32 years,
R/o. No.15,
Kathariguppe Main Road,
BSK III Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
(By Sri. K.S.V.K. Advocate)
Date of Institution of the : 10.09.2012
suit O.S.No. 6525/2012
Nature of the suit : Declaration &
Mandatory Injunction
Date of commencement of : 01.03.2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 30.09.2024
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
12 0 20
(GANGADHARA.K.N.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
24 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is a House building Co-Operative
Society. The defendants are the individuals. Plaintiff's
suit is for declaration to declare them as absolute owner
of land bearing Sy.No.24/2 measuring 3 Acres 11 guntas,
which is a suit property, sought mandatory injunction to
remove the constructions allegedly made by the
defendants, by encroaching a portions of suit land and
consequently sought the delivery of possession of said
land, with costs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case,
which led to file this suit is as follows:
The plaintiff is a society registered under the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,1959. The
Government of Karnataka, for the benefits of the
plaintiff''s society, by publishing the preliminary
notification dated. 11.08.1987 under Section 4(1) of Land
Acquisition Act and final notification on 30.06.1988
25 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
under Section 6(1), had acquired in all 120 acres 36
guntas land in and around Vaddarapalya village. Even
award got passed, compensation being disbursed to the
land owners, taken over the possession, delivered the
said lands to the plaintiff society, among the above said
land, the suit land bearing Sy.No.24/2 measuring 3
acres 11 guntas of land, was one such land acquired for
the benefits of the plaintiff society.
3. The Plaintiff society to develop the layout in all
120 acre 36 guntas of land, submitted its draft Layout
plan to the BDA for approval, wherein they reserved the
suit land as Reserved for the future development (for
brevity hereinafter referred to as RFD), but in the
approved plan, the BDA ear marked the suit land for
developing the park. Accordingly, the plaintiff Society
developed its layout, but retained the suit land as vacant,
with hopes that they may get approval of revised lay out
from the BDA, under which they can retain the suit land
26 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
for RFD.
4. Its alleged that, when they were developing the
layout, the original land lord of the suit land named Mr.
Pillamuniyappa was causing an obstruction by
demanding to pay higher compensation, otherwise
sought their assistance to get denotify the suit land in his
favor. Even he preferred the W.P.No.33402/1993 to
quash the acquisition proceedings of the suit land, but
without pursuing the same withdrew the same in the
year 1996. In the meanwhile the original land lord Mr.
Pillamuniyappa allegedly entered into some transactions
with the defendants herein, by virtue of the said created
documents, in the year 2009 over the night, the
defendants allegedly started to put up a construction in
the portions of the suit land. Thus, the plaintiffs pleaded
that there was a cause of action to file the present suit,
firstly the suit land is their absolute property. Secondly,
the as the suit land acquired through the process of law,
27 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the original land lord had no right to enter into sale
transactions with these defendants. Thirdly, from the
above said transactions, the defendant would not get any
interest in the suit property. Fourthly, constructions of
the building in the portion of land by the defendants is
amounts to encroachment, thus by way of decree for
mandatory injunction, said encroachment is requires to
be removed, and those portions of land shall be restored
with the plaintiff, as they have to handover the same to
the BDA for the development of park.
5. After service of suit summons the defendant
No.1, 2, 4, 7 to 9, 12, 14, 51 to 53, 65, 66, 80 and 81
have appeared through their counsel. Defendant No.2
filed his written statement and defendant No.12, 14, 51
to 53, 57, 65 and 66 have filed their common written
statement and defendant No.80 and and defendant No.81
have their separate written statement.
6. The defendant No.2 in her written statement
28 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
contended that Sy.No. 24/2 measuring 3 acres 11 guntas
situated at Vaddara palya village, Uttarahalli Hobli, was
the absolute property of Pillamuniyappa, who is a father
her, defendant no.3 and 4 and husband to the defendant
No.1. Further, denied the entire case of the plaintiff as
false. Her case is that, during the lifetime her father Late.
Pillamuniyappa who himself formed a residential layout
in the suit land, sold the sites in favor of various
purchasers, who after purchasing the said sites, have put
up the construction and are in possession. In the suit
land, said Pillamuniyappa had retained in all 0-31
guntas or 24 sites, latter he bequeathed them under a
registered Will in favor of his wife and daughters, among
them site No.17 has been given to this defendant. Her
contention is that, in the year 1993 itself the Government
of Karnataka and BDA have attempted to demolish the
constructions in the suit property, but father
Pillamuniyappa claims to have challenged their action by
29 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
filing W.P.No.2422/1993, wherein the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka vide its order dated 14.12.1986 directed the
state authorities to demolish the structures in the suit
land only by adopting the due process of law, not by way
of coercive method. Said order reached its finality. Now
the plaintiff in collusion with the BDA, without an
acquisition proceedings, managed to got the plan
approved by showing the suit land ear marked for park.
7. The defendant No.12, 14, 51 to 53, 57 65 and
66 have filed their written statement contending that,
present suit suffers from want of cause of action.
Moreover the plaintiff has no legal right to file the present
suit, as the suit land is ear marked for park, and
transferred by way of relinquishment, thus its the BDA is
the proper party, in the absence of BDA and Stage, the
suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary
parties and also for the reason of want of cause of action.
Further sale of sites carved in suit land, had taken back
30 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
in the year 1982-84, thus suit for declaration is barred
by time. The suit is not properly set out, as it fails for not
challenging the sale deeds of the defendants. The
defendants and others have put up the construction in
their respective sites carved in Sy.No.24/2 and are in
possession of the same. Their contention is that, though
the land was notified for acquisition, but possession was
not taken, no delivery of possession either to the BDA or
to the plaintiff is being done.
8. The defendant No.80 filed her separate written
statement contending the defendant No.1 to 4 and
defendant No.80 are the absolute owners of suit land, as
the same has been gifted by her father Late.
Pillamuniyappa. She alleged that, the plaintiffs have not
valued their suit properly, according to her as on the date
of filing of suit, each square ft of suit land was having
value of Rs.4,000/-, in that event per acre was having
value of Rs.18 crores and for 3 acre 11 guntas was
31 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
having value of Rs. 60 crores, on which the plaintiff shall
pay the court fee, failed which the suit shall be rejected
under order 7 Rule 11(b) of C.P.C. Moreover, the suit is
barred by time, they are in possession of the suit land
since 30 years, by doing they have perfected their title by
way of prescription. Her further contention is that, in
W.P.No.2422/1993 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
had issued a direction to the state that demolition of
structure in the suit property only by way of due process.
Further, suit of the plaintiff is vague, there is no pleading
on number of building, measurement of the building and
when did these defendants have put up the construction.
9. The defendant No.81 filed her separate written
statement contending that, as per the G.V.K. Rao report,
the plaintiff society had only 270 members, against
which they have huge land measuring 120 acres, formed
1500 sites, which are more than its members and sold
them to various persons. She further contended that,
32 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
suit property was not subject matter of acquisition for
any purpose, under an acquisition proceedings, no award
has been passed, no possession has been taken. Thus
the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit.
That apart out against 26 out of 89 defendants, the
plaintiff had withdrawn their suit by entering into a
compromise, against the above said defendants, this suit
has already been partially decreed. As per the terms of
the compromise, the plaintiff and defendants who have
entered with the compromise have jointly opened an
escrow account in Co-operative bank, R.R. Nagar branch,
Bengaluru, there sale consideration to fixed to the
defendants on whom the plaintiff herein is agreed to give
up their rights have deposited the consideration. In the
layout carved in suit land, more than 100 people have
put up their constructions, all the parties are not
brought on record, moreover such huge construction
cannot be expected to be put up over the night. Though
33 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the suit land situates right in front of the Suvarna
Bhavana building of the plaintiff, but allowed the
defendants and others to put up construction, made
efforts to stop them, after keeping quite for long time,
knocked the door of this court on a delayed period. The
original landlord Pillamuniyappa died on 16.08.2003, his
son Vajrappa died on 20.06.2003 and Pillamuniyappa's
wife Puttamma who is mother of defendant No.81 also
died on 17.01.2010. The corpses of the deceased have
been buried in the suit land. Entire suit land has been
fully developed, no portion is left vacant, its the
purchasers of the sites have put up the construction and
are in possession, thus the suit deserves to be dismissed,
as not maintainable.
FACTS OF THE CASE IN OS. NO.4986/2014
10. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 6525/2012 during the
pendency said suit files the present suit in O.S.No.
4986/2014 against 4 defendants by seeking decree for
34 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
injunction restraining them from encroaching any
portion of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.24/2,
measuring 3 acres 11 guntas of Vaddarapalya village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Its the
plaintiffs contention is that the defendant No.67 to 69 in
O.S.No. 6525/2012, during the pendency of the said suit,
have created some documents in favor of the present
defendants, in respect of the portion of the suit land,
based on which the defendants in the present suit are
started to put up construction, in this regard the plaintiff
society through its secretary requested them to stop the
construction, by hold that the suit land is belongs to the
society, and demanded the defendants to furnish the
details showing their title over the suit land, they have
shown documents, according to which, they have been
executed by the defendants No.67 to 69 in O.S.No.
6525/2012. The plaintiff contended that, these
defendants are not bonafide purchasers, thus the
35 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
plaintiffs have sought the decree for injunction.
11. In the suit though the plaintiffs have filed an
application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. by
seeking an interim ex-parte interim order to restraining
the defendants from putting up of construction, but by
considering the fact that the defendants in the suit have
already started to put up the construction, thus this
court felt before passing any order, notice to the other
side warranted.
12. The defendants who upon receipt of the suit
summons, have appeared, filed their written statement,
in which who have denied the entire plaintiff's case as
false. And contended that the suit schedule property was
not left for the park purpose. And, the plaintiff's suit
mere for injunction is not maintainable, they shall file
suit for the comprehensive relief for the declaration and
possession. Its their contention is that, to seek an
injunctive relief, their case must pass 3 test, such as
36 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable
injury. In fact the plaintiff have no locus-standi to file
this suit, as they have no right, title, interest over the
property of the defendants herein. The case of the
plaintiff has no clarity as to on which side of land bearing
Sy.No. 24/2, these defendants are putting up the
construction, infact they are putting up of the
construction in their sites since quite long time. In fact
their adjacent site owners have already put up the
construction. Even the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non
joinder of necessary parties.
13. The defendants contended that land bearing
Sy.No. 24/2 measuring 3 acres 5 guntas originally
belongs to one Vajrappa, who died, thereafter his son
Pillamuniyappa succeeded the same, accordingly khatha
has been mutated in his name. As the plaintiff started to
interfere with the possession of said Pillamuniyappa,
thus he filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court
37 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
of Karnataka. In the meantime, the board of Management
of the plaintiff society had approached the land owners
including Mr. Pillamuniyappa stating that they will
return the suit schedule property along with some other
properties to the original land owners, in that regard the
society had passed the resolution, by believing the
promise of the plaintiff society Mr. Pillamuniyappa
withdrew his writ petition. Pursuant to the resolution of
the plaintiff society, the Pillamuniyappa formed the sites,
sold them in favor of various purchasers, and sold the
site No.51 measuring East to West 30 feet, North to
South on western side 68 feet, on eastern side 74 feet to
one Mrs. Shanthamma W/o. Veerabhadrappa under a
sale deed dated 19.10.1992.
14. And sold the site No.52 measuring East to
West 30 feet, North to South on eastern side 68 feet on
western side 65 feet in favour of one K.P.Rajendra Babu
under a registered sale deed dated 03.03.1993 and sold
38 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the site No.50 in favour of Prakash babu under a
registered sale deed dated 19.10.1992.
15. In turn one K.P. Rajendra babu sold the site
No.52 in favour of V. Mohan babu under a registered sale
deed dated 29.12.1994. After sale of site No.50, 51 and
52 in favour of the vendors of the defendants, the legal
heirs of Pillamuniyappa have started to interfere with
their possession, thereafter they also filed O.S.No
6692/2007 for partition, the purchasers have contested
the said suites, on the intervention of the well wishers
suit ended in compromise on 04.0.2012, wherein legal
heirs of Pillamuniyappa have agreed to sign as a
consenting witness to the sale deed of the defendants,
accordingly the defendants claims to have got purchased
the site no. 50, 51, and 52. Infact prior to which, the
legal heirs of Pillamuniyappa have obstructed the
possession of vendors of the defendants namely one Smt.
Shanthamma and Sri. Mohan Babu, thus who have filed
39 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
O.S.No. 25390/2007 by seeking injunction, which was
allegedly decree in their favor. They contended that land
bearing Sy.No. 24/2 has not been acquired by the
Government for the purpose of the plaintiff society. After
filing of O.S.No. 6525/2012 there was a meeting between
plaintiff Society and owners of the sites carved in suit
lands, who have formed an association called M/s.
Hemavathi Layout Residency Welfare Association,
wherein plaintiff had fixed the payment chart to the each
purchasers of the sites in the suit land, by promising to
ratify their sale deeds done by the original land owner, by
that time it is the vendors of the defendants herein were
the owners and were in possession of site No.50, 51 and
52. In the said meeting the plaintiff also fixed the price
of the site No.50, 51 and 52, when such being the fact,
the question of the plaintiff reserving the suit schedule
property for using it as park do not arise. As the
defendants vendors and defendants have not agreed for
40 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the price chart of the plaintiff, thus the society filed this
false only with an intention to exerting the defendants to
accept their terms and nothing else. The plaintiffs have
not challenged the sale deeds of the defendant herein,
thus the suit simplicitor for injunction is not
maintainable, which deserves to be dismissed.
16. This suit was pending before the different
court of court of the city civil court, on the application of
the plaintiff herein, same has been withdrawn, made over
to this court, try the same along with the O.S.No.
6525/2012.
17. After receiving the case file of
O.S.No.4986/2014, this court vide order dated.
29.02.2020 clubbed the O.S.No. 4986/2014 with the
O.S.No.6525/2012, permitted the parties to lead the
common evidence.
18. After examining the pleadings of the parties,
this Court had to frame the following issues.
41 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
ISSUES IN O.S.No.6525/2012
1. Does the plaintiff proves that the suit
schedule property bearing Sy.No.24/2 measuring
3 acres 11 guntas has been acquired by the
Government through the notification for the
benefit of the plaintiff's society and delivered the
possession, based on which plaintiff got the layout
plan approved from BDA, wherein the suit
property is shown as RFD, thus plaintiff is
requires to be declared as absolute owner?
2. Does the plaintiff proves that by
considering the suit is land kept vacant, the
defendants have entered into many sale
transactions and have put up the construction.
Thus by way of mandatory injunction by
demolishing the construction put up therein,
vacant possession is requires to be delivered in
favour of plaintiff?
3. Does the plaintiff proves that if the
defendants failed to demolish the said structure
put up in the suit schedule property, permission
is requires to be granted to the plaintiff to
42 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
demolish the same to take the delivery of vacant
possession of the said property?
4. Does the defendant No.12, 14, 51 to 53, 57,
65 and 66 proves that the plaintiff's suit is bad for
nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary parties,
for adjudicating the dispute in hand the BDA and
the State Government is proper and necessary
parties?
5. Does the defendant No.12, 14, 51 to 53, 57,
65 and 66 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is
barred by time?
6. Does the defendant No.12, 14, 51 to 53, 57,
65 and 66 proves that as the plaintiff had not
sought the complete relief, thus the suit of the
plaintiff is hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief
Act?
7. What order or decree?
Addl. Issue dated 26.02.2024:
1. Does the defendant No.2 proves that the
43 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P.No.2422/1993 vide its order dated
14.12.1996 was pleased to direct the Government
of Karnataka and BDA the respondents in the
above said petition to not to demolish the
structures or dispossess the defendant no.2 from
the property bearing Sy.No.24/2 of Vaddarapalya
village?
Addl. Issue dated 19.04.2024:
1. Does the defendant No.80 proves that he
has perfected his title in respect of portion of suit
schedule property by way of adverse possession?
2. Does the defendant No.80 proves that the
plaintiffs have not valued the suit properly and
paid the Court fee?
ISSUES IN O.S.No.4986/2014 :
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit
schedule property is the land earmarked for park?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendants have attempting to encroach the
44 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
portion of the suit schedule property and to put
up the construction?
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to
file this suit as contended by the defendant?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs of
permanent injunction against the defendants as
prayed for?
5. What order or decree?
19. The plaintiff in O.S.No.6525/2012 in order to
prove its case, examined its Chief Executive Officer as
P.W.1 and also examined its President as P.W.2,
produced in all 52 documents which were got marked as
per Ex.P1 to P52.
20. The GPA holder of the Defendant No.51 to 53
examined as D.W.1. The GPA holder of defendant NO.12
is examined as D.W.2. Defendant No.14 is examined as
D.W.3. Defendant No.66 is examined as D.W.4.
45 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Defendant No.65 is examined as D.W.5. Defendant
No.81 is examined as D.W.6. And on behalf of these
witnesses, 111 documents were got marked as per Ex.D1
to D111.
21. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
for the plaintiffs in both case and defendants.
22. My findings to the above said issues framed in
the O.S.No.6525/2012
Issue No.1: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Negative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: In the Negative
Issue No.5: In the Negative
Issue No.6: In the Negative
Issue No.7: As per the final order,
Additional issue dated 26/2/2024 :
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Additional issue dated 19/04/2024 :
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
46 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
23. My findings to the above said issues framed in
the O.S.No.4986/2014
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Issue No.2: In the Negative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: In the Negative
Issue No.5: As per the final order.
for the following:-
REASONS
24. Issue No. 1, 2 & 3 and Addl. Issue no.1 in
O.S.No. 6525/2012: Since theses Issues are
interconnected, for avoiding the repetition on discussion
of facts and evidence, thus they are taken up for common
discussion.
25. The plaintiff's contention is that, land bearing
Sy.No.24/2 measuring 3 acres 11 guntas of
Vaddarapalya village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk has been acquired by the Government for the
benefit of the plaintiff society by way of preliminary
47 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
notification as per Ex.P5 dated 11.08.1987. And final
notification as per Ex.P6 dated 31.06.1988. And
possession of the property acquired have been taken
from the landlords on 06.01.1993 as per Ex.P7 Gazette
notification. And possession of the suit land and along
with other acquired lands have been delivered to the
plaintiff society under an Ex.P8 dated. 06.01.1993.
Thus, they are the absolute owners of the suit land.
26. The defendants have taken inconsistent stand,
in particularly they denied the fact of acquisition of the
suit land by the Government for the benefits of the
plaintiff society? Some of them have contended that
though there was an acquisition, no award being passed,
and no compensation has been disbursed to the land
owner and no possession of the land is taken and
delivered to the plaintiff herein?
27. Whatever may be the contention, but no
defendants have disputed the acquisition notifications
48 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
placed by the plaintiff by way of Ex.P5 to 8. If the above
said documents are considered, no doubt that suit land
has been acquired by the government through in
accordance with law and even an award being passed.
But what is the serious doubt would comes in the mind
of the court is that does really the government had taken
the physical possession of the suit land and actually
delivered the same in favor of the plaintiff society. In this
regard, this court would wants to discuss the same at
latter stage with the evidence. Its an admitted fact that
by challenging the acquisition of the suit land, the land
owner Mr. Pilla Muniyappa filed writ petition before the
Hon'ble High court, but withdrew his writ petition as not
pressed. Infact the legality of the award has been
challenged by the other land owners, which had reached
to the highest court of this country, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex court hold that, acquisition is valid and award has
been passed in accordance with law. In this regard, infact
49 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the plaintiff has placed the reported judgment in
Bylamma's case, these documents are sufficient to hold
that, the suit land has been acquired for the benefit of
the plaintiff society. The plaintiff produced the Ex.P8,
under which the possession of the suit land has been
shown to be delivered to the plaintiff society. Thus, before
delve upon on other aspects, this court would wants to
hold that, the suit land has been acquired by the state
for the benefit of the plaintiff society. For the benefit of
discussion, the observation of the Hon'ble Apex court
Infact in Bailamma (Smt.) Aliays Dodabailamma
(Dead) and Others Vs. Poorna Prajna House Building
Co-Operative Society Ltd., reported in (2006) 2 SCC
416, extracted herein below to show, acquisition of the
lands for the benefit for the plaintiff has been upheld:
"We agree with the finding of the High court
that once it is is shown that the award was
made and signed and approved by the
50 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Government with in the period prescribed by
Section 11-A of the Act an award is validly
made. In that instant case we have satisfied
ourselves that the award was received by the
Deputy Commissioner after approval, and notice
was thereafter issued under section 12(2) of the
Act on 20.11.192".
28. The Next question would be, Does really the
physical possession of the land has been handed over to
the plaintiff society? Does the plaintiff retained the suit
land for the RFD but the BDA ear marked it for the park?
Does the suit land was kept vacant since from the date of
alleged delivery of possession to till the year 2009 or to
the year 2012, or does any portion of suit land is kept
vacant, and which is in the possession of the plaintiff?
29. Its the case of the plaintiff society is that they
with intent to form a residential layout, to allot the sites
proposed to be formed to its members, submitted the
51 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
draft layout plan to the BDA, under which the suit land
is shown as RFD. However, the BDA while approving the
layout plan, earmarked the suit land as park. This
aspect can be noticed by referring to the approved layout
plan at Ex.P9. The said layout plan has been approved by
the BDA, vide its resolution No.1598 dated 10.01.1996.
but, with a hope that by submitting the revised plan, still
a plaintiff can retain the suit land for their RFD, they
claims to have kept the suit land vacant.
30. The plaintiff contention is that, the since from
the day of handing over of the possession to till the year
2009, they were in possession of the suit property. But,
in the year 2009 they noticed that the defendants herein
have put up the construction in the suit property over
the night. By doing so the defendants have encroached
their portion of the land in suit property. Thus, the said
constructions are requires to be removed by way of
mandatory injunction, and vacant possession of the said
52 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
portions of the property is required to be delivered to
them.
31. But serious doubt arises in the mind of this
court on the cause of action pleaded to file this suit? The
reasons for doubting the case of the plaintiff is in many
fold. Firstly, the Executive committee of the plaintiff
society in its board passed a resolution dated 11.09.1993
as per Ex.P49 passed a resolution to make the request to
the Government to denotify the suit land bearing Sy.No.
24/2 and along with some other land, on the ground that
there is a serious resistance from the land lords, with
whom the plaintiff society entered into a compromise.
But, the terms of the compromise are not disclosed by
the plaintiff. It means to say, in the inception itself, the
plaintiffs were came to the conclusion that, they are
having difficulty to use the suit land and some other
land, for which they entered into a compromise with the
land lords, thus they decided to submits the
53 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
representation to the government to denotify the suit
land.
32. Secondly, the plaintiffs claims to have formed
the layout by virtue of the layout plan approved by the
BDA as per Ex.P8 and earmarked the CA sites. To that
extent the society has the duty to execute the
relinquishment deed in favor of the BDA. In fact,
according to them they have formed the layout, left the
CA sites and park area, to transfer the their right having
over the said CA properties, the plaintiff society had
executed the relinquishment deed as per Ex.P50 on
18.02.2000 itself. Though, under the Ex.P9 Layout plan,
the suit land was also ear marked for the purpose of the
park, in the said relinquishment deed suit land was not
included. For which no reasons are forthcoming as to
why the plaintiff would not have included the suit land in
the Ex.P50 relinquishment deed executed in favor of the
BDA. Which may be in the line of their decision to give up
54 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
their land in favor of the land lord.
33. Its not in dispute that, the plaintiff society
entered into an understanding or compromise with the
site owners of sites carved in suit land. As the layout in
the suit land is named as Hemavathy Badvane. Wherein
the plaintiffs have fixed the price for each sq ft. based on
the measurement, the purchasers in the suit land, shall
pay the money. In the mean time, the plaintiffs have
promised to facilitate with the BDA to release the suit
land in their favor, to perfect the title of the occupants
who have agreed for the terms of the plaintiff.
Furtherance to which plaintiff and the Hemavathi owners
welfare association have opened an escrow account in a
Co-Operative Bank, wherein whoever the owners have
agreed for the price fixed by the plaintiff society have
deposited their sale price in the said account. Pursuant
to which, the plaintiff entered into a compromise with
almost 33 defendants, against their sites, possession and
55 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
building if any put up, the plaintiffs have given up their
right, title and interest, accordingly their compromise
petition has been allowed, decree being drawn. Pursuant
to which said 33 defendants are deleted from the suit
cause title. These developments are mirror image to the
conduct of the plaintiff. They are having inconsistent
stand. Firstly, they should have mind that, in the land
acquired for their benefit, due to some illegal
transactions, the defendants have entered into the suit
property, and have put up the construction, but as the
plaintiff paid the compensation for acquisition of the said
land, they cannot easily given up their right in favor of
the defendants or anybody who have purchased or put
up the construction. As the money they invested or
deposited with the Government to pay the compensation
belongs to the members, in that event the Body of the
plaintiff society is accountable to their members, they
must explain on their action against the defendants. In
56 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
that event, as all the defendants have already occupied
the land, made the task of the plaintiff to recover the
vacant possession as difficult. In that event they must be
in a firm position that by collecting the price fixed them,
they can given up their right having over the suit
property in favor of the defendants. In that event against
the defendants who have not agreed for their terms, the
plaintiffs should have maintained the suit for alternative
reliefs for damages. Now, the conduct of the plaintiff in
particularly entering into a compromise with the some
defendants, agreed to regularize their purchase and
possession of portion of land, shows that they made up
their minds that recovery of vacant possession of the suit
property to maintain the same for developing it as park is
an impossible task. In that event the case of the plaintiff
that, the construction of the remaining defendants who
have not agreed for their terms, shall be removed and
the possession shall be taken to ear mark the suit land to
57 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
develop it as park is only an half hearted efforts before
this court, even this court cannot consider their task is
as serious one.
34. Let us see some other material evidence to
show, way back in the year 1992-93 itself, there were
construction in the suit land. The defendants have
produced the Ex.D1 which is an order of the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in W.P.2422/1993 dated
04.12.1996. Wherein the original landlord
Pillamuniyappa approached the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by seeking writ of mandamus directing the
respondents the Secretary to the Department of Revenue,
the Tahasildar, the Commissioner BDA and the
Chairman, Screening committee to the BDA to not to
demolish the construction in the suit land without due
process of law and said writ petition has been allowed.
In fact, the Government itself undertaken to not to
demolish any building in the suit land at Sy.No. 24/2
58 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
without adopting a due process of law. If that aspect is
considered, though this Court has no clarity as to date
on which the said petition being filed. As the said date is
very relevant for some reason, particularly to find out, as
on the date of petition or without doubt, prior to the date
of filing petition, there must be construction in the suit
land. If the date of construction is to prior to delivering
the suit land in favor of the plaintiff herein, this court
can draw an inference that, the BDA has not delivered
the actual possession of the suit land to the suit
property. Date of taking of possession by the Government
under Section 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 and
also date of delivery of possession of said land in favor of
the plaintiff herein are on the same date ie., 06.01.1993.
If that aspect is considered, the Government had a
knowledge that in the year 1993 itself, there were
construction in the suit land. It means to say, as on the
date of delivering the possession there were construction
59 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
in the suit land. To counter to this contention the
plaintiff have contended that, they are not a party to the
said proceedings, which is not binding on them. But, the
plaintiff is claiming right in the suit property through the
acquisition process done by the Government. Themselves
have not contended that, either they are not the proper
party nor they have contended that as they have already
delivered the possession of the suit property, the society
is a proper party. Nor even denied the facts that, in the
suit land there are construction. In that event, the just
because the plaintiff is not a party to the said writ
proceedings, but facts forthcoming therein cannot be
denied as false.
35. Another important material placed by the
plaintiff which corroborate the facts to show that there
were construction or dispute with regard to the landlord
is concerned, the resolution of the plaintiff society done
in the year 1993 itself. It appears the construction in the
60 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
suit schedule land had been taken under the nose of the
plaintiff herein or intentionally the plaintiff appears to be
permitted the defendants herein go on to put up the
construction in the suit schedule land. Otherwise, they
would not have kept quiet and approached this Court in
the year 2012. Admittedly, no portion of land is kept
vacant. More than 62 sites have been carved, in which
the BBMP had laid the road, the BWSSB has laid the
water and sanitary lane and BESCOM has laid the
electricity connections and the purchaser of the sites in
the suit land have put up the permanent structures,
infact the photographs of the defendants which tells the
story on how is the layout in the suit land land, there are
multi storied apartments and commercial buildings and
its been fully urbanized. If at all the plaintiff society had
an intentions to retain the land vacant and to preserve
the same land to hand over the same to the BDA,
definitely they would have taken an early steps to prevent
61 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the construction in the suit land. Interestingly, during
the pendency of the suit, out of 89-90 defendants, the
plaintiff entered into compromise with the 33 defendants
and against them suit has been decreed and they have
been deleted.
36. During the cross examination of the P.W.1,
who is the CEO of the plaintiff society had categorically
deposed that, among the defendants, all the
constructions made by the defendants is not illegal. If
that aspect is considered, there is no classification as to
show whose construction is authorized and whose is
unauthorized. If there are authorized construction in the
suit land, there is no pleading to exclude those
construction. The suit in the present nature particularly
in seeking the mandatory injunction to demolition of the
construction done by the defendants in their respective
site in the suit land, irrespective of their validity of the
title, the plaintiffs are not entitle for the said reliefs,
62 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
mainly for inconsistent stand and behavior discussed
supra.
37. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in his
arguments vehemently contended that, even now the
plaintiffs are open with the defendants to resolve the
dispute by way of compromise, if they are ready to pay
the revised rate, as this defendants failed to adhered to
the price proposal given by them earlier. As the
defendants have failed to come forward to accept their
price proposals and reluctant to join the terms of the
compromise agreed with the other defendants, thus the
plaintiffs are prosecuting this suit. If the approach of the
plaintiff is considered, its very clear that, suit in the
nature is clear an arm twisting weapon. In that event, the
plaintiff would have maintained the suit for damages or
to seek the alternative relief to seek the value of the
property in possession of the defendants herein.
38. Moreover, it is the case of the plaintiff is that,
63 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
based on the bogus sale deeds, the defendants have
trespassed into the suit property by encroaching the
portion of Sy.No. 24/2 have put up the construction.
Here, no Commissioner has been appointed to identify
what is the extent of site is in possession of the each
defendant? Even there is no documents being produced
to show does all the defendants herein are in possession
of any portion of the suit land? Even there is no pleading
as to boundaries, schedule and the measurement of sites
under the possession of the defendants herein. Unless
the plaintiff proves above said facts, mere on the
pleadings that the defendants herein have encroached
the portion of the suit land cannot be inferred, and suit
of the plaintiff cannot be decreed as a matter of right.
39. The plaintiff is seeking relief of mandatory
injunction, then they the duty to made out the prima-
facie case, and also to show that they have the balance of
convenience and if the relief in the nature sought is not
64 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
granted, that causes irreparable injury and hardship,
which cannot be compensated in any manner. But, if the
conduct of the plaintiff is considered, particularly there
are material to show since 1992 itself there were
transactions have been taken place in respect of Sy.No.
24/2 and there are material to show that since then
there is a dispute with the plaintiff and with the land
owner. And even the original landlord of the suit land
himself approaches the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
stating that there are construction in the suit schedule
property, wherein the State Government itself undertakes
that to remove the any such construction in the suit land
by taking due process of law. Its not the case of the state
that, in the suit land there are no construction, and the
land lord falsely knocked the door of the high court. It
means to say, before handing over the suit land to the
plaintiff herein, the Government has initiated no
proceedings against the original landlord or any of the
65 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
persons who have put up the construction in the suit
schedule property to remove the said construction. It is
in fact, instead of the plaintiff it is the Government ought
to have filed the necessary suit or proceeding to recover
the property by demolishing the building in the suit
schedule property. When such being the facts, its tough
to imagine, does really the state had handed over the
vacant property of the suit land. Does they have done
everything mechanically, by handing over the possession
over the document, just washed up their hands.
40. It appears since the date of proceedings have
been commenced to acquiring the suit land, after
preliminary, final notification, possession notification,
award, the plaintiff appears to be having knowledge on
the transaction taking place in respect of the suit
schedule land. But they were mute spectator, allowed
the things to be happened, after keeping quite for a long
period, the plaintiff might be with intent to harm twist
66 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
against the defendants who are in settled possession by
putting up of construction and to bargain with them filed
this present suit. Otherwise, when a construction being
taken place at the earliest the plaintiff should have
approached this Court to take action against the person
who trespassed into the land are putting up of the
construction and even the plaintiffs have had an
opportunity to give representation to the BBMP to not to
develop the roads and to the BWSSB not to lay water,
sanitary,and sewerage lanes and to the BESCOM to not
lay the electricity connections and sanction electricity
connections to the building putting up in the suit
property on the grounds that they are un-auhtorized by
doing encroachment.
41. The P.W.1 categorically admitted that the
Layout in the suit land is named as Hemavathi
Badavane, which has all the civic amenities provided by
the BESCOM, BBMP & BWSSB. The plaintiff cannot that
67 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the said things have been done without their knowledge,
and they have been provided over the night. It is difficult
to imagine how could the plaintiff who is having their
Suvarna Bhavana, where their administrative building
being functioning, which is just right in front of the suit
land, until 2012 kept quite, thus this would sense some
hand in glove works, to over come from the liability to
hand over the said land to the BDA to develop it as park.
If this aspect is considered, the plaintiff is not diligent,
they are not bonafide, in fact they were having an
acquaintance on the development taking place in the suit
land quite long back.
42. Another important fact which requires to be
observed here is that, the plaintiff claiming that the
construction in the suit property have been started in the
year 2009. Thus the aspect is appears to be false.
Particularly the documents produced by the defendants
showing license, building plan, which have been
68 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
approved by the then Subramanyapura Grama
Panchayath is considered, even prior to the year 2000,
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 itself they have issued the
building plan, license to put up the construction in the
site purchased by the defendants herein. Another
important which requires to be observed here is that, the
plaintiff do not admits that the defendants herein by
have purchased the sites in suit schedule land have put
up the construction. Their contention is that, they by
creating the bogus documents, they have encroached the
portion of the suit schedule land and put up the
construction, thus their construction is unauthorized. If
that aspect is considered, its the duty of the plaintiff to
prove, which portion of suit land has been encroached,
what is the extent and its boundary for the identification,
does really the construction of the building by the
defendants is well with in the suit land. Even there is no
clarity on as to does really the defendants or any other
69 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
persons are in possession by putting up of construction.
Unless the plaintiff to prove such facts, the blanket
decree to demolish the buildings in the suit property
cannot be granted. At least the plaintiff had the
opportunity to seek an appointment of court
commissioner to measure each inch of land and to know
who is in possession, and what is the nature of the
buildings have been put up. Admittedly, the suit land is
not vacant land and there is no materials to show, who
are all have put up the construction in the suit land.
Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is bald, vague and without
a clarity of facts, such a suit is deserves for the
dismissal.
43. The plaintiff is seeking the discretionary relief
of mandatory injunction. Under which the plaintiff is
seeking a decree directing the defendants herein to
demolish the construction put up in the portion of suit
schedule property, failed which sought the liberty to the
70 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
plaintiff to demolish the same and to take the delivery of
possession. Firstly the decree for mandatory injunction
is purely based on discretionary relief, the same has to
passed 3 tests as contended by the defendants, firstly
Prima-faice case, Balance of convenience and Irreparable
injury and hardship. If the whole case of the plaintiff is
evaluated, examined, scrutinized carefully, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the plaintiff society has
not approached this court with clean hands, not pleaded
complete facts to adjudicate the dispute effectively and
completely, it appears only an attempt to arm twisting
attempts against the defendants, who might have not met
their demand to pay the price fixed by them, filed this
suit. If the circumstances and the chronological facts and
events taken place in this case are examined, the
plaintiffs have allowed the defendants to enter into a
multiple transactions with the original landlord. It means
to say, they have given implied consent allowing them to
71 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
transact, the reasons for saying so is for simple as in the
way back in the year 1993 immediately after taking the
possession of suit land under Ex.P8, the plaintiff was
receiving resistance from the original landlord who is not
allowing them to entering into the property to develop the
whole layout. Thus it appears the plaintiff had entered
into an understanding by way of compromise, which
might be the plaintiff shall leave the suit land for him,
allowing them to proceed for developing the other lands,
which might be the reasons behind the plaintiff society
passing resolution to make representation to the
government to denotify the same from the acquisition,
otherwise the conduct of the plaintiff is very unusual.
44. Further if the photographs of the defendants at
Ex.D17 to 85, Ex.D105 are perused, no doubt, that the
entire suit land has been fully developed, multi-storied
buildings have been built. The roads have been
asphalted, BWSSB laid the water, sewage connection,
72 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
BESCOM has laid the electricity lines and given
electricity connections to the building. These
constructions in any way cannot be done taken by
overnight. In fact, the contention of the plaintiff appears
to be false. According to them, the defendants have put
up the construction in a portion of the suit land. But
these photographs really in any way suggest any portion
of the land is kept vacant. It means to say, the plaintiff
who is having registered office in the Poorna Prajna
layout in the center of which the suit land is situated has
silently kept quiet by watching the development
happening right in front of it, made no efforts to resist
the development. The development is very much is in
acquiescence to the plaintiff herein. In that event, the
plaintiff do not deserves for the mandatory injunction to
demolish the said building.
45. The plaintiff suit is not set out properly. It
does not disclose the complete facts to adjudicate the
73 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
same authoritatively. By giving an opportunity to all the
parties who have put up the construction are in
possession of the suit land. The case of the plaintiff is
fully bald. They came with an empty hand showing that
suit land is acquired by the Government, allotted in favor
of the plaintiff society by handing over the possession.
The defendants might have encroached portion of his
property thus by demolishing the said building put up by
them delivery of possession shall be made. But, there is
no facts pleading that what is the extent of site on which
each defendants have put up the constructions, what is
the nature of construction they made, does really the
defendants alone have put up the construction in any
portion of the suit building is not forthcoming for the
simple reason that the plaintiff brought in all 82
defendants before this Court. But during the pendency
of the suit, the plaintiffs have entered into a compromise
with 33 defendants against which the suit got decreed
74 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
and they have been deleted and to show among the
remaining defendants they are claiming some right in the
suit schedule property produced the documents
pertaining to the defendant No.5, 6, 9, 8, 11, 15, 17, 20,
22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 32, 41, 42, 44, 50, 51, 61, 63, 65, 66,
67, 68 which are at Ex.P17 to 47. Among them, only few
of them have contested this matter. Most of them have
remained ex-parte. But there are other defendants
namely defendant No.1 to 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 21, 25, 52,
53, 57, 60, 62, 64, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75 to 87. In the entire
plaint there is no pleading as to why these defendants
are made as parties. Does they have really owned any
portion of suit property, Did they have put up any
construction, in that event the suit is amounts to bald in
nature, seeking a blanket relief against the defendants on
record. To seek a relief against each defendants there
must be a cause of action. But there is no such pleading
forthcoming in the plaint. On that ground also the suit of
75 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the plaintiff is deserves to be dismissed.
46. During the arguments learned counsel for the
defendant No.12 categorically made a submission before
this Court, the registered office of the plaintiff society is
situated right in front of the suit land where they have
put up the ಸುವರ್ಣ ಭವನ. In that event, they cannot plead
ignorance. Now they are contending that the plaintiff
society has changed its mind, if they could take the
possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants
herein, they have decided to request the BDA to consider
their other land for earmarking as park. In turn since
the permission to the BDA to recognize the sale deeds of
the landlord executed by the original landlord in favor of
the defendants herein with a condition that the
defendants herein shall compensate the plaintiff by
paying the value for each square feet of land they are in
possession according to them they have fixed rate as
Rs.800/- per square feet. Based on which the said
76 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
benefit has been given to the 33 defendants, who have
entered into compromise, they are deleted from the
plaint, against them suit has been decreed. In that event
the question of plaintiff taking the vacant possession of
suit land to handover the same to the BDA to develop the
park do not arise. As the plaintiff themselves have
ratified the sale deeds of the original landlord executed in
favor of 33 defendants. But the plaintiff herein is
continued his suit against the remaining defendants as
they are not came forward to offer a price. In fact, this
Court has heard that the plaintiff society and the
residents association called Hemavathi Owners Welfare
Association who have put up the construction in the suit
land have opened an ESCROW account in a bank and
the defendants shall deposit their consideration in the
said account and later the plaintiff shall make a
requisition to the BDA to permit them to release the suit
land and in turn requesting to accept some other land to
77 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
development it as a park to match the proportionate area
which requires to be used for the purpose of CA and for
the residential site. In that event, against the defendants
herein the plaintiff cannot entitle for the mandatory
injunction to demolish the construction put up by them.
As the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed due
to laches and delay. Firstly the plaintiff has failed to
make out the case that day on which really the
defendants herein have started to put up the
construction in the suit land and if at all in the year 2009
why would the plaintiff waited until 2012 to allow them
to complete the construction. In that event, the relief
given in favor of 33 defendants in whose favor the
plaintiff entered into the compromise such a relief is also
requires to be given in favor of the other defendants. In
that event the plaintiff could have maintained the suit for
damages against the other defendants instead of
mandatory injunction.
78 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
47. Thus, in this regard this Court would like to
place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka in The Golden Valley Educational Trust
Oorgam, Kolar District Vs. The Vokkalgara Sangha,
Bengaluru, reported in ILR 2016 KAR 2899, wherein
it is held as under :-
A) SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - Section
38 - mandatory injunction - general
principles governing mandatory injunction
- grant of mandatory injunction is
discretionary - prompt action is essential if a
mandatory injunction is the desired remedy -
delay is a factor which has to be taken into
consideration while granting mandatory
injunction - HELD, A mandatory injunction
can only be granted where the plaintiff shows
a very strong probability upon the facts that
grave damage will accrue to him in a future. It
is a jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and
with caution but in the proper case
unhesitatingly. - Where a plaintiff has not
brought his suit or applied for an injunction at
79 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the earliest opportunity, but has waited till the
act complied of by him has been completed,
and then asks for a mandatory injunction,
such an injunction will not in general be
granted. The Court will seldom interfere to
pull down a building which has been erected
without complaint.
FURTHER HELD,
(a) The Court in the exercise of its discretion
will be guided by consideration of justice,
equity and good conscience and that it is not
possible for the Court to lay down inflexible
rule as to the circumstances in which the relief
for demolition and injunction should be
granted or refused. A mandatory injunction is
a discretionary relief and delay is a factor
which has to be taken into account while
granting it, where a case for grant of this relief
is otherwise made out and that such delay,
however to be disqualifying circumstance,
must amount to waiver or abandonment of the
rights sought to be enforced or acquiescence in
the act complied of or laches, after the act is
done.
80 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
(b) Where the defendant has acted without
regard to his neighbor's rights or has tried to
steal a march on him or has tried to evade the
jurisdiction of the Court or, to sum it up, has
acted wantonly and quite unreasonably in
relation to his neighbor, he may be ordered to
repair his wanton and unreasonable acts by
doing positive work to restore the status quo
even if the expense to him is out of all
proportion to the advantage thereby accruing
to the plaintiff. The principles governing the
grant of injunctions are the same, whether the
acts sought to be restrained are a breach of
contract or a tort. In both cases, there must
be no acquiescence and damages must not be
a sufficient remedy, and the restoration of
things to their former condition must be the
only relief which will meet the requirements of
the case. Prompt action is essential if a
mandatory injunction is the desired remedy.
(c) One of the tests to determine whether a
mandatory injunction should or should not be
granted is whether the plaintiffs, who objected
to the constructions being made by a co-owner
81 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
on a joint land, did so at the earliest or waited
till the construction had been completed. In
the first case injunction would normally be
issued, whereas if the constructions had been
allowed to be completed, an injunction would
normally be refused, as the basis for refusing
injunction would be that by their conduct in
not objecting at the earliest stage, the joint co-
owners had induced the maker of
constructions to believe that he could make it,
and in doing so sent money and effort. Before
the plaintiff could claim such mandatory
injunction, he should establish that he died
not stand by and allow the injury to be caused
to him.
(d) If the evidence discloses that the plaintiff
did make it possible to the defendant to cause
that injury such as unauthorized construction
and never took any step such as the
institution of a suit and an application for
injunction restraining the defendant when
such unauthorized construction was in
progress and comes to the Court with his suit
only after such unauthorized construction was
82 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
completed, the case would not be one for a
mandatory injunction but only for damages.
(B) ACQUIESCENCE - Meaning of - HELD,
Acquiescence does not simply mean standing
by. It does not mean quiescence only. It means
assent after the party has come to know of his
right.
FURTHER HELD,
(a) If party having a right, stands by an sees
another dealing with the property in a manner
inconsistent with that right and makes no
objection while the act is in progress, he
cannot afterwards complain. That is the
proper sense of the word acquiescence.
(b) In order to constitute acquiescence not
only full knowledge of one's right is required,
but there must be some lying by him to the
detriment of the other side. For it is elementary
that there can be no acquiescence without full
knowledge both of the right infringed and of
the acts which constitute the infringed and of
the act which constitute the infringement.
Acquiescence implies that a person who is said
83 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
to have acquiesced did so with knowledge of
his rights and the other person acted in the
bonafide belief that he was acting within his
rights. The absence of either of these elements
makes the doctrine inapplicable.
(c) Int he first place, the plaintiff (ie., the
party pleading acquiescence) must have made
a mistake as to his legal rights. Secondly, the
plaintiff must have expended some money or
must have done some act (not necessarily
upon the defendant's land) on the faith of the
mistaken belief. Thirdly, the defendant, the
possessor of the legal right, must know of the
existence of his own right which is inconsistent
with the right claimed by the plaintiff. If he
does not know of it, he is in the same position
as the plaintiff, and the doctrine of
acquiescence is found upon conduct with a
knowledge of his legal rights. Fourthly, the
defendant, the possessor of the legal right,
must know of the plaintiff's mistaken belief of
his right. If he does not, there is nothing
which calls upon him to assets his own rights.
Lastly, the defendant, the possessor of the
84 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
legal right must have encouraged he plaintiff
in his expenditure of money, or in the other
acts which he has done, either directly or by
abstaining from asserting his legal right.
(d) In the instant case, the defendant has put
up the construction openly to the knowledge of
the plaintiff. - The suit is filed in the year
1994. The construction is started in the year
1974. For 20 long years, the constructions
were made, utilized and the plaintiff did not
object to the same. On the contrary, they
consented for the said constructions and
acquiesced with the said constructions.
(e) When the grant specifically provided for
the extent of land granted to the plaintiff and
the defendant, if the plaintiff has not taken
any steps to get the property identified, even
after a decade from the date of grant and even
when the defendants defendants started
putting up constructions, if they have not
chosen to verify the said constructions, in their
land or in the defendant's land, it does not lie
in their mouth to say 10 years thereafter, they
came to know that the constructions are put
85 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
up in their land, it does not amount to
acquiescence which is not acceptable.
Therefore, the learned trial judge was right in
holding that the defendants have put up those
constructions and the plaintiff's have
acquiesced to the said constructions and the
plaintiff is not entitled for a decree of
mandatory injunction.
48. That apart when the plaintiff permitted the
defendants to commit the breach, and despite which they
failed to act at the earliest. In that event, Section 41(g) of
the Specific relief Act., bars the court to grant the
injunctive relief. Said provision is extracted herein for
reference.
41. Injunction when refused:-
(g) to prevent a continuing breach in which
the plaintiff has acquiesced.
49. Further, the the plaintiff could have sought an
alternative remedy as damages. As the plaintiff has
86 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
agreed with the occupants of the Hemavathi Badavane
that by receiving the consideration fixed by them, had
agreed to ratified the sale deeds done by the original land
lord. In fact which is the efficacious remedy available
under Section 40 of the Specific relief Act., but not done.
As the law is very clear that, unless the plaintiff seeks
any relief alternatively or in substitution, no relief can be
granted by this court. For the supra discussed reasons,
this Court is of the opinion as the plaintiff failed to prove
to grant an equitable relief of mandatory injunction to
remove the construction put up by the defendant if any
in the suit schedule property, thus the reliefs sought in
the suit itself cannot be granted. For the reason that it is
not in dispute that the suit land has been acquired for
the benefit of the plaintiff. Preliminary, final, even award
has been passed, the land owner questioning the
acquisition proceedings under a writ petition came to be
dismissed. In that event this Court has no an inch of
87 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
doubt to hold that it is the plaintiff is the absolute owner
of suit property. With regard to the possession is
concerned under Ex.P8 the plaintiff appears to be taken
a symbolic possession. In fact, constructive possession
is concerned there is place no material. As all the
evidence pointing on the plaintiff that they have allowed
the parties to put up construction in the suit property
and allowed the local authorities and service providers
like BBMP, BESCOM, BWSSB to lay the road, provide the
electricity, water and sewage connections in the suit
property. There is an absolute development. In fact
plaintiff failed to place the material to show any portion
of the suit land is kept vacant. In fact, even there is no
clarity whether the person who is in possession of the
buildings put up in the suit property are all made as
parties. In the absence of all the parties who are in
possession, nature of the buildings put up therein, if a
blanket decree in the absence of the complete facts and
88 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
evidence, that really causes injustice to the defendants
and other if any have put up the construction, which
amount condemning them without giving an opportunity.
That apart, its settled law that, its the plaintiff who came
to this court by asserting certain facts and seeking relief,
the case of the plaintiff shall stand on its own, and its the
plaintiff alone shall answer to the all the queries. In the
absence of the parties who are in actual possession, if the
Court passes such a decree, which leads to chaos, will
mess up the things and that may leads to un-executable.
Thus the plaintiffs made out no grounds to grant the
relief sought in the suit. Thus, Issue No. 1 answered in
partly affirmative, Issue no. 2 and 3 are in Negative and
Addl. Issue no.1 in Affirmative.
50. Issue No.4 in O.S.No. 6525/2012: The
contesting defendants have taken the contention that the
suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties. According to them, the Government of
89 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Karnataka which acquired the lands, along with the suit
land, handed over the possession, the plaintiff to develop
the said land, submitted their draft plan, wherein they
have earmarked the suit land for RFD. But, the BDA has
earmarked the said property for the purpose of park
purpose. In that event, the moment the suit land is
earmarked for the purpose of park, as per Section 32(5)
of BDA Act, the said land will vest with the BDA, thus its
the BDA is having right over the suit land, in the absence
of the BDA and the state, the suit is bad for non joinder
of necessary party. They contended that, as the plaintiff
have lost their right over the suit land, they have no
locus-standi to file the present suit for declaration and
possession. In this regard they have placed reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Bhavani Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., (R)
Bengaluru V/s. Bengaluru Development Authority
and another, reported in 2006 SCC online KAR 509.
90 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
51. But, wherein the learned counsel for the
plaintiff vehemently contended that, of course no doubt
that, in the layout formed by the society if any properties
meant for civic amenities, on which the society is bound
to execute the relinquishment deed by way of which the
BDA is going to acquire absolute right. But, unless such
relinquishment deed being executed,the BDA cannot
claim automatic ownership over the property ear marked
for the civic amenities. Also distinguished the principles
enumerated in the decision discussed supra, stating that
in the supra referred judgment of the Hon'ble Division
bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is not
applicable to the case in hand for the reason that the
facts and circumstances of the said case was that, the
land allotted in favor of the appellant society therein was
originally belongs to the BDA, the said land has been
allotted in favour of appellant society under a block
allotment scheme with a condition that, the property
91 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
earmarked for the civic amenities shall be transferred in
the name of BDA. Thus under the bulk allotment sale
deed itself the BDA had reserved a right over the civic
amenities sites, in that event relinquishment is not
mandatory. But, case in hand is different, infact in the
general law that, the unless the society executes the
relinquishment deed in respect of the property ear
marked for civic amenities, the BDA will not get right
automatic ownership. In this regard, he also emphasized
on the observation of the Hon'ble High court made in the
very same judgment at para-14 it is observes as under :-
On the contention that even assuming that
there is a covenant for relinquishment, the BDA
cannot forcibly dispossess the society. The learned
Senior Counsel has referred to the decision in John
B. James V. Bengaluru Development Authority, to
contend that the BDA does not have the right to
forcibly dispossess. The facts therein are not
analogous to the present case where the issue is
under a development scheme which are subject to
the provisions of the Act and the Rules and also the
92 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
terms and conditions agreed to between the parties
and therefore the said decision cannot be of any
assistance.
52. If the above said guidelines of the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka is considered, of course, no doubt, in
a layout formed by the society unless the society had
executes the relinquishment deed, the BDA will not get
automatic ownership in respect of civic amenities
properties. As in this case, the society is yet to execute
the relinquishment deed. In the absence of it, it cannot
be said that just because in the layout plan, the land is
ear marked for park, the ownership over the suit land
already vests with the BDA, thus its the BDA is
necessary party. Thus, the contention of the defendants
cannot be accepted as valid, which is devoid of merits.
53. Even the State Government is also not proper
and necessary party for the reason that after completion
of acquisition proceedings, delivery of possession has
been done by issuing the notification as per Ex.P8. Then
93 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
by virtue of transfer of possession the plaintiff society
had managed to got the revenue entries in his name as
per Ex.P8 and based on the which the plaintiff submitted
plan, wherein by mentioning the suit property as RFD.
But the BDA has earmarked the same for the purpose of
park. On the suit land, the State Government through
their agency, benfits the plaintiff is done by meeting their
demand by acquiring the land. In the acquisition process,
the government is only a intermediary body, and nothing
else. Thus this Court is of the opinion that the BDA and
the Government are not the proper and necessary
parties. Thus I answer issue No.4 in the negative.
54. Issue No.5 in O.S.No. 6525/2012 : The
defendants No.12, 14, 51 to 53, 57, 65 and 66 have
contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time
for the reason that prior to the acquisition of suit land,
the portions of the suit land have been sold by the
original landlord in favor of the defendants, they have put
94 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
up the construction, these transactions were in very
much knowledge of the plaintiff, as the sale deeds
produced by the plaintiffs at Ex.P17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 34,
45, 46 and 47 are pertaining to the year of 1994, but the
present suit being filed in the year 2012, which is after
more than 18 years, in that event both the relief such
declaration and possession sought by the plaintiff are
barred by time,
55. But, wherein the plaintiffs have contended that
the preliminary notification for acquisition of suit land
has been done as per Ex.P5 on 11.08.1987, final
notification as per Ex.P6 was done on 30.06.1988 and
possession of the suit land has been handed over to the
plaintiff society in the year 1993 which is as per Ex.P8 on
06.01.1993. And to form the layout the plaintiff society
submitted its draft layout plan to the BDA, which has
been approved in the year 1995. Though the plaintiff
would made a request to the BDA to permit them to
95 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
retain the suit property for their future development,
which has not been considered, in turn shown the suit
land is earmarked for the purpose of park. In that event,
it is the duty of the plaintiff to keep the said property
vacant to transfer the same in favor of the BDA by
executing the relinquishment deed. Based on the layout
plan approved by the BDA, the society had formed the
layout, but in the year 2009 the plaintiff society allegedly
noticed some transactions were taken place between the
original landlord and the defendants herein, based on
which the defendants have started to put up the
construction by over night, thus the plaintiff pleaded the
cause of action to file the present suit for comprehensive
relief. But, counter the suit of the plaintiff, though the
defendants have pleaded that, they are in possession of
the suit land more than 1`2 years, but except scattered
materials, there is no concrete material hold that, prior to
2009 itself it is the plaintiff society had knowledge on the
96 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
sale transactions held between the original landlord
Pillamuniyappa and his legal heirs in favor of the
defendants herein. Infact the case of the plaintiff is also
false under the category of the clever drafting. As they
approached this court without much mud slinging on
anybody, by making the case simple. Though the
defendants have taken some strong contention, by they
collectively failed to present their case unitedly.
Particularly on date of commencement of construction,
existence of the building even prior to the year 2009,
knowledge on the existence of the transactions and
building in the suit property. Further, In the sale deeds
produced by the plaintiff pertaining to some of the
defendants herein, in the no sale deeds there is reference
on showing that the sites purchased by the defendants
being carved out of Sy.No. 24/2. In fact, in the said sale
deeds they have mentioned the land as khata No.24/2.
Infact there is no material to show that the suit land has
97 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the khatha no.24/2. Original landlord and the
defendants herein with intent to deceive the plaintiff
herein managed got the bogus khata as 24/2 and
managed to got the sale deeds for which the plaintiff had
no occasion to knew these transactions. However,
immediately after noticing some construction in the
portion of the suit schedule land, the plaintiff claims to
be before this court. In that event the Article 65 of the
Indian Limitation Act applies. As the plaintiffs suit is for
declaration and possession, based on the title, in the
event the suit shall be filed with in 12 years from the date
of possession, and further when the defendant
possession of the defendant became adverse to the
interest of the title holder.
56. The Plaintiff's further contention is that, In
fact, the defendants have failed to elicit the fact in the
mouth of P.W.1 and 2 or placed no material before this
court stating that possession of the defendant in the suit
98 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
property was adverse to the interest to the plaintiff 12
years prior to filing of this suit. Infact, the possession of
the defendants became adverse only in the year 2009,
when they started to put up the construction. Thus the
suit of the plaintiff is well within time.
57. Upon considering the material placed by both
the sides and the arguments and the decisions, this
Court is of the opinion that as per Article 65 of the
Limitation Act, to file the suit for recovery of possession
based on the title, shall be 12 years from the date of
possession of the defendants adverse to the interest of
the title holder. The plaintiff in his plaint categorically
pleaded that, the cause of action to file the suit in the
nature was arose, when the defendants have started to
put up construction in the year 2009. Though contrary to
the pleading of the plaintiff is being pleaded by the
plaintiffs, in particularly stating that their sale deeds of
the starting from the year 1992. If the above said sale
99 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
deeds are perused, in no sale deeds there is reference
showing that sale deed is pertaining to the site carved in
Sy.No. 24/2. Of course, the plaintiff is right that, khahta
number and survey number are two different identity to
the property. Secondly, though the defendants have cross
examined the P.W.No.1 and 2 in length, no one have
elicited the facts that, the sale deeds were in the
knowledge of the plaintiff society immediately or near
future they were in the knowledge of the plaintiff.
Thirdly, no defendant have suggested that there were
construction 12 years prior to the filing of suit, and their
construction was well with in the knowledge of the
plaintiff, to meet the principles of nec vi, nec clam, and
nec precario, that is the possession of the defendants
peaceful, open and continuous. To show that, their
possession was open, which was adverse to the interest
of the real owner.
58. No doubt that there were transactions prior to
100 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the year 1992 itself, even prior to handing over the
possession of suit schedule property in favor of the
plaintiff society herein. But the question is that, the
moment the land being notified under Section 4(1) and
under Section 6 and also under Section 16(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, the land will vest with the Government.
Any transactions pursuant to which are without an
authority. If at all anybody would have aggrieved from
the said acquisition, they were to approach the
competent court to challenge the acquisition notification
but they cannot set up the title against the plaintiff
society, who has got the ownership over the suit land by
way of acquisition by following the due process. Thus,
this court is of the opinion that, there is no material to
hold that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time. Thus I
answer issue No.5 in the negative.
59. Issue No.6 in O.S.No. 6525/2012 : The
defendant No.12, 14, 51 to 53, 57, 65 and 66 have
101 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
categorically contended that, the plaintiff came before
this Court claiming that the original landlord
Pillamuniyappa and his legal heirs have alienated the
portion of suit schedule property in favor of the
defendants herein, to that extent themselves came with
the sale deeds as per Ex.P17 to 47. the plaintiff has not
challenged the said sale deeds. But they have maintained
only the relief for declaration to declare the plaintiff as
absolute owner and seeking possession. By not
challenging of said sale deeds, which is a fatal to the case
of the plaintiff as the said sale deeds are coming in the
way of plaintiff which causes hurdle to the title of the
plaintiff herein. As the plaintiff failed to seek complete
relief, on that ground alone suit of the plaintiff fails,
which deserves to be dismissed.
60. But the plaintiffs have vehemently contended
that, firstly the suit land has been acquired by way of
due process which has been handed over in favor of the
102 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
plaintiff to develop the same, to allot the sites to its
member. The vendor of the defendants have had no
authority to transact the same. In that event under the
sale deeds at Ex.D17 to 47, the defendants do not derive
any right, title, interest, they are ab-initio void. On
which the plaintiff need not to seek a declaratory relief.
In this regard he has placed the reliance on the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kewal Krishan V/s. Rajesh
Kumar and others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC
1097, wherein at para-17 of the judgment it is observed
as under :-
Now, coming back to the case in hand, both the
sale deeds record that the consideration has been
paid. That is the specific case of the respondents. It is
the specific case made out in the plaints as originally
filed that the sale deeds are void as the same are
without consideration. It is pleaded that the same are
sham as the purchasers who were minor sons and wife
of Sudarshan Kumar had no earning capacity. No
evidence was adduced by Sudarshan Kumar about the
payment of the price mentioned in the sale deeds as
well as the earning capacity at the relevant time of his
103 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
wife and minors sons. Hence, the sale deeds will have
to be held as void being executed without
consideration. Hence, the sale deeds did not effect in
any manner one half share of the appellant in the suit
properties. In fact, such a transaction made by
Sudarshan Kumar of selling the suit properties on the
basis of the power of attorney of the appellant to his
own wife and minor sons is a sham transaction. Thus,
the sale deeds of 10th April 1981 will not confer any
right, title and interest on Sudarshan Kumar's wife
and children as the sale deeds will have to be ignored
being void. It was not necessary for the appellant to
specifically claim a declaration as regards the sale
deeds by way of amendment to the plaint. The reason
being that there were specific pleadings in the plaints
as originally filed that the sale deeds were void. A
document which is void need not be challenged by
claiming a declaration as the said plea can be set up
and proved even in collateral proceedings.
61. Upon considering the principles laid down in
the above decisions, which aptly applicable to the case in
hand for the reasons that, firstly the suit land has been
acquired for the benefit of the plaintiff society. As on the
sale deeds, the vendors of the defendants have had no
right to deal on any inch of land in the suit property.
104 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Thus, the sale are void ab initio. Further, if the sale
deeds are read, they really they do not suggests that,
they are pertaining to the sites carved in the suit land. As
the sale deeds are void ab initio. They are not coming in
the way of the plaintiffs right, title and interest having
over the suit property. Thus, the plaintiff need not to
seek the relief of declaration on the sale deed. Infact as
the plaintiff sought the declaration that, they are the
owner of the suit property. Thus, Issue no. 6 is answered
in Negative.
62. Additional issue No.2 in O.S.No. 6525/2012:
The defendant No.80 by filing her written statement
contended that, she, the defendant No.2 to 4 are the
children of defendant No.1 and one late Pillamuniyappa.
They are the absolute owner of suit schedule property,
which has been gifted by her late father. Thus, they are
in possession of the suit schedule property since 30
years. Thus she contended that she perfected the title of
105 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
the suit property by way of prescription. To that effect
this Court was pleased to frame the additional issue No.2
stating that does the defendant No.80 proves that she
had perfected her title by way of prescription.
63. It is a settled principle of law that, to prove the
ownership by way of adverse possession against to the
true owner, the party who alleged to be perfected the title
by adverse possession shall accept the ownership of the
party against whom he is seeking adverse possession.
But in the case in hand the defendant No.80 is claiming
right over the suit schedule property based on her title,
and also claiming right over the suit schedule by way of
adverse possession, which is mutually contrary to the
each other. On that ground alone, the contention of the
defendant No.80 deserves to be dismissed.
64. Secondly, the defendant No.80 except filing her
written statement not chosen to lead her evidence, not
placed any material to show she is in possession of the
106 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
suit property since 30 years, Not even placed no material
to show that her possession was open, continuous,
uninterrupted and which was in the knowledge of the
original owner. Thus the contention of the defendant
No.80 that she had perfected the title over the suit
property by way of adverse possession is not proved.
Thus I answer Additional Issue No.2 in O.S.No.
6525/2012 in the negative.
65. Additional issue No.3 in O.S.No. 6525/2012:
The defendant No.80 further contended that the plaintiff
has not valued their suit properly and paid the Court fee.
According to her, as on the date of filing of suit, it was
having value of Rs.60 crores on the ground that the suit
property is measuring 3 acres 11 guntas as on that day
each square feet of land in the said property was valuing
Rs.4,000/-. In that event per acre which comes of Rs.18
Crores. Based on which this Court had to frame the
additional issues. But in this case the plaintiff by
107 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
claiming that they are the owners of the suit schedule
property on which the defendants herein based on the
created documents have managed to put up the
construction in portion of suit schedule property, thus
they have sought the possession. In that event, the
plaintiffs ought to have paid the Court fee under Section
24(A) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
Accordingly they have valued the suit schedule property
showing it as Rs.3,93,00,000/-, the plaintiff by valuing
the suit under Section 24(A) of the Karnataka Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act, paid the Court fee of
Rs.4,03,625/-. But the defendants except pleading the
fact that, as on the date of filing suit it was having the
market value of Rs.60 crores, produced no piece of
document. Even not disputed as to how the valuation
done by the plaintiff is not proper. In the absence of it
the defence of the defendant No.80 has no merit. Thus
additional issue No.3 in O.S.No. 6525/2012 is answered
108 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
in the negative.
66. Issue No.2 to 4 in O.S.No. 4986/2014: Since
all these issues are interconnected, to avoid repetition of
discussion, thus they are taken up for common
discussion.
67. Exactly 2 years after filing of main suit in
O.S.No. 6525/2012, the plaintiff society filed the present
suit. Their case is very simple that, in the year 2014 the
defendants herein have started to put up construction in
the portion of suit property. Thus their Secretary made
them to understand that the said property is belongs to
the society, requested them to stop the construction,who
have not complied. In turn on demanding their authority
over the suit property and basis on how they are putting
up of construction in the portion of the suit property, for
which the defendants came with some documents
showing that they have acquired the title over the portion
of suit property through the defendant No.67 to 69 in
109 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
O.S.No. 6525/2012.
68. The plaintiffs contention is that, the defendant
No.67 to 69 were claiming some interest in the portion of
suit property based on the sale deeds allegedly got
through original landlord one Mr. Pillamuniyappa. As
the suit land has been acquired through the process of
law, way back in the year 1987-88, the transaction
allegedly held in the year 1994, and thereafter under
which neither defendant No.67 to 69 in
O.S.No.6525/2012 nor the defendants herein, who are
claiming their right, title, interest in the portion of the
suit property from the above said defendants do not
derives any right, title, interest. Thus the plaintiffs have
sought permanent injunction to restrain them from
putting up of construction.
69. Initially the this suit was pending before some
other court of the city civil court, but later it has been
made over to this Court to try this suit along with the
110 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
suit in O.S.No. 6525/2012. By considering the fact that
the subject matter of the suit property is common in
O.S.No. 6525/2012 and even the defendants in the
present suit claiming their right through the defendant
No.67 to 69 in O.S.No. 6525/2012, thus this suit has
been clubbed with the O.S.No.6525/2012 suit, allowed
the parties to lead common evidence.
70. But the plaintiff has not produced any piece of
document to show does really the defendants in this suit
are putting up of construction in any portion of the suit
property. In turn, this Court while answering to the
issues in O.S.No. 6525/2012 categorically hold that the
plaintiff is not in possession of any portion of the
property in Sy.No.24/2, it has been fully urbanized,
multi-storied buildings have been came up and the said
layout is called Hemavathi Badavane, which is having all
civic amenities. It means to say, the plaintiff is being
ousted from the suit land. Though the plaintiff could
111 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
establish the fact that they are the owners, but they are
not entitled for the other reliefs. Thus this Court felt, the
decreeing of the suit even in part that leads to chaos and
causes irreparable injury and hardship which cannot be
compensated to the persons who are in possession in
Sy.No.24/2. If that aspect is considered, the plaintiffs
cannot be considered that they are in possession of the
any portion of land in Sy.No. 24/2. In that event, the
question of granting injunction in the nature do not
arise. As they failed to prove the fact that they are in
possession of any portion of the land in Sy.No.24/2, in
fact they have brought around 82 defendants in O.S.No.
6525/2012,therein the defendants have contended that
around 63 sites have been carved, in all the sites
buildings have come up, which are residential,
commercial and even there is no clarity as to whether the
defendants in O.S.No.6525/2012 alone are in possession
or does anybody also are in possession, as the plaintiff
112 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
made out no prima-facie case, then question of granting
equitable relief of injunction do not arise.
71. Though the defendants have filed their written
statement, but not chosen to lead their evidence.
However, as it is the plaintiffs who approached this Court
claiming that they are in possession, alleging that it is
the defendants who by trespassing have started to put up
their construction, it is the plaintiff have to prove their
case, stating on which portion of the suit land the
defendants are started to put up the construction, does
that portion is still vacant or the defendants have have
completed their construction. Absolutely there is no
material. Thus the plaintiffs do not deserve for the relief
of injunction sought in the suit.
72. In this case the defendants have contended
that the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present
suit. But admittedly the suit land is being acquired for
the benefit of the plaintiff society, whether they are
113 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
entitled for the relief in the event of change of
circumstances is the different circumstance. But it is
not in dispute that Sy.No.24/2 is the land acquired for
the benefit of the plaintiff society, it has been handed
over by delivering the possession to develop on the said
land the plaintiff submitted the layout plan in which the
BDA earmarked the same for the purpose of park. In
that event, the question of disputing the locus-standi of
the plaintiff do not arise. Thus this Court is of the
opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove that it is the
defendants have encroached any portion of the suit land
by the defendants herein and they have started to put up
the construction. In the absence of it, the plaintiff do not
entitled for the relief of injunction. Thus I answer issue
No.2 to 4 in O.S.No. 4986/2014 in the negative.
73. Issue No.7 in O.S.No. 6525/2012 & issue No.5
in O.S.No. 4986/2014 : Though the plaintiff is declared
as absolute owner of the suit land. But as the plaintiff is
114 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
not entitled for further relief of mandatory injunction to
demolish the constructions put up by the defendants
herein and to deliver the vacant possession of their
respective portion of property in favor of the plaintiff, in
that event if the suit is decreed in part only declaring the
plaintiff as the absolute owner of suit property, that leads
to chaos and leads to lot of confusion. And in fact,
though the suit is decreed in such a way, which becomes
un-executable decree. Thus the plaintiff is not even
entitled for decreeing the suit in part. Infact in lieu of the
suit for mandatory injunction, though the plaintiff could
have sought for damages, failed. In that event, even if the
suit of the plaintiff is entitled for decree part by declaring
the plaintiff as owner of the suit property, but that do not
gives a fresh cause of action to maintain separate suit for
damages, as Section 40(3) of the specific relief Act., bars
the fresh suit for damages. Thus the suit of the plaintiff
is deserves to be dismissed. Thus answered the above
115 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
issues, as per the final order.
COMMON ORDER
The suits of the plaintiff in O.S.No.6525/2012 and O.S.No. 4986/2014 are dismissed with cost.
Office is to draw the decree accordingly. Keep the original of this judgment in O.S.No.6525/2012 and copy in O.S.No. 4986/2014.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 30th day of September, 2024.
(GANGADHARA.K.N.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY 116 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w. O.S.No. 4986/2014 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1: L. Nanjappa P.W.2: Hayagreevachar
(b) Defendants side :
DW.1: K. Jayaraj DW.2: Beeraiah DW.3: Shanthamma DW.4: Hemambara Naidu DW.5: H. Ramesh DW.6: Vajramma List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 11.01.2013 executed by one V.Shanthamma.
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 11.01.2013 executed by one V.Prakash Babu.
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 11.01.2013 executed by one V.Mohan Babu.
117 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Ex.P.4 2 Photographs
Ex.P.5 Notification u/sec 4(1) of Land acquisition act dt 11.08.1987
Ex.P.6 Notification u/sec 6(1) of Land acquisition act dt 30.06.1988
Ex.P.7 Notification u/sec 16(2) of Land acquisition act dt
06.01.1993
Ex.P.8 Memorandum of possession letter dt 06.01.1993
Ex.P.9 Layout plan approved by BDA.
Ex.P.10 Authorization letter issued by plaintiff's society in favour of this witness.
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of the certificate of Registration of plaintiff's society.
Ex.P.12 Covering letter dt 18.09.1995 and draft modified plan. Ex.P.13 certified copy of the layout plan. Ex.P.14 RTC pertaining to Sy.No. 24/2 Ex.P.15 CD Ex.P.16 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.17 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 17.06.2006 Ex.P.18 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 10.02.1994 Ex.P.19 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 14.10.2003 Ex.P.20 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 17.03.2005 Ex.P.21 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 16.04.1993 Ex.P.22 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 06.12.2006 118 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w. O.S.No. 4986/2014 Ex.P.23 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 15.11.2010 Ex.P.24 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 10.03.2008 Ex.P.25 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 13.05.1994 Ex.P.26 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 29.04.2005 Ex.P.27 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 04.11.2009 Ex.P.28 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 13.10.2006 Ex.P.29 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 01.02.2008 Ex.P.30 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 15.12.2011 Ex.P.31 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 10.03.2004 Ex.P.32 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 05.07.2002 Ex.P.33 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 27.09.2006 Ex.P.34 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 03.11.1995 Ex.P.35 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 20.03.2006 Ex.P.36 Certified copy of the Gift deed dt 07.12.2011 Ex.P.37 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 25.01.2006 Ex.P.38 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 03.06.2006 Ex.P.39 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 17.01.2009 Ex.P.40 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 30.01.2008 Ex.P.41 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 03.08.2006 Ex.P.42 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 06.02.2006 Ex.P.43 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 20.10.2004 Ex.P.44 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 26.09.2002 119 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w. O.S.No. 4986/2014 Ex.P.45 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 19.10.1992 Ex.P.46 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 19.10.1992 Ex.P.47 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 29.12.1994 Ex.P.48 Authorization issued by the plaintiff society. Ex.P.49 Extract of the Board Meeting dt 11.09.1993 Ex.P.50 Certified copy of the relinquishment deed dt 18.02.2000 Ex.P.51 The joint measurement statement prepared by SLAO, Surveyor Ex.P.52 Certified copy of Spot Mahazar dt:22.04.1991 done by SLAO Bengaluru Sub division.
(b) Defendants side :
Ex.D 1 Order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.NO.2422/1993 dated 04.12.1996 Ex.D.2 GPA of D.51 to 53 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 19.10.1992 Ex.D.4 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.15 Ex.D.5 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 19.10.1992 Ex.D.6 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.15 Ex.D.7 Digitally certified sale deed dt 04.10.2004 Ex.D.8 Digitally certified sale deed dt 08.11.2006 Ex.D.9 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.16 120 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w. O.S.No. 4986/2014 Ex.D.10 Digitally certified sale deed dt 04.10.2004 Ex.D.11 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.15 Ex.D.12 Digitally certified sale deed dt 07.04.2011 Ex.D.13 4 Bescom Bills are together marked. Ex.D.14 Digitally certified gift deed dt 07.12.2011 Ex.D.15 Khatha certificate Ex.D.16 Khatha extract Ex.D.17 6 Photographs Ex.D.18 2 CD's Ex.D.19 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.D.20 Digitally certified gift deed dt 13.03.2020 Ex.D.21 Khatha certificate Ex.D.22 Khatha extract Ex.D.23 4 Photographs Ex.D.24 2 CD's Ex.D.25 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.D.26 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.15 Ex.D.27 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.15 Ex.D.28 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.15 Ex.D.29 4 Bescom Bills together marked. Ex.D.30 BWSSB 121 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w. O.S.No. 4986/2014 Ex.D.31 Digitally certified gift deed dt 13.03.2020 Ex.D.32 GPA Ex.D.33 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 16.04.1993 Ex.D.34 Certified copy of the release deed dt 11.12.1995 Ex.D.35 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.15 Ex.D.36 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 22.06.2000 Ex.D.37 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.15 Ex.D.38 Tax Receipt Ex.D.39 Tax receipt in 3 nos.
Ex.D.40 Building license issued by Subramanyapura Gramapanchayath. Ex.D.41 Building plan issued by Subramanyapura Gramapanchayath. Ex.D.42 Tax remand issued by Subramanyapura Gramapanchayath. Ex.D.43 Electricity connection report issued by Bescom. Ex.D.44 2 Photographs Ex.D.45 CD Ex.D.46 4 Bescom Bills Ex.D.47 9 Bescom receipts Ex.D.48 6 BWSSB Bills.
Ex.D.49 Cash receipt issued by BWSSB. Ex.D.50 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 14.10.2003 executed by one Smt.D.Lourde mary as a GPA holder of one Sri.Pillamuniyappa in favor of one M.R.James. 122 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014 Ex.D.51 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.15. Ex.D.52 Building license issued by Subramanyapura gramapanchayath .
Ex.D.53 Tax demand register issued by Subramanyapura gramapanchayath .
Ex.D.54 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.D.55 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 06.02.2006 Ex.D.56 Encumbrance certificate in form no.15 Ex.D.57 6 tax paid receipts Ex.D.58 Building plan approved by Subramanyapura gramapanchayath .
Ex.D.59 2 Bescom bills Ex.D.60 2 BWSSB bills Ex.D.61 6 Photographs Ex.D.62 CD Ex.D.63 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 03.10.1992 and typed copy of the sale deed dt 03.10.1992 Ex.D.64 Tax demand register issued by Village panchayath, Uttarahalli. Ex.D.65 Tax paid receipt. issued by Subramanyapura Gramapanchayath Ex.D.66 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 22.04.2002. Ex.D.67 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 26.09.2002. Ex.D.68 Encumbrance certificate in form n.15 Ex.D.69 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.16 123 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w. O.S.No. 4986/2014 Ex.D.70 14 tax paid receipts a Ex.D.71 5 Bescom bills Ex.D.72 3 Photographs Ex.D.73 CD Ex.D.74 GPA dt 19.10.1992 issued under RTI Act by the public information office attached to the Sub Registrar, Kengeri.
Ex.D.75 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 14.10.2003. Ex.D.76 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.D.77 Tax demand register.
Ex.D.78 Encumbrance certificate in the from no.15 Ex.D.79 Digitally certified Sale deed dt 20.10.2004. Ex.D.80 Encumbrance certificate in form no.15 Ex.D.81 The copy of the notice issued by ARO, BBMP. Ex.D.82 Digitally certified gift deed dt 29.08.2012. Ex.D.83 Notice issued by AE, road widening division of BBMP.
Ex.D.84 Notice issued by the AE, attached to road widening division of BBMP.
Ex.D.85 3 Photographs
Ex.D.86 CD
Ex.D.87 Bescom bill
124 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014
Ex.D.88 BWSSB Bill
Ex.D.89 Layout plan issued by BDA.
Ex.D.90 Gazette notification dt 11.08.1987
Ex.D.91 Gazette notification dt 21.07.1988
Ex.D.92 The minutes of the meeting forwarded by SLAO to the
Spl.DC, Bangalore in connection with acquiring the lands for the benefits of plaintiff society. Ex.D.93 The letter of SLAO written to the plaintiff society dt 21.03.1990 Ex.D.94 The proceedings of SLAO in connection with passing of award in respect of acquiring the land for the benefits of plaintiff society Ex.D.95 Letter dt 19.05.1990 of SLAO issued under RTI Ex.D.96 Letter dt 11.07.1990 issued by SLAO.
Ex.D.97 The letter dt 02.03.1991 issued by SLAO under RTI. Ex.D.98 Letter dt 02.04.1991 issued by SLAO. Ex.D.99 The letter dt 18.03.1991 of the SLAO issued under RTI. Ex.D.100 Letter dt 11.03.1991 of the Spl.DC issued under RTI. Ex.D.101 Letter of the SLAO sent to Spl.DC dt 28.05.1991 issued under RTI.
Ex.D.102 Letter of the Spl.DC Bangalore dt 01.01.1991 issued under RTI.
125 O.S.No.6525/2012 C/w.
O.S.No. 4986/2014 Ex.D.103 The letter of the revenue department dt 01.06.1991 Ex.D.104 The proposals for passing award in respect of lands acquired for the benefits of plaintiff society issued under the RTI.
Ex.D.105 10 Photographs
Ex.D.106 Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP
2422/93
Ex.D.107 The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP
2382/90 along with other clubbed matter. Ex.D.108 to AGM booklets of the plaintiff society for the year btw 2014 110 to 2019.
Ex.D.111 Certificate of 63 of BSA Act. Digitally signed by
GANGADHARA GANGADHARA K N
KN Date: 2024.10.19
12:23:25 +0530
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.