Bangalore District Court
Meenakumarirajendran vs The Commissioner Bbmp on 28 November, 2025
1 O.S.No. 6399/2022
KABC010265502022
Presented on : 30-09-2022
Registered on : 30-09-2022
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 28th day of NOVEMBER, 2025.
PRESENT: SMT. G.S.PRASEELA KUMARI, B.A.L,LLB.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU.
O.S.No.6399/2022
PLAINTIFF : SMT.MEENAKUMARIRAJENDRAN
w/o late Rajendran, aged about 54
years, Resident of No: 15/1/6,
Ward No:8, Sahakaranagar,
[Kothihosahallli], Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk
(By Sri.AVA, Adv)
v/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1.The Commissioner,
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike, N.R. Square,
J.C. Road, Bangalore-560002.
2. Assistant Revenue Inspector,
Office of the Assistant Revenue
Inspector, BBMP,
Kodigehalli-Sub-division,
2 O.S.No. 6399/2022
Sahakaranagara, 9th Main Road,
Bangalore-560092.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Office of the Assistant Executive
Engineers, Kodigehalli
Sub-Division, BBMP.
Bangalore-560092.
4. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Street,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560020.
(By Sri.NRJ, advocate
for D1 to D3 and Sri.NS - D4)
Date of Institution of the suit : 30-09-2022
Nature of the suit : INJUNCTION SUIT
Date of commencement of : 03-09-2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 28-11-2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
02 01 28
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
3 O.S.No. 6399/2022
JUDGMENT
The present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his agents, servants, officials, workmen or anybody claiming through or under them from plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or trying to demolish any portion of the suit schedule property with direction to the defendant to pay the costs with such other reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as follows:- The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the immovable residential suit schedule property. The "Suit Schedule Property" was purchased by the husband of the plaintiff from his vendor on 10/6/2002 through absolute sale deed. After purchase of the said property he got changed the khata to his name and had been paid taxes of the schedule property to the concerned BBMP. Thereafter, the plaintiff's husband had obtained the building sanction plan for construction of residential building in the year 2005 from the City Municipal Corporation, Bangalore. Plaintiff husband had constructed the residential 4 O.S.No. 6399/2022 building in the vacant site by obtaining the loan from the Bank. Unfortunately, the plaintiff's husband late V.V. Rajendran was died on 14/01/2018 due to illness leaving behind, the plaintiff and a daughter namely Kum.Kavya Rajendran. She is studying and under the care and custody of this plaintiff. After death of V.V.Rajendran, the plaintiff and her unmarried daughter have been succeeded the estate of Rajendran as legal heirs. The plaintiff and her daughter namely Kum. Kavya Rajendran have been changed the khata of the schedule property to their name. The khata certificate, khata extract and assessment extract for the year 2018-19 issued by the BBMP and stands in the name of the plaintiff and her daughter. The plaintiff has paid the property tax for the year 2022-23. In the year 2017 the husband of the plaintiff had obtained the loan by mortgaging schedule property from UCO Bank. The original documents of the title deeds are with the said Bank. Further after plaintiff's husband, the plaintiff is continuously repaying the loan amount to the Bank on installment basis. It is submitted that ever since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff No.1's husband is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of 5 O.S.No. 6399/2022 the suit schedule property, till his death. It is further submitted that when things stood thus on 17/02/2022, all of a sudden, the defendant No.2 herein has been issued a notice to the plaintiff saying that the plaintiff building had been constructed in the park area and calling her to produce the documents of the suit schedule property. Pursuant to the said notice, the plaintiff had been submitted the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property to the office of the defendant No.2 for their verification.
3. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs building got constructed in the park Area. The suit schedule property is part of Sy No:15/1 of Kothihosahalli village, to an extent of 0-22 guntas. These 0-22 guntas of land was originally belonged to the one Munithimmaiah and his family and then he was executed the GPA in favour K. Munegowda in respect of 0-22 guntas. Thereafter, K.Munegowda, had sold the said 0-22 guntas by part by part to others. Accordingly, the plaintiff's husband had been purchased the suit schedule property from K. Munegowda on 10/06/2002. The 0-22 guntas of 6 O.S.No. 6399/2022 land in Sy No:15/1 of Kothihosahalli village, is not belonged to the BBMP or BDA. This property is private property. In this regard the BDA had been issued an endorsement stating that the land in Sy No:15/1 of KothiHosahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk was not notified for any project of the BDA. The BDA has also issued the layout plan, wherein, these 0-22 guntas land was not shown as park Area.
4. It is further respectfully submitted that, some of the people who are said to be the officials of the Defendants threatening to the plaintiff saying that the building of the plaintiff is constructed in the park area and would have to be demolished in the coming days, the plaintiff having no other option issued a statutory notice to all the defendants vide notice dated 8/7/2022, calling the defendants to stop unnecessary harassment to the plaintiff, the notices were duly served on the defendants. It is further submitted that the defendant not replied to the said statutory notice nor issued any statuary notice either under the provisions of KMC Act BDA Act but some of the officials of the defendants including the 7 O.S.No. 6399/2022 defendant No.2 and 3 are making vehement threat to demolish the building on the suit schedule property and the defendants are threatening that they would bring more force and materials to demolish the building and the plaintiff apprehend that, the officials of defendants may cause damage to the suit building, and there is an imminent threat of demolition to the schedule building posed by the defendants, the plaintiff has no other alternative remedy except to seek the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court, by filing this suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction, Hence, this suit. The defendants have no manner of right to doing this Act. The cause of action for the suit arose on 17/02/2022, in the month of September 2022 till today. The schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, prays for judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff.
5. Defendant No.1 to 3 appeared before this court and also filed the Written Statement and submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent Injunction with such other relief is not maintainable in law or on facts and same is 8 O.S.No. 6399/2022 liable to be dismissed in limine. The suit is false, frivolous, and vexatious, same is highly misconceived and the same is based on created, concocted and fabricated documents. The suit is not maintainable for the reason that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and she has not approached this Hon'ble court with clean hands. The plaintiff has not got issued the statutory notice before filing the suit. These defendants are not in receipt of any statutory notice from the plaintiff and the alleged notice created and fabricated one for the purpose of the case. Without issuing the statutory and mandatory notice, the suit should not be entertained and no such relief can be granted.
6. The plaintiff has not sated in which land the alleged layout has been formed whether the said land is converted or not, whether the betterment charges are paid or not and whether layout Plan is duly approved by Planning authority. It is specifically denied that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is specifically denied that the plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 9 O.S.No. 6399/2022 property. The plaintiff has not stated about the title of vendor and he has not stated who is the owner of the land in Sy.No.15/1 of Kothihosahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru north. As per the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act, the Planning authority has to approve the layout plan. The land has to be converted for non-agricultural purpose before the approval of the sectioned layout by the Planning. In the absence of the approved layout plan, the defendants will not issue the Katha certificate in respect of revenue sites without paying the development charges and conversion fee. The Katha certificate is not a record of title.
7. It is submitted that the defendants have issued notice dated 17.02.2022, calling upon the plaintiff to appear before the 2nd defendant for an enquiry since the plaintiff putting up illegal construction in the Civic amenity site i.e. park area and as such demanded to produce the documents. It is submitted that there is no recital in the sale deed about the approved layout plan by the BDA and the same is not mentioned in the sale deed. In the absence of change in land from agriculture to non-
10 O.S.No. 6399/2022agricultural purpose the BDA will not issue any approved layout plan. The defendants have issued notice dated 15.06.2022, calling upon the plaintiff to appear before the 2 defendant for an enquiry since the plaintiff 's putting up illegal construction in the Civic amenity site i.e. park area and as such demanded to produce the documents. The transfer of Property is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and Indian Registration Act. It is submitted that in view of the Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act the transfer can be made only by registered sale deed. In this regard after considering the provisions of the transfer of Property, Act, Registration Act, and Power of attorney Act, the Apex court has held that transfer can be valid by registered sale deed and no by sale agreement/general power of attorney or Will. In the judgment reported in AIR 2012 S.C. 206 and AIR 2009 SC 3077. The law declared AIR 2012, S.C. 206 is clearly applicable to this case and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. If the value of the property under exceeds Rs.100/- the said document requires registration as provided under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act.
11 O.S.No. 6399/20228. The defendants submit that the Government has initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of Sy. No. 15/1 of KothiHosahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru north Taluk among other lands for the benefit of the members of CIL Employees House building Co-op. Society notification vide No. RD 172 AQB 84 dated 04.03.1985 and final notification was published on 19.05.1983. Upon the preliminary notification since no objection was filed final notification was issued. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore has passed an award in the name of Ganga S/o. Juja on 30.05.1989. The possession of the land has been taken over by the authorities and 16(2) Notification was issued in LAC 300/83-84 dated 03.10.1992 of Kothihosahalli village is reserved for C.A. site i.e., Park area. The Land Acquisition officer has passed an award on 20.05.1989 and award notice has been sent to the kathedar and kabjedar of the land in sy.No.15/1 of Kothihosahalli village. The BDA has prepared a layout plan in which Sy.No.15/1 has been reserved for Civic amenity site. The said Civic amenity site/Park area has been handed over to the 12 O.S.No. 6399/2022 defendant no.1 for its maintenance up keep as a Park and the said CA site was handed over to the BBMP and the BBMP is in the possession and enjoyment of the said land and it is maintaining as a park.
9. The executants of the documents in favour of the plaintiff 's vendors have no manner of right tile or interest over the same. When the predecessors in title of the plaintiff has no better title the question of making out better marketable title than that of the plaintiff 's predecessors in title does not arise at all. The defendants have given a specific Katha number to the suit schedule property. The assignment or otherwise of Katha assessment number to property does not take away the right of any person having valid title. The plaintiff is having no title at all. The suit property is kept for public use.
10. The defendants 1 to 4 have specifically denied the title of the plaintiff. It is held by the Supreme Court in AIR 2008 SC 2033 when complicated question of title is involved, it could be examined only in a title suit for declaration and consequential reliefs and not in a suit for injunction simplicitor. In a 13 O.S.No. 6399/2022 reported judgment reported in ILR 2010 KAR 2996, it is held that when title to the property in a suit for bare injunction is shown to be clouded, hence the proper course in a case of this nature is to relegate the parties to a comprehensive suit of declaration, title and consequential reliefs. There is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged one is false and created for the purpose of the case. Wherefore, the defendants 1 to 3 humbly pray that this Hon'ble court be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost, to meet the ends of justice.
11. Heard on both sides.
12. In support of the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff herself got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P15. During the cross-examination of PW.1 the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 confronted Ex.D1 to 4 but no oral evidence on behalf of the defendants.
13. On the basis of the pleadings, My predecessor in office has framed the following:-
ISSUES
1. Does the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit 14 O.S.No. 6399/2022 schedule property as on the date of filing of suit?
2. Does the plaintiff proves that it is the defendants have interfered with his possession and enjoyment of suit property?
3. Does the plaintiff proves to grant perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession ar enjoyment of suit property?
4. What order?
14. My findings on the above issues are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1:- In the Negative; ISSUE NO.2:- In the Negative; ISSUE NO.3:- In the Negative; ISSUE No.4:- As per final order.
For the following:-
REASONS
15. ISSUE NO.1:- In Issue No.1 the plaintiff has to prove that she is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. In order to prove this issue PW.1 reiterated the entire plaint averments in her chief examination. In the chief examination PW.1 has stated that Sri.Munegowda had executed the registered sale deed with respect to the suit schedule property in 15 O.S.No. 6399/2022 favour of V.V.Rajendran on 10-06-2002 who is none other than the husband of the plaintiff but her husband died on 14-01-2008. Subsequent to the registration of the sale deed her husband was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Subsequent to his death, now the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In order to prove this issue PW.1 has relied upon Ex.P-1 the certified copy of the registered sale deed it reflect that K.Munegowda has executed the registered sale deed in favour of the husband of plaintiff for a valid sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/-. As per the recital itself goes to show that on the date of the execution of the sale deed, the vendor of the property submits no objections to transfer the Katha in favour of the purchaser's name. Even the possession of the property also handed over to the husband of the plaintiff on the date of the execution of the sale deed.
16. Ex.P-2 is the approved plan from the concerned authority reflect that husband of the plaintiff has obtained the plan from the concerned authority for construction of the residential building 16 O.S.No. 6399/2022 in the suit schedule property. The death certificate of Rajendran reflect that he died on 14-01-2008. Ex.P-4 is the certificate issued from the BBMP dated 13-02-2019, which goes to show that wife of Rajendran by name Meenakumari Rajendran and daughter of Rajendran Kumari Kavya shown as possessor of the suit schedule property. Uttara Pathra dated 13-02-2019, also reflect that wife and daughter of Rajendran are the possessors of the suit schedule property. The change of revenue records itself goes to show that due to the death of Rajendran all the revenue records got mutated in the name of Meenakumari and daughter Kavya. Ex.P-6 is the Assessment extract for the year 2018-19 itself goes to show that the plaintiff herein along with her daughter is shown as owner and possessor of the property. It also reflect the measurement of the property and the mode on which the revenue records got mutated in their name. According to Assesment extract at Ex.P-6 due to the death of Rajendran Pauthi Varasu Katha, revenue records got mutated in his name. Ex.P-7 tax paid receipt reflect that plaintiffs by name Meenakumari and Kavya have paid tax for the year 2022-23. Ex.P-8 document 17 O.S.No. 6399/2022 issued from the UCO Bank dated 01-06-2017, reflect that both the Rajendran.V.V and wife Meenakumari have obtained term loan of Rs.20 lakhs from the bank. The terms and conditions also reflect in the document itself. Ex.P-9 letter issued from the UCO Bank dated 15-10-2018, reflect that sanction of Rs.20 lakhs in the name of V.V.Rajendran and Meenakumari. Ex.P-10 encumbrance certificate reflect that both Rajendran and Meenakumari have executed the deed in favour of UCO Bank on 16-06- 2017 for obtaining loan to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs. On the basis of Ex.P-1 to P-10 itself the plaintiff has relied upon her ownership and possession over the suit schedule property.
17. But in the evidence of PW.1 as well as in the plaint averments she has narrated that originally land in Sy.No.15/1 belongs to Munithimmaiah. Munithimmaiah executed the GPA in favour of Jagadish. On the strength of the GPA Jagadish sold the 0-11 guntas of land in favour of K.Munegowda. Munegowda after acquiring the right, title and interest in respect of 0-11 guntas of land formed site and thereafter sold site No.6 as shown in the plaint 18 O.S.No. 6399/2022 in favour of the husband of plaintiff herein. But on careful perusal of the entire document produced by the plaintiff which got marked Ex.P-1 to P-15. Mother deed i.e., originally land stands in the name of Munithimmaiah but no document is produced before this court. Even the GPA executed by Munithimmaiah in favour of Jagadish is also not produced before this court. According to PW.1, Jagadish on the strength of the registered GPA alienated the 0-11 guntas of land in favour of K.Munegowda. Even that document also not produced before this court. According to the PW.1 Sri.Munegowda after acquiring the 0-11 guntas of land formed sites but no conversion order, approved plan from the concerned authority is produced by the plaintiff. Even regarding the formation of the layout and the sites as shown in the schedule reflect in the sanction plan also not produced before this court. Except Ex.P-1 no registered document of the vendor of the plaintiff's husband or original owner Munithimmaiah and K.Munegowda not produced before the court to establish the lawful ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
19 O.S.No. 6399/202218. By keeping in mind these important aspects,on careful perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 to 3, in the written statement "the defendants submit that the Government has initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of Sy. No. 15/1 of KothiHosahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru north Taluk among other lands for the benefit of the members of CIL Employees House building Co-op.
Society notification vide No. RD 172 AQB 84 dated 04.03.1985 and final notification was published on 19.05.1983. Top the preliminary notification since no objection was filed final notification was issued. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore has passed am award in the name of Ganga S/o. Juja on 30.05.1989. The possession of the land has been taken over by the authorities and 16(2) Notification was issued in LAC 300/83-84 dated 03.10.1992 of Kothihosahalli village is reserved for C.A. site i.e., Park area."
"The Land Acquisition officer has passed an award on 20.05.1989 and award notice has been sent to the kathedar and kabjedar of the land in 20 O.S.No. 6399/2022 sy.No.15/1 of Kothihosahalli village. The BDA has prepared a layout plan in which Sy.No.15/1 has been reserved for Civic amenity site. The said Civic amenity site/Park area has been handed over to the defendant no.1 for its maintenance up keep as a Park and the said CA site was handed over to the BBMP and the BBMP is in the possession and enjoyment of the said land and it is maintaining as a park. The executants of the documents in four of the plaintiff 's vendors have no manner of right tile or interest over the same. When the predecessors in title of the plaintiff has no better title the question of making out better marketable title than that of the plaintiff 's predecessors in title does not arise at all. The defendants have given a specific Katha number to the suit schedule property. The assignment or otherwise of Katha assessment number to property does not take away the right of any person having valid title. The plaintiff is having no title at all. The suit property is kept for public use. The defendants 1 to 4 have specifically denied the title of the plaintiff. It is held by the Supreme Court in AIR 2008 SC 2033 when complicated question of title is involved, it could be examined only in a title suit for 21 O.S.No. 6399/2022 declaration and consequential reliefs and not in a suit for injunction simplicitor. In a reported judgment reported in ILR 2010 KAR 2996, it is held that when title to the property in a suit for bare injunction is shown to be clouded, hence the proper course in a case of this nature is to relegate the parties to a comprehensive suit of declaration, title and consequential reliefs."
19. By keeping in mind, the prayer as well as issues, and on perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1 even in the cross-examination she has clearly admitted that she is very much acquainted with the averments of the written statement, pleadings of defendant No.1 to 3 and other documents filed along with the written statement. According to her she do not know the larger extent of land in Sy.No. 15/1 of Kothihosahalli, Munithimayya was the original owner of the land bearing Sy.No.15/1, she has not produced any RTC showing that at any point of time, any portion of land in Sy.No.15/1 was stands in the name of Mr.Munithimayya, she has not produced the title deeds of my vendor's vendor, she do not know when did her vendor Munegowda got purchased the suit 22 O.S.No. 6399/2022 schedule property. Even according to her, she has not produced any Katha issued by the BBMP during the course of her evidence. Regarding the conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose she has clearly admitted that she do not know whether land bearing Sy.No.15/1 was got converted for non agricultural purpose, it is her vendor Munegowda formed the layout in Sy.No.15/1, she had no knowledge whether her vendor after obtaining the approved layout plan from any competent authority had formed the layout in Sy.No. 15/1, Munegowda got purchased the land bearing Sy.No.15/1 from the GPA holder of landlord Munithimayya, she has not produced any document to show as on the date of sale of land bearing Sy.No.15/1 in favor of Munegowda, does Mr.Munithimayya had any semblance of right on the said land. Even she has not produced the GPA of Munithimayya executed in favor of his agent.
20. According to PW.1 as she admitted that suit site CQAL layout is adjacent to the area where the suit property is situated, suit site is situated in the Kothihasahalli but she do not know based on which 23 O.S.No. 6399/2022 document, the schedule and measurement of site has been described in her sale deed at Ex.P.1, she has not produced the layout plan to show or identify the location of suit site no.6, she do not know the number of sites carved in Sy.No. 15/1 by her vendor. By keeping in mind the above said cross-examination of PW.1 on perusal of Ex.P1 it reflect that, "site No.6 is situated in Sy.No.15/1, Katha Number shown as 443" Except Ex.P1 no other relevant sale deed of the vendor or vendor's vendor of the plaintiff not produced before this court. Regarding the defense of the defendant No.1 to 3 as contended in the written statement on careful perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1 she has clearly admitted that, " It is true to suggest that defendant No.1 to 3 in their written statement have pleaded that suit site is situated at CQAL layout'. After knowing the written statement averments of defendant No.1 to 3 shall made no efforts to find out whether the real suit site comes within CQAL layout. It is also admitted that as per the document which now shown to her there is a reference shown that land measuring 2-43 guntas in Sy.No.15/1 has been notified for acquisition on 19-05-1993. Regarding that acquisition she 24 O.S.No. 6399/2022 categorically admitted that it is true to suggest that document which now shown to me is the said notification. PW.1 during the course of cross- examination admitted the document which got marked the said notification as Ex.D1.
21. With respect to the acquisition proceedings in the cross-examination, it is elicited by the defendant No.1 to 3 which reads thus:-
It is true to suggest that as per the document dated 03-10-1992 which now shown to me, the SLAO had handed over the 1 acre 15 guntas of fine land and 2 guntas of Karab of Sy.No. 15/1 in of Kothihosahalli in favor of CIL employees HBCS Ltd, as the witness admits the document the same is marked as Ex.D.2.
22. With respect to the defense of the defendant No.1 to 3 regarding Ex.D4 which confronted to the PW.1 she has clearly admitted that:-
it is true to suggest that as per the document which now shown to me there is a reference showing that against to the acquisition of 1.26 guntas including 0-2 guntas of Karab 25 O.S.No. 6399/2022 land.
SLAO passed award in favour of Munithimmaiah and others.
23. The counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 in cross-examination of PW.1 confronted Ex.D1 to D4. Ex.D1 notification dated 13-01-1983 issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act reflect that property in Sy.No.15/1 measuring 2 acres but extent deleted is 0-29 guntas in total 1.15 guntas of land, name of the Kathedar shown as Ganga S/o. Juja, name of as Anubhavdhar shown as Munithimmaiah, Peru-mamma, Pothalappa and Marappa. The above said land notified by the Government of Karnataka for acquisition of the property. On perusal of Ex.D2 official memorandum dated 03-10-1992 reflect that the possession of the extent of 4.1 guntas of land in Kothihosahalli village have been given to M/s. CIL Employees House Building Co-operative Society on 03-10-1992. The measurement of the land in Sy.No.15/1 shown as 1.15 guntas of land along with 02 guntas of Phut Karab land. Ex.D4 award passed by SLAO dated 01-10-1986 reflect that in Sy.No.15/1 measuring 26 O.S.No. 6399/2022 1.26 guntas of land along with 02 guntas of Phut Karab acquired by SLAO and award passed by the concerned authority. All the above said documents itself goes to show that much earlier to the execution of Ex.P1 dated 06-08-2001 the suit schedule property which is part and parcel of the property in Sy.No.15/1 notified by the Government of Karnataka as per notification under Sec.4(1) and 6(1) of the LAC Act. Even award also passed by the SLAO, award notice also issued to the owner of the property in Sy.No.15/1 and informed about the compensation fixed regarding the acquisition of the land.
24. According to PW.1, in the cross-examination she has clearly admitted that after purchasing the suit site she got the property assessed in the then, CMC they have been issued assessment extract as per Ex.P2 and Katha also got mutated in the office of BBMP. By virtue of the cross-examination and Ex.D1 to D4 as well as the defense in the written statement the defendant No.1 to 3 it is crystal clear that the defendants categorically denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. When there is cloud 27 O.S.No. 6399/2022 regarding the title as well as the possession of the property, then suit for bare injunction itself is not maintainable. In support of my opinion, Defendant No.1 to 3 relied upon the citations / rulings reported in AIR (2008) SCC 2022 Anathula Sudhakar v/s. P.Buchi Reddy represented by Lrs. On careful perusal of the observation of Hon'b le Supreme Court, it held that:-
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiffs lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and 28 O.S.No. 6399/2022 substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the Court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter Involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the Court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration 29 O.S.No. 6399/2022 of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The Court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.30 O.S.No. 6399/2022
25. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 has relied upon the ruling reported in ILR 2007 KAR 339 in between Sri.Aralappa vs Sri Jagannath and Others. In this ruling the Hon'ble High Court has held that:-
(B)SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963- SECTION 34-Declaration of status or right-Discretion of Court-Held, In a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to prove his title to the property and also his possession over the property on the date of the suit-Further held, when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property on the date of the suit, relief of permanent injunction is not an appropriate consequential relief- The appropriate relief consequential to declaration of ownership would be recovery of possession of the property- When the plaintiff is out of possession of the property and does not seek relief for possession, a mere suit for declaration is not maintainable-Court below was justified in dismissing the suit as not maintainable-Appeals are dismissed.
26. By virtue of this ruling also, when there is a 31 O.S.No. 6399/2022 dispute regarding the title of the property and also possession over the property on the date of filing of suit, under such circumstances only relief for permanent injunction is not a appropriate consequential relief. This ruling is also aptly applicable to the case on hand. In the written statement also the defendants have taken a defense that the suit schedule property is the absolute property of BBMP and that particular property is meant for park. Apart from that the possession of the property also already taken over by the BBMP by virtue of the relinquishment deed executed by the society in favour of the society. On that ground the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Apart from this, on perusal of the nature of the rulings relied by the counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 reported in ILR 2010 KAR 2996 in between Smt.Siriyala and Others v/s B.N.Ramesh. In this ruling the Hon'ble High court held that:-
ON FACTS, HELD - In the facts and circumstances of the case, the approach of the first Appellate Court was inconsistent with the first principle that ought to have been applied when 32 O.S.No. 6399/2022 title to the property in a suit for bare injunction is shown to be clouded. Hence, the proper course in a case of this nature is to relegate the parties to a comprehensive suit for declaration, title and consequential reliefs.
By virtue of this observation, the suit filed by the plaintiff is only for bare injunction without comprehensive suit for declaration,title, possession and consequential relief as not maintainable.
27. When the title, possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property categorically denied by the defendants, then it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff and burden upon the plaintiff to prove that to make out his title and entitlement to the possession. He cannot succeed on any weakness in title or possession of defendant. No doubt in a case on hand, defendant No.1 to 4 only filed written statement not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. But the entire defense of the defendant elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW.1. Even the acquisition proceeding also admitted 33 O.S.No. 6399/2022 by PW.1 during the course of cross-examination on the basis of the confronted documents which got marked as Ex.D1 to D4, as such the case of the plaintiff regarding his lawful possession over the suit schedule property is in no way established on the strength of the oral and documentary evidence.
28. In this judgment, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka On the basis of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indira Bhat v. Commissioner BDA, Bangalore AIR 1998 KARNATAKA 386 and also in another case Birendra Paswan v. State of Bihar AIR 2021 PATNA 108 held that as per Section 9 of the CPC, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any civil case with respect to the property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal filed by the appellant also dismissed on the ground that the suit is not maintainable as the Civil Court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the take cognizance of the suit under Section 9 of the CPC in way of the bar under the Land Acquisition Act. The guidelines and observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Brijesh Reddy case and in another case also followed by the Apex Court and dismissed 34 O.S.No. 6399/2022 the appeal.
29. In view of the above-said observation, A case between B.K. Nanjundaiah and others v. The B.D.A., Bangalore and another AIR 1988 KARNATAKA 227 and Dr. H.N. Bhargava v. University of Sagar, and anothe AIR 1974 MADHYA PRADESH 40 in SLP No. 33813 of 2011 and RFA No. 2373 of 2007 the Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank AIR 2007 SC 2198 , it is crystal clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant no. 1 to 4 is not Maintainable.
When the State of Government also taken possession of the entire property in Sy.No.15/1, when the plaintiff not produced the title deed of the vendors of the plaintiff and vendor's vendor then without any hesitation, I answer Issue No.1 in the Negative.
30. ISSUE NO.2:- In issue No.2 the plaintiff has to prove that it is the defendants have interfered with her possession and enjoyment of suit property. In issue No.1 this court has already come to the 35 O.S.No. 6399/2022 conclusion that in view of the Ex.D1 to D4 the plaintiff is not in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which is part and parcel of the property in Sy.No.15/1. Inspite of that, regarding the interference on careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, in the chief examination she has stated that "Defendant No.1 to 3 in their written statement have contended that the suit schedule property along with remaining property in Sy.No.15/1 acquired by the Government and handed over the Housing society for formation of the residential sites." Even according to them as per the acquisition proceedings the entire property acquired by the State Government. But the BBMP who are none other than the defendant No.1 to 3 made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
31. By virtue of this evidence of PW.1 regarding the interference and on careful perusal of the cross- examination PW.1 has clearly admitted that, "It is true to suggest that the BBMP got issued 36 O.S.No. 6399/2022 the notice stating that, as the suit site appears to be within the land meant for park, thus they demanded me to produce the title deeds of the suit property. It is true to suggest that I have not produced the notice of the D.1 to 3 issued to me, in my evidence. I have no impediment to produce the said notice in my evidence. It is also admitted that, it is true to suggest that after issuance of notice by D.1 to 3 plaintiff filed the suit before this court. She has also not produced an acknowledgment to show submitting of documents sought by the D.1 to 3. She do not remember the date and month on which the D.1 to 3 visited the suit property along with JCB Machine by threatening to demolish the suit property, but it was in the year 2022. by alleging the interference from D.1 to 3, I have not lodged any complaint with the police. I do not remember the date and month on which the D.1 to 3 visited the suit property along with JCB Machine by threatening to demolish the suit property, but it was in the year 2022. with respect to the interference from D.1 to 3, as admitted by PW.1 she has not lodged any complaint with the police."
37 O.S.No. 6399/202232. The above said cross-examination itself goes to show that no specific evidence regarding the interference by the defendants. Except notice issued by the defendant No.1 to 3 to the plaintiff and called upon her to produce the relevant documents pertaining to the suit schedule property, apart from that suit schedule property as admitted by PW.1 shown as land meant for park in the notice issued by BBMP.
33. Even that notice received by the plaintiff not produced before this court. Mere issuance of the notice by the defendant authority itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the defendants authority is interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Regarding the plaint schedule property in the cross-examination PW.1 has clearly admitted that she do not know whether the layout plan which now shown to me is the layout plan approved in favour of M/s. CIL House Building Co-operative society Limited. She do not know whether the BDA issued a approved plan in favor of above said society in the lands bearing Sy.No.15/1 and other survey 38 O.S.No. 6399/2022 numbers in all measuring 41 acres 8 guntas of Kothihosahalli village. Even the PW1 has no knowledge about whether CIL House Building Co- operative Ltd on 17.11.1996 had executed the relinquishment deed by transferring all the roads, park areas and other civic amenities properties. According to the defendants the suit schedule property is meant for park but PW.1 in her cross- examination she has deposed that she do not know whether on 08.01.2001 the BDA had handed over the park area situated in land bearing Sy.No. 15/1 of Kothihosahalli Village, to develop it as park and to maintain it. Regarding the visit by the officials of the BDA, PW.1 in the cross-examination in a clear cut wordings as admitted that, "it is true to suggest that no officials attached to the BDA have visited my property and caused an interference."
34. When PW.1 herself has admitted that no officials attached to BDA visit the spot, under such circumstances the interference by the officials of the defendant authority does not arise. The entire evidence of PW.1 not support the interference by the defendants. When the lawful possession of the 39 O.S.No. 6399/2022 plaintiff itself is not proved then the interference by the defendants is not proved by the plaintiff through oral or documentary evidence. If really the defendants authority unlawfully interfered with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property being a ordinary prudent man, the plaintiff is at liberty to lodge a complaint against the defendant's authority or officials of defendants before the jurisdictional police station. But no such effort is made by the plaintiff. Even the notice issued by the defendants authority not produced before this court. When the defendants authority in accordance with law as per the provisions of the BBMP Act got issued notice to the plaintiff, under such circumstances the action taken by the defendants as per provisions of the Act is in no way comes within the meaning of interference. Hence, without any hesitation on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, I answer Issue No.2 in the Negative.
35. ISSUE NO.3:-In view of the discussions on Issue No.1 and 2 the plaintiff is not entitle for any relief as prayed for, regarding it, the Learned 40 O.S.No. 6399/2022 counsel for the defendant has relied upon the ruling reported in 2013 Part (3) SCC 66 in a case of BDA V.s Brijesh Reddy. As per this ruling, the respondent filed a suit in OS No.4267/1996 on the file of the Court of 60th Additional City Civil Court at Bangalore for permanent injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by that order, the respondent filed RFA No. 04.07.2003. But Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal as per Order dated 27.07.2005. Being aggrieved by that order, again the appellant preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In that case, the only point for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is that in this appeal is whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit when the scheduled lands were acquired under the land acquisition proceedings and whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court without examining the question with regard to the maintainability of the suit. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in its observation, at paragraph No.8, which reflect that as per Section 9 of the CPC, the courts shall have jurisdiction to 41 O.S.No. 6399/2022 try all suits of the civil nature, excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. By virtue of the above-said provision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with regard to the particular matter is, can be, said to be excluded. If there is an express provision or by implication, it can be inferred that the jurisdiction is taken away. On the basis of Section 9 of the CPC, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act are required to be published in a manner contemplated thereunder. The inference gives conclusiveness to the public purpose and the extent of the land mentioned therein. The award should be made under Section 11 as emphasized thereunder. The dissatisfied claimant is provided with remedy of reference under Section 18 and a further appeal under Section 54 of the Act.
36. With detailed observations regarding the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and also Section 9 of the CPC, in paragraph No.15, it is held that 42 O.S.No. 6399/2022 "having regard to the fact that the acquisition proceedings had been completed way back in the year 1960- 1970, the plaintiffs who purchased the suit land in 1995 cannot have any right to maintain the suit of this nature particularly against defendant No.1 and 2, namely the BDA. The High Court clearly erred in reminding the matter when the suit was not maintainable on the face of it. The High Court failed to take note of the fact that even in the plaint itself, the respondents herein have stated that the suit land was acquired and yet they purchased the suit land in 1995 and undoubtedly have to face the consequences. The possession rests with the BDA way back in 1967 and 1978, and all the details have been asserted in the written statement. Hence, the remittal order cannot be sustained."
37. The above said observation is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Even in the present case also, 4(1) notification, 6(1) notification, 16(1) notification and award passed by the concerned authority. The owner and Anubhavadar of the property already received the award amount. When such being the 43 O.S.No. 6399/2022 case, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, subsequent to 4(1), 6(1) notification is having no santity in the eyes of law. In view of Ex.D1 to 4, the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is not maintainable. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in the present form. The only remedy available to the plaintiff as per reference under Section 18 and Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case.
38. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 has relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is non-reportable in Civil Appeal No. 33813/2011 in between H.N.Jagannatha and others vs. State of Karnataka. In this ruling Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon the observation of The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and others Vs. Brijesh Reddy and another reported in 2013 Part (3) SCC
66. Even in the above said Civil Appeal also, Respondent No.4 in the appeal had filed suit for injunction in respect of the disputed property before 44 O.S.No. 6399/2022 10th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS.No.10488/1985 against the BDA on 28.06.1985. In para No. 13 of the Judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "this court has repeatedly held in a number of judgments that by implication the power of a Civil Court to take cognizance of such cases under Section 9 of the CPC stands excluded and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act."
It is further observed that "It is only the High Court which will consider such matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. So, the Civil Suit per-se is not maintainable for adjudicating the validity or otherwise of the acquisition notifications and proceedings arising therefrom."
39. By virtue of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Brijesh Reddy case, as well as in a similar 45 O.S.No. 6399/2022 view taken by the Apex Court in Lakshmichand and others /vs/ Grama Panchayat Kararia and others reported in 1 1996 Part (7) SCC 218;
Sri. Girish Vyas and Anr v. State of Maharashtra and Ors reported in 2012 Part (3) SCC 619;
State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and others reported in 1995 Part (4) SCC 229; Commissioner BDA versus K.S. Narayan reported in 2006 (8) SCC 336;
M/s. Muttha Associates and others v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 Part (14) SCC 304.
Considering all the observations in the above said judgment, "it is held that the acquisition proceedings relating to the lands which are acquired under the provisions of the BDA Act or under the Land Acquisition Act."
In all the judgments, similar questions arose as to whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the validity of the acquisition notifications are not there. By virtue of the above-said discussion, Hon'ble Apex 46 O.S.No. 6399/2022 Court held that, in our considered opinion, it is a clear case of contempt committed by the respondent No.4 by repeatedly approaching the court of law for almost the same relief which was negativated by the court for 3 decades. But, we decline to initiate contempt proceedings and to impose heavy costs under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. With such observation, Apex Court held that "In any land acquired as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and 4(1) and 6(1) notification issued with respect to any property, then Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit even suit for permanent injunction."
40. Another ruling cited by the learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 to 3 reported in 2017 Part (2) AKR 695 in between BDA v/s. Bhagawan Das Patel.xs In this ruling Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para No.4 narrated the case of the plaintiff that, he is the absolute owner of the property as per the registered sale deed dated 23-10-1999, he had physical possession and enjoyment of the property 47 O.S.No. 6399/2022 from the date of registration of the sale deed and all the revenue records got mutated in his name but BDA authority made an attempt to demolish the existing structure on the property. As such, the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration to declare himself as the absolute owner and also restrained the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, due to the threat by BDA to demolish the existing building. In that suit trial court has framed in all 4 issues as observed in para No.8 of the Judgment with respect to the issues, which reads thus:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that they are the absolute owners in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants?
3) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is not maintainable for want of mandatory notice as contemplated under Section 64 of BDA Act?48 O.S.No. 6399/2022
4) Whether the defendant proves that the suit schedule land absolutely belongs to it, free from all encumbrances and is at liberty to dispose the same in the best interest of the general public?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for?
6) To what order and decree?
Regarding this issue in the observation the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para No.30 has framed the point for consideration as Whether the Civil Court is devoid of jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the suit under the provisions of Section 9 of the CPC?
41. In order to come to the conclusion regarding the above said point in para No.33 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in BDA and Another - vs - Brijesh Reddy and Another reported in (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 66 and the relevant para also 49 O.S.No. 6399/2022 reported in the Judgment which reads thus:-
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore cited judgment has been pleased to hold as follows :-
"8. The only point for consideration in this appeal is: whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit when the schedule lands were acquired under the land acquisition proceedings and whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial court without examining the question with regard to the maintainability of the suit?
14. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting those that are expressly or impliedly barred which reads as under:
"9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred:- The courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred." From the above provision, it is clear that courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly 33 barred. The jurisdiction of civil court with regard to a particular matter can be said to be excluded if there is an express provision or by implication it can be inferred that the jurisdiction is taken away. An objection as to the 50 O.S.No. 6399/2022 exclusion of civil court's jurisdiction for availability of alternative forum should be taken before the trial court and at the earliest failing which the higher court may refuse to entertain the plea in the absence of proof of prejudice."
42. Apart from that the Hon'ble High Court also relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar. The relevant para also reported in para No.34 which reads thus:-
19. No doubt, in the case on hand, the plaintiffs approached the civil court with a prayer only for permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 and 2 i.e. BDA, their agents, servants and anyone claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It is true that there is no challenge to the acquisition proceedings.
However, in view of the assertion of BDA, in their written statements, about the initiation of acquisition proceedings ending with the passing of award, handing over possession and subsequent action, etc. the said suit is not maintainable. This was rightly concluded by the trial court. For proper compensation, the aggrieved parties are free to avail the statutory provisions and approach the court concerned. All these aspects have been clearly noted by the 51 O.S.No. 6399/2022 trial court and ultimately it rightly dismissed the suit as not maintainable. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge of the High Court though adverted to the principles laid down by this Court with reference to acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act and Section 9 CPC committed an error in remanding the matter to the trial court on the ground that the plaintiffs were not given opportunity to adduce evidence to shown that their vendor was in possession which entitles them for grant of permanent injunction from evicting them from the scheduled property without due process of law by the defendants. In the light of the specific assertion coupled with materials in the written statement about the acquisition of land long ago and subsequent events, suit of any nature including bare injunction is not maintainable, hence, we are of view that the High Court is not right in remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal.
43. On the basis of the nature of the suit filed by Sri.Bhagavandas Patel against the BDA, on the basis of the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Brijesh Reddy case as well as Dhirendra Kumar's case the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para No.35 to 37 has come to the conclusion that in view of the acquisition of the land, suit of any nature including suit one for bare 52 O.S.No. 6399/2022 injunction is not maintainable. The relevant para reads thus:-
35. It is pertinent to note the prohibition contained in the said ruling. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the light of specific assertion coupled with the material in the written statement about the acquisition of the land, suit of any nature, including one for bare injunction is not maintainable.
36. In the considered opinion of this Court the silence maintained by the plaintiff with regard to the identity of the property is probably motivated as otherwise the trial Court would have refused to exercise its jurisdiction.
37. In view of the above, the appeal requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial court is set aside. It is held that the suit is not maintainable as the Civil Court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain and take cognizance of the suit under Section 9 of the CPC in view of the bar under the Land Acquisition Act.
In view of the above said discussions and finding on Issue No.1 and 2 the plaintiff is not entitle for any relief as prayed for. Hence, in view of the 53 O.S.No. 6399/2022 discussions at Issue No.1 and 2, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative.
44. ISSUE NO.4:- In view of the discussions on Issue No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
Office is hereby directed to draw decree, accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer online, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 28 th day of NOVEMBER 2025.) (PRASEELA KUMARI.G.S.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: SMT. Meenakumari Rajendran
(b) Defendant's side : nil List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
Plaintiff' side :
(a) Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the sale deed dt 10.06.2002 Ex.P.2 Approved building plan issued by CMC 54 O.S.No. 6399/2022 Byatarayanapura.
Ex.P.3 Death Certificate of V.V.Rajendran.
Ex.P.4 Khatha certificate Ex.P.5 Uttara pathra. Ex.P.6 Assessment extract. Ex.P.7 Tax paid receipt. Ex.P.8 Loan sanctioned letter dt 01.06.2017
issued by UCO Bank consisting of 4 pgs. Ex.P.9 Letter dt 15.10.2018 showing the outstanding loan liability on the suit schedule property.
Ex.P.10 Encumbrance certificate in the form no.15.
Ex.P.11 Notice of the BBMP dt 17.02.2022 Ex.P.12 Notice of the plaintiff issued to the BBMP and its other officer bearers st 08.07.2022 Ex.P.13 4 Postal acknowledgments.
Ex.P.14 5 Photographs are together marked. Ex.P.15 CD
(b) Defendants side :
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of Gazette
Notification dt 13.01.1983
Ex.D.2 Copy of official Memorandum
03-10-1992.
Ex.D.3 Certified copy of Award Notice dated
02-05-1987
Ex.D.4 Certified copy of Spl.LAO Award
Notice dated 13-01-1983
55 O.S.No. 6399/2022
Ex.D1 to D4 documents are confronted in the evidence of plaintiff.
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signed byPRASEELA PRASEELA KUMARI
KUMARI Date: 2025.12.22
11:23:40 +0530
56 O.S.No. 6399/2022
19. By keeping in mind these important aspects, on careful perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 to 3 in the written statement itself in para No.5 defendant No.1 to 3 have contended that entire 1.26 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/1 is a Inaamthi land. Sri.Munithimmaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the Inaamthi land, regarding the nature of the land and owner of the land as well as the possession of Munithimmaiah, Peru-mamma, Pothalappa and Marappa, defendant No.1 to 3 has contended that property in Sy.No.15/1, 5/1 and 1/1 situated at Kothihosahalli village granted in the name of the above said tenants as per Sec.5(1) of the Act, by order dated 18-03-1985. Apart from that defense of the defendant No.1 to 3 is that, as per the notification under Sec.4(1) of the land Acquisition Act dated 13- 01-1983 the Government of Karnataka has issued the preliminary notification for the purpose of construction of the house to the members of M/s.CIL Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bengaluru. In the preliminary notification the name of the Kathedar shown as Ganga S/o. Jula 57 O.S.No. 6399/2022 but in the column of Anubhavadhar the name of Munithimmiah, Peru-mamma, Pothalappa and Marappa are shown. As per the final notification 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act vide Notification No. RD172AQB 84 dated 04-03-1985 also issued by the Government of Karnataka. Subsequent to that final notification Spl. LAO issued notice to the interested persons ie., land owners as per Section 9 and 10 of the Act. Immediately, after the receipt of the notice, interested persons and land owners have participated during the course of award proceedings who consented for passing the consent award with respect to 1.26 guntas of land and 0.2 guntas of Phut Karabh in Sy.No.15/1, consent award also passed. On 01- 10-1986 the award amount also paid by the SLAO to the concerned owner of the land. After the award notification dated 08-05-1987 it has been published in the gazette. As per notification dated 12-05-1987 under Sec.16(1) of the Act, the above said land taken by the authorities and handed over to the Co- operative Society for the purpose of formation of sites. Even Gazette notification also issued on 04-06-1987 which has been duly published. Another defense taken by the defendant No.1 to 3 is that M/s.
58 O.S.No. 6399/2022CIL Employees House Building Co-operative Society has executed Relinquishment deed dated 17-11-1996 in favour of the BDA. By virtue of that release deed 41.8 guntas of land including the property in Sy.No.15/1 taken over by the BDA for the purpose of formation of park, road in accordance with the approved layout plan. Apart from that the defense of the defendant No.1 to 3 is that BBMP is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The entire suit schedule property along with other land in Sy.No.15/1 came under the BBMP. The BBMP has taken proper steps to take back the possession of the property by way of issuance of statutory notice. According to the defendant No.1 to 3 the vendor of the plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. When such being the case, valid title not transferred to the plaintiff. When defendant No.1 to 3 claiming their absolute right, title and possession over the suit schedule property, under such circumstances suit for bare injunction as prayed in the suit itself is not maintainable. Even during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 has argued that suit for simple bare injunction is not maintainable.