Bangalore District Court
Sabiha Dastagir vs Chandran Knp on 5 December, 2025
O.S.No.6340/2016
KABC010202822016
O.S. No.6703/2016
KABC010214612016
IN THE COURT OF LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 5th day of December, 2025
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Mala N.D.,
BAL., LL.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
O. S. No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
PARTIES IN O. S. No.6340/2016
PLAINTIFF:- : Mrs. Sabia Dastagir,
W/o Mohammed Dastagir,
Aged about 71 years,
R/at No. M-9, 2nd Main,
Kaverinagar, R.T. Nagar Post,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.NK., Advocate)
2
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
/Vs/
DEFENDANT:- : Sri. Chandran.KNP,
Row House No.5,
UKN, Esperanza,
Tubarahalli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.BSRP., advocate)
1. Date of institution : 31/08/2016
of the suit
2. Nature of the suit : Suit for permanent injunction
3. Date of : 09/08/2024
commencement
of recording of
evidence
4. Date on which the : 05/12/2025
judgment was
pronounced
5. Duration : Years Months Days
09 03 04
(MALA.N.D.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65)
BENGALURU CITY.
3
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
PARTIES in O. S. No.6703/2016
PLAINTIFF:- : Sri. Chandran.KNP,
S/o Late K. Sethumadhavan Nair,
Row House No.5,
UKN, Esperanza,
Varthur Road,
Tubarahalli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.P.C. Advocate)
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS:- : 1. Sreedhar.K.P,
S/o H.T. Puttanna Shetty,
No.479/2, 4th Block,
HRB Layout,
Bengaluru.
2. Krishnamurthy.K.P,
S/o H.T. Puttanna Shetty,
No.479/2, 4th Block,
HRB Layout,
Bengaluru.
3. Sabiha Dastagir,
W/o Mohammed Dastgir,
No.M9, 2nd Main,
Cauvery Nagar,
R.T. Nagar Post,
Bengaluru.
(D.1, 2- By Sri. DRN
D.3- By Sri. HNK, Advocates )
4
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
1. Date of institution : 17/09/2016
of the suit
2. Nature of the suit : Suit for declaration and
permanent injunction
3. Date of : 09/08/2024
commencement of
recording of
evidence
4. Date on which the : 05/12/2025
judgment
was pronounced
5. Duration : Years Months Days
09 02 18
(MALA.N.D.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65)
BENGALURU CITY.
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two suits are clubbed by an order of transfer
and clubbing passed in Civil Misc. Petition No. 1271/ 2023
dated 03/02/2024 by the Principal district and sessions
Judge, Bangalore, urban district. O.S No. 6304/ 2016 is
5
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
filed by one Smt. Sabiha Dastagir seeking the relief of
permanent injunction against the defendant Sri. Chandran
KNP, on the other hand another suit O.S. No. 6703/2016 is
filed by plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP against the defendant
one Sri. Sridhar K.P and two others.
2. On 31/08/2016 Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has filed
O.S. No. 6340/ 2016 against the defendant Sri.
Chandran.KNP seeking the relief of permanent injunction to
restrain him and his agents, servants, henchmen or
anybody claiming through or under him from interfering with
her peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule
property.
3. On 17/09/2016 Sri. Chandran KNP has also filed a
suit against one Sridhar.K.P, Krishnamurthy.K.P and
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir, seeking the relief of declaration of
his title along with consequential relief of permanent
6
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
injunction in respect of suit schedule property and also
sought for cancellation of registered sale deed dated
09/04/2014 executed by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of
defendant No.3 Smt. Sabiha Dastagir as null and void with
a direction to the concerned Sub-registrar to delete the said
sale deed in the concerned records.
4. The factual matrix of plaintiff's case in O.S.
No.6340/2016 are as follows:-
The plaintiff is an absolute owner in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the property bearing site
No.3, house list No. 479/7, katha No.6, in sub-division 2,
formed in a portion of assessment No. 50/11, situated at
Hennur village, Kasaba hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now
coming within the limits of Brihath Bengaluru Mahanagar
Palika (BBMP), ward No.24, HBR Layout, Bengaluru
measuring East- West 56 feet and North - South
7
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
(54.5 + 51)/2 feets, totally measuring 2954 square feets.
The schedule property originally belonged to one
Sri. R.Janardhan Rao who sold the same through a
registered sale deed in favour of one Sri. H.T Puttanna
Shetty on 15/05/1957, sons of said H.T. Puttanashetty
namely Sri. K.P Sridhar and Sri. K.P. Krishnamurthy
through a GPA in their favour executed by their father, have
sold the suit property through a registered sale deed dated
09/04/2014 in favour of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir, as
such, B Katha of schedule property was transferred in her
name, as such plaintiff is in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property by paying upto date
tax to the concerned authority and schedule property is free
from all encumbrances. When things stood thus, on
26/08/2016 the defendant and his agents illegally interfered
with the suit schedule property and tried to encroach the
8
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
same with the help of goonda elements and threatened the
plaintiff that he would take possession of the schedule
property, the said act of the defendant was resisted by the
plaintiff with the help of neighbours, again on 29/08/2016
defendant came near the suit property with JCB along with
his goonda elements with an intention to demolish the
existing structure in the suit property, therefore plaintiff
approached the jurisdictional police station to lodge
complaint, on the contrary, police have advised the plaintiff
to approach civil court seeking proper relief as the matter is
civil in nature.
The plaintiff has got good case on merits, balance of
convenience lies in her favour, cause of action to the suit
arouse on 15/05/1957 the date on which vendor of the
plaintiff had purchased the suit property from R. Janardhana
Rao, on 09/04/2014 when plaintiff has purchased the
9
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
schedule property from Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty through
General Power of Attorney of his sons and on 26/08/2016
when defendant and his agents illegally interfered with her
possession, again on 29/08/2016 when defendant and his
goonda elements attempted to demolish the existing
structure in the suit schedule property with the help of JCB
and on other subsequent dates. Therefore, plaintiff left with
no other alternative has approached this court seeking the
relief of permanent injunction. Hence, this suit.
5. Initially, this suit was decreed exparte on
11/01/2017 against which the defendant Sri. Chandran
KNP filed a Misc. Petition No.298/2018 challenging the
exparte order passed by this court which came to be
dismissed by an order dated 09/07/2020 on the point of
limitation, therefore said defendant approached the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.4532/2020
10
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
challenging the dismissal order of the petition filed for
setting aside the exparte judgment and also filed a Civil
Revision Petition No.283/2020 challenging the order of
dismissal of an application filed under Section 5 of
Limitation Act in the aforesaid miscellaneous petition,
both these were clubbed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka and on 22/09/2023, Hon'ble High court of
Karnataka allowed both MFA and civil revision petition
and thereby condoned the delay in filing miscellaneous
petition No.298/2018 and also allowed the aforesaid
miscellaneous petition by setting aside the exparte
judgment and decree dated 11/01/2017 passed in this
suit i.e. O.S. No.6340/2016 and restored the matter to its
original position by imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- on the
defendant Sri. Chandran KNP.
11
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
6. Upon restoration of the same, matter is
remanded back to this court, it is thereafter the
defendant Sri. Chandran KNP appeared before this court
through his counsel and filed written statement by
denying the entire case of the plaintiff through his written
statement.
7. This defendant Chandran KNP contends that,
suit filed by the plaintiff is against a non existent site and
the sale deed through which she is claiming her right is a
void document as her vendor had died on 24/11/2005
and vendor's son claiming themselves as General Power
of Attorney holder of a dead person and also that the
vendor had lost his entire right over his land i.e. Sy.No.
50/11 of Hennur village as it was acquired by BDA for
formation of residential layout, thus site is non existent
one and plaintiff is claiming her right on the basis of a
12
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
void document, as once the land is acquired by BDA, it
vest with the BDA and any transaction by the land looser
is void ab initio, as such, no right lies with the erstwhile
land lord, claim of the plaintiff is erroneous does not
confer any legal right over the land of BDA much less,
the site mentioned as suit property, since possession of
entire Sy.No. 50/11 is with the BDA, plaintiff claiming
possession over suit property which is a non existent one
is illegal and contrary to law, as such the plaint is liable to
be rejected, the suit is also bad for non joinder of
necessary parties as plaintiff's vendors are necessary
parties and in their absence plaintiff will not get any right
over suit property, the plaintiff is relying on fabricated and
forged documents and does not give any right nor
describes that she is in possession of the suit schedule
property, the BBMP authorities have specifically stated
13
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
that, the plaintiff by showing site of this defendant i.e.
site No.239/F allotted to him by BDA as her site
(purchased from her vendors) as site No.3, house list
No.479/7, Katha No.6 in Sub-Division-2, formed in a
portion of assessment No.50/11, situated at Hennur
village, Kasba hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk has
fraudulently obtained khatha in her name. It is alleged
that, the then officials of BBMP colluded with plaintiff
have issued 'B" katha to a non existent site which is
described as suit property without verifying and checking
the boundaries mentioned in the suit property, when the
same was brought to the notice of joint commissioner of
BBMP, East Division, conducted an enquiry, after hearing
both the parties, on 11/06/2018 cancelled 'B" katha
issued and tax paid receipts obtained by the plaintiff.
14
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
It is submitted that, this defendant has also filed a
suit for declaration along with a consequential relief of
injunction in O.S. No.6703/2016 which is pending for
adjudication, since some of the revenue officials had
indulged in issuance of 'B" katha in respect of BDA land
to the plaintiff and when the same was objected by this
defendant, Lokayuktha has initiated proceedings by
registering FIR in Cr.No.34/2021 as against all four
BBMP officials and since the plaintiff's husband and son
viz., Mohammed Dastagir and Abdul Khalak had
trespassed over the site of the defendant i.e. BDA site
No.239/F, this defendant had filed a complaint alleging
the trespass and thereafter upon bringing the same to
the notice of Sub-registrar of Kacharakanahalli, he has
also filed similar complaint, as such, on the basis of
complaint of allegations of fabrication and forgery of
15
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
documents a criminal case in Cr.No.443/2016 came to
be registered, plaintiff's vendor and the plaintiff herein
had colluded in obtaining a registered sale deed
No.184/2014-15 on 09/04/2014. Based on criminal
complaints lodged by this defendant and Sub-registrar of
Kacharakanahalli, upon investigation a charge sheet has
been filed against the plaintiff, her husband, son and
sons of plaintiff's vendor i.e. K.P. Sridhar and
K.P. Krishna Murthy on 29/09/2018.
It is submitted that, after acquisition of land by the
BDA, vendor of the plaintiff had filed a W.P. No.2226-
2229/1993 claiming that he is in unauthorized occupation
of BDA land and sought for regularization of the same,
said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to
consider his claim or application for regularization and
similar writ petitions were filed by other land owners and
16
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
were also disposed of in similar manner with a direction
to the BDA to consider their claims, all claims were
considered by BDA and all those writ petitioners who had
filed applications thereto claiming regularization were
heard and rejected, the plaintiff's vendor had only filed
writ petition and did not file any application before any
authority pursuant to disposal of his writ petition, despite
the same, claim of plaintiff's vendor was also considered
and rejected, thereby it has attained finality.
It is further submitted by this defendant that,
plaintiff's vendor's family members had filed several suits
in various courts, wherein they have admitted the factum
of acquisition of their land by BDA, thus, claim of vendors
of the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir in the sale deed as
claimed by her would perse be false and does not give
any semblance of right on her either to claim right over
17
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
suit property which is a BDA land and allotted to this
defendant nor gives her any right of possession as
claimed by her, thus a false and misleading suit based
on fabricated and forged documents is filed and a legal
right is being claimed based on void document which the
vendors and their family members have admitted that
their land is acquired by BDA before various courts of
law which signifies the suit is based on a void document.
Further plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir was aware of
cancellation of 'B' katha in her favour on 11/06/2018,
despite the same by suppressing the said fact, she has
filed false written statement in O.S. No.4940/2018 filed
by K.P. Shamanna, the vendor's son of plaintiff and in
the said suit the plaintiff's vendor Sri. H.T. Puttanna
Shetty's other sons K.P. Sridhar and his family members
had admitted the acquisition of entire land of Sy.No.
18
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
50/11 of Hennur village, even said K.P. Shamanna son of
plaintiff's vendor Puttanna Shetty had also filed writ
petition in W.P. No.41168/2018 claiming regularization of
unauthorized occupation of BDA land, however the state
was not made as party and the same was brought to the
notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and since
H.T. Puttanna Shetty had not filed any application for
regularization and since the prayers sought in the said
writ petition were barred by delay and latches, the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was about to pass an
order thereto on such question of law, at the same time
son of H.T. Puttanna Shetty i.e. K.P. Shamanna
withdrew the said writ petition, thus all the claims raised
by the plaintiff's vendor and their family members stood
adjudicated and abandoned and no right is accrued on
the plaintiff and her vendor as well as her vendors family
19
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
members, as such the claim of the plaintiff is false,
malicious, filed with an intention of extort funds so as to
coerce this defendant with the help of fabricated and
concocted documents, the plaintiff was never in
possession and never has any legal right, the site which
she is claiming as a suit schedule property is not at all in
existence, there is a cloud over title of the plaintiff, as
such prayer sought in this suit is not in accordance with
law of Specific Relief Act and also not in accordance with
the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex court, suit is an
abuse of process of law, liable to be dismissed,
accordingly, defendant Sri. Chandran KNP prayed to
dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
8. The factual matrix of plaintiff's case in
O.S. No.6703/2016 are as follows:-
Sri. KNP Chandran has also filed a suit against one
Sri. K.P. Sridhar, K.P. Krishna Murthy and Smt. Sabiha
20
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Dastagir seeking declaration of his title along with
consequential relief of permanent injunction and also sought
for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 09/04/2014
executed by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant
No.3 as null and void on the pleadings that, he is an
absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
property bearing site No.239/F, HBR I Stage, 4 th Block,
Bengaluru totally measuring 2400 square feets which is
morefully described as schedule 'A" property through BDA
allotment dated 29/01/2009 and was also allotted a
marginal land of 40.94 square meters by the BDA in the
year 2013 which is described as 'B' schedule property,
thereafter on 17/02/2010 BDA has executed an absolute
sale deed in favour of plaintiff, due to some mistake
rectification deed was executed in favour of plaintiff in
respect of suit property by the BDA on 18/04/2013, he was
21
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
given possession certificate on 15/06/2013, as such, BDA
issued katha of the schedule property in favour of plaintiff
and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
same by paying taxes up to date before concerned authority
and schedule properties are free from all encumbrance.
On 26/08/2016 plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP proceeded
to lay a compound wall to the schedule property, by that
time defendant No.1 along with goonda elements came to
the spot, tried to stop him from laying down the compound
by showing the sale deed of a different schedule and
informed him that himself and his brother i.e. defendant
No.2 have sold the suit schedule property in favour of
defendant No.3 Smt. Sabiha Dastagir and threatened the
plaintiff that they would dispossess him from the schedule
property, the said illegal act of defendant No.1 and his
supporters was resisted with the help of neighbours,
22
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
thereafter plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police to
lodge a complaint against the defendants, however, police
advised and warned the defendants not to interfere with the
plaintiff's possession of schedule property.
It is further pleaded that, defendant No.3 Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir has obtained a registered sale deed from
defendant No.1 and 2 who claims themselves to be General
Power of Attorney holder of their father Sri. H.T. Puttanna
Shetty who incidentally expired on 24/11/2005 and executed
registered sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir on 09/04/2014 in respect of a site bearing No.3,
Katha No.6 in Sub-Division 2 formed in a portion of
Sy.No. 50/11 situated in Hennur village, defendant No.1 and
2 and their father altogether had sold their entire right in
Sy.No. 50/11 by forming a residential sites and after
acquisition of land by the BDA, such purchasers had filed
23
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P. No.21973-21980/1986, challenging the acquisition,
upon its dismissal they approached the land acquisition
officer seeking compensation.
It is further submitted by the plaintiff that, defendant
No.3 Smt. Sabiha Dastagir subsequent to registered sale
deed in her favour approached BBMP and by showing the
suit schedule property, colluding with BBMP officials got 'B"
katha in respect of her schedule property which is not at all
in existence as there is no site available in the entire land
belonging to Sy.No. 50/11 of Hennur village claimed by
defendant No.1 and 2 as the property of their father
H.T. Puttanna Shetty was acquired by BDA through
preliminary notification dated 27/06/1978 and published on
20/07/1978 and declaration of scheme was on 09/01/1985
which was published on 14/03/1985 and final notification
24
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
was on 14/03/1985, award was on 24/07/1986, thus a
residential layout was formed by BDA and plaintiff was
allotted 'A" schedule property one among many others and
abutting marginal land is allotted and sale deed is executed
in his favour which is shown as 'B" schedule property. After
execution of registered sale deed and Rectification Deed,
since marginal land was found abutting, BDA notified the
plaintiff offering marginal land for Rs.5,67,263/- as shown in
'B" schedule property, accordingly, plaintiff paid the said
amount to BDA and got executed sale deed in respect of
marginal land in his favour on 18/05/2013, thereby BDA
issued a consolidated possession certificate in favour of
plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP on 15/06/2013 endorsing on
both sides of certificate, it is thereafter plaintiff applied for
katha which was issued on 24/08/2016 with property tax
payment for the year 2013 till 2021.
25
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that, Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir having shown schedule properties colluding with
BBMP officials got obtained 'B" katha in her favour and also
on the strength of the same, filed aforementioned suit
against the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent
injunction. Even though notice was served on the plaintiff,
on a legal advise, since his property and schedule property
mentioned in the suit of defendant No.3 in
O.S. No.6340/2016 were not tallying each other, plaintiff
refrained from appearing in the said suit which resulted in
passing of exparte decree, therefore, plaintiff filed a
miscellaneous petition challenging the exparte decree in
Misc.No.298/2018 which was dismissed without affording
any opportunity to lead evidence to the plaintiff herein,
therefore, he challenged the order of said miscellaneous
petition before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
26
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Further, this plaintiff approached BBMP seeking
details of spot inspection report for grant of 'B' katha in
favour of 3rd defendant Smt. Sabiha Dastagir, wherein it
was alleged that, defendant No.3 showing schedule 'A" and
'B" properties of plaintiff, fraudulently obtained 'B' katha and
on bringing the same to the notice of BBMP the fraud
perpetuated by defendant No.1 to 3, the same was
cancelled in her favour after issuing due notice and hearing
defendant No.3, thereafter plaintiff lodged a complaint
before police station on 08/09/2016 thinking that matter
would be resolved as defendants had come to his schedule
property and attempted to paint yellow colour on wall, since
defendant No. 3 and her supporters interfered with the
possession of plaintiff, the plaintiff has also lodged a
complaint before Sub-registrar of Kacharakanahalli and he
has also lodged complaint against defendant No.1 to 3
27
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
alleging the fraudulent activity in obtaining 'B" katha in
favour of defendant No.3, hence, jurisdictional police after
due investigation filed a consolidated charge sheet against
defendant No.1 to 3, therefore to avoid future litigation and
to safeguard his right and ownership over the suit property,
plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking aforementioned
reliefs by pleading that he has got a very good case on
merits and balance of convenience lies in his favour.
According to the plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP cause of
action to the suit arose on 26/08/2016, when defendant
No.1 along with his goonda elements wrongfully restrained
the plaintiff and threatened with dire consequences and
again on 08/09/2016 when defendants painted yellow
colour on the wall where plaintiff had already done painting
on it.
28
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
9. On the other hand, defendant No.1 and 2 who
claims themselves to be the GPA holder of their father Late
Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty, in their written statement as well
as Addl. Written statement have denied the entire
allegations of the plaintiff by contending that, property
bearing Sy.No. 50/11 situated at Hennur village, Bengaluru
North Taluk measuring 2 acres 15 guntas was originally
belonged to one Sri. Janardhana Rao who sold the same
to their father H.T. Puttanna Shetty through a registered
sale deed dated 15/05/1957, thereafter these sons of
H.T. Puttanna Shetty having obtained General Power of
Attorney in their favour from their father, executed a
registered sale deed in respect of aforementioned property
in favour of defendant No.3 Smt. Sabiha Dastagir on
09/04/2014, thus, after registration of the sale deed in favour
of Smt. Sabiha Dastagir, she became an absolute owner in
29
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid
property, as such she has obtained a judgment and decree
in her favour in O.S. No.6340/2016, when things stood thus,
plaintiff has filed this false, frivolous suit by suppressing the
material facts, as such BDA has no right to execute sale
deed in favour of plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP as there was a
direction from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.
No.2226-29/1993 directing the BDA to form a screening
committee with regard to consider the applications of
defendant No.1 and 2 and also directed BDA not to interfere
with the property bearing Sy.No. 50/11 belonging to
defendant No.1 and 2. In this regard, a legal officer of BDA
given an opinion on the basis of aforesaid writ petition that,
"required information at para 32 is not forth coming". It is
clarified in the said order that, BDA authority cannot enter
the suit property i.e. Sy.No. 50/11 without complying the
30
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the
aforesaid writ petitions, therefore, it is contended that, there
is a clear direction from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
against BDA not to interfere with the property bearing
Sy.No. 50/11 belonging to defendant No.1 and 2, despite
the same BDA by violating the order of Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka executed registered sale deed in favour of
Sri. Chandran KNP which is illegal and void in law.
Moreover, the sale deed dated 17/02/2010 by the BDA is an
alternative site in lieu of site No.814 of HBR I Stage, 3 rd
Block Layout, Bengaluru and even the layout plan is also
not in accordance with law. There is an error in identification
of this property. Therefore by contending that, by virtue of
sale deed executed by these defendant No.1 and 2 in
favour of defendant No.3 Smt. Sabiha Dastagir, she
became an absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of
31
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
such property since from the date of sale deed and she is in
continued possession, plaintiff never in possession of
schedule property, hence, it is prayed to reject the same
with exemplary costs.
10. Further, upon service of suit summons, defendant
No.3 Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has also appeared through her
counsel, filed written statement/addl. Written statement,
denying the entire case of the plaintiff by asserting her title
and possession over site No.3, house list No.479/7, Katha
No.6 in Sub-Division 2, formed in a portion of assessment
No.50/11 situated at Hennur village, now within the limits of
BBMP Ward No.24, HBR Layout, Bengaluru, measuring
east to west 56 feet and north to south (54.5+51)/2 totally
measuring 2954 square feets. This defendant also
contended all the facts pleaded by defendant No.1 and 2 in
their written statement and addl. Written statement by
32
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
alleging that, it was the plaintiff who interfered with her
possession, therefore, she had to file a suit in
O.S. No.6340/2016 seeking the relief of permanent
injunction. This defendant No.3 further submitted that the
measurement of the plaintiff's earlier sale deed dated
17/10/2010 was 222.95 square meters. However, in the
rectification deed dated 15/04/2013 the same was
enhanced to 224.16 square meters by rectifying the
boundaries of the plaintiff, earlier sale deed dated
17/02/2010 showing the road towards south facing,
whereas after lapse of three years, entire boundaries have
been changed and facing of schedule property has been
shown as west by road which goes to show that, sale deed
of the plaintiff dated 17/02/2010 was a created and
concocted document with the collusion of BDA officers, he
was not handed over the possession of suit property as
33
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
there was a discrepancy in the boundaries, due to such
discrepancies in the boundaries of schedule property there
is no chance to hand over the possession of the property to
the plaintiff, if possession is handed over to the plaintiff by
virtue of sale deed dated 17/02/2010, question of executing
rectification deed after lapse of three years by rectifying the
boundaries to suit the convenience of the plaintiff does not
arise, which clearly goes to show that sale deed is created
one with the collusion of BDA officers without any spot
inspection and survey, since there was no existence of
schedule property, plaintiff is trying to encroach the property
of 3rd defendant with an intention to grab the same. It is
further contended that, BDA has no right to sell or execute
sale deed in respect of 'A' schedule property or marginal
land in favour of plaintiff through sale deed dated
17/05/2013 and the same is without complying the Bye-laws
34
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
of BDA, plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and the
schedule property of the plaintiff is not at all in existence, the
plaintiff is never in possession of suit property till this day,
thus plaintiff has not approached this court with clean
hands. In the addl. Written statement this defendant No.3
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has contended that, suit of the plaintiff
to seek the relief of declaration after lapse of four years is
barred by law of limitation and prays to dismiss the suit on
the point of point of limitation.
11. Based on the pleadings of both parties in
O.S. No.6340/2016, my learned predecessor-in-office
has framed the following Issues;
ISSUES IN O.S. No.6340/2016
1. Whether plaintiff proves that she is in lawful
possession of the schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is
illegally trying to interfere with the
35
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
possession of the plaintiff over the suit
property?
3. Whether the defendant proves that suit is not
maintainable in the present form in view of
contention taken in para No.15 of the written
statement?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief
claimed in the suit?
5. What Order or Decree?
12. Similarly, on the basis of pleadings of both
plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3, my predecessor in
office has framed following issues/addl. Issues in
O.S. No.6703/2016.
ISSUES IN O.S. No.6703/2016
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is the
absolute owner in lawful possession of suit
'A" and 'B" schedule properties as on the
date of filing of this suit?
36
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
interference by the defendants with respect
to the suit property of the plaintiff?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
as claimed in the suit?
4. What Order or Decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN O.S. No.6703/2016
(Dated 29/01/2024)
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, sale deed
dated 09/04/2014 registered as document
No.00184/14-15 in Book No.1, executed by
defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of
defendant No.3 is null and void?
13. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that,
initially O.S. No.6340/2016 filed by Smt. Sabiha Dastagir
was decreed exparte on 11/01/2017 against defendant
Sri. Chandran. KNP, as such this defendant filed Misc.
Petition No.298/2018 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC
37
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
seeking to set aside the exparte judgment and decree
passed against him, however, the same was dismissed by
this court along with dismissing an I.A. filed under Section 5
of Limitation Act on 09/07/2020, therefore, the defendant
herein preferred MFA No.4532/2020 and also a Civil
Revision Petition in CRP No.283/2020 which were clubbed
together and on 22/09/2023 the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka allowed both the appeal as well as revision
petition by setting aside the exparte decree in
O.S. No.6340/2016 and also restored the same to its
original position, as such the said matter remanded back to
this court. However, in the meantime as narrated above
after filing of O.S. No.6340/2016 by Smt. Sabiha Dastagir,
the defendant herein Sri. Chandran KNP has also filed a
comprehensive suit seeking declaration of his title and
injunction in respect of his site in O.S. No.6703/2016,
38
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
(initially this was also for permanent injunction, however, by
way of amendment declaratory reliefs are sought) it is
thereafter said Chandran KNP filed Civil Miscellaneous
Petition before Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru for transfer of O.S. No.6703/2016 to this court in
Civil. Misc. Petition No.1271/2023, accordingly both the
cases were transferred to this court by clubbing
O.S. No.6703/2016 with O.S. No.6430/2016 vide order
dated 03/02/2024, as such this court has recorded common
evidence in O.S. No.6340/2016.
14. Initially in O.S. No.6340/2016 when defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP was placed exparte, the original plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir examined herself as P.W. 1 and got
marked four documents on her behalf as Ex.P.1 to P.4.
After setting aside exparte judgment and decree by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as mentioned above and
39
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
after remanding of the matter, the plaintiff through her
General Power of Attorney holder i.e. through her son
Sri. D.M. Abdul Khalaq examined her General Power of
Attorney also as P.W. 1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.14, at
the same time defendant Sri. Chandran KNP examined
himself as D.W. 1 and got marked 110 documents at Ex.D.1
to D.110.
15. Heard both sides, Perused the available
materials on record.
The learned counsel for plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagi
in O.S. No.6340/2016 has relied on the following
decisions:-
a. UOI and others Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., and others (In SC Civil Appeal No.4702/2004)
b. P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. Patkar (2023/INSC
1009) In Civil Appeal No.7210/2011)
c. Vasantha (Dead) Through. LR. Vs. Rajalakshmi @
Rajam (Dead) Thr. Lrs. (2024 INSC 109) in Civil Appeal
No.3854/2014.
d. K. Raju Vs. BDA (W.P. No.11102/2008 C/w W.P.
No.16147/2009 & 16954/2009 BDA)
40
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Similarly, the learned counsel for defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP has relied on the following
decisions:-
i. RFA No.566/2022 dated 23/09/2025
(Sri. Somashekar Vs.Smt. Sunanda)
ii. INSC 2025 273 M.S. Anantha Murthy and another
Vs. J. Manjula (CA 3266/2025 dated 27/02/2025)
iii. INSC 1059 2025 Ramesh Chand (D) Vs. Suresh
Chand (CA No.6377/2012 dated 23/04/2025)
iv. 1999(3) SCC 573 (Janaki Vashdeo Bhojwani and
another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 439)
v. (2008) 4 SCC 594 (Anathulasudhakar Vs. Buchi
Reddy)
vi. RFA No.1211/2014 dated 11/08/2022
( R. Jaggannath Vs. Rajamma and others)
vii. (2019) 17 SCC 692 ( Jharkand State Housing
Board Vs. Didarsingh and another)
viii. ILR 1995 KAR 2514 (Raju Reddy Vs. BDA)
ix. ILR 1995 KAR 2323 ( Munimasthaiah Vs. State of
Karnataka)
x. W.P. No.28292/1997 dated 09/03/1998
( M. Ramachandra Vs. Dy. Commissioner and others)
41
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
xi. 1999(3) KLJ 576 ( M.R. Narayan Vs. BDA)
xii. RFA No.137/2011 C/w RFA No.406/2011
dated29/04/2025 (State of Karnataka Vs. Siddlingappa and
others)
xiii. W.P. No.22154/2023 (LA) dated 16/07/2025 ( Venu
Vs. State of Karnataka and others)
xiv. (1996) 8 SCC 259 (Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs.
A. Viswam (D) by L.Rs.
xv. CA 2749/2023 dated 11/04/2023 ( Land and
Building Department Vs. Attro Devi and others)
xvi. MFA No.5320/2022 dated 07/03/2024 (The
Commissioner BDA Vs. B.L. Ramadevi)
xvii. AIR 2017 SC 5805 (H.N. Jagannath and others
Vs. State of Karnataka)
xviii. AIR 2002 SC 3369 ( Sampath Kumar Vs.
Ayyakannu and another)
xix. (2006) 5 SCC 466 ( Subhaga and others Vs.
Shobha and others)
xx. (2001) 6 SCC 238 ( Praga tools corporation Ltd.,
Vs. Mahboobunnisa Begum and others)
xxi. AIR 2017 SC 4572 ( Yashchandra (D) by L.Rs. Vs.
State of MP)
xxii. 2001(2) SCC 762 ( Lekhraj Vs. Munilal and others)
42
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
The principles laid down in the aforementioned
judgments are taken note of.
16. On appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence and on hearing both sides, my findings on the
above issues are as follows:
IN O.S. No.6340/2016
Issue No.1 : In the negative
Issue No.2 : In the negative
Issue No.3: In the affirmative
Issue No.4 In the negative
IN O.S. No.6703/2016
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative
Addl. Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.5 in : As per final order
O.S.No.6340/2016 for the following:
and Issue No.4
in O.S.No.6703/2016
43
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
REASONS
17. Since comprehensive suit O.S. No.6703/2016 is
clubbed with O.S No.6340/2016, for the sake of
convenience, henceforth, parties to both the suits i.e.
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir and Sri. Chandran KNP will be
addressed as plaintiff and defendant.
18. ISSUE No.1 AND 2 IN O.S. No.6340/2016:-
The plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir herein, in order to
establish her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the
suit schedule property bearing site No.3, house list No.479/7,
Katha No.6 in Sub-Division 2, formed in a portion of
assessment No.50/11 situated at Hennur village, now within
the limits of BBMP Ward No.24, HBR Layout, Bengaluru,
measuring East - West 56 feet and North - South (54.5+51)/2
totally measuring 2954 square feets, by giving General Power
of Attorney to her son one Sri. D.M. Abdul Khalaq, examined
44
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
him as P.W. 1, wherein he has reiterated the plaint averments
asserting that his mother is the absolute owner in physical
possession and enjoyment of aforesaid property having
purchased the same from Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty through his
sons as General Power of Attorney holders Sri. K.P. Sridhar
and Sri. K.P. Krishna Murthy on 09/04/2014, accordingly, katha
of suit property was transferred in the name of his mother, as
such she was paying upto date taxes, since the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP filed a petition before Joint Commissioner,
BBMP, katha of the plaintiff in respect of suit property came to
be cancelled, though plaintiff challenged the same in a W.P.
No.44558/2018, the same was dismissed with a direction that,
revenue authorities would wait for the result of comprehensive
suit filed in O.S. No.6703/2016, since, possession of the
plaintiff was interfered by the defendant when he tried to
encroach the same with goonda elements on 26/08/2016 and
45
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
also on 29/08/2016 when defendant came with JCB along with
his goonda elements with an intention to demolish the existing
structure, plaintiff lodged a complaint against the defendant,
thus on behalf of the plaintiff P.W. 1 asserted that, his mother is
still in possession of the suit schedule property and the
property claimed by the defendant and plaintiff's property are
different number and different boundaries with different
measurement.
19. In support of plaintiff's case, this P.W. 1 furnished
General Power of Attorney dated 17/11/2023 executed by his
mother in his favour at Ex.P.1. Similarly, he relied on an
absolute sale deed dated 09/04/2014 at Ex.P.2, the contents of
said sale deed reveals that, one Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty on
09/04/2014 through his sons as General Power of Attorney
holders i.e. defendant No.1 Sri. K.P. Sridhar and defendant
No.2 Sri. K.P. Krishna Murthy in O.S. No.6703/2016 executed
46
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
a registered sale deed in respect of aforementioned site
formed in a portion of assessment No.50/11 of Hennur village,
Ex.P.3 is the 'B" register extract reflecting the name of plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir issued on 05/11/2015, Ex.P.4 is the
encumbrance certificates in respect of suit property of
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir for the years 01-04-2010 to 10/09/2014
and said encumbrance certificate is also reflecting the name of
H.T. Puttanna Shetty and plaintiff, tax paid receipts in respect
of said property of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir for the year
2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 are marked at Ex.P.5 to
P.10, Ex.P.11 to P.13 are three photographs wherein P.W. 1
can be seen in the said property, similarly, Ex.P.14 is the
certified copy of order passed in W.P. No.44558/2018, where
this plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir had challenged cancellation
of her katha by the BBMP authorities and in the said order the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that, katha of
47
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
said site would be subject to the result of O.S. No.6703/2016.
Thus, by relying on these documents the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir through her General Power of Attorney i.e. her son
claims site No.3, of Hennur village as shown in her plaint
schedule.
20. To counter the case of plaintiff, the learned counsel
for defendant cross-examined the General Power of Attorney
holder i.e. P.W. 1 at length. In his cross-examination he has
asserted that his mother due to old age and due to gall bladder
surgery she is unable to appear before the court, though there
are suggestion that ill health of his mother is not supported by
any medical documents, the fact that Smt. Sabiha Dastagir is
aged about 80 years is not in dispute. Further P.W. 1 has
stated that, his mother had not made any enquiry while
purchasing the suit property to know whether the original
vendor H.T. Puttanna Shetty was alive or not and it was also
48
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
stated that his mother had not obtained any legal opinion while
purchasing the suit property. This P.W. 1 admits the date of
death of H.T. Puttana Shetty as 24/11/2005 on seeing the copy
of death certificate of Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty. Admittedly, the
sale deed of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir was on 09.04.2014
through the sons of H.T. Puttanna Shetty as General Power of
Attorney holders and said death certificate is confronted
through this P.W. 1 as Ex.D.1 on behalf of defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP.
21. Further P.W. 1 admits the cancellation of katha in
respect of suit property by Joint Commissioner of BBMP on
11/06/2018 and he has also deposed that he has challenged
the said order in W.P. No.44558/2018 before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka, at the same time P.W. 1 pleads his
ignorance as to the reason for cancellation of katha in the
name of his mother Smt. Sabiha Dastagir by BBMP authority.
49
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Further, this P.W. 1 pleads his ignorance by stating that he and
his mother have not read out the cancellation order passed by
Joint Commissioner of BBMP, he denied the suggestion on
behalf of the defendant that, his mother had not signed to file
aforesaid writ petition and his mother had sworn to false
verifying affidavit before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
the aforesaid writ petition.
22. From the cross-examination of P.W. 1, it can be
noticed that, it is within the knowledge of P.W. 1 that, his
mother is claiming the possession of suit property in
O.S. No.6340/2016 on the strength of a sale deed executed by
her vendor in respect of a revenue site and at the same time
the defendant Sri. Chandran KNP is claiming the title of suit
schedule property on the strength of a sale deed executed by
BDA. Further, this P.W. 1 pleads his ignorance to state the
schedule of suit site said to have been purchased from the
50
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
land owner Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty through his General
Power of Attorney holders/sons. Further, P.W. 1 pleaded his
ignorance as to state what happened or transpired on
29/08/2016, thereafter he pleaded his ignorance about the
cause of action for the suit. On going through the cross-
examination of this P.W. 1, it can be seen that, he has
admitted filing of criminal case against himself, his father and
mother Smt. Sabiha Dastagir on the complaint of defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP, as such they had to obtain an anticipatory
bail in Crl.Misc.No.2613/2017 on 25/10/2017 as per Ex.D.2.
Further it is submitted by this P.W. 1 that, he had challenged
the charge sheet filed in Cr.No.443/2016 before the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petitioner No.1170/2022 and
same was dismissed on 12/03/2024 as per Ex.D.4. This P.W. 1
has further admitted the filing of original suit by
K.P. Shamanna i.e. one of the son of H.T. Puttanna Shetty as
51
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
per Ex.D.6 and it is also admitted by this P.W. 1 that, his
mother had filed written statement in the said suit as per
Ex.D.8.
23. According to this P.W. 1, he was not aware as to say
his mother's vendor H.T. Puttanna Shetty and his children
have sold entire acquired land as revenue site. This P.W. 1
denied the cancellation of payment of property tax towards
their suit property after cancellation of katha in the name of his
mother. Further, he admits entry with respect to cancellation of
payment of property tax when he was shown Ex.D.9 a copy of
tax paid receipt, there is an entry of cancellation in respect of
plaintiff's property. Again this P.W. 1 pleaded his ignorance
about filing of complaint against his mother by Sub-registrar of
Kacharakanahalli before Kadugodi police station on the
allegation of fabrication and forgery of BBMP documents as
per Ex.D.10. According to P.W. 1 vendor's of his mother have
52
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
not given copy of conversion order in respect of suit property
as claimed in O.S. No.6340/2016. It is also stated that, he has
not seen the copy of any approved layout plan with respect to
their property and also stated that, he cannot produce the sale
deeds of abutting properties. That apart, he denied the
suggestion of learned counsel for defendant that, there is no
site No.2 and 4 in existence by asserting that their site number
is 3. It is further denied as false by P.W. 1 that site No.3 is
not in existence. On going through the plaint schedule and by
seeing the assessment number this P.W. 1 says that, plaint
schedule property i.e. site No.3 is formed in a portion of Sy.No.
50/11 and in addition he pleaded his ignorance as to state how
and by what procedure house list, katha number and sub-
division number is given to the schedule property.
24. At one stretch P.W. 1 says that, his mother had not
lodged any complaint against the defendant on 29/08/2016
53
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
and at another stretch he says that she might have lodged the
complaint, he once again pleaded that, he is not aware as to
say that BBMP has declared site No.3 as not in existence as
claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. That apart, P.W. 1 further
denied the entire suggestion of the defendant that his mother
was not issued with 'B" katha by asserting that his mother was
issued 'B" katha in respect of schedule property and she is in
possession of the same. However, it is denied that, plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir, her husband and son by showing the
defendant's property have obtained 'B" katha in respect of their
non existent site.
25. In addition, the defendant Sri. Chandran KNP to
establish his title and possession over schedule 'A" and 'B"
property i.e. site No.239/F measuring 17.06 x 13.14 square
meters totally 224.16 square meters situated at HBR I Stage,
4th Block, Bengaluru along with marginal land in the same site
54
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
No.239/F measuring 17.06 x 2.40 square meters totally
measuring 40.94 square meters bounded on:- East by- BDA
shop, West by- Road, North by- Rest of site No.239/F and
South by- Site No.239/E, relied on allotment letter of site
No.239/F issued by the BDA on 29/01/2009 in respect of site
No.239/F under a registered sale deed dated 17/02/2010
followed by Rectification Deed dated 15/04/2013 along with
original marginal land allotment letters as per Ex.D.33 to D.37
respectively. Possession certificate issued by BDA is furnished
at Ex.D.38 in respect of site No.239/F along with marginal site
on 15/06/2013 is at Ex.D.38 and katha certificate at Ex.D.40.
26. It is canvassed by the learned counsel for plaintiff
that, land belonging to original owner Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty
measuring 2 acres 16 guntas was not subjected for acquisition
as there was an order of injunction by the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka in W.P. No.2226-29/1993, wherein the Hon'ble
55
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
High Court of Karnataka by considering the possession of
plaintiff's vendor Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty, granted an order of
injunction against BDA not to dispossess him from his land in
Sy.No. 50/11 until consideration of representation of
regularization of unauthorized occupation of land by the BDA
by forming screening committee. Hence, it is canvassed that,
BDA has not formed any screening committee till date,
therefore injunction order by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in the aforesaid writ petition in favour of original
owner Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty against BDA is still operating,
as such BDA cannot form sites and allot it to any other
persons. Hence, it is canvassed that, sale made in favour of
the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir by H.T. Puttanna Shetty
through his General Power of Attorney holders is valid.
27. On the contrary, it is canvassed on behalf of the
defendant Sri. Chandran KNP that, land in question was
56
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
subject matter of acquisition in the year 1978 itself and the final
notification was in the year 1985 and award was in the year
1986 as per Ex.D.28 and the vendor's of plaintiff i.e. H.T.
Puttanna Shetty and his sons have sold their land in Sy.No.
50/11 of Hennur village by forming sites after acquisition by the
BDA for formation of Hennur-Bellary Road Layout, HBR I
stage. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for
defendant has canvassed that, schedule property was not part
of said writ petition, Act pertaining to the said writ petition was
regularization of unauthorized construction in Urban Areas Act
which is inapplicable to the BDA acquired lands, as such
reliance placed in the decision of Fatima Bi's case held as not
good law by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Raju
Reddy Vs. BDA reported in ILR 1995 KAR 2514, wherein it is
held that, "unauthorized construction in the lands acquired and
vested in BDA cannot be regularized and that was not object of
57
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
the Act", thereby distinguished Fatima Bi's judgment as not
correct law, stipulates all such applications claiming in BDA
land to be rejected.
28. Further, learned counsel also relied on the decision
of Munimasthaiah Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1995
KAR 2323, wherein it is held that, "where a land is acquired
and vested with BDA there is a statutory prohibition to
regularize the unauthorized construction of the land vested in a
local authority and the application deserves rejection at the
threshold, there would be nothing for the screening committee
to consider, except rejecting such applications". Similar view is
taken in W.P. No.28292/1997 dated 09/03/1998 in case of
M. Ramachandra Vs. Dy. Commissioner and others, by
directing eviction and demolition of existing structures, in
1993(3) KLJ 576, in the case of M.R. Narayan Vs. BDA, a cut
off date i.e. 31/12/1995 was given to file writ petition seeking
58
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
direction for regularization of unauthorized occupation, wherein
it was held that, "persons who are subsequent purchasers of
acquired land are nothing but trespassers and not entitled for
any relief".
29. In the present case on hand, the plaintiff no where
pleaded that, whether her vendor had filed for regularization of
his unauthorized occupation before BDA, however, it is a
contention on behalf of the plaintiff that, there was no
screening committee formed by the BDA to consider the
representation of unauthorized occupants. This view cannot be
accepted for the reason as narrated above that, the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in Raju Reddy's and Munimasthaiah's
cases has held that, "once the land is acquired and vested with
BDA, statutory prohibition comes into play to regularize the
unauthorized constructions on the land vested with local
authority, therefore, screening committee has to reject the
59
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
application at its threshold". However, in a situation like this,
one of the purchaser of the acquired land in Sy.No. 50/11 from
H.T. Puttanna Shetty by name Nandalal who had challenged
the acquisition proceedings in W.P. No.23387/1992 as per
Ex.D.75, wherein a direction was issued to BDA to consider his
representation for regularization of unauthorized construction
within 15/02/1993, therefore, for non compliance of said order
said Nandalal filed a contempt petition in CCC No.598/2000,
upon considering reply statement filed on behalf of BDA by
stating that, BDA has considered all the representations of
land holders in respect of Sy.No. 50/11, as it was notified and
acquired by the Government in favour of BDA and award was
passed on 17/12/1986 and possession was taken and handed
over to Engineering Section on 31/12/1986, as such BDA
authority after going through the various aspect has rejected
the request of complainant Nandalal on 15/05/1997, therefore,
60
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
it is canvassed on behalf of the defendant that, similar land
purchasers of acquired land from H.T. Puttanna Shetty have
also filed W.P. No.21973-21980/1986 as per Ex.D.20 and in
the said order the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rejected
the contentions of writ petitioners on the ground of delay and
latches by upholding the acquisition.
30. Ex.D.71 and Ex.D.-95 are endorsements issued to
the defendant Sri. Chandran KNP on 07/03/2019, wherein,
Dy. Secretary of BDA has stated that applications for
regularization of unauthorized occupants in respect of Sy.No.
50/11 has been considered and rejected by BDA as per
direction given in W.P. No.2226-29/1993 dated 16/08/1993
and the land has been handed over to the engineering section
for further action. This defendant, in support of his contention
has relied on the order of screening committee which is at
Ex.D.74, wherein the representations of land purchasers of
61
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
acquired land was considered and rejected on 16/08/1993,
however, learned counsel for the plaintiff canvasses that said
screening committee was in respect of 2 acres 7 guntas of
land in Sy.No. 129/2 of Kadugondanhalli village and not in
respect of Sy.No. 50/11. In the said order it is stated that,
representations for regularization has to be made within the
stipulated period as observed in W.P. No.23387/1992 as per
Ex.D.75.
31. In the case on hand, it is nowhere forthcoming,
whether vendor's of plaintiff Sri. Puttanna Shetty filed any
representation before BDA authority seeking regularization of
his unauthorized occupation of acquired land during his life
time or by his legal heirs. On the other hand, the endorsement
issued by BDA as per Ex.D.71, the BDA has considered the
representations in respect of Sy.No. 50/11 and at the same
time rejected all the representation filed for regularization of
62
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
their unauthorized occupation in respect of acquired land. In
support of this endorsement, the decision relied on behalf of
defendant in the case of Raju Reddy Vs. BDA and
Munimasthaiah Vs. State of Karnataka in the year 1995 comes
to the aid of defendant that BDA has considered the
representation of all the unauthorized occupants and at the
same time, even the plaintiff has not attempted to establish
whether Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty had applied for
regularization of his unauthorized occupation before BDA
authority and in the absence of such representation, it cannot
be interpreted that, the order passed in W.P. No.2226-29/1993
still operating against BDA in respect of 2 acres 16 guntas of
Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty's acquired land on the condition that
screening committee is not formed. However, said order of
W.P. No.2226-29/1993 is over ruled by the order passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Raju Reddy and
63
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Munimasthaiah cases. Therefore, the contention of plaintiff
that the original land owner Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty's land
measuring 2 acres 16 guntas in Sy.No. 50/11 of Hennur village
was not subjected for acquisition in view of the orders passed
in W.P. No.2226-29/1993 cannot be accepted. Therefore, the
legal opinion of the BDA relied by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff which was given during the process of acquisition that
there is an order of injunction against BDA does not holds
good even after lapse of 32 years. Hence, the contention of
learned counsel for plaintiff that, there was an order of
injunction in respect of suit land and sale made by the original
owner even after acquisition does not hold any water.
32. The defendant Sri. Chandran KNP in his chief-
examination by relying on Ex.D.6 i.e. certified copy of the
plaint in O.S. No.4940/2018 has contended that, one of the
son of plaintiff's vendor i.e. Late H.T. Puttanna Shetty in the
64
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
year 2018 had filed a suit to declare 'D" schedule property
bearing Sy.No. 50/11 measuring 2 acres 3.27 guntas of
Hennur village as joint family property in which he is entitled
for 1/7th share and thereby sought for repartition of 'D"
schedule property. On perusal of the schedule properties of
said plaint, it contains schedule 'A" to 'D' and all the lands in
the said schedules bears Sy.No. 50/11 of Hennur village only.
On going through the plaint averments of said suit it is pleaded
that, 5 acres 4 guntas in Sy.No. 50/11 of Hennur village was
absolute property of their father H.T. Puttanna Shetty, he had
purchased the same under registered sale deed through one
R. Janardhana S/o Ramashetty on 15/05/1957 which was
notified for acquisition, since his father had challenged the
said acquisition in W.P. No.2226-29/1993 for regularization of
construction put up there to an extent of 2 acres 16 guntas the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by considering the
65
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
possession of his father on 16/08/1993 granted an order of
injunction against the defendant/BDA not to interfere with the
possession of land owner and also considered the
representation of his father for regularization of unauthorized
occupation by forming screening committee, since, such
screening committee was not formed by the BDA there is an
order of injunction against the BDA in respect of 2 acres 16
guntas, therefore, he sought for partition accordingly.
33. The defendant being D.W. 1 has also produced
written statements of General Power of Attorney holders of
plaintiff's vendor viz., K.P. Sridhar, his brother and sister, the
said K.P. Sridhar in his written statement which is marked at
Ex.D.8, though states about the operation of interim order as
per the order of writ petition, at the same time, at para No.7 it
is pleaded that, they have not received any communication
from BDA in respect of application seeking regularization of
66
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
unauthorized construction and BDA has already acquired the
land and formed layout in the said survey number, therefore it
was contended in the written statement that, BDA was a
proper party to the said suit. Thereby one of the General
Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff's vendor Sri. K.P. Sridhar
had admitted the acquisition proceedings.
34. It is to be noted that, alleged partition deed said to
have been executed amongst the family members of Puttanna
Shetty was on 20/06/1987, admittedly acquisition proceedings
for formation of Hennur Bellary I Stage Layout was started in
the year 1978 through its preliminary notification and final
notification was in the year 1985. In between these years in
the year 1987 Puttanna Shetty and his children partitioned the
lands in Sy.No. 50/11 of Hennur village. This partition itself is
after acquisition proceedings. Further, another partition deed
dated 04/07/2013 which is marked as Ex.D.27 reveals that,
67
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
children of Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty have once again
partitioned their family properties in which the present suit
schedule property fallen to the share of K.P. Sridhar in 'C"
schedule property, wherein on perusal of 'C" item No.2 of the
said schedule reveals that, site No.3 in katha No.479/1,
assessment No.50/11 situated at Hennur village (HBR Layout,
4th Block, I Main) fallen to the share of K.P. Sridhar. This
partition deed also is after acquisition proceedings and very
recently in the year 2013 i.e. prior to one year of execution of
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir.
35. On perusal of Ex.D.26 and D.27 it can be noticed
that, site property of Smt. Sabiha Dastagir was fallen to the
share of K.P. Sridhar in their family partition and at the same
time another point which strikes at this juncture is that, the
General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by
H.T. Puttanna Shetty in favour of K.P. Sridhar and K.P. Krishna
68
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Murthy was on 17/03/1995. When the suit survey number of
plaintiff's site property was subject matter of partition in the
year 1987 itself, what was the necessity for the plaintiff's
vendor Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty to execute a General Power
of Attorney in favour of his sons K.P. Sridhar and K.P. Krishna
Murthy in the year 1995 is not forthcoming anywhere. The
schedule of said General Power of Attorney reveals that, it
was given exclusively in respect of site No.3 and 4 of
Khaneshmari No.6, House List No.479/7, sub-division 2,
whereas, the plaint schedule of Smt. Sabiha Dastagir differs
from the schedule shown in this General Power of Attorney by
mentioning Katha No.6, instead of Khaneshmari No.6 as
mentioned in the General Power of Attorney which is marked
at Ex.D.24. When once the suit property of plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir was subject matter of partition and fallen
to the share of K.P. Shridhar i.e. defendant No.1 in
69
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
O.S.No.6703/2016, the title of the plaintiff's vendor
Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty extinguishes in view of family
partition as per Ex.D.26 on 20/06/1987. Therefore, the title of
Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty as on the date of execution of
General Power of Attorney itself is doubtful.
36. In so far as General Power of Attorney which is
marked at Ex.D.24 is concerned it is admittedly on 07/03/1995.
It is also an admitted fact that, the sons of plaintiff's vendor
Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty being a General Power of Attorney
holders of their father have executed registered sale deed in
favour of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir on 09/04/2014. It is a
notable point at this stage that, during cross-examination of
P.W. 1 the learned counsel for the defendant confronted death
certificate of Sri. Puttanna Shetty as Ex.D.1 which reveals the
date of death of Puttanna Shetty as 24/11/2005. When the
original owner died on 24/11/2005 on what basis sons of
70
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Puttanna Shetty as General Power of Attorney holder executes
a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2014
or do they have any exclusive right under General Power of
Attorney to execute sale deed on behalf of their deceased
father is a point to be discussed at this stage.
37. In this connection, the learned counsel for the
defendant has placed his reliance on the basis of Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in RFA No.566/2022 dated 23/09/2025
wherein it is held that, "sale deed executed by agent on behalf
of a dead principal is invalid and sale is held to be void ab
initio". Further, he also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex court in the case of S. Anantha Murthy and another Vs.
J. Manjula in Civil Appeal No.s 3266-3267/2025, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex court has held that, GPA sales and agreements
cannot form any title and sale deeds thereto are invalid in law.
Similarly, another decision reported in Ramesh Chand (D) Vs.
71
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Suresh Chand in Civil Appeal No.6377/2022, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex court has held that, unregistered power of
attorney does not confer authority and title, further it is held that
such sales are invalid.
The principles laid down in the above quoted decisions
are taken note of and they are aptly applicable to be the
present case on hand.
38. On the contrary, the learned counsel for plaintiff
maintained silence in connection with the sale made in favour
of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir on the basis of a General
Power of Attorney of a dead person by his sons in the year
2014 and has not even attempted to offer any convincing
explanation in this regard. From the available materials on
record, it is noticed that, the original land owner Late Puttanna
Shetty after publication of preliminary notification in the year
1978 had formed several sites in his land and sold it to several
72
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
purchasers in between 1981-1985 and among all such
subsequent purchasers of the property, 8 of them have
approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka challenging
the acquisition proceedings in W.P. No.21973-21980/1985 as
per Ex.D.20 and same were dismissed on the ground of delay
and latches and another subsequent purchaser Mr. Nandalal
once again filed W.P. No.23387/1992 as per Ex.D.21 seeking
a direction from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against
the BDA not to dispossess and demolish existing structures in
his property Khaneshmari No.2 of Hennur village, wherein he
was permitted to make a representation before BDA for
regularization of his unauthorized construction within
15/02/1993 and based on said order this S. Nandalal filed a
contempt petition before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
CCC No.598/2000 as per Ex.D.22, wherein the submission of
BDA was considered that authority has considered their
73
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
representation for regularization and rejected the same in
accordance with law, it is thereafter this Puttanna Shetty
original owner, in the year 1993 having sold the land way back
in between 1981-85 i.e. after preliminary notification
approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka seeking for
regularization of unauthorized construction in the acquired land
and in the similar way he was also permitted to give
representation as per Ex.D.23 for regularization and from the
available materials on record, no such representation is made
by this Puttanna Shetty and it is also noticed that, property sold
to one Smt. Tara Bai on 24/01/1985 by this Puttanna Shetty
measuring Khaneshmari No.5 and 6 formed in Sy.No. 50/11 is
the same property sold to plaintiff herein by the son of
Puttanna Shetty as General Power of Attorney holders in the
year 2014.
74
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
39. Similarly, LAC proceedings in LAC No.219/1987 as
per Ex.D.29 discloses the participation of subsequent
purchasers such as one S.C. Manjula, T.V. Sripathi, Smt. Tara
Bai, S. Rajendra, Smt. Hira Bai, Leela Bai, S. Nandalal and
N. Vijay can be seen, among them Tara Bai was awarded
compensation and rest of compensation amount is deposited
before Civil Court which is not in dispute. In addition, Ex.D.25
is the certified copy of preliminary notification, wherein the suit
Sy.No. 50/11 measuring 5 acres 4 guntas of Hennur village
was the subject matter of acquisition, notified for formation of
Hennur-Bellary road, I Stage Layout, Ex.D.30 is the copy of
final notification dated 09/01/1985, it is thereafter
aforementioned writ petitions by the subsequent purchasers
challenging the acquisition proceedings and also seeking for
regularization of unauthorized construction as per Ex.D.20, 21
75
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
and 23 were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
which were disposed of as narrated above.
40. From these proceedings, it can be said that, suit
property was the subject matter of acquisition and it has
reached its finality. The original owner and his sons having
fully aware of the knowledge of acquisition proceedings had
sold the revenue land to several persons and it is thereafter
having sold his land the original owner Late Puttanna Shetty
by playing fraud approached the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka on the contention that he is in possession of the
acquired land and sought for regularization of unauthorized
construction which was considered by the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka with a direction to make representation before
screening committee.
41. From this it can be noticed that, the original owner
Sri. Puttanna Shetty having sold his property with an intention
76
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
to have unlawful gain has approached for regularization of
lands and it is no where forthcoming whether he had made
representation before the BDA authority seeking regularization.
However, from the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
by overruling the orders of W.P. No.23082/1992 in the case of
Fatima Bi as Ex.D.73, in the contempt proceedings of
Nandalal as per Ex.D.22 and also in the case of Raju Reddy
and Munimasthaiah cases as mentioned above, it is held that,
any such application for regularization after acquisition has to
be rejected and in view of the order passed in the contempt
petitioner No.598/2000 as per Ex.D.22, it can be noticed that
BDA has considered all the representations filed for
regularization of unauthorized construction and has rejected all
such applications and thereafter handed over the possession
of land to engineering section for further action as per the
endorsements at Ex.D.71 and 95. Under these
77
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
circumstances, from the available materials on record the land
owned by Puttanna Shetty is no more remained as his private
property, as it was subjected for acquisition, wherein the BDA
in the year 1989 itself has formed a residential layout of sites
and allotted the same to general public. Even one of the son of
H.T. Puttanna Shetty who is defendant No.1 in
O.S. No.6703/2016 has admitted the acquisition proceedings
and formation of layout by the BDA in the suit filed another son
of Puttanna Shetty namely K.P. Shamanna in
O.S. No.4940/2018 and in the said suit even plaintiff herein
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has also made similar submission in the
written statement which are marked as Ex.D.7. All the
subsequent purchasers have participated in LAC proceedings,
this also establishes the fact that land in Sy.No. 50/11 belong
to Puttanna Shetty was acquired by the BDA for the formation
of aforementioned layout.
78
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
42. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff
vehemently canvassed that, suit property and lands in
Sy.No. 50/11 of Hennur village belonged to the original owner
Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty was not included in the acquisition
proceedings due to an order of injunction passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.2226-29/1993, the
said fact has not been pleaded in their plaint, as such proof
without pleadings cannot be considered for any purpose.
Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir
that the land of Puttanna Shetty measuring 2 acres 16 guntas
was not at all the subject matter of acquisition as there was an
order of injunction by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P. No.2226-29/1993 does not survive for consideration. It is
the specific case of the plaintiff and also assertion of P.W. 1 in
his evidence that, his mother Smt. Sabiha Dastagir had
purchased site No.3 as shown in the suit schedule from the
79
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
General Power of Attorney holders of her vendor
Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty on 09/04/2014, who actually had
purchased the said property from one Janardhan under a
registered sale deed dated 16/05/1957.
43. To establish the said contention relied on the
registered sale deed which is marked as Ex.P.2 and to
establish her possession over the same relied on katha extract
pertaining to the year 2014-15 which is marked at Ex.P.3 along
with encumbrance certificate at Ex.P.4 for the year 2010-14
and also tax paid receipts at Ex.P.5 to P.10 and three
photographs. On perusal of the these katha extract and
encumbrance certificate, it is reflecting the name of
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir and this katha is issued in the name of
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir for the year 2014-15. Similar is
the encumbrance certificate and tax paid receipts. These tax
paid receipts are also issued in respect of property shown in
80
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
the suit schedule. Though the plaintiff relied on the
photographs, there are no substantial proof to say that the
property seen in the photographs is the suit schedule property.
Therefore, these photographs cannot be considered to say
that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.
44. In the cross-examination of this P.W. 1, the learned
counsel on behalf of defendant Sri. Chandran KNP has
elicited a fact that, the katha extract issued in the name of
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has been cancelled by an order of Joint
Commissioner of BBMP on 11/06/2018 and said order was
challenged by the plaintiff in W.P. No.44558/2018. On going
through the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P. No.44558/2018 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
while disposing off the said writ petition has observed that, the
revenue authorities would issue katha after adjudication of
O.S. No.6703/2016 pending before CCH-65 of Bengaluru
81
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Urban and said order can be seen at Ex.D.11. This P.W. 1 on
seeing the katha extract produced by the defendant which is
marked at Ex.D.9 admits the cancellation of katha in favour of
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir and said tax paid receipts which
is marked as Ex.D.9 reflect the entry as "this 'B" register
property cancelled" and property number mentioned in the
said tax paid receipt is tallying with the suit schedule property,
thus cancellation of katha of 'B" register issued in favour of the
plaintiff has been admitted by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination.
Similarly, he has also admitted the cancellation of payment of
tax by the BBMP as per Ex.D.9.
45. That apart, it is the specific defense of the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP that he having learnt about issuance of
katha in favour of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir, he has
approached the BDA and BBMP saying that plaintiff by
showing his site No.239/F and his site measurement and
82
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
boundaries has obtained katha in her favour and he has
brought the same to the notice of Sub-registrar of
Kacharakanahalli, this fact is also admitted by P.W. 1 in his
cross-examination. Further P.W. 1 also admits that, Sub-
registrar of Kacharakanahalli had filed a complaint before
Kadugondanahalli police station on the allegation of fabrication
of BBMP records and for obtaining fraudulent 'B" katha extract
as well as tax paid receipts in respect of suit schedule property.
Certified copy of the said complaint reveals that the defendant
herein Sri. Chandran KNP has also filed petition alleging
fabrication of BBMP records for the purpose of obtaining katha
by the plaintiff. Based on the said complaint of defendant and
also based on the letters of revenue officers of BBMP, district
registrar, the Sub-registrar of Kacharakanahalli has lodged
complaint as per Ex.D.10.
83
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
46. In addition, as per the complaint of defendant Sri.
Chandran KNP as shown at Ex.D.50, the Lokayuktha police
have registered a criminal case against erring officials of
BBMP who allegedly colluded with plaintiff in issuing false 'B"
katha extract in her favour in Cr.No.34/2021 under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act as per Ex.D.90.
Further recently, even the BDA has also lodged complaint
against the children of plaintiff's vendor on the allegation that,
they were obtaining loans by pledging BDA acquired lands in
various banks, therefore, a criminal case is registered against
them by BDA in Cr.No.96/2024 as per Ex.D.81. However, on
going through the entire pleadings of the plaintiff it is no where
pleaded that after issuance of katha extract in favour of
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir as per Ex.P.3 in the year
2014-15 and tax paid receipts as per Ex.P.5, same has been
cancelled by the Joint Commissioner of BBMP on the
84
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
allegation of fabrication of records and obtaining false katha
and tax paid receipts. From this it is clear that, as on today the
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir is not having any revenue
records in her favour to establish her possession over the suit
schedule property. However, from the cross-examination of
P.W. 1, it can be noticed that, he being General Power of
Attorney holder and son of the plaintiff is not aware of the
alleged interference said to have been caused by the
defendant to establish the cause of action for the purpose of
institution of this suit. Even he has pleaded his ignorance
whether the land sold to his mother Smt. Sabiha Dastagir is a
converted land or not.
47. Contrary to the evidence of P.W. 1 the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP relied on katha extracts and tax paid
receipts in respect of site No.239/F as shown in his suit
schedule in O.S. No.6703/2016. More importantly, the Hon'ble
85
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
High Court of Karnataka in its order in Crl. Petition
No.1170/2022 dated 12/03/2024 as per Ex.D.4 has observed
that, the plaintiff's son i.e. P.W. 1/petitioner No.1 therein had
damaged the compound wall erected by the defendant Sri.
Chandran KNP i.e. respondent No.2 therein which
categorically establishes that on 01/09/2016 and on
05/09/2016 it was the son of the plaintiff i.e. P.W. 1 herein
along with his father visited the property of defendant and
damaged the compound wall put up by the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP. On perusal of cancellation of katha and
tax paid receipt in favour of the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir
and present katha and tax paid receipt in favour of defendant
in respect of site No.239//F and also in view of observation
made by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petition
No.1170/2022, the plaintiff herein has failed to establish her
possession over the suit schedule property. However, it is
86
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
admitted by P.W. 1 in his evidence that, himself and defendant
are claiming same site under different category by saying that
his mother plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir is claiming as
revenue site and defendant Sri. Chandran KNP claiming it as
BDA site.
48. Even commissioner report which is marked at
Ex.C.1 identifies the possession of defendant Sri. Chandran
KNP even though learned counsel for plaintiff disputes the very
boundaries of defendant's site. In addition, this commissioner
report also speaks that plaintiff and defendant are claiming
same site. This commissioner in his cross-examination stick on
to his version by saying that, the site which he conducted spot
inspection belonged to BDA site and the same is presently in
possession of defendant Sri.Chandran KNP. Since, the title
and possession of plaintiff is based on the strength of an
invalid General Power of Attorney, report of court
87
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
commissioner will not be of much useful to the case of this
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir. However, so far as disputed
boundaries of defendant and commissioner report regarding
such boundaries will be discussed at length while discussing
the disputed boundaries of site No.239/F in Issue No.1 and 2
of O.S. No.6703/2016 filed by the defendant Sri. Chandran
KNP.
49. Having regard to the above discussion it is clear that,
suit property of Smt. Sabiha Dastagir was revenue land
acquired by BDA for formation of Hennur Bellary road, I Stage
Layout and it is after acquisition, that too in the year 2014 the
son of late Puttanna Shetty based on General Power of
Attorney of their deceased father executed a registered sale
deed which has no validity in the eye of law as it is held by the
Hon'ble Apex court as well as by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in catena of decisions that, any document executed
88
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
on the basis of General Power of Attorney of a dead person is
void ab initio. Therefore, firstly the sale made in favour of the
plaintiff itself is not valid and based on the said sale deed the
plaintiff is claiming her possession on the strength of created
khatha and tax paid receipts which are cancelled by the Joint
Commissioner of BBMP and above all based on this sale deed
and revenue entries the plaintiff claiming a site which is allotted
to defendant Sri. Chandran KNP by BDA after acquisition.
However, the schedule shown in the General Power of
Attorney and schedule shown in the sale deed are not tallying
with each other. More over, the schedule of the site in
question claimed by the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir is not
tallying with the BDA site allotted to the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP. Both plaintiff and defendant are claiming
very same site under different boundaries.
89
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
50. It is not forthcoming whether the vendor of plaintiff
has got converted the site property, when survey number land
was given site number, how the survey number became
assessment number as shown in the suit schedule and what
was the criteria and procedure adopted to convert Sy.No.
50/11 as assessment No.50/11, by which authority, have not
been convincingly established by the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir. Therefore the plaintiff failed in establishing the
preponderance of probability that she is in possession of suit
schedule property by purchasing the same from her vendor
through the General Power of Attorney holders in the year
2014. Admittedly, it is a settled principle of law that, possession
always follows title. However, in this case, manner of title
derived by the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir itself is through a
General Power of Attorney of a deceased person which is void
and has no recognition in the eye of law. Therefore, the plaintiff
90
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
has failed to establish her possession and the alleged
interference by the defendant Sri. Chandran KNP, as such
Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
51. ISSUE No.3 IN O.S. No.6340/2016 AND ADDL.
ISSUE No.1 IN O.S. No.6703/2016:- This issue No.3
regarding maintainability of the suit ought to have been
considered as preliminary issue as per the order of this court
dated 27/11/2023, however, in view of transfer of
O.S. No.6703/2016 to this court and clubbing of both the suits
to record common evidence and to dispose of both the suits in
common, this issue No.3 of O.S. No.6340/2016 has not been
considered as preliminary issue.
52. In this suit, plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir is claiming
her possession on the strength of a sale deed said to have
been executed by her vendor Late H.T. Puttanna Shetty
through his sons as General Power of Attorney holders on
91
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
09/04/2014 in respect of site No.3, house list No. 479/7, Katha
No.6 in Sub-Division 2, formed in a portion of assessment
No.50/11 situated at Hennur village, now within the limits of
BBMP Ward No.24, HBR Layout, Bengaluru, measuring east
to west 56 feet and north to south (54.5+51)/2 totally
measuring 2954 square feets. It is also the case of plaintiff
that, her vendor had purchased the land in Sy.No. 50/11 from
one Janardhana Rao under a registered sale deed dated
15/05/1957 and it is thereafter in the year 2014 as mentioned
above sons of Late H.T. Puttanna Shetty on the strength of a
General Power of Attorney executed in their favour sold the
suit site No.3 in favour of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir, as
such she got transferred the katha of said property in her
name on 03/01/2015 as per Ex.P.3 and paying taxes regularly
to the concerned authority. When such being the case, her
possession has been disturbed by the defendant
92
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Sri. Chandran KNP on 26/08/2016 when he tried to encroach
the suit property and again on 29/08/016 when he visited the
site along with JCB to demolish the existing structure,
therefore she had to approach the jurisdictional police.
According to the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir cause of action
to her suit arouse on 15/05/1957 when her vendor purchased
the suit property and on 09/04/2014 when she purchased the
suit property through General Power of Attorney holders of her
vendor and on 26/08/2016 and 29/08/2016 when defendant
interfered with her possession.
53. On the contrary, it is the specific contention of the
defendant in his written statement at para No. 15 that suit of
the plaintiff is not at all maintainable as there is a cloud over
her title, as such the prayer sought is not in accordance with
law, therefore, it is contended that, suit for bare injunction is not
maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is denied by the
93
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
defendant, as the relief in a suit for permanent injunction is a
relief in personam. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in Crl. Petition No.1170/2022 as per Ex.D.4 has
observed that, plaintiff is not at all in possession of her suit
property, hence, she cannot seek for permanent injunction. It is
more strongly canvassed that, since both plaintiff and
defendant are claiming on the same site as revenue and BDA
sites respectively, when the title of the plaintiff is categorically
denied by the defendant, the suit for bare injunction is not at all
maintainable. Therefore, it is canvassed to dismiss the suit as
not maintainable.
54. Though the plaintiff herein lays foundation for title on
the sale deed of H.T. Puttanna Shetty said to have been
executed in his favour by one Janaradhana Rao on
19/05/1957, the said sale deed is not before this court, the
measurement and boundaries of the lands in Sy.No. 50/11 by
94
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
the plaintiff's vendor H.T. Puttanna Shetty is not clear before
this court. However, from the available materials on record,
even from the records of acquisition proceedings such as
preliminary notification, final notification, award and LAC
proceedings, it is not in dispute that H.T. Puttanna Shetty had
an extent of 2 acres 16 guntas in Sy.No. 50/11 of Hennur
village. However, it is to be noted that, when this suit was filed
at the initial stage, where an exparte judgment was passed, at
that time, the plaintiff herself had deposed evidence and it is
after set aside of exparte judgment, the plaintiff remained
absent and her son started representing her as P.W. 1. From
the cross-examination of P.W. 1, it can be noticed that, though
he asserts the health and age of his mother, no supportive
materials are furnished to establish the said fact. In this
context, the learned counsel for the defendant has placed
reliance on the decision reported in 1999 (3) SCC 573,
95
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
wherein it is observed that, "where as party to the suit does not
appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath
and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other
side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is
not correct". Further he also relied on the decision in the case
of Janaki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank
Ltd., in AIR 2005 SC 439, the Hon'ble Apex court has
reiterated the similar principles. The ratio laid down in both the
decisions are taken note of. Even in this case also the plaintiff
without any supportive materials, though she appeared initially
when the suit was exparte and remained absent when exparte
judgment in her favour was set aside and suit was restored
back to the original position for fresh trial, as such the facts and
circumstances of afore quoted decisions are squarely
applicable to the present case on hand and strengthens the
contention of defendant Sri. Chandran KNP.
96
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
55. In addition, P.W. 1 in his cross-examination pleads
his ignorance as to say when the land of Puttanna Shetty got
converted into non agricultural purpose and became sites and
when Sy.No. 50/11 became assessment No.50/11 and even in
his evidence he has stated that, said assessment number has
to be read as survey number. In addition, he has pleaded his
ignorance in respect of cause of action for the suit. On going
through pleadings in plaint at para 9 of O.S. No.6430/2016, it
can be seen that, on 26/08/2016 and on 29/08/2016 the
incidents of interference were occurred, as such plaintiff had to
approach the jurisdictional police. However, in support of
plaintiff's case and to establish the alleged interference by the
defendant Sri. Chandran KNP, no complaint is registered
against the defendant, on the contrary, this defendant has
lodged complaint against the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir,
her husband and her son which resulted in registration of
97
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
criminal case in Cr.No.443/2016 in Kadugondanahalli police
station for the offences punishable under Section 447,427,
420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC which made them to obtain
an order of anticipatory bail in their favour as per Ex.D.2,
registration of criminal case was challenged before the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka by this plaintiff and her son in
Crl. Petition No.1170/2022 seeking for quashing of criminal
case against them, however, said criminal petition came to be
dismissed as per Ex.D.4 and in the said order the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka has observed that, it was the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP is in possession of the suit schedule
property and the son of plaintiff i.e. P.W. 1 herein had damaged
the compound wall constructed by this defendant Chandran
KNP on twice i.e. on 05/09/2016 and 29/09/2016.
56. That apart, as discussed above at length, 'B' katha
issued in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2018 by BBMP and
98
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
tax paid receipts were found to be fabricated documents on
the allegation that plaintiff by showing site No.239/F along with
its measurement and boundaries, colluding with BBMP officials
obtained forged documents, therefore, this documentary
evidence of representations made before BDA, BBMP and
concerned Sub-registrar office which led to lodging of
complaint against this plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir by the
Sub-registrar of Kacharakanahalli as per Ex.D.10, even the
Lokayuktha have also initiated criminal proceedings against
the BBMP erring officials on the allegation of collusiveness with
plaintiff for the purpose of fabrication of documents and
obtaining katha. Even BBMP has confirmed the order of
cancellation of katha of plaintiff as per Ex.D.45.
57. More importantly, as contended by the defendant
that, the plaintiff is claiming her possession on the strength of
a sale deed of the year 2014, same is through a General
99
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Power of Attorney of deceased person in the year 2014.
Admittedly, the death of plaintiff's vendor Sri. H.T. Puttanna
Shetty was on 24/11/2015 which can be seen at Ex.D.1,
whereas the General Power of Attorney in favour of sons of
H.T. Puttanna Shetty i.e. defendant No.1 and 2 in
O.S.No.6703/2016 viz., K.P. Sridhar and K.P. Krishna Murthy
was on 17/03/1995, even schedule shown in the said General
Power of Attorney is not tallying with the schedule of plaintiff's
sale deed dated 09/04/2014. When the vendor of the plaintiff is
died in the year 2005, the validity of the General Power of
Attorney extinguishes on the death of principal executant of
the General Power of Attorney. Under the circumstances, the
sale of site No.3 of Hennur village of assessment No.50/11 in
favour of plaintiff became void ab initio as General Power of
Attorney which is marked at Ex.D.24 was no more valid on the
date of execution of sale deed upon death of principal
100
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
executant who is none other than their father. Therefore as
canvassed by the learned counsel for defendant, plaintiff does
not derive any title, as such she cannot claim the possession
of suit property. When the defendant has raised specific
contention regarding the title of the plaintiff, it is for the plaintiff
to seek a declaratory relief with regard to her title along with
consequential reliefs. However, no such attempt is made by
the plaintiff.
58. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff
canvasses that, since defendant Sri. Chandran KNP has
already sought a declaratory relief in respect of his site
No.239/F, issues regarding title of both parties will be
adjudicated in the said suit only and it is for the defendant Sri.
Chandran KNP to establish his title over site No.239/F with
proper measurement and boundaries. Therefore, the plaintiff
need not seek any declaratory relief. It is settled principles of
101
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
law that in a suit for permanent injunction, when defendant
denies the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff incidentally has to
prove the title along with possession, as possession always
follow the title. In this background, the learned counsel for the
defendant has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Apex court
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 in the case of Anathulasudhakar
Vs. Buchi Reddy, wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held
that, 'when there is a cloud over title of the parties, then the
simplicitor suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable'.
Further similar view is taken by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by following the dictum of 'Anathulasudhakar's'
case in RFA No.1211/2014 between R. Jaggannath Vs.
Rajamma and others dated 11/08/2022, it is held that, when a
cloud of title is raised and plaintiff is not in possession of the
property, as suit for simplicitor permanent injunction is not
maintainable. The learned counsel has also relied on the
102
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
decision reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692 in case of Jharkand
State Housing Board Vs. Didarsingh and another, wherein it is
held that, 'when the plaintiff is not in possession, then in such a
situation a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable '. The
principles laid down in the afore quoted decisions are squarely
applicable to the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir's suit.
59. Moreover, in this present suit, the factum of
acquisition of Sy.No. 50/11 by BDA for formation of Hennur
Bellary Road I Stage Layout has been proved convincingly by
the defendant by production of all records pertaining to
acquisition proceedings. It is to be noted that, as per Ex.D.28
award notice was issued by Government of Karnataka for
formation of Hennur Bellary road I Stage layout, in which
Sy.No. 50/11 measuring 5 acres 4 guntas was the subject
matter of acquisition, thereafter the plaintiff's vendor
Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty in between 1981-1984 had sold his
103
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
lands by forming into sites in favour of several persons, eight
among them had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.21973-21980/1986 challenging
the acquisition proceedings and the same was dismissed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 13/08/1987 itself,
which is marked as Ex.D.20. It is thereafter as per Ex.D.30
final notification was issued in the year 1985. Entire acquisition
proceedings came to be completed in the year 1987 itself
which can be seen at Ex.D.31. Even the subsequent
purchasers of acquired land have participated in the LAC
proceeding No.219/1987 as per Ex.D.29. It is thereafter one
Nandalal a subsequent purchaser of acquired land
approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P. No.23387/1992 as per Ex.D.21 seeking regularization of
unauthorized construction, where a direction was issued to
BDA to consider his representation within 15/02/1993 by
104
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
forming screening committee. This subsequent purchaser
S.Nandalal as per Ex.D.22 filed a contempt petition before the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka wherein it is observed that,
BDA has already considered all the representations filed by the
subsequent purchasers for regularization of unauthorized
construction and all their applications stood rejected. It is to be
noted that, the regularization of unauthorized construction will
be only in respect of Government land. However, in this case,
Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty and subsequent purchasers of
acquired land had made claim of regularization in respect of
revenue land.
60. More interestingly, plaintiff's vendor
Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty having sold his lands some where in
between 1981-84 i.e. after commencement of acquisition
proceedings through several registered sale deeds and the
said purchasers had failed in their attempt to get quashed the
105
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
acquisition proceedings in the year 1987 itself. It is afterwards
the very same H.T. Puttanna Shetty approached the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in the year 1993 in W.P. No.2226-
29/1993 seeking regularization of unauthorized construction,
where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by considering the
dictum of Fatima'Bi's case, directed the BDA to consider his
representation and not to disturb his possession till forming of
screening committee and consideration of his representation
for regularization. However, plaintiff has not attempted to
establish whether Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty has made any
representation before the BDA seeking regularization, per
contra, it is canvassed that, BDA has not formed any screening
committee to consider the representation. Therefore interim
order is till operating and there is no acquisition in respect of
Sy.No. 50/11. This court has declined to accept such canvass
on behalf of the plaintiff in view of the decisions of Raju Reddy
106
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
and Munimasthaiah's case, wherein consideration of
representation for regularization has been declined by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, therefore, the legal opinion
said to have been given by BDA law officer in the process of
acquisition proceedings cannot be useful to the case of plaintiff
for any purpose.
61. On going through Ex.D.44 which is a letter issued by
Addl. Land Acquisition Officer of the then BDA dated
04/10/2016 clears that, the acquisition proceedings of Hennur
Bellary Road I Stage i.e. HBR I Stage is already been
completed by issuing award notice and award amount has
been deposited before the trial court, even the similar
endorsement is issued in Ex.D.46 also by stating that
acquisition proceedings for formation of HBR I Stage Layout
has been completed in the year 1987 itself. Moreover, the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has quashed entire
107
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
acquisition proceedings in the year 1987 itself as per Ex.D.20
in W.P. No.21973-21980/1986. From all these records of
acquisition proceedings, it is clear that, the land in
Sy.No. 50/11 is acquired by BDA through preliminary and final
notifications in the year 1978 and 1985 respectively.
Accordingly, all the proceedings of acquisition has been
completed some where in the year 1987 itself.
62. At this stage it is relevant to mention the decision of
Hon'ble Apex court reported in 2013(3) SCC 66 in the case of
Commissioner, BDA and another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and
another, wherein it is held that, BDA 's action such as issuing
notification for land acquisition passing awards and taking
possession are considered final and conclusive with the
statutory process. The ratio laid down in the afore quoted
decisions are taken note of. Similarly, in the
W.P. No.22154/2023 (LA) dated 16/07/2025 in the case of
108
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Venu Vs. State of Karnataka, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
held that, suit by subsequent purchaser of lands acquired by
the BDA seeking a declaration that BDA and state have no
right over land even after upholding of acquisition proceedings
is held as not maintainable. Similarly, in C.A. No.2749/2023
dated 11/04/2023 in the case of Land and Building Department
Vs. Attro Devi and others, it is held that, the person retaining in
the possession of acquired land to be treated as trespassers.
In MFA No.5320/2022 dated 07/03/2024 in the case of
Commissioner BDA Vs. B.L. Ramadevi, the suit filed for relief
of permanent injunction against BDA is not maintainable,
further in AIR 2017 SC 5805 in case of H.N. Jagannath and
others Vs. State of Karnataka the Hon'ble Apex court has held
that, "civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of
acquisition". The ratios laid down in the afore quoted decisions
are taken note of.
109
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
63. In the present case on hand, the acquisition process
as discussed above for formation of HBR I Stage layout was
completed in the year 1987 itself and in addition the title of the
plaintiff through General Power of Attorney of her deceased
vendor is a void ab initio, as such plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir will not confer any right of title through the said
General Power of Attorney, hence, title of the plaintiff itself in
invalid and void ab initio. In addition, the revenue entries in
favour of the plaintiff have been cancelled and criminal cases
have been registered against the plaintiff on the allegation of
fabrication of revenue records. Under these circumstances,
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir maintaining a suit for simplicitor
injunction which is a relief in personam is not at all
maintainable. On this ground itself suit of the plaintiff is liable to
be dismissed.
110
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
64. It is true that, initially the defendant Sri. Chandran
KNP has filed a suit only for the relief of permanent injunction
and after four years of institution of suit he has sought for
declaratory relief such as to declare him as an absolute owner
in possession of the suit schedule property and also for
cancellation of sale deed of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir
dated 09/04/2014 as null and void with a direction to the Sub-
registrar Kacharakanahalli to delete the sale deed dated
09/04/2014 registered as document No.00184/14/15 in Book-I
from its records. In this context, the learned counsel for the
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir having pleaded the same in
written statement/addl. Written statement has canvassed that
the relief sought for cancellation of sale deed is barred by time
as it is sought after lapse of four years of the institution of the
suit, therefore, amendment comes into effect from the date of
allowing such application. On the contrary, the learned counsel
111
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
for the defendant Sri. Chandran KNP canvasses that,
amendment relates back to the date of institution of the suit, if
there is a specific order with respect to commencement of
amendment of such pleading while allowing such amendment,
then only it starts from the date of carrying out the amendment,
otherwise the amendment relates back to the date of institution
of the suit. In this context, the learned counsel for the
defendant Sri. Chandran KNP has relied on AIR 2002 SC
3369 ( Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and another) wherein it
is held that, amendment when allowed relates back to the
date of filing of the suit. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid
decision is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the present case. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that,
suit is barred by limitation in so far as declaratory relief sought
for cancellation of registered sale deed of plaintiff dated
09/04/2014 has no force in it. Since the title of plaintiff is
112
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
proved to be void ab initio, then the registered sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff through her General Power of Attorney
holders requires to be cancelled and such entries of
registration of sale deed dated 09/04/2014 has to be deleted
from the concerned registers of Sub-registrar office of
Kacharakanahalli.
65. Though the plaintiff denies the possession of
defendant in respect of his site No.239/F, he repeatedly
asserts that, he is in possession and enjoyment of his site
property since from the date of execution of sale deed from
BDA and in support of his assertion, along with registered sale
deed, rectification deed and marginal land sale deeds as per
Ex.D.34 to D.35, he also places his reliance on revenue
records such as katha certificate, katha extracts and tax paid
receipts from the year 2016 till date. Therefore, the decision
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vasantha (Dead) THR.
113
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
LR Vs. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) THR. LR relied by the
learned counsel for plaintiff is not applicable to the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP's case to say that, he ought to have sought
the relief of possession. Thus, by placing material documents
in respect of acquisition as well as death certificate and
General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff's vendor, the
defendant has convincingly proved before this court that, suit
of the plaintiff for the relief of bare injunction is not at all
maintainable and as sale in favour of plaintiff on the strength of
a General Power of Attorney of a dead person is void ab initio,
Issue No.3 in O.S. No.6340/2016 and Addl. Issue No.1 in
O.S. No.6703/2016 are answered in the Affirmative.
66. ISSUE No.1 TO 3 IN O.S. No.6703/2016:-These
issues pertains to the title of Sri. Chandran KNP who has filed
this suit seeking the relief of declaration of his title and
possession over his site No.239/F measuring 17.6x13.4
114
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
square meters totally measuring 224.16 square meters,
situated at HBR I Stage, 4th Block, Bengaluru along with
consequential relief of permanent injunction for alleged
interference said to have been caused by the plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir and defendant No.1 on 26/08/2016 and
on 08/09/2016 when this defendant Sri. Chandran KNP went
to lay a compound wall to his suit property, defendant No.1
tried to stop the same along with his supporters by showing
sale deed executed by them in favour of defendant No.3
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir and again on 08/09/2016 when
defendants K.P. Sridhar, K.P. Krishna Murthy and Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir painted yellow colour on the wall which was already
painted by the plaintiff herein i.e. Sri. Chandran KNP. This suit
by Sri. Chandran KNP in O.S. No.6703/2016 is filed just after
18 days of filing of a suit by defendant No.3 herein i.e
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir in O.S. No.6340/2016.
115
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
67. It is the case of plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP that, he
was allotted a site No.239/F 'A" schedule property property
vide allotment letter dated 29/01/2009 by the BDA and in the
year 2013 he bought schedule 'B" property, accordingly, on
17/02/2010 as per the aforementioned allotment letter an
absolute sale deed was registered in his favour by the BDA
and the same was subjected to rectification through a
Rectification Deed dated 18/04/2013 as there was some
mistake in the schedule mentioned in the original absolute sale
deed, thereafter he was offered to purchase marginal land
abutting to his site No.239/F, accordingly, he was issued
possession certificate in the year 2013, as such katha of his
site No.239/F was issued in his favour, he has been paying
taxes regularly to the concerned authority, thus he is in
continuous physical possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property as an absolute owner which has been
116
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
disturbed by the defendants on 26/08/2016 when he went to
lay a compound wall and further on 08/09/2016 when the
defendants painted yellow colour paint in the suit property.
68. It is also the case of Sri. Chandran KNP/plaintiff
that, defendant No.3/ Smt. Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has obtained
a registered sale deed in her favour through General Power of
Attorney holders of her vendor Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty on
09/04/2014 in respect of site No.3, katha No.6 as shown in
plaint schedule of O.S. No.6340/2016 claiming the same under
the category of revenue site, thereby showing his site
No.239/F this Smt. Sabiha Dastagir obtained 'B" katha in her
favour which came to be cancelled after bringing it to the
notice of BDA, BBMP and jurisdictional Sub-registrar office
which resulted in registration of criminal cases against
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir, her husband, her son and General
Power of Attorney holders of her vendor by the Sub-registrar of
117
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Kacharakanahalli. Even this plaintiff Chandran KNP had also
lodged a complaint before jurisdictional police station which
resulted in registration of criminal case which it is still pending
for consideration, wherein investigation officer has filed charge
sheet against them. Even the plaintiff had made a complaint
before Lokayuktha, accordingly, FIR was registered by the
Lokayuktha police under the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act against erring BBMP officials.
69. It is the allegation against defendant No.3
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir that, she is claiming the plaintiff's BDA
site as revenue site and by showing his site, Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir has obtained 'B" katha by colluding with the revenue
officials of BBMP, therefore, Lokayuktha police have registered
a criminal case against revenue officials of BBMP under the
Provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act as mentioned
above. Thus, in this background, the plaintiff Sri. Chandran
118
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
KNP in O.S. No.6703/2016 is not only seeking declaration of
his title in respect of site No.239/F but also seeking
cancellation of registered sale deed made in favour of
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir by her General Power of Attorney
holders i.e. defendant No.1 and 2 on 09/04/2014 as null and
void and her name to be removed from the concerned
registers by jurisdictional sub-registrar.
70. Initially Sri Chandran KNP has filed this case only
for the relief of permanent injunction, it is later declaration of
his title as well as cancellation of sale deed of Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir as null and void and to remove her name from the
register of jurisdictional sub-registrar are sought. On the
contrary, the defendants herein have taken up similar
contention that site of Sri.Chandran KNP i.e. site No.239/F is
not at all in existence, all the documents made in favour of
Sri. Chandran KNP in respect of site No.239/F of HBR I Stage
119
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Layout is fabricated and concocted documents. The BDA has
no right to execute sale deed in favour of Sri. Chandran KNP
as there was a direction from the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in W.P. No.2226-29/1993 to the BDA to form
screening committee with regard to consider the application of
Sri. Puttanna Shetty i.e. vendor of Smt. Sabiha Dastagir for
regularization of unauthorized construction and till then his
possession has to be protected. Therefore, it is the contention
of defendants of this suit that, since BDA has not formed any
screening committee and the representation of vendor of
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has not been considered so far and
even the legal officer of BDA has given opinion in this regard,
there is no acquisition of land in Sy.No. 50/11, despite the
same a sale deed is executed in favour of Sri. Chandran KNP
which is void. On the other hand, Smt. Sabiha Dastagir
acquired the ownership of suit property through General
120
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Power of Attorney holders of her vendor under a registered
sale deed, as such 'B" katha was issued in her favour. Thus,
both plaintiff and defendant in O.S. No.6703/2016 are
claiming same site number under different categories i.e. as
revenue and BDA sites.
71. The plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP with a assertion that
BDA has acquired the land in Sy.No. 50/11 measuring 5 acres
4 guntas in the year 1978 through a preliminary notification
and final notification in the year 1985 and after completion of
entire acquisition proceedings in the year 1987, formed a
residential layout called Hennur Bellary Road I Stage and
allotted its sites to the prospective purchasers by following due
process of law. Even though vendor of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir i.e. one Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty after preliminary
notification sold his land to several persons by forming sites
under Khaneshmari number, though purchasers of those
121
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
acquired land challenged the acquisition, the same was
dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Thus, the
plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP is claiming the suit property as
BDA site.
72. In this context, to establish his case Sri. Chandran
KNP examined himself as D.W.1 by filing an affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief and reiterated the plaint averments of
O.S.No.6703/2016. In support of his contention, he relied on
an original letter of intimation issued to him by the BDA on
25/07/1987, wherein he was notified that upon his application
he was allotted a site measuring 40 x 60 feet which is marked
as Ex.D.32. Similarly, allotment letter in favour of this
defendant Sri. Chandran KNP as per Ex.D.33 dated
29/01/2009 is disclosing that Sri. Chandran KNP has been
allotted a site No.239/F in HBR I stage, III Block Layout as an
alternative in lieu of his previous allotted site No.814.
122
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
73. On perusal of this document i.e. allotment letter it is
seen that, defendant Sri. Chandran KNP was earlier in the
year 1987 was allotted a site No.814 and it is thereafter in the
year 2009 he is allotted an alternative site in lieu of his
previous site 814. Ex.D.100 is the deed of cancellation by the
BDA in respect of site No.814 allotted in favour of
Sri. Chandran KNP by BDA in respect of site No.814 of HBR I
Stage, 3rd Block Layout, Bengaluru. Similarly, original site
allotment is at Ex.D.33. Further this defendant Sri. Chandran
KNP has written letter to BDA as per Ex.D.99 and D.99(a)
requesting for allotment of alternative site on 11/04/2009.
Accordingly, aforesaid cancellation deed came to be existence
as per Ex.D.100. It is thereafter, this defendant has produced
original sale deed in respect of site No.239/F of HBR layout,
executed in his favour by BDA on 17/02/2010. Since
defendant was notified as per Ex.D.36 to purchase marginal
123
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
land abutting to his site No.239/F, he purchased the same by
paying required sale consideration as per Ex.D.105, due to
mistake in boundaries of original sale deed of Sri. Chandran
KNP in respect of site No.239/F rectification was done, the
defendant furnished a registered Rectification Deed dated
15/04/2013 by making necessary corrections in the
measurement as well as in the boundaries. This
D.W. 1/defendant produced the sale deed of marginal land
dated 17/05/2013 at Ex.D.37. Accordingly, relied on a
possession certificate dated 15/06/2013 as per Ex.D.38 which
is disclosing that Sri. Chandran KNP was given possession of
site No.239/F along with marginal land measuring 40.94
square feet as shown in schedule 'A" and 'B".
74. This defendant to establish 239 series of sites
produced the sale deeds of his neighboring site owners of
sites No.237, 241C, 239B, 239A, 239E as per Ex.D.58, 59, 85
124
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
to 88, 104. In addition, Ex.D.39 contains 4 katha register
extracts standing in the name of one Devaraj.R in respect of
site No.40, H.V. Nagamurthy in respect of site No.239E,
Narasimha Murthy in respect of site No.241C, Anuradha in
respect of site No.241D and these documents are all prior to
the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir that too from the year 1989 till 2022 by BDA. Further
e-copy of marginal land sale deed dated 16/12/2010 pertaining
to site No.239/E is also produced to show that other persons
have also got marginal land in respect of their abutting site.
Accordingly, sale deed pertaining to marginal land dated
18/05/2013 is marked at Ex.D.37. Similarly, possession
certificate at Ex.D.38 discloses that BDA has issued
possession in his favour in respect of site No.239/F along with
its marginal land.
125
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
75. Further, this D.W. 1 relies on katha certificate in his
favour as per Ex.D.101 and 102 in respect of site No.239/F.
Ex.D.56 and 93 are sketch pertaining to site No.239/F of HBR
Layout issued by BBMP, original BDA endorsements dated
31/10/2008 confirming Mr. Chandran KNP's ownership in site
No.239/F along with marginal land is marked as Ex.D.46. Four
original BBMP kathas of surrounding sites are at Ex.D.39,
katha in the name of defendant Sri. Chandran KNP along with
encumbrance certificate are at Ex.D.40 and 43, again the
katha of one Renu Rajashekar in respect of BDA site
No.239/D is at Ex.D.61, certified copy of sketch are produced
at Ex.D.55 and 70, updated katha and tax paid receipts are at
Ex.P.83 and 84, a copy of another sale deed of Rajgopala Rao
in respect of site No.239/C is produced at Ex.D.60, original
endorsement issued in favour of this defendant Sri.Chandran
KNP by ALO, BDA confirming the acquisition proceedings by
126
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
rejecting all the representations filed by the original land
holders requesting for regularization of unauthorized
construction and handing over possession of entire acquired
land for engineering section for formation of HBR I Stage
Layout. Again e-katha and original tax paid receipt in respect of
BDA site No.239/F at Ex.D.91 and D.42, along with photos
and CDs which was together marked as Ex.D.91, 106 and
110, this defendant has also filed BBMP/HBR file notice in
respect of BDA site No.239/F.
76. Apart from all these documents, this defendant in
order to establish his case that site which is claimed by the
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir along with other lands in Sy.No.
50/11 has been acquired by the BDA through its acquisition
process started from 1978 to 1987 and same has been
completed by considering all representations and answering all
the queries of general public relied on the notification
127
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
documents such as Ex.D.28, 29, D.30, 31 and also relied on
the sale deeds of subsequent purchases of acquired land in
Sy.No. 50/11 at Ex.D.12 to D.19. Further relied on two partition
deeds of the family of vendor of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir
dated 24/07/1986 and 04/07/2013 as per Ex.D.28 and D.27
respectively to show that the vendor of plaintiff even after
acquisition subjected the acquired land for their family partition
and also relied on certified copy of W.P. No.21973-
21980/1986 which is marked at Ex.D.20 where the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in the year 1987 itself denied the
challenge of subsequent purchasers of acquired land by
dismissing their writ petitions, where they had questioned the
validity of acquisitions of lands for formation of HBR I State
Layout. Further, D.W. 1 by relying on the order of writ petition
of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka filed by one of the
subsequent purchase Sri. S. Nandalal and also order of his
128
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
contempt petition as per Ex.D.22 to establish that BDA has
considered all the representations of erstwhile land owners for
regularization and rejected the same, in order to deny the
contention of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir that the land of her
owner Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty is protected by an order of
injunction in W.P. No.2226-2229/1993 as per Ex.D.23,
endorsements at Ex.D.94 and 95 issued by the BDA that, BDA
has considered all the representations made for regularization
of unauthorized of unauthorized construction by the erstwhile
owners as per order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P. No.2226-29/1993 and rejected all such applications.
Further, the statement of objections of family members of Sri.
H.T. Puttanna Shetty in O.S. No.4940/2018 as per Ex.D.96,
written statement as per Ex.D.97, an application under Order 7
Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint as per Ex.D.98 have
been furnished to establish that other sons and grandsons of
129
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty have admitted the acquisition of their
land under Sy.No. 50/11 for the formation of HBR I Stage
Layout. It is denied by this D.W. 1 that, proceedings of
screening committee as per Ex.D.72 is not about Sy.No. 50/11
of Hennur village.
77. In addition, this defendant Sri. Chandran KNP in
order to deny the title of the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has
relied on the death certificate of her vendor Sri. H.T. Puttanna
Shetty as per Ex.D.1, General Power of Attorney dated
17/03/1995 at Ex.D.24 executed in favour of his sons i.e. Sri.
K.P. Sridhar and Sri. K.P. Krishna Murthy (defendant No.1 and
2 in O.S. 6703/2016) to state that, as on the date of execution
of sale deed in favour of Smt. Sabiha Dastagir on 19/04/2014
the principal executant of General Power of Attorney i.e. Sri.
H.T. Puttanna Shetty was no more as per Ex.D.1 and D.25
death certificates, on the contention that vendor of plaintiff
130
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir was expired on 24/11/2005. Therefore,
sale deed made in favour of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir
through General Power of Attorney of a deceased persons
does not confer any right to the General Power of Attorney
holders to execute a registered sale deed in favour of anybody.
Thus, defendant Sri. Chandran KNP by relying on these
voluminous documents claims that he is an absolute owner in
possession of site No.239/F along with marginal land which is
shown as 'A" and 'B" schedule properties in
O.S. No.6703/2016 and the same has been interfered by the
defendants when he attempted to lay compound wall in his suit
site No.239/F.
78. The plaintiff having denied the entire case of this
Sri. Chandran KNP, more particularly denying his site number,
measurement and boundaries subjected him for cross-
examination. In his cross-examination this D.W. 1 has stated
131
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
that, after allotment he has visited his site, verified schedule 'A"
property in terms of site number, he has admitted in the cross-
examination that, on the day of allotment of site, he was not
delivered the possession of suit schedule 'A" property. It is
also admitted by D.W. 1 that, in his allotment letter pertaining
to site No.239/F it is mentioned as the allotment is in lieu of
cancellation of his earlier allotment of site No.814. This D.W. 1
pleads his ignorance that he could not remember his earlier
allotted site as it was much older than the present site. This
D.W. 1 further pleaded his ignorance as to state, whether BDA
has passed any order regarding allotment of site as shown in
'A" schedule in his favour and denied the suggestion of
learned counsel for plaintiff that, there was no cancellation of
his earlier site in order to allot him an alternative site as shown
in schedule 'A" property. Further, this witness has deposed
that, in the year 2009-10 a sale deed was executed in his
132
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
favour in respect of site No.239/F i.e. 'A" schedule property
and on the date of execution of registered sale deed he was
not given possession along with possession certificate. It is
admitted by this D.W. 1 that, on the date of registered sale
deed he was not issued with possession certificate of 'A"
schedule property.
79. It is further asserted by this D.W. 1 that, as he was
told that some error in the boundaries of 'A" schedule property
in his sale deed of the year 2009, therefore a rectification deed
was executed in his favour by the BDA, thereafter he visited
the said property. Further, this D.W. 1 was shown sale deeds
adjacent site holder i.e. Ex.D.58, 59 and 60, where schedules
of all said sites are showing road towards southern side. From
the evidence of this D.W. 1 it can be noticed that, he is also
claiming his site in the same line of said series of sites of 239
which starts from 239A to 240 in the same line of HBR Layout.
133
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Thus witness further admits that, in his original sale deed prior
to rectification i.e. Ex.D.34, the road is shown towards
southern side direction similar to the site No.239B and 239C.
According to this D.W. 1 site No.239/F allotted to him
measures 40 x 60 feet and he has produced adjacent site
sale deeds to establish boundaries of his site No.239/F. He
denied the suggestion of plaintiff that, he has not furnished any
documents of adjacent land owners to establish boundaries to
his site and also denied that layout plan furnished at Ex.D.56
does not show site numbers and he has specifically stated
that, his site No.239/F is shown in Ex.D.56 by saying that since
he has sought only his site number, he was given layout plan
extract in respect of site number. He pleaded his ignorance as
to say whether all the adjacent sites were occupied when he
got executed sale deed in his favour in respect of site
No.239/F. This witness has volunteered that when he was
134
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
allotted site No.239/F his adjacent site is No.240 and there
was a construction in it and at the same time he pleaded his
ignorance about the existence of site No.239/E.
80. As per version of D.W. 1 rectification deed was
executed by the BDA in his favour in respect of 239/F in the
month of April 2013. However, it is deposed by D.W. 1 that,
said rectification was done voluntarily by the BDA, again he
pleaded his ignorance as to say whether such kind of
rectification was done in respect of all sites arising out of site
No.239 up to 240 and also pleaded that, he is not aware
whether BDA officers or officials have visited the site before
executing any rectification deed in his favour and it is also
stated that, he is not aware whether BDA has cancelled any
adjacent sites while executing rectification deed in his favour.
Further, this witness has stated that, he was not issued any
possession certificate from the date of execution of sale deed
135
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
till the date of rectification deed, at the same time, denied the
suggestion on behalf of the plaintiff that, he was not issued
possession certificate as there was no site No.239/F in
existence and also denied the suggestion that he has not
taken possession of site No.239/F even after rectification
deed.
81. According to this witness he has given requisition to
BDA for allotment of marginal sites in his favour and denied
that marginal land will always be sold through public auction,
as per the version of D.W. 1 marginal site land was not only
allotted to him and also made available to the site owner of
239/E. This D.W. 1 admits the boundaries of 239/F after
rectification deed as East by- Site No.241/C and D shop sites,
West By- Road, North by- Site No.240 and South by- Site
No.239/E and towards southern portion of his site No.239/F
marginal land is available. Thereafter, he denied the
136
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
suggestion of the plaintiff that, as per Ex.D.56 layout plan there
is no space for marginal land available for allotment, he failed
to identify the marginal land in the layout plan. This D.W. 1
asserts that, after execution of sale deed, rectification deed
and sale deed for marginal land he was issued possession
certificate by BDA on 15/06/2013 and in the said possession
certificate road is show towards south and he volunteered that,
said schedule was in respect of sale deed dated 17/02/2010.
He further denied that his possession certificate issued as per
Ex.D.38 does not bear the date of issuance and endorsement
in respect of rectification of sale deed of marginal land.
82. During cross-examination, this D.W. 1 was asked
whether he had received any notice regarding inspection of
schedule sites by BDA official, for which, he pleaded his
ignorance as to say whether there was any inspection by BDA
officials or not. Further he denied the suggestion of the plaintiff
137
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
that, he visited the plaint schedule property of
O.S. No.6340/2016 immediately after execution of sale deed in
his favour on 17/02/2010 and specifically stated that, he visited
his plaint schedule only after possession certificate is issued to
him as per Ex.D.38 and at that time, his site was a vacant site.
He pleaded his ignorance to state whether plaint schedule
property was once belonged to Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty and
his family members. He admits his katha certificate and katha
extract as per Ex.D.40 issued in his favour on 25/02/2021 by
BBMP authority and denied the suggestion that he was not
issued any such katha certificate and extract by the BBMP in
respect of his plaint schedule property. This witness D.W. 1
admits that, variation found in the boundaries dated
17/10/2010 and rectification deed dated 15/04/2013, it is
specifically asserted that, rectification deed is executed for the
reason of variation found in the boundaries of sale deed dated
138
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
17/02/2010. This witness denied the suggestion of the plaintiff
that, he had written site No.239/F in the copy of layout plan
furnished by him by saying that it is only of the layout plan with
site number issued by the BDA. He further denied that, the
site number shown as boundaries in his sale deed are not
mentioned in the layout plan by saying that the site numbers
mentioned in the boundaries of rectification deed is reflected in
the layout plan.
83. This D.W. 1 has denied that, when he visited the suit
property, by that time itself, the plaintiff has already obtained an
order of injunction against him. This witness also admits that
himself and plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir are claiming the
same site by saying that he is claiming the site under different
dimension and boundaries as BDA site and plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir is claiming it as revenue site. In his
cross-examination, D.W. 1 says that, he has informed BDA
139
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
authorities that, some people have sold his BDA site as
revenue site to some other persons and at the same time he
pleaded that, he is not aware as to say whether BDA has
taken any action against those people who sold his site to
some other persons as revenue site. Further, CW. 1 has
deposed that, he has not issued any notice to the plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir calling upon her to deliver the
possession of suit schedule property, he voluntarily deposed
that, he made effort to take possession of the schedule
property, he constructed a compound wall and small shed on it
with the help of police, at the same time, he denied the
suggestion that, it was the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir who
constructed compound wall and destroyed by him and at this
stage, D.W. 1 volunteers that, he constructed the compound
wall before passing an order of exparte against him. It is
further denied that, on 26/08/2016 he attempted to encroach
140
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
over the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir's suit land, therefore,
she had lodged complaint against him. This witness has
deposed that, he has lodged complaint against plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir and at that time an order of injunction
was operating against him of a site of which he was not
concerned, as he was concerned only about his site No.239/F
in BDA layout and not with the revenue site of the plaintiff.
84. According to this D.W. 1, he purchased marginal
land, he was given notice by BDA about availability of such
land, this witness denied the suggestion of the plaintiff's
counsel that, layout plan at Ex.D.56 contains only site
No.239/F and its boundaries. However, he has stated that, he
had requested for location of his site and boundaries in the
entire layout plan, therefore, Ex.D.56 was issued in his favour,
when D.W. 1 was asked about non mentioning of eastern side
property in Ex.D.56, it is submitted that, there is one more
141
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
layout plan which is marked as Ex.D.55, wherein eastern side
property to his site No.239 is shown. This D.W. 1 asserts that,
both Ex.D.55 and 56 are issued by BDA and denied the
suggestion of the plaintiff that, in the entire layout plan there is
no property numbers mentioned towards eastern side of his
site No.239/F. According to this D.W. 1, two layout plan
extracts are issued to him, Ex.D.56 is the Macro Layout plan
and Ex.D.55 is the Micro layout plan, he denied further
suggestion of the plaintiff that, since plaint schedule property of
O.S. No.6340/2016 was already in existence, therefore D.W. 1
contends that, BDA officials in order grab the property of
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir created layout plan as Ex.D.55
and D.56.
85. This D.W. 1 admits that, he lodged complaint against
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir on 05/10/2016 and he lodged
that complaint only after filing of suit in O.S. No.6703/2016. It is
142
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
also stated by this D.W. 1 that, he has lodged complaint
against plaintiff's husband Dastagir and her son Abdul Khalaq
i.e. P.W. 1. He denied the suggestion that he has not made
any allegation against plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir that she
had interfered with his possession over site No.239/F, thereby
this witness says that, he has not stated cause of action
against the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir in his pleadings. At
the same time, it is denied by this witness that he had not
lodged any complaint against plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir as
on the date of filing of suit in O.S. No.6703/2016. According to
this D.W. 1, he was not given possession of site No.239/F as
on the date of execution of sale deed in his favour on
17/02/2010 and at the same time it is denied by this D.W. 1
that, as he was not given possession he has not paid any tax
to the concerned authority by saying that he has paid taxes
from the date of execution of sale deed in his favour in respect
143
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
of site No.239/F. This defendant denied the possession of
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir in his suit property as claimed by
her in O.S. No.6340/2016. It is specifically stated by this
D.W. 1 that, towards the north of his site there exists site
No.240 belonging to one Devaraj and toward south his site
No.239/F is available. According to his witness in the sale
deed of said R. Devaraj at site No.240 his site No.239/F is not
shown towards southern side, however, it is asserted by
D.W. 1 that, his site is shown as site number 239 on southern
side. He denied the suggestion of the plaintiff that, there is no
row of sites starts from 239/A to H and 240 and there is no site
number as 239. According to D.W. 1 site No.240 was
registered long back and series of number 239A to F was
numbered afterwards.
86. Further, this D.W. 1 denied that his suit site was
allotted to one K.P. Sridhar who is defendant No.1 in
144
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
O.S. No.6703/2016 and said K.P. Sridhar and his family
members were owners and they sold the same to plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir and this suggestion of plaintiff is denied
by D.W. 1. He further deposed that, he has not verified
whether defendant No.1 Sri. K.P. Sridhar or his father Puttanna
Shetty had received any award amount as mentioned at
Ex.D.29 and further it is admitted by this D.W. 1 that, they have
not received any amount from the acquisition proceedings.
This D.W. 1 repeatedly denied the suggestion of the plaintiff
that, he was not issued any possession certificate in respect of
rectified sale deed and marginal land in his favour and also
denied the alleged collusiveness by him with BDA officials and
thereby he obtained a created endorsement in his favour,
D.W. 1 repeatedly asserts that, on 15/06/2013 consolidated
possession certificate for rectification deed and marginal land
was issued in his favour.
145
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
87. According to this D.W. 1, he had not asked for
cancellation of site No.814 of HBR Layout which was allotted
to him at the initial stage and he had sought only for an
alternative site, his earlier site was cancelled as soon as he
was allotted site No.239/F in HBR Layout as shown in plaint
schedule of O.S. No.6703/2016, he pleaded his ignorance as
to state that in case of any discrepancies in allotted site there
is always an option to seek an alternative site. He denied the
suggestion of the plaintiff that, he had not sought for an
alternative site instead he claimed the property of plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir. Further it is pleaded by D.W. 1 that,
whether he had any impediment to implead BDA as party in
this suit to establish his title and possession over his site
No.239/F and denied that intentionally he has not made BDA
as party as he has created documents colluding with BDA
officials. Further D.W. 1 denied the suggestion that, BDA had
146
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
no valid rights or possession over the plaint schedule property
of O.S. No.6703/2016 to execute sale deed in his favour and
plaint schedule property of Smt. Sabiha Dastagir is still in
existence till this date and denied the suggestion that he had
not sought for cancellation of sale deed of Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir in his suit O.S. No.6703/2016 and also not sought for
possession of the plaint schedule property of
O.S. No.6340/2016. He denied further suggestion that, he do
not have any right, title over his site No.239/F as BDA itself
had no title to transfer the same in his favour.
88. In the further cross-examination of this D.W. 1, after
production of Ex.D.99 to D.110, this D.W. 1 has deposed that,
he was allotted BDA site No.814 in the year 1986, after
allotment an execution of lease cum sale agreement was
executed in his favour by the BDA i.e. on 27/02/1999, he was
issued with possession certificate to his previously allotted site
147
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
No.814, accordingly, he was in possession of said site number
till the date of cancellation, thereafter he made an application
before BDA seeking an alternative site in place of previous
site, it is also admitted by this D.W. 1 that, he had not made
any construction in Site No.814 and as per the terms of lease
cum sale agreement he was supposed to make some
construction in order to get the absolute sale deed registered.
This D.W. 1 pleads his ignorance as to state whether BDA
authority has passed any order while cancellation of previous
site No.814 of HBR Layout. It is also admitted that,
measurement of site No.239/F as per sale deed dated
17/02/2010 is 40 x 60 feet and after three years there was a
rectification only with respect to boundaries and with respect to
measurement, he denied the suggestion of the plaintiff that,
measurement in rectification deed which is marked at Ex.D.35
varies from the measurement mentioned at Ex.D.34 by saying
148
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
that in the rectification deed length has become breadth and
breadth has become length, hence, one could see differences
in the total measurement as it varies from 222.95 square
meters to 224.16 square meters. He further pleaded his
ignorance as to say how many sites are in existence towards
northern side of his site, witness volunteers that, it may be one
or two.
89. This witness D.W. 1 further admitted that, site
No.239/F and 239/A to D and 240 are all comes in the same
line and denied the suggestion that, all aforesaid sites are
south facing sites, according to this witness his site is west
facing and pleaded that he did not verify that except his site all
other sites in the same line faces towards southern side.
Further it is stated by this D.W. 1 that, he do not know who
else have got rectification of their sites with regard to
boundaries and measurement. According to D.W. 1, he had
149
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
applied for marginal land during 2010 and 2011, he was
informed by the BDA authority in the year 2012-13 about
allotment and payment or cost of marginal land. Thus, in this
manner by denying very existence of site No.239/F along with
a measurement as shown in Ex.D.35 i.e. rectification deed and
marginal land sale deed at Ex.D.37 and possession certificate
as per Ex.D.38, it is the canvass of learned counsel for the
plaintiff that, defendant Sri. Chandran KNP had no cause of
action against defendant No.3 Smt. Sabiha Dastagir as there
is no allegation against her in the complaint lodged by him and
initially suit is filed for permanent injunction which later
converted for declaratory relief after four years which is barred
by limitation. Therefore on the ground of limitation itself the suit
of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
90. It is further canvassed on behalf of the plaintiff that,
allotment of an alternative site No.239/F in favour of
150
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Sri. Chandran KNP in HBR I stage is in violation of rules and
regulations of BDA Act. According to the plaintiff, her revenue
site which was purchased from her vendor through General
Power of Attorney was falsely claimed by the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP on the strength of fabricated and
concocted sale deed colluding with BDA officials. It is strongly
canvassed on behalf of the plaintiff that, there is no site
No.239/F in existence in HBR layout and the same is created
to suit the convenience of defendant Sri. Chandran KNP.
Further it is the contention of the plaintiff that, there is no cause
of action against defendant No.3 Smt. Sabiha Dastagir in O.S.
No.6703/2016, the pleadings of plaint in O.S. No.6703/2016
no where discloses the cause of action against defendant
No.3, at the same time, defendant No.3 Sri. Chandran KNP in
his cross-examination says that, husband and son of the
plaintiff on the strength of sale deed in favour of plaintiff
151
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir interfered with his possession, therefore,
he had to approach the jurisdictional police as well as court
seeking aforementioned reliefs in his favour.
91. In this context, on perusal of plaint in
O.S. No.6703/2016, it can be seen at para No.7(b) that, on
26/08/2016 when defendant Sri. Chandran KNP attempted to
lay compound wall in the suit schedule 'A' and 'B" properties,
defendant No.1 i.e. Sri. K.P. Sridhar stopped him with his
supporters by showing a sale deed of a different schedule
executed in favour of defendant No.3 by threatening him.
Therefore, this defendant Chandran KNP approached
jurisdictional police station and on that day he was assured by
the police that, they will warn the defendants, accordingly, the
police have warned the defendants not to interfere with his
possession. From this pleadings it is specifically stated that on
26/08/2016 defendant No.1 attempted to interfere with the
152
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
possession of plaintiff of O.S. No.6703/2016 i.e. Sri. Chandran
KNP by showing the sale deed made in favour of Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir. The very same cause of action can be seen in the
pleadings of O.S. No.6340/2016 filed by the plaintiff, wherein it
is stated that defendant Sri. Chandran KNP interfered with the
possession of plaintiff, he went to the spot along with JCB.
Though it is alleged that, Sri. Chandran KNP damaged the
existing structure, the same has been negatived by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petition No.1170/2022
with an observation that, it was the plaintiff's son who
damaged the existing structure in the defendant Sri. Chandran
KNP's possession twice on 05/09/2016 and 28/09/2016.
92. Admittedly cause of action to the suit allegedly
claiming the defendant's site property of BDA under the
pretext of revenue site said to have been purchased from her
vendor in the year 2014. Therefore, alleged interference said
153
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
to have been caused by the husband and son of the plaintiff is
certainly on the strength of a sale deed made in favour of
plaintiff only, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that,
there is no cause of action as against defendant No.3
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir. However, another cause of action as
pleaded in the suit was on 08/09/2016 when defendants i.e.
husband and son of Smt. Sabiha Dastagir painted yellow
colour on the existing wall which was already painted by the
defendant Sri. Chandran KNP. It is an admitted fact that, this
defendant lodged a complaint on 05/10/2016 i.e. after filing of
O.S. No.6340/2016 and also his suit by himself in
O.S. No.6703/2016. On the contrary, the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir failed in establishing her cause of action in respect of
her suit in O.S. No.6340/2016. Even no complaint is lodged by
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir against the defendant Sri. Chandran
KNP. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that, there
154
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
is no cause of action against defendant No.3 of
O.S. No.6703/2016. When there are sufficient material
documents in respect of cause of action, minor discrepancies
here and there in the cross-examination which is conducted
after 9 years of institution of the suit can be ignored by
considering totality of the case.
93. It is a strong canvass on behalf of the plaintiff that,
allotment of an alternative site in favour of defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP is against to the allotment rules of Section
11 and 12 of BDA Act. It is canvassed that, if the subject
matter property is in court or possession of the property is not
delivered to the person who applied for a site, then only an
alternative site can be allotted and in this case defendant was
allotted a site in the year 1987, he was given possession in the
year 1987 itself, therefore question of granting an alternative
site does not arise, no satisfactory answer or explanation as to
155
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
why an alternative site was given to the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP, why earlier site granted to him was
cancelled, therefore it is strongly canvassed that, title of the
defendant in respect of site No.239/F is not legally established.
94. On the contrary, it is canvassed on behalf of the
defendant Sri. Chandran KNP that, he had filed an application
for allotment of a site in the year 1975, he was allotted site
No.814 in 1987 in HBR Layout, he was given possession also,
later on inspection by this Chandran KNP as well as by BDA
said site was found on storm water drain and construction on
it is barred under law, therefore he was advised to seek an
alternative site, hence he filed an application seeking an
alternate site, accordingly, he was allotted a site i.e. 'A"
schedule property of O.S. No.6703/2016 as per allotment letter
dated 29.01.2009 as per Ex.D.33 and registered sale deed
was executed in his favour on 17/10/2010, again on inspection
156
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
some discrepancies in the boundaries in the sale deed was
found, as such as per Ex.D.35 a rectification deed was made
in favour of Sri. Chandran KNP on 15/04/2013 rectifying the
western side boundary as road. Similarly, he was offered
some marginal land abutting to site No.239/F, by paying the
sale consideration he purchased the said marginal land
through a registered sale deed dated 18/05/2013, accordingly
having regard to both the sale deeds, BDA issued a
consolidated possession certificate in his favour on 15/06/2013
as per Ex.D.38, said Ex.D.38 discloses the old boundaries of
239/F and also rectified boundaries of 239/F which is strongly
objected on behalf of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir. It is the
further case of defendant Sri. Chandran KNP that, after
execution of sale deed in respect of 239F and also in respect
of marginal land as per Ex.D.34 to 37 and also after issuance
of possession certificate as per Ex.D.38 katha of said
157
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
properties have been issued in his favour, accordingly, he is
paying tax to the concerned department, thereby he relies on
katha certificate as well as katha extract as per Ex.D.40, tax
paid receipts as per Ex.D.42(a) to 42(e), encumbrance
certificates fo the year 2004-2021 at Ex.D.43 and also e-katha
extract in respect of suit property for the year 2025-25 at
Ex.D.83 and tax paid receipts at Ex.D.84. However, these
tax paid receipts are from the year 2016-17 till 2022.
95. When defendant Sri. Chandran KNP claims his title
and possession over site No.239/F the plaintiff disputes the
very boundaries of said site by contending that, the sale deeds
produced by the defendant Sri. Chandran KNP said to have
been the sale deeds of adjacent land owners at Ex.D.85 to
D.88 are pertaining to the adjacent site No.240, 239D, 241C,
237. Similarly, Ex.D.58 to 61 are also the certified copies of
sale deed pertaining to site No.239A, 239B, 239C and 239D of
158
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
HBR I Stage layout. In the cross-examination the learned
counsel for the plaintiff specifically pointed towards the
southern side boundaries, where the southern side boundaries
are shown as road and it is admitted by the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP also and at the same time, he asserts that,
the road to his site 239/F is situated on the western side. It is
to be noted that, defendant Sri. Chandran KNP has furnished
all these sale deeds of adjacent land owners in order to
establish that the BDA has acquired the land in Sy.No. 50/11,
formed residential layout called HBR Layout, distributed all the
sites to the allottees much earlier to the sale deed executed in
favour of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir in the year 2014.
However, the sale deed made available before this court at
Ex.D.58 to 60 are of the year 2001-02 and the sale deeds at
Ex.D.88 is of the year 1989, Ex.D.87 is an agreement of sale
of the year 1994, similarly, Ex.D.85 is of the year 2001 and
159
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
sale deed at Ex.D.86 is of the year 2000. The defendant
herein Sri. Chandran KNP has furnished all these documents
to show that the BDA has formed series of site No.239 in the
year 1987 itself i.e. immediately after completion of acquisition
proceedings, formed layout as discussed in Issue No.1 and 2
of O.S. No.6340/2016. Therefore, contention of the learned
counsel for plaintiff that, there is no existence of site No.239/F
and there was no such series of site number as 239 in
existence cannot be considered.
96. It is true that, schedule of all the adjacent site
numbers starts from 239A to E, 241, 241C are showing the
southern side boundaries as road, at the same time, it is the
specific case of defendant Sri. Chandran KNP that, rectification
was done to his sale deed dated 17/02/2010 as there was
discrepancies in the southern side boundary as road, therefore
rectification deed as per Ex.D.35 was executed in his favour by
160
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
rectifying the same and showing western side boundary as
road. In support of this boundary, the learned counsel for
defendant Sri. Chandran KNP has relied on Ex.D.104 which is
also mentioned by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in his
arguments that, in the said sale deed of site No.239/E dated
31/07/2008, defendant's site No.239/F is shown at northern
side in its schedule, which falsifies the contention of the plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir that there is no existence of site
No.239/F in HBR layout, it is also much canvassed that there
is no series of site number 239, however, the sale deed from
the year 1987 till date have not been questioned so far.
97. It is also one of the canvass of learned counsel for
the plaintiff that, normally marginal land will be sold in auction
and the defendant colluding with BDA officials has purchased
marginal land of larger extent. To strike out the said contention,
the defendant Sri. Chandran KNP has produced Ex.D.105
161
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
which is marginal land sale deed in respect of one H.B.
Nagaraj Murthy who is the site holder of site No.239/E, he was
also given marginal land abutting to his site and schedule in
the said sale deed also depicts site property in question i.e.
239/F towards northern side. These two documents i.e.
Ex.D.104 and D.105 establishes the existence of site No.239/F
on the northern side of 239/E of HBR I Stage layout.
Therefore, canvass of the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir that,
there is no formation of site No.239 series by the BDA cannot
be considered as it is without any supportive materials.
98. Further, defendant Sri. Chandran KNP to establish
his site identification has relied on layout plan at Ex.D.55, 56
and 72. Though site No.239/F and series of 239, 240, 241 are
mentioned in the said layout plan, the same has been denied
by saying that this extract is concocted by defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP to suit his convenience. However, the said
162
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
suggestion has been denied by the defendant by saying that,
since layout plan of HBR I Stage is very vast plan, he was
given only an extract pertaining to his site and he was not
given entire layout plan. However, though this layout plan is
denied by the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir, no substantial
material proofs are furnished to discredit the evidentiary value
of this layout plan.
99. An important and main contention of the plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir is that, she is an absolute owner in
possession and enjoyment of her site No.3 of assessment
No.50/11 and it was not the subject matter of acquisition and
the possession of her vendor was protected by an injunction
order granted by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.
No.2226-2229/1993. However, Sy.No. 50/11 being acquired by
BDA the said land vest with BDA as long as in the year 1987
and possession is also taken, layout of sites is formed and
163
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
sites were allotted from 1989 onwards and writ petition filed by
the plaintiff's vendor was in the year 1992 by which time entire
layout of sites is formed and distributed which can be seen
from Ex.D.58 to 60, Ex.D.85 to 88 including the sale deed of
defendant Sri. Chandran KNP in the year 2010 and
subsequent rectification deed in the year 2013. It is to be seen
that, after completion of acquisition proceedings by the BDA
entries of mutation register in the name of original vendor in
respect of Sy.No. 50/11 i.e. Sri. H.T. Puttanna Shetty has been
cancelled and name of BDA has been reflected in the
mutation register extract which can be seen at Ex.D.78 and
said mutation register extract pertains to the year 1989-90 and
1991-92. Even in the RTC extracts which are produced at
Ex.D.79 reflects the entry in the name of BDA in respect of 5
acres 4 guntas of land in Sy.No. 50/11 of Hennur village,
wherein at column No.11 there is a specific mention that, said
164
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
land has been acquired by the BDA. Under such
circumstances, the claim of the plaintiff that, she is in
possession of site No.3 of plaint schedule in
O.S. No.6340/2016 appears to be doubtful.
100. At the cost of repetition, as it is discussed in Issue
No.1 and 2 of O.S. No.6340/2016 the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in the cases of Raju Reddy, Munimasthaiah and
Ramachandra has made it clear that, Fatima Bi's case
judgment is bad in law and held that, all applications seeking
for regularization of unauthorized construction pertaining to
BDA acquired lands is liable to be rejected and all such
persons who claims to be in possession and who claimed that
they have built houses are also liable for eviction and
demolition. As it is already discussed in the aforementioned
issues, one of the purchaser of H.T. Puttanna Shetty i.e.
Nandalal had filed a similar writ petition claiming regularization
165
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
of unauthorized construction and also obtained a direction to
the respondent BDA to consider his representation and in its
contempt petition, it is specifically stated that, all the
applications pertaining to Sy.No. 50/11 of Hennur village stood
rejected as per Ex.D.22 and D.72. Even the BDA has
confirmed the completion of acquisition proceedings of land
acquired in Sy.No. 50/11 as per Ex.D.22, D.44 and D.71.
Therefore, the contention that the land of Sri. H.T. Puttanna
Shetty measuring 2 acres 16 guntas in Sy.No. 50/11 of Hennur
village was not the subject matter of acquisition cannot be
accepted by this court, accordingly, it is negatived.
101. Further upon the requisition of defendant, this court
has appointed a court commissioner to conduct the survey of
sites of both the suits, accordingly, by receiving memo of
instructions from both the sides, surveyor of BDA is appointed
as court commissioner, wherein he filed his report stating that
166
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
both plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir and defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP are claiming the same site as revenue and
BDA sites respectively. It is reported by the court
commissioner that, presently the said site is a BDA site which
is in possession of the defendant Sri. Chandran KNP
numbered as 239/F to an extent of 265.14 square meters and
denied the claim of plaintiff as revenue site, the court
commissioner has conducted survey of both the suit properties
by following due procedure of law, he has issued notices and
in the presence of both the parties and also in the presence of
adjacent land owners he has drawn mahazars and the
schedule shown in the mahazar is tallying with the schedule
site No.239/F bounded on East by - Site No.241(C) and
241(D), West by- Road, North by- Site No.240 and South by-
240 and 239/E. Said commissioner report is strongly objected
by the counsel for plaintiff through his objections dated
167
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
11/07/2025 alleging it as one sided one, therefore, this court
has subjected the court commissioner for cross-examination,
however, nothing substantial has been elicited from his cross-
examination.
102. As it is rightly canvassed by the learned counsel for
the defendant, the court commissioner was not appointed to
inspect the BDA records, he was appointed to physically
inspect the land in question and to report about the possession
along with identification and demarcation of the land. The
entire cross-examination of commissioner's report revolve
around the order of W.P. No.2226/2229/1993, since this court
has negatived the contention of plaintiff that, land measuring 2
acres 16 guntas of land was not the subject matter of
acquisition and from the documents of acquisition made
available, this court, court is convinced about the completion
of acquisition proceedings in Sy.No. 50/11 for formation of
168
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
HBR I Stage layout, as such, any kind of cross-examination
regarding operation of stay order as against the BDA to protect
the lands of plaintiff's vendor is of no use. In addition, the
commissioner report is corroborating the case of defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP.
103. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
defendant relied on the following decisions, where it is held in
various cases that, "Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC is discretionary
and intended for elucidation of matter in dispute and not for
gathering of evidence of either parties. Rule is most often
invoked in the cases concerning demarcation, boundaries or
encroachment disputes, where a local inspection is necessary
to ascertain the facts and cannot be determined through oral
or documentary evidence alone". In this regard, the learned
counsel has also relied on the decisions reported in (2006) 5
SCC 466 in case of Subhaga and others Vs. Shobha and
169
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
others, (2001) 6 SCC 238 in case of Praga tools corporation
Ltd., Vs. Mahboobunnisa Begum and others, AIR 2017 SC
4572 in case of Yashchandra (D) by L.Rs. Vs. State of MP
and 2001(2) SCC 762 in case of Lekhraj Vs. Munilal and
others.
104. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently
argued before this court by relying on the decision of Union of
India and others Vs. Vasavai Co-op Housing Society Ltd., and
others in SC Civil Appeal No.4702/2004 and P. Kishore Kumar
Vs. Vittal K. Patkar in 2023/INSC 1009 (In Civil Appeal
No.7210/2011), wherein it is observed that, "onus to prove the
title of property in question is always on the party who asserts
it and he must do so on the strength of his own title " and
similarly it is also held that, "in a suit for declaration of title, the
burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish as
clear case for granting such a declaration and weakness if any,
170
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
of the case set out by the defendant would not be a ground to
grant relief to the plaintiff ". The principles of aforementioned
decisions are presently applicable to both the cases of plaintiff
and defendant as in the suit of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir,
when her title was disputed or denied by defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP, she ought to have sought for declaratory
relief in respect of her title and as it is rightly canvassed by the
learned counsel for plaintiff that, it is for the plaintiff
Sri. Chandran KNP in O.S. No.6703/2016 to establish his title
over the suit schedule property.
105. In this regard, Sri. Chandran KNP has relied on all
the title documents right from Ex.D.33 to 38 i.e. from allotment
of site No.239/F as per Ex.D.33, sale deed in his favour as per
Ex.D.34 in the year 2010, followed by rectification deed in the
year 2013 as per Ex.D.35. Though the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir disputes the western side of boundary of defendant
171
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Sri. Chandran KNP, it is the specific case of the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP that rectification was done as there was a
discrepancy in the boundary and said rectification is in
respect of rectifying western side boundary only. Even
allotment of marginal land as per Ex.D.37 is also convincingly
established before this court by the defendant Sri. Chandran
KNP. Though the learned counsel for plaintiff seriously
disputes the issuance of possession certificate by the BDA as
per Ex.D.38 on the contention that, it is a concocted document,
on perusal of the said document, it can be seen that, it is
engrossed on the back side white sheet of earlier possession
certificate and it is duly signed by an authorized officer of BDA
and no other contrary materials are furnished to discredit the
genuineness of this possession certificate. In pursuance of
title of Sri. Chandran KNP in respect of schedule 'A" and 'B"
properties of O.S. No.6703/2016 in pursuance to his title
172
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
BBMP authorities have issued katha certificate and katha
extracts as narrated above along with tax paid receipts right
from the date of sale deed in the year 2016, as such defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP the plaintiff in O.S. No.6703/2016 has
convincingly established his title and possession over the suit
schedule property.
106. At the cost of repetition, alleged interference by the
plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir in the property of defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP i.e. in site No.239/F has been observed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petition
No.1170/2022 as per Ex.D.4, cause of action of the plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has been negatived by this court.
However, cause of action shown by the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir on 26/08/2016 is the first cause of action shown in
O.S. No.6703/2016 by the plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP that, on
the said day, he attempted to lay a compound wall, it was
173
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
disturbed by the plaintiff's vendor i.e. defendant No.1
Sri. K.P. Shridhar and thereafter the plaintiff's husband and
son again on 08/09/2016 by painting yellow colour on the wall
interfered with his possession, the damage of compound wall
of Sri. Chandran KNP in site No.239/F is observed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in aforementioned criminal
petition as per Ex.D.4. Though defendant No.1 and 2 i.e.
Sri. K.P. Sridhar and K.P. Krishna Murthy have filed a joint
written statement, they have not attempted to lead their side
evidence in support of their defense. Therefore, their pleadings
is without any proof and cannot be considered for any
purpose. On the contrary, as elaborately discussed in Issue
No.1 to 3, plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir in
O.S. No.6340/2016 has utterly failed to establish her
possession and also failed to establish the alleged interference
by Sri. Chandran KNP.
174
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
107. Further, an another important canvass of the
learned counsel for the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir is that
an alternate site has to be allotted only when there is a mistake
on part of the BDA and it has to be through the procedures
contemplated under Rule 11 of BDA Act which deals with
allotment of an alternative sites. It is canvassed that, if
defendant Sri. Chandran KNP is allotted an alternate site in
lieu of his previous site No.814 which was allotted to him in the
year 1987 and as per rules of allotment of alternative sites, if
possession is not given to the allottee then an alternate site
can be allotted, whereas in the case of Sri. Chandran KNP he
was allotted site in the year 1987 and was given possession
immediately, as such there is no question of granting an
alternate site to him. From the cross-examination of D.W. 1, it
can be noticed that, BDA has cancelled previous site allotted
to Sri. Chandran KNP as per Ex.D.100 dated 21/08/2009,
175
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
therefore, it is strongly canvassed by the learned counsel for
the plaintiff that, said cancellation is in violation of BDA Act.
BDA suo moto cannot cancel any registered instrument
without the process of court, therefore, it is canvassed that, title
of the defendant Sri. Chandran KNP in respect of site
No.239/F is not legally established.
108. The General circumstances for allotment of
alternate site would be, when the original site is not available
or has been notified, when the allottee has not been able to
take possession of allotted sites due to various reasons and
when BDA has cancelled the original allotment, alternate sites
can be allotted in favour of the original allottees, as such the
procedure contemplated is that, the applicant must submit an
application to the BDA requesting an alternate site, upon
verification and eligibility of the applicant, also having regard to
the availability of alternate site, the same will be considered
176
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
through a random draw or other specified process, under the
circumstances, the allottee is required to pay prevailing prices
for his alternate site along with any other applicable charges.
Further, eligible criteria would be that the applicant must have
been allotted a site earlier and he must have fulfilled all the
conditions of original allotment. Here, in this case, as admitted
by D.W. 1 in his cross-examination and also as canvassed by
his counsel on his behalf that, previous site allotted to him was
site No.814 of HBR I Stage layout which found to be on storm
water drain, where a construction is not permissible under law,
therefore, he has sought for an alternative site as per Ex.D.99,
accordingly he was allotted site No.239/F.
109. At this juncture,the learned counsel for the plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has relied on the decision reported in
Raju Vs. BDA in W.P. No.11102/2008 C/w W.P.
No.16147/2009 and 16954/2009, wherein the Hon'ble High
177
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Court of Karnataka has observed in respect of allotment of an
alternative sites while dealing with Rule 11(a) of allotment of
alternative sites, "an alternative site has to be allotted only
where the mistake was on the part of the authority while
making the allotment of site or where the possession of the
sites allotted originally could not be given to the allottee due to
stay orders of the courts or due to other disputes ". It is further
held that, "power to cancel the deed vest with a court and it
cannot be exercised by the vendor of a property. After
execution and registration of the sale deed, the BDA cannot
determine the validity of the sale deed. It can neither execute a
cancellation deed unilaterally, if the BDA is of the view that the
sale deed executed by it is contrary to law, it has to approach
the civil court for its cancellation as provided under Section 31
of the Specific Relief Act". The ratio laid down in the afore
quoted decision is taken note of.
178
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
110. In the present case on hand, since the site allotted
to the defendant Sri. Chandran KNP is found on storm water
drain, upon the application of this defendant i.e. Sri. Chandran
KNP, he was given an alternate site as mandated under the
provision of allotment of alternate sites. However, as held by
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the BDA suo moto cannot
cancel registered deed of any instrument and it has to be
through Civil Court under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act.
When Ex.D.100 i.e. cancellation deed dated 21/08/2009 is
viewed in this context, it is by the BDA authority due to non
availability of previously allotted site to the applicant
Sri. Chandran KNP cancelled the said sale deed. However,
the said act is done by the BDA and any fault to be pointed
out is with BDA and cannot be with the defendant for the
reason that he is a lay man, any kind of legal issues or
procedures cannot be expected from him, the BDA ought to
179
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
have approached the civil court seeking cancellation of
previously allotted site in favour of defendant Sri. Chandran
KNP and this cannot be a sole reason to decline the
subsequent allotment made in favour of the defendant
Sri. Chandran KNP as for the act of his vendor he cannot be
held liable. From the documents made available before this
court by the defendant Sri. Chandran KNP, it can be seen
that, he is struggling to get a site from BDA since from 1987,
therefore, the technical ground of cancellation of deed cannot
come in his way to obtain an equitable order under the Specific
Relief Act. However, it is open for the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir to question the act of BDA before proper forum.
Therefore, said contention cannot be considered by this court
at this juncture.
111. Under these circumstances, from the oral and
documentary evidence placed before this court by
180
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Sri. Chandran KNP, this court has arrived at a conclusion that,
Sri. Chandran KNP is the absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of site No.239/F of HBR I Stage layout and the
same has been interfered by the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir, therefore, his possession has to be protected by way
of granting an equitable order of permanent injunction
restraining defendant No.1 to 3 of O.S. No.6703/2016
including Smt. Sabiha Dastagir i.e. plaintiff in
O.S. No.6340/2016 from interfering with his peaceful
possession and enjoyment over site No.239/F. Accordingly,
Sri. Chandran KNP the plaintiff in O.S. No.6703/2016 is
entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of
permanent injunction and also for the relief of cancellation of
sale deed dated 09/04/2014 as discussed in Addl. Issue No.3
of O.S. No.6703/2016. Hence, Issue No.1 to 3 in O.S.
No.6703/2016 are answered in the Affirmative.
181
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
112. ISSUE No.4 IN O.S. No.6340/2016:- In view of
lengthy discussion on Issue No.1 to 3, to sum up suit of the
plaintiff is not maintainable as Sy.No. 50/11 is acquired by BDA
for the formation of HBR I Stage Layout, where entire layout
has been developed by forming sites and the said acquisition
by the BDA is confirmed by the children of Sri. H.T. Puttanna
Shetty i.e. K.P. Shridhar and K.P. Krishna Murthy who are the
General Power of Attorney holders of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir's sale deed in O.S. No.4940/2018 by way of filing
written statement in the said suit filed for re-partition by one of
the son of late H.T. Puttnna Shetty i.e. K.P. Shamanna. It is
the specific case of the plaintiff that, she is claiming the suit site
as revenue site, no where in the suit it is show that, when the
revenue land got converted from agriculture to non agricultural
purpose in order to form sites. That apart, it is also not forth
coming how Sy.No. 50/11 converted into assessment No.50/11
182
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
to the plaintiff's site, whereas the very same vendor of the
plaintiff had sold several sites to several persons as
Kaneshmari numbers of Sy.No. 50/11 of Hennur village, even
the schedule mentioned in the suit site of Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir is not tallying with the schedule shown in the General
Power of Attorney dated 17/03/1995 which is marked as
Ex.D.24. Though cause of action for the plaintiff's suit is
shown as 29/08/2016, per contra, no complaint is lodged
against this defendant Sri. Chandran KNP. It is pleaded in the
plaint that plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has approached
jurisdictional police station because of alleged interference
caused by the defendant, as per Ex.D.11 when the plaintiff
Smt. Sabiha Dastagir challenged the cancellation of her katha
and tax paid receipt by BBMP in W.P. No.44558/2018, it is
mentioned in the statement of objections of this defendant
Chandran KNP that, vendor of the plaintiff Sri. H.T. Puttanna
183
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Shetty and his sons had sold suit site No.3 to one Smt. Tara
Bai on 24/01/1985 as Kaneshmari No.6.
113. That apart, this plaintiff's vendor having sold his
entire property by forming into several sites after
commencement of acquisition proceeding in between 1981-84
which is forthcoming from Ex.D.20, where subsequent
purchasers of land had challenged the acquisition proceedings
in W.P. No.21973-21980/1986 and also failed in their attempt,
fraudulently once again approaches the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in the year 1993 seeking a direction against BDA for
regularization of his unauthorized construction in suit Sy.No.
50/11 as per Ex.D.23 which has been discussed in detail in the
aforementioned issues, which distinctly establishes the
fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff's vendor. Under these
circumstances, plaintiff has utterly failed to establish her
bonafideness that, she is in continuous physical possession
184
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of
purchase till date. Admittedly all revenue records in the name
of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir has been cancelled by the
BBMP authority. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief
of permanent injunction. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is answered
in the Negative.
114. ISSUE No.5 IN O.S.No.6340/2016 AND ISSUE
No.4 IN O.S.No.6703/2016:- In view of above all
discussions made in the aforesaid issues, the plaintiff
Sri. Chandran KNP in O.S. No.6703/2016 is entitled for the
decree as sought for. On the contrary, Smt. Sabiha Dastagir,
plaintiff in O.S. No.6340/2016 is not entitled for relief of
permanent injunction as sought in the suit. Accordingly, this
court proceed to pass the following:
185
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir in O.S. No.6340/2016 is hereby dismissed with cost.
Suit of the plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP in O.S. No.6703/2016 is hereby decreed with costs as under:-
The plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP is declared as an absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of schedule 'A" and 'B"
properties as shown in plaint schedule of O.S. No.6703/2016.
The sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir dated 09/04/2014, registered as document No.00184/14-15 in Book-I, executed by defendant No.1 and 2 is declared as null and void.
Consequently, the Sub-registrar of Kacharakanahalli is hereby directed to delete 186 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 the registered sale deed dated 09/04/2014 as aforementioned from its records.
Further defendant No.1 to 3 in O.S. No.6703/2016, their agents, successors, servants, anyone claiming through them or under them are hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule 'A" and 'B" properties of the plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP in O.S. No.6703/2016.
Draw decree accordingly.
Original judgment shall be kept in O.S. No.6340/2016 and copy of the same shall be kept in O.S. No.6703/2016.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed, computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of December, 2025).
(MALA.N.D.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65) BENGALURU CITY.187
O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 D.M. Abdul Khalaq WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 K N P Chandran DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 GPA dated 17-11-2023 Ex.P.2 Absolute sale deed dated 09-04-2014 Ex.P.3 Khata Extract pertaining to the year 2014-15.
Ex.P.4 Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the year 2010 to 2014.
Ex.P.5 to 10 6 (Six) Tax paid receipts Ex.P.11 to 13 3 (Three) Photographs Ex.P.14 Certified copy of order in W.P.No.44558/2018 dated 01/06/2022 DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT: Ex.D.1 Death certificate of H.T. Puttanna Shetty Ex.D.2 Certified of anticipatory bail order in 188 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 Crl.Misc.No.26136/2017 Ex.D.3 Certified of copy of regular bail in C.C.No.58760/2018 Ex.D.4 Certified copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petition No.1170/2022 Ex.D.5 Certified copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.443/2016 of K.G. Halli police station Ex.D.6 Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.4940/2018 Ex.D.7 Certified copy of written statement in O.S. No.4940/2018 Ex.D.8 Certified copy of written statement filed by K.P. Sridhar in O.S. No.4940/2018 Ex.D.9 Copy of cancelled tax paid receipt Ex.D.10 Copy of police complaint dated 06/04/2017 Ex.D.11 Certified copy of statement of objections in W.P. No.44558/2018 (LB-BMP) Ex.D.12 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 24-01-1985 in favour of Sri. Rajendra as number 3994.
Ex.D.13 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 29-01-1985 in favour of Sri. Nandalal as number 2588.189
O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 Ex.D.14 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 24-01-1985 in favour of Sri. K. Vijay as number 3993.
Ex.D.15 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 24-01-1985 in favour of Smt. Tarabai as number 3992.
Ex.D.16 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 24-01-1985 in favour of Smt. Hirabai as number 3990.
Ex.D.17 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18-10-1984 in favour of Smt. Leelabai as number 2590.
Ex.D.18 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 24-01-1985 in favour of Sri. T.V. Sripathy as number 3995.
Ex.D.19 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 24-01-1985 in favour of Smt. Manjula as number 3991.
Ex.D.20 Certified copy of order passed in W.P.No.21973 to 21980-1985 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Ex.D.21 Certified copy of order passed in W.P.No.23387/1992 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
Ex.D.22 Certified copy of order passed in C.C.C.No.598/2000 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
Ex.D.23 Certified copy of order passed in W.P.No.2226 to 2229 of 1993 by the 190 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Ex.D.24 Certified copy of GPA executed by Puttannashetty dated 17-03-1995. Ex.D.25 Death certificate of Puttannashetty dated 24-11-2005.
Ex.D.26 Certified copy of family partition deed of Sri. Puttannashetty dated 20-06-1987. Ex.D.27 Certified copy of family partition deed of children of Puttannashetty dated 04-07- 2013.
Ex.D.28 Certified copy of Award under Sec.11 of Land Acquisition Act passed by the BDA dated 24-07-1986 .
Ex.D.29 Certified copy of LAC proceedings in 219/1987 Ex.D.30 Certified copy of final notification dated 09-01-1985.
Ex.D.31 Certified copy of notice under Sec.16(2) dated 30-07-1987.
Ex.D.32 Original letter of intimation issued by BDA dated 25-07-1987.
Ex.D.33 Original alternate site allotment dated 29-01-2009, allotting site No.239/F issued by BDA.
Ex.D.34 Original sale deed bearing No.3090/2009- 10 for site No.239-F HBR Layout issued by BDA dated 17-02-2010.
Ex.D.35 Original Rectification deed 162/2013-14 191 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 dated 15-04-2013 rectifying 3090-2009-10 with correct boundaries. Ex.D.36 Original Marginal Land allotment letter & HBR: I : IV-239-F 2012-13 and sale deed Ex.D.37 330-2013-2014 for marginal land are marked as Ex.D.36 and Ex.D.37. Ex.D.38 Original possession certificate number 101808 dated 15-06-2013. Ex.D.39 4 Original BBMP Khatas for the surrounding sites together marked. Ex.D.40 Original Khata certificate in the name of Sri. KNP Chandran.
Ex.D.41, Photographs along with CD 41(a) (5 in numbers + 1 CD) to 41(d) and 41(e) Ex.D.42, Original tax paid receipts in the name of
42(a) to (e) KNP Chandran. Ex.D.43 Encumbrance certificate Ex.D.44 Original letter from Special Deputy Commissioner, Land acquisition BDA confirming acquiring of 5.04 Acres of land in Sy.No.50/11 in Hennur Village, Bengaluru on 09-01-1985.
Ex.D.45 True copy of confirmation from BBMP and BDA to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banaswadi confirming the 192 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 ownership of BDA site No.239/F dated 18- 06-2018.
Ex.D.46 Original BDA endorsement dated 31-10- 2018 confirming Mr. Chandran ownership of BDA site No.239/F along with the marginal land.
Ex.D.47 Original endorsement issued by BBMP cancelling tax paid receipts of Sabiha Dastagir.
Ex.D.48 Original endorsement issued by BBMP disclosing Sabiha Dastagir obtaining fraudulent khata.
Ex.D.49 Original endorsement issued by BBMP mentioning that there is no property in the name of Sabiha Dastagir.
Ex.D.50 Original endorsement for filing complaint before Lokayuktha for issuing fraudulent khata in the name of Sabiha Dastagir. Ex.D.51 Original endorsement issued by BBMP showing cancellation of khata in the name of Sabiha Dastagir as per order. Ex.D.52 Original endorsement issued by BBMP disclosing site bearing No.239/F registered in the name of K.N.P Chandran along with kaccha sketch.
Ex.D.53 Letter submitted to the revenue office BBMP Hennur dated 24-10-2016 regarding wrongful issuance of khata and collection of property tax on the BDA site No.239/F as a 193 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 revenue site.
Ex.D.54 Certified copies of BBMP - HBR files notes in respect of BDA sites 239/F. Ex.D.55 Certified copy of sketch issued by BDA in respect of site bearing No.239/F. Ex.D.56 Original endorsement issued by BDA along with sketch marking the site bearing No.239/F Ex.D.57 Original endorsement issued department of Stamp and Registration that not to register any document with respect to deed bearing No.184/2014-15 in the name Sabiha Dastagir.
Ex.D.58 Certified copy of sale deed No.78/02-03 dated 01-04-2022 executed by BDA in favour of HK Prasannakumar in respect of BDA site No.239-A. Ex.D.59 Certified copy of sale deed No.11205/01-02 dated 09-01-2001 executed by BDA in favour of S.V. Raghavan in respect of BDA site No.239-B. Ex.D.60 Certified copy of sale deed No.3858/02-03 dated 04-07-2002 executed by BDA in favour of Rajagopala Rao in respect of BDA site No.239-C. Ex.D.61 BBMP Khata No.1837 dated 02-07-2021 in favour of Renuka Rajashekhar in respect of BDA site No.239/D. 194 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 Ex.D.62 Letter to BDA land acquisition officer by Mr. N. Vijay, notice under Sec.11 and 14 of LA Act issued by BDA to Mr. N. Vijay dated 24- 01-1986 and award notice under Sec.11 and 12 of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1984 issued to Mr. N. Vijay dated 19-12- 1986.
Ex.D.63 Letter dated 09-12-1985 to BDA land acquisition officer by Smt.S.L. Manjula, notice under Sec.11 and 14 of LA Act issued by BDA to Smt.S.L. Manjula dated 24-01-1986 and award notice under Sec.11 and 12 of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1984 issued to Smt.S.L. Manjula dated 19- 12-1986.
Ex.D.64 Letter dated 09-12-1985 to BDA land acquisition officer by Mr. T.V. Sripathi, notice under Sec.11 and 14 of LA Act issued by BDA to Mr. T.V. Sripathi dated 24- 01-1986 and award notice under Sec.11 and 12 of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1984 issued to Mr. T.V. Sripathi dated 19- 12-1986.
Ex.D.65 Letter dated 09-12-1985 to BDA land acquisition officer by Mr. S. Rajendar, notice under Sec.11 and 14 of LA Act issued by BDA to Mr. S. Rajendar dated 24- 01-1986 and award notice under Sec.11 and 12 of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1984 issued to Mr. S. Rajendar dated 19- 12-1986.195
O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 Ex.D.66 Letter dated 09-12-1985 to BDA land acquisition officer by Smt. Tarabai notice under Sec.11 and 14 of LA Act issued by BDA to Smt. Tarabai dated 24-01-1986 and award notice under Sec.11 and 12 of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1984 issued to Smt. Tarabai dated 19-12-1986. Ex.D.67 Letter dated 09-12-1985 to BDA land acquisition officer by Smt. Hirabai notice under Sec.11 and 14 of LA Act issued by BDA to Smt. Hirabai dated 24-01-1986 and award notice under Sec.11 and 12 of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1984 issued to Smt. Hirabai dated 19-12-1986. Ex.D.68 Letter dated 09-12-1985 to BDA land acquisition officer by Smt. Leelabai notice under Sec.11 and 14 of LA Act issued by BDA to Smt. Leelabai dated 24-01-1986 and award notice under Sec.11 and 12 of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1984 issued to Smt. Leelabai dated 19-12-1986. Ex.D.69 Letter dated 09-12-1985 to BDA land acquisition officer by Mr. Nandalal notice under Sec.11 and 14 of LA Act issued by BDA to Mr. Nandalal dated 24-01-1986 and award notice under Sec.11 and 12 of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1984 issued to Mr. Nandalal dated 19-12-1986. Ex.D.70 Certified copy of BDA sketch locating 239F in HBR Layout by BDA engineering 196 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 section.
Ex.D.71 Certified copy of BDA endorsement dated 07-03-2019 detailing the notification. Ex.D.72 RTI copy of proceedings by the screening committee dated 15-05-1997 with reference to the orders in WP No.23387/1992.
Ex.D.73 RTI copy of orders passed in Writ Pet.No.23082/1992.
Ex.D.74 RTI copy of proceedings dated 16-04-2012 of ALAO, BDA.
Ex.D.75 RTI copy of orders of WP No.23387/1992.
Ex.D.76 Copy of RTI application and BDA reply & dated 16-02-2008. Ex.D.77 Ex.D.78 1 mutation extract and 24 RTC extracts & from 2000-01 to 2024-25. Ex.D.79 Ex.D.80 Certified copies of list of documents and
memo filed by defendant No.8 in O.S.No.4940/2018 together marked. (4 pages) Ex.D.81 Certified copies of FIR and complaint & against KP Sridhar and others by BDA. Ex.D.81(a) Ex.D.82 News paper publication dated 03-10-2024 regarding BDA complaint against KP Sridhar and others.197
O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 Ex.D.12(a) Typed copy of Ex.D.12 sale deed dated 24.01.1985.
Ex.D.13(a) Typed copy of Ex.D.13 sale deed dated 18.10.1984.
Ex.D.14(a) Typed copy of Ex.D.14 sale deed dated 24.01.1985.
Ex.D.15(a) Typed copy of Ex.D.15 sale deed dated 18.10.1984.
Ex.D.16(a) Typed copy of Ex.D.16 sale deed dated 24.01.1985.
Ex.D.17(a) Typed copy of Ex.D.17 sale deed dated 18.10.1984.
Ex.D.18(a) Typed copy of Ex.D.18 sale deed dated 24.01.1985.
Ex.D.19(a) Typed copy of Ex.D.19 sale deed dated 24.01.1985.
Ex.D.83 E- Khata in respect of BDA site No. 1656/239/F Ex.D.84 Tax paid receipt for the period 2024-25 Ex.D.85 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 12.09.2001 adjacent site No.240. Ex.D.86 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 14.12.2000 adjacent site No.239-D. Ex.D.87 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 06.08.1994 adjacent site No.241-C. Ex.D.88 Certified copy of Sale deed dated
02.01.1989 adjacent site No.237.
198O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 Ex.D.89 Certified copy of objections of defendant No.8 KP Sridhar in O.S.No.4940/2018. Ex.D.90 Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.34/2021 registered by ACB, Bengaluru. Ex.D.91 A letter dated 03.03.2022 by ALAO BDA to Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP, HBR Layout, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.92 A letter dated 03.03.2022 by ALAO BDA to Sub Registrar, Kacharakanahalli, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.93 Certified copy of sketch in respect of Site no.239/F of HBR Layout issued by BBMP. Ex.D.94 Original endorsement dated 04.07.2023 issued by Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bengaluru to KNP Chandran. Ex.D.95 Original endorsement dated 07.03.2019 issued by Deputy Secretary-4, BDA, Bengaluru to KNP Chandran.
Ex.D.96 Certified copy of objections filed in O.S.No.4940/2018 by the defendant No.15
- Chandroji Rao.
Ex.D.97 Certified copy of written statement filed in O.S.No.4940/2018 by the defendant No.15
- Chandroji Rao.
Ex.D.98 Certified copy of IA No.13 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in O.S.No.4940/2018 by the defendant No.11 -Sumithra. Ex.D.99 Letter to BDA dated 11.04.2009 pertaining 199 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 & to earlier BDA site no.814 along with Ex.D.99(a) acknowledgment. Ex.D.100 Certified copy of cancellation deed executed by BDA pertaining to site No.814 dated 21.08.2009.
Ex.D.101 Original BBMP Khata Certificate and Khata & Extract dated 25.08.2016 pertaining to site Ex.D.102 No.239F. Ex.D.103 Letter addressed to the Deputy & Commissioner land acquisition BDA dated
Ex.D.103(a) 07.11.2016 along with acknowledgment. Ex.D.104 E copy of sale deed dated 31.01.2008 pertaining to BDA site No.239E. Ex.D.105 E copy of marginal land sale deed dated 16.12.2010 pertaining to BDA site No.239E. Ex.D.106 Original tax paid receipts (5 in numbers) in to respect of BDA site No.239F. Ex.D.110 (MALA.N.D) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65) BENGALURU CITY.
200
O.S.No.6340/2016
C/w
O.S.No.6703/2016
Judgment pronounced in
open court, vide separate
Judgment by passing the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff Smt. Sabiha Dastagir in O.S. No.6340/2016 is hereby dismissed with cost.
Suit of the plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP in O.S. No.6703/2016 is hereby
decreed with costs as under:-
201 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 The plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP is declared as an absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of schedule 'A" and 'B" properties as shown in plaint schedule of O.S. No.6703/2016.
The sale deed executed in
favour of plaintiff Smt. Sabiha
Dastagir dated 09/04/2014,
registered as document
No.00184/14-15 in Book-I, executed by defendant No.1 and 2 is declared as null and void.
Consequently, the Sub- registrar of Kacharakanahalli is hereby directed to delete the registered sale deed dated
09/04/2014 as aforementioned from its records.
Further defendant No.1 to 3 in O.S. No.6703/2016, their agents, successors, servants, anyone 202 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016 claiming through them or under them are hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule 'A" and 'B" properties of the plaintiff Sri. Chandran KNP in O.S. No.6703/2016.
Draw decree accordingly.
Original judgment shall be kept in O.S. No.6340/2016 and copy of the same shall be kept in O.S. No.6703/2016.
(MALA.N.D) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65) BENGALURU CITY.
203 O.S.No.6340/2016 C/w O.S.No.6703/2016