Bangalore District Court
A. B. Narayana Prasad vs Sri.Anna Ramaiah on 24 March, 2021
/1/ O.S.No.479/2013
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
[CCH-40], BANGALORE CITY.
Dated on this the 24th day of March, 2021.
-: PRESENT :-
Sri.Khadarsab, B.A., LL.M.,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 479/2013
PLAINTIFFS: 1. A. B. Narayana Prasad
S/O. Late A.E.Brahmananda,
Aged About 65 Years,
2. A.B.Maheshwara,
S/o.late A.E.Brahmananda,
Aged about 62 years.
3. A.B. Ashok Kumar,
S/o. Late .A.E.Balakrishnadev,
Aged about 61 years,
Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are
Residing at No.373, Old No.86,
C/o.Sriman Anasa Ellairya
Swamy Achala Mutt Trust ®
Nagawara Main Road,
Venkateshpuram, Arabic
College Post, Bangalore - 45.
(Sri.A.R.Jadhav., Advocate)
.VS.
DEFENDANTS: 1. Sri.Anna Ramaiah
S/o.late Anna Venkataramaiah,
Aged about 70 years,
/2/ O.S.No.479/2013
President of M/s.Vasavi Seva
Sangha (R)
2. The Secretary,
M/s.Vasavi Seva Sangha (R)
3. The Treasurer,
M/s.Vasavi Seva Sangha(R)
Defendants No.1 to 3
Residing and their office
situated at No.1004,
New No.25, Nagawara Main
Road, Venkateshpuram, Arabic
College Post, Bangalore - 45.
4. Smt.V.Saraswathi,
W/o.K.Chandrappa @
Chandrashekar,
Aged about 48 years,
5. Sri.K.Chandrashekar
@ Chandrappa,
S/o.late Krishnappa,
Aged about 65 years,
6. Sri.K.Sridhar,
S/o.K.Chandrashekar @
Chandrappa,
Aged about 30 years,
Defendants Sl.No.4 to 6 are
Residing at No.684, 1st Main
Road, Sampangi Ramaiah
Layout, Behind
Kadugondanahalli Police
Quarters, Kadugondanahalli,
Arabic College Post,
/3/ O.S.No.479/2013
Bangalore - 560 045.
7. Sri.A.B.Chamraju,
S/o.late A.E.Balakrishna Dev,
Aged about 65 years,
8. Smt.Renuka,
W/o.A.B.Chamaraju,
Aged about 56 years,
The Defendants 7 & 8 are
Residing at C/o Achala Mutt
Trust ®, No.373, Old No.86,
Nagawara Main Road,
Venkateshpuram, Arabic
College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
9. Sri.K.N.Bhojaraju,
S/o.late K.Narasimharaju,
Aged about 70 years.
10. Smt.Kamala,
W/o.K.N.Bhojaraju,
Aged about 65 years.
11. Smt.Asha,
D/o.K.N.Bhojaraju,
Aged about 35 years,
12. Smt.Vijayalakshmi,
D/o.K.N.Bhojaraju,
Aged about 32 years.
13. Sri.B.Sridhar,
S/o.K.N.Bhojaraju,
Aged about 32 years.
14. Sri.B.Ashok,
S/o.K.N.Bhojaraju,
Aged about 40 years,
/4/ O.S.No.479/2013
The defendants 9 to 14 are
residing at No.515,
Byraveshwara layout,
Near Hennur Bande,
Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 043.
15. Sri.B.Ramesh,
S/o.K.N.Bhojaraju,
Aged about 45 years.
16. Sri.B.Narasimharaju,
S/o K.N.Bhojaraju,
Aged about 37 years.
The Defendants No.15 & 16
illegally occupied & Residing
at C/o.St.Merry's
English Medium High School,
Office Room premises,
C/o.Achala Mutt Trust(R),
No.373, Old No.86,
Venkateshpuram, Nagawara
Main Road, Arabic College
Post, Bangalore - 560 045.
17. Sri.L.V.Babu,
S/o.Late L.V.Balasundaradevi
@ Sundaramma & Late
Vijayaraghavalu,
Aged about 64 years,
Residing at Ramachandra
Layout Karanpalya,
Lingarajapuram Post
Bangalore - 560 084.
/5/ O.S.No.479/2013
18. Smt.Bhavani,
D/o.late L.V.Balasundaradevi
@ Sundaramma &
late Vijayaraghavalu,
W/o.Sri.C.Narasimha Murthy,
aged about 58 years,
Residing at No.13,
Dhanashankaran Street,
West Mambalam,
Chennai - 33 (Tamilnadu).
19. Sri.N.Balaraju,
S/o.late A.E.Jayalakshmi Devi
@ A.E. Jayamma & Late
K.N.Narayana Raju,
Aged about 50 years.
20. Sri.Hariprasad,
S/o.late A.E.Jayalakshmi Devi
@ A.E.Jayamma & Late
K.N.Narayana Raju,
Aged about 48 years.
Defendants No.19 & 20 are
residing at No.378/2, 1st 'B'
Cross, Dommalur, B.J.Layout,
Bangalore - 560 071.
21. Sri.N.Manjunath,
S/o.late A.E.Jayalakshmi Devi
@ A.E.Jayamma & Late
K.N.Narayana Raju,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at Garudacharpalya,
Mahadevapura, Whitefield
Road, Bangalore.
22. Sri.N.Krishnamurthy,
/6/ O.S.No.479/2013
S/o.late A.E.Jayalakshmi Devi
@ A.E.Jayamma & Late
K.N.Narayana Raju,
Aged about 63 years,
Residing at Vadagathur,
Vellore and at District,
Tamilnadu.
23. Smt.Kumudha,
W/o.B.Ramesh,
Aged about 43 years.
24. Sri.R.Pavan Kumar,
S/o.B.Ramesh,
Aged about 22 years.
25. Sri.B.Harshavardhan
S/o.B.Ramesh, 20 years.
26. Smt.Julfee,
W/o B.Narasimharaju,
Aged about 32 years,
Defendants No.23 to 26
illegally occupied & residing at
C/o.St.Merry's English Medium
High School, Office Room
premises, C/o.Achala Mutt
Trust (R), No.373, Old No.86,
Venkateshpuram, Nagawara
Main Road, Arabic College
Post, Bangalore - 560 045.
27. Smt.Kavitha W/o.B.Sridhar,
Aged about 35 years,
28. Smt.Lakshmi
/7/ O.S.No.479/2013
W/o.B.Ashok,
Aged about 36 years.
Defendants No.27 and 28 are
residing at C/o.K.N.Bhojaraju,
No.515, Byraveshwara layout,
Near Hennur Bande, Kalyan
Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 043.
29. Sri.V.Shankar, B.Sc. LL.B.,
Senior Advocate,
father name not known,
Aged about 58 years.
30. Sri.H.Guru Basappa,
Bengaluru.Com, LL.B.,
Junior Advocate,
father name not known /
Major, C/o.Sri.V.Shankar,
Bengaluru.Sc., LL.B.,
Senior Advocate.
31. Sri.V.Sree Rama, B.A. LL.B.,
Junior Advocate,
father name not known/major,
C/o.Sri.V.Shankar, B.Sc. LL.B.,
Senior Advocate,
32. Sri.Rakesh H.D, B.A.LL.B.,
Junior Advocate,
father name not known/major,
C/o.Sri.V.Shankar, B.Sc. LL.B.,
Senior Advocate,
The above named Defendants
No.29 to 32 are residing at
/8/ O.S.No.479/2013
their Advocate office No.11,
'O' No.4th Street,
K.Kamaraja Road Cross,
Bangalore - 560 042.
33. Sri.K.Ramalingam,
S/o.late Kanakaraj,
Aged about 75 years,
34. Sri.K.Sampath,
S/o.late Kanakaraj,
Aged about 62 years,
35. Sri.R.Appu @ Adhavan,
S/o.K.Ramalingam,
Aged about 28 years,
The Defendants No.33 to 35
are residing at No.P & T
Colony,
Nagawara Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 045.
36. Sri.Mani @ Manigandan,
Husband of Smt.Jeeva,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at C/o.K.Ramalingam,
K.Sampath and R.Appu,
37. Smt.Jeeva,
W/o.Mr.Mani @ Manigandan,
Aged about 45 years,
Defendant No.36 and 37
Residing at C/o.K.Ramalingam,
K.Sampath and R.Appu,
R/at C/o.Old Uma Dairy
C/o.Achala Mutt Trust (R)
No.378, Old No.86,
/9/ O.S.No.479/2013
Venkateshpuram,
Nagawara Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
38. Smt.Chitra,
Husband name not known,
Aged about 30 years,
Sub let by K.Ramalingam
and Sampath (vacated in April
2010) C/o.Uma Dairy,
Achal Mutt Trust (R),
No.373, Old No.86,
Venkateshpuram,
Nagawara Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 045.
39. Smt.Pushpa,
W/o.husband name not known,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at C/o.Old Uma Dairy
C/o.Achala Mutt Trust (R)
No.378, Old No.86,
Venkateshpuram,
Nagawara Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
40. Sri.A.Chandrashekar,
Grand son of Late Yellamma,
S/o.late Annayappa,
C/o.K.Chandrappa @
Chandrashekar,
aged about 54 years,
Residing at No.8/11,
Doddanna Layout,
Venkateshpuram,
/ 10 / O.S.No.479/2013
Nagawara Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
41. Sri.G.Dharmalingam @
Dharma,
S/o.Govindaswamy,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.770, 3rd Main,
Vinobhanagar, K.G.Halli,
Bangalore - 560 045.
42. Sri.K.E.Nagaraju,
C/o.K.Chandrappa @
Chandrashekar,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.200,
7th Cross, 1st Stage,
Tannery Road, Pillanna
Garden,
Bangalore - 560 084.
43. Sri.Gopala Bhattar,
C/o.K.Chandrappa @
Chandrashekar,
Father name known,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at Near Maremma
Temple, Nagawara Main Road,
Kadugondanahalli,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
44. Sri.Mallesh,
S/o.Mr.Mallegowda,
Aged about 35 years,
C/o.K.Chandrappa @
Chandrashekar &
/ 11 / O.S.No.479/2013
C/o.L.J.Iyengar Bakery,
Nagawara Main Road,
Kadugondanahalli, Arabic
College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
(Mob: 98457 73064).
45. Sri.T.Ashirvadam,
S/o.G.Paramesh,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at No.21,
26th Cross, Old Bagalur Layout,
Thomas Town Post,
Bangalore - 560 084.
(Profession House Keeping
mob: 9900720802)
46. Sri.A.Manjunath B.Com., LL.B.,
Advocate,
(Document drafted sale deed
dated: 21-4-2004)
Residing at No.924, 28th Main,
8th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore.
47. A.P.Hamsalatha, B.A., LL.B.,
Advocate,
Regd. No.KAR-2865/2001,
Office cum R/at Fort,
K.R.Puram, Bangalore - 560
036. (Sale Deed drafted
dated: 25-6-2008)
purchased by M/s.Vasavi Seva
Sangha [R], Venkateshpuram,
Bangalore - 560 045).
48. V.Amanulla,
S/o.late Sattar Ahmed,
/ 12 / O.S.No.479/2013
Aged about 55 years,
(illegal occupation & Running
a Petty shop near Ganesha
Temple). Achala Mutt Trust
premises.
49. Sri.Babu Bai,
S/o.late Sattar Ahmed,
Aged about 60 years,
Elder brother of the
Sri.Amanulla,
Defendant No.48 illegal tenant
The Defendant No.48 and 49
are residing at No.373,
Old NO.86, C/o.Achala Mutt
Trust (r), Nagawara Main Road,
Venkateshpuram,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
50. Sri.A.Venkatesh @ Mari,
S/o.Annayappa,
Aged about 65 years,
President, Venkateshpuram
Kshemabhirudhi Sangha ®,
Regd. No.1309/2004-05,
Residing at Chinnamma
Street, 1st Floor, Government
fair price depot, Near Petrol
Bunk, Venkateshpuram,
Nagawara Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
51. Sri.K.Ramesh,
S/o.S.Krishnappa,
/ 13 / O.S.No.479/2013
Aged about 52 years,
Secretary
Venkateshpuram
Kshemabhirudhi Sangha ®,
Regd. No.1309/2004-05,
Nagawara Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 045.
Residing address of K.Ramesh:
R/at: Hanumanthappa Palya,
Venkateshpuram,
Nagawara Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
52. Sri.Sulaiman Sait,
Father name not known,
C/o.K.Chandrappa &
A.Chandrashekar,
Aged about 55 years,
(Illegal occupier of the Suit
Schedule Property and running
Old Paper Mart Shop, No.373,
Old No.86, Achala Mutt Trust
(R)
Venkateshpuram,
Nagawara Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
State
Government
officials:
53. The Inspector General of
Registrar,
Department of Stamps &
/ 14 / O.S.No.479/2013
Registration,
Office at: 8th Floor,
Kandaya Bhavana, K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
54. The District Registrar,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore North Taluk,
S.R.O.Kanchakaranahalli
Office at 4th Floor,
Kandaya Bhavana, K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
55. The Sub Registrar,
(Previous Sub Registrar
Officer during year 2003-04
Sale Deed Regd. Dt:21-4-2004
and 25-6-2008 and its
previous S.R.O., Bangalore
North Office situated at
Venkateshpuram,
Near KEB / BESCOM Office,
Nagawara Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 045.
Present S.R.O. at: Nagawara
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
56. The Sub Registrar,
Present S.R.O.
Kachakaranahalli,
Bangalore North Taluk, S.R.O.
situated at Nagawara,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
57. The Manager,
/ 15 / O.S.No.479/2013
S.R.O. Office,
Kachakaranahalli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
at Nagawara,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
BBMP Officials :
58. The Commissioner,
B.B.M.P. Head Office,
Bangalore - 560 002.
59. The Joint Commissioner (East),
B.B.M.P. East Zonal Office,
Mayo Hall, Bangalore.
60. The Revenue Officer,
B.B.M.P. Sarvagna Nagara,
BBMP Ward Office at:
Dispensary Road,
Shivaji Nagar,
Bangalore.
61. The Assistant Revenue Officer,
B.B.M.P. Ward No.30,
(and previous Ward No.94,
K.G.Halli), Venkateshpuram
Office situated at HBR Layout,
BBMP Sub Division Office, BDA
Complex, Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 043.
62. The Revenue Inspector,
BBMP Ward No.30,
(and previous Ward No.94,
K.G.Halli), Venkateshpuram
Office at: BBMP Sub Division
Office, HBR Layout, BDA
/ 16 / O.S.No.479/2013
Complex, Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 043.
63. The Case Worker / Accountant,
BBMP Ward No.30,
Venkateshpuram
(and previous Ward No.94,
K.G.Halli),
Office at: BBMP Sub Division
Office, HBR Layout, BDA
Complex, Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 043.
64. The Manager,
BBMP Ward No.30,
Venkateshpuram
(and previous Ward No.94,
K.G.Halli),
office at: BBMP Sub Division
Office, HBR Layout, BDA
Complex, Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 043.
Karnataka State
Police Officials:
65. The D.C.P. (East)
D.C.P. East Office at:
Ulsoor Police Station,
1st Floor, Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 008.
66. The Assistant Commissioner of
Polcie,
K.R.Puram Sub Division,
present A.C.P. office at:
Banaswadi Police Station,
Banaswadi, Bangalore - 560
043.
/ 17 / O.S.No.479/2013
67. The Station House Officer /
Police Inspector,
K.G.Halli Police Station,
K.G.Halli, Nagawara Main
Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
68. The Police Sub Inspector,
(Law and Order),
K.G.Halli Police Station,
K.G.Halli, Nagawara Main
Road,
Arabic College Post, Bangalore
- 45.
69. J.Ashwath Gowda,
Previous Police Sub-Inspector,
(Law and Order),
K.G.Halli Police Station,
K.G.Halli, Nagawara Main
Road,
Arabic College Post, Bangalore
- 45.
Presently at: Mr.J.Ashwath
Gowda has been transferred to
Pulikeshinagar Police Station,
(Frazer Town),
Pulikeshinagar, Bangalore -
560 005.
(Rank: PSI No.1962647).
70. Mr.Rangappa,
Previous S.H.O/P.I.
K.G.Halli Police Station,
K.G.Halli, Bangalore - 560 045.
at Presently Mr.Rangappa has
/ 18 / O.S.No.479/2013
been transferred to Banaswadi
Police Station as S.H.O/P.I.,
Banaswadi, Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 043.
71. Mr.Narasimhaiah,d K.S.P.S.
Previous A.C.P.,
K.R.Puram Sub Division,
Office at: Banaswadi Police
Station,
Bangalore - 560 043.
At present:
Mr.Narasimhaiah
A.C.P. has been transferred to
Ulsoor
Sub Division,
A.C.P. and its office:
I.e., A.C.P. situated at
1st Floor, Ulsoor Police Station,
Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 008.
72. Mr.Chandrashekar, I.P.S.,
Previous D.C.P. (East)
and office at: Ulsoor Police
Station,
Ulsoor, Bangalore - 560 008.
At present he has promoted
and
transferred to the Head Office
as I.G.P.
Karnataka State Fire Force
office at: Behind Karmikara
Bhavana, Near Bangalore
Dairy, Bannerghatta Main
Road, Bangalore.
/ 19 / O.S.No.479/2013
73. Sri.Krishna Murthy,
Assistant. Sub Inspector of
Police, K.G.Halli Police Station,
K.G.Halli, Nagawara Main
Road, Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
74. Sri.Lakshman,
Assistant Sub Inspector,
K.G.Halli Police Station,
K.G.Halli,
Nagawara Main Road,
Arabic College Post, Bangalore
- 45.
75. K.P.Hanumantharayappa,
Police Head Constable,
P.C. No.2823, K.G.Halli Police
Station, K.G.Halli, Nagawara
Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 45.
76. Sri.Brahmesh,
Police Constable,
P.C.No.11148,
K.G.Halli Police Station,
K.G.Halli, Nagawara Main
Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
77. Sri.Manjunatha,
Police Constable,
P.C.No.6528,
K.G.Halli Police Station,
K.G.Halli, Nagawara Main
Road,
/ 20 / O.S.No.479/2013
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
78. Sri.Revanna,
Court Police XI ACMM Court,
Mayohall, Bangalore,
Police Constable,
K.G.Halli Police Station,
Nagawara Main Road,
K.G.Halli, Bangalore - 560 045.
79. Sri.Kiran Kumar Nayak,
Police Sub-Inspector,
(Law & Order),
Pulikeshinagar Police
Station (Frazer Town)
Pulikeshinagar,
Bangalore - 560 005.
80. Sri.Maheshwarappa,
Station House Officer / Police
Inspector,
Pulakeshi Nagar
Police Station (Frazer Town),
Pulikeshi Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 005.
81. Sri.A.B.Raju,
S/o.late A.E.Brahmananda,
Aged about 52 years,
82. Smt.Rajadhi,
W/o.Mr.A.B.Raju,
Aged about 48 years,
The defendant No.81 & 82 are
Residing at No.17, 2nd 'B'
Cross, Telegraph Street,
/ 21 / O.S.No.479/2013
Arogyamma Layout,
Venkateshpuram,
Nagawara Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
83. Sri.Ahmed Basha,
Father name not known,
Aged about 45 years,
(Illegal purchaser of the site
bearing No.16 from the Vendor
A.B.Raju)
C/o.A.B.Raju,
No.16, 2nd 'B' Cross,
Telegraph Street,
Arogyamma Layout,
Venkateshpuram,
Nagawara Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
84. Sri.Zaheer,
Previous Revenue Inspector
of the previous Old Ward
No.94,
New BBMP Ward No.30,
Venkateshpuram,
Office of the BBMP Sub
Division
HBR Layout,
HBR Layout, B.D.A. Complex,
Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 043.
85. The Sub Registrar,
The Office of the Sub
Registrar,
/ 22 / O.S.No.479/2013
Situated behind
Peenya 2nd Stage Post office,
Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 052.
(Sri.K.G.S., Advocate for D.34 & 35
Sri.A.S.B. Advocate for D.46
Sri.B.V.S. Advocate for D.58 to D.64
Sri.N.J. Advocate for D.81 to D.83
Defendants No.1 to 3, 27 to 33, 18
to 25, 36 to 38, 40 to 42, 47 to 52,
8, 11 to 13, 44 - Ex-parte)
¯¯¯¯¯
Date of Institution of the
: 15.01.2013
suit
Nature of suit : Suit for permanent injunctions
Date of commencement of
evidence : 25.02.2019
Date on which the
judgment is pronounced : 24.03.2021
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
08 02 09
***
JUDGMENTS
Plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the
defendants for the relief of permanent injunctions
restraining them from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property,
/ 23 / O.S.No.479/2013
not to damage the suit schedule property, to restraint
the defendants No.1 to 38 and 40 to 85 and their men,
agents or anybody else claiming under them interfering
in any manner in peaceful enjoyment and management
of the entire inside and outside Achalamath Trust
properties and not to interfere with the day to day affairs
of the said Mutt and restrain the defendants No.1 to 52
and their henchmen and others from interfering and
forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit
schedule property, restrain the defendants No.53 to 57
from approving the documents of sale deeds dated
21.1.2004 and 25.6.2008 in favour of defendants No.33
to 35 by violating the order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in MFA No.9799/2010 and as per
order passed by the Hon'ble Additional City Civil Judge
(CCH-29) in O.S.No. 26894/2010. Further, restrain the
defendants No.58 to 68 from effecting khatha in the
names of defendants No.1 to 6 and 33 to 35 as per sale
/ 24 / O.S.No.479/2013
deed dated 21.1.2004 and 25.6.2008. Further, restrain
the defendants No.1 to 6 and 33 to 35 from alienating or
disposing of the suit schedule property. Further, restrain
the defendants No.53 to 57 and 85 from registering the
sale deed in respect of Khatha No.158 carved in Sy.No.
135 New Site No.373 Old No.86 belongs to Sriman
Annasa Ellarya Swamy, AchalaMutt Trust (Reg)
Bengaluru-45. Further, restrain the defendants No.61 to
64 from approving the illegal forged sale deed and to
enter the names of defendants No.1 to 6 and 33 to 35 in
the B.B.M.P. records. Further restrain the defendants
No.65 to 80 from providing protection to the defendants
No.1 to 63 and 81 to 85 and their agents, followers,
henchmen, etc., Further, not to interfere with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property and not to create any atrocities with the undue
influence of the Office of the D.C.P. East, Bengaluru.
/ 25 / O.S.No.479/2013
2. It is the case of plaintiffs that, they are
residing in the suit schedule property since their birth.
Their grandfather i.e., Sriman Annasa Ellairya Swamy
being great author cum founder of AchalaMutt Trust
(Regd). The father of the said Sriman Annasa Ellairya
Swamy died in Sikendrabad in the year 1899 and his
wife Smt.Laxmidevi was also died in the year 1913 at
AchalaMutt Trust (Regd.), Bengaluru - 45, leaving behind
Sriman Annasa Ellairya Swamy. The grandfather of the
said Sriman Annasa Ellairya Swamy has got married one
Rajamba @ Rajamma and out of their wedlock 5 children
have been born to them i.e., A.E. Balakrishna Dev,
Smt.Suryakanta Devi @ Kanthamma, Smt.Balasundara
Devi @ Sundaramma, A.E. Bhramananda and Smt.
Jayalaxmidevi @ Jayamma. The said Sriman Annasa
Ellairya Swamy was the great author cum founder of the
Sriman Annasa Ellairya Swamy Achala Mutt Trust (Regd),
has purchased the properties in the name of said Mutt
/ 26 / O.S.No.479/2013
out of his own earnings. During his lifetime said Sriman
Annasa Ellairya Swamy was performing annual
programmes in a grand manner where more than 500
devotees were used to attend the said programmes
every year in the said Mutt without anybodies
interference. The said Sriman Annasa Ellairya Swamy
established the said Mutt for charitable purpose and
same has been registered. During his lifetime he
executed Will on 15.7.1945 and same has been
registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Bangalore North
Taluk. As per said Will, he has bequeathed all his
properties to said Mutt and has appointed
A.E.Balakrishna and A.E. Bhramananda as the Trustee to
the said Mutt and has appointed them to conduct the
programs on behalf of Mutt. In the said Will it is clearly
mentioned that his three daughters have no rights over
the property. Accordingly, his 3 daughters have
consented for the same. As per said Will A.E.Balakrishna
/ 27 / O.S.No.479/2013
Dev and Bhramananada have performed the annual
programmes of AchalaMutt Trust (Regd). The said
A.E.Balakrishna Dev married one Govindamma and out
of their wedlock they begotten 8 children viz.,
A.B.Chamaraju (defendant No.8), A.B.Ashokkumar
(plaintiff No.3), Late Sarojamma (dead), Shanthamma
(dead), Prabhavathi (dead), Chandramma, Jayakumari
and Geetha. During the lifetime of said Balakrishna Dev
he has settled the marriages of his daughters.
3. During the lifetime of A.E.Balakrishna Dev he
was performing the pooja, bhajans, etc. of Mutt. The said
Balakrishna Dev died on 23.9.1971. After the death of
said A.E.Balakrishna Dev, the father of plaintiffs No.1
and 2 viz., A.E.Bhramhananda has taken the entire
management of the Mutt and has performed the rituals
of the Mutt without damaging the name and fame of the
Mutt. The said Bhramhananda was an employee of
Indian Airforce. After his retirement he was practicing as
/ 28 / O.S.No.479/2013
an advocate. The said Bhramhananda married one
Padmavathi. Out of their wedlock, they begotten 3
children i.e., A.B.Narendra Prasad @ A.B.Narayana
Prasad, A.B.Maheshwara and A.B.Parvathi. During his
lifetime he performed the marriage of his 3 children.
During his lifetime he was performing the rituals of the
Mutt and during his lifetime he was attending the Court
Mutters and also performing the pooja, bhajana, etc., of
the Mutt. The plaintiff further averred that AchalaMutt
Trust (Regd) has been registered on 21.10.1982 under
the Trust Act. The said Bhramananda was the Founder
President one of the trustee along with him 18 persons
being the devotees have joined as executive committee
trustees in the said trust. During the lifetime of
Bhramananda he has not collected any donation from
the general public. The Trust is functioning as per the
bye-laws. The wife of Bhramananda was also
participating in the trust activities along with her
/ 29 / O.S.No.479/2013
husband. Padmavathi died on 27.12.1992 leaving
behind her 3 children and her husband
A.E.Bhramananda.
4. The said Balakrishna Dev died leaving behind
the present plaintiff No.3 as his legal heir. Bhramananda
died leaving behind plaintiffs No.1 and 3 as his legal
heirs. The present plaintiffs are managing the poojas,
bhajanas, harikathas, pournima poojas and annual
programmes of the Mutt.
5. Plaintiff further averred that, A.E.
Bhramananda who is founder president of Mutt has let
out the trust premises to the tenants on rental basis.
Accordingly, rental agreement has been executed on
21.3.1998 in favour of Saleem Basha. The said Saleem
Basha died leaving behind his wife Jubeda Tanjeem. The
said Jubeda Tanjeem handed over the premises to her
brother V.Amanulla i.e., defendant No.48. Defendant
/ 30 / O.S.No.479/2013
No.48 was also paying rents regularly without defaulting.
The said Bhramananda let out another shop premises to
defendants No.50 and 51 and executed rental
agreement in their favour. Initially the defendants No.50
and 51 paid rent to Bhramananda, but subsequently
they stopped to pay the rents. The defendants No.50
and 51 are in due of Rs.95,000/-. The defendants No.50
and 51 neither paid the rent nor vacated the shop
premises. Said Bhramananda let out two residential
premises to one S.Babu, Rukiya Bee and Shafi Ahamed
on monthly rental basis. The said Shafi Ahamed is
running a school unde the name and style Mary Mount
English High School. The said Shafi Ahamed was the
tenant under the Late Bhramananda and was paying
rents regularly to him till death without becoming
defaulter.
6. The said Bhramananda had let out the suit
property i.e., shopping premises to defendants No.33,
/ 31 / O.S.No.479/2013
34, 39 and 40 on rental basis. The said tenants are in
occupation of the portions of the suit schedule property.
They were paying rent to Bhramananda.
7. The defendants No.7 to 28 being the strangers
and are no way concerned with the Mutt have alienated
the portion of the suit schedule property bearing
Sy.No.19 on 16.6.1986. the defendants No.7 to 28 have
no right to alienate the said property. The defendants
No.7 to 28 deliberately alienated the property thereby
committed an offence of fraud, cheating, etc., The
defendants No.7 to 28 colluded with each other and
have illegally executed agreement to sell dated
15.3.2000 in respect of Site No.373 carved in Sy.No.135,
Katha No.158 situated at Venkateshpuram, Bengaluru
and subsequently executed sale deed.
8. The defendants are no way concerned with
the suit schedule property, even then the defendants
/ 32 / O.S.No.479/2013
No.7 to 28 trespassed into the suit schedule property on
20.5.2001 and have obstructed the plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment.
9. The defendants No.53 to 57 being the
Government officials have colluded with the defendants
No.7 to 28 and have registered the sale deeds. The acts
of the defendants No.53 to 57 are illegal and
unauthorised.
10. The defendants No.58 to 64 are the
employees of B.B.M.P., have colluded with the
defendants No.7 to 28 and are trying to enter the names
of purchasers in the municipal records on the basis of
alleged sale deeds. The defendants 58 to 64 have no
authority to enter the name of purchasers on the basis
of alleged sale deeds. Hence, they shall be restrained
from entering the names of the purchasers on the basis
of alleged sale deeds dated 21.1.2004 and 25.6.2008.
/ 33 / O.S.No.479/2013
11. The defendants No.7 to 28 are no way
concerned with the suit schedule property, even then
they have colluded with defendants No.68 to 80 and are
obstructing the plaintiffs' possession over the suit
schedule property, even the defendants No.68 to 80
have filed false criminal case against the plaintiffs and
have detained the plaintiffs in the custody. Without any
fault, the plaintiffs have suffered a lot. The defendants
No.7 to 28 have illegally trespassed into the suit
schedule property and have alienated the property.
Though the plaintiffs have filed complaint against the
said defendants, but the police authorities have not
initiated any action against the defendants No.7 to 28.
the defendants No.33 and 34 have filed
O.S.No.26894/2010 on the file of CCH-29 in respect of
suit schedule property,in the said suit the Hon'ble Court
granted ad-interim temporary injunction. Against the
said order MFA No. 9799/2010 has been preferred. The
/ 34 / O.S.No.479/2013
said MFA is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka. The defendants No.33 to 35 in collusion with
defendants No.53 to 80 and have succeeded in their
attempts to occupy the suit schedule property. The
plaintiffs being the law abiding citizen are in possession
of the suit schedule property and are managing the
affairs of the mutt. The defendants illegally obstructing
the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule property and even they are obstructing the day
to day affairs of the mutt. Hence, prayed for decreeing
the suit.
12. After institution of the suit, suit summons were
issued to the defendants. Defendants No.34,35, 46, 53
to 83 appeared through their counsels. Remaining
defendants remained absent. Hence, they placed ex-
parte. The defendants No.58 to 83 have filed their
written statements. Though this Court provided
/ 35 / O.S.No.479/2013
sufficient opportunities to defendants No.34, 35, 46, 53
to file their written statement, but they failed.
13. The defendants have denied the plaintiffs'
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule
property. The suit schedule property is not at all in
existence. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit on
imaginary cause of action. Hence, the suit of the
plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form. The
defendants further contended that defendant No.69 has
filed a complaint against the present plaintiffs No.1 and
2, same has been registered in Crime No.68/2010 under
Sections 186, 353, 323 r/w/s 34 of I.P.C. After completion
of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed in
C.C.No.25317/2010. Same is pending for adjudication.
14. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have filed the
petition before the Hon'ble Lokayuktha against the
K.G.Halli police. After enquiry, the Hon'ble Lokayuktha
/ 36 / O.S.No.479/2013
closed the Mutter by holding that the allegation made by
the plaintiffs are false. In the meanwhile, the present
plaintiffs have filed another petition before the
Commissioner of Police. In turn, same was referred to
SHO, K.G.Halli P.S. for enquiry. After detail enquiry, the
SHO, K.G.Halli P.S. has submitted his report to
Commissioner of Police stating that the matter is Civil in
nature and instructed both the parties not to create any
law and order problem. The plaintiffs have filed a
private complaint before the 11th ACCM Court,
Bengaluru. Same was referred to the Pulakeshi Nagara
P.S. for investigation. Same was registered in Crime
No.167/2011. After investigation, the Police Inspector,
Pulakeshi Nagara P.S. has submitted 'B' Report. The
plaintiff by suppressing the material facts has filed the
present suit.
15. Defendants No.58 to 64 further contended
that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit only with an
/ 37 / O.S.No.479/2013
intention to harass the defendants. Defendants No.58 to
64 are no way concerned with the suit schedule
property. The plaintiffs have made false allegations
against the defendants. Hence, prayed for dismissal of
suit.
16. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff No.3
died, the counsel for plaintiffs filed I.A.No.4 under Order I
Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. for bringing the legal heirs of plaintiff
No.3. The said application came to be dismissed on
25.10.2017.
17. On the basis of the pleadings and documents
of the parties, the following issues were framed by my
predecessor in office on 1.6.2017 :
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
plaintiffs and their family members are in
peaceful possession and enjoyment over
the suit schedule property ?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that
defendants No.1 to 52 are trying to
/ 38 / O.S.No.479/2013
forcibly dispossess them from the suit
schedule property ?
3) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not
maintainable against defendants No.58 to
64 as contended in para No.3 of their
written statement?
4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the
reliefs as prayed in para No.60(a) to (j) of
the plaint ?
5) What order or decree ?
18. The plaintiff No.2 himself examined as P.W.1
and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.7. While
cross-examining P.W.1, the counsel for defendants No.58
to 60 confronted notice dated 27.1.2011, endorsement
dated 22.3.2011 and 2 applications, witness admits that
the said documents have been produced by them. In
view of admission said documents have been marked as
Exs.P.8 to P.10. Though this Court has granted sufficient
opportunities to the defendants to adduce evidence,
/ 39 / O.S.No.479/2013
they failed. Hence, the evidence on behalf of
defendants is taken as nil.
19. Heard the arguments.
20. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the negative.
Issue No.2 : In the negative.
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.4 : In the negative.
Issue No.5 : As per final order, for the
following :-
REASONS
21. Issues No.1 and 2 :- These issues are taken
up together for common discussion in order to avoid the
repetition of facts and evidence.
22. Plaintiffs filed the present suit against the
defendants for the relief permanent injunctions
restraining the defendants from interfering with his
peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit
/ 40 / O.S.No.479/2013
schedule property and not to enter the name of the
purchasers as per sale deed dated 21..1.2004 and
25.6.2008 and not to approve the sale deeds, etc.,
23. The plaintiffs seeking the relief of permanent
injunctions on the basis of title. The defendants
seriously disputes the identity and existence of the suit
schedule property and also disputes the plaintiffs'
possession over the suit schedule property. Since there
is dispute regarding the existence and identification of
the property the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish
that they were in possession of the suit schedule
property as on the date of suit.
24. In order to substantiate their case, plaintiff
No.2 himself examined as P.W.1 and placed reliance on
the the documents Exs.P.1 to P.7.
25. According to P.W.1, his grandfather Sriman
Annasa Ellairya Swamy was the absolute author cum
/ 41 / O.S.No.479/2013
founder of AchalaMutt Trust (Regd). The grandfather of
the plaintiffs has formed the said trust in order to
conduct the religious programs. The said Sriman Annasa
Ellairya Swamy purchased the properties in the name of
mutt. During his lifetime he utilized the said properties
for the benefit of trust. The said Sriman Annasa Ellairya
Swamy was married one Rajamba @ Rajamma. During
the existence of their marriage, they begotten 2 children
by name A.E. Balakrishna Dev and A.E. Bhramananda.
The said Balakrishna and Bhramananda are the legal
heirs and were managing the said trust till their death.
During the lifetime of Sriman Annasa Ellairya Swamy, he
constructed the residential buildings and shops in the
suit schedule property in the year 1906. One of the
building has been utilised for the purpose of conducting
prayer and programs and another building was used for
residential purpose. Shops were let out for rent. The
said Sriman Annasa Ellairya Swamy executed a Will on
/ 42 / O.S.No.479/2013
15.7.1945 wherein he mentioned the condition that the
properties belongs to Mutt should be utilised by his legal
heirs for the good cause and they should not dispose off
the said properties to third parties. After the death of
Sriman Annasa Ellairya Swamy, his first son A.E.
Balakrishna Dev took the charge of the said Trust and
conducted the programs. A.E. Bhramananda was
assisting to his brother Balakrishna Dev in conducting
the programs on behalf of Mutt. During their lifetime,
they have registered a trust on 18.10.1982 as per Ex.P.2.
The said A.E. Balakrishna Dev had also died.
Subsequently A.E. Bhramananda took the incharge of
the said trust and he was managing the affairs of the
trust. The said Bhramananda was also died. The present
plaintiffs are managing the entire affairs of the trust.
The suit schedule property is in possession of the
plaintiff. The defendants No.9 and 19 to 22 have
colluded with each other and have registered a trust
/ 43 / O.S.No.479/2013
deed on 3.11.2001 in the name of Sriman Annasa
Ellairya Swamy Trust and mentioned the addressed of
Sriman Annasa Ellairya Swamy AchalaMutt Trust (Regd).
The said trust is illegal. Said defendants have no
authority to register the said trust. Hence, the said trust
deed is null and void and not binding on the Sriman
Annasa Ellairya Swamy AchalaMutt Trust (Regd).
26. P.W.1 further deposed that defendants No.9
and 13 to 16 have trespassed into the suit schedule
property and have illegally acquired outside the
premises which has been alloted to the school
constructed by A.E. Bhramananda. The said defendants
have illegally retained the portion of suit schedule
property. The defendants No.7, 9 and 12 to 22 have
disposed off the outside the portion of the suit schedule
property to defendants No.4 to 6 and have executed sale
deed on 21.4.2004 as per Ex.P.4. The said sale deed has
been executed without the consent of plaintiffs. Thereby
/ 44 / O.S.No.479/2013
the defendants No.7, 9 and 12 to 22 have committed an
offence of fraud, cheating and forgery and they are
liable to be punished as per the provisions of IPC. The
defendants No.7, 9 and 12 to 22 have colluded with the
defendants 29 to 32, have disposed off the suit schedule
property to defendants No.4 to 6 and have executed sale
deed dated 25.8.2008 as per Ex.P.1. The said sale deed
is null and void and not binding upon the Mutt. The
present plaintiffs are conducting AchalaMutt Trust (Regd)
Mutt programs in the said Trust as per schedule every
year without fail. Ex.P.7 is the Invitation Card. Himself
and plaintiffs No.1 and 3 have executed the family trust
deed dated 26.6.2009 with combining the trust deed
dated 18.10.1982 as per Ex.P.3. The plaintiff No.1 is the
honourary president, plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the
honourary treasurers and children of plaintiffs No.1 to 3
are the directors of the said family trust deed and
thereby the children of Late Bhramananda and Late
/ 45 / O.S.No.479/2013
Balakrishna Dev have been conducting the programs in
the said trust without anybody's interference.
27. P.W.1 further deposed that defendants No.4 to
32 have colluded with each other and have filed
O.S.No.26207/2009 against the present plaintiffs and
defendants No.49 and 50 claiming 2/6 th share in the suit
schedule property. The said suit is pending for
consideration. The defendants No.1 to 85 have colluded
with each other are harassing the plaintiffs, therefore,
the plaintiffs have lodged a complaint on 24.9.2010
before the Hon'ble Chair Person of Karnataka State
Human Rights Commission and also lodged complaint
against the defendants No.4 to 6, 9, 15, 16, but the
police authorities have not initiated any action. The
defendants have no right or interest over the suit
schedule property, are interfering with the plaintiffs'
peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule property. Hence, prayed for decreeing the suit.
/ 46 / O.S.No.479/2013
28. The counsel for plaintiffs argued that plaintiffs
are in possession of the suit schedule property, they are
performing the poojasa, bhajanas, etc., of the mutt, the
defendants have no right over the property, are
obstructing and have also registered the trust. The said
trust is null and void. The defendants have not adduced
their evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 is in-tact. Hence,
prayed for decreeing the suit.
29. Per contra, the counsel for defendants argued
that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule
property, the plaintiffs themselves admitted in their
plaint that the defendants are in possession of the suit
schedule property, hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled
for the protective order. The counsel for defendants
further argued that defendants No.53 to 57, 65 to 80 are
the Government officials, but the Government of
Karnataka has not been arrayed as a party, hence, the
/ 47 / O.S.No.479/2013
suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and prayed for
dismissal of suit.
30. On perusal of entire material available on
record it reveals that, plaintiffs claim that they are in
possession of the suit schedule property, the defendants
are no way concerned with the suit schedule property,
are obstructing their possession, hence they prayed for
decreeing the suit. Though the plaintiffs claim that they
are in possession of the suit schedule property, in their
plaint plaintiffs pleaded that defendants No.7 to 28 have
executed registered sale deed as per Exs.P.1 and P.4, the
purchasers and the tenants i.e., defendants No.33, 34,
39, 40, 50 and 51 are in possession of the suit schedule
property. The plaintiffs in their plaint para No.20 pleaded
that on 20.5.2001 the defendants No.7, 9, 15 and 16
trespassed into the suit schedule property, which clearly
goes to show that the plaintiffs are not in possession of
the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs themselves
/ 48 / O.S.No.479/2013
admitted that they are not in possession of the suit
schedule property.
31. Admissions made in pleadings are the best
admissions. In a decision reported in [2012] 8 SCC 516
[Ahmed Saheb (dead) by LRs and others Vs. Sayed
Ismail], in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that,
"Admission made either in pleadings or orally - Is the
best evidence - Needs no further corroboration" The
said decision aptly applicable to the case in hand. In
this case also the plaintiffs themselves admitted that
they are not in possession of the suit schedule property.
32. The plaintiffs claim that defendants No.7 to 28
have sold the property and thereby caused loss to the
mutt, hence, the defendants No.7 to 28 are liable for
punishment. Though the plaintiffs claim that the sale
deeds Ex.P.1 and P.4 are not binding upon, but they have
not challenged the sale deed, without challenging the
/ 49 / O.S.No.479/2013
sale deeds the suit for bare injunction is not
maintainable.
33. Plaintiffs claim that defendants No.15 and 16
are the tenants of AchalaMutt Trust (Regd), but have
utterly failed to produce an iota of documents to show
that they are tenants under the plaintiffs. Without
documentary evidence Court cannot believe the verison
of the plaintiffs.
34. Plaintiffs further claim that defendants No.7 to
28 are interfering with Mutt day to day affairs. Except
the oral testimony of P.W.1, there is no material on
record to show that the plaintiffs are the trustees of the
AchalaMutt Trust (Regd) and the defendants No.7 to 28
are interfering with their day to day affairs.
35. The plaintiffs in their plaint pleaded that the
defendants No.50 to 80 have received bribe from
defendants No.7 to 9, 15 and 16. Plaintiffs are making
/ 50 / O.S.No.479/2013
an allegation against the Government officials. In order
to substantiate their allegation, there is no acceptable
evidence on record. If at all If at all the defendants have
received bribes as alleged by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs
can very well file a complaint against the said
defendants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, they
can agitate their remedy under the said Act.
36. Plaintiffs further averred that defendants No.7
to 28 have committed criminal conspiracy with an
intention to loot or dispose off the mutt property. If at all
the defendants No.7 to 28 have committed any offence,
plaintiffs can very well file a complaint against the said
defendants and agitate their remedy as provided under
the Indian Penal Code. Without resorting the remedy as
provided under the Indian Penal Code, have filed the
present suit.
37. Another contention of the plaintiffs is that, the
defendants No.7 to 28 have illegally sold the mutt
/ 51 / O.S.No.479/2013
property as per Exs.P.1 to P.4 as discussed supra, the
plaintiffs have not challenged the said sale deeds.
Without challenging the sale deeds the contention of the
plaintiffs are not acceptable one.
38. P.W.1 deposed that defendants No.53 to 57
blindly registered the sale deeds, without verifying the
title deeds. The defendants No.53 to 57 being the
Government officials they have registered the sale
deeds as per Exs.P.1 and P.4 in their official capacity.
P.W.1 further deposed that defendants N.53 to 57 have
exceeded their power and they have misused their
official powers. In order to substantiate their allegation
there is no evidence on record. The plaintiffs have made
bald allegation against the Government officials.
39. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for
permanent injunction, but P.W.1 in his examination-in-
chief claimed the relief of declaration. P.W.1 in his
/ 52 / O.S.No.479/2013
evidence indirectly challenging the sale deeds dated
2.1.2004 and 25.6.2008 and also trust deed dated
3.12.2001, but there is no pleadings as regards to the
relief of declaration. Though P.W.1 in his examination-in-
chief deposed that, the sale deeds and trust deed dated
3.12.2001 are null and void, but, there is no pleading to
that effect. It is well settled law that, any amount of
evidence without pleadings are inadmissible. It is trait
that a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence beyond
what has been pleaded by him. The sole purpose of
pleading is to bind the parties to a stand because if they
are allowed to lead evidence beyond pleadings, then the
very purpose of filing pleadings shall stand defeated.
The rational behind binding a party to its pleadings is
that no party can be allowed to take the other by
surprise by bringing new facts through evidence unless
stated in the pleadings. That, in a decision reported in
[2018] 11 Supreme Court Cases 119 (Ratanlal Vs.
/ 53 / O.S.No.479/2013
Sundrabai Govardhan Das), in which the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that : "Parties to suit are always governed by
their pleadings - Any amount of evidence or proof
adduced without proper pleadings in consequential and
would not come to rescue of parties." The said decision
is aptly applicable to the case in hand.
40. The counsel for plaintiffs argued that plaintiffs
are in possession of the suit schedule property, the
defendants have not adduced their evidence. The
evidence of P.W.1 has remained unchallenged. Hence,
prayed for decreeing the suit.
41. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for
the relief of permanent injunctions. They have to prove
their case. Failure to prove defence does not reverse or
discharge plaintiffs' burden of proof. That, Section 101
of Indian Evidence Act has clearly laid down that, burden
of proving of fact always lies upon person who asserts
/ 54 / O.S.No.479/2013
the fact. Until such burden is discharged, the other
party is not required to be called upon to prove his case.
The Court has to examine as to whether the
presumption upon whom the burden lies has been able
to discharge his burden. Until the Court arises at such
conclusion, the Court cannot proceed on the basis of
weakness of other party. In this case also, the plaintiffs
have to prove their case on their own, they cannot take
the advantages of the weakness of the defendants. In a
decision reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases
220 (Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami and another), it is
clearly held that :
"Evidence Act 1872 - S.101 - Burden
lies on plaintiff to prove his case on basis of
material available - He cannot rely on
weakness or absence of defence of
defendant to discharge the onus. If plaintiff
claims title to property, he must prove his
title."
/ 55 / O.S.No.479/2013
42. In another decision reported in 2020 (3)
KCCR 1996 [Smt. Jayamma Venkataram and another
Vs. Smt. Ashraf Jahan Begum and another], in which the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly held that, "The
plaintiffs have to establish their case. They cannot
depend on the weakness of the defendants." The said
decisions are aptly applicable to the case in hand.
43. In this case also the plaintiffs claim that
AchalaMutt Trust (Regd) is the owner and they are in
possession of suit schedule property and defendants are
obstructing. They have to prove the same.
44. That, in order to show the actual possession of
suit schedule property by the plaintiffs, there is
absolutely no material produced. Burden being on the
plaintiffs to establish their case irrespective of whether
defendants prove their case or not, in the absence of
plaintiffs establishing their title and possession, they
must fail and must be non-suited.
/ 56 / O.S.No.479/2013
45. The aforesaid facts and circumstances would
indicate that having regard to the undisputed materials
on record and series of events that occurred prior to
filing of the suit, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to
file a comprehensive suit for declaration, possession
and injunction, etc., and not a simple suit for permanent
injunction, which is not maintainable in the face of
Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
46. It is an well settled principle of law that,
whenever the the plaintiffs are not in possession of suit
schedule property, a simple suit for injunction is not
maintainable. However, it is apposite to note that, this
court is not expressing any view with respect to the title
of the property. Whenever plaintiffs are not in
possession of the property, they have to file a suit for
possession and injunction otherwise the suit is not
maintainable. In a decision reported in 2015 (5) KCCR
/ 57 / O.S.No.479/2013
1319 (P.Rajendra Kumar Vs. Smt.Jayanthibai) the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly held that,
"Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Suit for
permanent injunction - vacant plot with temporary shed
- plaintiff relying upon registered sale deed and other
attendant documents that by itself would not establish
the possession of either parties - Identity and location of
property to be established by parties - rough sketch not
indicating the existence of plot." The above said decision
is aptly applicable to the case in hand.
47. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, they are the
owners in possession of the suit schedule property, but
the defendants have denied the ownership of plaintiffs
over the entire suit schedule property. Once the
ownership of the plaintiffs has been denied, the plaintiffs
ought to have sought the relief of declaration and
possession over the suit schedule property. That, in a
decision reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033
/ 58 / O.S.No.479/2013
(Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs
and others), the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that, "If
complicated question of title involved could be
examined only in a title suit for declaration and for
consequential reliefs and not in a suit for injunction
simpliciter." In this case also the defendants have
denied the claim of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule
property and plaintiffs in their plaint have clearly
admitted that they are not in possession on entire suit
schedule property. Hence, they ought to have filed a suit
for declaration, possession and consequential relief of
injunction. The above said decision is squarely
applicable to the case in hand. Hence, the suit of the
plaintiffs for bare injunction is not maintainable.
48. In another decision reported in 2017 (4)
KCCR 3144 (Smt. Sathyamma Vs. Smt. Kempamma),
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that, "Head
Note C - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Suit for
/ 59 / O.S.No.479/2013
injunction -Burden of proof - In a suit for permanent
injunction, when there is no issue caste upon the
defendant and the entire issues are caste upon the
plaintiff, it is ultimately the plaintiff has to succeed or fail
on the case made out by the plaintiff himself/herself.
Even there are lapses and lacunas on the part of the
defendant, the plaintiff cannot rely upon the weakness
of the defendant for the purpose of succeeding her case.
The weakness or lapses on the part of the defendants
cannot be taken as filling up of the blanks or the lapses,
lacunas in the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, the
plaintiff has to stand on her own footing if wants the
plaintiff establishes or proves her case with all
probabilities, then only the Court has to look into
whether proven case of the plaintiff is disturbed or
disproved by the defendants case by means of
preponderance of probabilities. If the plaintiff herself
fails to establish her case, even the defendant's
/ 60 / O.S.No.479/2013
weakness in any manner cannot be taken into
consideration for the purpose of taking the case of
plaintiff as proved, which is the fundamental basic
principles." In this case also the plaintiffs have to prove
their case on their own, they cannot take the weakness
of the defendants in order to get equitable relief of
injunction.
49. In this case, the plaintiffs in fact have not
established the title and possession over the entire suit
schedule property as on the date of suit and cannot rely
upon mere title for seeking the relief of permanent and
mandatory injunctions. Even the defendants have
denied the title of the plaintiffs over entire suit schedule
property. The relief of permanent and mandatory
injunctions cannot be granted for mere asking, but only
when there is necessary pleadings and supporting
evidence.
/ 61 / O.S.No.479/2013
50. Here in the instant case also, the defendants
have denied the possession of the plaintiffs over suit
schedule property and the defendants have contended
that they are in possession of the property. The mode of
acquiring the title by the defendants is valid or not is a
different aspect, the same cannot be adjudicated as this
is a suit for bare injunctions. When the title and
possession is seriously disputed, it is the duty of the
plaintiffs to seek declaration, possession and injunction
thereby captioned Judgment referred i.e., AIR 2008 SC
2033 squarely applicable to the facts of the case and as
discussed above, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their
possession over the entire suit schedule property.
51. The plaintiffs must establish their legal right
and also their exclusive possession to have the relief of
permanent injunction. The Court may exercise its judicial
discretion and grant a permanent injunction if the relief
is not barred by Section of 41 of Specific Relief Act to
/ 62 / O.S.No.479/2013
prevent the breach of an obligation which is in existence.
It is also well settled law that "he who seeks equity must
do equity". The said principle is applicable to the case in
which an equitable remedy is prayed for. Moreover, the
plaintiffs seeking such relief should be able to show that
they have come to the Court with clean hands.
52. In order to claim the relief of permanent
injunction the plaintiffs have to establish their lawful
possession over the suit schedule property and alleged
interference. Here in the instant case, the plaintiffs have
not at all produced any oral or documentary evidence in
order to prove the alleged interference.
53. The plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove that
they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property as on the date of suit and also
failed to prove the alleged obstruction. Accordingly, I
answer Issues No.1 and 2 in the negative.
/ 63 / O.S.No.479/2013
54. Issue No.3 :- The defendants No.53 to 80
specifically contended that in their written statement
that the defendants No.53 to 80 are Government
employees, hence, the suit against them is not
maintainable. Admittedly, the defendants No.53 to 80
are the Government employees. The entire allegations
of the plaintiffs are in respect of officials duties. As per
Order 27 Rule 5-A of C.P.C. Government has to be made
as a party to the suit. Order XXVII Rule 5-A reads thus :
Where a suit is instituted against a
public officer for damages or other reliefs in
respect of any act alleged to have been done
by him in his official capacity, the
Government shall be joined as a party to the
suit."
55. In a decision reported in 1991 (2) KLJ 381
[N.C.Channabasappa Vs. Assistant Education Officer], in
which the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that, "In
suit filed against Government officer in respect of official
/ 64 / O.S.No.479/2013
acts - Government is a necessary party." The said
decision aptly applicable to the case in hand. The
Government of Karnataka has not been arrayed as a
party to the suit, hence, the suit of the plaintiffs is not
maintainable in the present form. Accordingly, I answer
Issue No.3 in the affirmative.
56. Issue No.4 : - As discussed supra, the
plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the
suit schedule property and even they have failed to
prove the alleged obstruction.
57. The plaintiffs claim that defendants No.58 to
64 may be restrained for making changes in khatha in
respect of suit schedule property as per sale deeds
dated 21.01.2004 and 25-06-2008. The entries in khata
register has to be maintained under the Property Tax
Rules 2009 which should necessarily follow the title. The
defendants No.58 to 64 are under a duty to enter the
/ 65 / O.S.No.479/2013
name of purchasers as per sale deed. If at all the
plaintiffs have aggrieved by the entry made by the said
defendants, they can very well challenge the same
before the appropriate forum. Thus, the relief claimed
against defendant Nos.58 to 64 not maintainable.
Defendant Nos.58 to 64 being Statutory Body are
governed by Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act.
58. The relief of injunction is pertaining to the
discharge of duty and exercise of powers by defendants
No.58 to 64 conferred under KMC Act, pertaining to
change of khatha or to effect mutation. It is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of defendant Nos.58 to 64 and the
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for
issuing direction pertaining to restoration or change of
khatha. But under the Special Act, the plaintiffs have to
proceed before the competent authority established
under the K.M.C. Act. Therefore, the prayer at Sl.No.(e)
/ 66 / O.S.No.479/2013
sought in the plaint, if rendered, is infructuous and it
does not survive for consideration.
59. Plaintiffs claim that O.S.No.26894/2010 on the
file of Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru and MFA
No.9799/2010 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka are pending, but they have failed to produce
documents pertains to the said suit and appeal. Without
documentary evidence the Court cannot believe the
version of the plaintiffs.
60. The plaintiffs claim the relief against the police
authorities, but as per Section 41(d) of Specific Relief Act
Court cannot restrain any person from instituting or
prosecuting any proceedings in a criminal Mutter. Hence,
such relief cannot be granted. Hence, I answer Issue
No.4 in the
61. Issue No.5 : - It is the case of the plaintiffs
that they were in lawful possession of the suit property
/ 67 / O.S.No.479/2013
as on the date of filing of the suit. It is a well settled
principle of law that, in a suit for injunction, the plaintiffs
who are seeking the assistance of the court, they have
to prove that, as on the date of filing of the suit they
were in possession over the suit property. If they fail to
prove their possession they are not entitled for the relief
of injunction.
62. That, the conduct of the plaintiffs shows that
they are habitual litigants and they are in the nature of
filing the suits on one or the other pretext without any
reasonable cause, which attitude is to be deprecated. In
a decision reported in (2012) 6 SCC 430 = AIR 2012
SC 2010 (A.Shanmugam Vs. Arya Kshatriya Rajakula
Vamsathu Madalaya Nandanavana Paripalani Sangama),
in which the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that :
"Constitution of India, Art.21 - Civil P.C;.
(5 of 1908), Suit schedule. 35A, 144 - Delay in
Administration of justice - False claims and
/ 68 / O.S.No.479/2013
evasive pleas are main cause for delay - That
can be avoided by ordering restitution and
imposing realistic costs - Courts have to
ensure that unscrupulous litigant is not
permitted to drive any benefit by abusing
judicial process.
Administration of Justice - Judicial
proceedings - Object of - Is to discern truth
and do justice."
63. The above said decision is aptly applicable to
the case in hand. The plaintiffs have filed the suit
without any reasonable cause. Hence, they are liable to
pay the realistic costs to the defendants, which I
quantify Rs. 2,000/- to each defendants.
64. On consideration of oral and documentary
evidence on record the plaintiffs failed to establish that
the AchalaMutt Trust (Regd) is the absolute owner and
present plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property and are therefore not entitled for
/ 69 / O.S.No.479/2013
the relief as sought for. Accordingly, I answer Issue
No.4 in the negative.
65. Issue No.5 :- For the foregoing reasons I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed on realistic costs of Rs.2,000/- payable to each defendants.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed directly on computer, script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2021.) (KHADARSAB) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 : A.M.Maheshwara / 70 / O.S.No.479/2013
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 25.6.2008 Ex.P.2 : C/c of Trust Deed dated 18.10.1982 Ex.P.3 : C/c of Trust Deed dated 26.6.2009 Ex.P. 4 : C/c of sale deed dated 21.1.2004 Ex.P.5 : C/c of Death Certificate of A.B. Brahmananda dated 5.2.2019 Ex.P.6 : C/c of Death Certificate of A.B.Ashok Kumar dated 15.2.2019 Ex.P.7 : Invitation card. Ex.P.8 : Notice dated 27.1.2011 Ex.P.9 : Endorsement dated 22.3.2011 Ex.P.10 : Applications
3. List of witnesses examined/documents exhibited for the defendants : -
- NIL -
(KHADARSAB), XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
***
/ 71 / O.S.No.479/2013
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court, vide separate Judgment :
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed on realistic costs of Rs.2,000/- payable to each defendants.
Draw decree accordingly.
(KHADARSAB), XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.