Bangalore District Court
Ranga Reddy Y V vs Radhika Rani K on 10 September, 2025
1 OS.No. 2332/2022
KABC010095372022
Presented on : 30-03-2022
Registered on : 30-03-2022
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU
Dated this the 10th day of September 2025
PRESENT: SMT. G.S.PRASEELA KUMARI, B.A.L,LLB.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU.
O.S.No.2332/2022
PLAINTIFFS : Sri Y.V.RANGA REDDY,
S/o late Y.Pulla Reddy,
Aged about 72 years,
Residing at No. 12-3-17,
3rd Cross, Sai Nagar,
Ananthapura,
Andhra Pradesh-515 001.
(By Sri.SKS, Advocate)
V/S.
DEFENDANT : Smt. RADHIKA RAΝΙ.Κ
W/o Sri Ranganatha S. Bharadwaj
Aged about 45 years
R/at No. 194, Yashoradhika,
3rd Main, 6th Cross, 2nd Phase,
Rajivgandhi Nagar,
Bangaluru- 560 097.
(By Sri. CB, Advocate)
2 OS.No. 2332/2022
Date of Institution of the suit : 30-03-2022
Nature of the suit : Injunction suit
Date of commencement of : 17-08-2023
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 10-09-2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
03 05 10
(G.S.PRASEELA KUMARI)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed suit against the defendant for permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, his men or persons claiming through or under him etc., from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that:-
The Plaintiff is the owner and has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire property. The said property originally belonged to one H.B.Srinivas s/o H.K. Bacchannanavar. The said Srinivas had sold the said property to the Plaintiff. The plaintiff 3 OS.No. 2332/2022 purchased entire schedule Property schedule property as per the Sale Deed dated: 23/01/1995 and thereafter he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and all the revenue records stands in the name of Plaintiff and he has paid up to date tax to the concerned authority. The organization under the name and style of a Co-Operative Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co- Operative Societies Act under the name and style of M/s. N.T.I Housing Co- Operative Society Ltd. The said society claims to have acquired totally land measuring 184.1 Acres comprised in various survey numbers in Kodigehalli, Kothihosahalli, Byatarayanapura Village of Bengaluru North Taluk by virtue of a Preliminary Notification published under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition, Act dated:
04/01/1995 and Final Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated: 22/09/1986. After the acquisition of land was made in their favour and an award also came to be passed and government had taken possession of the land and handed over the possession to them on 05/11/1992. The said organization was put in possession of the lands and they had sought for approval of the layout plan from Bengaluru Development Authority, subsequently Bengaluru Development Authority called upon the said 4 OS.No. 2332/2022 organization to submit a modified layout plan. As the Bengaluru Development Authority had not released the approved plan the organization claims that they were not able to form the layout.
3. Organization claims to have filed a Writ Petition in W.P No. 10054/2008 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka seeking for certain directions including directing the Bengaluru Development Authority to render assistance to the said organization to remove the alleged encroachments made by the erstwhile owners and purchasers of the plots. It is claimed that the Order that was passed in W.P No. 10054/2008 was challenged by an association M/s.Shanthivana Residents Association before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in W.A No. 1332/2008. This Appeal was clubbed and connected with Writ Appeals, the organization had given an undertaking and the Writ Appeals were disposed off in terms of the undertaking given by the said organization. The organization was directed not either demolish any construction put up by the members of the Shanthivana Residents Association except by adopting due process of law. The plaintiff is also a member of M/s. Shanthivana Residents Association. Plaintiff is original owner and in possession of the schedule mentioned property having purchased the 5 OS.No. 2332/2022 same from its rightful owner as per the terms of the sale deed dated 23/01/1995. Except the Plaintiff no one else have got any right of whatsoever nature over the schedule property.
4. The organization in order to make unlawful gain and grab the land belonging to the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession in O.S.NO.25439/2018 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, that suit also withdrawn by the plaintiff. In that suit organisation by making false suggestions claiming the relief of possession of the suit schedule property. Without any permission from the concerned court, appears to have illegally transferred the suit schedule property in favour of Sri.Jethmal Jain by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 20-06-2021. Thereafter, another sale deed executed by Sri.Jethmal Jain in favour of the defendant herein under registered sale deed dated 28- 07-2021. The organization as stated above claims to be society registered under the Karnataka Society Registration Act under the name and style of M/s. NTI Housing Co-operative Society, that society came into existence on 31-01-1994, but consequential proceedings initiated on 04-01-1985. The organization cannot claim any benefit under the Acquisition proceedings with respect to the property acquired by committee headed by G.V.K.Rao had made remarks 6 OS.No. 2332/2022 about the organization indulging in grave statutory irregularities. The Plaintiffs submit that, if Sy. No. 17/3, 17/6 and 158/A of Kodigehalli Village have been included in the notification it is by adopting fraudulent means. Undisputedly no compensation is paid nor deposited. Possession was not delivered to the beneficiary under the said notification nor did government take possession of the lands. The possession of the schedule property from the beginning was and is with the original owners or their successors in interest. In view of the fact that no possession or compensation is paid nor deposited as provided under the Act. The acquisition stands lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and resettlement Act 2013 dated: 28/07/2021.
5. The Defendant is claiming to have derived right from the said society making concerted and hectic attempt to dispossess the Plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Admittedly, Plaintiff is in possession of the property. Defendant in order to achieve his purpose of dispossessing the Plaintiff from the schedule property try to commit trespass over the schedule property. On 20/03/2022 the Defendant with the help of goonda elements and their henchmen illegally tried to trespass into the schedule property, but the plaintiff 7 OS.No. 2332/2022 tried to obstruct the Act of the defendant, by that time the defendant warned of consequences of his illegal acts. The cause of action to file the suit arose on 23- 01-1995 and on 20-03-2022. The suit schedule property is within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, prays for Decree of Injunction against the defendants from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff or dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit property.
6. The defendant after the appearance filed the written statement and submits that plaintiff is claiming to be the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property which is none other than the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings. The suit schedule property is also subject matter of the writ proceedings in Writ Appeal No.1332/08. It is also admitted by the defendant that beneficiary under the acquisition proceedings have initiated Writ Proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore in W.A.No.1332/2008 and further admits that the beneficiary under the acquisition proceedings have initiated suit against the Plaintiff in O.S.No.25439/2018 and mainly contends that though state government has acquired suit schedule property comprised in Sy.No.17/3, 17/6 and 158A of Kodigehalli Village but the possession of the schedule property was not delivered to the beneficiary under the said 8 OS.No. 2332/2022 notifications nor did the government take possession of the lands and the possession of the schedule property from the beginning was and is with the original owners or their successors in interest, hence it is claimed that since no possession or compensation is paid nor deposited as provided under the act, the acquisition stands under Section 24(2) of the Right to Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The plaintiff is not disputing the acquisition of the suit schedule property under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and in fact Government of Karnataka through land acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act notified under Notification No.LAO(91)689/83 dated 03-01-1985 and under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act notified under Notification No.R.D.197 AQB82 dated 23-09-1986 and the Government of Karnataka has published Gazatee Notification No.LAQ(9)- 301/83-84 dated 12/15-04-1991 and 04-11-1992.
7. In Survey No.17/6 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 50 feet infavour of its member Sri.Jethmal Jain and also executed Sale Deed dated 20-07- 2021 registered in Document No.HBB-1-10- 62/2021-22 and also handover lawful possession of the 9 OS.No. 2332/2022 above said Site bearing No.686, which is the suit schedule property herein. Thereafter the above said Sri.Jethmal Jain sold the above said Site bearing No.686 in favour of the Defendant herein as per Sale Deed dated 28-07-2021 registered in Document No.HBB-1-01064/2021-22 and since then the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said site as absolute owner. In Survey No.17/6 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore acquisition proceedings of the subject lands for formation of Rajivgandhinagar layout by N.T.I. (National Technological Institutions) Housing Co-operative Society Ltd is held valid in the reported Judgment dated 02-08-2021 rendered in W.A.No.17016/2011 & connected matters by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein all the contentions taken by the Plaintiff herein is answered negative against the Plaintiff herein. The Hon'ble Apex Court as time and again reiterated that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose and by necessary implication, and civil court has no power to take cognizance under Section 9 CPC. Declarations under Section 4 and 6 and subsequent proceedings, the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare injunction on invalidity of 10 OS.No. 2332/2022 procedure contemplated under Land Acquisition Act and only right available to aggrieved person is to approach the High Court under Article, 226 and Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the other allegations made against the defendant denied as false.
8. By considering the same this court was pleased to frame the following:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, it is the defendant had interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is entitle for the relief sought in the suit?
4. Whether the defendant proves that, the suit in the present nature is not maintainable?
5. What order or decree?
9. The plaintiff in order to prove their case, 11 OS.No. 2332/2022 and in support of the case of plaintiff, plaintiff himself deposed as PW.1 and also got marked Ex.P1 to P9. In support of the case of defendant herself got examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to 16.
10. My findings to above said issues are:-
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative; Issue No.2: In the Affirmative; Issue No.3: In the Affirmative; Issue No.4: In the Negative;
Issue No.5: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
11. ISSUE NO.1:- In this case, plaintiff has to prove that she is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Regarding this, on careful perusal of PW.1 and plaint averments as well as the document got marked through PW.1, in a clear cut wordings has stated the originally the suit schedule property belongs to H.B.Srinivas s/o. H.K.Bacchannanavar. The said Srinivas had sold the said property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 23/01/1995 for a valid sale consideration. The plaintiff after the 12 OS.No. 2332/2022 purchase of the schedule Property till today is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and all the revenue records stands in his name and have paid up to date tax to the concerned authority. Regarding the ownership and lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property he has Relied upon the certified copy of the sale deed dated 23-01-1995. This registered sale deed is executed between the plaintiff as well as H.B.Srinivas. The sale consideration amount is shown in the sale deed as Rs.1,10,000/-. In the document itself the father of the plaintiff himself in the sale deed has narrated that the suit schedule property which is none other than the subject matter of the sale deed allotted to his share through partition. Subsequent to the partition, the father of the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but due to the purchase of another property the father of the plaintiff was intending to alienate the suit schedule property. The receipt of the sale consideration amount also reflect in the sale deed pertaining to the description of the property. On careful perusal of the sale deed in page No.105 of the sale deed it reflect that:-
13 OS.No. 2332/2022ಪ್ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್: ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಉತ್ತರ ತಾಲ್ಲೂ ಕು ಯಲಹಂಕ ಹೋಬಳಿ ಕೊಡಿಗೇಹಳ್ಳಿ ಗ್ರಾ ಮಕ್ಕೆ ಸೇರಿದ ಖಾತಾ ನಂ. 581 /A House list No.10 ಸ್ವತ್ತಿಗೆ ಚಕ್ಕು ಬಂದಿ ಪೂರ್ವ 9ನೇ ನಂ.
ವೈ ಪುಲ್ಲರೆಡ್ಡಿರವರ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಪಶ್ಚಿಮಕ್ಕೆ ವೈ ವೆಂಕಟರಾಮಿ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಉತ್ತರಕ್ಕೆ ರೋಡ್ ಮತ್ತು ದಕ್ಷಿ ಣಕ್ಕೆ ಮಿಲಿಟರಿ ಡೈರಿ ಫಾರ್ಮ.
12. By virtue of the Ex.P1 registered sale deed itself goes to show that the plaintiff herein has purchased the above said property from H.B.Srinivas as per the registered sale deed dated 23-01-1995. By keeping in mind the description of the property as shown in the sale deed and on careful perusal of the description of the property as shown in the plaint is an immovable property being a residential site bearing No.10, old Katha No.581/A, presently coming under the BBMP, Katha No.325/17/6/10 situated at Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk together with 3 Square A.C sheet house constructed in brick wall and jungle wood doors and windows and site measuring 40 Feet East to West, North to South: 60 Feet, total Area : 2400 Sq. Feet and bounded as follows East by : Site No. 9, West by : Site No. 11 belongs to Y.Venkatarami 14 OS.No. 2332/2022 Reddy, North by Road and South by Military Diary Farm. The description of the sale deed as well as the description of the schedule as shown in the plaint are one and the same.
13. According to the plaintiff, subsequent to the registration of the sale deed, Katha stands in the name of the plaintiff. In order to prove it he has also produced the certificate issued from BBMP dated 27-02-2020. In this certificate the concerned BBMP authority certify that in Ward No.8, Kodigehalli, Katha No.325/17/6/10 stands in the name of plaintiff by name Sri.Y.V.Rangareddy. Ex.P3 is the tax paid receipt which reflect that the plaintiff herein has paid tax pertaining to the suit schedule property. In Ex.P3 the description of the property reflect as a residential Zone classification declared by tax payer, payee address is shown as No.10, Kodigehalli village, Katha Number shown as No.325/17/6/10. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 itself goes to show that the plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the strength of the registered sale deed.
15 OS.No. 2332/202214. According to the defendant, she has purchased the property as per the registered sale deed dated 28-07-2021 from Sri. Jethmal Jain, that Sri.Jethmal Jain has purchased the property ie., site bearing No.686 from NTI Society as per the registered sale deed dated 20-07-2021. Sri. Jethmal Jain was in possession and enjoyment of the site No.686. Subsequent to the purchase of the property defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the above said sites as an absolute owner. By keeping in mind, this defense of the defendant in the written statement, on careful perusal of Ex.P4 sale deed dated 20-07-2021 executed by NTI Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., in favour of Sri.Jethmal Jain which reflect that property bearing site No.686 in the layout approved by the BDA in several survey numbers in Kodigehalli, Kothi Hosahalli and Byadarayanapura village, Yelahanka Hobli, BNTaluk named as Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, NTI Layout, 1st phase, Bengaluru 560092 and that site is carved out in Sy.No.17/6 of Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, BN Taluk, Bengaluru East to West 40ft or 12.19 mtr. North to South 50 ft or 15.24 mtrs, in total 2000 sqft or 222.22 sq yards or 185.77 sqmtrs.
16 OS.No. 2332/2022The vendor of the defendant purchased the above said property for valid consideration of Rs.54,000/-, in turn the defendant herein has purchased the above said property as per the registered sale deed dated 28-07-2021 for a sale consideration of Rs.20 lakhs.
15. On careful perusal of Ex.P5 registered sale deed executed in favour of the defendant and Ex.P4 sale deed executed in favour of the vendor of the defendant itself goes to show that both the sale deeds are pertaining to site No.686, but the suit schedule property is property bearing No. 10, Old Katha No.581/A and Katha issued from the BBMP is No.325/17/16/10 situated to Kodigehalli village. As per Ex.P1 and plaint schedule the measurement of the property is East to West 40ft and North to South 60ft and in total 2400 sqft. As per Ex.P1, one square metre AC sheet house is situated at the time of purchase of the suit schedule property. As on the date of suit filed by the plaintiff above said property consist of 3 square AC sheet house. The description of the property as shown in Ex.P4 and P5 is 40 x 50ft measuring 2400 sqft. Property No, measurement 17 OS.No. 2332/2022 and description of the property in Ex.P4 and P5 as well as Ex.P1 and plaint schedule is totally differ.
Even boundaries as shown in Ex.P1 is corroborated with the plaint schedule but
boundaries in Ex.P4 and P5 not corroborate with the plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule property as well as the property purchased by the defendant through registered sale deed Ex.P5 are totally different property. Defendant not produced even a single piece of document to prove that though the plaintiff schedule property as well as the property as shown in Ex.P5 are one and the same.
16. According to the defendant as narrated in the Written Statement and evidence of DW.1 it reflect that, the property is the agricultural land in Sy.No.17/6 measuring 2.13 guntas with 02 guntas of Karab land was acquired by the Government of Karnataka under Sec.4(1) notification dated 03-01- 1985 and 6(1) Notification dated 22-09-1986, Gazette Notification published on 12/15/4/1991 and 16(2) dated 04-11-1992 and delivered the possession of the property in favour of National Technological Institutions Housing Co-operative 18 OS.No. 2332/2022 Society to form the residential sites as per the Government letter dated 05-11-1992. After approval of the layout plan from the BDA, NTI society formed the layout and also allotted respective sites to its members. Site No.10 as shown in the suit schedule property is formed in Sy.No.17/6 measuring 2.13 guntas of land.
17. It is also further submitted by DW.1 that, in total 184.1 acres of land comprised in various survey numbers acquired by the Government as per 4(1) Notification dated 04-01-1991, 6(1) Notification dated 22-09-1986 and handed over the possession of the property on 05-11-1992 to the NTI society. By virtue of the acquisition of the property by the Government the suit schedule property as well as entire acquired land vested with the Government due to the handed over possession of the property to the society, subsequent to that NTI society was in possession of the entire property in Sy.No.17/6. As per the allotment letter and sale deed the vendor of the plaintiff has purchased the property in site No.686 through registered sale deed. Thereafter, the defendant has purchased that 19 OS.No. 2332/2022 property.
18. By keeping in mind the description of the property and Ex.P1 and Ex.P4 & 5 on careful reading of evidence of PW.1, he has clearly admitted the acquisition of the property in Sy.No.17/6 and other survey numbers as per 4(1) and 6(1) notification. Acquisition of the property is not disputed by the plaintiff but according to the plaintiff the suit schedule property not within the survey number 76/1 and according to the plaintiff he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property on the strength of the registered sale deed 23-01-1995. The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
19. According to the defendant the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and no building is constructed in the suit schedule property. When the defendant has purchased the site from Jethmal Jain as per registered sale deed dated 28-07-2021 she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit 20 OS.No. 2332/2022 schedule property. By virtue of this defense, on perusal of Ex.P6 certified copy of the plaint, it reflect that M/s. NTI Housing Co-operative Society filed suit against Y.V.Rangareddy for Judgment and decree for vacant possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant by demolishing the unauthorized construction with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Y.V.Rangareddy is none other than the plaintiff in a case on hand. O.S.No.25439/2018 is filed by the NTI society against the plaintiff herein, in Ex.P6 schedule shown as "Residential House bearing No.10, Katha No.581/L situated at Shantivana, Sahakara Nagara, Bengaluru formed in the acquired land bearing Sy.No.17/6 of Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring East to West 40 ft and North to South 60ft and bounded on East by NTI property West by NTI property, South by Military Dairy Farm".
Schedule as shown in O.S.NO.25439/18 and schedule as shown in the plaint in a case on hand are one and the same. In the year 2018 itself, 21 OS.No. 2332/2022 M/s. NTI Housing co-operative society has filed the suit against the plaintiff herein for the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also for demolish of unauthorized construction in the suit schedule property. The possession of the plaintiff in a suit schedule property in a case on hand already admitted by NTI Housing Co-
operative society. Regarding the admission in the plaint before the jurisdictional court in O.S.NO.25439/18 on careful perusal of the plaint averments in page No.6, para No.10 it is clearly admitted that:
The erstwhile land owners as well as the purchasers under the invalid Sale Deeds of the plots started putting up illegal and unauthorized structures in the said lands during 2007-08 by committing act of trespass. The Defendant is one such trespasser in the suit property belonging to the Plaintiff.
The Hon'ble High Court has allowed the writ petition by condemning the inaction of the B.D.A. in not releasing 22 OS.No. 2332/2022 modified layout plan and work order, and issued a mandamus to release the same to the Plaintiff and also directed the B.D.A. to assist the Plaintiff Housing Society to remove illegal encroachment made by the erstwhile land owners as well as purchasers of bits and pieces of lands by way of plots under invalid Sale Deed in the said land bearing Sy.No.17/3 to 17/6by extra judicial manner as the BDA is a planning Authority for the systematic development of the City by preventing unauthorized constructions.
The Defendant is one such person
has concocted the false house list
number and obtained corporation
number by playing fraud on
Authorities as well as Plaintiff's
Society. It is submitted that the illegal occupiers of the acquired land of the Housing Society are educated and powerful persons were also registered an Association known as 'Shanthivana Residents Association (R) to protect 23 OS.No. 2332/2022 their illegal possession to fight collectively against the Plaintiff Society. The said Association is an illegal Association of lawless persons one who has committed Criminal Act of trespass and fabricated and concocted documents to grab the lands of Plaintiff Housing Society. The Defendant is one such person who has committed an act of trespass and constructed an unauthorized construction in the property bearing Khatha No. 581/L of Kodigehalli Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which is belong to the Plaintiff Housing Society. Suffice it to mention that the Plaintiff's title to the suit property is not in dispute. The Plaintiff Society has also given an undertaking to the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Appeals stating that they will demolish the illegal constructions made by the members of the said association, erstwhile owners and 24 OS.No. 2332/2022 purchasers under the illegal sale transactions by due process of law. The Hon'ble Division Bench has noted the undertaking of the Plaintiff and passed a common order in the Writ Appeals Nos. 1332/2008, 1435/2008, 1485/2008, 2349-2471/2008 dated 22-
9-2009 by giving directions to the society to dispossess the illegal occupants by demolishing the illegal constructions by following due process of law. Defendant in this case is one such. person who has illegally tress passed into the land bearing Khatha No.581/L of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. It is submitted that the Defendant on the basis of the bogus Registered Sale Deed dated 23- 01-1995 executed by one H.B. Srinivas pertaining to land bearing Sy.No. 17/6 by mentioning Khatha No.581/L, Site No.10, Kodigehalli Village, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 60 feet together with one square 25 OS.No. 2332/2022 sheet roofed house by giving imaginary boundaries.
The Plaintiff humbly submits that the Defendant has not all acquired any valid title under the Registered Sale Deed dated 23-01-1995 executed by H.B. Srinivas. It is submitted that the land bearing Sy.No.17/6 is an acquired land by the government for the benefit of the Plaintiff Society. It is submitted that name of the erstwhile landowner was notified in the acquisition proceedings and the right, title and interest of the vendor under the said Registered Sale Deed in favour of the Defendant has been divested in the year 1992 itself as the said lands among other lands vested with the state and later put into possession by the government to the Plaintiff Society as the said lands and other lands are validly acquired for the benefit of the Plaintiff Society.
The said Sale Deed relied by the Defendant for putting up illegal 26 OS.No. 2332/2022 constructions on the plots sold under the said Sale Deed is nothing but an illegal act amounting to criminal tress pass. The Plaintiff is the legitimate owner of the land bearing Sy.No.17/6 of Kodigehalli Village and the same was acquired under the valid acquisition proceedings is entitled to evict the Defendant and to demolish the illegal residential house constructed by her in the plot ad-
measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 60 feet. The said property is included, in BBMP limits having ward No.8, known as 'Shanthivana', Sahakarnagar Post. It is submitted that the schedule property bearing No.9, Shanthivana, BBMP ward No.8 is situated and the Defendant has put up illegal construction on the basis of the bogus Sale Deed bearing Registration No.6830/94-95 at pages 102-105 dated 23-1- 1995 in the office of Sub-
Registrar Yelahanka. The cause of 27 OS.No. 2332/2022 action to the suit arose on 25-11-2007 when the Defendant trespassed upon the suit property by putting up illegal construction. On all subsequent dates when an undertaking was given to the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1332/2008 and connected Appeals to demolish the unauthorised construction in accordance with law and the same was disposed off. Judgement and Decree for vacant possession of the schedule property from the Defendant by demolishing the unauthorised construction made therein and Judgement and Decree in the nature of consequential injunction restraining the Defendant from alienating and encumbering the suit property.
20. By virtue of the above said admission at Ex.P6 i.e., in the plaint by NTI Society itself reflect that in the year 2019, NTI society itself admit the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and also admit the construction of the 28 OS.No. 2332/2022 building in the suit schedule property. No doubt, subsequent to the filing of the suit, NTI Housing Co-
operative Society Ltd., withdrew the suit by way of filing memo dated 04-07-2023 but the reason for withdrawal of suit reflect at Ex.P7 i.e., memo for withdrawal in O.S.NO.25439/2018 which reads thus:
It is submitted that the suit schedule property was a vacant site and as on the date of suit, there was no construction of any kind on the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property was in possession of the Plaintiff. However, by inadvertence, the plaintiff had filed the above suit. Further, the Plaintiff has executed a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of an eligible member of the society during pendency of the suit and the purchaser is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that there was no cause of action for filing the suit as on the date of filing the suit and in view of the sale deed executed by the plaintiff society in favour of its member 29 OS.No. 2332/2022 during pendency of the suit, no cause of action survives. Wherefore, the plaintiff seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the above suit. The leave sought for may kindly be granted and he above suit may be dismissed as withdrawn and the entire court fee paid on the plaint may be ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff.
21. As per Ex.P4 sale deed executed by NTI Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., in favour of Sri.Jethmal Jain on 20-07-2021. As per Ex.P5 Sri. Jethmal Jain has executed the registered sale deed on 28-07-2021 in favour of the defendant herein. But in the year 2018 itself as admitted the NTI society plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
22. According to the plaintiff as per the observation of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.1332/2008 c/w other writ appeal dated 22-09-2009 M/s. Shanthivana Residents Association has preferred appeal against the BDA as well as NTI Housing Co-operative Society, being 30 OS.No. 2332/2022 aggrieved by the legality and correctness of the order dated 24-07-2008 in Writ petition No.10054/2008 allowing the petition filed by the NTI Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., and directing the BDA to issue modified layout plan, work order and to release 60% o the total sites within 15 days from the date of receipt of order and also directing the BDA to remove encroachment in respect of the civil amenity sites shown in the layout plan. According to the society before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the Writ Appeal has contended that, the members of the Shanthivana Association encroached portion of the property in Sy.No.17/3, 17/4, 17/5 and 17/6 of Kodigehalli village on the strength of the illegal registered sale deeds executed by the owners of the property in the above said survey numbers, illegally got mutated revenue records in their names and also illegally and unauthorizedly constructed the building. By virtue of that contention of the society in page No.28, in para No.10 Hon'ble High Court opined that, On 26.3.2009 the learned paragraph-1 of the memo. counsel for the Society 31 OS.No. 2332/2022 undertook to file additional memo with affidavit to clarify the memo dated 19.12.2008 stating that the apprehension. in the mind of the appellants in W.A.No. 1332/2008 that pursuant to the order impugned in this appeal, demolition of the structures and taking possession of the properties which are claimed by the members of the Association will not be done without due process of law.
23. In the undertaking affidavit sworn by the Secretary of the society in para No.3 of the affidavit dated 30-03-2009 undertake that not to dispossess the possessor of the land allotted to the society without due process of law. Para No.3 of the undertaking affidavit extract is here for better appreciation of the plaintiff case which reads thus:-
"3. The appellant in W.A.No. 1332/2008 has filed a list of members claiming that some of them have put up constructions/structures. Society by means of memo dated 19.12.2008 The 32 OS.No. 2332/2022 respondent has stated that these members would not be evicted otherwise than in due course of law. Having regard to the apprehension by the appellants, this Hon'ble Court by an order dated 26.3.2009 directed the respondent society to file a further affidavit. Therefore, the respondent society is now clarifying that the respondent society would not demolish the structures/buildings stated to have been in existence as on the date of filing of the above Writ Appeal No.1332/2008 in Sy.No.17/3, 17/4, 17/5 and 17/6 of Kodigehalli village. This undertaking is applicable only to the structures/buildings stated to have been in existence as on the date of filing of W.A.No.1332/2008 in the above Sy.Nos.
alleged to have been put up by the members of Shanthivana resident's Association, who is appellant in W.A.No. 1332/2008. This undertaking is not applicable to the vacant sites/spaces available in the above Sy.Nos. Further the society reiterates the action to 33 OS.No. 2332/2022 demolish or evict against the encroachers/trespassers who are the members of the appellant association shall be only in accordance with law."
24. Regarding the undertaking given by the Society, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed in page No.32, para No.12 which reads thus:-
Now the Society has given an undertaking that it would evict the members of the Association only in accordance with law and that they will not be evicted otherwise than due process of law. Therefore, in our considered opinion, in the light of the said undertaking given by the Society there is no need to consider the various contentions urged in the appeals except placing the undertaking given by the Society on record and directing the Society not to evict the members of the Association from the possession of their respective sites, details of which have been furnished in the appeal, 34 OS.No. 2332/2022 otherwise than the due process of law.
25. With respect to the observation of the Single Judge in Writ petition No.10054/08 dated 24-07-2008 in the Writ Appeal, the Hon'ble High Court in page No.33 observed that:-
In any case, the observation that the learned Single Judge that the BDA has to remove the encroachment if necessary even by adopting extra judicial method is uncalled for and unjustified. Such a direction cannot be issued by a constitutional authority.
Courts should act in protecting the constitution and the law established thereunder. The courts cannot direct any authority to adopt extra judicial method for either removing encroachment & construction of the buildings made thereon. Therefore, the said observation of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and is liable to be expunged.35 OS.No. 2332/2022
26. Regarding the possessor of the land, subsequent to the acquisition of the property in above survey number by the Government of Karnataka and handed over the same to the society in page No.36, para No.15 opined that:_ The question as to whether the possession of the land owned by them has been taken by the acquiring authority is also a disputed question of fact and therefore, it is not open for the appellants to urge all those contentions in this appeal. These appellants are entitled to protect their possession if any, before the proper forum in accordance with law, if law permits.
Subject to these observations we find no ground to grant permission to the appellants in W.A.No.1435/2008 to file the appeal.
27. With the above said observation at the time of disposal of the Writ Appeal the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed the NTI Society in clear cut wordings which reads thus:_ 36 OS.No. 2332/2022 The NTI Housing Society is directed not to demolish any constructions of Shanthivana either put up by the members Residents Association (Regd.) or to evict any members of the Association, the appellant in W.A.No. 1332/2008, except in due process of law, as per the undertaking given by the NTI Housing Society.
28. In view of the above said observation in Writ Appeal, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed the NTI society not to demolish any constructions put by the members of the Shantivana Residents Association (R) or evict any members of the Association in due process of law as per the undertaking given by the NTI Housing Society.
29. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant has vehemently argued that the plaintiff is not the member of the Shantivana Residents Association (R) and no construction in the property belongs to the plaintiff, 37 OS.No. 2332/2022 but regarding it defendant not produced even a single piece of document to prove that the plaintiff is not the member of Shantivana Resident Association. Defendant herein has purchased the property as per Ex.P1, site No.686 from Sri.Jethmal Jain. Sri.Jethmal Jain purchased the site No.686 from NTI Housing Society, as such the defendant produced the list of members of the above said Housing Society, but that document is not produced before this court. Apart from that the society itself filed the suit against the plaintiff herein in O.S.NO.25439/2018 and admit the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In the plaint itself, the NTI society itself admit the putting up of illegal construction by the plaintiff herein in the suit schedule property. The cause of action for the above said suit also shown as 25-11-2007, when the defendant i.e., Y.V.Rangareddy trespassed upon the suit property. Even though the plaintiff is not the member of the Shantivana Resident Association, the defendant or NTI society has no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property without due process of law.
30. According to the defendant and also 38 OS.No. 2332/2022 during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant has vehemently argued that the suit schedule property is a vacant site, as such the observation of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal is not applicable to the plaintiff. Regarding it, on perusal of the observation of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para No.10, page No.29 it is crystal clear that undertaking by the society is not applicable to the vacant sites / space available in the survey number 17/3, 17/4, 17/5 and 17/6 of Kodigehalli village. And further it is observed that the society reiterates the action to demolish or evict against the encroachers / trespassers who are the members of the Appellate association shall be only in accordance with law. Regarding the construction of the building in the plaint schedule property at Ex.P1 sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff itself goes to show that, " ಪೂರ್ವ ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ 40 ಅಡಿಗಳು ಉತ್ತರ ದಕ್ಷಿ ಣ 60 ಅಡಿಗಳು ಅಳತೆಯುಳ್ಳ ಸೈಟು ಜಾಗ ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಒಂದು ಚದುರದ ಅಂಚಿನ ಮನೆ ಸಹಿತವಾದ ಸ್ವತ್ತು .
31. On 23-01-1995 itself there was a building in the suit schedule property. In 39 OS.No. 2332/2022 O.S.no.25439/2018 in the plaint which got marked as Ex.P6, NTI Co-operative Society being the plaintiff has clearly admitted that the defendant / Y.V.Rangareddy is one such trespassor in the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. IN para No.12 of the Ex.P6 in a clear cut wording the society has admitted that Y.V.Rangareddy has committed the act of trespass and constructed an unauthorized construction in the property bearing Katha No.581/L of Kodigehalli village. In the prayer column also seeking order to demolish unauthorized construction in house bearing No.10, Katha No.581/L. As per Ex.P1 to 3 plaintiff has clearly proved that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Apart from that subsequent to the Writ Appeal, the NTI society or vendor of the defendant or defendant not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property with due process of law. From the date of registered sale deed till the date of filing the present suit, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Relevant Katha certificates and tax paid receipts, Ex.P6 plaint averments reflect the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule 40 OS.No. 2332/2022 property. In view of the above said discussions, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
32. ISSUE.NO.2:- In this issue the plaintiff has to prove the interference by the defendant with respect to the suit schedule property. In the plaint as well as in the evidence of PW.1 on 20-03-2022 defendant illegally and unauthorizedly interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has no right to interfere or dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The cause of action for the suit reflect that defendant illegally and forcibly tried to commit trespass over the property on 20-03-2022 and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. No doubt regarding the interference by the defendant, no document is produced before this court.
33. In the Written Statement as well as in the evidence of DW.1 has contended that, she has purchased the site bearing No.686 as per the registered sale deed dated 28-07-2021 from Sri.Jethmal Jain. Apart from that, according to the 41 OS.No. 2332/2022 defendant the plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the property, but that property is acquired by the Government through acquisition proceedings then handed over the same to the society. According to the defendant plaint schedule property is the part and parcel of property in Sy.No.17/3, 17/6 and 158/L of Kodigehalli village. Subsequent to the acquisition proceedings the entire property in the above said survey number along with the suit schedule property handed over to the Housing Society. After formation of the layout, plaint schedule property formed as site No.686 and allotted it to Sri.Jethmal Jain and executed the registered sale deed on 20-06-2021 and also handed over the vacant possession of the property. After the purchase of the property, the defendant put in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defense of the defendant itself goes to show that she claim her right and possession over the suit schedule property. According to the defendant plaint schedule property as well as the property purchased by the defendant are one and the same. The written statement averments and evidence of DW.1 itself is sufficient to believe the interference of the defendant in peaceful possession 42 OS.No. 2332/2022 and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Mere apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff itself is sufficient to believe the alleged interference by the defendant. In a suit for bare injunction actual or physical interference by the defendant does not arise. Attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession itself is sufficient. As per the relevant document I.e, Ex.P1 to P3 plaintiff has proved that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, when the possession itself is proved by the plaintiff then he is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction regarding interference. Hence, in view of the above discussions I answer Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
34. ISSUE NO.3:- In Issue No.1 the plaintiff has proved that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. In issue No.2 also the plaintiff has clearly proved that the defendant had interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property when possession and interference proved by the plaintiff then he is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant. Without any hesitation, in view of 43 OS.No. 2332/2022 discussions on Issue No.1 and 2, I answer Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
35. ISSUE NO.4: In this issue the defendant has to prove that the suit in the present nature is not maintainable. In para No.20 of the Written Statement the defendant has submitted that when the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code and that act is meant for public purpose and by necessary implications, power of the civil court to take cognizance under Sec.9 of the CPC stands excluded and civil court has no jurisdiction to go into question of validity or legality of notifications, declarations under Sec.406 and subsequent proceedings. Apart from that the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare injunction on invalidity of appreciation contemplated under Land Acquisition Act. According to the defendant right available to the aggrieved person is to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka under Article 226 and Article 136 to the Supreme Court. On that ground the present suit is not maintainable. By virtue of this defense, once again on careful perusal of the plaint, it reflect that no where in the plaint the plaintiff questioned the 44 OS.No. 2332/2022 Legality of the notification under Sec.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act or any other further proceedings. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property not acquired by the Government of Karnataka through Acquisition proceedings and suit schedule property is not the part and parcel of the acquired property. According to him, as per the registered sale deed dated:23-01-1995 acquired the suit schedule property for valid consideration, got mutated the revenue records and also paid tax to the concerned authority.
36. In para No.7 of the plaint, the plaintiff asserts that the claim made by the Housing Society that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the land acquired under the alleged land acquisition for the said organization is false. Only with an intention to grab the land belongs to the plaintiff the organization has filed O.S.NO.25439/18. This Averments in the plaint itself reflect that, plaintiff neither questioned the notifications or acquisition proceedings. His claim of the suit is only for permanent prohibitory injunction to protect his possession over the suit schedule property. The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for 45 OS.No. 2332/2022 permanent prohibitory injunction with respect tot the suit schedule property in the present form is maintainable. The defendant has utterly failed to prove that the suit is not maintainable before this court in the present form. As per Sec.9 of the Civil Procedure Court, the suit is maintainable before this court. In view of the above said discussions, I answer Issue No.4 in the Negative.
37. ISSUE.NO.5:- In view of the discussions on issue Nos.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
The defendant is hereby
restrained from dispossessing the
plaintiff from the suit schedule property without due process of law.
Office is to draw the decree,
accordingly.
(Dictated through AI Software, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 10th day of SEPTEMBER, 2025.) (G.S.PRASEELAKUMARI) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.46 OS.No. 2332/2022
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Sri.Y.V.Ranga Reddy
(b) Defendant's side :
DW.1: Sri.Umashankar.V
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed dt 23-01-1995 Ex.P.2 Khata Certificate Ex.P.3 Tax Paid receipt.
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of the sale deed
dated 20/07/2021
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
28-07-2021
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of plaint in
O.S.NO.25439/18.
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of Memo of withdrawal
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of Judgment in Writ
Appeals.
Ex.P9 Application under Sec.65(b) of Indian
Evidence Act.
(b) Defendants side :
Ex.D.1 GPA executed by the defendant in
favor of this witness.
Ex.D.2 Notification dt 04.01.1955
consisting of 6 pgs.
47 OS.No. 2332/2022
Ex.D.3 Notification dt 22.09.1986
consisting of 8 pgs.
Ex.D.4 Notification dt 12/15.04.1991
consisting of 3 pgs.
Ex.D.5 The details of the properties on
which an award being passed
consisting of 16 pgs.
Ex.D.6 Khata
Ex.D.7 Possession certificate.
Ex.D.8 Sale deed dt 20.07.2021
Ex.D.9 Sale deed dt 28.07.2021
Ex.D.10 Layout plan approved by the BDA
in favor of NTI house building co-
operative society ltd.
Ex.D.11 Certified copy of the notification dt 04.11.1992 passed u/sec 16(2) of LAC consisting of 3 pgs.
Ex.D.12 Certified copy of the official memorandum dt 05.11.1992 consisting of 6 pgs.
Ex.D.13 3 RTC's pertaining to Sy.No. 17/6 of Kodegehalli village.
Ex.D.14 65-B certificate.
Ex.D.15 3 Photographs are together marked.
Ex.D.16 Scan disk 8 GB pen drive.
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
PRASEELA Digitally signed by PRASEELA
KUMARI
KUMARI Date: 2025.10.10 17:00:23 +0530
48 OS.No. 2332/2022
49 OS.No. 2332/2022
For Judgment,
Call on 10-09-2025.
XII ACC & SJ., B'LURU.
Judgment pronounced in open court vide
separate & detailed:-
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is
hereby decreed with cost.
The defendant is hereby
restrained from dispossessing the
plaintiff from the suit schedule
property without due process of
law.
Office is to draw the decree,
accordingly.
50 OS.No. 2332/2022
51 OS.No. 2332/2022
A written statement. After the appearance of the defendant filed a written statement and submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction and other relief is not maintained. Either on law or on facts. According to the defendant, the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and it is highly misconceived and based on created, concocted and fabricated documents. The plaintiff has suppressed it. The material facts and he has not approached the court with clean hands. The plaintiff has not issued any notice before filing the present suit as per the BBMP Act. The defendant is not in receipt of any statutory notice from the plaintiff. Without issuing the statutory and mandatory notice under the Act, the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is not Maintainable. According to the defendant no. It has got every statutory powers and obligations to regulate the unauthorised construction and unhealthy development of the Bangalore City and take adequate steps to promote the structured development and the plaintiff cannot seek for any prohibitory order restraining the defendants from exercising such statutory powers. No cause of action and the suit is liable to be rejected under order. 7 Rule 11A of CPC. According to the defendant, The title and position of the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property is denied as false. The issuance of Katha certificate on the basis of the registered document is not a record of title and it is subject to the establishment of the valid title. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has obtained a sanction plan. As per Order dated 13.12.2013 from the Assistant Director of the defendant to put up residential building consisting of stilt ground first and second floor including terrace floor for residential purpose. But denied the entire Allegation regarding the threatening and interference by the defendants to demolish the building constructed by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, in the course of routine inspection by the assistant engineer of the defendant has visited the suit schedule premises. And observed that constructing activities are going on in violation of the KMC Act Rules 0 buildings by By law. As such, Assistant Executive Engineer has addressed a letter dated 14.12.2017 under Section 308 of the KMC Act. The plaintiff To furnish the copy of the 52 OS.No. 2332/2022 sanctioned plan within 7 days along with other documents. But the plaintiff has failed to furnish the copy and any reply. As such, the assistant executive engineer has obtained the copy of the sanctioned plan from the office of the assistant director, town planning and proceeded to the building under construction and inspected the construction activities with the aid of the sanctioned plan. By that time, it comes to the knowledge of the Assistant Executive Engineer that all the sides there is heavy deviation and no proper setbacks are provided. There is excess constructing of 40.23% each in the ground floor, first floor and second floor. The plaintiff has put up the unauthorised construction of the third and fourth floors without there being any sanctioned plan. Next panel. The Assistant Executive Engineer has issued a provisional order under Section 321 subclause 1 of the KMC Act, as per Order No. AEE PO;3,; 2018- 19 dated 10.04.2018 . Calling upon the plaintiff to bring the construction of the building in terms of the sanctioned plan. But the plaintiff has been issued with the show cause notice dated 10.04.2018 under Section 321(2) of the KMC Act to show cause as to why the provisional order should not be confirmed. Even the provisional order and show cause notice were affixed on the property under construction and it came to be served. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has received the provisional order and show cause notice. In spite of that, plaintiff has not furnished any reply and also failed to bring the construction in terms of the sanctioned plan. As such, the assistant executive engineer has Reanalyzed the entire matter and issued under Section 321(3) of KMC Act and issued the confirmation order called Order No. Aae Co01.08.2019 dated 19.04.2018 and confirming the provisional order and demanded to remove the deviated portion. On 17.11.2023 the Assistant Executive Engineer has addressed letters to the BWSSB and Beskom requesting not to provide water, sewage and electricity amenities to the premises. The Executive Engineer, BDM Layout Division has issued work order under Section 462 of the KMC Act on 12.07.2018 Though the plaintiff has got the alternative and effective remedy to prefer statutory appeal under Section 443(a) of KMC Act by urging all the grounds in the appeal, the plaintiff has not chosen to do so. The plaintiff has suppressed the material facts in order to obtain an interim order 53 OS.No. 2332/2022 intentionally by misleading the court. Next panel. The plaintiff has filed OS 25907 of 2019 for permanent injunction in respect of the same subject matter against the defendant and despite giving sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff. He did not adduce any evidence. As such, the suit came to be dismissed by the 57th Additional City Civil and Station Judge, Bangalore on 12.04.2022 and that order has become final. Therefore, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is nothing but abuse of process of law. On that ground, prays for dismissal of the suit.
The defendant has submitted that one K. Venkatesh Babu has filed complaint before the Lokayuktha in Case No. COM/UPA LOK, BCD/158/2018 and that proceeding is also pending for consideration. In view of the fact that the defendant has taken the action as per law under a special enactment, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or grant the interim relief against the defendant, which is opposed to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 41H of the Special Relief Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court has rendered various decisions in this regard. The decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in MFA No. 8831 of 2009 and WP 10350 of 2008 are on the maintainability of the suit. There is a specific provision provided in the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act to prefer an appeal against the order passed under Section 321(3) of KMC Act, which has been availed on that ground. Also, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit with exemplary cause, to meet the ends of justice. In support of the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined SBW1 and also got marked Exhibit P1 to P9. But in support of the case of the defendant, not adduced any oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues.
My answer to Issue No. 1 in the affirmative, my answer to Issue No. 2 in the affirmative, my answer to Issue No. 3 in the affirmative, my answer to Issue No. 4 in the negative, 54 OS.No. 2332/2022 my answer to Issue No. 5, as per the final order. Issue number 1: In this issue, plaintiff has to prove the accused. He is the owner and he is in the lawful possession of the suit property as As on the date of filing of the suit. In order to prove Issue No. 1 plaintiff himself examined SBW1 and also got marked Exhibit P1 to P3. In the chief examination PW1, as well as in the plaint averments, has contended that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as per the Gift deed dated 10.02.2011 and on the strength of the gift deed all the revenue records got mutated in his name and he has been in a lawful position and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In order to prove this fact plaintiff has relied upon Exhibit P1 dated 10.2011. This gift deed executed by Sree D.C. Narasimha Swami in favour of the plaintiff hereina by name Sree C.N. Sreedhar. Sree D.C. Narasimha Swami is none other than the father of the plaintiff hereina. On careful perusal of the entire document, it reflect that The owner of the property as shown in the schedule, who is none other than the father of the plaintiff herein has narrated that, Site bearing No. 139 in Lakkassandra extension, Bangalore measuring east to west 30 feet and north to south 50 feet was allotted to the father of the plaintiff by then City Improvement Trust Board. As per lease cum sale agreement dated 23.09.1959 was executed and registered on 24.09.1959 and also possession of the site was delivered by CITB to the Father of the plaintiff hereinafter. It is further narrated that additional marginal land abuting the property measuring east to west 16 feet and north to south 50 feet also allotted to the father of the plaintiff as per agreement of lease cum sedi dated 03.09.1964 by the CITB and it was executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff. And registered that document. Thereafter, delivered the possession of the property to the father of the plaintiff as per possession certificate dated 06.10.1964 and 38.06.1964 As per the gift deed, it reflects that father of the plaintiff constructed the residential building in the site in the year 1967 by availing loan facility from the Wilson Garden Building Cooperative Society Ltd. Under low income group housing scheme by mortgaging the property and that property is none other than the suit schedule as shown in the plaint. In the gift deed it is also narrated that The above said property allotted by then CITB, but subsequently possession certificate Bangalore Development Authority, the successor of then CITB, in persuasion to the agreements of the days come, sale deed 55 OS.No. 2332/2022 by CITB executed an absolute sale deed and conveying the entire property as shown in the gift deed, in favour of the father of the plaintiff hereinafter registered document dated 29.09.2009 During the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff, all the revenue records and katha got mutated in his name and also he has paid tax to the property and also he was the absolute owner of the so scheduled property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also further narrated that, mortgage has already been discharged and the Property is free from all encumbrance as on the date of execution of the gift deed. The remaining recitals in the gift deed reflect that plaintiff herein is none other than the father the son of the Narasimha Swami. Out of natural love and affection the entire suit schedule property gifted. Gifted and no monetary consideration is received for transfer of the property to the plaintiff hereinafter. In the gift deed itself, the father of the plaintiff has noted that, subsequent to the gift deed, his son, who is none other than the plaintiff hereinafter in his name, is the lawful and absolute owner of the entire scheduled property and also the permissory plaintiff for transfer of katha in his name. Even Physical possession of the property also delivered at the time of execution of the instrument itself. Even the plaintiff on the date of execution of the gifted deed acknowledged and accepted the gifted deed and also physical possession of the property. The above said recitals in the gifted deed itself goes to show that the father of the plaintiff Purchased the suit schedule property from then CITB and also BDA itself executed the registered sale deed in favour of the father of the plaintiff. During his lifetime he was the absolute owner and he was in possession and enjoyment of the entire property. But at the time of execution of the gifted deed itself the The possession and ownership of the property handed over to the plaintiff hereinafter. The gift deed is registered in accordance with law. Apart from that, Gifted it dated 10.02.2011 executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff and this document not questioned by anyone. Even during the cross examination of PW1 also there is no categorical denial regarding the title and position of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Next panel. Regarding the position of the plaintiff over the suitable property, on careful perusal of Exhibit P2 endorsement issued by the BBMP dated 16.11.2023, it reflect that Property bearing PID No. 62-18-39 situated at Ward No. 145 at Hombay Gowda Nagara 56 OS.No. 2332/2022 jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of the BBMP, property No. 39, 8 Main Road Lakkasandra extension stands in the name of the C. N. Sridhar and reflect the name of the plaintiff as owner of the property. The measurement of the property shown as 2300 square feet, assessment number with respect to the property shown as No. 6 and the page number of the assessment register shown as No. 4 and the serial number in the assessment register shown as 35. The nature of the building in the above said property. Shown as Constructed building with measurement of 1,400 square feet. This endorsement issued by the BBMP itself goes to show that as on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff he has also paid tax pertaining to the suit schedule. Property. Regarding this, on careful perusal of Exhibit P3, tax paid receipt reflect that the plaintiff herein being a owner of the property and also possession of the property has paid tax to the BBMP on 24.05.2023 The suit schedule property is also noted as residential zone classification. By virtue of Exhibit P3 and the strength of Exhibit P2 the plaintiff has paid tax according to the suit schedule property. Recording done. Schedule, on careful perusal of the plaint schedule as well as schedule as shown in the gifted deed, which got marked as Exhibit P1 and also Exhibit P2 endorsement issued by the BBMP, pertaining to the Katha recitals, the above said Exhibits P1 and P2 as well as plaint schedule are 1 and the same. The property reflected in the above said 3 documents is Building No. 39, Wall No. 139, PID 62-18-39 situated at 8th Main, Lakkassandra layout, Bangalore Ward No. 145, Old Ward No. 62, Mumbai Gowda Nagara, BBMP, Bangalore measuring east to west 46 feet. North to south 50 feet bounded on east by property No. 138, west by road, north by road and south by property No. 140. On the strength of Exhibit P123, plaintiff has clearly proved that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and he has been in a lawful position and enjoyment of the Suit schedule property as on the date of her suit. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 who deposed before this court. He has relied upon Exhibit P1 to P3 to prove his absolute ownership and possession over the suit schedule property. But on careful perusal of the cross examination of PW1, no denial regarding the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Entire cross examination only with respect to the 57 OS.No. 2332/2022 issuance of notice under Section 321. Of KMC Act and also violation of the terms and conditions of the sanctioned plan and building licences. Except that, no cross examination and no denial regarding the ownership and lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, without any hesitation, In view of the aforesaid discussion, I answered Issue No. 1 in the affirmative. Issue number 2: In this issue, plaintiff has to prove that there was an interference in his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the defendant authority. In order to prove this issue, plaintiff himself examined IS PW1 and also in his chief examination, in a clear cut, Wordings. He has deposed that He secured the necessary sanctioned land from the defendant authority in LP No. A.D. COM/S.U.T/0949/2013/2014 dated 13.12.2013 to construct a residential building upon the schedule property consisting of stilt. Ground first and second floor and including the terrace floor and constructed scheduled building in accordance with the sanction plan and By that time, unfortunately, the officials of the different authorities abruptly appeared near the schedule property during the fourth week of July, 2023 and made threat of demolition and interference of peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. As a result of that, the plaintiff Caused legal notice to the defendant on 25.07.2023 and that notice also received by the defendant on 26.07.2023 In spite of receipt of the legal notice again on 21.11.2023 The officials of the defendant authority came near the scheduled building and threat of demolish the portion of the building and also interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Regarding the issuance of the legal notice, PW1 has relied upon Exhibits P4 to P6. Exhibit P4 is a legal notice dated 25.07.2023 This notice issued to the defendant and also in the entire notice the plaintiff has narrated that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. As per the gifted and also katha stands in his name. But while construction of the building after obtaining the License and sanctioned plan dated 30.12.2013, the officials of the defendants came near the suit schedule property and also threatening to demolish the portion of the schedule property and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the notice itself, in a clear cut wording, informed the defendant 58 OS.No. 2332/2022 authority that If the interference of the defendant's official causing any damage or interference, then the plaintiff will be approaching the court of law against the defendant. Exhibit P5 postal receipt reflect that notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant through RPAD. Exhibit P6 postal acknowledgment. Also reflect the notice issued by the plaintiff received by the defendant authority, but no reply given by the defendant. As such, the interference as stated in the evidence of PW1 is supported by Exhibit P4 notice. In the cross examination of PW1. No denial regarding the chief examination of PW1 pertaining to the officials of the BBMP had been to the suit schedule property and also threatening the plaintiff to demolish the portion of the suit schedule property and no cross examination pertaining to the interference as stated in the chief examination of PW1. In the absence of the Effective cross examination regarding the interference. It is crystal clear that The defendant's officials had been to the suit schedule property and also interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Apart from the evidence of PW1 and cross examination of PW1 regarding the interference on careful reading of the entire written statement, it reflect that according to the defendant, The plaintiff herein constructing the premises in violation of the KMC Act Rules 0 building by law. When the Assistant Engineering of the defendant has visited the premises by that time, it comes to his knowledge, immediately he has addressed a letter dated 14.12.2017 under Section 308 of the KMC Act to the plaintiff to furnish the copy of the sanctioned plan within 7 days along with other documents. But the plaintiff Failed to furnish the building licence or any other relevant document as called upon by the assistant executive engineer of the defendant authority. In the written statement at Para No. 8, the defendant has taken a contention that When Executive Engineer has obtained the copy of the sanctioned plan from the office of the Assistant Director, town planning and proceeded to the building under construction and inspected the construction activities with the aid of the sanctioned plan, by that time, it reflect that there is heavy deviation and no proper setbacks are provided and there is excess constructing of 40.23% each in the ground floor. First floor, second floor. The plaintiff has put up the unauthorised construction of third and fourth floors, without there being any sanctioned plan. But regarding the issuance of letter dated 14.12.2017, not produced before this court. Even 59 OS.No. 2332/2022 in support of this defence in the written statement, no document produced before this court. No moral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendant. According to the defendant, assistant executive engineer has issued provisional order under Section 321 bracket 1 of the KMC Act dated 10.04.2018 and show cause notice also issued on 10.04.2018 under Section 321 bracket Subsection 2 of the KMC Act and also confirm the provisional order. 19.04.2018 and directed the plaintiff to demolish the unauthorised construction in a suit schedule property. But, in support of all these defendants, defendant authority not adduced any oral and documentary evidence. Except defendants in the written statement, no documentary or evidence is found. Evidence documentary or oral evidence proof before this court. Mere defence or averments in the written statement itself is not sufficient to believe the case of the defendant. Moreover, in the above said facts, as narrated in the written statement itself goes to show that the officials of the defendant authority have Had been to the suit schedule property and also inspect the suit schedule property. Only then it comes to the knowledge of the Assistant Executive Engineer about the gross violation of the building plan, sanction plan and Rules OF Building law. When visiting the suit settled property itself admitted by the defendant in the written statement, then there is no other option except to believe the version of PW1 regarding the interference by the defendant's authority. In view of the above said discussion, without any hesitation, I answered Issue No. 2 in the affirmative. Issue number 4: In this issue, defendant has to prove that plaintiff had put up the construction in violation of the plan and license issued by them, for which they Passed provisional order under Section 321 bracket 2 of KMC Act and notice has been issued, but plaintiff failed to submit his reply and they have passed an order under Section 321 bracket 3 of KMC Act by confirming the provisional order. In that event, instead of preferring statutory appeal under Section 443, they Subsection 8 of the KMC Act before the Hon'ble K80, but filed this suit. On that ground, the suit is not maintainable before this court. Regarding this issue, on careful perusal of the entire record, the defendant has not adduced any oral and documentary evidence. During the course of cross examination of PW1, the defendant has cross examinedIn the cross examination, PW1 has clearly admitted that, no 60 OS.No. 2332/2022 notice issued by the plaintiff through his counsel under Section 321(1), 2 and 3 of KMC Act. But, he categorically deposed that, Building constructed by him stilt ground first floor, second floor and terrace in accordance with the approved sanctioned plan. But he categorically denied that in violation of the approved building plan, the plaintiff has constructed the building without live proper set back. On careful perusal of the entire cross examination, PW1 not admitted the issuance of the notice. 321 subsection 2 of the KMC Act and not admitted the provisional order passed by the BBMP Authority and confirmation of that provisional order and not admitted any notice or letter addressed by the independent authority to the plaintiff. Well, there is a denial of In the cross examination of PW1 regarding the provisional order and confirmation of the provisional order as well as the issuance of the letter from the Assistant Executive Engineer of the BBMP authorities, then it is the aboundant duty of the defendant to adduce oral and documentary evidence in order to prove this issue. No doubt in the written statement the defendant Has taken a contention that, in violation of the building bylaw and sanctioned plan, the defendant had constructed the building in the sure schedule property and also, no doubt, in the written statement, it has taken a contention that, a state executive engineer has addressed a letter dated 14.12.2017 regarding violation of the building sanctioned plan. And in Para No. 9 also, it has taken a contention that on 10.04.2018, Assistant Executive Engineer has passed provisional order under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act and Confirm the provisional order as per Order No. AAAE, CO/3/2018 19 dated 19.04.2018 But with respect to all these steps taken by the defendant authority, no oral and documentary evidence adduced before this court. As such, Mere cross examination of PW1 or filing the written statement with respect to the present issue itself is not sufficient to believe the version of the defendant. Moreover in the cross examination PW1 has clearly admitted that if any violation of building license and sanctioned land as well as Building by left, he is ready to demolish the portion of the building which contradicts with the sanctioned plan. Regarding this admission, the cross examination of PW1 reads thus: In view of the above said discussion, in the absence of the oral and documentary evidence of the defendant's authority, without any hesitation, I answered Issue No. 4 in the negative.
61 OS.No. 2332/2022Issue number 5: And issue number 3: In view of the discussion at issue number 1, I have already come to the conclusion that plaintiff is the owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. In issue number 2 also, I have already come to the conclusion that there was an interference in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the defendant authority. Moreover, In Issue No. 4, this Court already come to the conclusion that the defendant not proved that plaintiff had put up the construction in violation of the plan and licence issued by the defendant authority and not proved the provisional order as well as confirmation of the provisional order passed by the defendant authority,.In a case on hand, the defendant is a BBMP authority. As per the provisions of the BBMP Act, the defendant as well as its officials are empowered to demolish the illegal construction in a so-called property, in violation of the building license and sanctions plan. Even in the cross examination of PW1, also clearly admitted that. He is ready to demolish the portion of the building, if any, constructed in violation of the building license and building law as well as approved plan. When such being the case, the defendants are at liberty to take any action against the defendant in accordance with the provisions of the BBMP Act regarding the unauthorised construction. Over the suit schedule property in violation of the sanctioned building plan and license. in view of the discussion at court. Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4: . Hence, I answered Issue No. 3Portly in there. Affirmative. and I proceeded to pass the following order:
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is hereby decreed with costs. The defendant, its agent, men, officials, or anybody, under or through them, Responded. from in any way interfering withPeaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants Its agents, men, officials, or anybody, under or through either. are hereby restrained from demolishing any portion of the building constructed on theSuit schedule property without due process law. draw decree accordingly.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx