Bangalore District Court
Prabhu N V vs Nazeer Ahmed A R on 2 February, 2026
1
O.S.No.2326/2015
KABC010061662015
IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-28)
Present : Smt. A.M. NALINI KUMARI, B.A.L, LL.M, PGD in IR & PM,
XIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2026.
O.S.No. 2326/2015
Plaintiff: N.V. Prabhu,
Aged about 67 years,
S/o. N.G. Venkatesh,
No.245, KHB Colony,
3rd Cross, 5th Block
Koramangala,
Bengaluru 560095.
-Vs.
(By Sri. A.R. Advocate)
Defendants: 1. A.R. Nazeer Ahmed,
Aged about 55 years,
S/o. A.N. Basha,
No.88A, Grihalakshmi Extension,
West of Chord Road,
Bengaluru 560079.
2. M/s. Nanjundeshwara Developers,
A partnership firm, having its office
at No.659, 2nd Phase,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
2
O.S.No.2326/2015
Bengaluru 560085.
R/by its Managing Partner,
R.V. Subramanya, since dead,
R/by his LR and Managing Director,
Shreesha R.S.
Aged about 25 years,
S/o. R.V. Subramanya.
(D1 : By Sri. M.K.M.
D2 : By Sri. K.T.W. Advocates)
Date of Institution of the suit 11.03.2015
Nature of the suit Permanent Injunction
Date of the commencement
12.03.2018
of recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the judgment
02.02.2026
is pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration 10 10 21
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has maintained the present suit seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants or any persons claiming under the Defendants from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the Suit Schedule Property and consequentially sought for the decree of permanent injunction. 3
O.S.No.2326/2015
2. The brief facts of the case of the Plaintiff is that, Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Site bearing No. 317 formed by the Ideal Home Co-operative Society Ltd., in the Sector-G in Ideal Homes Township, Kenchanahalli, Bangalore, measuring 40 feet x 60 feet and that the Plaintiff being the member of the Society having a membership No.4846 with the said Ideal Home Co- operative Society Ltd., and the said Society is said to have formed layout in various survey numbers of Kenchanahalli and Halegevoderahalli Village and that after the said survey of land and securing sanction plan from the CITB and thereafter by the Bangalore Development Authority vide Order No. TPF-36/71-72 dated 03.05.1972, the layout was formed about 40 years ago, And that Plaintiff in pursuance to the allotment of the site ie., the suit schedule property in his favour, the Society is said to have executed Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 15.10.1991 in his favour and that the Society is also said to have issued a Certificate dated 28.08.1991 communicating the transfer of Site No.317 in favour of the Plaintiff and Certificate dated 28.08.1991. And further the Society is also said to have issued a possession certificate dated 01.12.1991 confirming and handing over possession of the schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff. And based upon the said documents the Plaintiff 4 O.S.No.2326/2015 has also got the khata mutated in his name as on 13.03.1992 and based upon the absolute Sale Deed dated 17.03.2012 executed by the Society in favour of the Plaintiff herein for valuable consideration, the Society is also said to have issued a letter to the Plaintiff to the effect that the Site bearing No. 317 in Phase-2 of the layout falls in Sy.No.54/1 of Halegevoderahalli Village. And this being the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff claims its absolute owner and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and the khata certificate is also mutated in his name.
3. Further, it is also the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant having no manner of right, title, interest or no connection to the suit property claiming their interest in the property, which is adjacent property, when Plaintiff and other site owners of the adjoining sites started putting up fencing over the suit property in respect of their respective sites, the first Defendant along with his men went near the suit property, threatened the site owners including the Plaintiff with dire consequences. And that the Defendant No. 1 claimed to be acting on behalf of Defendant No. 2 as well is said to have imposed such a threat and the second Defendant having no 5 O.S.No.2326/2015 manner of right, title or interest in relation to the suit property are trying to obstruct the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that the Defendants were informed of Plaintiff and other site owners having the legal documents in their favour. Yet, the Defendant is trying to interfere. Therefore the Plaintiff is said to have lodged a police complaint on 04.03.2015 along with other site owners and sought for police protection of their life and property.
4. Further the Plaintiff has also contended that the Defendants being politically and financially powerful, may take advantage of the fact that the police have not registered the FIR, and are trying to interfere with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore having no other option, based upon the said cause of action dated 04.03.2015 and 10.03.2015, the Plaintiff has approached this Court seeking the the above relief of Permanent Injunction.
5. The Defendant No.1 tendered his appearance and has filed his written statement, whereby the Defendant has contended that, the Plaintiff does not make any reference to the survey numbers that the Society owned and how the Society 6 O.S.No.2326/2015 had acquired those lands and it is also the contention of the Defendants that the alleged sanction plan produced by the Plaintiff, which is said to be of the year 1969 is in respect of Survey No. 54 is mentioned, whereas in the Hissa Phodi proceedings conducted on 13.03.1961, the Survey No. 54 was phoded as Survey No. 54/1 and 54/2 and this clearly shows that the Society has published a false materials and information for obtaining the plan and also from the sanctioned plan it is not possible to ascertain in which Survey number the suit schedule property was. And also the conversion order dated 04/05-02- 1969, bearing No. B.DIS.ALN.SR.3686 said to have been issued in favour of Society does not refer to Survey No.54 or its sub numbers.
6. Further the Defendant has contended that the Plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property in survey number which is not mentioned out of which of the two villages the said site is situated and that there is no mention of Halegevoderahalli Village mentioned at all in the said lease-cum-sale agreement. And that the suit schedule property actually falls in Survey No.55/2 of Halegevoderahalli Village and not in Survey No.54/1 as claimed by the Plaintiff. And that the material truth is that the 7 O.S.No.2326/2015 Society never owned or possessed Survey No.55 nor 55/1 nor 55/2 of Halegevoderahalli Village. Therefore, the plan submitted for sanction by the Society is wrongly shown as if it is situated in Halegevoderahalli Village and that the authorities while allegedly granting sanctioned plan has not physically verified all the sites in question.
7. Further it is also the case of the Defendant that, when the Society on the pretext of forming a layout tried to encroach into a portion of Survey No. 55 of Halegevoderahalli Village, the owners of the said Survey number namely Srirama, Byrappa, Muniyappa, represented by the Defendant No. 1 as their General Power of Attorney holder, is said to have filed a suit against the Society in O.S.No. 436/2003 for the relief of permanent injunction. And one of the 2 nd Defendant claiming to be the owner of the said site is said to have been allotted and sold in his favour by putting up construction and encroached survey No. 55. During the pendency of the said suit the Assistant Director of Land Records is said to have conducted a survey, during which the officials of the Society were also present and it was found in the said survey that the portion of the site claimed by the second Defendant in the said suit was 8 O.S.No.2326/2015 actually falling within Survey No. 55, for which the Society has no manner of right, title in respect of the properties that is in Survey No. 55. And that the several sites shown by the Society in its plan does not lie within the lands owned by the Society, but it is situated in the lands particularly in Survey No. 55. And that when the suit was pending, a survey of land was conducted and the location of Survey No. 54 and 55 was fixed and the suit schedule property was not within the lands owned by the Society, but in Survey No. 55, now Survey No. 55/2 of Halegevoderahalli Village.
8. Further it is the contention of the Defendant No. 1 that during the course of the trial in O.S.No.436/2003, this Defendant got examined himself as PW.1 and produced the layout plan, which was marked as Ex.P10. And that the said suit came to be dismissed and the same was challenged in RFA No.377/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and that in the said RFA, the Society has given an undertaking that the Society nor its member will interfere with the suit property ie., in Survey No.55. Based upon the said undertaking, the said appeal was decreed by an order dated 16.02.2012. And inspite of the said undertaking given by the Society, the Society has executed Sale 9 O.S.No.2326/2015 Deeds in favour of Plaintiff in respect of the suit property which falls in Survey No. 55, now which is standing in Survey No. 55/2 and therefore this Defendant contends that the Society has indulged in fraudulent practice of encroaching into the lands that are not owned by the Society and that in fact it had encroached the Government land by the extent of 7 acres 6 guntas and a Writ Petition to that effect was also filed in W.P.No. 46691/2003. Whereby, the Hon'ble High Court in the said Writ Petition has directed the Special Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry with regard to the formation of sites pertaining to the said Government land and the Special Deputy Commissioner after holding a detailed enquiry is said to have submitted its report.
9. Further it is also contended by this Defendant that in pursuance of the said directions of Hon'ble High Court, the BDA is said to have held an enquiry in presence of the Society's representatives and found that the layout plan was sanctioned only with respect to 46 acres 36 guntas. However, the layout initially formed by the Society was in an extent of 67 acres 37 guntas and that to an extent of 21 acres was in excess, to which the Society had not allegedly taken the requisite approval and this excess land includes Survey No. 55, which is now phoded 10 O.S.No.2326/2015 as 55/2. Therefore, the BDA is said to have passed a fresh Resolution bearing No. 284/5 dated 19.12.2005 withdrawing the approval earlier granted to be the layout plan permitted by the Society so far as the sites formed in Government land.
10. Further the Defendant has also contended that the matter was remitted to Special Deputy Commissioner, in pursuance to which a fresh enquiry was held and that this Defendant further contends that the Society is said to have committed fraud and based upon the said fraudulent transaction, Plaintiff is being executed with the said Sale Deed in respect of the suit property. And also claims of certain admissions given by the Society who was examined as DW.1 in O.S.No. 436/2003. And on these and other grounds, the Defendant No. 1 contends that there is no cause of action to the suit and that Srirama and others are the original owners of Survey No.55 of Halegevoderahalli Village, measuring an extent of 5 acre 18 guntas and first Defendant is the Power of Attorney Holder of the said Sriram and others in respect of 30 guntas of land forming the Southern portion of the said Survey number, which is reassigned as Sy.No.55/2 and as a GPA holder is said to have sold the land in favour of one Azhar Jabeen through a registered sale deed dated 15.04.2013 and 11 O.S.No.2326/2015 that Azhar Jabeen is said to have got the land converted for non- agricultural purpose as on 29.11.2014. And in all the records, it is notified as Survey No.55/2. And thereafter, the second Defendant is said to have purchased Survey No.55/2, measuring 30 guntas, who is in possession of the said property. And that the first Defendant is also said to have formed a private layout and formed the sites. Hence on these and other grounds the Defendant has sought for dismissal of the above suit.
11. Defendant No. 2 has adopted the written statement of Defendant No. 1.
12. Based upon the above pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following Issues & Additional 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 alleged obstruction caused by the Defendants in the Suit Schedule Property ?
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the decree as 12 O.S.No.2326/2015 prayed for?
4. What order or decree?
Additional issue :
1. Whether Defendants prove that the Suit Schedule Property falls in Sy.No. 55/2 of Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk as contended in their written statement?
13. The Plaintiff in order to substantiate the issues casted upon the Plaintiff, has examined himself as P.W.1 and reiterated the plaint amendments and got marked Ex.P1 to P29 documents. Per contra, the Defendants 1 & 2 examined themselves as DW.1 and DW.2 and got marked Ex.D1 to D49.
14. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Both the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendants have filed their memo of citations and written arguments as well.
15. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has addressed written arguments and relied upon 4 citations. Defendant No. 1 has addressed written arguments and relied upon a list of 6 13 O.S.No.2326/2015 authorities. Perused the same.
15. My findings to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 .. In the Affirmative Issue No.2 .. In the Affirmative Issue No.3 .. In the Affirmative Additional Issue No.1 .. In the Negative Issue No.4 .. As per final order for the following:
REASONS
16. Additional Issue No.1 :- The suit of the Plaintiff being one for the relief of permanent injunction, in the light of the defence raised by the Defendants, additional issues were framed as on 10.01.2018. The said additional issue is casted upon the Defendants to establish that the suit schedule property falls in Survey No. 55/2 of Halagevaderahalli. In this regard, the additional issue would be more important and remains most relevant before proceeding with the issue that is casted upon the Plaintiff herein.
17. The Defendant's documents needs a careful appreciation while discussing the issue ie., the additional issue on record. The Defendant reiterating the written statement averments ie., 14 O.S.No.2326/2015 DW1 has contented that Sy.No. 55, an extract of 5 acre 18 guntas of Halagevaderahalli Village was a property of one Srirama, Byrappa and Muniyappa and the Defendant No. 1 is the GPA holder of the above said Srirama and others and exercising the powers conferred upon him by the above said owners ie., as a GPA holder, this Defendant No. 1 is said to have sold a portion of Survey No. 55 by forming sites into different dimensions and 30 guntas of land on the Southern side of Survey No. 55 was still in his possession and the said 30 guntas is also said to have been sold as a GPA holder of original owner in favour of Defendant No. 2 herein. It is also the case of the Defendant that the said second Defendant Azhar Jabeen, after getting the 30 guntas of land converted from agriculture to non agricultural purposes, as per the official memorandum dated 29.11.2014, is said to have surveyed the land in Survey No. 55/2 in question and has got the property converted and betterment charges are also paid. And that he has sold 30 guntas of converted land in Survey No. 55/2 in favour of Defendant No. 2 through a Sale Deed dated 03.12.2014. And that the Plaintiff based upon the said sale deed that is said to have been executed in her favour by the society in respect of the alleged suit schedule site is said to have attempted to put up 15 O.S.No.2326/2015 construction in the said site, and since the alleged site fell in Survey No. 55/2, over which the Plaintiff does not have any manner of right, title and interest and since there is a dispute with regard to identity of the suit schedule site as to in which survey number the said property is falling, in this regard the matter is said to have been taken up before the police authority and the police authority requested the BBMP surveyor as well as the revenue surveyor to survey the land and therefore they are said to have submitted a report.
18. And it is also the case of this Defendant No. 1 and 2 that the site pertaining to the Plaintiff falls within Survey No. 55/2. In this regard, it is necessary to look to the documents relied by the Defendant herein. As discussed supra, Defendant has relied upon Exhibits D1 to D37 and the Defendant No. 2 has relied upon Exhibit D38 to D45. Exhibit D1 is the plaint in OS 436/2003, which is filed by one Sri Rama and two others represented by their GPA holder A.B. Nazir Ahmad ie., the Defendant No. 1 herein as against the Secretary and one Shivaswami. Exhibit D2 is the Endorsement which is filed in OS 43/2003. Exhibit D3 is the mahazar drawn by one G. S. Ravindra, Nazir Ahmad and others. Exhibit D4 is the sketch. 16
O.S.No.2326/2015 Exhibit D5 is the affidavit of one Smt. A.I. Seethamma. Exhibit D6 is the judgment/orders in RFA 377/2010 filed by Sri Rama and others as against the Secretary and Shivaswami. Ex.D7 is the decree in RFA 377/2010. Ex.D7(a) is the sketch pertaining to one Dodda Kempaiah Layout which is marked in cross- examination of DW1. Exhibit D8 is the proceedings before Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 39 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Exhibit D9 is the proceedings before the Bangalore Development Authority, wherein an endorsement is issued to the Defendant No.1 contending that, in compliance of RTI, certain information is provided. Ex.D10 is the Absolute Sale Deed dated 15.05.2013 executed by Dodda Kempaiah, Muniyappa represented by their power of attorney holder A. B. Nazir in favour of one Azhar Jabeen, in respect of 30 guntas of land out of 5 acres, 2 guntas on the Southern side in land bearing Survey No. 55, situated of Halagevaderahalli Village, Bangalore's South Taluk. The boundaries to the said property is relevant. Whereby the property is bounded on the East by portion of Survey No. 55. marked as Block 1 in Survey Sketch and West by portion of land in Survey No. 55 marked as Block No. 1 in Survey Sketch and North is the portion of land in Survey No. 55 marked as Block No.1 in the Survey Sketch and South by 17 O.S.No.2326/2015 portion of land in Survey No. 55 marked as Block No.1 in Survey Sketch and Survey No. 54. Ex.D11 is the mutation register standing in the name of Dodda Kempaiah and transferred to Azhar Jabeen to an extent of 30 guntas. D12 to D14 are the RTCs in respect of Survey No. 55/2. Ex.D15 is the conversion order dated 29.11.2014. Wherein the property bearing Survey No. 55/2 measuring 30 guntas is being converted by said Exhibit D15. Exhibit D16 is the proceedings before the Assistant Revenue Officer of Rajarajeshwari Nagara, BBMP. Exhibit D17 is again another sketch. Exhibit D18 is the letter addressed by the Police Inspector Raja Rajeshwari Nagara Police Station to the Tahsildar dated 06.02.2015 with regard to the dispute between the land owners of Ideal Homes Layout as well as the other landowners. The said recitals of the said document calls for a careful appreciation. Wherein it recites as under :
"ಮೇಲ್ಕ ಂಡ ವಿಷಯ ಮತ್ತು ಉಲ್ಲ ೇಖಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ತಮ್ಮ ಲ್ಲಿ ಮನವಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ವುದೇನೆಂದರೆ, ರಾಜರಾಜೇಶ್ವ ರಿ ನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣಾ ಸರಹದ್ದಿ ನಲ್ಲಿ ರದ ಐಡಿಯಲ್ ಹೋಮ್ಸ್ ಬಡಾವಣೆ, 2 ನೇ ಹಂತ ಹಲಗೆ ಬಡೇರಹಳ್ಳಿ ಸರ್ವೆ ನಂ. 54/1 ಮತ್ತು 55 ಇವುಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರಾದ ಶ್ರ ೀ ಹುಚ್ಚ ಯ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಶ್ರ ೀ ಎ.ಬಿ ನಜೀಗ್ 18 O.S.No.2326/2015 ಅಹಮ್ಮ ದ್ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರರ ನಡುವೆ ನಿವೇಶನಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ವಿವಾದವಿದ್ದು , ಇವರುಗಳು ಒಬ್ಬ ರ ಮೇಲೆ ಒಬ್ಬ ರು ದೂರು ಅರ್ಜಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಐಡಿಯಲ್ ಹೋಮ್ಸ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿಯಿಂದ ತಮಗೆ ನಿವೇಶನ ಮಂಜೂರಾಗಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ನಿವೇಶನದಾರರು ಮನೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಮಾಣ ಮಾಡಲು ಹೋದಾಗ ಎದುರಾಳಿಯಾದ ಶ್ರ ೀ ಎ.ಬಿ. ನಜೀರ್ ಅಹಮ್ಮ ರವರು ಇದು ತಮಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತು , ತಮ್ಮ ಪರವಾಗಿ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶವಾಗಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ."
19. Exhibit D19 is the survey sketch in respect of Survey No. 54/1 and 55/2. Ex.D20 is a xerox of a photo printout whereby a board is affixed with regard to the property falling within revenue department as on 20.10.2016. Ex.D21 & 22 are the similar photographs. Ex.D23 is an endorsement dated 26.12.2012 issued in favour of A. P. Nazir Ahmad, the Defendant No. 1 herein by the Police Inspector. Ex.D24 is the representation given by the members of Ideal Home Society to the Tahsildar. Ex.D25 is the certified copy of sale deed executed by Azhar Zabeen in favour of Nanjundeshwara Developers ie,. the second Defendant. Ex.D28 is another sale deed dated 19.04.2022 Exhibit D29 is the certified copy of the sale deed executed on 19 O.S.No.2326/2015 24.10.2008 by the Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society in favour of one Ranganathan Desikachari. Ex.D30 is the sale deed dated 26.05.2016 executed by Ranganatha Desikachari in favour of Dr. Seema S and others. Exhibit D31 is the sale deed dated 15.05.2019 executed by M/s.Sri Nanjundeshwara Developers in favour of Dr. Seema S and Suresh Raghavaiah. Exhibit D32 is the certified copy of another sale deed dated 25.11.2021 executed by A. Rajagopal and M/s. Sri Nanjundeshwara Developers represented by R.V. Subramanya in favour of one Noor Ain Khanum. Exhibit D33 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 25.11.2021 executed by Mr. A. Rajagopal and M/s. Nanjundeshwara developers represented by R. V. Subramanya in favour of one Madhusudhan and Vasavi. Exhibit D34 is the certified copy of a letter addressed to the PSI of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station dated 31.08.2010. Whereby, a report is submitted stating as under :-
"ಹಲಗೇವಡೇರಹಳ್ಳಿ ಗ್ರಾ ಮದ ಸರ್ವೆ ನಂ. 55 ರ ಜಮೀನು
ದಾರರಿಂದ ಜೆ.ಪಿ.ಎ ಅಧಿಕಾರ ಪಡೆದ ಶ್ರ ೀ.ಎ.ಬಿ.ನಜೀರ್
ಅಹ್ಮ ದ್ ರವರು ಸೈಟ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಂಗಡಿಸಿದ್ದು (ಲೇಔಟ್ ಪ್ಲಾ ನ್ ಲಗತ್ತಿ ಸಿದೆ) ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುವ ಲೇಔಟ್ ಪ್ಲಾ ನ್ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಸುಮಾರು ಸೈಟ್ಗ ಳು ಮಾರಾಟವಾಗಿದ್ದು ಈ ಪೈಕಿ 20 O.S.No.2326/2015 ಉಳಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಸೈಟುಗಳ ನಂ.20,59,60,101,102, 103 ಹಾಗೂ 125 ಅವರ ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನ ಅನುಭವದಲ್ಲಿ ರುವುದು ಸ್ಥ ಳ ತನಿಖೆಯಿಂದ ತಿಳಿದು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ.
ರಾಜರಾಜೇಶ್ವ ರಿನಗರ ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿ ಭೂಮಾಪಕರು ಸರ್ವೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಶ್ರ ೀ.ಎ.ಬಿ.ನಜೀರ್ ಅಹ್ಮ ದ್ ರವರು ಉಳಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ನಿವೇಶನಗಳನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಿ ನಕ್ಷೆ ಸಮೇತ ವರದಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ರಾಜ್ಯ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯದ RFA 377/2010 ದಿ. 16/07/2010 ರಂತೆ ಸರ್ವೆ ನಂ. 55 ರ ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸೈಟುಗಳ ನಂ.
20.59.60,101,102,103 ಹಾಗೂ 125 ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ
ರೀತಿಯ ಕಟ್ಟ ಡ ವಗೈರೆ ಕಟ್ಟ ಬಾರದು ಎಂದು
ಆದೇಶವಾಗಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ."
20. Ex.D35 & 36 are the photographs of certain Xerox with regard to the property. Exhibit D38 is the document that is certified copy of a sale deed dated 15.05.2013 executed by Dodda Kempaiah, Muniyappa, represented by Nazir Ahmad in favour of Azhar Jabeen. Ex.D40 is the RTC in respect of said 30 guntas of property which is formed in Survey No. 55/2 for the year 2013-14. Ex.D41 is the Form No. 10. Ex.D42 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 03.12.2014 executed by Azhar Jabeen in favour of M/s. Sri Nanjundeshwara Developers. The 21 O.S.No.2326/2015 boundaries of the said property also needs a careful appreciation. It is the property bearing Survey No. 55 / 2, old Survey No. 55, Block No. 11 which is said to have been converted vide Official Memorandum dated 29.11.2015. Situated at Halagevaderahalli, measuring 30 guntas, bounded on the East by a portion of land in Survey No. 55/1 and remaining portion of land in Survey No. 55/1. West by road, North by portion of land in Survey No. 55/1 and remaining portion of land in Survey No. 55/1 and South by Road and Survey No.54. Ex.D43 is the certified copy of demand register for the year 2019-2020. Ex.D44 is the khata certificate in respect of M/s. Nanjundeshwara Developes, ExD45 is the tax paid receipt.
21. On perusal of these documents, it is also crucial to note the documents relied by the Plaintiff as well. Plaintiff has relied upon Exhibits P1 to P29 documents. Exhibit P1 is the letter dated 28.08.1991 issued in favour of the Plaintiff with regard to the membership number 4846 pertaining to the Ideal Home Co- operative Building Society Limited, wherein it reflects of as per the Board Resolution Meeting held on 26.08.1991 Site No. 317 of Phase-II is being allotted to one N.V Prabhu along with the share amount of ₹ 100/- from H.S. Renuka Prasad, Membership 22 O.S.No.2326/2015 No.2096 being transferred in the name of N.V. Prabhu. Thereby initially the said site was allotted in favour of H.S. Renuka Prasad with membership No. 2096, which in turn is being allotted in the name of N.V. Prabhu,the present Plaintiff herein. Exhibit P2 is the Possession Certificate dated 01.12.1991 issued by the Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited in favour of the Plaintiff herein. Whereby the recital of the said document reads as under :-
"Possession of Site No. 317 at Phase-II in the private layout formed by the Society in Kenchenahalli and Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengere Hobli, Bengaluru South, approved and released by the Bengaluru Development Authority. vide Order No. TPF/BDA/AEE- 1(S)1094/89-90 Dated 21.11.1989, measuring East to West 40 feet North to South 60 feet. The boundaries to the said site also would be relevant. North by private land, South by Cross road No. 3, East by Site No. 316 and West by Site No.380."
22. Exhibit P3 is the Khata Certificate standing in the name of N.V. Prabhu, son of N. G. Venkatesh, as on 13.03.1992 in respect of Site No.317. Exhibit P4 is the original registered Sale Deed dated 17.03.2007, executed by Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited in favour of N.V Prabhu. Wherein in the 23 O.S.No.2326/2015 schedule it reflects of Site No. 317, Phase No. 2 formed by Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited in Sector No. G in Ideal Home Township, Kenchenahalli, Halagevaderahalli, bounded on the East by Site No. 316, West by Site No. 380, North by private land and South by Cross road No. 3. Exhibit P5 is the clarification of survey number issued by the Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited as on 13.7.2012 in favour of N.V. Prabhu. Whereby the Secretary has issued an endorsement which is culled out hereunder. The recitals require a careful appreciation.
"Your Site No. 317 falls in Survey No. 54/1 of Halagevaderahalli village. The site was released by the BDA vide their Release Order No. BDA/AEE-1(S) 1094/89-90 dated 21.11.1989."
It is issued way back in the year 2012.
23. Exhibit P6 is the Khata Certificate dated 28.02.2015 standing in the name of the Plaintiff N.V.Prabhu. Exhibit P7 is the Tax Assessment Register for the year 2014-15, reflecting the name of the Plaintiff herein. Ex.P8 is the challan-cum-receipt of property tax in the name of the Plaintiff. Wherein the date of payment reflects as 06.03.1992. Ex.P9 also is the challan-cum- 24
O.S.No.2326/2015 receipt of property tax for the period 01.10.1992 to 31.03.1993. paid as on 30.01.1993. Ex.P10 is the similar tax paid receipt for the year 01.04.1995 to 31.03.1996 dated 21.06.1995. Ex.P11 is another challan-cum-receipt of property tax for the period 01.04.1996 to 31.03.1997 paid as on 12.05.1996. Exhibit P12 is the challan-cum-receipt of property tax for the period 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998 dated 04.05.1997. Ex.P13 is the challan-cum- receipt of property tax for the period 01.04.1998 to 30.09.1998 having paid on 24.05.1998. Exhibit P14 is the Encumbrance Certificate for the period 1.6.1989 to 12.11.1991. Wherein the transaction dated 30.01.1990 is also reflected. Initially, the transaction is reflected in between Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited to H.S. Renuka Prasad and again on 19.01.1991 there is a cancellation of the same and thirdly on 15.10.1991 the said transaction is reflected in the name of N.V. Prabhu. Exhibit P15 is another Encumbrance Certificate for the period 13.11.1991 to 31.03.2004. Wherein Site No. 317 is reflected in the name of Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited to N.V. Prabhu, the Plaintiff herein. Exhibit P16 also reflects the same transaction for the period 01.04.2012 to 04.12.2014. Exhibit P17 is the Nil Encumbrance dated 21.04.2012 having obtained in the year 2012 for the period 25 O.S.No.2326/2015 01.04.2004 to 19.04.2012. Ex.P18(a) is the sketch, whereby the existence of sites from 303 to 318 is reflected and towards the South there is a 40 feet road which is existing in between the sites at 281 to 302 and the sites commencing from 303 to 318, in between these sites there is a 30 feet road towards the Southern side and towards the Northern side, the private property which is reflected in the Sale Deed and the possession certificate is existing and it is the property in Sy.No. 55 towards the Northern side. Therefore, the boundary with respect of the Plaintiff's land in Site No. 317 towards the East is Site No. 316, towards the west is Site No. 318, towards the North is the private property that is Survey No. 55 and towards the Southern side is this 3rd Cross road, which is mentioned is the road which is existing.
24. Exhibit P19 is the Sale Deed dated 15.11.1995 which reads as under :-
"This deed of absolute sale made and executed on the 15th Day of November 1995 by Sri. Dodda Kempaiah, S/o. Pillappa, entered by their General Power of Attorney Holder in favour of the attorney holder Nazir Ahmad, S/o. Basha. The recitals of the said document goes to show that the property is acquired by way of a Sale Deed as on 26 O.S.No.2326/2015 19.01.1957. It is in the respect of house property in Site No.104 to 105 of Sarakki Notified Area, Khata No.27/33, situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk."
The schedule to the said property is as under :-
"All that piece and parcel of the house property bearing No. 104 and 105 of of Sarakki Notified Area, Khata No.27/33, situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 60 feet, North to South 40 feet and bounded on the East by Site No. 103, West by Site No.106, North by road and South by Ideal Home property with one square Mangaluru tiled house."
25. The Defendant in supportive of his claim has not placed any document. But however the fact that there is an Ideal Home property towards the Southern side of the said sites is made out and to enable this Court to come to a conclusion that towards the Southern side of the Site No. 104 and 105, the Ideal Home property is situated with one square Mangalore tiled house is reflected. So in order to establish the said fact, the said document is relied.
26. Further Exhibit P20 is another sale deed which is dated 27 O.S.No.2326/2015 23.11.1995. Same recitals of Exhibit P19 is reflected. But in this Sale Deed, it is in respect of the house property bearing number 106 and 107 of Sarakki notified area, Khata No.27/33, situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 60 feet, North to South 40 feet, bounded on the East by site No. 105, West by site No. 108, North by road, South by Ideal Homes Property with one square Mangalore tiled house.
27. Exhibit P21 is the Confirmation Deed, executed by Byrappa, Nazir Ahmad and P. S. Ramesh in favour of one Malathi, which is dated 08.09.2006. It is with respect of Site bearing No. 118, Khata No. 55/721 situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, within the limits of administration of Rajarajeshwari District Municipal Council, Ward No. 23, measuring East to West 30 feet North to South 40 feet, bounded on East by Site No. 117, West by Site No. 119, North by road and South by Ideal Homes property.
28. Exhibit P22 is another Sale Deed dated 24.02.2007. Executed in favour of Gayathri by Malathi. Whereby the title of the document which is dated 03.03.1975 by the order of 28 O.S.No.2326/2015 conversion by D.C dated 03.03.1975 vide No.BDS.ALN.SR(S)530/1974-75 is reflected and the khata is reflected that the property bearing No. 55/721 in Site No. 119 bounded on East by Site No. 118, West by Site No. 120 and North by road and South by Ideal Homes Society.
29. Exhibit P24 is the absolute Sale Deed dated 03.12.2014 executed by Azhar Jabeen in favour of Sri Nanjundeshwara Developers. The schedule to the said Property is reflected as converted Land bearing Sy.No. 55/R2, Old Survey No. 55, Block No.11. Converted by the Official Memorandum dated 29.11.2014, bearing No.ALN(S)SR(Keng)03/14-15 issued by the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bengaluru, situated at Halagevaderahalli, Bengaluru, measuring 30 Guntas of land. This deed is dated 03.12.2014 and the boundaries to the said property reflects to this 30 Guntas as bounded on the East by portion of land in Survey No. 55/1 and remaining portion of land in Survey No.55/1, West by road, North by portion of land in Survey No. 55/1 and remaining portion of land in Survey No. 55/1 and South by road and survey No. 54.
30. Ex.P25 is the letter addressed by H.N. Vidya Shankar and 29 O.S.No.2326/2015 others including the present Plaintiff herein to the SHO, whereby there is legal threat to life and limb by one Mr. Nazeer Ahmed to the aforesaid site owners. Exhibit P26 is again another letter addressed by H.N. Vidya Shankar, which also reflects the name of the Plaintiff in another case that is Srilakshmi. Exhibit P27 is the colour xerox of the the Lease-cum-sale Agreement, dated 15.10.1991 executed by the Ideal Homes Co-operative Building Society Ltd., in favour of the Plaintiff herein. Exhibit P28 is the digital copy of tax paid receipt said to have been paid by N.V. Prabhu, the Plaintiff herein. Exhibit P29 is the deposition in OS 2413/2025 in the case of Srilakshmi v/s Nazir Ahmad, the deposition of the very Defendant herein marked on confrontation.
31. Therefore on perusal od these documents as well, the Defendant has not placed the concerned conversion orders relied by the Defendants in their respective sale dates. That apart, the boundaries to the property pertaining to the Defendant in Exhibit P19, Ex.P20, Confirmation Deed vide Ex.P21 & P22 would corroboratively goes to show that the property of Ideal Homes Co-operative Building Society Ltd., is situated towards the Southern side in respect of the said sites. That is said to 30 O.S.No.2326/2015 have been allegedly formed by Nazir Ahmad in Survey No. 55. So for as the Deed in favour of Defendant No. 2 herein i.e. Sri Nanjundeshwara Developers is concerned i.e. 312.2014, the discrepancies are noted. Whereby the boundaries on the Southern side reflect of a road and Survey No. 54. Thereby, this road that is the road that is said to have been existing towards the Southern side and thereafter Survey No. 54 is concerned, it is crucial to note that the road which is situated on the Northern side in all the above documents that is come to existence at the undisputed point of time, which are marked as Exhibit P19 to Exhibit P22 is a very said road which is existing in between Survey No. 54 and Survey No. 55, which is reflected as Southern side. Therefore and this boundary which is reflected in Exhibit P24 is the 11-E Sketch prepared before executing the registered Sale Deed is concerned. The said boundary is shown on the basis of 11-E Sketch and not on the basis of any revenue document. Therefore on perusal of the documents of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it goes to show that there is an admission by the Defendants in their own documents which have come into existence at an undisputed point of time that towards the Southern side of the property there is the existence of Ideal Homes Co-operative Building Society Ltd. And in the Sale 31 O.S.No.2326/2015 Deeds and the documents relied by the Plaintiff, towards the Northern side there is the existence of Survey No. 55 / Private property and towards the Southern side of the said documents it reflects of the 30 feet road / 40 feet road which is seen in the said Sketch as well. That is Exhibit D18 and Exhibit D18(a) as well, which is admitted by the Defendant in the Cross- examination as well. Therefore, on these grounds also the Defendants have failed to make out that the Property pertaining to Plaintiff that is the sites are situated in Survey No. 55.
32. It is crucial to note that the counsels for Plaintiff and Defendants have admitted and addressed common arguments in O.S.No. 2413/205 and O.S.No. 2326/2015 except for site numbers.
33. On perusal of these documents, it is also necessary to look to the ocular evidence adduced by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant herein. In cross-examination of DW1, certain crucial aspects are elicited. Further it is also admitted as under :-
"It is also true to suggest that Plaintiff Sri Lakshmi is not party to the proceedings referred at Exhibit D8. It is true to suggest that the said order dated at Exhibit D8 referred 32 O.S.No.2326/2015 only to those persons whose names are found in Exhibit D8 and that they are also asked to vacate within 15 days from the date of the orders."
34. Further, the witness volunteers stating that. "Exhibit D8 refers to Government land and other neighboring lands". And further "it is true to suggest that Exhibit D8 refers to proceedings for evicting unauthorized occupants of Sarkari Karab land". Further witness volunteers that, "my Survey No. 55 is also incorporated in Exhibit D8".
35. Further, DW1 has also admitted of the fact that he has no claim in respect of Survey No. 54 of Halagevaderahalli Village and further he has admitted of the fact that site No.312 or 317 is not being cancelled from the layout plan. In the sense, the layout plan reflects of existence of site No.312 & 317 formed by the Ideal Homes Society as per Exhibit D9. Further, the witness has given a crucial admission with regard to the boundaries to Survey No. 55. And further it is also admitted that no notice was given to the adjoining land owners while or before bifurcating or subdividing Survey No. 55 and that it was done only for the purpose of registration ie., for preparation of 11-E sketch. 33
O.S.No.2326/2015
36. It is also crucial to note as under :-
"I do not know if sites are being formed in Survey No. 54, but sites are being formed in Survey No. 55. I have formed sites in Survey No. 55 in the year 08.08.1989. A small portion of East Southern side of Survey No. 54/1 is adjoining to the sites formed by me. In Survey No. 55. I have formed the layout in Survey No. 55 which is marked as Exhibit D17."
37. It is also the case of the Defendant that the plan annexed to Exhibit D7 is a private prepared plan and that the said Exhibit D7 is not approved by any authority and it is marked as Exhibit D7(a). And that it is true to suggest that in Exhibit D7(a) towards the Southern side, partially property of Ideal Home Township is found and thereafter a road ie., Third cross is seen. And further the witness volunteers that it is true to suggest that Exhibit D20 to 22 are in relation to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner vide Exhibit D8. And further the witness has admitted that Exhibit P15, Exhibit P19 is executed in relation to the site and layout formed by DW1 in Site No. 104 and 105 formed in Survey No. 55 of Halagevaderahalli Village. 34
O.S.No.2326/2015
38. And further it is also admitted by D.W.1 as under :-
"It is true to suggest that vide Exhibit P15 towards the Southern schedule it is mentioned as Ideal Home's Property in Survey No. 54. It is also true to suggest that Exhibit P16 is also another sale deed executed by me representing Dodda Kempaiah, son of Byrappa in relation to Site No. 1 ie., in between the Ideal Home that is as per the admission by the Defendant himself as per Exhibit P22 to 24 as well as while Exhibit D7(a) towards the Southern side there is a mention of Ideal Home's property and after which a road is mentioned and the road towards Southern side boundary of Ideal Homes property is formed by the Government. Therefore in the year 1989 ie., (Exhibit P22 to 24 have come into existence in the year 1989). Even as of 1989 there was a bifurcation of the property of the Defendant and the property of the Plaintiffs ie., The Ideal Homes Society by way of a road."
39. And it is also crucial to note that, this Defendant is claiming of existence of property bearing 55/1 and 55/2 on the basis of 11E sketch. There is inconsistent pleadings and 35 O.S.No.2326/2015 documents relied by the Defendant No.1. It is also crucial to note that the Defendant in the process of raising inconsistent pleadings has admitted of the fact that there is a road which is bifurcating the property of the Defendant and the property formed by the Ideal Home Society.
40. The Defendant relies upon certain proceedings which is initiated before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which is pertaining to the Government land. But however, the Plaintiff's Property nor the Suit Schedule Property ie., the site is part of the said proceedings. Therefore, based upon the oral as well as the documentary evidence, no iota of material is placed on record by the Defendant to show that the suit schedule property falls within the Survey No. 55/1 pertaining to the Defendant herein. On the other hand, the Plaintiff by way of documentary evidence as well as by way of ocular evidence both by way of elicitation in the cross examination of DW1 has probabalised the Plaintiff's possession in respect of suit schedule site.
41. As per written statement of Defendant No.1, this Defendant No.1 / D.W.1 is said to have formed sites of different dimensions and sold it in Sy.No. 55 and the remaining extent of 36 O.S.No.2326/2015 30 guntas is also sold it to Defendant No.2 as on 3.12.2014, if so the 1st Defendant has no right or title in Sy.No. 55. Then why is the Defendant No.1 claiming the right and title in the Property of Plaintiff or Defendant No.2 herein. He is making unjust claim in the Property of Plaintiff.
42. The Defendant No.1, who claims that the Suit Schedule Property of the Plaintiff is situated in Sy.No. 55/1 . In his oral assertion by the Defendant No.1, there is not a single document placed on record. On the other hand the documents admitted and relied by the Defendant No.1 itself goes to show that the Defendant has failed to prove that the Suit Schedule Site of the Plaintiff is situated in Sy.No. 55/1.
43. Firstly the contention of the Defendant is that, the Defendant No.1 is said to have formed a layout in Sy.No. 55. But the same ie., the said layout alleged to have formed by the Plaintiff is not approved by any Authority. Secondly, the Defendant disputes of the Suit Site of Plaintiff being situated in Sy.No. 55/1. The Defendant relies upon the existence of Sy.No.55, to be phoded on the basis of 11-E sketch, which is admittedly prepared by the Defendant for the purpose of 37 O.S.No.2326/2015 demarcating the 30 guntas of Property he has sold in favour of Defendant No.2 in the year 2014. On the other hand, the Plaintiff relies upon the Approved Layout, which is formed by the Ideal Home Society. And further the Defendant has no documents to show that the Suit Site was withdrawn from the said layout formed by the Ideal Home Society.
44. Further, the 11-E Sketch which the Defendant relies to say that Sy.No. 55 is phoded as Sy.No. 55 and 55/1, is based upon 11-E Sketch, which is prepared at the instance of the Defendant No.1 and 2 and not with regard to physical existence of the Property as per the oral admission by the Defendant, whereby no notice were issued before preparing the same, to the adjacent land owners.
45. Thirdly, it is also crucial to note the boundaries. In all Sale Deeds relied by Plaintiff, in respect of sale, in respect of Property in Sy.No. 55 is concerned, towards the existence of the Southern side boundaries, the Property in Sy.No. 54 is situated and that these Sale Deeds have come into existence at an undisputed point of time.
38
O.S.No.2326/2015
46. Fourthly, the site of the Plaintiff in the Ideal Home Society is said to have been formed in 1989 ie., 4.12.1989 vide letter of release and more particularly Possession Certificate is issued vide Possession Certificate dated 01.12.1991.
47. The Property of Defendant No.2 is bounded on 2 sides ie., Western side and on the Southern side by Road, & Sy.No. 54. The boundary in the Plaintiff's document which is of the year 1989-90. Whereas the boundary reflected in the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.2 is of the year 2014, which is just before few months from the date of Plaintiff filing the suit. Moreover, the document ie., 11-E Sketch cannot be attached to such importance, when compared to the document of Plaintiff. Moreover the documents relied by the Plaintiff has come into existence at an undisputed point of time.
48. Fifthly, the Defendant relies upon the Sketch prepared by Revenue Authority on the basis of Orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, based upon certain encroachments with regard to Government lands are concerned. Therefore, as per the said Report and Survey, the land of Defendant ie., in respect of few sites held by the Defendant in his possession are said to have 39 O.S.No.2326/2015 situated in the encroached portion of the Government land. Moreover, till date the Government has not taken any steps as against the Plaintiff with regard to any encroachment by the Plaintiff herein. Further, there is no road demarcating the site of Plaintiff and that of Sy.No. 55 towards the Southern side of the Plaintiff's site. Therefore, on these grounds the Defendant has failed to prove that Suit Schedule Site of the Plaintiff is situated in Sy.No. 55 or Sy.No. 55/1 or Sy.No. 55/2. Therefore, on this ground also this Additional Issue needs to be answered in the Negative.
49. Further, the document ie., Ex.D17, pertaining to the Defendant reflects of a Site No.125 which is proposed Hostel Site and in between the Sites of Plaintiff and the Sy.No. 55 there is a proposed Hostel Site, thereafter the Property of Defendant No.1. On perusal of the same as well, if at all there is any encroachment as pleaded by the Defendant, he has to approach through a proper legal action by following due process of law. But as of now, no such approach is made out by the Defendant in respect of Sy.No.55 or against the Plaintiff.
50. Further the Defendant has relied upon Ex.D37 the Sketch, 40 O.S.No.2326/2015 whereby towards the Northern side of Sy.No. 54, Sy.No. 55 is situated and that even as per Ex.D37 the Defendant has failed to place material to show that the present site pertaining to the Plaintiff is being encroached ie., Site No.317 or 312 being encroached and that it is the encroached Property and it pertains to the Government land is concerned. Otherwise, it is for the Government to recover possession from the concerned encroachers. Apart from this the Defendant has failed to make out and place any documents to show that this Property is encroached Property of the present Defendant herein. And that the Suit Schedule Sites of the Plaintiffs in both the suits ie., Site No.312 and 317 are situated in either in Sy.No. 55 or Sy.No. 55/1 or Sy.No. 55/2. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 as well have failed to make out a ground of the Suit Schedule Property being situated in Sy.No. 55 or Sy.No. 55/1 or Sy.No. 55/2. Therefore, on these ground also, I answer Additional Issue No.1 in the Negative.
51. Further, D.W.2 in his Cross-examination dated 15.04.2025 has admitted the boundaries to Sy.No. 55/2 which is measuring 30 guntas, which according to him is bounded as under :- 41
O.S.No.2326/2015 "The boundaries to the Property which I had purchased are bounded on the East by the remaining extent in Sy.No. 55, West by Road, North by extent of Sy.No. 55, South by Road. I do not know who had formed the road which I have mentioned which was existing towards Western side. It is true to suggest that as per Ex.D44 my own document towards the Southern side, there is existence of Sy.No. 54 and I do not know if the said Sy.No. 54 belongs to Ideal Home Society".
52. In the case in hand the D.W. 1 & D.W.2 have admitted of the fact that there is a bifurcation of Sy.No. 55 either Sy.No. 55/1 or Sy.No. 55/2 and the sites of the Plaintiffs there is a road existing and the road bifurcates the Property of the Plaintiff and the Defendants herein and the Road as according to the Government also is said to have been the Government Property and if that Road is formed in the Government Property and the said Road being a public road, which is for the utility of the public, as such, the alleged encroachment by the Plaintiff, if so any, as claimed by the Defendant is said to have been encroached by the Ideal Home Society, it is for the Government to take necessary steps to get back the said land and not the 42 O.S.No.2326/2015 present Defendant herein. Since the Defendant himself is reported to have encroached the Property belonging to the Government. Therefore, he has to do equity before seeking equity.
53. Further, much argument is addressed by the Defendants upon Ex.D17, 18 and 19 documents, whereby Ex.D17 which is secured by the Defendant under RTI Act, which commences from Ex.D16, which goes to show that, as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.377/2010, a survey was conducted based upon which it was noted that this Defendant is said to have encroached the Property of the Government.
54. And further, Ex.D18 is the letter addressed by the P.I. dated 06.02.2015 to the Tahsildar and this document ie., Ex.D18 does not have any authenticity since the said Ex.D18 has no reference of any order from the Court. On the other hand, the said document ie., Ex.D19 is prepared according to the Defendant at the instance of the P.S.I. who had addressed a letter to the Tahsildar as on 06.02.2015.
55. Further, Ex.D19 reads as under :-43
O.S.No.2326/2015
1. ಮಾನ್ಯ ಭೂ.ಸ.ನಿ ರವರ ಆದೇಶದಂತೆ ರೀ.ಸ.ನಂ 54/1 & 55/2 ರ ಗಡಿ ಗುರ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಸರ್ವೆ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳ ಅಳತೆ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಅಳತೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಗಡಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ
2. AB ಈ ಗುರ್ತಿನಿಂದ ಗುರುತಿಸಿರುವುದು ಸನಂ.54/1 ಮತ್ತು ಸ.ನಂ.55/2 ರ ಹದ್ದು ಬಸ್ತು ಗಡಿರೇಖೆಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತ ದೆ.
3. ಕೆಳಕಂಡಂತೆ ಈ ಬಣ್ಣ ದಿಂದ ಗುರುತಿಸಿರುವುದು ಸನಂ.54/1 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರುವ ನಿವೇಶನಗಳ ವಿಸ್ತ ೀರ್ಣದ ವಿವರಗಳು:-
ಕ್ರ . ಸಂ ನಿವೇಶನ ವಿಸ್ತಿ ೕರ್ಣ ಕ್ರ . ಸಂ ನಿವೇಶನ ವಿಸ್ತಿ ೕರ್ಣ ಸಂ. (ಚ.ಅಡಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ) ಸಂ. (ಚ.ಅಡಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ) 1 304 1887 6 309 930 2 305 1693 7 310 768 3 306 1501 8 311 586 4 307 1319 9 312 394 5 308 1122 10 313 222 11 314 39
4. ಮೇಲ್ಕ ಂಡ ನಿವೇಶನಗಳ ಉತ್ತ ರ ಭಾಗಕ್ಕೆ ಸ.ನಂ.55/2 ರ ಜಮೀನು ಬರುತ್ತ ದೆ.
5. ನಿವೇಶನ ಸಂ. 315, 316, 317 ಮತ್ತು 318 ಇವು ಸ.ನಂ.54/1 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬುರವುದಿಲ್ಲ .44
O.S.No.2326/2015
6. ಮೇಲ್ಕ ಂಡ ನಿವೇಶನಗಳನ್ನು ಬೆಂ.ಅ.ಪ್ರಾ ರವರು ಅನುಮೋದಿಸಿರುವ ನಕ್ಷೆ ಯ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಗುರುತಿಸಿದೆ.
56. And according to the same, Site No. 315, 316, 317 & 318 does not come under Sy.No. 54/1. If so, then where are these sites situated? That is, if as per the Point No.4, if these sites are situated towards Northern side of Sy.No. 55/2, then how could the Sy.No. 54/1 become Sy.No. 55/2? The findings of the concerned Surveyor that Site No.315, 316, 317 and 318 does not come in Sy.No. 54/1, gives a contrary view, suspecting the Report for the reasons that if these sites do not exists in Sy.No. 54/1, then in which survey number does these sites are situated. These facts are not clear. However, the said Survey Report will be of less assistance to the fact that there is no report or observation that these sites are situated in Sy.No. 55/2 or Sy.No. 55/1 or in Sy.No. 55. Therefore, the arguments addressed by the Defendant that the said sites ie., Site No.312 and 317 are coming under Sy.No. 55/2 or 55/1 itself stands answered in the Negative for the reasons that his own document reflects of the Site ie., Site No.304 to 314 ie., about 11 Sites, they are formed in Sy.No. 54/1 and they are existing in Sy.No. 54/1. 45
O.S.No.2326/2015
57. And further the said Sketch is prepared at the instance of P.S.I. for the reasons that there was a dispute between some land owners ie., A.B. Nazeer Ahmed ie., the present Defendant is said to have raised some concern with regard to the encroachment. And therefore, the authenticity of this document will have to be placed on record by way of necessary evidence by examining the Taluk Surveyor, who has prepared the said Sketch. But, without examining him, the authenticity of the said Ex.D19 cannot be looked into. But, on the perusal of the document ie., Ex.P18 which is the admitted document by the Defendant himself, there is a demarcation of a Road in between the Property of the Plaintiff and the Property of the Defendant. And there is also oral admission to that effect, whereby as per the Defendants admission also towards the Southern side of Sy.No. 55/1, Road and Sy.No. 54 is existing. Therefore, in between the Property of the Plaintiff ie., the site of the Plaintiff and the Property of the Defendant, there is an existence of road, which fact of road is not seen or put forth in Ex.D19. Therefore, the authenticity of this document will have to be placed on record and weighed in the light of oral evidence and other documentary evidence corroboratively relied by both the parties. Therefore, less significance can be attached to Ex.D19, the 46 O.S.No.2326/2015 Sketch which is prepared at the instance of P.S.I. Since the said Sketch is not accompanied by way of any Mahazar. And that the person who has prepared the sketch is also not before the Court to test the veracity of the said document. Therefore, less significance can be attached to the said document. However, the fact that the said Sites are existing in Sy.No. 54 is probabalized.
58. It is also crucial to note that, based upon the documents the Plaintiff has placed sufficient materials to show her possession. Therefore Additional Issue No. 1 casted upon the Defendant is answered in negative.
59. Issue No.1 : This issue is upon the Plaintiff to prove that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff has relied upon Exhibits P1 to P29 documents. Exhibit P1 is the letter dated 28.08.1991 issued in favour of the Plaintiff with regard to the membership number 4846 pertaining to the Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited, wherein it reflects of as per the Board Resolution Meeting held on 26.08.1991 Site No. 317 of Phase-II is being allotted to one N.V Prabhu along with the share amount 47 O.S.No.2326/2015 of ₹ 100/- from H.S. Renuka Prasad, Membership No.2096 being transferred in the name of N.V. Prabhu. Thereby initially the said site was allotted in favour of H.S. Renuka Prasad with membership No. 2096, which in turn is being allotted in the name of N.V. Prabhu,the present Plaintiff herein. Exhibit P2 is the Possession Certificate dated 01.12.1991 issued by the Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited in favour of the Plaintiff herein. Whereby the recital of the said document reads as under :-
"Possession of Site No. 317 at Phase-II in the private layout formed by the Society in Kenchenahalli and Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengere Hobli, Bengaluru South, approved and released by the Bengaluru Development Authority. vide Order No. TPF/BDA/AEE- 1(S)1094/89-90 Dated 21.11.1989, measuring East to West 40 feet North to South 60 feet. The boundaries to the said site also would be relevant. North by private land, South by Cross road No. 3, East by Site No. 316 and West by Site No.380."
60. Exhibit P3 is the Khata Certificate standing in the name of N.V. Prabhu, son of N. G. Venkatesh, as on 13.03.1992 in respect of Site No.317. Exhibit P4 is the original registered Sale Deed dated 17.03.2007, executed by Ideal Home Co-operative 48 O.S.No.2326/2015 Building Society Limited in favour of N.V Prabhu. Wherein in the schedule it reflects of Site No. 317, Phase No. 2 formed by Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited in Sector No. G in Ideal Home Township, Kenchenahalli, Halagevaderahalli, bounded on the East by Site No. 316, West by Site No. 380, North by private land and South by Cross road No. 3. Exhibit P5 is the clarification of survey number issued by the Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited as on 13.7.2012 in favour of N.V. Prabhu. Whereby the Secretary has issued an endorsement which is culled out hereunder. The recitals require a careful appreciation.
"Your Site No. 317 falls in Survey No. 54/1 of Halagevaderahalli village. The site was released by the BDA vide their Release Order No. BDA/AEE-1(S) 1094/89-90 dated 21.11.1989."
It is issued way back in the year 2012.
61. Exhibit P6 is the Khata Certificate dated 28.02.2015 standing in the name of the Plaintiff N.V.Prabhu. Exhibit P7 is the Tax Assessment Register for the year 2014-15, reflecting the name of the Plaintiff herein. Ex.P8 is the challan-cum-receipt of property tax in the name of the Plaintiff. Wherein the date of 49 O.S.No.2326/2015 payment reflects as 06.03.1992. Ex.P9 also is the challan-cum- receipt of property tax for the period 01.10.1992 to 31.03.1993. paid as on 30.01.1993. Ex.P10 is the similar tax paid receipt for the year 01.04.1995 to 31.03.1996 dated 21.06.1995. Ex.P11 is another challan-cum-receipt of property tax for the period 01.04.1996 to 31.03.1997 paid as on 12.05.1996. Exhibit P12 is the challan-cum-receipt of property tax for the period 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998 dated 04.05.1997. Ex.P13 is the challan-cum- receipt of property tax for the period 01.04.1998 to 30.09.1998 having paid on 24.05.1998. Exhibit P14 is the Encumbrance Certificate for the period 1.6.1989 to 12.11.1991. Wherein the transaction dated 30.01.1990 is also reflected. Initially, the transaction is reflected in between Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited to H.S. Renuka Prasad and again on 19.01.1991 there is a cancellation of the same and thirdly on 15.10.1991 the said transaction is reflected in the name of N.V. Prabhu. Exhibit P15 is another Encumbrance Certificate for the period 13.11.1991 to 31.03.2004. Wherein Site No. 317 is reflected in the name of Ideal Home Co-operative Building Society Limited to N.V. Prabhu, the Plaintiff herein. Exhibit P16 also reflects the same transaction for the period 01.04.2012 to 04.12.2014. Exhibit P17 is the Nil Encumbrance dated 50 O.S.No.2326/2015 21.04.2012 having obtained in the year 2012 for the period 01.04.2004 to 19.04.2012. Ex.P18(a) is the sketch, whereby the existence of sites from 303 to 318 is reflected and towards the South there is a 40 feet road which is existing in between the sites at 281 to 302 and the sites commencing from 303 to 318, in between these sites there is a 30 feet road towards the Southern side and towards the Northern side, the private property which is reflected in the Sale Deed and the possession certificate is existing and it is the property in Sy.No. 55 towards the Northern side. Therefore, the boundary with respect of the Plaintiff's land in Site No. 317 towards the East is Site No. 316, towards the west is Site No. 318, towards the North is the private property that is Survey No. 55 and towards the Southern side is this 3rd Cross road, which is mentioned is the road which is existing.
62. Exhibit P19 is the Sale Deed dated 15.11.1995 which reads as under :-
"This deed of absolute sale made and executed on the 15th Day of November 1995 by Sri. Dodda Kempaiah, S/o. Pillappa, entered by their General Power of Attorney Holder in favour of the attorney holder Nazir Ahmad, S/o. 51
O.S.No.2326/2015 Basha. The recitals of the said document goes to show that the property is acquired by way of a Sale Deed as on 19.01.1957. It is in the respect of house property in Site No.104 to 105 of Sarakki Notified Area, Khata No.27/33, situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk."
The schedule to the said property is as under :-
"All that piece and parcel of the house property bearing No. 104 and 105 of of Sarakki Notified Area, Khata No.27/33, situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 60 feet, North to South 40 feet and bounded on the East by Site No. 103, West by Site No.106, North by road and South by Ideal Home property with one square Mangaluru tiled house."
63. The Defendant in supportive of his claim has not placed any document. But however the fact that there is an Ideal Home property towards the Southern side of the said sites is made out and to enable this Court to come to a conclusion that towards the Southern side of the Site No. 104 and 105, the Ideal Home property is situated with one square Mangalore tiled house is reflected. So in order to establish the said fact, the said document is relied.
52
O.S.No.2326/2015
64. Further Exhibit P20 is another sale deed which is dated 23.11.1995. Same recitals of Exhibit P19 is reflected. But in this Sale Deed, it is in respect of the house property bearing number 106 and 107 of Sarakki notified area, Khata No.27/33, situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 60 feet, North to South 40 feet, bounded on the East by site No. 105, West by site No. 108, North by road, South by Ideal Homes Property with one square Mangalore tiled house.
65. Exhibit P21 is the Confirmation Deed, executed by Byrappa, Nazir Ahmad and P. S. Ramesh in favour of one Malathi, which is dated 08.09.2006. It is with respect of Site bearing No. 118, Khata No. 55/721 situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, within the limits of administration of Rajarajeshwari District Municipal Council, Ward No. 23, measuring East to West 30 feet North to South 40 feet, bounded on East by Site No. 117, West by Site No. 119, North by road and South by Ideal Homes property. 66 Exhibit P22 is another Sale Deed dated 24.02.2007. Executed in favour of Gayathri by Malathi. Whereby the title of 53 O.S.No.2326/2015 the document which is dated 03.03.1975 by the order of conversion by D.C dated 03.03.1975 vide No.BDS.ALN.SR(S)530/1974-75 is reflected and the khata is reflected that the property bearing No. 55/721 in Site No. 119 bounded on East by Site No. 118, West by Site No. 120 and North by road and South by Ideal Homes Society.
67. Exhibit P24 is the absolute Sale Deed dated 03.12.2014 executed by Azhar Jabeen in favour of Sri Nanjundeshwara Developers. The schedule to the said Property is reflected as converted Land bearing Sy.No. 55/R2, Old Survey No. 55, Block No.11. Converted by the Official Memorandum dated 29.11.2014, bearing No.ALN(S)SR(Keng)03/14-15 issued by the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bengaluru, situated at Halagevaderahalli, Bengaluru, measuring 30 Guntas of land. This deed is dated 03.12.2014 and the boundaries to the said property reflects to this 30 Guntas as bounded on the East by portion of land in Survey No. 55/1 and remaining portion of land in Survey No.55/1, West by road, North by portion of land in Survey No. 55/1 and remaining portion of land in Survey No. 55/1 and South by road and survey No. 54.
54
O.S.No.2326/2015
68. Ex.P25 is the letter addressed by H.N. Vidya Shankar and others including the present Plaintiff herein to the SHO, whereby there is legal threat to life and limb by one Mr. Nazeer Ahmed to the aforesaid site owners. Exhibit P26 is again another letter addressed by H.N. Vidya Shankar, which also reflects the name of the Plaintiff in another case that is Srilakshmi. Exhibit P27 is the colour xerox of the the Lease-cum-sale Agreement, dated 15.10.1991 executed by the Ideal Homes Co-operative Building Society Ltd., in favour of the Plaintiff herein. Exhibit P28 is the digital copy of tax paid receipt said to have been paid by N.V. Prabhu, the Plaintiff herein. Exhibit P29 is the deposition in OS 2413/2025 in the case of Srilakshmi v/s Nazir Ahmad, the deposition of the very Defendant herein marked on confrontation.
69. Though the Defendant contends that the Defendant's ie., Ideal Home Society have got the khata and the layout plans by submitting false documents, the Defendant has not produced any document challenging the said layout plan. And on the other hand, he admits Exhibit P12 which is marked on admission in cross-examination as Exhibit P14(a) in another case that is proceedings initiated by the Government ie., the Revenue 55 O.S.No.2326/2015 Department, neither the site number ie., the suit Site No. 312 is reflected in the said proceedings nor is any proceedings initiated as against the present Plaintiff. Therefore, on the basis of documentary evidence as well as on the basis of ocular evidence elicited in the cross-examination of DW1, this Plaintiff has probabalized Plaintiff's lawful possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The Suit Schedule Property is situated towards the one of the sides of Sy.No.55 of Halagevaderahalli is admitted as per the documents of Plaintiff a well as the Defendant. Per contra, the Defendant has also placed documents to show Plaintiff's lawful possession of the Suit Schedule Property. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 stands answered in the affirmative.
70. Issue No.2 : So far as Issue No. 2 is concerned, Issue No. 2 is with regard to the alleged interference. The Plaintiffs have maintained the present suit based upon the cause of action that is said to have arisen in the year 2015 ie., as on 04.03.2015 and 10.03.2015 when the Defendant attempted to interfere with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Wherein, the Defendants without any connection with regard the suit schedule property are claiming 56 O.S.No.2326/2015 some interest in the adjoining property and when the Plaintiff intended to put up construction over the suit schedule site along with other site owners who had also started to put up fencing over the suit schedule property in respect of their respective sites, the Defendant No. 1 along with his men are said to have threatened the Plaintiff with dire consequences and that the Defendant No. 2 acting under the influence of Defendant No. 1 is also said to have imposed threat to the Plaintiff and also interfered with the Plaintiff putting up construction and fencing the said suit schedule site. Therefore, the Plaintiff is before the court in relation to the said cause of action.
71. The Defendant has admitted the fact of Plaintiff being purchaser of the suit schedule property in the layout formed by Ideal Homes Society and that the said layout is existing towards Northern side of their Property is admitted, whereby the identification of the suit schedule site is also admitted by the Defendant ie., DW1 in his cross-examination and as such the same is marked as Exhibit P14(a). That apart, the document which is shown as if the Plaintiff is claiming a right in respect of another property is concerned, this Defendant has failed to establish that the Plaintiff, ie., the site of the Plaintiff ie., the suit 57 O.S.No.2326/2015 schedule site is situated in the property that has been demarcated and as if shown that this Plaintiff's site is existing in the Government land. But it is crucial to note that the Defendant has admitted to the fact that this Plaintiff nor the suit schedule site is part of the said proceedings nor the said Site No. 312 or 317 is reflected in the proceedings initiated by the Government with regard to encroachment of Government land.
72. On the other hand, the land of the Defendant is admittedly seen to have been a part of the proceedings initiated by the Government which goes to show of Defendant having encroached the property of the Government. It is therefore the Plaintiffs have approached this court seeking intervention of this court to protect the Plaintiff's possession in respect of the suit schedule site. Right from the year 1989 till the date of the suit as well as as of now the Plaintiff has probabalised Plaintiff's possession and the nature of defence and the nature of pleadings itself goes to show the alleged interference by the Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff also probabalised Issue No. 2. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
73. Issue No.3 : Now moving to the next issue, in furtherance 58 O.S.No.2326/2015 of my findings to above issues, the Plaintiff having approached this court for the relief of permanent injunction has made out his ground under Issue No. 1 and 2 of Plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought by him.
74. The suit of the Plaintiff is one for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from interfering with Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule site and the Defendant No. 2 coming under the influence of Defendant No. 1 is also trying to act detrimental to the interest of the Plaintiff and thereby the second Defendant is also acting to the tune of Defendant No. 1 and causing interference with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Thereby the Plaintiff has approached this Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 from causing interference with the Plaintiff's possession.
75. The counsel for the Defendant No. 1 while addressing his arguments has highlighted few aspects with regard to the defence put forth by the Defendants. Initially the contention of the Defendant is that the documents produced by the Plaintiff is 59 O.S.No.2326/2015 said to have acquired whereby two different villages are reflected in the contention raised by the Plaintiff and that a site cannot be formed in two different villages that namely Kenchenahalli and Halagevaderahalli and that the letter ie., Exhibit P1 is a communication dated 28.10.2001 and that the site number 317 is allotted and no survey number is mentioned and nowhere the village name is reflected. As per the letter issued by the BDA, Site No. 317 is formed in Kenchenally Village and as per Exhibit P27, Site No. 317 is situated in Halagevaderahalli Village and not in Kenchenahally. And at the time of sale deed, these two villages are being incorporated. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not clear in which village the said site is situated. And further, the Defendants claim that Survey No. 55 pertains to the Defendant. And further the Defendant would emphasize on Exhibit D19, a survey sketch which is prepared at the instance of the PSI, whereby 11 sites are reflected to have been fallen within the Government land and which is under dispute and Site No. 317 falls within the said Survey No. 55/ 2. And that the report of the Revenue Authority would also go to show that Property of the Defendant comes within Survey No. 55/2 and the Defendant also relied upon Exhibit D4. And they also claim the Defendants would also highlight upon the said 60 O.S.No.2326/2015 claim with regard to the sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2. And further contended that since there is a dispute with regard to identity and location of the plaint schedule site and Defendant on the basis of sale deed executed in favour of Defendant No. 2, the suit schedule property is situated in Survey No. 55 itself and therefore on these and other grounds the Defendants have contended that The said suit schedule property of the Plaintiff is situated in Survey No. 55.
76. Countering the case of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs would rely upon the fact that Plaintiff claims the right title possession in respect of Site No. 317. No doubt the society ie., The Ideal Homes Society is said to have formed its layout in two different villages namely Kenchenahally Village and Halagevaderahalli Village. But the site ie., the suit schedule site falls in the village Halagevaderahalli. And accordingly the BDA has rightly issued the kata in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of said Village. Further, the said sites, the Ideal Homes has formed layout in respect of survey numbers in two different villages, that is Kenchenahally and Halagevaderahalli and both Kenchenahally and Halagevaderahalli villages are adjacent to each other. But the contention of the Defendant that the Plaintiff 61 O.S.No.2326/2015 has not placed any materials to show that the said Suit Schedule Site comes within Halagevaderahalli or Halagevaderahalli is an argument sake arguments. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has placed Exhibit P1, P2 and possession certificate which reflects of the property that is Suit Schedule Site No. 317 and 312 being situated in Halagevaderahalli Village.
77. And that it is the burden upon the Defendants to prove that the said suit site falls within the Survey No. 55. Per contra the Defendant has not placed any materials to show that the suit sites are situated in Survey No. 55/1 or 55/2 and further the boundaries in the sale deeds relied by the Plaintiff in respect of Survey No. 55 towards the Southern side, the Ideal Home Properties are situated and likewise on the Northern side the property ie., Survey No. 55 is situated. Whether it is Survey No. 55/1 or 55/2, the burden is upon the Defendant to establish it and so far as the said property is concerned, towards the Northern side of the Survey No. 55 there is no existence of road. On the other hand towards the Southern side of the suit schedule site, there is an existence of road and only after the road there is an existence of Survey No.55. Therefore the contention of Defendant of Plaintiff encroaching or the Plaintiff's 62 O.S.No.2326/2015 encroaching the land of Defendant does not arise. On the other hand, on the pretext that the Defendant's society ie., The society has encroached the property is concerned, no material is placed on record by the Defendant to show that the Ideal Homes Society or the present Plaintiffs have encroached the site or the property pertaining to the Defendant in Survey No. 55.
78. Apart from these arguments, the Defendants have not placed any materials to show of the society having encroached Survey No. 55. No doubt there was a proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA, whereby the Defendants' society has undertaken that they would not interfere with the Plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of Survey No. 55. Whereas the Plaintiffs in the present case have probabalised by way of documentary evidence as well as ocular evidence on record to show that their site is situated in Survey No. 54 of Ideal Homes formed by Ideal Homes which is of Halagevaderahalli Village and it is the burden upon the Defendant to prove that the society had encroached the said Survey No. 55 and that these disputed sites are formed in Survey No. 55. Per contra, no such contention of Defendant is established or no such pleadings of the Defendant is established. On the other hand, the Defendant 63 O.S.No.2326/2015 in his cross-examination has admitted the documents and the case of the Plaintiff categorically so far as it relates to possession is concerned and further the admissions which are discussed supra are very crucial for the case in hand whereby the Defendant himself has admitted that the Plaintiffs have not encroached the land in Survey No. 55/2 or 55/1.
79. On the other hand the Defendant has relied upon certain documents, more particularly the survey sketch which is formed and prepared during the pendency of the suit in hand, whereby based upon the complaint made by the Defendant and other landowners, a joint survey is said to have been conducted, to which survey the Plaintiff is not a party and also Survey number and the Site No. 317 or 312 is reflected in the said sketch to show that there has been an encroachment of Government land. Therefore, the arguments and the counter arguments relied by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant would go to show that Plaintiffs have probabalised their possession in respect of the suit schedule site. As such, the possession of the Plaintiff needs to be protected as against the Defendant herein, who are making a false claim in respect of the suit schedule sites. Accordingly, I hold that the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of 64 O.S.No.2326/2015 permanent injunction as prayed for.
80. Further, it is also crucial to note that the Plaintiffs have relied upon a citation reported in (2004) Part I SCC page. 769 in the case of Rame Gowda v/s Varadappa Naidu , wherein their Lordships have held tha, "Occupant in settled possession - Tests in Puran Singh case - The extent to which peaceful possession is protected in Indian law - Settled possession gives right to possession such that even Rightful owner may only recover it by taking recourse to law - Words and phrases -
"Settled possession" - Maxims - possession contra omnes valet praeter eur cui ius sit possessionis - Adverse possession - "Settled possession " of trespasser - Protection of.."
81. And further the Plaintiffs have also relied upon another citation reported in (2007) 14 Supreme Court cases page 204. Another case reported in ILR 2013 Karnataka, page 4983, in the case of Narasamma Vs. Narasi Reddy, wherein their Lordships have held that, "Suit instituted for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction relating to immovable properties - impugned 65 O.S.No.2326/2015 order passed by the trial Court that there is no need to frame an issue regarding title in a suit for injunction simpliciter - challenge to - Held, In a suit for injunction simpliciter, there is no need to frame any issue relating to the title as issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue except where the suit property is a vacant site or a vacant non-agricultural land and a cloud is raised over the Plaintiff's title in respect of such vacant site or land. A suit for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction without seeking the relief of declaration of title is maintainable. The mere fact that a question of title may have to be gone into in deciding whether an injunction can be given or not is no justification for holding that the suit is for declaration of title and not injunction."
82. Countering the case of Plaintiff,, the learned counsel for Defendants had emphasized and relied upon the citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033.
83. Countering the case, the counsel for the Plaintiff has relied upon the citation contending that in a suit for bare injunction 66 O.S.No.2326/2015 seeking the relief of declaration is not necessary. Further the Plaintiffs have also relied upon another citation reported in High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Kulde Maniram Singh vs. Akloo Ahir reported in AIR 1917 PATNA 32 and others.
84. Safely relying upon the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the arguments addressed by the Defendants as well, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have relied upon their written arguments whereby the Defendant No. 1 has highlighted few aspects with regard to the evidence of DW1 and submissions regarding the decree drawn in RFA 37/2010. The counsel for the Defendant has raised about grounds for dismissal of the case in hand. Basically the contention of the Defendant is that, merely with respect to the boundary, but fundamentally concerns whether Site No. 317 as claimed by the Plaintiff was ever formed part of the society's land and would rely upon Exhibit D6 and Exhibit D19. The Defendants have not placed any materials to show that the said Site No. 317 falls within Survey No. 55/2 and not in Survey No. 54/1 and further the contention of the Defendants is that Society had no right, title to allot Site No. 317 as the said site falls within Survey No. 55/2 for which the society had no ownership or control.
67
O.S.No.2326/2015
85. Countering the said argument of the Defendant, the Plaintiff counsel has relied upon the documents ie., the sale deeds executed by the Defendant No. 1 along with the other owners. Wherein, in the said sale deeds, the Southern side is reflected as Ideal Home Lay out formed by the Ideal Homes. So this fact goes to show that the said sale deeds have come into existence at an earlier point of time ie., at an undisputed point of time. Therefore that being the case, the Defendant's document itself goes to show that there was an existence of Ideal Homes Society towards the Southern side of the Defendant's property. That being the case, the Defendants have failed to establish that the Site No. 317 falls within Survey No. 55/2.
86. The third argument of the Defendant is that, the survey clearly establishes that Survey No. 55 / 2 is in possession of the Defendants. So far as the Defendants' possession in respect of Survey No. 55/2 is concerned, the Plaintiffs do not dispute that aspect. But it is as seen from the sketch produced by the Plaintiff, ie.,Exhibit P14, it would reflect that the sites are situated in the layout and there is a road in between Survey No. 55 and the Survey No. 54 of the Ideal Home Society and the sites are 68 O.S.No.2326/2015 formed by Ideal Home Society in Survey No. 54 and not in Survey No. 55. There is a demarcation of these two properties by way of a road which is seen from the sketch produced by the Defendants as well. Therefore, the arguments of the Defendant is countered by way of documentary evidence which is relied by the Plaintiff herein.
87. The fourth argument of the Defendants is that, Plaintiff has failed to establish the identity of the property. On the other hand, it is crucial to note that the Plaintiffs have placed sufficient materials ie., the documents ie., Exhibits P1 to P15, the RTCs as well as the tax paid receipts which are the possession certificate and the allotment letter executed in favour of the Plaintiffs herein to show that there is the identity of the property. The said properties are identified by way of demarcation and also by way of a khata which has been mutated in the name of the Plaintiffs itself. Thereby the contention of the Defendant that the property is in dispute cannot be accepted.
88. So far as the arguments of the Defendant in relation to the fact that the Plaintiff cannot succeed on the weakness of the Defendant's case is concerned, in the case in hand the Plaintiff 69 O.S.No.2326/2015 has produced independent documents ie., Exhibits P1 to P24 documents to show the identity, location and the possession of the Plaintiff especially the title which is confirmed by the society. If at all the claim of the Defendant of any encroachment is concerned, the Defendant will have to approach as against the society. And further, the said dispute has been resolved before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, whereby mutually the Plaintiff and the Defendants have agreed that they would not interfere with each other's property. That being the case, inspite of the said orders, recorded by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the Defendants have continued to trouble the Plaintiff with their possession and further when the society has given an undertaking that they would not interfere with the Defendants' possession in Survey No. 55, that being the case, unnecessarily the Defendant is taking law into Into his hands and trying to disturb the possession of the Plaintiff. More particularly, the innocent purchasers who have been allotted with the suit schedule properties ie., Sites to its prospective members and whereby in the year 1989, since 1989 the Plaintiff in suit in OS 2463/2015 was allotted with the sites. Hence for more than 40 years ie., nearly 30 plus years the Plaintiff has been in possession of the said sites. So, that being the case, the 70 O.S.No.2326/2015 Defendants claim that the Plaintiff is trying to succeed on the weakness of the Defendants case cannot be accepted.
89. The Defendants have relied upon the citation with regard to a proposition of law ie., with regard to declaration in the case reported in (2008) 4 SCC page 594, in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L. Rs AIR 2008 SC 2033 ie, a suit for injunction is maintainable only when the Plaintiff is basing his claim on his undisputed title over the property. A suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable. When there is a discrepancy regarding the Plaintiff's title over the property claimed.
90. It is crucial to note that this very Defendant has given an undertaking before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.377/2010 ie., Exhibit D7, which goes to show that the Defendant would not interfere with the Property of the Ideal Homes and the Ideal Home Society has given an undertaking that they would not interfere with the Defendant's possession in respect of Site No. 55. Therefore, the Defendant has admitted the title of the Ideal Homes Society as well of its existence adjacent to the Property of Defendant in Sy.No. 55. Therefore, 71 O.S.No.2326/2015 the question of Plaintiff seeking declaration does not arise.
91. And further the Defendants have also relied upon another citation reported in (2022) 20 SCC page 310 in the case of P. Pushparajan v. Parambath Moidu AIR 2017 KERALA 206, on the ground that suit for mere injunction will not be maintainable, when there is a cloud on the title of the property as claimed by the Plaintiff therein. In the case in hand, the location of the property is being disputed and not the title with disputed fact of location is also established by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the said citation is also not applicable to the case in hand as it differs with facts.
92. The Defendant has also relied upon another citation reported in RSA 2869/2007, wherein it is held as under :-
"In a suit for injunction if the initial burden of proof is not effectively discharged by the Plaintiff, the same cannot be used as a trump card on the ground that the case of the Defendant is weak and further the case where possession has to be established based on the title of Defendant. And that the title is disputed by the Defendant. Suit for injunction is not maintainable."72
O.S.No.2326/2015
93. Whereas, in the case in hand, the location of the property is in dispute and not the title. Therefore, the contention of the Defendant that the title is in dispute cannot be accepted. The Defendant would admit the title of the Plaintiff and also the title of the society. In his own cross-examination, this Defendant has admitted the title of the society. As such, the Defendant had filed a suit as against the society and in RFA, the said matter came to be resolved between the Society and the Defendant herein. Thereby going by the said submissions as well and also in furtherance of my findings to Issue No. 1 and 2 and additional issue 1 raised against the Defendant being answered in negative and Issue No. 1 and 2 being answered in affirmative, Plaintiff has probabalised Plaintiff's possession and the alleged interference by the Defendant. Therefore, going by the oral as well as ocular evidence as well as documentary evidence relied by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff has probabalised its case. Therefore, I answer that the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in affirmative.
94. Issue No.4 : In furtherance of my findings to the above 73 O.S.No.2326/2015 Issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff seeking the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property is hereby decreed with costs.
Accordingly, the Defendants 1 & 2 are hereby restrained from causing any interference to the Plaintiff's possession in respect of the Suit Schedule Property by way of Permanent Injunction.
Further, Ex.P27 being the Lease-cum-Sale dated 15.10.1991, office is directed to confiscate the document, with direction to the Plaintiff to produce the Original Lease-cum-Sale Agreement while or before drawing up of the Decree.
Office to draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated using AI, computerized by Stenographer-G1, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 2 nd day of February, 2026).
(A.M. NALINI KUMARI) XIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.74
O.S.No.2326/2015 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff's side:
PW.1 N.V. Prabhu List of exhibits marked for the Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P1 Letter dated 28.8.1991
Ex.P2 Possession certificate
Ex.P.3 Khata certificate issued by BDA
Ex.P.4 Sale Deed dated 17.3.2012
Ex.P.5 Letter dated 30.7.2012
Ex.P.6 Khata Certificate issued by BBMP
Ex.P.7 Demand Register
Ex.P.8 to 13 Challans
Ex.P.14 to 16 Encumbrance certificates
Ex.P.17 Form No.16
Ex.P.18 Sanction plan
Ex.P.18(a) Sketch
Ex.P.19 & 20 C/c. Sale Deeds dated 5.11.1995 &
23.11.1995
Ex.P.21 C/c. Confirmation deed
Ex.P.22 to 24 C/c. Sale Deeds
Ex.P.25 & 26 C/c. Police complaints
Ex.P.27 Copy of lease-cum-sale-agreement
Ex.P.28 Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.29 C/c. Deposition in O.S.No. 2413/2015
List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants' side:
DW.1 : A.B. Nazeer Ahmed DW.2 : Shreesha R.S.
List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants' side:
Ex.D.1 C/c. Amended plaint in O.S.No. 436/2003 Ex.D.2 C/c. Statement of Nazeer Ahmed - Defendant No.1 75 O.S.No.2326/2015 Ex.D.3 C/c. Statement of Ravindra - Engineer Ex.D.4 C/c. Survey sketch Ex.D.5 C/c. Deposition of D.W.1 in O.S.No. 436/2003 Ex.D.6 C/c. Judgment in RFA No.377/2010 Ex.D.7 C/c. Decree in RFA No.377/2010 Ex.D.8 C/c. Proceedings in No.LND(S)CR/48-04-05 Ex.D.9 C/c. Information obtained under RTI Ex.D.10 C/c. Sale Deed dated 15.5.2013 Ex.D.11 Mutation order MR.No.H2/2013-14 Ex.D.12 to 14 C/c.RTCs Ex.D.15 C/c.Conversion order Ex.D.16 C/c.Proceedings under RTI Ex.D.17 Survey sketch Ex.D.18 C/c.Letter dated 6.2.2015 Ex.D.19 C/c.Survey sketch Ex.D.20 to 22 C/c.Photographs Ex.D.23 C/c.Endorsement dated 26.2.2012 Ex.D.24 C/c. Letter dated 5.7.2013 Ex.D.25 to 33 C/c.Sale Deeds Ex.D.34 C/c.Letter dated 31.08.2010 Ex.D.35 & 36 C/c.Two sheets containing Photographs Ex.D.37 C/c.Application dated 10.1.2025 Ex.D.38 C/c.Online application under RTI Ex.D.39 C/c.Compliance issued by RTI annexed with 2 documents dated 16.1.2025 Ex.D.40 C/c.Joint Survey Sketch Ex.D.41 C/c.Sale Deed dated 15.3.2013 Ex.D.42 C/c.Mutation register Ex.D.43 C/c.Survey map 76 O.S.No.2326/2015 Ex.D.44 C/c.Sale Deed dated 3.12.2014 Ex.D.45 C/c.Tax Demand Register Ex.D.46 C/c.Khata Certificate Ex.D.47 C/c.Tax paid receipt Ex.D.48 C/c.Agreement of Sale dated 9.7.2007 Ex.D.49 C/c.Acknowledgment dated 2.9.2010 List of exhibits marked through D.W.2 :
Ex.C.1 Whitener mentioned at page No.12 in Ex.D44 (A.M. NALINI KUMARI) XIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.