Bangalore District Court
Munivenkatamma M vs State Of Karnataka Prl Secretary ... on 8 October, 2025
KABC010073782012
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8)
PRESENT
SRI. B.DASARATHA., B.A., LL.B.
XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
O.S. No.4771/2012
Plaintiff: Smt. Munivenkatamma,
W/o. late Ramaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.2468 A, 2nd Cross,
4th 'B' Main Road, BDA Layout,
Bangalore - 560 017.
(By Adv. Sri. A.N.Krishna)
Vs.
Defendants: 1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Principal Secretary (Revenue Dept.),
2 O.S. No.4771/2012
M.S.Building 5th Floor,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Podium Block, 3rd Floor,
Vishweshwaraiah Tower,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Amarjyoti House Building
Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Represented by its Secretary,
'Lakshmi Complex',
No.40, 3rd Floor, K.R.Road,
Opp. Vani Vilas Hospital,
Bangalore - 560 002.
4. Smt. Geetha Kousalya,
W/o. M.Madhukumar,
Major in age,
R/at No.1/A, BWSSB Quarters,
7th Main Road, 5th Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 041.
5. Sri. K.L.Madan,
S/o. Lakshmi Kantharaj Setty,
Major in age,
R/at: No.198, 33rd Cross,
7th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 081.
6. Sri. S.Ramachandran,
S/o. K.M.Gopalkrishnaiah,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at No.62/3,
3 O.S. No.4771/2012
25 Feet Main Channel Road,
Saraswathipuram, Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 008.
7. Smt. S.Prabha,
W/o. L.Suresh,
Major in age,
No.20/1, Maruthi Nilaya,
Krishna Road, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore - 560 004.
8. Sri. Venkatachalam,
S/o. P.Satnasivan,
Major in age,
R/at: No.591, 12th Main,
H.A.L. 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 038.
9. The Sub-Registrar,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore.
(D1 to D4, D6, D8 - Exparte
D5 by Adv. Sri. H.S.Somanath
D7 by Adv. Sri. M.Shanmukhappa
D9 by Dist. Govt. Pleader
Sri. Laxminarayan N.Hegde)
Date of institution of the suit : 05.07.2012
Nature of the suit : Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of : 15.11.2017
Recording of the evidence
4 O.S. No.4771/2012
Date on which the Judgment : 08.10.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
13 03 03
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.3 to 8, their agents or anyone claiming under them, from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit Item No.1 to 4 of schedule-B property.
(b) Declaration that the sale deeds executed by defendant No.3 (i) in favour of defendant No.4 dated 22.01.1991; (ii) in favour of defendant No.5 dated 27.02.1991;
(iii) in favour of defendant No.7 dated 27.02.1991; (iv) in favour of defendant No.8 dated 22.08.1990 and Sale Deed executed 5 O.S. No.4771/2012 by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.6 dated 25.07.2004 are not binding on the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule-A property.
(c) Directing defendant No.9 to enter encumbrances in the official records regarding the suit property and such other favourable reliefs.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: -
The plaintiff's father-in-law - Late Siddappa, son of Koppada Ramaiah, acquired the land in Survey No.67/3 through registered sale deeds dated 26.07.1959 and 21.12.1967, with revenue entries mutated in his name vide M.R.No.5 and 6/1981.82. The property was part of a family partition allotted to Late Ramaiah, whose children relinquished their rights in favour of the plaintiff. Ramaiah died on 05.03.2003 and Siddappa died on 26.01.2005.
2(a). In 1981, the Government of Karnataka issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act bearing No.LAQ(1)SR 12/1981-82 dated 6 O.S. No.4771/2012 28.12.1981, to acquire 82 acres 19 guntas, including the suit property, for defendant No.3. A Final Notification under Section 6(1) followed on 14.10.1982 and an Award was passed on 28.08.1985 for ₹92,258/-. Only ₹53,375/- was paid to Late Siddappa, with symbolic possession taken, but actual possession remained with the family.
2(b). The acquisition proceedings were challenged in writ petitions before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. In W.P.No.2945/1983 and connected matters, the Notifications were quashed on 02.03.1984. The Appeal in W.A.No.2110/1986 was dismissed on 25.06.1990. Further challenges against similar acquisitions were quashed in ILR 1991 Karnataka 2248 (Narayana Reddy vs. State of Karnataka).
2(c). Aggrieved Societies, including defendant No.3, filed SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were dismissed in ILR 1995(3) KAR 1962 (HMT House Building Co.operative Society vs. Syed Khadar), confirming the quashing due to 7 O.S. No.4771/2012 bogus members and violations. The court directed restoration of possession to landowners upon refund of compensation, irrespective of challenges filed.
2(d). A State Government Committee monitored implementation, noting defendant No.3's misleading actions and illegal site sales. Resolutions directed publication of quashed acquisitions, barred registrations by Sub-Registrars and initiated COD enquiry leading to FIR against defendant No.3. BDA cancelled the Society's layout plan, upheld in W.P.No.30139/1999 dismissed on 29.07.2004.
2(e). The plaintiff approached the Government for restoration. Vide RD 84 LAQ 2007 dated 04.08.2009, the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a notice on 26.08.2009 demanding refund of ₹53,375/-. The plaintiff paid amount on 27.08.2009, leading to restoration order in L.A.C.473/85-86 dated 08.09.2009. The Tahsildar confirmed physical possession on 29.04.2010.
8 O.S. No.4771/2012
2(f). The revenue entries were transferred to BBMP jurisdiction. The plaintiff paid development charges of ₹8,49,833/- for Survey No.67/3 on 25.08.2011, obtaining khata certificate, extract and tax receipts. The Deputy Commissioner directed police protection under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on 07.01.2012, as the plaintiff is a widow from the Bhovi Community.
2(g). In Civil Appeal Nos.7425.7426/2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.02.2012 dismissed appeals, directing return of vacant lands to owners within three months and allowing negotiations for built-up areas, but clarifying no change in status-quo.
2(h). The plaintiff's W.P.No.37217/2009 seeking cancellation of documents was dismissed without prejudice to civil remedies. The defendant No.3 executed sale deeds for portions of the suit property to defendant Nos.4, 5, 7 and 8 on 22.01.1991, 27.02.1991, 27.02.1991 and 22.08.1990. The defendant No.5 sold to defendant No.6 on 15.07.2004. These 9 O.S. No.4771/2012 sale deeds are fraudulent, without possession or approved layout, violating the Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants Nos.4 to 8, in collusion, harass the plaintiff and attempted interference on 09.06.2012.
2(i). The plaintiff issued notice to defendant No.3 on 31.03.2012 under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act , but no compliance. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to act despite representations, hence made parties. Cause of action arose on 12.11.2010, 31.03.2012 and 09.06.2012, within court jurisdiction. No other pending suits. On these plaintiff prays for (a) Permanent injunction against defendants Nos.3 to 8 interfering with schedule-B Items 1 to 4;
(b) Declare sale deeds in respect of schedule-A non-binding;
(c) Direct defendant No.9 to enter encumbrance.
3. The defendant Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 have been placed exparte, having failed to contest the suit despite notice. The defendant Nos.5 and 9 appeared through their Counsel, but have not filed written statement. In response to the suit 10 O.S. No.4771/2012 summons, defendant No.7 appeared through her Counsel and filed the written statement.
4. The brief averments of written statement of defendant No.7 are as follows:-
The suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of sale deeds executed by defendant No.3 as null and void and for injunction against interference with possession of the schedule properties, is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed.
4(a). The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. The land in question was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) pursuant to Preliminary Notification in 1981 and Final Notification in 1982. The layout plan was approved by BDA vide No.BDA/TPM/03/PLO/514/82.83 dated 12.01.1983. The said acquisition and approval were never challenged and therefore the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the same at this stage. 11 O.S. No.4771/2012
4(b). The plaintiff has failed to pay proper court fee for the relief of possession, rendering the suit defective and not maintainable. The suit is also barred by limitation, as the plaintiff lost all rights in the year 1982 upon issuance of Final Notification and subsequent approval of the layout by BDA.
4(c). The suit is barred under Section 9 of CPC in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner, BDA vs. Brijesh Reddy [(2013) 3 SCC 66], which holds that once land is acquired it vests absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances.
4(d). The suit suffers from misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The suit schedule-B properties consist of five sites allotted to defendants by defendant No.3 in the year 1990. The defendants have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same for over 25 years without any disturbance. The BDA and thereafter BBMP have recognized their ownership by issuing khathas and collecting property taxes.12 O.S. No.4771/2012
4(e). The plaintiff's claim is meritless because suit schedule-A property is no longer agricultural land. After acquisition, it ceased to exist in the manner described by the plaintiff. Sites were formed, allotted to members of defendant No.3 and civic amenities were provided.
4(f). Without prejudice, defendant No.7 denies the averments in Para 3 of the plaint except that Sy. No.67/3 measuring 24 guntas was acquired. No RTCs could exist post- acquisition and any such RTCs produced are concocted. It is specifically submitted that after acquisition and layout formation in 1983, sites were allotted, houses constructed and civic amenities provided. Hence, suit schedule-A property no longer exists as claimed by the plaintiff. No land was available for partition after 1981/1982 acquisition. The defendant No.7 admits that Notification and Award proceedings covered Sy. Nos.66/1, 66/5 and 67/3. However, it is denied that Government failed to take possession. On the contrary, possession was taken and sites allotted. The plaintiff has not challenged the 13 O.S. No.4771/2012 Notifications or Award in time and is presumed to have received compensation.
4(g). W.P.No.2945/1983 and connected matters are unrelated to the suit properties and Notifications have not been quashed. The judgments cited by plaintiff in ILR 1991 Karnataka 2248 and ILR 1995(3) KAR 1962 (HMT House Building Co-op. Society vs. Syed Khadar) are not applicable to the acquisition in question. The Government Orders purportedly based on such judgments were quashed in W.P.No.31960/1999, which was dismissed on 10.03.2000. Further, plaintiff's similar attempts in W.P.Nos.2496-2502/2010 were stayed by the Hon'ble High Court and directions were issued not to revoke khathas of allottees.
4(h). The plaintiff was not in possession since 1982. A suit for declaration without the relief of possession is not maintainable. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1995) 3 SCC 128 has no application to the present case, as Notifications in respect of the present lands have 14 O.S. No.4771/2012 never been quashed. The allegations of cheating by defendant No.3 are false and baseless. W.P.No.31960/1999 filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff has suppressed the dismissal of landlords' W.P.Nos.35597, 36251, 35476/1999, wherein acquisition was upheld. W.P.Nos.3838.3845/1995 filed by landlords were also dismissed, thereby confirming the acquisition. The HMT judgment is not applicable to the present case. W.P.Nos.2496.2502/2010 filed by allottees including defendant Nos.4 to 10 are pending, which fact is well within the knowledge of the plaintiff.
4(i). Any letters or orders allegedly relied upon by plaintiff were obtained by misrepresentation and are under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court. The sale deeds in favour of the defendants are valid and duly registered under the Registration Act. They cannot be cancelled by administrative orders. Only a competent civil court has jurisdiction. Any orders passed against the defendants' interests are collusive, fraudulent and in violation of the interim stay granted in W.P.Nos.2496.2502/2010.15 O.S. No.4771/2012
4(j). The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not applicable to acquired lands vested in the Government. Civil Appeal Nos.7425.7426/2002 decided on 02.02.2012 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not applicable to the present case. The defendant No.7 has been in lawful possession since purchase under registered sale deed dated 27.02.1991 and the same was recognized by BDA/BBMP. The plaintiff lost all rights more than 32 years ago. The defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties. There has been no interference from their side with the plaintiff's possession, as plaintiff has no subsisting possession or ownership.
4(k). The registered sale deeds are valid and subsisting; they cannot be revoked or cancelled after more than 24 years. The suit is devoid of cause of action. Any cause of action alleged by plaintiff is false, concocted and unsustainable in law. The defendant No.7 denies all other untraversed averments of the plaint and calls upon the plaintiff to strictly prove the same. Therefore, defendant No.7 prays that this court to: dismiss the suit of the plaintiff in limine as not maintainable in law or on 16 O.S. No.4771/2012 facts; as barred by limitation, estoppel and Section 9 CPC and as suffering from misjoinder/non.joinder of necessary parties and award exemplary costs against the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.7.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my predecessor-in-office has framed the following issues for determination:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit Item No.1 to 4 of "B" schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that Sale Deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 on 22.01.1991, in favour of defendant on 27.02.1991 and defendant No.7 on 27.02.1991, in favour of defendant No.8 on 22.08.1990 and Sale Deed executed by defendant No.5 in favour defendant No.6 on 16.07.2004 are not binding on the plaintiff?
3. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff and 17 O.S. No.4771/2012 the valuation of the suit made by the plaintiff is proper?
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is in time?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have interfered with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for against the defendants?
7. What order or decree?
6. After settlement of issues, the plaintiff has entered into the witness box as PW-1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.50 were marked through her and closed her side. The GPA Holder of defendant No.7 has entered into the witness box as DW-1 and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.10 were marked through him.
7. Heard the arguments of the plaintiff and defendant No.7. The learned counsel for plaintiff has relied on the following case laws in support of his case;
18 O.S. No.4771/2012
1. (1995) 2 SCC 677 (H.M.T. House Building Cooperative Society v. Syed Khader and others).
2. I.L.R. 1995 KAR 1962 (H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society v. Syed Khader)
3. (1995) 3 SCC 128 ( H.M.T. House Building Co- operative Society vs. M.Venkataswamappa and others)
4. I.L.R. 1991 KAR 2248 (Narayana Reddy v. State of Karnataka)
5. W.A.No.6017-6047/ 1997
6. W.A.No.43074-76/2003 (Raja Reddy and others v. Amarjyothi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. and others.
7. W.P.No.34797-800/2009 (Mr. Neeraj Verma and others v. The State of Karnataka and others.
8. (1994) 1 SCC 1 (S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs.
and others) 19 O.S. No.4771/2012
9. (2003) 1 SCC 228 (Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangh v. Smt. Narayanamma (since deceased) by LRs. and others.
10. (2012) 3 SCC 727 (Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. State of Karnataka and others).
11. (2016) 16 SCC 46 (R.Rajashekar and others v. Trinity House Building Cooperative Society and others.
12. ILR 2017 KAR 2063 (Seetharam and others v. The State of Karnataka, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department and others.
13. (2011) 3 SCC 139 (Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority and others.
14. (2009) 1 SCC 180 (Sethi Auto Service Station and another v. Delhi development Authority and others.
8. The learned counsel for defendant No.7 has relied on the following case laws in support of his case; 20 O.S. No.4771/2012
1. (2014) 2 SCC 269 (Union of India and others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others.
2. (2013) 3 SCC 66 (Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and another v. Brijesh Reddy and another.
3. (2018) 11 SCC 104 (H.N.Jagannath and others v. State of Karnataka and others.
4. (2018) 6 SCC 574 (Y.P.Sudhanva Reddy and others v. Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka Milk Federation and others.
5. (1994)1 SCC 1 (S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs.
and others).
6. Judgment passed in O.S.No.4626/2012 (Smt.Munivenkatamma v. The State of Karnataka and others.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the negative.
Issue No.2: In the negative.
Issue No.3: In the affirmative.
21 O.S. No.4771/2012
Issue No.4: In the negative.
Issue No.5: In the negative.
Issue No.6: In the negative.
Issue No.7: As per final order below
for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:- The plaintiff sues for declaratory and injunctive reliefs based on title/possession. The settled rule is that a plaintiff who seeks protection of possession and injunction must prove title and/or actual possession at the time of institution of suit. PW.1 sworn an affidavit-in-lieu of her examination-in-chief. She produced Ex.P.1 to P.50 documents said to show ancestral title, MR entries mutation at Ex.P4, genealogical documents and later Government/Restoration Orders. She also produced B.B.M.P. khatha documents at Ex.P36 and Ex.P.37 and challans showing re-payment of award amount as per Ex.P30. She testified that, she paid ₹53,375/- to the LAO and the LAO ordered restoration and Tahsildar recorded delivery of physical possession on 29.04.2010. The plaintiff also asserts harassment and threats by defendants and 22 O.S. No.4771/2012 produced various Government Letters and COD inquiry documents at Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18.
11. DW.1 - GPA holder for defendant No.7 deposed allotment of site from the society to defendants, physical possession, BDA khatha/ BBMP khatha at Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.9, tax receipt at Ex.D10. DW.1 asserts continuous possession by defendants from 1990/1991 onwards and exhibits consistent documentary materials - khatha certificates, tax receipts.
12. PW-1 in the cross-examination admitted that the suit land at present contains formed plots/sites and the defendants are physically in occupation of those plots. She admitted that, she "did not carry on agriculture" and there exist 119 plots in the area. On being shown particulars, PW-1 could not identify or produce evidence of continuous, uninterrupted possession since before 1990 of the specific sites now in the occupation of defendants.
13. The cross-examination of DW-1 contains many evasions as to precise dates of approvals and writ numbers; 23 O.S. No.4771/2012 nevertheless DW-1 produced contemporaneous documents and receipts supporting defendants' claim of long possession and tax payments. The presence of khatha, tax payment records are strong indicators of possession and recognition by Municipal Authorities. khatha certificate, tax receipt are Municipal/Official Records showing sustained possession and enjoyment by the defendants. Those entries are not easily explainable away by oral assertion.
14. The plaintiff's restoration order/executive actions do appear on paper, but their legal efficacy is contested in the higher writ proceedings. When the defendant shows documentary proof of sale and Municipal recognition, the plaintiff must produce cogent and contemporaneous proof of her own possession to dislodge the possession of defendants. General assertions, belated restoration orders that themselves are the subject of litigation. On the totality of evidence, oral admissions by PW-1, the clear documentary chain produced by DW-1 and the absence of convincing contemporaneous evidence that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession at the 24 O.S. No.4771/2012 time defendants entered. I hold that the plaintiff has not proved lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule-B items. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the negative.
15. Issue No.2:- The plaintiff challenges registered sale deeds executed by defendant No.3 to purchasers/allottees. To impeach the registered deed, the plaintiff must show either
(a) lack of capacity/authority in the vendor to execute the deed at the time; (b) the deed was procured by fraud or forgery and the plaintiff was the victim; or (c) some prior legal infirmity for instance, the acquisition itself having been quashed in respect of that specific land rendered the vendor devoid of title at the time of alienation.
16. The plaintiff relies heavily on the decisions in Narayana Reddy (ILR 1991 Kar 2248) and HMT House Building Co.op. Society v. Syed Khadar (ILR 1995(3) KAR 1962) which in principle quashed certain Notifications and condemned the Society's bogus membership and illegal allotments. The 25 O.S. No.4771/2012 Hon'ble Supreme Court in that line directed restoration of land to owners subject to refund of award amounts.
17. The plaintiff produced documents showing deposit of award amount as per Ex.P27 and Ex.P.28, LAO restoration order at Ex.P29 and Tahsildar's endorsement of physical delivery at Ex.P32. The defendants contend and DW.1 produced documents to show that the 1981 Notification, Final Notification and Award for the specific survey numbers that include the suit property were not quashed as a blanket matter that later writs quashed particular Notifications/portions, but not the acquisition relevant to the subject plot. In particular the record supplied by the defendants and the proceeding history in W.A.No.446/2020 and connected matters indicate that the Hon'ble High Court/Division Bench decisions in some causes left the 1981 Notification intact and restoration orders relied upon by plaintiff were set aside on appeal in W.A.No.446/2020.
18. The defendants produced BBMP khatha, tax receipt, those are strong indicators of allotment and effective transfer on 26 O.S. No.4771/2012 the basis of the Society's title as acknowledged by Municipal Authorities. The plaintiff relies on LAO restoration orders and executive process that required refund and restoration; but the legal efficacy of those restoration orders is under challenge and as the defendants point out, some appellate orders have quashed the restoration W.A.No.740/2020 .
19. The plaintiff points to COD enquiry report, FIR and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's finding in the HMT line that Amarajyothi had bogus members and committed irregularities. Those documents are important to show maladministration and possible fraud by Society Officers. But misfeasance by Society Office/Bearers does not ipso facto obliterate the legal position of a bonafide purchaser who took the registered deed and has subsequently been in possession, unless the plaintiff shows that the specific deed was obtained by fraud vis-à-vis her for instance, forged signatures on the deed or forged mutation entries affecting her title. The record does not disclose such direct proof that the sale deeds to defendant Nos.4 to 8 were 27 O.S. No.4771/2012 forged or were executed without any colour of title at the precise time of execution.
20. The plaintiff's own cross-examination includes admission that plots exist; she was unable to point to uninterrupted possession or to show that the Society had no power to execute sale of the particular plots at the time. DW.1 admitted some uncertainties about petition numbers and certain procedural facts in writs but produced contemporaneous registered documents in favour of the purchasers. A registered sale deed, supported by subsequent acts of possession and Municipal acknowledgment attracts legal weight. If the plaintiffs want to invalidate such deeds they must bring cogent proof of fraud affecting their rights specifically or show that the vendor had no title because acquisition in respect of that land was declared void by the relevant judicial order -- neither of which is established on the evidence before this court. On overall appraisal, the sale deeds executed in the years alleged cannot be held to be not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered in the negative.
28 O.S. No.4771/2012
21. Issue No.3:- When the plaintiff prays for declaration of title, injunction and entry of encumbrance, the suit value must be objectively assessed for court-fee purposes and the correct fee must be paid in accordance with the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. A suit which is wrongly valued or underpaid is triable but the court can either direct payment of deficit fee or penal consequence, depending on the stage and facts.
22. The defendants have pleaded and insisted that the plaintiff has not paid the proper court fee particularly in respect of the relief ancillary to declaration. The written statement of defendant No.7 specifically pleads non-payment of proper court fee. The plaintiff's plaint/ on record does not show contemporaneous compliance with requisite fee for the maximum relief claimed. The court has to look at the substance of reliefs. Here the plaintiff seeks declaration and permanent injunction and order to enter encumbrances, reliefs that affect market title. If the plaintiff's court-fee was calculated only on nominal value or only on part of the relief, it is improper. In this 29 O.S. No.4771/2012 case, the plaintiff has valued the suit for the relief of declaration under Section 24(d) for ₹1,000/- and valued the relief of permanent injunction under section 26 (c) and paid total court fee of ₹125/-. The defendant No.7 failed to prove how the court fee paid is insufficient. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered in the affirmative.
23. Issue No.4:- The plaintiff has sought declaration that the sale deeds dated 22.08.1990, 22.01.1991, 27.02.1991 and 16.07.2004 are not binding on her. Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for declaration must be filed within 3 years from the date when the "right to sue first accrues." Similarly, under Article 59, to set aside transfer of property sale deed, limitation is also 3 years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside become known to her. Where the plaintiff is admittedly not in possession, any relief of declaration is subject to strict limitation scrutiny. The sale deeds in favour of defendants were executed in 1990, 1991 and 2004.
30 O.S. No.4771/2012
24. The case of plaintiff is that, she became aware and cause of action crystallised only when writ petitions challenging acquisition proceedings were dismissed on 12.11.2010. However, the principle is that limitation begins to run from the date of impugned transaction or knowledge thereof, not postponed indefinitely until the outcome of collateral writ proceedings, unless plaintiff can prove that she was under a legal disability or fraud was continuing. The plaintiff relies on dismissal of writ petition on 12.11.2010 to argue that cause of action arose only then. This argument is untenable because:
the plaintiff could not have been unaware of the defendants' possession and registered sale deeds dating back to 1990/1991 and 2004. Municipal khatha and tax records show defendants' possession and construction well before 2010. Pendency or dismissal of writ petition does not extend statutory limitation under Articles 58 or 59, unless there is a specific stay or recognition that plaintiff's rights subsisted until such disposal which is not demonstrated here. Therefore, limitation cannot be said to start afresh in 2010. The plaintiff slept over her rights for 31 O.S. No.4771/2012 nearly 21-22 years from the earliest impugned deeds and 8 years even after the 2004 sale deed. The defendants, meanwhile, have been in open possession, constructed houses and paid taxes. The plaintiff has not explained satisfactorily why the suit was not filed within 3 years of the 1990-1991 and 2004 transactions. Her reliance on the 12.11.2010 writ dismissal is misconceived, as limitation had long expired. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation both under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act.
25. The plaintiff's suit is not in time. The plea that cause of action arose on 12.11.2010 cannot extend limitation. The sale deeds assailed were executed in 1990, 1991 and 2004, and the suit filed in 2012 is hopelessly barred. Hence, Issue No.4 is answered in the negative.
26. Issue No.5:- The plaintiff alleges harassment, threats, attempts to enter on the property and reliance upon the Deputy Commissioner's protective direction invoking SC/ST 32 O.S. No.4771/2012 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act protections. She says that the defendants used muscle power and political influence.
27. Apart from general allegations, the plaintiff produced certain Government Letters and FIR and claimed protective direction from the Deputy Commissioner dated 07.01.2012. She also produced evidence of police involvement and alleged threats.
28. The defendant No.7 produced evidence showing possession and in regular use, khatha and tax records -- all consistent with open, continuous possession rather than surreptitious dispossession. They deny threats and say any administrative orders have been subjected to litigation and that there was no actionable trespass by them that would strip them of the procedural protections of possession.
29. To succeed on interference claim, plaintiff must show either (a) she was in actual physical occupation and defendants unlawfully invaded it; or (b) there were specific recent acts of dispossession or threats preventing enjoyment for which 33 O.S. No.4771/2012 injunctive/interdictory relief is warranted. The record does not support (a) -- plaintiff admitted lack of continuing physical possession. As to (b), the evidence is mostly general, unspecific and in many instances administrative rather than showing that defendants actually committed forcible dispossession. Ongoing litigation. Generalized allegations of "money-power" and "muscle" without corroborating, credible evidence are not sufficient.
30. The plaintiff's identity (SC widow from Bhovi Community) and the Deputy Commissioner's protective letter bring in the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act aspect. That protection, where bonafide, is an important safeguard. But protection under that Act must be anchored in evidence of specific acts amounting to atrocities under the statute and does not by itself validate the substantive title claim. Further, the defendants deny the applicability of the SC/ST Act where acquisition steps and Municipal actions have intervened; the legal import of the Deputy Commissioner's direction is limited and was stayed/challenged in some proceedings. 34 O.S. No.4771/2012
31. Weighing the record, admissions by PW.1, defendants' documentary proof of occupation and Municipal recognition, absence of cogent documentary proof that defendants forcibly ousted the plaintiff from occupied plots. I find that the plaintiff has not proved interference. Hence, Issue No.5 is answered in the negative.
32. Issue No.6: - The declaration that registered sale deeds are void would disentitle purchasers of recognised, Municipal/acknowledged plots. Courts require strict proof. The plaintiff did not prove the fundamental facts. Reliance on other judicial pronouncements (Narayana Reddy / HMT) is not enough unless they cover the identical notification/land and the judgment operates as a direct estoppel. which the record shows they do not for the 1981 Notification.
33. As repeatedly held, injunction follows from status of title and possession. Mere allegation of fraud by the Society does not automatically give the plaintiff priority over registered purchasers who have acquired, improved and been recognised 35 O.S. No.4771/2012 by civic records. In the decision of Anathula Sudhakar held that title/possession must be made out before injunctive relief can be issued.
34. Ordering Sub-Registrar to enter encumbrance against the registered deed is an administrative direction which must be sought with requisite legal basis; mere administrative restoration order, if subsequently set aside or contested, will not sustain such direction.
35. BDA v. Brijesh Reddy case relied upon by defendants in pleadings, held that where acquisition vests title in State or its Agencies, the civil court cannot lightly unsettle the administrative scheme. Where a purported restoration is the subject of further adjudication, a civil court must be cautious. Courts also examine conduct and equities. The plaintiff sat on remedies for long periods, pursued administrative channels with some success but not unchallengeable finality and did not prove possession.
36 O.S. No.4771/2012
36. For the reasons set forth under Issue No.1 to 5, the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration, injunctions or consequential directions claimed. Hence, Issue No.6 is answered in the negative.
37. Issue No.7:- In view of the above discussions, this court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. Considering the plaintiff's personal circumstances, a widow as recorded in the plaint and in the interest of equity, no order as to costs is made.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 8th day of October, 2025) (B.DASARATHA) XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.37 O.S. No.4771/2012
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
PW.1 : Smt. M.Munivenkatamma List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of Genealogical Tree Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of Gazette Notification Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Gazette Notification Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of Mutation Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of RTC Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Order passed in LAC No.473/85-86 and others Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of Order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.2945/1993 and others Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of Government Notification Ex.P.9 & 10 : Certified copy of Letter issued by Government of Karnataka Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of Enquiry Report Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of Letter issued by BDA Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of Letter issued by The Amarajyothi Housing Co-operative Society Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of Letter issued by BDA Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of Letter issued by The Amarajyothi Housing Co-operative Society Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of Endorsement issued by BDA Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of Letter issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Society Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of Letter issued by DGP, COD, Bangalore Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of FIR 38 O.S. No.4771/2012 Ex.P.20 : Certified copy of Death Certificate of S.Ramaiah Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of Death Certificate of R.Siddappa Ex.P.22 : Certified copy of Proceedings before Government Ex.P.22 : Certified copy of Letter issued by Government of Karnataka Ex.P.23 & 24: Certified copy of Letter issued to DC, Bangalore Ex.P.25 & 26: Certified copy of Notice issued by SLAO Ex.P.27 : Certified copy of Challan Ex.P.28 : Certified copy of Bank Cheque Ex.P.29 : Certified copy of Notification of SLAO Ex.P.30 : Certified copy of Bankers Cheque Ex.P.31 : Certified copy of Challan copy Ex.P.32 : Certified copy of Letter issued by Tahasildar Ex.P.33 : Certified copy of Endorsement issued by Special Deputy Commissioner Ex.P.34 : Certified copy of Proceedings before BBMP Ex.P.35 : Certified copy of Endorsement issued by BBMP Ex.P.36 : Certified copy of Khatha Certificate Ex.P.37 : Certified copy of Khatha Extract Ex.P.38 & 39: Survey Sketches Ex.P.40 : Certified copy of Endorsement issued by SLAO Ex.P.41 : Certified copy of Settlement Deed Ex.P.42 : Certified copy of Order passed by Joint Director of Co-operative Society Ex.P.43 & 44: Survey Sketches Ex.P.45 : Certified copy of Order passed by BBMP Ex.P.46 : Certified copy of Letter issued by D.C. 39 O.S. No.4771/2012 to Police Commissioner, Bangalore Ex.P.47 : Certified copy of Orders in Writ Appeal No.6017 & 6018/1997 Ex.P.48 : Notarised copy of Order passed in W.P.No.26916/1997 Ex.P.49 : Certified copy of Order passed in W.P.Nos.27983 & 15085/1995 Ex.P.50 : Certified copy of Order passed in Civil Petition Nos.326/96 c/w 297 & 298/1996 List of witnesses examined for defendants:
DW.1 : Sri. Mallikarjuna Horapet List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of Application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC in W.P.No.2496/2010 Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of Judgment passed in W.A.No446/2020 Ex.D.3 : General Power of Attorney Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of Judgment in Writ Appeal No.740/2020 Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of Order in W.P.No.3838-3845/1995 Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of the Order in W.P.Nos.35597 and 36251/1991 and other connected matters on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Ex.D.7 : Certified copy of the Judgment in Writ Appeal No.2610-2611/2000 and other connected matters on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Ex.D.8 : Khatha Certificate Ex.D.9 : Khatha Extract 40 O.S. No.4771/2012 Ex.D.10 : Tax Paid Receipt Ex.D.10(a) : Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signed by DASARATHA DASARATHA BETTAPPA BETTAPPA Date:
2025.10.09 13:06:34 +0530