Bangalore District Court
Sri. H.M. Sanjeev Kumar vs Sri. Venugopal on 15 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY. (CCH 30)
Dated this the 15th day of September 2020
PRESENT: SMT. NAGAJYOTHI. K.A., LL.M.,
XXIX ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
O.S.No. 7034/2016
Plaintiff : Sri. H.M. Sanjeev Kumar,
S/o. G. Munirathnaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
R/a. Hemmegepura Village,
Vidyapeeta Post,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru - 560 060.
(By Sri, S.V. Ramachandrappa,
Advocate)
Vs.
Defendants : 1. Sri. Venugopal,
S/o. (Not known to the plaintiff),
Aged about 45 years,
R/a. No.B/5, 3rd Cross,
7th Block, 2nd Stage,
Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru - 560 072.
2. Sri. N. Prathap Simha,
S/o. K. Narasimha Murthy,
Aged about 42 years,
R/a. No.22, 3rd Cross,
5th Block, 2nd Stage,
Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru - 560 072.
3. Sri. Shankara Murthy,
S/o. (Not known to the plaintiff),
Aged about 48 years,
Assistant Engineer,
Working at : BDA Office,
BDA Complex, Vijayanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 040.
(By Sri. B. Prasanna Kumar,
Advocate for D.1 & D.2)
2
O.S.No.7034/2016
(D.3 - Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 29/09/2016
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote. Suit for declaration and Permanent Injunction
possession suit for injunction,
etc.)
Date of the commencement of 18/06/2019
recording of the evidence.
Date on which the judgment 15/09/2020
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 11 16
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or obstructing the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and for costs and such other reliefs.
2. It is averred in the plaint that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the site bearing No.101/I, situated at 7 th Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, referred as 'suit schedule property', measuring EastWest : 40 feet and NorthSouth : 30 feet. The sale deed is registered on 09.01.2014 from his vendor - Mariyappa and his family members. His vendor acquired the suit schedule property from BDA, Bengaluru, in a Special Incentive 3 O.S.No.7034/2016 Plan Scheme for acquiring his land at Konadasapura Village, Bengaluru. BDA executes the sale deed in his favour on 04.01.2014, and also issued possession certificate in his name. The plaintiff after getting execution of sale deed, obtained revenue documents in his name. Further, with the intention to put up a compound wall, he starts digging foundation on 26.09.2016, at about 10.00 a.m. by collecting the sand, bricks and stone. Then, the defendant No's.1 & 2 obstructed his work. The plaintiff rushed to the spot and resisted it. The defendants have no right in the suit schedule property. They causes interference with an intention to knock of the suit schedule property and to extract money in collusion with the 3rd defendant, who is an Engineer of BDA. Further, immediately plaintiff filed complaint before the jurisdictional police station. The police called the defendant No's.1 & 2 and warned them for the interference and also advises the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. The 2 nd defendant - N. Prathap Simha had lodged a complaint to Lokayukta. Thereafter, the land in Sy.No.19, situated behind site No.22 was denotified from acquisition proceedings. Hence, the site No's.101/A to 101/I have been allotted to the public and the site No.101/J has been cancelled in the layout plan. Hence, files this suit. 4
O.S.No.7034/2016
3. The 2nd defendant has appeared through his counsel and submitted in the writtenstatement that, it is a false suit and not maintainable either in law or on facts. This defendant has nothing to do with the suit schedule property, as he is residing far away from the suit schedule property. He has never interfered with his possession also. This defendant purchased the corner site bearing No.22, situated at 5th Block, 3rd Cross, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, in an public auction. As per byelaws of BDA, there should be public road next to the corner site, which was measuring about 70 feet. Whereas, BDA acquires 60 X 70 feet and allotted 2 sites measuring 40 X 30 feet each to different individuals. Since it is against law, the locals including this defendant had taken issue before BDA and Lokayuktha. Thereafter, one site was cancelled for the road. However, he has never caused interference to the plaintiff and never approached him or obstructed him. It is the act of the BDA i.e., 3 rd defendant, which needs to be approached and he feels that this suit filed by colluding with the 3rd defendant. He has no personal interest in the suit schedule property. Hence, prays for dismissing the suit with costs.
4. The defendant No.1's advocate filed vakalath but has not filed any writtenstatement.
5
O.S.No.7034/2016
5. After service of suit summons, the defendant No.1 was not appeared, hence placed exparte.
6. In proof of their case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, and relied upon the documents Exs.P.1 to P.13. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the defendants' side.
7. Heard arguments.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances and the material available in the matter, this court has framed the issues on 03.09.2018, as under:
ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession of suit property?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves the interference of defendant in suit property?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
(4) What order or decree?
9. 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.
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No's.1 & 2: It is a suit for bare injunction. The plaintiff claims his title and lawful possession in the suit schedule property. Although one of the defendant files writtenstatement, 6 O.S.No.7034/2016 has not contested the suit, by crossexamining the witness. But, the writtenstatement of the 2nd defendant is also clear that, he has no interest with the suit schedule property and there is no cause for him to interfere the plaintiff's enjoyment of the suit schedule property. But, at the same time he raised the objection in respect of allotment of site referred in the suit schedule property and the same was questioned before the concerned authority, along with the public. Because of their representation, one of the site was deleted i.e., site bearing No.101/J. The suit site is bearing No.101/I. He also says, he has no cause to interfere it. So, their grievance is space reserved for the road is avoided by alloting the site. However, because of their representation, one site was deleted and provided space for road with lesser width. Thereafter, the defendants of the public have no grievance. However, it shows, defendant's objection on suit land, as it is place reserved for road.
11. It is pertinent to note that, the plaintiff has not get right on the suit schedule property directly from the authority. He purchased it from one Mariyappa. The private property of the said Mariyappa, is acquired by BDA and under the Scheme of Special Incentive Plan, the BDA granted him the schedule site. Soon after execution of sale deed, Mariyappa along with his family members 7 O.S.No.7034/2016 sold it to the plaintiff. So, in corroboration of the same, the plaintiff produced the original sale deed executed in favour of Mariyappa, it is marked as Ex.P.6, dated 04.01.2014, where it is specifically mentioned the site bearing No.101/I is allotted to him under the Scheme of Special Incentive Plan, for leaving his private property. The site is mentioned as No.101/I, bounded on East :
Road, West : Private land, North : Site No.101/J, and South : Site No.101/H, measuring 40 X 30 feet. It is pertinent to note that, site No.101/J is deleted. So, in the suit schedule boundary also he mentioned as, North : Site No.101/J, and South : Site No.101/H. Later after deletion of site No.101/J, plaintiff's counsel amended the boundary referring North : Road. Ex.P.7 is the possession certificate issued to Mariyappa. Ex.P.8 is the allotment letter issued on 14.11.2013. The original sale deed of plaintiff, is produced before the bank authority for availing loan. The same was mentioned in the plaint pleading. So, herein, the plaintiff produces his certifiedcopy of sale deed, it is marked as Ex.P.1 dated 09.01.2014. All the children and grandchildren of Mariyappa and Mariyappa himself executes this sale deed. After the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff obtains khatha register extract in his name, by deleting the name of Mariyappa. BBMP 8 O.S.No.7034/2016 also issued uttara pathra and khatha certificate in his name. He also paid tax in the subsequent year of 20162017.
12. The clinching point herein is, Ex.P.13 is the letter dated 25.07.2014, addressed to Lokayuktha and it has specifically mentioned that, they have allotted site No's.101/A to 101/J, after denotifying Sy.No.19, existing behind site bearing No.22. Now, the site bearing No.101/J is deleted and reserved it for the road. So, the site No.22 will remain as a corner site. The 2 nd defendant is owner of site No.22. So, at the relevant time, the defendant raised alarm on activities in the suit schedule property. So, his interference on construction work cannot be ruled out. Hence, Lokayuktha Authority accepted the deletion of site No.101/J, and passed the scrutiny note as follows:
"In view of reply of the respondent, the complainant's grievance is redressed, further investigation is not required and complaint is closed on 27.08.2014, and it was approved by Lokayuktha".
So, as contended by the 2nd defendant in his writtenstatement, his grievance to the extent of road in his boundary is reserved by deleting the site bearing No.101/J. So, it clearly concludes the fact that, at present the defendant cannot interfere in respect of activities in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, I hold Issue No's.1 & 2 in the 'Affirmative'.
9
O.S.No.7034/2016
13. Issue No.3: In view of my findings given on Issue No's.1 & 2, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, I hold Issue No.3 in the 'Affirmative'.
14. Issue No.4: In view of the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit is decreed with costs.
The defendants are hereby permanently
restrained from interfering or obstructing the
plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15 th day of September, 2020) (NAGAJYOTHI.K.A) XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff's side: PW.1 H.M. Sanjeev Kumar List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side: Ex.P.1 CC of sale deed dated 09.01.2015.
Ex.P.2 Houses and vacant sites of record book.
Ex.P.3 Certificate issued by BBMP.
Ex.P.4 Uttara Pathra issued by BBMP.
Ex.P.5 Tax paid receipt.
10
O.S.No.7034/2016
Ex.P.6 Original sale deed dated 04.01.2014, issued in
respect of site.
Ex.P.7 Possession certificate issued by BDA.
Ex.P.8 Allotment letter issued by BDA.
Ex.P.9 Encumbrance certificate.
Ex.P.10 Acknowledgement issued by Gnanabharathi police
station in respect of complaint.
Exs.P.11(a)}{ Photos (4 in No's).
to P.11(d)}{
Ex.P.12 CD.
Ex.P.13 BDA order dated 25.07.2015.
List of witnesses examined for the defendants' side: NIL List of documents exhibited for the defendants' side: NIL XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.
11 O.S.No.7034/2016 Judgment pronounced in open Court, vide separate judgment.
ORDER Suit is decreed with costs.
The defendants are hereby
permanently restrained from
interfering or obstructing the
plaintiff's possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property.
Draw the decree accordingly.
XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge,
Bangalore City.
12
O.S.No.7034/2016