Bangalore District Court
Ramesh H vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2025
KABC010274282014
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-38), BANGALORE CITY.
:PRESENT:
Smt. Nirmala Devi. S. B.Sc., LL.B.,
LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
DATED This the 22nd day of August 2025
O.S. NO. 10055/2014
PLAINTIFF/S SRI. RAMESH H
S/O. HAMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT. HARIYABBE VILLAGE,
HIRIYUR TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
(Pls By Sri. YM, Advocate)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF
SECRETARY, URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2:BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
O.S.No. 10055/2014
2
AT T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-20.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3:THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE
BANGALORE-02.
4:THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER
RAT. BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
MALLESWARAM RANGE
BANGALORE-03
5. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY &
SEWERAGE BOARD,
NO.1, SUB-DIVISION NORTH,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-55.
REP. BY ITS ASST. EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER.
(Df No.1 Exparte)
( Df No.2 By Sri. NSS, Advocate)
(Dfs No.3 & 4 By Sri.KNN, Adv)
(Df No.5 by Sri. KRN, Adv)
Date of Institution of the 19.12.2014
suit
Nature of suit Declaration & Injunction
suit
Date of commencement 16.8.2018
of recording of evidence.
O.S.No. 10055/2014
3
Date on which judgment 21.08.2025
was pronounced.
Total Duration. Years Months Days
10 08 02
LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c. XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property, for mandatory injunction to direct the 3 rd defendant to issue khatha in the name of the plaintiff, permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, their subordinates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
O.S.No. 10055/2014 4
2. The brief case of the plaintiffs are as follows:-
The plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing re-survey No.2, situated at Gayathri Devi park, CTS No. 1167, Vyalikaval ward No. 65, Kadumalleshwaram, Bengaluru. He purchased the said property under registered sale deed dt: 5.8.2011, which is registered as document No. HBB-1-01404/11-12 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar (Hebbal). The possession of the suit property was delivered in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of the said sale deed and therefore he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the said property as a rightful owner.
3. The suit schedule property bearing CTS No. 1167 situated at Sadhashivanagar, Bengaluru formed portion of resurvey No.1 of Rajmahal village. It measures from East to West 114 sq. ft and North to South 65 sq. ft totally measuring 97902 sq. ft. The said property was vested with his highness Maharaja of Mysore as per the notification issued by the Government on 26.1.1950, The suit schedule O.S.No. 10055/2014 5 property was carved out of resurvey No. 2 as per the layout plan prepared by he then City Improvement Trust Board. The revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property reflects the name of Sri. Jaya Chamarajendra Wodeyar of Mysore as Khathedar of the property. The Royal family of Maharaja of Mysore have put up a pump house for the proper use of the schedule property. A larger portion of the land bearing Sy. No.2 was purchased under the registered sale deed dt:.1.12.1957 by the second defendant BDA, the then CITB. The suit schedule property has not been acquired and the same was in physical possession and enjoyment of the then Maharaja of Mysore. Neither the 3 rd defendant Corporation nor the State Government had acquired the same at any point of time. In this regard defendants No.3 and 4 have issued endorsement dtd:
19.5.1972. His Highness Srikantadata Narasimharaja Wodeyara had executed a GPA in favour of M/s. Hridaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director O.S.No. 10055/2014 6 Ramesh G. Patel, who in turn executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 5.8.2011.
4. But very strangely the 3rd defendant has entered the name of BBMP in the records in respect of the suit schedule property and mentioned as Corporation Water supply pump house. Before making the said entries there was no notice or any proceedings initiated against his Highness Srikanthadata Narasimharaja Wodeyar. In this regard an endorsement was issued stating that Corporation water supply pump house is situated in the suit schedule property. Therefore the said Maharaja of Mysore preferred a revision petition before the Joint director of land records, South Range, Bangalore and said petition numbered as CTS(B) Revision No.1/2009-10, after enquiry the said authority passed final order dt: 7.12.2009 and allowed the said petition and the suit schedule property belongs to the family of his Highness Maharaja of Mysore and canceled the Corporation water supply pump house and ordered to enter the name of his highness Srikantadata Narasimharaja O.S.No. 10055/2014 7 Wodeyar. Accordingly the name of Maharaja of Mysore was entered in the survey settlement records. However the BBMP has addressed letter dtd:17.4.2010 to the 2 nd defendant seeking certain information regarding acquisition of schedule property. The 2nd defendant issued a letter dtd:
10.6.2010 issued an endorsement to the Deputy Commissioner(East) BBMP stating that CTS No. 1167 has not been acquired by the 2nd defendant and has not been included in the Gayathri devi park has layout nor purchased by CITB even the Government has not acquired the schedule property. Therefore the same clearly establish the fact that schedule property was belonging to the Maharaja of Mysore and in fact the Maharaja of Mysore SriKantadata Narasimharaja Wodeyar continued to be in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in view of the non-acquisition of the suit property by any of the defendants. The internal correspondence between the defendants No.3 and 2 and the O.S.No. 10055/2014 8 Government, it clearly establish the fact that the schedule property does not belongs to any of the authorities.
5. The Vendor of the plaintiff had paid taxes up to 2011- 12 and same is accepted.
6. But the BBMP has not issued khatha certificate in favour of the plaintiff for the reasons best known to it and went on making enquiry after enquiry in respect of CTS No.1167. In view of the same, the plaintiff herein filed Writ petition in W.P. No. 10696/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble Court had passed order dtd: 19.10.2012 directing the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration on the ground that the facts discloses in the writ petition require evidence and therefore, it cannot decide the title of the property in a Writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore being aggrieved by the said order, review petition was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that 2nd defendant has clearly admitted that it has not acquired the suit schedule property. But the plaintiff directed to approach the Civil court for redressal of its O.S.No. 10055/2014 9 grievance and the review petition was dismissed on 28.7.2014. As such the plaintiff non-compliance with the said direction has filed the present suit.
7. In view of the dismissal of W.P. No. 10696/2012 and the revision petition, the plaintiff got issued legal notice as required U/sec. 80 of CPC, Sec. 64 of BDA Act and Sec. 482 of KMC Act on 2.9.2014. Said notice duly served on all the defendants including the Government. But none of them have issued reply to the said notice. Hence, the plaintiff has no option except to file the present suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against defendant No.3. Based on these averments prayed to decree the suit.
8. The defendants have appeared through their advocate and defendant No.2 has filed his written statement contending that this suit is a false, frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and not maintainable. That there is no relief sought against this defendant and hence this suit cannot be decreed against the defendant No.2. It is further contended that CITB has not acquired the 9 guntas of land in Sy. No. 2 O.S.No. 10055/2014 10 of Rajmahal village for the purpose of formation of layout. But the BDA has not issued any notification in favour of plaintiff conferring right, title and interest on the suit schedule property and prayed to dismiss the suit.
9. The defendants No.3 and 4 have filed written statement. They have denied the plaint averments. These defendants have contended that Sy. No. 2 of Raj mahal village was notified by the Government for acquisition for the formation of Raj mahal vilas layout. In the said survey number, the extent of 9 guntas of land which comprises of pump house was left in the possession of the BMP now the BBMP for the purpose of supplying drinking water to the surrounding, neighbouring area, the said pump house was numbered as CTS No. 1167 in the land records. The khatha of the said pump house was registered in the name of BBMP. The BBMP is in actual possession and enjoyment of it. At no point of time it belonged to late Srikantadata Narasimharaja Wadeyar. He had no power or authority to deal with the suit schedule property. The entries in the O.S.No. 10055/2014 11 revenue records maintained by the Corporation clearly defects the pump house situated in the suit schedule property and is owned and possessed by the BBMP.
10. There was a high level committee constituted in view of the order dt: 30.7.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 10696/2012. In pursuance of the said order, the High level committee has clearly opined that the suit schedule property did not belong to Sri. Srikantadatta Narasimha Raja Wadiyar. The CITB had never acquired 9 guntas of land in survey No.2 of Rajmahal village for the purpose of formation of layout. In fact notification issued by the Government for acquisition of the land in Survey No. 2 indicates that the entire 313 acres and 33 guntas of land is kharab land. The suit schedule property contained corporation pump house and since it was owned by the Corporation. It was not included in the notification dt:
14.10.1959. However it is contended that it is because the plaintiff has got sale deed dt: 5.8.2011 got executed in his favour. He does not become the owner of the suit property.
O.S.No. 10055/2014 12 He has to establish that his vendor was the owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has relied on the notification dt: 26.1.1950 to claim the suit schedule property was vested with his highness the Maharaja of Mysore in said notification and its trite law that notification cannot be considered as document conveying title or ownership and hence the notification dtd: 26.1.1950 cannot be treated as a title deed. Further it is contended that order dtd: 7.12.2009 in CTS(B) Revision No. 1/2009-10 passed by the joint director of the land records, South range, Bengaluru holding that the suit schedule property belongs to the family of his highness Maharaja of Mysore and consequentially canceled the entry of the Corporation water supply pump house itself does not confer title on the plaintiff or his vendor with regard to suit schedule property. The joint director of Land records cannot decide the title and sit for judgment on a property. It is not a judicial authority, but it is a quasi authority. Therefore, the cancellation of entries does not confer any legal right to the O.S.No. 10055/2014 13 plaintiff. The said order has been challenged by the Corporation in appeal No. 911/2012 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and same is pending for consideration.
11. These defendants for further contended that settlement register dt: 15.9.1966 depicts the property in question is a phut kharab land and there is an endorsement, it stated that the entire village is kharab land and that there is no holders. In all the revenue records maintained by the department of survey settlement and land record, the suit schedule property is registered in the name of Corporation as Pump water supply and pump house, Bengaluru. That the notification issued by the Government dt: 14.10.1959 regarding acquisition of 313 acres 38 guntas of land clearly shows that the land in question is a kharab land. Further it is contended that mere payment of taxes does not confer any right, title or interest to the plaintiff on the suit schedule property. That the suit schedule property was always owned and possessed O.S.No. 10055/2014 14 by the BBMP. The plaintiff has not produced an iota of documentary evidence to prove that late Srikantadatta Narasimha raja Wadeyar was the absolute owner of the suit property. Based on these contentions, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
12. The defendant No.5 has filed written statement denying the plaint averments. This defendant also contended that the present suit is not maintainable. Thus the defendants has contended that plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and hence not entitled for the relief sought and the suit for declaration and injunction is not maintainable against the officer of 5th defendant. This defendant has contended that during early 1980 water was supplied to the adjoining area of the suit schedule property from the ground level reservoir and the pump house City Combined Jeveled filters (CCJF) situated at 18 th cross Malleshwaram to the pump house which was in side the suit schedule property and pumped to adjoining area. Later on when the numbers of pumps and capacity of the pumps O.S.No. 10055/2014 15 were increased and upgraded inside City combined Jeweled filters (CCJF) situated at 18th cross Malleshwaram, the pump house inside the suit schedule property became defunct. At that time the earlier sanctioned BWSSB water supply connection bearing RR No. 2595/MND-395 was disconnected and placed under water stop category. As on the date, in the monthly bills that are being generated there is no demand being raised in this bill and also there are no arrears. The water connection has not been canceled and the R R number is still in existence in the same name. But the property is vacant and there is no human activity inside the premises. Therefore, the BBMP is holding rights over the suit schedule property along with the pump house utilized for supply of water to Bangalore Metropolitan area. It is vested with BWSSB U/sec. 26 of the BWSSB Act. Based on these contentions, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
O.S.No. 10055/2014 16
13. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues and Addl. issues have been framed by my learned predecessors in office;
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether plaintiff further proves that his vendor had subsisting ownership rights over the suit schedule property as on the date of sale in favour of the plaintiff?
3. Whether plaintiff further proves that he has lawfully acquired title over the suit property?
4. Whether plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendants?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought?
6. What order or decree?
Additional Issues dt: 22.9.2015:-
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction?
14. The GPA holder of plaintiff got examined as PW 1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P87. The defendants have not lead their evidence and got marked no documents.
O.S.No. 10055/2014 17
15. The counsel for plaintiff filed written arguments and defendants have not addressed their arguments and perused the records.
16. My answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 to 4 : In the Negative, Issue No.5 : In the Negative, Addl. Issue No.1 : In the Negative, Addl. Issue No.2 : In the Negative, Issue No.6 : As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
17. Issues No. 1 to 4 & Addl. Issue No.1 : Since these issues are inter-related with each other, to avoid repetition, these issues are discussed together.
18. In order to substantiate issues No.1 to 4 and Addl. Issue No.1, the plaintiff got examined Sri. Ramesh G. Patel, who has deposed as GPA holder of the plaintiff and has produced Ex. P-1. In support of the evidence of PW-1, plaintiff has relied on the documentary evidence at Ex. P-2 to P-87.
O.S.No. 10055/2014 18
19. On perusal of record, in the cause title of the plaint, the plaintiff has not described as represented by the power of attorney holder. However in the amended plaint the GPA holder has put his signature on behalf of the plaintiff. On perusal of record, the plaintiff has not taken permission of the Court under order 3 rule 2 of CPC to prosecute the case through GPA holder. Therefore, without taking permission, he has adduced the evidence of PW-1, who has stated that he is the GPA holder of the plaintiff and has produced Ex. P-1, the GPA. Dt 18.8.2017.
20. The defendants No. 2 to 5 have filed written statement, but they have not adduced evidence nor cross- examined PW-1. Defendant No.2 has clearly stated in the written statement that the suit schedule property was not acquired by the BDA. However defendants No.3 to 5 have claimed that in the suit schedule property there is a Pump house, which was used for pumping water to the surrounding area and still standing in the name of defendant No.5. The defendant No.5 has contended that by O.S.No. 10055/2014 19 virtue of Sec. 26 of BWSSB Act, the suit schedule property vested in the said department and it is not a private property. However these defendants have not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. Thus the evidence of PW-1 and documentary evidence at Ex. P-1 to P-87 remained unchallenged. However as the present suit is for declaration of title of ownership in respect of the suit schedule property and the defendants No.3 to 5 have contended that the said property is vested in defendant No.5, the plaintiff is bound to prove his title to the suit schedule property to the hilt in order to declare him as the owner of the said property. Thus, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the flow of valid, legal title in his favour from the original owners. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot make use of the weakness of the defendants and claim that he is the absolute owner in view of absence of rebuttal evidence.
21. In this regard, it may be appropriate to rely on following decisions:-
O.S.No. 10055/2014 20 (1) AIR 1959 SC 31( Maran Mar Baseelios Catholics Vs. Thukalem Paulo Arira) (2) (1995) 3 SCC 426 ( Nagara Palike Jind Vs. Jagath Singh, Advocate) (3) AIR 2009 SC 2966 ( T.K. Mohammad Abubuella(D) Thro LRs and others Vs. P.S.M. Ahmad Abdul Quadar and others.
Hence, no adverse inference is to be drawn against the defendants for not cross-examining the PW-1.
22. On perusal of plaint averments, description of the suit schedule property in the plaint and the documentary evidence, the plaintiff has claimed that he has purchased the suit schedule property measuring East to west 144 feet and North to south 65 feet totally measuring 9792 sq. ft. According to him the said property bears CTS No. 1167 situated at Sadashiva nagar, Bengaluru formed in portion of re survey No.2 of Raj mahal village earlier Ward No.5, Kodandarama pura and now present BBMP Ward No. 65 (Kadu Malleshwaram,) Vyalikaval, Gayathri Devi Park road, O.S.No. 10055/2014 21 Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru north taluk. Regarding the identity and location of suit schedule property, there is no dispute between the parties. However, the defendants have claimed that it is a phut Kharab property, which was part and parcel of re-survey No.2 and it is vested in the Government. On perusal of schedule of the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that the property is measuring East to west 114 feet and North to south 68 feet totally measuring 9792 sq. ft within the boundaries east property bearing Municipal No. 18, Ist main road, belonging to T.B.Muddanna, West by Anjaneya swamy temple, North by Sankey road, South by remaining portion of site in Sy. No. 1167, Ist main road, Gayathri devi layout. Even in the amended plaint the same description has been given. Thus, in the schedule, the plaintiff has described the suit schedule property is measuring East to west 114 feet, but in the body of the plaint, he has pleaded that it is measuring East to west 144 ft and North to south 68 feet, but in the description, it is North to south 68 feet. In the original sale O.S.No. 10055/2014 22 deed produced and relied by the plaintiff at Ex. P-2, the plaintiff purchased the property measuring East to west 144 feet and north to south 68 feet, totally measuring 9792 sq. ft and boundaries mentioned in Ex. P-2 and in the plaint are one and the same. Therefore, according to the plaintiff the said property is the part and parcel of resurvey No.2. Therefore, there is discrepancy in the measurement of property mentioned in the plaint schedule and in Ex. P-2 the sale deed.
23. It is the specific case of plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the part and parcel of resurvey No.2 and it vested in erstwhile Monarchy of Mysore. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property vested with his highness Maharaja of Mysore as per notification issued by the Government on 26.1.1950 and further it is pleaded that the suit was carved out of resurvey No.2 as per the layout plan prepared by the then CITB and revenue records were standing in the name of Sri. Jayachamanranjendra Wodeyar of Mysore as Khathedars. It is also pleaded that O.S.No. 10055/2014 23 the said resurvey No.2 was belonging to the royal family of Maharaja of Mysore, it has put up pump house for the proper use of the schedule property and that the BDA the then CITB purchased larger portion of Sy. No.2 vide sale deed dt: 1.12.1957. But the suit schedule property was not acquired by any of the defendants. In order to substantiate that the suit schedule property which is part and parcel of resurvey No.2 vested with his highness Maharaja of Mysore, the plaintiff has relied on Ex. P-26, which is according to the plaintiff is the gazette notification dt: 26.1.1950. On perusal of the said document, it was a notarized copy submitted before the Joint Director, Land records and subsequently a attested copy has been issued, by the said authority. It consists of only 2 pages i.e., page No. 13 and
14. Therefore, the plaintiff has not produced the complete notification or at least the relevant portion of authenticated copy related to suit schedule property in order to show that the said notification was published in the gazette and consequently the properties mentioned in the inventory O.S.No. 10055/2014 24 were vested in the Maharaja of Mysore. On perusal of Clause I of said document, it is mentioned that there is an extent of 600 acres. There are 5 clauses in the said document and Clause 2 is related to the palace to an extent of 18 acres and Clause 3 related to 70 acres of land which is out side the main place ground called as place orchard and upper orchard measuring 50 acres. As per Clause 4 the Sankey tank and area around about measuring 140 acres including Cashawnut plantation and two pump houses and three pump watchmen's shed below the Sankey's tank were vested in the Maharaja of Mysore. As per the said document the tank bed area was made over to State Government, subject to condition to right of supply of water from the tank. Clause 5 is related to property measuring 7205 sq. feet of the Civil station in front of Jayamahal compound. Thus according to the plaintiff the suit schedule property falls under Clause 4 of the said notification. As per the said clause there were 2 pump house existing and it belonging to his highness of Maharaja O.S.No. 10055/2014 25 of Mysore. Accordingly as per documentary evidence placed on record, there is a pump house in the suit schedule property, which has been claimed by defendants No.3 to 5. Therefore, the properties mentioned at Clause No.1 to 5 of said notification are all different. Further on page 14 of the said document, it discloses about an amendment as per Chief Secretary's letter No. Ch.S.3063, dt: 27.6.1951. So, there is no pleading and evidence to show as to when Ex. P-26 published in the Gazette.
24. On perusal of the plaint averments, the plaintiff has not pleaded why he is unable to produce the authenticated copy of the gazette notification dt: 26.1.1950. Therefore there is no basis for production of secondary documentary evidence. Therefore, Ex. P-26 which is a secondary evidence is not admissible in evidence. When the plaintiff has claimed his title based on said notification, he is bound to produce authenticated gazette notification secured from the concerned department in order to show that resurvey No.2 was vested in erstwhile Maharaja of O.S.No. 10055/2014 26 Mysore. So, the presumption available in respect of Gazette notification cannot be drawn in respect of Ex. P-26. Therefore, the inventory mentioned in Ex. P-26 which the plaintiff claims to have vested in Maharaja of Mysore cannot be accepted which is based on the xerox and incomplete copy of document. The plaintiff cannot claim that the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore had valid title to transfer the suit schedule property through a power of attorney holder as per Ex. P-2 in favour of the plaintiff.
25. In this case the plaintiff has relied on endorsement issued at Ex. P-6 which is dt: 22.12.2010, wherein the BBMP directed the plaintiff to get convert the land for non- agricultural purpose from the revenue department, for issuing Khatha. Ex. P-10 to 14 are the Khatha certificates and Khatha extracts pertaining to B.L. Govinda Rao, B.K. Venkateshaiah, and Chikka Venkata Rakhole to show that a portion of CTS 1167 were gifted to the said persons who were the servants in the palace. The said properties are reflected in the Survey Sketch. Ex. P-16 and 17 are the O.S.No. 10055/2014 27 certified copies of orders passed in W.P. No. 10696/2012 and Review petition No. 1159/2012 and there is no dispute regarding the said documents as, in view of the said findings the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff.
26. Exs. P-18 to 25 are the copy of legal notice, postal acknowledgments and postal receipts. In this case there is no dispute regarding issuance of notice and the claim of the plaintiff that defendants have not given reply to the said notices.
27. Ex. P-27 is the certified copy of the Gazette notification dt: 14.10.1959 related to 313 acres 33 guntas acquired by the BDA the then CITB. Therefore, even though the plaintiff is able to produce the authenticated gazette notification dt: 14.10.1959 related to their property to show that the present suit schedule properties are not acquired, but he is unable to produce the authenticated gazette notification dt: 26.1.1950 and hence an adverse inference is to be drawn against the plaintiff.
O.S.No. 10055/2014 28
28. Ex. P-28 is the Layout map issued by the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, wherein the existence of 9 guntas and Pump house in the said extent has been shown and it is described as Palace property. Exs. P-29 and P-29(a) is the LR Phodi Tippani and typed copy related to Sy. No.2. Ex. P- 30 is the map, which shows the existence of the Pump house. Ex. P-31 is the notary copy of Gift deed dt:
12.11.1971 executed by the then Maharaja of Mysore in favour of one G.K. Venkateshaiah. Ex. P-32 to 34 are the copies of correspondence. Ex. P-35, and 36 are the P.T. sketch of the suit schedule property. Ex. P-37 to 42 are the copies of petition in Revision CTS(B)RVN-No.1/2009-10 filed before the Joint director, Land records, City Survey and objection statement, written arguments and the certified copy of order dt: 7.12.2009 wherein the revision was allowed and the concerned were directed to issue Khatha in favour of the vendor of plaintiff.
29. Ex. P-43 and 43(a) is the Map drawn by Joint survey. Ex. P-44 is the property card which is standing in O.S.No. 10055/2014 29 the name of Sri. Srikantha datta Narasimha raja wodeyar.
Ex. P-45 and 46 are the order dt: 23.12.2009. EX. P-47, P- 48 and P-49 are the correspondence dt: 10.6.2010, 27.4.2010 and the sketch between the Spl. LAO, BDA and BDA and BBMP. Ex. P-50, P-51 are the letter and map. Ex. P-43 and 51 are one and the same. Ex.P-52 is a copy of letter dt: 31.12.2009 given by PW-1 requesting to issue katha in respect of the 11,088 sq. ft. Ex. P-53 is Rough sketch of suit schedule property and the measurement mentioned therein and the measurement described in the suit schedule property are different. Ex. P-54 is a letter dt:
13.4.2011, Ex. P-55 is the Property card, Ex. P-56 is a khatha certificate standing in the name of T.B. Muddanna.
Ex. P-57 is the letter issued by BBMP to Spl. L.A.O. dt:
27.4.2010. Ex. P-48 and 57 are one and the same. Ex.
P-58 and P-43 are the copies of layout plan related to Gayathri Devi Park extension, which are one and the same. Ex. P-59 is the letter addressed to BBMP on 5.8.2011 requesting for khatha.
O.S.No. 10055/2014 30
30. Ex. P-60 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S. No. 6779/1991 filed by one Narasammani W/o. Siddaraju against the BBMP. Ex. P-62 to 81 are the certified copies of documents secured by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 6779/1991, which are written statement, plaint, judgment and decree passed in the said case. Therefore, as the said judgment and decree is not related to the suit schedule property, which is not bearing on the present suit. As the sale transaction between the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore and Siddaraju was of the year 1925 and borne out by the defendants.
31. Ex. P-84 is the reply to the letter, wherein it is disclosed about various alienations made in Sy. No.2 by the palace authorities including one Siddaraju. Ex. P-85 is the letter dt: 16.8.1962 wherein it is mentioned that larger portion of the land in Sy. No.2 of Raj mahal village still continued to vest with Bengaluru Palace and part and parcel of Sy. No.2. It also discloses about the existence of Pump house. Exs. P-86 and 87 are related to one Siddaraju O.S.No. 10055/2014 31 and it is not concerned with the present suit property. But the existence of Temple and Pump house has been mentioned in the said documents.
32. Therefore on perusal of documents produced by the plaintiff to prove title of the suit property, the letters and revenue records would disclose about the existence of suit schedule property within the boundaries therein and also existence of pump house since from the undisputed point of time. But it is settled law that the revenue records and the letters will not establish the title over the suit property. Therefore in view of the accession of State of Mysore and also merging of the same in Karnataka state, the properties vested in the Government of Karnataka. Therefore, judicial notice is to be taken about the gazette notification, relief and the properties in respect of which inventories were prepared and submitted to the Government for issuance of notification declaring them as private property of erstwhile ruler of Mysore. Therefore in order to hold that Sri. Srikantadatta Narasimha Raja Wodeyar was the owner in O.S.No. 10055/2014 32 possession of the suit property, the said notification is necessary. But as already discussed, the plaintiff has relied on the copy of the notification, which he claims to be gazette notification is incomplete and not authenticated copy and hence the said document is not acceptable in evidence. As already pointed out, the plaintiff has produced the copies of Notarized documents produced before the Joint Director, Land records. But there is no pleadings in the plaint as to why he is relying on the secondary documentary evidence. Therefore, based on such incomplete and not authenticated document, notification at Ex.P-26 and copies of corresponding revenue documents, it is not possible to declare the ownership of the suit property.
33. No-doubt from the GPA executed by the erstwhile ruler of Mysore Sri. SriKantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar, he authorised M/s. Hrudaya holdings Pvt. Ltd., to deal with the suit schedule property. On perusal of the plaint averments, there is no specific averments about the said company and as to why it sold out the suit schedule O.S.No. 10055/2014 33 property in favour of the plaintiff herein. Moreover the plaintiff never appeared before the court. It is pertinent to note that PW-1 who is the GPA holder of the plaintiff is none other than the Managing Director of said M/s. Hrudaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., who claims that the plaintiff has executed GPA in his favour. But the plaintiff has not taken permission of the court to prosecute the case through the GPA. Therefore from the evidence placed on record, utmost it establishes the existence of the suit schedule property within the boundaries as described by the plaintiff and it was part and parcel of Sy. No.2 owned by the erstwhile ruler of Mysore. However, it does not establish that the said property vested with the said ruler and he has right to alienate the same in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no valid and legal flow of title in favour of plaintiff. The documentary evidence placed on record, it proves the existence of pump house in the suit schedule property, which was owned by the ruler of Mysore state and that the possession continued with the said ruler. The O.S.No. 10055/2014 34 revenue records and correspondences by the palace authorities and various Departments does not prove valid flow of title in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he became absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Ex. P-2 Sale deed. However he has proved the existence of the suit property.
34. As already discussed there is discrepancy regarding the description of the suit schedule property. Further the description that it measures East to west 114 feet and north to south 68 feet would indicates that it is evenly shaped vacant site as reflected in the survey sketch at Ex. P-43. But as per survey sketch at Ex. P-35 and Ex.,, P-52 which is the application dt: 31.12.2009 and evidence placed on record, it is an uneven vacant site. Further the plaintiff has not described the suit schedule property as East to west 144 feet and North to south 65 feet as mentioned in the sale deed. However it is settled law that the boundaries will prevail over the measurement. But in view of the above discussions, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in O.S.No. 10055/2014 35 lawful possession of the suit schedule property based on the registered sale deed dt: 5.8.2011. Hence the plaintiff is not in lawful possession of the property. Further on perusal of the plaint averments, there is no pleading regarding the interference and obstruction caused by the defendants. Moreover, when the plaintiff is not in lawful possession of the property, the question of interference and obstruction does not arise. Hence, I answer Issues No.1 to 4 and Additional Issue No.1 in the Negative.
35. Issue No. 5 and Addl. Issue No. 2 : - In view of my findings given on Issues No.1 to 4 and Addl. Issue No. 1, the plaintiff has failed to prove the flow of valid and legal title in his favour from the original owner and he is in lawful possession of the property. Consequently, he failed to prove that based on the registered sale deed dt: 5.8.2011 at Ex. P-2, he became the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration of ownership. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, he is also not entitled O.S.No. 10055/2014 36 for the consequential relief of injunction. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the direction to the defendants to issue Khatha. Hence, I answer Issue No. 5 and Addl. Issue No.2 in the Negative.
36. Issue No.6 : - In view of my above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer grade-I, computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd Day of August 2025) ( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
Schedule Property All that piece and parcel of the property bearing CTS No. 1167 situated at Sadashivanagara, Bangalore, forming a part of Re-Sy.No.2, Rajmahal village, Earlier Ward No.5, BBMP Kodandaramapura, presently BBMP ward No. 65, Kadumalleshwara, Vyalikaval, Gayathri Devi Park Road, O.S.No. 10055/2014 37 Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 114 ft, and North to South 68 ft. totally measuring 9792 sq ft. bounded on the:
East by : Property bearing Municipal No.18, Ist main road, belonging to T.B.Muddanna. West by : Anjaneya swamy Temple, North by : Sankey Road, South by : Remaining portion of site in Sy.No. 1167, Ist Main road, Gayathri Devi Layout.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW-1 - Ramesh G. Patel Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P-1 G.P.A.
Ex.P-2 Original Registered sale deed dtd: 5.8.2011
Ex.P-3 Specific power of attorney
Ex.P-4 & Encumbrance certificate
5
Ex.P-6 Endorsement issued by BBMP
Ex.P-7 Letter of BWSSB dt: 8.5.2007
Ex.P-8 Copy of re-survey No.2 Book
Ex.P-9 Copy of LR Podi Tippani Book Sy. No.2.
Ex.P-10 Katha certificate of PID No. 5-15-18/1.
Ex.P-11 Copy of katha
Ex.P-12 Katha certificate of PID No. 5-15-18/2
Ex.P-13 Copy of Katha
Ex.P-14 Katha certificate of PID No. 5-15-18/3
O.S.No. 10055/2014
38
Ex.P-15 Copy of Katha
Ex.P-16 Certified copy of the order passed in W.P. NO. 10696/2012 DT:19.10.2012 Ex.P-17 Certified copy of Order passed in R.V. No.1159/2012 dt:
18.7.2014 Ex.P-18 Office copy of notice issued on 2.9.2014 to defendants.
Ex.P-19 3 Postal Acknowledgments to 21 Ex.P-22 4 Postal receipts for giving notice. to 25 Ex.P-26 Copy of list of immovable properties, held by the Maharaja of Mysuru as private property as on 26.1.1950(2 sheets) EX. P- Typed copy of Ex. P-26 26(a) Ex.P-27 Copy of gazette notification dt: 15.10.1959 Ex.P-28 Copy of Gayathri devi park extension layout plan Ex.P-29 Copy of LR Podi Tippani Book extract of Sy. No.2.
Ex.P- Typed copy of Ex. P-29(2 sheets) 29(a)
Ex.P-30 Copy of re-survey No.2 resurvey prathi book extract. Ex.P-31 Copy of gift deed dtd: 20.11.1971 Ex.P-32 Letter issued by Huzur Secretary to the Commissioner, Bengaluru City Corporation.
Ex.P-33 Copy of letter of estate officer. Ex.P-34 Copy of letter of Executive Engineer, CITB. Ex.P-35 Copy of PT sheet sketch of City Sy. No. 1167 Ex.P-36 Copy of Survey sketch Ex.P-37 Copy of Amendment petition in case CTS(RVN)No.1/2009-10 Ex.P-38 Copy of parawise remarks in case CTS(RVN)No.1/2009-10 O.S.No. 10055/2014 39 Ex.P-39 Copy of statement of objections in case CTS(RVN)No.1/2009-
10. Ex.P-40 Copy of written arguments of respondent No.3 in case CTS(RVN)No.1/2009-10 Ex.P-41 Copy of judgment in case CTS(RVN)No.1/2009-10 Ex.P-42 Entire note sheet in File No.W.5/KTR/151/08-09 regarding property CTS No.1169 Ex.P-43 Joint survey sketch prepared by BDA, ADLR and BBMP along and 43 with covering letter
(a) Ex.P-44 Property card Ex.P-45 Order of Enquiry officer dated 23.12.2009 Ex.P-46 CTS Enquiry register extract Ex.P.42 to 46 are the documents obtained under RTI Act. EX.P-47 Document issued by BDA in respect of acquisition of Sy. No. 2 to 59 CTS No.1167.
Ex.P-60 Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.6779/1991. Ex.P-61 Certified copy of the amended plaint in O.S.No.6779/1991. Ex.P-62 Certified copy of the mutation register extract. Ex.P-63 Certified copy of the letter dated 07.04.1961 by the Secretary to the Maharaja of Mysore to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District.
Ex.P-64 Certified copy of the letter dated 18.08.1995 by Legal Advisor of Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru to Recovery Officer, Income Tax Department.
Ex.P-65 Certified copy of the letter dated 08.04.1993 from BDA to Tax Recovery Officer, Income Tax Department. Ex.P-66 Certified copy of the letter from Tax Recovery Officer, Income Tax Department dated 08.06.1995 to the Commissioner, Bengaluru City Corporation.
Ex.P-67 Certified copy of the letter dated 19.12.1990 by Telugu Vigyana Samiti Education Trust to Narashimaraju.
O.S.No. 10055/2014 40 Ex.P-68 Certified copy of the letter of Gazetted officer, Corporation of Bengaluru to Narasamani.
Ex.P-69 Certified copy of the letter of Legal Advisor of Mahanagara Palike to the Tax Recovery Officer, Income Tax Department. Ex.P-70 Certified copy of the letter of Tahsildar Bengaluru North Taluk to the Commissioner Bengaluru City Corporation. Ex.P-71 Certified copy of the letter of ARO, BBMP dated 23.11.2018 to N.G.Raju.
Ex.P-72 Letter dated 15.12.1957 by the Huzur Secretary to Maharaja of Mysore to the Chairman, CITB, Bengaluru. Ex.P-73 Certified copy of the proceedings before Additional Commissioner of Income Tax.
Ex.P-74 Certified copy of the sketch of Palace land. Ex.P-75 Certified copy of the letter dated 14.09.1976 by Smt.Narasamahan to Special DC, Urban Ceiling and Taxation. Ex.P-76 Letter dated 12.02.1958 from CITB, Bengaluru to Huzur Secretary to Maharaja of Mysore, Chairman. Ex.P-77 Certified copy of the letter of legal advisor to BBMP to Tax Recovery office, Government of India.
Ex.P-78 Certified copy of the letter of Tax Recovery Officer dated 10.04.1997.
Ex.P-79 Letter dated 15.08.1961 Huzur Secretary to Maharaja of Mysore.
Ex.P-80 Letter of legal adviser to Tax Recovery office, Government of India.
Ex.P-81 Letter dated 12.02.1958 from CITB, Bengaluru to Huzur Secretary to Maharaja of Mysore, Chairman. Ex.P-82 Certified copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 6779/1991 dtd:
24.5.2023.
Ex.P-83 Certified copy of the decree in O.S. No. 6779/1991. Ex.P-84 Certified copy of the letter dt:10.11.1959(Not clearly legible) Ex.P-85 Certified copy of letter dt: 16.8.1961 from the Secretary of Maharaja of Mysore to Bengaluru City Corporation Commissioner.
O.S.No. 10055/2014 41 Ex.P-86 Certified copy of the mutation register extract. Ex.P-87 Certified copy of the Encumbrance certificate, List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Nil Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Nil ( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.No. 10055/2014 42 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate Judgment ) ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.