Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Minorities Social Welfare vs The Government Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2015
C.R.P. 67) Govt. Of Karnataka
Form
No.9(Civil)
Title sheet
for
Judgment
in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH.NO.12)
PRESENT: SRI MANJUNATH NAYAK,
B.A.L.,LL.B.,
XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
DATED: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2015.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 2189/1992
******
PLAINTIFF: Karnataka Minorities Social Welfare
Housing Society,
Having its registered office at No.10,
Roshan Mosque Compound,
Mysore road, Bangalore-560 026.
Now known as :
The Karnataka Minorities Building
Owners Society,
Represented by its Secretary
Shri. Iqbal Pasha
(By Sri C. Gowrishankar, Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANTS: 1. The Government of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Karnataka Secretariat,
2 O.S.No.2189/1992
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
Krushi Bhavan, Bangalore-1.
3. The Tahasildar,
Prevention of Unauthorized
Construction (PUC),
Zone-5, Second Floor,
Krushika Bhavan, Bangalore-1.
(By Addl. Government Pleader)
Date of institution of the suit 31-03-1992.
:
Nature of the suit: Permanent Injunction.
Date of the commencement 20-07-1995.
of recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 09-09-2015.
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
23 05 09
*******
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff society has filed this suit claiming the decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the plaint schedule property and directing the defendants not to demolish the structures belonging to the plaintiff society and its members in the plaint schedule property.
3 O.S.No.2189/1992
2. The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint is as follows:
The suit property described in the plaint schedule is the landed properties bearing Sy.Nos.18/1, 19/1, 20/8, 22/1, 22/1A, 22/3 and 22/4 situated at Valagerahalli village, presently bearing Municipal Khata No.72/1, 76/1 and 76/2, totally measuring 16 acres. The plaintiff is a registered society recognized to acquire the lands for the purpose of forming layout to distribute the sites among its members. There were about 400 members in the plaintiff's society. The plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property. These properties were non-agricultural lands and they were converted so during the year 1972-73 and 1973-74. The plaintiff's society acquired these properties from their previous vendors for valuable consideration, under the agreement of sale and Sale Deeds. The plaintiff has been exercising all the rights of ownership over the suit properties. The plaintiff's society purchased the properties for the formation of layout and distribute sites to its members. The plaintiff approached the concerned authority and obtained necessary permission for formation of layout. The plaintiff spent huge amount to develop the properties and layout was formed and roads have been laid. The plaintiff has paid the developmental 4 O.S.No.2189/1992 charges, mutation fee, license fee etc., amounting to Rs.1,70,000/-. After obtaining necessary permission, sites were allotted to the members and Sale Deeds were executed and possession of the sites have been delivered. The katha standing in the name of the plaintiff were changed in favour of the members, who have purchased the sites. The plaintiff and its members have paid the tax. The T.M.C., Kengeri, has granted permission to put up the residential units in the suit properties. After obtaining permission from the competent authority, some of the members of the plaintiff's society have put up residential units in the suit property. The Plaintiff, being the owners in possession of the property, has filed suit in O.S. Nos.3881/1990, 3118/1991, 3810/1991, 549/1992 and 908/1992 to safeguard the interest of its members and enforced their rights. In all these suits, plaintiff obtained interim order. The defendants have no right whatsoever to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 28-01-1992 to defendant No.3 notifying him not to interfere with any manner with the suit properties. Said notice was served upon the defendant No.3. When the plaintiff and its members approached the defendant No.3, he has 5 O.S.No.2189/1992 refused to entertain them. However, defendant No.3 informed them that he is acting as per the instructions of the defendants No.1 and 2. The defendant No.3 has visited the suit properties on 26-03-1992, 27-03-1992 and 28-03-1992 and threatened the plaintiff and its members and attempted to pull down the structures erected by the plaintiff in the suit property. When the defendant No.3 dismantling the foundation in the property bearing No.19/1, plaintiff issued legal notice dated 28-01-1992. In spite of knowledge of all those suits, defendant No.3 is making unlawful attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. The plaintiff and its members are unable to resist the illegal activities of the defendants. Therefore, they constrained to file this suit. On these grounds, plaintiff claimed a decree for perpetual injunction against the defendants in the above terms.
3. Though the defendants appeared before this Court through the District Government Pleader, they have not filed their written statement, in spite of giving opportunities to them.
4. To prove and substantiate his case, Secretary of the plaintiff society was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 46 documents.
5. I have heard the arguments.
6 O.S.No.2189/1992
6. The points that arose for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the decree for permanent injunction claimed in this suit?
2. What Order or decree?
7. By considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and also the arguments canvassed by them, I answer the above points in the following, because of my below- discussed reasons:
POINT NO.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE
POINT NO.2 : AS PER FINAL ORDER.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
8. The Secretary of the plaintiff's society, who was examined before this Court as PW.1, has reiterated the plaint averments in his examination in-chief and deposed about the plaintiff's society having right, title and interest over the suit property and they formed the sites in the suit property and allotted the same to its members. PW.1 further deposed about the members of the plaintiff's society putting up residential units in the suit property by obtaining permission and sanction from the concerned authority. PW.1 further deposed about 7 O.S.No.2189/1992 defendants causing illegal obstruction for its members possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
9. The plaintiff produced the copy of agreement to sell as per Ex.P-1. The affidavits were marked as per Exs.P-2 & 3. The General Power of Attorney is marked at Ex.P-4. The Agreement is marked as per Ex.P-5. The Affidavit is marked as per Ex.P-6. The General Power of attorney is marked as per Ex.P-7. The Sale Deeds are marked as per Exs.P-9 to 13. The Conversion certificate is marked as per Ex.P-14. The Demand Register Extract is marked as per Ex.P-15. The Conversion certificate is marked as per Ex.P-16. The Demand Register Extract is marked as per Ex.P-17. The conversion certificate is marked as per Ex.P-
18. Ex.P-19 to 25 are the Demand Register extracts and conversion certificates. The Endorsement issued by the Tahsildar is marked as per Ex.P-26. The Demand Register extract is marked as per Ex.P-27. The Report of the Tahsildar is marked as per Ex.P-28. Ex.P-29 is the report of the Deputy Commissioner. The Exemption certificate from ULC is marked as per Ex.P-30. Ex.P-31 is the endorsement. Ex.P-32 is ULC endorsement. Ex.P-33 is the khatha endorsement. Exs.P-34 & 35 are the khatha demand register extracts. NOC from BDA is 8 O.S.No.2189/1992 marked as per Ex.P-36. The sanction letter from Mandal Panchayath is marked as per Ex.P-37. Exs.P-38 & 39 are NOCs from Mandal Panchayath. The Copy of the notice is marked as per Ex.P-40. The tax paid receipt is marked as per Ex.P-41. Khatha endorsement is marked as per Ex.P-42. The Demand register extract is marked as per Ex.P-43. Ex.P-44 is the khatha endorsement. Ex.P-45 is the tax paid receipt. Ex.P-46 is the demand register extract.
10. As I said earlier, even though the defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared before this Court through the District Government Pleader, they have not proceeded to file the written statement. Due to not filing of written statement, plaint averments remained unchallenged. PW.1 was not cross-examined, because of which, his oral testimony and the documents produced by the plaintiff as per Exs.P-1 to P-46 remained unchallenged. Now I have to consider as to whether this suit can be decreed on the basis of all those undisputed pleadings and evidence of plaintiff.
11. It is well established principle of law that the suit cannot be blindly decreed merely for not filing of the written statement by the defendants, especially when the suit is filed against the Government and its officials. Rather, apart from the 9 O.S.No.2189/1992 undisputed pleadings, the plaintiff has to independently prove and substantiate all his contentions by producing the documentary evidence in support of his claim. The Secretary of the plaintiff's organization was examined as PW.1 long back during the year 1995 and during the course of his evidence, he produced 46 documents and got marked them as Exs.P-1 to P-
46. All these documents were Xerox copies, attested by the Notary and no original documents have been produced by the plaintiff before this Court. While producing those Xerox notarized copies, PW.1 said that the originals of those documents were produced in some other case. Some of the documents produced by the plaintiffs were illegible. In fact, the Xerox notarized copies of the documents are not admissible documents in evidence and they would not have been marked. My learned Predecessor in office would not allowed the plaintiff to mark all those documents. In spite of the same, those documents were marked. Subsequently, my learned Predecessor in office, having found that those documents were inadmissible in evidence and some of those documents were illegible, directed the plaintiff to produce the original of all the documents before this Court. In spite of specific directions given 10 O.S.No.2189/1992 by this Court, the plaintiff has not come forward to produce the original documents.
12. In fact, this Court has issued Court notice to the plaintiff and his counsel to appear before this Court and produce the originals of the documents, which were already marked. Even after the service of Court notice, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel come before this court and also not making any representation before this Court and failed to produce the original documents. This suit is of the year 1992 and it is a 23 year old suit and one of the oldest suit pending on the file of this Court. Since it is a five year old suit, it is identified for early disposal as per the recent Circular of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In spite of the same, this Court has given one more opportunity to the plaintiff to produce the original of Exs.P-1 to P-46, so that this suit can be disposed of on merits. In spite of the same, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel are making any representation and not produced the documents before this Court. Since all the documents produced by the plaintiff are inadmissible documents and many of them are illegible, this Court cannot accept the plaintiff's version on the basis of all those documents and decree the suit.
11 O.S.No.2189/1992
13. More over, the relief claimed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction in respect of 16 acres of landed properties. The relief is claimed in this suit against the Government. Therefore, strict proof of plaintiff's title, ownership and possession over the suit property is required in order to grant the decree in favour of the plaintiff, against these defendants. But, the plaintiff has failed to produce the documents to prove and substantiate his case.
14. Moreover, it appears from the pleadings of the plaintiff that there is serious dispute regarding the plaintiff's title over the suit property and also legality of the formation of the layout in the suit property and distribution of sites. Under all these circumstances, rather than filing the suit for injunction simplicitor, plaintiff would have filed an independent and comprehensive suit for declaration of title. The scope and ambit of suit for injunction is very limited. In a suit for injunction, this Court cannot consider and adjudicate the complicated questions relating to the title and ownership of the property, legality of the formation of the layout and sites. Under all these circumstances, course open for the plaintiff is to file an independent and comprehensive suit for declaration of title with any other 12 O.S.No.2189/1992 consequential and ancillary relief. Hence, on this score also, I have to say that the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Considering all these aspects I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree for injunction claimed in this suit. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
15. In view of my findings on the above points, suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel it is just and proper to direct both the parties to bear their respective costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.
I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs.
******* (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, the transcript corrected by me, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9th day of September 2015).
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
()()()()()() 13 O.S.No.2189/1992 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 Iqbal Basha LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P-1 Agreement to sell
Ex.P-2 Affidavit
Ex.P-3 Affidavit
Ex.P-4 General Power of attorney
Ex.P-5 Agreement
Ex.P-6 Affidavit
Ex.P-7 General Power of attorney
Ex.P-8 to 13 Sale Deeds
Ex.P-14 Conversion certificate
Ex.P-15 Demand register extract
Ex.P-16 Conversion certificate
Ex.P-17 Demand register extract
Ex.P-18 Conversion certificate
Ex.P-19 Demand register extract
Ex.P-20 Conversion certificate
Ex.P-21 Demand register extract
Ex.P-22 Conversion certificate
Ex.P-23 Demand register extract
Ex.P-24 Conversion certificate
Ex.p-25 Demand register extract
Ex.P-26 Endorsement of Tahsildar
Ex.P-27 Demand register extract
Ex.P-28 Report of Tahsildar
Ex.P-29 Report of D.C.
Ex.P-30 Exemption certificate from ULC
Ex.P-31 Endorsement
Ex.P-32 ULC endorsement
Ex.P-33 Khatha endorsement
Ex.P-34& 35 Khata demand register extracts.
Ex.P-36 NOC from BDA
Ex.P-37 Sanction letter
Ex.P-38& 39 NOCs from Mandal Panchayath
Ex.P-40 o/c of notice
Ex.P-41 Tax paid receipt
14 O.S.No.2189/1992
Ex.P-42 Khatha endorsement
Ex.P-43 Demand register extract
Ex.P-44 Khatha endorsement
Ex.P-45 Tax paid receipt
Ex.P-46 Demand register extract.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:-
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:-
- NIL -
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.15 O.S.No.2189/1992
Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.
I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs.
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.16 O.S.No.2189/1992