Karnataka High Court
M/S Kanishka Housing Development vs M/S Emaculate Conception Church on 15 July, 2011
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
EN THE HIGH CQURT or-' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15" {DAY OF JULY 2011
BEFORE
THE HON"BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIuLA;C'H~E}:;wR: u
WRIT PETITION NOS.22825-2.?I'826;{'2£?I0€§'II»5f3M:¥'CP'Cj3,,,,,
WRIT PETITION NO.1€)S'88/2037 GMECLPCQ-.._VV
IN W.P.NOS.22825~8252'2VQO9'~T"M
1.W3. Kanishka'VrT!.Qusi%I'Q"D'eye{Op:ment Company No.14, Cu'1:rsi.ng-ha'--rh' E{o_a'd-.._ Bangal0r"eV--S:;_Z';.V » Repre-se,n't"e:~d "b\}--1:;§ts ~ _' _ Authorised" Sig naitory ' Mr. Ganesh
2. M/s. w6c;;%harét.I%'osp:£§T:s Represented by its '-
Igmthvorised Si"g--na§t__Qr'/ . _Mr. \f';I'~\/ijayarathna ' 'No.I4;~Cum:i__ngham Road E-TaIIg.a:':~qre-j§.2.i.~ PETITIQNERS {By-.Sr% g-ufigéovindraj, Adv.) z 1' 5¥{¥;'s..."£macuiaIe Conception Church _' Dfsreswamy Pafya, Begur Hebii ..,BiEei<ahaiEE Dhakaie, Bangaiore 2 Represented by its P.A.Ho£c:fer Reverand Father T. Bernard Aged about 60 years Parish Prest, in charge of Emaculate Conception Church (By Sri. Rupert M. Rosario, Advocate)' Thesewrit petitions E filed under Art:§:€seC's--E22.6=én'd;j'-E22'3;%E%7 of the Constitution of India_pr_ayinAg----._t:'t>~- quash: ofder V' dated 18.4.2007 passed by x><_jv,Add'1.d--d:;'st;zu _"Ci§"'i§>4'V'3uciVge, Bangalore (CCH--6) in O.;_S.No.S2--9(V);'v2O"£1,{5, on"I--.A,Nc§.3, vide Arme><ure--A. IN w.P.No.1o58s/'2Q07_'""
BETWEEN:
M/s. Emua.cu.lafe_Cc5h;epti_on__Church Doreswamy P'a!ya, B'egur'H_obIi . Bi|ekanaha!--!i' Dvhaké§'Ee; Béhn.g'a!o:'e Represented" by its H'o.[d'er""
Reverand Fadthher T; .Be7{'fl'a.I.'_d' Aged about 50 years ' ' , Parisi"é~.,Priest, InC'h--erg_e of "'EmEiCutaEt7e Cevjception Church PETITIONER {..BVVy._dSTf§y.u'thMs' V%V{;a>:é.§nan T' Mahtagani and Sri. G;S.Sv2'ikahte$weran, Advs.) ' AND;
' ..f:V1/sC.C"KanEshka Housing Devefiopment _ 'C.c:>m'nany Private Limited Nr;;.14, Cunningham Read .BaE'ngaEere--S2 _ _ Represented by its Director Naresh 3 Shah, aged about 55 years We No.14, Cunningham Road Bangalore-52 (By M/S Aamstei Law Associates; Advo<:ates).~~--~..A.:':'~.t V The wrn pehfionisffled underaxagms 2:5 aha 22: ' of the Constitution of India praying to quash the«. o:j_deVr"~._ passed by XXIV Additional «City Civi.iV_ V3!JdgEQ"'AB'a4fig8lé3F€ (CCCH No.6) on 18.4.2007 i'n.._t},pS.No.5290/2006"partly allowing the amendment application filed ltiythe petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17' of the'.C'ode_fof"'C_ivil Procedure vide Anne><ure~A. * * These writ. petitio-ns j'vconfiii:ng'&"'iipd-'i,pf-o"r preliminary hearing in 'B' g.!'0'Llp".'thlS}'d8)/,_V:§h€_C~O'_t,ll't made the following. Heaaijy V
2.V"_$oth writer-.:pe_titions arise out of common order datedl"1..8.'~4_iQ.O7~-,on~.-il}A. No.3 in OS. l\io.5290/2006. 3,_:"'.l}§c_ti:or_ding to the petitioners in the first case, who li2«;.er'é.__t1h'e :§de_fen;dants before the learned trial Eudge, when V _ the Vaimendrnent of plaint seeking the declaration to declare .t,utiie.at_;jegis'tered sale deeds and partition deed as null and .'\}oVi'd"iivas rejected; the triai Court ought not to have "teEseonpen%,no 4 allowed amendment to include the relief of declaration of title and consequential reiief of possession.
4. On perusal of the records, it "
originally the suit came to be féie"d'*l:\y Conception Church for bear defendants. Subsequently afterfiritten sta'te.nfi'enit;Vca'm'e to it be filed on 3.8.2006,"only,l"o'n=."._:27VV."1.,2OO§"amendment application came to be seeking for amendment«'loft-.plai_n't'.lto reliefs i.e., declaration or declaration in respect " "of. dated 22.1.1945, 15.2.1951.'.'16.:.i.9s.1_.l..i:l:2:..§.s_1961 and 27.9.1989 as null and void aoart from n1and--atory injunction for demolition of «..:hev-Vconsjtruetionitou--nd"on the suit schedule property. The V_le'arned"'~,}'ud"g.eV'sallowecl amendment so far as relief regardingntdeelaration of title and also recovery of "~..posses:sio'n and rejected the other two reliefs on the that as all the registered documents had come into eaééstence between 1945 and 1989, the knowledge of 5 those documents has to be held as constructive knowéedge so far as the plaintiff is concerned and therefoéretr-l4ts.§_s beyond the pertod of limitation of three years _ declaration that they are null and void. So _fa'ru '» of mandatory injunction relief, the le:arrnedt'eeJt1dQ'e4"CV?-eE,,.ne:dVeat that to the knowledge of the Vgjla._intiffV,'7::th'e oons:t'rl:.,{ct§vQn tkvas already in existence when canxefito ljie filed. Therefore the same Cannot be._all;owe'd_;'v~l
5. The the trlal Court is that of the property and a corpolratethe said property much Drior to7tne. in the year 2006 to the knowledge of»the.plvain€:lff;': Therefore even the declaration '3"-of tttlle gend».eonsequerntial relief of possession cannot be "favour: It is also brought to the notice of the,__':Court"Vll§.yrt:;the learned counsel for the defendants/ V.«._'*..petitéor;ers that originally a tenancy application came to be resoeot of the entire iahd where the suit schedule p_roperty is situated and the tenancy rights came to be 6 cenfirmed, which reached fieaiity as weii. Thereafter the preperty in question changee four hands ah.es'.._the defendant's hespitai is the 5"' oerson te same. In that view of the matter, accerd_i.h§.--4fo~..hitf;,..ti:ie"' piaintiff has never exercised righti-33 .' any activity on the iand in .:iuestioh;.v_ ";'¥cco:id'vi'r}ag.':4_i;o even the document under pVi"aiht:ift': islvfclaiming titie to the property is ~ttt.e:'s%iTVey"member for which the suit is..fiIed document of the foe" of the plaintiff, the same%__wouici~ heip. in any manner. 6§',As_ againfstv'itvh.Vi's,_"t.he learned counsel for the responcient"«~ is the petitioner in the other wit :A)eti'i:-ieh' contends that having purchased the '..418:7€3., they are in possession and enjoyment of the,__jeame.e}é.efcising aii the rights of ownership. Accerding iyte h§m,_"t:hec:gh for geed number ef years they have net "ee3z taxes, but seeseeeentiy they have paie the taxes. 'fherefere even if the tenancy rights were created in fewer of the third party, which was net to the khdwiedgex erstwhile ewher E.e. church right from 1878,j't'tle',V'_~s'ah*:e'4 would not be binding so far as the piaint_lffiip:et;tl'e:he_r concerned. Learned counsel for the petitierietfpI'al_htéff..sal«sAd f brings to the knowledge of the .Coutt'*th'et the.veie.iVthA'of:';the defendants before the trial Codr't».:.e"t the Vti'h*lee'f' lhetitution of the suit was that the'~eQhs_tttl{:'tie-ejptjl ph and it was not a Case of compieted With the latld-\/e fidurt has to see whether there with the order of the trial cod:+t?. "
7.A'f__If' ptheV.V_.se:.it-»s'e.h.ed'iJle property is part of the agricl;2t.ulfaE dalletged by plaintiff when it was . V. °puVrCthase'd byphim éhhhthhe year 1878, it must have been part .a.dtiet§'i»-tl:1l'al"a~Iahd. The plaintiff must be able to shew property; which was purchased by him T7-'«4___"-under sale deed in the year 1878. So far as J"'--de.feh'dahts are €:Gf}C€l'f'§€€L they must trace their tide to property in question atleast from the time of the Land 8 Reforms tenancy aeeiication and in the aiternative it is aise epen to them to piead adverse possession. It is c>pe~n:"t_e u.
them te contend that their predecessorsih--title§'_:e'hé§.e'_~gitjeii____'_ them their successive predecessorssihgtitie eniiv-l.'a:ter'*theAm,,e:it "= were openly and adversely enjoyihg i;i*iee:'p4re;_.jert3,rdtcif-..th'e;_i knowiedge of the piaintiff and*th«erefc>Vre,. the seek for declaration of title. -fer relief of deciaration of titie is time when the written statement.camei"tc:r.i§'e on 33.2005, the §clenii:e:l_'._._oi.title. elanjegelliiieknowiedge of the plaintiff. __ 'Judge was justified in allowinc,-thesaid'~d~ecl'ar'avtiT6h, Se far as consequential relief of possessiqn; it is Eiveiilisettiled in 1996 SC 642 which is F€ll€'(f_§:""Vt:i.pOFl the iearned counsei for the deiende_Vn'ts/'eetiytiohers that a declaration cannot be sought iiiitheiit'Vce'i}s_ee:i3'ehtial relief. Therefore the iearned Judge
--V wasl'j'L:stif:ied'"eveh in granting the said reiief. u Then earning te the denial ef ether twci reiiefs i.e. _deiciai"ai:ieri of fear registered decumerits es huli and veid .V f».
,2 i and the mandatory injunction, the tria! Courtvyyiéyrayits detaiied order has dearly stated why knowiedge of these documents has to be att.r,i'VtjotVedi.::to_ thee i piaintiff. So far as Mandatory construction was going on ory.constroct'i--on waS'.;C'o'in'pIete"d, it would not make much differ'enCe, bec'a=.is'ea..s tneire was aiready construction to~.__the.iiii~{'notiy:ieVti'ge ofiitheipiaintiff. Therefore the iearned Judge :jU$fiir;--§é€iv'bbIi'i rejecting this reiief as well' _
9. In--v.yie.v§ij:ofuurheriiavboyie'V'disciission and reasoning, this CoiurtisoiF._-theiro%pi*n:ion__ that the order on LA. No.3 in 0.8. No.d52_90/200.6 and no need to interfere with the Howe-versthe defendants are at liberty to 'i V' file "ad'ditionaiwrittéerimstatement if they need, observations, the writ petitions are disrnissed , i ' ~ . £2?
:31;
._§ X §3;2§;€::%Ea T "Gee/-=