Bangalore District Court
Shalini T R vs Ramakrishna V B on 13 March, 2026
KABC0A0012772014
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU,
(CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N
B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 13th day of March 2026.
O.S.No.25415/2014
Plaintiffs:- 1. Smt. T.R. Shalini,
W/o A. Subramanya,
Since dead by LRs.,
1(a) Sri. Anantha Subramanya,
S/o S. Anantha Narayana,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at No.61, 3rd Cross,
Anjanadri Layout,
Konana Kunte,
Bangalore-560 062.
1(b) Kum. Akhila S. Ananth,
D/o Anantha Subramanya,
Aged about 30 years,
Now at No.6, Hamton Court,
Jersey City NJ, USA-07302.
1(c) Kum. Ananya S. Ananth,
D/o Anantha Subramanya,
Aged about 24 years,
2 OS No.25415/2014
Now at No.1030, S. Oakley Blud.,
Chicago, Illinois, USA-60612.
[By Sri. PS/APN - Adv.,]
V/s
Defendants: 1. Sri. V.B. Ramakrishna,
S/o Late Basave Gowda,
Aged about 52 years,
No.542, 2nd Floor, 1st Cross,
6th Block, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560 085.
2. Narender Kumar Chouraria,
Major,
Father's name not known to the Plaintiff,
Residing at No.22, RMS Layout,
Sanjayanagara,
Bangalore-560 094.
3. Vishwabharathi House Building
Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Having its office at No.35,
Ratnavilasa Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-560 004.
Represented by its President.
4. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020.
[By Sri. KID/KRN - Adv., for D.1,
Sri. BLS - Adv., for D.2,
Sri. AG - Adv., for D.3,
Sri. AN - Adv., for D.4]
3 OS No.25415/2014
Date of Institution of the suit 7.3.2014
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit
for declaration and possession, suit Injunction Suit
for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
27.6.2024
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was
13.3.2026
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 12 00 06
LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property and for mandatory injunction against the 1 st Defendant directing to him to demolish the illegal construction made in the Suit Schedule Property and also deliver vacant physical possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff and to declare that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule 4 OS No.25415/2014 Property and to execute Deed of Supplemental/Rectification to the Sale Deed executed by the Society in favour of Plaintiff to incorporate that the old site number assigned with new site number or any other document required in this behalf and for costs of the suit and other consequential reliefs.
2. The case of the Plaintiff, sans details, is that the Plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the Suit Schedule Property, acquired under a registered Sale Deed dtd: 21.8.2003. The Plaintiff was put in actual physical possession of the same vide Possession Certificate dtd: 18.11.2003 and ever since the Plaintiff is in actual physical possession. However, having regard to certain disputes between the said Vishwabharathi Society and the BDA, the taxes, bulk allotment charges, payment of civic amenity of sites were not received by the BDA, besides issuing the building sanction/license was also stopped be that as it may. The Vishwabharathi HBCS has issued a Clearance Certificate to Plaintiff for the issue of the khatha and sanction of building license vide Clearance Certificate dtd: 17.1.2008, but the said authority has not issued the khatha in 5 OS No.25415/2014 favour of the Plaintiff. The dispute between the said Society and the BDA ended up in order dtd:
16.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.6945/2008 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has issued several directions to the BDA & the Society including a direction to prepare the new layout plan and submit the same to BDA for its approval. In furtherance to the said direction, the Society has re-
drawn the layout plan and submitted to BDA for its approval. The BDA vide its meeting No.163/2012 dtd: 7.8.2012 approved the layout plan and issued an order dtd: 14.9.2012. In furtherance to the said approval and in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court the Society has issued a demand notice to the Plaintiff, demanding an additional sum of Rs.3,24,000/- vide letter dtd: 16.1.2012. the said amount was paid by the Plaintiff under a Demand Draft dtd: 3.1.2012 in favour of the BDA. The receipt of the same was also issued by the Society vide Receipt No.1192, dtd: 16.1.2012. Upon clearance of the demand of the BDA, the Plaintiff is also been issued with fresh allotment letter dtd: 26.6.2013 renumbering Site No.986 as 3182 measuring 167.28 sq.mtr., in IV Phase of VHBCS Layout, Girinagar, 6 OS No.25415/2014 Bangalore as per the BDA approved layout plan vide its letter dtd: 14.9.2012. As on the date of preparation of new layout plan, the Defendant No.3 had already formed a residential layout and the sites in it had been allotted to its members including the Plaintiff and handed over the possession of them to respective members. In the new layout plan the Defendant No.3 have given new numbers to the very same sites which were allotted earlier and accordingly they have given new No.3182 to the Suit Schedule Property bearing Old No.986. It can be seen from a perusal of the Supplemental Deed dtd:
23.2.2013 executed by the 3 rd Defendant in favour of Smt. N. Vijayalakshmi, the owner of the neighbouring site bearing No.985, the new number of the said site is 3183 from which it follows that the new number 3182 is for the old Site No.986 of the Plaintiff, which is nothing but the Suit Schedule Property. After receipt of new Allotment Letter dtd: 26.6.2013 she requested the 3rd Defendant to execute the Supplementary Deed, but it was not executed by the 3rd Defendant. The Defendant who is a stranger to the Plaintiff is trying to interfere with the Plaintiff's possession and wants to hold the Plaintiff for a 7 OS No.25415/2014 ransom in order to coerce the Plaintiff to the terms of the Defendants and extract monies, more importantly to snatch the property. The 1st Defendant is making false claim on the Suit Schedule Property on the basis of illegal/concocted documents. After perusing the said documents, the Plaintiff came to know that the 3rd Defendant allotted site bearing No.193/34 in Girinagar I Phase measuring 30' X 50' to one Sri. Narender Kumar Chourasia the 2nd Defendant and executed Sale Deed dtd: 30.12.2004 in his favour and the same was registered on2 4.2.2005. In the schedule to the said Sale Deed it is clearly mentioned that the said site No.193/34is situated in Girinagar Phase-1. That the said site No.193/34 is situated in Girinagar Phase-I is also borne by the fact that in the schedule to the Sale Deed dtd: 21.2.2005 executed by the 3rd Defendant in faovur of one Smt. Nalini D. Rao relating to its neighbouring Site No.193/35 it is mentioned that it is situated in Girinagar Phase-I. Even though the said Site No.193/34 is situated in Girinagar Phase-I, in the Sale Deed dtd: 29.11.2013 executed by the 2nd Defendant in favour of the 1st Defendant, it is deliberately and falsely mentioned as situated in Girinagar Phase-IV. In addition, even 8 OS No.25415/2014 before the 1st Defendant acquired title to the said Site No.193/34 and inspite of the fact that he was not its member, the 3rd Defendant vide Allotment Letter dtd:
28.11.2013 prematurely and illegally allotted to him Site bearing No.3182 and also executed registered Supplemental Sale Deed in his favour on the same day. In the said documents, it is falsely stated that 3182 is the new number of the site bearing No.193/34. The Defendant has obtained Khatha Certificate dtd: 21.12.2013 for Site No.3182 from the 4th Defendant on the basis of the said illegally executed Supplemental Deed. The 3rd Defendant after confirmed to the Plaintiff vide Allotment Letter dtd: 26.6.2013 that 3182 is the new number of the site bearing No.986 earlier allotted to her has no right to state in the allotment letter dtd: 28.11.2013 and Supplemental Deed dtd: 28.11.2013 subsequently executed in favour of the 1st Defendant and the said number 3182 is the new number of the site No.193/34 of the 1st Defendant. The Suit Schedule Property bearing old No.986 and new No.3182 in Girinagar Phase-IV is different from the site bearing No.193/34 situated in Girinagar Phase-I purchased by the 1st Defendant from the 2nd Defendant under 9 OS No.25415/2014 Sale Deed dtd: 29.11.2013 and it is only the Suit Schedule Property bearing old No.986 that now bears the new number 3182 and not the site No.193/34 of the 1st Defendant. The Sale Deed executed by the 3 rd Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff on 21.8.2003 in respect of the Suit Schedule Property is valid and subsisting. But the Sale Deed executed by the 3rd Defendant in favour of the 2 nd Defendant from whom the 1st Defendant purchased the site No.193/34 was on a later dtd: 30.12.2004. The Sale Deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff is earlier to the 1st Defendant is only valid in law. The Plaintiff's name is at serial No.382 in the seniority list prepared by the 3 rd Defendant as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, whereas the 2 nd Defendant's name is at serial No.573. In view of this, the Plaintiff's claim over the Suit Schedule Property is superior to that of the 1st Defendant. The Sale Deed dtd: 30.12.2004 executed by the 3rd Defendant in favour of 2nd Defendant in respect of Site No.193/34 situated in Girinagar Phase-I was registered under the index "Hosakerehalli" in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Kengeri. But in the Sale Deed dtd: 29.11.2013 under which the 2 nd Defendant sold the 10 OS No.25415/2014 said site No.193/34 to the 1 st Defendant, the said site was falsely stated as situated in Girinagar Phase-I. In addition, as it was not possible for them to register the said Sale Deed dtd: 29.11.2013 under the same index "Hosakerehalli" in view of this false statement, they registered it under the new index "Girinagar" in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore. Illegally inserted the figure 'V' after the figure 'I' in the fourth line of the schedule to the said Sale Deed dtd: 30.12.2004 executed by the 3rd Defendant in favour of the 2nd Defendant relating to Site No1.93/34 after it was registered and submitted the same to the 4th Defendant for obtaining Khata Certificate. This illegal alteration in the already registered Sale Deed is clearly borne by the fact that tin the 4th line of the schedule to the certified copy of of Sale Deed obtained by the Plaintiff from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara (Kengeri), Bangalore - the word, "I Phase of Girinagar" are found whereas in the certified copy of the same Sale Deed obtained by her from the 4th Defendant under the RTI Act, the words, "IV Phase of Girinagar" are found. The 4th Defendant by completely disregarding the said illegality, not verifying the transfer of 11 OS No.25415/2014 property details from Encumbrance Certificate and their own records and in violation of the said order dtd: 16.11.2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, has illegally issued khatha certificate in favour of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff issued a notice to it on 25.7.2014 calling upon it to cancel the same but it has chosen to keep quite in the matter.
The Defendants have no semblance of right, title or interest in the Suit Schedule Property even otherwise the right, title and interest in respect of Schedule Property stood transferred to the Plaintiff under the Sale Deed dtd: 21.8.2003 for a valuable consideration therefore have no reason to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property. The Defendant No.2 to 4 have colluded with the 1st Defendant to create false records and committed fraud on her to deprive her legitimate rights over the Suit Schedule Property. The Plaintiff has put up compound wall by using hallow bricks around the Suit Schedule Property on 29.10.2008 itself. The compound wall built by the Plaintiff is still in existence. The Plaintiff when visited the Suit Schedule Property on 22.3.2014, she found that the 1st Defendant has built a temporary shed in it by 12 OS No.25415/2014 illegally trespassing into it and occupying it by taking undue advantage of her helplessness and lack of male support. The 1st Defendant has no right to illegally trespass into the Suit Schedule Property and occupy it during the pendency of the suit and put up any structure on the Suit Schedule Property. Therefore, the Plaintiff approached this Court to decree the suit.
3. Pursuant to summons, the Defendants have entered appearance through their counsel and the Defendant No.1 & 4 filed their separate written statement and the Defendant No.1 also filed additional written statement. The Defendant No.2 & 3 have not filed written statements to contest their case.
4. The Defendant No.1 in his written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit as brought is not maintainable both on law and on facts. The Plaintiff has no legal right or possession over the allege Suit Property. The schedule furnished is imaginary one. There are no any such property in the layout of the 13 OS No.25415/2014 Society. The Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the measurement, boundary and existence of the Suit Schedule Property. The Plaintiff by suppression of true and correct facts approached this Court with unclean hands. The suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties in as much as the Vishwa Bharathi House Building Co-Operative Society and BDA are necessary parties. Further contended that the BDA acquired the entire land in Sy.No.16, 17, 18 and 19 of Gerahalli Village as well as Sy.No.101 etc., of Hosakerehalli Village, totally measuring 80 acres 13 guntas. The said acquisition was much prior to the alleged Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff. In pursuance of the directions fo the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the BDA executed registered Sale Deed in favour of the Society on 18.6.2012 in respect of the entire 80 acres 13 guntas of land in the said villages. The BDA in pursuance of the said sale issued Possession Certificate in favour of the Society on 23.6.2012. The entire plaint averments goes to show that, there was no any handing over of possession of alleged site by the Society in favour of the Plaintiff after society taking possession from BDA. Thus the claim of injunction is 14 OS No.25415/2014 unwarranted and without any legal basis. The Society sold site No.193/34 carved out of Sy.No.101 to 106 of Hosakerehalli Village in favour of Naresh Kumar Chauria on 30.12.2004. The Defendant purchased the said site after verification from the said Narendra Kumar on 29.11.2013. In view of the changed circumstances, the Society after taking possession from the BDA executed a Settlement Deed dtd: 28.11.2013 in favour of the Defendant by confirming the right, title and interest of the Defendant over old site No.193/34 and New site No.3182 of Vishwa Bharathi House Building Co- Operative Society Layout with the following boundaries:
East by : Road, West by : Site No.3226. North by : Site No.3181 South by : Site No.3183. Thus the Society then put the Defendant in
possession by means of Possession Certificate dtd:
30.11.2013. The BDA after considering the right, title and possession of the Defendant registered khatha of the property i.e., Site No.3182 in favour of the Defendant. The above said documents clearly demonstrate that, the Defendant is the owner in 15 OS No.25415/2014 possession of site No.3182 of the modified Layout with definite measurement and boundaries. The Defendant had also constructed an 450 sq.feet., of AC Sheet house. Thus the case of the Plaintiff and her possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property is proved to be false. The Plaintiff has no manner of right or possession over the Suit Property.
The allegations that, the Plaintiff claiming under the Society and that the Defendant is a local person having the power of men and material is false. The Plaintiff is not in possession and the interference of this Defendant does not arise. The Plaintiff's property is not in existence. There is no cause of action to file the suit. The valuation made in the plaint is not in terms of the value of the property of guidelines of Government. The court fee paid is insufficient. The Plaintiff is called upon to pay the court fee in accordance with law. The Plaintiff having no legal right or possession over the alleged Schedule Property and as such the Plaintiff will not put to any hardship if the suit is dismissed. The Defendant who is in possession of the property as lawful owner will all lawful documents is put to untold hardship if any order of injunction is granted. Further the Defendant 16 OS No.25415/2014 is going to be ruined and put to greater hardship. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
5. The Defendant No.1 in his additional written statements specifically denied the amended plaint averments in Para No.5(a) to (c), 7(a) to (g) and Para No.11(a) and contended that the allegation that the 1st Defendant has no any right is hereby specifically denied and the Plaintiff's suit is not maintainable. The prayer sought for are imaginary. The Plaintiff is not entitle for permanent or mandatory injunction. The Plaintiff suit is hit by Specific Relief Act. The additional prayer sought for is barred by law of limitation. The fact that the 1st Defendant is the owner of Site No.193/34 is of the year 2013 who acquired right, title and interest to the said site by means of registered Sale Deed dtd: 29.11.2013 from the 2nd Defendant. The 1st Defendant also obtained registered Supplementary Deed from the 3 rd Defendant on 28.11.2013. The Plaintiff filed the present suit in the year 2014. The entire prayer sought for is unknown to law and barred by Specific Relief Act. The Plaintiff after admitting the registered Sale Deed, Supplemental Deeds in favour of the 17 OS No.25415/2014 Defendant No.1 & 2 executed by the 3rd Defendant has no legs to maintain the suit without asking for declaration or cancellation of said Sale Deeds. The Plaintiff clearly admitted that the 1st Defendant is in possession. Once the Plaintiff admitted the possession of 1st Defendant the Plaintiff is bound to ask for possession of property without seeking proper relief, this suit is not maintainable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
6. The Defendant No.4 in his written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that as per the order dtd: 16.11.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.18496/2007 C/w W.P.No.6945/2008, 10377/2008, 10343/2008, 9990/2008, 11127/2008, 9832/2008, 19026- 19087/2010, 16108-16112/2010, 16113- 16123/2010, 2182/2008 and 18960-19025/2010, the letter dtd: 26.6.2012 seeking approval of formation of residential layout plan as existing on the ground in respect of land in Sy.No.16, 17, 18 & 19 situated at Gerahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and Sy.No.101, 103/1 & 2, 18 OS No.25415/2014 104/1 & 2, 105 and 106 situated at Hosakerehalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk totally measuring 79 acre 0.75 guntas a work order has been issued by this Defendant by work order dtd: 14.9.2012. The 4th Defendant as per the order dtd: 16.11.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, this Defendant has only authority to approve residential layout plan in respective lands and handed over the approved layout plan to the Defendant No.3. Hence, this Defendant is not proper and necessary party to adjudicate the suit. The documents produced by this Defendant conclusively establish defense stands taken by it. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, this court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property, as on the date of filing of the suit? (Re-
casted)
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the Defendants on the Suit Schedule Property?
19 OS No.25415/20143. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, the 1 st Defendant has built a temporary shed, illegally in the Suit Schedule Property, as contended by her in Para No.11(a) of the Suit Plaint?
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction, as claimed by her?
5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Mandatory Injunction, as claimed by her?
6. What order or decree?
Re-casted Issues No.1 dtd:21.9.2021.
1. Whether the Plaintiff prove that, she is the owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property?
Additional Issues dtd:
21.9.2021.
1. Whether the Defendant Nos.1 and 4 proves that, the suit of the Plaintiff for the relief of declaration is barred by law of limitation?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of her ownership over the Suit Schedule Property?20 OS No.25415/2014
Additional Issues dtd:
17.2.2024.
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, the Defendant No.1 has put up a temporary shed in the Suit Schedule Property during the pendency of the suit?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed at prayer (e) i.e., to execute a deed of Supplemental/Rectification to the Sale Deed execution by the Society in favour of Plaintiff to incorporate the old site number assigned with new site number?
4. Whether the prayer (e) sought by the Plaintiff is barred by law of limitation?
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present forum without seeking possession of the property?
8. The Plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and during the pendency of the suit, she reported to be dead and her husband got examined as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.34 documents. The 21 OS No.25415/2014 Defendant No.1 got examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.13 documents and closed his side. The Defendant No.2 to 4 have not led their evidence in support of their case.
9. Heard the counsels for Plaintiff and Defendant No.1. The counsels for the Defendant No.2 to 4 have not addressed their arguments, hence arguments on their behalf is taken as nil.
10. Perused the evidence and documents on record. On appreciation of the evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are as under:
Re-casted Issue No.1 dtd: 21.9.2021 : In the Negative.
Issue No.2 : In the Negative.
Issue No.3 : In the Negative.
Issue No.4 : In the Negative.
Issue No.5 : In the Negative.
ADDL.ISSUE DTD: 21.9.2021 Addl.Issue No.1: In the Affirmative. Addl.Issue No.2: In the Negative.22 OS No.25415/2014
ADDL.ISSUE DTD: 17.2.2024 Addl.Issue No.1: In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.2: In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.3: In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.4: In the Affirmative. Addl.Issue No.5: In the Affirmative. Issue No.6 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. Re-casted Issue No.1, Issue No.2 & 3 & Addl.Issue No.1 dtd: 17.2.2024:-
In order to avoid repetition of facts, these issues have been taken up together for consideration.
12. Initially the original Plaintiff has filed the present suit only for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 or his agents or any persons claiming under them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property.
13. Later the Plaintiff got amended the plaint and then prayed the relief of mandatory injunction directing the Defendant No.1 to demolish the illegal 23 OS No.25415/2014 construction made in the Suit Schedule Property and also deliver vacant physical possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the Plaintiff also prayed the relief of declaration to declare that she is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property. Even another relief has been prayed by the Plaintiff to direct the Defendant No.3 Society to execute Supplemental/Rectification to the Sale Deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff to incorporate that the old site number assigned with new site number or any other document required in this behalf.
14. Initially the original Plaintiff has filed her examination-in-chief and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.34 and then she reported to be dead.
Thereafter, her legal heirs were brought on record and accordingly the Plaintiff No.1(a) again examined himself as PW.2 and got marked same documents which were marked through PW.1 i.e., original Plaintiff.
15. Let me go through the documentary evidence produced by the Plaintiff in this suit. Ex.P.1 is the Sale Deed dtd: 21.8.2003 executed by the 24 OS No.25415/2014 Defendant No.3 in favour of the Plaintiff. Ex.P.2 is the Clearance Certificate dtd: 17.1.2005 issued by the Defendant No.3 in respect of Site No.986. Ex.P.3 is the Intimation of site allotment dtd: 17.9.2003 issued by the Defendant No.3 in favour of the deceased Plaintiff. Ex.P.4 is the Possession Certificate dtd:
18.11.2003. Ex.P.5 is the No due certificate dtd:
20.4.2006 issued by the Defendant No.3 in favour of the deceased Plaintiff. Ex.P.6 is the Acknowledgment dtd: 16.1.2012 issued by the Defendant No.3. Ex.P.7 is the Demand Notice dtd: 16.1.2012 issued by the Defendant No.3. Ex.P.8 is the Acknowledgment/ check list dtd:16.1.2012. Ex.P.9 is the Allotment letter dtd: 26.6.2013 issued by the Defendant No.3 in favour of deceased Plaintiff in respect of Site No.986.
Ex.P.10 is the Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.P.11 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 30.12.2004 executed by Defendant No.3 Co-operative society in favour of Defendant No.2 in respect of Site No.193/34. Ex.P.12 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 30.12.2004 executed by Defendant No.3 Co- Operative Society in favour of Defendant No.2. Ex.P.13 is the attested copy of allotment letter dtd:
28.11.2013 issued in favour of Defendant No.1 in 25 OS No.25415/2014 respect of said Site No.193/34. Ex.P.14 is the certified copy of supplemental deed dtd: 28.11.2013 by the Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.1 in respect of Site No.3182 old Site No.193/34. Ex.P.15 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 29.11.2013 executed by the Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.1 in respect of said Site No.193/34.
Ex.P.16 is the certified copy of khatha issued in the name of Defendant No.1. Ex.P.17 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 21.2.2005 in favour of one Nalini D Rao in respect of Site No.193/35. Ex.P.18 is the certified copy of supplemental deed dtd: 23.2.2013 by Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.1 in respect of Site No.3183. Ex.P.19 & Ex.P.20 are the certified copies of Encumbrance Certificate from 1.4.2004 to 30.4.2014 and 1.4.2004 to 31.6.2014. Ex.P.21 is the certified copy of Layout Plan formed by Defendant No.3 Society. Ex.P.22 is the endorsement given by the Police in connection with complaint lodged by the Plaintiff dtd: 20.1.2014. Ex.P.23 is the endorsement given by the concerned Police dtd:
20.1.2024. Ex.P.24 is the Acknowledgment given by BDA dtd: 25.1.2014. Ex.P.25 is the copy of the representation given by the Plaintiff to BDA dtd:26 OS No.25415/2014
23.1.2014. Ex.P.26, Ex.P.26(a to c) are the Postal RPAD Receipts. Ex.P.27, Ex.P.27(a) are the Postal Acknowledgments. Ex.P.28 is the Reply given by Senior Scientist Underground Water Department dtd: 28.4.2014. Ex.P.29, (29a to t) are the Photographs.
Ex.P.30, Ex.P.30(a to e) are the Receipts given by the studio. Ex.P.31 is the CD in connection with Ex.P.29, (29a to t). Ex.P.32 is the certified copy of seniority list prepared by Defendant No.3 available in the office of Defendant No.4. Ex.P.32(a) is the concern entry with regard to seniority list No.382 of Plaintiff. Ex.P.33(a to u) are the concerned entry with regard to seniority list No.573 of Plaintiff. Ex.P.34 is the CD in connection with Ex.P.33(a to u).
16. Admittedly, though the Plaintiff has produced so many documents in support of her case, but there is no khatha has been changed in the name of the Plaintiff in connection with Ex.P.1 Sale Deed. Even PW.2 also admitted in the cross-examination that khatha has not been effected in the name of deceased Plaintiff in pursuance of Ex.P.1. It is interesting to note that there is no recitals in Ex.P.1 to show that the sale consideration has been paid by 27 OS No.25415/2014 the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.3. Even PW.2 clearly admitted in the cross-examination that after execution of Sale Deed, if the owner of the property occupied the possession of the property under sale, then only khatha will be effected in the name of owner. Such being the fact, taking possession of the Suit Property by the plaintiff in pursuance of Sale Deed is in doubtful.
17. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff had acquired the Schedule Property under registered Sale Deed i.e., Ex.P.1 and accordingly, she was put in actual possession of the Suit Property on 18.11.2003 and ever since she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further it is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is that the Defendant No.3 has also issued Clearance Certificate to the Plaintiff for issue of khatha and sanction of building license as per Clearance Certificate dtd: 17.1.2008, but the concerned authority has not issued the khatha in favour of the Plaintiff. The dispute between the said Society and the BDA ended on 16.11.2020 as per the order passed in W.P.No.6945/2008 and in 28 OS No.25415/2014 furtherance of direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the Society has re-drawn the layout plan and submitted to BDA for its approval. Accordingly, the Society had issued notice to the Plaintiff for demanding an additional sum of Rs.3,24,000/- vide letter dtd: 16.1.2012 and the Plaintiff has paid the said amount. Upon clearance of the demand of the BDA, the Plaintiff is also been issued with fresh Allotment Letter dtd: 26.6.2013 renumbering Site No.986 as 3182. As on the date of preparation of new layout plan, the Defendant No.3 had already formed a residential layout and the sites in it had been allotted to its members including the Plaintiff and handed over the possession of them to respective members. Accordingly, they have given new numbers to the Schedule Property as 3182. Even though Allotment letter issued by the Defendant No.3 on 26.6.2013 and then the Plaintiff requested the Defendant No.3 to execute Supplemental Deed in her favour in respect of Suit Property, but it has not chosen to execute the same. However, the Defendant No.1 who is stranger to the Plaintiff is illegally trying to interfere with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property and he is making 29 OS No.25415/2014 false claim over the Suit Schedule Property. Even though the Defendant No.2 had executed Sale Deed in favour of the Defendant No.1 in respect of Site No.193/34, but in the said Deed it is deliberately and falsely mentioned that it is situated in Girinagara, Phase-IV. The Defendant No.2 was not the member of Society and the Defendant No.3 prematurely and illegally allotted him Site No.3182 and also executed registered Supplemental Deed in his favour on 28.11.2013. In the said document it is falsely stated that the Site No.3182 is new number of Site No.193/34. From the date of allotment of the Schedule Property the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Sale Deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of Suit Schedule Property dtd: 21.8.2003 is still valid and subsisting. On the other hand, the Sale Deed executed by the Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.2 from whom the Defendant No.1 has purchased the said Site No.193/34 was on a later date on 30.12.2004. Even after the Suit Schedule Property and the said Site No.193/34 assumed to be the same for the sake of arguments, then also the Sale Deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff being earlier to that of 30 OS No.25415/2014 Defendant No.1 is only valid in law. The claim of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property is superior to the Defendant No.1 etc.
18. Admittedly, the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 in his written arguments contended that though the Plaintiff claimed that she is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property as on the date of filing of the suit, but actually she was not in possession of the Suit Property as on the date of filing of the suit. In the cross-examination PW.2 admitted that the Plaintiff was not in possession of the Schedule Property. The Plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and as such the Plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction. During the pendency of this suit itself the Plaintiff had sought the prayer of mandatory injunction to demolish the construction over the Suit Property and hand over the possession of the same. Even he has drawn the attention of this Court about the cross- examination of PW.2. This Court also perused the cross-examination of PW.2 and in Para No.22 of the cross-examination of PW.2 categorically admitted as under:
31 OS No.25415/2014It is true to suggest that, Ex.P29(i and j) photos produced by me showing that, the Defendant No.1 dug bore well in the schedule property on 21.02.2014. It is true to suggest that, the house found in Ex.P29(o) constructed by the Defendant No.1. The witness volunteers that, it is not a house but it is a shed.
It is true to suggest that, people are residing in the alleged shed.
It is true to suggest that, as on the date of filing of this suit the Defendant No.1 was in the possession of the schedule property. The witness volunteers that, he forcibly took the possession of schedule property.
It is true to suggest that, in the plaint I have not stated that, at the time of filing of the suit the Defendant No.1 dug bore well and he was in possession of the schedule property. I had no impediment to mention in the plaint stating that, Defendant No.1 dug bore well and he was in possession of the schedule property.
32 OS No.25415/201419. On careful perusal of the above admission it is clear that as on the date of filing of the suit, the Plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the same.
20. Even according to above admission though the Plaintiff was very much knowledge that at the time of filing of the suit itself, the Defendant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property, purposefully not stated the same in the plaint. On the other hand, she falsely stated that she is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property. Further as admitted by the PW.2, even though the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff on 7.3.2014, but the photographs produced by the Plaintiff herself reveals that prior to filing of the suit on 21.2.2014 itself the Defendant No.1 dug bore well in the Suit Schedule Property. Even according to above admission, PW.2 admitted that there is a shed in the Schedule Property and peoples are residing over the same. Therefore, the claim of the Plaintiff that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property as on the date of filing 33 OS No.25415/2014 of the suit and as well as alleged interference by the Defendants from enjoyment of the Suit Property by the Plaintiff was not true and correct.
21. The materials placed by the Plaintiff reveals that she failed to establish that she is the owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property. In fact she claimed her title by virtue of Sale Deed dtd: 21.8.2003 in respect of Site No.986 measuring East-West 60 Feet and North-South 40 Feet totally measuring 2400 square feet. However, as the Sale Deed dtd: 21.8.2003 of the Plaintiff appears to be become invalid as the land in Sy.No.101, 103, 104, 105 & 106 of Hoskerehalli Village was already acquired by the BDA under acquisition proceedings, since the entire land including the Suit Schedule Property was acquired by the BDA. The validity of the documents executed by the 3rd Defendant in favour of the members of the Society become invalid and void. Therefore, the BDA has executed Sale Deed dtd: 18.6.2012 in favour of Defendant No.3 Society to the extent of land measuring 79 Acres and delivered possession of the entire land vide Possession Certificate dtd:
34 OS No.25415/201423.6.2012 as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6945//2008 which has been clearly mentioned in Ex.P.14 Supplemental Deed.
22. Admittedly, unless the Supplemental Deed is executed in favour of the Defendant No.3 in favour of its members who have purchased the property through earlier Sale Deed, the members will not get any right, title over the property as contended by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 in his arguments. Similarly, in the case of the Plaintiff also the Sale Deed of the Plaintiff was not supplemented by the Defendant No.3 Society in respect of Site No.3182. On the contrary, the Defendant No.3 has recognized the ownership and possession of Defendant No.1 and executed the Supplemental Deed in respect of Site No.3182 on 30.11.2013 in compliance with the above said order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6945/2008. Therefore, this Court can easily say that by virtue of Sale Deed dtd: 29.11.2013 the Defendant No.1 become the absolute owner of the Site No.3182. As aforesaid, PW.2 has clearly admitted that the Plaintiff was not 35 OS No.25415/2014 at all in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property as claimed by her as on the date of filing of the suit. On the other hand, PW.2 has clearly admitted that Defendant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the same.
23. Admittedly, the Plaintiff by way of amendment of plaint further contended that she has put up compound wall by using the hollow bricks around the Suit Schedule Property on 29.10.2008 itself. The compound wall built by the Plaintiff is still in existence. The Plaintiff when visited the Suit Schedule Property on 22.3.2014, found that the 1 st Defendant has built a temporary shed in it by illegally trespassing into it and occupying it by taking undue advantage of her helplessness and lack of male support. The 1st Defendant has no right to illegally trespass into the Suit Schedule Property and occupy it during the pendency of the suit and put up any structure on the Suit Schedule Property and the same is liable to be demolished.
24. In support of the above contention the Plaintiff has relied upon the photographs produced in this suit and as well as evidence of PW.2.
36 OS No.25415/2014Admittedly, in some of the photographs the Plaintiff herself shown that they have constructed compound wall in September 2008 itself. However, merely on the basis of the photographs, this Court cannot say that the Plaintiff has constructed the compound wall in the Suit Property in the year 2008 itself. Further PW.2 in the cross-examination clearly admitted that he has not specifically stated in the pleadings that on which date the Defendant No.1 has interfered to their possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Even in amended plaint they have not specifically stated that on which date the Defendant No.1 has constructed shed over the Schedule Property. Even he has further clearly admitted that the shed constructed by the Defendant No.1 is in Site No.3182 which is as per the new layout plan approved by the BDA and formed by the Defendant No.3 Society. Further clearly admitted that Ex.P.30 Receipts are subsequent to date of filing of the suit. Even the CDs were also made subsequent to filing of the suit. Even PW.2 has clearly admitted that he has not produced any documents to show that the Plaintiff had constructed compound wall in the Suit Property.
37 OS No.25415/201425. As aforesaid, already PW.2 clearly admitted that as on the date of filing of the suit itself, the Defendant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property. Such being the fact, this Court cannot say that after filing of the suit, the Defendant No.1 has illegally built temporary shed in the Suit Schedule Property by trespassing over it and occupied it etc. As aforesaid, the Defendant No.1 has occupied the Suit Schedule Property by virtue of Sale Deed executed by the Defendant No.2 in his favour in respect of Site No.3182 Old No.193/34. That apart, by virtue of the Sale Deed dtd: 29.11.2013 and Supplemental Deed dtd: 30.11.2013, the Defendant No.1 has become absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the Site No.3182 executed by Defendant No.3. On the other hand, the property of the Plaintiff was not at all in existence and as such her claim that she was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property bearing Site No.3182 as claimed by her is not true and correct, as per the approved layout plain the Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the same. As aforesaid the Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Defendant No.1 has put up temporary shed in the 38 OS No.25415/2014 Suit Schedule Property during the pendency of the suit. On the other hand, the Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.13 produced by the Defendant No.1 reveals that he has obtained valid Possession Certificate in respect of Site No.3182 from the Defendant No.3 before filing of the present suit itself. Even he has dug bore-well after obtaining valid permission from the concerned authority. Further the BDA has collected tax from the Defendant No.1 and even the Defendant No.1 is paying up to date tax to the BBMP in respect of Site No.3182. Further khatha is also changed in the name of Defendant No.1 by virtue of Supplemental Deed executed. Therefore, this Court cannot say that the Defendant No.1 has illegally constructed shed over the Suit Schedule Property during the pendency of the suit. Further Ex.D.5 produced by the Defendant No.1 itself reveals that the Plaintiff had interfered with his possession of Site No.3182, for that reason only he gave complaint against the Plaintiff, that document is dtd: 20.1.2014 i.e., prior to filing of the suit itself. As aforesaid, PW.2 has clearly admitted the possession of Defendant No.1 and construction of shed by the Defendant No.1 which was in existence much prior to filing of the suit.
39 OS No.25415/201426. It is pertinent to note here that Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.11 produced by the Defendant No.1 and as well as Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.16 i.e., Sale Deed of the Defendant No.1, Allotment Letter, Supplemental Deed, Khata Certificate of Defendant No.1 which establishes that Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of Site No.3182 and constructed shed prior to filing of the suit. Therefore, it appears that the Plaintiff by suppressing the material facts about construction of shed and possession of Site No.3182 by the Defendant No.1 only has filed the present suit. Therefore, I answer Re-casted Issue No.1, Issue No.2 & 3 & Addl. Issue No.1 dtd: 17.2.2024 in the Negative.
27. Addl. Issue No.1 & 2 dtd: 21.9.2021 & Addl. Issue No.4 dtd: 17.2.2024:-
In so far as above issues are concerned, the Plaintiff has specifically pleaded in the plaint by amendment to the plaint that she is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 has taken up contention 40 OS No.25415/2014 that the suit of the Plaintiff with regard to relief of declaration is barred by law of limitation, as on the date of filing of suit itself, the Plaintiff was very well aware of the ownership and possession of the Defendant No.1 and his title deeds.
28. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is that the Defendant No.3 Society enrolled the members of the Co-operative Society who wanted to purchase house sites from it, considering the eligibility after purchasing the sites the Defendant No.3 executed registered Sale Deed in favour of Plaintiff dtd: 21.8.2003 as per Ex.P.1 and according to said Sale Deed the Site No.986 measuring 60 X 40 sq.ft., has been sold in favour of the Plaintiff. Even the Plaintiff also obtained Clearance Certificate from the Defendant No.3 Society which relates to the Schedule Property dtd:
17.1.2005 as per Ex.P.2. Even the Defendant No.3 Society delivered possession of the Schedule Property in favour of the Plaintiff under Possession Certificate dtd: 18.11.2003 as per Ex.P.4. For having clarified the Defendant No.3 Society has issued No Due Certificate to the Plaintiff on 20.4.2006 as per Ex.P.5.41 OS No.25415/2014
Even after passing the judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6945/2008 also the Defendant No.3 Society stated in Ex.P.9 that Site No.986 is here conferred with new allotment Site No.3182. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of her ownership over the Suit Schedule Property, as the Defendant No.1 has denied the ownership of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property.
29. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 is that the Plaintiff has collected the Sale Deed of Defendant No.2, Allotment Letter, Supplemental Deed of Defendant No.1, Sale Deed of Defendant No.1 and Khata Certificate of Defendant No.1 as per Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.16 from the concerned authority under RTI at the time of filing of the suit itself. When the Plaintiff is disputing the title documents and possession of the Defendant No.1 in respect of Site No.3182 (Old Site No.193/34), the Plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for declaration at the time of filing of the suit itself in the year 2014. The Plaintiff has filed the amendment application for amendment of the plaint and prayer for declaration 42 OS No.25415/2014 is after lapse of 03 years. Hence, the suit for declaration filed by the Plaintiff is barred by law of limitation.
30. Further the Plaintiff in order to establish the entitlement of relief of declaration of her ownership over the Suit Schedule Property, she has relied upon aforesaid documents. However, the Suit Schedule Property as claimed by the Plaintiff appears to be not at all in existence on the ground that land was already acquired by the BDA and once the BDA acquired the entire extent of land, the title by virtue of Sale Deed of the Plaintiff also become void and non-est. Hence, the relief of declaration of title cannot be granted to the Plaintiff.
31. Further as discussed above, the Site No.3182 claimed by the Plaintiff for the relief of declaration as per new approved plan is also standing in the name of Defendant No.1 by virtue of Supplemental Deed in pursuance of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6945/2008. When the Plaintiff's claim for the same site i.e., Site No.3182 by way of declaratory relief which is already stands in the name of 43 OS No.25415/2014 Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff cannot seek the relief of declaration of her ownership unless the title, possession and documents of the Defendant No.1 is challenged before this Court. Admittedly, the Plaintiff has not at all challenged the said documents before this Court.
32. As argued by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, though the Plaintiff disputing the title of the Defendant No.1, but she has not challenged the title of the Defendant No.1 over the Site No.3182. Further as argued by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 neither title of the Defendant No.1 nor the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has been challenged by the Plaintiff. Even the approved layout plan issued by the BDA is also not been challenged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration without challenging the title and possession of the Defendant No.1.
33. It is interesting to note that the Plaintiff has not made any efforts to change the khatha of the Schedule Property in her name in pursuance of the alleged Sale Deed, Possession Certificate etc. Even 44 OS No.25415/2014 the Plaintiff has not paid any tax to the Schedule Property. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 has established his right over the Site No.3182 by placing sufficient materials and the khatha has also been changed in his name and he is paying regular taxes to the concerned authority.
34. It is true that as per Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.16 it is clear that much prior to filing of the suit itself the Plaintiff was aware about the ownership and possession of the Defendant No.1 in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. However, at the time of filing of the suit itself the Plaintiff has not sought for declaration in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. Even on perusal of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.16 it is clear that these documents have been obtained in the year 2013, 2014 and earlier. However, the Plaintiff has filed amendment application seeking for seeking relief of declaration in respect of Suit Schedule Property in the year 2022 and the said application came to be dismissed on 4.4.2022, against which the Plaintiff has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10395/2022 (GM-CPC) and the said 45 OS No.25415/2014 petition came to be allowed and in the said order the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that kept open the question of limitation and observing that the amendment would be effective from the date of order. If the amendment is from the date of order, if the same is taken into consideration there is a delay of 07 years in claiming the relief of declaration by the Plaintiff. Therefore, as argued by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, the prayer sought by the Plaintiff in respect of declaration of the Suit Schedule Property is barred by law of limitation.
35. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 is that the Plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient documents to show that she is the owner of the Suit Schedule Property by virtue of alleged Sale Deed, Possession Certificate etc. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 has placed sufficient materials to show that he become and in possession of the Suit Schedule Property as per the documents i.e., Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.16 produced by the Plaintiff herself. The Site No.3182 is as per layout plan issued by the BDA which is already allotted to the Defendant No.1 and accordingly Supplemental Deed 46 OS No.25415/2014 has been executed on 30.11.2013 and khatha is also issued in the name of Defendant No.1 in respect of same Site No.3182. When the Plaintiff has not at all challenged the Supplemental Deed executed by the Defendant No.3 in favour of the Defendant No.1, the prayer sought by the Plaintiff in respect of declaration is not at all maintainable. Merely pointing out some lacuna in the case of the Defendants is not a ground to grant the relief of declaration in favour of the Plaintiff. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the decision reported in 2023 INSC 1009 (Civil Appeal No.7210/2011) between P. Kishore Kumar V/s Vittal K. Patkar wherein at Para No.22 & 23 the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
22. Contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that through the record of rights the plaintiff has established his title by a preponderance of probabilities is not sustainable. As noted above, the plaintiff failed to produce a single document of title in respect of the suit property. In a dispute with respect to determination of title, merely pointing out the lacunae in the defendant's title would not suffice. Having instituted the suit 47 OS No.25415/2014 for declaration, the burden of proof rested on the shoulders of the plaintiff to reasonably establish the probability of better title, which the plaintiff in the present case, has manifestly failed to do.
23. This Court, in Union of India and Ors. vs. Vasavi Co-
operative Housing Society Limited and Ors.6, held as under:
"15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the Defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the Plaintiff."
36. The principles of the above decision are squarely applicable to the case on hand. In this case also the heavy burden was casted upon the Plaintiff to establish that he become absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property and entitled for declaration. When the heavy burden is upon the Plaintiff to make out and establish his clear case for granting the relief 48 OS No.25415/2014 of declaration, she has not placed sufficient materials. Therefore, merely on the basis of some weakness or the loopholes in the case of the Defendants, she cannot entitled for the relief of declaration. The Plaintiff has not produced sufficient title documents and even according to admission of PW.2 itself as on the date of filing of the suit itself already the Defendant No.1 got valid title and possession over the Suit Schedule Property. Merely some documents produced by the Plaintiff i.e., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 are not at all sufficient to come to conclusion that the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration. Further as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, the order passed in W.P.No.6945/2008 clearly stated that if there is any dispute with regard to seniority of membership and genuineness of the membership of the Defendant No.3 Society, the member can approach to the Registrar of Co-Operate Societies for considering their seniority. Though the Plaintiff pleaded that her seniority was not considered by the Defendant No.3 and wrongly issued Supplemental Deed in favour of the Defendant No.1 etc., but the Plaintiff instead of approaching the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies 49 OS No.25415/2014 for consider her seniority, she wrongly filed the present suit. On the other hand, the boundary of Site No.3182 of the Defendant No.1 is duly tallying with Ex.P.18 Supplemental Deed produced by the Plaintiff herself. On the other hand, Ex.P.14 Supplemental Deed of the Defendant No.1 and Ex.P.18 both are Supplemental Deeds executed by the Defendant No.3 as per the approved layout plan issued by the BDA. When the Defendant No.3 has recognized the possession and ownership of the Defendant No.1 by virtue of the Sale Deed and the order in W.P.No.6945/2008, the Supplemental Deed executed in favour of the Defendant No.1 become final. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration in respect of Suit Schedule Property.
37. It is the further argument of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff herein is that the property of Defendant No.1 is situated at Girinagara Phase-I and the property of the Plaintiff is situated at Girinagara Phase-IV and the Defendant No.1 has wrongly taken possession of property situated at Girinagara Phase- IV. However, the Sale Deed of Defendant No.1 i.e., Ex.D.1 clearly discloses that the property of the 50 OS No.25415/2014 Defendant No.1 is situated at Girinagar Phase-IV and even in the schedule clearly mentioned that property of the Defendant No.1 is situated at Girinagara, Phase-I. Even in seniority list prepared by the Defendant No.3 as per Ex.P.32 also clearly discloses that property of Defendant No.2 who is member of Girinagara, Phase-IV of the Defendant No.3 Society. Therefore, it is clear that the Defendant No.2 was the member of Girinagara, Phase-IV and property of the Defendant No.2 mentioned in the Sale Deed is also situated at Girinagara, Phase-IV and the said property has been sold by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1. therefore, the Plaintiff cannot say that the Defendant No.1 has wrongly claimed her property as his property.
38. As aforesaid, the Plaintiff has not at all claimed the relief of declaration in respect of Suit Schedule Property within 03 years from the date of cause of action. According to Section 58 of Indian Limitation Act to obtain any declaration, period of limitation is 03 years when the right to sue first accrues. Admittedly in the year 2013/2014 itself the right to sue first accrues to the Plaintiff to seek the 51 OS No.25415/2014 relief of declaration in respect of Suit Schedule Property. However, as aforesaid, she prayed declaration in respect of the Suit Schedule Property in the year 2022 i.e., nearly after lapse of 07 years only she claimed the relief of declaration. Therefore, the relief of declaration in respect of Suit Schedule Property is clearly barred by law of limitation. Hence, I answer Addl. Issue No.1 dtd: 21.9.2021 & Addl. Issue No.4 dtd: 17.2.2024 in the Affirmative and the Addl. Issue No.1 dtd:
21.9.2021 in the Negative.
39. Addl. Issue No.5 dtd: 17.2.2024:-
The Defendant No.1 has specifically taken up contention in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable without seeking for possession of the property. When the possession is already with the Defendant No.1 and when the Defendant No.1 is in physical possession, the proper relief is for recovery of possession, but not for mandatory injunction. The relief of mandatory injunction sought in the prayer is only an injunctive relief, but not the consequential relief. Hence, the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not at all maintainable and the same is 52 OS No.25415/2014 liable to be dismissed. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 has relied upon the decision reported in 2024 INSC 109 (Civil Appeal No.3854/2014) between Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR V/s Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr. LR's and also decision reported in Ram Saran V/s Ganga Devi (1973) 2 SCC 60.
40. Admittedly, the principles of the above decisions are squarely applicable to the case on hand. In the present suit also as admitted by PW.2 in his cross-examination as on the date of filing of the suit, the possession of the Suit Schedule Property is not at all with the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property. Therefore, in view of the principles of the above decisions the suit seeking for declaration of title of ownership without seeking the possession is not maintainable, as the same is hit by the proviso of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
41. When the Plaintiff was not at all in exclusive possession of the Suit Schedule Property and earlier she filed the present suit only for the relief of permanent injunction, then by way of 53 OS No.25415/2014 amendment sought for mandatory injunction by contending that during the pendency of the suit the Defendant No.1 obtained possession of the Suit Property and thereafter sought the relief of declaration etc. However, the Plaintiff has not specifically prayed the relief of possession of the Suit Schedule Property from the Defendant No.1 at the time of filing of the suit itself. Hence, this Court is on the opinion that as argued by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 it is not permissible to claim the relief of declaration by the Plaintiff without seeking consequential relief of possession of the Suit Schedule Property from the Defendant No.1. When the Plaintiff was not being in possession of the Suit Property at the time of filing of the suit itself, the Plaintiff ought to have filed for the relief of recovery of possession. However, the Plaintiff simply sought the relief of permanent injunction and not sought for possession. Therefore, this Court is on the opinion that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable without seeking possession of the Suit Schedule Property from the Defendant No.1.
42. Though the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff in his written arguments contended that the Plaintiff 54 OS No.25415/2014 has sought for the relief of permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and as well as relief of declaration and also deliver the vacant possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff. Therefore, there is no necessity to seek the possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff. Admittedly, as argued by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, initially the Plaintiff has not sought for the relief of declaration and possession at the time of filing of the suit. That apart, though the Plaintiff was very much in the knowledge that she was not at all in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property filed this suit only for the relief of permanent injunction. Though the Plaintiff contended that during the pendency of the suit, the Defendant No.1 has illegally taken possession of the Suit Schedule Property by constructing shed over the same etc., but the same is not at all been proved by the Plaintiff. Though the Plaintiff filed the present suit on 19.3.2014, but she contended that when she visited the Suit Schedule Property on 22.3.2014 she found that the Defendant No.1 has built a temporary shed by illegally trespassing over it and occupied it by taking undue advance and helplessness etc. 55 OS No.25415/2014 However, the said fact has not been proved by the Plaintiff. On the other hand, as per the admission of PW.2 it appears that before filing of the suit itself the Defendant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff ought to have prayed the relief of possession of Suit Schedule Property at the time of filing of the suit itself. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1, the suit filed by the Plaintiff for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction without seeking specific relief of possession of the Suit Property at the time of filing of the suit itself was not at all maintainable. Hence, I answer Addl. Issue No.5 dtd: 17.2.2024 in the Affirmative.
43. Addl. Issue No.3 dtd: 17.2.2024:-
The Plaintiff has specifically prayed in the plaint to direct the Defendant No.3 Society to execute Supplemental/Rectification Sale Deed executed by the Defendant No.3 in favour of the Plaintiff to incorporate Old Site number assigned with new Site number or any other documents required on her 56 OS No.25415/2014 behalf. Admittedly, the Site No.3182 is as per the approved new layout plan issued by the BDA which is already allotted to the Defendant No.1 and executed Supplemental Deed dtd: 30.11.2013 in favour of the Defendant No.1 and on the basis of the said title documents only the BDA has already issued Khata Certificate in the name of Defendant No.1. Interestingly, the Plaintiff has not challenged the said Supplementary Deed of Defendant No.1 to get the Supplemental Deed or execution of Sale Deed in her favour. When already the Defendant No.3 and concerned authorities have recognized that the Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property as per the new layout plan issued by the BDA, now the Plaintiff cannot seek for the relief to get Supplemental Deed in respect of the same site, unless the Ex.P.14 Supplemental Deed executed in favour of the Defendant No.1 has been cancelled.
44. It is pertinent to note here that PW.2 himself has admitted in the cross-examination that once the Supplemental Deed is executed in respect of Site No.3182, as per new approved plan same site cannot 57 OS No.25415/2014 be allotted by the Defendant No.3 Society to others. Further as argued by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.3, the Plaintiff had obtained Ex.P.14 i.e., Supplemental Deed executed in favour of the Defendant No.1 before filing of the suit itself, but the Plaintiff had not taken any pain to challenge the said Supplemental Deed. Further if at all the Plaintiff has got any dispute with regard to Supplemental Sale Deed executed in favour of the Defendant No.1 or with regard to any seniority of the membership of the Defendant No.3, she could have approach the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies for her seniority list or with regard to issuance of Rectification Sale Deed etc., as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6945/2008. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of execution of Supplemental Deed for Rectification of Sale Deed executed by the Defendant No.3 Society in her favour.
45. It is further pertinent to note here that according to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6945/2008 if the payee/member could not come under the guidelines of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, though the 58 OS No.25415/2014 payee amount being encashed by the BDA, should be refunded by the Defendant No.3 Society. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled for refund of the amount which she paid to the Defendant No.3, but not entitled for any relief as prayed in this suit. Hence, I answer Addl. Issue No.3 dtd: 17.2.2024 in the Negative.
46. Issue No.4 & 5 and Addl. Issue No.2 dtd: 17.2.2024:-
In view of detailed discussions and findings given by this Court on the foregoing issues, it is clear that the Plaintiff has failed to prove her lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property as on the date of filing of the suit. Similarly, the Plaintiff also failed to prove that the Defendant No.1 has put up temporary shed in the Suit Schedule Property during the pendency of the suit. Further the Plaintiff also failed to prove that she is entitled for the relief of declaration of her ownership over the Suit Schedule Property. Further as discussed above, already this Court come to conclusion that the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed with respect to execution of Supplemental Deed or 59 OS No.25415/2014 Rectification Sale Deed in her favour in respect of Suit Schedule Property from the Defendant No.3. Such being the fact, she is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as prayed in this suit.
47. It is pertinent to note here that as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.18496/2007, the remedy which available to the Plaintiff was to approach the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies for her grievances as claimed in this suit. However, instead of approaching the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies for adjudication of her seniority, for allotment of site and as well as with regard to payment of part of sale consideration etc. Instead of doing so she filed the present suit for the above said reliefs, but she is not entitled for the reasons stated above.
48. There is no whisper from the side of the Plaintiff that why she should not approached the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies for adjudication of her grievances. Further it is pertinent to note that, on careful perusal of the documentary evidence placed by the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 in this suit, this 60 OS No.25415/2014 Court has already come to conclusion that the Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property as per the valid title deeds. On the other hand, in view of subsequent Sale Deeds and Rectification of Sale Deed executed in favour of the Defendant No.1 in respect of Site No.3182 (Old No.193/34) the Sale Deed dtd:
21.8.2003 claimed by the Plaintiff become void/invalid. Further the BDA under acquisition proceedings had acquired land bearing Sy.No.101 to 106 and handed over the possession in favour of Defendant No.3 Society and later BDA executed Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.3 Society to the extent of 79 Acres and delivered the possession and then the Defendant No.3 has executed Supplemental Sale Deed in favour of the Defendant No.1 by recognizing his ownership and possession in respect of Site No.3182 on 30.11.2013 in compliance of order passed in W.P.No.6945/2008.
49. Under the above circumstances, the Plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs as claimed in this suit, muchless permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, declaration etc., as prayed for. Hence, I 61 OS No.25415/2014 answer Issue No.4 & 5 and Addl. Issue No.2 dtd:
17.2.2024 in the Negative.
50. Issue No.6:-
In view of the findings on the above issues, the suit of the Plaintiff deserves to be dismissed with cost. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictation given to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, after correction, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of March 2026).
Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA NARAYANAPPA SRIPAD SRIPAD Date: 2026.03.24 09:50:53 +0530 [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73). SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the site bearing No.986 (new No.3182 under the re-drawn layout plan) carved out of Sy.No.101, 103,/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105 & 106 of Hosakerihalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk by 62 OS No.25415/2014 Vishwabharathi House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., in IV Phase, Girinagar, Bangalore-560 085 bounded on the East by - Road, West by - Site No.849, North by - Site No.985 and South by - Site No.987.
ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1: T.R. Shalini. PW.2: Anantha Subramanya.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Sale Deed dtd: 21.8.2003.
Ex.P.2 : Clearance Certificate dtd: 17.1.2005.
Ex.P.3 : Intimation of site allotment dtd:
17.9.2003.
Ex.P.4 : Possession Certificate dtd: 18.11.2003.
Ex.P.5 : No due certificate dtd: 20.4.2006.
Ex.P.6 : Acknowledgment dtd: 16.1.2012.
Ex.P.7 : Demand Notice dtd: 16.1.2012.
Ex.P.8 : Acknowledgment/check list dtd:16.1.2012.
63 OS No.25415/2014Ex.P.9 : Allotment letter dtd: 26.6.2013.
Ex.P.10 : 03 Encumbrance Certificates.
Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
30.12.2004 executed by Co-Operative society in favour of Defendant No.2.
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
30.12.2004 executed by Co-Operative Society in favour of Defendant No.2.
Ex.P.13 : Attested copy of allotment letter dtd:
28.11.2013.
Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of supplemental deed dtd:
28.11.2013 in favour of Defendant No.3.
Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
29.11.2013.
Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of khatha letter.
Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 21.2.2005 in favour of one Nalini D Rao.
Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of supplemental deed dtd:
23.2.2013 by Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.1 Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate from 1.4.2004 to 30.4.2014.
Ex.P.20 : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate from 1.4.2004 to 31.6.2014.
64 OS No.25415/2014Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of Layout Plan formed by Defendant No.3 Society.
Ex.P.22 : Endorsement given by the Police in connection with complaint lodged by the Plaintiff dtd: 20.1.2014.
Ex.P.23 : Endorsement given by the concerned Police dtd: 20.1.2024.
Ex.P.24 : Acknowledgment given by BDA dtd:
25.1.2014.
Ex.P.25 : Copy of the representation given by the Plaintiff to BDA dtd: 23.1.2014.
Ex.P.26 : 04 Postal RPAD Receipts.
(a to c) Ex.P.27 : 02 Postal Acknowledgments.
(27a) Ex.P.28 : Reply given by Senior Scientist Underground Water Department dtd:
28.4.2014.
Ex.P.29 : 21 Photographs.
(29a to t) Ex.P.30 : 06 Receipts given by the studio. (30a to e) Ex.P.31 : CD in connection with Ex.P.29, (29a to t) 65 OS No.25415/2014 Ex.P.32 : Certified copy of seniority list prepared by D.2 available in the office of D.4 which was under RTI.
Ex.P.32(a) : Concern entry with regard to seniority list No.382 of Plaintiff.
Ex.P.33 : Concern entry with regard to seniority list (a to u) No.573 of Plaintiff.
Ex.P.34 : CD in connection with Ex.P.33(a to u).
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : V.B. Ramakrishna.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Original Sale Deed dtd: 30.12.2004.
Ex.D.2 : Possession Certificate dtd: 30.11.2013.
Ex.D.3 : Acknowledgment for digging bore well dtd: 5.2.2014.
Ex.D.4 : Bill issued by Tunga Bore Well dtd:7.12.2014.
Ex.D.5 : Endorsement given by Police
dtd:20.1.2014.
Ex.D.6 : Approved Construction Plan issued by the
BDA.
Ex.D.7 : 03 Tax Paid Receipts issued by BDA.
(a & b)
66 OS No.25415/2014
Ex.D.8 : 04 Computerized Tax Paid Receipts.
(a to c)
Ex.D.9 : Khata Certificate.
Ex.D.10 : Khata Extract.
Ex.D.11 : 'A' Khatha issued by BBMP.
Ex.D.12 : Digital certified copy of of supplemental deed executed by Defendant No.3 in favour of one Smt. S. Malathi dtd:4.3.2013.
Ex.D.13 : Digital certified copy of of supplemental deed executed by Defendant No.3 in favour of one Smt. S.K.Vidya dtd:
23.11.2012.Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA
NARAYANAPPA SRIPAD SRIPAD Date: 2026.03.24 09:50:42 +0530 [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).