Bangalore District Court
Girish M S/O Late M. Mruthyunjaya vs C.D. Javaregowda S/O Late Doddegowda ... on 1 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22)
Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
OS No.25324/2018
Dated this 1st day of February 2022
Plaintiff:- 1. Girish M S/o late M. Mruthyunjaya,
Aged about 46 years, R/at No.11,
1st Main, 2nd Cross, Kalidasa Layout,
Srinagar, Bangalore.
(Rep by Sri.Ayyappa M, Advocate)
V/S
Defendant:- 1. C.D. Javaregowda S/o late Doddegowda C.J,
Aged about 71 years, R/at No.26,
Shamanna Garden, Behind Srinidhi Temple,
Chunchaghatta Main Road, J.P. Nagar P.O,
Konanakunte, Bangalore.
2. M/s Vistara Ventures, A partnership Firm,
Having its registered office,
No.3, Millneum Towers, ITPL Road,
Whitefield, Bangalore, Represented by its
Partner, Mr. S.K. Prajwal.
(Exparte)
2
Judgment OS. No.25324/2018
Date of Institution of the suit 14/03/2018
Nature of the (Suit for pro-note, suit
for declaration and possession, suit Permanent Injunction
for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording
of the Evidence.
03/02/2020
Date on which the Judgment was
01/02/2022
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 03 10 15
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT: BENGALURU.
:JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for permanent injunction.
2. The brief facts of plaint averments is as under:
The plaintiff submits that he is owner of the suit schedule property and he purchased suit schedule 'A' property mentioned below under registered sale deed one deed on 01/06/2017 from Rachana Reddy.3
Judgment OS. No.25324/2018 :SUIT SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY:
All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing No.No.1530/48/2 (Site No.141) formed in converted Sy.No.48/2 of Thurahalli Village, Uttrahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, coming under the jurisdiction of BBMP in the layout named as Karishma Hills, measuring East to West 58 feet and North to South 52.6 feet bounded by East: Road, West: Portion sold to G. Radhika, North:Portion sold to G.K. Ramakrishna Reddy, South: Remaining portion of the same property. That his vendor Rachana Reddy purchased suit schedule 'A' property under sale deed executed on 02/08/2012 coupled with rectification deed dated 26/06/2015 and his vendor also secured the katha of the 'A' schedule property from the BBMP, Bangalore and had also paid taxes due upon the same. That the entire layout of sites names as Karishma Hill, wherein the schedule property is 4 Judgment OS. No.25324/2018 situated was formed by original landlord by virtue of layout plan and as is evidence from layout plan entire layout is accessible through the 80 feet road formed by BDA through the layout road named as Tenginamarada Raste, which in turn connects the other roads of the layout with different names and in fact the conversion order and the sketch annexed to the same clearly depicts the existence of the aforementioned Tenginamara Raste/Road.
3. The plaintiff further submits that defendants claiming to be the owners/builders/developers of some sites in the aforementioned layout, during the month of March 2017 made attempts to encroach upon the aforementioned Tenginamarada Raste/Road i.e. suit schedule 'B' schedule property mentioned below and thereby making attempts to block the said Raste/Road on 'B' schedule property and considering any such attempt being 5 Judgment OS. No.25324/2018 successful on the part of the defendants would completely block the access to the entire layout including the 'A' schedule property.
:SUIT SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY:
Raste/Road named as Tenginamarada Raste, in the layout formed under the name and style "Karishma Hills" in property bearing Sy.No.48/4 of Thurahalli Village, Uttrahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now coming under the limits of BBMP, Bangalore adjoining site Nos.206 to 211 on its southern side and site Nos.193 to 199 on its northern side connecting the layout from the 80 feet road formed by BDA and internally connecting to Sevanthi Marga Road and Gulabi Marga Road and bounded by North:Site Nos.206 to 211, South:Site Nos.193 to 199, East: Site Nos.181, West: Gulabi Marga Road.6
Judgment OS. No.25324/2018 The plaintiff further submits that many of residents of aforementioned Karishma Hill Layout lodged complaint to the Commissioner, BBMP, Assistant Revenue Oifficer of BBMP on 13/03/2017 and the plaintiff along with the other residents of the layout have been repeatedly persisting with authorities requesting them to prevent the defendants from encroaching or blocking the 'B' schedule property. The defendants probably having realised their fault kept quiet for some time, but unfortunately on 12/03/2018 on routing inspection, he observed that the defendants are again making hectic efforts to encroach upon the 'B' schedule property with an intention to block Raste/Road and considering any such action on the part of defendants would completely block the ingress and egress to entire layout including the 'A' schedule property and further considering despite the complaints lodged to the competent authorities, no action against defendants till date has been taken in this regard and hence having left with no other alternative the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants. 7
Judgment OS. No.25324/2018
4. The plaintiff further submits that the cause of action for the suit arose on 13/03/2017 and 12/03/2018 when he learnt that defendants are trying to encroach and block 'B' schedule property in Bangalore within the jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiff prays to decree the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents, men or anybody under or through them from encroaching or blocking the 'B' schedule property and or in obstructing the ingress and egress to the 'A' schedule property through 'B' schedule property.
5. The suit summons issued to the defendants, same was not served, the plaintiff has taken substitute service of summons to the defendants by way of paper publication and same was published in Hosa Digantha News paper dated 30/04/2019, but the defendants not appeared in the suit and it was ordered exparte against the defendants.8
Judgment OS. No.25324/2018
6. The plaintiff examined as PW.1 and marked documents ExP1 to ExP14. The defendants exparte, hence no evidence.
7. The plaintiff counsel argued. Perused the records.
8. The points arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff has made out prima facie grounds to decree the suit?
2. What order or decree?
9. My finding on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In Negative Point No.2: See final order for following :REASONS:
10. Point No.1:
The plaintiff Girish M S/o late M. Murthyunjaya filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as PW.1 and deposed evidence that he has purchased suit schedule 'A' property from Rachana Reddy under registered sale deed on 01/06/2017. That 9 Judgment OS. No.25324/2018 his vendor Rachana Reddy purchased the 'A' schedule property by virtue of the sale deed executed on 02/08/2012 coupled with a Rectification Deed dated 26/06/2015 and his vendor has also secured the katha of the 'A' schedule property from the BBMP, Bangalore and has also paid taxes due upon the same. That the entire layout of sites names as Karishma Hill, wherein the schedule property is situated was formed by the original landlord by virtue of the layout plan and as is evidence from the Layout plan the entire layout is accessible through the 80 feet road formed by BDA through the layout road names as Tegginamarada Raste, which in turn connects the other roads of the layout different names and in fact the conversion order and the sketch annexed to the same clearly depicts the existence of the aforementioned Tenginamarada Raste/Road.
11. The PW.1 further deposed evidence that defendants claiming to be the owners/builders/developers of some sites in 10 Judgment OS. No.25324/2018 aforementioned layout, during the month of March 2017 made attempts to encroach upon the aforementioned Tenginamarada Raste/Road i.e., Suit schedule 'B' Property thereby making attempts to block said Raste/Road on 'B' schedule property and considering any such attempt being successful on the part of defendants would completely block the access to entire layout including the 'A' schedule property, many of the residents of the aforementioned Karishma Hill Layout lodged complaint to Commissioner, BBMP, Asst. Revenue Officer of BBMP on 13/03/2017 and himself along with others requested authorities to prevent defendants from blocking the 'B' schedule property. That the defendants probably having realised their fault kept quiet for some time, but unfortunately on 14/03/2018 on routine inspection, he has observed that the defendants are again making hectic efforts to encroach upon the 'B' schedule property with an intention to block Raste/Road and considering any such action on the part of the defendants would completely block the ingress and 11 Judgment OS. No.25324/2018 egress to the entire layout including the 'A' schedule property and further considering despite complaints lodged to competent authorities, no action against the defendants till date has been taken in this regard and hence having left with no other alternative he has filed suit against defendants. The PW.1 prays to decree the suit as prayed in the plaint. In support of oral evidence the PW.1 marked documents ExP1 to ExP14.
12. The ExP1 is certified copy sale deed dated 18/08/2007 executed by H. Bharathi in favour of T. Usha. The ExP2 is certified copy sale deed dated 18/08/2007 executed by H. Bharathi in favour of Javaregowda. The ExP3 is certified copy sale deed dated 18/08/2007 executed by H. Bharathi in favour of Kasturi. The ExP4 is certified copy sale deed dated 31/08/2007 executed by H. Bharathi in favour of Sharadamma. The ExP5 is certified copy sale deed dated 31/08/2007 executed by H. Bharathi in favour of Soubhagya. The ExP6 is RTC relating to 12 Judgment OS. No.25324/2018 Sy.No.48/4 of Turahalli village. The ExP7 is certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001 executed by H. Bharathi and H. Kala in favour of K.M. Srinivas Murthy. The ExP8 is certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001 executed by H. Bharathi and H. Kala in favour of Jayanna. The ExP9 is certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001 executed by H. Bharathi and H. Kala in favour of Suresh. The ExP10 is certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001 executed by H. Bharathi and H. Kala in favour of Narayanaswamy. The ExP11 is certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001 executed by H. Bharathi and H. Kala in favour of Bajjappa. The ExP12 is certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001 executed by H. Bharathi and H. Kala in favour of Abhinandana Prakash. The ExP13 is certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001 executed by H. Bharathi and H. Kala in favour of Sharadamma. The ExP14 is letter written by Prasannakumar to BDA.13
Judgment OS. No.25324/2018
13. The plaintiff has not produced and marked documents relating to the suit schedule 'A' property standing in his name. As per the plaintiff he is owner of suit schedule 'A' property. The 'B' schedule property is part of 'A' schedule property. The plaintiff contended that defendants are not concerned to the suit schedule property, but they are making attempt to interfere in the suit schedule property and attempting to encroach the portion of 'A' schedule property which is mentioned as schedule 'A' property in the plaint. But the plaintiff has not produced any specific document to show regarding encroachment made by the defendants relating to the suit schedule 'B' property. Further the plaintiff has not produced any documents relating to the suit schedule 'A' property i.e., sale deed, katha extract, katha certificate standing in his name in the BBMP records to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule 'A' property. Therefore prima facie plaintiff failed to prove that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property, hence question 14 Judgment OS. No.25324/2018 of interference and encroachment by the defendant in the 'B' schedule property which is part of 'A' schedule property as contended by the plaintiff does not arise. Hence the plaintiff failed to made out prima facie case to decree the suit. Therefore I answer Point No.1 in Negative.
14. Point No.2:-
In view of above discussion I proceed to pass following :ORDER:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by him. Then corrected on line, taken printout, and corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this 1st day of February 2022).
(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
:ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 15
Judgment OS. No.25324/2018
PW.1 : Girish M S/o M. Mruthyunjaya
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
ExP1 : Certified copy sale deed dated 18/08/2007
ExP2 : Certified copy sale deed dated 18/08/2007
ExP3 : Certified copy sale deed dated 18/08/2007
ExP4 : Certified copy sale deed dated 31/08/2007
ExP5 : Certified copy sale deed dated 31/08/2007
ExP6 : RTC relating to Sy.No.48/4 of Turahalli
ExP7 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001
ExP8 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001
ExP9 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001
ExP10 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001
ExP11 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001
ExP12 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001
ExP13 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 18/01/2001
ExP14 : Letter written by Prasannakumar to BDA
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
--NIL--
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
--NIL--
16
Judgment OS. No.25324/2018
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.