Bangalore District Court
Ibrahim S vs Malti Displinay Taining Cener on 9 August, 2024
1
KABC010164182008
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-25) AT BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024.
PRESENT : Smt. Nisharani A.C., B.A., LL.B.,
III Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
O.S.No.8062/2008
C/W
O.S.No.4325/2006
PLAINTIFF IN : Principal M.D.T.C.
O.S.No.8062/2008 Khadi and Village
Industries Commission
K R Puram
Bengaluru-560016
(By Sri.R.P.G., Advocate)
DEFENDANT IN : Sri.S.Ibrahim Son of
O.S.No.8062/2008 Late Syed Saheb,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.1096, Site No.7,
4th Cross, Near Mini Taj Mahal Road,
Brindavan Layout,
Dooravani Nagara,
Vijanapura Village,
K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk-560 016.
(By Sri.S.V.G, Advocate)
V/S
PLAINTIFF IN Sri.S.Ibrahim
O.S.No.4325/2006 Aged about 46 years,
R/a, No.1096, Site No.7,
4th Cross, Near Mini Taj Mahal Road,
Brindavan Layout,
2 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
Dooravaninagara,
Vijanapura Village,
K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk-560 016.
(By Sri.S.V.G., Advocate)
DEFENDANT IN : Multi-Disciplinary Training Centre,
O.S.No.4325/2006 Khadi & Village Industries Commission,
Dooravaninagar,
Bangalore-560 016
Represented by Director/Principal
(By D-Sri.R.P.S., Advocate)
Date of institution of Suits
1)O.S.No.8062/2008 14.12.2008
2)O.S.No.4325/2006 22.05.2006
Nature of the Suits
1)O.S.No.8062/2008
Declaration
2)O.S.No.4325/2006 Injunction
Date of commencement 13-01-2012
of recording of evidence in
O.S.No.8062/2008 09-07-2010
Date on which Judgment 09.08.2024
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
1. O.S.No.8062/2008 15 07 25
2. O.S.No.4325/2006 18 02 17
COMMONJUDGMENT
Suit in O.S.No.8062/2009 is filed by the plaintiff against
the defendant for declaration, to declare that the plaintiff is the
3 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
absolute owner of 1.488 Sq.ft. of land formed out in Sy.No.2/1
as shown in the sketch annexed to the plaint, ii) to declare that
the sale deed dated 19.03.2005 and all subsequent
transactions in pursuance of the said sale deed are void and
nullity, and ordering them to be delivered up and cancelled, iii)
To grant Mandatory injunction directing the defendant to
demolish the existing un-authorized and illegal construction put-
up in the suit schedule property and to restore the same to its
original position, iv) directing the defendant to quit and deliver
the vacant possession of the suit schedule site to the plaintiff, v)
granting, permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his
against his henchmen, his servants his supporters, his legal
heirs, his representatives of anybody claiming through him from
interfering with peaceful and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property by the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever, vi) directing
the defendant for payment of mesne profits for the illegal use
and occupation of the suit schedule property from the date of
the suit till the removal of the un-authorized and illegal
construction in the suit schedule property and such other
consequential reliefs.
2. Suit in O.S.No.4325/2006 filed by the plaintiff against the
defendant prays to pass the judgment and decree against the
4 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
defendant i) restraining the defendant, its henchmen, agents,
servants or anybody else claiming through the defendant
permanently from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. ii) granting
to the plaintiff the costs of the suit and iii) granting to the plaintiff
such other and further reliefs that may be deemed necessary to
meet the ends of justice.
3. The brief facts of the Plaintiff's case in
O.S.No.8062/2008 is as under-
The plaintiff organization is one of the premier
departmental training centers of khadi and village industries
commission a statutory body created by an Act of Parliament
(No 61, of 1956 and amended by Act No.12 of 1987 and Act
No.10 of 2006) coming under the administrative control of the
Ministry of Micro small and medium enterprises, Government of
India. The Government of Karnataka, had acquired lands in
several Sy.Nos. of Vijinapura including 28 guntas in Sy.No.2/1
vide notification dated 31.03.1954 bearing No. C&D
783-88/com/157-58-59 for public purposes and handed over the
same to the plaintiff organization to impart training. The said
area was known as Ghee Heating Centre. The plaintiff was also
put in possession of the said land simultaneously at the time of
5 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
execution of absolute sale deed executed by the under
secretary, Government of Karnataka, in favour of the plaintiff in
10.10.1984. The Government of Karnataka vide its Gazette
Notification Bearing No: LAT (1) CR 59/78-79 dt:10.10.1979,
acquired further lands in Vijinapura for the extension of the
Ghee Heating Center including 6 guntas of lands in Sy.No.2/1,
belonging to Sri.B.M.Munishamappa. The lands were
transferred to the plaintiff organization by way of mutation in the
revenue records vide Government Order No.645264
dt:03.04.2006, through possession of the lands had already
been given in favour of the plaintiff organization vide
Government Order No.RD193, AQB, dt:21.10.1980. In order to
fix the boundaries and construct a compound wall, the plaintiff
organization called upon the surveyor to survey the entire
properties in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff
organization and in particular the Sy.No.2/1 which was mutated
in the name of the plaintiff organization under MR.No.3/05-06
dt:03.04.2006. While putting up the compound wall in Sy.
No.2/1, the plaintiff had left a small portion of the land belonging
to them on the eastern side inadvertently due to the mistake of
the earlier surveyor wherein the present defendant had
encroached and out up construction of a residential house.
6 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
3 (a) It is stated that, The said lands totally measuring
about 29 guntas originally belonged to one Munishamappa B.M.
out of which Sri. Ramesh has purchased only 23 guntas during
2003-04 as per the information gathered by this plaintiff and the
Government of Karnataka acquired 6guntas for the plaintiff
organization during the year 1979. The defendant has filed a
suit against this plaintiff in O.S.No.4325/2006 before the
Hon'ble City Civil Court, at Bengaluru (CCH-23), seeking
amongst other relief's a judgment and decree of permanent
injunction against plaintiff and its agents etc. therein, the plaintiff
has filed its written statement and has been contesting the suit
eversince and the matter is pending consideration therein. The
plaintiff organization in an effort to reclaim its lands lodged a
police complaint with the jurisdictional police station vide
complaint dt:10.02.2007. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
4. The defendant in O.S.No.8062/2008 appeared before
this Court through his counsel and filed written statement as
well as additional written statement. The defendant has
specifically deny the allegations made in the plaint and
further contended that, by a sale deed dated 19th March 2005
the defendant purchased House Site in Survey No.2/1, Site
No.7, Katha No.279/2/1 situated a Vijanapura
7 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
Village„ K.R.Puram Hobli, with in K.R.Puram CMC Ward No.31,
Bangalore East Taluk, earlier Bangalore South Taluk,
Measuring East-West: 32 feet and North-South: 34 + 25/2 feet
in all measuring 944 square feet from one Sri.B.N.Ramesh son
of Sri.Narasimhaiah. Thereafter, the defendant has put up
residential house on the said site described in the sale deed
dated 19.3.2005 and he is residing there. Hence, the defendant
is in no way related to the Survey No. 3 described in paragraph
2 of the plaint. Survey No. 2/1 of Vijanapura totally measuring
29 Guntas originally it was belonging to one
Sri.B.M.Muniswamappa. No portion of the said land much less
6 guntas of land in survey No2/1 belonging to
B.M.Munishamappa has been acquired by the Government of
Karnataka as alleged. One Smt.Fathimabi has filed form No.7
against the children of B.M.Muniswamappa ie..
Sri.B.M.Krishnamurthy and others in case LRF.No.5052/79-80.
By an order dated 10.02.2004, entire land in survey No. 2/1 ie.,
29 guntas of land was granted to the said Smt.Fathimabi by the
Land Tribunal, Bangalore East Taluk. 4, Bangalore. Thereafter,
by a sale deed dated 29.09.2004 said Smt.Fathimabi and her
children sold the said land in favour of Sri.B.N.Ramesh the
vendor of this defendant. Later Sri.B.N.Ramesh got the land
8 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
purchased by him survyed. No portion of the land in Survey
No.2/1 of Vijanapura has been acquired. Though the plaintiff is
not owner and though it is not in possession taking undue
advantage of its power, illegally managed to get the katha of the
6 guntas of land in Survey No.2/1 transferred to its name. The
Vendor of the defendant Sri.B.N.Ramesh filed appeal
challenging the Mutation M.R.3/2005-06 on the file of the
Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Division, Bangalore
in R.A.No.124/2006-07. The mutation accepted in favour of
plaintiff has been stayed by the said court by its order dated
11.07.2007. No survey has been conducted by the plaintiff as
alleged. On 19.05.2006 the officials of the plaintiff and their
henchmen threatened the defendant to demolish the house put
up by the plaintiff in the property purchased by him through the
sale deed dated 19.03.2005. Hence, the plaintiff filed suit
O.S.No.4325/2006 which is pending before CCCH-23. As afore
said construction put up by this defendant is with in the
boundaries of property described in sale deed dated
19.03.2005 and which is with in the boundaries described in the
sale deed dated 29,.05.2004 executed by Fathimabi and her
children in favour of Sri.B.N.Ramesh the vendor of the
9 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
defendant which is also confirmed by the vendor of this
defendant by survey of land.
4(a). It is further stated the land in Sy.No.2/1 was under
litigation between children of B.M. Muswamappa since 1979-80
it went up to High Court and remanded. Thereafter entire land
29 guntas of land in survey No.2/1 of Vijanapura was granted to
Sint.Fathimabi. Thereafter, by a sale deed dated 29.09.2004
said Smt.Fathimabi and her children sold the said 29 guntas of
land in favour of B.N.Ramesh the vendor of this defendant.
Obviously, no portion in Survey No. 2/1 of Vijanapura Village
has been acquired as alleged. But, the plaintiff made false
allegations. Just because published in gazette it does not
amount to acquisition. No compensation is given to the owner
of the land for having acquired the land and no possession was
taken. It alleged that the land was acquired in the year 1979.
But, no proof has been produced to substantiate that
compensation is given to the owner of the Ian and possession
was delivered as per law. As the officials of plaintiff and their
henchmen threatened to demolish the house of the defendant,
the defendant filed the suit 0.S.4325/2006 and which is pending
for adjudication on the file of the Court of Addl. City Civil Judge,
Bangalore (CCC.H-23). The defendant is not aware of any
10 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
complaint lodged with the jurisdictional police on 6.6,2008 as
alleged. It is respectfully submitted that, the plaintiff has no
manner right title or interest what so ever in the property
purchased by the plaintiff by a sale deed dated 19.03.2005. The
plaintiff has no manner of right title or interest in any portion of
survey No.2/1 of Vijanapura Village. House constructed by the
defendant is not coming with in the survey No.3 of Vijanapura
as alleged. The plaintiff wrongly described the property with an
ulterior motive of mislead this Hon'ble court and some how to
get an order against the defendant. The plaintiff has not
approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. The amended
plaint is not in conformity with the amendment wought and
some of the facts are not in conformity with the averments of
the original plaint. The plaintiff reiterates each and every
statement made in his written statement filed to the original
plaint and he craves indulgence of this court to read the said
written statement as part of this Additional Written Statement, in
order to avoid the repeating the facts. Towards South of the
defendants site Road formed in the same survey No.2/1 is
situated but not the land in survey No.116/2 of plaintiff as
alleged. The plaintiff is not at all owner of the any portion of the
said land in survey No.2/1 as alleged. Originally the land in
11 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
survey No.2/1 of Vijanapura was belonging to one
Sri.B.M.Muniswamappa. No portion of the said land much less
6 guntas of land belonging to said B.M.Munishamappa in
survey No.2/1 has been acquired by the Government of
Karnataka as alleged. Though notification is published to
acquire the said land in Survey No.2/1 it has not been acquired
awarding compensation to its owner Late B.M.Munishamappa.
One Smt.Fathimabi was in possession and enjoyment and
personally cultivating the said 29 guntas of land in survey
No.2/1 as tenant thereof under Late B.M.Muniswamappa the
original owner. After his death, the said Smt. Fathimabi filed
Form No.7 against the children of said Late
B.M.Muniswamappa, i.e., Sri.B.M.Krishnamurthy and others in
case No.LRF.5052/79-80 on the file of the land Tribunal,
Bangalore East Taluk. By an order dated 10.02.2004 the entire
29 guntas of land in Survey No.2/1 was granted to the said
Smt.Fathimabi by the land Tribunal. Thereafter, the said
Smt.Fathimabi and her children have sold the said entire 29
guntas of land in survey No.2/1 to Sri.B.N.Ramesh the vendor
of the defendant, putting him in possession. Later, he said
Sri.B.N.Ramesh the vendor of the defendant got surveyed the
said land and formed the house sites. By the registered sale
12 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
deed dated:19.03.2005, the defendant has purchased the site
No.7 Katha No.279/1, measuring East-West:32 ft. and North-
South: 34+24/2 ft, totally measuring 944 sq.ft. i.e., now "Suit
Schedule Property" from the said Sri. B.N.Ramesh, which is
formed in the said 29 guntas of land in Sy.No.2/1. The
defendant has put up 3 storied residential house and he is
residing herein. Water and Electricity supply has been provided
and the BBMP has been collecting taxes from the defendant.
The plaintiff was well aware that the defendant has constructed
house in portion of land survey No.2/1 covered under the sale
deed dated 19.03.2005. Sri.B.N.Ramesh the vendor of the
defendant, and Smt.Fathimabi and her children who have sold
the said entire 29 guntas of land in survey No.2/1 to
Sri.B.N.Ramesh are the proper and necessary parties to
adjudicate the issues involved in the above suit, as the above
suit is filed for declaration and consequential reliefs. Hence, the
above suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, further,
the claim of any of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by law of
limitation.
4(b). It is settled principles of law that the revenue entries
are not the documents of title and presumption attached under
section 133 of Land Revenue Act, is rebuttable presumption.
13 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
The said 29 guntas of land in Sy.No.2/1 referred to above is not
remained as agricultural land. As on the date of suit, it was
included within the limits of BBMP. Several residential houses
are came up and the BBMP has been collecting taxes to the
said land including the "suit schedule property". Hence, no
presumption could be attached to the records of rights, of land
in Sy.No.2/1. Land in Sy.No.116/2 belonging to the plaintiff is
situated, but it is absolutely false. Towards south of the
defendant's site, the Road formed in the same Sy.No.2/1 is
situated. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4325/2006 is as under.
The plaintiff (who is defendant in O.S.No.8062/2008) is
the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the house
property bearing No.1094, Site No.07, Katha No.279/2/1,
situated in Sy. No.2/1 of Vijinapura Village, Dooravani Nagar,
Ward No.31, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, which is
fully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter
referred to as "schedule property" paying Tax. On 19.05.2006
officials of the defendant training Center along with their
henchmen, visited to the schedule property, stating that they
have acquired the land in Sy.No.2/1 of Vijanapura Village and
the suit schedule property is part of that and that they are going
14 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
to demolish the schedule property. Before purchase the plaintiff
seen all the documents pertaining to the schedule property and
after purchase put up two storied building for residential
purpose investing all his life time savings. Krishnarjapuram City
Municipal Counsel has been collecting tax from the plaintiff and
electricity also being supplied to the schedule property. Even
earlier to the purchase made by the plaintiff there was a
residential house in the place of schedule property. After
demolishing the old construction the plaintiff put up two storied
RCC roofed residential building. No portion of the land in Sy.
No.2/1 is acquired by the defendant and no compensation is
granted to them and also no notification is published for
acquiring the schedule property or any portion of Sy.No.2/1 of
Vijanapura Village. Obviously,the defendant have no manner of
right or interest over the schedule property. But with an ulterior
motive of harassing the plaintiff, taking undue advantage of
summer vacation of courts the officials of the defendant trying
to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the schedule property. If the defendant demolish
the schedule property, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss
and injury which cannot be compensated by any means and it
15 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
will leads to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, prayed to
decree the suit.
5(a) The defendant (who is plaintiff in O.S.No.8062/2008)
appeared though their counsel in O.S.No.4325/2006 and filed
written statement by denied the case of plaintiff and contended
that, this defendant organization is one of the premier
departmental training centre of Khadi and Village Industries
Commission which is a statutory body coming under the
administrative control of the Ministry of Small scale industries
and Agro Rural industries, Government of India. The
Government of Karnataka has acquired lands in several survey
numbers of Vijinapura including 28 guntas in survey number 3
vide Notification dated 31.03.1954 bearing No.C &
D4783-88/com/157-53-2 for industrial purposes to hand over to
the defendant organization to impart training as mentioned
above. The said area is know as Ghee heating centre. The
defendant organization was put in possession of the said lands
and a sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant
organization on 19.10.1984 by the Government of Karnataka
transferring the said lands in favour of the defendant
organization. The defendant organization has put up a
fencing/compound wall along the boundry line of the said lands.
16 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
The Government of Karnataka vide its Gazzette Notification
No.LAD (1) CR 59/78-79 dated 16.10.1979 acquired further
lands in Vijinapura for the extension of the Ghee heating centre
including 6 guntas of lands in Sy.No.2/1, belonging to
Sri.B.M.Munishamappa. The said lands were transferred in the
name of the defendant organization by way of mutation in the
revenue records vide Government order No.645264, dated
03.04.2006, though the possession was already given in favour
of the defendant organization vide Government Order No.RD
193 AQB dated 21.10.1980. While putting up the compound
wall in Sy. No.3 the defendant organization had left a small
portion of the land belonging to them on the eastern side
inadvertently due to the mistake of the earlier surveyor wherein
the plaintiff has constructed. The lands in Sy. No.2/1 measuring
6 guntas which were mutated in the name of the defendant
organization in 2006 lies in between the lands in Sy. No.3
belonging to the defendant and lands in Sy. No.2/1 measuring
23 guntas belonging to Sri.Ramesh. The said lands totally
measuring about 29 guntas originally belonged to one
Munishamappa B.M. out of which Sri.Ramesh had purchased
23 guntas during 2003/04 as per the information gathered by
17 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
this defendant, and the Government of Karnataka acquired 6
guntas for the defendant organization during the year 1979.
5(b). It s stated that, the plaintiff has no manner of right,
title or interest in the 6 guntas of Sy. No.2/1, nor the lands in
survey No.3 belonging to the defendant organization and lying
to the west of survey No.2/1 belonging to Sri.Ramesh from
whom the plaintiff alleged to have purchased the site No.7. The
plaintiff has got any right, it is only in the lands in Sy.No.2/1
situated on the eastern side of the lands belonging to the
defendant organization which were retained by Sri.Ramesh
from whom the plaintiff alleged to have purchased. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. On the above rival contentions my predecessor in the
office framed the following issues :-
Issues in O.S.No.8062/2008
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his title over the
suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient?
3. To what reliefs, the parties are entitle?
4. What Order or Decree?
18 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he
is in the possession and enjoyment
over the suit schedule property in
Sy.No.2/1 ?
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder
of necessary parties?
Issues in O.S.No.4325/2006
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful
possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the
alleged interference of the defendant in
enjoying the suit schedule property by the
plaintiff?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a
decree of permanent injunction. ?
4. What Order or Decree?
7. In order to prove/substantiate his case, the plaintiff
himself examined as PW.1 and got marked as per Ex.P1 to
P.34.
8. Heard arguments of both the sides.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under -
19 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
ISSUES IN O.S.NO.8062/2008
ISSUE NO.1 In the Negative,
ISSUE No.2 In the Affirmative,
ISSUE No.3 In the Negative
ISSUE No.4 As per final order
ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1 In the Negative,
ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.2 In the Affirmative,
ISSUES IN O.S.No.4325/2006
ISSUE NO.1 In the Affirmative,
ISSUE No.2 In the Affirmative,
ISSUE No.3 In the Affirmative,
ISSUE No.4 As per final order
REASONS
10. Suit in O.S.No.4325/2006 is clubbed with
O.S.No.8062/2008 and common trial is held in these suits.
Likewise there is another matter connected to this suit is
O.S.No.4886/2007. The parties in that suit are also parties in
the suit on hand.
ISSUE No.1 & ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1 & ISSUE NO.1
TO 3 IN O.S.No.4325/2006:
In this suit i.e. in O.S.No.8062/2008 plaintiff sought for
declaration of title over suit schedule property.
20 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
The plaintiff claiming his title over the suit schedule
property through Ex.P-2 which is the published Government
Notification in favour of the plaintiff on 10-10-1984. According
to plaintiff it is an organization is one of the premier
Departmental training Center of Khadi and Village Industries
Commission a Statutory body by an act of Parliament. In vide
notification, dated: 31-03-1954 bearing No.C & D
783-88/com/157-58-59 for public purpose and hand over the
same to the plaintiff's organization. The Sale deed, dt:
10-10-1984 produced by the plaintiff which is marked as Ex.P-
1. Then on 10-10-1979 in vide gazette notification bearing
No.LAT(1)Cr.58/78-79 acquired the suit schedule property
including this suit in Sy.No.2/1, belonging to
Sri.B.M.Muniswamappa, then by way of notification he the
plaintiff got the title over the property and plaintiff while putting
up the compound wall in Sy.No.2/1 plaintiff left small portion of
land belonging to B.M.Muniswamappa, Sri.B.N.Ramesh herein
purchase 23 guntas as known to the plaintiff when he gathered
information defendant also filed suit against the plaintiff
organization seeking for permanent injunction. The plaintiff also
lodged complaint. Hence by virtue of notification plaintiff
organization is the absolute owner of property and to declare
21 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
the plaintiff organization is the absolute owner of suit schedule
property.
11. However, the defendant not disputed that original land
belongs to one B.M.Muniswamppa also submits that though the
notification is published to gather the said land in Sy.No.2/1
Vijipura village it has not been acquired by award compensation
to its original owner deceased Muniswamappa. Para-5 of the
written statement the defendants contends that one Fathimabi
was in possession of suit schedule property and she was
personally cultivating the said 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.2/1 of
Vijinapura village submits that by order of Land Tribunal, dated:
10-02-2004 entire 29 guntas of land in Sy.No.2/1 Vijayanapura
belongs to Fathimabi by way of tenancy and thereby sold it to
B.N.Ramesh the vendor of the defendant putting
Sri.B.N.Ramesh in possession. Later on vendor B.N.Ramesh
formed house sites. Defendants and Fathimabi sold entire 29
guntas in favour of B.N.Ramesh. Hence, according to the
defendant he is the absolute right, title over the suit schedule
property. Hence dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has not got any absolute right over the suit schedule
property as sought for. Both parties have produced title deeds.
22 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
12. On perusal of the records plaintiff who has claiming
declare him as absolute owner of suit schedule property
produced in pursuance one document which is marked as Ex.P-
2 is the preliminary notification, dated: 16-10-1979. However,
serial number of the preliminary notification reflects the name of
B.M.Munishamappa. Then Ex.P-3 is the RTC with respect to
Sy.No.3 which is of the year 2004-05 as the R.T.C. is of
Sy.No.3 it is not useful to the plaintiff as the suit schedule
property is carved in survey number according to plaintiff
himself Ex.P-4 is the R.T.C. with respect to Sy.No.2/1 stands in
the name of B.N.Ramesh 23 guntas and also 6 guntas.
However, the suit schedule property is carved from Sy.No.2/1 it
has 488 Sq.ft. As per Ex.P-4 - 23 guntas stands in the name of
B.N.Ramesh. Hence, the same is not useful to plaintiff. Then
Ex.P-5 is the Sale Deed executed by defendant in favour of
B.N.Ramesh with respect to Sy.No.2/1. Hence, same is not
useful to the plaintiff. Ex.P-6 is the letter of the Principal,
Project Manager which is not helpful in this case as i.e. not
subject matter of this suit. Ex.P-8 is the Encumberence
Certificate of the year 1-6-1989 to 31-3-2004. The same is
also not useful to the plaintiff. There is recitals regarding
acquisition of the land of plaintiff herein. Ex.P-9 also
23 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
Encumbrance Certificate from 01-04-2004 to 8-8-2006. Hence,
no transfer any person to survey number mentioned in E.C. is
Sy.No.3 which is to be and not tallies with the suit schedule
property. Ex.P-10 is the mutation in the name of plaintiff. But
Sy.No.2/1 is not entered in the mutation. Hence the same is
not comes to the rescue of plaintiff. Ex.P-11 to P-25 are the
R.T.Cs with respect to Sy.No.3 which is not schedule property
at all. Ex.P-26 is the document but the survey number is not
entered. Hence not relied on that document. Ex.P-21 to 34 are
the photographs. However, Court not dealt on that document.
Ex.P-34 is the deposition of O.S.No.4325/2006 when the record
itself available this document is not consider by this Court.
Hence, as per the procedure of Land Acquisition Act, when any
property as to be acquired by any of the Department procedure
is that first the preliminary notification has to be issued by the
Government then Section 80 of Land Acquisition Act,
Compensation awarded to the original owner then
Government/Department can take the possession of the
property which by the said department.
13. Here, in the case on hand plaintiff submits that
compensation awarded has been issued to the original owner
deceased Muniswamappa, but no document were produced
24 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
by the plaintiff at that extent. Hence, same cannot be accepted
and not accepted by this Court. However, even on perusal of
some document produced by the plaintiff i.e. RTC extracts and
mutation copies makes it clear that those documents are the
documents of Sy.No.3 which is not the schedule document.
14. However, the plaintiff also filed an application under
Order 26 Rule 9 before this Court for identification of the
property. The same is rejected by this Court by observing that
once the party is claiming for title over the property and he is
the party as per order 7 Rule 3 who assist the Court by
identification of the property, he cannot seek for appointment of
Commissioner for identification of the property.
15. On the other hand, the defendant claims his title over
the suit schedule property in pursuance of Ex.D-3 which is the
order of LRF No.5053/79-80, wherein, it is the order of
Tahasildar, Bengaluru. Here one Fathimabi is the applicant
claiming tenancy right over the suit schedule property by
applying Form No.7 in the said order plaintiff contend that he is
not party to that LRF, hence that order is not binding on him.
Hence same is not bind on him. However, on going through the
recitals of Ex.D-3 i.e. order of LRF. No.5053/78-79 Tahsildar,
Bangalore has observed that the respondent are the Lrs of one
25 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
deceased Muniswamappa. Hence, this Court can later take
judicial notice of the order Ex.D-3 i.e. Respondent of LRF
No.5053/79-79-80 are the Lrs of one deceased Muniswamappa
who is according both parties is the original owner of suit
schedule property. The observation made by the Tahasildar in
his order stated below.
"ದಿನಾಂಕ 28-10-2003 ರಂದು ಬಿ.ಕೆ. ರವಿಚಂದ್ರ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ರವರು
ವಿಚಾರಣೆಗೆ ಒಳಗಾಗಿದ್ದು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ನೀಡುತ್ತಾ ತಾನು 3 ನೇ
ವರ್ಷದ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಪದವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಓದುತ್ತಿರುವುದಾಗಿಯೂ ,ತನ್ನ
ತಮ್ಮ ಬಿ . ಕೆ. ಮನಮೋಹನ್ ವಕೀಲರಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆಂದು ತನ್ನ ಎಲ್ಲಾ
ಅಣ್ಣ ತಮ್ಮಂದಿರ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿರುವುದಾಗಿಯೂ , ತನ್ನ ತಾತ
ಬಿ.ಎಂ. ಮುನಿಸ್ವಾಮಪ್ಪ ರವರು 1938 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಹರಾಜಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆಂದು ತಿಳಿದಿರುತ್ತೆಂದು ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ..."
Here, in the case on hand however the plaintiff is not
dispute the ownership of B.M.Muniswamappa. In the same
order it is also observed on 15-07-1998 in W.P.No.1579,
wherein in W.P. before Hon'ble High Court observed that the
acquisition is not in accordance with law and which will not
infringe the right of tenancy of the applicant, with these
observation Hon'ble High Court has remitted back to Tahsildar
for further proceeding.
26 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
"ದಿನಾಂಕ 15-7-1998 ರ ಉಚ್ಚ , ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ W.P.15790/90-
91 ರನವ್ವ ಯ 30-06-1982 ರ ಮೇಲ್ಕಂಡ ಭೂ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಮಂಡಳಿ
ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿ ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರು ಉಚ್ಛ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ W.P.15790/90-
91 ನ್ನು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದ ನ್ನು ಘನ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಅನುಮತಿಸಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ :15-7-1998
ರಂದು ತೀರ್ಪು ನೀಡಿ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಗಮನಿಸುತ್ತಾ ಮುನಿಯಪ್ಪ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಬಿ.ಎಂ.
ಕೃಷ್ಣ ಮೂರ್ತಿ ಇತರೆ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾರತದ ಸರ್ಮೋಚ್ಚ , ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ತೀರ್ಪಿನಂತೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ (ವ್ಯ ಕ್ತಿ , ಸಂಬಂಧ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರೆ ) 1954
ಮತ್ತು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಭೂ ಸುಧಾರಣೆ 1961 ರ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮಗಳು ವಿಶಿಷ್ಟ ಮತ್ತು
ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕವಾಗಿ ಭೂ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಮಂಡಳಿ ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರ ಗೇಣಿ ಹಕ್ಕ ನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಲು
ವಿಧಿಬದ್ಧ ವಾಗಿ ನಿಷೇಧವಿಲ್ಲ ವೆಂದು ತೀರ್ಮಾನಿಸಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣವನ್ನು ಮರುವಿಚಾರಣೆಗೆ
ಹಿಂತಿರುಸಿರುವ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಗೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತದೆ .
Hence, even as per the observation of Hon'ble High Court
the acquisition of and was not in accordance with law.
16. In the order portion of Tahsildar, Fathimabi got
tenancy right over the suit schedule property and same is
ordered which is not questioned by legal heir of
B.Muniswamappa. Hence, the order of Land Tribunal reached
finality. However, as per Section 143 of Land Reforms Act,
order of Land Tribunal is final order for declaring the title.
Even the respondents Lrs of B.N.Muniswamappa herein has
not preferred any appeal before Assistant Commissioner on
Tribunal order which is marked as Ex.D-3 in LRF 5053/79-80.
27 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
Hence, it reaches finality and as per Ex.D-3 the order of Land
Tribunal, Fathimabi got right, title over the schedule property
by virtue of orders of Land Tribunal. Then Ex.D-1 and 5 are
the same document in which defendant is the purchaser from
one B.N. Ramesh. Ex.D-2 is the order sheet of
R.A.No.124/2006-07 which is filed by B.N.Ramesh vendor of
plaintiff in which as per observation of orders of Assistant
Commissioner on 11-07-2007 is observed as below.
" ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಕರೆಸಿದೆ. ಆರ್ಜಿದಾರರ ವಕೀಲರು ಹಾಜರು . R-2 & R-3
ಪರವಾಗಿ B.N.M. ರವರು ವಕಾಲತ್ತು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ . ಆರ್ಜಿದಾರರ ಪರ
ವಕೀಲರು ಭೂಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನವಾಗಿಲ್ಲ ದೆ ಇದ್ದ ರೂ ಮುಟೇಷನ್
ಅಂಗೀಕರಿಸಿದ್ದು ಕಾಂಪೌಂಡ್ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ತಿಸುತ್ತಿದಾರೆಂದು ತಡೆ
ಅಜ್ಞೆ ನೀಡಲು ಕೋರಿದ್ದಾರೆ .ಎದುರುದಾರರ ಪರ ವಕೀಲರು ಭೂಸ್ವಾ
ಧೀನದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಿಲ್ಲ . ಮುಂದಿನ ವಿಚಾರಣಾ
ದಿನಾಂಕವರೆಗೆ ಯಾತಾಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಕಾಯ್ದು ಕೊಳ್ಳ ಲು ಆದೇಶಿಸಿದೆ .
17. Again it is observed no document with respect to
the acquisition of schedule property was ownership by both
the parties. Ex.D-4 to 9 are the tax paid receipts stands in the
name of defendant with respect to the year 2010. Ex.D-10 is
Form-B property extract stands in the name of defendant
herein Ex.D-11 is grant certificate issued in 26.02.2005
28 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
stands in the name of the defendant herein, Ex.D-12 to 20 are
the receipts stands in the name of defendant with respect to
Sy.No.2/1, Ex.D-21 to 27 are also stands in the name of
defendant with respect to the plaint schedule property. In view
of the above discussion plaintiff in O.S.No.8062/2008 failed to
prove his title and possession over the suit schedule property.
18. As per the observation of this Court, Smt. Fathimabi
is the absolute owner of suit schedule property. The plaintiff in
O.S.No.4325/2006 in para-13 contends that defendant MDTC
Khadi and Village Industries Commission constructing
compound wall in the suit schedule property by encroaching
the suit schedule property belongs to him. When this Court
comes the conclusion that plaintiff's vendor has got absolute
owner of the suit schedule property. Hence, defendant in
O.S.No.4325/2006 has not shown absolute right, title, over the
suit schedule property. Hence, the defendant herein cannot
construct any wall in the suit schedule property as this court
conclude that the suit schedule property belongs to one
Smt,Fathimabi. Hence, the plaintiff in O.S.No.4325/2006
shown the interference of the defendant by producing some of
the photographs. In view of the above discussions, I answer
29 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
Issue No.1 and additional Issue No1 in O.S.No.8062/2008 in
Negative and Issues No.1 to 3 in O.S.No.4325/2006 in the
Affirmative.
19. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.2 IN O.S.No.8062/2008:
The defendant in his written statement para-12 stated
that, suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The
materials available on record shows that, the vendor of the
defendant in O.S.No.8062/2009, is the absolute owner of the
suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not made the vendor
of plaintiff as necessary party to this suit. Hence, I answer
this issue in affirmative.
20. ISSUE NO.2 in O.S.No.8062/2008: The plaintiff
seeking the relief for declaration and mandatory injunction.
The plaintiff have paid the Court fee under Section 24 (b) and
(c) of K.C.F. & S.V.Act. Hence it is sufficient. Accordingly, I
answer this issue in Affirmative.
21. ISSUE No.3 IN O.S.No.8062/2009:- In view of my
findings on the above issues plaintiff failed to prove his title
and possession over the suit schedule property, hence I
answer this issue in Negative.
30 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W
O.S.No. 4325/2006
22. ISSUE NO.4 IN OS.No.8062/2009 &
O.S.No.4325/2006: In view of my findings on the above issues,
I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER
The Suit of the Plaintiff in O.S.No.8062/2009 is hereby DISMISSED with cost.
The Suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4325/2006 is DECREED with cost.
The defendant, its henchmen, servants or anybody else claiming through them are permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly, 31 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W O.S.No. 4325/2006 Keep original copy of judgment in O.S.No.8062/2008 and copy thereof in O.S.No.4325/2006.
(Dictated to the Steno Gr.II, transcribed and typed by him on computer, after correction pronounced by me in open Court on this day 9th day of August, 2024).
(NISHARANI A.C) III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
PW.1 : M.Jagannatha Rao PW.2 : K.S.Kemparaj
Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff:
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of sale deed Ex.P2 : Copy of Notification Ex.P3 : Phani copies & P4 Ex.P5 : Certified copy of sale deed Ex.P6 : Copy of complaint Ex.P7 : Letter of authorization Ex.P8 : EC & P9 Ex.P10 : Mutation Ex.P11 : RTC's to P25 Ex.P26 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P16 : Property Tax return receipts to P20 Ex.P27 : Annual calendar of framing Ex.P28 : Training Brochure Ex.P29 : Photos to P32 Ex.P33 : CD Ex.P34 : Certified copy of deposition in O.S.4325/2006 32 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W O.S.No. 4325/2006 Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant:
DW.1 : S.Ibrahim Documents Marked on behalf of Defendant:
Ex.D1 : Certified copy of sale deed Ex.D2 : Certified Copy of Notification Ex.D3 : Certified copies of Phani copies & D4 Ex.D5 : Certified copy of sale deed Ex.D6 : Certified Copy of complaint Ex.D7 : Certified Copy of Tax paid receipt dt:01.04.2010 Ex.D8 : Certified Copies of Tax paid receipts & D9 dt:30.03.2010 Ex.D10 : Certified Copy of Tax paid receipt dt:01.04.2010 Ex.D11 : Certified copy of License dated 26.05.2005 Ex.D12 : Certified copies of Tax paid receipts to 15 Ex.D16 : Certified copy of Property Tax Return- for owner or occupiers for the year 2006-07 Ex.D17 : Certified copy of Property Tax Return- for owner or occupiers for the year 2005-06 Ex.D18 : Certified copy of Property Tax Return- for owner or occupiers for the year 2004-05 Ex.D19 : Certified copy of Property Tax Return- for owner or occupiers for the year 2003-04 Ex.D20 : Certified copy of Property Tax Return- for owner or occupiers for the year 2002-03 Ex.D21 : Certified copies of Electric bills to D24 Ex.D25 Certified Copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.D26 : Certified copy of Electric bill Ex.D27 : Certified copy of SAS 2006-07 Ex.D28 : c/c of sale deed dt;29-09-2004 (NISHARANI A.C) III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU 33 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W O.S.No. 4325/2006 34 O.S.No. 8062/2008 C/W O.S.No. 4325/2006