Bangalore District Court
Shankar A vs Shirdi Sai Seva Trust, Rep. By Its ... on 6 August, 2025
KABC0A0028192022
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 6th day of August, 2025.
O.S.No.26136/2022
Plaintiff:- Sri. Shankar A.,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o A. Sathyanarayana Bhat,
R/at No.16, Sri Gowri
Sai Baba Mandir Road,
Mathru Layout, G.K.V.K. Post,
Bengaluru-560042.
[By Sri. Ramesh Kumar K -Adv.,]
V/s
Defendants: 1. Shirdi Sai Seva Trust,
Rep by its President,
Sri. B.C. Shankara Reddy,
2. Sri. B.C. Shankara Reddy,
Aged about 69 years,
Son of Late B. Chowdappa,
3. Sri. Chikka Veerappa,
Aged 49 years,
Father not known to the Plaintiff,
2 O.S.No.26136/2022
All are at No.69, 2nd Main Road,
Mathru Layout, G.K.V.K Post,
Bengaluru-560065
[By Sri. Venkatesh K. N -Adv.]
Date of Institution of the suit 27.6.2022
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit
for declaration and possession, suit Injunction Suit
for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of 24.1.2024
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was 6.8.2025
pronounced.
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 01 09
LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering or indulging or causing any act or acts preventing the Plaintiff from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property as the lawful owner and for other consequential reliefs.
3 O.S.No.26136/20222. The epitome of the case of the Plaintiff is as follows:
The Plaintiff is claiming to be the owner of property bearing Municipal No.16, Old katha No.866, presently Yelahanka CMC Katha No.6, New BBMP khatha No.866/6/16, situated at Chikkabommasandra Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Yelahanka, Bangalore, measuring East to West 17+31/2 feet and North to South 41.9+40/2 feet along with ground and first floor building with RCC roofed house, totally measuring 1350 sq.ft., i.e., the Suit Schedule Property. According to Plaintiff, he purchased the said property under the registered sale deed dtd.03.02.2006 and since from the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. According to Plaintiff, the Defendants are claiming to be in possession of the land bearing Sy No.19 and on the eastern edge of the plaint schedule property is said to be belonging to Defendants. However the Defendants are neither owner nor in lawful possession of the land bearing Sy.No.17, adjoining on the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property.4 O.S.No.26136/2022
The Defendants are totally a strangers and trespassers. They have no manner of right, title or interest over the land adjoining on the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property. That being the position, the Defendants on 11.05.2022 at about 11.30 am arrived at suit schedule property with some gunda persons and tried to harass the Plaintiff and his wife and demolished compound wall on the eastern edge of the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
3. Pursuant to summons, the Defendant No.1 to 3 have entered appearance through their counsel and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the Defendant No.1 is the owner of vacant site No.55, carved out of property bearing Sy No.17, formed by the Malleswaram Tailoring Co- operative Society Ltd., having acquired the same under the registered sale deed dtd.23.12.2017 executed by S. Pitcheswara Rao infavour of Defendant No.1 trust, from the date of purchase, the Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the site No.55. On the western side of the Defendants property, the property of the Plaintiffs bearing 5 O.S.No.26136/2022 Municipal No.16 existed. The Plaintiff has constructed residential house without leaving any set back in his property and without any car parking. The Plaintiff has purchased the car for his own use and requested the Defendant No.2 to permit him to park his car by constructing temporary sheets roof, in the vacant site of the property of Defendant No.1. In order to maintain good relationship, the Defendant No.2 has permitted the Plaintiff to parking his car in the Defendants property by putting temporary sheets roof. Now the Defendants are intending to develop their property and as such directed the Plaintiffs to remove the temporary shed, at that time the Plaintiff refused to remove the shed in order to knock off the valuable property of Defendants. According to Defendants, they never troubled the Plaintiffs at any point of time and they have only requested the Plaintiff to remove his car shed, which is existing in the Defendants property. There is no cause of action arose to file the present suit. The Plaintiff has not valued the suit property properly and the court fee paid is insufficient. Hence, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
6 O.S.No.26136/20224. Based on the pleadings of the parties, my leaned predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of the filing of the suit?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves the alleged interference of Defendants, with the possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property by the Plaintiff?
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
4. What order or decree?
5. The Plaintiff got examined as PW.1 and got got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and closed his side. The Defendant No.3 got examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5 documents and closed their side.
6. Heard both sides.
7. On appreciation of the evidence and documents on record, my findings on the above issues is as under:7 O.S.No.26136/2022
Issue No.1: In the Negative. Issue No.2: In the Negative. Issue No.2: In the Negative. Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 & 2:-
Since the above issues are inter related and finding on one issue is having bearing on the other, in order to avoid repetition of facts, the above issues have been taken up together for consideration.
9. The burden of proving these issues is casted upon the Plaintiff. The definite case of the Plaintiff is that he is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property consisting of residential building and car shed measuring East to West 17+31/2 feet and North to South 41.9+40/2 feet along with ground and first floor building with RCC roofed house, totally measuring 1350 sq.ft. Further, it is the case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants are claiming that they have got the property in Sy.No.17 and eastern edge of the Suit Schedule Property belonged to them. They have no manner of right, title and interest in the land 8 O.S.No.26136/2022 adjoining to the eastern boundary of the Suit Schedule Property. Inspite of it, they are attempting to dispossess him from the Suit Property. Even they have demolished the portion of compound wall of the eastern side. Therefore, it is necessary to grant permanent injunction against the Defendants in respect of the Suit Property.
10. It is the specific defense of the Defendants herein is that they are owners of Site No.55 of Sy.No.17 measuring East to West 14+35/2 and North to South 37 feet in all 906.5 sq.ft. The Plaintiff has constructed house without leaving any set back in his property without making any provision of car parking.
Such being the case, the Plaintiff after purchase of his car, has requested them to permit him to park his car by a temporary sheet roof. Since the Plaintiff being adjacent owner and in order to maintain good terms, they permitted the Plaintiff to park his car in their property by putting temporary sheet roof. Now, the Defendant No.1 Trust intended to develop Trust property, as such they requested the Plaintiff to remove the said sheet roof, at that time the Plaintiff 9 O.S.No.26136/2022 has claimed false right over the Defendant No.1's property and filed this false suit etc.
11. In order to prove the contents of the plaint averments, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the plaint averments and in support of his case has produced as many as 13 documents. Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2 are the Khata Extracts of the Schedule Property, Ex.P.3 is the Building License issued by Yelahanka Nagara Sabha, Ex.P.4 is the Tax Paid Receipt, Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7 are the BWSSB Bills and Electricity Bills, Ex.P.8, Ex.P.8(a) to (h) are the Photographs and CD of the Suit Schedule Property and adjacent property, Ex.P.9 is the copy of the Complaint and FIR, Ex.P.10 is the registered copy of the Sale Deed of previous vendor of the Suit Property, Ex.P.11 is the Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, Ex.P.12 is the Sanctioned Plan of the Suit Property and Ex.P.13 is the registered copy Sale Deed of the Suit Property.
12. As per Ex.P.10 Sale Deed of previous vendor, the measurement of the property of the Plaintiff is East to Est 17+31/2 and North to South 41.9+40/2. The total area is 981 sq.ft. However, Ex.P.13 is the 10 O.S.No.26136/2022 Sale Deed of the Plaintiff, wherein the measurement of the property is mentioned as East to Est 17+31/2 and North to South 41.9+40/2, but the total square feet of the Suit Property is not at all reflected in this Sale Deed and the same property has been purchased by the Plaintiff. There is variation between the measurement of the Suit Property as claimed by the Plaintiff is 1350 sq.ft., to the previous vendor's Sale Deed Ex.P.10. According to sanction plan i.e., Ex.P.12 the measurement of the Plaintiff's property is only 981 sq.ft., out of which proposed ground floor was 497 sq.ft., and proposed first floor is 437 sq.ft., and the total build up area is 934 sq.ft., and the remaining 64 sq.ft., is left for staircase. Therefore, it is clear from the above records that the total area of the property purchased by the Plaintiff is only 981 sq.ft., and the Plaintiff has constructed the building in the entire property without making any provision for car parking. That apart, in Ex.P.12 sanction plan also there is no provision has been made for car parking place. On the other hand, the building has been constructed by the Plaintiff in the entire area of the property purchased by him.
11 O.S.No.26136/202213. PW.1 in his evidence also categorically contended that the Suit Property consisting of residential house and as well as car parking shed. As discussed above, on perusal of Ex.P.12 the car parking shed has not been constructed at the time of construction of the house, so there is no provision is made in Ex.P.12 for car parking shed.
14. Further let me go through the cross- examination portion of PW.1 and in the cross- examination he clearly admitted that after construction of his house, he purchased car in the year 2007 and while constructing his house he has not made any provision for car parking in the ground floor. After purchase of car he used to park his car on the road in front of his house. However, he specifically denied that he requested the Defendants to allow him to park his car by putting a small shed in the property of the Defendant No.1 and accordingly while permitting him the Defendant No.2 put a condition that he should vacate the said place as and when the Defendant No.1 Trust direct him to vacate.
15. From the above admission also it is clear that the Plaintiff has constructed building in the entire 12 O.S.No.26136/2022 purchased area of 981 sq.ft., and the shed constructed by him is not at all within the property he purchased from his previous vendor. So, it can be said that the Plaintiff might have constructed the car shed in the property of the Defendant No.1 with their permission subject to vacate as and when they required.
16. It is further admitted by PW.1 in his cross- examination that according to Ex.P.12 Sanction Plan certain area of the set back area should be left by him before construction of his house. Further admits that according to Ex.P.12 he has to leave 05 feet each set back area towards eastern and western side of his building. Further admitted that he has not left the set back area on the either side of his house as per Ex.P.12 sanction plan. Further he also admitted that by deviating the building plan he constructed his house. So from the above admission of PW.1 also it is further clear that the building constructed by the Plaintiff is not in accordance with the building plan, as such he cannot claim that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property as on the date of filing of the suit. Moreover, this witness 13 O.S.No.26136/2022 has clearly admitted in his further cross-examination that he has not produced any layout plan of the Suit Property and also admitted that there is variation in the measurement of his site compared to the layout plan and as well as his Sale Deed. So, it is further clear that the measurement of the Suit Property as mentioned in Ex.P.10 Sale Deed is also not in accordance with the measurement as mentioned in the layout plan.
17. Let me go through the photographs i.e., Ex.P.8 series and as well as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 of the Suit Property and the surrounding area of the same. These photographs also clearly indicates that the Plaintiff has not at all constructed his parking shed in his property. On the other hand, temporary shed erected abutting to the eastern side of his building. This shed constructed by the Plaintiff outside his property i.e., in the property of the Defendants.
18. The DW.1 has clearly deposed before the Court that the Plaintiff's property is situated towards western side of the property of the Defendant No.1 and he has constructed his building without leaving any set back area in his property and without making 14 O.S.No.26136/2022 any provision for car parking. After construction of the building he has purchased the car and by obtaining oral permission from the Defendants erected a shed for parking his car adjacent to their property. Now, they intended to develop the Trust property, as such they directed the Plaintiff to remove the temporary shed, but instead of complying the same, filed this false suit.
19. Admittedly, whatever the some stray admission given by the DW.1 in his cross-examination is no way helpful to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Plaintiff himself not proved that the car shed erected by him is within the area of the Suit Property.
20. Further according to DW.1 he has no objection to the Suit Property, except car shed and further he clearly denied that the house of the Plaintiff and his car shed are situated within the Suit Schedule Property. Further he clearly denied in the cross-examination that the Plaintiff is not a licensee of the place of the car shed and on the other hand he is the absolute owner of the place of car shed. When the Defendants have specifically denied that the car 15 O.S.No.26136/2022 parking shed area situated abutting to the Suit Property belongs to them, it is the duty of the Plaintiff to establish that he is the lawful owner and in possession of the entire Suit Property. As discussed above, no materials placed by the Plaintiff to show that the car shed constructed by him is within the area of the Suit Property purchased by him. On the other hand, the materials placed by both parties reveals that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the alleged car parking shed and in fact he has constructed the building in the entire property purchased by him. When the Plaintiff has not proved that the car parking area is also belongs to him by producing any sufficient materials he is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought.
21. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Defendants is that the photographs produced by the Plaintiff and as well as Ex.P.10 & Ex.P.13 and as well as Ex.P.12 sanction plan it is clear that the measurement of the schedule is contrary to his own documents and the Plaintiff has not constructed his building as per the building plan. Such being the fact, the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent 16 O.S.No.26136/2022 injunction. It is true that the property purchased by the Plaintiff is only 981 sq.ft., and he has constructed the building in the entire property without making any provision for car parking. That apart, as per the previous vendor's Sale Deed, he has purchased the total measurement of 981 sq.ft., and as discussed above he constructed the building in the entire area. Therefore, the car parking shed constructed by him is not within the area of the purchased property. That apart, as admitted by PW.1 without leaving proper set back as per Ex.P.12 building plan he has constructed the building. The car shed erected by the Plaintiff is situated within the Defendants property. Hence, looking from any angle, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, question of alleged obstructions to his possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by the Defendants does not arise. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 & 2 in the Negative.
22. Issue No.3:-
Since the Plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the Suit Schedule Property and 17 O.S.No.26136/2022 the alleged interference by the Defendants by producing cogent, convincing and acceptable evidence before this Court, the Plaintiff is not entitle for any relief, much less the reliefs claimed in the above suit. Hence, the question of granting the relief of perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff does not arise. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered in the Negative.
23. Issue No.4:-
In view of the findings on the above issues, as aforesaid the above suit is only a speculative suit for obvious reasons which requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiff is hereby dismissed with cost.
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 6th day of August 2025.) [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).18 O.S.No.26136/2022
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of property bearing Municipal No.16, Old Katha No.866, Presently Yelahanka C.M.C Katha No.6, New BBMP Khata No.866/6/16 New PID No.76/866/16 situated at Chikkabommasandra Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Yelahanka, Bangalore-560 065, Bangalore measuring East to West (17+31)/2 Feet and North to South (41.9+40)/2 Feet and along with Ground and First Floor, building RCC Roofed House with Mosaic/Vitrified Flooring, Honne/Teak Wood doors & windows with all amenities and total built up area measuring 1350 sq.ft., and bounded on:
East by : Private Property.
West by : Site No.15.
North by : Site No.6.
South by : 25 Feet Road.
[Sri. Sreepada N]
LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).
19 O.S.No.26136/2022
ANNEXURES
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE Plaintiff:
PW.1 : Shankar .A. LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE Plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 : Khata Extract dtd: 13.2.2006.
Ex.P.2 : Khata Extract dtd: 9.2.2015.
Ex.P.3 : Building License issued by CMC, Yelahanka.
Ex.P.4 : 02 Tax Paid Receipts. (4a) Ex.P.5 : BWSSB Sanction order.
Ex.P.6 : 02 Electricity Receipts. (6a) Ex.P.7 : 02 Electricity Bills. (7a) Ex.P.8 : 08 Photographs & CD.
(8a to h) Ex.P.9 : Police Acknowledgment dtd: 14.5.2022.
Ex.P.10 : Digital copy of Sale Deed dtd: 29.10.2004 executed by Sri. H.R. Suresh in favour of Sri. K.V. Anantha Padmanabha Bhatta.
Ex.P.11 : Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence 20 O.S.No.26136/2022 Act.
Ex.P.12 : Sanctioned Building Plan dtd: 13.3.2006.
Ex.P.13 : Digital copy of Sale Deed dtd: 3.2.2006.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE Defendant:
DW.1 : D. Chikkeerappa.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE Defendant:
Ex.D.1 to : Photographs.
Ex.D.3 Ex.D.4 : Digital online copy of Sale Deed dtd:
23.12.2017.
Ex.D.5 : Digital online copy of E-Khata B Form.
[Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).