Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Subsequently, the plaintiff's elder brother Mr. Yatiraj sold his portion of the property No.48/1-5 in favour of plaintiff by Sale Deed dated 09.09.2004. The plaintiff's younger brother Mr.Radhakrishna has bequeathed his portion of the property No.48/1-6 in favour of plaintiff by executing a Will dated / 6 / O.S.No.3331/2021 02.04.2006. Thus, the plaintiff became owner of the property bearing khata Nos.48/1-1, 1-2, 1-5 & 1-6 in schedule 'A' property which was subsequently alloted a single PID No.22-5-48/1-1 by entering the name of plaintiff in the khata certificate and khata extract. Towards western side of schedule 'A' property, there was a marginal land measuring 5 feet in width and 35 feet in length totally 175 sq. feet belonged to Karnataka Housing Board. The said marginal land was alloted to the plaintiff by KHB by executing Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.08.2009 which was subsequently rectified by Regd. Rectification Deed dated 08.09.2009. Hence the plaintiff became absolute owner over the said marginal land bearing No.48/1-7 which is at the rear side or western side of schedule 'A' property. As per the compromise decree dated 24.01.2001 passed in RFA No.188/2000, the plaintiff's brothers viz., Mr.D.Lokesh and Mr.D.Devaraj were using the common staircase and passage measuring 40 X 5 feet totally 200 sq. feet. As the one of the brother of plaintiff was obstructing the plaintiff in the use of said common passage, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.3595/2014 against Mr.D.Lokesh / 7 / O.S.No.3331/2021 for permanent injunction. The said suit ended in compromise decree dated 29.07.2015 by which Mr.D.Lokesh agreed to gave up his rights over the said common passage measuring 5 X 40 feet in favour of plaintiff and in turn the plaintiff agreed to give up right over area of 3 X 34 feet in schedule 'A' property. The plaintiff filed E.P.No.2081/2015 to execute the said compromise decree where the court commissioner has executed the Regd. Relinquishment Deed dated 04.06.2016 in favour of plaintiff in respect of common passage measuring 5 X 40 feet. By virtue of the said Relinquishment Deed, the plaintiff has become absolute owner the said common passage also measuring 5 X 40 feet. The plaintiff filed another suit in O.S.No.4975/2011 against his brothers Mr.D.Devaraj and Mr.D.Lokesh seeking the relief of Mandatory Injunction, Recovery of Possession, Damages and for Permanent Injunction. However the said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 25.07.2016. The plaintiff filed RFA No.1540/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which ended in compromise with sketch by judgment and decree dated 09.06.2017.

11. It is also a matter of record that, at a rear side or western side of property No.146/A, there was a marginal land measuring 5 feet in width and 35 feet in length belonged to Karnataka Housing Board. By virtue of order dated 30.10.2007 in W.P.No.16171/2006 and order dated 28.05.2009 in W.P.No.4336/2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, / 21 / O.S.No.3331/2021 the Karnataka Housing Board had alloted the said marginal land measuring 5 X 35 feet to the plaintiff by executing Regd. Sale deed dated 17.08.2009 which was subsequently rectified by execution of Regd. Rectification Deed dated 08.09.2009. The plaintiff has produced certified copies of the said Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.08.2009 and Regd. Rectification Deed dated 08.09.2009 as per Exs.P.6 & P.7 respectively and also the order copies of the aforesaid writ petitions as per Exs.P.4 & P.5 respectively. Thus, the plaintiff has become owner over the property bearing Khata No.48/1-1, 1-2, 1-5, 1-6 & 1-7 which is described as plaint schedule 'A' property herein.

/ 39 / O.S.No.3331/2021

21. Now I shall switch on to consider whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering plaintiff's possession of schedule 'A' property and also restraining the defendants from alienating the schedule 'B' property in favour of third person and also restraining the defendants from demolishing the compound wall put up towards southern side of the schedule 'A' property and from putting constructions in the area of 5 X 10 i.e., 50 sq. feet of marginal land of schedule 'A' property. It is to note that, at a rear side or western side of property No.146/A, there was a marginal land measuring 5 feet in width and 35 feet in length belonged to Karnataka Housing Board. By virtue of order dated 30.10.2007 in W.P.No.16171/2006 and order dated 28.05.2009 in W.P.No.4336/2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the Karnataka Housing Board had alloted the said marginal land measuring 5 X 35 feet to the plaintiff by executing Regd. Sale deed dated 17.08.2009 which was subsequently rectified by execution of Regd. Rectification Deed dated 08.09.2009. The / 40 / O.S.No.3331/2021 plaintiff has produced certified copies of the said Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.08.2009 and Regd. Rectification Deed dated 08.09.2009 as per Exs.P.6 & P.7 respectively and also the order copies of the aforesaid writ petitions as per Exs.P.4 & P.5 respectively. Thus, the plaintiff has become owner over the property bearing Khata No.48/1-1, 1-2, 1-5, 1-6 & 1-7 which is described as plaint schedule 'A' property herein. As per the case of the plaintiff, after purchasing the schedule 'B' property by defendant Nos.1 & 2, they wrongfully trespassed the schedule 'A' property and demolished the existing structures of the plaintiff by encroaching the marginal land to an extent of 5 X 10 i.e., 50 sq. feet alloted by KHB and the said high handed acts of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 was in violation of interim order passed in O.S.No.5790/2016 and as such the plaintiff filed a police complaint on 25.05.2019 with jurisdictional police and when the said police did not take any action, he gave representations to the DCP & ADGP and when the said higher police officers have also not responded favorably, he filed W.P.No.46659/2019 where by order dated 25.09.2019, the / 41 / O.S.No.3331/2021 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed the jurisdictional police to a register case and conduct investigation against defendant Nos.1 & 2. Accordingly, the police registered the case and doing investigation. The plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the order dated 25.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.46659/2019 as per Ex.P.26 and copy of FIR as per Ex.P.27 and copy of the complaint as per Ex.P.28. Except these documents, the plaintiff has literally produced no other corroborative records to show that there was building existing in the marginal land and the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have demolished the said building in a portion of 50 sq. feet in the said marginal land by their high handed acts. In the course of cross-examination PW.1 has deposed thus;

'' .....ಮರರನಲ‍ಲಲ ಲಡ‍ನಲಲ ಪಪ ತವದ 1 ಮತತ 2 ಇವರ ಯವದ ಕಟಟ ಡ ಕಡವಲಲ ಏಕಲದರ ಅಲಲ ಯವದ ಕಟಟ ಡ ಇರಲಲಲ ಅಲತ ಅಲದರ ಅಲಲ 1 ನ ಮತತ 2 ನ ಮಹಡ ಕಟಟ ಡ ಇತತ ಅದನನ ಕಡವದದ ರ. ಅಲಲ ಮದಲ ಮತತ ಎರಡನ ಮಹಡ ಇತತ ಅಲತ ತತರಸಲ ಅನಮತದತ ಕಟಟ ಡ ನಕಕ ಇದಯ ಎಲದ ಕಳದ ಪಪ ಶನ ಗ ಖರತದ ಪತಪ ಇತತ ಅಲತ ಉತತ ರಸತತ ರ. ಸದರ ಮದಲ ಮತತ ಎರಡನಯ ಮಹಡಯ ತರಗ ಕಟಟ ದ ರಶತದಗಳನನ ನನ ಈ ಕಸನಲಲ / 42 / O.S.No.3331/2021 ಹಜರಪಡಸರವದಲಲ .... ನ.ಪ.3 ಮತತ 4 ರಟ‍ ಅರರಗಳಲಲ ಸದರ 5 ಇಲಟ 35 ಅಡ ಜಗ ಖಲ ಜಗ ಅಲತ ನನ ಕಣಸದದ ನ ಅಲತ ಅನನ ವದ ನಜ. ....'' Thus, the plaintiff himself has categorically admitted that he had shown the marginal land as a vacant property in the writ proceedings. The plaintiff has also admitted that, he had not produced the approved building plan obtained for the construction of the building in the marginal land. He has also admitted that, he had not produced any tax paid receipts in respect of the building existed in the marginal land. It is needless to say that, all these above documents are vital documents to prove that there was building existed in the marginal land alloted to him by KHB and the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have demolished the said building in an area of 50 sq. feet by their high handed act. In the absence of these vital documents, merely on the basis of complaint lodged with the jurisdictional police which allegations is yet to be proved in the criminal court, a conclusion cannot be made that there was building existed in the marginal land and the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have / 43 / O.S.No.3331/2021 demolished the said building in an area of 50 sq. feet in the said marginal land by encroaching in the schedule 'A' property. It is worth to note that, DW.1 who is defendant No.1 herein in the course of his cross-examination has categorically in unequivocal terms has stated that, there was no any building in the marginal land and as such the question of demolishing any such building by him does not arise at all. He has gone to the extent of stating that, he has absolutely no any objection to take possession of the said marginal land measuring to an extent of 5 X 10 feet by plaintiff. Thus, it is very clear that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have interfered with or tried to interfere with in his peaceful possession of plaint schedule 'A' property by demolishing the construction in an area of 5 X 10 i.e., 50 sq. feet in the marginal land of the schedule 'A' property. Therefore it follows that, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs of permanent injunction as prayed at Sl. No.(iv) & (vi) in the prayer column of the plaint.