Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

      East by  :       House property of the plaintiff,
      West by  :       Drain and private property beyond it,
      North by :       Road,
      South by :       Site No.12.
26.   The relevant     portion of judgment in that suit

O.S.No.1030/2005 read thus:
"There is no specific boundaries or demarcation showing the marginal land adjacent to the west and site No.1. The katha in respect of suit schedule property is not standing in the name of plaintiff i.e., in respect of marginal land. The sale deed dated:20-2-1975 executed by Jalaja in favour of Puttalingamma, the measurement of Triangular site and site No.1 is separately mentioned. Therefore, it is not an intention of the plaintiff to purchase the site and also intention of vendor of plaintiff to sell the site. Thus this marginal land was excluded. It is denied that nobody muchless plaintiff is in possession of said Triangular site. It is the defendant who are in possession of the said property. It is making use of the said marginal land for the use of general public and in order to provide hygienic atmosphere and diseases, the defendants have cleared the debries from the said property. The allegation that the marginal land is in Triangular shape is denied. The plaintiff is owner of the Triangular site and sale deed of the plaintiff does not include the marginal land".
"He has kept the land for more than 25 years knowing fully well that he has nothing to do with Triangular site and has not exercised any right over the same".
"It is marginal land according to the defendants. Certain dumping of materials or garbages being seen in the photographs. It is not denied by the plaintiff. So, in my considered view, as it is a suit for bare injunction, unless the plaintiff proves his title over the said marginal land by producing relevant documents, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is able to establish his case with legal evidence".
"where the plaintiff is out of possession of the land and does not seek relief for possession a mere suit for declaration is not maintainable And that, Supreme Court of India in Air 2008 Page 2033 clearly held that a cloud is raised over plaintiff title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, is the remedy. When the plaintiff is not possession, suit for mere declaration is not maintainable".

29. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has rightly referred the said judgment Ex.P.12 and title deeds along with the revenue records and put forth the arguments with reference to the acquisition of title to the extent of entire area inclusive of schedule 'B' property and confirmation of title by virtue of granting sanctioned plan by the competent authority i.e. BDA and the defendants who are representing the B.B.M.P. also cannot dispute the title and possessory right of the plaintiff. As discussed above, it is clearly evidencing that the disputed property under Ex.P.12 was shown by red colour, the schedule 'B' property was shown in the green colour, with letters A, B, C, D, E and it was not at all the subject matter in dispute, as there was no defence on the part of defendants in that suit that, this green coloured area (schedule 'B' property in this suit), was also the margin land. So the finding is only with reference to margin land and not green coloured schedule 'B' property. It has no application to schedule 'B' property. So possession of plaintiff was protected by passing of order that plaintiff had failed to prove his lawful possession over margin land. Hence, plaintiffs assertion of possession is sustainable under law. So, the said decisions do not come to the aid of the defendants.

31. The plaintiff has proved the ownership over schedule 'B' property as it is confirmed under the title deeds and building sanctioned plan in 1981, and the layout plan dated 9.9.1970 under which the extent area was identified by their boundaries and because of its shape it has made it clear in the schedule to the sale deed. The possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit for the said reasons has been proved. There was interference by the defendants as they have denied the plea of plaintiff and version of P.W.2 about peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. But they have contended that the suit schedule 'B' property referring it to as the C.A. site, it is meant for public purpose. It is claim thereupon as margin land. In the earlier suit (Ex.P.12) schedule 'B' property and "margin land" were different and it was held that plaintiff was not in lawful possession over the margin land. So it does not refer to schedule 'B' property. It was not a subject matter of suit. So, the said judgment did not affect the plaintiffs lawful possession. Now because of defendants interference claiming it as civic amenity site this suit is filed. But failed to substantiate about their absolute control and possessory right thereupon. Hence, such denial is illegal it is certainly amounts to interference with the plaintiffs schedule 'B' property. Apart from this I would like to refer the what is a C.A. site and its significance.