Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. On behalf of the plaintiff learned counsel in his oral and written arguments submits that the suit schedule property which is situated in Survey Number-44 of Nagarabhavi village and Survey Number-380 of Kempapura Agrahara village comprises an extent of 34 guntas and 1 Acre 18 guntas respectively which is 'B' karab land and tank bed area and the plaintiff corporation has erected chain link fencing around the suit schedule property and same is being used as playground having been named as Kranthi Veera Sangolli Rayanna Playground. That earlier one B.S.Mala had filed a false suit in OS No.1251/2001 in respect of Survey Number- 44 which is part of the suit property, but same was dismissed after OS No.26693/2011 contest. Defendant has claimed that C.A.Site No.1 carved out in Survey Number-179/3 of Kempapura Agrahara village is leased out in its favour by the B.D.A. and thereafter Rectification Deed has been executed by correcting the C.A.Site Number as No.2 in the place of No.1. Defendant is claiming that said site leased in Survey Number- 179/3 is situated adjacent to the suit property. Plaintiff had filed I.A.under Order 39 Rules-1 and 2 of the CPC along with the suit and after defendant filed objections to the same, on merits same was allowed and I.A.No.3 filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule-4 of the the Civil Procedure Code for vacating the interim order was dismissed. Defendant filed two Misc.First Appeal against the said orders in MFA No.3069-3070/2012. In the said Appeals, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru appointed jurisdictional ADLR to conduct Survey and produce Sketch/ OS No.26693/2011 Topography and accordingly, ADLR conducted survey and submitted report stating that C.A.Site No.1 carved in Survey Number-179/3 would not fall within the area of the suit schedule property. Earlier to that, there was interim order passed in the said appeals stating that the defendant put up construction in C.A.Site No.1 carved out in Survey Number-179/3, but however, defendant should not claim any equity if the construction made is found to be in the suit schedule property. But, after ADLR submitted report stating that the C.A.Site No.1 or Survey Number-179/3 would not fall within the area of the suit schedule property, both the Misc.Appeals filed as above by the defendant were dismissed. However, defendant has put up construction in the suit schedule property in violation of the interim order of injunction which was in force and same is liable to be ordered to be demolished with a OS No.26693/2011 direction to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for plaintiff argues that in the entire written statement defendant has not put forth any defence that it had already put up building in the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and on the other hand, from the written statement contentions it is clear that defendant was trying to dig foundation for putting up construction when the present suit was filed. Also Learned counsel argues that from the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru on 9.10.2014 in the above appeals, it was directed that the plaintiff shall not come in the way of the appellant constructing building in Survey Number- 179/3. Same also shows that subsequent to filing of the suit when the injunction order was in force defendant by taking advantage of the above said direction dtd. 9.10.2014 in the OS No.26693/2011 Misc.First Appeals has put up construction the suit schedule property. Plaintiff's counsel argues that in the written statement at para-4 defendant admits that part of the suit property is utilized as playground and it is generally called as Sangolli Rayanna Playground by the general public. Further D.W.1 has later admitted in the cross examination that defendant has put up construction of the school building within the chain link fencing seen in photo at Ex.P.5 and same shows that the said construction has been put up in the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. Thus, Learned counsel has argued that defendant should be directed to dismantle the building and hand over the suit schedule property which is within the chain link fencing to the plaintiff without claiming any equity.

16. Plaintiff claims that the suit schedule property is within the chain link fence area. In this regard, report of the ADLR submitted in MFA No.3069/2012 c/w. 3070/2012 has been accepted in the said appeals by holding that chain link area described in the plaint schedule is the property of the plaintiff corporation and the C.A.Site claimed by the defendant was in Survey Number-179/3 and it is not within the chain link area which is the plaint schedule property belonging to the plaintiff. It has also been held that plaintiff has produced the orders passed by the Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department dtd. 17.06.2009 which shows that the suit schedule property OS No.26693/2011 has been transferred by the Revenue Department of the Government of Karnataka to the BBMP for using same as play ground and plaintiff has fenced the property and installed name board. Relevant observation made in Ex.P.1 order dtd. 9.10.2014 is at page-7 which reads as below:-

Also submission made by the Founder Trustee of the defendant-Trust who is DW.1 in person before the court during hearing of the appeals has been recorded at para-7 page-8 of the order marked at Ex.P.1 which has been culled out above. As per the submission made by D.W.1 which has been placed on record in the said order, D.W.1 has submitted that defendant No.1 does not lay any claim in respect of the suit schedule property. Therefore, defendant has no right whatsoever over the suit schedule property. When that is so, ADLR report which has been accepted in the above said appeal proceedings shows that the suit schedule property has been fenced with the chain link fencing and the property claimed by the defendant falls out side of the suit schedule property. Although ADLR OS No.26693/2011 report is not available before this court, order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in MFA No. 3069/2012 c/w. 3070/2012 on 9.10.2014 which is marked at Ex.P.1 shows that the ADLR report has been accepted in the appeal proceedings as above. In view of this only point which remains to be settled under this issue is whether the suit property was vacant as on the date of the suit or whether by hat time defendant had already completed the construction of the school building therein.

So, by the above said order, plaintiff was directed not to interfere with the construction work of the defendant of its building in Survey Number-179/3 by making it clear that defendant should not construct building on the suit schedule property and further that the defendant should demolish the building under construction in case if the construction is ultimately found to be made in the suit schedule property and thus, ADLR was directed to complete survey work within 10 days. After such interim order was passed on 24.03.2014, Misc. First Appeals have been dismissed on 9.10.2014. In the interregnum it is clear that defendant has put up the construction. However, as per the ADLR report which is noted in the final order OS No.26693/2011 passed in the above appeals which is produced at Ex.P.1, suit schedule property has been fenced on all sides with chain link fencing and defendant property in Survey Number- 179/3 is not situated within the chain link area of the suit property. But, defendant/DW.1 categorically admits in his cross examination that defendant has put up construction of school building within the chain linked area and he has also admitted the photos shown to him except for claiming that construction had been put up earlier to filing of the suit and also that chain link fence was put up by the plaintiff after defendant completed the construction of the building. Said part of the defence has not been proved in the case. It is very clear that construction has been put up by the defendant subsequent to filing of the suit when there was interim order of injunction in force in favour of the plaintiff i.e., by violating the interim order of OS No.26693/2011 injunction granted in the case. In view of the same, direction given on 24.03.2014 in Misc. First Appeal Nos. 3069-3070/2012 which is reproduced above will have to be given effect to, as according to it defendant is liable to demolish the building as the same has been found to have been put up in the suit schedule property and not in Survey Number-179/3. In this regard, even a decision of the Apex court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 622, may be taken note off. In the said decision it has been held that in disobedience to the order of injunction if defendant dispossessed the plaintiff, then court is required to restore the possession to the plaintiff irrespective of procedural and technical objections. In this case, there is direction of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru as per Order dtd. 24.03.2014 to the defendant that it should OS No.26693/2011 demolish the building if same is found to be made in the suit schedule property. Hence, in addition to granting order of permanent injunction, facts of this case requires issuing mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to demolish the building constructed by it in the suit schedule property and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Consequently, Issue Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative.