Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.89 seconds)D. Narayanappa vs The State Of Karnataka, By Its ... on 19 November, 2004
14) ILR 2005 Karnataka 295 (D.Narayanappa v/s State of
Karnataka).
Patil Exhibitors (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore on 2 September, 1985
4) AIR 1986 Karnataka 194 (M/s.Patil Exhibitors (Pvt.) v/s
The Corporation of the City of Bengaluru).
Iim Employees Association vs Indian Institute Of Management on 14 August, 1990
8) ILR 1990 Karnataka Page 3148 (IIM Employees
Association v/s Indian Institute of Management).
Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010
12) ILR 2011 Karnataka Page 574 (Mrs.Poornima Girish v/s
Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka and others).
Jaiprakash Mangilal Agarwal vs Lilabai And Anr. on 31 October, 1961
15) AIR 1963 Bombay Page 100 (Jaiprakash Mangilal
Agarwal v/s Smt.Lilabai and another).
Karthiyayani Amma vs Govindan on 6 February, 1980
16) AIR 1980 Kerala Page 224 (Karthiyayani Amma v/s
Govindan).
State Of Bihar vs Dhirendra Kumar & Ors on 27 April, 1995
All the above said citations are aptly applicable to the case of the
plaintiff. During the cross-examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3 none of
38
O.S. No.27087/2011
the single admissions taken from their mouth that the defendants
have acquired the suit property layout and preliminary and final
notification is published about the suit schedule property and
plaintiff has not legally purchased the suit schedule property from
his original vendors till his purchase and also he is not in physical
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since last
12 years. It is appearing in this case that D.W.1 has given a
evidence as contended in their WS by stating that preliminary and
final notification was published for acquiring the above said survey
number including the suit schedule property and compensation
award is also paid to the owners of the above said survey numbers.
Neither the plaintiff nor any his previous owners owned the suit
schedule property as pleaded in the plaint and they are not entitled
for claiming the right, title, interest over the suit schedule property
and they never in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, the
counsel for the defendant has submitted the Notification
No.BDA/ALAO/S/11/78-79, dated 27th June 1978. Accordingly,
in the above said notification appears survey No.36/2 measuring 1
acre 39 guntas of Hennur Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, is
39
O.S. No.27087/2011
acquired by the BDA in the year 1984-1985 and further relied on
Supreme Court Judgment of AIR 1995 Supreme Court Page
No.1955 in Civil Appeal No.5753/1995 dated 27th April 1995 in
the case of State of Bihar v/s Dhirendra Kumar and others,
wherein held that "the validity of the preliminary and final
notification has to be decided by the only High Court, civil court
are not having jurisdiction to go into the said matter, etc." It is also
crystal and clear that defendant has not produced any documents to
show that the suit schedule property of the plaintiff is coming
within the acquired land and it was allotted to specific beneficiary
and the plaintiff has illegally occupied the same by depriving the
right of beneficiary etc. Under such circumstances, the above said
documents of the defendant and citations relied by the defendant
are not helpful to the case of defendant. On the other hand, the
above discussed number of citations relied by the plaintiff advocate
will help to the case of plaintiff. Under such circumstances, it is
crystal and clear that the defendant has not succeeded to disprove
the possession, right, title and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit
schedule property and the same is proved by the P.W.1 and his
40
O.S. No.27087/2011
witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 and through the above discussed
plaintiff's documents Exs.P.1 to P.26. Thus, the plaintiff has
successfully proved his title, settled possession and purchasing of
the suit schedule property from its original owners and also a
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule
property. However, it is appearing in this case through the oral and
documentary evidence of the plaintiff he is in continuous
possession of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase
till filing the suit, which discloses that he is in possession of the
suit schedule property; but it cannot be said as plaintiff become a
owner to the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession;
since nowhere defendant admitted in the WS and oral evidence as
the plaintiff is being in possession of the suit schedule property
from more than 12 years. Under such circumstances it cannot be
said that the plaintiff has succeeded to prove the plea of adverse
possession against the defendant. Therefore, I would like to
answer issue No.1, 2 & 4 Affirmative and issue No.3 against the
defendant as a Negative.