P. A. KULKARNI, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the advocates submitted that the appeal itself may be heard on merits. Accordingly the arguments on merits of the appeal advanced by both the advocates were heard and the appeal is disposed of finally with the consent of both the advocates. This is a plaintiff's appeal directed against the order dated 31-7-1985 passed by the 12th Additional City Civil Judge, (City Civil Court), Bangalore City, in O. S. No. 633 of 1984 dismissing I. A. No. 1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. and allowing I. A. No. 2 filed by the defendant under Order 39, Rule 4, C. P. C. and thereby dissolving the ad interim temporary injunction.

( 2 ) R. S. No. 81 of Kethamaranahally village, Rajajinaga III Stage, was an inam land. It was in possession and enjoyment of Archaka Srinivasaiah Singh 1931. The said Srinivasaiah had applied to the Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams Abolition for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the said land in his favour. On 4-2-1972, the said Srinivasaiah and his brother Narayana formed several sites in the said land and sold site Nos. 6, 7 and 8 measuring 30' X 100' each to Smt. Sampoornamma and Shri Motilal under registered sale deeds. The said Sampoornamma and Motilal, in turn, sold them to one Boraiah under a registered sale deed dated 6-5-1973. The said Boraiah arranged the said three sites into two sites each measuring 45' X 100' and sold the two sites to Subbappa and Gangadharam under two sale deeds dated 4-4-1974. Subbappa and Gangadharam, in turn, entered into an agreement to sell the two sites with the present plaintiff in 1981 under two separate sale agreements. By the said sale agreements, they agreed to sell the sites with the structures in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 35,000/- each and received Rs. 30,000/- in respect of each site in advance and put the plaintiff in possession of the two sites. The said sites Nos. 6, 7 and 8 bear the present B. D. A. site Nos. 1850 and 1851. The said Gangadharam and Subbappa have also executed a power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff authorising him to appear on their behalf before the Bangalore Development Authority and the Courts. The Special Deputy Commissioner granted occupancy rights in favour of the said Srinivasaiah in respect of R. S. No. 81 in case No. ALML 2/72-73 by his order dated 24-10-1972. Accordingly the plaintiffs name has been entered as an occupant in the revenue records. According to the plaintiff, the said R. S. No. 81 was earmarked under re-allotment scheme formulated by the Bangalore Development Authority. By that re-allotment scheme, the sites were to be allotted in favour of the revenue site holders if such persons claimed. The said scheme of re-allotment has been approved by the Bangalore Development Authority in 1960. The reconveyance or re-allotment of sites is not yet completed even in spite of long correspondence with the Bangalore Development Authority. According to the plaintiff, he was put in possession of the said sites and since then he has been in enjoyment of the same. He has leased them in favour of one Jayaram in 1982. The said Jayaram has executed a lease deed in his favour. Since then the said Jayaram is in possession of the same as a tenant. The plaintiff has also requested the Bangalore Development Authority to re-allot the sites in his favour. Notwithstanding the said facts, the defendant is claiming that the site S. No. 1851 has been allotted to him by the Bangalore Development Authority. As the site in question comes within the re-allotment scheme approved by the Bangalore Development Authority, the Bangalore Development Authority could not have made any allotment of the site in question to the defendant. If any such allotment has been made by the Bangalore Development Authority, it is illegal and void and it does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the defendant. Since then the defendant has been attempting to evict the plaintiff. Hence the pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document