Violation of building bye-laws entitles the adjoining owner to initiate a suit, and certain prayers in a suit may be justified while others should be rejected in accordance with the provisions of the relevant municipal corporation act.

V. Gopala Gowda, J.--The Appellant is the first Defendant, first Respondent was the Plaintiff and 2nd Respondent was the 2nd Defendant in the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in the trial Court.

2. The Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 134 of 1992 for declaration that first Defendant has no right to construct any structures in the suit property and for demolition of the structures and for permanent injunction. The Defendant filed written statement denying plaint averments and pleading that the building has been constructed by him strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues. Parties led evidence and produced documents in support of their respective case. Upon consideration of the same, the trial Court by its judgment dated 11.7.1994 decreed the original suit as prayed for. In the appeal fild by the first Defendant in R.A. No. 72 of 1994 against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the first appellate Court by its judgment dated 17.10.1998 partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court rejecting prayer (c) in the plaint. The first Defendant has filed this second appeal challenging the same.

3. This appeal was admitted to consider only the following the substantial questions of law:

1) Whether the suit is maintainable in view of Sections 320 and 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act?

2) Whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are vitiated for granting reliefs at paras 13(a), (b) when rejecting para 13(c) of the plaint?

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and answer the above referred questions of law by assigning the following reasons.

5. The trial Court considered Exs.P-1 to P-3 and found that the first Defendant violated the building bye-laws. Following the law laid down by the Kerala High Court reported in P. Saina and Others Vs. Konderi and Others, AIR 1984 Ker 170 the trial Court held that suit is maintainable. In that decision it is held that violation of building Rules entitle the adjoining owner of the building to initiate suit. The first appellate Court extracted the relevant portion of the said decision and concurred with the finding of the trial Court. There is no scope for interference by this Court with the findings recorded by the Courts below on the issues referred to supra. Sections 320 and 321 of the K.M.C. Act empowers the Corporation to take action against the persons who have acted in violation of the building bye-laws. The action that would be initiated under the above provisions of the Act do not take away the right of the owner of an adjoining house to institute suit against the persons who interferes with legal rights to protect his interest. In fact, there is either express or implied bar for instituting suit against the persons who have violated the provisions of the building bye-laws. Hence, the first substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

6. So far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, the grant of prayers (a) and (b) in the original suit filed by the Plaintiff was justified. Prayer (c) was to direct Defendants 2 and 3 not to regularise the illegal structure or issue Completion Certificate, such a prayer should not have been granted by the trial Court. The trial Court has committed an error by granting the said prayer. Section 321 of K.M.C. Act empowers the Commissioner to take action either for demolition of the building or direct the owner to make alterations to bring the building in conformity with the Act, Rules, bye-laws, directions or requisitions. In view of the said provision, prayer (c) should not have been made by the Plaintiff and the same should have been rejected by the trial Court. Rightly the appellate Court rejected the said prayer. Rejection of the said prayer does not vitiate the judgments and decrees o