The duty of ensuring compliance with building laws lies with the relevant authority, and the plaintiff must prove violation of rights to succeed in a property dispute.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dtd. 18/11/2010 passed in Regular Appeal Nos.124/2004 and 249/2004 on the file of Principal District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'), in and by which, the first appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff, confirmed the judgment and decree dtd. 30/9/1997 passed in O.S.Nos.408/1994 and 841/1993 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jn.Dn.), Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court').

2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original rankings before the trial court.

3. The appellant-plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.408/1994 seeking relief of declaration that the licence and sanctioned plan that has been issued by the Defendant No.1 dtd. 16/4/1993 is opposed to the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, the Zonal regulations, O.D.P and C.D.P and for a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to cancel/revoke the said licence and sanctioned plan and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 from constructing the first floor above the existing ground floor on the strength of the said licence and sanctioned plan. The plaintiff had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.841/1993 seeking relief of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up additional construction.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit 'A' schedule property having purchased the same under a registered deed of sale dtd. 31/5/1979 and that he had constructed a residential house on the said property and was residing therein with his family. That the defendants 3 to 5 are in possession of immovable property measuring about 5 cents adjacent to schedule 'A' property on its southern side and it is at about 12 feet in lower level than that of the schedule 'A' property. That the defendants 3 to 5 had constructed a commercial building comprising of ground floor without valid license from the City Corporation. That the roof slab level of said building was equivalent to the ground level of the schedule 'A' property. That building was constructed without leaving any set back as required under the law. That the northern side of the building almost touched the lower foundation of schedule 'A' property. The same was in violation of the building plan. That the defendant Nos.3 to 5 had obtained building licence to erect additional floor on the existing building from the defendant No.1 which the plaintiff learnt only when the defendants 3 to 5 produced the same in the Court at the time of hearing of application for temporary injunction. On enquiry the plaintiff learnt that defendants 3 to 5 had even obtained commencement certificate for construction of a non-residential building while the licence obtained from the defendant No.1 was for residential purpose. Therefore, it was alleged that the defendant Nos.3 to 5. had obtained the licence by playing fraud and misrepresentation. That defendant No.1 could not have granted the licence to the defendants to construct on the existing building as the same was opposed to building rules and provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. As defendants 3 to 5 were trying to put up the additional floor in the said building obtained through the fraudulent method close to the southern boundaries of the schedule 'A' property, the same was blocking the light and air to the residential house of the plaintiff especially to the kitchen which faces southwest direction affecting the privacy of the plaintiff and his family members constraining the plaintiff to approach the Court by filing above said suits and seeking reliefs as stated above.

5. Defendants, in written statement denying the plaint averments further contended that Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the plaintiff had to exhaust the remedies available under th