SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J.
Sena Vihar Owners Welfare Association (R) and ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sri. Bandarappa Bhakthadigala Sangha (R) and ors. –Respondents
Regular First Appeal No.23 of 2017 (INJ)
Decided On : 08-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. B. V. Nidhishreee, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. T. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate

Headnote:

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - OWNERSHIP OF TEMPLE - PUBLIC USE - RESERVED KHARAB LAND - RIGHT TO WORSHIP - INTERFERENCE - RESTRAINING ORDER.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, as owners of a residential complex, filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants, seeking to restrain them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, a Muneshwaraswamy Temple situated within the complex. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the Temple and alleged that the defendants were attempting to encroach upon the Temple and take control of its management.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Temple was situated on one gunta of reserved kharab land, which was left for public use. The Court held that the plaintiffs, as owners of the land, had a right to possession of the Temple, but that the defendants, as members of the public, had a right to visit the Temple and offer prayers. The Court further held that the defendants' attempts to renovate and rejuvenate the Temple without following the proper legal procedures constituted an interference with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the property.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs have proved that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and as such can maintain the suit for permanent injunction? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have proved the interference by the defendants in their alleged possession of suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for? 4. Whether the impugned judgment and decree warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiffs, as owners of the land on which the Temple was situated, had a right to possession of the Temple, but that the defendants, as members of the public, had a right to visit the Temple and offer prayers. The Court further held that the defendants' attempts to renovate and rejuvenate the Temple without following the proper legal procedures constituted an interference with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the property.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, and partially decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from altering, remodeling, renovating, or rejuvenating the Temple without following the proper legal procedures. However, the Court allowed the defendants to visit the Temple and offer prayers without causing any disturbance to the peace and tranquility of the surrounding area.

JUDGMENT :

This is a plaintiffs’ appeal. The present appellants as plaintiffs had instituted a suit in O.S.No.2374/2012, in the Court of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"). against defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their members, agents, servants, henchmen and any other persons claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever.

2. The summary of the case of the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that, Army Welfare Housing Organisation, New Delhi (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘AWHO’) was formed and registered as a Society under Societies Registration Act, 1860 before the Registrar of Societies, New Delhi. Its aims and objectives inter-alia included procuring, developing and providing dwelling units of flats to serving and retired personnel of Army and every Defence Sector who are its member registrants. In pursuance of its aims and objectives AWHO framed Army Welfare Housing Organisation Rules, 1987. In furtherance of its objectives, the AWHO approached Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘BDA’) for allotment of land in Bengaluru City for construction of flats/houses for its member registrants. Accordingly, BDA has allotted lands in Sy.No.24/2, 25, 34/1, 34/3, 35/1, 35/2, 35/3, 36/1 and 36/2 situated in Kacharakanahalli village, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru totally measuring to an extent of 14 acres 22 guntas, in favour of the AWHO, by executing an Agreement dated 28.09.1985. The Possession Certificate with regard to these lands was issued by BDA on 20.03.1986 on Lease cum Sale Agreement for a period of thirty (30) years.

Further, upon receipt of entire cost of land purchased and after fulfilling all formalities in that regard for formation of layouts in the aforesaid lands, an absolute Sale Deed dated 18.11.1992 came to be registered by BDA in favour of AWHO. Thus, the AWHO became the absolute owner, lawfully ceased and possessed the above lands by forming plots for construction of residential buildings and further constructed apartment blocks consisting of various types of flats for its member registrants. The said residential complex of AWHO is also known as 'Sena Vihar Complex'.

3. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that the member registrants/owners of apartments and independent plots/houses having purchased the same from AWHO in Sena Vihar Complex, initially formed Sena Vihar Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., registered under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 on 20.05.1994. The same was later converted into Sena Vihar Owners Welfare Association (Regd.,) which is the first plaintiff, under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, to administer, maintain and manage the Sena Vihar Complex promoted by AWHO.

The bylaws were framed by erstwhile Sena Vihar Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., According to the bylaw, all the common areas and facilities jointly owned by all the 435 owners shall be managed, administered and maintained by the Society on behalf of all the owners. Further a Relinquishment Deed dated 18.04.1994 came to be executed by AWHO in favour of BDA by relinquishing only the internal roads, culverts and drains parallel to the roads mentioned in the schedule to the Relinquishment Deed. However, the remaining land situated in Sena Vihar Housing Complex i.e., schedule property of Sale Deed made in favour of AWHO, still jointly owned by all members of the first plaintiff.

4. The plaintiffs have further stated that there is a Muneshwaraswamy Temple situated at the entrance of the Sena Vihar Residential Complex near the Western Gate, which is under the maintenance and administration of the first plaintiff and its predecessor Society and

                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                      1
                      2
                      3
                      4
                      5
                      6
                      7
                      8
                      9
                      10
                      11
                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                      supreme today icon
                      logo-black

                      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                      Please visit our Training & Support
                      Center or Contact Us for assistance

                      qr

                      Scan Me!

                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                      whatsapp-icon Back to top