A plaintiff must establish the identity and existence of the property in question to seek an injunction, and failure to issue a statutory notice under the KMC Act renders the suit not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal. The present appellants as plaintiffs had instituted a suit against the present respondents, arraigning them as defendants in O.S.No.7842/2009, in the Court of the learned XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH.No.12), (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), seeking the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property and to stop the construction work and such other reliefs.

2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, the original plaintiff - Smt. Naveneethamma is the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dtd. 28/2/1981 from one Smt. Radha Varadarajan for a valuable consideration. The khata of the suit schedule property was made in her name and she has been paying the taxes to the Corporation in respect of the suit schedule property and enjoying the possession of the suit schedule property.

It is the further case of the original plaintiff that though she had obtained an approved plan for putting up a construction on the suit land, however, due to the sad demise of her husband and due to the financial constraints, the same could not be materialised. That being the case, on the date 5/10/2009, through her daughter, she came to know that the defendant - Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the BBMP") through its workers was carrying out the construction work. Though she gave a representation to the defendant No.1 - the Commissioner of the BBMP requesting the said authority to suspend the work, however, the same was not materialised. This constrained the plaintiff to file the present suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.

3. In response to the suit summons served upon them, the defendants appeared before the Trial Court through their counsel and filed their Written Statement. In the Written Statement, the defendants denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. They contended that there is a playground area called as 'Tank area play ground' situated in Subrahmanya Nagar, measuring an extent of 25, 208 sq.ft. The said entire area is a vacant land belonging to the defendant - BBMP without any constructions there upon excluding the construction put up by the BBMP. It is also contended that in the said playground area, the defendants are constructing a building on their own land, in an area measuring 70 ft. x 40 ft. and putting up a 'Public Library' and a 'Bangalore One Centre'. They denied that the plaintiff had obtained any sanctioned plan to put up construction on the alleged suit schedule property.

The defendants further contended that the original plaintiff was directed to produce some documents after the defendant BBMP received the representation from her. However, the plaintiff failed to produce certain information and the required documents to show her alleged ownership over the suit schedule property. Even the plaintiff did not produce any document to show that her alleged vendor had title over the suit property. The defendants categorically contended that it is they who are in possession of the property and putting up a Public Library and Bangalore-One Centre on their own land, without encroaching upon any of the property in general and the alleged suit property of the plaintiffs in particular.

The defendants also contended that since the suit was filed without issuing statutory notice, though they were required to be issued under Sec. 482 (1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the KMC Act"), the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief. With this, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues fo