The court established that compliance with society bye-laws and obtaining a no objection certificate can validate a sale during a non-alienation period, thereby affirming the appellant's ownership and right to seek injunction.

JUDGMENT

S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.

This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.10464/2015 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.07.2016, passed by the XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby, the said suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the respondent-defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was dismissed by the trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. Perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment would indicate that the appellantplaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit, inter alia, contending that the suit schedule property originally belonged to her vendor C.Krishnappa, who acquired the same vide registered sale deed dated 12.05.2014 executed by the respondent-society in favour of Krishnappa, which was executed by the respondent-defendant in favour of the said Krishnappa. It was also contended that the respondent-society had issued allotment letter dated 20.10.2014 and possession certificate also dated 20.10.2014 in favour of the said Krishnappa and put him in actual and physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff contended that vide registered sale deed dated 14.11.2014, the aforesaid Krishnappa sold, transferred and conveyed the suit schedule property absolutely in favour of the appellantplaintiff and put her in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, pursuant to which, the appellant became the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It was also contended that the revenue records in relation to the suit schedule property have been made out in the name of the appellant-plaintiff and the Bangalore Development Authority ("BDA") has also issued site allotment letter, site release certificate and correct dimension report as well as an endorsement, all of which clearly establish that the appellant was in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and since the respondent and its officials are attempting to interfere with the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the appellant was constrained to institute the instant suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs.

4. The material on record reveals that the respondent-defendant having entered appearance before the trial Court did not file its written statement nor contested the suit.

5. The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and the documentary evidence at Exs.P-1 to P-18 were marked on her behalf. Respondent-defendant did not cross-examine PW.1 nor adduce any oral and documentary evidence on his behalf and did not even argue the matter on merits. Despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the complete non-contesting of the suit by the respondent- judgment and decree dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff who is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

6. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 along with copy of the no objection and no due certificate issued by the respondent-society in favour of the plaintiff's vendor C.Krishnappa. The appellant has also produced copy of the bye-laws of the respondent-society. It is contended that the said bye-laws of the society permit the allottee to sell the suit schedule property in favour of third parties after obtaining necessary no objection certificate from the society and the procedure in this regard has been followed by the plaintiff's vendor C.Krishnappa who obtained the same from the respondent-society and executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant. It is, therefore, submitted that the said documents are relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal. The respondent-s