Possession derived from post-acquisition transactions without valid title is not protected by injunction, and principles of res judicata bar re-litigation on the same title established in prior judgments.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

This regular first appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2022 in O.S. No.2911/2019, on the file of XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-45) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction and restrained the defendant, his men and anybody acting on his behalf from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

2. The suit schedule property is described as under:

“SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All that piece and parcel of the property bearing site No.13, formed in Sy.No.6/1A. Vide D.C. Conversion order as No.B.DIS.ALN.SR(N)194/92-93, dated:10/12/1992, the Kodigehalli Village, Panchayath khata No.1163/13, and present BBMP khata No.1998/689/1163/13, Ward No.8 situated at Kodigehalli village, Virupakshapura, Ashwathappa lay-out, Yelahanka hobli, Bengaluru North taluk, measuring East to West 54-0 feet and North to South 30-0 feet and total measuring 1620 square feet with 16x30 square feet sheet roofed building with surrounded by compound wall with water and electricity facility and bounded as follows:

East by : 25 feet Road,

West by : Private Property,

North by : Site No.14,

South by : Site No.12.”

(hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’ for short).

3. The plaintiff’s case is that the land bearing No.6/1A measuring 6 acres 12 guntas originally belonged to Range Gowda, who sold an extent of 3 acres 10 guntas in Survey No.6/1A to Smt. Venkamma under a registered sale deed dated 13.01.1951. Venkamma inturn sold the said property in favour of Muniyamma under a registered sale deed dated 12.12.1972. It is averred that Muniyamma and her three children entered into an unregistered partition deed, wherein 1 acre of land in Survey No.6/1A was allotted to V. Gopalappa and Ashwathappa. The plaintiff states that V. Gopalappa converted a portion of the land under the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 10.12.1992 and thereafter formed sites. One such site, Site No.13, was sold to N. Srinivas Murthy by registered sale deed dated 17.04.1997. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the same site from Srinivas Murthy by sale deed dated 31.05.2014. He asserts that he has constructed a house, obtained electricity and BWSSB water connection, and is in peaceful possession. On the defendant’s alleged interference, he has filed the present suit for permanent injunction.

4. The case of the defendant is that the entire land measuring 6 acres 12 guntas, including 2 guntas of phot karab in Survey No.6/1A, was acquired by the Government for the NTI Housing Cooperative Society (‘Society’ for short) under the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short) on 04.01.1985. The final notification was issued under Section 6 of the LA Act, the award was passed on 31.01.1989 and possession was delivered to the Society under Section 16 (2) notifications on 18.04.1991 and 04.11.1992. The defendant contends that the plaintiff's chain of title is through V. Gopalappa, who had no right to convey after acquisition. The society, after obtaining sanction in 2010, executed sale deeds in favour of his members, V. Selva Kumaran who sold to G. Narayan, who in turn sold to the defendant. The defendant relies on the earlier litigation O.S. No.3610/1998, which was filed by the society restraining V. Gopalappa and V. Ashwathappa from interf