Possession established through valid title, even against unauthorized occupants, warrants legal protection; trial court's dismissal was erroneous due to failure to recognize ownership evidence.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the order dated 14.08.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.7703/2022 by the XLIII Additional city Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that appellant No.1 acquired the schedule ‘B’ property vide sale deed dated 12.08.2003 executed by Vishwabharathi Housing Co-operative Society Limited (for short ‘the Society’) in her favour and she has put up RCC building and rented it out to a tenant. The appellants being sisters, appellant No.1 gifted the southern portion of the schedule ‘B’ property to appellant No.2. The mother of the appellants’ one Mrs. Jayalakshmamma acquired the schedule ‘A’ property vide sale deed dated 12.08.2003 executed by the said Society in her favour and she also put up building and rented it out a tenant. Later, Mrs. Jayalakshmamma gifted the northern portion of the schedule ‘A’ property to appellant No.1 and the southern portion of the schedule ‘A’ property to appellant No.2. Hence, appellants contend that both of them are the owners of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property in terms of the sale deeds as well as in terms of the gift deeds. It is also contended that the appellants’ ancestor/family members were the owners of the land bearing survey number adjacent and around the schedule property which were acquired by way of grant made by the Land Tribunal. The Society being interested in developing the lands and forming residential layout approached the appellants family members. Consequently, the Society entered into an agreement and took in possession of the lands and assured the land owners that the Society shall allot sites to the family members of the land owners. Accordingly, the Society allotted schedule ‘A’ property in favour of the mother of the appellants and schedule ‘B’ property in favour of appellant No.1. Neither the appellants nor their family members were compensated according to the terms of the agreement. Neither the appellants though being senior members of the Society nor their family members have asserted any rights in the above mentioned lands with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) or with the Society or with the Government. It is also contended that the BDA issued notification acquiring lands bearing Sy.No.101, 103, 104, 105 and 106 of Hosakerehalli village. The Society not being able to handle the acquisition sought bulk allotment of the above lands. The allotment of the lands to other persons were subject to writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka which were disposed vide order dated 16.11.2010 in W.P.No.18496/2007 and connected matters directing the Society to determine Seniority and genuine list of its members as condition for confirmation of allotment by the Society. It is also contended that neither the Society nor any other person can interfere with the peaceful possession of the schedule properties by the appellants unless necessary proceedings are initiated for cancellation of the sale deed and recovery of possession.

4. It is also contended that the respondents claiming to have obtained supplementary deeds from the Society tried to interfere with the appellants’ peaceful possession and a criminal case has been lodged against respondent No.3 in Cr.No.325/2022. The appellants further filed a suit in O.S.No.7703/2022 seeking permanent injunction against the respondents along with I.A.No.1/2022 seeking exparte interim order against the respondents. The Trial Court was pleased to grant exparte inte