Construction without adherence to sanctioned plans violates legal provisions and prior judgments limit contradictory claims in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri L.M.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Defendants in O.S No.2440/1996 are the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2012 passed in said suit on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

3. Operative portion of the judgment and decree reads as under:

“Suit of the plaintiff is decreed.

It is declared that, the construction made by defendant No.1, now her Legal heirs defendant No.1(a) to (g) upon the suit schedule 'B' property is in violation of sanction plan and is illegal construction.

Consequently, defendant No.1(a) to (g) are hereby directed to demolish the deviation as noticed by the Commissioner within 3 months from the date of order. In case of failure, defendant No.2 to take appropriate, action for demolition.

As the plaintiff and defendant No.1(a) to (g) are neighbours, looking to the their status, 1 pass no order as to costs.

There shall be decree in the above terms.”

4. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

5. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in respect of the following immovable property hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’.

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PROPERTY

Property bearing Old No. 26, New No.71, Chikkathayappa Road, 7^th Cross, Vasanthnagar, Bangalore, 52, measuring East to West:- 27 feet and North to South: 26.5 feet, and bounded on the

East by: Private property and 7th Cross,

West by: Schedule 'B' property

North by: Muninanjamma's property

South by: Private property.

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PROPERTY.

Property bearing New No.72, Old No.63, Sri Anjaneya Temple Street, Chikkathayappa Road, Vasanthanagar, Bangalore-52, bounded on the:

East by: Schedule 'A' Property belonging to the Plaintiff.

West by: Ro ad

North by: Private property.

south by: Private property.

SCHEDULE 'C' PASSAGE

Private passage being a part of Schedule 'A' property bearing Old No.26, New No.71, Chikkathayappa Road, Vasanthanagar, Bangalore-52, measuring 5.5. feet North to South and 27 feet East to West, and bounded on the

East by: Private property and 7th Cross,

West by: private property of I defendant

North by: Private property

South by: Remaining property of the plaintiff”

6. Plaintiff initially filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction alone and later on amended the plaint whereby he sought for declaration that the construction carried out by the defendant in the suit property is in utter violation of the sanctioned plan and licence resulting in blockage of light and air to the plaintiff and also not leaving the setback as per the plan and licence and opening the door onto the eastern side of the defendant’s property which is on the western side of the plaintiff’s property leaving open to the passage (common passage as decided by this Court in RFA No. 475/2006 and RFA No.476/2006 dated 03.12.2025). There is no dispute as to the ownership of the property of the plaintiff and defendant.

7. However, plaintiff maintained that the passage on the northern side is a private passage of the plaintiff, whereas defendant contended that said passage measuring 5.5 feet x 27 feet is a common passage.

8. This Court by considered judgment in RFA No.475/2006 and RFA No.476/2006 rendered on 03.12.2025 concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that the said passage is a common passage.

9. Therefore, for all practical purposes, opening the door by the defen