Even though this appeal is posted for admission, with

the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final

hearing.

This appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC

challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2021

passed by XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

in O.S.No.6669/1998, whereby the suit filed by the

plaintiffs has been dismissed.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in

original suit.

- 4 -

The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration

to declare that the notices dated 15.7.1982 and 5.8.1996

issued by defendant No.2, BDA as non-est and acquisition

of the scheduled land by the defendant No.2 under BDA

Act becomes lapsed as per Section 27 of the Act has

lapsed. On service of suit summons, defendant No.1

remained exparte and defendant No.2 has filed the written

statement denying the averments made in the plaint and

has

taken

a

specific

contention

that

suit

is

not

maintainable. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Trial Court has framed following issues:

1.

Whether the plaintiffs prove that notice

No.

A.6-PR-SLAD(S)-201/82-83

dated:

15.07.1982 and No.HUD-206-MNX-86 dated:

050.08.19 are null and void?

2.

Whether Plaintiffs prove that acquisition

by second defendant in respect of suit schedule

property is lapsed under Section 27 of Land

Acquisition Act?.

3. Whether plaintiffs prove that they were in

possession and enjoyment of suit schedule

properly as on the date of suit?.

- 5 -

4.

Whether

plaintiffs

prove

the

alleged

interference?

5.

Whether the second defendant proves that

the suit is not maintainable for not issuing

of notice under section 64 of BDA Act?

6.

Whether second defendant proves that the

suit schedule property acquired for public

purpose?

7.

Whether plaintiffs are entitled for reliefs of

declaration and the injunction as sought

for?

8.

What order or Decree?

On behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.4 has been

examined as PW-1 and produced 49 documents and

marked as Ex.P-1 to 49. On behalf of the defendants, two

witnesses have been examined as DWs-1 and 2 and

produced 9 documents and marked as Ex.D-1 to 9. On

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial

Court has answered issue Nos.1 to 7 in the negative and

additional issue in the affirmative and dismissed the suit.

Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed this

appeal.

- 6 -

The learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs

has contended that when the Trial Court has dismissed the

suit as not maintainable, it is not justified in giving any

finding regarding possession. The said finding of the Trial

Court is perverse and illegal. Hence, he sought for allowing

the appeal in respect of the said finding given by the Trial

Court. He further contended that after the suit was

dismissed, the plaintiffs have filed W.P.No.23072/2022

challenging the acquisition proceedings before this Court.

This Court by order dated 12.12.2022 has granted an

order of status-quo.

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1

and 2, BDA has contended that BDA has acquired the land

in dispute and they have taken the possession and have

deposited the compensation amount. Hence, relief sought

in the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the Trial Court

has rightly rejected the suit.

- 7 -

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the judgment and decree and records.

After hearing the learned counsel for the

parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this

appeal is:

“Whether the Trial Court is justified in giving a

finding regarding possession when the suit is

dismissed as not maintainable?”

It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs filed the

suit for declaration declaring that the notices dated

15.7.1982 and 5.8.1996 issued by defendant No.2, BDA as

non-est in so far as suit schedule property is concerned

and acquisition of the scheduled land by the defendant

No.2 under BDA Act becomes lapsed as per Section 27 of

the A