Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 750 OF 2022 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 760 OF 2022 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 762 OF 2022 IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.750/2022 BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATESH REDDY S/O LATE H.M.HANUMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, SLV PLAZA, ARAVINDA AVENUE, MUNNEKOLALA EXTENSION, KUNDALAHALLI GATE, ITPL ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 037.
SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE/HEIR SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O SRI. VENKATESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, SLV PLAZA, ARAVINDA AVENUE, MUNNEKOLALA EXTENSION, KUNDALAHALLI GATE, ITPL ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 037.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHAILESH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . R. GOPALA KRISHNA S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.G-790, 7TH CROSS, HAL NEW TOWNSHIP, BANGALORE - 560 037.
2 . G. LAKSHMI NARAYANA S/O K.V.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.27, 11TH 'B' CROSS, SIDDADAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-73.
3 . SRI. S. AKRAM S/O LATE S. YUNUS KHAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.33/34, MASJID STREET, YELLAGOUDAPALYA, AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE - 47. 4 . SRI. S.BABU S/O LATE K.V.SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.417, HIMJIGIRI-ENCLAVE-II, E-BLOCK, TIMMAREDDY LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 93.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4;
R2 - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21/09/2023)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO.5725/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.
IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.760/2022 BETWEEN:
SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O SRI. VENKATESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, SLV PLAZA, ARAVINDA AVENUE, MUNNEKOLALA EXTENSION, KUNDALAHALLI GATE, ITPL ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 037.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHAILESH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . R. GOPALA KRISHNA S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.G-790, 7TH CROSS, HAL NEW TOWNSHIP, BANGALORE - 560 037.
2 . G. LAKSHMI NARAYANA S/O K.V.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.27, 11TH 'B' CROSS, SIDDADAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 73.
3 . SRI. S. AKRAM S/O LATE S. YUNUS KHAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.33/34, MASJID STREET, YELLAGOUDAPALYA, AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE - 47.
4 .
SRI. S. BABU S/O LATE K.V.SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.417, HIMJIGIRI-ENCLAVE-II, E-BLOCK, TIMMAREDDY LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 93.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4;
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO.5727/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.
IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.762/2022 BETWEEN:
SMT. KAVITHA REDDY W/O SRI. SRIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, SLV PLAZA, ARAVINDA AVENUE, MUNNEKOLALA EXTENSION, KUNDALAHALLI GATE, ITPL ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 037.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHAILESH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . R. GOPALA KRISHNA S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.G-790, 7TH CROSS, HAL NEW TOWNSHIP, BANGALORE - 560 037.
2 . G. LAKSHMI NARAYANA S/O K.V.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.27, 11TH 'B' CROSS, SIDDADAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 73.
3 . SRI. S. AKRAM S/O LATE S. YUNUS KHAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.33/34, MASJID STREET, YELLAGOUDAPALYA, AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE - 47.
4 . SRI. S. BABU S/O LATE K.V.SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.417, HIMJIGIRI-ENCLAVE-II, E-BLOCK, TIMMAREDDY LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 93.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4;
R2 - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21/09/2023)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO.5729/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.
THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.03.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
RESE RVED FOR ORDERS ON: 15.03.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.06.2024
JUDGMENT
These three appeals are filed by the appellants-
plaintiffs under Section 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. Nos.5725/2014, 5727/2014 and 5729/2014 for having dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated
25.11.2021.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court and the rank of the parties, before the trial Court, is retained for convenience.
4. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in O.S. No.5725/2014 (R.F.A No.750/2022) is that the plaintiff filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing site No.2, Khatha No.121, property No.121 situated at Kundalahallil village, K.R. Puram Hobli, now comes under the BBMP limits, measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 45 feet, in all measuring 2250 square feet and four shops constructed thereon (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property'). It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and lawful possession of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from one Girish Anand by a registered sale deed dated
13.04.2012 registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar (Mahadevapura), Bangalore and subsequently, got transferred all the revenue records and paid taxes.
5. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that originally, the land bearing Sy. No.121 of Kundalahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, East Taluk, measuring 21 guntas belonged to the vendor Girish Anand and the revenue records were also stood in the name of Girish Anand, the vendor of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff constructed shops on a portion in the suit schedule property, secured an electricity connection and rented out the shops to the tenant, who is running a hotel in the name and style of Idly Hut. It is further contended that the defendants alleged to have been purchased the sites bearing Nos.614/A, 614/B, 614/C and 614/D from Aircraft Employees Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as 'Aircraft Society') and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The vendor of the defendants assigned a bogus and illegal number to the alleged sale deed in favour of the defendants and they are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. It is further contended that the defendants have no manner of right, title or interference over the suit schedule property, but are trying to interfere with the same. It is further contended by the plaintiff that it could be seen from the approved layout plan, which has been approved by Bangalore Development Authority as per their reference No.BDA/TPM/D.D (W) 206/87-88 dated 03.07.1987, and it is clear that there is no existence of site numbers Nos.614/A, 614/B, 614/C and 614/D, but the defendants have manipulated the documents in order to knock out the suit schedule property and they are trying to interfere with the suit schedule property. It is further contended that on 22.07.2014 at 11.35 a.m., the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff approached the police by filing a complaint, but the police directed the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. The cause of action arose on 22.07.2014 when the defendants tried to interfere in the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.
6. The facts of the case of the plaintiff-Bhagya Lakshmi in O.S. No.5727/2014 (R.F.A. No.760/2022) are that the plaintiff is absolute owner in possession of the site No.3, Khatha No.121, property No.121 situated at Kundalahallil village, K.R. Puram Hobli, now comes under the BBMP limits, measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 45 feet, in all measurin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
