JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2015 passed by XLI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.365/2006, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in original suit.

3. Brief facts of the case: Plaintiff No.1 is a registered Educational Trust and plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the trustees of plaintiff No.1 and they have purchased 5 sites (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’) vide 5 different registered sale deeds from 5 different persons in the year 2004. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have constructed a building in the suit schedule property to run the educational institution. On 19.12.2005, the officials of the defendant-BDA came near the suit schedule property and threatened to demolish the building erected in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for bare injunction.

On service of suit summons, defendant appeared through counsel and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was stated that the suit was filed without issuing notice under Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (for short ‘BDA Act’). It was further stated that the suit schedule property has been acquired by the BDA by issuing preliminary notification dated 15.07.1982 and final notification dated

05.08.1986. In respect of Sy.No.14/1 of Malagala Village, the award has been passed on 02.01.1988 and in respect of Sy.No.14/2 of Malagala Vilalge, the award has been passed on 31.05.1988. The award amount has been deposited before the City Civil Court, Bangalore under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It was further stated that the defendant has drawn mahazars and taken possession in respect of Sy.No.14/1 on 22.02.1988 and possession in respect of Sy.No.14/2 on 30.06.1988 and notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued on 06.07.1991 and from the said date, the BDA is in possession of the property. It was further stated that the suit schedule property is vacant land and plaintiffs have illegally and unauthorisedly occupied the suit schedule property and they have constructed the building, even after notification under Section 16(2) has been issued from the competent authority. Since the plaintiffs have purchased the suit schedule property after final notification has been issued by the BDA and possession has been taken, they have no right or title over the suit schedule property. It was further stated that the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiffs in the year 2004 from third parties, who are not the kathedar. The defendant has stated that the suit is not maintainable and hence sought for dismissal of the suit.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves their lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?.

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference of defendant in the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed?

4. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 64 of Bangalore Development Authority Act?.

4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the Secretary of the plaintiff No.1 has been examined as PW-1 and one witness has been examined as PW-2 and produced 26 documents and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-26. On behalf of the defendant, the Assistant Engineer of BDA has been examined as DW-1 and produced 7 documents as Ex.D-1 to D-7. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No.4 in the negative and accordingly decreed the suit and reserved liberty to the defendant to evict the plaintiffs in due process of law. Bei