SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 58165

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

R.F.A NO. 277 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE

REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER-560020.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

WEST DIVISION, BDA COMPLEX

VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560020.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI G C RAJASHEKAR

MAJOR

S/O.G R CHENGALARAYA NAIDU,

NO.16, PUTTANNA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,

BANGALORE-4.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.SANGAMESH.R.B, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE

AND

DECREE

DT.10.10.06

PASSED

IN

O.S.NO.5222/99 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL

JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH-10) DECREEING THE SUIT FOR

PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

JUDGMENT

The captioned regular first appeal is filed by

defendants-Bengaluru

Development

Authority

questioning the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2006

passed in O.S.No.5222/1999 by the IX Additional City

Civil Judge at Bengaluru.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred as per their rank before the trial Court.

3.

The facts leading to the case are as under:

(a)The subject-matter of the suit are two items

namely plots bearing site Nos.22/5 and 22/6 situated at

Valagerahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, bearing

corresponding

Municipal

Katha

Nos.895/22/5

and

894/22/6 respectively. The plaintiff filed a suit for

injunction simplicitor against the defendants-BDA. The

contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule

properties were originally owned by one Sri.K. Ramanna

s/o.Narasegowda and in the family partition the suit

schedule properties along with the other properties were

allotted to the share of C. Eraju S/o.Chikka Eregowda

3

and Kum. R. Kavitha d/o. K. Ramanna.

The plaintiff

claims that he had purchased the suit schedule item

No.1 property from C. Eraju s/o.Chikka Eregowda under

a registered sale deed dated 2.3.1995 and item No.2

property from R. Kavitha under a registered sale deed

dated 2.3.1995 for valuable consideration. The plaintiff

specifically pleaded that suit schedule properties are

part and parcel of Survey No.78/2 totally measuring 2

acres 10 guntas of Valagerahalli village. The plaintiff

further contended that the original owner K. Ramanna

had submitted an application seeking conversion of the

suit schedule properties from agricultural to non-

agricultural purpose. Having purchased the suit schedule

properties, the plaintiff claims that, after securing

permission from the competent authority, he started

laying foundation. At that juncture, the defendants-BDA

authorities obstructed by contending that the lands are

already acquired. On these set of pleadings, the

plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking permanent

injunction against the defendants-authority.

4

(b)On receipt of summons, the defendants-BDA

tendered appearance and filed written statement and

stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint.

The defendants-authority specifically contended that the

suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section

64 of the BDA Act. The authority also disputed the title

of one Sri.K. Ramanna s/o.Narasegowda and also

specifically pleaded their ignorance in regard to the

family

partition

pertaining

to

the

suit

schedule

properties. It is the specific contention of the

defendants-authorities that suit schedule properties are

part and parcel of Survey No.78/2 measuring 1 acre 30

guntas. The defendants-authorities claimed that the

authority has passed preliminary and final notifications

and possession of the suit schedule properties was taken

and in lieu of possession, compensation was paid to the

owners and as such sought for dismissal of the suit.

(c)The

trial

Court

based

on

the

pleadings

formulated the following issues:

"1.

Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful

possession of the suit schedule property as on

the date of the suit?

5

2.

Whether

the

plaintiff

further

proves

unlawful

interference

by

the

official

of

defendants?

3. Whether the defendants prove that the

suit schedule property stood vested with the

BDA by virtue of acquisition proceedings and as

such, the suit is not maintainable?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree

of permanent injunction as sought for?"

(d)The plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined

himself as P.W.1 and relied on documentary evidence

vide Exs.P1 to P15. The defendant-authority by way of

rebuttal evidence examined two officials as D.Ws.1 and

2 and relied on documentary evidence vide E

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top