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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.