1.

The present appeal is filed against the

judgment

and

decree

passed

in

Original

Suit

No.2469/2005 dated 24.02.2014 on the file of the 42^nd

Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City,

whereby the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed.

2.

The parties are referred to as plaintiff and

defendants, as per their original ranking before the Trial

Court, for the sake of convenience.

3

3.

Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of

the appeal are as under:

The suit schedule property is the building and

structures situated in the landed property bearing

Survey No.49/1B measuring 6 acres 19 guntas of

Kothanoor village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru is the

absolute property that belongs to the defendant.

Plaintiff claims that he is in possession and enjoyment of

the suit property by a irrevocable un-registered lease

agreement which was entered into by him with the first

defendant for a period of 25 years with effect from

5.12.1996 till 5.12.2021 of a Farm land known as

8Green Acre Farm9.

4.

According to the plaintiff, in the said lease

deed, there is a clause which creates a right of pre-

emption in favour of the plaintiff.

4

5.

It is also contended by the plaintiff that when

the possession of the plaintiff was sought to be

disturbed by the first defendant, a suit came to be filed

in OS No.1622/1999 on the file of the V Addl. City Civil

Judge, Bengaluru, which came to be dismissed and

thereafter,

the

plaintiff

filed

an

appeal

in

RFA

No.1066/2004 before this Court which came to be partly

allowed and relief of permanent injunction was granted

in favour of the plaintiff and thereby his possession is

continued.

6.

It is further contended that plaintiff has

provided necessary ingress and egress to the poultry

sheds and thereafterwords there is a crop grown up in

the remaining portion of the land and on the basis of the

irrevocable lease agreement, plaintiff is in possession of

the suit land absolutely.

5

7.

It is further contended by the plaintiff that he

saw a public notice published in the Newspaper on

24.03.2005 in Vijaya Karnataka and Indian Express

stating that the suit property is for sale. The said public

notice was issued by Mrs.Bhanu Ravinder, Advocate

appearing on behalf of prospective purchaser.

8.

To the said public notice, the plaintiff raised

his objections on 2.3.2005 stating that he has got a

right of pre-emption in respect of the land. Despite the

said objection, the first defendant intended to sell the

property which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit

seeking an order of declaration that the plaintiff has

sought for purchase of the suit property from the first

defendant in pursuance of the un-registered lease

agreement supra, for the market price and also

consequential injunction that the property should not be

sold to any one else other than the plaintiff.

6

9.

On receipt of the suit summons issued, first

defendant entered appearance and did not choose to file

written statement; whereas defendant Nos.2 to 6

though appeared did not choose to file written

statement. In so far as 7^th defendant is concerned,

though he is served with the suit summons, he

remained absent and therefore, he was placed exparte.

10.

In order to prove the case of the plaintiff,

plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and relied on 38

documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1

to P-38. On behalf of the defendants, there is no

evidence adduced. Later on, the Trial Court heard the

arguments of the plaintiff and defendant and raised

following points for consideration:

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is

having pre-emption right over the suit schedule

property?

7

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the

relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the

suit?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

mandatory injunction as prayed in the suit?

(iv) What order or decree?

11.

On cumulative consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence on record, suit of the plaintiff

came to be dismissed.

1