Challenging

judgment

and

decree

dated

05.03.2020 passed by III Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.no.8050/2017, this

appeal is filed.

2.

Appellant

herein

was

plaintiff,

while

respondent herein was defendant in suit. They shall

hereinafter be referred to as such.

3.

O.S.no.8050/2017

was

filed

seeking

for

mandatory injunction directing defendant - Bangalore

Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as

'BDA' for brevity) to remove demarcating stones

no.350, 351, 352 and 353 laid in suit property and

sought for permanent injunction against BDA from

trespassing

in

plaintiff's

property

bearing

Khata

no.31/1

in

Sy.no.31/1B,

measuring

60ft.X120ft.,

situated

at

Valagerehalli

Village,

Kengeri

Hobli,

Bengaluru

South

Taluk,

Bengaluru

(hereinafter

referred to as 'suit property' for brevity).

- 3 -

4.

In plaint, it was stated that plaintiff was

absolute owner of suit property. It was a portion of

Sy.no.31/1, measuring 04 acres 05 guntas, situated at

Valagerahalli,

which

originally

belonged

to

Sri.Narasimhaiah

S/o

Dandu

Kadarappa.

Said

Sri.Narasimhaiah

sold

entire

land

to

his

brother

Sri.Munishamappa under registered sale deed dated

25.04.1943 and put him in possession. After death of

Sri.Munishamappa,

land

devolved

upon

his

son

Sri.M.Krishnappa, who was plaintiff's father-in-law. It

was stated that during his life time, Sri.M.Krishnappa

bequeathed an extent of 11 guntas i.e. 100ft.X120ft.

under Will dated 15.07.1994, in favour of plaintiff.

And

after,

Sri.M.Krishnappa

died

on

22.10.1995,

plaintiff became absolute owner of suit property.

5.

It was also stated that BDA had notified for

acquisition of land in Sy.no.31/1B, measuring 31

guntas

in

Valagerehalli

Village

for

formation

of

Gnanabharathi Layout under Preliminary Notification

dated

19.01.1989

and

Final

Notification

dated

19.01.1994.

But

said

acquisition

was

challenged

- 4 -

before this Court, wherein acquisition was quashed

reserving liberty to BDA to issue fresh acquisition

notification.

Thereafter,

though

BDA

issued

fresh

notification on 06.10.1997, land in Sy.no.31/1B was

not notified. Despite same, officials of BDA had

utilized an extent of 40ft.X120ft., out of Sy.no.31/1B

belonging to plaintiff for purpose of formation of

6^th Main Road of Gnanabharathi Layout and remaining

extent i.e. 60ft.X120ft., was with plaintiff. It was

stated that BDA had illegally laid sites demarcating

stones

in

plaintiff's

property,

though

earlier

acquisition was quashed and in subsequent acquisition

land belonging to plaintiff was not proposed for

acquisition. But as they had laid boundary stones, suit

was filed.

6.

On service of suit summons, defendant -

BDA entered appearance and filed written statement.

In written statement, plaintiff's claim of title and

possession over suit property was denied. It was

however, admitted that no portion of land bearing

Sy.no.31/1B of Valagerehalli Village was not notified

- 5 -

for acquisition. BDA also admitted that an extent of

40ft.X120ft., was utilized by it for formation of

6^th Main Road of Gnanabharati Layout, but denied

remaining extent being in possession of plaintiff and

laying of demarcating stones in suit property land was

also denied.

7.

Based

on

pleadings,

trial

Court

framed

following issues:

1.

Whether the plaintiff proves that the

defendant

has

laid

sites

in

the

Schedule Property illegally?

2.

Whether

the

plaintiff

proves

her

lawful possession and enjoyment over

the suit property as on the date of

the suit?

3.

Whether

the

plaintiff

proves

the

unlawful interference?

4.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

the reliefs as prayed for?

5.

What Order or Decree?

8.

Thereafter, plaintiff was examined as PW.1

and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. Defendant did not

lead evidence.

- 6 -

9.

On

consideration,

trial

Court

answered

issues no.1 to 4 in negative and issue no.5 by

dismissing suit.

10. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiff is in appeal.

11. Sri.M.T. Jagan Mohan, learned counsel for

appellant/plaintiff submit that only