IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1698 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M. MARANNA @ M. MARAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY LRS)

1) SMT. RUDRAMMA, WIFE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2) SRI. SATHYANARAYANA, SON AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3) SRI. ARUN KUMAR, SON AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.C-14, B. CHANNASANDRA, BANASWADI POST, BANGALORE - 560 043.

Digitally signed by …APPELLANTS VEDAVATHI (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE)

A K Location:

AND:

High court of Karnataka 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANASWADI SUB-DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560 043.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. J. PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W.ORDER 41 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.27326/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU(CCH-20), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR AND DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant under section 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment passed by XXVI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall Bengaluru in O.S.No.27326/2009 dated 01.07.2019 for having dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent are the defendants before the trial court and the ranks of the parties are retained for the sake of the convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that, he has filed the suit for declaration to declare that notice issued by the defendant under section 321 (3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (herein after referred as 'KMC Act') is not binding on him, and not binding on his property, as well as on the plaintiff and granting decree to restrain the defendants from interfering and demolishing the building constructed by the plaintiff. It is alleged by the plaintiff that his father was the owner of the property bearing No.50 situated at B Channasandra, K.R.Puram Bengaluru East, acquired from his ancestors and he was paying tax for the same. He has put up construction and also shop in the suit property, by obtaining the license from the village panchayath. Accordingly, he put up the building to the south of the suit property, a vacant site bearing No.48, belonging to Narayanaswamy and the said Narayanaswamy was trying to encroach the property in 1975, hence father filed a suit in O.S.No.695/1975 renumbered as O.S.No.5525/1980 to declare his father as owner and also permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. Accordingly, a decree was obtained by his father and it was further upheld by High court in the first appeal. Thereafter, at the instigation of the neighbour Narayanaswamy, the defendant issued notice under section 321(3) of KMC Act, calling the plaintiff to demolish the building that was put up in 1948. It is an unauthorized construction and thereby there is violation of building bye-laws. The notice was challenged by the father of the plaintiff before the appellate or the KAT. During the pendency, it was stayed, later appeal was withdrawn. The appellant also filed second appeal, which came to be dismissed on the ground of misconception of the fact that properties are totally different and subsequently the suit came to be filed. 4. After summons, the respondent appearing filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff claimed the property as bearing No.48 and 50 in the appeal filed before the KAT. As such, the notice issued by the defendant was not answered by him. Therefore, the final notice has been issued for demolition and it is also contended as per 482 of KMC Act, that the civil court does not have the jurisdicti