Owners have the right to challenge unauthorized constructions violating building bye-laws, and the Limitation Act allows for continuance of action in such breaches.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 - Section 22 - Unauthorized construction - Suit dismissed by the Trial Court on grounds of limitation, arguing that only the Corporation could act against violations of building bye-laws. The appellate court found a continuing cause of action for the plaintiff due to ongoing violations and held that the plaintiff has the right to seek remedy. (Paras 8, 17, 20)

(B) Property Law - Building Bye-Laws - The court emphasized the right of neighboring owners to challenge illegal constructions that violate approved building plans and bye-laws. (Paras 19, 21)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff sought a declaration and mandatory injunction against unauthorized constructions by the defendants adjacent to his property, specifically windows and sewage pipelines placed without compliance with regulations. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the limitation period and lack of legal standing for the plaintiff.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court misapplied limitations and did not consider the plaintiff's continuing cause of action. Thus, the appellate judgment set aside the dismissal and acknowledged the ongoing violation of property rights.

Issues: Whether the trial court's ruling on limitation was correct and whether the plaintiff holds the right to act against violations of building regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court determined that the claim involves continuing violations, granting the plaintiff standing to seek redress, overriding the trial court's interpretation.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the Trial Court set aside; plaintiff's suit decreed.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, READ WITH OREDER 41, RULE-1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2013 PASSED IN O.S.6437/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2013 in O.S.No.6437/2009 on the file of the XXXVII Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The plaint averments are that, one K.V.Thandaveshwara was absolute owner of the property bearing No.78/8, totally measuring East-West 35 ft and North-South 90 ft situated at Magadi Main Road. It is further stated that, the original owner of the property, K.V.Thandaveshwara, sold the schedule property in favour of M.S.Govindaswamy as per registered Sale Deed dated 13.02.1974. It is further stated that, M.S.Govindaswamy by registered Sale Deed dated 28.06.1982 sold Western half portion of the property i.e., measuring East-West 17 1/2 ft. and North-South 90 ft in favour of the plaintiff and remaining half portion on the eastern side measuring East-West 17 1/2 ft. and North-South 90 ft. in favour of one B.Narayana Shetty. It is further stated in the plaint that, the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiff and the Corporation has issued Katha No.11 pertaining to the property belonging to the plaintiff and Katha No.11/1 in respect of the property belonging to B.Narayana Shetty. It is further stated that, the Bengaluru City Corporation had acquired the Western portion of the plaintiff's property to an extent of East-West 10 ft. and North-South 90 ft. for the purpose of formation of additional storm water drain and therefore, the area remained with the plaintiff, is measuring East-West 7 1/2 ft. and North-South 90 ft. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property. It is also further stated in the plaint that the neighbour of the plaintiff- B.Narayana Shetty got the Building Licence from the City Corporation, Bengaluru to construct a ground and first floor and the said plan was approved by the Competent Authority. It is also stated in the plaint that, the said B.Narayana Shetty has sold his property in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. After purchasing the same, defendants No.1 and 2 have put up further construction of second and third floors over the property without complying with the building bye-law and the approved plan issued by the Corporation. It is

the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the resident of Kolar and therefore, taking into consideration the absence of the plaintiff, defendants have put up construction of second and third floors of their property keeping the windows of the building towards the plaintiff's property unauthorisedly and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.3618/1994 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed and therefore, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit in O.S.No.6437/2009 seeking the relief of declaration with mandatory injunction against the defendants to remove the windows put up in the second and third floors and also to comply with the building plan issued by the Bengaluru City Corporation. It is further case of the plaintiff that, construction made by the vendor of the defendants and the defendants without leaving any set-back is, contrary to the building bye-law, particularly towards the plaintiff's property and therefore, the construction made by the defendants and their vendor-B.Narayana Shetty is not in accordance with the approved plan and the building bye-law and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file suit in O.S.No.6437/2009.

4. After service of n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39757

Owners have the right to challenge unauthorized constructions violating building bye-laws, and the Limitation Act allows for continuance of action in such breaches.

Cases Referred (3)