ORAL JUDGMENT

This regular first appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2024 passed in O.S. No.4938/2018 on the file of XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-33) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1, restraining the present appellants and respondent Nos.2 and 3 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Site No.752/C, Katha No.945/96/752/C situated at Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’ for short) formed in the approved layout of Sri Vinayaka Housing Building Cooperative Society Limited (‘society’ for short).

Plaint averments:

2. The plaintiff asserted that she is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit property situated in the BDA approved layout formed by Society. The suit property was originally allotted to her mother, Smt. Puttanarsamma, under allotment letter dated 17.05.1997 and subsequently, conveyed through a registered sale deed dated 26.02.1999 executed by the society. In turn, her mother executed a registered gift deed dated 17.11.1999 transferring the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.

3. It is stated that pursuant to the said transfer, the katha has been mutated in her name; she has obtained building licence and sanctioned plan, completed construction and secured electric and water connections and trade licence. She is continuously paying property tax and has been in peaceful, undisturbed possession since the date of purchase. The plaintiff averred that the defendants, without any semblance of right, attempted to trespass and obstruct her peaceful possession.

4. That defendants’ claim is based on an alleged grant of 4 acres in Survey No.17 of Nagarabhavi Village to one Chikkathimmaiah, which had long been declared bogus by the Special Deputy Commissioner's order dated 21.09.2007, which has attained finality after dismissal of the writ petition, writ appeal, and SLP. The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

Written statement averments:

5. The defendants denied the plaintiff's title and possession, contending that Survey No.17 of Nagarabhavi Village was a Government Gomal land and that 4 acres thereof had been granted to Sri Chikkathimmaiah in the year 1954 under Saguvali Chit. They claim to have derived their rights through the said grantee, whose successors allegedly sold portions of the granted land to Dr. Ramesh and Smt. Rekha Ramesh under registered sale deed dated 08.06.1986, from whom the defendants in turn purchased various sites, including Site No.299 under the registered sale deed dated 29.12.2003. It is contended that the suit property never came into existence in any approved BDA layout, as the society's modified plan was kept in abeyance by BDA and that the plaintiff's documents were fabricated. They averred that in O.S. No.1717/1998 filed by Chikkathimmaiah against the society, temporary injunction were granted on 29.01.1999 and 17.11.1999 and a status quo order was granted on 02.03.1999 in MFA by this Court that the plaintiff's purchase and construction violated the interim order granted by the Courts. They further relied on the pending RFA No.2196/2022 wherein a similar status quo order continues. According to the defendants, the Deputy Commissioner's order declaring the grant was challenged and in the SLP, it had specifically stated that all contentions would be decided in the Trial Court in O.S. No.1717/1998. It is specifically contended that the plaintiff's suit for bare injunction is not maintainable in the face of serious title dispute and alleged violation of subsisting Court orders and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The Trial Court, upon consideration of t