IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 OF 2010 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI S G SUBRAMANI S/O LATE SRI. GOVINDASWAMY AGED 60 YEARS R/AT NO.52, RAJIV GANDHI LAYOUT MARANAHALLI EXTENSION VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.

SINCE DEAD REP. BY LRs

1(A) SMT. NAVANEETHAM W/O LATE SRI. S.G. SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 1(B) SMT. KALPANA .V D/O SRI VINOD AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA 1(C) SRI. LOKESH BABU .S Location: HIGH S/O LATE SRI. S.G.SUBRAMANI COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUMANTH L. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD (T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD)

BANGALORE.

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.1.2010 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN O.S.NO.2141/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC AND REJECTING THE PLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND RECOVERY OF MONEY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the order of the learned Judge rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC on the ground that there is no compliance of Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'the BDA Act').

Consequently, plaint is rejected.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff has instituted the suit against the defendant – Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the BDA and its officials from interfering with her alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has further sought a perpetual injunction restraining the BDA from allotting the suit schedule property in favour of any third parties and has also claimed damages of Rs.1,00,000/- on the allegation that a portion of the structure put up by her was demolished by the officials of the BDA.

4. The plaintiff traces her alleged right and possession through a chain of General Power of Attorney transactions. It is contended that the erstwhile owner, Muniyappa, executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Mohammed Shafiulla Sheriff and M.K. Mohammed Ibrahim. The said GPA holders are stated to have entered into an agreement of sale dated 25.03.1991 in favour of Smt. Lalitha and allegedly delivered possession to her. It is further pleaded that Smt. Lalitha, in turn, executed a General Power of Attorney dated 17.11.1994 in favour of the present plaintiff and placed her in possession of the property. On the strength of the said GPA, the plaintiff asserts that she is in actual possession and that certain structures have been constructed on the property.

5. The plaintiff has also pleaded that portions of Survey No.359/2 were allotted to Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society and Bapuji House Building Co-operative Society, and that she had submitted an application to the said societies seeking regularisation of her construction before the Screening Committee. Alleging that during February 2007, officials of the defendant-BDA entered upon the property and demolished part of the structure put up by her, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

6. Upon service of summons, the defendant-BDA entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement, denying the plaint averments in toto. The defendant also filed I.A.No.1 under Section 64 of the BDA Act, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was instituted without issuance of the statutory notice as mandated under Section 64 of the BDA Act