A person in lawful possession under a lease-cum-sale agreement is entitled to seek permanent and mandatory injunctions to protect their possession and remove unauthorized constructions built by trespassers who fail to establish a valid flow of title from the rightful owner.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.02.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.15234/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE, (CCH-21), DECREEING THE SUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS 1 AND 3 AND DISMISSING THE SUIT AGAINST 2ND DEFENDANT, SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION & MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

CAV JUDGMENT

This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth referred to as 'CPC.') by the defendants Nos.1 and 3 in O.S.No.15234/2000 challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2010 passed by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-21).

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendant Nos.1 and 3 while the respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and the respondent No.2 was the defendant No.2.

3. (i) The suit in O.S.No.15234/2000 was filed by the plaintiff represented by his power of attorney, for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property and for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants Nos.1 to 3 to remove the construction put up over the suit property at their cost.

(ii) The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was allotted to his mother Mrs.Ameerunnisa by the erstwhile CITB vide allotment letter dated 12.03.1977 and that she was placed in possession vide a possession certificate dated 25.09.1982. A lease-cum-sale agreement was also executed by Bangalore Development Authority (henceforth referred to as 'BDA') in favour of Mrs.Ameerunnisa. The power of attorney of the plaintiff contends that she is a General Power of Attorney (henceforth referred to as ‘GPA’) holder and also has an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property and based on the same, she was placed in possession. She contended that defendant No.1 is a stranger to the suit property but was interfering with her possession with an intention to put up construction thereon. Though the plaintiff showed all the documents to the defendant No.1, he was interfering with her possession so as to lay a foundation over the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff was then advised to approach the Civil Court and hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for the aforementioned reliefs.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1, who claimed that the suit is not maintainable, as it was filed against a wrong person. He claimed that his wife Mrs.Ayisha is the owner of the property bearing No.262, 7th Block, Koramangala Extension, Bengaluru, which was duly allotted by the BDA in favour of one Shivanna in whose favour a sale deed was executed by BDA on 29.10.1992. He claimed that his wife purchased the suit property from Shivanna in terms of a sale deed dated 18.08.1999. He contended that his wife was in possession of the property and that she had obtained a plan duly sanctioned for putting up construction and accordingly, she constructed a building and is residing therein. He claimed that at no point of time the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and that the averments made regarding the plaintiff being in possession were all false. He claimed that as both the plaintiff and defendants claimed through the allottees from the BDA,