The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an RFA filed by a defendant challenging a decree for permanent injunction. The court held that survey document evidence established the subject property was not acquired, thereby sustaining the plaintiff's title and the trial court's decision.
The RFA filed under Section 96 CPC is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
R.F.A.No.19/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVANANDA R MALLYA S/O SRI RAMACHANDRA S MALLYA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF No.61, ‘MANASA’ 5TH MAIN ROAD, DATTATREYANAGAR HOSKEREHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU -560 085. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI RAMACHANDRA S.MALLYA S/O SRI C SRINIVASA MALLYA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT No.61 MANASA 5TH MAIN ROAD DATTATREYANAGAR HOSKEREHALLI BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560 085. ..APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. PUSHPA DEVI D/O MOTHILAL BOHARA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2
RESIDING AT No.891 4TH CROSS, 13TH MAIN HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560 019.
..RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRABHUGOUDA B.TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S.No.5855/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 25.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.5855/2013
by the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff came
to be decreed and permanent injunction was granted.
decree the defendant has come in appeal. When the matter was set down to hear on application, the order
3
invariably has been passed. Learned counsel
submitted that they were heard in full covering the entire matter. Thus, though the matter is posted for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties after hearing it is taken up for final disposal.
4
and on the southern side 45 feet, North to South 40
feet and bounded on the
East by : 40 feet road
West by : Site No.103 North by : Site No.105
South by : 25 feet road
5
6
northern side and 40 feet on southern side and North to South 40 feet in all totally measuring 1,400 sq. ft. was sold by B.M.Prakash along with his wife and children and his two sisters in favour of Smt.Gowramma under sale deed dated 18.04.2007. After transfer of jurisdiction the said property came within BBMP limits and it was allotted new No.104 with khatha No.1368/1/1064/32-104. The said Gowramma was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The khatha stood in her name and she was paying betterment charges and she sold the property to the defendant who is one of the purchasers of the same along with his wife Smt.Manikya Narahari Pai and his father Sri.Ramachandra S.Mallya under registered sale deed dated 27.03.2013. After purchase, khatha was transferred to their joint names and obtained necessary licence for construction of building and plaintiff has no right over the suit
7
property. It is further contended that the sale deed of the plaintiff dated 15.07.2004 and the property purchased by her is carved out of land in Sy.No.7/3 and the measurements of it does not match with the property purchased by defendant. All the documents and contentions referred by the learned trial Judge is relating to one more aspect plaintiff had filed the suit claiming that site No.104 is carved out of land in Sy.No.7/3 of Uttarahalli Village and it is strongly denied by defendant who contends Sy.No.7/3 was acquired by BDA along with various lands. The defendant is purchaser of the site carved out of land in Sy.No.7/2 under the sale deed dated 27.03.2013 from the vendor –Gowramma who had purchased from the legal heirs of B.Munireddy.
oral evidence of PW-1- Jaswant Kumar Gandhi and
8
DW-1 –Manikya Narahari Pai and documentary
evidence Exhibits P-1 to P-44 on behalf of the plaintiff and Exhibits D-1 to D-34 on behalf of the defendant. On conclusion of trial, suit came to be decreed.
appellant-defendant would submit that when the landed property was acquired and award amount is deposited and all the properties vested with BDA neither the plaintiff nor defendant can set up any title against it.
purchased from the previous owner. Learned counsel would also submit that the acquisition proceedings is not complete in respect of defendant’s property and sum and substance is that the appellant-defendant is
the absolute owner in possession of the schedule
9
property and he asserts the same in so many words and relies on the documents filed by him namely sale deed, notification, copy of the court order.
10
other aspects the acquisition of land in Sy.No.7/3 was dropped and acquisition was confined to Sy.No.7/2.
The purchase of property by plaintiff from its previous owner and so also by defendant from its owner is not disputed. The main and prime contention of the appellant-defendant is suit schedule property is part of Sy.No.7/3 i.e., acquired and plaintiff has no property therein. For better understanding it is
11
necessary to mention written statement filed by defendant with reference to paragraph 3 that an extent of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.7/2 in Uttarahalli Village was self acquired and absolute property of one B.Munireddy who purchased the same from its earlier owners L.Krishnappa, Smt.Muniyamma under a sale deed dated 24.02.1975 registered as document No.200/1975-76 at pages 129-131, Volume 1144 of Book I in the Sub-Registrar Office, Bangalore South Taluk. B.Munireddy died intestate on 16.12.1985 leaving behind his three children namely B.M.Prakash, Smt.Nirmala and Smt.Shyamala as exclusive legal heirs and said land is converted to non-agricultural purpose.
12
parties are correct in their stance about title and possession of the properties purchased by them one of which has been titled as being carved out in Sy.No.7/3 which is the plaint schedule property. The earliest document coming in this connection is preliminary notification dated 18.04.89. This document is filed by learned counsel for plaintiff along with a memo today which is taken for perusal in the ends of natural justice. The title of the said document is it is a notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner during
the year 1989 and shows Sy.No.7/2 and 7/3 are acquired the details of the extent and serial number
are reproduced as under:
Sl.No. Name of Khatedars Sy.No. Extent 12. B.Muni Reddy, S/o Bucha Reddy 7/2 Dry 1-25 13.Ammaiah, W/o Muniramaiah 7/3 Dry 1-16
13
14
relief sought was to issue direction to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner and Respondent No.3 – BDA not to dispossess the petitioners from the schedule property. It is necessary to mention that the petitioners claimed that they are holders of land including Sy.Nos.12/1, 7/3 and 7/4 of Uttarahalli. The matter was disposed of by learned Judge of this court as under:
“Though these petitions are posted for orders, they are taken up for final disposal as the stand taken in these petitions is covered by the decision of this Court in M.S.Narayana Murthy and others – VS – The state of Karnataka and others (W.P.Nos.15201 to 15206 of 1985 and other connected cases disposed of on 31.5.1988).
The petitioners, on the basis of an agreement for sale, have put up certain constructions on the revenue site in Sy.Nos.12/1, 7/3 and 7/4 of Uttarahally village, Bangalore South Taluk. It is contended by the petitioners that the State Government has taken a policy decision to finalise all the unauthorized constructions and has formulated guidelines. It is further asserted that the State Government has
15
constituted a screening committee for such purpose and the matter is being examined for the regularization of the sites. Since the petitioners apprehended demolition of their construction, they have filed these writ petitions.
On 31.1.1990, interim order as prayed for has been issued, the consequence of which is, the petitioners continue to be in possession of the property and there has been no demolition of their buildings. In W.P.No.8693/1989 and connected cases disposed of on 28.7.1989, the learned Judge has directed that the screening committee shall look into the representation filed by the petitioners, meanwhile it has been directed that this order shall not enable the petitioners to put up fresh constructions and the construction existing on the land shall not be demolished nor the petitioners should not be dispossessed till the screening committee disposes of the petitioners’ representation in accordance with law.
Following the said decision, I make the following order:
Petitioners shall make a representation within six weeks from today and the screening Committee shall consider the same strictly without relaxing the terms of the Government order. This order shall not enable the petitioners to put up fresh construction. The constructions that are on
16
the land shall not be demolished nor the petitioners should be dispossessed till the screening committee disposes of the application in accordance with law. No costs.
Mr.N.K.Patil, learned counsel for the B.D.A. is permitted to file Vakalat within four weeks.”
document is that said Sy.No.7/2 is bounded on the East by land in Sy.No.7/3 West land in Sy.No.7/1, North land in Sy.No.6 and South land in Sy.No.9. By reading of these documents it makes clear and suggest without any requirement for interpretation
17
that the document not only excludes the notification dated 17.09.97 but places Sy.No.7/3 was not acquired, on the other hand it was deleted. But also shows land in Sy.No.7/3 is on the eastern side to Sy.No.7/2 and now the very cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff is that she purchased schedule property for valuable consideration from its vendor Ammayyamma and Srinivas through their GPA Holder Sri.Jaswanth Kumar Gandhi.
“3. That, an extent of 1 acre 25 gunta in Sy.No.7/2 of Uttarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was the self acquired and absolute property of one Sri.B.Muni Reddy, who had purchased the same from its earlier owners, Sri.L.Krishnappa and Smt.Muniyamma under a sale deed dated 24.02.1975 registered as document No.200/1975-76, at
18
pages 129-131, volume 1144 of Book I with the Sub Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk.
19
Road was sold by Sri.B.M.Prakash and his two sisters, Smt.B.M.Nirmala and Smt.B.M.Shyamala along with wife and children of Sri.B.M.Prakash to Smt. Gowramma vide sale deed dated 18.04.2007 registered as document No.BSK-1-00488-2007-08 of Book I and stored in CD No.BSKD 2 in the office of the Sub Registrar Banashankari on 18.04.2007.
which tells land belonged to one Muni Reddy who died intestate on 16.12.85 and his legal heirs B.M.Prakash
20
Smt.Nirmala and Smt.Shyamala. They succeeded to the property as wife of Muni Reddy predeceased him. The legal heirs of the said land got the property converted for non agricultural purpose and site No.32 with panchayat khatha No.1064 measuring East to West 30 feet on the northern side and 40 feet on the southern side and North to South 40 feet and in all admeasuring 1400 sq. ft. was sold by B.M.Prakash and his two sisters along with wife and children sold to Gowramma and said Gowramma sold it to defendant along with his wife Smt.Manikya Narahari Pai and his father Ramachandra S.Mallya vide sale deed dated 27.03.2013 and after purchase of the property defendants and others have got khatha transferred in their joint names maintained by BBMP. Thus plaintiff at the cost of repetition claims schedule property tracing back the title to earlier Sy.No.7/3 and Sy.No.7/2 was acquired and Sy.No.7/3 left out.
21
submits that suit for mere permanent injunction is not maintainable and it should be by declaratory suit as defendant has denied title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule. He has relied on the following Judgment:
(2008)4 SCC 594 – Anathula Sudhakar Vs P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others
22
O.S.No.5306/2004 against Prakash. However said
suit was closed for non prosecution.
23
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the decree granting permanent injunction deserves interference in view of the parties running in different survey numbers.
Whether a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable when the defendant has substantially denied the plaintiff's title.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anathula Sudhakar Vs P.Buchi ReddyReferred¶20
Anathula Sudhakar Vs P.Buchi Reddy (2008)4 SCC 594 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Shivananda R Mallya
Smt. Pushpa Devi
N.K.Sudhindrarao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
