Appeal against judgment dismissing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Court found plaintiff's evidence regarding ownership and possession unreliable and withdrawal application improper. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondents.
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.
R.F.A No.147/2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M. ADIGA
R.F.A No.147 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN :
SRI. B. RAMANJANAPPA S/O BACHANNA MAJORE RESIDENT OF MENASI VILLAGE DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE )
AND :
THE SECRETARY N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, NO.5 G PALACE ARCHARDS APARTMENTS NO.51, R.M.V. LAYOUT 6TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 080. ... RESPONDENT (R1 SERVED-UNRESPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.05.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.855/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE 17 ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
R.F.A No.147/2012
2
THIS RFA, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J . , PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against
judgment and decree dated May 27, 2011 in O.S. No.855/2006 on the file of XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Advocate for the appellant.
initially filed the instant suit with a prayer for permanent injunction against the defendant-Society contending inter alia that suit property bearing Sy. No.13 of Nagashettyhalli village, Bangalore North
Taluk measuring 3 acres 24 guntas belonged to one
3
Devananjappa's family. In the year 1960, the owner sold 1 acre 32 guntas out of the total area in favour of one Muniswamy Reddy. He in turn sold 32 guntas of land in favour of the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated September 23, 1970. The suit property was renumbered as Sy. No.13/2.
R.F.A No.147/2012
4
plaintiff's possession and accordingly, he sought for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction.
filing written statement contending inter alia that the suit property was subject matter of acquisition proceedings in respect of the entire 3 acres 21 guntas of land in Sy. No.13/1 and 13/2, by the Bangalore Development Authority1 . BDA had taken possession of the land under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on April 1, 1982. It was averred that BDA had transferred 1 acre 21 guntas of land, by a registered deed of transfer dated November 23, 1988, in favour of the defendantSociety and the remaining area vested with the BDA. It was also averred that suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.
1 'BDA' for short
R.F.A No.147/2012
5
8. Based on the pleadings, Trial Court
framed following seven issues:
" (1) vÁ£ÀÄ zÁªÉ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ£ÉAzÀÄ ªÁ¢ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹zÁÝ£ÉAiÉÄÃ? (2) zÁªÉ µÉqÀÆå!ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀħzÀÝ ¸Áé¢üãÀ vÀ£Àß §½ EzÉ JAzÀÄ ªÁ¢ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹zÁÝ£ÉAAiÉÄÃ?
(3) PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À C¢üäAiÀĪÀĪzÀ PÀ®A 125gÀrAiÀÄ°è £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ PÉÆqÀzÀ zÁªÉ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ HfðvÀªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÀÄ?
(4) CªÀ±ÀåPÀ ¥ÁnðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¸ÀzÉ ºÀÆrgÀĪÀ zÁªÉ zÉÆõÀ¢AzÀ PÀÆr¢AiÉÄ? (5) ªÁzÀ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ºÉýzÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì PÉÆqÀ!ÁVzÉAiÉÄ?
(6) zÁªÉ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ©rJ zÀªÀgÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÁÝgÉAiÉÄÃ? (7) K£ÀÄ DYÉÕ CxÀªÁ rQæ? "
negative and 4 to 6 in the affirmative, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit with costs.
Advocate for the appellant submitted that:
R.F.A No.147/2012
6
7
R.F.A No.147/2012
8
(a) Whether plaintiff proves that he is the lawful owner in possession of the suit property?
(b) Whether any interference is required with the impugned judgment and decree?
"KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS SRI.B.RAMANJANAPPA, S/O.BHACHANNA, aged about 53 Years, residing at: Menasi Village, Doddaballapur Taluk,
R.F.A No.147/2012
9
Bangalore District, do hereby appoint, nominate and constitute Sri.H.R.CHANDRA, S/o.K.H.Gowda, aged about 30 Years, residing at: No.2, A.E.C.S. III Stage, Near Armugam Marbels, Ist Cross, Nagashettahalli, Bangalore-560 094. as my true lawful General Power of Attorney in my name and on my own behalf to do any one or more of the acts, deeds and things hereinafter mentioned in respect of the land described in the Schedule.
WHEREAS I am the Absolute Owner of the land detailed in the Schedule Vide 23-9-70 and the Property showing in my name in the records of the sub-registrar by Registration No.2120/70-71, Whereas the said property is not in any way encumbered, whereas nobody has any right/interest/claim whatsoever in the lands. "
(Emphasis Supplied)
R.F.A No.147/2012
10
the BDA and it took possession of the land on April
1, 1982 and transferred 1 acre 21 guntas in its favour. The possession of the remaining land remained with the BDA.
admitted that the Power of attorney was given to him prior to the date of filing the suit. The Power of attorney is dated May 2, 1994. P.W.1's age is mentioned as 30 years in the Power of Attorney, which means, he was born in 1964. The suit has been filed on February 2, 1995. In his crossexamination dated October 28, 2009, P.W.1 has stated that he knew about the suit schedule property since September 1970. Reckoned from his year of birth, P.W.1 would be 6 years old in 1970. It
is surprising to note that a child aged 6 years whose relation with the owner of the land is not described, had knowledge about the land in question. The owner of the land has not specified
R.F.A No.147/2012
11
any reason for appointing the Power agent. He has not stepped into the witness box. Hence, the testimony of P.W.1 is not reliable.
12
1995 and initially filed the suit for injunction and subsequently amended the prayer to include declaration. This amply proves that P.W.1 had no knowledge about the facts of the case and plaintiff has filed a speculative suit.
2 ILR 2004 KAR 2215
R.F.A No.147/2012
13
written statement about non-joinder of necessary parties in 1998 and the issues were framed in 1999. But the I.A. No.20 was filed on 23.04.2011 i.e. after 13 years from the date of filing of the written statement, when the suit was posted for judgment without making out any case for consideration of the said I.A. and accordingly dismissed the same.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
SPS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether plaintiff proves that he is the lawful owner in possession of the suit property?
Whether any interference is required with the impugned judgment and decree?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rabiya Bi Kassim M Vs. The Country Wide Consumer Financial Service Ltd.Referred¶20
Rabiya Bi Kassim M Vs. The Country Wide Consumer Financial Service Ltd.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. B. RAMANJANAPPA
THE SECRETARY N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
UMESH M. ADIGA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court