Dismissed

Sri Krishna Murthy v. Sri K Nagaraj S/O Sanna Rudrappa

Karnataka HC18 May 2023RFA/2265/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Regular First Appeal against a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction, the High Court of Karnataka affirmed the Trial Court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership and the existence of a road, while the defendants failed to establish title to the neighboring site. The suit was deemed maintainable without a title declaration as ownership was not challenged.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The impugned judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007 confirming the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was affirmed.

Sri Krishna Murthy Vs Sri K Nagaraj S/O… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2265/2007 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED 55 YEARS R/A 130/2, 25^TH CROSS, BAGALGUNTE MAIN ROAD,

¶9

BANGALORE - 73.

¶10

SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

¶11

1(A) SRI. SIDDAGANGAPPA S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶12

*2. SMT. RAMAKKA, W/O SRI KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 40 YEARS, NO.411, C/O NO.130/2, DEVIRAMMA BUILDING, 25^TH CROSS, BAGALKUNTE MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 73.

¶13

1(B) SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶14

1(C) SRI. MANJUNATH

¶15

S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶16

THE APPELLANT 1(B) TO 1(C) ARE R/AT NO.75; RAMACHANDRAPPA BUILDING, 10^TH CROSS, BAGALGUNTE, BANGALORE - 73.

¶17

... APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR LR'S OF A1(A-C) AND 2.)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. K.NAGARAJ, S/O SANNA RUDRAPPA AGED 53 YEARS NO.554, 23^RD CROSS,

¶21

*Retyped and replaced vide court order dated :06.10.2023

¶22

¶23

BAGALKUNTE VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 73.

¶24

... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA .S., ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF THE C.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.6.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5209/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS R.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.03.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The defendant in O.S.No.5209/1995 is impugning the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007 on the file of the learned V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for brevity), whereunder the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with cost, directing the defendants to remove the compound wall and the shed constructed by them on the northern side of the Schedule Property and permanently restraining them from causing obstruction to the northern side road in any manner.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

¶30

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.5209/1995 against the defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining them from putting up any construction on the northern side of the plaint Schedule Property i.e., 25 feet wide road abutting to the property bearing khatha No.636 of Bagalgunte village, Yeshwanthaura Hobli, Bagalgunte, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 40X30 feet with the boundaries mentioned in the Schedule appended to the plaint.

¶32

It is contended by the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession of the Schedule Site as he purchased it under the registered sale deed dated 27.09.1990. The property was originally allotted in favour of Sri P.S.Shankar by the Bagalgunte House Building Society (hereinafter referred as 'the Society' for brevity) under the sale deed dated 22.08.1981. The Possession Certificate dated 05.02.1983 was also issued by the Society. The said P.S. Shankar in turn sold the property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied for change of khatha and accordingly, his name was mutated in the revenue records. He paid the tax and enjoying the property as an absolute owner.

¶33

¶34

The plaintiff contended that he constructed a residential building in the schedule site by obtaining building licence. The plan was sanctioned on 27.01.1992. Electricity connection was taken by obtaining No Objection from the Bagalgunte Grama Panchayath. The plaintiff constructed the building after obtaining loan from the Financial Institution. All the original documents were deposited with the financier.

¶35

It is contended that the schedule site is a corner site and there is a road on the northern and eastern side. The Northern road measures 25 feet in width and the eastern road measures 20 feet. The plaintiff was using the said roads to enjoy his property. Defendant No.1 without any authority, started digging the foundation on the northern side of the schedule site. The plaintiff cautioned defendant No.1 not to obstruct the way. Even though temporarily defendant No.1 stopped the work, he again, started digging the trench. The police complaint filed in that regard has not given any result, instead they directed the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. It is stated that defendant No.1 who is a powerful person, if successful in his attempt to put up the construction

¶36

¶37

on the northern side of the schedule site which blocks the entrance to the Schedule Site. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for grant of permanent injunction.

¶38

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff got amended the plaint and impleaded defendant No.2 contending that the defendants started collecting the building materials and made unauthorized construction. The City Municipal Council, Dasarahalli removed the said unauthorized construction on the complaint lodged by the plaintiff. But, the defendants again put up unauthorized construction i.e., the compound wall and the shed on the road on the northern side of the Schedule Site. The defendants are not having any right, title or interest to put up such construction. Hence, the defendants are liable to remove the unauthorized construction. Accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the unauthorized construction put up by them.

¶39

Defendant No.1 has filed his written statement

¶40

denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff. It is stated that the suit is not maintainable and there is no cause of

¶41

¶42

action for the suit. Defendant No.1 also contended that site No.54/2, measuring East to West 60 feet, North to South 25 feet is situated in Sy.No.36 of Bagalgunte village and Sri B.L.Narasimhachar, S/o. A Lakshminarasimhachar being the Secretary of the Society, executed the GPA dated 16.07.1994 in favour of Smt.Ramakka after accepting the valuable consideration of Rs.60,000/-. An affidavit was also sworn in support of the GPA acknowledging the transfer of right, title and interest and also physical possession of the said site. Accordingly, Ramakka was put in possession of the site in question. The Bagalgunte Panchayath recorded the name of Ramakka as the owner of the property and she started paying the revenue. The said Ramakka had put up construction on the basis of the GPA and the affidavit executed by the Secretary. The construction was in accordance with law.

¶43

It is contended that there is no road as claimed by the plaintiff. The road is on the eastern side of the plaint schedule and not on the northern side. The plaintiff is having an approach road on the eastern side. It is also stated that Ramakka referred to above is the wife of defendant No.1. The plaintiff started demanding Rs.50,000/- to allow her to put up

¶44

¶45

construction. When she refused to pay the same, the plaintiff came up with the suit making false allegations and to prevent her from putting up construction. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the suit with cost.

¶46

After impleading defendant No.2, both the defendants have filed written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff. The ownership of the plaintiff over the Schedule Site is also denied. It is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and he is not entitled for claiming injunction against the true owner. The site situated on the north of the schedule site belongs to defendant No.2. The plaintiff has not sought for any declaration to declare that the northern portion of the schedule site is a road. Under such circumstances, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶47

It is contended that defendant No.2 is the owner of site No.54/2, measuring East to West 60 feet, North to South 25 feet in Sy.No.36 of Bagalgunte village. She purchased it under the GPA dated 16.07.1994 executed by B.L.Narasimhachar who was the Secretary of the Society. She paid Rs.60,000/- to B.L.Narasimhachar towards sale

¶48

¶49

consideration and by accepting the same, he has sworn an affidavit and put defendant No.2 in possession of the property on 16.07.1994. Since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of her site bearing No.54/2. Her name was entered in the demand register extract and was paying the revenue.

¶50

It is contended that the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over site No.54/2 belonging to defendant No.2 which is having a road both on the eastern and western side. Site Nos.45 and 54 are situated on Northern and Southern side of site No.54/2. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and accordingly, they prays for dismissal of the suit with cost.

¶51

13. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court

¶52

framed the following issues and the additional issues;

¶53

Issues :

¶54

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the northern side of the suit schedule property is a road?

¶55

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants is trying to illegally construct a house on the northern side of the suit schedule property?

¶56

¶57

3. What order or decree?"

¶58

Additional Issues:

¶59

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has put up a compound wall and shed on the northern side of the suit schedule property i.e. on 25ft width road on northern side as alleged in para 10 (a) of the plaint?

¶60

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction?

¶61

3. Whether the suit is valued property and court fee paid is sufficient?"

¶62

The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1,

¶63

examined PW-2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P35 in support of his contention. The defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-

¶64

1, examined DWs.2 to 4 and got marked Exs.D1 to D9 in support of their contention. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 and additional issue Nos.1 to 3 in the 'Affirmative' and decreed the suit of the plaintiff by granting mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction put up by them and also permanently restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to the northern side road in any manner.

¶65

¶66

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants are before this Court.

¶67

Heard Sri T.Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants and Sri Raghavendra S., learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the materials on record including the trial Court records.

¶68

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff has not sought for declaration of his title even when the defendants seriously disputed his claim over the Schedule Site. The defendants have also denied the existence of the road on the northern side of the schedule site. Existence of the said road is also not proved by the plaintiff. When such things are seriously disputed before the trial Court, the trial Court has proceeded to decree the suit of the plaintiffs for injunction without there being any declaration. The relief of mandatory injunction granted by the trial Court is in respect of the property which is not the subject matter of the suit. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot execute the decree of the trial Court. The trial Court has also

¶69

¶70

ignored the oral and the documentary evidence placed before it by the defendants.

¶71

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Narayanappa Vs Anandamma¹ in support of his contention that since according to the plaintiff, there exists a public road in respect of which, he is claiming the relief, the suit in the representative capacity should have been filed seeking redressal of the grievance for and on behalf of the members of the layout, who are owning the sites therein. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, as a result, to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with cost.

¶72

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the appeal contended that the plaintiff is the owner of Site No.55. The same is not in dispute. The plaintiff has produced the sale deed that was executed in favour of his vendor by the Society and also the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Both are registered sale deeds and in both the

¶73

1 ILR 2006 KAR 3599

¶74

¶75

documents, there is a reference to the road on the eastern side of the schedule site. The plaintiff has also relied on several other registered sale deeds in respect of site Nos.45, 46 and 54 which are either adjoining the Schedule Site or situated in front of it on the other side of the road. The boundaries mentioned in all these sale deeds categorically refer to the road that is in existence as claimed by the plaintiff.

¶76

Learned counsel further submitted that even though the defendants are claiming right over site bearing No.54/2, said to be measuring 60X25 feet, there is absolutely no documents which can be termed as the title deeds. The defendants are relying on Exs.D7 and D8 i.e., the GPA and the affidavit sworn to by one Sri Narasimhachar in his individual capacity. First of all, the existence of such sites in the layout is not proved. Even if such site is situated valid title is not passed in favour of defendant No.2 under Exs.D7 and D8. Those documents were marked subject to objections and they were not proved in accordance with law.

¶77

DW-4 who is none other than the said Narasimhachar categorically admitted that the sites in the

¶78

¶79

layout in question are required to be sold only in favour of the members of the Society. It is also submitted that the defendants are not the members. Witness categorically admitted that he has issued Ex.P1- Possession Certificate in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff in his capacity as Secretary. Under such circumstances, the contention taken by the defendants falls to the ground.

¶80

Learned counsel further submitted that the defendants are relying on Ex.D13 to contend that they had put up a shed and taken water connection. The recitals in Ex.D13 is very clear that the construction is an unauthorized construction and to regularize the same, water connection was given. But, strangely, it is not the contention of the defendants that they applied for regularization of the unauthorized construction. Learned counsel also submitted that when the plaintiff was examined himself as PW-1, a fatal suggestion was made by learned counsel for the defendants admitting the existence of the road on the northern side of the suit site and in between site Nos.45, 46, 54 and 55. Therefore, the defendants categorically admitted existence of

¶81

¶82

the road in question and also admitted that the construction was put up unauthorizedly.

¶83

Learned counsel further submitted that the ownership of the plaintiff over the schedule site is never disputed. On the other hand, the plaintiff has placed sufficient materials including the title deeds to prove his ownership. When access to the said site was blocked by the defendants by putting up unauthorized construction, he has sought for necessary relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. Since the right of the plaintiff to enjoy the schedule site was interfered with by the defendants, he is entitled for the relief of such injunctions. There is absolutely no reason to seek for declaration of title of the plaintiff as the same is not under challenge. But on the other hand, the title of the defendants over the piece of land in question as claimed under Exs.D7 and D8 is in serious dispute. If so, the defendants should have sought for declaration of their title. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff. There are no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal with cost.

¶84

¶85

In view of the rival submissions made by learned

¶86

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶87

"Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to prove that the Trial Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree and needs interference by this Court? What Order?"

¶88

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative'

¶89

for the following;

¶90

REASONS

¶91

It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that he

¶92

is the absolute owner of site No.55, having khatha No.636, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet, situated at Bagalgunte village bounded North and East by Road, West by site No.55 and South by site No.58. It is his contention that even though on the northern side of his site, there is a road, the defendants without any manner of right, title or interest, intending to put up the construction and during the pendency of the suit, he put up the illegal construction which was once demolished by the TMC,

¶93

¶94

Dasarahalli, but again, they had put up the compound wall and the construction.

¶95

Per contra, the defence taken by defendant No.1 is that he does not admit the ownership of the plaintiff over the schedule site, but asserts that there is no road on the northern side of the schedule site. but it is the site bearing No.54/2, which defendant No.2 purchased from the Society by paying the consideration amount and thereafter, constructed the house and staying there. Since the plaintiff is claiming that the defendants have obstructed the public road, suit for bare injunction is not maintainable and the suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC should have been filed. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Narayanappa (supra).

¶96

I have gone through the decision in Narayanappa (supra), where a suit for injunction was filed in respect of the Suit Schedule Property, which is a government road formed in Harijan colony, after acquiring the land under the land acquisition proceedings. The trial Court decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court set aside the impugned judgment and

¶97

¶98

decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. In the second appeal, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.

¶99

The facts of the case before the Co-ordinate Bench of this court are that, the land was acquired and the road was formed in the colony. The defendant who is a stranger, wrongfully causing inconvenience and intentionally obstructing the plaintiff and his family members from making use of the public road and therefore, he sought for the relief in respect of the government road described in the schedule appended to the plaint. But, in the present case, the schedule site is a private property claimed by the plaintiff under the sale deed executed in his favour. It is his contention that even though to the north of his site there is a public road, the defendants are obstructing his way to the road and are also obstructing enjoyment of his site. If large number of persons are interested to prevent the defendants from putting up the illegal construction or to remove such construction already put up, they can have the recourse to Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. But in the present case, the Schedule Site is a private property of

¶100

¶101

the plaintiff and he is feeling aggrieved by the acts of the defendants, in enjoying his property. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit of the plaintiff is to be thrown away, since it was filed in his individual capacity. In Narayanappa (supra) the Suit Schedule Property itself is a government road in respect of which, relief was claimed by the plaintiff and under such circumstances, this Court held that the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable is correct. The facts and circumstances of the present case is entirely different. The plaintiff is seeking discretionary relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule site. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the appellants in that regard cannot be accepted.

¶102

It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule site i.e., site No.55, khatha No.636, measuring East to West 40 feet, North to South 30 feet having road on the North and East. To prove his contention, the plaintiff has produced the sale deed as per Ex.P9, which is dated 27.09.1990 and it is a registered

¶103

¶104

document. Ex.P10 is the certified copy of the sale deed. Ex.P1 is the Possession Certificate issued by Bagalgunte House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., dated 05.02.1983 confirming handing over of possession in respect of site No.55 in favour of P.S. Shankara. The boundaries of site No.55 is again mentioned in the Possession Certificate as East and North by road, West by site No.54 and South by site No.58. The very same boundaries are mentioned in the sale deedEx.P9. Ex.P6 is the building licence issued during 1992 by the Bagalgunte panchayath permitting him to construct house in site No.55, where again, the boundaries are mentioned on the East and North by road. Ex.P7 is an approved plan, wherein

¶105

the roads are referred both on Northern and Eastern side. Ex.P10 is the sale deed dated 12.08.1981 executed by the Society in favour of P.S.Shankara in respect of site No.55 for consideration amount of Rs.2,000/- and the schedule appended to the sale deed describes site No.55, measuring 30X40 feet with East and North by roads. Ex.P14 is the extract from the Tax Demand and Register maintained by Dasarahalli TMC pertaining to site No.55, where again, the boundaries on the Northern and Southern sides are

¶106

¶107

mentioned as road. Ex.P17 is the copy of the similar sale deed in respect of site No.45, which is said to be situated in front of site No.55, where there is reference to the road on the eastern and southern side which corresponds with the contention taken by the plaintiff. Similar sale deeds are Exs.P31 to 35 relating to neighbouring sites i.e., site Nos.45, 46 and 55. These documents also support the contention of the plaintiff.

¶108

The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He was cross-examined at length by learned counsel for the defendants. During the cross-examination, learned counsel suggested that the road to which the plaintiff was referring to be in existence is towards north and it is between site Nos,54 and 55 on the one side and site Nos.45, 46 on the other side. The said suggestion was admitted by the witness. PW-2 is the neighbouring site owner who owns site bearing No.54 and he fully supports the case of the plaintiff. Even during the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from the said witness. From these oral and documentary evidence, the contention taken by the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of site No.55, morefully described in the schedule appended

¶109

¶110

to the plaint and existence of road on the northern side requires acceptance.

¶111

Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1 to contend that his wife purchased site No.54/2 and she is the absolute owner in possession of the same. Strangely, the defendants are relying on Ex.D7-GPA dated 16.07.1994 executed by P.L.Narasimhachar in favour of Ramakka i.e., defendant No.2.

¶112

It is pertinent to note that the GPA was executed by the executant in his individual capacity and not as Secretary of the Society concerned. The executant of the GPA asserts that the schedule site bearing No.54/2 belongs to him. There is no mention regarding ownership of the Society. The executant states that since the site in question belongs to him, the same was handed over in favour of defendant No.2 to manage and look after its affair. Defendant No.2 was authorized to get the land converted, to pay tax and to get the khatha in her name. She was also authorized to get electricity and water connection to the building, which may be constructed and also to obtain loan. Even though it is the

¶113

¶114

contention of the defendants that they paid Rs.60,000/- to the executant of the GPA, there is no reference to payment of such consideration in the GPA. However, the defendant produced Ex.D8the affidavit sworn by the said Narasimhachar accepting Rs.60,000/- for alienating site No.54/2 in favour of defendant No.2 and the affidavit was sworn before the Notary Public. The description of the site bearing No.54/2 found in the affidavit describes it as measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 25 feet with roads on the eastern and western side. Even this description of the site do not tally with the contention taken by the defendants that they are owning the site in front of the schedule site belonging to the plaintiff. Moreover, no title is transferred under the GPA or under the affidavit, in the absence of any registered document executed by Narasimhachar. Interestingly, the Narasimhachar is the signataree to Ex.P1-Possession Certificate produced by the plaintiff. Moreover, he was examined on behalf of the defendants as DW-4.

¶115

DW-4 during cross-examination states that he is the councillor of ward No.7 since its formation. He also

¶116

¶117

admits issuance of Possession Certificate as per Ex.P1 in his capacity as Secretary of the Society during 1982. Witness categorically admits that it is only the Society which had right to sell the sites. It is also pertinent to note that the witness has categorically admitted that he had no authority to sell the sites in the layout formed by the Society in his individual and personal capacity. He also admits that after formation of the layout, the roads formed therein vests with the corporation or the CMC.

¶118

Defendant No.1 who is examined as DW-1 admitted in clear terms that the Society is required to sell the sites only in favour of its members and except the Society, nobody had authority to sell or alter the sites or the roads formed in the layout. Witness also states that he was not a member, nor his wife was a member of the Society. Witness categorically states that he started putting up construction over the land during April 2002, but he had not obtained any permission or approved plan from CMC. Interestingly, witness also admits that once the CMC demolished the compound wall constructed by him, but states that he again reconstructed the compound wall.

¶119

¶120

Even though the defendants contended that they were put in possession of the site bearing No.54/2 and are paying the tax, except the self assessment receipts for having paid the revenue, no other documents are placed before the Court to show that the property in question was assessed for revenue by the CMC. Ex.D13- receipt is produced by the defendants to show that they had obtained water connection. There is reference to regularization of unauthorized construction for which, fee was collected.

¶121

From the materials on record that are placed before the Court, it is clear that the plaintiff is successful in proving his ownership over the Schedule Site. The defendants have failed to prove their contention that defendant No.2 is the owner of site No.54/2 and are in occupation of the same. Even though the defendants contended that there exists the site bearing No.54/2, except Exs.D7 and D8, there are absolutely no other documents to substantiate the same. Exs.D7, D8 and the subsequent documents based on the same are not the relevant

¶122

¶123

documents to prove either the ownership or the possession of the defendants.

¶124

When the plaintiff has proved his ownership and possession over the Schedule Site and also the existence of roads, both on the northern and eastern side and when the defendants admit that they put up the construction once which was removed by the CMC, but inspite of that, they again put up the same, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as well as permanent injunction. When the access to the site belonging to the plaintiff described in the schedule is interfered with by the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the plaint. The contention of the defendants that no declaration was sought by the plaintiff regarding ownership of the plaintiff, therefore, the suit is to be dismissed cannot be accepted as there are clinching documents to prove the ownership and title of the plaintiff over the Schedule Site.

¶125

In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that the suit of the plaintiff is to be decreed as prayed for.

¶126

¶127

I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the materials on record and arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the same.

¶128

Hence, I answer the above point in the 'Negative'

¶129

and proceed to pass the following;

¶130

ORDER

¶131

(i) The appeal is dismissed with costs.

¶132

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007 in O.S.No.5209/1995 on the file of the learned V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-12), is hereby confirmed.

¶133

Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with

¶134

copy of this judgment.

¶135

Sd/JUDGE

¶136

Sri Krishna Murthy v. Sri K Nagaraj S/O Sanna Rudrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishna Murthy v. Sri K Nagaraj S/O Sanna Rudrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Nagesha M.V S/O Venkatesha, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Parashurama Gowdar Vs State of Karnataka

Raghava Shetty Sheenappa Vs State by Subramanyanagar Police

Pinki Bhattacharya Vs State of Karnataka

Attaulla Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr v Girish Kumar Vs Smt R Hemavathi