Allowed

Smt. Rajamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2023RFA/867/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal and set aside the trial court's judgment refusing reliefs regarding site allotment. The High Court held that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's claim to benefits from an application filed under her original name despite established parentage and admissions by the BDA.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment refusing reliefs (b) and (c) was set aside, and the suit was decreed in full in favor of the plaintiffs for the site allotment.

Smt. Rajamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.867 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT RAJAMMA, W/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT 'SANDESHWARA KRUPA', KATARIPALYA, KOLAR, (DECEASED AND IS NOW REPRESENTED BY HER LRS APPELLANT NO.2)

¶9

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. B R JAYALAKSHMI ALIAS R MAHALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMAIAH, W/O LATE CHANDRAIAH, R/AT NO.91, "SAMBHRAMA", 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 4^TH CORSS, ITTAMADU LAYOUT, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085.

¶11

(BY SRI V LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR.COUNSEL FOR SMT ANUSHA L, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, HUD, M S BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶15

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶18

BANGALORE - 560040, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶19

SRI R NARAYANA, S/O LATE SRI SIDDARANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.415, 14^TH ‘A’ MAIN, 3^RD STAGE, 1^ST BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1, SRI M M PRASHANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI H.T VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.02.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.8099/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.8099/2008 on the file of the XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 whereby the said suit filed by the appellants – plaintiffs against the respondents – defendants was partly decreed by the Trial Court.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

¶27

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶30

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranks in the suit before the Trial Court.

¶31

The material on record discloses that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the father and mother of plaintiff No.3 Smt.B.R.Jayalakshmi @ R.Mahalakshmi. The plaintiffs contended that the plaintiff No.3 was born on 15.04.1959 and initially her name was shown as B.R.Mahalakshmi in the school records and other documents and subsequently, after her marriage with one Chandraiah in the year 1979, the name of plaintiff No.3 was changed from Mahalakshmi to Jayalakshmi. It was contended that on 31.07.1982, the plaintiff No.3 submitted an application to the 2^nd defendant – BDA for allotment of site by showing her name as B.R.Mahalakshmi. However, due to litigations to which the plaintiff No.3 was also a party, the said site was not allotted in favour of the plaintiff No.3 and after completion of the said litigations which were carried right up to the Apex Court, the plaintiff No.3 requested the BDA to allot the said site in her favour and in pursuance of the same, the BDA issued an endorsement dated 07.09.2007 confirming the allotment of the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff No.3. However, subsequently the BDA addressed a letter

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶33

dated 31.05.2008 to the Jurisdictional Police Authorities stating that the name of plaintiff No.3 was Jayalakshmi and not Mahalakshmi, who was the applicant and called upon the police to register an FIR against her in this regard. In pursuance of the same, the police authorities registered an FIR in Crime No.115/2008 against the plaintiff No.3 who took necessary legal action in this regard.

¶34

The plaintiffs contended that in view of the denial of the relationship of plaintiffs 1 & 2 with their daughter, plaintiff No.3 i.e., Mahalakshmi @ Jayalakshmi, the plaintiffs were constrained to institute the aforesaid suit seeking the following reliefs:

¶35

“(a) Pass a judgment and decree declaring that the 3^rd plaintiff is the eldest daughter of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the biological parents of plaintiff No.3 who is called as Mahalakshmi @ Jayalakshmi.

¶36

(b) Pass a judgment and decree declaring that the application for allotment of site filed by the 3^rd plaintiff to the BDA on 31.07.1982 was the application filed by the 3^rd plaintiff alone and any consequential proceedings and benefits subsequent to such application pertains to the 3^rd plaintiff alone.

¶37

(c) Pass a judgment and decree by granting permanent injunction restraining the BDA defendant or any

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶40

other person from allotting the schedule property to any other person except the 3^rd plaintiff herein.

¶41

(d) Pass a judgment and decree by granting permanent injunction restraining the BDA / Defendant or any other person from calling the 3^rd plaintiff herein as R.Jayalakshmi and not as B.R.Mahalakshmi.

¶42

(e) Pass a judgment and decree by granting permanent injunction restraining the BDA / defendant or any other person from not treating the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 as biological parents of the 3^rd plaintiff herein.

¶43

(f) Pass such other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs, during the pendency of the above suit in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶44

The defendant No.2 – BDA filed its written statement

¶45

disputing and denying the claim of the plaintiffs and sought for dismissal of the suit. The BDA not only disputed and denied the alleged relationship of plaintiffs 1 & 2 with plaintiff No.3 but also contended that she was not the applicant of the schedule property and was guilty of impersonation in respect of which criminal proceedings had been launched against plaintiff No.3. It was contended that plaintiff No.3 was Jayalakshmi and not

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶48

Mahalakshmi as falsely claimed by her and accordingly, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any reliefs in the suit which was liable to be dismissed.

¶49

Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

¶50

“ 1) Whether the plaintiff prove their interse Relationship as stated in the plaint?

¶51

2) If so, whether the plaintiffs further prove that the 3^rd Plaintiff Smt. B.R.Mahalakshmi is also called as R.Jayalakshmi as alleged in the plaint?

¶52

3) If so, whether the plaintiff further prove that the plaintiff 1 and 2 are the biological parents of plaintiff No.3 as alleged in the plaint?

¶53

4) Whether the plaintiff further prove that an application for allotment of site dated 31.07.1982 as the application of III plaintiff along and she is entitled to take the benefits of the said Application?

¶54

5) Whether the plaintiff further prove that allotment of the site schedule property by the Defendants to 3^rd persons?

¶55

6) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they are entitled in this case?

¶56

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶58

7) Whether the Defendant No.2 prove that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of statutory meetings under sec 64 of the BDA Act as contended in the written Statement?

¶59

8) Whether the Defendant No.2 further prove that claim for the allotment of the site made by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation as contended in written Statement?

¶60

9) What decree or order?”

¶61

On behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW1 and one Ningegowda was examined as PW2 and exhibits P-1 to P-9 were marked. On behalf of the defendant No.2 – BDA, one Thippeswamy, SDA was examined as DW.1 and documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to D.7 were marked.

¶62

After hearing the parties, the Trial Court answered issues 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs thereby holding that they had proved their inter-se relationship and that plaintiffs 1 & 2 were the biological parents of plaintiff No.3. The Trial Court also held that the plaintiff No.3, Smt. B.R.Mahalakshmi was also called as R.Jayalakshmi as alleged by the plaintiffs. So also, the Trial Court answered issues 7 & 8 in the negative against the defendant No.2 – BDA. However, issues 4 & 5 were answered in the negative

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶65

against the plaintiffs by the Trial Court and accordingly, the corresponding reliefs (b) and (c) sought for by the plaintiffs were rejected by the Trial Court, which decreed the suit in part by granting reliefs (a), (d) and (e) in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶66

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court rejecting prayers / reliefs at (b) and (c), the appellant – plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present appeal. In this context, it is relevant to state that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court answering issues 1 to 3 and 7 & 8 in favour of the plaintiffs have not been challenged by the defendant No.2 – BDA and the same has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the BDA. Under these circumstances, the following points arise for consideration in the present appeal:

¶67

(i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in

¶68

answering issues 4 & 5 against the appellants – plaintiffs?

¶69

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court insofar as it relates to not

¶70

¶71

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶72

granting reliefs / prayers (b) and (c) warrants interference in the present appeal?

¶73

Re: Points (i) and (ii):

¶74

Since both the points are inter-linked, they are taken up together for consideration.

¶75

10.1. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.3 was the daughter of plaintiffs 1 and 2. It was also contended that plaintiff No.3 was initially known as B.R.Mahalakshmi and her name was changed to R.Jayalakshmi after her marriage due to astrological reasons in order to tally her horoscope. It was further contended that since the BDA refused to recognize the plaintiff No.3 as B.R.Mahalakshmi @ R.Jayalakshmi and instead of taking steps to allot the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff No.3 and initiated criminal proceedings against her, the plaintiffs instituted the instant suit.

¶76

10.2. The material on record also discloses that insofar as

¶77

the claim of the plaintiffs and prayers / reliefs (a), (d) and (e) were

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶80

concerned, the Trial Court framed issues 1 to 3; for ease of reference, the aforesaid prayers and issues are extracted below:

¶81

Reliefs / prayers (a), (d) and (e):

Issues 1, 2 and 3:

¶86

“ 1) Whether the plaintiff prove their interse Relationship as stated in the plaint?

¶87

2) If so, whether the plaintiffs further prove that the 3^rd Plaintiff Smt. B.R.Mahalakshmi is also called as R.Jayalakshmi as alleged in the plaint?

¶88

11 -

¶89

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶90

3) If so, whether the plaintiff further prove that the plaintiff 1 and 2 are the biological parents of plaintiff No.3 as alleged in the plaint?

¶91

10.3. As stated supra, the Trial Court answered the aforesaid issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in their favour by granting the aforesaid reliefs by declaring that plaintiff No.3 was known / called as B.R.Mahalakshmi @ R.Jayalakshmi and that she was the biological daughter of plaintiffs 1 and 2. As stated earlier, the impugned judgment and decree and the findings recorded by the Trial Court have not been challenged by the BDA and the same have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the BDA.

¶92

10.4. Insofar as issues 4 and 5 which correspond to prayers / reliefs (b) and (c) regarding the plaintiff No.3 filing an application for allotment of a site to the BDA are concerned, the same are as under:

¶93

Reliefs / prayers (b) and (c):

¶94

¶95

12 -

¶96

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶97

benefits subsequent to such application pertains to the 3^rd plaintiff alone.

¶98

(c) Pass a judgment and decree by granting permanent injunction restraining the BDA defendant or any other person from allotting the schedule property to any other person except the 3^rd plaintiff herein.

¶99

Issues 4 and 5:

¶100

¶101

5) Whether the plaintiff further prove that allotment of the site schedule property by the Defendants to 3^rd persons?

¶102

10.5 A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree in relation to the findings recorded on issues 4 and 5 and declining to grant prayers / reliefs (b) and (c) will indicate that having come to the conclusion by recording a categorical finding that the plaintiff No.3 was known as B.R.Mahalakshmi @ R.Jayalakshmi and that she was the daughter to plaintiffs 1 and 2, the Trial Court clearly fell in error in recording a completely / totally diametrically opposite finding against the plaintiffs, which is contrary to the material on record. In this context, the Trial Court failed to consider and

¶103

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶104

appreciate that the cumulative effect of the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex.P-1 to P-9 as well as the various admissions, discrepancies, contradictions and inconsistencies in the pleadings and evidence of defendant No.2 – BDA and its witness, DW-1 was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the said issue Nos.4 and 5 ought to have been answered in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that DW-1 categorically admitted that the site was to be allotted in favour of plaintiff No.3 by confirming that she was the original applicant, which was corroborated by Ex.P-1 dated 07.09.2007 issued by the BDA. DW-1 also admitted that except plaintiff No.3, nobody else claimed the suit schedule property and that the application for allotment at Ex.P-3 dated 31.07.1982 had been submitted by the plaintiff No.3. It is therefore clear that the Trial Court committed an error in answering issue No.4 against the plaintiffs by improper and erroneous appreciation of the material on record.

¶105

10.6. The Trial Court also committed an error in making much of the fact that though the plaintiff No.3 known as

¶106

14 -

¶107

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶108

B.R.Mahalakshmi got married in 1979 subsequent to which her

¶109

name was changed to R.Jayalakshmi despite which she had stated her name as B.R.Mahalakshmi on 31.07.1982 when she submitted

¶110

the application at Ex.P-3 to the BDA. The said finding is clearly erroneous and unsound apart from being contrary to the findings recorded by the Trial Court on issues 1 to 3 especially when mere stating the name of plaintiff No.3 as B.R.Mahalakshmi could not have been made the basis by the Trial Court to answer issue No.4 against the plaintiffs and this has resulted in erroneous conclusion.

¶111

10.7. The Trial Court also erred in not accepting the application at Ex.P-3 submitted by the plaintiff No.3 without appreciating that in addition to the fact that DW-1 had admitted the said application, the other material on record would corroborate the said document and the contentions of the plaintiffs in this regard and on this score also, the said finding deserves to be set aside. It is also pertinent to note that while dealing with issue No.5, the Trial Court committed an error in answering the same against the appellants warranting inference by this Court in the present appeal.

¶112

15 -

¶113

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶114

10.8. It is a matter of record that the criminal proceedings

¶115

which were initiated by the police authorities at the instance of the BDA in CC.No.13699/2009 culminated in an order of acquittal dated 15.03.2017 which has attained finality and become conclusive in favour of plaintiff No.3; viewed from this angle also, the impugned judgment and decree in relation to issues 4 and 5 and prayers / reliefs (b) and (c) deserve to be set aside.

¶116

10.9. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the findings recorded by the Trial Court on issues 4 and 5 and the impugned judgment and decree in respect of prayers / reliefs (b) and (c) deserve to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs deserves to be decreed in full in their favour.

¶117

10.10 During the pendency of the present appeal, one R.Narayana sought for impleadment which was permitted by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2023 pursuant to which he has been arrayed as respondent No.3 in the appeal. In this context, it is relevant to state that the aforesaid impleaded respondent No.3 was not a party to the suit; however, since he disputes the claim of the

¶118

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶119

appellants, in particular plaintiff No.3, which has been upheld by the Trial Court and this Court in this order, suffice it to state that the impugned judgment and decree and the present order would not affect / cause prejudice to the inter-se rights and contentions of the plaintiff No.3 and respondent No.3 over the plaint schedule property and the same are kept open to be adjudicated upon in accordance with law.

¶120

In the result, I pass the following:

¶121

ORDER

¶122

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed .

¶123

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.8099/2008 by the XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to prayers / reliefs (b) and (c) sought for in the plaint are hereby set aside.

¶124

(iii) The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in full including prayers / reliefs (b) and (c) in favour of the plaintiffs against defendants 1 and 2.

¶125

17 -

¶126

NC: 2023:KHC:46238 RFA No. 867 of 2016

¶127

(iv) All rival contentions between the plaintiffs and

¶128

impleaded respondent No.3 over the suit schedule property

¶129

are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶130

Sd/JUDGE

¶131

BRN / DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt. Rajamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited Vs Cosmic Motors India Private Limited

Susheela Vs Superintendent Engineer

Sri K Ramakrishna Vs Smt Rani Barui

The Builders Apartment Flat Owners Association Vs Shri M Prabhakar

Nanjunda Vs the Head Master

Smt Hanumamma Vs Sri T Mahesh Kumara