Regular First Appeal against a decree for permanent injunction. The Division Bench held that appellants, being Corporation authorities, were not aggrieved as they failed to establish ownership, thus dismissing the appeal.
Appeal and memorandum of appeal were rejected and dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:32908 RFA No. 1514 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1514 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. H DEVENDRAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
…APPELLANTS
AND:
DR VENU G R S/O N RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.192,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.192, "SAMVRUDHI" 6TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN TATA NAGAR, BANGALORE-92.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.B. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.7849/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri H. Devendrappa, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
A suit came to be filed by respondents No.1 and 2 herein in O.S. No.7849/2017 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru for the relief of permanent injunction. The contention of the plaintiffs as per the plaint averments is that the second plaintiff is the wife of the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff being the owner of the property bearing No.9 [Old No.1B] measuring
east-west 52 feet and north-south 156 feet in all measuring 8,112 Sq.ft. situated at Gurumurthy Street, Halasuru, Bengaluru - 560 008 ["A Schedule Property"]. B Schedule property is the part and parcel of the A Schedule property which was gifted to the first plaintiff, the husband of the second plaintiff.
It is also contended that the property earlier belonged to J.Lakshmaiah @ Pillaiah and J.Subbaiah. In the year 1917, J.Subbaiah has acquired the same as item No.2 of B Schedule of the registered partition deed executed by Lakshmiah @ Pillaiah and Subbaiah. Both Lakshmiah @ Pillaiah and Subbaiah are the children of J.S. Annaiah Reddy. The registered partition deed is dated 14.08.1917. Subbaiah said to have executed a will bequeathing the property in favour of his children. Surendra Reddy, son of J.S.Annaiah Reddy, who is the beneficiary in the will executed by J.Subbaiah, on 8.9.1966, executed a relinquishment deed, which was also
NC: 2024:KHC:32908 RFA No. 1514 of 2019
registered. Therefore, Surendra Reddy was the absolute owner of the said property.
A suit was also filed in O.S. No.10042/1983 against Balanarayana Reddy and the said suit ultimately reached in an appeal before this Court and was decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein. Thereafter, the property has come to the ownership of the plaintiff. Schedule B Property was gifted by the second plaintiff in favour of the first plaintiff to accommodate him in construction of Multi Utility Clinic since both dental and medical facilities can be given.
representatives started to interfere with the property for
the purpose of construction of Indira Canteen and a suit
came to be filed by the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from interfering with the property. The defendants entered appearance and questioned the ownership rights over the property of the plaintiffs.
NC: 2024:KHC:32908 RFA No. 1514 of 2019
Therefore, the Trial Court raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the first plaintiff and based on the material documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P24 decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
defendants, there was no evidence placed on record, either oral or documentary. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have preferred the present appeal.
8. Having heard the parties, this Court perused the
material on record meticulously.
The oral and documentary evidence on record would establish that it is the property of the first plaintiff for which the defendants have laid a wrong claim. In the
absence of such material evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge was justified in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff more so when the suit is one for bare injunction.
ORDER
(ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
NV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Corporation authorities were entitled to challenge the decree of permanent injunction in favour of the individual plaintiffs.
Whether the evidence on record supported the conclusion that the property belonged to the plaintiffs rather than the government authority.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Corporation, others
Dr Venu G R S/o N Ramachandra Reddy
Dr Swetha S Reddy W/o Dr Venu G R
The State of Karnataka, Department of Housing & Urban Development
V Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
