Dismissed

The Bangalore Development Authority v. Munivenkatappa

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024RFA/1524/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by BDA against a possession decree arising from encroachment by defendant society on reconveyed BTM Layout lands. BDA had acknowledged plaintiffs' title, so the injunction against it was unnecessary; citing injunction precedents, the court found no error in the trial court's findings and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

None granted to appellant BDA; trial decree upheld, appeal dismissed with pending applications dismissed.

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs Munivenkatappa — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:38634 RFA No. 1524 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1524 OF 2013 (RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.AJAY KUMAR M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MUNIVENKATAPPA

SINCE DECEASED

BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶16

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

1(A) GOWRAMMA

¶18

W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶19

1(B) M. SRINIVAS S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶20

BOTH RESIDENTS OF NO.34, 6^TH MAIN, 16^TH CROSS N.S. PALYA B.T.M. II STAGE BANGALORE

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:38634 RFA No. 1524 of 2013

¶23

SRI.SHAMANNA S/O GOWDARA ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O SY.NO.83/1 AND 4 OF MADIWALA BTM LAYOUT BANGALORE - 76

¶24

SRI A.MUNIVENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶25

3(A) SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O A. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶26

3(B) SMT. RADHA D/O A. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶27

3(C) MR. SHANKAR S/O A. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶28

3(D) SMT.SHASHIKALA D/O A.MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶29

3(A) TO 3(D) ARE R/O LAVANYA NILAYA, NO.50 6^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN N.S. PALYA, BTM II STAGE BANGALORE - 76

¶30

SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA S/O GOWDARA ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O SY.NO.83/1 AND 4 MADIWALA, BTM LAYOUT BANGALORE - 76

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38634 RFA No. 1524 of 2013

¶32

5. KRISHNAPPA

¶33

S/O GOWDARA ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O SY.NO.83/1 AND 4 OF MADIWALA BTM LAYOUT

¶34

BANGALORE - 76

¶35

MYSORE ROAD INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.12/3, DR.OOMER SHERIFF ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 54 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶36

T. KUMAR S/O LATE KONDAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O NO.32, 15^TH CROSS ASHOKANAGAR BSK I STAGE, BANGALORE - 50

¶37

SRI.GANESH KONAR S/O A. RAMU KONAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O NO.18, 29^TH MAIN ROAD BTM LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE BANGALORE - 76

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SMT. K K THAYAMMA, ADVOCATE FOR R8; R.1(A & B), R.6 AND R.7 ARE SERVED; V/O/D 08.01.2024 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R.2, R.3(A TO D), R.4 AND R.5 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶40

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7385/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38634 RFA No. 1524 of 2013

¶42

FOR POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DEFENDNAT 1, 2 AND 4 THEREIN AND DISMISSING THE SUIT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT NO.3 THEREIN AND ETC.

¶43

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶44

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶45

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the Bengaluru Development Authority against respondent No.2 assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.7385/1995 passed by XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which was one for possession and perpetual injunction against the defendants. The said suit is decreed and defendant No.1 is directed to handover the encroached portion.

¶46

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶47

Defendant No.1 - Society, which has suffered

¶48

decree for possession, has not assailed the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.7385/1995.

¶49

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38634 RFA No. 1524 of 2013

¶50

Defendant No.2 - BDA has questioned the judgment and decree on the ground that BDA having re-conveyed the suit property and having acknowledged the plaintiffs right over the suit schedule property, the Court erred in granting perpetual injunction against defendant No.2 - BDA.

¶51

Learned counsel would further point out that the plaintiff had no cause of action to array defendant No.2 since there is no claim by defendant No.2 over the suit property. Learned Judge erred in granting perpetual injunction even against defendant No.2 - BDA. The said portion of the order is under challenge.

¶52

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and judgment rendered by the Trial Court.

¶53

The following point would arise for consideration before this Court is;

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38634 RFA No. 1524 of 2013

¶55

Whether judgment and decree for possession granted by the Trial Court directing defendant No.1 - Society to handover the suit schedule property and consequential perpetual injunction thereby restraining defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession over the suit schedule property warrants interference at the hands of this Court?

¶56

On careful and meticulous examination of the

¶57

records, this Court has observed that the suit schedule properties were earmarked for acquisition by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) for the purpose of forming the BTM Layout. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit, contending that they were aggrieved by the high-handed actions of defendant No.1 (the Society), which allegedly encroached upon their properties while forming a layout. The plaintiffs claim that Defendant No.1/Society, in the process of forming the layout, extended its activities into the plaintiffs' land bearing Sy.Nos.83/1 and 83/4, thereby encroaching upon their rightful property.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:38634 RFA No. 1524 of 2013

¶60

The key fact is that Defendant No.2, the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), through its official examined before the Trial Court, has unequivocally admitted that the lands in question bearing Sy.Nos.83/1 and 83/4 were reconveyed to the plaintiffs by the Authority. This acknowledgment was substantiated through both documentary and oral evidence. Notably, Ex.P.15, coupled with the oral testimony of D.W.1, who was examined on behalf of Defendant No.2/BDA, provides a clear acknowledgment that the plaintiffs are the rightful title holders of the suit schedule properties.

¶61

It is a settled principle that for the grant of a perpetual injunction, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the defendants are interfering with their possession or attempting to interfere. In this case, BDA, being Defendant No.2, has not set up any rival claim to the suit schedule properties and, in fact, has acknowledged the plaintiffs' title and possession. This key admission significantly undermines the cause for seeking an

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38634 RFA No. 1524 of 2013

¶63

injunction against BDA, as there is no evidence of interference or assertion of rights by Defendant No.2 over the plaintiffs' land. Therefore, the perpetual injunction granted by the learned Trial Judge restraining BDA from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession is, in this Court's opinion, legally unwarranted and unnecessary.

¶64

In ANATHULA SUDHAKAR V. P. BUCHI

¶65

REDDY¹ , the Supreme Court of India held that a suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable when the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the property and the defendant is interfering or threatening to interfere. However, when the defendant does not dispute the plaintiff's title or possession, the remedy of injunction becomes redundant. Applying this principle, since BDA has not asserted any competing claim over the property and has acknowledged the reconveyance, the grant of an injunction against BDA is of no legal consequence.

¶66

1 (2008)4 SCC 594

¶67

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38634 RFA No. 1524 of 2013

¶68

Defendant No.2's appeal, therefore, lacks merit. The fundamental premise of an appeal is that there must

¶69

be some grievance or error in the judgment being appealed against. As acknowledged by the BDA itself, the Authority does not dispute the plaintiffs' title or possession, which forms the crux of the Trial Court’s judgment. In light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s ruling in WANDER LTD. V. ANTOX INDIA PVT. LTD.² , Appellate Courts are not expected to interfere in cases where there is no error in the trial court’s findings, and the

¶70

judgment is based on cogent evidence. Here, Defendant No.2/BDA, having admitted to the reconveyance of the properties and not asserting any further claim, has no grounds to challenge the judgment.

¶71

13. Further, in NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY V. K.C.

¶72

ALEXANDER³ , the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that when there is no denial of title by the defendant and

¶73

2 (1990) Supp SCC 727

¶74

3 (1968) 3 SCR 163

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:38634 RFA No. 1524 of 2013

¶77

the defendant acknowledges the possession of the plaintiff, the need for an injunction ceases to exist. Following this precedent, the appeal becomes untenable since the BDA has conceded to the plaintiffs' title and possession, rendering the perpetual injunction against it superfluous.

¶78

Defendant No.1, who has been directed by the decree to hand over the encroached portion of the land, has not contested the judgment of the Trial Court rendered in O.S. No.7385/1995. The Trial Court's judgment and decree were based on a detailed analysis of the evidence led by the plaintiffs, particularly Ex.P.15, alongside the testimony of D.W.1 on behalf of the BDA. This Court finds no error in the findings of the Trial Court, as the judgment was rooted in concrete evidence and admissions from Defendant No.2.

¶79

Therefore, this Court answers the point formulated in the negative and holds that the appeal is not maintainable. Since BDA has acknowledged the plaintiffs'

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:38634 RFA No. 1524 of 2013

¶82

title and possession, no further interference by BDA is anticipated or warranted. Accordingly, the perpetual injunction against Defendant No.2/BDA is of no consequence, and the appeal is dismissed.

¶83

The appeal filed by Defendant No.2/BDA is not maintainable for several reasons. First, BDA has unequivocally admitted the plaintiffs' title and possession of the properties in question. This acknowledgment negates any basis for the BDA to challenge the Trial Court’s decree. The fundamental purpose of an appeal is to address errors or grievances, but in this instance, the BDA has not contested the core issues of title and possession. Therefore, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in WANDER LTD. V. ANTOX INDIA PVT. LTD.⁴ , appellate interference is unwarranted when the trial court’s findings are based on sound evidence and legal principles. Since no such interference exists on the part of BDA, the appeal is rendered moot.

¶84

4 (1990) Supp SCC 727

¶85