Appeal against dismissal of suit for permanent injunction. Court noted land was acquired for Chandra layout. Plaintiff failed to prove title as vendor not examined and land was government khatedar. Admittance of appeal declined.
Admission of appeal declined and the appeal is dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1626 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
GANGODANAHALLI,
IST MAIN ROAD, IST CROSS, MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 039.
SINCE DEAD HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS L.R.'S
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. LOHITH M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 020.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHIRAG, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI R/W.SEC.96 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.25714/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE DISMISSING 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 Mr.Lohith M., learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.Chirag, learned counsel for the respondent.
3.1 Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent - Bangalore Development Authority by contending that he is the absolute owner of a revenue site Kaneshumari No.16 situated at Gangagondanahalli Gramathana, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring east to west 150 feet, north to south 40 feet, bounded on the east by 20 feet road, West by BDA property, north by drain and south by 25 feet road (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property').
3.2 Plaintiff contends that he purchased the said property from J.Sebastian on 09.09.1996. Since the registration of the sale deed was banned by the Government, the vendor of the plaintiff executed a sale agreement on 03.12.1991 and also executed a registered General Power Of Attorney. Plaintiff contended that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property by constructing small houses, which is under the occupation of poor tenants.
3.3 It is further contended that on 21.03.2007, the officials of defendant No.1 demanded the inmates of the houses to vacate the house immediately as they intend to demolish the
suit property as the same is acquired for the purpose of formation of Chandra layout.
3.4 Thereafter, plaintiff was constrained to file a suit seeking order of permanent injunction against the defendant. Defendant appeared before the trial court and filed a detailed written statement contending that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property as the same is acquired for the purpose of formation of Chandra layout vide preliminary notification bearing No.A3/PR/SLAO(S)No.1777-78 dated 30.07.1977 and final notification bearing No.HUD/28/MNJ/78 dated 10.05.1978.
3.5 In respect of the suit property that is survey No.16, notified khatedar name is shown as government Kharab land and therefore, claim of the plaintiff that he has got title over the property cannot be countenanced in law.
3.6 Based on the rival contentions, trial court raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the plaintiff, and the cross-examination of the plaintiff, heard the arguments of the parties and noted that the land in question was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority as per the aforesaid notification. Therefore, the rights, if any, that has
been possessed by the plaintiff got merged with the acquisition and suit for bare injunction is not maintainable and dismissed the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:32791 RFA No. 1626 of 2019
supported by the evidence on record and are not on the basis of any documentary evidence.
of Chandra layout. Ex.P6 is the endorsement issued by the Bangalore Development Authority, which has been strongly relied upon by the plaintiff would go to show that 16 numbers of unauthorized constructions are existing in the property. There is a clear mention that the suit property is also acquired. According to the records of the Bangalore Development Authority, the land in question is a government kharab land. Therefore, the plaintiff claiming the interest that too under the agreement of sale from J.Sebastian would not arise.
he has got the title through J.Sebastian in the absence of examining J.Sebastian as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff. Merely on the basis of an agreement to sell and General Power of Attorney executed by J.Sebastian in favour of the plaintiff would not convey the right title or interest over the suit schedule property.
ORDER
(i) Admission declined.
(ii) Appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the land in question had been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority prior to the plaintiff's alleged purchase.
L.R. of Late Sri P.T. Ramachandraiah
Bangalore Development Authority
V. Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
