Dismissed¶108

Smt Mayamma v. Sri Venkatappa

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2026RFA/557/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: BDA acquisition and absolute vesting; finality/binding effect of writ order Ex.D23 (W.P. Nos. 8835–8837/1996); bar on regularisation under Section 4, Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991; CITB Act notifications 09.05.1968 and 28.10.1991 with awards 06.03.1973 and 16.09.1986; RTC cultivators' column showing BDA possession; Kathriguppe/Kattaraguppa Sy.No.94/3; suit for declaration and injunction dismissed; RFA under S.96 CPC dismissed; no perversity in Trial Court findings; suppression of prior writ adjudication by plaintiffs.

What did the court decide?

Point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative: the suit seeking reliefs of declaration and injunction is liable to be dismissed in view of the Writ Court's judgment (Ex.D23). ¶103

Smt Mayamma Vs Sri Venkatappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶108

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs seeking reliefs of declaration and injunction is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment rendered by the Writ Court in W.P.Nos.8835-8837/1996, as evidenced by Exhibit D-23? +2 more

¶58

Court's answer

Point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative: the suit seeking reliefs of declaration and injunction is liable to be dismissed in view of the Writ Court's judgment (Ex.D23).

¶103

Ratio / Principle

The order in W.P. Nos. 8835-8837/1996 (Ex.D23), having attained finality, is binding on the parties; the plaintiffs cannot re-agitate their title claim, and their suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction is rendered wholly untenable and infructuous.

¶83

Key takeaways

Point No.(ii) is answered in the negative: the Trial Court's finding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to declaration of title and possession does not suffer from perversity.ratio¶104
Once acquisition is duly proved, title indisputably vests with the acquiring authority, leaving no subsisting right with the original owners; consequently the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek a declaration of title.ratio¶97
Principle consistently held by this Court: once land is acquired by following the due process contemplated under a special statute, the vesting in favour of the acquiring authority is absolute and complete, and the original owners stand divested of their right, title and interest forthwith.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.1431/1989 (XLIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-44, Bangalore; judgment and decree dated 18.12.2009 dismissing their suit for declaration, peaceful possession and permanent injunction over a total extent of 1 acre 8 guntas claimed under registered sale deeds dated 29.05.1964 and 19.02.1973, including 28 guntas in Sy.No.94/3) — appeal dismissed. The Court held that Exhibit D-23, the order of a Coordinate Bench rejecting W.P. Nos. 8835–8837/1996, had attained finality and bound the parties: the subject lands stood acquired under notifications dated 09.05.1968 and 28.10.1991 under the City Improvement Trust Board Act, with awards dated 06.03.1973 and 16.09.1986, and had vested in the Bangalore Development Authority; regularisation was barred under Section 4 of the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991. The RTCs (Exs.P5 and P6) recorded possession in the BDA's name. Point No.(i) was answered in the affirmative and Point No.(ii) in the negative (no perversity in the Trial Court's findings); the plaintiffs were found to have suppressed the earlier adverse writ order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 557 OF 2010 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MAYAMMA W/O.MALLARIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶9

SRI. H.M. SIVAMALLAIAH S/O MALLARIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶10

NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT.NO.5 GANDHI BAZAAR, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004.

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT BULL TEMPLE ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004.

¶13

SRI. LAKKANNA GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LR SRI. B.L. VEERABHADRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE LAKKANNA GOWDA NO.493C, 7^TH CROSS, 7^TH BLOCK WEST JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 082.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B.N. ANANTHA NARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. VENKATAPPA S/O LATE KONDAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RESIDING IN D. NO.25, 9^TH MAIN 6^TH CROSS, SRIRAMAPURA BANGALORE-560 021.

¶21

SRI. V. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS NO.109, BSK III STAGE KATTRAGUPPA, BANGALORE-560 050.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY .G.N, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 01-04-2013 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1431/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-44, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

Captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No. 1431/1989.

¶32

For the sake of convenience, parties are

¶33

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶34

Facts of the case are as under:

¶35

The present suit is instituted by four plaintiffs, all of whom trace their title to registered sale deeds dated 29.05.1964. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs 1 to 3 are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of their respective parcels of land purchased under the said sale deeds. It is further pleaded that plaintiff No.4 has purchased an extent of land measuring 28 guntas in Sy.No.94/3 under a registered sale deed dated 19.02.1973. Collectively, plaintiffs 1 to 4 assert ownership over a total extent of 1 acre 8 guntas.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The cause for filing the present suit, according

¶40

to the plaintiffs, arose when the defendants asserted ownership over the property situated on the eastern side of the suit schedule property, which is stated to be located within the gramathana of Kattaraguppa Village. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants commenced construction activities in the property situated to the east of the suit schedule land. Though the defendants are stated to have initially assured that construction would be carried out without encroaching upon the plaintiffs’ property, it is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants high-handedly trespassed into the suit schedule property and put up construction. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that the defendants, under the guise of a sale deed dated 17.06.1987 alleged to have been obtained from one Chikka Gangappa, have encroached upon the plaintiffs’ land. On these allegations, the suit came to be filed seeking reliefs of declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

On receipt of summons, the defendants entered appearance and contested the suit. However, only defendant No.2 filed a written statement. Defendant No.2 categorically denied all the averments made in the plaint and specifically disputed the identification and description of the suit schedule property. It was asserted that the suit schedule property and the property purchased by defendant No.2 are entirely distinct and unrelated. Pursuant to amendment of the plaint, defendant No.2 filed an additional written statement contending, inter alia , that the suit itself is not maintainable. Defendant No.2 specifically pleaded that the suit schedule property had

¶45

been acquired long prior by the Bangalore Development Authority, that an award had already been passed, and that possession had been taken over by the acquiring authority, and on that ground sought dismissal of the suit.

¶46

In the light of the rival pleadings, the Trial

¶47

Court framed appropriate issues. The parties were afforded full opportunity to adduce oral and documentary

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

evidence in support of their respective claims. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 led both oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court.

¶52

The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, and placing reliance particularly on Exhibit D-23, answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their title and possession over the suit schedule property. While answering the additional issues, the Trial Court further held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that defendant No.2 had trespassed into the suit schedule property or put up construction thereon. Additional Issue No.3, framed on 03.04.2003, was answered in the affirmative, holding that defendant No.2 had successfully demonstrated that the plaintiffs failed to establish the identity of the suit schedule property. Additional Issue No.4, also framed on 03.04.2003, was answered in the affirmative, holding that defendant No.2 had proved that the suit schedule property was acquired by the Bangalore

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Development Authority. On the aforesaid findings, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit.

¶57

This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and has carefully and independently examined the pleadings as well as the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides. Upon such independent appraisal of the material on record, the following points arise for consideration:

¶58

“(i) Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs seeking reliefs of declaration and injunction is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment rendered by the Writ Court in W.P.Nos.8835-8837/1996, as evidenced by Exhibit D-23?

¶59

(ii) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaration of title and possession in respect of the suit schedule property suffers from perversity?

¶60

(iii) What order?”

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Finding on points (i) and (ii):

¶65

Notwithstanding the voluminous documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs, the controversy stands conclusively resolved by Ex.D23, namely the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. Nos. 8835–8837/1996. The findings recorded therein go to the very root of the matter and are binding on the parties. The said order, having attained finality, leaves no scope for re-agitation of the issues sought to be raised in the present suit. Therefore, this Court considers it apposite to extract the entire order passed in the above writ petitions, which reads as under:

¶66

"The petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for a direction to regularise the unauthorised construction said to have been made by them under the provisions of the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991.

¶67

2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the land bearing Sy. No.94/3 (old No.94/1) of Kathriguppe village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, having purchased the same under the registered sale-deed dated 25-4-1964. After the said purchase it appears they have

¶68

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

constructed the building on the property purchased by them. In the petition, it is stated that the BDA is unauthorisedly attempting to demolish the structures put up on the land in question and therefore they filed this writ petition for a direction. Sri N.K.Patil, learned counsel has filed statement of objections today in Court wherein it is said that the land in Sy.No.94/3 along with several other lands were acquired under the notification dated 9-5-1968 and 28-10-1991 under the CITB Act. Thereafter the award was also passed on 6-3-1973 and 16-9-1986. When once the land in question is acquired and an award is passed, it vests with the authority under the provisions of the Act. When once the property is vested with the authority they are not entitled for regularisation since there is a specific bar for regularisation if any construction is made on the property belonging to another under Section 4 of the Act. As the petitioners are not the owners of the land on which an unauthorised construction was made, are not entitled for regularisation and consequently there is nothing for the authority to consider the same.

¶72

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is rejected."

¶73

(EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)

¶74

Upon a meticulous and circumspect examination of Ex.D23, the order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 8835– 8837/1996, which has been extracted hereinabove, it

¶75

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

becomes manifest that the present plaintiffs have already suffered an adverse adjudication at the hands of a Coordinate Bench of this Court. A careful reading of the extracted portion of the said order unmistakably discloses that the categorical claim of the present plaintiffs asserting ownership over the land bearing Survey No.94/3 (old Survey No.94/1) was expressly negated by the Writ Court. It is not in dispute that the said writ petitions were instituted against the Bangalore Development Authority, which is arrayed as respondent No.1 therein.

¶78

The findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench clearly establish that the subject lands were acquired under statutory notifications dated 09.05.1968 and 28.10.1991, issued under the provisions of the City Improvement Trust Board Act, and that the corresponding awards were passed on 06.03.1973 and 16.09.1986 respectively. In the backdrop of these undisputed facts, the Coordinate Bench conclusively held that the lands in question stood vested with the acquiring authority and,

¶79

11 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

consequently, the present plaintiffs were not entitled to seek regularisation of the constructions put up by them on the acquired portion of the land.

¶83

The said order, in the considered view of this Court, goes to the very root of the matter and decisively clinches the entire controversy between the parties. The plaintiffs, having failed in the writ proceedings, cannot now be permitted to reassert their claim of title in the present suit. Though it is true that the order under Ex.D23 came to be passed during the pendency of the present suit, this Court is of the firm view that once the said order has attained finality, the plaintiffs’ suit seeking declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction is rendered wholly untenable and infructuous.

¶84

Apart from this crucial and determinative document, this Court has also bestowed its anxious consideration to the revenue records produced by the plaintiffs themselves. Exs.P5 and P6, being the Record of

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Rights, unequivocally reflect the factum of acquisition at the instance of the Bangalore Development Authority. Significantly, the cultivators’ column in the said RTCs records possession in the name of the Bangalore Development Authority, thereby further demolishing the plaintiffs’ claim of possession and ownership.

¶89

By way of rebuttal evidence, the defendants have succeeded in establishing, beyond any pale of doubt, that the suit schedule lands stood vested with the acquiring authority, namely the Bangalore Development Authority. This Court, in a catena of judgments, has consistently held that once land is acquired by following the due process contemplated under a special statute, the vesting in favour of the acquiring authority is absolute and complete, and the original owners stand divested of their right, title, and interest forthwith.

¶90

The evidence on record further substantiates that pursuant to the acquisition, awards were duly passed

¶91

13 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:5197 RFA No. 557 of 2010

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

by the competent authority. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs are precluded from maintaining the present suit. What is more significant is that despite having suffered an adverse order in the writ proceedings, the plaintiffs have conspicuously suppressed the said fact before this Court. It is only through the rebuttal evidence led by the defendants that the order passed by the Writ Court, marked as Ex.D23, has been brought on record.

¶95

In view of the overwhelming evidence

¶96

demonstrating that the lands stood vested with the Bangalore Development Authority by virtue of lawful acquisition, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek a declaration of title. Once acquisition is duly proved, the

¶97

title indisputably vests with the acquiring authority, leaving no subsisting right with the original owners. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ suit seeking declaration of title and consequential reliefs is rendered wholly infructuous in the light of the binding order passed by the

¶98