Smt Ramakka Vs Muni Byrappa @ N Ramaiah

S/O LATE DODDANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, FIRST PLAINTITFF IS REPTD BY HER GPA HOLDERMUNE GOWDA, THE SECOND PLAINTIFF HEREIN AND R/AT KAVAL BYRASANDRA, R.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. BHANU PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

MUNI BYRAPPA @ N. RAMAIAH S/O LATE NANJAPPA

¶19

N. APPAIAH S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS

¶20

MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O CHINNATHAYAPPA

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:8982 RFA No. 670 of 2007

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶25

1 TO 3 ARE R/AT OPP.DR.AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE SHAMPURA ROAD, KAVAL BYRASANDRA BANGALORE-560 032.

¶26

SMT AKKAYYAMMA W/O LATE PAPANNA (LATE PAPANNA, S/O LATE DODDA PUTTANNA) AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶27

ANJANAPPA S/O LATE DODDA PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

¶28

KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE DODDA PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶29

4 TO 6 ARE R/AT KAVAL BYRASANDRA R. T. NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶30

KRISHNAPPA P., (DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 24.07.2009)

¶31

P ANJANAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKA PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS C/O P. NARAYANAPPA

¶32

R. RAMAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKA PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS C/O P NARAYANAPPA

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:8982 RFA No. 670 of 2007

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

7 TO 9 ARE R/AT KAVAL BYRASANDRAR T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 032.

¶37

P NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKA PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

¶38

B N NARASIMHA MURTHY SINCE DEACEASED BY HIS LR'S

¶39

11(a) SMT. N. NANDINI D/O LATE B.N. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶40

11(b) SRI. N. NAGARJUNA S/O LATE B.N. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶41

SRINIVAS S/O P NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶42

10, 11a, 11b & 12 ARE R/AT NO.117, KAVAL BYRASANDRAR T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶43

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(R1 (A)(i), R1(B), R1(C), R1(D), R1 (E) AND R 11(B) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;

¶46

V/O DATED 05.08.2008, NOTICE TO R2 TO R6 & R8 TO R10 ARE DISPENSED WITH; V/O DATED 24.07.2009, R7 IS DELETED;

¶47

4 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:8982 RFA No. 670 of 2007

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

V/O DATED 13.10.2023, R11(A) SERVED THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION; SRI. K. PATEL MUNE GOWDA .,ADVOCATE FOR R12; SRI. G.A. GOPI., ADVOCATE FOR R13)

¶51

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.02.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.2711/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, CCH-19, REJECTING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶52

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶53

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶54

This appeal is by the plaintiffs who have suffered the dismissal of their suit for declaration of possession by judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007, passed in O.S.No.2711/1995 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court')

¶55

For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants was the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants.

¶56

Plaintiffs claiming to be the owner in possession of suit property namely land bearing Sy.No.41, measuring 1 acre and 38 guntas being converted from agricultural to non-agricultural

¶57

5 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:8982 RFA No. 670 of 2007

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

purposes filed the above suit against the defendants contending

¶61

inter-alia;

¶62

(a). That the said property was purchased by one Doddanna who is husband and father respectively of the plaintiffs in terms of deed of sale dated 04.11.1948 produced at Ex.P2 and having put up certain construction including a portion of property being used for a temple namely 'Suppalamma Devi Temple', allegedly that the defendants being the owners of the neighboring property were causing interference.

¶63

(b). That the defendants Nos.1 to 3 had filed a suit in O.S.No.4049/1992. So also, defendant No.11 filed a suit in O.S.No.5624/1994, causing interference and cloud on the title of the plaintiffs, constraining the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.

¶64

Defendants appeared and filed their written statement denying the plaint averment and also contented that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit property and had filed the suit only by suppressing the material facts.

¶65

Based on the pleading, the trial Court framed the

¶66

following:

¶67

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8982 RFA No. 670 of 2007

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

ISSUES

¶70

"1. ªÁ¢ vÁ£ÀÄ zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸Áé£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÉAzÀÄ

¶71

¹zÀÝ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

¶72

¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸Áé£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀPÉÌ CqÉvÀqÉ

¶73

¥Àr¹zÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¹zÀÝ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

¶74

F zÁªÉ £ÀqÉAiÀÄ¯ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¹zÀÝ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

¶75

ªÁ¢ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀÄ?

¶76

AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉÃ±À, AiÀiÁªÀ LwÃ¥ÀÄð."

¶77

Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and exhibited 26

¶78

documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. Defendants did not lead any evidence in support of their case.

¶79

On appreciation of the evidence, more particularly Ex.P24, which is a final notification dated 28.02.1985 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority, notifying the suit land, trial Court refrained itself from proceeding further as it lacks jurisdiction in the matter. It is this judgment and decree which is put in question.

¶80

Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants herein taking this Court through the record submits that the Bangalore Development Authority was made party in this appeal and it has filed memo dated 05.12.2025 affirming the fact that though the land subject matter of the suit has been notified, the possession has

¶81

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8982 RFA No. 670 of 2007

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

remained with the plaintiffs. Therefore, he submits that it should be deemed as Bangalore Development Authority not having acted upon the notification as per Ex.P24. He submits in the light of Bangalore Development Authority not taking any action, the natural corollary shall be to declare that the plaintiffs to be the absolute owner of the suit property in possession as sought for. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal.

¶84

Heard and perused the records.

¶85

There is no dispute of the fact that the Bangalore Development Authority by final notification dated 28.02.1985 produced at Ex.P24 while notifying several lands, has also notified the suit land, which finds mention at Serial No.286 of the Notification, which is marked as Ex.P24A. It is a settled position of law once the land is acquired, a final notification issued, award is made the land stands vested with the acquiring authority, free from all encumbrances unless such notification is quashed or acquired land is de-notified in the manner known to law, which is not the case at hand.

¶86

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8982 RFA No. 670 of 2007

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Be that as it is. The fact remains, the plaintiffs admittedly in possession, apparently being troubled and interfered by the defendants.

¶89

At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel submits that if the possession of the plaintiffs are protected against the unlawful interference by the defendants, and liberty being reserved to the plaintiffs to seek such remedy against the notification, at Ex.P24 the purpose of the appeal will be served.

¶90

Submission is taken on record.

¶91

Husband and father respectively of the plaintiffs was

¶92

the owner of the suit land having purchased the same in terms of Ex.P2 deed of sale dated 04.11.1948. His name is reflected in the revenue records produced at Ex.P14, RTC Extracts for the years 1965-66 to 1968-69. The plaintiffs have also produced copy of the order dated 06.02.1982, providing sanction for conversion of the suit land from agricultural to non agricultural purposes which is produced at Ex.P17. Name of said Doddanna is also reflected in the notification dated 28.02.1985 produced at Ex.P24a at Sl.No.286. These documents indicate that said Doddanna the husband and father

¶93

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:8982 RFA No. 670 of 2007

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

respectively of the plaintiffs was the owner in possession of the suit land and subsequent to his demise plaintiffs have continued to be in possession of the suit land. There has no contest by the private defendants, expect cross-examination of PW.1 by defendant Nos.1 to 3. Nothing is elicited in the said cross-examination with regard to possession of the plaintiffs and the suit property. Private defendants have not led any evidence.

¶96

Notwithstanding the suit property having been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority in terms of notification as per Ex.P24, plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the suit property. Plaintiffs are specifically alleging interference by the private defendants/respondents.

¶97

In the light of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants seeking liberty to avail such remedy against the acquisition of suit land by the BDA as per Ex.P24 and since allegation of interference is only against the private defendants/respondents, in the peculiar facts situation of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate in the interest of justice, private

¶98