The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1000 OF 2022 (INJ) …APPELLANT BETWEEN: SMT JAYALAKSHMI W/O M RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.11/2 YELLAKUNTE VILLAGE BOMMANAHALLI POST BANGALORE – 560 068. (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. SMT VANAJA REDDY W/O GANGAREDDY MAJOR SRI GANGA REDDY S/O VENKATAREDDY MAJOR BOTH THE RESPONDENTS RESIDING AT NO.728 1ST MAIN ROAD, SBM BACKSIDE AECS LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALL BANGALORE-560 037. SMT S MALINI MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.217 5TH ‘C’ MAIN ROAD 2ND BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 043. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. A.J. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3 APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AGAINST R-1 & R-2 VIDE ORDER: 12.06.2023) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2021 PASSED IN OS No.1029/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.1029/2016 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2021 passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to suit schedule immovable property filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the respondents-defendants was dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellant-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction interalia contending that the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.5/3b measuring 10 guntas out of 1.29 guntas originally belonged to her maternal grandmother Munihanumakka - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 upon whose demise, the suit schedule property devolved upon her daughter – Gullamma, the mother of the plaintiff who expired in the year 1978, pursuant to which, the appellant-plaintiff became the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the revenue records are standing in the name of the plaintiff who has been paying taxes. It was contended that since the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - defendant Nos.1 to 3 attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, she instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for other reliefs. 4.
Legal Reasoning
The respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit by filing their written statement disputing/denying the various allegations and claims made by the plaintiff. It was contended that the entire Sy.No.5/3b claimed by the plaintiff as suit schedule property was not in existence and the same was acquired by the BDA for formation of HSR Layout. The identity, location, schedule, measurement, boundaries etc., of the alleged suit schedule property was seriously disputed and denied by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 defendant Nos.1 and 2. It was contended by them that they were the absolute owners of property bearing Site No.405 situated in HSR Layout, Sector VII, Bengaluru having acquired the same pursuant to the BDA Auction vide registered sale deed dated 06.11.2014 executed in their favour by the BDA, who had issued possession certificate dated 14.11.2014 as well as Khata certificate, Tax paid receipts etc., in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It was further contended that entire Sy.No.5/3b measuring 1 acre 31 guntas was acquired by the BDA vide final notification dated 28.11.1986 followed by an award dated 01.09.1987 and BDA took possession of the same on 18.09.1987 and allotted the same in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It was also contended that the earlier suit in O.S.No.589/1990 filed by the very same appellant- plaintiff against BDA was dismissed by the Civil Court on 30.06.1999 and after referring to various other litigations between the parties, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that the plaintiffs did not have any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property and that the suit was liable to be dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 5. The respondent No.3-defendant No.3 filed the separate written statement putting forth the identical contention except stating that she was allotted site No.382 by the BDA which had executed a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 03.08.1989 followed by a registered sale deed dated 03.05.2001 and possession certificate dated 16.10.1989, Khata certificate dated 19.02.1990, Tax paid receipts and other documents in favour of defendant No.3 who was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Defendant No.3 also reiterated that Sy.No.5/3b falsely claimed by the plaintiff as the suit schedule property had been acquired by the BDA in the year 1986-87 itself for formation of HSR Layout and that the plaintiff who did not have any right over the suit schedule property had filed a false and frivolous suit which was not maintainable in law or on facts and that the same was liable to be dismissed. 6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether plaintiff proves her lawful possession over the schedule property? 2) Does she prove the alleged obstruction of the defendants? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 3) Does she is entitle for the relief of injunction as prayed? 4) What order and decree ? 7. The plaintiff examined her husband/GPA holder as PW-1 and Exs.P-1 to P-15 were marked by her. The defendant No.2 examined himself as DW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.D-1 to D-32 were marked by him while the defendant No.3 examined herself as DW-2 and documentary evidence at Exs.D-33 to D-49 were marked on her behalf. 8. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff who is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 9. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff warrants interference in the present appeal. 10. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the Trial Court considered and appreciated the entire material on record and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff who had claimed right over the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 suit schedule property by describing the same as Sy.No.5/3b to an extent of 10 guntas out of a total extent of 1.29 guntas was not in possession or enjoyment of the suit schedule property in view of acquisition of entire Sy.No.5/3b by the BDA in the year 1986-87 for formation of HSR Layout. The Trial Court also took into account the specific admission made by the appellant herein in the plaint in the earlier suit in O.S.No.589/1990 filed by her at Ex.D-28 against the BDA wherein the plaintiff had admitted that her grandmother had sold the entire extent of 1.29 guntas in Sy.No.5/3b in favour of one Narayanappa and the said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff by holding as under: 9. Issue No.1:- It is the specific claim of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of the house property situate in the suit Sy.No.5/3b to an extent of 10 guntas out of the total extent of 1 acre 29 guntas. According to her claim the entire suit survey number was originally belonging to her maternal grand-mother- Munihanumakka who acquired the same under a registered partition deed dated 08.06.1942 and after her death the plaintiff’s mother Gullamma inherited the said property and she enjoyed the said property till her death in the year 1978 and after her death it is the plaintiff who has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 property to an extent of 10 guntas. She has also claimed that she had applied to the BDA for regularizing the unauthorized construction put up on the suit property and since it was not attended to by the BDA she approached the Hon’ble High Court in a writ proceeding and accordingly the Hon’ble High Court has issued necessary directions to the BDA to look into the matter but inspite of it her application has not been considered. 10. According to the allegation of the plaintiff as the said building constructed in the suit property was in a dilapidated condition and was collapsed, she intended to put up new construction and while she was cleaning the schedule property, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 without having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property started interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property which has compelled her to approach this Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction. Per contra this claim of the plaintiff has been seriously opposed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 according to whom there is no question of the plaintiff being in possession of any portion of the suit survey since the entire extent of this survey number has already been acquired by the Govt under the legal and valid acquisition proceeding as a result of which the BDA has formed layout and sites and has already allotted those sites to various prospective purchasers and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are one such prospective purchasers who have purchased sites in this property and therefore the claim of the plaintiff that still there remains 10 guntas of land in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 the suit survey number cannot be accepted. In view of these rival contentions of the parties, heavy burden is cast on the plaintiff to prove at the first instance as to whether there still remains 10 guntas of land in the suit survey number and if so whether she is in its lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit. 11. As stated above, in order to prove the claim of the plaintiff, her husband has deposed before the Court as her GPA holder and got marked as many as 15 documents from Ex.P.1 to P.15. As regards Ex.P.1, it is the original partition deed of 1942 under which suit schedule property was said to have been allotted to the plaintiff’s grand mother- Munihanumakka. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the said partition deed. He has also produced Ex.P.3 which is the application submitted by P.W.1 to the revenue officer of BBMP seeking for issue of khatha and tax paid extracts pertaining to the suit survey number. In response to this application the concerned authorities have issued endorsement as per Ex.P.4 stating that on verification of the records they did not find any documents with regard to khatha or tax paid extracts pertaining to the suit Sy.Nos.5/3a and 5/3b. As regards Ex.P.5, it is the order passed in WP No.47061/2011 which was a petition filed by the present plaintiff against the BDA and the Land Acquisition Officer seeking direction to the said authority to consider her application for regularization of the said unauthorized construction put up on the schedule property. As per this order the Hon’ble High Court had given liberty to her to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 approach the authorities for getting regularized the said unauthorized construction under ‘Akrama Sakrama’ scheme. 12. The plaintiff had also filed another writ petition in WP No.6970/2011 against the same BDA authority once again seeking direction to consider her application for regularization of unauthorized construction and the Hon’ble High Court has directed the respondent to consider her application in accordance with law. To show the situation of the schedule property, P.W.1 has produced various photographs which are marked from Ex.P.7 to P.10 and the CD containing these photographs marked at Ex.P.11. As regards Ex.P.12, it is the GPA executed by the plaintiff in favour of P.W.1. P.W.1 has further produced the death extract of one Muninanjamma stating to be the grand -mother of the plaintiff. As regards Ex.P.14, it is said to be the BDA sketch pertaining to the suit survey number and the survey sketch at Ex.P.15 once again showing the situation of the schedule property. 13. Against the above oral and documentary evidence placed before the court by P.W.1, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 have also deposed as D.W.1 & 2 respectively and they have also produced 49 documents marked from Ex.D.1 to D.49. As regards Ex.D.1 to D.3, they were got marked during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1. Ex.D.1 & D.2 are the certified copies of judgment and decree passed in OS No.1302/2016 which was a suit filed by one Deepak Garla and others against the present - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 P.W.1 and the plaintiff for permanent injunction with respect to one of the sites formed in the suit survey number and this suit was decreed against the present plaintiff and P.W.1. Ex.D.3 is the summons issued from Human Rights Commission to the present D.W.1 with respect to proceeding held before the Hon'ble High Court with regard to the suit survey number. As regards Ex.D.4, it is the original Court auction sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 & 2 with respect to the site No.405 formed in the suit property at HSR Layout. As regards Ex.D.4(a), it is the certified copy of the very same sale deed. 14. DW1 has also produced Ex.D.5 which is the auction site confirmation letter issued by the BDA with respect to the property of D.W.1. Ex.D.6 is the endorsement issued by BDA with regard to value of the site purchased by D.W.1 and Ex.D.7 is the original possession letter issued by the BDA with respect to their site No.405. In pursuance of this title deed defendant Nos.1 & 2 were issued with certificate by BBMP as per Ex.D.8. As regards Ex.D.9, it is the property register extract of their site. To prove their possession over this site defendant Nos.1 & 2 have produced 3 tax paid receipts marked from Ex.D.10 to D.12. D.W.1 has also produced the digital photographs pertaining to his site No.405 which are marked from Ex.D.13 to D.17 and a CD at Ex.D.18 containing these photographs. Ex.D.19 is the plan pertaining to his construction over site No.405. As regards Ex.D.20, it is the notice issued by BDA in the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 year 1988 to the property holder D. Narayana Reddy with respect to acquisition of the suit survey number. 15. DW1 has also produced Ex.D.21 which is the order passed by the Spl.LAO on 18.11.2011 stating that as the entire extent of the suit survey number has been acquired by the Govt. there is no provision for regularizing the alleged unauthorized construction put up on the suit schedule property and thereby the application of the present plaintiff came to be dismissed. Ex.D.22 is the final notification issued by the BDA with regard to said acquisition of the suit schedule property. D.W.1 has also produced some more documents issued from the BDA which are obtained under the RTI Act which are marked from Ex.D.23 to D.27. Again all these documents pertain to the acquisition proceeding relating to the suit survey number and the various endorsements issued by the BDA to the plaintiff and P.W.1. 16. As regards Ex.D.28, it is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.589/1990 which was also a suit filed by the plaintiff against one S.K. Rao and BDA seeking the relief of permanent injunction with respect to the suit survey number and it is relevant to note that the extent of the suit schedule property shown in this suit is only 5 guntas as could be borne-out from the schedule of this plaint. Ex.D.29 is the certified copy of the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 in that suit who is the Law Officer of the BDA questioning the claim of the plaintiff in that suit. As regards Ex.D.30, it is the certified - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 copy of the order sheet of the said suit. Ex.D.31 & D.32 are the certified copies of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.672/2017 which was a suit filed by one K. Manjunath and his wife against the present plaintiff and P.W.1 for the relief of permanent injunction and this suit was also decreed against the present plaintiff and P.W.1 and they were permanently restrained from interfering with the property of the plaintiffs therein which was also site No.375 which is also an adjoining site in the suit schedule property. 17. As stated above defendant No.3 has also deposed before the Court as D.W.2 and she has also produced her sale deed which is marked at Ex.D.33, the khatha certificate at Ex.D.34 with respect to her site No.382. The certificate issued by BBMP in her name is produced at Ex.D.35. To show her possession over the said site she has also produced the property register extract and the various tax paid receipts which are marked from Ex.D.36 to D.40 respectively. To show the situation of her site D.W.2 has also produced various photographs which are marked from Ex.D.41 to D.44 and the CD containing the said photographs at Ex.D.46. Again Ex.D.45 is a photograph of her site. She has also produced the certified copy of the acquisition records pertaining to suit survey number which are marked from Ex.D.47 to D.49 which were also obtained under the RTI Act from the BDA. 18. The documents produced by DW2 also prima- - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 facie show the fact that the suit survey number was acquired by the BDA under the land acquisition proceeding at an undisputed point of time. In the backdrop of this oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court by the parties now it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is able to prove her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit as claimed by her. It is material to note that though she has claimed that she has inherited the disputed 10 guntas of the suit property through her grand- mother but, not a single scrap of paper is produced to substantiate this claim. 19. The learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1 & 2 as well as defendant No.3 have relied on a number of documents which are relevant to appreciate the evidence on record as well as the claim put forth by the plaintiff in this case. The learned counsel for defendants has invited my attention to Ex.D.1 & D.2 which are the copies of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1302/2016. As discussed supra this suit was filed by one Deepak Garla and two others claiming that they are the absolute owners of the property bearing khatha No.1243/381 in the same HSR Layout having purchased the same under E-auction. It is relevant to note that the present P.W.1 as well as the plaintiff herein were made as defendant Nos.1 & 2 respectively in the said suit and it is material to note that the same claim put forth by the present plaintiff in this case was put forth even in that case in their written statement claiming that the present - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 suit schedule property is still in existence in possession of the plaintiff and once again she had claimed her exclusive right over the disputed 10 guntas of land. 20. It is material to note that the court in that judgment passed in O.S.No.1302/2016 has categorically observed that already the entire suit Sy.No.5/3b was acquired by the BDA for allotment of various sites including the site which was claimed by the plaintiffs in that suit and observed that the plaintiff herein had no grievance about the said acquisition proceeding and having failed to show that still 10 guntas of land is retained in the said survey number, her defence was rejected by the court thereby decreeing the said suit permanently restraining her from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs therein who had also purchased the sites after formation of layout in pursuance of the said acquisition proceeding. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff herein and the present P.W.1 have not challenged said judgment and decree till this date. Therefore those findings have remained unchallenged till this date. 21. It is further relevant to refer the other document such as Ex.D.4 which is the sale deed of the present defendant No.1 & 2 with regard to purchase of one such site in the said survey number i.e., site No.405 and even their contention is on the same line that after having acquired the entire suit survey number, the layout has been formed by allotting the same to the various prospective purchasers. All these sale deeds have also - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 remained unchallenged by the plaintiff till this date. As regards Ex.P.20, this document also assumes relevance for the simple reason that at an undisputed point of time in the year 1988 there was acquisition proceeding with respect to suit survey number by the BDA. 22. Under Ex.P.20 a notice was issued to the earlier land holder Narayana Reddy intimating him about the proposal of acquisition of the entire suit survey number measuring 1 acre 31 guntas. The next document is still important to be referred here which is an order of the SLAO on her application seeking for the regularization of the alleged unauthorized construction over the suit property. As discussed above, in pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the writ proceedings filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to the BDA authorities to regularize the said unauthorized construction, the concerned authority was directed to re- consider her application and in compliance of the said direction this order came to be passed. 23. In Ex.D.21 it is clearly ordered that since the entire extent of suit Sy.No.5/3b has been acquired as per the final notification dated 28.11.1986 for the purpose of formation of HSR Layout, no land is remained in the said survey number. The authority has further ordered that the entire acquired land has already been handed over to the Engineering Section on 09.09.1987. It is further ordered that the entire 1 acre 31 guntas of suit survey number is exclusively belonging to the BDA and - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 already been acquired and therefore there is no provision for regularizing the so-called 10 guntas of land nor the unauthorized construction put up thereon shall be regularized U/S 4 and consequently the application of the present plaintiff came to be rejected by the authority. Ex.D.22 is an undisputed document which is the final notification which once again fortifies the defence of the defendants that the entire suit survey number was acquired for the above said purpose. All these undisputed documents clearly establish that in the year 1987-88 itself the entire suit land was acquired by the BDA for formation of HSR Layout. 24. Furthermore after formation of the said layout in the suit land various sites formed in the said converted land were sold to several purchasers including the present defendants. Those sale transactions have also remained unchallenged till this date. Under such circumstances how could the plaintiff still assert that the disputed 10 guntas of land is still in her possession, is the material aspect which requires consideration. The defendants have further got marked some more material documents which are from Ex.D.24 to D.29 which also pertain to the same land acquisition proceeding with respect to suit land. 25. As held above as per Ex.D.24, the award notice was issued by the concerned authority on 01.09.1987 with respect to acquisition of the entire 1 acre 31 guntas of the suit land fixing the compensation price. Again Ex.D.25 discloses the fact of acquisition of the said - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 land by BDA. As regards Ex.D.26, it is the copy of application submitted by the present plaintiff before the authority which clearly falsifies her claim, because as per the procedure the land holders were required to submit their willingness for handing over the acquired land. 26. From Ex.D.26, it is revealed that the plaintiff had applied as the daughter of Munihanumakka though in the present suit she has shown the said Munihanumakka as her grand-mother and not as mother. However as per this document it is revealed that she had willfully handed over the entire extent of suit land which is evident from clause 5 of this application and this willingness was expressed after the award. This document once again clearly supports the defence of the defendants that the land holders of this suit land had willfully handed over its possession towards its acquisition by the BDA. There is no explanation offered by the plaintiff or by P.W.1 with respect to these material documents and therefore the court finds no reasons to discard these documents. The defendants have also produced Ex.D.27 which is once again an information issued by the Law Officer of BDA stating that the case filed by the present plaintiff against the BDA in O.S.No.589/1990 has been dismissed. The copy of the plaint and written statement of this suit are produced at Ex.D.28 & D.29. From these documents it is once again revealed that the present plaintiff had made one more futile attempt of claiming her right over the suit. This suit was filed against one S.K Rao as defendant No.1 and BDA as defendant No.2. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 27. It is pertinent to note that O.S.No.589/1990 was filed by the plaintiff claiming her right over only 5 guntas of suit land whereas in the instant case she has claimed 10 guntas of land. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to how this discrepancy has occurred nor the plaintiff has explained about this inconsistency. The claim of the plaintiff is further falsified by her own pleadings in this case particularly on page-2 in para-3 wherein she has categorically pleaded that her grand- mother had sold land measuring 1 acre 29 guntas in the suit survey number to one Narayanappa but retained 5 guntas of land. This material statement of the plaintiff found in Ex.D.28 runs thus:- “However the plaintiff’s grand-mother sold the land measuring 1 acre 29 guntas in the said survey number to one Narayanappa s/o Dasappa of Bommanahalli by retaining 5 guntas of land”. 28. The above statement of the present plaintiff in her earlier suit once again falsifies her claim that after sale of 1 acre 29 guntas of the suit land still her grand- mother retained the alleged 10 guntas of land so as to lay her claim over the said land in the present case. On the other hand this admission in her pleadings probablises the defence of the defendants herein that after sale of the said land to Narayanappa no land in the suit survey number was retained by her grand-mother. Consequently her claim that she is entitled to claim the so-called 10 guntas of land in the suit survey number will have to be rejected. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 29. The defendants have also produced Ex.D.31 & D.32 which are the copies of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.672/2017. This suit was once again filed by one Manjunath and his wife Usha against the present plaintiff and P.W.1 for the relief of permanent injunction with respect to site No.375 formed in the same layout in the suit survey number. This suit was once again decreed in their favour thereby permanently restraining the present plaintiff and P.W.1 from interfering with their possession over the said site. It is significant to note that again in the said judgment the Hon’ble Court had reiterated that the plaintiffs therein were in lawful possession of the said site formed in the suit land. It is also observed that the present plaintiff and P.W.1 had though appeared in that case they had not cross- examined the plaintiffs therein and thereby impliedly admitted their claim. Again this document clearly establishes that there was repeated attempt by the present plaintiff to claim land in the suit survey number despite the fact that in the year 1988 itself the entire extent of the suit land was acquired for formation of layout. 30. As regards the claim of defendant No.3 (D.W.2), she has produced her document of title at Ex.D.33 under which she had also purchased one of the sites in the suit survey number bearing No.382 and in pursuance of the said sale deed the khatha certificates were issued in her name as per Ex.D.34 & D.35 and her name was mutated to the revenue records which is - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 evident from Ex.D.36 property tax register extract. He has also produced various tax paid receipts from Ex.D.37 to D.40 to prove her possession over this property. The fact that all these prospective purchasers including the present defendant Nos.1 to 3 have been in lawful possession of their respective sites after purchase has remained uncontroverted by anybody including the present plaintiff. Under such circumstances it is highly impossible to believe that even after the said acquisition of the entire suit land and formation of several sites in the said land there still remain any land much less the alleged 10 guntas of land claimed by the plaintiff. 31. Even otherwise it is relevant to note that though P.W.1 has produced the earlier documents of title of Munihanumakka and the other subsequent purchasers, but not a single scrap of paper is finding place in the records to prove the actual or lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that she must have held the disputed 10 guntas of suit land on the date of the suit. It would be equally relevant to refer the evidence of PW1 in this regard. Though cleverly he has pleaded his ignorance as to whether his wife had filed O.S.No.589/1990 against BDA, but as stated above the documents themselves speak about the said fact since the present plaintiff herself had filed the said suit against BDA and became unsuccessful. 32. Even P.W.1 has categorically admitted that as - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 per his own document at Ex.P.14 there is mention about acquisition of entire 1 acre 31 guntas of the suit land. Though a desperate attempt is made by him by voluntarily stating that his possession is also shown in Ex.P.14, but it is not so mentioned in this document. Furthermore as stated above, no documents are produced before the court to show that the name of the plaintiff is entered to the alleged disputed 10 guntas of the suit land even after acquisition of the suit land. 33. However it is vehemently argued on behalf of the plaintiff that there is mention about the adjacent compound wall in the 10 guntas of land, but again this assertion of P.W.1 is clearly falsified by his own document at Ex.P.14 BDA sketch wherein the BDA authorities have though located the situation of the suit land, but again there is a clear mention about acquisition of 1 acre 29 guntas of the suit land and this sketch pertains to disputed 10 guntas of land. It is material to note that this 10 guntas of land as per this sketch is shown to be a vacant land with a compound wall stated to have been constructed by the BDA and not by the plaintiff as asserted by P.W.1 because the mention is as— “0.10 UÉ SÁ° EzÀÄÝ PÁA¥ËAqï ¤«Äð¹gÀÄvÉ Ûêɔ. Now the plaintiff or P.W.1 is estopped to give a different meaning to this word since it is the BDA who said to have constructed the said compound to this 10 guntas of vacant land. This fact once again falsifies the claim of the plaintiff that there is any such unauthorized construction over this 10 guntas of land belonging to her. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 34. P.W.1 has also not denied the suggestion of the defendants’ counsel that defendant Nos.1 & 2 are in possession of the site No.381 by constructing a building therein although he has pleaded ignorance about the said fact. All these material facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that as on the date of the suit the plaintiff was not at all in possession of any portion of the suit survey number much less the disputed 10 guntas of land in view of the admitted fact that already the entire extent of suit survey number was acquired by the BDA at an undisputed point of time. Therefore this issue will have to be undoubtedly held against the plaintiff in the negative. 35. Issue Nos.2 & 3:- Since both these issues are interconnected they are tried together to avoid repetition of facts. In view of the findings rendered on issue No.1 now it is proved that the plaintiff is not at all concerned to the disputed 10 guntas of the suit property since already there has been acquisition of the entire extent of the suit land. It is further relevant to note that there cannot be any basis for her allegation of the alleged obstruction by the defendants to her possession over this property for the simple reason that the entire acquisition proceeding which have taken place during 1987-88 itself have remained unquestioned either by the plaintiff or by the earlier land owners. 36. As stated above, the award notice was also issued not in the name of the plaintiff but it was issued to - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 the said Narayanappa to whom her grand-mother had already sold the entire suit survey number. Under such circumstances as rightly argued by the defence counsels, neither the plaintiff nor her mother or grand-mother were in possession of the suit land after the said acquisition of the suit land. Therefore there is absolutely no question of anybody interfering with their alleged possession. 37. It is further pertinent to note that when the plaintiff herself in her earlier suit had admitted that her grand-mother had already sold the entire extent of suit land to Narayanappa then it cannot be said the disputed 10 guntas of land which is inclusive of the said extent must have been retained by either her grand-mother or by her mother. On the contrary the fact that after acquisition of the said land layout was formed and various sites have been formed and the same were sold to several purchasers, has been clearly admitted by the plaintiff. When the said acquisition proceeding is proved to be a legal and valid proceeding and since the prospective purchasers have already occupied the said sites and are in possession of their respective properties by constructing buildings therein it is highly impossible to infer that the defendants must have obstructed the alleged possession of the plaintiff over the disputed 10 guntas of land. Therefore again this allegation of P.W.1 regarding interference by the defendants is proved to be a total falsehood. 38. Moreover the plaintiff herself being proved to - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 be not in possession of the suit land, she cannot be held entitled to the relief of injunction since it is a well settled position of law that no injunction shall be granted in favour of a party who is not in possession of the disputed property. Therefore viewed from any angle it cannot be said that the plaintiff deserves the grant of any equitable relief and hence both these issues are also answered against the plaintiff in the negative. 39. Issue No.4:- In the light of the findings given on the above issues now it is proved that the disputed 10 guntas of land is not belonging to either the plaintiff or her grand-mother or mother after acquisition of the entire suit land. On the contrary it is now proved that having become unsuccessful in all the earlier proceedings with respect to the same property, once again a desperate attempt has been made by the plaintiff to litigate the present suit on baseless grounds. On the contrary since past more than 5 years she has been successful in keeping this frivolous suit alive by dragging the defendants to the court for fighting such litigation by spending monetary expenses in the form of cost of litigation. Therefore the suit certainly deserves to be dismissed by imposing cost. With these observations the court hereby proceeds to pass the following:-
Decision
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction is hereby dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-. Draw decree accordingly.” - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 11. A perusal of the material on record will clearly indicate that the Trial Court was fully justified in coming to the correct conclusion that the plaintiff who did not have any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property was not entitled to any relief in the suit filed by her. It is also pertinent to note that in the case of Commissioner BDA Vs. Brijesh Reddy – (2013) 3 SCC 66, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in relation to acquired properties/lands, a suit for bare injunction was not maintainable, as hereunder: “14) No doubt, in the case on hand, the plaintiffs approached the civil Court with a prayer only for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2,i.e., BDA, their agents, servants and any one claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It is true that there is no challenge to the acquisition proceedings. However, in view of the assertion of the BDA, in their written statements, about the initiation of acquisition proceedings ending with the passing of award, handing over possession and subsequent action etc., the said suit is not maintainable. This was rightly concluded by the trial Court. For proper compensation, the aggrieved parties are free to avail the statutory provisions and approach the court concerned. All these aspects have been clearly noted by the trial Court and ultimately rightly dismissed the suit as not maintainable. On the other hand, the learned Single - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 Judge of the High Court though adverted to the principles laid down by this Court with reference to acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act and Section 9 of CPC committed an error in remanding the matter to the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs were not given opportunity to adduce evidence to show that their vendor was in possession which entitles them for grant of permanent injunction from evicting them from the scheduled property without due process of law by the defendants. In the light of the specific assertion coupled with materials in the written statement about the acquisition of land long ago and subsequent events, suit of any nature including bare injunction is not maintainable, hence, we are of the view that the High Court is not right in remitting the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. 15) Having regard to the fact that the acquisition proceedings had been completed way back in 1960-70, the plaintiffs who purchased the suit land in 1995 cannot have any right to maintain the suit of this nature particularly, against defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the BDA. The High Court clearly erred in remanding the matter when the suit was not maintainable on the face of it. The High Court failed to take note of the fact that even in the plaint itself, the respondents herein/plaintiffs have stated that the suit land was acquired and yet they purchased the suit land in 1995 and undoubtedly have to face the consequence. The possession vests with the BDA way back in 1969 and 1978 and all the details have been asserted in the written statements, hence the remittal order cannot be sustained. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:15832 RFA No. 1000 of 2022 16) In the light of the above discussion, the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2005 passed by the High Court in R.F.A. No. 947 of 2003 remitting the matter to the trial Court is set aside and the judgment dated 18.06.2003 of the trial Court in O.S. No. 4267 of 1996 is restored. 17) The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.” 12. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is correct and proper and the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference in the present appeal. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC/MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19