Bangalore District Court
Nasreen Shakeel vs The Printers Mysore Pvt. Ltd on 29 June, 2026
1 OS No. 16649/2006
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
KABC0A0024572006
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
COURT AT BENGALURU
(CCH.No.22)
Present: Sri. ONKARAPPA.R, B.Sc., LL.B.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2026
O.S. No.16649/2006
PLAINTIFF: Smt. Nasreen Shakeel
W/o Shakeel Pasha
Aged about 39 years,
R/a. No. 11, "AASHIYANA"
Leonard Road, Richmond Town,
Bangalore-25.
(By Sri.SA.,Advocate)
VS
DEFENDANTS: 1. The Printers (Mysore) Pvt.
Ltd, A. Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered Office at
Plot Nos. 7-12, Kumbalgodu
industrial Area, Kumbalgodu 2nd
Phase, Mysore Road, Bangalore-
560 074 represented herein by
2 OS No. 16649/2006
its General Manager Projects Sri.
K. Ramchand
2. Bangalore Development
Authority Sanky Road
Bangalore
(D1 By Sri. SS, advocate
D2 by Sri. KN, advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 08.09.2006
Nature of the suit Injunction Suit
Date of Commencement of 30.03.2009
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 29.06.2026
Pronounced
Total Duration Year Month Day
19 09 22
( ONKARAPPA.R )
XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
3 OS No. 16649/2006
: J U D G M E N T :
The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent
injunction and she sought for restrainment of the defendant
and their agents, servants, workman or anybody claiming
through or under them from encroaching upon the schedule
property and dispossessing the plaintiff or in manner
interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property and such other
reliefs. V/s
In the counter claim 1st Defendant sought for the
relief, 1st Defendant is the absolute owner of the Written
Statement schedule B property and consequently direct the
Plaintiff to quit and deliver vacant possession of the Written
Statement B property to the 1st Defendant.
As per the plaint averment, plaint schedule property
is,
SCHEDULE”A”
All that piece and parcel of the site bearing No. 2/2
comprised in katha No. 47. measuring East to West 130 fat,
and North to south 36+ 34/2 Le. 4,550sqft in total together
4 OS No. 16649/2006
with two square asbestos sheet roofed building thereon
without civic amenities situated at Byrasandra, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Kattaraguppe Group panchayath Bangalore South
Taluk, Bangalore, and bounded on the-
EAST BY Road,
WEST BY Site No.2/4 and 2/5,
NORTH BY Property belonging to Mysore Printers
and then Green Orchards
SOUTH BY Site Nos. 2/1
SCHEDULE "B"
All that piece and parcel of the site bearing No. 2/4
comprised in katha No.47, measuring East to West 156 ft.,
and North to south 25.8 i.e. 4,020sq.ft in total together
with two square asbestos sheet roofed building thereon
without civic amenities situated at Byrasandra, Utarahalli
Hobli, Kattaraguppe Group panchayath Bangalore South
Taluk, Bangalore, and bounded on the :-
EAST BY Site No. 2/1 and 2/2
WEST BY 20ft., road,
NORTH BY Site No. 2/5, and
SOUTH BY Site Nos. 2/3
5 OS No. 16649/2006
V/s
As per Written Statement of 1st Defendant, B Written
Statement schedule property is
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the immovable property
bearing Survey Nos.45 and portion of 46/4 of Byrasandra
Village in the B.T.M. Scheme measuring 1 acre 20 guntas
and East to West 270 feet and North to South 255 feet +
231 feet/2 and bounded as follows:
On the East by: Bannerghatta main road:
West by: Remaining portion of Survey No.46/4
of Byrasandra Village:
North by: Property bearing Survey No.20 and
21/2 of Byrasandra Village and
South by: Portion of property bearing No. survey
No. 46/4 of Byrasandra Village.
SCHEDULE-B
Portion towards the southern side of the Written
Statement Schedule Property in Sy. No. 46/4 and 45
measuring about 242 feet East to West by 32+34/2 feet
North to South in all about 7986 square feet.
6 OS No. 16649/2006
2. Brief facts of the case as per plaint averments
and rejoinder dated 18.09.2008, are as under:- the plaintiff
is the absolute owner in actual physical possession and
enjoyment of property bearing Nos.2/2, and 2/4, and
bearing Khata No. 47, situated at Byrasandra, Uttarahalli
Hobil, Bangalore South Taluk, which is more fully described
in the schedule as the suit schedule property., having
purchased the same from its previous owners SA Lakshman
and 5 others, under Two sale deeds dated: 17-12-1999. The
Suit Schedule property originally was the joint family
property of Sri.Krishnappa, SA Lakshman and SA.
Ananthappa all Brothers and Sri. SA Krishnappa was the
Kathedar. Sri. Krishnappa died on 20-4-1994, leaving behind
his wife Smt. Jayalakshmamma and three Sons namely K.
Vijayakumar, K. Bhaskar and K. Majundar and four
Daughters namely K Vimala Devi, K. Vanitha Devi, K.
Nagambika and K. Manjula. The said property being the
joint family property came to be divided between the legal
representatives of said S.A.Krishnappa and his brothers SA
Lakshman and SA Ananthappa and their sons and the same
has been reduced into writing as per the memorandum of
7 OS No. 16649/2006
partition dated: 14.7.1999 and as described in the layout
plan of sites forming part and parcel of the said
memorandum of partition dated: 14.7.1999 As per the said
partition the Vendors of the plaintiff jointly became entitled
to the site property bearing No 2/2, which is suit Schedule
property. Accordingly the vendors of the plaintiff had
absolute right, title and interest and same was conveyed
infavour of the plaintiff by executing the sale deed. The
plaintiff was put in actual physical possession of the Suit
Schedule property. Thereafter the plaintiff paid up-to-date
Tax to the concerned authorities. The khata of the Schedule
property was transferred Into the plaintiff’s name. Further,
the plaintiff has obtained Sanctioned plan from the
concerned authorities put up construction on the Schedule
Property. The plaintiff has been running business in Marbles
in the name of Seema Marbles and granites in the schedule
property. The property adjoining the suit schedule property
is the property belonging to 1 st defendant. 1st defendant’s
property is fully enclosed by a boundary wall all around.
Even when the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule
property and took possession the adjoining property of 1 st
8 OS No. 16649/2006
defendant was enclosed by boundary wall. Hence the
property of the defendant is within the Boundary wall. 1 st
defendant claim to have acquired the property from B.D.A
the 2nd defendant who believed to have allotted the property
to 1st defendant. Even though the plaintiff has been in
continuous actual physical possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property, 1st defendant with the help of 2 nd
defendant started interfering with the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff on
the ground that, a portion of the suit schedule property
belonged to them. The claim of 1st defendant is highly
illegal. The extent of the property belonging to the plaintiff
is as per and in conformity with the measurement as
mentioned in the sale deed and beyond the boundary wall
of the property of the second defendant. However to make
illegal gain 1st defendant has been imposing great threat to
dispossess the plaintiff with the help and instance of 2 nd
defendant. Officials of 2nd defendant came to the schedule
property and threatened the plaintiff of dispossession. If the
defendants are permitted to dispossess the plaintiffs, from
their lawful possession and enjoyment of the property. It
9 OS No. 16649/2006
will cause needless complications and is also likely to cause
grave and irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff’s
interest in the suit schedule property. The right Title and
interest of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in
it’s entirety is legally valid and recognized and 1 st defendant
or 2nd defendant has no manner of right, Title or interest
over the suit schedule property in part or as a whole. The
B.D.A 2nd defendant has nothing to do with the suit
schedule property and to the knowledge and belief of the
plaintiff the suit schedule property is not the subject matter
of any acquisition or requisition by the defendant either in
the past or at present. The suit schedule property does not
or did not belong to 1st defendant but 1st defendant, hand
in glove with 2nd defendant is attempting to dispossess the
plaintiff. Hence this suit. The plaintiff received a notice
from the B.D.A dated 17.7.06, issued by the Assistant
executive engineer South Division, demanding the plaintiff
to appear before this competent officer with all relevant
documents in connection with an inquiry in respect of land
in Sy. No 46/4 Byrasandra village, Baneerghatta main Road.
The plaintiff in response to the said notice he submitted all
10 OS No. 16649/2006
the documents pertaining to the title of his property which
is obviously not in Sy. No.46/4. However the plaintiff has
been threatened by the defendants of serious action to
dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a legal
notice date 22-8-2006 to 2nd defendant stating that the
plaintiff is the owner of property in katha No. 47 and has
nothing to do with the disputes in land bearing Sy. No.
46/4. The notice was issued also Under Section 64 of the
B.D.A. Act expressing the intention to initiate appropriate
legal action against B.D.A. if the possession of the Property
is interfered with. 2nd defendant received the notice. The
Plaintiff has been in actual physical possession and
enjoyment of the schedule property ever since the date of
purchase. The defendants or any body claiming under them,
has no manner of right, title or interest, in or over the
schedule property or to dispossess the plaintiff or in any
manner interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the
schedule property by the plaintiff. Inspite the receipt of
notice issued by the plaintiff, the defendant’s men appeared
in the month of August 2006 and attempted to encroach
upon the Schedule property and dispossess the plaintiff and
11 OS No. 16649/2006
to put up construction. However the plaintiff with great
difficulty prevented the illegal and high handed attempt of
the defendant. But the plaintiff strongly believe that the
defendant would put the threat of dispossession into
practice and put up construction on the suit schedule land,
if the defendant is not legally prevented from doing so. In
such an event, the plaintiff would be dispossessed by
defendant or its agents will put up construction on the
schedule Land. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to
approach this Court for appropriate relief of injunction.
The plaintiff is the lawful owner and in actual physical
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ever
since the date of purchase. Due to act of the defendants
cause of action arose on 25.08.2006. The suit is properly
valued and court fee paid, is sufficient. Hence, the plaintiff
sought for decreed the suit.
3. In the rejoinder, the plaintiff contended, what
has been averred in the counter claim are denied as
incorrect. The plaintiff in the present suit has not
questioned the allotment of property in Sy.No. 45 & 46/4 of
Byransandra Village in the BTM Scheme, measuring I acre
12 OS No. 16649/2006
20 guntas infavour of defendant No.1. Hence the contention
that, the allotment has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has no relevance. The plaintiff is the absolute
owner in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property, which is part of Sy.No. 47 and it is
not the case of the defendant that, the land allotted to the
defendant is in Sy.No. 47. As admitted by the defendant the
land allotted is in Sy.No. 45 & 46/4 and their claim in
respect of the suit schedule property is without any basis,
right or authority. Similar unsuccessful claims were made by
the defendant against the owners of the lands situated on
the southern and western side of the land of the defendant.
The defendant No.1 is not the true owner of the suit
schedule property and they have no manner of Right, Title
or interest over the same. The plaintiff has encroached upon
the property belonging to the defendant and has unjustly
claimed that, the same is situated in Sy.No. 47, Byrasandra
Village, by fabricating and falsifying documents are far from
truth. The suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties and to the knowledge and belief of this plaintiff the
suit is instituted against necessary and proper parties. The
13 OS No. 16649/2006
plaintiff states, the contentions raised in para 6 to 12 are in
respect of the lands in Sy.No. 45 and 46/4 and not in
respect of the suit schedule property or in respect of any
extent of lands in Sy.No. 47 of Byrasandra Village over
which the 1ª defendant has no manner of Right, Title,
interest or claim. The plaintiff’s claim and the institution of
the present suit is in respect of the suit schedule property,
which is in old Sy.No. 47. As admitted by the defendants,
at para 6 of the written statement, the compound wall was
fully erected around the land which was allotted to the
defendant No.1, which is in their actual possession and
enjoyment. Hence the contention that, the compound wall
was not fully completed and the 1st defendant was not in a
position to ascertain the exact extent of land it was
physically in possession is far from truth and made with a
view to misguide this Court. The boundary wall has been
erected on the entire extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land,
which is allotted to the 1st defendant on southern side in
Sy.No. 45 and 46/4 and the property belonging to the 1 st
defendant is identified with the boundary wall erected by
the 1st defendant on the southern side. Hence the question
14 OS No. 16649/2006
of encroachment by the plaintiff upon any portion of 1st
defendant’s land on southern side as contented by the 1 st
defendant, does not arise at all. The land in Sy.No. 47 was
renumbered after the land was taken over by Bangalore City
Corporation and new Katha No. 47, was assigned to the
said land. Hence the suit schedule property is identified as
Katha No.47 and not as Sy.No. 47, which is reflected all
records maintained by the Bangalore City Corporation,
which is now called BBMP. The plaintiff has not suppressed
any material facts and the suit is not filed with malafide
intention, but to prevent the high handed and illegal
attempt of the defendant to dispossess the plaintiff from the
suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not claimed any
Right, Title or Interest over the Written statement schedule
property and the plaintiff reiterates that written statement
schedule property and the suit schedule property are
entirely different and not the same property. The further
averments in the same paragraphs are nothing but repetition
of the averments made in the forgoing paragraphs.
REGARDING THE COUNTER CLAIM OF 1st DEFENDANT
AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF, The averments made in para
15 OS No. 16649/2006
15(a) are denied as false the defendant is put to strict proof
of the same. The plaintiff has not encroached upon or is in
illegal occupation of the written statement schedule
property. The written statement schedule B property is
highly imaginary and there is no such property existing.
Under the guise of claiming right over the written statement
schedule B property the defendant is making an attempt to
claim the property of the plaintiff, which is the suit
schedule property. It is absolutely false that the 2 nd
defendant conducted Survey of the written statement
schedule property and by order dated 28-10-2006 the 2 nd
defendant has ordered for action Under Section 151(1) of
the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and in pursuance
thereof the 2nd defendant by order dated 16-11-2006 issued
notice under section 321(III) of Karnataka Municipal
Corporation Act and Section 33 (2) of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act to clear this encroachment. In
this regard it is emphatically stated that, the plaintiff did
not receive any such notice from the 2nd defendant. The
only notice received by the plaintiff from the 2nd defendant
is the notice dated 17-7-2006, which is produced along with
16 OS No. 16649/2006
the plaint calling upon the plaintiff to the dispute produce
documents, with regard Sy.No.46/4. It is hard to understand
as to how the 2nd defendant an authority created and
functioning under a special enactment could issue any
notice under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal
Corporation Act. Hence the claim of the defendant No. lis
highly illegal. Regarding para 15(b): The averments made
therein are repetition of several averments made in the
forgoing paragraphs. However without prejudice the plaintiff
deny all the averments made in para 15(b) as incorrect and
the defendant No. 1 is put to strict proof of the same. The
sale deeds under which the plaintiff acquired Right, title
and interest are not obtained by fraud as alleged by the
defendant No.1. The sale deeds are legally executed and
enforceable and binding on the defendant No.1. The counter
claim of the defendant No.1 in respect of written statement
schedule B property is highly illegal and no such relief can
be granted to the defendant No.1 as there is no cause of
action. The counter claim is highly imaginary and without
any basis. There is no such property as described in Written
Statement Schedule B. Therefore, the plaintiff prays to
17 OS No. 16649/2006
reject the counter claim of defendant No.1 and allow the
suit as prayed for by the plaintiff.
4. In against the suit summons, both the defendants
have appeared through their choiced advocate. Defendant
No.1 has chosen to filed their written statement. Wherein
the written statement defendant No.1 contended, the
Plaintiff has filed the above suit for grant of an order of
permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from the
interfering with Plaintiff’s alleged peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaint Schedule Property and for other
reliefs. The suit is an abuse of the process of this Court,
untenable, misconceived and mischievous and is liable to be
dismissed in limine, on the following amongst other
grounds: (a) The suit is only to harass this Defendant and
attempt to usurp valuable property: (b) Plaintiff has
suppressed material facts from this Court, has concocted
documents and has attempting to mislead the Court. She is,
therefore, disentitled to seek any equitable and/or
discretionary relief/s at the hands of this Court: (c) The
allotment of property in Survey Nos.45 & 46/4 of
Byrasandra Village in the B.T.M. Scheme measuring 1 acre
18 OS No. 16649/2006
20 guntas in favour of this Defendant has been upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.4593/1999 and this Defendant is its absolute owner in
possession thereof: (d) No order as sought can be granted
against the true owner of land, especially in the absence of
any declaratory relief: (e) The Plaintiff has encroached upon
the property belonging to this Defendant and has unjustly
claimed that the same is situated in Survey No.47 of
Byrasandra village by fabricating and falsifying documents
along with her alleged vendor Sri S.A. Laxman and others:
(e) The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and
is liable to be dismissed for this reason alone. Without
prejudice to the aforementioned preliminary objections and
since the Plaintiff has not placed true and correct facts of
the matter before Court, this Defendant states as follows:
1st Defendant is a company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1913. It is engaged in the
business of printing, publishing and distribution of leading
newspapers and magazines viz.. Deccan Herald, Prajavani,
Mayura and Sudha. This Defendant being interested in
acquiring a suitable plot/site for putting up a new facility
19 OS No. 16649/2006for its industry made an application dated 04.08.1983 to
BDA (2 Defendant herein). The BDA by its resolution dated
28.09.1984 allotted a plot measuring 1 acre and 20 guntas
of land comprised in survey Nos. 45 and 46/4, Byrasandra
Village. The said portion of land was part of a
comprehensive acquisition that was undertaken by the
erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (now the BDA),
way back during 1977. The erstwhile CITB had formulated a
scheme known as Byrasandra-Tavarekere-Madivala Scheme
(in short “the BTM Scheme”) and the same were approved
by the Government. A total extent of 1,703 acres was
acquired by the BDA for implementing the BTM Scheme. A
preliminary notification dated 19.09.1977 was issued and
the same was published in the Gazette dated 29.09.1977 in
respect of acquisition of the aforesaid extent of land.
Thereafter vide final notification dated 07.02.1978
(published in the Official Gazette dated 09.03.1978)
Government of Karnataka notified the lands specified therein
for acquisition. Lands bearing Survey No.45 and 46/4,
Byrasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli. Bangalore South
Taluk, each measuring 13 guntas and 1 acre and 34 guntas
20 OS No. 16649/2006
were two of the items notified for acquisition by the
Government. Sriyuths S.R. Hanumappa. S.R. Venkatappa &
Smt. Bhadramma were the owners and were shown as the
khatedars of the properties bearing Nos. 45 & 46/4,
Byrasandra Village. They had lodged their claim before the
Land Acquisition Officer and awards in that connection were
passed. The award relating to Survey No.45 was made in
LAC No. 51/78-79 on 14.05.1982 and relating to Survey
No.46/4 (the Schedule Property herein) was made in LAC
No. 55/78-79 on 26.05.1982. Thereafter, the Land
Acquisition Officer took possession of Survey No.45 on
27.05.1982 and of Survey No.46/4 on 02.06.1982 under two
Mahazars and the said property came to be vested totally in
the State Government. Subsequently, the lands were
transferred to BDA in accordance with Section 36 of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (“the Act”). It is
pertinent to mention the BTM Scheme involved forming of
industrial as well as residential layouts towards development
of the Bangalore Urban District. After laying out the
industrial layout, the BDA vide resolution dated 28.09.1984
allotted a plot/site measuring 1 acre and 20 guntas of land
21 OS No. 16649/2006
comprised in Survey Nos. 45 and 46/4 to this Defendant.
The said plot/site is morefully described in the Schedule
written hereunder and hereinafter referred to as “the
Written Statement Schedule Property” 1 st Defendant was
required to pay a sum of Rs.1.87,500/- for the plot/site so
allotted, which was paid on 31.01.1985. Pursuant thereto,
the BDA executed a registered sale deed dated 19.06.1985
in favour of 1st Defendant and conveyed all right, title and
interest in respect thereof to Second Defendant. Vacant
possession of said plot/site was delivered to 2nd Defendant
on 21.06.1985 which was confirmed by letter dated
22.06.1985 issued by the BDA. A possession certificate dated
17.07.1985 was also issued by the BDA. Since then 1
Defendant is in actual possession and enjoyment of the said
plot/site and has also put up a compound wall, a shed,
name board and maintains security guards therein. At the
time when the compound wall was being put up and 1st
Defendant was making arrangements to put up construction
of its printing facility, several persons initiated needless and
frivolous litigation against this Defendant and sought to
impede this Defendant from enjoying the written statement
22 OS No. 16649/2006
Schedule Property. One S.A. Krishnappa from whose family
the Plaintiff claims title to the plaint schedule property,
filed a suit in O.S. No. 10470/1985 before the City Civil
Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore for grant of permanent
injunction against 2nd Defendant in respect of the written
statement schedule property. The said suit after contest was
dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 10.07.1989. The said
S.A. Krishnappa had also challenged the acquisition of the
aforesaid properties in W.P. No. 3638/1987 in the High
Court of Karnataka on the ground that he was in possession
thereof as a tenant and he was notified of the acquisition as
such. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 20.03.1987.
After failing in his previous two attempts to thwart and
defeat the rights of 2nd Defendant, the said S.A. Krishnappa
filed yet another suit in O.S. No.1251/1989 before this
Hon’ble Court seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings in respect of the aforesaid properties and
notification thereunder are null and void and also sought
for a permanent injunction against this Defendant from
interfering with his alleged possession and enjoyment of the
written statement schedule property. After considering the
23 OS No. 16649/2006
interlocutory application, this Court dismissed the same by
its order dated 20.09.1989. S.A. Krishnappa challenged the
said order before the High Court in MFA No. 159/1990. The
High Court after hearing dismissed the Miscellaneous First
Appeal by its order dated 19.11.1990. In the meanwhile,
one M. Ibrahim, who was set up by the said S.A.
Krishnappa filed a suit in O.S. No.2496/1985 before this
Court seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings
in respect of properties bearing Nos. 21. 45, 46 and 47 of
Byrasandra Village has lapsed and for grant of a permanent
injunction against this Defendant and others from putting up
any construction thereon. The interlocutory application filed
by him was dismissed by this Court on 01.01.1988. The
appeal before the Hon’ble High Court in MFA No. 440/1988
against the said order was dismissed on 14.03.1988.
Thereafter, the suit itself was dismissed for default on
19.11.1991 and the same has attained finality. A writ
petition in W.P. No. 16360/1988 was filed before the High
Court of Karnataka by one M.A. Rasheed, in the guise of a
public interest petition seeking to quash the acquisition
proceedings and the sale deed dated 19.06.1985 executed by
24 OS No. 16649/2006
2nd Defendant in favour of 1 Defendant and for other
reliefs. After contest the writ petition was allowed and the
allotment in favour of 1st Defendant was quashed by order
dated 24.25,29/01.1996. 1 Defendant, which was the 3rd
Respondent in the said writ petition challenged the order of
the Single Judge in an appeal in W.A. No. 1280/1996. The
appeal was dismissed by order dated 05.03.1998 of High
Court of Karnataka. 1 Defendant then carried the matter to
Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.15822/1998 later
numbered as Civil Appeal No. 4593/99. After hearing the
Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the said Civil Appeal by its
order dated 05.04.2004 and has inter alia held that the
allotment in favour of this Defendant is valid and proper.
This Defendant having succeeded in the appeal before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court being satisfied that all the litigation
in respect of the written statement schedule property has
attained quietus, thereafter approached the BDA and the
relevant authorities for grant of khatha and for payment of
property taxes. To the shock and surprise of this Defendant
it was informed that one Sri S.A. Laxman, brother of the
aforesaid S.A. Krishnappa had filed a suit in O.S.
25 OS No. 16649/2006
No.4346/1999 before this Hon’ble Court. Upon verification
of the records in the said suit, it was seen that the said
S.A. Laxman had manoeuvred the proceedings therein in
such a manner that he had obtained an order directing
parties to maintain status quo, without issue of notice and
suit summons to this Defendant way back in 1999. It was
only in 2004 after the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that this Defendant got information of the said suit. This
Defendant has entered appearance in the said suit and after
hearing the interim order granted has been vacated. Not
being satisfied with initiating frivolous suits and litigation to
usurp valuable property from this Defendant, the said S.A.
Laxman filed another suit in O.S. No.6378/2004 against this
Defendant and others and sought for an interim order to
restrain the concerned authority from granting khatha to
this Defendant. No interim order was passed. In both the
aforesaid suits, this Defendant has filed applications
rejection of plaints and they are pending consideration. In
the meanwhile this Defendant has obtained khatha and has
paid all the outstanding tax dues in respect of the written
statement schedule properties. In view of the several
26 OS No. 16649/2006
litigations that were pending, the compound wall around
the written statement schedule properties was not fully
completed and this Defendant was not in a position to
ascertain the exact extent of land it was physically in
possession of. The persons, above named, viz., S.A.
Krishnappa, S.A. Laxman and others who owned property in
the surrounding areas of the written statement schedule
property were bent upon defeating the rights of this
Defendant and caused several encroachments and damage to
the same. The said persons and their heirs are colluding
with the Plaintiff herein to make unlawful gain at the
expense of this Defendant. The claim of the Plaintiff that
her alleged property is situate in Survey No.47 of
Byrasandra village is wholly preposterous in as much as
there is no property numbered as Survey No.47 in that
entire area. The Plaintiff with the help of the said S.A.
Laxman and others have conspired and encroached upon the
written statement schedule property towards the southern
boundary. They have concocted documents to suit their
needs and usurp valuable property. This Defendant along
with the Officials of 2nd Defendant have got the written
27 OS No. 16649/2006
statement schedule property measured and it was found that
the Plaintiff had encroached upon the same. In view thereof
2nd Defendant has issued notices to the Plaintiff to vacate
and clear the encroachment. The Plaintiff is infact squatting
on property belonging to this Defendant which is situated in
Survey Nos. 45 and 46/4 of Byrasandra village. It is wholly
false that the Plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the
plaint schedule properties in Survey No.47 of Byrasandra
village. This Defendant has got the written statement
schedule property surveyed under the supervision of the 2nd
Defendant, which clearly indicates that there is no property
numbered as Survey No.47 in the area at all. The Plaintiff
has misled this Court. The Plaintiff has caused an illegal
encroachment in this Defendant’s property and 2nd
Defendant has rightly taken appropriate steps in law to
evict her therefrom. The Plaintiff has not come with clean
hands before this Court and has therefore disentitled herself
from the grant of any equitable or other relief at the hands
of this Court. The suit is wholly frivolous a sham litigation
which ought to be dismissed at the thresh-hold itself. The
present suit is filed by Plaintiff with a malafide intention,
28 OS No. 16649/2006
suppressing all that has happened which has been
extensively stated above by misleading the Court and to
knock off valuable property dubiously. The Plaintiff has no
right, title or interest in the written statement schedule
property as the same has been acquired long time ago and
the challenge to the predecessor in title as claimed by
Plaintiff has failed. Further the allotment of the written
statement schedule property to this Defendant has been
upheld by the Supreme Court. This Defendant has been
validly allotted the plot measuring 1 acre 20 guntas
comprised in properties bearing survey Nos. 45 and 46/4.
1st Defendant is in possession of the said plot/site since
21.06.1985. The plot/site is one composite piece of property
carved out of two properties which earlier bore survey Nos.
45 and 46/4. The Plaintiff has no manner of right, title or
interest therein. The suit is frivolous and deserves to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. In against the plaintiff claim, defendant No.1 has
filed the counter claim. In the counter claim 1 st defendant
has denied the all the pleadings put forth by the plaintiff at
through his plaint in all para denied as false and story of
29 OS No. 16649/2006
concocted. Further, 1st defendant have contended, the
Plaintiff is in illegal possession of a portion of the Written
Schedule property measuring about 7986 Sq. feet towards
the southern boundary of the said Property. The portion of
the Written Statement Schedule property which is in illegal
occupation of the Plaintiff is morefully described in the
Schedule B written hereunder and is hereinafter referred to
as “Written Statement Schedule ‘B’ Property”. This fact came
to light when 2nd Defendant conducted the survey of the
Written Schedule Property and 2nd Defendant has made a
report in this regard. By order dated 28.10.2006, 2nd
Defendant has ordered for an action to be initiated under
Section 165(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act
and in pursuance thereof 2nd Defendant by order dated
15.11.2006. has issued notice under Section 321(3) of
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and Section 33(2) of
the Bangalore Development Authority Act, to clear the said
encroachment. The claim of the Plaintiff is highly
preposterous and cannot be entertained by this Court
especially having regard to the fact that the entire lands in
Survey Nos. 45 and 46/4 was acquired by the State
30 OS No. 16649/2006
Government along with several other properties for the
purpose of BTM Scheme formulated by 2 nd Defendant. The
Plaintiff is in illegal possession of 1 st Defendant’s property
claiming to be the owner in possession of property bearing
Khatha No. 47. Further, the Sale deeds produced by the
Plaintiff mentions the total extent of land alleged bearing
Khatha No.47 is 1 acre 20 guntas, which is exactly the
same extent that is allotted to 1 st Defendant by 2nd
Defendant. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that the
property which the Plaintiff is claiming is actually the one
belonging to 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff is bound by the
acquisition of lands by 2 nd Defendant, which since then has
become final. As narrated above, the alleged predecessors in
title of the Plaintiff have remained unsuccessful thus far in
all the frivolous proceedings initiated by them. Since the
predecessor in title or Vendor of the Plaintiff did not have
any title or possession over the properties no valid title or
possession could have passed to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is
not the owner of the Written Statement Schedule ‘B’
Property and is also not entitled to its possession in view of
what is narrated above. The Sale Deeds have been gotten
31 OS No. 16649/2006
up by fraud and misrepresentation and are not binding on
this Defendant. Therefore, it has become necessary for 1 st
Defendant to seek for a declaration of its title to the
Written Schedule ‘B’ Property and consequently for
possession of the same. Therefore, 1st defendant prays to
declare 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the written
statement schedule ‘B’ property and consequently direct the
plaintiff to quit and deliver vacant possession of the written
statement ‘B’ property to 1 st defendant. On these grounds
the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit with
exemplary costs.
6. Defendant No.2 have appeared and chosen to
filed written statement. Wherein the Written Statement
Defendant No.2 contended, the Government of Karnataka
has acquired the land bearing sy. No.45 and 46/4 in the
year 1977-1978 itself. The sy. No.45 and 46/4 of Byrasandra
village measuring 13 guntas and 1 acre 34 guntas,
respectively situated at Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore south
taluk. It is after the acquisition, after award was passed and
took the possession of the property in the year 1982 itself.
Subsequently the said properties were transferred to this
32 OS No. 16649/2006
defendant by the Government. In the year 1985 this
defendant allotted the site measuring East to West: 270 feet
and North to south: 255 + 231 totally measuring 1 acre 20
guntas formed in sy. No. 45 and 46/4 to the first defendant.
From the date of allotment the first defendant is in
possession and enjoyment of the land bearing sy. No.45 and
46/4 of Byrasandra village in BTM scheme to an extent of 1
acre 20 guntas. The plaintiff has not produced not an even
an iota of document to show tatox the identity of the
schedule property and further that the plaintiff has failed to
mention or disclose the fact that in which survey No. the
alleged suit schedule property is situated or fallen. even as
per the averments made by the plaintiff at para-10 of the
plaint that, the alleged suit schedule property is not fallen
in sy. No.46/4. In fact, this defendant is demolishing the
constructions made by any public by encroaching the BDA
land in accordance with law and taking possession of the
same. the plaintiff has filed the present suit by suppressing
the material facts to grab the valuable property, by creating
and fabricating false documents. documents. All other
allega-tions and contentions which are taken by the plaintiff
33 OS No. 16649/2006
which are not specifically denied by this defendant are
hereby denied as false. Hence, 2 nd defendant prays for
dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, my
predecessor in office has framed the issues in below:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in
lawful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
obstructions from the defendants?
3. Whether there is no cause of action for
the suit as contended by defendant No.1?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief sought for?
5. What order or decree?
8. Further my predecessor in office have also framed
the Addl. Issues in below on 05.12.2008 viz.,
1. Whether the 1st defendant proves, that it
is the absolute owner of the Written
Statement ‘B’ schedule property?
2. Whether the 1st defendant is entitled for
vacant possession of Written Statement
34 OS No. 16649/2006
“B’ schedule property from the Plaintiff
as sought for?
3. Whether there is a cause of action foot
the counter claim of defendant No.1?
9. To prove the plaintiff’s case, husband of the
plaintiff Sri. Shakeel Pasha examined himself as P.W.1 and
he got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 documents. On the other
hand, K.N. Tilk Kumar, Joint Managing director of 1 st
defendant examined as DW1 and he got marked Ex.D1 to
Ex.D51 and Ex.D55 document. 1 st Defendant have chosen
to examined one of the private surveyor by name one
Kumar B.N. as DW3 and he identified the document Ex.D7,
Ex.D9, Ex.D28 to Ex.D32 and he got marked Ex.D56 to
Ex.D56(a). On behalf of the 2nd Defendant BDA, one M.S.
Jagadish, Sheristedar examined himself as DW2 and he got
marked Ex.D52 to Ex.D54. Further, 2nd Defendant BDA have
also examined one of his Assistant Engineer by name
N.Krishna Kumar as DW4.
10. Heard the argument on both the sides. Perused
the records. Counsel for the plaintiff filed the written
argument. Counsel for the 1st Defendant filed written
35 OS No. 16649/2006
submission along with citations; 1.Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi
Reddy (since dead) now by his LR’s (2008) 4 SCC 594 2. Maria
Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead)
Through LR‘s – (2012) 5 SCC 370 3.Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji
(Deceased) Through LR’s v Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through
LR‘s (2022) 12 SCC 128 4.K.V. Narayan v Sharana Gowda – ILR 1986
KAR 1130 5.Gurubhachan Singh v Bhag Singh – AIR 1996 SC 1087
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following:
12. Further, my findings on the Addl. Issues are as
under:
Addl. issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Addl. issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Addl. issue No.3 : In the Affirmative
:R E A S O N S:
13. Issue No.1 to 4 and Addl. Issue No.1 to 3 :- Issue
No.1 to 4 and Addl. Issue No.1 to 3 over lapped with each
other. To avoid repetition of facts and evidence in the
36 OS No. 16649/2006
discussion issue No.1 to 4 and Addl. Issue No.1 to 3 have
taken in together conjointly for the common discussion.
14. As could be seen from deposition of PW1, and
if summarized the deposition of PW1 its all the case of
Plaintiff is, property bearing No.2/2 and 2/4 bearing khatha
No.47 of Byrasandra Village, Uttrahalli Hobli was originally
belonged the joint family property of Krishnappa, S.A.
Lakshmana and S.A Ananthappa. The same property
derived to Krishnappa, S.A. Lakshmana and S.A
Ananthappa under a memorandum of partition deed dated
14.07.1999. Krishnappa was died. Legal representatives of
Krishnappa and S.A. Lakshmana and S.A Ananthappa
executed the Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 sale deed to the Plaintiff
Nasreena Shakel. Based on Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 sale deed the
Plaintiff got khatha of suit property in her name as per
Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 Khatha certificate and she paid tax
regularly to the consent authorities as per Ex.P11 to Ex.P16.
Tax paid receipt. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 sale deed effectness
could also reflected at Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 encumbrance
certificate. Further, the Plaintiff being owner in possession
of suit schedule property and wherein she running the
37 OS No. 16649/2006
Seema Marbles and Granites. The BDA issued a tax demand
notice U/s 143 of KMC Act to the Plaintiff as per Ex.P19
and Ex.P20. Hence, according to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff
have been in the possession of suit schedule property as on
the date of filing of the suit. In despite the Plaintiff be the
lawful owner in possession of suit schedule property and the
Defendant have no manner of right, title and much less
possession, Defendants are all make an hectic effort to
dispossess the Plaintiff from the suit schedule property and
attempt to encroached the suit schedule property. But, in
the cross examination from the mouth of PW1, Defendants
it elicited some important and relevant fact same herein
extracted.
” Khata no 47 was allotted to the
property long back. It was allotted by the
corporation. I have produced the Document
to this effect, after going through the
document produced by me I state that,
Ex.P19 and 20 are the documents in this
regards. It is not true to suggest khatha
Number is mentioned in Ex.P19 and 20.
According to me khatha and survey number
are one and the same. I have produced the
document to show the existence of Sy.No47
of Byrasandra Village. The extent of khatha
38 OS No. 16649/2006No.47 is 1 acre 20 guntas”. Further, it also
elicited ” according to me said property
was originally acquired by S.A. Krishnappa
in 1971. I do not know how he acquired
the said property. I have heard that he has
acquired the said property from his father-in-
law. I have not produced any document to
show title of Krishnappa and his family
members over the suit schedule property”.
Also elicited “We have taken search of title
of property before purchasing the same. We
have verified MOU of 1994, EC and other
documents”. ” Further is also elicited It is
not true to suggested that sale deed Ex.P2
and Ex.P3 are executed in respect of non
existence property. It also elicited ” the suit
schedule property is not acquired by BDA.
The BDA has issued an endorsement to this
effect and I have produced the same”.
15. In its contrary it could also be seen from the
deposition of DW1 and if summarized the case of
Defendant No.1, according to Defendant No.1, Defendant
No.2 acquired to an extent of 13 guntas and land bearing
Sy.No.46/6 to an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas and out of
total extent of 2 acre 0.07 guntas, Defendant No.2 allotted
to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas to the Defendant No.1 and
the same property described by Defendant No.1 as A and B
39 OS No. 16649/2006
Written Statement schedule property. Further, according to
Defendant No.1 in despite A and B written statement
schedule property allotted to Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff
illegally encroached B Written Statement schedule
property. Hence, Defendant No.1 prays for declaration of his
right, title over A and B Written Statement schedule
property and recovery of possession of the B Written
Statement schedule property. To substantiated the case of
Defendant No.1, DW1 got marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D2
preliminary notification dated 19.09.1977 in pertains to
Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 is the final notification in pertains to
land bearing Sy.NO.45 and land bearing Sy.No.46/4. From
Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 document, it evidence land bearing
Sy.NO.45 is having total extent of 0.13 guntas and land
bearing Sy.No.46/4 is having total extent of 1 acre 34
guntas acquired by the State Government of Karnataka.
Ex.D6 letter wrote by the BDA to 1 st Defendant, where
under the letter 2nd Defendant demanded cost of
Rs.1,87,500/- with respect to the land allotted to 1 st
Defendant. Ex.D8 is the sale deed. Under Ex.D8 sale deed
2nd Defendant BDA executed the sale deed to the site
40 OS No. 16649/2006
allotted to 1st Defendant. Where under Ex.D8 sale deed it
finds the evidence to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas land
have been allotted to 1st Defendant said to be carved out in
land bearing Sy.No.45 and Sy.No.46/4. Ex.D9 possession
letter, Ex.D9 document issued by 2 nd Defendant BDA to 1st
Defendant by handing over the possession of land to an
extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. Ex.D10 Sketch prepared by 2 nd
Defendant BDA with respect to Written Statement schedule
A and B property. Ex.D11 and Ex.D12 award copies. Ex.D13
and Ex.D14 mahazar in pertains to land bearing Sy.No.45
and 46/4. Ex.D15 possession certificate. Ex.D16 and Ex.D17
extracts of land accusation register said to maintained by 2 nd
Defendant BDA. Ex.D18 Gazatte notification. Ex.D19
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in against the WA
No1280/1996.Ex.D20 order on application filed U/o 39 rule
1 and 2 CPC filed in the suit in OS No.4346/1999. Ex.D21
order passed in MFA No.1373/2005. Ex.D22 to Ex.D25 tax
paid receipt. Ex.D23, Ex.D25 acknowledgment issued by the
BBMP. Ex.D26 and Ex.D27 Akara Bandh Register extract in
pertains to land bearing Sy.No.47. Ex.D28 and Ex.D29
Tippni copies in pertains to Sy.No.45-46/4. Ex.D30 and
41 OS No. 16649/2006
Ex.D31 is Atlas copy in pertains to land bearing Sy
No.47/5. Ex.D32 Tippni copies in pertains to land bearing
Sy.No.46/1 to 8. Ex.D34 to Ex.D38 photographs. Ex.D38(a)
Negatives. Ex.D39 plaint filed in a suit OS No.10470/1985.
Where under Ex.D39 it evidence vendor of the Plaintiff by
name Krishanappa have the suit for permanent injunction
in pertains to land bearing Sy.No.46/4 and 47. Ex.D40
Written Statement filed by the 1st Defendant in OS
No.10470/1985. Ex.D41 is the judgment passed in OS
No.10470/1985. Ex.D46 is the order passed in WP
No.16360/1988. Ex.D47 is the order passed in WA
No.1280/1996. Ex.D48 and 49 encumbrance certificate.
Ex.D50 is the Khata certificate. Ex.D51 is the Khatha
extract. Hence, according to Defendant No.1, Defendant
No.1 is the absolute owner in possession of Written
Statement A and B schedule property. In the cross
examination the Plaintiff himself suggested that;
” in 1985 BDA allotted sit
to me in Sy.No.45 and
46/4 it is in Byrasandra
Village. The single plot
number is given in
Sy.No.45 and 46/4″. It
42 OS No. 16649/2006also suggested that ” It
is true to suggested that 13
guntas and 1 acre 7 guntas
are clubbed together and
made in one plot” .
16. Further to substantiated the case of Defendant
No.1, Defendant No.1 also examined one more witness by
name Kumar B.N., who said to be the Surveyor as DW3. As
could be seen from deposition of DW3, DW3 being one of
the surveyor, Defendant NO.1 engaged the DW3 to carry
out survey of the property bearing Sy. No. 45 and 46/4 of
Byrasandra village. On being engaged to conduct survey to
the land bearing Sy.No.45 and 46/4 of Byrasandra Village,
DW3 examined the boundaries of Sy.No.45 and 46/4 as
seen from the village map and atlas copy and he marked
the location of land bearing Sy.No.45 and 46/4 in the
Village Map. The extent of land bearing Sy.No.45 is 13
guntas and 46/4 is 1 acre 34 guntas. On consideration of
the above documents DW3 stated M/s Seema Granites is in
the occupation of the portion of land allotted to 1 st
Defendant in the Sy.No.45 and 46/4, the same depicted in
the typographical survey sketch prepared by him. Further
43 OS No. 16649/2006according to deposition of DW3, M/s Seema Granites is
occupied to an extent of 0.84 guntas or about 913 sq.ft.
17. Further, Defendant No.2 examined one of his
staff by name M.S. Jagdeesh, Sheristedar as DW2. As could
be seen from the deposition of DW2 is, land bearing
Sy.No.45 to an extent of 13 guntas and in Sy.No. 46/4 to
an extent of 1 acre 34 guntas have been acquired by the
Government and in the year of 1985 it allotted site
measuring East to West 270 ft. and North to South 255 +
231/2 totally measuring 1 care 20 guntas. Further it could
also seen from the deposition of DW2, since land bearing
Sy.No.47 of Byrasandra Village is one of the dry land, 2 nd
Defendant acquired to an extent of 2 acre 29 guntas and
it leaved from the accusation 19 guntas in the said land.
Further, it could also be seen from the deposition of DW2,
as per the notification name of S.R. Venkatappa, S.R.
Hanumappa, S.R Chikka Venkatappa, S.R. Krishnappa as the
Khatedhar/ Anubavadhars in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.47. In the cross examination of DW2, the Plaintiff
himself suggested and he got an answer the same is herein
44 OS No. 16649/2006“It is true that out of 2
acres 7 guntas in Sy.No.45
and 46/4 of Byrasandra
Village we have allotted 1
acre 20 guntas in favour of
Defendant No.1. It is true
that after completion of
the formalities of
acquisition, the possession
of the said land measuring
1 acre 20 guntas was
delivered to Defendant
No.1. It is true that the
remaining extent of 27
guntas remained with the
BDA”.
18. Defendant No.2 also examined his another one
staff by name N. Krishnakumar, Assistant Engineer as DW4.
As could be seen from deposition of DW4, after acquisition
notifications and also upon passing the award for the
aforesaid lands, this defendant had taken possession of the
respective lands in Sy.No.45 and 46/4 of Byrasandra village
have taken on 27.05.1982 and 02.06.1982 and the same
have been handed over to the Engineering Section for
formation of lay-out. The lay-out has been formed in the
aforesaid lands. After completion acquisition proceedings
45 OS No. 16649/2006
this defendant/BDA had allotted a land measuring East to
West 270 Feet and North to South (255+231)/2, totally 1
Acre 20 Guntas in Land in Sy.No.45 and 46/4 of Byrasandra
village to the First Defendant in the above suit under bulk
allotment scheme and upon allotment, the 1st defendant
was put in possession of the aforesaid measurement of land
in Sy.No’s.45 and 46/4 of Byrasandra village. The plaintiff is
illegally claiming to be the owner of the suit schedule
property, which is a BDA notified and acquired lands and
the same was allotted to the First Defendant in the above
suit under bulk allotment scheme. Hence, the plaintiff has
no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property,
which is acquired by this defendant, much less the plaintiff
has no right to purchase the suit schedule property in the
year 2000 after acquiring the suit schedule property by this
defendant authority.
19. On virtue of the application filed by 1st
Defendant and also in the light of order of Hon’ble High
court passed in WP No. 1253/2014 one of the court
commissioner by name Somashekaraiah H.C City Surveyor
Bengaluru appointed by the court, as court commissioner.
46 OS No. 16649/2006
The same court commissioner examined at before the court
as CW1. Where from the deposition of CW1 it could be
seen, cw1 received the commission warrant issued by this
court and after issuing notice to both sides, CW1 conducted
the local investigation on 09.12.2022 and CW1 have
prepared sketch and submitted the same along with my
report and all other related documents. Now, CW1 saw the
Commissioners Report along with sketch submitted by me
and the same are now marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. CW1
have also produced the mahazar prepared at the spot which
is signed by both the parties and it is now marked as
Ex.C.3. The annexures to the commissioners report are now
collectively marked as Ex.C.4. As per the deposition and
testimonial values of Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 document, the
property mentioned in the area of sketch A, B, C, D, E, F,
G, H, I J, A, is the property said to be acquired by 2 nd
Defendant in land bearing Sy.No.45 to an extent of 13
guntas and in land bearing Sy.No.46/4 to an extent of 1
acre 34 guntas. From the deposition of CW1 and
testimonial values of Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 sketch property
mentioned in the area B, C,D, E,F, S B is the property
47 OS No. 16649/2006
allotted to 1st Defendant to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas.
Further, property mentioned in the area M, N, O, L, M of
Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 sketch is now under the possession of 1 st
Defendant.
20. So from the above all material pleadings and
evidence placed by the parties one thing is evidence, the
land baring Sy.No.45 to an extent of 0.13 guntas and land
bearing Sy.No.46/4 to an extent of 1 acre 34 guntas are
con-jointing to each other and both the survey number
lands have been acquired by 2 nd Defendant BDA as per
Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 preliminary and final notification, Ex.D16
and Ex.D17 extracts of land acquisition registrar maintained
by 2nd Defendant and Ex.D18 Gazette Notification. Further,
in against the acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.45 and
46/4, 2nd Defendant awarded the compensation as per
Ex.D11 and Ex.D12, 2nd Defendant prepared a two mahazar
as per Ex.D13 and Ex.D14 and 2 nd Defendant drawn the
sketch over the property to such an extent of land as per
Ex.D9 and Ex.D10. Further, 2nd Defendant being acquired
land in Sy.No.45 and 46/4 and it bifurcated the area to
an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas and the same extent of area
48 OS No. 16649/2006
of the property alienated by 2 nd Defendant to 1st Defendant
under Ex.D7 sale deed dated 19.06.1985 after issued an
Ex.D5 Letter, Ex.D6 acknowledgment, Ex.D8 Letter dated
22.06.1985 and 2nd Defendant delivered possession of
Written Statement A and B schedule property by issuing
Ex.D15 possession certificate.
21. If it assimilated the controversy from the
pleadings and evidence, it evidence the plaintiff claimed the
suit schedule property in the land bearing Sy. No.47 and 1 st
defendant claimed his written statement schedule property
in the land bearing Sy. No.45 and 46/4 of Byasandra
village. Into this regard the plaintiff at his re-joinder
particularly para No.23 it contended the land in Sy.No.47
was renumbered after the land was taken over by Bengaluru
City Corporation and new khata number 47 was assigned to
the said land. Hence the suit schedule property was
identified as Katha No.47 and not as Sy. No.47, which is
reflected all records maintained by the Bengaluru City
Corporation. On the contrary 1st defendant claimed hi
property as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 preliminary and final
notification, Ex.D5 letter of BDA dated 07.01.1985, Ex.D6
49 OS No. 16649/2006
Acknowledgment issued by BDA, Ex.D7 registered sale deed,
Ex.D11 and Ex.D12 award copies, Ex.D13 and Ex.D14 two
mahazar copies, Ex.D15 possession certificate, Ex.D16 and
Ex.D17 land acquisition register extracts. Further, 1 st
defendant identified his written statement schedule property
by Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 sketch. Important to note, allotment
of land to the extent of 0.13 guntas in Sy. No.45, 1.07 in
land bearing Sy. No.46/4 to 1 st defendant is an undisputed
and uncontroversial and same have also become an stare
disicse as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
as per Ex.D19.
22. Further, the vendor of the plaintiff,
S.A.Krishnappa had a suit in OS No. 125/1989 for the relief
of declaration and validity of acquisition and in the said
suit I.A. filed under order 39 Rule 1 of CPC, dismissed and
on it unsuccessful order its MFA Filed in MFA No.159/1990
also dismissed. One Ibrahim, who was set up by S.A.
Krishnappa also filed one suit in OS No. 2496/1985 for the
relief of declaration and challenging the validation of the
acquisition over the property bearing Sy. No.21, 45, 46 and
47 of Byrasandra village, the same suit was dismissed on
50 OS No. 16649/2006
14.03.1988 and S.A. Lakshman filed the suit in OS No.
4346/1999 though granted a status quo and it finally
vacated by the court, rest in the record as undisputed. In to
that regard, no single question or suggestion called out by
the plaintiff either to DW1 or DW2 or DW3. So from the
above material the factum, the plaintiff identified his
property in Sy. No.47 of Bylasandra village have it been
further confirmed. Suit of the plaintiff is one for injunction
simplicitor. The plaintiff claimed the suit schedule property
under E.xP2 and Ex.P3 sale deed. On the other hand 1 st
defendant claimed written statement schedule property as
per Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 Primary and final notification and also
on the basis of Ex.D7 sale deed and Ex.D15 possession
certificate. As per 1st and 2nd defendant, after acquisition of
the land bearing Sy. No.45 and 46/4 by Byrasandra village,
the permission of the property have already taken in the
year of 1982 itself as per Ex.D13 and Ex.D14 mahazar.
Hence, according to 1st and 2nd defendant, suit schedule
property is not come within the Sy. No.47. True, as per 1 st
and 2nd defendant, 2nd defendant by drawing Ex.D13 and
Ex.D14 it take over the possession of land bearing Sy.
51 OS No. 16649/2006
No.45 and 46/4 of Byrasandra village and in turn 2 nd
defendant hand over the possession of land to extent of 1
acre 20 guntas to 1st defendant. To make confirmation of
the land to area available in extent of 0.13 guntas and
1acre 0.37 gunstas in Sy. No.46/4, defendant No.1 marked
Ex.D26 and Ex.D27 Akarbnadha register and ex.D28 to
Ex.D32 Tippani Skethes, where in all the documents it
consistently evidence availability of land to an extent of
0.13 guntas in Sy. No.45 amd 1.37 guntas in Sy. No.46/4,
the same also not disputed by the plaintiff and into those
documents also no cross examination called by the plaintiff.
Further into the respect of existence and availability of land
to an extent of 0.13 guntas in Sy. No.45 and 1.37 guntas in
46/2, no single suggestion also suggested by the plaintiff to
DW1 or DW2. On the contrary the plaintiff himself asserted
suit schedule property particularly carved out in the land
bearing Sy. No.47 of Byrasandra village. Admittedly to
evidence the thing with respect to availability and existence
of land bearing Sy. No.47. DW1 himself marked Ex.D25 and
Ex.D26 aakar Bandha register extract. If it once the plaintiff
asserted his right and title of suit schedule property in the
52 OS No. 16649/2006
land bearing Sy.No.47, as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 sale deed,
the plaintiff ought to traced and identified his property in
the land bearing Sy.No.47 and not in Sy. No.46/4. On the
other hand to make identified suit schedule property, such
of revenue sketch or any document not brought come on
the record, other than Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 sale deed. The same
such attempt of the plaintiff, it create some more doubt and
black cloud on the title of suit schedule property along with
its identification. Unless, the plaintiff make equalized such
of the pendulum with respect to his property title as per
Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 sale deed, the same Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 sale deed
not carries any of the better title over the suit schedule
property to the plaintiff. Further, plaintiff until identified
his title of his property with its definite location derived
under Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 sale deed, the same will not permitted
the plaintiff claimed possession of his neighbouring
property. So from the above material it probablized the
plaintiff or her vendor have no right, title over the property
in land bearing Sy. No.46/4. Further, vendor of the plaintiff
themselves unsuccessful in the attempt in the suit in OS
No.125/1989, OS No. 2496/1985 OS No.4346/1999, with
53 OS No. 16649/2006
respect to the suit schedule property, on that score also it
make the plaintiff into disentitle the relief as sought in the
present suit. Since the plaintiff’s vendor themselves defeated
to succeeded the title in land bearing Sy.No.46/4 and
vendor of the plaintiff themselves identified their properties
in wrongful description and location, the claim of the
plaintiff under this suit would also make them into defeated
the relief. Further, since the vendor of plaintiff themselves
not to have any of the right, title in Sy.No.46/4, there from
also they could also not possible to transferred better title
of the suit schedule property then what they has. The same
also supported by the law of Nemo debt, quad-non-habet.
23. On the contrary defendant Nos.1 & 2 contended,
1st defendant is in the possession of written statement
property and with respect to encroachment of ‘B’ schedule
property. Further, the observation made in supra with
respect to land bearing Sy.45, 46/4 and 47 make it confirm
the plaintiff identified his property title, the land bearing
Sy. No.47 and not either in the land bearing Sy. No.45 nor
46/4. On the other hand if it go through the testimonies of
Court Commissioner report and deposition and Ex.C1 and
54 OS No. 16649/2006
Ex.C2 sketch, one could possible to saw the material, the
plaintiff try to identified the title of his property as per
Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 sale deed in Sy. No.46/4 and not in land
Sy. No.47. If it evaluated the testimonies of CW1, CW1
being one of the land surveyor, she contended the survey
over the written statement schedule property ‘A’ & ‘B’ and
she submitted the report to the court along with Ex.C1 and
Ex.C2 sketch. Important to note, in despite the court
commissioner have been examined at before the court as
CW1 and marked Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 sketches, the plaintiff have
not chosen to cross examined the CW1 or to disputed the
testimonial values of Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 sketches. Despite, if it
evaluated the testimonial values of Ex.C1 and Ex.C2
sketches it confirm too specifically mentioned by the CW1,
the area he described in Ex.C1 sketch as
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,A to an extent of 0.13 guntas in land in
Sy. No. 45 and 1.37 guntas in the land Sy. No.46/4 have
been acquired by 2nd defendant under Ex.D1 to Ex.D4
gazette notification. Further, Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 sketches it also
evidence, the area of land available with in the space of
B.C.D.E.F & B to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas land over
55 OS No. 16649/2006
the possession in to 1st defendant by 2nd defendant. Further
it also evidence from Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 sketches, the space
of land available with in sketch area M,N,O, L, M as of
now 1st defendant is in the possession of property. Further
from the mouth of CW1, 1st defendant it elicited, the
relevant is herein extracted;
It is true to suggest that, the
entire extent of Sy.No 46/4 was
acquired by BDA. It is true to
suggest that, the Plaintiff’s
property is situated in Sy.No
46/4. It is true to suggest that,
as per the sketch – Ex.C.1 the
property marked as Points ‘B, C,
D, E, F, S and B’ is the land
allotted by BDA to Defendant
No.1. It is true to suggest that,
as per the sketch Ex.C.1 the
property marked as ‘M, N, O, L,
M’ is the property which is in
the possession of Defendant No.1
to the extent of 34 guntas. It is
true to suggest that, as per
Ex.C.1, site No.2/5 and 2/2 are
situated in between Point ‘O,S’
and ‘L,M’, on the Southern side.
56 OS No. 16649/2006
24. If it compare the area of land in coloum No.2, 3
and 4 of Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 sketches, one could easily
answered it, the plaintiff have been in his possession of the
property of 1st defendant. Admittedly, the plaintiff described
the suit schedule property and it identified under the
property No.2/2 and 2/4. If compare Ex.C1 and Ex.C2
sketch with the claim of the plaintiff, one prudent man
easily adjudged the property identified in and as 2/2 is
available in the written statement schedule property.
Further, if compare the schedule of suit schedule property
with written statement schedule property, wherein the Plaint
it could be seen in towards to northern side of the suit
schedule ‘A’ property it existence property belonging to the
1st Defendant. Admittedly plaint ‘A’ schedule property is,
property No.2/2 and same property intowards to its
northern side it existence of written statement ‘A’ and ‘B’
schedule property. If once compare the boundaries given by
the Plaintiff to his ‘A’ schedule property with Ex.C1 and
Ex.C2 sketches, one could be understand the property
belonging to 1st Defendant have encroached by the Plaintiff
by identifying his property as property No.2/2. As per the
57 OS No. 16649/2006
Plaintiff plaint schedule ‘A’ property is 2/2 having total
extent of 4550Sqft. Whereas Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 sketch, it
evidence property allotted to 1st Defendant is comes within
the area of B,C,D,E,F,S,B. If it compare the property
claimed by the Plaintiff under property No.2/2 as plaint ‘A’
schedule property with area of land enumerated and
identified by the Court Commissioner at in Ex.C1 and Ex.C2
sketches, one could easily adjudged the property claimed by
the Plaintiff under property No.2/2 as plaint ‘A’ schedule
property amalgamated in the area of B,C,D,E,F,S,B of Ex.C1
and Ex.C2 sketches. To negate such of testimonial values of
Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 sketch no such of the cross examination
called by the Plaintiff. With this being of observation one
could be easily say, Defendant No.1 have probablized his
case the property allotted by the 2 nd Defendant to the 1st
Defendant under Ex.D8 sale deed and Ex.D15 possession
certificate is itself the property claimed by the Plaintiff
under property No.2/2 as plaint ‘A’ schedule property. 1 st
Defendant once to probablize his case theory and if
successfully established the property claimed by the Plaintiff
as property No.2/2 under plaint ‘A’ schedule property is
58 OS No. 16649/2006
belonging to 1st Defendant, the same it evidence the
Plaintiff have been in the possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule
property as unauthorized possessor. Once to the Defendant
No.1 if it established unauthorized occupation of the
property belonging to him by the Plaintiff and if he
identified property belonging to 1 st Defendant under a
imagination, certainly the Plaintiff ought to vacated such of
possession of the property to 1st Defendant. So from the
above observation, I answer issue Nos.1 to 4 in the
Negative and additional Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the Affirmative.
25. Issue No.5:- For the foregoing reasons, I
proceed to pass the following;
: O R D E R :
Suit of the plaintiff, is
dismissed with cost.
Counter claim filed by
1st defendant, is decreed with
cost and it declared 1st
defendant is the absolute
owner of written statement ‘B’
schedule property.
Further, the plaintiff is
directed to vacated and
59 OS No. 16649/2006handover the vacant
possession of the ‘B’ written
statement schedule property
within 3 months from the
date of this judgment. Once
the plaintiff fail to do so and
to comply the judgment,
liberty granted to 1st
defendant to make appropriate
action in against the plaintiff
for recovery of ‘B’ written
statement schedule property as
per law.
Draw decree accordingly.
In view of disposal of
the suit, pending interlocutory
applications if any do not
survive for consideration and
they stands disposed off.
(Dictated directly to the Stenographer on computer typed by her, corrected and
then signed by me and pronounced in the open Court on this the 29 th day of
June, 2026)sd/-
[ ONKARAPPA.R]
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
60 OS No. 16649/2006:ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 : Shakeel Pasha
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : K. N. Tilak Kumar
DW.2 : M.S. Jagadish
DW.3 : Kumar B.N
DW.4 : N.Krishna Kumar
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COURT:
CW.1 : Veena N M & Somashekaraiah H.C.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 GPA
Ex.P.2 & 3 Sale deed
Ex.P4 to 7 Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.P8 BDA letter dated 19.07.2006
Ex.P9 Office copy of the reply notice dated
22.08.2006
Ex.P10 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P11 and Betterment paid charges receipt
12 dated 25.06.2009
Ex.P13 to 16 Tax paid receipts
Ex.P17 and Khata Certificate
18
Ex.P19 and Assessment notice
20
61 OS No. 16649/2006DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Ex.D.1 and Preliminary notification dated 19.09.1977
D.2
Ex.D.3 and Final notification dated 09.03.1978
D4
Ex.D.5 Letter of the BDA dated 07.01.1985
Ex.D.6 Acknowledgment issued by BDA dated 31.01.1985
Ex.D.7 Certified Copy of registered Sale deed dated
19.06.1985
Ex.D.8 Letter dated 22.06.1985 issued by BDA
Ex.D.9 and BDA sketch
D.10
Ex.D.11 and Copies of the 2 awards
D.12
Ex.D.13 and Certified Copies of 2 Mahazars
D.14
Ex.D.15 Original possession certificate dated 17.07.1985
Ex.D.16 and Two extracts of the land acquisition register
D.17 maintain by the BDA
Ex.D.18 Gazatte notification dated 30.06.1982
Ex.D.19 Copy of the judgment reported in 4 supreme court
cases 460
Ex.D.20 Certified Copy of the order on I.A no. 1 in O.S.
4346/1999
Ex.D.21 Certified Copy of the order passed in MFA
1373/2005
Ex.D.22 to 4 tax paid receipts
62 OS No. 16649/2006D.25
Ex.D.23 (a) 2 acknowledgments issued by the BBMP
to D 25(a)
Ex.D.26 and 2 Akara Bandha register extract
D.27
Ex.D.28 to Certified Copies of the 5 Tippani sketches
D.32
Ex.D.33 to 6 photographs
D.38
Ex.D.33 (a) Concerned negatives
to D38(a)
Ex.D.39 Certified copy of the plaint in OS 10470/85
Ex.D.40 Certified copy of the Written Statement
Ex.D.41 Certified copy of the judgment and decree in the
said suit
Ex.D.42 Certified copy of the order in WP 3638/87
Ex.D.43 Certified copy of the judgment in MFA 440/88
Ex.D.44 Certified copy of judgment in MFA 159/99
Ex.D.45 Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.
1251/89
Ex.D.46 Certified copy of the order in WP 16360/88
Ex.D.47 Certified copy of the order in WA 1280/96
Ex.D.48 and Two Encumbrance certificates
D.49
Ex.D.50 Khata certificate
Ex.D.51 Khata extract
63 OS No. 16649/2006Ex.D.52 Preliminary notification dated 19.09.1977
Ex.D.53 Final notification dated 17.02.1978
Ex.D.54 Certified copy of the LAC and register extract
Ex.D.55 Sketch
Ex.D56 Survey sketch
Ex.D56(a) SignatureDOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE CW1 :
Ex. C1 & Ex.C2 Commissioner Report along with sketch
Ex.C3 Mahazar at the spot
Ex.C4 Commissioner report are now
collectivelysd/-
[ ONKARAPPA.R ]
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
