Bangalore District Court
Himalayan Basha Alias Ahesan Pasha vs Bhagirath Singh on 21 April, 2026
KABC010138662015
IN THE COURT OF XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 21st day of April 2026
Present : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S., B.A.(L)., LL.B.,
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-14)
O.S.No.5401/2015
PLAINTIFF : Himalayan Basha @ Ahesan Pasha,
S/o Late Abdul Basheer Sab,
Aged about 42 years,
No.17, Lal Masjid, A Street,
Shivajinagar, Bangalore - 560 051.
(By Sri.J.V.Srinivasa, Advocate)
V/s
DEFENDANT : Mr.Bhagirath Singh,
S/o Bahadur Singh, Major,
No.31, 12th F Cross, 12th Main,
J.P.Park, Ward No.17,
Muthyalammanagar,
Bandappagarden, Mathikere,
Bangalore - 560 054.
(By Sri.S.D.Manjunatha, Advocate)
2
O.S.No.5401/2015
Date of institution of the suit. 22.06.2015
Nature of the suit Permanent Injunction
Date of the commencement of 17.07.2018
recording evidence
Date on which the Judgment 21.04.2026
was pronounced
Years Months Days
Total duration
10 09 29
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT ON THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE
DEFENDANT AND ORDERS I.A.No.XV FILED BY THE
DEFENDANT UNDER SECTION 375 OF THE BHARATHIYA
NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SAMHITA, 2003
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant
for permanent injunction. After due service of summons to
the defendant, he has appeared before this Court and he
has filed his written statement along with counter claim.
The plaintiff filed written statement to the counter claim of
the defendant. Thereafter, on 15.09.2017, the plaintiff filed
Memo and withdrawn his suit. Now, only the counter claim
is remaining for consideration.
3
O.S.No.5401/2015
2. The relief claimed by the defendant in the counter
claim is the judgment and decree of perpetual injunction
restraining the plaintiff, his agents, henchmen, etc., from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the defendant on the written statement schedule property.
3. The written statement schedule property is vacant site
bearing BDA No.428 in the layout formed by the Vyalikaval
House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., layout formed out
of Sy.No.34/2 situated at Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk measuring East to West 18.28 +
18.59/2 meters or 60 + 61/2 feet and North to South 18.59
+ 18.44/2 meters or 61 + 60.5/2 feet totally 341.32 square
meters or 3675.37 square feet and bounded on the East by
Road, West by Site No.429, North by Road and South by
Private property.
4. The brief facts averred in the written statement of the
defendant leading to the counter claim are that the written
statement schedule property is carved out of the land
bearing Sy.No.34/2 situated at Nagavara Village, Bengaluru
4
O.S.No.5401/2015
North Taluk which was used for formation of layout by
Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society (hereinafter
called as "Society" in short) to its members. The Society
lawfully acquired the said land and it has been formed the
layout by obtaining approved Layout Plan from the
Bangalore Development Authority. The written statement
schedule property is one of the sites formed in Sy.No.34/2
of Nagavara Village. The vendor of the defendant purchased
the written statement schedule property from Vyalikaval
House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., through
registered Sale Deed dated 17.05.2004. After purchase of
the written statement schedule property, the defendant was
put in its physical possession. Thus, the defendant is in
peaceful possession of the written statement schedule
property. After purchase of the written statement schedule
property, the revenue records in respect of the written
statement schedule property were mutated to the name of
the defendant. He is paying tax to the concerned authorities
regularly in respect of the written statement schedule
property from the date of its purchase till today. In the year
5
O.S.No.5401/2015
2011, the defendant proceeded to put up a shed in the
written statement schedule property by using solid cement
blocks, asbestos aluminum sheets for the purpose of
roofing. After completion of the said shed, the same was
provided with electricity connection. He dug a borewell in
the written statement schedule property in the year 2007.
The defendant took electricity connection to the said
borewell. After construction of the shed, he let out the same
to the tenants from 2010 to till its demolition. The
defendant was dispossessed consequent to the delivery
warrant issued in Ex.No.780/2013. The defendant filed
W.P.No.50828-836/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka seeking an order to quash the issuance of the
said delivery warrant. After hearing the parties, the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka disposed of the Writ Petition vide
its order dated 16.12.2014 directing the defendant to file
application before the executing Court in accordance with
law. Accordingly, the defendant approached the executing
Court by filing the application under Order XXI Rule 97 of
the Code of Civil Procedure to permit the defendant to come
6
O.S.No.5401/2015
on record as obstructor. The said application was contested
by the plaintiff. Vide order dated 31.03.2015, the City Civil
Court passed an order holding that the Execution Petition
filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and directed the
plaintiff to handover the possession of the written
statement schedule property to the defendant. On
09.06.2015, the defendant took the possession of the
written statement schedule property from the plaintiff by
executing the delivery warrant as per the order of the Court.
Thereafter, the defendant is in possession of the written
statement schedule property. He is in the process of
construction of the building in the written statement
schedule property and for which to put up temporary shed
and to obtain electricity connection. Thus, the defendant is
in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the written
statement schedule property. The plaintiff interfered to the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the written statement
schedule property by the defendant. Therefore, the
defendant has filed this counter claim.
7
O.S.No.5401/2015
5. To the counter claim of the defendant, the plaintiff has
filed his written statement. His contentions are that the
defendant cannot file counter claim based on the same
cause of action. If he has any other cause of action, he is at
liberty to file a separate suit. The defendant has no right to
question the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The questioning of the orders passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court will amounts to contempt of Court for
which, the defendant is liable to be prosecuted. The counter
claim of the defendant for perpetual injunction is unknown
to law. The alleged electricity connection to the premises is
standing in the name of the plaintiff and not in the name of
the defendant. The alleged building of the defendant is not
at all in existence. The plaintiff is the purchaser of this
property from its lawful owners by a Sale Deed i.e., acted
upon after the transfer of revenue entries to his name. The
layout where the alleged defendant's site is situated got
canceled by the Bangalore Development Authority. The
challenge of the same was allowed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka. But, it is stayed by the Hon'ble
8
O.S.No.5401/2015
Supreme Court. Therefore, the defendant cannot contend
that the layout in which his alleged site is situated is a
legally formed layout. The Khatha of the alleged defendant's
site has been canceled by the concerned authorities
confirming the fact that the defendant is neither the owner
nor has any right or interest over the alleged site. The
alleged site owners as that of the defendant have
approached the Society for the refund of the money. The
defendant is also at liberty to claim the money from the
Society if at all he has paid any consideration. The
defendant without exclusive cause of action cannot
maintain the counter claim. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
counter claim.
6. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, the
following Additional Issues are framed on Counter Claim.
1.
ದಾವಾ ದಿನಾಂಕದಂದು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದ ಪತ್ರದ ಆಸ್ತಿ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯ
ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನದಲ್ಲಿತ್ತೇ ?
2. ಪ್ರತಿವಾದ ಪತ್ರದ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನಕ್ಕೆ ವಾದಿಯು
ಹರ್ಕತ್ತು ಮಾಡಿರುವರೇ ?
9
O.S.No.5401/2015
3. ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ಖಾಯಂ ನಿರ್ಬಂಧಕಾಜ್ಞೆಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಲು
ಅರ್ಹರೇ ?
4. ಯಾವ ಡಿಕ್ರಿ ಅಥವಾ ಆದೇಶ ?
7. To prove the above Additional Issues, on the part of the
defendant, he is examined as DW1 and he has produced the
documentary evidences Ex.D1 to Ex.D64. During cross-
examination of DW1, Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 are got marked on
confrontation on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not
produced any oral evidences.
8. After completion of the trial and during the hearing of
arguments on merits, the defendant has filed I.A.No.XV
under Section 379 of Bharathiya Nagaraika Suraksha
Samhita, 2023 seeking an order to refer the matter to Chief
Administrative Officer of this Court to lodged complaint
against the plaintiff before the jurisdictional Magistrate for
the offences punishable under Sections 191 to 193, 196, 199,
200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 227, 228,
230, 233, 246 and 247 of the Bharathiya Nyaya Samhita) for
false pleadings, false affidavits, suppression of material
judicial orders, fraudulently obtained the order and mislead
10
O.S.No.5401/2015
the Court, making false claim regarding possession, cause of
action and concealing the judicial orders during the judicial
proceedings before this Court.
9. In support of I.A.No.XV, the defendant has filed his
affidavit stating that the plaintiff filed the suits in
O.S.No.4374/2015 and O.S.4292/2015 for permanent
injunction in respect of the same property. The said suits
withdrawn by the plaintiff. Without disclosing the said fact
and the orders passed in Ex.No.780/2013, the plaintiff filed
the suit with in intention to harass the defendant and to
create false records regarding possession. The plaintiff filed
the above Execution Petition against wrong persons
suppressing true facts and illegally obtain the possession of
the schedule property by misleading the Court. After the
matter was heard, this Court invoking Order XXI Rules 97 to
101 of the Code of Civil Procedure held that the defendant is
the lawful possessor of the schedule property and the plaintiff
has illegally obtain the possession by suppression and
misguiding the Court. The Court passed an order directing to
restore the possession of the defendant on the suit schedule
11
O.S.No.5401/2015
property. Despite the same, the plaintiff has filed the present
suit for permanent injunction falsely asserting that he is in
possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff
intentionally suppressed the orders passed in Execution
Petition No.780/2013 and the earlier suits filed by him to
mislead the Court. The defendant in his written statement
and counter claim brought the said facts to the notice of this
Court and thereafter, the plaintiff filed Memo to withdraw the
suit with an intention to avoid the adverse findings of this
Court. The plaintiff by making false pleadings, filing false
affidavits, suppressing the material judicial orders,
fraudulently obtaining the order misleading the Court,
making false claim regarding possession, cause of action and
concealing the judicial orders during the judicial proceedings
before this Court has committed the offences punishable
under Sections 191 to 193, 196, 199, 200 and 209 of the
Indian Penal Code (Sections 227, 228, 230, 233, 246 and 247
of the Bharathiya Nyaya Samhita). Hence, the plaintiff is
liable to prosecuted for the said offences.
12
O.S.No.5401/2015
10. The plaintiff has not filed any objections to I.A.No.XV.
11. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the
plaintiff and the defendant on merits of the case and
I.A.No.XV. The learned Counsels for the plaintiff and the
defendants have filed their written arguments also.
12. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied the
following judgments :-
i. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Anathula Sudhakar
V/s P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs & others
[(2008) 4 SCC 594].
ii. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between H.M.T.House Building
Co-operative Society V/s
M.Venkataswamappa & others [(1995) 3
SCC 128].
iii. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in the case between HMT House
Building Co-operative Society V/s Syed
Khader (ILR 1995 KAR 1962).
iv. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case between Vyalikaval House
Building Co-operative Society by its
13
O.S.No.5401/2015
Secretary V/s V.Chandrappa & others
[(2007) 9 SCC 304].
v. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case between B.Anjanappa & others
V/s Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative
Society Ltd., & others (Civil Appeal
No.1930/2012).
vi. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case B.Anjanappa & others V/s
Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative
Society Ltd., & others [(2012) 10 SCC 184].
vii. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in the case between
Narayanareddy V/s State of Karnataka (ILR
1991 KAR 2248).
viii. The order of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in the case between The
Vyallikaval House Building Co-operative
Society Limited V/s The State of Karnataka
& others (Writ Petition No.46558/2012
dated 11.02.2013).
13. The learned Counsel for the defendant has relied the
following judgments:
14
O.S.No.5401/2015
i. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between S.P.Chengalvaraya
Naidu V/s Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1].
ii. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Renjith K.G. & others
V/s Sheeba (Civil Appeal No.8315-
8316/204).
iii. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Uttar Pradesh in the case between Ram
Kumar V/s State of Uttar Pradesh & others
(Civil Appeal No.4258/2022).
iv. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Periyammal (Dead)
through LRs & others V/s V.Rajamani &
another (Civil Appeal Nos.3640-3642/2025).
v. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Sriram Housing Finance
& Investment India Ltd. V/s Omesh Mishra
Memorial Charitable Trust (Civil Appeal
No.4649/2022).
vi. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Asma Lateef & another
V/s Shabbit Ahmad & others (Civil Appeal
No.9695/2013).
15
O.S.No.5401/2015
vii. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Pandurang Vithal Kevne
V/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & another
(Civil Appeal No.56230/2024).
viii. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in the case
between Brijendra Prasad & others V/s
Premsagar & others (Misc. Petition
No.2784/2021 dated 17.08.2024).
ix. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Babulal V/s Raj Kumar
& others [(1996) 1 SCC 501].
x. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRs V/s
M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs &
another [(2004) 1 SCC 769].
xi. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case between K.K.Verma & another
V/s Union of India & another (AIR 1954
Bom 358).
xii. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Dalip Singh V/s State of
U.P. [(2010) 2 SCC 114].
xiii. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Ramrameshwari Devi
16
O.S.No.5401/2015V/s Nirmala Devi [(2011) 8 SCC 249].
xiv. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Kishore Samrite V/s
State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC 398].
xv. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Sciemed Oversead Inc.
V/s Boc India Ltd., [(2016) 3 SCC 70].
xvi. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the Chandra Shashi V/s Anil Kumar
Verma [(1995) 1 SCC 421].
xvii. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Afzal V/s State of
Haryana [(1996) 7 SCC 397].
xviii. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu V/s Jagannath
[(1994) 1 SCC 1].
xix. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Silverline Forum Pvt.
Ltd. V/s Rajiv Trust [(1998) 3 SCC 726].
xx. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Bangalore Development
Authority V/s N.Nanjappa & another (Civil
Appeal No.6996-6997/2021 dated
06.12.2021).
17
O.S.No.5401/2015
xxi. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Shamsher Singh &
another V/s LT. COL. Nahar Singh (D)
through LRs & others (Civil Appeal
No.5632/2019).
xxii. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between K.K.Modi V/s L.N.Modi
[(1998) 3 SCC 573].
xxiii. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Rohit Singh V/s State of
Bihar [(2006) 12 SCC 734].
xxiv. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between K.D.Sharma V/s Sail
[(2008) 12 SCC 481].
xxv. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the
case between Chaudhary V/s KAP Sinha
IAS & others (COCP No.3579/2025 dated
24.07.2025).
xxvi. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between T.Arivandandam V/s
T.V.Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467].
xxvii. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Ramrameshwari Devi
V/s Nirmala Devi [(2011) 8 SCC 249].
18
O.S.No.5401/2015
xxviii. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Jharkhand in the case between Jogendra
Kaur V/s Kali Prasad [(2003) SCC OnLine
Jhar 62].
xxix. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case between Ashan Devi V/s
Phulwasi Devi [(2013) 12 SCC 219].
xxx. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay in the case between Shoban Salim
Thakur V/s Chitanya Arora & others (Leave
Petition No.18257/2025).
xxxi. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Calcutta in the case between Vikas Parolia
V/s Bhartiya Steel & Engineering Company
Pvt. Ltd., & others (C.O.No.422/2023).
xxxii. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in the case between Ramadevi
V/s Rajeshwari (R.F.A.No.638/2016).
xxxiii. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in the case between B.K.Gopala
V/s Nagarathnamma (R.F.A.No.1506/2019
dated 09.10.2023).
xxxiv. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in the case between Bassappa
V/s V.Sambireddy (W.P.No.200085/2023
19
O.S.No.5401/2015
dated 13.09.2024).
14. Perused the materials available on record.
15. The point for consideration on I.A.No.XV is that
Whether the defendant has shown
sufficient reasons to order to refer the
matter to Chief Administrative Officer of
this Court to lodged complaint against
the plaintiff before the jurisdictional
Magistrate under Section 379 of
Bharathiya Nagaraika Suraksha
Samhita, 2023 as prayed in I.A.No.XV?
16. My answers to the above Additional Issues and the point
for consideration are as follows;
Additional Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Additional Issue No.2 : In the Negative,
Additional Issue No.3 : In the Negative,
Point for consideration : In the Negative,
Additional Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
17. ADDITIONAL ISSUES No.1 TO 3 :- The findings on these
Additional Issues are inter-related. Therefore, they are taken
together for consideration.
20
O.S.No.5401/2015
To prove these Additional Issues, the defendant has
produced his oral evidences as DW1. He filed his affidavit by
way of examination-in-chief of DW1. In the said affidavit, he
has reiterated the averments made in the written statement.
In support of his oral evidences, he has produced the
documentary evidences Ex.D1 to Ex.D64. Among them,
Ex.D1 is the Layout Plan, Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the
Sale Deed dated 07.05.2004 executed by the Society in favour
of K.Vikas, Ex.D3 is the Possession Certificate issued by the
Society in favour of K.Vikas, Ex.D4 is the Khatha Certificate
dated 20.07.2005 issued by Bangalore Development
Authority in favour of K.Vikas, Ex.D5 is the General Power of
Attorney dated 06.04.2006 executed by K.Vikas in favour
Vinay K., Ex.D6 is the Property Tax Paid Challan/ Receipt
dated 01.04.2004 issued by Bangalore Development
Authority, Ex.D7 is the Khatha Endorsement dated
07.03.2011 issued by Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
in the name of the defendant, Ex.D8 is the Khatha Certificate
dated 16.06.2015 issued by Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike in the name of the defendant, Ex.D9 is the certified
21
O.S.No.5401/2015
copy of the Houses and Vacant Lands Register Book issued
by Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in the name of the
defendant, Ex.D10 is the Tax Paid Challan for the year 2007-
08, Ex.D11 is the copy of the Self Declaration for the year
2007-08, Ex.D12 to Ex.D17 are the Tax Paid Receipts for the
year 2008-09 to 2010-11 and 2016-17 to 2018-19, Ex.D18 to
Ex.D20 are the Encumbrance Certificates, Ex.D21 is the
Building License, Ex.D22 is the Approved Building Plan,
Ex.D23 is the Electricity Connection Sanction Letter, Ex.D24
is the Electricity Connection Bill Form, Ex.D25 to Ex.D27 are
the Electricity Bills, Ex.D28 to Ex.D30 are the Electricity Bills
Paid Receipts, Ex.D31 is the Tax Invoice, Ex.D32 is the
certified copy of the Order Sheets in Ex.No.780/2013, Ex.D33
is the certified copy of the Memo dated 20.06.2015 filed in
Ex.No.780/2013, Ex.D34 is the certified copy of the Orders in
Ex.No.780/2013, Ex.D35 is the certified copy of the Order
Sheets in O.S.No.4297/2015, Ex.D36 is the certified copy of
the Plaint in O.S.No.4297/2015, Ex.D37 is the certified copy
of I.A.No.VI in O.S.No.4297/2015, EX.D38 is the certified
copy of I.A.No.I in O.S.No.4297/2015, Ex.D39 is the certified
22
O.S.No.5401/2015
copy of I.A.No.II in O.S.No.4297/2015, Ex.D40 is the certified
copy of I.A.No.III in O.S.No.4297/2015, Ex.D41 is the
certified copy of I.A.No.V in O.S.No.4297/2015, Ex.D42 is the
certified copy of Order Sheets in O.S.No.4374/2015, Ex.D43
is the certified copy of I.A.No.III in O.S.No.4374/2015,
Ex.D44 is the certified copy of the Plaint in
O.S.No.4374/2015, Ex.D45 is the certified copy of I.A.No.III
in O.S.No.4374/2015, Ex.D46 is the certified copy of I.A.No.II
in O.S.No.4374/2015, Ex.D47 and Ex.D48 are the
Photographs, Ex.D49 is the Compact Disc, Ex.D50 is the
certified copy of the Judgment and Decree in
O.S.No.1815/2014, Ex.D51 is the certified copy of the
Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1852/2014, Ex.D52 is the
certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 21.04.2006 executed by
K.Vikas represented by his GPA Holder K.Vinay in favour of
the defendant, Ex.D53 is the certified copy of the Plaint in
O.S.No.3256/2019, Ex.D54 is the certified copy of the
Written Statement of Syed Abdul Kareem filed in
O.S.No.3256/2019, Ex.D55 is the certified copy of the
Written Statement of Noorul Razvy filed in
23
O.S.No.5401/2015
O.S.No.3256/2019, Ex.D56 is the certified copy of the
Written Statement of N.V.Prasad filed in O.S.No.3256/2019,
Ex.D57 is the certified copy of the Written Statement of the
defendant herein filed in O.S.No.3256/2019, Ex.D58 is the
certified copy of the Deposition of the plaintiff herein in
O.S.No.3256/2019, Ex.D59 is the certified copy of the
Petition in Execution No.780/2013, Ex.D60 is the certified
copy of the Order Sheets in Execution No.780/2013, Ex.D61
is the certified copy of the Memo for withdrawal filed in
Execution No.780/2013, Ex.D62 is the certified copy of the
Gift Deed dated 02.03.2021 executed by the plaintiff in
favour of Smt.Bushra Ahesan, Ex.D63 is the Encumbrance
Certificate and Ex.D64 is the certified copy of the Sale
Agreement dated 02.01.2013 executed by the plaintiff in
favour of N.Mohanlal Bohra.
18. During cross-examination of DW1, Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 are
got marked through confrontation. Among them, Ex.P1 is the
certified copy of the Affidavit of the plaintiff, Ex.P2 is the
certified copy of the Written Statement of the defendant filed
in O.S.No.4297/2015, Ex.P3 is the RTC Extract in respect of
24
O.S.No.5401/2015
the land bearing Sy.No.34/2 of Nagavara Village, Ex.P4 is the
admitted portion of the contents of the Intimation Letter
dated 04.11.2015 issued by Bangalore Development
Authority, Ex.P5 is the admitted portion of the contents of the
Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal
No.1930/2012, Ex.P6 is the admitted portions of the contents
of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil
Appeal No.1930/2012, Ex.P7 is the admitted portion of the
contents of the Compliance Report filed in Civil Appeal
No.1930/2012, Ex.P8 is the admitted portion of the contents
of the Affidavit filed in Civil Appeal No.1930/2012, Ex.P9 is
the admitted portion of the contents of the Gazette
Notification dated 21.02.1986, Ex.P10 and Ex.P10(a) are the
admitted portions of the contents of the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2086-2089/2004,
Ex.P11 is the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree
dated 20.12.2014 passed in O.S.No.1850/2014, Ex.P12 is
the admitted portion of the contents of the Order Sheet in
O.S.No.5331/2014, Ex.P13 is the certified copy of the
Deposition of the defendant in O.S.No.4374/2015, Ex.P14 is
25
O.S.No.5401/2015
the certified copy of the Written Statement of the defendant
filed in O.S.No.4374/2015, Ex.P15 is the certified copy of
I.A.No.III filed in O.S.No.4374/2015, Ex.P16 is the certified
copy of the Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2020 passed
in O.S.No.4374/2015 and Ex.P17 is the certified copy of the
Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.4297/2015.
19. The specific case of the defendant is that the written
statement schedule property is one of the sites formed by the
Society in Sy.No.34/2 of Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk. The document contained Ex.P9 is the
Final Notification dated 21.02.1986 issued by the
Government of Karnataka for acquisition of the lands for
formation of the layout by the Society situated at Nagawara
Village. The land bearing Sy.No.34/2 was one of the subject
matters of the said acquisition. The said acquisition
proceedings were challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka and it went up to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.2086-2087/2004 and other Civil Appeals. In the
said proceedings, out of the total extent of the land notified
for acquisition, the acquisition of 52 acre 17 guntas of land
26
O.S.No.5401/2015
were quashed. In the said extent of the land quashed, the
land bearing Sy.No.34/2 is not a subject matter. It is
forthcoming in the documents marked at Ex.P7. Though, the
plaintiff while filing the suit as claimed his title and
possession over the land bearing Sy.No.34/2 of Nagawara
Village measuring 1 acre 17 guntas, he has abandoned his
claim by withdrawing the suit and in the written statement
filed to the counter claim of the defendant, he has not made
any claim in respect of the said land.
20. It appears from the documentary evidences produced by
the defendant at Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 that on 07.05.2004, the
Society sold the written statement schedule property in
favour of K.Vikas and handed over is vacant possession to
him. It appears from the contents of Ex.D4 that pursuant to
the said sale, the Khatha of the written statement schedule
property was entered in the name of K.Vikas. It appears from
the contents of Ex.D5 and Ex.D52 that K.Vikas represented
by his GPA holder K.Vinay sold the written statement
schedule property in favour of the plaintiff through registered
Sale Deed dated 24.01.2006. It further appears from the
27
O.S.No.5401/2015
contents of Ex.D7 to Ex.D17 that pursuant to the Sale Deed
dated 24.01.2006, the Khatha of the suit schedule property
transferred to the name of the defendant and he has paid
property tax up to 2018-2019 in respect of the suit schedule
property. It further appears from the contents of Ex.D21 to
Ex.D31 that the defendant has obtained License and
Approved Building Plan to construct the house in the suit
schedule property and obtained electricity connection to the
building in the suit schedule property. These documentary
evidences produced by the defendant prima-facie proving his
lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule
property.
21. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff filed Execution Case
No.780/2013 before this Court to issue delivery warrant in
respect of Sy.No.34/2 situated at Nagawara Village
measuring 1 acre 17 guntas based on the orders passed in
Civil Appeal No.930/2012 and its connected cased by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said case, the plaintiff
through the process of the Court took possession including
the written statement schedule property. Aggrieved by the
28
O.S.No.5401/2015
same, the defendant filed I.A.No.XIX under Order XXI Rule 97
of the Code of Civil Procedure to come on record as objector
No.24, I.A.No.XX under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for recalling the delivery warrant and I.A.No.XXI
under Order XXI Rule 99 and 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to delivery back the possession of the written
statement schedule property. After hearing the both parties,
vide order dated 31.03.2015, the said Execution Petition was
dismissed as not maintainable since the plaintiff herein
wrongly filed the Execution Petition; obtained the delivery
warrant by suppressing facts; also obtained order to break
open lock with Police help and with that order, wrongly
dispossessed the defendant herein. The Court ordered the
plaintiff to handover the possession of the written statement
schedule property to the defendant herein. Ex.D34 is the
certified copy of the said Order. Challenging the said order,
the plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.218/2015 before the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka. The reason to say that the above facts
are the admitted facts, the plaintiff in the plaint as averred
that the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule
29
O.S.No.5401/2015
property was confirmed by the mahazar Report filed in
Execution No.780/2013 and the order passed in Execution
No.780/2013 is assailed in C.R.P.No.218/2015. It appears
from the contents of Ex.D33 that in pursuance to the delivery
warrant issued directing the decree holder to handover the
possession of the written statement schedule property to the
defendant, on 09.06.2015, the possession of the written
statement schedule property was handed over to the
defendant.
22. In the Judgments relied by the learned Counsel for the
defendant, the Judgments in the cases between Silver Line
Forum Pvt. Ltd., V/s Rajiv Trust, Bangalore Development
Authority V/s N.Nanjappa and another, Shamsher Singh and
another V/s LT. COL. Nahar Singh (D) through LR’s and
others, Jogendra Kaur V/s Kali Prasad, Ashand Devi V/s
Phulwasi Devi, Shoban Salim Thakur V/s Chitanya Arora
and others, Ramadevi V/s Rajeshwari, B.K.Gopala V/s
Nagarathnamma, Basappa V/s Sambireddy and Ranjith K.G
and others V/s Sheeba, Periyammal (Dead), through LR’s and
others V/s Rajamani and another, Brahmadeo Choudhary
30
O.S.No.5401/2015
V/s Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and Sriram Housing Finance
and Investment (India) Ltd., V/s Omesh Mishra Memorial
Charitable Trust, the law with regard to the adjudication of
the right under Order 21 Rule 97 to 102 of the Code of Civil
Procedure by executing Court and its consequences are laid
down. There is no dispute with regard to the above principles
of law. By adjudicating the right of the defendant in the
written statement schedule property, this Court directed the
plaintiff to hand over the vacant possession of the written
statement schedule property to the defendant and
inconsequence thereof, the possession of the written
statement schedule property was taken by the defendant
through the process of the Court. Therefore, as on the date of
filing of the suit, the defendant was in possession of the
written statement schedule property.
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case between Rame
Gowda (Dead) by LR’s V/s M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LR’s
and another held that
“8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian
law is concerned, the person in peaceful
31
O.S.No.5401/2015
possession is entitled to retain his possession
and in order to protect such protection, he may
even use reasonable force to keep out a
trespasser.”
24. It appears from the evidences produced by the
defendant both oral and documentary that the defendant was
in possession and enjoyment of the written statement
schedule property, he has dispossessed by the plaintiff and
later on 09.06.2015, the defendant took back the possession
of the written statement schedule property from the plaintiff
through the process of the Court.
25. I perused the oral evidences of DW1 deposed in his
cross-examination. DW1 in his cross-examination has
deposed that he is the member of the Society. Though, he has
not produced any documentary evidences to show that he is
the member of the Society, it is not demerit to his case.
Because, the suit schedule property was not allotted to him
by the Society. It was allotted to his vendor. Therefore, the
legality of the purchase of the suit schedule property by the
defendant cannot be questioned by the plaintiff.
32
O.S.No.5401/2015
26. On perusal of the entire cross-examination of DW1, it
appears that no effective cross-examination is made with
regard to Ex.D2 to Ex.D4, Ex.D6 to Ex.D34 and Ex.D52 to
disbelieve the documents produced by the defendant.
Therefore, from the above documentary evidences, the
defendant has proved his lawful possession over the written
statement schedule property.
27. During the evidences of the defendant, the certified
copies of the pleadings and order sheets in respect of the
suits in O.S.No.4297/2015, O.S.No.4374/2015,
O.S.No.3256/2019, O.S.No.5331/2014, the depositions of
the plaintiff herein in O.S.No.3256/2019, the deposition of
the defendant herein in O.S.No.4374/2015, the judgments
and decrees in O.S.No.1850/2014, O.S.No.1852/2014,
O.S.No.4374/2015 and O.S.No.4392/2015 are produced by
the defendant. It appears from the said documents that the
land bearing Sy.No.34/2 of Nagawara Village was the subject
matter of the suits filed by the plaintiff herein. No documents
are produced in respect of the final result of the suits in
O.S.No.4297/2015, O.S.No.3256/2019, O.S.No.5331/2014
33
O.S.No.5401/2015
and O.S.No.3256/2019. In O.S.No.1850/2014 and
O.S.No.1852/2014, the written statement schedule property
was not the subject matter of the suit.
28. During Cross-examination of DW1, the certified copies
of the Judgments and Decree in O.S.No.4374/2015 and
O.S.No.4297/2015 are got marked on admission through
confrontation on behalf of the plaintiff. DW1 during his cross-
examination has admitted that the counter claim made by
him were dismissed under the said Judgments and Decree. It
appears from the contents of Ex.P.16 and 17 that the written
statement schedule property herein was also the subject
matters of the above suit in the counter claims of the
defendant herein and the said counter claims were dismissed
on the ground that the title of the defendant herein is under
cloud; therefore, the suit for bare injunction is not
maintainable and the defendant herein has not proved the
cause of action for claiming the relief of counter claim. DW1
in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not filed
any appeals challenging the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.4374/2015 and O.S.No.4297/2015. Therefore, the
34
O.S.No.5401/2015
findings in the above suits are reached its finality. It is a
conclusive proof of the fact in issue involved in the said suits
and the present suit for the reason that the subject matters
of the said counter claim and the present suit counter claim
are one and the same; the defendant herein has claimed the
counter claim against the plaintiff herein based on the
similar pleadings and the defendant herein has also relied the
very same documentary evidences in the said suits.
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case between
Anathulla Sudhakar V/s S.P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and
other held that where a cloud is created over the plaintiff’s
title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration
and possession, with or without a consequential injunction,
is the remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or
under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for
possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is
merely an interference with the plaintiff’s lawful possession
or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an
injunction simpliciter. As the suit for injunction simpliciter is
concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title
35
O.S.No.5401/2015
will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for
injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on
possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be
established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case
of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and
substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding
thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of
possession. In the present case on hand, there are pleadings
of the defendant and the evidences produced by the
defendant that before he was dispossessed by the plaintiff
from the written statement schedule property, he was in
possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule
property. It is admitted fact by the defendant that he was
dispossessed by the plaintiff from the written statement
schedule property and he was out of possession over the
written statement schedule property, till his possession was
restored on 09.06.2015. As per the pleadings of the
defendant and the oral evidences of DW1 as well as the
documentary evidences produced by the defendant, as
aforesaid, on 09.06.2015, the defendant took possession of
36
O.S.No.5401/2015
the written statement schedule property through the process
of the Court. As per the pleadings of the defendant and the
oral evidences of DW1, he has put up shed and secured
electric connection to it. The defendant has produced Ex.D21
to Ex.D31. Among them, Ex.D21 and Ex.D22 are dated
03.12.2015 and Ex.D23 to Ex.D31 are for the year 2017 i.e.,
subsequent to filing of the suit and written statement. The
written statement of the defendant was filed on 13.07.2015.
Therefore, the said documents cannot be considered as a
proof of the pleadings of the defendant and the oral evidences
of DW1 that after restoration of the possession of the written
statement schedule property, the defendant has put up shed
and he has secured electric connection to it. The defendant
has not produced any documentary evidences to show that
after his possession to the written statement schedule
property was restored on 09.06.2015, he put up shed and
secured electric connection to it as averred in the written
statement deposed by DW1 in his examination-in-chief.
Though, the documentary evidences like Sale Deeds, Khatha
documents and Tax Paid Receipts are proving his lawful
37
O.S.No.5401/2015
possession over the written statement schedule property i.e.,
de facto possession of the defendant, he is not in de jure
possession of the written statement schedule property. The
defendant has also not produced any documentary evidences
to prove that after his possession on the written statement
schedule property was restored on 09.06.2015, the plaintiff
interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of
written statement schedule property. For the above reasons,
the defendant has proved Additional Issue No.1 and 2. When
the defendant has not proved Issue No.1 and 2, he is not
entitle for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed.
Hence, I answer Additional Issue No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
30. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION :- By filing I.A.No.XV, the
defendant alleged that the plaintiff has made false pleadings,
filed false affidavits, suppressed judicial orders, fraudulently
obtained an order and misled this Court by making false
claim regarding possession and cause of action concealing
the judicial order during the judicial proceedings before this
Court. There are no evidences in that regard. The plaintiff in
his plaint has disclosed about the orders passed in execution
38
O.S.No.5401/2015
proceedings. As on the date of filing of the suit, the appeal
filed challenging the said orders in execution proceedings was
pending. It was also disclosed by the plaintiff in his plaint.
Therefore, there is no suppression of facts with regard to the
execution proceedings. It is true that before filing of the
present suit, the plaintiff has filed this suits in
O.S.No.4374/2015 and O.S.No.4297/2015. The said suits
were filed not only against the defendant herein, but also
against some other defendants. The plaintiff has withdrawn
the said suits. It appears from the contents of Ex.D35 and
Ex.D42 that the said suits were withdrawn by the plaintiff
after filing of the pleadings of both parties were completed in
this suit. Therefore, the allegation that the plaintiff
suppressed the withdrawal of the said suits has no merits.
The defendant has also not produced any evidences to prove
the false pleadings and the affidavits filed in the present suit.
For the above reasons the Judgments relied by the learned
Counsel for the defendant on I.A.No.XV are not applicable to
the present case on hand. Under these circumstances, the
defendant has not shown sufficient reasons to order to refer
39
O.S.No.5401/2015
the matter to Chief Administrative Officer of this Court to
lodged complaint against the plaintiff before the jurisdictional
Magistrate under Section 379 of Bharathiya Nagaraika
Suraksha Samhita, 2023 as prayed in I.A.No.XV. Hence, I
answer the Point for consideration in the Negative.
13. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.4 :- In view of the findings on
Additional Issues No.1 to 3 and point for consideration, the
counter claim of the defendant and I.A.No.XV filed by the
defendant are liable to be dismissed with cost. In the result, I
proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS
The counter claim of the defendant
and I.A.No.XV filed by the defendant are
hereby dismissed with cost.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Typed by me in the laptop, printout taken, corrected and then
pronounced by me in the open court today on this the 21 st day of
April 2026)
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
40
O.S.No.5401/2015
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for Plaintiff :-
NIL
List of documents exhibited for Plaintiff :-
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Affidavit, Ex.P2 : Certified copy of Written Statement, Ex.P3 : RTC Extract, Ex.P4 : Intimation Letter, Ex.P5 to 10 : Admitted Portions of the documents, Ex.P10(a) : Admitted Portion of the document, Ex.P11 : Certified copy of Judgment and Decree, Ex.P12 : Certified copy of Order Sheet, Ex.P12(a) : Admitted Portion of the document, Ex.P13 : Certified copy of Deposition, Ex.P14 : Certified copy of Written Statement, Ex.P15 : Certified copy of I.A.No.III, Ex.P16 & 17 : Certified copies of Judgments and Decree.
List of witnesses examined for the Defendant :-
DW1 : Bhageerath Singh
List of documents exhibited for the Defendant :-
Ex.D1 : Layout Plan,
Ex.D2 : Certified copy of Sale Deed,
Ex.D3 : Possession Certificate,
Ex.D4 : Khatha Certificate,
41
O.S.No.5401/2015
Ex.D5 : General Power of Attorney,
Ex.D6 : Property Tax Paid Challan/ Receipt,
Ex.D7 : Khatha Endorsement,
Ex.D8 : Khatha Certificate,
Ex.D9 : Certified copy of Assessment List,
Ex.D10 : Tax Paid Challan,
Ex.D11 : Copy of the Self Declaration,
Ex.D12 to 17 : Tax Paid Receipts,
Ex.D18 to 20 : Encumbrance Certificates,
Ex.D21 : Building License,
Ex.D22 : Approved Building Plan,
Ex.D23 : Electricity Connection Sanction Letter,
Ex.D24 : Electricity Connection Bill Form,
Ex.D25 to 27 : Electricity Bills,
Ex.D28 to 30 : Electricity Bills Paid Receipts,
Ex.D31 : Tax Invoice,
Ex.D32 : Certified copy of Order Sheets,
Ex.D33 : Certified copy of Memo,
Ex.D34 : Certified copy of Orders,
Ex.D35 : Certified copy of Order Sheets,
Ex.D36 : Certified copy of Plaint,
Ex.D37 : Certified copy of I.A.No.VI,
EX.D38 : Certified copy of I.A.No.I,
Ex.D39 : Certified copy of I.A.No.II,
Ex.D40 : Certified copy of I.A.No.III,
Ex.D41 : Certified copy of I.A.No.V,
Ex.D42 : Certified copy of Order Sheets,
42
O.S.No.5401/2015Ex.D43 : Certified copy of I.A.No.III,
Ex.D44 : Certified copy of Plaint,
Ex.D45 : Certified copy of I.A.No.III,
Ex.D46 : Certified copy of I.A.No.II,
Ex.D47 & 48 : Photographs,
Ex.D49 : Compact Disc,
Ex.D50 & 51 : Certified copies of Judgments and Decrees,
Ex.D52 : Certified copy of Sale Deed,
Ex.D53 : Certified copy of Plaint,
Ex.D54 to 58 : Certified copies of Written Statements,
Ex.D58 : Certified copy of Deposition,
Ex.D59 : Certified copy of Petition,
Ex.D60 : Certified copy of Order Sheets,
Ex.D61 : Certified copy of Memo,
Ex.D62 : Certified copy of Gift Deed,
Ex.D63 : Encumbrance Certificate,
Ex.D64 : Certified copy of Sale Agreement.
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
