ADVERTISEMENT
Bangalore District Court
Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Bangalore Development Authority on 17 April, 2026
1 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
KABC010187322002
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-19).
DATED: THIS THE 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2026.
PRESENT:
SRI. SATHISHA L.P., B.A., LL.B.
XCI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge &
Spl. Judge for KPIDFE Cases., Bengaluru.
C/C VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.7738/2002
PLAINTIFF : Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd
ING Vysya Bank Limited
(Banking Company Constituted
under Provision of Companies
Act, 1956) NO.72, St. Marks
Road, Bangalore-560001.
Represented by its Associate Vice
President.
(By Sri.Vishwanath. R. Hegde,
Advocate)
V/S
DEFENDANT : Bangalore Development
2 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Authority
Kumara Park - West
Bangalore-560020
Represented by its Commissioner
(By.Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, Advocate)
Date of institution of 28-10-2002
Suit
Nature of the Suit Declaration and Injunction
Date of commencement 18-06-2013
of recording of evidence
Date on which 17-04-2026
Judgment was
pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
23 05 20
O.S. No.9382/2005
PLAINTIFF : Kotak Mahindra Bank ING
Vysya Bank Limited
Formerly known as THE ING
VYSYA BANK LIMITED)
a Banking Company
Constituted and formed under
the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956)
having its Reg. And
Corporate office at: No.22,
Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Bangalore-560001.
Represented by its Head
Services
(By Sri. Vishwanath. R.
3 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Hegde.,
V/S
DEFENDANTS : 1. Bangalore Development
Authority
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park (West)
Bangalore-20
Represented by its
Commissioner
2. Mr. Jayakar Jerome
Principal Secretary
Office of the Governor of
Maharastra Raj Bhavan,
Mumbai
Maharastra State.
D.1- V.B. Shivakumar.,
Advocate
D.2 - Prashanth Kumar D,
Advocate
Date of institution of 25-11-2005
Suit
Nature of the Suit Suit for damages
Date of commencement 18-06-2013
of recording of evidence
Date on which 17-04-2026
Judgment was
pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
20 04 23
4 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Common Judgment in O.S.No. 7738-2002 & O.S.No. 9382-2005
O.S.No. 7738/2002
The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for the
following reliefs:
a) For a declaration that the plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the A and B properties,
or to declare that the plaintiff has become
the absolute owner of the A and B
properties by having perfected its title by
adverse possession and limitation.
b). For a permanent injunction restraining
the defendant, its officials or officers, or
anybody claiming under it, from interfering
with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the A and B schedule
properties, and also restraining them from
demolishing the structures in the A and B
properties.
c). To grant such other relief or reliefs as
this Court deems fit in the circumstances
of the case, and to decree the suit with
costs in the interest of justice.
5 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
2. In this suit, it is contended that the plaintiff is
a banking company constituted under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its registered office and corporate
office at No. 72, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-1,
represented by its Vice President and power of
attorney holder. The plaintiff has branches
throughout India and its corporate office at the
address given above. The plaintiff is a private sector
bank, which will hereinafter be called "the Bank." The
Bank has been extending yeoman services to the
public by offering a wide range of banking facilities,
products, and value-added services to customers
across the country. It has been meticulously
complying with and adhering to all norms fixed by the
RBI, State Government, and Central Government in
all aspects of its business and overall activities,
including its obligations concerning priority sector
advances. The Bank has earned a good reputation for
its efficient service over all these years. The Bank has
6 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
also celebrated its Diamond Jubilee in the year 1990.
It had occupied the first place among private sector
banks for nearly one and a half decades in the past.
The Bank has attained its pivotal position as a
servicing bank catering to the needs of the public
among private sector banks.
3. The Bank, for five decades, has acquired
many properties across the country for its business
purposes and for providing residential
accommodation to its executives and employees. The
officers of the Bank, through experience, and
Advocates scrutinise the titles of properties proposed
to be purchased by the Bank. As on date, there is no
dispute, complaint, or any litigation whatsoever in
respect of any of the properties so purchased by the
Bank all over the country.
4. The plaintiff submits that during the year
1995, for the purpose of providing residential
accommodation to the Chairman of the Bank, the
7 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Bank was on the lookout for a suitable property to be
purchased.
5. It is further submitted that while this was so,
the vendor, who is the owner of the A and B schedule
properties, approached the authorities of the Bank
and offered to sell the schedule properties.
6. The plaintiff further submits that based upon
the representations made by the vendor, and upon
verification of the title deeds and other related
documents furnished by the vendor, it was
ascertained that the property being Site No. 557,
situated in the 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, was
allotted in favour of Sri Suruli Rama Rao Narasimha
Mur, S/o Sri Suruli Ram Rao, who will hereinafter be
referred to as "the vendor," by the Bangalore
Development Authority. The vendor was put in
possession of the vacant site bearing No. 527/5/72
by the defendant under the possession certificate
dated 4-6-1976, issued and duly signed by the
8 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer of the
defendant. Thus, the vendor has been in physical
possession and enjoyment of the said site, to the
knowledge of the defendant and to the exclusion of
the defendant, ever since 4-6-1976.
7. The plaintiff submits that the above site in
Jayanagar Extension has been transferred to the
Corporation of the City of Bangalore, now Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, for maintenance and
administration, after having developed the
infrastructure and other amenities required under
the provisions of the Bangalore Development
Authority Act and the rules framed thereunder. It is
submitted that ever since such transfer, the entire
maintenance and administration of the layout,
including the above site, is vested in the Corporation
of the City of Bangalore. The Corporation of the City
of Bangalore has assessed the above site bearing No.
9 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
527, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, to property
tax.
8. In the meanwhile, since a portion or moiety of
the sale consideration for the purchase of the above
site was from the joint family funds, the vendor
applied to the defendant for bifurcation of the said
Site No. 527 into two sites, as the defendant was to
execute the absolute sale deed in respect of the said
site. The defendant bifurcated Site No. 527 and
assigned to it Site Nos. 527A and 527B, and
communicated such bifurcation by its endorsement
dated 6-12-1988. The bifurcated site bearing No.
527A has been recorded and kept in the name of the
vendor in his individual capacity, and insofar as Site
No. 527B is concerned, it has been recorded and
kept in the name of the vendor under the assets of
the Hindu Undivided Family. The City Survey
authorities have surveyed the A and B schedule
properties.
10 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
9. The Khata of the above site bearing No. 527
was transferred to the name of the vendor in the
records of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore,
and a certificate to that effect has been issued by the
Assistant Revenue Officer, Jayanagar, Corporation of
the City of Bangalore, dated 12-10-1988.
10. The vendor of the said Site No. 527 applied to
the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, along with
the plan, for the grant of a construction licence and
also for approval of the plan. The Deputy Director of
Town Planning of the Corporation of the City of
Bangalore sanctioned the grant of licence and
approved the plan by his communication dated 13-
12-1988, for the purposes of construction of the
ground floor and the first floor.
11. The vendor, after obtaining the construction
licence and the approval of the plan, constructed a
building comprising a ground floor and first floor.
After such completion, the Corporation of the City of
11 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Bangalore issued a special notice dated 25-7-1990
under Section 147, Schedule 3, Part 2, Rule 9 of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976,
proposing to assess the building and the site. The
vendor paid corporation tax in respect of the building
and site to the Corporation of the City of Bangalore.
12. The defendant thereafter executed an
absolute sale deed dated 25-10-1989 in respect of the
portion of the allotted site bearing No. 527, assigned
as Site No. 527A after bifurcation, in favour of the
vendor, under the absolute sale deed dated 21-10-
1989, registered on 24-1-1989, registered in the
Jayanagar Sub-Registrar's office. The property
bearing No. 527A, situated in the 5th Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore, where the residential house is
constructed comprising of ground floor and first floor,
is more fully described in the A schedule, which will
be called as 'A' schedule property.
12 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
13. The defendant further executed another
absolute sale deed dated 25-10-1989 in respect of the
remaining portion of Site No. 527, assigned as Site
No. 527B, in favour of the vendor, and the said
absolute sale deed is registered on 7-11-1989,
registered in the Jayanagar Sub-Registrar's office.
The property bearing No. 527B after bifurcation is
more fully described in the B schedule.
14. The plaintiff further submits that the Khata of
the entire property, as stated above, has been
transferred to the name of the vendor in the records
of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore. The
absolute sale deeds executed by the defendant, as
Document Nos. 9 and 10 registered in the office of the
Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara, Bangalore, have been
reflected in the encumbrance certificate. The vendor,
as stated above, after obtaining sanction and
approval of the plan, constructed the ground floor
and first floor in the A schedule property and
13 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
developed the B schedule property as a garden. The
vendor paid property tax to the Corporation of the
City of Bangalore in respect of the A and B schedule
properties, both as a vacant site and subsequently as
property with a residential building, commencing
from as early as 1981. The Corporation of the City of
Bangalore has acknowledged the payment of
corporation tax and has issued receipts upon
receiving property tax in respect of the schedule
properties from the year 1981-82.
15. The plaintiff submits that the vendor raised a
loan of ₹37 lakhs from the State Bank of Mysore,
Banashankari Branch, Bangalore, by mortgaging the
schedule property. The vendor, along with the
members of his family, has been living in the house
constructed by him in the A schedule property and
using the garden in the B property, right from the
completion of construction. Thus, the vendor was the
absolute owner of the A and B schedule properties
14 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
and was in possession of the same from 1-6-1976.
The site allotted in favour of the vendor by the
defendant was put in his possession on 1-6-1976,
and he has been in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the entire site openly, continuously, and
uninterruptedly, to the exclusion of any other person
or persons, including the defendant, and to the
knowledge of the defendant. It is further stated that
the said vendor has been in peaceful possession,
openly, continuously, and uninterruptedly, of the
house and the site, in the manner explained above, to
the exclusion of the defendant. The possession of the
vendor of the A and B schedule properties has been
continuous and uninterrupted, to the knowledge of
the defendant, right from the year 1976. Further, the
vendor, after having constructed the residential house
in the A and B schedule properties, has been in
settled possession of the A and B schedule properties
and has lived there to the exclusion of the defendant
15 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
and to the knowledge of the defendant from the year
1976. The tree growth found in the A and B schedule
properties, as can be seen from the photographs, is
more than 20 years old.
16. The plaintiff submits that the vendor further
offered to sell the A and B schedule properties to the
Bank and agreed to give vacant possession of the
schedule properties. The authorities of the Bank,
after having inspected the A and B schedule
properties and scrutinised the documents of title
which were in the custody of the State Bank of
Mysore, agreed to purchase the A schedule property
for a total consideration of ₹70,00,000 and the B
schedule property for a total consideration of
₹48,00,000, free from all encumbrances, after
discharging the mortgage of the schedule property
existing in favour of the State Bank of Mysore,
Banashankari Branch, Bangalore.
16 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
17. The plaintiff submits that upon exercising
due care and diligence in verifying and scrutinising
all the documents of title in favour of the vendor,
including the encumbrance certificate up to the date
of purchase and other related records and
representations furnished by the vendor in respect of
the A and B schedule properties, and after obtaining
the necessary legal opinion, the legal advisor of the
Bank, having found a marketable title of the vendor
to the A and B schedule properties, agreed to
purchase the A and B schedule properties for the said
considerations.
18. The plaintiff submits that during the relevant
point of time in the year 1994, when the vendor
offered to sell the A and B schedule properties to the
plaintiff, the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and
Regulation Act, 1976, and the provisions of Section
269UL(1) of the Income Tax Act were in force. The
plaintiff submits that consequently, upon the vendor
17 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
offering to sell the A and B schedule properties and
the plaintiff agreeing to purchase the same, the
plaintiff and the vendor entered into two agreements
of sale of even date, 22-6-1994. The vendor offered to
sell the A and B schedule properties in favour of the
plaintiff, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the A
and B schedule properties for the sale consideration
as mentioned above, subject to the vendor obtaining
appropriate permission from the appropriate
authority under Section 269UL(1) of the Income Tax
Act and also a declaration from the Urban Land
Ceiling Authority. The agreements were witnessed by
the State Bank of Mysore, which was at that point of
time the mortgagee of the schedule property. The
vendor and the plaintiff accordingly applied to the
appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act on
30-6-1994, and the appropriate authority accorded
the permission for the sale consideration reflected in
the agreement of sale.
18 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
19. The plaintiff further submits that thereafter
the vendor, after receiving the entire sale
consideration from the plaintiff, executed two sale
deeds in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the A and
B schedule properties, after redeeming the mortgage
loan payable to the State Bank of Mysore,
Banashankari Branch, Bangalore. The vendor
executed a sale deed dated 31-3-1995 in respect of
the A schedule property in the name of the plaintiff,
registered as Document No. 4190/94-95 in the office
of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara, Bangalore City,
and the plaintiff was put in physical possession of the
A schedule property pursuant to the said sale in its
favour. Similarly, the vendor executed another sale
deed dated 31-3-1995 in respect of the B schedule
property in favour of the plaintiff, and the same has
been registered as Document No. 4189/94-95 in the
Sub-Registrar's office, Jayanagara, Bangalore, and
the plaintiff has been put in physical possession of
19 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the B schedule property. The plaintiff has become the
absolute owner of the A and B properties and has
been in physical possession of the same openly,
continuously, and uninterruptedly, to the knowledge
of the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's physical
possession of the A and B schedule properties dates
back to the possession and enjoyment of the A and B
schedule properties by the vendor when he was put in
possession of the entire site in the year 1976, to the
knowledge of the defendant, and having confirmed his
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the A and B
schedule properties when two absolute sale deeds
were executed in his favour, and when the vendor
constructed the residential building in the A property
and developed the B property as a garden after
securing the construction licence and the approval of
the plan, and when he, with his family members,
continuously, openly, and uninterruptedly lived
exclusively in the A and B schedule properties.
20 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Therefore, the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the plaintiff is open, continuous, and to the exclusion
of the defendant and to the knowledge of the
defendant from the year 1976. Thus, the possession
and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the A and B schedule
properties is settled possession to the exclusion of the
defendant. Further, the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the A and B schedule properties by the
plaintiff, as stated above, is open, continuous, and to
the exclusion of the defendant for over the statutory
period of 12 years, and thus the plaintiff has
perfected its title in respect of the A and B schedule
properties. The plaintiff, after purchasing the A and B
properties, has paid corporation tax in respect of the
A and B properties and has exercised all rights of
ownership of right, title, and interest in the A and B
schedule properties. The schedule property has been
all along used by the plaintiff for providing residential
accommodation to its Chairman and Managing
21 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Director with their family members, and is now
currently used for the purposes of accommodating its
executives.
20. The plaintiff submits that it has purchased the
A and B properties for valuable consideration and has
been in physical, settled possession and enjoyment, to
the exclusion of the defendant, continuously as stated
above for over the statutory period. The defendant has
no right, title, or interest in the A and B properties.
The Khata of the A and B schedule properties has
been transferred to the name of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser of the A and B
properties for valuable consideration and has been in
settled possession of the same.
21. The plaintiff submits that the matter stood
thus when, on 26-7-2002, at about 4 P.M., some
officials of the defendant came near the A and B
schedule properties and, to the hearing of the
occupants of the A and B schedule properties,
22 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
proclaimed that the structures in the A and B
schedule properties would be demolished and that
they would take possession of the A and B properties
within a couple of days. The occupants of the A and B
schedule properties enquired with the officials of the
defendant as to their identity and the reason why they
should take such action. They refused to disclose
their identity and also refused to furnish any details of
the action contemplated against the plaintiff in
respect of the A and B schedule properties. However,
the officials of the defendant intimated the occupants
that no notice would be given or served on the
occupants before taking action to demolish the
structures in the A and B properties.
22. The plaintiff further submits that on 27-07-
2002, at about 1 P.M., the Commissioner of the
defendant rang up the Managing Director of the
plaintiff and threatened that he would demolish the
structures in the property by using a bulldozer and
23 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
that the Bank would have to face the consequences.
The plaintiff submits that it apprehended danger from
the defendant, as there was an imminent threat from
the defendant to demolish the structures, and that
the defendant, by taking the law into its own hands
and unauthorisedly, without any notice and without
following due process of law, was attempting to take
away the rights of the plaintiff under Article 300A of
the Constitution of India. Therefore, it became
necessary for the plaintiff to file a writ petition in
respect of the A and B schedule properties, being Writ
Petition No. 28601-602/2002, on 29-7-2002, before
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, for issuance of a
mandamus or an appropriate order or direction
preventing the defendant and its officials from
demolishing the structures in the A and B properties,
and also prayed for an interim order. The Managing
Director filed an affidavit in the petition, and the same
is produced. The High Court of Karnataka was
24 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
pleased to pass an order on 29-7-2002 against the
defendant, preventing the defendant, its officials, or
any person or persons claiming under the defendant,
from demolishing the structures in the A and B
properties for a period of two weeks. The order
granted on 29-7-2002 has been in force throughout
the proceedings. The defendant, after service of notice
in the writ petition, filed a statement of objections,
and the plaintiff has filed its replies. Copies of the writ
petition, objection statement, and the reply are
produced. The plaintiff has paid water charges,
electricity bills, and telephone bills.
23. The plaintiff submits that the High Court of
Karnataka heard arguments on merits and passed a
judgement on 28-10-2002 in Writ Petition No. 28601-
602/2002, holding that the matter is fully covered by
the ratio of the decision in the case of John P. James
and Others v. BDA, reported in ILR 2000 Karnataka
4131, and also observed that several legal contentions
25 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
were raised in the above said Division Bench
judgement. One among them, which is relevant for the
disposal of the present case, was that some of the
petitioners who were in open, peaceful, and
uninterrupted possession for more than 20 years had
perfected title by adverse possession and therefore
could not be forcibly dispossessed, and their buildings
could not be demolished without recourse to law.
Accordingly, while disposing of the above petitions,
the High Court of Karnataka passed an order
restraining the Bangalore Development Authority, the
defendant, from taking any action to demolish the
structures in the A and B schedule properties in
question, for a period of four weeks, to facilitate the
plaintiff to seek such remedy as is open to the
plaintiff. Therefore, it can be seen that proceedings in
the matter were pending before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka. There was an interim order
against the defendant restraining the defendant from
26 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
demolishing the structures in the A and B properties,
and in the judgement, the High Court of Karnataka
also directed the defendant, restraining it from taking
any action to demolish the structures in the A and B
schedule properties.
24. The plaintiff further submits that the above
narration clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff has
been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the A
and B schedule properties, uninterruptedly and
exclusively, to the exclusion of the defendant from the
year 1976, until the date of sale of the A and B
schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff, to the
knowledge of the defendant, and thereafter the vendor
sold the A and B properties for valuable consideration
by way of registered sale deeds, selling the A and B
schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has purchased the A and B properties for
valuable consideration and the plaintiff is a bona fide
purchaser of the A and B properties for valuable
27 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
consideration. The plaintiff has purchased the A and
B properties by paying a portion of the sale
consideration to the State Bank of Mysore,
Banashankari Branch, Bangalore, and has been in
continuous possession, exclusively to the exclusion of
the defendant, from the date of purchase and
uninterruptedly, to the knowledge of the defendant.
The possession of the plaintiff's vendor from the year
1976 enures to the benefit of the plaintiff's
possession. Thus, the plaintiff has been in exclusive
settled possession and enjoyment of the A and B
properties continuously and uninterruptedly, to the
exclusion of the defendant and to the knowledge of
the defendant, for over the statutory period, and thus
the plaintiff, and earlier its vendor, have been in
settled possession of the A and B schedule properties
for the statutory period and have perfected title. Thus,
it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration
that it is the lawful owner of the A and B schedule
28 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
properties, and in the alternative, the plaintiff has
been in settled possession and enjoyment of the A and
B schedule properties for over the statutory period of
12 years, exclusively to the exclusion of the defendant
and to the knowledge of the defendant, and thus the
plaintiff has been in settled possession for over the
statutory period and has perfected its title in respect
of the A and B schedule properties.
25. The plaintiff submits that its possession in
respect of the A and B schedule properties is in
accordance with that of an absolute owner, and it is
well settled that even assuming, without admitting,
that the schedule properties were unauthorisedly
occupied by the plaintiff and its vendor, the legal
possession in law insofar as the plaintiff's possession
of the A and B schedule properties is concerned is
deemed to be settled possession, since the actual
physical possession of the A and B schedule
properties by the plaintiff and its vendor is open and
29 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
continuous for a sufficiently long period, to the
knowledge of the defendant and to the exclusion of
the defendant. Thus, the possession of the A and B
schedule properties is not only settled possession, but
it is for over the statutory period of 12 years, and the
plaintiff has thus perfected its title. It is submitted
that even a trespasser who is in possession adverse to
the owner continuously for 12 years or more -- the
right of the true owner gets extinguished -- and the
trespasser has possessory ownership and acquires
absolute title to the A and B properties in question.
The plaintiff has thus perfected its title in respect of
the A and B properties and has become the absolute
owner of the A and B schedule properties.
26. The plaintiff has a prima facie case, having
been in physical possession and enjoyment of the A
and B schedule properties as the true owner,
peacefully, openly, and continuously, in exclusive
possession to the exclusion of the defendant or any
30 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
other person or persons claiming under it, absolutely
and continuously, for over the statutory period of 12
years by tacking on the possession of its vendor. The
balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff,
and on account of the threatened action from the
defendant, the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the A and B schedule properties is in
danger. If the defendant is not prevented by a decree
of permanent injunction, the plaintiff's possession will
be disturbed and the defendant will demolish the
structures in the A and B properties, and thus the
plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss, damage,
hardship, and injury, and the injury to be caused to
the plaintiff cannot be compensated in terms of
money. The High Court of Karnataka has prevented
the defendant, by its judgement dated 28-10-2002 in
Writ Petition No. 28601-602/2002, from taking any
action to demolish the structures in the A and B
schedule properties for a period of four weeks to
31 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
enable the plaintiff to approach the proper forum. If
the defendant is permanently restrained, no prejudice
or injustice will be caused to the defendant. Further,
the defendant will not be subjected to any injury if it
is restrained from disturbing or demolishing the
structures in the A and B schedule properties.
27. The plaintiff submits that the defendant has
no right or authority under any law to demolish the
structures in the A and B properties or to dispossess
the plaintiff forcibly from the A and B schedule
properties, when the plaintiff and its vendor are in
settled possession as stated above from the year 1976,
and when the vendor of the plaintiff has constructed
the structure in the A property and developed the B
schedule property as a garden, having been in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the A and B
schedule properties. The possession of the vendor of
the plaintiff of the A and B properties enures to the
benefit of the plaintiff, and therefore the plaintiff is in
32 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
continuous, uninterrupted, physical possession and
enjoyment of the A and B schedule properties. Its
possession is settled possession exceeding the
statutory period of 12 years required for the purpose
of perfecting title on the basis of adverse possession.
28. The plaintiff submits that the defendant, being
a statutory body, has no right to forcibly dispossess
the plaintiff, who is the absolute owner of the A and B
schedule properties and who is in settled possession.
Even if the defendant were to claim otherwise, it has
no right to forcibly dispossess even an unauthorised
occupant or trespasser otherwise than in accordance
with law. The plaintiff, having been established as the
absolute owner, cannot be dispossessed and the
structures in the A and B schedule properties cannot
be demolished without any order or decree of a
competent court, tribunal, or authority, or by
exercising any statutory power to dispossess or to
demolish under any law in force. The plaintiff's
33 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
possession of the A and B schedule properties, as
stated above, is in accordance with that of an absolute
owner. The possession of the plaintiff over the A and B
schedule properties is as stated above, and it is open,
continuous, and actual physical possession over a
sufficiently long period, as stated above, with the
knowledge of the defendant and to the exclusion of
the defendant, and therefore the possession of the
plaintiff in the A and B properties is not only settled
possession, and the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed
by use of force. Therefore, the plaintiff and, earlier, its
vendor have been in continuous, uninterrupted,
exclusive possession of the A and B properties to the
exclusion of the defendant, and thus the plaintiff has
perfected its title and has become the absolute owner
of the A and B schedule properties. The High Court of
Karnataka has held in John P. James and Others v.
Bangalore Development Authority, ILR 2000
34 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Karnataka 4134, that for a person to claim possession
against the BDA, 12 years' possession is relevant.
29. The plaintiff submits that, as stated above, it
is in physical, continuous, uninterrupted possession
and enjoyment of the A and B schedule properties as
the true owner, peacefully, openly, and continuously,
in exclusive possession to the exclusion of the
defendant or any person claiming under it, as
absolute owner, and has been in continuous physical
possession for over the statutory period of 12 years to
the exclusion of the defendant. Its possession is
settled possession and it has perfected its title. The
plaintiff has a prima facie case, and the balance of
convenience is in its favour. On account of the
threatened action from the defendant, the plaintiff's
possession of the A and B schedule properties is
threatened and in danger, and thus if the plaintiff is
dispossessed of the A and B properties and if the
defendant is allowed to demolish the structures in the
35 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
A and B properties, the plaintiff will be exposed to
irreparable loss, damage, and injury, and the injury to
be caused to the plaintiff cannot be compensated in
terms of money. The defendant is therefore liable to be
restrained from either dispossessing the plaintiff from
the A and B schedule properties or demolishing the
structures.
30. The plaintiff submits that the above narration
clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff is entitled to a
declaration as absolute owner of the A and B
properties as per various documents in its favour and
in favour of its vendor, and/or having settled and
perfected its title in respect of the A and B properties,
for having been in peaceful, continuous, open,
exclusive possession of the A and B properties to the
exclusion of the defendant over the statutory period of
12 years. The defendant is not entitled to dispossess
the plaintiff from the A and B schedule properties or
36 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
to demolish the structures in the A and B properties,
in view of what is stated above.
31. The plaintiff submits that ever since the sale of
the A and B schedule properties in its favour, the
plaintiff has been in physical possession and
enjoyment of the A and B schedule properties from
the date of purchase, and the plaintiff is undisputedly
in possession and enjoyment of the A and B schedule
properties from 31-3-1995. Therefore, it is clear that
the plaintiff has been in possession of the A and B
schedule properties from 31-03-1995.
32. The plaintiff submits that admittedly the
superstructure in the A and B schedule properties has
been constructed by the plaintiff's vendor, and the
plaintiff has purchased the sites and the
superstructure constructed in the A and B properties
for valuable consideration, and thus the plaintiff is
the absolute owner of the superstructure, and the
defendant has no right or interest in the
37 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
superstructure so as to demolish the same. It is
submitted that in fact the defendant does not claim
any interest in the superstructure. It is further
submitted that dual ownership having been
recognised in India, and the plaintiff being the
absolute owner of the superstructure, the defendant
has no right whatsoever to demolish the same. It is
further submitted that right from the inception of all
the processes followed by the vendor of the plaintiff
towards acquiring the schedule properties from the
BDA, and thereafter complying with all the statutory
and other requirements, putting up the
superstructure in the schedule premises, having the
corporation tax assessed by the City Municipal
Corporation, obtaining the necessary electricity,
water, and sewage connections to the schedule
properties, etc., all have been done with the full
knowledge of the BDA. The above facts are borne out
38 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
by the relevant records maintained by the respective
authorities and the BDA.
33. The plaintiff submits that the above narration
of facts shows that the defendant, having acquiesced
in the title of the vendor of the plaintiff to the A and B
schedule properties and to that of the plaintiff, the
defendant is now estopped from contending that the
plaintiff's vendor has no title to the A and B
properties.
34. The cause of action for the suit arose on
26-07-2002 at 4 P.M., when the officials of the
defendant came near the A and B properties
threatening to demolish the structures in the A and B
properties; on 27-7-2002, when the Commissioner of
the defendant rang up the Managing Director of the
plaintiff threatening to demolish the structures in the
A and B schedule properties; and on 28-10-2002,
when the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed its
judgement in Writ Petition No. 28601-602/2002,
39 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
subsequently, in Bangalore City, within the
jurisdiction of this Court.
35. With these grounds, the plaintiff has prayed
that the suit be decreed.
36. The defendant, BDA, has filed the written
statement by denying and disputing the plaint
allegations.
37. The allegation that the alleged plaintiff's
vendor is/was the owner of the plaint A and B
schedule properties is denied as false and untenable.
The allegation of the plaintiff that the site bearing No.
527, 5th Block, Jayanagara, Bangalore, was allotted
in favour of Suruli Ram Rao Narasimha Murthy is
absolutely false and untenable. It is absolutely false
that he was put in possession of the vacant site
bearing No. 527/V/72 by the defendant under a
possession certificate dated 4-6-1976. The alleged
signatures of the Assistant Engineer and Executive
Engineer are forgeries. The alleged physical
40 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
possession of the plaintiff's vendor from 4-6-1976 is
denied.
38. Though it is true that Jayanagar Extension
has been transferred to the Corporation of the City of
Bangalore, the allegation that it could have assessed
Site No. 527 to property tax is incorrect and invalid.
The Corporation could not have taxed the property
that belongs to the defendant. The special notice from
the Corporation dated 19-9-1987 is a fabricated
document.
39. The allegation that there was payment of any
portion of the alleged sale consideration from the joint
family funds of the plaintiff's vendor is denied. The
allegation that the plaintiff's vendor obtained a site
from the defendant is denied. There is no such action
taken by the defendant for the bifurcation of the site
into 527A and 527B. Even the alleged facts of the said
bifurcation are both false and untenable.
41 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
40. All the proceedings relating to Khata, licence,
and payment of tax referred to in paragraphs 9 and 10
of the plaint are manipulations. The plaintiff's alleged
vendor put up unauthorised construction in the site
belonging to the defendant. The construction having
been totally unlawful, the recovery of tax by the
Corporation does not legalise it.
41. The defendant pleads that the sale deed dated
25-10-1989, said to have been executed by the
defendant in favour of Suruli Rama Rao Narasimha
Murthy, is a forgery. The references to the dates of
sale on 25-10-1989 and another dated 21-10-1989,
said to have been registered on 24-1-1989, are pure
concoctions and fabrications. The reference to another
sale deed dated 25-10-1989, said to have been
registered on 7-11-1989, in respect of Site No. 527B,
is also the result of sheer concoction and
manipulation. The Khata based on these documents
42 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
has no validity. The payment of taxes does not render
what was invalid as valid.
42. It is false that the plaintiff's vendor raised a
loan by mortgaging the schedule property. The
allegation that the plaintiff's vendor was the lawful
owner of the property is denied. At any rate, the plea
that the plaintiff's vendor has been in peaceful
possession, and what the plaintiff calls physical
possession, is false in fact and untenable in law. Some
trees stood in the site but are not as old as described
in the plaint.
43. All the allegations in the plaint that the vendor
agreed to sell and the plaintiff agreed to buy, and that
an agreement of sale was therefore entered into, are
denied. The sanctions referred to are incorrect and
invalid. The defendant denies all the allegations that
the plaintiff has purchased the A and B schedule
properties, and the documents dated 31-3-1995
referred to in the plaint are false documents. It is false
43 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
that the plaintiff has become the owner by virtue of
these documents. The continuous and uninterrupted
possession referred to in the plaint is also false and
unavailing. By no process known to law has the
plaintiff acquired any title in respect of the A and B
schedule properties.
44. The defendant found that unauthorised
constructions had been raised in its own site. It took
action to demolish the unauthorised construction.
The plaintiff had approached the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka. The writ petitions were disposed of. The
interim order granted by the High Court expired by
efflux of time. The day after this occurred, the
defendant took action to demolish the unauthorised
construction. In fact, the High Court, by its order
dated 28-10-2002, upheld the right of the defendant
to demolish the unauthorised construction on its site.
The defendant has therefore rightly demolished the
unauthorised construction and taken possession of
44 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the site belonging to it. In view of the order of the High
Court dated 28-10-2002, the four weeks expired by
midnight of 24 November 2002. There was no
impediment in law, and therefore, in exercise of its
lawful authority, as affirmed by the order of the
learned single judge, the unauthorised construction
was demolished on the morning of 25 November 2002
and possession of the site was taken over. The
plaintiff therefore cannot claim to be in any sort of
possession of the A and B schedule properties. The
contentions raised by the plaintiff in paragraphs 24,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 are totally
misconceived. The plaintiff has not acquired title by
any process known to law. The defendant has not
been divested of its admitted title by any act, incident,
or transaction. The allegation of the defendant's
knowledge of the possession of the site by the
plaintiff's vendor is incorrect and denied. It is false
that there has been any acquiescence by the
45 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
defendant. The contention of the plaintiff that there is
any dual ownership in law of the site and the building
separately is the plaintiff's own assertion. The plea of
possession set up by the plaintiff is insufficient in law,
ineffective in purpose, and in any event irreconcilable
with the plaintiff's claim to title from an independent
source. The plaintiff cannot be in adverse possession
of its own property. Without admitting the defendant's
title, the plaintiff cannot set up possession in itself.
45. The valuation made by the plaintiff is totally
inadequate, imaginary, and incorrect. The plaintiff has
tried to value the property without reference to the
market value, even of the site itself, on the date of
filing the suit. The plaintiff is bound to properly value
the suit and pay the requisite court fee to pursue the
suit.
46. The defendant pleads and states that there
has not been and could not have been any allotment
of the plaint schedule site by the defendant. A corner
46 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
site could have been sold only by public auction. Not
only is the allotment of the site false in fact, but it is
also invalid in law. The rules did not permit the
allotment of such a site. The authority could not have
ignored its own rules, and no one can place reliance
on such an allotment to set up any valid title. It is
thus clear that the plaintiff's alleged vendor had not
acquired any title in respect of the site. He had no
right to convey any such title to the plaintiff, and the
construction raised by whosoever has been illegal and
unauthorised.
47. Sri Suruli Ram Rao Narasimha Murthy has
been a land grabber of the defendant's properties.
Enquiries by the defendant have revealed that the
said Suruli Rama Rao Narasimha Murthy raised
unauthorised constructions. He has not derived any
title from the defendant. He has been a master
fabricator of documents. He has brought into
existence bogus title deeds, on the basis of which he
47 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
entered into unauthorised possession of various sites.
He created dubious documents and, by fraud, tried to
obtain authorisations and put up constructions. On
19-7-2002, the said Suruli Rama Rao Narasimha
Murthy, alias S.R. Narasimha Murthy, made a
statement before the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Special Task Force. In the signed statement, he
admitted that he had obtained fraudulent documents
of bifurcation and also bogus sale deeds with the
assistance of Ponnappa and Venkat Ramaiah, who
were in the service of the Bangalore Development
Authority. He admitted that there was no application
filed by him to the defendant and that there was no
allotment in his favour by the defendant. He has made
similar confessions in respect of many other sites. In
the circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff has
either colluded with or fallen victim to the illegal acts
of a land grabber. In the circumstances, the plaintiff
48 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
has absolutely no right of possession over the site or
the building.
48. The suit for declaration of title on the twin
grounds of ownership and adverse possession is
illegal, impermissible, and not authorised in law. The
suit for such relief is not maintainable.
49. The suit is not maintainable because there has
been a misjoinder of causes of action. The acquisition
of title under a document and the assertion of a
hostile title being two independent events constituting
separate causes of action, it is impermissible to
combine them in one suit. The suit is liable to be
dismissed because the plaintiff has attempted to
combine two causes of action that are incompatible in
law. The suit for permanent injunction is not
maintainable because the structures that stood on the
A and B schedule properties have been demolished.
As the plaintiff is not in lawful possession, and in fact,
after demolition of the structures, the defendant has
49 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
assumed valid possession and has enclosed the site
with barbed wire fencing. The plaintiff's claim to a
permanent injunction is unavailing in fact and
untenable in law.
50. All other allegations in the plaint not
hereinbefore traversed are denied as absolutely false
and untenable.
51. With these grounds, the defendant, the
Bangalore Development Authority, has prayed that
the suit be dismissed.
52. Basing upon the above pleadings the following
issues were framed on 02-11-2009.
Issue No. 1:- Whether the Plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the Suit 'A' and 'B'
Schedule Properties, having acquired the
title by virtue of a Sale Deed executed by
its vendors?
OR
Whether the Plaintiff in the alternative
proves that it has perfected its title over
the Suit 'A' and 'B' Schedule Properties
by adverse possession, being in
possession continuously,
uninterruptedly, and hostile to the
50 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
interest and knowledge of the Defendant
Authority for more than the statutory
period?
Issue No. 2:- Whether the Plaintiff proves
its lawful possession over the Suit 'A'
and 'B' Schedule Properties as on the
date of the suit?
Issue No. 3:- Whether the Plaintiff
further proves the alleged interference
and obstruction to its possession and
enjoyment of the Suit 'A' and 'B'
Schedule Properties by the Defendant
and its men, and also the attempt of
illegal demolition of the existing
structure in the Suit Schedule
Properties?
Issue No. 4:- Whether the Suit is bad for
mis-joinder of causes of action?
Issue No. 5:- Whether the Suit as
brought is not maintainable for non-
issuance of the statutory notice under
Section 64 of the BDA Act?
Issue No. 6:- Whether the Plaintiff is
entitled to the reliefs of declaration and
permanent injunction as prayed?
Issue No. 7:- What order or decree?
51 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
O.S.NO.9382-2005
The plaintiff in this case is seeking the following relief.
1. For a sum of ₹84,74,490 as damages
with court costs and current interest from
the date of the Suit till the date of
realisation.
2. To direct enquiry into the mesne
profits from the date of the Suit till the
date of payment as provided under Order
20 Rule 12 of C.P.C.
3. And to grant such other consequential
relief as that this court deems fit in the
circumstances of the case and decree the
suit with costs in the interest of justice
and equity.
53. In the suit, the plaintiff has contended that
the plaintiff is a banking company governed by the
provisions of the Companies Act 1956, having its
registered and corporate office at No. 22, Mahatma
Gandhi Road, Bangalore, represented by its Senior
52 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Vice President and power of attorney holder. The
plaintiff has also got its branches throughout India
and its corporate office at the address given above.
The plaintiff is a private sector bank, and has been
extending yeomen services to the public through
offering a wide range of banking facilities, products
and value added services to its customers across the
country. It has been meticulously complying with and
adhering to all the norms fixed by the RBI, BR Act,
State Government, and Central Government in all
respects of its business endeavours and activities,
including its applications concerning their priority
sector advances. The bank has earned a good
reputation for its efficient services all these years. The
Bank has also celebrated 75 years of its existence. It
had occupied the first place among the private sector
banks for nearly one and a half decades in the past.
The bank has attained its pivotal position as a
53 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
servicing bank catering to the needs of the public
among the private sector banks.
54. The bank for over 7 decades has acquired
many properties across the country for its business
purposes and for providing residential accommodation
to its executives and employees. The officers of the
bank through experienced advocates scrutinise the
title deeds of the properties proposed to be purchased
by the bank.
55. The plaintiff submits that during the year
1995, for the purpose of providing residential
accommodation to the then Chairman of the Bank,
the Bank was on the lookout for a suitable property to
be purchased.
56. The plaintiff further submits that while doing
so, the vendor Shri Suruli Rama Rao Narasimha
Murthy, who was the owner of A and B properties,
approached the authorities of the Bank and offered to
sell the schedule properties.
54 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
57. The plaintiff further submits that based on the
representations made by the vendor and upon
verification of the title deeds and other related
documents furnished by the vendor, it was
ascertained that the property bearing site No. 527
situated in 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore was
allotted in favour of Suruli Rama Rao - vendor, by the
first defendant. The vendor was put in possession of
vacant site bearing No. 527/V/72 by the first
defendant under certificate dated 4-6-1976 issued
and duly signed by the Assistant Engineer and
Executive Engineer of the first defendant. Thus, the
vendor had been in physical possession and
enjoyment of the said site, and this was to the
knowledge of the first defendant and to the exclusion
of the first defendant ever since 4-6-1976.
58. The plaintiff submits that the above said site
in the Jayanagar extension has been transferred to
the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, now Bruhat
55 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for its maintenance
and administration, after having developed the
infrastructure and other amenities required under the
provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority
Act, and the rules framed thereunder. It is submitted
that ever since such transfer, the entire maintenance
and administration of the layout including the above
site is coming within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Corporation of the City of Bangalore. The Corporation
of the City of Bangalore has assessed the above site
bearing No. 527, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore to
property tax.
59. In the meanwhile, since a portion or moiety of
the sale consideration for the purchase of the said site
was from the joint family funds, the vendor applied to
the first defendant for bifurcation of the said site No.
527 into 2 sites. Since the first defendant herein was
to execute the absolute sale deed in respect of the
above site, the first defendant bifurcated the above
56 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
site No. 527 and assigned 2 sites as No. 527A and
527B and communicated the same by its
endorsement dated 6-12-1988. The bifurcated site
bearing No. 527A has been recorded and kept in the
name of the vendor in his individual capacity and
insofar as the bifurcated site No. 527B is concerned, it
has been recorded and kept in the name of the vendor
as the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. The City
Survey authorities have surveyed the schedule A and
B properties.
60. The Khata of the above site bearing No. 527 is
transferred to the name of the vendor in the records of
the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, and a
certificate in this regard has been issued by the
Assistant Revenue Officer, Jayanagar, Corporation of
the City of Bangalore on 12-10-1988.
61. The vendor of the said site No. 527 applied to
the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, along with
the plan, for grant of construction licence and also
57 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
approval of the plan. The Deputy Director of Town
Planning of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore
sanctioned the grant of licence and approved the plan
by his communication dated 13-12-1988, for the
purpose of construction of the ground floor and first
floor.
62. The above vendor, after obtaining the
construction licence and approval of the plan,
constructed a building comprising of ground floor and
first floor, and after such completion, the Corporation
of the City of Bangalore issued a special notice dated
25-7-1990 under Section 147, Schedule 3, Part 2,
Rule 9 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act
1976, proposing to assess the building and the site.
63. The vendor has paid the corporation tax in
respect of the building and site to the Corporation of
the City of Bangalore.
64. The plaintiff further submits that the officials
of the first defendant thereafter executed an absolute
58 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
sale deed dated 25-10-1989 in respect of the portion
of the allotted site bearing No. 527 assigned as site
No. 527A after bifurcation, in favour of the vendor.
Under the absolute sale deed, the property bearing
No. 527A situated in 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore,
where the residential house is constructed consisting
of ground floor and first floor, is the Schedule A
property.
65. That the first defendant further executed
another absolute sale deed dated 25-10-1989 in
respect of the remaining portion of site No. 527
assigned as site No. 527B in favour of the vendor, and
the said absolute sale deed is registered on 7-11-1989
in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar. The
property bearing No. 527B after bifurcation is the B
property.
66. That the Khata of the B property has been
transferred to the name of the vendor in the records of
the Corporation of the City of Bangalore. The absolute
59 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
sale deeds executed by the first defendant , registered
in the office of the Registrar, Jayanagar, Bangalore,
have been reflected in the encumbrance certificate
maintained in the said office. The vendor, as stated
above, after obtaining the sanctioned plan, has
constructed the ground and first floor in the schedule
A property and has developed the schedule B property
as a garden. The vendor has paid property tax to the
concerned Corporation of the City of Bangalore in
respect of A and B schedule properties, both as vacant
and subsequently as property with a residential
building, commencing from as early as 1981. The
Corporation of the City of Bangalore has
acknowledged the payment of corporation tax and has
issued receipts for having received the property tax in
respect of schedule properties from the year 1981-
1982. The corporation has issued the receipts in
respect of the said properties. The receipts issued by
60 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the Corporation of the City of Bangalore for the period
from 1981-82 to 2002-2003 are produced.
67. The vendor had raised a loan of ₹37,00,000
from the State Bank of Mysore, Banashankari Branch,
Bangalore, by mortgaging A and B properties. The
vendor along with the members of his family were
living in the house constructed by him in the schedule
A property and using the garden in the B property,
right from the inception of the completion of the
construction. The trees found in the A and B
properties, as can be seen from the photographs, are
more than 20 years old. The vendor was the absolute
owner of A and B scheduled properties and was in
possession of the same from 1-6-1976. The site
allotted in favour of the vendor by the first defendant
had been put to use on 1-8-1976, and he had been in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the entire site,
openly, continuously and uninterruptedly, to the
exclusion of any other person or persons, including
61 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the first defendant, and to the knowledge of the first
defendant.
68. That the vendor further offered to sell A and B
schedule properties to the plaintiff and agreed to give
vacant possession of the schedule properties. The
authorities of the plaintiff, after having inspected A
and B properties and scrutinised the documents of
title which were in the custody of the State Bank of
Mysore, agreed to purchase the A schedule property
for a total sale consideration of ₹70,00,000 and the B
schedule property for a total consideration of
₹48,00,000, free from encumbrance, after discharging
the mortgage of the schedule property existing in
favour of the State Bank of Mysore, Banashankari
Branch, Bangalore.
69. The plaintiff further submits that upon
exercising due care and diligence in verifying and
scrutinising all the documents of title in favour of the
vendor, including the encumbrance certificates up to
62 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the date of purchase and other related records and
representations furnished by the vendor in respect of
A and B schedule properties, and after obtaining the
necessary legal opinion from the legal advisor of the
plaintiff as to the marketable title of the vendor to the
A and B properties, the plaintiff agreed to purchase A
and B schedule properties for the above
considerations.
70. The plaintiff further submits that during the
relevant point of time in the year 1994, when the
vendor offered to sell A and B schedule properties to
the plaintiff, the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling
and Regulation Act, 1976 and the provisions of
Section 269UL(1) of the Income Tax Act were in force.
The plaintiff further submits that consequent upon
the vendor offering to sell A and B properties and the
plaintiff agreeing to purchase the same, and in
continuation thereof, the plaintiff and the vendor
entered into an agreement of sale on 22-6-1994,
63 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
wherein the vendor offered to sell A and B schedule
properties in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff
agreed to purchase A and B schedule properties for
the sale considerations as mentioned above, subject to
the vendor obtaining appropriate permission from the
appropriate authority under Section 269UL(1) of the
Income Tax Act and also a declaration from the Urban
Land Authority. The agreements were witnessed by
the State Bank of Mysore, who were at that point of
time the mortgagees of the scheduled properties.
71. The vendor and the plaintiff accordingly
applied to the appropriate authority under the Income
Tax Act on 30-6-1994, and the appropriate authority
accorded permission for the sale consideration
reflected in the agreement of sale.
72. That thereafter, the vendor, after receiving the
sale consideration from the plaintiff, executed two sale
deeds in favour of the plaintiff in respect of A and B
properties after redeeming the mortgage loan payable
64 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
to the State Bank of Mysore, Banashankari Branch,
Bangalore. The vendor executed a sale deed dated 31-
3-1995 in respect of the A property in the name of the
plaintiff, registered as document No. 4190 of 1994-95,
registered in the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara,
Bangalore City, and the plaintiff was put in physical
possession of the schedule A property pursuant to the
sale deed in its favour. Similarly, the vendor executed
another sale deed dated 31-3-1995 in respect of the B
property in favour of the plaintiff and the same has
been registered in the same office, and the plaintiff
has been put in possession of the B property. The
plaintiff has become the absolute owner of A and B
properties and has been in physical possession of the
same openly, continuously and uninterruptedly, to
the exclusion of the first defendant and to the
knowledge of the first defendant. The plaintiff's
possession of A and B properties dates back to the
possession and enjoyment of A and B properties by
65 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the vendor when he was in possession of the entire
site in the year 1976, to the knowledge of the first
defendant. Having confirmed its peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the A and B properties when the two
absolute sale deeds were executed in the plaintiff's
favour, and when the vendor constructed the
residential building in the A property and developed
the B schedule property as a garden after securing the
construction licence and the approval of the plan, and
when he along with his family members continuously,
openly, uninterruptedly and exclusively lived in A
schedule and B properties, the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the plaintiff is open, continuous and
to the exclusion of the first defendant and to the
knowledge of the first defendant from the year 1976.
Further, the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
A and B properties by the plaintiff and its vendor as
stated above is open, continuous and to the exclusion
of the first defendant for over a statutory period of 12
66 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
years, and thus the plaintiff has perfected its title in
respect of A and B schedule properties. The plaintiff,
after purchasing the A and B schedule properties, has
exercised all rights of ownership, title and interest in
the A and B properties and is in physical possession
of the same. The schedule properties have been all
along used by the plaintiff for providing residential
accommodation to its Chairman and Managing
Director with their family members and also used for
the purpose of accommodating its executives.
73. The plaintiff further submits that they
purchased A and B properties for valuable
consideration and has been in physical possession
and enjoyment, to the exclusion of the defendants,
continuously as stated above for over the statutory
period. The defendants have no right, title or interest
in the A and B properties. The Khata of A and B
schedule properties has been transferred to the name
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser
67 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
of A and B properties for valuable consideration and
has been in settled possession of the same without
notice of any alleged claim of the first defendant and
its Commissioner, the second defendant.
74. That when the matter stood thus, on
26-07-2002 at about 4 P.M., some officials of the first
defendant came near the schedule A and B properties
and, to the hearing of the occupants in the A and B
properties, proclaimed that the structure in the A and
B properties would be demolished and they would
take possession of A and B properties within a couple
of days. The occupants of A and B properties enquired
with the officials of the first defendant as to their
identity and the reason why they should take such
action. They refused to disclose their identity and also
refused to furnish any details of the action
contemplated against the plaintiff in respect of A and
B schedule properties. However, the officials of the
first defendant intimated the occupants that no notice
68 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
would be given or served on the occupants before
taking action to demolish the structure in the A and B
schedule properties.
75. That on 27-7-2002 at about 1 P.M., the
second defendant rang up the Managing Director of
the plaintiff and threatened that they would demolish
the structure in the schedule properties by using a
bulldozer and that the plaintiff would face the
consequences. The plaintiff submits that it
apprehended danger from the hands of the defendants
as there was an imminent threat from the defendants
to demolish the structure by taking law into their own
hands, unauthorisedly, without any notice and
without following due process of law, or attempting to
take away the right of the plaintiff under Article 300A
of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it became
necessary for the plaintiff to file a petition in respect of
A and B scheduled properties in Petition No. 28601-
28602/2002 on 29-7-2002 before the High Court of
69 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Karnataka for issue of a writ of mandamus or
appropriate writ, order or direction, preventing the
first defendant and its officials from demolishing the
structure in the A and B schedule properties, and also
prayed for an ad interim order. The Managing Director
filed an affidavit in the writ petition. The Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka was pleased to pass an order on
29-7-2002 against the defendants, preventing the
defendants and their officials or any person or
persons claiming under the defendants from
demolishing the structure in the A and B properties
for a period of 2 weeks. The interim order granted on
29-7-2002 had been in force throughout the
proceedings. The defendants, after service of the
notice in the writ petition, filed a statement of
objections, and thereafter the plaintiff filed rejoinder
copies of the petition. The plaintiff further submits
that it has paid water charges, electricity bills and
telephone bills.
70 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
76. That the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
heard the arguments on merits and passed a
judgement on 28-10-2002 in Petition No. 28601-
28602 of 2002, holding that the matter is fully
covered by the ratio of the decision in the case of John
B. James and Others v. BDA reported in ILR 2000
Karnataka 4131, and also observed that several legal
contentions were raised in the said Division Bench
judgement, and one among them, which is relevant for
the disposal of the present case, is that it was
contended that some of the petitioners were in open,
peaceful, uninterrupted possession for more than 12
years and had perfected title by adverse possession
and therefore cannot be forcefully dispossessed and
their buildings cannot be demolished without
recourse to law. Accordingly, while disposing the
above petitions, the High Court of Karnataka passed
an order restraining the Bangalore Development
Authority, the first defendant, from taking action to
71 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
demolish the structure in the A and B properties in
question for a period of 4 weeks to facilitate the
plaintiff to seek such remedy as is open to the
plaintiff. Therefore, it can be seen that throughout the
proceedings when the matter was pending in the High
Court of Karnataka, there was an order against the
first defendant restraining them from demolishing the
structure in the A and B properties, and the
judgement of the High Court of Karnataka also
directed restraining the first defendant from taking
any action to demolish the structure in the A and B
properties.
77. That the High Court of Karnataka, while
disposing Petition No. on 28-10-2002, was pleased to
extend the interim order restraining the first
defendant or its officials from demolishing the
structure available on the property in question for a
period of 4 weeks, and also, at the same time,
appreciating the contention of the plaintiff that it is a
72 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
matter in which evidence has to be recorded, the High
Court directed the plaintiff to seek such remedy as is
open to the plaintiff before the appropriate forum. The
interim order was extended and remained in existence
up to midnight on 25-11-2002. In the meanwhile, as
per the orders of the High Court, the plaintiff filed a
suit on 16-11-2002 in O.S. No. 7738 of 2002 before
the City Civil Judge for declaration of title over the
schedule property and for permanent injunction
against the first defendant and its officials, restraining
them from interfering with the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff also filed
an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C.
for interim injunction restraining the BDA from
interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the schedule properties and also not to
demolish any structure thereon. Since the first
defendant BDA had filed a caveat, a copy of the plaint
with the interlocutory application was served on the
73 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
advocate for BDA, intimating that the City Civil Court
would take up the suit on 18-11-2002.
78. The plaintiff submits that when the suit came
up for hearing on 18 November 2002 at 3 P.M. before
the Civil Court, the advocate for BDA sought time for
filing a written statement and objections. The plaintiff
objected to granting any time since the matter
required urgent consideration, but the advocate for
BDA submitted that the order passed by the High
Court of Karnataka in Petition No. 28601-602/2002
on 28 October 2002, restraining the BDA from taking
any action to demolish the property for a period of 4
weeks, would be in operation till midnight of 25
November 2002, and nothing will happen to the
plaintiff's property if time is granted till 25 November
2002. Though the plaintiff's advocate wanted the case
to be posted at least on 23 November 2002, the City
Civil Court, taking cognizance of the representation
made by the counsel as regards the restraint order
74 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
passed by the High Court on 28-10-2002 and the
specific request made by the counsel for BDA for
adjournment with the assurance that nothing will
happen till 25-11-2002, posted the case on 25
November 2002 for hearing the matter.
79. The plaintiff further submits that as things
stood as above, the defendants, being fully aware of
the fact that the restraint order was in force till
midnight 25-11-2002, with the sole object of defeating
and frustrating the efforts of the plaintiff from seeking
suitable relief and remedy available to the plaintiff in
law, and also to defeat the very purpose of protection
granted by the High Court of Karnataka by the order
mentioned above, the second defendant, the
Commissioner of BDA, taking law into his hands with
total disregard and scant respect to the orders of the
High Court of Karnataka, in the early morning hours
of 25-11-2002, personally came to the schedule
property with a police squad, a number of workers
75 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
and a bulldozer, and silently and unlawfully started to
demolish the building situated in the schedule
property. The plaintiff immediately, along with its
advocate, rushed to the spot and apprised the
defendant No. 2, who was present at the spot, by
bringing to his notice the operative portion of the
order of the High Court that the order passed in the
above petition restraining the first defendant and its
officials from demolishing the building would be in
force and would expire at midnight of 25-11-2002,
and requested him to stop the operation at least for a
few hours as the civil case filed by the plaintiff against
the first defendant was to be taken up for hearing on
the very same day at about 11 A.M. But the defendant
No. 2 did not pay any heed to the request; on the
contrary, he yelled at the officials of the plaintiff
stating that "you went to the court when I asked you
to vacate" and sarcastically directed the advocate to
approach the court and seek whatever relief was
76 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
possible, and demolished the whole building with the
assistance of the bulldozer and also damaged all the
movable property and equipment available in the
building, in spite of the fact that the stay order was in
operation and a copy of the said order was shown to
him.
80. That Section 29 of the BDA Act empowers the
Commissioner of BDA to perform the duties of the
Commissioner of the City of Bangalore under the
Corporation Act, provided that the Corporation shall
be consulted before making such declaration, if such
area or part thereof lies within the limits of the City of
Bangalore. Admittedly, the property at the time of
demolition was within the limits of the Bangalore City
Corporation, and the property was transferred by the
first defendant to the Corporation for administration.
Unless there is a notification with the consent of the
Corporation, the second defendant had no jurisdiction
to demolish the property. The procedure contemplated
77 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
under the Corporation Act for demolishing any
unauthorised construction is as follows: under
Section 321(1) of the Act, a provisional order should
be made and be served on the party along with a show
cause notice, and under Section 321, sub-section 2 of
the Act, after receiving the objections and hearing the
parties, the second defendant can pass the final order
under Section 321, sub-section 3 of the Act. Such
procedure was not adopted by the second defendant,
and even such an order is liable to be challenged
under Section 444 of the Corporation Act by way of
appeal before the Standing Committee, or now under
Section 443A of the Act, before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal. The order passed under Section
444 or 443A of the Act is final to the Commissioner,
referring the matter to the Corporation within 60
days. Further, the provisions of Section 461 of the Act
make it clear that the Commissioner, after giving an
opportunity by way of a show cause notice, should
78 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
pass an order, without which he has no right to pass
an order.
81. The defendants have no jurisdiction to
demolish any portion of the property as there is no
declaration by the BDA in consultation with the
Corporation, empowering the second defendant to
discharge the functions of the Commissioner of the
Corporation for the area in which the premises in
question are situated. The second defendant has not
adopted the procedure as contemplated under the
Corporation Act for demolition; hence, their action is
illegal and without jurisdiction.
82. It is further submitted that assuming without
admitting that, in the event the first defendant puts
forward a plea that it is the owner of the property and
they have demolished the building, it is submitted by
the plaintiff that the same also cannot be
maintainable in law in this case, because if the first
defendant wants to claim that it is the owner of the
79 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
land bearing No. 527 A and B and that the plaintiff is
an unauthorised occupant, it is mandatory on the
part of the first defendant to initiate proceedings
through a competent officer as contemplated under
the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974. In fact, it is
mandatory under Section 4 of the said Act. The
competent officer appointed under Section 3 of the Act
shall issue a show cause notice in writing, calling
upon all the persons concerned to show cause why an
order of eviction should not be made. As per the
provisions, the notice shall specify the grounds on
which the order of eviction is proposed to be made,
and it should be served on all persons who claim
interest, and the mode of serving the notices is also
described. After obtaining the objections, and under
Section 5 of the Act after recording the evidence, the
competent officer either rejects the application or
passes an order of eviction, but also cannot execute
80 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the order for 45 days, and the aggrieved person has
the right to file an appeal under Section 10 of the Act.
After the said order, he can approach the High Court
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India. Thus, giving an opportunity is incumbent on
the part of the competent officer to follow the
procedure stated above. It is only the competent
officer who is competent to pass the order and take
possession. The second defendant has nothing to do
with it. The competent officer has not issued any show
cause notice. No proceedings have been taken under
the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1974. On the contrary,
single-handedly, the property was demolished by the
defendants without taking possession through the
process of law.
83. In several cases, the Supreme Court has held
that even if the Act does not provide for giving any
notice or opportunity, still, under the principles of
81 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
natural justice, before taking any action where there
are civil consequences, an opportunity should be
given. This applies not only to judicial or quasi-
judicial bodies, but even in administrative matters,
the principles of natural justice should be followed,
and it is fundamental. In fact, even under the
Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1974 itself, the Supreme Court of
India held that without adopting the procedure under
the said Act, if the authority demolishes the building
and takes possession, it is illegal and the Supreme
Court directed the authority to restore possession of
the property to the person from whom possession was
taken, and to deliver back the movable property and
also pay the costs.
84. The act of the first defendant as well as the
second defendant is without restriction, without any
authority, and it is against the provisions of the Act
and the principles of natural justice. In fact, in this
82 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
case, when the High Court of Karnataka had granted
4 weeks' time directing the Bank to approach the
appropriate forum, the order was in operation when
the second defendant, without any jurisdiction,
brought the police force, workers and a bulldozer and
demolished the building. Such an act is not an act in
the discharge of his duty. He cannot claim rescue or
protection under Section 61 of the BDA Act.
85. The second defendant has not discharged his
duty in the course of his employment. On the
contrary, taking law into his own hands and against
the order passed by the court, and with the matter
pending in the civil suit, without waiting for any
decision, he has exceeded his power and got the
building demolished. Hence, he is personally liable
along with the first defendant for paying
compensation to the plaintiff.
86. That aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the
first defendant, the plaintiff filed a contempt petition
83 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
in Case No. 1535-36 of 2002 on 18-12-2002, praying
that the High Court initiate contempt proceedings
against the defendants. (which is disposed of as per
Ex.P. 193)
87. The Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in the
above contempt case C.C.C.No.1535-36/2002
subsequently renumbered as C.C.C. No. 1535/2002
(civil) has passed a judgment/order on 28-9-2006
holding that the complainant ING Vysya bank limited
in the aforesaid contempt case has proved the charges
levelled against the accused in the contempt case who
are the defendants No. 1 & 2 in the above suit holding
guilty of contempt of the hon'ble High court of
Karnataka punishable under section 12 of the
contempt of court Act and after herein the accused in
the aforesaid contempt case regarding the sentence to
be imposed has passed an order sentencing the
defendants 1 & 2/accused No. 1 & 2 sentencing them
to pay fine of ₹ 10,000/- each and in default of
84 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
payment of the afore said amount of fine by the
defendants the second defendant should under go
simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to be
kept in civil prison. The hon'ble High court of
Karnataka has recorded a finding that the evidence on
record and the documents proceed by the
complainant/plaintiff establishing that accused No. 2
in the contempt case, who is the defendant in the
above case has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the
court order by demolishing the disputed building
when a prohibitive court order against such
defendants was very much in force. The court has
further hold that demotion of the building is nothing
but a high handed Act of defendant No. 2/accused No.
2, Jayakar Jerome.
88. That a statutory notice has been issued to the
first defendant as required under the provisions of
Section 64 of the BDA Act. In the said notice, the
second defendant has also been notified that the
85 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
action of the second defendant in demolishing the
structure in A and B properties is illegal and
unauthorised, and he is also liable to reimburse the
plaintiff the value of the structure that existed in the
A and B scheduled properties. The statutory notice
has been sent to the first defendant and the second
defendant by registered post with acknowledgement
due. Further, a copy of the notice was also served on
the first defendant personally on 24-10-2005. The
statutory notice sent through registered post with
acknowledgement due was served on the first
defendant on 24-10-2005, and the notice sent to the
second defendant was served on 25-10-2005. The
second defendant has sent a reply denying his
liability.
89. The defendants have unauthorisedly and
illegally, without authority, demolished the structures
in the A and B scheduled properties, thereby causing
a loss of ₹38,00,490 to the plaintiff. The estimation of
86 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the value of the property demolished is produced. The
estimation produced clearly shows the extent of the
structure and the value of the structure, and the
photographs produced also support the extent of the
structure unauthorisedly and illegally demolished by
the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to
recover damages of ₹38,00,490, being the value of the
structures in the A and B properties, and the
defendants are jointly and severally liable to
reimburse the value of the structures demolished by
them unauthorisedly and illegally without authority.
90. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover
damages by way of mesne profits in respect of the
structures in the A and B schedule properties
unauthorisedly and illegally demolished by the
defendants from the date of demolition, namely 25-11-
2002, up to the date of the suit. The plaintiff should
have been paid at least a fair rent of ₹1,20,000 per
month with an increased rent of 7.5 percent every
87 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
year from November 2002 in respect of such
demolished property. As the plaintiff had to secure
such a building on lease, the plaintiff should have
spent the sum of ₹46,44,000 by way of damages as
rent to secure structures equivalent to the A and B
properties on monthly tenancy on the above formula.
Therefore, the defendants No. 1 and 2, having
unauthorisedly and illegally demolished the
structures in the A and B properties without
authority, are liable to pay damages by way of mesne
profits in the sum of ₹46,44,000 from 25-11-2002 to
the date of the suit, as per the assessment of rental
value assisted by the architect which has been
produced by the plaintiff. The above amount is
included in the total damages claimed against the
defendants. The plaintiff is also entitled to an enquiry
into the mesne profits during the pendency of the suit
till the date of disposal of the suit as provided under
the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 of C.P.C.
88 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
91. That the claim made by way of damages in the
statutory notice sent to the defendants was a sum of
₹3 crores, but however, the plaintiff is restricting its
claim by way of damages comprising the value of the
demolished building in schedule A and B properties
and also damages by way of mesne profits, totalling a
sum of ₹84,44,490.
92. The plaintiff is also entitled to claim a sum of
₹30,000 being notice charges caused to the
defendants. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to a
judgement and decree against the defendants jointly
and severally for a sum of ₹84,74,490. The defendants
are jointly and severally liable to pay the sum of
₹84,74,490 as mentioned to the plaintiff.
93. The cause of action for this suit arose on 25-
11-2002 when the defendants illegally and
unauthorisedly, without authority, demolished the
structures on A and B scheduled properties, and on
20-10-2005 when the plaintiff caused notice to be
89 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
sent to the first defendant and also a notice to the
second defendant, and on 24-11-2005 when the
statutory notice was served on the first defendant and
on 25-11-2005 when the notice was served on the
second defendant, making a demand for payment of
the value of structures on the A and B schedule
properties, and subsequently within the jurisdiction of
this court.
94. With these contentions, the plaintiff has
prayed to decree the suit.
95. The first defendant has filed the written
statement contending that the suit is false, frivolous,
vexatious, and the same is not maintainable either in
law or on facts, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
96. The suit is bad in law for want of notice as
contemplated under Section 64 of the BDA Act;
therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected on that
score alone.
90 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
97. The plaintiff is a private sector bank, which
was admittedly not in existence as on the date of the
alleged cause of action for the above suit. Therefore,
the suit is untenable and is liable to be dismissed.
98. The defendant further submits that the suit is
barred by time. There is absolutely no ground for any
extension of the period of limitation of 1 year from the
date of cause of action. Therefore, the claim of the
plaintiff is unsustainable in law and the suit is liable
to be dismissed.
99. The allegations made in para No. 5 and 6 of
the plaint that the plaintiff's vendor was the absolute
owner of plaint A and B scheduled properties are
denied. The allegation of the plaintiff's contention that
site bearing No. 527, 5th Block Jayanagar, Bangalore,
was allotted in favour of Suruli Ram Rao Narasimha
Murthy is absolutely false and untenable. It is false
that he was put in possession of the vacant site
bearing No. 527-VI-172 by the defendant under the
91 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
possession certificate dated 4-6-1976. The alleged
signature of the Assistant Engineer and Executive
Engineer is a forgery. The alleged physical possession
of the plaintiff's vendor from 4-6-1976 is denied.
100. The averments made in para No. 7 of the
plaint are false and concocted. Though Jayanagar
Extension was transferred to the Corporation of the
City of Bangalore for maintenance, the allegation that
it could have assessed site No. 527 to property tax is
incorrect and invalid. The Bangalore City Corporation
could not have taxed a property that belongs to the
defendant. The special notice dated 19-9-1987 alleged
to have been issued by the Corporation is a fabricated
document.
101. The allegations made in para No. 8 of the
plaint that there was payment of any portion of the
alleged consideration from the joint family funds of
the plaintiff's vendor is denied as false. The allegation
that the plaintiff's vendor got the site by bifurcation
92 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
from this defendant is false. There is no such action
taken by this defendant for the bifurcation of the site
into 527A and 527B. Even the cause and effect of the
said bifurcation are both false and untenable.
102. The allegations made in para No. 9 and 10 of
the plaint relating to the Khatha, licence, and
payment of tax are manipulations. The plaintiff's
alleged vendor put up an unauthorised construction
in the site belonging to this defendant. The
constructions having been totally unlawful, the
recovery of tax by the Corporation as alleged does not
legalise it.
103. The averments made in para No. 11 to 16 are
all in pursuance of false, concocted, and forged
documents which do not create any title or interest of
any nature in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted
that the sale deed dated 25-10-1989 said to have been
executed by the defendant in favour of Suruli Ram
Rao Narasimha Murthy is a forgery. The reference to
93 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the dates of sale on 25-10-1989 and another dated
21-10-1989 said to have been registered on 24-1-1989
are pure concoctions and patently fabricated. The
reference to another sale dated 25-10-1989, registered
on 11-10-1989, in respect of site No. 527B is also the
result of concoction and manipulation. The Khatha
based on these documents has no validity, and
payment of taxes does not render what was invalid as
valid. It is also false that the plaintiff's vendor has
raised a loan by mortgage of the schedule property.
The plaintiff's vendor had no right, title, or interest
over the schedule property. The plea that the
plaintiff's vendor has been in peaceful possession and
what the plaintiff calls physical possession is false in
fact and unsustainable in law. Some trees/plants
stood in the site but are not old as described in the
plaint.
104. The averments made in para No. 17 to 20 of
the plaint are false, baseless, and concocted. The
94 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
plaintiff has approached this court making false
claims based on forged and fabricated documents. It
is false to state that the vendor agreed to sell and the
plaintiff agreed to buy, and that therefore an
agreement of sale was entered into. The alleged
sanctions referred to are incorrect and invalid. This
defendant denies the allegations that the plaintiff has
purchased the schedule A and B properties under any
sale deed. The documents dated 31-3-1995 referred to
in the plaint are false documents. It is false that the
plaintiff has become the owner by any title derived
under the alleged document. The continuous and
uninterrupted possession referred to in the plaint is
false and unavailing. By no process known to law has
the plaintiff acquired any title in respect of schedule A
and B properties. The plea of adverse possession set
up by the plaintiff is insufficient in law, ineffective in
purpose, and in any case irreconcilable with the
plaintiff's claim to title from an independent source.
95 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
The plaintiff cannot claim to be in adverse possession
of its own property. Without admitting the defendant's
title, the plaintiff cannot set up adverse possession
against it.
105. The allegations made in para No. 21 to 23 of
the plaint are false and concocted only to suit the
convenience of the plaintiff with ulterior motives and
for wrongful gain. It is submitted that this defendant
found that unauthorised constructions were raised in
its own sites and it took action to demolish the said
unauthorised construction. The plaintiff had
approached the High Court in writ proceedings and
the said petitions were disposed of. The interim order
granted by the High Court expired by efflux of time. A
day after this occurred, this defendant took action to
demolish the unauthorised construction. In fact, the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, by its order dated
28-10-2002, upheld the right of this defendant to
demolish unauthorised construction in its sites. This
96 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
defendant has therefore rightly demolished the
unauthorised construction and taken possession of
the site belonging to it. In view of the order of the High
Court dated 28-10-2002, from that date 4 weeks
expired by midnight of 24-11-2002. There was no
impediment in law, and therefore in exercise of its
lawful authority, affirmed by the order of the learned
single judge, the unauthorised construction was
demolished on 25-11-2002 and possession of the site
was taken over. The plaintiff therefore cannot claim to
be in any sort of possession of plaint A or B schedule
properties.
106. The allegations made in para No. 24 to 31 of
the plaint are concocted and false, to suit the
convenience of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the
learned single judge, while disposing of the writ
petition referred to above, followed the decision of the
Division Bench reported in ILR 2000 Part 4 Karnataka
4134. It is clear from the order of the learned single
97 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
judge that the BDA was restrained from taking any
action to demolish the structure in question for a
period of 4 weeks from the date of announcement of
the order. The order was pronounced on 28-10-2002.
The period of 4 weeks granted by the court includes
the date of pronouncement of the order. The time
granted by the court expired on 24-11-2002, and this
defendant demolished the structures on the morning
of 25-11-2002, which is not in dispute. The Vysya
Bank has filed a suit in O.S. No. 7738 of 2002 before
the Additional City Civil Court against this defendant
in respect of the property. This defendant is
contesting the suit by filing a written statement and
the same is pending for adjudication. It is denied that
the advocate for BDA in the said suit made a
submission that the order of the High Court would be
in operation till midnight of 25-11-2002. The advocate
of BDA has not made such submissions as alleged.
The learned advocate for BDA has also not made any
98 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
request for postponing the matter to 25-11-2002 and
has not given any assurance that nothing would
happen on 25-11-2002 as alleged by the plaintiff.
Further, it is denied that the time granted in the writ
petition expired at midnight of 25-11-2002 and that
this defendant has taken the law into its own hands.
This defendant has great respect and regard for orders
of the court and has not disobeyed the orders passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. This
defendant has acted in accordance with law and has
repossessed the public property.
107. This defendant pleads that there has not been
and could not have been any allotment of the plaint
site by the defendant. The corner site could have been
sold only by public auction. Not only is the allotment
of the site false in fact, but it is also invalid in law.
The rules do not permit the allotment of such a site.
The Authority could not have ignored the rules, and
no claimant can place reliance on such an allotment
99 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
to set up any valid title. It is thus clear that the
plaintiff's alleged vendor had not acquired any title in
respect of the site and had no right to convey any
such title to the plaintiff. The construction raised by
whosoever has been illegal and unauthorised. It is
further submitted that the alleged vendor of the
plaintiff has been a land grabber of this defendant's
property. Enquiries by this defendant have revealed
that the plaintiff's vendor has put up several
unauthorised constructions, though he had not
derived any title from this defendant. The vendor of
the plaintiff, Shri Suruli Ram Rao Narasimha Murthy,
has been a master fabricator of documents and has
brought into existence bogus titles on the basis of
which he entered into unauthorised occupation of
various sites belonging to this defendant. Cases have
been registered against the said person for
prosecution.
100 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
108. The first defendant further submits that
admittedly the suit in O.S. No. 7738 of 2002 is
pending for adjudication for the relief of declaration of
ownership and permanent injunction. The said suit is
contested on merits. As the plaintiff has no right, title,
or interest over the scheduled properties, it is not
entitled to claim any damages, much less the amount
claimed in the above suit against this defendant. The
plaintiff is also not in possession of the schedule
property as on date; therefore, this defendant is not
liable to pay the damages as claimed by the plaintiff.
109. It is further submitted that the second
defendant has discharged his statutory duties in
protecting the property of this defendant. The first
defendant has not violated any of the provisions of law
or rules. The action taken by the second defendant is
therefore in accordance with law, and therefore
neither the first defendant nor the second defendant
101 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
is liable to pay the damages as alleged/claimed by the
plaintiff.
110. There is no cause of action for the suit, and
the alleged cause of action in para No. 40 of the plaint
is false and is invented only for the purpose of this
case.
111. With these and other contentions, the first
defendant has prayed to dismiss the suit.
112. The second defendant has also filed the
written statement. In the written statement, the
defendant No. 2 has contended that the suit filed by
the plaintiff is not maintainable against the second
defendant. The suit is ill-conceived and erroneous.
The plaintiff, who claims to be a bank of high
reputation, should set an example by realising its
mistake. It is unfortunate that the plaintiff, claiming
to be a bank of high repute, is pursuing a course
which does not enhance its image. By abusing the
process, the plaintiff intends to justify its act of
102 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
buying immovable property without securing its
marketable title. By filing a reckless suit, the act of
the plaintiff cannot get corrected.
113. The plaintiff, who is involved in banking
business, is not alien to the study of tracing title with
respect to immovable property. The principles
governing the relationship between the plaintiff and
its customers when immovable property is considered
for the grant of a loan or any other purpose are also
equally applicable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff as a
banker will definitely not appreciate its customers
offering properties whose title is defective and
thereafter pursuing a course which precipitates the
wrong further.
114. The suit schedule property is out of land
which was acquired by the first defendant. When the
suit scheduled property was with the first defendant,
the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 7738 of 2002, which is
pending, seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the
103 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
owner of the suit property. The suit in its present form
is not maintainable. Whether the plaintiff is the owner
of the suit property is itself in doubt until O.S. No.
7738 of 2002 is decided.
115. Even on reading the plaint itself, it is clear
from para Nos. 23, 27 and 29 that it is to the
knowledge of the plaintiff that the title of the schedule
property in favour of the plaintiff is doubtful. Even
raising such an argument for the sake of argument
clearly confirms that the plaintiff does not have title to
the suit property. The suit property vests with the first
defendant.
116. Viewed from any angle, the suit filed by the
plaintiff against the second defendant is not
maintainable and untenable in the eye of law. In the
circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs.
117. The allegation that in respect of property
bearing site No. 527 situated in 5th Block, Jayanagar,
104 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Bangalore, there was any allotment in favour of one
Sri. Suruli Ram Rao Narasimha Murthy is absolutely
false and untenable. There was neither any such
allotment; in fact, no such action was valid in law.
The said person referred to by the plaintiff as vendor
secured no legal title.
118. The averments made in paragraphs 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are based on false and
concocted documents which do not convey transfer of
any right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff.
119. The averments made in para No. 17 are
apparently false. The allegation that the plaintiff had
exercised due care and diligence in verifying and
scrutinising the documents of title of its vendor is
without any merit. No such verification can be valid
when it has not noticed the apparent defects,
suspicious dealings, lame excuses and fraudulent
documents in and regarding the conduct of the
105 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
plaintiff's vendor. Therefore, the contents urged in this
behalf are absolutely untenable.
120. All other averments made in para No. 19 are
again based on false documents. The context in which
the plaintiff has pleaded possession of the schedule
property suggests that the plaintiff is pleading adverse
possession. Such a plea is not available to the plaintiff
against this defendant. Adverse possession cannot be
raised in the plaint. There is no such declaration by
any competent court. The plaintiff does not have any
right, title or interest of whatsoever nature in the suit
property.
121. All other averments made in para Nos. 22, 23,
24, 25 and 26 are matters between the plaintiff and
the first defendant. In any event and in any context, if
the same are attempted to be used against the second
defendant, the allegations are each specifically denied
as false and untrue. The plaintiff had approached the
High Court, and the High Court judgment dated
106 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
28-10-2002 in Writ Petition Nos. 28601-28602 of
2002 upheld the legality of the first defendant's action
to demolish the building. In fact, the relief sought in
the petition was in the nature of a mandamus
directing the first defendant not to demolish the
building, on the ground that such authority was
lacking in the first defendant. The court did not
uphold such a contention. Therefore, the allegation of
the plaintiff that the demolition of the structure had
been made by the first defendant by taking the law
into its own hands, unauthorisedly, without any
notice and without following due process, and thereby
attempting to take away the right of the plaintiff under
Article 300A of the Constitution of India, is wholly
unsupportable. From the admitted position, the order
passed in Writ Petition Nos. 28601-28602 of 2002
dated 28-10-2002 gave full recognition to the
statutory power and authority of the first defendant to
107 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
demolish the structure. In view of this, defendant Nos.
1 and 2 have not committed any wrong.
122. The second defendant is not personally liable
to pay, along with the first defendant, any
compensation to the plaintiff. In any event, the
plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation. The
allegation that the second defendant has not
discharged his duty in the course of his employment
and that the second defendant has taken the law into
his own hands and has acted against the orders of the
High Court and the civil court by misusing his power
is specifically denied as false and untrue. The
statutory notice issued by the plaintiff to the first
defendant cannot constitute notice to the second
defendant. In the circumstances, the said notice is not
a notice in the eye of law with respect to the second
defendant.
123. The plaintiff is not entitled to the sum of
₹84,74,490 as claimed. The second defendant is not
108 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
liable to pay, either jointly or severally, any amount to
the plaintiff as claimed.
124. The valuation of the suit for the purpose of
court fee is erroneous. The court fee paid is grossly
insufficient.
125. There is no cause of action for the suit, and
the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
No cause of action arose on 25-11-2002, as the
demolition of the structure by the defendant was
neither illegal nor unauthorised. The issue of notice
does not constitute a cause of action. The provision
for service of statutory notice on the first defendant
has no relevance insofar as the suit filed against the
second defendant is concerned. The suit filed against
the second defendant is clearly barred by time. There
is absolutely no ground for extension of time for one
year from the date of demolition of the structure on
25-11-2002.
109 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
126. In respect of official acts done by the second
defendant, there is a specific bar to filing this suit.
Since what has been alleged to have been done by the
second defendant is clearly pleaded in the plaint as
having been done under the authority of his office,
there is no cause of action for the suit. The act of the
defendant in demolishing the structure was entirely
for and on behalf of the first defendant in discharge of
his official duties, and as held by the judgment of the
court in Writ Petition Nos. 28601-28602 of 2002, the
validity of the action of demolishing the structures
was clearly upheld. The law, being Section 61 of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, has clearly
saved the acts of commission and omission of the
second defendant performed during the office he held
under the first defendant. Therefore, the suit for
recovery of damages against him falls within the
category of suits expressly barred. Therefore, this
court has no jurisdiction to try the suit or grant any
110 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
relief to the plaintiff. On this ground, the second
defendant has prayed for rejection of the suit.
127. The second defendant has also filed an
additional statement on 2-6-2008, contending that
the averments made in para No. 33A of the plaint as
to the proceedings in C.C.C. No. 1535 of 2002 (Civil)
and the order dated 28-8-2006 are matters of record,
and any averments made in para No. 33A which are
contrary to the judgment are hereby denied as false.
This defendant has acted within his authority only
after reaching the conclusion that the plaintiff did not
have valid and subsisting title over the suit property.
The second defendant submits that the documents on
which the plaintiff has placed reliance were concocted
and fabricated. The first defendant, being an
authority, had reached a conclusion that the plaintiff
did not possess valid title, right and interest over the
suit properties. This defendant has acted in
accordance with the best interests of the first
111 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
defendant. The first defendant alone has recognised
the act of this defendant as having requisite authority.
In the circumstances, it is pertinent to note that even
the fine imposed by the High Court was paid by the
first defendant. Such being the case, fastening any
liability on this defendant as prayed in the suit does
not arise at all.
128. The second defendant further submits that
proceedings for contempt being summary
proceedings, they neither validate nor establish the
title of the plaintiff over the property. Unless the
plaintiff independently establishes his right, title and
interest over the schedule properties, the plaintiff is
not entitled to the relief as prayed in the suit.
129. Even otherwise, the above suit is not
maintainable in the eye of law, and the same has been
filed only with an intention to harass this defendant.
The second defendant has further prayed for rejection
of the suit.
112 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
130. On the basis of the above pleadings the
following issues were framed on 03-10-2008.
Issue No. 1:- whether the plaintiff proves
that the defendants have illegally
demolished the structures situated in A
and B schedule properties causing damage
to the plaintiff ?
Issue No. 2:- whether plaintiff proves that it
has sustained the damages to the tune of ₹
38,00,490/- due to demolition of structures
in A & B schedule properties by the
defendants?
Issue No.3:- Whether plaintiff proves it had
incurred damages to the tune of ₹
46,44,000/- from 25/11/2002 till date of
filing the suit due to demolition of
structures in A & B schedule properties?
Issue No.4:- Whether the plaintiff is
entitled for mesne profits from the date of
suit as prayed in the plaint?
113 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Issue No.5:- Whether plaintiff proves that
defendant No.2 personally liable to pay the
claim made by the plaintiff?
Issue No.6:- whether plaintiff is entitled for
interest on the suit claim? If so at what
rate?
Issue No.7:- what decree or order?
131. Both the suits were clubbed and the
parties lead common evidence in both suits.
132. Plaintiff initially examined one Arvindan
as P.W. 1, it appears that his evidence is discarded
and later Examined N.L.Sridhar as P.W. 1,
B.N.Ravichandra reddy as P.W. 2, Krishanajaneyalu
as P.W. 3 and Sri. T.Sathish Babu as P.W. 4. Ex.P. 1
to 218 are marked.
133. Ex.P. 1 is original absolute sale deed dated
21-10-1989 executed by the BDA to Surali Ramarao
Narasimhamurthy, Ex.P. 2 original Absolute sale deed
dated 25-10-1989, Ex.P. 3 CCC No. 1536-2002 orders
114 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
sheet permitting the counsel to retire, Ex.P. 4 memo
to keep the documents in safe custody, Ex. P5
possession certificate, Ex. P6 is special notice issued
by the BMP for assessment of tax, Ex. P7
endorsement issued by the BDA dated 6-12-1988,
Ex.P. 8 is the extract from the property register card,
Ex. P9 is extract from the property, register card, Ex.
P 10 is extract of sketch copy CTS No. 605/ 1, Ex. P
11 is extract of sketch of CTS No. 605 , Ex.P. 12 is
endorsement issued by the BWSSB dated 4-4-91,
Ex.P. 13 is reply letter issued by the DDLR , Ex.P. 14
& 15 are public notices issued by the City Sy.
department, Ex.P. 16 is khatha certificate, Ex.P. 17 is
building sanctioned plan, Ex.P. 18 special notice
under section 147 of municipal Corporation Act for
assessing the tax issued by the Corporation of City of
Bangalore, Ex.P. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 are
encumbrance certificates, Ex. P 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 are
115 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
tax paid receipts, Ex. P 37 and Ex. P 42 are the
acknowledgements issued by BBMP for having paid
the tax through Cheque. Ex. P 46 is agreement of sale
dated 22-6-1994 between suruli Ram Rao Narasimha
Murthy and Vysya bank in respect of site No. 527/A,
Ex. P 47 is agreement of sale dated 22-6-1994
between Suruli Ram Rao and Bank in respect of site
No. 527/B, Ex. P 48 is original sale dated 31-3-1995
between Suruli Ram Rao and the Bank, Ex. P 49 is
original sale deed dated 31-3-1995 between Suruli
Ram Rao and Bank, Ex. P 50 E. certificate issue
issued by the BBMP on 30-8-2002 with regard to Suit
property stating that property is standing in the name
of Bank. Ex. P 57 to 135 are the bill and receipts
issued by the BWSSB, Ex. P136 to 174 are electricity
bills and receipts, Ex. P 175, 290 are the telephone
bills, Ex. P191 is certified copy of the order passed by
the hundred High Court of Karnataka in writ petition
No. 28601-28602 of 2002 dated 28-10-2002 between
116 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the Bank and BDA, Ex. P 192 is power of attorney to
the witness, Ex. P193 is certified copy of order passed
by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka contempt
petition No. C.C.C No. 1535 of 2002 between Bank
and The BDA and defendant No. 2, Jayakar Jerome,
Ex. P.194 is assessment report issue issued by the
Thimayya and Associates regarding damages, Ex. P
195 is legal notice dated 20-10-2005, Ex. P196, 196A,
197, 197A, 198, 198A, 199, 199A, 200, 200 A, 201,
201A are photos and negatives, Ex. P203 is ledger,
extra of Jayanagar 5th Block of BDA document, Ex.
P204 is certified copy of chargesheet in crime No. 305
of 2002, Ex. P 205 is certified copy of order sheet in
23341 2008, Ex. P 206 is deposition of K
Venkateshappa in criminal case, Ex. P207 is
judgement in C.C.No. 23341 of 2008, Ex. P208 is
deposition of GRamachandrappa in C.C.No. 23341 of
2008, Ex. P209 is police complaint by Venkateshappa
on 14-8-2002, Ex. P210 letter by Ramachandrappa
117 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
on 13-8-2002 to BDA Commissioner, Ex. P2 111 is
lease cum agreement dated 20-12-1989, Ex. P2 112
is lease cum sale agreement, Ex. P2 213 to 217 are
CIS extracts of various cases, Ex. P 218 is certificate
under section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyama,
2023.
134. From defendant side, Venkateshappa is
examined as D.W. 1, Mruthunjaya is examined as
D.W. 2, Frederick D'Souza is examined as D.W. 3, HS
Revanna is examined as DW4, Chandrashekar is
examined as D.W. 5, G Ramchandra is examined as
D.W. 6 and Jayakar Jerome is examined as D.W. 7.
And Ex.D. 1 to 14 are marked.
135. Ex.D. 1 is authorisation letter issued by the
BDA to Venkateshappa , Ex.D. 2 is Authorisation
letter issued by the BDA to Mruthyunjaya, Ex.D. 3 is
notarised copy of BDA layout of Jayanagar, Ex.D. 3,
4, 5, is unofficial notes of BDA , Ex.D. 6 is letter
addressed to the police inspector, Jayanagar dated
118 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
25-11-2002, Ex.D. 7 is request to the police
protection by the BDA while taking possession of suit
property, Ex.D is the demolition order dated
25/11/2002, Ex.D. 9 is modified notification, Ex.D.
10 is CD, Ex.D. 11 is certificate under section 65(B) of
Indian Evidence Act, Ex.D. 12 is general receipt
register, Ex.D. 13 is letter by S.P. CID to Deputy
secretary II dated 27-10-2022, Ex.D. 14 is deccan
herald newspaper.
136. Hand writing expert by name Mr. Syed Asagar
Imani is examined as C.W. 1 and Ex.C. 1 to are
marked.
137. Heard the arguments from both sides, and
perused the records.
138. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has
vehemently submitted that the title to the plaintiff
bank has passed on as per the procedure known to
law. He contends that initially the possession
certificate was issued to the vendor of the plaintiff
119 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
bank, which is substantiated in Ex.P.203, and later
the sale deeds as per Ex.P.1 and 2 were executed by
the BDA and duly registered, which were till now not
challenged by the BDA. Further, he contends that all
the revenue entries are in the name of the plaintiff
bank and also in the name of the vendor of the bank.
Further, he has canvassed that the tax is paid to the
concerned authority and after obtaining the
necessary licence, the building was constructed by
the vendor by obtaining a loan from the State Bank of
Mysore. There is no basis for the contention of the
BDA that the vendor of the plaintiff bank forged the
documents and that the plaintiff bank is in illegal
possession. Further, he has drawn the attention of
the Court with regard to the demolition of the
building during the pendency of the suit and the
conviction recorded by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka against the BDA and Defendant No. 2 in
the contempt proceedings. By giving stress to the
120 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
damages report, he has prayed to grant damages.
With other contentions, he has prayed to decree the
suits.
139. Per contra, the learned counsel for the BDA
has contended that the suit property is a corner site
and the same was not allotted to the vendor of the
plaintiff bank, and that corner sites cannot be
allotted to any individual and must be auctioned. He
strongly contended that in this particular case the
documents of title have been forged by Suruli
Ramarao Narasimha Murthy, who is the vendor of the
plaintiff bank. He has drawn the attention of the
Court with regard to the conflicting stand/view taken
by the plaintiff bank. He contended that the plaintiff
bank cannot seek declaration of title on the basis of a
forged document and at the same time cannot seek
adverse possession over the suit property. He also
contended that the suit is not maintainable in the
absence of a Section 64 notice under the BDA Act.
121 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
With other contentions, he prayed to dismiss the suit.
Learned counsel for Defendant No. 2 also vehemently
submitted that Defendant No. 2 evicted the plaintiff
bank while discharging his duty as Commissioner of
the BDA and therefore the fine amount imposed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was paid by the
BDA. Further, he contended that the vendor of the
plaintiff bank had no valid title at all, as the same is
claimed through forged documents, and he stressed
the handwriting expert's report. He further submitted
that possession of the property has already been
taken from the plaintiff bank. Defendant No. 2 has
also filed written arguments wherein his oral
arguments have been reiterated.
140. Having heard the arguments from both sides
and after perusal of the records my answer to the
issues framed in both the cases are as under, for the
following reasons,
ISSUES IN O.S.No. 7738/2002
122 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Issue No. 1:- Whether the Plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the Suit 'A' and 'B'
Schedule Properties, having acquired the title
by virtue of a Sale Deed executed by its
vendors? Affirmative
OR
Whether the Plaintiff in the alternative
proves that it has perfected its title over the
Suit 'A' and 'B' Schedule Properties by
adverse possession, being in possession
continuously, uninterruptedly, and hostile to
the interest and knowledge of the Defendant
Authority for more than the statutory period?
Does not survive for considertion.
Issue No. 2:- Whether the Plaintiff proves its
lawful possession over the Suit 'A' and 'B'
Schedule Properties as on the date of the
suit?- affirmative
Issue No. 3:- Whether the Plaintiff further
proves the alleged interference and
obstruction to its possession and enjoyment
of the Suit 'A' and 'B' Schedule Properties by
the Defendant and its men, and also the
attempt of illegal demolition of the existing
123 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
structure in the Suit Schedule Properties?
Affirmative
Issue No. 4:- Whether the Suit is bad for mis-
joinder of causes of action? Negative
Issue No. 5:- Whether the Suit as brought is
not maintainable for non-issuance of the
statutory notice under Section 64 of the BDA
Act? Negative
Issue No. 6:- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled
to the reliefs of declaration and permanent
injunction as prayed? Affirmative
Issue No. 7:- What order or decree?
Issues in O.S.No. 9382-2005
Issue No. 1:- Whether the plaintiff proves
that the defendants have illegally
demolished the structures situated in A and
B schedule properties causing damage to the
plaintiff ? Affirmative
Issue No. 2:- whether plaintiff proves that it
has sustained the damages to the tune of
124 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
₹38,00,490/- due to demolition of structures
in A & B schedule properties by the
defendants? Affirmative
Issue No.3:- Whether plaintiff proves it had
incurred damages to the tune of
₹ 46,44,000/- from 25/11/2002 till date of
filing the suit due to demolition of structures
in A & B schedule properties? Affirmative
Issue No.4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for mesne profits from the date of suit as
prayed in the plaint? Affirmative
Issue No.5:- Whether plaintiff proves that
defendant No.2 personally liable to pay the
claim made by the plaintiff? Partly
affirmative
Issue No.6:- whether plaintiff is entitled for
interest on the suit claim? If so at what rate?
Affirmative
Issue No.7:- what decree or order? As per
the final order, For the following reasons,
REASONS
125 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
141. Issues No. 1, 2, 3 & 6 of O.S. No. 7738/2002:
These issues are taken up together for the sake of
common discussion, as all said issues are interlinked
and necessitate consolidated consideration.
142. O.S. No. 7738/2002 was initially instituted by
Vysya Bank. It subsequently appears that the said
bank was amalgamated with Kotak Mahindra Bank
pursuant to a policy decision of the Central
Government, and accordingly, the name of the
plaintiff-bank was amended to Kotak Mahindra
Bank. There is no dispute with regard to this
amendment.
143. The plaintiff-bank initially instituted O.S. No.
7738/2002 seeking a declaration of title over the 'A'
& 'B' Schedule properties and a permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
said Schedule properties, along with such other
reliefs as deemed fit. It subsequently transpired that
126 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the BDA demolished the building standing on the 'A'
Schedule property during the pendency of the suit,
which necessitated the plaintiff-bank to institute a
separate suit for recovery of damages in O.S.No.
9382-2005.
144. In the present suit (O.S. No. 7738/2002), the
plaintiff-bank has approached this Court seeking a
declaration of ownership over the suit Schedule 'A' &
'B' properties and a permanent injunction restraining
the defendant-BDA from interfering with its peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the said suit Schedule
properties.
145. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff-
bank purchased the suit Schedule 'A' & 'B' properties
from its vendor, Sri Surali Ramarao Narasimha
Murthy , under two separate registered sale deeds
dated 31/03/1995, produced and marked as
Exhibits P-48 and P-49. Prior to the execution of the
said sale deeds, the plaintiff-bank had entered into
127 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
two agreements of sale dated 22/06/1994 in respect
of the very same properties, which are produced and
marked as Exhibits P-46 and P-47. It is further
averred that prior to the purchase, the plaintiff-bank
conducted due diligence with respect to the title of
the vendor. Upon such verification, it was
ascertained that the suit property was originally
allotted to the vendor of the plaintiff-bank by the
defendant-BDA under a possession certificate dated
28/06/1976, produced and marked as Exhibit P-5,
and thereafter two separate sale deeds were executed
by the BDA in favour of the vendor in respect of
Schedule 'A' & 'B' properties, marked as Exhibits P-1
and P-2, dated 21/10/1989 and 25/10/1989
respectively. Subsequent to the allotment, the khata
of the said properties was maintained in the name of
the vendor, who constructed a building on Schedule
'A' property and utilized Schedule 'B' property as a
garden. It is further averred that in order to finance
128 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the construction of the said building, the vendor
obtained a loan from the State Bank of Mysore by
mortgaging the suit property. Having satisfied itself
as to the validity of the vendor's title, the plaintiff-
bank proceeded to purchase the property. It is
further averred that on 26/07/2002 at approximately
4:00 P.M., certain officials of the defendant-BDA
arrived at the suit Schedule 'A' & 'B' properties and
proclaimed their intention to demolish the structures
thereon and take possession thereof. Subsequently,
on 27/07/2002 at approximately 1:00 P.M., the
Commissioner of BDA telephoned the Managing
Director of the plaintiff-bank and threatened to
demolish the structures on the suit Schedule
properties. Thereupon, the plaintiff-bank approached
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing Writ
Petitions in W.P. Nos. 28601-602/2002 on
29/07/2002. The said writ petitions were disposed of
on 28/10/2002, with the Hon'ble High Court holding
129 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
that the matter was covered under the decision
rendered in John B. James and directing the
petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate
remedy, while granting a period of four weeks during
which the interim stay against the BDA restraining
demolition of structures on the suit Schedule
property would continue to operate. The plaintiff-
bank has accordingly approached this Court for the
aforesaid reliefs.
146. The defendant-BDA entered appearance
before this Court and filed its written statement
contending that the suit property was never allotted
to the vendor of the plaintiff-bank, that the vendor
had fabricated and forged the relevant documents
and effected an illegal transfer of the property, and
that consequently, the plaintiff-bank acquired no
valid title or possession over the suit property. It is
further contended that the BDA lawfully took
possession of the suit property by demolishing the
130 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
unauthorized structures erected thereon. On these
and other grounds, the defendant-BDA prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
147. After framing the necessary issues, the
plaintiff examined four witnesses, P.W.-1 to P.W.-4.
Initially, one Arvindan was examined as P.W.-1;
however, his evidence appears to have been
discarded, and subsequently one N.L. Sridhar was
examined as P.W.-1, who filed his chief examination
affidavit reiterating the averments in the plaint. P.W.-
1 had signed the agreements of sale and sale deeds of
the plaintiff-bank as an attesting witness, having
served as Relationship Manager at the relevant time.
Mr. B.N. Ravichandra Reddy was examined as P.W.-
2, a retired Vice President of the plaintiff-bank, who
deposed with respect to the threat of demolition and
the lodging of a police complaint. Mr. P.
Krishnanjaneyalu was examined as P.W.-3, who filed
his chief examination affidavit and deposed with
131 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
respect to the agreements of sale and the sale deeds
of the plaintiff-bank, as he had executed the said
documents on behalf of the bank. Mr. Sathish Babu
was examined as P.W.-4 and deposed with respect to
the valuation report submitted by him. Exhibits P-1
to P-218 were marked on the plaintiff's side.
148. On the side of the defendant, K.S.
Venkateshappa was examined as D.W.-1 and filed his
chief examination affidavit reiterating the stand of
the BDA. This witness is also the complainant who
lodged the criminal complaint with respect to the
alleged forgery. Mr. Mruthyunjaya was examined as
D.W.-2 and filed his chief examination affidavit; he
was a BDA Engineer who reported the existence of
unauthorized construction on the suit property. One
Fedric D'Souza was examined as D.W.-3 and filed his
chief examination affidavit; he was also an Engineer
attached to the BDA. Mr. Revanna, who served as
Superintendent of Police in the Special Task Force of
132 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the BDA at the relevant point in time, deposed that
he was present at the time of demolition. Sri
Chandrashekar, D.A., who served as Deputy
Superintendent of Police in the Task Force, also
deposed with respect to the demolition. D.W.-6, Mr.
Ramachandra, deposed that his signature had been
forged on the sale deeds executed by the vendor of
the plaintiff-bank. D.W.-7, Jayakar Jerome, deposed
that he was the BDA Commissioner at the relevant
time and that the demolition of the building was
carried out in accordance with law. Exhibits D-1 to
D-14 were marked on the defendant's side.
149. As already noted by this Court, the plaintiff-
bank claims valid title and possession over the suit
properties by virtue of the registered sale deed
executed by its vendor, whereas the defendant-BDA
contends that the suit property was never allotted to
the vendor of the plaintiff-bank and that he had
fabricated and forged the relevant documents.
133 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
150. There is no substantial dispute with respect
to the sale deeds executed by the vendor of the
plaintiff-bank in respect of the suit Schedule
properties. The plaintiff-bank purchased the 'A'
Schedule property from its vendor, Suruli Ramarao
Narasimhamurthy, under Exhibit P-48, being the
registered sale deed dated 31/03/1995. On a perusal
of this document, it is evident that the plaintiff-bank
purchased Site No. 527/A -- i.e., the suit Schedule
'A' property -- for a total consideration of
₹72,00,000/-. Prior to this, the plaintiff-bank and its
vendor had entered into an agreement of sale in
respect of this property on 22/06/1994, produced
and marked as Exhibit P-46. Similarly, the plaintiff-
bank purchased the suit Schedule 'B' property under
a registered sale deed dated 31/03/1995 from its
vendor for a total consideration of ₹48,00,000/-, and
prior thereto, the plaintiff-bank and its vendor had
entered into an agreement of sale dated 22/06/1994,
134 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
produced and marked as Exhibit P-47. On a perusal
of the registered sale deeds produced by the plaintiff-
bank as Exhibits P-48 and P-49 in respect of suit
Schedule 'A' & 'B' properties, it is evident that the
title to the said properties has been duly transferred
to the plaintiff-bank in accordance with the
procedure known to law for transfer of title. The said
sale transactions are duly reflected in the
encumbrance certificates produced as Exhibits P-19
and P-23. A registered sale deed duly reflected in the
encumbrance certificate constitutes constructive
notice to the entire world, including the defendant-
BDA. Further, the khata certificate produced as
Exhibit P-50 establishes that the khata of the suit
property stands in the name of the plaintiff-bank;
this, coupled with the tax paid receipts produced as
Exhibits P-42, P-43, P-44 and P-45, and the
BSNL/Telecom bills produced as Exhibits P-175 to P-
190, fortifies the plaintiff-bank's claim of possession
135 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
over the Schedule properties. It is thus established
from all the aforementioned documents that the suit
Schedule 'A' & 'B' properties were duly transferred to
the plaintiff-bank in accordance with the procedure
known to law for transfer of title, that the khata of
the said properties was thereafter transferred in the
concerned revenue records, and that property taxes
have been paid accordingly.
151. Since the title of the vendor of the plaintiff-
bank is in question, this Court shall now examine the
relevant documents and applicable legal provisions
governing the transfer of title from the BDA to the
vendor of the plaintiff-bank.
152. The plaintiff-bank avers that the suit property
-- initially a single site measuring 150' × 100' -- was
allotted to Sri Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy
under a possession certificate dated 28/06/1976. In
this regard, the plaintiff-bank has produced the
original possession certificate, marked as Exhibit P-5.
136 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
153. Upon careful examination of this document, it
is evident that Site No. 527 measuring 150' × 100'
was allotted to Sri Suruli Ramarao Narasimha
Murthy by the BDA on 28/06/1976. This possession
certificate bears the signatures of the Assistant
Engineer and the Executive Engineer, with the
notation '527/v/72' appearing on the top of the
memo, albeit partially obscured. Although the BDA
has contended that the documents were forged by Sri
Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy, no complaint
has been lodged with respect to this particular
document. Neither the BDA nor the Assistant
Engineer nor the Executive Engineer has alleged that
their signatures on this document have been forged.
154. The said site was subsequently bifurcated
into Site Nos. 527/A and 527/B. This is
substantiated by Exhibit P-7, being an endorsement
dated 06/12/1988 issued by the BDA itself, duly
signed by the Deputy Secretary. Upon careful
137 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
scrutiny of this document, it is apparent that Sri
Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy had submitted
an application for bifurcation of Site No. 527, which
was accepted by the BDA by issuance of the said
endorsement, wherein at Serial No. 10 it is recorded
as follows:'ನಿಮ್ಮ ಕೋರಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಲಾಗಿ ಆಯುಕ್ತರು
ವಿಭಾಗ ಮಾಡಲು ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಿವೇಶನ ನಂ. 527 ನ್ನು
527/A ಮತ್ತು 527/B ಎಂದು ವಿಭಜಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ನೊಂದವಣ
ಕ್ರಯಪತ್ರ ನಕಲನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯುವುದು.'This document is signed
by Deputy Secretary Sri Puttaswamy on 06/12/1988.
No complaint has been lodged with respect to this
document either.
155. Prior to Exhibit P-7, the Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike issued a special notice dated
19/09/1987 under Section 106 of the Karnataka
Municipal Corporations Act, for the purpose of tax
assessment in respect of Site No. 527, which is
produced and marked as Exhibit P-6. A perusal of
this document makes it abundantly clear that even
138 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
prior to the execution of the sale deed by the BDA in
favour of Sri Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy , the
suit property had been assessed to tax in the name of
the said vendor.
156. This Court shall now advert to the pivotal
documents in question, namely the sale deeds
pertaining to Site Nos. 527/A and 527/B -- i.e., the
suit Schedule 'A' & 'B' properties -- which are the
disputed documents stated to have been executed by
the BDA in favour of the vendor Sri Suruli Ramarao
Narasimha Murthy, the execution whereof has been
denied by the BDA.
157. The plaintiff-bank has produced the original
sale deed dated 21/10/1989 in respect of the suit
Schedule 'A' property, marked as Exhibit P-1, and
the original sale deed dated 25/10/1989 in respect of
the suit Schedule 'B' property, marked as Exhibit P-
2. Both the said documents were registered in the
absence of the executant, the personal appearance of
139 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the executant having been exempted under the
provisions of law. This Court shall now advert to the
relevant statutory provision governing the
registration of such documents.
158. Section 88 of the Registration Act, 1908
governs the registration of documents executed by
Government officers or certain public functionaries,
and the same is extracted hereunder for the sake of
convenience and ready reference:
"Section 88. Registration of documents
executed by Government officers or certain
public functionaries.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, it shall not be necessary for,--
(a) any officer of Government, or
(b) any Administrator-General, Official
Trustee or Official Assignee, or
(c) the Sheriff, Receiver or Registrar of a
High Court, or
(d) the holder for the time being of such
other public office as may be specified in a
notification in the Official Gazette issued in
that behalf by the State Government, to
140 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
appear in person or by agent at any
registration office in any proceeding
connected with the registration of any
instrument executed by him or in his
favour, in his official capacity, or to sign as
provided in Section 58.
(2) Any instrument executed by or in favour
of an officer of Government or any other
person referred to in sub-section (1) may be
presented for registration in such manner
as may be prescribed by rules made under
Section 69.
(3) The registering officer to whom any
instrument is presented for registration
under this section may, if he thinks fit, refer
to any Secretary to Government or to such
officer of Government or other person
referred to in sub-section (1) for information
respecting the same and, on being satisfied
of the execution thereof, shall register the
instrument."
141 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
159. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision,
it is manifest that a document executed by the BDA
is liable to be registered in the absence of the
executing officer, and such officer is expressly
exempted from personal appearance before the
registering authority.
160. This Court has carefully examined both
Exhibits P-1 and P-2, being the sale deeds stated to
have been executed by the Deputy Secretary, BDA,
Bangalore, on 21/10/1989 and 25/10/1989
respectively, in respect of the Schedule 'A' and 'B'
properties. In both the said documents, the
registering authority has recorded the following
endorsement:'ದಸ್ತಾವೇಜು ಬರೆದು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀ the Deputy
Secretary BDA Bangalore ನನಗೆ ತೃಪ್ತಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದರಿಂದ
ನೋಂದಾವಣಿ ಕಾಯಿದೆ 1908ನಿಬಂಧನೆ (1) ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಖುದ್ದಾಗಿ
ಹಾಜರಾಗಲು ವಿನಾಯತಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.'It is thus evident that
both the said documents were registered only upon
the satisfaction of the registering authority as to the
142 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
due execution thereof, and were registered in strict
compliance with the provisions of law governing the
registration of instruments executed by public
authorities.
161. In this regard, it is also apposite to consider
the oral evidence on record. D.W.-1, Sri
Venkateshappa, in his cross-examination at Page No.
29, Paragraph 14, has categorically admitted as
follows:'ಕ್ರಯ ಪ್ರತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ನೊಂದಾವಣಿ ಮಾಡಿಸಲು ಕರಡು
ಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ಕಚೇರಿಯ ಕೇಸ್ ವರ್ಕರ್ ತಯಾರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. 1989
ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಕಚೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರಡು ಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಕೇಸ್
ವರ್ಕರ್ ಹೆಸರು ನನಗೆ ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ. ಆ ರೀತಿ ತಯಾರಿಸಿ ಕರಡು ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು
ಮತ್ತು ಹಾಜರಾತಿ ವಿನಂತಿ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಕೇಸ್ ವರ್ಕರ್
ಉಪನೊಂದನಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ಕಚೇರಿಗೆ ಹಾಜರು ಪಡಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ಬಿ.ಡಿ.ಎ
ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಸಮ್ಮುಖದಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ರಯ ಪತ್ರ ನೋಂದಣಿಯಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ನಿಜ. ಬಿ.ಡಿ.ಎ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಅನುಪಸ್ಥಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ರಯಪತ್ರ
ಮಾಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ.'
162. A careful perusal of the aforesaid admission
makes it abundantly manifest that any sale deed
143 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
executed by the BDA must be prepared by the
concerned Case Worker of the BDA office, and the
same is required to be presented before the
registering authority by the BDA officials, along with
the letter seeking exemption from personal
appearance. It further stands admitted that a sale
deed executed by the BDA will be registered only in
the presence of the BDA officials who present the
document before the registering authority, and that
no sale deed can be registered in the absence of such
BDA officials. It is thus a sine qua non that the
exemption letter from the concerned department or
office must be placed before the Sub-Registrar to
enable the registration of any such document, and
only upon receipt of such exemption letter shall the
registering authority proceed to register the
instrument.
163. From the evidence on record, it is evident that
all the aforesaid procedural and legal formalities were
144 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
duly complied with in the present case, and it was
only upon such compliance and upon being satisfied
as to the due execution of the instruments that the
registering authority recorded the endorsement of
satisfaction and proceeded to register the documents.
It is accordingly established beyond doubt that
Exhibits P-1 and P-2 have been duly registered in
strict conformity with the provisions of law.
164. This Court shall now advert to another
important document produced by the plaintiff-bank
and marked as Exhibit P-203. The definite contention
of the defendant-BDA is that the vendor of the
plaintiff-bank, namely Sri Suruli Ramarao
Narasimha Murthy , fabricated and forged the
documents pertaining to the suit property. It is
therefore necessary to subject this document to
meticulous scrutiny.
165. Exhibit P-203 is the 'Ledger Extract of V
Block of Jayanagar', being an attested copy certified
145 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
by the Deputy Secretary-2 of the BDA, and the
authenticity of this document has not been disputed
by the defendant. On a careful perusal of this
document, the following facts emerge: Site No. 527 of
Jayanagar V Block was initially allotted to Swastik
Shikshana Samithi (Regd.), which allotment was
subsequently cancelled. Thereafter, the said site was
allotted to Sri Surali Ramarao Narasimha Murthy on
15/11/1972. The said document also records that a
sum of ₹19,808/- + ₹15,000/- = ₹34,808/- was paid
through challan, with a further endorsement that the
credits were verified and duly signed, and that the
possession certificate was issued, denoted by the
entry 'P.C. issued.' Below the said endorsement, the
signature of Sri Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy
is found recorded.
166. It is thus established from this document that
Site No. 527 was allotted to Sri Suruli Ramarao
Narasimha Murthy upon receipt of ₹34,808/-
146 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
through challan, that the credits were duly verified,
and that the possession certificate was issued to him,
whereafter his signature was obtained in
acknowledgment thereof. This document has not
been disputed by the defendant-BDA and stands
certified by the Deputy Secretary-2 of the BDA.
167. Even assuming, for the sake of argument,
that the sale deeds produced as Exhibits P-1 and P-2
were to be treated as forged, the defendant-BDA
offers no explanation whatsoever with respect to this
document. It is wholly inconceivable, by any stretch
of imagination, that the said ledger could have been
forged or manipulated by Sri Suruli Ramarao
Narasimha Murthy, a private individual. This is for
the reason that the custodianship of the said ledger
vests exclusively with the BDA, and any
manipulation of the entries therein could only have
been effected by the officials of the BDA itself. In the
absence of any specific allegation against any
147 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
identified employee of the BDA, or the initiation of
any disciplinary or criminal enquiry against any
specific employee for allegedly making unauthorized
entries in the name of Sri Suruli Ramarao Narasimha
Murthy, it is wholly impermissible to cast the blame
for manipulation of official records upon a private
individual who had no access to such records.
168. In this regard, the oral evidence of D.W.-1, Sri
Venkateshappa, in cross-examination at Page No. 21,
Paragraph No. 6, is of considerable significance. He
has categorically admitted as follows:'ಬಿ.ಡಿ.ಎ ಯಿಂದ
ನಿವೇಶನಗಳನ್ನ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಿದಾಗ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ
ನಮೂದಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ಸದರಿ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ರದ್ದು ಮಾಡಿದಾಗ
ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟರ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ಸದರಿ ಬಿ.ಡಿ.ಎ
ನಿವೇಶನದ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟರನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಜರು
ಪಡಿಸಲು ನನಗೆ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ. ನಿವೇಶನ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಿದವರ
ಹೆಸರನ್ನು ಸದರಿ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟರ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಸದರಿ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟರ್ನಲ್ಲಿ
ಸುರಳಿ ರಾಮರಾವ್ ನರಸಿಂಹಮೂರ್ತಿಗೆ ನಿವೇಶನ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಿದ
ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಮೂದಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ಆದರೆ ಅಕ್ರಮವಾಗಿ
148 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
ನಮೂದಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಸದರಿಯವರಿಗೆ ನಿ.ಪಿ.5 ರಂತೆ ಸ್ವಾದೀನ ಪತ್ರ
ಕೊಡಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ಆದರೆ ಪ್ಯಾಬ್ರಿಕೇಟೆಡ್ ದಾಖಲೆ ಎಂದು
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಿವೇಶನದ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ವಾದೀನ ಪತ್ರ
ಕೊಟ್ಟ ನಂತರ ಬಿಡಿಎ ಯಿಂದ ಕ್ರಯ ಪತ್ರ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ಅಂತಹ ಎಲ್ಲ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಗಳು ಈ ದಾವೆಗೆ ಸಂಬಧಿಸಿದ
ಆಸ್ತಿಗೆ ಆಗಿವೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಭೋಗಸ್ ಆಗಿವೆ. ಸುರಳಿ ರಾಮರಾವ್
ನರಸಿಂಹಮೂರ್ತಿಗೆ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಯಾದ ನಿವೇಶನವನ್ನು ರದ್ದು ಗೊಳಿಸಿಲ್ಲ.
ಬೋಗಸ್ ಹಂಚಿಕೆಯಾದ್ದರಿಂದ ಆ ರೀತಿ ರದ್ದು ಗೊಳಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ.'
169. Further, at Page No. 23, Paragraph No. 7, the
said witness has admitted:'ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಬಿಡಿಎ
ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಖಾತೆಯನ್ನು ತಪಾಸಣೆ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿ.ಪಿ. 1 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ಉಪಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿಯ ಹಾಜರಾತಿಯ ವಿನಾಯಿತಿ ಕೊಡಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ನಿಜ. ಸದರಿ ಕ್ರಯ ಪತ್ರ ಬೋಗಸ್ ಎಂದು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಮುಂದುವರೆದು
ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ.'.
170. On a considered appreciation of the aforesaid
portion of the cross-examination, the following
conclusions are irresistible: The entries made in
Exhibit P-203 are in conformity with the prescribed
149 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
rules and procedure governing the allotment of sites
by the BDA. The witness has admitted in unequivocal
terms that whenever a site is allotted by the BDA, the
same is entered in the allotment register; that when
such allotment is cancelled, that fact too is entered in
the register; and that the name of Sri Suruli Ramarao
Narasimha Murthy stands recorded in the said
register as the allottee of the suit site. The
explanation offered by the witness that the said entry
was made illegally is wholly untenable and cannot be
accepted, for the simple and cogent reason that the
said register is in the exclusive custody of the BDA. If
any unauthorized or illegal entry were to be made
therein, it could only have been done by the officers
of the BDA themselves. In the absence of any specific
allegation against any identified employee of the
BDA, or the initiation of any departmental or criminal
proceedings against any specific employee for
allegedly making illegal entries in the name of Sri
150 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy in the official
records, the blame for manipulation of official
records cannot be fastened upon a private individual
who had no access to or control over such records.
171. Another material and significant
circumstance that weighs heavily against the
defendant-BDA is that the original records pertaining
to Site No. 527 are admittedly untraceable. This fact
is reflected in Exhibit D-3, being the Unofficial Note
(U.O. Note) of the BDA, which records as
follows:'ಜಯನಗರ V ನೇ ಬ್ಲಾಕ್ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಲೆಡ್ಜರ್ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಲಾಗಿ
ನೀ.ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 527 ವಿಸ್ತೀರ್ಣ 100 x 150 ಸ್ವಸ್ತಿಕ್ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಸಮಿತಿ (ರಿ)
ರವರಿಗೆ ಹಂಚಿಕೆಯಾದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇದ್ದು ನಂತರ ರದ್ದು
ಪಡಿಸಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ದಾಖಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ಇದೆ ನಿವೇಶನವನ್ನು ಸುರುಳಿ
ರಾಮರಾವ್ ನರಸಿಂಹಮೂರ್ತಿ ರವರಿಗೆ ಪುನಃ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಿದಂತೆ
ದಾಖಲೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಅನುಮಾನಾಸ್ಪದವಾಗಿ ಕಂಡುಬರುತ್ತದೆ.
ಅಭಿಲೇಖಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂಲ ಕಡತ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಬಹುದು. (30-7-02)
ನಿವೇಶನ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ. 527 ಜಯನಗರ V ನೇ ಬ್ಲಾಕಿನ ಕಡತವನ್ನು
151 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
ಬೆ.ಅ.ಪ್ರಾದ ದಾಖಲೆ ವಿಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಲಾಗಿ ಕಂಡು
ಬಂದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.'
172. From a careful reading of the aforesaid U.O.
Note, which is the defendant-BDA's own internal
record, the following position emerges clearly:
According to the BDA's own records, Site No. 527 of
Jayanagar V Block was initially allotted to Swastik
Shikshana Samithi (Regd.), which allotment was
subsequently cancelled, whereafter the said site was
re-allotted to Sri Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy.
The said U.O. Note itself describes this re-allotment
as suspicious. However, crucially and most
significantly, upon a search of the original file
pertaining to Site No. 527 of Jayanagar V Block in
the records section of the BDA, the said original file
was found to be missing and untraceable.
173. This Court finds that the aforesaid
circumstance is of far-reaching consequence. The
ledger extract, Exhibit P-203, duly reflects the name
152 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
of Sri Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy as the
allottee of the suit site, and the entries therein
remain intact and uncancelled. The sale deeds
executed in favour of the vendor were registered in
due compliance with the provisions of law. In the
aforesaid state of affairs, wherein the original records
pertaining to the suit site are themselves missing
from the BDA's own records department, there exists
no cogent or legally sustainable basis for the
defendant-BDA to assert that the documents were
created or fabricated by the vendor of the plaintiff-
bank. The defendant-BDA has offered no satisfactory
explanation as to the circumstances under which the
original records came to be missing, nor has it
adduced any credible evidence to substantiate its
bare allegation of fabrication. In the absence of such
evidence, the allegation of forgery or fabrication
levelled against the vendor of the plaintiff-bank
cannot be sustained.
153 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
174. It is evident from the Possession Certificate
produced at Ex.P.5 that the suit Schedule 'A' and 'B'
properties were allotted to the vendor of the plaintiff-
Bank, and the same were subsequently conveyed to
the vendor of the plaintiff by the BDA under
registered Sale Deeds Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. Thereafter,
the vendor of the plaintiff-Bank executed Sale Deeds
in favour of the plaintiff-Bank under Ex.P.48 and
Ex.P.49, preceded by Agreements to Sell as per
Ex.P.46 and Ex.P.47. It is thus manifest that the
plaintiff-Bank acquired clear and marketable title
over the suit schedule property by virtue of duly
registered Sale Deeds, which constitute a mode of
transfer of title recognised and sanctioned by law.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the
plaintiff-Bank has validly and lawfully acquired title
over the suit schedule property. As on the date of
institution of the suit, the possession of the plaintiff-
Bank over the suit schedule property is not in
154 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
dispute. The very basis of the controversy is the
nature and legality of such possession, which the
defendant-BDA has sought to characterise as
unauthorised and illegal. However, once it stands
established before this Court that title has been duly
transmitted to the plaintiff-Bank through a valid
chain of title and by a mode of transfer recognised
under law, the possession flowing therefrom equally
stands validated in the eyes of law. It is further an
undisputed fact on record that the defendant-BDA
demolished the structure standing on the suit
schedule property, which act constitutes a clear and
unlawful interference with the plaintiff-Bank's
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said
property. In such circumstances and for the reasons
aforesaid, the plaintiff-Bank is entitled to a decree of
Declaration of title and Permanent Injunction
restraining the defendant-BDA from interfering with
the suit schedule property in any manner
155 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
whatsoever. Accordingly, Issues No.1, 2, 3, and 6 are
answered in the Affirmative and in favour of the
plaintiff-Bank.
175. In the suit, the plaintiff-Bank is also claiming
an alternative prayer of adverse possession. But it
appears that the said prayer is sought as a matter of
abundant caution, as there is an allegation of forgery
of the document by the vendor of the plaintiff-Bank.
But adverse possession cannot be claimed without
admitting the title of the other side, and at the same
time claiming the title over the particular property,
adverse possession cannot be claimed. When this
Court has noticed that the title has flowed from the
BDA to the vendor of the plaintiff-Bank and from him
to the plaintiff-Bank as per the procedure known to
law, then such plea cannot be considered, and
therefore is not considered.
176. There is an allegation of forgery against the
vendor of the plaintiff bank. It is the contention of the
156 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
defendant BDA that the vendor of the plaintiff bank,
Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy, fabricated the
sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule property.
The plaintiff bank contends that on 26-07-2002,
certain officials of the BDA visited the suit schedule
property and allegedly issued threats to the
occupants of the building, warning of demolition on
the purported ground that the structure was
unauthorized. It is further alleged that on 27-07-
2002, at approximately 1:00 P.M., Defendant No. 2
telephoned the bank authorities and reiterated such
threats of demolition. Thereafter, the plaintiff bank
approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by
way of a writ petition.
177. It is pertinent to note that the sale deeds
produced as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, dated 21-10-1989
and 25-10-1989 respectively, have been found to be
duly executed, as has already been discussed by this
Court. The allegation of the plaintiff bank that BDA
157 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
authorities visited the suit property and thereafter
made a telephonic threat to the bank authorities
stands unrebutted by the defendants. The police
complaint (Ex.P.209) was lodged by Venkateshappa,
D.W.1, on behalf of the BDA, and is dated 14-08-
2002; the same was registered at Sheshadripuram
Police Station on 16-08-2002. The basis for this
complaint was a representation made by one G.
Ramachandra, the then Deputy Secretary of the
BDA, who served in that capacity from 1987 to 1989,
addressed to the BDA on 13-08-2002 (Ex.P.210). In
the said representation, G. Ramachandra stated that
he was apprised by the BDA Commissioner that his
signatures on the sale deeds, namely Ex.P.1 and
Ex.P.2, had been forged.
178. Admittedly, BDA officials visited the suit
property and alleged illegal occupation by the
plaintiff bank prior to the lodging of the
representation by G. Ramachandra to the BDA.
158 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Another material aspect that warrants consideration
is how G. Ramachandra came to learn that his
signatures on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 had been forged,
given that the said documents were never in the
custody of the BDA and were at all material times in
the custody of the plaintiff bank. It is inexplicable
how he arrived at such a conclusion without having
personally examined the original documents. During
cross-examination, he deposed that he had examined
copies of the said documents; however, there was no
occasion or justification for the BDA to have been in
possession of such copies.
179. Furthermore, nothing prevented G.
Ramachandra from lodging a complaint directly with
the police upon becoming aware of the alleged forgery
of his signature. There was no apparent necessity to
address the representation to the BDA, an authority
wholly devoid of any investigative or quasi-judicial
powers. G. Ramachandra ought to have lodged the
159 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
complaint directly before the competent police
authority and, if necessary, forwarded a copy thereof
to the BDA. In the considered opinion of this Court,
in the presence of G. Ramachandra -- the person
whose signature is alleged to have been forged --
Venkateshappa had no locus standi to file the said
complaint. Moreover, the complaint was lodged after
an inordinate delay of approximately 12 to 13 years
from the date of the alleged forgery. It appears that
the complaint of forgery is an afterthought, inasmuch
as BDA officials visited the suit property in July 2002
and the police complaint was lodged only in August
2002.
180. The plaintiff bank has produced a certified
copy of the judgment rendered in C.C. No.
23341/2008 by the competent Court, marked as
Ex.P.207. The vendor of the plaintiff bank, Suruli
Ramarao Narasimha Murthy, was acquitted in the
said criminal proceedings. It is important is fact that
160 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
C.W.1, Syyed Asgar Imani, who submitted the
Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report upon
examination of the signatures of G. Ramachandra
and Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy on the
disputed documents, was not examined as a witness
in the criminal proceedings. No explanation has been
forthcoming from the defendants' side for this crucial
lacuna. The investigation is stated to have
commenced in 2002; however, the handwriting
expert's report was received only in 2008 -- a delay of
nearly six years from the commencement of the
investigation.
181. It is further pertinent to note that during the
course of the investigation, specimen signatures of G.
Ramachandra and Suruli Ramarao Narasimha
Murthy were obtained by the police, along with their
admitted signatures; however, no other signatures
were obtained for comparison. Importantly, BDA
records -- more particularly Ex.P.203 -- disclose that
161 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
a possession certificate was issued in favour of Suruli
Ramarao Narasimha Murthy as far back as 1976. If
forgery is alleged, it is evident that some other
person, necessarily an insider from within the BDA,
must have been complicit in the manipulation of
internal records. However, no complaint has been
lodged and no investigation has been initiated
against such unknown persons from within the BDA.
182. Taken cumulatively, the following
circumstances give rise to serious doubt regarding
the evidentiary value and conclusiveness of the
handwriting expert's report: (i) non-examination of
the handwriting expert in the criminal proceedings;
(ii) absence of any criminal complaint or investigation
against BDA officials alleged to have manipulated
internal documents; (iii) failure of G. Ramachandra to
lodge the complaint directly with the police; (iv)
inordinate delay in lodging the complaint; (v)
inordinate delay in procuring the handwriting
162 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
expert's report; (vi) lodging of the police complaint
only after the BDA officials' visit to the suit property;
and (vii) the acquittal of Suruli Ramarao Narasimha
Murthy in the criminal case. In view of the foregoing,
the handwriting expert's report cannot be treated as
conclusive proof of forgery.
183. It was also the contention of the defendants
that the suit property, being a corner site, could not
have been allotted to any individual and was
mandatorily required to be disposed of by way of
public auction in accordance with the applicable
rules. This contention, however, is untenable and is
liable to be rejected. As per the Notification dated 30-
11-1972 bearing No. HMA 69/72, the rules governing
the disposal of corner sites were brought into force
with effect from that date. However, as evidenced by
Ex.P.203, the extract of Jayanagar V Block sites
maintained by the BDA, the allotment of the suit site
in favour of Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy was
163 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
effected on 15-11-1972 -- fifteen days prior to the
coming into force of the said rules. Consequently, the
said contention is devoid of merit and is accordingly
rejected. Therefore the issues answered accordingly.
184. Issue No. 4: This issue is with respect to
misjoinder of causes of action. But it is to be noted
that the defendant-BDA has not disputed that it tried
to demolish the building over the suit schedule 'A'
property on the allegation of illegal possession. At the
same time, the plaintiff-Bank claims valid title over
the suit property on the basis of the sale deeds
executed by its vendor. When the plaintiff-Bank
wants to protect the title and possession of the suit
property, it has to seek declaration and permanent
injunction, so there is no question of misjoinder of
causes of action. Therefore, this issue is answered in
the Negative.
185. Issue No. 5:- This issue is with respect to
non-issuance of legal notice under Section 64 of the
164 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
BDA Act. Undisputedly, the BDA wanted to demolish
the building on the suit schedule 'A' property. Upon
the threat by the BDA to demolish the building, the
plaintiff-Bank approached the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by filing a writ petition, which was
disposed of by granting 4 weeks' time to approach the
civil court for appropriate remedy. In pursuance of
the said direction, the plaintiff-Bank approached this
Court on 16-11-2002 within 4 weeks from the date of
disposal of the writ petition. Along with the suit, the
plaintiff-Bank filed I.A. No. 1 under Section 64(2) of
the BDA Act to dispense with the statutory notice
under Section 64(2) of the BDA Act. Section 64(2) of
the BDA Act provides that any party who seeks
urgent or immediate relief can institute the suit with
the leave of the court. As per the order sheet entry
dated 18-11-2002, 'since caveat is filed, issue of
statutory notice as prayed in I.A. No. 1 dispensed'. In
view of this order, the question of issuing the legal
165 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
notice as required under Section 64 of the BDA Act
does not arise. That apart, it is to be noted that there
was an urgent and immediate threat of demolition of
the building by the BDA over the suit schedule
property. In such a situation, no prudent man would
be expected to issue a legal notice as required under
Section 64 of the BDA Act prior to filing of the suit,
with a waiting period of 1 month. It is apposite to
mention here that even during the pendency of the
suit, the BDA demolished the building on 25-11-
2002, just 9 days after filing of the suit. In such an
emergent situation, how can a prudent man be
expected to issue a prior 1 month notice before filing
the suit. Be that as it may, this Court has already
dispensed with the issue of notice as per I.A. No. 1,
therefore this issue is answered in the Negative.
O.S.NO.9382-2005
186. Issue No. 1:- Undisputedly, the plaintiff bank
was in possession of the Schedule A and B properties
166 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
by virtue of the sale deeds produced at Ex. P. 48 &
49. It is also an undisputed fact that BDA threatened
to demolish the building over the suit schedule
property and to take possession of the same from the
plaintiff bank on the allegation of illegal possession,
which necessitated the bank to approach the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka by filing writ petitions in
W.P. No. 28601-602/2002. A copy of the order of the
writ petition is filed at Ex. P. 191. Even in the writ
petitions, the BDA took the contention that the
property in dispute belongs to it and was never
allotted to Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy, and it
sought only to take possession of the same by
dispossessing the plaintiff bank from the suit
property. After hearing both sides, the writ petition
was disposed of on 28-10-2002, by holding that: "In
view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the John B. James case, the questions raised in
these writ petitions -- as to whether the petitioners
167 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
are in settled possession or have perfected title by
way of adverse possession, and if so, whether the
BDA, in exercise of its powers under the statute, can
take action to forcibly dispossess or demolish -- are
matters which have to be considered by the Civil
Court. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit
in these writ petitions. Petitions are dismissed.
However, for a period of four weeks from today, the
BDA is restrained from taking any action to demolish
the properties in question, so as to facilitate the
petitioner to seek remedy as is open to him in law."
187. On a plain reading of this order, it is clear
that the question of whether the plaintiff's possession
over the suit property is settled or adverse, and
whether the BDA can take action to forcibly
dispossess the plaintiff bank, has to be considered
only by the Civil Court. However, in order to facilitate
the plaintiff bank to approach the court, the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka restrained the BDA from
168 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
taking any action to demolish the properties for a
period of four weeks. It is to be noted that the writ
petition was disposed of on 28-10-2002, and the
plaintiff bank filed the suit for declaration and
injunction on 16-11-2002 in O.S. No. 7738/2002.
Along with the suit, the plaintiff bank filed I.A. No. 1
under Section 64(2) of the BDA Act and I.A. No. 2
under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the C.P.C., against
the BDA for temporary injunction. As a caveat had
been filed by the BDA, no interim relief was granted.
But it is surprising to note that despite having
knowledge of and participating in the suit, the BDA
demolished the building on 25-11-2002 in the early
morning -- within 9 days from the date of filing of the
suit.
188. It is pertinent to consider the documents
produced by the BDA itself in this regard at Ex. D. 3,
4, and 5 (all of which are U.O. Notes -- Unofficial
Notes). A bare perusal of these documents prima
169 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
facie reveals that they appear to have been created
only to be produced in this case to justify the
demolition. Ex. D. 3, the U.O. Note, begins with Sl.
No. 1 and ends with Sl. No. 16 in Ex. D. 5. Sl. Nos. 1
and 2 (Ex. D. 3) and Sl. Nos. 5 and 6 (Ex. D. 4) are
dated 30-7-2002, and Sl. No. 7 in Ex. D. 4 is dated
22-11-2002, Sl. No. 8 is dated 24-11-2002. But
surprisingly, Sl. Nos. 9, 10, and 11 are again dated
30-7-2002, and Sl. No. 12 is dated 25-11-2002.
189. In the note at Sl. No. 8, dated 22-11-2002,
the Law Officer made notes as follows: "The writ
petition was disposed of on 28-10-2002. The Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka directed the BDA,
restraining it from taking any action to demolish for
four weeks from 28-10-2002 (from today as per the
order herein). The period of 28 days expires on 24-
11-2002 at midnight, as a 'week' means any
consecutive period of 7 days as per the Law Lexicon.
The Vysya Bank has filed a suit on 16-11-2002 in
170 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
O.S. No. 7738/2002 before CCH 12, and there is no
interim order as per the endorsement and letter of
BDA's advocate, Sri Sadashivareddy. Hence, there is
no legal impediment to demolish after midnight on
24-11-2002."
190. But astonishingly, Ex. D. 5 (U.O. Note) at Sl.
No. 11 contains the following note: "Hence, approval
may be accorded to issue a demolition order for the
unauthorised building on the above-said site.
30/7/2002." It is incomprehensible how, on the basis
of the Law Officer's note dated 24-11-2002, a request
could be made to issue a demolition order dated 30-
7-2002. One cannot assume that the pages are mixed
up, because the serial numbers of the notes are
continuous.
191. The most astonishing fact is that in Sl. No.
12, on the second page of Ex. D. 5, it is mentioned:
"As per the court order of the Hon'ble High Court vide
W.P. No. 28601-28602/02 dated 28-10-2002, the
171 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
stay order expired at midnight on 24-11-2002.
Hence, it is requested to issue a demolition order.
Sd/- AEE No. 2, South Division." Thereafter, Note No.
13 reads: "Yes, approved. Sd/- EO II, 25/XI/02 at
6.00 AM." Note No. 16 reads: "Demolition was carried
out on 25-11-2002 with the help of the STF and local
police, and vacant physical possession was taken.".
192. It appears that Defendant No. 2, who was
then Commissioner, took the matter personally, as
though it had touched his ego, because the
demolition order was approved by EO-II in the early
morning at 6:00 AM. It is known to the general public
that government offices normally open only after
10:00 AM, but solely to approve the demolition of the
structure on the suit schedule properties, AEE No. 2
and EO-II attended the office before 6:00 AM.
193. Even Defendant No. 2, Jayakar Jerome, who
was then Commissioner of Defendant No. 1, clearly
admitted in his cross-examination that he was
172 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
present at the time of the demolition. Even if he
denied his role in the illegal demolition, he was
convicted by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
contempt proceedings initiated by the plaintiff bank
in C.C.C. No. 1535/2002. A certified copy of the
order is produced at Ex. P. 193, which shows that
both defendants were convicted by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in the contempt proceedings,
with a fine of ₹10,000/- imposed, and in default of
payment, Defendant No. 2, Mr. Jayakar Jerome, was
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month. It appears that the fine amount has been
paid.
194. Defendants No. 1 and 2 did not conduct even
a minimal inquiry to establish how the plaintiff's
possession of the suit properties was illegal, as no
documents were produced by the defendants in this
regard. In paragraph 9 of the chief examination
affidavit, D.W. 1, K.S. Venkateshappa, deposed:
173 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
"Certain anonymous complaints were received, both
telephonically and in person, that the corner site was
being put to use for certain commercial purposes,
and I was therefore called upon to investigate. It is
under those circumstances that, upon the
anonymous complaint, I made an investigation and
found from the original records that there were no
sale deeds at all." However, not a single piece of
paper was produced to show that any investigation
was conducted. Bare perusal of a building is not
sufficient to come to the conclusion whether the
same is illegal or legal. Any authority has to verify the
documents before coming to the conclusion as to
whether a building is illegal or legal. In this case,
there is no document before the court to show that
the BDA has issued any notice to the plaintiff bank
to submit its title documents for verification. Even if
it is assumed for a moment that the said building is
illegal, the building was long-standing, because Ex.P.
174 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
17 building plan sanctioned by the Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike is dated 13-12-1988, and the
building was demolished on 25-11-2002, meaning it
was an almost 14-year-old building. Photographs
produced by the plaintiff show that the said building
was not erected overnight. Then how the BDA came
to the conclusion that the said building is illegal has
no proper explanation except oral evidence.
195. Even if the said building is illegal, the BDA
should not have adopted the bulldozer culture; it
should have initiated proceedings under the
provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises Eviction
Act, 1971. As per Section 2(e), 'public premises'
means any premises belonging to or allotted to the
State Government, or taken on lease or requisitioned
by or on behalf of the State Government, and
includes any premises belonging to or taken on lease
by and on behalf of -- (e) the Bangalore Development
Authority constituted under the Bangalore
175 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Development Authority Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 12
of 1976). As per Section 4 of this Act, if the
Competent Officer is of the opinion that any persons
are in unauthorised occupation of any public
premises and that they should be evicted, the
Competent Officer shall issue a notice in the manner
provided under the Act, calling upon them to show
cause why an order of eviction should not be passed,
and the said notice must specify the grounds for
eviction. This Act does not provide for demolition of a
building in the early hours of the morning when the
matter is pending before the court and without
holding any enquiry. The bulldozer culture adopted
by the BDA, and more particularly by defendant No.
2, is highly illegal. This is captured in the
photographs produced at Ex.P. 197 to 201 (Ex.P. 197
(a) to 201(a) are the negatives). When it prima facie
appears that the structures in the Schedule A and B
properties have been demolished in violation of the
176 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
law, there is no other option but to hold that the BDA
has demolished the building illegally. Therefore, this
issue is answered in the Affirmative.
196. Issue No. 2 & 3: These issues are taken
together since both are interlinked, and further to
avoid repetition of discussion. The plaintiff bank has
purchased the 'A' schedule property by paying a
consideration of ₹72,00,000/- under the sale deed
dated 31-3-1995, produced at Ex.P. 48. The vendor
of the plaintiff bank has constructed the building
consisting of a ground floor and first floor, for which
the building licence was granted by the Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike on 13-12-1988, produced at Ex.P.
17. Along with Ex.P. 17, a blueprint of the building is
annexed; as per this blueprint, the total area of
construction including the Ground Floor and First
Floor is 2,705 sq. ft. The photographs produced at
Ex.P. 196 (Ex.P. 196(a) is the negative) show the size
of the building. Even the defendants have admitted
177 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
the demolition of the building, and of course that is
the very matter in dispute.
197. The plaintiff bank has examined P.W. 4, T.
Sathish Babu, who assessed the damage and gave a
report as per Ex.P. 194 dated 10-10-2005. The
valuation is as on 25-11-2002. I have carefully
examined this report; the assessor has taken all
relevant values into consideration to assess the value
of the building and has finally fixed it at
₹38,00,490/-. The valuator has also assessed the
damages by way of rental value. While assessing,
they have taken into consideration the situation,
area, quality of the residential building, etc., and
assessed the damages at ₹46,44,000/- from 25-11-
2002 to 24-11-2005. P.W. 4 has deposed about his
report, and thereby the bank has proved the
document by examining the author of the document.
However, during cross-examination, nothing was
elicited from him to discredit his evidence and report.
178 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
Hence, his report can be fairly accepted. Therefore,
these two issues are answered in the affirmative.
198. Issue No. 4: This issue is with regard to
mesne profits. The contention of the plaintiff bank is
that the property consisting of the building was
purchased to accommodate the executives of the
plaintiff bank. Since the building has been
demolished by the defendants illegally, the plaintiff
bank has certainly had to seek alternative
accommodation. Under such circumstances, the
plaintiff bank is definitely entitled to mesne profits,
for which there shall be a separate enquiry. *
199. Issue No. 5: Undisputedly, defendant No. 2
was the Commissioner at the relevant point of time
and took an active part in the demolition of the
building. He has himself admitted during the course
of cross-examination that he was present at the time
of demolition of the building. It is relevant to note
here that the building was demolished in the early
179 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
hours of the day, even with the knowledge that the
matter was pending before the Civil Court. The
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka convicted both the
BDA and defendant No. 2 for contempt, holding that
the building had been demolished in violation of its
order, and imposed a fine of ₹10,000/-, and in
default of payment of the fine, defendant No. 2 was
ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.
200. While demolishing the building, the then BDA
Commissioner, Mr. Jayakar Jerome, exceeded his
powers and acted too personally by demolishing the
building in the early hours of the morning, despite
the matter being pending before the court. As already
noticed by this court, no minimal enquiry was
conducted, and no proceedings were initiated by him
under the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction
Act, which ought to have been followed by the BDA
and defendant No. 2. All these things happened
because of the egoistic attitude of defendant No. 2.
180 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
No provision in the BDA Act or the Public Premises
Eviction Act supports his bulldozer culture.
Defendant No. 2 forgot that he was a civil servant
and was required to follow the rule of law and the
principles of natural justice. We are in a democratic
setup where law alone rules society, and not the
egoistic mindset of the highest-ranking civil servant.
201. Since the act was done by defendant No. 2 in
his capacity as Commissioner of defendant No. 1, the
BDA, by exceeding his powers, the BDA shall pay the
damages and shall recover the same from defendant
No. 2. Therefore, this issue is answered partly in the
affirmative.
202. Issue No. 6: As already observed by this
court, the building on the subject property was
demolished in violation of the statutory rules and
principles of natural justice. The plaintiff bank has
suffered financial loss in addition to physical damage
to the property. If an identical structure were to be
181 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
reconstructed, the cost thereof cannot remain the
same as the original cost of construction, owing to
the escalation in labour charges, material costs, and
allied expenses. Consequently, the plaintiff bank
would be required to incur additional expenditure for
the reconstruction of the building on the same site.
Such additional financial burden can be adequately
compensated only by way of interest on the awarded
compensation.
203. Though the precise quantum of such
escalated cost cannot be determined with scientific
exactitude, this court is of the considered opinion
that the imposition of interest at the rate of 10% per
annum on the compensation awarded would meet
the ends of justice and provide just and reasonable
restitution to the plaintiff bank for the loss suffered.
Accordingly, this issue is answered in the affirmative.
204. The plaintiff has relied upon the following
decisions:
182 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
1. ILR 2000 Kar 4134 John B. James v/s BDA
and another - This decision will not come to
the aid of the plaintiff bank, as the plaintiff
bank is claiming title over the suit property
mainly on the basis of the sale deeds executed
by Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy. As the
plaintiff bank denies its illegal possession, this
decision will not come to the aid of the
plaintiff.
2. 2011(1) Kar LJ 23 - With regard to prior notice
under Section 64 of the BDA Act, this decision
may assist the plaintiff, as the plaintiff has
filed I.A. No. 1 along with the suit under
Section 64 of the BDA Act. It is to be seen that
the relief sought by the plaintiff is an urgent
one.
3. 2009 (5) SCC 713 - It is with regard to the
presumption of a registered sale deed. In this
case, Ex.P.1, 2, 48 and 49 are admitted to
have been executed by following the prescribed
procedure; hence, it may help.
4. 2009 (7) SCC 363 - It is with regard to the
registration of a document giving notice to the
world. In this case also, Ex.P.1, 2, 48 and 49
are registered documents and there is no
dispute about the same; therefore, the BDA
should also have notice of the same.
5. 2007 (2) SCC 551 - This will not help the
plaintiff, because the plaintiff has primarily
claimed declaration only on the basis of the
sale deed and, as a matter of caution, has also
sought adverse possession.
183 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
6. A.I.R. 1951 SC 177 - This decision also will
not help the plaintiff, because the plaintiff is
claiming title over the property on the basis of
a sale deed and also by way of adverse
possession, without admitting the title of the
BDA.
7. 2003 (8) SCC 752 R.V.E. Venkatachala
Gounder v/s Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and
V.P. Temple and another - This decision may
help the plaintiff, because the defendants did
not object to the marking of Ex.P. 203, Ex.P. 1,
2, 48 and 49, though they allege forgery and
fraud. Even otherwise, the sale deeds
produced at Ex.P. 1, 2, 48 and 49 are admitted
to be registered by following the due procedure
of law, and Ex.P. 203 is a document attested
by the BDA Deputy Secretary himself.
8. A.I.R. 1963 SC 1728, Ishwari Prasad Misra v.
Mohammad Isa & A.I.R. 1964 SC 529,
Shashikumar Banerjee and others v/s Subodh
Kumar Banerjee since dead by L.R.s and
others - These decisions are relied upon by the
plaintiff to support their contention that the
evidence of the handwriting expert is not
conclusive. These decisions may help the
plaintiff, because this Court has noticed that
there is delay in lodging the complaint, non-
examination of the expert witness in the
criminal case, acquittal of the accused/vendor
of the plaintiff bank in the criminal case, and
delay in obtaining the report of the
handwriting expert.
184 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
9. 2004 (1) Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs versus M.
Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRs and another -
This decision may help the plaintiff bank in
opposing the demolition of the building
without due process of law, because
undisputedly the plaintiff bank was in
possession of the disputed/demolished
property, and no prior notice was issued to the
bank, no inquiry was conducted, and no
proceedings were initiated under the
Karnataka Public Premises (Unauthorised
Occupants) Eviction Act.
10. (2008) 4 SCC 594 Anathula Sudhakar
versus P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and
others - This decision is relied upon by the
plaintiff bank to support its suit for
declaration and injunction. This decision may
help the plaintiff bank, as the title of the
plaintiff bank had a cloud due to alleged
forgery by its vendor.
11. (2003) 4 SCC 161 Bondar Singh & others
v/s Nihal Singh and others - Without
admitting the title of the other party, no
adverse possession can be claimed; hence, this
decision may not help the plaintiff in proving
his plea of adverse possession, which is taken
as an alternative plea as a matter of abundant
caution.
12. A.I.R. 1970 Supreme Court 1778, State of
West Bengal v/s The Dalhousie Institute of
Society - This decision also pertains to adverse
possession; however, as already observed by
this Court, the plaintiff bank has taken the
185 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
plea of adverse possession only as an
alternative plea, by way of abundant caution,
while primarily claiming title over the property
on the basis of registered sale deeds executed
by its vendor, Suruli Ramarao Narasimha
Murthy. Hence, this decision does not assist
the plaintiff bank.
13. I.L.R. 1994 Kar 3267 B.T. Sakku v.
Commissioner of BDA - This decision is relied
upon by the plaintiff bank to support its
contention that, before demolition, notice
should have been issued to the plaintiff bank.
However, the same is not applicable to the
facts on hand, because the BDA ought to have
taken action under the provisions of the Public
Premises Eviction Act. Both enactments are
different. Section 461 of the Municipal
Corporation Act deals with demolition of illegal
structures by the Commissioner of the
Corporation, whereas the present dispute is
between the BDA and the plaintiff bank,
wherein the issue relates to title between the
parties. Hence, this decision may not be
helpful to the plaintiff bank.
14. A.I.R. 1996 SC 3377 T.N. Housing Board
v. A. Viswam (dead) by L.Rs. & I.L.R. 1991 Kar
1276 - These decisions are cited by the
plaintiff bank to counter the contention of the
BDA that it has taken possession of the
disputed property. These decisions may assist
the plaintiff bank, because although the BDA
has taken a specific stand that it took
possession of the disputed property by
186 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
demolishing the structure thereon, it has not
drawn any panchanama.
15. I.L.R. 1991 Karnataka 1276, K.S. Prabha
v. State of Karnataka - This decision is relied
upon by the plaintiff bank to contend that the
disputed property was earlier allotted to an
institution and, thereafter, such allotment was
cancelled; hence, it becomes a "stray site" as
defined under the Act. This decision may
assist the plaintiff bank in contending that the
disputed property is a stray site, in view of the
fact that it was previously granted to an
educational institution and subsequently
cancelled; therefore, the disputed property
would become a stray site.
16. W.P. (Civil) No. 295 of 2022, In Re:
Directions in the matter of demolition of
structures - This decision is relied upon by the
plaintiff bank with regard to the alleged illegal
demolition by the BDA. This decision would
assist the plaintiff bank in support of its case,
as the BDA, while contending that the plaintiff
bank was in illegal occupation of the disputed
property, demolished the structure in the early
hours of the day without affording an
opportunity to the plaintiff bank, and in
violation of the order passed by the High Court
of Karnataka in the petition. Further, the
conviction recorded by the High Court of
Karnataka demonstrates that the BDA and the
defendants acted in violation of the orders of
the High Court as well as the law.
187 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
17. (2019) 8 SCC 729, Ravinder Kaur Grewal
and others v. Manjit Kaur and others - This
decision is relied upon by the plaintiff bank
with regard to adverse possession. However, as
already noticed by this Court, the plea of
adverse possession has been taken by the
plaintiff bank only as an alternative claim, and
it has primarily contended that the title to the
suit property has been transferred to it by
registered sale deeds. Hence, this decision may
not assist the plaintiff bank.
Defendant No. 1 has relied upon the following
decisions:
18. A.I.R. 2004 Andhra Pradesh 390, Kalal
Thimmanna and others v. Shri Krishna Reddy
and another - This decision is relied upon by
Defendant No. 1 with respect to adverse
possession. However, this Court has already
noticed that the plea of adverse possession
taken by the plaintiff bank is only an
alternative plea, and its main contention is the
transfer of title by way of a registered sale
deed. Hence, as this Court has not accepted
the plea of adverse possession even by the
plaintiff bank, this decision will not assist
Defendant No. 1.
19. 2021 SCC Online Karnataka 14870,
Jeanne Pinto v. Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Koppa and another; & 2024 SCC Online SC
3368, State of Haryana and another v/s Amin
Lal (since deceased) through his L.R.s and
others; & Appeal (Civil) No. 16899-1996,
Karnataka Board of Wakf v/s Government of
188 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
India and others; (2007) 3 SCC 569,
Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (dead) by L.R.s v/s
O.V. Narasimha Setty and others; 2025 SCC
Online SC 1961, Shanti Devi (dead) by her
L.R.s v/s Jagan Devi and others; (2006) 5 SCC
353, Prem Singh and others v/s Birbal and
others; [2022] 18 SCC 489, Kewal Krishan v/s
Rajesh Kumar and others; (1996) 8 SCC 128,
Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v/s Raj Kumari
Sharma (Smt.) and others; [2004] Md.
Mohammad Ali (dead) by L.R.s v/s Jagadish
Kalita and others; (2007) 14 SCC 308, Annakli
v/s A. Vedanayagam and others; (2007) 6 SCC
59 - These decisions are again on the point of
adverse possession. Since this Court has
already negatived the plea of adverse
possession, there is no necessity to consider
these decisions.
20. (2011) 12 Inderjit Singh Grewal v/s State
of Punjab and another & A.I.R. Online 2025
S.C. 693 - These decisions are relied upon by
Defendant No. 1 with respect to the allegation
of fraud against the vendor of the plaintiff
bank, but in the absence of any explanation
regarding the entries made in Ex.P. 203, the
ledger extract of the V Block of Jayanagar
Extension, this will not come to the aid of
Defendant No. 1.
21. (2024) Vasantha (dead) through legal
representative v/s Rajalakshmi @ Rajam
(dead) through legal representatives - This
decision is relied upon by the BDA to contend
that the plaintiff bank has not sought any
189 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
relief of possession with respect to the suit
property, by contending that the possession of
the suit property was taken by the BDA after
demolition. But this decision will also not
come to the aid of the BDA, as the same has
not taken possession of the suit property
through the procedure known to law by
initiating the proceedings under the provisions
of the Karnataka Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants Act, 1971. Mere demolition of the
structure in violation of law and the order of
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka itself
cannot be treated as taking possession of the
property, that too when no
panchanama/mahazar was drawn to take
possession.
22. Civil Appeal No. 11975 of 2025, Shanti
Devi (since deceased) through L.R.s Goran v/s
Jagan Devi and others (Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India) - This decision is relied upon
by Defendant No. 1 BDA with regard to fraud,
but as already noticed by this Court, in the
absence of any explanation with regard to the
entry in the ledger extract i.e. Ex.P. 203, this
decision will not come to the aid of Defendant
No. 1.
23. Civil Appeal No. 5470-2025, Hussain
Ahmed Choudhury and others v/s Habibur
Rahaman (dead) through L.R.s and others
(Hon'ble Supreme Court of India) - This
decision also will not come to the aid of the
BDA, as the entry in the ledger extract i.e.
Ex.P. 203, and the sale deeds at Ex.P. 48 and
190 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
49 still stand in the name of the vendor of the
plaintiff bank, and possession of the suit
property was parted much earlier.
24. (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 573,
Vidhyadhar v/s Manikrao and another; (1974)
4 SCC 335, General Manager, South Central
Railway, Secunderabad and another v/s
A.V.R. Siddhantti and others; (1998) 3 SCC
246, Azhar Hasan and others v/s District
Judge, Saharanpur and others - These
decisions are relied upon by Defendant No. 1
to draw adverse inference against the plaintiff,
but these decisions will not come to the aid of
Defendant No. 1 BDA to draw adverse
inference against the plaintiff bank, since the
documents produced by the plaintiff bank at
Ex.P. 203, the ledger extract of Jayanagar,
show that the site was allotted to the vendor
Suruli Ramarao Narasimha Murthy, which is
still in his name, and it is a document
pertaining to the BDA only. Further, Ex.P. 48
and 49 sale deeds are registered as per the
procedure known for the registration of
documents executed by a public authority. No
adverse inference can be drawn. Non-
impleading of the vendor is not fatal to the
case; this title dispute can be decided even in
the absence of vendor Suruli Ramarao
Narasimha Murthy.
25. (2018) 14 SCC 688, National Highway
Authority of India v/s Progressive-MVR (JV);
(2003) 2 SCC 355, B.L. Sreedhar and others
v/s K.M. Munireddy (dead) and others - These
191 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
decisions are relied upon by Defendant No. 1
BDA with regard to estoppel, but these
decisions are not available to Defendant No. 1,
because, as already noticed by this Court, the
title of the plaintiff is transferred as per the
procedure known to law and the title from the
BDA is also transferred as per the procedure
known to law, as the sale deed of BDA is
registered as per the procedure known to law
for the registration of a document executed by
an exempted person. Though the BDA has
alleged forgery and fraud, no action has been
taken by the BDA against its employees for the
entries reflected in Ex.P. 203, which cannot be
manipulated by any private party.
26. (2019) 15 SCC 1, Nareshbhai Bhagubhai
and others v/s Union of India - This decision
is relied upon by Defendant No. 1 to overcome
the entries made in the unofficial note
produced by Defendant No. 1 itself. But even
otherwise, if the entries are not taken into
consideration, there is no explanation about
the entries made in Ex.P. 203, the possession
certificate, and the bifurcation of the site, etc.;
so this decision is also not available to
Defendant No. 1.
27. (1980) 2 SCC 752, Charles K. Skaria and
others v/s Dr. C. Mathew and others - This
decision is not applicable, as the facts and
circumstances of both cases are entirely
different.
28. (1979) 2 SCC 572, Mohammad
Hasnuddin v/s State of Maharashtra - This
192 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
decision is also not applicable to the facts on
hand, as the cited decision is with respect to
adjudication of jurisdiction by the
authority/court itself.
29. 2008 SCC Online Kar 513, Mrs. Nayana
B. Mehta v/s BDA, Bangalore and others -
This authority is relied upon by Defendant No.
1 BDA with regard to the auction of corner
sites. But this Court has already considered
that the present suit schedule property was
once allotted to the education trust and later
cancelled; further, at the time of allotting the
suit schedule property to the vendor of the
plaintiff bank, the rules regarding corner sites
were not in force. Hence, it is not applicable to
the case on hand.
Defendant No. 2 has relied upon the following
decisions:
30. B.T. Sakku v/s Commissioner BDA,
I.L.R. 1994 Kar 3267 - Already considered by
this Court.
31. John B. James and others v/s BDA,
I.L.R. 2000 Kar 4134 - Already considered by
this Court.
32. M. Radhesyamlal v/s V. Sandhya and
another, (2024) 13 SCC 275; Neelam Gupta &
others v/s Rajendra Kumar Gupta and
another, 2024 SCC Online SC 2824 - These
decisions are with respect to the adverse
possession plea raised by the plaintiff bank,
but this Court has already considered that the
plea of adverse possession of the plaintiff bank
193 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
is only an alternative plea and not the main
plea; hence, the same is not considered.
33. 2024 SCC Online SC 517, Kizhakke
Vattakandiyil Madhavan (dead) through L.R.s
v/s Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki and
others - This decision is also not applicable to
the facts on hand, since the allotment of the
site and issuance of the possession certificate
is reflected in Ex.P. 203, and Ex.P. 48 and 49
are registered in accordance with law; further,
the sale deeds produced at Ex.P. 1 & 2 are
also registered as per the procedure known to
law.
34. P. Kishore Kumar v/s Vittal K. Patkar,
(2024) 13 SCC 553 - This decision may help
the plaintiff bank itself rather than the
defendants, because the allotment of the suit
schedule property is reflected in the ledger
extract of the BDA, which is meant to reflect
the entries of the allotted sites, and the
original of the said document is missing as per
their own endorsement. Further, the
registration of the sale deeds as per Ex.P. 1 &
2 is as per the procedure known to law, and
most importantly, the entries in Ex.P. 203 still
stand in the name of the vendor of the plaintiff
bank and have not been cancelled; apart from
this, all the revenue entries stand in the name
of the vendor of the plaintiff bank and,
presently, the plaintiff bank. Hence, it is
helpful to the plaintiff bank itself.
35. 2025 SCC Online Kar 1124, Somayya
Belchada v/s Santhosh and others - This
194 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
decision is relied upon by Defendant No. 2 to
contend that the relief of declaration is not
maintainable without seeking the relief of
possession when the plaintiff is not in
possession of the said property. But in my
humble opinion, the cited decision is not
applicable to the facts on hand, because as on
the date of filing the suit the plaintiff was in
possession, which is an undisputed fact;
further, possession of the suit property has
not been taken by the BDA as per the
procedure known to law, i.e., by initiating
proceedings under the Public Premises
Eviction Act, and merely demolishing the
structure does not mean it can contend that it
has taken possession of the property. Hence, it
cannot be made applicable to the facts on
hand.
36. 2025 SCC Online SC 588, Naganna
(dead) by L.R.s/Smt. Devamma and others v/s
Siddaramegowda (since deceased) by L.R.s and
others - This decision is also not applicable to
the facts on hand, as there is no dispute with
regard to the identity of the property.
37. 2024 SCC Online Kar 16434, C.M.
Meerliyakhat Ali v/s Vasanthamma and others
- This is also with respect to adverse
possession and proof of documents, but this
decision is not applicable to the case on hand,
since Ex.P. 1, 2, 48, and 49 are registered as
per the procedure known to law, and Ex.P. 203
is also an internal document of BDA, the
manipulation of which is not explained and no
195 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
action has been taken against any of the
employees of the BDA.
38. [2009] 13 SCC 729, Vishnu Dutta
Sharma v/s Daya Sapra (Smt.) - This decision
is relied upon by Defendant No. 2 to contend
that the judgment of acquittal of the vendor of
the plaintiff bank is not binding on this Court.
However, this Court has taken other factors
also into consideration while deciding the case.
39. 1994 SCC Online Ori 97, Trilochan
Dandsena and another v/s State of Orissa and
others - This decision is with regard to the
validity of a sale deed executed without
obtaining the permission of the government in
the case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe members. Since the facts and
circumstances of the case are entirely
different, it cannot be made applicable.
194. Issue No. 7 (both in O.S.No. 7738/2002 &
O.S.No.9382/2005):- In view of the above reasons I
proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The suits of the plaintiff bank in O.S.No.
7738/2002 and O.S. No. 9382/2005 are
hereby decreed with costs.
It is declared that the plaintiff bank is
the owner of the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule
196 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
properties by virtue of the registered sale
deeds dated 31-03-1995.
SPONSORED
The BDA and its officials are hereby
permanently restrained by way of
permanent injunction from interfering in
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties by
the plaintiff bank.
It is further decreed that the plaintiff
bank is entitled to damages of ₹84,74,490/-
together with interest at the rate of 10% per
annum from 25-11-2002 till the date of
realization.
The BDA is directed to pay the decree
amount within 60 days from the date of this
judgment and shall be entitled to recover
the same from defendant No. 2, Mr. Jayakar
Jerome.
Till the payment of the decree amount,
defendant No. 2, Mr. Jayakar Jerome, is
restrained from executing any deed of
conveyance in respect of his personal
properties or from creating any third party
interest therein.
197 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
A separate enquiry for mesne profits
shall be conducted under Order XX Rule 12
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The office is directed to draw the decree
accordingly.
The original judgment shall be retained
in O.S. No. 7738/2002 and a certified copy
thereof shall be placed in O.S. No.
9382/2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer III on Computer and print out
taken thereof is revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by
me in Open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2026).
[SATHISHA.L.P.]
XCI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.
JUDGE FOR KPIDFE CASES .
C/C VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
P.W.1 – Sri. N.L. Sridhar
P.W.2- B.N. Ravichandra Reddy
P.W.3- Krishanjaneyulu P.
198 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005P.W.4- T. Satish Babu
Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff :
Sale deeds
Ex.P.1 & 2Ex.P.3 Statement
Memos
Ex.P.4 & 5Ex.P.6 Special Notice
Endorsement
Ex.P.7Ex.P.8 & 9 Extracts of property registers
Ex.P.10 & 11 Sketch
Letter
Ex.P.12Ex.P.13 Reply letter
Advertisement notices
Ex.P.14 & 15Certificate
Ex.P.16
199 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Letter
Ex.P.17Ex.P.18 Notice
Encumbrance Certificates
Ex.P.19 to 26Ex.P.27 Demand notice
Ex.P.28 to 36 Receipts
Ex.P.37 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.38 to 41 Receipts
Ex.P.42 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.43 Receipt
Ex.P.44 & 45 Receipts
Ex.P.46 & 47 Agreements of sale
Ex.P.48 & 49 Sale deeds
200 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Ex.P.50 Certificate is marked
Ex.P.51 to 61 Bills
Ex.P.62 Bill
Ex.P.63 Receipt
Ex.P.64 Bill
Ex.P.65 Receipt
Ex.P.66 Bill
Ex.P.67 Receipt
Ex.P.68 Bill
Ex.P.69 Receipt
Ex.P.70 Bills
Ex.P.71 Receipt
201 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Ex.P.72 Bill
Ex.P.73 Receipt
Ex.P.74 Bill
Ex.P.75 Receipt
Ex.P.76 Bill
Ex.P.77 Receipt
Ex.P.78 Bill
Ex.P.79 Receipt
Ex.P.80 to 86 Bills
Ex.P.87 Receipt
Ex.P.88 to 92 Bills
Ex.P.93 Receipt
202 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Ex.P.94 to 97 Bills
Ex.P.98 Receipt
Ex.P.99 Bill
Ex.P.100 Receipt
Ex.P.101 & 102 Bills
Ex.P.103 Receipt
Ex.P.104 Bill
Ex.P.105 Receipt
Ex.P.106 Bill
Ex.P.107 Receipt
Ex.P.108 Bill
Ex.P.109 Receipt
203 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Ex.P.110 Bill
Ex.P.111 Receipt
Ex.P.112 Bill
Ex.P.113 Receipt
Ex.P.114 Bill
Ex.P.115 Receipt
Ex.P.116 Bill
Ex.P.117 Receipt
Ex.P.118 Bill
Ex.P.119 Receipt
Ex.P.120 Bill
Ex.P.121 Bill
204 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Ex.P.122 Receipt
Ex.P.123 Bill
Ex.P.124 Receipt
Ex.P.125 Bill
Ex.P.126 Receipt
Ex.P.127 Bill
Ex.P.128 Receipt
Ex.P.129 Bill
Ex.P.130 Receipt
Ex.P.131 Bill
Ex.P.132 Receipt
Ex.P.133 Bill
205 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Ex.P.134 Receipt
Ex.P.135 Bill
Ex.P.136 Receipt
Ex.P.137 Bill
Ex.P.138 Receipt
Ex.P.139 Bill
Ex.P.140 Receipt
Ex.P.141 Bill
Ex.P.142 Receipt
Ex.P.143 Bill
Ex.P.144 Receipt
Ex.P.145 Bill
206 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Ex.P.146 Receipt
Ex.P.147 Bill
Ex.P.148 Receipt
Ex.P.149 Bill
Ex.P.150 Receipt
Ex.P.151 Bill
Ex.P.152 Receipt
Ex.P.153 Bill
Ex.P.154 Receipt
Ex.P.155 Bill
Ex.P.156 Receipt
Ex.P.157 Bill
207 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Ex.P.158 Receipt
Ex.P.159 Bill
Ex.P.160 Receipt
Ex.P.161 Bill
Ex.P.162 Receipt
Ex.P.163 Bill
Ex.P.164 Receipt
Ex.P.165 Bill
Ex.P.166 Receipt
Ex.P.167 Bill
Ex.P.168 Receipt
Ex.P.169 Bill
208 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Ex.P.170 Receipt
Ex.P.171 Bill
Ex.P.172 & 173 Receipts
Ex.P.174 Bill
Ex.P.175 to 190 Telephone bills
Ex.P.191 Certified copy of the orders passed in
W.P.No.28601-602/2002Ex.P.192 Attested copy of notarized copy of
attorneyEx.P.193 Certified copy of the orders passed in
CCC.No.1535/2002Ex.P.194 Assessment report
Ex.P.195 Copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.196 to 201 Photographs
209 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Ex.P.202 Valuation report
Ex.P.203 Ledger Extract of Jayanagar V Block
Ex.P.204 Charge sheet in CC.No.23341/2008
Ex.P.205 Certified copy of Order sheet in
CC.No.23341/2008Ex.P.206 Certified copy of Deposition of
Venkateshappa in CC.No.23341/2008Ex.P.207 Certified copy of Judgment in
CC.No.23341/2008Ex.P.208 Certified copy of Deposition of G.
RamachandraEx.P.209 Certified copy of the Complaint dated
14/08/2002 lodged by BDA to
Sheshadripuram Police StationEx.P.210 Certified copy of requisition of G.
Ramachandra dated 13/08/2002
submitted to BDAEx.P.211 Court Certified copy of the Lease cum
210 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Sale Agreement dated 20.12.1988
which was marked as Ex.P.3 in C.C
No.23341/2008 before the Court of 1st
ACMM, BanglaoreEx.P.212 Court Certified copy of the Lease cum
Sale Agreement dated 03.05.1989
which was marked as Ex.P.4 in C.C
No.23341/2008 before the Court of 1st
ACMM, BanglaoreEx.P.213 Case Status of C.C.No.2713/2004 as
published in CISEx.P.214 Case Status of C.C.No.27639/2005
as published in CISEx.P.215 Case Status of C.C.No.14975/2006
as published in CISEx.P.216 Case Status of C.C.No.27442/2006
as published in CISEx.P.217 Case Status of C.C.No.20673/2003
as published in CISEx.P.218 Certificate U/s 63 of BSA – 2023 with
regard to Ex.P.213 to Ex.P.217
211 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant
DW.1 : K.S. Venkateshappa
DW.2 : S. Mruthyunjaya B.E
DW.3 : Fedrick D’souza
DW.4 : H.S. Revanna
DW.5 : Chandrashekar D.A
DW.6 : G. Ramachandra
DW.7 : Jayakar Jerome
Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
Ex.D.1 Authorization letter issued by BDA
dated 20-12-2018 to DW.1Ex.D.2 Notary attested copy
comprehensive layout planEx.D.2(a) Portion of site No.527 shown in
Ex.D.2Ex.D.3 Status report of dated 30-07-2002
Ex.D.4 Demolition order dated 30-07-
2002
212 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005Ex.D.5 Demolition order dated 25-11-
2002Ex.D.6 Police Complaint written in
Kannada dated 25-11-2002Ex.D.7 Police Complaint written in English
dated 25-11-2002Ex.D.8 Order as to removal dated 25-11-
2002
Ex.D.9 Modified notification
Ex.D.10 CD
Ex.D.11 65-B Affidavit
Ex.D.12 General receipt register extract
Ex.D.13 Letter dated 27-10-2022
Ex.D.14 Certified copy of Page No.3 Deccan
Herald dated 03-09-2002
Witnesses examined as court witness
213 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005CW.1 : Syed Asgar Imani
Documents marked on behalf of CW.1
Ex.C.1 Handwriting expert report
(Sathisha.L.P.).
C/C. VII A.C.C. & S.J.,
BENGALURU.
OS.No.7738/2002 SCHEDULE-A
All that land and residential house
consisting of Ground Floor and First Floor
put up on the site bearing No.527-A, 44th
Cross, 11th 41, Corporation Division Main,
V Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore No.60,
measuring North to South 100 Feet and
East to West 75 Feet and totally measuring
7,500 Sq. Feet and bounded on:East by: Property No. 527-B
West by: property No. 528-A
North by: Road 44th Cross, and
South by: Property No.526SCHEDULE -B
All that land developed into Garden
with Well on the site bearing No.527-B,
214 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/200544th Cross, 11th Main, V Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore 41, Corporation
Division No. 60, measuring North to South:
100 Feet and East to West 75 Feet and
totally measuring 7,500 Sq. Feet and
bounded on:
East by : Road 11th Main
West by : Property No. 527-A
North by : Road 44th Cross, and
South by : Property No.526OS.No.9382/2005 SCHEDULE-A
All that land and residential house consisting of
Ground Floor and First Floor put up on the site
bearing No.527 A, 44th Cross, 11th Main, 5th
Block, Jaynagar, Bangalore-41, Corporation
Division No.60, measuring North to South; 100
feet and East to West: 75 feet and totally
measuring 7,500 sq. Feet and bounded on:
East by : Property No.527B;
West by : Property No.528A;
North by : Road 44th Cross; and
South by : Property No.526.
SCHEDULE- B
All that land developed into Garden with well
on the site bearing No.527 B, 44th Cross, 11th
Main, 5th Block, Jaynagar, Bangalore – 41,
Corporation Division No.60, measuring North to
South; 100 feet and East to West: 75 feet and
totally measuring 7,500 Sq. Feet and bounded
on:
215 O.S. No.7738/2002
C/W 9382/2005
East by : Road 11th Main;
West by : Property No.527A;
North by : Road 44th Cross; and
South by : Property No.526.
LP Digitally signed by L P
SATHISHSATHISH Date: 2026.04.21 16:56:01
+0530(Sathisha.L.P.).
C/C. VII A.C.C. & S.J.,
BENGALURU.