Bangalore District Court
Lalithamma vs Bda, Rep. By Its Commissioner on 5 June, 2025
KABC0A0002362022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU. (CCH-74)
P r e s e n t:
Smt. Anitha N.P., B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 05th day of June, 2025.
O.S. No.25109/2022
Plaintiff:- Lalithamma,
W/o Late K.C. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.3, 3rd Main, 4th Cross,
HBR layout, 4th Block,
Bengaluru 560 043.
[By Sri.S.R.Vishalakshi - Adv.]
Vs.
Defendants:- 1. The Bangalore Development Authority
Rep by its Commissioner
Bellary Road, Kumara Park East,
Bangalore.
2. The Executive Engineer,
BDA, North Division,
BDA Complex,
R.T.Nagar, Bangalore.
[Fro D1 & 2, By Sri.M.N.Devaraju - Adv.]
2
O.S. No.25109/2022
Date of institution of the suit : 17.01.2022
Nature of the suit (Suit for pro-
note,suit for declaration and : Injunction suit
injunction,suit for injunction,
etc)
Date of commencement of : 22.06.2022
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 05.06.2025
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Days
03 04 18
Digitally signed by
ANITHA
ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY
Date: 2025.06.13
17:34:03 +0530
(Anitha.N.P.)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff has filed this suit as against the defendant
No.1 & 2 seeking the relief of permanent injunction and for
such other further reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaint averments are as under:-
The husband of the plaintiff by name K.C.Sirnivas Reddy
acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of registered
partition deed dated 24.04.1973. He had paid the betterment
3
O.S. No.25109/2022charges and also tax to CMC Batrayanapura. The khatha was
also accepted in his name. Subsequently the suit schedule
property came within the purview of BBMP and BBMP issued
“A” khatha in respect of suit property. The Suit schedule
property is also given with civic amenities. The plaintiff is
having prima-facie title and possession over suit property. The
defendant BDA has not acquired the suit schedule property. In
respect of the same survey number O.S.25072/2022 is also
pending before CCH-74.
3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff
has obtained licence for construction of house from the Village
Panchayath of Hennur Village. During the life time of Srinivas
Reddy he had constructed building in the suit schedule property.
The defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit
property. Inspite of that on 28.12.2021 the officials of
defendants have made an attempt to interfere with the peaceful
possession of plaintiff over suit property. It is with great
difficulty plaintiff saved the possession. The defendants however
4
O.S. No.25109/2022
are often visiting the suit schedule property and they may
demolish the suit schedule property and dispossess the plaintiff
from the suit property. The defendants board governed by
government and they can take law into their hands at any time
in any manner. The plaintiff is not in a position to restrain their
acts. The plaintiff is in settled possession. There is likelihoold of
allot or creating charge over suit property by auction. There is
imminent threat of alienation. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed
this suit and prays to decree the suit.
4. After receiving the suit summons the defendants
appeared before the court through their counsel and filed their
written statement.
5. Brief facts of the written statement is as under:-
The defendants in their written statement have denied the
entire case of the plaintiff including the title and the possession
of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and they called upon
plaintiff to prove the facts asserted.
5
O.S. No.25109/2022
6. The defendants have taken a specific contention that
one Sri. Muninanja S/o Nanja, Chikkamuniga S/o Nanja and
Karimuniga S/o Nanja were the khatedars of land bearing
Sy.No.50/1 measuring 5 guntas and one Muniga S/o Mara was
the khathedar of Sy.No.51 measuring 3 acres 6 guntas. The said
properties are situated at Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. The defendant acquired the land in
Sy.No.50/1 as per the preliminary notification No.BDA/ALAOS-
11/1978-79 dated 21.06.1978 and final notification was issued in
No.HUD/567/MNX/84 dated 09.01.1985 for the purpose of
formation of HBR-I stage.
7. It is the further case of the defendant that pursuant to
the preliminary notification as well as final notification the
defendant acquired the land. The possession asserted is
unauthorized and construction is illegal and it can be
demolished and suit property can be recovered in due process of
law.
6
O.S. No.25109/2022
8. It is the further contentions of the defendant that there
is no cause of action to file this suit. The alleged cause of
action is false and untenable. The plaintiff is not entitled to suit
relief. The relief sought is mischievous. On the above grounds
the defendants prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
9. Based on the pleadings, my Predecessor-in-office has
framed following:
I S S U E S
1) Whether plaintiff proves that she is in
possession of suit schedule property as on
the date of suit?
2) Whether plaintiff proves that defendant has
interfered with plaintiff’s peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property?
3) Whether plaintiff is entitle for the relief
sought in the plaint?
4) What order or decree?
10. The plaintiff so as to prove her case got examined
herself as PW-1 and 2 witnesses as PW-2 & 3. The plaintiff has
7
O.S. No.25109/2022
produced and got marked in all 35 documents as per Ex.P1 to
35. On the contrary the defendants so as to prove their defence
examined its authorized official as DW-1 and has produced in
all 10 document as per Ex.D1 to 10.
11. Heard arguments. The plaintiff submitted her written
arguments and citations. Perused the pleadings, evidence,
documents and available materials on record.
12. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 :- In the negative
Issue No.2 :- In the negative
Issue No.3 :- In the negative
Issue No.4 :- As per final Order for the
following:
R E A S O N S
13. Issue No.1:- It is the specific case of the plaintiff that
the suit schedule property was acquired by her husband
Srinivasa Reddy under the registered partition deed dated
24.04.1973. The husband of the plaintiff got the khatha in
respect of suit schedule property in his name, he has paid
betterment charges and also paid taxes. The plaintiff after
8
O.S. No.25109/2022
obtaining the licence for construction of house during the life
time of Srinivas Reddy constructed house in the suit schedule
property and they have taken electricity connection. The
defendant has no right, title over the suit property and inspite
of that the officials of defendant have tried to interfere with the
peaceful possession of plaintiff over suit property and there is a
imminent threat to the possession of plaintiffs over the suit
schedule property. The suit schedule property is not at all
acquired by BDA. The defendants being the board can take law
into their hands and they may dispossess the plaintiff from the
suit schedule property.
14. On the contrary the defendants have categorically
denied the entire case of the plaintiff including the title and
possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule property. The
defendants have taken a specific defence that One Sri Muninanja
S/o Nanja, Chikkamuniga S/o Nanja and Karimuniga S/o Nanja
were the khatedars of land bearing Sy.No.50/1 measuring 5
guntas and one Sri.Muninaga S/o Mara is the khatedar of
9
O.S. No.25109/2022
Sy.No.51 measuring 3 acres 6 guntas of Hennuru Village, Kasaba
Hobli Bengaluru North Taluk. The defendant acquired said
survey numbers as per Preliminary Notification and Final
Notification for formation of HBR-I stage. The defendant has
taken possession of the land and hence the argument of the
plaintiff that she is in possession of suit property and there is
construction is unauthorized construction. There is no cause of
action to the suit.
15. The plaintiff so as to prove her case got examined
herself as PW-1 and she also examined 2 witnesses by name
Nagaraju and Ganesh Reddy as PW-2 & 3. During the course of
evidence PW-1 and her witnesses PW-2 & 3 have filed their
respective chief examination affidavits. PW-1 has reiterated the
plaint averments on oath. PW.2 & 3 in their affidavits have
supported the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has produced
and got marked in all 35 documents as per Ex.P1 to 35. Ex.P1
to 3 are RTC extracts Ex.P4 is the 31 photos, Ex.P5 & 5(a) are
compact discs Ex.P6 & 7 are tax assessment list and tax receipts,
10
O.S. No.25109/2022
Ex.P8 is notice dated 26.07.2006 Ex.P9 is assessment register
extract issued by CMC Byatrayanapura, Ex.P10 is khatha
certificate, Ex.P11 is form B property register extract, Ex.P12 is
12 tax paid receipts, Ex.P13 is encumbrance certificate, Ex.P14
& 15 are rental agreements dated 10.12.2005, and 15.10.2005,
Ex.P16 to 30 are certified copy of Judgments and Decrees in
O.S.No.26487/2009, O.S.No.2558/2009, O.S.No.25476/2020,
O.S.No.25596/2013 O.S.No.25235/2015, O.S.No.26987/2013,
O.S.No.26317/2009, O.S.No.6725/2006 O.S.No.26508/2011,
O.S.No.26547/2007, O.S.No.25086/2017, O.S.No.25416/2018,
O.S.No.25055/2013, O.S.No.15286/2004, O.S.No.6925/2006,
Ex.P31 is the certified copy of release deed dated 22.02.2017
executed by Shankar Reddy and others, Ex.P32 is the certificate
dated 08.09.2012 issued by BBMP Ex.P33 is the khatha extract
for the period 2011-12, Ex.P34 & 35 are the tax paid receipts.
16. The defendant so as to prove its defence has examined
one Manjunath G. the authorized official as DW-1. During the
course of evidence this DW-1 filed his chief examination
11
O.S. No.25109/2022
affidavit reiterating the contentions of his written statement.
The defendant has produced in all 10 documents as per Ex.D1
to 10.
17. Ex.D1 is the Authorization Letter, Ex.D2 is the
Preliminary Notification copy, Ex.D2(a) is the typed copy of
Preliminary Notification, Ex.D3 is the Copy of Final Notification
dated 09-01-1985, Ex.D4 is copy of award, Ex.D5 is Mahazar for
having taken possession, Ex.D6 is copy of survey sketch of
Sy.No.50/1 Ex.D7 is possession Mahazar Ex.D8 is copy of
notification Under Sec.16(2) of Land Acquisition Act, Ex.D9 is
copy of Award in LAC No.68/84-85, Ex.D10 is copy of mahazar.
18. In the case on hand the suit property is house
property bearing No. 50/1 in Sy.No.51 of Hennur Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk at present 4 th Block, HBR
Layout, Bangalore. According to plaintiff her husband is the
absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property by virtue
of partition deed and khatha was also accepted in his name.
However according to defendant Sy.No.50/1 and 51 of Hennur
12
O.S. No.25109/2022
village were acquired for formation of HBR-I stage through
Preliminary Notification dated 27-06-1978 and Final Notification
No. HUD/567/MNX/84 dated 09-01-1985.
19. The plaintiff has relied on documents like khatha
extract, RTC extracts, assessment list, demand registered extract.
However they are pertains to the period 2012 and earlier to
that. They are not pertains to the period in which the present
suit is filed.
20. This suit is for the relief of bare injunction, the title
of the property is immaterial. The plaintiff need not prove title
of the property. However the plaintiff has categorically pleaded
that her husband acquired the suit schedule property under the
registered partition deed dated 24-04-1973 in the family
partition. When the plaintiff has specifically asserted that her
husband got title to the suit schedule property under the
partition deed dated 24.04.1973 the plaintiff has to establish the
said fact. The plaintiff has to establish how the said joint family
acquired the suit schedule property prior to the said so called
13
O.S. No.25109/2022
partition and under which partition her husband got the suit
schedule property and how the title of suit property flown to
her husband. That apart though the plaintiff specifically asserts
that herself and her predecessors are in settled possession of suit
property still the plaintiff claims that her husband acquired the
suit property under the registered partition deed and acquired
the possession. Therefore the title of the suit schedule property
is required to be considered incidentally. On careful scrutiny of
the documents produced by the plaintiff no such partition deed
dated 24-04-1973 is produced by the plaintiff.
21. The suit schedule property according to plaintiff is
situated in Sy.No.51. On perusal of Ex.P1 to 3 RTC extracts they
do not disclose any details how the name of Srinivasa Reddy
was entered in respect of Sy.No.51. column No.10 of the RTC
extracts marked at Ex.P1 to 3 is kept blank. To enter a name of
person as occupant of particular survey number there must be
some proceedings. No such document to show how Srinivas
Reddy got the said survey number 51 is not established. When
14
O.S. No.25109/2022
the plaintiff claims that her husband got the suit property in
registered partition deed dated 24-04-1973 how come in the
year 1964-65 itself the name of Srinivasa Reddy came to be
entered in the RTC of Sy.No.51 is not established. As per
Sec.133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act the entries in the RTC’s
have only presumptive value unless the contrary is proved.
When the property No.50/1 is carved out of SY.No.51 is also
not established.
22. As could be seen from the preliminary notification and
final notification produced by the defendants in respect of
Sy.No.51 of Hennuru Village which reflects the name of one
Muninaga S/o Mara. The defendants have categorically denied
the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property
and contended that for the formation of HBR-I stage Sy.No.50/1
as well as Sy.No.51 were acquired after the passing of
Preliminary Notification and Final Notification.
23. When there is a denial of the title of the plaintiff in
respect of suit schedule property the plaintiff has to establish
15
O.S. No.25109/2022
the flow of title and she has to file suit for declaration of title
at this stage this court wants to rely on the decision of Honble
Apex court reported in
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2033 in between Anathula
Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors wherein it is
held at para 12 as follows:-
12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration
will be necessary only if the denial of title by the
defendant or challenge to plaintiff’s title raises a cloud on
the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise
over a person’s title, when some apparent defect in his
title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a
third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for
declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title
to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has
clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without
any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent
title, merely denies the plaintiff’s title, it does not amount
to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will
not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration
and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the
plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a
wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for
injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in
his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him,
which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff’s
title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the
plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration.
Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare
injunction, with permission of the court to file a
comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He
may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief,
even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the
16
O.S. No.25109/2022
suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of
title.
24. As discussed above the plaintiff has not produced any
such partition deed dated 24.04.1973. In RTC extracts of
SY.No.51 in column No.10 nothing is mentioned regarding how
said Srinivasa Reddy got the said 1 acre 19 guntas in Sy.No.51.
The mode of flow of title to Srinivasa Reddy for Sy.No.51 is not
corroborated by any piece of evidence.
25. The RTC extracts marked at Ex.P1 to 3 shows that
there was total availability of 1 acre 19 guntas in Sy.No.51 and
suit property is 250 X 80 sq.feet. The case of the plaintiff is
that on 24-04-1973 her husband acquired suit property i.e
property No.50/1 in SY.No.51. When that being the case in the
release deed dated 22-02-2017 the persons by name
K.S.Shankarareddy and others executed the said release deed in
respect of Sy.No.51 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas. When 250 X 80
Sq.ft., in Sy.51 in property No.50/1 was acquired by the
husband of this plaintiff under the partition deed dated 24-04-
17
O.S. No.25109/2022
1973 then why the said Shankarareddy and others have
executed said release deed for 1 acre 19 guntas again to this
plaintiff. Hence the said release deed falsifies the case of the
plaintiff.
26. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that defendant has
admitted his possession as an unauthorized possession and also
admitted the construction of building. The plaintiff also argued
that DW-1 has admitted name of Srinivasa Reddy is not found
in the Ex.D2 preliminary notification. However, the very
documents relied on by the plaintiff are insufficient to establish
the very flow of title to the husband of plaintiff nor they are
helpful to the plaintiff to establish acquisition of title by her
husband or his family members and ancestors. The document
relied on by the plaintiff are totally insufficient to establish the
facts asserted in plaint. Except the release deed, RTC and
khatha certificate plaintiff has not produced any other document
to show the exact identity of the suit schedule property and so
also her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on
18
O.S. No.25109/2022
the date of suit. Without establishing the basic requirements of
the suit for bare injunction the contentions of the plaintiff that
she is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on
the date of suit has no weight. The photographs, CD relied on
by the plaintiff is not supported by certificate as contemplated
under Indian Evidence Act. Moreover the photographs cannot be
considered as piece of evidence to establish the possession over
the immovable property.
27. The plaintiff has approached this court with specific
case that she is in lawful possession over the suit schedule
property as on the date of suit and she got constructed house.
However, she has not produced any piece of evidence in support
of these contentions. Copy of sanction plan or licence is not
produced. Therefore the assertion of the plaintiff that she is in
lawful possession and her husband got constructed the house
having acquired it under the Registered Partition Deed appears
to be unreasonable to accept.
19
O.S. No.25109/2022
28. The khatha certificate at Ex.P10 is issued on
26.07.2007. The tax assessment list marked at Ex.P6 is pertains
to the year 1990-91 the prior notice of CMC Batrayanapura is
dated 26.07.2006. Ex.P9 the self assessment register extract is
dated 26.06.2005. Ex.P10 khatha certificate is pertains to the
year 2007. Ex.P11 form B register extract is also pertains to the
year 02.06.2020. The certificate issued by BBMP marked at
Ex.P32 is dated 08.09.2012, Ex.P33 the register extract for house
and vacant site marked at Ex.P33 is pertains to the period 2011-
12. The careful study of the above documents relied on by the
plaintiff does not disclose the settled possession or the lawful
possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as on
the date of the suit. None of the above documents are pertains
to the date of filing of this suit and they are pertains to the
year 2020 and earlier to that.
29. The plaintiff has relied upon the following decisions:
1. RFA No.1631/2007 between BDA Vs. Smt. Gowramma
and another)
20
O.S. No.25109/2022In the above decision the Hon’ble High court
held in para No.20 that “under these
circumstances even if the application filed under
O-XLI Rule 27 is allowed, the documents relied
on by the appellant are not sufficient to
probabilise the contention of the appellant that
the schedule property was acquired possession
was taken over award was passed and the
compensation amont was disbursed.”
2. LAWS (KAR)-2016-2-279 in WP No21641/2012 between
(M.Mukunda Vs. State of Karnataka)Where in the Honble High Court of Karnataka
held that “on the basis of the mahazar prepared in a
cyclostyled form by filling up the blanks without
presence of owners of land or anybody representing
them said to have been drqwn in the presence of
individuals whose names and particulars are not
appearing the same cannot be relied on to
demonstrate that the physical possession of the
property has been taken over”
3. 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10299 between (K.L.Ramesh VS.
BDA)
Wherein the Hon’ble High court held that
“Very interestingly it must be noticed that though
the preliminary notification and final notification
are issued during the year 1990 onwards
nevertheless till 2009, when the notification under
sec. 16(2) was issued, nothing appreciable is done
for over two decades. The long lapse of time in
21
O.S. No.25109/2022not implementing the scheme in Yalachenahalli
only demonstrates the dereliction of statutory
duties without justification by the BDA. It is high
time to BDA conducts a self audit over discharge
statutory duties by its officers and if found to be
incompetent, to weed them out and pave way for
competent persons. The delay in the
implementation of the Banashankari V Stage
scheme, brings to fore serious infirmities in the
business of the BDA. It is not the only scheme in
which this Court has had to make such an
observation, since in many a scheme propounded
by the BDA has ultimately resulted in de-
notification, exclusion of lands from acquisition
and failure to take possession of large tracks of
lands proposed for acquisition”.
30. The plaintiff also relied on the following decisions:
1. W.P.No.45498/2014 (LA-BDA) between (Muniswamy &
others VS. The State of Karnataka & another)
2. ILR 2011 KAR 574 between (Mrs. Poornima Girish Vs.
Revenue Deparment, Government of Karnataka and others)
3. AIR 1963 Bombay 100 between (Jaiprakash Mangilal
Agarwal Vs. Smt.Lilabai & another)
4. 2011 (5) Kar. L.J. 524 between (R.Adhikesavulu Naidu
& others Vs. State of Karnataka & others).
22
O.S. No.25109/2022
5. LAWS (KAR)-2004-11-11 between D. Narayanappa Vs.
State of Karnataka.
6. LAWS (KAR) 2013 968 The BDA Vs. M.S.Narayana
Murthy.
7. W.P.No.13640/2014 (LA-BDA) C/W W.P.No.29515/2019
(LA-BDA) between Sri. Jaypaul Vs. The BDA & others.
31. I have gone through the decisions relied on by the
plaintiff and also the facts and circumstances of the present
case. In the case on hand the plaintiff has come up with specific
case that her husband acquired the suit schedule property by
virtue of registered partition and suit schedule property is
carved out of Sy.No.51. When it has to be acquired under the
registered partition deed definitely prior to the said partition the
said property must be in the name of the person who acquired
the said property for the said joint family. However, as
discussed above the RTC marked at Ex.P1 to 3 shows the name
of Srinivas Reddy for 1 acre 19 guntas. However, how it has
came to be entered in his name is not reflected in the said RTC.
23
O.S. No.25109/2022
Whether the said property was acquired by him by way of
grant, transfer, sale, gift, will or by way of any other
instrument is not reflected in the RTC extracts. In what way the
said property in SY.No.51 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas is made
out in the name of Srinivasa Reddy is not corroborated by any
documents. That apart in respect of very same Sy.No.51 if the
document relied on by defendant i.e., preliminary notification is
looked into it stands in the name of Sri Muniga S/o Maara.
Admittedly it is not the case of the plaintiff that said Muniga S/
o Mara is the ancestor of this plaintiff. That apart it is also not
the case of the plaintiff that there was availability of some more
land in Sy.No.51 of Hennur Village apart from the 3 acre 6
guntas claimed by the defendant. Hence there is vital
contradiction in respect of the total extent of land which was
available in SY.No.51 itself. The plaintiff has not produced any
document like RTC which reflect the entire extent or the extent
claimed by the defendant i.e., 3 acre 6 guntas. The plaintiff
though not placed any evidence to show that the land claimed
24
O.S. No.25109/2022
by the plaintiff in Sy.No.51 is different from the one which the
defendant acquired in SY.No.51 of Hennur village. Under the
circumstances the decisions relied on by the plaintiff is not
helpful for her to prove her case.
32. The plaintiff also relied on the decision reported in
AIR 1972 SC 2299 between M.Kallappa Setty Vs.
M.V.Lakshminarayana Rao.
33. In the case on the relief sought is bare injunction.
Where as in the above case the suit was filed for the relief of
declaration of title and permanent injunction. The property there
was purchased under the sale deed and subsequently there was
rectification deed. However the facts and circumstances of the
case on hand is entirely different. Hence the decision relied on
by the plaintiff is not helpful for her to prove her case.
34. The plaintiff also placed reliance on the following
decisions:
AIR 1980 KERALA 224 between Karthiyayani Amma Vs.
Govindan
25
O.S. No.25109/2022Wherein it is held:
(A) Specific Relief Act(47 of 1963) S.38- Injunction-
Person in possession without title if can maintain a suit
for injunction against true owner, restraining him from
disturbing his possession. A person in possession o f
immovable property can sustain a suit for injunction
against the rightful owner preventing him from
disturbing his possession.
1. ILR 1999 KAR 1451 between Sathyam @ Ramaiah &
others Vs. Karnataka Milk Federation Co-operative Ltd.,
2. (1989) 4 SCC 131 between Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead)
By his LRS. Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao,
3. AIR 1975 SC 1974 between Puran Singh and others Vs.
The State of Punjab,
4. ILR 2000 KAR 4134 between John B. James & others
Vs. BDA & another,
5. ILR 2011 KAR 574 between (Mrs. Poornima Girish Vs.
Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka and others)
26
O.S. No.25109/2022
35. In the case on hand it is the specific case of the
plaintiff that her husband acquired title to suit property under
registered partition deed and hence the above decisions are not
helpful for the plaintiff.
36. The plaintiff arguing that the DW1 had admitted that
Sy.No.51 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas in the name of Srinivasa
Reddy is not found in the preliminary notification. In this
regard the plaintiff relied on the decision reported in AIR 1984
PATNA 191 between Janki Ram and another Vs. Amir Chand
Ram and other
37. However as discussed above how the said 1 acre 19
guntas came to be entered in the name of said Srinivasa reddy
is itself not proved by plaintiff by placing any cogent and
convincing evidence. Hence the above decision is not helpful for
the plaintiff.
38. The plaintiff also relied on the decision reported in
AIR 1986 KARNATAKA 194 between M/s. Patil Exhibitors (Pvt.)
Ltd., Vs. The Corporation of the City of Bangalore.
27
O.S. No.25109/2022
39. With due respect to the dictum laid down in the
above cases the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and
facts and circumstances of the above decisions are entirely
different and hence the same are not helpful for the plaintiff to
prove her case.
40. The plaintiff who approached the court with specific
case that she is in peaceful possession and settled possession of
suit property has not placed any piece of evidence to prove the
same. The plaintiff failed to prove her possession/settled
possession over the suit property as on the date of suit.
Accordingly I answered issue No.1 in the Negative.
41. Issue No.2: The plaintiff so as to prove this issue
has mainly relied upon the oral evidence of PW.2 and 3.
However the alleged interference is categorically denied by the
defendant in their written statement on perusal of the cross-
examination of DW-1 the witness was cross-examined which in
respect of 1 acre 19 guntas which was standing in the name of
Srinivasa Reddy. However, he has categorically deposed that
28
O.S. No.25109/2022
survey No.51 was standing in the name of Muninaga S/o Mara.
As discussed above Ex.P1 to 3 does not reveal how 1 acre 19
guntas in Sy.No.51 was came to be entered in the name of said
Srinivasa Reddy. Column No.10 is blank and nothing is
mentioned how the name of Sirnivasa Reddy was came to
entered in respect of survey No.51. The case of the plaintiff that
suit schedule property is situated in Sy. No.51 and it is carved
out of Sy.No.51 is not corroborated with the any piece of
evidence. No evidence as such is placed to prove that the
officials of defendant tried to interfere with the possession of
the suit schedule property. Plaintiff has miserably failed to prove
her lawful possession or settled possession as on the date of suit
with cogent and convincing evidence though she claims with her
husband acquired title in respect of suit property by partition
deed but the flow of title has not been established. Therefore
the case of the plaintiff that she acquired the possession of suit
schedule property under the partition deed is unreasonable to
accept.
29
O.S. No.25109/2022
42. Further, it is the case of defendant BDA that they
have acquired land bearing Sy.No.50/1 and 51 measuring 5
guntas and 3 acres 6 guntas for formation of Hennur Bellary
Road First Stage in the year 1978 and award has already been
passed and possession has already been taken over. If the
plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit schedule property,
same is unsustainable and it can be considered as unauthorized
possession and BDA being statutory authority is entitled to
remove/demolish any structure erected in the acquired property
and it cannot be considered as illegal. Since the plaintiff has
miserably failed to prove his lawful possession the alleged act of
the defendant cannot be considered as illegal. Plaintiff has
miserably failed to prove Issue No.2 and I answered it in the
negative.
43. Issue No.3:- Admittedly the plaintiff has filed the present
suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant
alleging that she is in lawful and settled possession over the suit
schedule property having acquired by her husband under a
30
O.S. No.25109/2022
Partition Deed and her husband got changed the khatha in his
name and constructed the house in accordance with the
sanctioned plan and licence issued by the competent authority
and she is paying tax to the concerned authority. But, the
documents relied by the plaintiffs are totally insufficient to
establish all these contentions. The oral evidence of plaintiff is
not corroborated with the contents of the documents. Without
establishing the lawful possession over the suit schedule
property, the alleged illegal interference caused by the defendant
over the suit property the plaintiff’s contention that she is
entitled for the relief of injunction sought by her is not
acceptable. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that she
is entitled for the relief sought in the suit, accordingly I
answered Issue No.3 in the negative.
44. Issue No.4:- In view of the reasoning given above, I
proceed to pass the following:-
31
O.S. No.25109/2022
O R D E R
The suit filed by the plaintiff as
against defendants is hereby dismissed
with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
—
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by
her and after corrections pronounced by me in the open court
on this the 05th day of June, 2025)
Digitally signed by
ANITHA
ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY
Date: 2025.06.13
17:34:47 +0530(Anitha.N.P.)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)A N N E X U R E
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs side:-
P.W.1 : Lalithamma P.W.2 : Nagaraju S.N. P.W.3 : K.C.Ganesh Reddy
2. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff’s side:-
Ex.P.1-3 : RTC extracts
Ex.P.4 : 31 photos
Ex.P5-5(a) : Compact discs
32
O.S. No.25109/2022
Ex.P.6-7 : Tax assessment list and tax receipts
Ex.P.8 : Notice dated 26.07.2006
Ex.P.9 : Original assessment register issued by CMC
Batrayanapura
Ex.P.10 : Khatha certificate
Ex.P.11 : Form B property register extract
Ex.P.12 : Tax paid receipts
Ex.P.13 : Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P.14-15 : Rental agreements dated 10.12.2005 and
15.10.2005
Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of Judgment and Decree in
O.S.No. 26487/2029
Ex.P.17-30 : Certified copy of Judgment and Decree
in O.S.No.2558/2009, 25476/2020,
25596/2013, 25235/2015,
26987/2013, 26317/2009,
6725/2006, 26508/2011,
26547/2007, 25086/2017,
25416/2018, 25055/2013,
1286/2004, 6925/2006,
Ex.P.31 : Copy of release deed dated 22.02.2017
executed by Shankar Reddy and others,
Ex.P.32 : Certificate dated 08.09.2012 issued by BBMP
Ex.P.33 : Khatha extract for the period 2011-12
Ex.P.34-35 : Tax paid receipts.
3. List of witness examined for the defendants side:-
P.W.1 : Manjunath G.S. 33 O.S. No.25109/2022
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants side:-
Ex.D.1 : Authorization letter
Ex.D2 : Copy of preliminary notification dated
20.06.1978, 27.06.1978
Ex.D2(a) Typed copy of preliminary notification
Ex.D3 : Certified copy of final notification dated
09.01.1985
Ex.D4 : Copy of award dated 17.01.1987
Ex.D5 : Mahazar
Ex.D6 : Survey sketch of Sy.No.50/1
Ex.D7 : Document in respect of taking possession of
Sy.No.50/1
Ex.D8 : Copy of notification u/sec.16(2) of Land
Acquisition Act
Ex.D9 : Copy of award
Ex.D10 : Copy of mahazar for having taken possession of
Sy.No.51 of Hennuru Village
Digitally signed by
ANITHA ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY Date: 2025.06.13
17:35:07 +0530
(Anitha N.P.)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)