JUDGEMENT
B.R.GAVAI,J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)By the present appeal, the appellant-plaintiff challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 19.3.2020 in R.F.A. No. 123 of 2012 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 - M. Mallappa (defendant No.2) herein.
(3.)The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
The plaintiff-appellant before this Court filed a suit for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. His case is that he has purchased the suit schedule property from one Shri K.P. Govinda Reddy through registered sale deed dated 13.4.1992 and thereafter he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to him, he has constructed compound wall of 8 ft. height with hallow bricks. His further case is that he has constructed a house on the said plot and being a civil contractor, is using the same for storing building materials. It is his further case that he has taken loan by depositing the title deed of the suit property. It is his further case that since the defendants attempted to demolish the compound wall and did not pay heed to the plaintiff's request, he was required to file a suit.
The claim of the plaintiff-appellant is resisted by defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) - The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA') by filing written statement. It is the defendant No.1's case that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. It is its further case that the khata issued in the name of the plaintiff-appellant is only a revenue entry and does not confer any right, title or interest upon the plaintiff-appellant over the suit property.
The defendant No.2-M. Mallappa (respondent No.1 herein) also resisted the claim of the plaintiffappellant. It is his case that he had purchased the suit property through registered sale-deed dated 5.4.1984 from one M. Shivalingaiah. It is his case that since the date of purchase, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is his further case that the vendor of the plaintiff-appellant had no right, title and interest to sell the suit schedule property in favour the plaintiff. It is his case that entire Survey No.37 admeasuring 1 acre 29 guntas belonged to undivided family of M. Shivalingaiah and upon partition, the entire land in the said Survey number came to be allotted to the share of M. Shivalingaiah. It is his case that M. Shivalingaiah had sold plots in the said Survey number to different persons and the suit property was sold to him. It is his further case that he had made an application to B.D.A. for reconveyance since the plot was under reconveyance scheme. It is his case that compound wall was put up by him.
On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned trial judge framed the following issues:
"1. Does the plaintiff prove his lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit?
2. Does he prove this alleged interference by the defendants?
3. Is he entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against defendants?"
All the issues came to be answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and the suit came to be decreed as prayed for.
Being aggrieved thereby, defendant No.2 i.e. respondent No.1 herein filed Regular First Appeal before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
The learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without seeking a declaration of title was not tenable and as such, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree.
Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special leave.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.