IN THE HIGH COURT 0:: KARNATAKA AT '
DATED THIS THE 24"" DfA*k§F..VJ{}N:E' (I
.
THE HONBLE MR. 1UsT1<:fiA1{;aND
REGULAR FIRST 336% I l (SJ)
BETWEEN:
V
S/o.Pern1;;a Ia;:;);a;’ ¥:.,____ ” ”
Since dféceaséd by Iaiéi 4F.ag’a1.’Repmset1mtives
Sfo.RaIxiI:.swaxny _ ”
Residing at” a9.3-04B,
Agiyappa Gazdim, ,Sha*a1l1inagar,
V. – A Vfiangaicré’ 3560 027
2-. V 9′
‘ S’/i3.Ran:a.’§*s:_:::i}I1y
Residing 2:i;”no.30-B,
Ayyappa Garden, Shanthinagar,
.. Bgng3i’0re –. 560 027
3}. Rfireenivas
?S!o.Ramaswamy
‘ 2 Residing at rm.3(}«B,
Ayyappa Garden, Shanilainagar,
Bangalore ~ 560 02’?
8
4. R.Kri:~:hna
S/o.Ramaswamy
Residing at no.39-B, I
Ayyappa Garden, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore -« 560 027
5. Rflhanpal
S/0.Ramaswamy
Residing alno.3€)-B,’ _ ” _’
Ayyappa Garden, Shafifliiflagagf;-. ~ ‘ _
Banga1urta—«56O 027 APPELLANTS
1 (By Shri.G.R.I*;_&(§ii,+fi,_ if x
AND:
–n–:-n-nnn
1. The Bangalovré D*:Airc.1,u’p::ienl’Aul}unily
Kumara Park . ‘
Bangal:3i~::_4 ” _ V’ ”
Represented ‘by fits Cémmissioner
‘ ‘D§o.iaté.Rmjfia«swamy
% -.A;g’ed-v4@.,vye2£r:;–“‘
VN¢.3314;.a;p;yamddy Palya,
B”ang5§lora”” RESPONDENTS
‘ H H u 4′”V.-..»(Shfi:I.GI3’7achehinam&th, Advocate for Rc$pond::n1Nu.I)
Regular Firs! Appeal is filed under Section 96 and
pride: 41 R}. of Lode” of Civil Pr(>cedure,1903, against me
Judgement and Decree dated {l-4.10.200! passecl ia
” ” OS.No.7979./91 by the XVI Addiiiunal City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore City, dismissing the suit flied by the
Appellant/Plaintiff for pcnnancxxt injtmc-lion.
S
This Appcai coming on for C;<Jiii'l?4
delivered the following:
JUnGgE11T}7
Heard Ihc CounscI fotr_. the respondents.
The particrzéiéj are mg before the ma;
Court.
2: T}:*-.-:1 ksgal representatives of the uriginal
pzainan’ as 13;; %g;:m;j%%%%k The suit was filed fur pcnnaneni
ag;.1:IEl£!iS!.______l_}_)£s Bangalurc Dcvcluptnenl Authority
to as ‘the EDA’ for brevity), a sialulory body
cc$a’:.-:iiiAu1¢d the Bangaiurc Dcvclopmcnl Azzthofily Act,
_1976,” éfiiercinaflcr rcfcmtd in as ‘the BDA Act’ for brevity)
the defendant and its reprcseniafivezs Bram interfering
‘ with the possession of {he suit prupcriy bearing survey 110.39 uf
Ak_kithimmanahalI£, Bangalore: measuring cast to west 42 feel and
S
north in suulh 170 feet or Exam demolishing
lht?1’60I1.
It was contended that the i.
uf the suit property having puntixag.-d L,
sale dced dated 4.4.1924 and upux§”s::1;:_.h’: pfirchasc, I126
property was made out in– in [he rcvcnuaz
mcurds. It is furihgar mgnléncfigly ‘i.h_if:i_.’ ?..~$aslc1*n side: of the
pmpcrijfi “iVll1r’:– lo’ his cattle by cunslruciing
sheds. which initmdcd to acquin: the suit
prupgriy in 197’8, rcalisatiun that the area sought ‘to
.’ V. included the appcllanfs land and in
Vg.it%”$i§( :31” being in posscssiun and having constructtxl
H Vv _ lhereun, by an andorsemcnl daiod 19.11.1974
./94/74-75 had agroed in m–c{.mvey the suit
— in flavour of {he plaintiff and was ualltxl upon to pay at
” uf Rs.l,33,330/-~ inwards lhc purported lay-uni charges and
this was paid by the plain ‘ to the EDA. The: pluinfifi had also
surrsndcred the uriginal documents uf title relaiing _£u..fis.§_é’~»;-;uil
property to the BDA. Subsequently, the BDA
conveyed the property in favuurj’ ‘6f’–.Lhc-‘_” vifi
uonfinnaiiun of the: same, had issued a pp3s:;$5iun”tmrtifrea{v.–‘§XIIis
on aucuuni of the property bcing Tali}; ,dcv{:Iop§41;
was carried nut by the def¢i:rJanfi’A
It is ;ila§¥:i;II”s daughter Sml.
Papamrfial hear family members in a
purliun is provided with all basic
amen;iEics.such Walef connection and electricity supply. It is
V. .a,i1ér_ Vre-conveyance of [he suit properly in favour uf lhc
in the year 1974, it was in the year 1989
l}1al.44’lhc of the BDA visiltzd the suit property, expressed
A Ii2éii’~._in1enliun to dcxnuiish lhc structure standing thereon and
cialled upcn {ha plainiiff and his fimlily members to vacate the: suit
pmpcrty. it is with difliculty that the plaintiff had resisted the
pro ‘ed autism and ihcmafl had laken st by itssuin *
P05 f “F3 E:
ncctrssary statutory notice before instituting a suit for ptzfmancnt
injunction.
The trial court initially granted an ex-parts” V’
of temporary injunction on ‘1 it
upun appcsaracnca: of the defendant.-BD.At’ ,
their ubjectiuns to the applicatiuxfvtvtfluf: till thc:
disposal cf the suit. it; ~–BDA fur
purposes of form::.lipn gyflayuul, issued at
prelimi1t’a:y’ ‘ttcdlaratiun under Seutiun 6 of the
AcquisitiunEtAt:t= in’ 1963 and an award notice under
‘~ gt’ Anquisitiun Act, 1894, was also served
4.7.1963 and that pu:~.=scssim2′ had beer: taken
It was fttflhflf alleged that the dmmased pIaintitT
“h2;1dT application under Section 13 of the Land Acquisititm
A st-asking enhancement of cumpctrsatinn and that the
-lsaszds stead vcstvd with 111:: BDA fret: from encumbrances an
5
ace-uuni uf the-st: pnnzcdums having been cumplicdf
lhcnsfurc, the piainfiff was not cntilied to any V
The [rial Court, after having :is:§k2.t;’:s- c5n éfifval
conlcnlions, has dismissed fl1e*:§_u§1__pf {he
I1 is in this background the appcai
The Cuunscl for ahg’appc11g1ga. 5,-;buu:: um: reliance:
placed an Exs.I_)~:I: lt,:_ acquisiiien of
land in I963 was complete and
lhemfurv.:;;«!}ie nut bv: accepted, was while
ncgaiin 1. Ll11e4″4i:n§vi’t:12i..2ihié’- dééuments that were produced by the
. the contcniiun that notwilhstamiing the
1 pmpcrty was rt:-wnvcyud in fiavcaur of the
_ plaiifiifll was evidenced by scvcrai ducttmcnts produced at
H H u “P-I 2. And in the fact: of a witness, DW~2, whu was an
Qifgigiai of the: dsfcndani, BDA having admitted am it had passed
” ‘fcsoluliun for 11:-conveyance of (ht: farzd in survey 3:05.39 and 41
In the plaintiff and other family mtzmbers and fuxflmr, that the
3
Bangalore Dcvclopmcnl Authority had rt:-conveyed _
yards and the further admission that si.lqno$.72?75;7%{ =
not alloiled lo the piainiiff as pm’ (He B331§’ré;cord$;.,’ 11131;;-§ira«.’i;¢r:;;.~;
variance between the plcadingsV»iux1_L:”ih¢ wfiiton’ of EDA-
and thc evidence pal forth; ffhis ova:-r§,s..>:;ked by the
trial court in uagaliving and it is in this
fashion that me o¢9u;:sc1 .u;m Court through the
reasoning . material on record lo
V made a short-shrifl of the
ialainliff’ arid. negated the documents which
am of}! dofcogianl-EDA and would submit that the
and the suit doomed in favour of the appellant.
2 for the EDA Shri Gauhchinmalh would
the appeal and would submit that the very
»dAo<'?:umco'£s rtslicd upon by the appciiaul are spurious and that he
pI'Udt!Ut'5 the original record from 111:: Bangalore:
Dcwslopmcnl Authority. Tho mallet having stood adjourned on
this note, Shfi Gachchinmath has, howovezr, failed in produce any
€
into account by the trial smart in the mun-zc of its addrtazzfiiiilg V"
material an accord. The uflicc is directed in
the trial court forthwith. The: parties sha11 %a;aa;n;ain §1g_ii;sn-gm'
during lhfl' pcndcncy of the sail.
