Karnataka High Court
Sri M Krishnappa vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 2 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50300
RFA NO.1088 OF 2014
C/W
RFA NO.1121 OF 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1088 OF 2014 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1121 OF 2014
IN RFA NO.1088/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE M. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
NO.635 AND 636,
2ND MAIN ROAD, HEBBAL
BENGALURU - 560 024.
NOW RESIDING AT:
NO.14/1, KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
... APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
(BY SRI. SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
ARUNKUMAR M S
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
J.C. ROAD, N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560 065.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE )
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50300
RFA NO.1088 OF 2014
C/W
RFA NO.1121 OF 2014
HC-KAR
THIS REGUALR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
25TH APRIL, 2014 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.583 OF 2009
ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
RFA NO.1121 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE M. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
NO.635 AND 636,
2ND MAIN ROAD, HEBBAL
BENGALURU - 560 024.
NOW RESIDING AT:
NO.14/1, KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MULTI-STORIED BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50300
RFA NO.1088 OF 2014
C/W
RFA NO.1121 OF 2014
HC-KAR
4. DEFENSE EMPLOYEES HOUSING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
NO.173, SMAPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
5. MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS
EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
SOCIETY LIMITED,
NO.33, SERPENTINE ROAD,
KUMAR PARK WEST EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
BY ITS PRESIDENT.
6. SRI. Y.R. JANARDHAN RAO
S/O LATE D.L. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
7. SRI. P.R. PRASAD RAJU
S/O P.S.N. RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 ARE
RESIDING AT: NO.167,
36TH CROSS, 18TH MAIN,
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R2 AND R3;
RESPONDENT NO.6 - SERVED;
V/O DATED 17.03.2016, APPEAL IN RESPECT OF
R4, R5, R7 IS DISMISSED)
THIS REGUALR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
25TH APRIL, 2014 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.7995 OF
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:50300
RFA NO.1088 OF 2014
C/W
RFA NO.1121 OF 2014
HC-KAR
2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.
THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT,
THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
CAV JUDGMENT
These appeal are filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 25th April, 2014 passed in Original Suit No.583 of 2009 and Original Suit No.7995 of 2006 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), dismissing the suits filed by the plaintiff, seeking relief of declaration and injunction.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties in this appeal are referred to as per their raking before the Trial Court in Original Suit No.7995 of 2006.
3. The facts in nutshell for adjudication of these appeals are that the plaintiff filed suits seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR It is averred in the plaint that the grandfather of the plaintiff viz., Maistri Subba Hanumaiah had purchased the land to an extent of 4 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.14 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 15th February, 1936. Thereafter, the registered Deed of Settlement dated 22nd December, 1939 was executed by the grandfather of the plaintiff in favour of his two brothers namely Marappa and Byanna; and his son M. Muniyappa (father of the plaintiff) to an extent of one-third share each. It is further stated that, in terms of the Deed of Settlement dated 22nd December, 1939, name of Marappa and his wife Doddamma and Byanna and his wife Akkayamma along with Muniyappa (father of the plaintiff) and his wife Hucchamma were entered to an extent of one-third share each in the total extent of 4 acre 33 guntas. It is also stated that the total extent of land bearing Survey No.14 of Kodigehalli Village was measuring 14 acre 33 guntas, wherein, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 15th February, 1936 said to have been purchased by Maistri Subba Hanumaiah (grandfather of the plaintiff) has been given new Survey No.14/1 after the re- -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR survey made on 13th February, 1938 by the Department of Land Records.
4. It is also averred in the plaint that the Revenue Records stand in the name of the grandfather of the plaintiff and land to an extent of 23 guntas in 1 acre 24 guntas belonging to the father of the plaintiff was notified for acquisition in favour of Ministry of Communications Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (defendant No.5). It is further contended that, after acquiring 23 guntas out of 1 acre 24 guntas, remaining extent of 1 acre 1 gunta was in possession of the father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff died during the year-1990 and thereafter, the plaintiff succeed to the estate left behind by his father. It is further averred that the defendant No.6 had filed Writ Petition No.5776 of 1993 before this Court with regard to the acquisition proceedings and the identity of the land in question, which was discussed and thereby, the writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 23rd June, 1997. Thereafter, Writ Appeal No.3949 of 1997 was filed and this Court, by order dated 04th November, 1997, held that the defendant No.5-Soceity is -7- NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR entitled for 23 guntas of land in Survey No.14/1 of Kodigehalli Village and directed to identify the area left by the respondent- Bangalore Development Authority for the purpose of Civic Amenities. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that the defendant-Society had created concocted documents in favour of the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority and as such, the plaintiff filed Original Suit No.7995 of 2006, seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction. It is also averred in the plaint that the father of the plaintiff filed Original Suit No.2076 of 1985, which came to be disposed of in his favour by awarding one-third share.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant- Bangalore Development Authority notified acquisition of 23 guntas in Survey No.14/1; 23 guntas in Survey No.14/2; and 2 acre 12 guntas in Survey No.14/3 in favour of the defendant No.5-Society. It is also stated that the father of the plaintiff filed Writ Petition No.14951 of 1985, which came to be allowed on 15th March, 1991. Thereafter, on account of the settlement by the defendant No.5-Society, this Court directed the defendant No.5 to pay one-third of compensation amount to -8- NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR the father of the plaintiff in LAC No.214/1985-86. It is also stated that the father of the plaintiff died during the year-1990 and thereafter, the defendant No.6 had created certain documents to knock-off the property and filed Writ Petition No.5776 of 1993 against the plaintiff, defendant No.1- Bangalore Development Authority and the defendant No.5- Society claiming that, he had purchased the land measuring 2 acre 35 guntas. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.5776 of 1993 came to be dismissed on 23rd June, 1997 against which, Writ Appeal No.3949 of 1997 was filed and this Court, in the said appeal, held that the defendant No.5-Society shall make use of 23 guntas of land only and also directed to identify the area left by the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority for Civic Amenities.
6. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the land bearing Survey No.14 is measuring 4 acre 33 guntas, in which, the father of the plaintiff got one-third share i.e., 1 acre 24 guntas retained for his possession and further the uncles of the father of the plaintiff have sold their portion by creating third party rights. Therefore, it is contended that the father of the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR plaintiff has restricted his claim for 1 acre 24 guntas in Original Suit No.2076 of 1985. It is further stated that the defendant No.5-Society restricted its claim for 23 guntas and therefore, the plaintiff become absolute owner to an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta by excluding 23 guntas which had been acquired for the defendant No.5-Society. It is further stated that the defendants 6 and 7 have created the registered Sale Deeds dated 09th September, 1983 and 30th May, 1984 and another Sale Deed dated 20th April, 1991 in favour of the defendant No.4 despite the fact that the defendants 6 and 7 were not the agriculturists and also not the members of the defendant No.5- Society. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant No.2 notified the land for acquisition in favour of defendant No.5-Society and thereafter, the defendant No.1-Bangalore Development Authority had fenced the schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff caused legal notice dated 05th April, 2006. It is further averred that the land was handed over to the defendant-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike despite the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in question. Hence, the plaintiff filed instant suits, seeking
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.
7. After service of summons, the defendant No.1- Bangalore Development Authority filed written statement and took-up a specific plea that the suit is not maintainable as the earlier Original Suit No.2076 of 1985 is dismissed and therefore, the instant suits are barred under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further stated in the written statement that the suit property is no longer an agricultural land and therefore, the defendant No.5-Society had acquired an area of 23 guntas in land bearing Survey No.14/1, 23 guntas in Survey No.14/2 and 2 acre 12 guntas in Survey No.14/3. It is also stated that the original Kathedars had received compensation pursuant to the issuance of award and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suits filed by the plaintiff. Further, it is contended by the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority that the Sale Deeds have been executed by defendants 6 and 7 and in furtherance of the same, Layout Plan has been approved and Relinquishment Deed was executed on 02nd September, 1982 in favour of the defendant-Bangalore
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR Development Authority for allotment of land for Civic Amenities, so also, the land in question situate within the limits of defendant-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suits.
8. The defendant No.5-Society filed separate written statement urging more or less contentions raised by the defendant-BDA and further contended that the defendant No.5- Soceity is in possession of 23 guntas. It is also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement with the defendant No.5-Society, which is suppressed in the suit. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suits.
9. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, formulated the following issues and additional issues for its consideration and recorded common evidence in the suits:
"ISSUES IN O.S.7995/2006:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that his family is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property since from his grandfather as alleged in the plaint?
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR (2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the alleged relinquishment deed alleged to have executed by defendants 6 and 7 in favour of 4th defendant and the alleged relinquishment deed by 5th defendant in favour of first defendant pertaining to the suit schedule property dated 2/9/1992 and 6/1/1992 are null and void and are created documents so also are not binding on him as alleged in the plaint?
(3) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the sale deed dated 20/4/1991 alleged to have been executed by 6th and 7th defendants in favour of 4th defendant and sale deeds dated 27/5/1984 and 31/5/1984 alleged to have been executed in favour of 6th and 7th defendants relating to suit schedule property are null and void and not binding on him as alleged in the plaint? (4) Whether defendant no.5 proves that the valuation so made by the plaintiff and payment of court fee so did by the plaintiff is not proper as contended in his written statement?
(5) Whether defendant No.5 further proves that suit schedule property; was already acquired and it is 5th defendant who is possession of suit schedule property as contended in his written statement? (6) Whether the description of the suit schedule property and situation is properly made by the plaintiff?
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR (7) Whether defendant No.5 proves that the claim of the plaintiff so made in the plaint is hopelessly barred by time?
(8) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by defendants in to his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land? (9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declarations as prayed?
(10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed?
(11) What decree or order?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
(1) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the present suit of the plaintiff is hit by the provisions of res judicata as contemplated u/s 11 of C.P.C. in view of judgment passed in O.S.No.2076/1985 as contended in the written statement?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves the existence of suit schedule property; as on the date of the suit as described in the plaint?
ISSUES IN O.S.583/2009:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR (2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants have illegally interfered with his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as alleged?
(3) Whether the defendants prove that the BDA has acquired the land in Sy.No.14/1 of Kodigehalli village including the suit schedule property; and the acquired property vests with it as alleged? (4) Whether the defendants further prove that the suit schedule property is reserved for the purpose of formation of park and it was handed over to it by the BDA as alleged?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed?
(6) To what reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled?
10. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked 37 documents as Exhibits P1 to P37. On the other hand, defendants examined 3 witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and got marked 31 documents as Exhibits D1 to D31.
11. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 25th April, 2014, dismissed the suits. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR preferred Regular First Appeal No.1088 of 2014 against the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.583 of 2009 and Regular First Appeal No.1121 of 2014 against the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.7995 of 2006.
12. Heard Sri. Sammith S., learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Sri. S.N. Prashanth Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondents in R.F.A. No.1088 of 2014; Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Vasanth, appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri. Hanaumantharaya Lagali, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 3 in R.F.A. No.1121 of 2014.
13. Sri. Sammith S., learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the suit is hit by res judicata in view of judgment and Decree passed in Original Suit No.2076 of 1985 is incorrect as the plaintiff is entitled for one-third share in land bearing Survey No.14 of Kodigehalli Village measuring 4 acre 33 guntas as per the registered Deed of Settlement dated 22nd December, 1939. By referring to schedule in Original Suit No.2076 of 1985 and the schedule in present suits, learned counsel appearing
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR for the appellant contended that the finding recorded by the Trial Court makes it clear that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the material on record in a right perspective as the schedule to the suits is distinct. Nextly, it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Trial Court committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the entire extent of 1 acre 24 guntas is acquired and the said finding is contrary to order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.3949 of 1997. It is further argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the finding recorded by the Trial Court in respect of earlier transactions at Exhibits D16 to D20, which are not related to the suit schedule property to an extent of 1 acre 24 guntas belonging to the plaintiff and therefore, said finding is contrary to law.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further argued that, as the total extent of land is 1 acre 24 guntas and even after ignoring the 23 guntas which has been acquired by the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority, the plaintiff is having 1 acre 1 gunta and therefore, the said aspect of the matter was ignored by the Trial Court without looking into the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR endorsement issued by the Assistant Director of Land Records at Exhibit-P20. Learned counsel further contended that the Trial Court has misconstrued the fact that the plaintiff had accepted the compensation in respect of 23 guntas. Accordingly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is contrary to order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.14951 of 1985 and Writ Appeal No.3949 of 1987 and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.
15. Per contra, Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority refers to the revenue records at Exhibits P9 and P21 and submitted that there is discrepancy with regard to the extent of the land belonging to the plaintiff. He further, invited the attention of the Court to the examination-in-chief of the PW1 and submitted that the name of the grandfather of the plaintiff was notified in respect of entire Survey Nos.14/1, 14/2 and 14/3. It is further argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority that, in cross-examination dated 14th February, 2011, admission has
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR been made by the plaintiff in respect of the possession of the entire land to an extent of 4 acre 20 guntas and further the acquisition of the land by the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority in favour of the defendant No.5-Society. It is also argued by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority that the entire land bearing Survey Nos.14/1, 14/2 and 14/3 was acquired as per Notification dated 28th April, 1983 (Exhibit-P10) to an extent of 23 guntas each in 6 bits of land and therefore, no interference be called for in these appeals. By referring to the Exhibit D12-Layout Plan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority submits that, Official Memorandum dated 09th March, 1987 was issued, wherein conversion has been accorded and therefore, as the nature of land has been changed, no interference be called for by this Court. He further invited the attention of the Court to schedule to the Relinquishment Deed (Exhibit-D14), wherein certain land was earmarked for Civic Amenities after distribution to the members of the defendant No.5-Society and therefore contended that the Trial Court after considering the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR material on record, rightly dismissed the suits. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeals.
16. Sri. S.N. Prashanth Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike submits that the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority had acquired the land and handed over to the respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for development of Civic Amenities. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of appeals.
17. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points arises for consideration in these appeals are as follows:
1) Whether the suits are hit by Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure in view of judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.2076 of 1985?
2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference as to the change in nature of the land in question?
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR
3) Whether the interference is called for in this appeal in view of the acquisition of land by the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority in favour of the defendant No.5-Society?
4) Whether the plaintiff has proved his title to an extent of 1 acre 24 guntas of land before the Trial Court?
5) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference?"
18. The aforesaid points are inter-related and requires to be answered together in respect of the right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and therefore, same is answered together accordingly. It is the case of the plaintiff that the grandfather of the plaintiff viz., Maistri Subba Hanumaiah had purchased land to an extent of 4 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.14 of Kodigehalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk as per the registered Sale Deed dated 15th February, 1936 (Exhibit-P1) and resurvey has been made on 13th February, 1938 and as such, the survey number was renumbered as 14/1 to an extent of 4 acre 33 guntas as the grandfather of the plaintiff was in possession of entire extent
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR and therefore, boundary has been fixed by showing measurement as 4 acre 33 guntas. Thereafter, the grandfather of the plaintiff executed registered Settlement Deed dated 22nd December, 1939 (Exhibit-P2) in to three shares equally in favour of his brothers viz., Marappa and Byanna as well as in favour of his son by name, Muniyappa (father of the plaintiff). It is the case of the plaintiff that, his father Muniyappa got one- third share in the total extent of 4 acre 20 guntas. Thereafter, the revenue records changed in favour of Marappa, Byanna and Muniyappa to an extent of 1 acre 24 guntas each. In the meanwhile, the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority had initiated acquisition proceedings in favour of defendant- Society and as such, Preliminary Notification was issued on 28th April, 1983 (Exhibit-P10) and Sl.No.66 in the Preliminary Notification refers to the land pertaining to Survey No.14 and its bifurcations, which reads as under:
"66 Maistri Subbahanumaiah Anjanappa 14/1 0-23 Anjanappa s/o Muniramappa B.M. Narayanappa 14/2 0-23 B.M. Narayanappa S/o Shamanna, Pillappa 14/3 0-23 Muninanjappa Shamanna S/o Chinnappa 0-23 Munirayappa, Pillappa S/o B.M. Rajanna 0-23 Muninanjappa, Chinnappa M. Nanjundappa 0-23"
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR
19. Thereafter, the respondent-Authorities issued Final Notification on 28th February, 1985 (Exhibit-P28 and P28(a)) and Sl.No.62 refers to Survey No.14/1, 14/2 and 14/3, which reads as under:
"66 Maistri Subba Hanumaiah Anjanappa 14/1 0-23 Anjanappa s/o Muniramappa B.M. Narayanappa B.M. Narayanappa S/o Shamanna, Pillappa 14/2 0-23 Muninanjappa Shamanna S/o Chinnappa, Munirayappa, Pillappa S/o B.M. Rajanna Muninanjappa, Chinnappa M. Nanjundappa 14/3 2-12 B.M. Rajanna N. Rayarajappa
20. In both the Notifications, land to an extent of 23 guntas is acquired in Survey No.14/1 of Kodigehalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk. Therefore, it is to be concluded that the father of the plaintiff is in possession of 1 acre 1 guntas excluding 23 guntas, which has been acquired by the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority. It is also to be noted that, in Original Suit No.2076 of 1985 filed by the father of the plaintiff M. Muniyappa, wherein schedule to the suit reads as under:
"SCHEDULE The land bearing Sy.No.14/1 (Fourteen/one) measuring 4 (four) acres 33 (thirty three) guntas situated at Kodigehalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North, Bangalore, bounded on the:
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR East by : the land bearing Sy.No.17 (seventeen) West by : land bearing Sy.No.13 (thirteen);
South by : The part of the sam`e land bearing Sy.No.14 (fourteen), and North by : Boundaries of Kayam Gutha Kothihoshallai, and boundaries of Byatarayanapura."
21. In the said suit, the Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 30th November, 2002 (Exhibit-D4) dismissed the suit as to the relief claimed by the father of the plaintiff for declaration with consequential relief. I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Trial Court in the above case in respect of 4 acre 20 guntas, however, in the present case, the schedule to the plaint is to an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta and the schedule reads as under:
"SCHEDULE The land bearing Sy.No.14/1, measuring 1 Acre 1 Gunta out of 4 Acre 33 guntas (including 0.4 guntas Karab) towards Eastern side i.e., adjoining to Arvind Archad Apartments, Situated at Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanaka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, bounded on - East by - Portion of survey No.14/1 of Arvind Archad Apartments;
West by - Road formed in portion of survey No.14/1 by the Ministry of Communications Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited;
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR North by - Byatarayanapura Gadi and Area of Ministry of Communications Employees Co-op. Housing Society Limited; and South by - Kodigehalli - Thindlu Main Road."
22. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court at Paragraphs 24 and 25 that the suits are hit by principles of res judicata is incorrect as there is a difference in the extent of land in schedule to both the suits and therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court on additional issues requires to be set-aside. It is not in dispute as to the fact that the grandfather of the plaintiff viz., Maistri Subba Hanaumaiah had purchased the land to an extent of 4 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.14 of Kodigehalli Village and thereafter, as per the registered Settlement Deed dated 22nd December, 1939, one- third of the total extent of 4 acre 20 guntas i.e., an extent of 1 acre 24 guntas was allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiff. The said aspect is not disputed by either of the parties and the revenue records i.e., RTC extracts reflects the name of the father of the plaintiff.
23. It is relevant to extract the observation made by this Court in Writ Appeal No.3949 of 1997 decided on 12th
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR November, 1997 (Exhibit P25) at paragraph 3, which reads as follows:
"3. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case, that appeal is disposed of by observing that the respondent No.2/Socieity shall be at liberty to occupy and utilise 23 guntas of land comprising sy.no.14/1. which has been acquired b the Government and duly allotted to it by the Bangalore Development Authority. It shall have no right to trespass into the land transferred to the Bangalore Development Authority by way of relinquishment deed. The Bangalore Development Authority shall take steps fro identifying the aforesaid land, the subject matter of the relinquishment deed and protecting and preserving it as a civic amenity site. The Bangalore Development Authority shall be at liberty to seek the assistance and co-operation of any other Department, if so required for determining the location of the relinquished land. The appellants shall be at liberty to assist the Bangalore Development Authority in locating and identifying the land and for that purpose may produce any document upon which it relies including Annexure-'L'. Upon identification of the land the Bangalore Development Authority shall be at liberty to modify the lay-out plan of the appellant, if so required and permissible under law."
(emphasis supplied)
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR
24. Having taken note of the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.3949 of 1997, it is clear that, the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority was directed to identify the extent of land acquired bearing Survey No.14/1. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that, there is no dispute as to arriving at a conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property to an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta (after excluding the land acquired to an extent of 23 guntas), and further as the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority has not identified the land as observed by this Court in the above writ appeal, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Trial Court on issue No.1 requires to be set-aside by this Court.
25. It is also pertinent to mention here that, the PW1 deposed that 23 guntas of land has been acquired in favour of the defendant No.5-Society and same is reiterated in the cross- examination dated 14th February, 2011. The DW1-Assistant Executive Engineer of the defendant-BDA in the cross- examination dated 09th August, 2012 at paragraphs 8 and 9 deposed as follows:
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR "8. It is true to suggest that defendant No.5 has acquired 23 guntas of land in Sy.No.14/1 of Kodigehalli village by virtue of Ex.P10 the acquisition notification. In the said Ex.P10 the said survey number is at Sl.No.66. For identification purpose it is marked at Ex.P10(a). In Ex.P10 name of khatedhar shown as Mastri Subba Hanumaiah. It is true to suggest that there was final notification in respect of the said property that there was final notification in respect of the said property as per Ex.P28 i.e., final notification now shown to me. The said Sy.No.14/1 at Sl.No.62. for identification purpose it is marked at Ex.P28(a). It is true to suggest that along with Sy.No.14/1, the Sy.N0.14(2) and 14/3 of Kodigehalli village also have been acquired by defendant No.5 to the extent of 23 guntas and 2 acres 12 guntas respectively. It is true to suggest that after acquisition of 23 guntas of land in Sy.No.14/1 of Kodigehalli village, the remaining 1 acre 1 guntas remained on acquired.
9. The defendant No.4 has not acquired any of the portions of Sy.No.14/1. Defendant No.4 has executed relinquishment deed in favour of Bangalore Development Authority. But I cannot say that how defendant No.4 acquired in Sy.No.14/1 of Kodigehalli village. It may be true that writ petition was filed by defendant No.4 against the 5th defendant co-operative society in W.P.No.5776/93 no right to execute any relinquishment in favour of defendant No.1 Bangalore Development Authority as per observations of the
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the orders of the aforesaid writ petition."
(emphasis supplied)
26. At paragraph 13, DW1 admits the possession of the plaintiff in the schedule property as the plaintiff has put-up shed in the suit schedule property. Perusal of the evidence of the DW2 would indicate that, 23 guntas of land belonging to the plaintiff has been acquired by the defendant-Bangalore Development Authority. In the cross-examination dated 21st January, 2023, DW2 deposed as follows:
"4. Out of Sy.No.14/1 of Kodigenahalli village 23 guntas of land was proposed to be acquired by the government for the benefit of defendant No.5 society. The total extent of Sy. No.14/1 is 3 acres 18 guntas. As per records I cannot say the total extent of the said survey number. It is true to suggest that except the 23 guntas of land which is acquired for the benefit of defendant No.5. The defendant No.5 has no other right in the remaining extent of the said survey number."
(emphasis supplied)
27. Having re-appreciated the material on record, the land to an extent of 23 guntas out of 1 acre 24 guntas has been acquired by the defendant-Bangalore Development
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR Authority in favour of the defendant No.5-Society and the remaining extent of 1 acre 1 gunta is in possession of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Trial Court to dismiss the suits without appreciating the schedule mentioned in Original Suit No.2706 of 1985 (Exhibits D25 and D26) and also order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.3949 of 1987 (Exhibit P25) is contrary to records and as such, impugned judgment and decree requires to be interfered with in these appeals. It is pertinent to mention here that, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Writ appeal, no steps have been taken by defendant-Bangalore Development Authority to ascertain the actual extent of land which has been acquired in favour of the defendant No.5- Society and no material is produced by the defendant- Bangalore Development Authority as to the compliance of the order passed in writ appeal. Having arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his title and possession in respect of the schedule property to an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta in land bearing Survey No.14/1 of Kodigehalli Village, the defendants in Original Suit No.583 of 2009 shall be restrained from interfering with the suit schedule property.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR
28. Nextly, it is pertinent to mention here that, as per Official Memorandum dated 09th March, 1987 (Exhibit D11), the subject land seeking conversion for non-agricultural purpose is pertaining to the Survey No.13/1, 13/2 and 14/1 of Kothihosahalli and Kodigehalli Villages, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, wherein sanction was accorded for alienation of 8.04 acres under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and in the said conversion order at Exhibit D11, nothing is forthcoming as to the total extent of land converted in land bearing Survey No.14/1 and that apart, the said conversion order has been made at the instance of Y.B. Janardhan Rao and P.R. Prasad Raju (defendants 6 and 7 herein) and the defendant No.6 was placed ex-parte before the Trial Court. Defendant No.5-Society has not contested the suit on merits. That apart, no RTC extracts have been produced by the defendants as to the change of nature of land in RTC extracts and the said fact would indicate that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the nature of the land is changed from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose cannot be accepted. Therefore, finding recorded by the Trial Court on this aspect requires to be set-aside by this Court. In the backdrop
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR of this analysis based on record, it could be concluded that, only to an extent of 23 guntas out of 1 acre 24 guntas in Survey No.14/1 was acquired in favour of the defendant No.5- Society (Exhibit D5) and as such, remaining extent of 1 acre 1 gunta continue with the possession of Muniyappa (father of the plaintiff) and therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court on this aspect is to be rectified based on the observation made above. For the foregoing reasons, the finding recorded by the Trial Court requires to be interfered with as the same is answered without assessing the material on record in the right perspective. Therefore, the points for consideration referred to above favours the plaintiff as the Trial Court had committed a serious error in not appreciating the material on record in the right perspective. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Regular First Appeals are allowed;
ii) Judgment and decree dated 25th April, 2014 passed in Original Suit No.7995 of 2006 and Original Suit 583 of 2009 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Benglauru City is hereby set-aside;
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50300 RFA NO.1088 OF 2014 C/W RFA NO.1121 OF 2014 HC-KAR
iii) Original Suit Nos.7995 of 2006 and 583 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff are hereby decreed. Plaintiff is declared as owner in possession of the suit schedule property; consequently, defendants are restrained from interfering with the suit schedule property.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55