The Commissioner Bangalore ... vs Sri Byra Reddy S/O Late Nyathappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 11165 Kant

                          1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

               R.F.A.No.760/2006(INJ)

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE 560020
                                          ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVI G SABHAHIT, ADVOCATE)

AND

      SRI BYRA REDDY
      S/O LATE NYATHAPPA
      R/A NO.13, SWASTHI ROAD
      SHANTHI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560027
      SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

1(a) SMT.THANGAMMA
     W/O LATE N.BYRA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

1(b) SMT.SHAKUNTHALA CHANDRA
     D/O LATE N.BYRA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

1(c) SRI B SHIVARAMA REDDY
                              2




     S/O LATE N BYRA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

1(d) SRI B.SHIVANANDA REDDY
     S/O LATE N.BYRA REDDY
     SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

     SMT. MEENAKSHI .N.N
     W/O LATE B.SHIVANANDA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

1(e) PRASHANTHI NAND REDDY
     D/O LATE B.SHIVANANDA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.47/1
     SWASTI MAIN ROAD,
     SHANTHINAGAR,
     BANGALORE-560 027

2.   SRI N R DAYANAND
     S/O LATE RAJANNA
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
     NO.ROOPENA AGRAHARA
     MADIVALA POST
     BANGALORE 560068

3.   SRI B NAGARAJ
     S/O LATE BALAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
     R/A NO.9, 'D' STREET
     SHANTHINAGAR
     BANGALORE -560027
                            3




4.   SRI N R MANJUNATH
     S/O LATE BALAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
     R/A NO.23/1,
     SWASTHI ROAD
     SHANTHI NAGAR
     BANGALORE -560027

5.   SMT HEERA
     LATE SHRI BIHARILAL
     DR.KASHINATH NILAYA
     NO.3(2/11), NANJAPPA ROAD
     SANTHI NAGAR,
     BANGALORE

6.   THE COMMISSIONER
     BANGALORE MAHANAGRA PALIKE
     BANGALORE
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
R1 DEAD BY LRS R1 (a) to R1(e);
SRI S.SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI T.JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

     THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 R/W O 41R 1 OF CPC
AGAINST   THE   JUDGMENT   AND   DECREE   DT.15.7.2005
PASSED IN O.S.NO.1123/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.


     THIS APPEAL   COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                        4




                             JUDGMENT

Amendment carried out and amended appeal

memo filed.

Heard Sri.Ravi G.Sabhahit, learned counsel for

appellant and Sri.H.R.Ananthakrishnamurthy, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The present appeal is filed by BDA which was

the first defendant in O.S.No.1123/2002. Another suit

in O.S.No.3912/2002 was also filed in respect of the

same schedule property as that of O.S.No.1123/2002.

However, both the suits were tried by the trial court and

a common Judgment came to be passed in respect of

both the suits. By a considered Judgment

O.S.3912/2002 came to be dismissed and

O.S.No.1123/2002 is decreed. As per the decree passed

in O.S.No.1123/2002 Smt.B.Heera was restrained by an

order of permanent injunction from interfering with the

plaintiffs possession in respect of schedule `A', `B', `C',

and `D', properties in O.S.No.1123/2002 in any manner.

However, there was no order passed insofar as first

defendant in the suit. Same is the grouse of BDA.

3. In the mean time it is brought to the notice of

this court that Smt.B.Heera had challenged both the

decrees arising out of O.S.No.3912/2002 and

O.S.No.1123/2002 in RFA No.1159/2005 and RFA

No.1176/2005 respectively. For the reasons best known

to Smt.B.Heera, she filed a memo on 02.02.2022

seeking to dismiss both the appeals as withdrawn.

Therefore as against Smt.B.Heera decree in

O.S.No.1123/2002 has become final so also decree in

O.S.No.3912/2002.

4. Since no order is passed insofar as the first

defendant is concerned, it should have been deemed to

understand that suit against BDA in O.S.No.1123/2002

is also dismissed, nevertheless since trial court has not

stated in clear and categorical terms, BDA has come up

in this appeal.

5. Sri.H.R.Ananthakrishnamurthy, learned counsel

submits that since there is an order only to restrain

Smt.B.Heera from interfering with the schedule `A', `B',

`C' and `D' properties in O.S.No.1123/2002, the

present appeal can be disposed of by observing that the

suit in O.S.No.1123/2002 is also dismissed as against

the BDA.

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SBN