[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Thimmaiah vs The Commissioner on 1 December, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB
                                                      R.F.A. No.1310/2025


                  HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                          PRESENT
                        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                                               AND
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                      REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1310/2025 (DEC/INJ)


                 BETWEEN:

                       SRI. THIMMAIAH
                       S/O HANUMAPPA
                       SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S.

                 1.    SRI. T. SRINIVAS
                       S/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH
Digitally signed       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
by RUPA V
                 2.    SRI. T. MUNIRAJU
Location: High
                       S/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH
Court Of
                       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
Karnataka
                 3.    SRI. T. SHANKAR
                       S/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH
                       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

                 4.    SRI. T. HANUMAPPA
                       S/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH
                       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

                 5.    SMT. T. BHAGYA
                       D/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH
                       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

                 6.    SMT. T. LAKSHMAMMA
                       D/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH
                       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
                              -2-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB
                                      R.F.A. No.1310/2025


HC-KAR




7.   T. SUDHA
     S/O LATE H. THIMMAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

     ALL ARE R/AT. OLD NO.54
     NEW NO.367, HAL POST
     VARTHUR HOBLI
     BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
     BENGALURU DISTRICT-560087.
                                               ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADV.,)
AND:

1.   THE COMMISSIONER
     BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
     SEWERAGE, BWSSB BUILDING
     K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

2.   THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
     STT COLACHE NEERU AND CHARANDI
     B.C. CHALLAGHATTA, YAMANUR POST
     BENGALURU - 560039.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRINIVAS B.S. ADV., FOR C/R2 & R1)


     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.7852/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-2).      SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.03.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-2) IN O.S.NO.7852/2017
ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS UNDER
ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY RESTORING
THE SUIT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

     THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
26.11.2025, COMING    ON  FOR  PRONOUNCEMENT      OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB
                                          R.F.A. No.1310/2025


HC-KAR




CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
       and
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

                        CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This regular second appeal is filed under Section 96

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred

to as 'the CPC'), challenging the order dated 25.03.2025

passed in O.S.No.7852/2017 by the I Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-2).

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal

are that the appellants filed a suit in O.S.No.7852/2017 for

the reliefs of declaration, adverse possession and

permanent injunction. The respondents filed a written

statement denying the assertions of possession and other

averments made in the plaint. The Trial Court framed the

issues. The appellants examined PW-1 and the said

witness was cross-examined. Thereafter, the respondents

filed an application in I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 11(d)

of the CPC seeking for rejection of the plaint on the ground

NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB

HC-KAR

that the same is barred under law. The appellants

opposed the application. The Trial Court, under the

impugned order allowed I.A.No.4, rejected the plaint as it

is barred under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act'). Being aggrieved, this appeal is

filed.

3. Sri.H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for the

appellants submits that the Trial Court has committed a

grave error in allowing I.A.No.4 without appreciating the

fact that the appellants are in possession and enjoyment

of the property and the said issue is required to be gone

into during the trial. It is submitted that though the land

is acquired in the year 1970, possession was never taken

from the appellants and the appellants' family is residing

in the suit schedule property. Hence, the reliefs of

adverse possession, declaration and permanent injunction

were sought in the suit and these issues are required to be

adjudicated in the trial. However, the Trial Court, without

considering any of the issues, has allowed the application

NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB

HC-KAR

by rejecting the plaint. It is further submitted that the

Trial Court has failed to understand the scope of Section 9

of the CPC and the rejection should be an exception.

Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.Shrinivas B.S., learned counsel

for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned

order of the Trial Court and submits that the plaint

averments make it clear that the suit schedule property

has been acquired and the compensation has been paid.

Hence, the question of seeking the reliefs of declaration,

adverse possession and grant of permanent injunction is

not maintainable. The Trial Court, considering the law on

point has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaint is

barred under law and has rejected the same which does

not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss

the appeal.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the

NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB

HC-KAR

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and meticulously perused the

material available on record. We have given our anxious

consideration to the submissions advanced on both the

sides.

6. The point that arises for consideration in these

appeals is "Whether the impugned order of the Trial

Court calls for any interference?"

7. The answer to the above point is in the negative

for the following reasons:

(a) The appellants have filed a suit in

O.S.No.7852/2017 seeking the relief of declaration that

the appellants have perfected their title by adverse

possession against the respondents by showing animus

possessendi and consequently, declaration that the

appellants are the owners of the suit schedule property

and consequential relief of permanent injunction against

the respondents from interfering with the peaceful

enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit

NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB

HC-KAR

schedule property is a land bearing Sy.No.15/6B which

was re-numbered as Sy.No.54 and again re-numbered as

Sy.Nos.367 and 361 of Belur Nagasandra Village, Varthur

Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring East to West 154

feet and North to South 141 feet, totally measuring 20

guntas in which RCC building, asbestos sheet house were

erected about 40 years ago and also coconut plant and

banana plant and vegetables etc. The plaint averments

indicate that the appellants purchased the suit schedule

property from W.H.Rains and thereafter, they are in

possession of the property and they are residing in the

said property. The plaintiff has made further averment

that the respondents wanted to acquire the property for

the purpose of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board

and the acquisition proceedings have been started in the

year 1970 and it has culminated by a declaration in the

year 1970. The averments indicate that the Special Land

Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award on 04.09.1976

and the copy of the award is produced as Document

NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB

HC-KAR

No.16. The plaint averment further indicates that the

appellants made a representation to the SLAO with regard

to the right and title over the property and also sought a

reference. It is also averred that reference petition was

filed by the plaintiff in pursuance of notice issued by the

SLAO on 26.08.1987 in LAC No.318/1997. Paragraph 13

of the plaint indicates that the appellants have specifically

pleaded that the suit schedule property is notified for the

acquisition of the respondent, however no possession is

taken. The plaint averments makes it very clear that the

suit schedule property has been acquired under the

provisions of the Act, award is passed, the appellants

sought the reference for higher compensation and the

Reference Court has enhanced the compensation. With

the aforesaid assertions in the plaint, the appellants

claimed that they are in possession of the suit schedule

property by way of adverse possession. The pleading does

not indicate as to from which date the appellants are in

adverse possession from the real owner. Be that as it

NC: 2025:KHC:50131-DB

HC-KAR

may, the suit schedule property against which the reliefs

of declaration, adverse possession and permanent

injunction are sought, is already vested with the State

Government by the acquisition process under the

provisions of the Act. The Trial Court has rightly recorded

the finding that the suit is not maintainable and is barred

under the Act. The Trial Court has also taken note of the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. BRIJESH REDDY AND

ANOTHER1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the

possession is taken by the Authority, the land vests with

the State Government free from any encumbrances.