[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri S G Subramani vs Bangalore Development Authority on 16 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
RFA No. 899 of 2010
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 OF 2010 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S G SUBRAMANI
S/O LATE SRI. GOVINDASWAMY
AGED 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.52, RAJIV GANDHI LAYOUT
MARANAHALLI EXTENSION
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.
SINCE DEAD REP. BY LRs
1(A) SMT. NAVANEETHAM
W/O LATE SRI. S.G. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
1(B) SMT. KALPANA .V
D/O SRI VINOD
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
Digitally signed by
AL BHAGYA 1(C) SRI. LOKESH BABU .S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O LATE SRI. S.G.SUBRAMANI
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUMANTH L. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKEY ROAD
(T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
RFA No. 899 of 2010
HC-KAR
BANGALORE.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.1.2010 PASSED ON IA
NO.3 IN O.S.NO.2141/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDL.
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE IA NO.3
FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC AND REJECTING
THE PLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND RECOVERY OF
MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff
assailing the order of the learned Judge rejecting the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC on the ground
that there is no compliance of Section 64 of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'the BDA Act').
Consequently, plaint is rejected.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred
to as per their rank before the trial Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiff has instituted the suit against the
defendant - Bangalore Development Authority (BDA)
seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the
BDA and its officials from interfering with her alleged
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. The plaintiff has further sought a perpetual
injunction restraining the BDA from allotting the suit
schedule property in favour of any third parties and has
also claimed damages of Rs.1,00,000/- on the allegation
that a portion of the structure put up by her was
demolished by the officials of the BDA.
4. The plaintiff traces her alleged right and
possession through a chain of General Power of Attorney
transactions. It is contended that the erstwhile owner,
Muniyappa, executed a General Power of Attorney in
favour of Mohammed Shafiulla Sheriff and M.K.
Mohammed Ibrahim. The said GPA holders are stated to
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
have entered into an agreement of sale dated 25.03.1991
in favour of Smt. Lalitha and allegedly delivered
possession to her. It is further pleaded that Smt. Lalitha,
in turn, executed a General Power of Attorney dated
17.11.1994 in favour of the present plaintiff and placed
her in possession of the property. On the strength of the
said GPA, the plaintiff asserts that she is in actual
possession and that certain structures have been
constructed on the property.
5. The plaintiff has also pleaded that portions of
Survey No.359/2 were allotted to Vyalikaval House
Building Co-operative Society and Bapuji House Building
Co-operative Society, and that she had submitted an
application to the said societies seeking regularisation of
her construction before the Screening Committee. Alleging
that during February 2007, officials of the defendant-BDA
entered upon the property and demolished part of the
structure put up by her, the plaintiff has instituted the
present suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
6. Upon service of summons, the defendant-BDA
entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement,
denying the plaint averments in toto. The defendant also
filed I.A.No.1 under Section 64 of the BDA Act, seeking
rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was
instituted without issuance of the statutory notice as
mandated under Section 64 of the BDA Act prior to filing a
suit against the Authority.
7. The learned Trial Judge, on examining the
averments made in the plaint and the nature of relief
sought, came to the conclusion that no statutory notice
under Section 64 of the BDA Act had been issued before
instituting the suit. Holding that compliance with Section
64 is mandatory, the learned Judge rejected the plaint
under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short 'CPC') on the ground that the suit was
barred by law. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection,
the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
8. On a careful and independent examination of the
plaint averments, the impugned order and the reliefs
sought in the suit, the following points arise for
consideration in this appeal:
(i) Whether the learned Trial Judge was
justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule
11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of
non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of
notice under Section 64 of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act?
(ii) What order?
Finding on Point No.(i):
9. Before this Court adverts to the requisite
conditions imposed on the citizens seeking relief against
the BDA , more particularly Section 64, this Court deems it
fit to extract paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaint. This Court
also deems it fit to extract the prayer column, which reads
as under:
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
"2. The land bearing Sy.No.359/2 of
Marenahalli Village, Kempapura Agrahara, Bangalore
North Taluk and more particularly mentioned in the
"Schedule" herein, absolutely belongs to one Sri
Muniyappa. He was in actual & factual possession of
the same. As he was unable to look after his affairs
for personal reasons, he had executed a General
Power of Attorney in favour of Mohammed Shaffiulla
Shariff and M.K.Mohammed Ibrahim authorising
them to negotiate, entered into agreements and
executed deeds of sale in favour of the purchaser/s
of the sites. They were empowered to form a layout
and sell the same.
3. The said General Power of Attorney holders
entered into a contract of sale with one Smt. Lalitha
on 25.03.1981. She was put in possession of the
same. Smt. Lalitha has executed General Power of
Attorney in favour of the plaintiff on 17.11.1994 and
put the plaintiff in possession of the same. The
plaintiff is in possession of the property. Structures
have been built upon the property. Plaintiff is in
possession of the same."
Prayer sought in the plaint
"(a) Grant an order of permanent injunction
restraining the Defendant, their officials, agents,
servants, contractors, or any one acting or claiming
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
on its behalf from entering upon or interfering with
Plaintiff's peaceful possession & enjoyment of the
schedule property mentioned herein;
(b) Grant an order of permanent injunction
against the Defendant, its officials, agents, servants,
contractors, or any one acting or claiming on its
behalf from allotting the Schedule Property to some
other parties;
(c) Direct the Defendant to pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with current
& future interest at 15% p.a. till payment if made.
(d) For costs and such other reliefs as this
Hon'ble Court might deem meet."
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. On a plain reading of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
plaint, extracted supra, it is unequivocally clear that the
plaintiff is asserting both title and possession solely on the
basis of a chain of General Power of Attorney transactions.
The original owner, Muniyappa, is said to have executed a
GPA in favour of Mohammed Shafiulla Shariff and M.K.
Mohammed Ibrahim; the said GPA holders allegedly
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
entered into an agreement of sale with Smt. Lalitha and
delivered possession; and thereafter, Smt. Lalitha is stated
to have executed yet another GPA in favour of the present
plaintiff, under which the plaintiff claims to be in
possession. Thus, the entire foundation of the plaintiff's
claim rests upon successive GPA transactions and not
upon any registered deed of conveyance transferring right,
title and interest in the immovable property.
11. The legal position in this regard is no longer res
integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp &
Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana1, has
authoritatively held that a General Power of Attorney is not
an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or
interest in an immovable property. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has categorically declared that transactions of sale
of immovable property through GPA, agreement to sell
popularly known as "GPA sales" do not convey title nor
create any interest in immovable property. It was further
(2012) 1 SCC 656
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
held that immovable property can be legally and lawfully
transferred only by a registered deed of conveyance as
contemplated under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 read with the provisions of the Registration Act.
The Hon'ble Apex Court clarified that a GPA is merely an
instrument creating an agency whereby the agent is
authorised to act on behalf of the principal, and such
instrument does not, by itself, convey ownership.
12. Applying the ratio laid down in Suraj Lamp
(supra) to the facts of the present case, it is evident that
the plaintiff, who claims possession under a GPA executed
by a person who herself derived rights under an
agreement of sale and GPA, cannot assert lawful title to
the suit schedule property. When the very foundation of
the plaintiff's claim of right is based on GPA transactions
without a registered sale deed, the assertion of possessory
rights is legally untenable. Consequently, the plaintiff
cannot seek to injunct a statutory body like the BDA on
the premise of ownership derived through a GPA chain, as
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
such transactions do not convey valid title in the eye of
law.
13. On a comprehensive reading of the plaint
averments, it is evident that the plaintiff has not even
pleaded, much less established, any grounds seeking
dispensation of the statutory notice contemplated under
Section 64(2) of the BDA Act. There is absolutely no
foundational pleading that the suit falls within the
exceptional category warranting urgent relief so as to
dispense with the issuance of notice. In the absence of
such specific pleadings invoking Section 64(2), the suit
ought to have been preceded by a statutory notice as
mandated under Section 64(1) of the BDA Act.
14. In that backdrop, the crucial question that
arises is whether a suit seeking injunction against a
statutory authority like the Bangalore Development
Authority is maintainable without prior compliance with the
mandatory requirement of notice. The Division Bench of
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
this Court in K.P.Arvind vs. Government of
Karnataka2, has categorically held that where the relief
sought relates to acts done or purported to be done in
exercise of statutory powers, issuance of notice is a
condition precedent for institution of the suit. In the
absence of such notice, the suit is barred by law and the
plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d)
of CPC. Though the said judgment was rendered in the
context of Section 80 of CPC, the principle laid down
therein squarely applies to statutory notices which are
mandatory in character.
15. In the case on hand, the action is directed
against the Bangalore Development Authority, a statutory
body constituted under the BDA Act. A Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Smt. Rangamma vs. Chairman,
Bangalore Development Authority3, has specifically
examined the scope and ambit of Section 64 of the BDA
Act and has held that compliance with the statutory notice
ILR 1992 Kar 307
ILR 2001 Kar 3722
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
contemplated under Section 64 is mandatory before
instituting a suit against the Authority. The Court further
held that where such mandatory requirement is not
complied with, the plaint is liable to be rejected as being
barred by law, and the Court is empowered to invoke
Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.
16. This Court has also, while interpreting Sections
64 and 66 of the BDA Act, consistently held that when the
statute provides a specific protection to the Authority and
its officers in respect of acts done or purported to be done
in good faith under the BDA Act, the procedural
safeguards engrafted in the statute, including prior notice,
cannot be lightly ignored. Section 66 of the BDA Act grants
statutory protection to the Authority and its officials for
acts done in good faith under the Act. When such
protection is read in conjunction with Section 64 of the
BDA Act, it becomes manifest that the legislative intent is
to ensure that the Authority is afforded an opportunity to
consider and, if possible, redress the grievance before
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
being dragged into civil litigation. Therefore, compliance
with Section 64 of the BDA Act is not an empty formality
but a substantive statutory requirement.
17. In the present case, the plaintiff has neither
issued the statutory notice under Section 64(1) nor laid
the necessary foundation for seeking dispensation under
Section 64(2). The relief sought in the suit is directly
against the alleged acts of demolition carried out by the
officials of the BDA in purported exercise of their statutory
powers. Therefore, the bar under the statute squarely
applies.
18. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of
this Court and having regard to the statutory scheme
under Sections 64 and 66 of the BDA Act, the learned Trial
Judge, strictly adhering to the settled position of law, was
fully justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule
11(d) of CPC. The impugned order does not suffer from
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4234
HC-KAR
perversity or illegality warranting interference.
Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the 'Affirmative'.
Finding on Point No.(ii):
19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands
Dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
