S. Narayanappa @ Narayana Reddy vs The Bangalore City Corporation and Smt. Rukmani Bai

Anand Byrareddy

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal is preferred against the dismissal of a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. The sum and substance of the appellant''s case was that the second defendant had put up construction as per sanctioned plan in respect of the ground floor of his premises, the suit schedule property, in the first instance, to which the appellant had taken serious objection. Notwithstanding the same, a further sanctioned plan was obtained in respect of the first floor of the suit schedule property and further construction was put up without leaving any set backs as was the case in the first instance. This having been the primary case of the appellant, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike who was a party to the suit, did not participate in the proceedings. The respondent - defendant, however, had contested the suit. The Court below has assigned reasons in dismissing the suit. Though several grounds are urged in support of the present appeal, the primary contention is that the respondent - defendant had put up construction in violation of the building bye-laws. This would not afford a right to seek declaration as long as there was no encroachment of the suit property by the second respondent. The violation of building bye-laws of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike would be a matter where the concerned authority ought to enforce the same even if there was any such violation. The suit itself was misconceived. In any event, findings of fact having been arrived at against the appellant, there is no ground made out. The appeal is rejected.