Sri Chennaveeraiah vs Sri Mayannagowda and Chief Executive Officer Banguluru Gramanthara Zilla Panchayath Bangalore

Anand Byrareddy

The present petition is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court filed a suit for bare injunction. It is his case that the petitioner is claiming under his ancestors, who have been in possession of the suit property for several decades and that there are no title deeds available to the property in question. However, the petitioner is not in a position to establish his possession over the suit property reference to other incidental documents. It is his case that the first defendant, who is the neighbourer is seeking to put up construction well beyond the property belonging to the first defendant and has sought to encroach the property of the plaintiff, which was the cause of action. The Trial Court having heard the application for temporary injunction has rejected the same. The appeal having been filed before the Lower Appellate Court, the Lower Appellate Court has held that since the present petitioner had failed to produce any title deeds in respect of the property, the appeal was not worth proved and summarily rejected the same. It is this which is the grievance under the present writ petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent No. 1, who represents the first defendant would submit that, according to the plaintiff, there is a pathway separating the properties of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The first defendant has put up construction in respect of his property within the boundaries of his property and has not encroached upon either the road or the petitioner''s property and would stand by that statement.

Given the admitted circumstance that there is a pathway separating the petitioner''s property and the first respondent''s property and recording the submission of the learned counsel for the caveator-first respondent that there is no construction extending into the pathway or in any manner encroachment upon the petitioner''s property, which submission shall be binding on the said respondent, this petition stands closed. The petitioner would have to contest the admission made by the first respondent in the Trial Court, which would be a point to be debated and addressed before the Trial Court on the basis of the material evidence, which shall be produced at the time of trial. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of.