The Bangalore Development Authority vs Sri. K. Purushotham Reddy

A.S. Bopanna

Though the appeal is listed for considering the application for condonation of delay, considering that there is delay of 515 days, 1 have thought it fit to find out as to whether there is any merit in the appeal so as to consider the application for condonation of delay. In that regard, on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have noticed the factual aspects in the instant case, The plaintiff was before the trial Court in the instant suit in O.S. No. 1740/2005 contending that he is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 71/2 of Agara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which is presently located in HSR Section-I measuring 1 Acre 30 Guntas, the plaintiff claims to have purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 23.06.1988 and the Khata has been thereafter made in his name by the City Municipal Council, Bomanahally. The plaintiff also contended with regard to the nature of enjoyment of the property inasmuch as he had secured sanctioned plan to put up construction and has constructed apartments. It is in that context, the plaintiff had sought for grant of injunction, since according to the plaintiff there was interference with their possession by the defendant without any manner of right.

The defendant on being served with the suit summons had appeared and filed their written statement denying the contention putforth by the plaintiff. The contention urged in the written statement would indicate that the issue of the document by the City Municipal Council is without any authorization and the defendant therefore contends that the property in question is a corner site vested with the Bangalore Development Authority. It is in that context contended that the plaintiff does not have any right to the property.

The Court below on considering the contentions has framed as many as four issues for its consideration, which reads as hereunder:

1 Whether the plaintiff prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit.

Whether plaintiff proves the alleged interference of defendant in the suit schedule property.

Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed.

What decree or order.

The plaintiff in order to discharge the burden cast on him examined himself as PW-1 and relied on the documents at Ex. P1 to P27. The defendant has not tendered any evidence nor had marked any document in support of his case. In that regard, the Court below had decreed the suit. If these aspect, are kept in view, what is to be noticed is that the snit question is one for bare injunction to protect the possession of the plaintiff. In that regard, the documents at Ex. P1 to P27 would indicate that the plaintiff''s claim of being in possession of the property in any event cannot be disputed.

Per contra, the defendant has not taken any contention as to whether the property had been acquired nor any document has been produced to indicate the manner in which they seek to contend that the corner site would vest with them. Therefore, in the instant case, the suit being one for bare injunction, in any event the case putforth by the plaintiff being in possession would have to be accepted insofar as that aspect is considered. If at all the plaintiff had any right to the property, it would be open for them to exercise such right in accordance with law. Therefore, to the extent of the Court below granting the injunction, there cannot be any error. Therefore, keeping these aspects view and on noticing the merits, there is no case made out and hence the question of considering the application for condonation of delay in the present facts and circumstances do not arise for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the application in Misc. Cvl. No. 2772/2011 stands dismissed.