LAKSHMESH M Vs. P. RAJALAKSHMI (DEAD BY LRS.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Appeals have been preferred against the final judgment and order dtd. 5/12/2014 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA Nos. 902 of 2008 and 887 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment'). While disposing of these Regular First Appeals against the judgment and order dtd. 31/3/2008 passed by XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions (CCH No. 27) Judge at Bengaluru in O.S No. 5634 of 1980, by the common impugned order, the High Court while upholding the Trial Court judgment decreeing the suit and holding that the Appellant/Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property, has further held that site allotted to Defendant No. 20 (Respondent No. 27 in Civil Appeal No. 9731 of 2024 and Respondent No. 01 in Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2024) is not the part of Sy. No. 305/2. Furthermore, the High Court has held that Defendant Nos.9, 10(a), 11(a), 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23 and 24 (Respondent Nos.1 to 13 in Civil Appeal No. 9731 of 2024 and Respondent Nos.10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28 and 29 in Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2024) are entitled to receive 30 per cent of the amount of compensation payable in respect of ten sites situated on the suit property.

(2.) Aggrieved by the abovesaid findings and directions, the Appellant/Plaintiff has preferred these two Appeals. For ease of reference, the parties are referred to by their original position before the Trial Court. The limited questions for consideration before this Court are as follows:

(3.) Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to provide a brief factual overview of the case at hand. To elaborate, the Appellant/Plaintiff brought forward O.S. No. 5634 of 1980 to seek a court declaration affirming his title over 1 acre and 12 guntas of land situated in Sy No. 132/2, Kempapura Agrahara Inam village, Bangalore City. The suit also aimed to secure possession of the land and obtain a mandatory injunction against Defendant No.20, specifically to remove any constructions erected on the suit property. In addition to Defendant No.20, the suit involved a total of 23 other defendants.