B LEELAVATHI Vs. HONNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by grant of leave has been filed by defendant No. 2, (hereinafter referred to "the Appellant") against the judgment and decree of the High Court of karnataka at Bangalore dated 13. 02.2003 in regular First Appeal No. 388 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the High Court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, 1st respondent herein for declaration of ownership of suit property as well as for setting aside the sale deed dated 21. 05.1983 executed by the city Improvement Trust Board (CITB) , now bangalore Development Authority (BDA) respondent No. 2 herein. The High Court held the action of the BDA in executing the sale deed in favour of the appellant as void and not binding on respondent No. 1. Further, the BDA has been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by respondent No. 1.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is proceeded ex-parte since she has chosen not to enter appearance despite service of notice.

(3.) Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit seeking declaration that she is the owner of the site bearing No. 115, situated at Jabbar Block. Rajamahal Cuttahalli Bangalore 560 003, hereinafter referred to as "the suite property" and for setting aside the sale deed dated 21. 05.4983 executed by the BDA in favour of the appellant being illegal, null and void and. not binding on her. She also sought for an order of permanent injunction restraining the bda from interfering with her possession. In the suit, plaintiff claims herself to be in possession of the suit property since 1940, same being allotted to her by erstwhile CITB, now bda vide possession certificate dated 27. 01.1971 and actual possession being delivered to her on 06. 05.1971. It was averred that she had perfected her title to the suit property by virtue of adverse possession. That she created a charge on suit property and borrowed rs. 2,000/- from one Krishnappa, who in place of mortgage deed, by cheating, got executed a sale deed. Later, Krishnappa fraudulently sold away the property to one Eramma who in turn sold the same to the appellant. That on an application filed by the appellant, the BDA regularised the sale and executed the sale deed dated 21. 05.1983 in her favour. That soon after coming to know about the sale made in favour of the appellant, a notice under Section 64 of bangalore Development Authority Act, ('the act') was got issued on 04. 06.1988 to BDA informing about the nature of wrong committed by it. It is her case that since the BDA failed io take any action on the notice issued, the present suit was filed.