OBALAPPA Vs. PAWAN KUMAR BHIHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) A suit for permanent injunction, by the respondents herein; the plaintiffs, from interference to the suit scheduled properties was dismissed, which was reversed by the High Court and decreed in First Appeal, against which the appellants/defendants in the suit have filed the above appeal.

(3.) Mr.Shailesh Madiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the property of the appellants in Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12, situated in Kempapura Agrahara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru, North Taluq was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority[for short, 'the BDA']. Though possession was not taken an agreement was executed, allotting the property to the father of the respondents/plaintiffs. Later, a sale deed was executed despite the conditions of the agreement having not been complied with. Subsequently, on a writ petition filed by the appellants, the acquisition itself was set aside. The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction, claiming allotment of Site No.66 comprised in Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12. While the matter was pending, a rectification deed was executed by the BDA in favour of the children of the original allottee, the respondents herein, alleging that there was a mistake in the survey numbers shown in the original deed and replacing it with Survey Nos. 350/9, 350/10 and 350/11. A further suit was filed in which the trial court found the claim of title to be not established and even going by the documents produced, the identification of the property, not possible. The trial court rejected the claim for permanent injunction.