ESME JOSEPHINE POPE Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in RFA No.1725/2010 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.16423/2003. The appellants in RFA No.1726/2010 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.16422/2003. Though separate judgments have been passed in the said two suits and different schedule properties are involved, the suits are against the common defendants and similar reliefs are prayed. Hence, these appeals arising in such circumstance are taken up together. Further since common contentions arise for consideration in both these appeals, they are heard together, considered and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.16423/2003 claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing portion of House list No.2285/1, khatha No.3618, Kacharkanahalli, Bangalore having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 23.08.1994. Thereafter the plaintiff is stated to have obtained the khatha from the second defendant on paying the property tax, conversion charges and betterment charges. Since the second defendant had jurisdiction over the area, the plaintiff obtained sanction of the plan for construction and also entrusted the work to the contractor. At that stage, the first defendant without any authority interfered with the possession of the property by the plaintiff on 4.11.2003 and damaged the building by objecting to the construction being put up therein. The plaintiff therefore contended that the first defendant is to be restrained by an order of injunction. The plaintiff accordingly sought for a declaration that the construction put up by the plaintiff in the schedule property is as per the plan duly sanctioned by the second defendant and also sought for permanent injunction to restrain the first defendant or persons claiming under them.

(3.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.16422/2003 claim that they are the owners of the property bearing House list No.2285/1, Khatha No.3618, Kacharkanahalli, Bangalore under a sale deed dated 08.09.1994 and have obtained the Khatha from the second defendant. Similar contention with regard to the payment of the betterment charges and putting up of the construction after obtaining due approval from the second defendant is also pleaded. The loan obtained for the purpose of construction is also averred in the plaint. The other averments, contentions and the prayer sought are similar to the one made in the companion suit.