BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE, SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK (WEST), BANGALORE - 20 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER Vs. SRI. K. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, S/O. LATE R. KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.