BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. R RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These ten appeals arise out of ten suits viz., O.S. Nos. 5391 of 1989, 5373 of 1989, 2231 of 1990,5372 of 1989,5390 of 1989,5374 of 1989, 5375 of 1989, 6678 of 1989, 5389 of 1989 and 5371 of 1989 respectively on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore. the said ten suits were filed by different plaintiffs who are the respective respondents before this court in these ten appeals.

(2.) the appcllanl-BDA was a party defendant in each of the aforesaid ten suits. the lower court decreed the suit of each of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction by his common Judgment delivered in these suits after clubbing them together Being aggrieved by the Judgment, which has gone against the BDA in each of the said suits, the BDA has preferred these ten appeals.

(3.) The fads relevant for the disposal of these appeals, briefly stated, are as under: each of the plaintiffs in the aforesaid ten suits filed before the City Civil Court prayed for a decree for permanent injunction. the pith of the allegation made by each of them in the course of their plaint is that the respective properties which are designated by different site numbers in Sy. No. 80 of Banasawadi Village were purchased by each of them by different sale deeds referred to in each of the plaints. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their sites which were comprised in Sy. No. 80 of Banasawadi Village originally belonged to one Doddanna. Further it is their case that an area of 2-00 acres in the said Sy. No. was purchased by Dodda Hanumanthegowda from Doddanna by virtue of a sale deed dated 29-6-1964 which document is marked before the lower court as ex. P.9. It is also their case that subsequently there was a partition between Dodda Hanumanthegowda and his brothers by a regular partition deed da led 8-7-1965 which is marked before the lower court as ex. P.10. Further it is the case of the plaintiffs in each of these cases that subsequently each one of them purchased an area, described in each plaint, in the said property from the respective persons. K.S. Narayana (plaintiff in O.S. No. 5371 of 1989) purchased a portion of property viz., Site No. 46 by a sale deed dated 3-6-1985; B.V. Premalalha (plaintiff in O.S. No. 5372 of 1989) purchased her site viz., site No. 44 by a sale deed dated 30-5-1985; Similarly K.S. Ganesh Kumar (plaintiff in O.S. No. 5373 of 1989) purchased site No. 32 by a sale deed dated 12-7-1985; P. Sampathkumar (plaintiff in O.S. No. 5374 of 1989) purchased his sile No. 53 on 30-3-1985; in the same way, K.S. Sudarshana (plaintiff in O.S. No. 5375 of 1989) purchased his sile No. 45 by a sale deed dated 30-5-1985; in the same way, B.L. Scshadri Iyengar (plaintiff in O.S. No. 5389 of 1989) purchased site No. 43 by a sale deed dated 3-6-1985; Smt.N.Geetha (plaintiff in O.S. No. 5390 of 1989) purchased her site No. 40 by a sale deed dated 23-12-1985; R. Ramachandran (plaintiff in O.S. No. 5391 of 1989) purchased a site in No. 38 by a sale deed dated 4-7-1985; in the same way R. Sreeramachar (plaintiff in O.S. No. 6678 of 1989) purchased site No. 52 by a sale deed dated 14-3-1985; and Suresh Hebbar (plaintiff in O.S. No. 2231 of 1990) purchased his site No. 55 by a sale deed dated 18-4-1985. It is the case of each of these plaintiffs that they have been in possession of their respective sites comprised in Sy. No. 80 of Banasawadi Village cvcr-sincc they were inducted on the land by virtue of the sale deeds executed in their favour. It is alleged by them that they have erected a structure in their respective sites and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Bangalore Development Authority that is to say, the defendant, however, started interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is under these circumstances, each one of them chose to file a suit for a decree for permanent injunction.