SECRETARY, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIVISION, THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AND THE REVENUE INSPECTOR Vs. M SARALA AND SMT. KAMALAKSHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2005 passed by the XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 5543/1996, thereby decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff -1st respondent -herein by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is a site bearing No. 35 measuring 40' x 30' carved out of Sy. No. 85 of Bagalgunte village, Bangalore North Taluk. The 1st defendant -2nd respondent herein is said to be the owner of the property from whom the plaintiff -1st respondent has purchased it under an agreement of sale dated 18.02.1995. Plaintiff claims that she was put in possession of the property by way of part performance of the agreement by the 1st defendant by receiving consideration of Rs. 45,000/ -. The 1st defendant also executed a General Power of Attorney dated 18.02.1995 in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff constructed a house in the suit property, where she was residing as on the date of the suit. On 28.07.1996, defendants/appellants 1 to 5 herein attempted to demolish the structure put up on the suit property, but the same was successfully prevented by the plaintiff However, when the jurisdictional police did not accept her complaint, she was constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction.

(2.) THE 1st defendant/2nd respondent herein -owner of the property did not contest the case. She was placed ex -parte. Defendants 2 to 5 filed written statement contending that Sy. No. 85 belonged to Government as it was a Gomaal land. It was urged that the Special Deputy Commissioner by passing an order on 15.06.1995 had cancelled the mutation entries in favour of the 1st defendant exercising his powers under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the revenue records of the land bearing Sy. No. 85 stood in the name of the Government. The alleged lawful possession of the plaintiff was denied. However, they pleaded that the plaintiff was in unlawful possession of the property and had constructed a building without obtaining, license from the competent authority.

(3.) IN support of her case, plaintiff examined her power of attorney holder as PW -1. Documents Exs. P1 to P7 were marked in evidence. The appellants herein who were defendants 1 to 5 did not lead any evidence.