BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VENKATARAMANAIH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the second defendant Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'the BDA') under Sec. 96 r/w. Order XLI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 10/8/2007 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.6127/1996, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the residential property bearing No.59 new No.279 situated at 20th Main road, Hosahalli Extension, Kempapura Agrahara, now it is known as Magadi road, Chord Road Extension Layout, Bangalore-40, measuring East-West - 30 ft. and North-South - 60 ft., which was purchased by him from its previous owner - M.Munivenkatappa under a registered sale deed dtd. 30/5/1964. Thereafter, he has constructed a building, approximately in 8 squares, part of the building in RCC towards north and asbestos sheets towards south. He constructed the building in the year 1965 and he was residing in the said property. The further case of the plaintiff is that suit schedule property was not acquired by the second defendant, no notification has been issued in this regard and no award has been passed. Hence, the plaintiff is in an uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from 1964 till the date of filing the suit and he has perfected his title by adverse possession. The further case of the plaintiff is that the second defendant allotted the suit property to the first defendant and on that basis the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff on the guise of acquisition of the suit property. The plaintiff issued notice to the second defendant. On 2/9/1996, defendant Nos.1 and 2 approached defendant No.3 to demolish the suit schedule property by using the force. Hence, plaintiff filed a suit for adverse possession or in the alternative to declare that the plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit schedule property and other consequential reliefs. Later, plaintiff filed a memo giving up the prayers in respect of the adverse possession.