RAMDEV, Vs. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular First Appeal is filed by the plaintiff appellant herein against the defendants - respondents challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2002 passed in O.S.No.5739/1989 by the learned XVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, thereby partly decreeing the suit, but dismissing the same as regards the rest.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed the suit seeking declaration of his title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property contending inter alia that though the Sale Deed under which he purchased the property on 13.01.1981 from one C.G.Rayan described the measurement as 35' East to West and 60' North to South, as per the boundary mentioned in the registered Sale Deed, the schedule property, in fact, measured East to West on the Northern side 42' and East to West on the Southern side 52', whereas North to South, it measured 60'. According to the plaintiff, in all the documents of title with regard to the schedule property, the Eastern boundary, was shown as CITB Road but the registered document incorrectly depicted the measurement towards East to West as 35'. If there was any discrepancy between the measurement and the boundaries, the boundaries shall prevail over the measurement.

(3.) AS per the plaint averments, boundaries of the suit property set out are East by road, West by site No.3, North by 20 feet road, South by Doddamuniyappa's property. The plaintiff asserted that he had put up a residential house and a small temple in the suit property, wherein the idol of a deity was installed. He further urged that the suit property bears old katha No.351 -A and new No.405 of Motappanapalya, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and it was previously part of Sy. No.8/2 and had been assigned site No.2. The temple constructed, according to the plaintiff, was to the eastern side of his residential house over which defendants 1 and 2 had no title, right or interest. Plaintiff claimed to have put up compound to the entire schedule property as per the boundaries. He urged that the BDA has not acquired the said property by issuing any Preliminary or Final Notification and hence, it had no right over the same. However, BDA the 1st defendant was illegally trying to dispossess the plaintiff alleging that the suit property had been acquired. This made the plaintiff to issue a notice to the 1st defendant on 18.08.1989 notifying them not to indulge in illegal and unlawful interference.