A PREMA Vs. M D SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT s appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2150/2007 by the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore dated 11.04.2011, whereunder suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction has been decreed as prayed for.

(2.) PARTIES are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court.

(3.) THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be crystallized as under: Plaintiff claiming to be the owner of the property bearing No.3 (Old No.15) situated at Police Lane Road, Nanja Reddy Colony, Murugesh Palya, Airport Road, Bangalore by describing the same as A schedule in the plaint contends that he has purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 28.10.1995. It is contended that said property originally belonged to one Sri Babbanna Reddy and it has changed hands more than 5 times under registered sale deeds. Plaintiff claims that having purchased the same, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. Plaintiff has contended that one Smt.Saraswathamma and her husband had commenced putting up construction in the adjoining site by encroaching upon portion of schedule A property and as such the plaintiff filed a suit O.S.No.5526/2002 seeking relief of perpetual injunction and subsequently it was converted into a suit for declaration. It was also contended that defendants who are the descendants of late Sri Babbanna Reddy started putting up construction on South Eastern side of suit schedule A property since last one year and they have put up illegal construction consisting of ground, first, second and third floor by encroaching upon three feet common passage on the southern side without leaving any set back on the northern side of their building. It was also contended that first defendant has put up hollow brick compound wall by the side of her building by encroaching upon the plaintiff s A schedule vacant property on the south eastern side as described under the plaint as B schedule property. It was contended that despite complaints lodged, no action has been taken by the Municipal authorities.