MANJULA Vs. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein has preferred the present Misc.First appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, 1908 challenging the legality and correctness of the order dtd. 2/9/2024 passed by the 40th Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-41) in OS No.5669/2024. By the said impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the appellant's application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendants therein who are the respondents in the present appeal from dispossessing her from the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the original suit.

(2.) The appellant, who was the plaintiff before the trial Court had instituted the suit seeking relief of declaration that, the registered sale deed dtd. 14/9/2018 executed by the Bengaluru Development Authority (in short 'BDA') in favour of respondent no.6 and the possession certificated 19/9/2018 issued to him are not binding upon her to the extent of her possessive rights over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further sought a permanent injunction against the respondents from interfering with her possession or from dispossessing her without following due process of law. In support of grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff contended that, she has been in continuous, peaceful possession and occupation of suit schedule property since the year 2009, wherein, she along with her husband has been engaged in vending tender coconut. She also asserted that, she has been regularly paying ground rent, water tax and other municipal levies to the BDA and the BBMP and that various representations made by her to regularize the property in her favour have remained pending without appropriate consideration.

(3.) The learned trial Court, upon evaluation of the materials on record and after hearing both the parties concluded that, the appellant had failed to establish any prima facie case in her favour had not shown that balance of convenience was in her favour, and also has not proved that, she would be subjected to irreparable injury if the relief of temporary injunction is not granted. The trial Court found that, the appellant had not produced sufficient documents to substantiate her actual possession of the suit property as on the date of suit and further took note of the fact that, the BDA had executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent no.6 and issued a possession certificate thereby, lawfully transferring title and possession.