LAWS(KAR)-2019-11-95

K.B. LEENA Vs. COMMISSIONER

Decided On November 20, 2019
K.B. Leena Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal. The present plaintiffs had instituted a suit in O.S.No.6229/2013 in the Court of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, (C.C.H.No.8) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court") against the present respondents arraigning them as defendants No.1 and 2 for the relief of permanent injunction with respect to the suit schedule properties.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiffs in the Trial Court was that, the plaintiffs No.1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively are the owners of the suit schedule Nos.1, 2, 3, and 4 properties respectively having purchased those properties under registered Sale Deeds from its vendor. All those sites are said to have been carved in land bearing Survey No.10/2 which was situated in Siddedahalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. One Sri.S. Ramesh Moolya was the original vendor of the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 purchased site No.147 under registered Sale Deed dated 19-12-2003, plaintiff No.2 purchased site No.149 under registered Sale Deed dated 18-04-2005, plaintiff No.3 purchased site No.154 under registered Sale Deed dated 31-07-2003 and plaintiff No.4 purchased site No.110 under registered Sale Deed dated 27-09-2004. Since then, they have been in lawful and peaceful possession of the suit schedule properties. The khatas with respect to all those four properties were made in the names of the respective plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have been paying the property tax against the respective properties since then. The same being the case, the defendants' officials on 19-05-2013, all of a sudden and without any intimation barged into the properties of the plaintiffs and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs. This constrained the plaintiffs to institute the present suit against the defendants.

(3.) In response to the summons served upon them, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their Written Statement, wherein they denied the plaint averments in general. However, they stated that it may be true that the plaintiffs have purchased the respective sites mentioned in the suit schedule under the registered Sale Deeds on particular dates mentioned by the plaintiffs in their plaint. However, the defendants, at one place stated that, neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors have the lawful possession over the suit properties.