PREMA KRISHNAPPA Vs. N LAKSHMI NAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal. The present respondent arraigning the present appellants as defendants in the Court of the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City; (CCH.18) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court") had instituted a suit in O.S.No.9177/2014 for the relief of permanent injunction. However, during the pendency of the suit, by carrying out the amendment in the plaint, the suit was also got converted into one for mandatory injunction. The Trial Court by its impugned judgment and decree dated 30-10-2017 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the defendants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, she is the owner in possession of a dwelling house bearing No.139 in Sy.No.119 of Laggere, Bangalore, consisting of two squares RCC building and the said property was purchased by her under a registered Sale Deed dated 07-11-2014. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "BBMP") records and khata have been effected in her name. The defendants without having any right, title or interest, started encroaching the Northern side of the plaintiff's suit schedule property, depriving the plaintiff of light and air to her property. In that regard, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants and also informed the BBMP authorities. However, since no remedial action was taken in that regard, the plaintiff was constrained to institute a suit against the defendants.

(3.) In response to the notice, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their Written Statement, wherein the defendants contended that they had purchased the site bearing No.139/A situated at Laggere, Bangalore North Taluk, Yeshwanthapur Hobli with the property assessment Nos.119 and 120 under Dasarahalli Municipal Ward No.28 under a registered Sale Deed dated 23-06-2010. They denied that they have ever encroached any part of the plaintiff's property. On the other hand, they contended that the plaintiff had constructed the building without leaving any set back and by violating the bye-laws of the Municipal Act. However, the defendants admitted that their site is adjacent to that of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff.