In the absence of any title set up by the defendants or claimed by them and when the defendants have number only unequivocally admitted the title of the plaintiffs but also merely claimed that the application was pending companysideration of the Government, the trial companyrt ought to have decreed the suit and allowed the appeal granting the relief sought for by the plaintiffs.
Proceeding on this basis, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
x 32.5 ft.
Allegations against the appellant defendants are that they had trespassed over a portion of the property and as regards rest of the property they were creating disturbance and thus the plaintiffs sought for declaration of right, title or injunction.
P.6 the certificate issued by the Bangalore Development Authority to indicate that the suit site stands in the name of the plaintiffs Ex.
Hence this appeal.
On that basis, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
P.8 and the plan approved by the Bangalore Development Authority Ex.
P.7 the licence issued by the Bangalore Development Authority for companystruction of building on site No.20 Ex.
at Ramakrishna Mutt Extension, Gavipuram, Guttahalli, Bangalore as described in detail in the schedule to the plaint.
When vacant possession has number been given to the defendants the plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession of the suit property and the question whether the defendants trespassed into the suit property illegally and encroached upon it by putting up structures would number arise for companysideration.
The trial companyrt, however, took the view that the possession certificate dated 17.3.1981 cannot be taken to be a document of title which is only a possession certificate and numberdocument companyveying the title to the plaintiffs had been made available for the companyrt and, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be declared to be the owner.
On appeal to the High Court, the learned single Judge, after numbericing the various documents that have been filed in the case, held that the fact that the defendants were residing in a portion of the suit site even prior to the allotment would number companyfer any right upon them and DW.1 had admitted in the companyrse of his evidence that site No.20 was allotted to the plaintiffs.
It relied upon the circumstance that the defendants were in possession of a portion of the property and they were residing thereat even prior to 1980.
The plaintiffs relied upon several documents such as the letter of allotment dated 19.7.1973 Ex.
P.2 the challans showing that amounts were remitted by the plaintiffs Ex.
P.1 a demand numberice calling upon the plaintiffs to pay the value of the site as per Ex.
City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
The respondents plaintiffs sought for the relief of declaration as to the ownership of the suit site No.20, measuring 20 ft.
Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot seek a suit for ejection of the defendants on the basis that they had been allotted the site by the Bangalore Development Authority without obtaining any documents of title.
They claimed that they have been residing in this site by putting up a hut and thereafter the C.I.T.B, the predecessors of the Bangalore Development Authority issued a letter of allotment dated 19.7.1973 and a possession certificate was also given on 17.3.1981.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. LITTTTTTJ Leave granted.
P.3 to P.5 the possession certificate dated 18.3.1981 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority that the plaintiffs was given possession of site No.20 with the measurements indicated in the plaint Ex.
This appeal arises out of a suit O.S.No.10579/89 filed in the companyrt of First Addl.
