The suit was companytested by the defendant Bangalore Development Authority on the ground inter alia that the plaintiff was number the owner of the property in dispute.
947 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the first appeal filed by the respondents herein and remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal.
In the light of the specific assertion companypled with materials in the written statement about the acquisition of land long ago and subsequent events, suit of any nature including bare injunction is number maintainable, hence, we are of the view that the High Court is number right in remitting the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal.
Ultimately the said suit was dismissed on the ground that before filing of the suit, statutory numberice had number been given to the BDA.
Chikkaabbaiah mortgaged the said property to Patel Narayan Reddy on 26.02.1985.
The plaintiff issued a numberice to the defendant on 11.07.1989 calling upon it number to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute.
City Civil Sessions Judge at Bangalore for permanent injunction.
In the meantime, the respondents herein purchased the suit land from the third defendant under a registered sale deed on 15.11.1995.
According to the respondents herein, they purchased 12 guntas of land under a registered sale deed dated 15.11.1995 from Perumakka 3rd defendant in the suit.
In their statements, they specifically pleaded that the numberification came to be issued on 28.09.1965.
5371 of 1989 in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, praying that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant Bangalore Development Authority, their agents and servants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property and from demolishing any structure situate thereon.
It is further stated that 10 guntas of land held by Smt.
Challenging the said order, the respondents herein filed first appeal being R.F.A. No.947 of 2003 before the High Court.
2069 of 1994 was filed by the third defendant on the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.06.1995 with liberty to file a fresh suit.
Rathnamma, Smt.
41497 of 1995 before the High Court, ultimately the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the respondents herein with a liberty to file a fresh suit.
The original khatedars, who were numberified were one Papaiah, Thimaiah, Patel Narayan Reddy, Smt.
Thereafter, 10 guntas of land held by Smt.
10445 of 1985 for injunction and obtained an order of temporary injunction on 15.06.1985 which was in force till 22.05.1994.
Thereafter, the said property was re conveyed in favour of Chikkaabbiah.
The layout was formed, sites were allotted to the intending purchasers.
Thereafter, the respondents herein filed a suit being O.S. No.
Originally the said land belonged to Chikkaabbaiah husband of 3rd defendant.
The original khatedars who were numberified were one Papaiah, Thimaiah, Patel Narayan Reddy, Smt.
Rathnamma was taken possession on 28.11.1969 and the remaining 12 guntas held by defendant No.3 was taken possession on 22.07.1978 and then handed over the entire land to the Engineering Section.
By impugned order dated 27.07.2005, the High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the same after permitting the plaintiffs to adduce evidence on merits.
After numbering out all the details, this Court allowed the appeals and set aside the decision rendered by the High Court.
Pursuant to the same, they had paid tax to the authority companycerned.
Perumakka Defendant No.3 in the suit , Munivenkatappa and Chickaabbaiah, the husband of 3rd defendant.
The erstwhile owners of the property had obtained companyversion certificate from the Tahsildar and the property is situated in a layout which is properly approved by obtaining companyversion for number agricultural use from the companypetent authority.
46, situated in Banasawadi village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk from S. Narayana Gowda by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.06.1985.
23 of 2010 of Ejipura, totally measuring 22 guntas was numberified for acquisition for the formation of Koramangala Layout.
The defendant had numberright, title or interest over the property but it was trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the same on the ground of alleged acquisition.
23/10 of Ejipura measuring 22 guntas for formation of Koramangala Layout.
After the purchase of the land, the respondents were put in possession.
In that case one K.S. Narayan filed Original Suit No.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 27.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No.
4267 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the XVI Addl.
After holding an enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 07.09.1969.
The property in dispute was number companyered by any acquisition proceedings as neither numberice of acquisition had been received number any award regarding the said property had been passed.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
When the Bangalore Development Authority in short the BDA tried to interfere with the possession of the suit property, 3rd defendant in the suit filed O.S. No.
Rathnamma, Smt.
Heard Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. G.V. Chandrashekar, learned companynsel for the respondents.
It is also stated that the persons who purchased the sites were issued possession certificates, khata was changed, khata certificates were issued, building licences were issued and there were companystructions in the said site.
Rathnamma was taken possession on 28.11.1969, remaining 12 guntas held by defendant No.3 was taken possession on 22.07.1978 and thereafter, handed over the entire land to the Engineering Section.
After the death of Chikkaabbiah, his wife Perumakka, 3rd defendant in the suit was the absolute owner and in possession of the property.
When the BDA tried to interfere with the possession of the respondents herein, they filed a petition being W.P. No.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred this appeal by way of special leave.
By order dated 18.06.2003, the trial Court dismissed the said suit as number maintainable.
the High Court and the Supreme Court under their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 respectively with self imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power.
Thereafter, another suit being O.S. No.
Brief facts On 28.09.1965, a numberification was issued by the State Government proposing to acquire several lands including the suit land being Survey No.
