Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Telecom Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, a co-operative society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, who allegedly interfered with its possession of 2 acres 2 guntas of land in Survey No.130 of Kempapura Agrahara village. The society claimed that it was allotted 25 acres of land by the Bangalore Development Authority under a Twenty Point Programme, paid consideration, obtained a registered sale deed and possession certificate, and was in lawful possession. The respondents, claiming to be purchasers of individual sites from B.R. Prabhakar and others through their power of attorney holder, denied the society’s possession and sought dismissal of the suit. The trial court framed issues on whether the plaintiff proved lawful possession and alleged interference. After examining evidence including 14 documents by the plaintiff and 20 witnesses with 100 documents by defendants, the trial court held that the plaintiff failed to prove lawful possession. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on 15.04.2006. Aggrieved, the society filed this regular first appeal under Section 96 of CPC. The High Court heard the appeal and reserved judgment on 24.08.2022, and the judgment was pronounced on 30.09.2022. The provided excerpt ends with the commencement of the appeal grounds; the final disposition of the appeal is not included in the text.
Headnote
A) Civil Law - Permanent Injunction - Proof of Lawful Possession - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 - In a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must establish lawful possession of the suit property. The plaintiff co-operative society claimed title through allotment by Bangalore Development Authority and produced documents such as sale deed and possession certificate. The defendants claimed ownership through purchases from previous owners. The trial court, after examining oral and documentary evidence, found that the plaintiff failed to prove lawful possession. Held, the suit was dismissed as the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proving lawful possession. (Paras 10-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff proves lawful possession of the suit property; whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference by defendants
Final Decision
Not mentioned (provided excerpt incomplete; judgment pronounced but final disposition not included)
Law Points
- In a suit for bare injunction
- plaintiff must prove lawful possession
- possession follows title
- bulk allotment of acquired land to a cooperative society challenged
- Section 7 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act
- 1959
- Section 96 of CPC
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (09) 65
SRI N S SATISHCHANDRA AND SRI A.SAMPATH for Appellant; SRI V.K.NAIK, SRI UMESH CHANDRA GOWDA.B.R, SRI ABHINAV.R, SRI AMEER JAN, SRI N.T.PREMANATH, SRI M.ERAPPA REDDY, SRI B.G.THAMAIAH, SRI MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY for Respondents
TELECOM EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
D RAMDAS (SINCE DEAD BY LRS.) AND OTHERS
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of landed property
Remedy Sought
Judgment and decree of permanent injunction against defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession
Filing Reason
Defendants obstructed and interfered with plaintiff's possession claiming they purchased land from erstwhile owners
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed the suit on 15.04.2006, holding plaintiff failed to prove lawful possession
Issues
Whether the plaintiff proves its lawful possession of the suit schedule property?
Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff contended it was a cooperative society allotted land by BDA under Twenty Point Programme, paid consideration, obtained sale deed and possession, and was in lawful possession.
Defendants contended that the land acquired by BDA cannot be granted to a society and bulk allotment is incorrect, citing ILR 1995 KAR 1962 and ILR 1991 KAR 2248, and that they are purchasers of individual sites through B.R. Prabhakar and others.
Judgment Excerpts
Plaintiff filed a suit seeking judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the landed property...
Based on the rival contentions, Trial Court raised the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves its lawful possession of the suit schedule property? (2) Does the plaintiff prove the alleged interference by the defendants?
On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Trial Judge recorded the issue No.1 in the Negative and consequently, he was of the opinion that the second issue did not arise for consideration and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed O.S.No.4938/1995 before the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, seeking permanent injunction. Trial court dismissed the suit on 15.04.2006. Plaintiff preferred Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC to the High Court. The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 24.08.2022. Judgment pronounced on 30.09.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959: Section 7
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
