- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 659 OF 2010 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. NUSRATH ULLA MAJOR NO.61, CANARA TIMBER OPP: BANASHANKARI TEMPLE SARAKKI GATE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560078. 2. SMT. AYESHA NO.61,CANARA TIMBER OPP: BANASHANKARI TEMPLE SARAKKI GATE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560078. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONGWITH SRI. M.C. RAVI KUMAR, SRI. H.S.PRASHANTH AND SRI. N. BAYYA REDDY, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI. M. SADAT ALI S/O LATE MIRZA SAJJAD ALI NO.900, B.M. SREENAGAR METAGALLI OPP: INDANE GAS MYSORE-570001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY RANK ROAD KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-03. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 (BY SRI. V PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.1; SMT. POORNIMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.02.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.15234/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE, (CCH-21), DECREEING THE SUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS 1 AND 3 AND DISMISSING THE SUIT AGAINST 2ND DEFENDANT, SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION & MANDATORY INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CAV JUDGMENT This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth referred to as 'CPC.') by the defendants Nos.1 and 3 in O.S.No.15234/2000 challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2010 passed by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-21). 2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. The appellants were the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 defendant Nos.1 and 3 while the respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and the respondent No.2 was the defendant No.2. 3. (i) The suit in O.S.No.15234/2000 was filed by the plaintiff represented by his power of attorney, for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property and for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants Nos.1 to 3 to remove the construction put up over the suit property at their cost. (ii) The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was allotted to his mother Mrs.Ameerunnisa by the erstwhile CITB vide allotment letter dated 12.03.1977 and that she was placed in possession vide a possession certificate dated 25.09.1982. A lease-cum-sale agreement was also executed by Bangalore Development Authority (henceforth referred to as 'BDA') in favour of Mrs.Ameerunnisa. The power of attorney of the plaintiff contends that she is a General Power of Attorney (henceforth referred to as ‘GPA’) holder and also has an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property and based on the same, she was placed in possession. She contended that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 defendant No.1 is a stranger to the suit property but was interfering with her possession with an intention to put up construction thereon. Though the plaintiff showed all the documents to the defendant No.1, he was interfering with her possession so as to lay a foundation over the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff was then advised to approach the Civil Court and hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for the aforementioned reliefs. 4. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1, who claimed that the suit is not maintainable, as it was filed against a wrong person. He claimed that his wife Mrs.Ayisha is the owner of the property bearing No.262, 7th Block, Koramangala Extension, Bengaluru, which was duly allotted by the BDA in favour of one Shivanna in whose favour a sale deed was executed by BDA on 29.10.1992. He claimed that his wife purchased the suit property from Shivanna in terms of a sale deed dated 18.08.1999. He contended that his wife was in possession of the property and that she had obtained a plan duly sanctioned for putting up construction and accordingly, she constructed a building and is residing therein. He claimed that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 at no point of time the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and that the averments made regarding the plaintiff being in possession were all false. He claimed that as both the plaintiff and defendants claimed through the allottees from the BDA, it would be in the best interest of both parties to involve the BDA to ascertain the correctness of the allotment made and the transaction entered into between the parties. He thus prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. (i) An additional written statement was filed by defendant No.1, who contended that the GPA holder of plaintiff cannot be a power of attorney holder as well as an agreement holder. He contended that when the agreement between the GPA holder of plaintiff and the mother of plaintiff had not fructified into a sale, the power of attorney cannot step into the shoes of the legal representatives, as there was no fresh agreement entered into by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is contended that the agreement alleged to be entered into between the mother of the plaintiff amended the plaint to contend that the BDA had not allotted the suit property to Shivanna and that the defendant had fabricated the documents - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 to grab the suit property. Further, it was contended that after the suit was filed a building was constructed on the suit property. Further, it was claimed that defendant and his wife had nothing to do with the suit property. It was specifically pleaded that the sale deed dated 18.08.1999 itself established the fraud played in as much as it is mentioned therein that possession of the property was handed over to Shivanna under a possession certificate dated 19.05.1979 but the letter of allotment in favour of Shivanna was allegedly dated 16.10.1991. Therefore, it was contended that the documents were all fabricated by Shivanna and the defendant and his wife did not derive any title to the suit property. The plaintiff and his power of attorney had no sanctity in the eyes of law and hence, the power of attorney cannot maintain the suit. He claimed that he was a bonafide purchaser of suit property after verifying the documents of title and denied the allegation that his vendor did not have title to the property. (ii) He contended that Mrs.Ameerunnisa did not take any steps during her lifetime to get a sale deed from BDA and even her legal representatives did not take any steps even - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 though they knew that the wife of defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the power of attorney has no legal right to seek reliefs in the suit. He also contended that plaintiff did not seek relief of declaration or recovery of possession even though they were aware of the fact that the wife of defendant No.1 had put up a house in the suit property. He also claimed that the relief of injunction cannot be granted as the plaintiff cannot be presumed to be in possession of the suit property, since the defendant No.1 is in possession having constructed a building over it and hence, the plaintiff cannot question the title of the defendant No.1. 6. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 were later impleaded. The defendant No.2 filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff had not issued a notice as contemplated under Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as ‘the BDA Act’). Therefore, the suit is bad and the plaint is liable to be rejected. It contended that it is not a necessary or a proper party. Therefore, the suit against defendant No.2 is liable to be dismissed. As regards the suit schedule property, it claimed that site No.262 in Koramangala, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 7th Block, measuring 25 x 30 feet was allotted to Mrs.Ameerunnisa in lieu of the acquisition of a revenue site, which was possessed by her. Pursuant to the said allotment, a lease-cum-sale agreement was registered on 10.05.1982 and possession was also handed over to her which was evidenced by a certificate dated 25.09.1992. It was claimed that the allottee did not obtain a deed of absolute sale in respect of the suit property and therefore, the ownership of the suit property still remained with the defendant No.2 and none had derived any right, title or interest over the same. 7. Based on these contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property? 2. Whether plaintiff proves illegal interference by defendants? 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction? 4. What decree or order? Additional Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant illegally put up construction in the suit property? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 2. Whether the suit is maintainable without seeking relief of possession? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Mandatory injunction? 4. Whether the court fee paid is correct? 8. The GPA holder of plaintiff was examined as PW-1, who marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.23. Defendant No.2 examined one of its officers as DW-1/Bojaiah; while defendant No.1 was examined as DW-2; the defendant No.3 was examined as DW-3 and they all marked Exs.D.1 to D.40. 9. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, as against defendant Nos.1 and 3 and dismissed the suit as against defendant No.2. The trial Court restrained the defendant Nos.1 and 3 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and directed them to remove the construction within 90 days, failing which the plaintiff was granted liberty to remove the construction at the cost of the defendant Nos.1 and 3. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the defendant Nos.1 and 3 have filed this appeal. 11. (i) The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 3 submitted that the trial Court committed an error in not noticing the fact that the suit was filed for perpetual injunction and for mandatory injunction, though the defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit property. Consequently, it must have held that the plaintiff to has sought for declaration of their title to the suit property and for recovery of possession. He thus contends that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. (ii) He also contends that the defendant No.1 and 3 are in possession of the suit property and a house is built thereon, which is not in dispute. Therefore, the Court could not have directed the defendant Nos.1 and 3 to deliver possession of the suit property, more so, when BDA had not executed a sale deed in favour of Mrs.Ameerunnisa and hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to seek relief of mandatory injunction. He contends that though the suit was filed by the plaintiff, he did not participate in the proceedings and GPA holder of plaintiff - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 claimed that she was the power of attorney holder as well as an agreement holder. He contends that as on the date of the suit, Mrs.Ameerunnisa had expired and therefore, the power of attorney died a natural death. He contends that the GPA holder of plaintiff therefore had no independent right to file a suit. He contends that the power of attorney in favour of GPA holder of plaintiff was allegedly executed by Mr.M.Sadat Ali on 11.02.2000 where it was mentioned that it was coupled with interest. Hence, the said document ought to have been impounded and since the same is not done, it has no evidentiary value. Thus, it is claimed that the suit filed on the basis of such a power of attorney is not maintainable. (iii) He further contended that there is nothing to show that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and the GPA holder of plaintiff did not get any rights in the suit property as the alleged agreement did not culminate into a sale deed. He contends that Mrs.Ameerunnisa died intestate on 07.02.1999 and all her children became joint owners of the property. It is thus contended that the children of Mrs.Ameerunnisa have not executed any agreement of sale in favour of GPA holder of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 plaintiff. Therefore, it is contended that the claim of the power of attorney of plaintiff that she is in lawful possession is an absurd proposition and the finding recorded by the trial Court is equally absurd. (iv) He further contended that the plaintiff had no knowledge about the construction put up by the defendant No.3 over the suit property. He contended that the plaintiff proceeded on the footing that the suit property is a vacant site. Initially the plaintiff admitted about the existence of construction over the suit property. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the construction was put up during the pendency of the suit, the finding recorded by the trial Court is without any legal basis and hence is liable to be set aside. (v) He contends that the plaintiff even after coming to know about the title of the defendant Nos.1 and 3, did not take any steps for annulment of the title deeds. Therefore, the trial Court committed an error in going into the veracity of the title deeds of the defendant Nos.1 and 3 in respect of the suit property. He further contends that when no relief was sought - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 for against the defendant No.2, the suit must have been dismissed as against defendant No.2 as on the date of the filing of the suit itself. He contends DW-1 colluded with the plaintiff, as BDA had not conducted any enquiry with respect to the sale deed executed in favour of Shivanna, the vendor of the defendant No.1. He also contends that Ex.D.36 was the sale deed, which was hypothecated to the bank as defendant No.3 had availed a loan. The trial Court even after being informed about it, drew an adverse inference as if the defendant No.1 had withheld the documents. He contends that the sale deed executed by BDA in favour of Shivanna is also hypothecated in the bank and certified copy of the sale deed was marked as Ex.D.40. He therefore contends that the assumption of trial Court that the defendants had not produced the original document wrong. He also contends that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence adduced in the suit and did not correctly assess the merits and demerits of the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, he prays that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 12. (i) The learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that there is no dispute that the suit property lay in a layout formed by the BDA and hence the antecedent title of BDA is undisputed. He contends that the suit property was allotted to Mrs.Ameerunnisa in the year 1977 and she was placed in possession of the suit property. He contends that BDA had also executed a lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of Mrs.Ameerunnisa and had placed her in possession. After the death of Mrs.Ameerunnisa, the possession of the suit property continued with her son namely the plaintiff, who executed an agreement of sale and a power of attorney in favour of Mrs.Shah Taj Begum and placed her in possession of the suit property. He further contends that the allotment of the suit property by BDA to Mrs.Ameerunnisa was in lieu of acquisition of a revenue site owned by her and hence the same could not have been cancelled by the BDA. He further contends that DW- 1 specifically deposed that the suit property was allotted to Mrs.Ameerunnisa. He therefore contends that unless there is any evidence to show that the allotment was cancelled or the possession was recovered from the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 cannot claim that the suit property was allotted to Shivanna by - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 the BDA and that BDA had executed a sale deed dated 29.10.1992 in favour of Shivanna from whom defendant No.3 purchased in terms of a sale deed dated 18.08.1999. He further contends that the defendants have not furnished the sale deeds allegedly executed in favour of Shivanna. He thus contends that the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit for perpetual injunction and to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property and for mandatory injunction to remove the construction put up over the suit property. (ii) He contends that the BDA though arrayed as a party in the suit, it was a formal party, as no relief was sought against it. He therefore submits that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit as against defendant No.2 and decreed the suit as against defendant Nos.1 and 3. He further contends that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property and therefore, the construction put up by the defendants is unauthorised and is liable to be removed. 13. An application is filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 3 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC to place on record a photocopy - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 of a sale deed dated 29.10.1992 executed by the BDA in favour of Shivanna and the sale deed dated 18.08.1999 executed by Shivanna in favour of the defendant No.3 as well as a document by which an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds was executed in favour of Bengaluru City Co-operative Bank. It is stated in the affidavit accompanying the application that the defendant No.3 has obtained a loan from Bengaluru City Co-operative Bank Ltd., by depositing the title deeds on 03.11.2000 and therefore, the sale deeds dated 29.10.1992 and 18.08.1999 could not be produced before the trial Court. It is contended that since the plaintiff repeatedly claimed the defendants had put up construction after the institution of the suit, but the sale deed in favour of Shivanna establishes the contrary, these documents are necessary for the purpose of determining the suit. This Court had ordered that this application would be considered at the time of disposal of the suit. 14. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 for the plaintiff and I have also perused the records of the trial Court and its judgment. 15. The point for consideration that arises in this appeal is whether: i) The plaintiff was bound to seek for declaration of their title to the suit property. ii) whether the construction put up by the defendants was after the filing of the suit. iii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to remove the construction put up over the suit property? “ 16. In so far as the first point for consideration is concerned, it is not in dispute that the suit property was earlier owned and possessed by BDA. It is evident from the allotment letter at Ex.P.4 issued by the BDA that the suit property was allotted to Mrs.Ameerunnisa on 12.03.1977 at a cost of Rs.1,595/-. Ex.P.5 shows that the said sum of Rs.1,595/- was paid on 08.08.1977. A further sum of Rs.542/- was collected from Mrs.Ameerunnisa by BDA towards “Value of site” as per Ex.P.6 and interest thereon of Rs.35/- was collected towards - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 interest as per Ex.P.7. A further sum of Rs.7/- was collected by BDA in terms of Ex.P.8. A lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in favour of Mrs.Ameerunnisa on 17.12.1981 and she was placed in possession of the suit property, which is as per Exs.P.9 and P.10 respectively. Exs.P.11, P.12, P.13, P.14, and P.15 are the encumbrance certificates in Form Nos.15 and 16 for the years 01.04.1982 to 14.11.1994, 15.11.1994 to 17.01.2000, 17.01.2000 to 30.07.2004, 01.04.2005 to 27.04.2006 and 01.04.2006 to 23.04.2008. Ex.P.16 is the Death Certificate of Mrs.Ameerunnisa, which shows that she died on 07.02.1999. Ex.P.17 is a power of attorney executed by brother and sisters of plaintiff namely Mirza Abbas Ali, Shireen Begum and Mirza Ishrath Ali in favour of the Mrs.Shah Taj Begum on 23.11.2002. Ex.P.18 is a power of attorney dated 11.08.2003 executed by Naveena Begum D/o Mirza Sajjad Ali (daughter of Mrs.Ameerunnisa) in favour of GPA holder of plaintiff. Ex.P.19 is a notice issued by Assistant Revenue Officer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to Mrs.Ameerunnisa and the defendant No.3 to reassess the property to tax. Ex.P.20 is the khatha certificate of the suit property in the name of the Mrs.Ameerunnisa. Ex.P.21 is the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 khatha extract of the suit property in the name of Mrs.Ameerunnisa. Ex.P.22 is the property tax paid receipt paid by Mrs.Ameerunnisa. 17. (i) A perusal of the evidence of DW-1 would show that he marked a copy of the letter of allotment of the suit property to Mrs.Ameerunnisa as Ex.D.1, the possession certificate in favour of Mrs.Ameerunnisa as Ex.D.2. A lease- cum-sale agreement as Ex.D.3. The ledger extract of the suit property, maintained by BDA is marked as Ex.D.4. This shows that the name of Mrs.Ameerunnisa is struck off and no reason is mentioned for striking off the name of Mrs.Ameerunnisa. This witness specifically stated “It is not true to suggest that Deputy Secretary has executed sale deed in favour of B.D.Shivanna." "To a pointed question whether it has come to your knowledge that the Deputy Secretary has executed the sale deed in favour of Shivanna," he answered as follows: “Deputy Secretary has not executed sale deed in favour of Shivanna. A photocopy of the sale deed dated 19.10.1992 was confronted to this witness and he denied the execution of the sale deed dated 19.10.1992. He also deposed that he came to know that the sale deed in favour of Shivanna was bogus in the year 2006. He admitted that - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 no action was taken against Shivanna for the bogus sale deed in his favour and no action was taken against the person who had executed the sale deed in favour of Shivanna. Likewise, no notice was issued to Shivanna in respect of the sale deed executed in his favour and no proceedings were taken out in connection with the sale deed executed in favour of Shivanna. Likewise, no action was taken by BDA to take possession of the property.” (ii) He deposed that one Mr.H.K.Shrirangaiah was the Deputy Secretary, Section - I and he had verified the written statement. He admitted that BDA had not handed over possession of the suit property to anyone except Mrs.Ameerunnisa and that suit property was allotted to Mrs.Ameerunnisa in lieu of a revenue site belonging to Mrs.Ameerunnisa. He also deposed that the sale deed has been executed in favour of Mrs.Ameerunnisa after receiving the entire sale amount. He also stated that Shivanna did not make any payment to BDA in respect to the suit property and that the documents produced by the defendants were concocted. 18. The defendant No.1 was examined as DW-2, who deposed that his wife had purchased the suit property from Shivanna in terms of a sale deed dated 18.08.1999 and that - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 the defendant No.3 had obtained the sanction plan to put up construction on the suit property. He also deposed that a residential house was constructed in line with the sanction plan and for which purpose, loan was availed from the bank. He also deposed that the original title deeds were mortgaged with the Bengaluru City Co-operative Bank. He also deposed that Khatha and the related entries of the suit property were transferred in the name of Shivanna much before it was purchased by defendant No.3. He also deposed that construction was put up immediately after the suit property was purchased by defendant No.3 and completed the construction slowly and the property was assessed by the corporation for the purpose of property tax in the year 2000. He also deposed that he was paying the electricity bills after constructing a house. He claimed that his wife had filed a writ petition, had filed WP No.19788/2007 challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner Corporation, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (henceforth referred to as 'BBMP'), allowing a case to enter the name of Mrs.Ameerunnisa in respect to the suit property. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 19. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the police had summoned him on 20.02.2000 and instructed him not to put up construction in site No.262. However, he denied that he had put up construction over the suit property during the pendency of the suit. He claimed that defendant No.3 did not obtain any permission or licence for putting up construction as a licence was already there in the name of Shivanna. He however denied the suggestion that Shivanna did not obtain any licence or plan to put up construction. Exs.D.12 to D.18 were the receipts, the work order, application for sanitary connection and a sketch of the proposed sanitary connection. The defendant No.3, who was examined as DW-3 specifically stated in her cross-examination as follows: “I did not verify the title deeds of Shivanna. It is not true to suggest that no document is produced to the Court to show that the suit property was allotted to Shivanna.” She further deposed that, “I have not obtained any license or plan from BBMP to put up construction in the suit property. There are houses on the three sides/sites of the suit property and there is a road on the other side.” - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 She further deposed that “it is not true to suggest that I have not taken water connection in my name in respect to the suit property.” She specifically deposed, “I completed the construction in the suit property in December 1999 and I had started construction in March 1999. I cannot tell the day when I purchased the property from Shivanna.” She further deposed, “I do not know whether I have produced document to the Court to show that I had completed construction in the suit property prior to the suit.” Strangely she deposed, “I obtained loan after constructing the house.” 20. The above evidence would go to show that the defendant Nos.1 and 3 are claiming that the suit property was allotted to Shivanna and that a sale deed was thereafter executed by BDA in favour of Shivanna. The defendants have marked the letter of allotment of the suit property to Shivanna as Ex.D.9, which is dated 16.10.1991. Surprisingly, the certified copy of the sale deed dated 29.10.1992 shows that Shivanna was placed in possession of the suit property in terms of a possession certificate dated 20.07.1978. The possession - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 certificate to show that Shivanna was placed in possession of the property, documents to show that Shivanna had paid the allotment price and a lease cum sale agreement in favour of Shivanna are not marked in evidence. Thus, it is more than evident that the sale deed in favour of Shivanna though found mentioned in the encumbrance certificate at Ex.D.5, the same does not have any credence unless antecedent documents to show flow of title from BDA to Shivanna is established. This apart, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff, the construction put up on the suit property cannot be prior to the defendant No.3 purchasing the suit property from Shivanna. On the contrary as admitted by DW-2, when the defendants started putting up construction, they were summoned by the police and were warned on 20.02.2000 not to put up construction. The suit in question was filed on 21.02.2000. Ex.D.11, which is a bill issued by the BSNL is subsequent to the date of filing the suit and therefore has no relevance. Ex.D.14 is a work order dated 29.11.1999 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board (henceforth referred to as 'BWSSB'), Exs.D.15 and D.16 are receipts for having paid the fee to BWSSB. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 Ex.D.17 is an application for sanitary connection. Ex.D.18 is the plan of the building for proposed sanitary connection. 21. Strangely, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 did not confront the letter of allotment in favour of Shivanna to DW-1. No document is placed on record to show that Shivanna had made any payment of the allotment price to BDA and or that lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in favour of Shivanna and possession was delivered. There is also nothing to show that the building was constructed prior to the suit. The plaintiff was entitled to protect his possession in the suit property and could not have sought for declaration of his title as the BDA had not conveyed the title of the suit property. This possession being a visible badge of ownership, the plaintiff was entitled to sue for perpetual injunction and also seek mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorised construction put up on the suit property. Hence, point No.(i) framed is answered in favour of the plaintiff. 22. As regards point No.(ii), the plaintiff averred in the plaint that the defendant Nos.1 and 3 had put up construction, after the suit was filed. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 did not - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 specifically deny this but claimed "Wife of the defendant No.1 being in possession of the property that was a vacant site to begin with. As all documents in her favour and having a sanction plan that was available duly valid, the wife of the defendant No.1 put up the construction and is residing in the same." The DW-1 marked a certified copy of the mortgage deed as Ex.D-37, which is dated 03.11.2000, for a housing loan, which is evident from Ex.D.36. However, the suit was filed on 21.02.2000. The certified copy of the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3, which is filed along with an application for additional evidence shows that it was executed on 18.08.1999 and refer to a "One square AC Sheet roof house with electricity and water connection." Therefore, defendant No.1 or defendant No.3 had not put up any construction between 18.08.1999 till 21.02.2000. If Shivanna had electricity and water connection, the same documents in that regard had to be furnished. Contrarily, DW-1 claimed that electricity was provided only on 15.10.2000 as per Ex.D.33, while sewage discharge was sought for on 04.11.1999, which was allegedly granted on 25.11.1999. Therefore, there is nothing to show that the defendant Nos.1 and 3 had constructed the building as seen in - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 the photograph at Exs.D.38 and D.39. Therefore, it can unhesitatingly be held that the construction in the suit property was done by the defendant Nos.1 and 3 after the suit was filed by the plaintiff. 23. Now coming to the point No.(iii) for consideration, every person who is in possession of an immovable property is entitled to peacefully possess such property without any obstruction or interference from any other person. If such other person has a right to recover possession, he is bound to do so in accordance with law. If however, he unlawfully dispossess such person, the right to recover possession immediately is embedded in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, within six months from the date of dispossession by just proving that he was in possession of the property immediately before the suit or within 12 years as provided under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As stated earlier, there are documents to show that the suit property was allotted to Mrs.Ameerunnisa and she was placed in possession by BDA. There is documents to show that the allotment price was paid by Mrs.Ameerunnisa. The suit property was allotted to - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 Mrs.Ameerunnisa in lieu of acquisition of a revenue site belonging to her. There is nothing to show that BDA had cancelled the allotment or resumed possession of the suit property. Therefore, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 cannot claim that Mrs.Ameerunnisa was not in possession of the suit property. Moreover, there is some suspicion about the letter of allotment marked by the defendant No.1 as Ex.D.9 as there are no corresponding documents to show that the allotment price was paid and whether any lease cum sale agreement was executed in favour of vendor of defendant No.3 and whether any possession certificate was issued. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 did not even confront the allotment letter at Ex.D.9 and the original sale deed at Ex.D.37 to DW-1. The DW-1, who was the official from BDA contrarily deposed that the suit property was allotted to Mrs.Ameerunnisa and a lease cum sale agreement was executed in her favour. He deposed "Deputy Secretary has not executed sale deed in favour of Shivanna." He deposed "BDA has not handed over possession of suit property to anyone except Mrs.Ameerunnisa, the mother of the plaintiff." He further deposed "Shivanna has not made any payment to BDA in respect of suit schedule property to the - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21395 RFA No. 659 of 2010 BDA. No document has been executed in favour of Shivanna by BDA. The document produced by Shivanna are concocted documents." Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as the defendant Nos.1 and 3 had no right over the suit property but had put up construction after the suit was filed. Thus to restore status quo ante, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit. 24. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. In view of the findings recorded above, the documents filed along with I.A.No.1/2025 are unnecessary and hence, I.A.No.1/2025 also stands rejected. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40