IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU
O.S. No.667/2025
BETWEEN:
Sri.R.S.Vinay
S/o R.Shankarappa
Aged about 40 years
R/at No.31,Rajarajeshwari Nagar
Kenchanahalli
Bengaluru – 560 098. .. Plaintiff
AND:
The Gavipuram Extension House
Building Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Represented by its Secretary
Reg. No. 826/224-22/12/1950,
No.50, 3rd Cross, Gavipuram Extension,
Bengaluru- 560 090. ..
Defendant
MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT PRESENTED UNDER ORDER VII
RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
The Plaintiff above named respectfully submits as follows:
I. The address of the plaintiff for the purpose of issue of
summons, notice and process etc., from this Hon’ble Court
is as stated above in the cause title. The plaintiff may also
be served on his counsel Sri J.C. Kumar, Advocate, having
his Chambers at No.F-3, Krishna Towers, 1 st Floor, 3rd Main,
Gandhinagar, Bengaluru – 560 009.
II. The address of the Defendant for the similar purpose is as
stated in the cause title.
III. The plaintiff has filed the above suit for declaration,
permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs
against the Defendants in respect of the suit schedule
property.
IV. BRIEF FACTS:
1. The Plaintiff submits that the land bearing Old
Sy.No.26/P23 and New Sy.No.125 measuring an extent of 01 acre
of Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk, Bengaluru District was granted in favour of one
1
Venkataramanappa on 09.01.1979 vide No.B-DIS-LND(3)/SR-
87/1978-79 and others. In the said grant, the name of the said
Venkataramanappa appearing at Sl.No.7 in that OM. The Plaintiff
has produced the copy of the OM dated 09.01.1979 along with
the list of the grantees are collectively marked as DOCUMENT
No.1 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
2. The Plaintiff submits that, the name of the grantee by
name Venkataramanappa was also entered in the Issue Register
Extract vide No.420/1979-80. The Plaintiff has produced the copy
of the Issue Register Extract and same is marked as DOCUMENT
No.2 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
3. The Plaintiff submits that, pursuant to the grant, the khata
and revenue entries were transferred in favour of
Venkataramanappa and his name was entered in the RTC. The
Plaintiff has produced the RTC from 1980 to 1997 and same are
marked as DOCUMENT No.3 to 6 respectively for kind perusal
of this Hon’ble Court.
4. The Plaintiff submits that, on 07.10.2004 the above said
Old Sy.No.26/P23 has phoded and assigned New Sy.No.125
measuring 01 acre of Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District. The plaintiff has
produced the copies of the karda, sketch, re-survey tippani and
re-survey pakka and same are marked as DOCUMENT Nos.7 to
10 respectively for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
5. The Plaintiff submits that, the said Venkataramanappa died
leaving behind his legal heirs and thereafter the khatha and
revenue entries has transferred in favour of his LRs under MR
No.1/2008-09 and accordingly their names were entered in the
RTC in New Sy No.125 and thereafter, they were offer to sell the
above said property to the father of the Plaintiff- R. Shankarappa
and the father of the Plaintiff also accepted the offer and agreed
to purchase the above said property, but the permission under
the PTCL Act was required and therefore, the father of the
Plaintiff made the application to the Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru District, Bengaluru for seeking permission under the
PTCL Act to purchase the above said land and accordingly, on
2
30.03.2010, vide PTCL(CR)28/2008-09 had granted the
permission under the PTCL Act by the Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru District, Bengaluru and to sell in favour of the father
of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has produced the original copy of the
OM dated 30.03.2010, RTCs and MR No. 01/2008-09 and same
are marked as DOCUMENT No.11 to 20 respectively for kind
perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
6. The Plaintiff submits that subsequently, they have sold the
above said land under the registered sale deed dated 05.02.2011
registered as Document No.5004/2010-11 for valuable sale
consideration in favour of the Plaintiff herein and put in
possession and enjoyment of the said land and subsequently, on
the basis of the registered sale deed dated 05.02.2011, the
khata and revenue entries have been transferred in favour of the
Plaintiff under MR.No.H-8/2012-13 and his name is entered both
in column No.9 and 12(2) of the RTC in New Sy.No.125 of
Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru District, which is more fully described herein under
written and herein after referred to as ‘Suit Schedule
Property.’ The Plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the
registered sale deed dated 05.02.2011, MR.No.H-8/2012-13 and
RTCs and same are marked as DOCUMENT No.21 to 31
respectively for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
7. The Plaintiff submits that, the vendors of the Plaintiff had
filed the suit in OS No.8313/2004 for seeking injunction in
respect of the suit schedule property against the Defendant
herein before the City Civil Court, at Bengaluru, due to non-
production of sufficient document the said suit for injunction
came to be dismissed on 01.09.2010. The Plaintiff has produced
the copy of the judgement dated 01.09.2010 and same is
marked as DOCUMENT No.32 respectively for kind perusal of
this Hon’ble Court.
8. The Plaintiff submits that when such being the above facts,
the revenue authorities without verifying the records of the
vendor of the Plaintiff as well as the Plaintiff including the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.01.1979 and on
30.03.2010 as granted the permission under the PTCL Act to sell
3
the suit schedule property as well as the concerned authority has
phoded and assigned new survey number in respect of the suit
schedule property on 07.10.2004, wherein also they have
categorically mentioned the order of grant made by the Deputy
Commissioner in said karda register and also without verifying
the possession and enjoyment of the vendor of the Plaintiff and
the Assistant Commissioner in collusion with the Defendant
behind the back of the Plaintiff and without notice has passed the
order for cancellation of phodi in respect of Sy.No.125 of the suit
schedule property on 16.03.2024 and put the entire revenue
entries in original Old Sy.No.26 of Nagadevanahalli Village,
Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District, even
though in the said order has not cancelled the khatha and
revenue entries stands in the name of the Plaintiff in respect of
the suit schedule property, but while put in Old Sy.No.26 of the
above said village, as per the MR No.T-6/2019-20, the name of
the Plaintiff is not continued in the RTC, but notwithstanding the
non-continuation of the revenue entries, the Plaintiff is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The
Plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the order dated
16.03.2024, MR No. T-6/2019-20 and RTC for the year 2024-25
and same are marked as DOCUMENT Nos.33 to 35
respectively for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
9. The Plaintiff submits that, immediately after came to know
about the non-continuation of the revenue entries in respect of
the suit schedule property in the name of the Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff has filed the Revision Petition under Section 136(3) of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act against the order dated
16.03.2024 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban
District, at Bengaluru on 22.01.2025 and obtained the order of
stay to the said order and the said petition is pending before the
said authority, in view of the server, not functioning properly in
the office of Deputy Commissioner, they have not given the case
number as well as the stay order and therefore, the Plaintiff
could not produce the stay order in the above case.
10. The Plaintiff submits that, when such being the above
facts, the defendant taking undue advantage of the non-
4
continuation of the revenue entries in the respect of suit
schedule property in the name of the Plaintiff trying to interfere
with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff in respect
of the suit schedule property on 21.01.2025 and came near the
suit schedule property at about 12.30 pm at that time the
plaintiff has resisted the illegal interference of the defendant and
the defendant left the spot, while returning in the suit schedule
property they have stating that the suit schedule property was
acquired in favour of the defendant-Society and also denying the
right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect of the suit
schedule property and immediately, the plaintiff has also lodged
the complaint to the jurisdictional Police of Jnanabharathi Police
Station on the very same day, but the Police except issuing the
acknowledgment for having received the complaint, they have
not taken action against the defendant-Society. The plaintiff has
produced the photographs, CD and Acknowledgment dated
21.01.2025 and same are marked as DOCUMENT NO.36 TO
43, respectively for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
11. The plaintiff submits that the defendant not only interfering
the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of
the plaintiff, but also denying the right, title and interest of the
plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and therefore,
the plaintiff has approached the Special Land Acquisition Office
in order to get the details with regard to the acquisition in favour
of the defendant-Society as well as plan sanction in favour of the
defendant-Society and also details of the property acquired in
favour of the said society. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
had issued the certified copy of the plan and copy of the Gazette
Notification dated 31.07.1986 and Official Memorandum dated
09.10.1987. The plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the
plan, copy of the Gazette Notification dated 31.07.1986 and copy
of the Official Memorandum dated 09.10.1987 and same are
marked as DOCUMENT NO.44 to 46 respectively for kind
perusal of this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted in the above
said details, which are clearly goes to show that, the land of the
vendors of the Plaintiff i.e., the suit schedule property was not
the subject matter of acquisition in favour of the defendant-
society, therefore, the suit schedule property is a vacant land
5
belongs to the vendors of the Plaintiff and subsequently the
Plaintiff, now taking undue advantage of non-continuation of the
revenue entries in the name of the Plaintiff, the defendant
without any manner of right, title, interest and possession in
respect of the suit schedule property trying to interfere and
denying the title of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule
property.
12. The plaintiff submits that, the defendant again on
24.01.2025 at about 10.30 am trying to interfering as well as
tried to leveling the suit schedule property for formation of the
layout and again the same is resisted by the Plaintiff of the illegal
interference of the defendant with the help of his friends and
relatives and the office bearers of the defendant left the spot
shouting that they would come again in large number to
dispossess the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and in spite
of lodging the complaint against the defendant-Society, the
Police have not taken the action against the defendant, the
plaintiff without there being any other options has approached
this Hon’ble Court for the equitable relief of declaration,
declaring that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner in
lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by
virtue of the registered sale deed dated 05.02.2011 and
consequently, sought for the permanent injunction in respect of
the suit schedule property against the defendant.
13. The cause of action arose for the above suit on 21.01.2025,
when the Defendant try to interfering the Plaintiff peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and on
24.01.2025, when the defendant trying to interfere the
possession of the Plaintiff and as well as trying to form the
layout by denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and
subsequently, which is well within the territorial and pecuniary
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to try and dispose the above
suit.
14. The plaintiff has valued the above suit for the purpose of
payment of Court fee and jurisdiction and has annexed a
6
separate valuation slip along with the suit and the Court fee paid
is sufficient.
15. The plaintiff has not filed any other suit or proceedings in
any Court of law pending seeking the relief prayed for in this suit
on the same cause of action nor any suits are pending disposal in
any Court of law.
16. The plaintiff has no other effective, alternative or
efficacious remedy other than the suit.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to grant a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff
as against the Defendant for the following reliefs:
a) To declare that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute
owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property by virtue of the registered sale
deed dated 05.02.2011 registered as Document
No.5004/2010-11.
b) BY WAY of permanent injunction restrain the
Defendant, its agents or office bearers or anybody
acting under or through it in any manner whatsoever
from interfering with peaceful possession, enjoyment
of the suit schedule property;
c) TO GRANT such other or other relief as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, including the cost of this
proceedings in the interests of justice.
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Old Sy.No.26/P23,
New SY.NO.125 measuring an extent of 1 Acre, situated at
Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru District and bounded on the:
East by : Land of Hanumanthappa
7
West by : Land of Narayanappa
North by : Government Gomal Land
South by : Land of Dasappa.
Advocate for Plaintiff Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
I, the Plaintiff above named, do hereby verify that what is
stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief, and I believe the same to be true and
correct.
Bengaluru
Date: Plaintiff
