JUDGMENT 1. The captioned regular first appeal is filed by defendants-Bengaluru Development Authority questioning the judgment and decree dtd. 10/10/2006 passed in O.S.No.5222/1999 by the IX Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: (a)The subject-matter of the suit are two items namely plots bearing site Nos.22/5 and 22/6 situated at Valagerahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, bearing corresponding Municipal Katha Nos.895/22/5 and 894/22/6 respectively. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction simplicitor against the defendants-BDA. The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule properties were originally owned by one Sri.K. Ramanna s/o.Narasegowda and in the family partition the suit schedule properties along with the other properties were allotted to the share of C. Eraju S/o.Chikka Eregowda and Kum. R. Kavitha d/o. K. Ramanna. The plaintiff claims that he had purchased the suit schedule item No.1 property from C. Eraju s/o.Chikka Eregowda under a registered sale deed dtd. 2/3/1995 and item No.2 property from R. Kavitha under a registered sale deed dtd. 2/3/1995 for valuable consideration. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that suit schedule properties are part and parcel of Survey No.78/2 totally measuring 2 acres 10 guntas of Valagerahalli village. The plaintiff further contended that the original owner K. Ramanna had submitted an application seeking conversion of the suit schedule properties from agricultural to non- agricultural purpose. Having purchased the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff claims that, after securing permission from the competent authority, he started laying foundation. At that juncture, the defendants-BDA authorities obstructed by contending that the lands are already acquired. On these set of pleadings, the plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants-authority. (b)On receipt of summons, the defendants-BDA tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants-authority specifically contended that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Sec. 64 of the BDA Act. The authority also disputed the title of one Sri.K. Ramanna s/o.Narasegowda and also specifically pleaded their ignorance in regard to the family partition pertaining to the suit schedule properties. It is the specific contention of the defendants-authorities that suit schedule properties are part and parcel of Survey No.78/2 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas. The authority also disputed the title of one Sri.K. Ramanna s/o.Narasegowda and also specifically pleaded their ignorance in regard to the family partition pertaining to the suit schedule properties. It is the specific contention of the defendants-authorities that suit schedule properties are part and parcel of Survey No.78/2 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas. The defendants-authorities claimed that the authority has passed preliminary and final notifications and possession of the suit schedule properties was taken and in lieu of possession, compensation was paid to the owners and as such sought for dismissal of the suit. (c)The trial Court based on the pleadings formulated the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves unlawful interference by the official of defendants? 3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit schedule property stood vested with the BDA by virtue of acquisition proceedings and as such, the suit is not maintainable? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as sought for?" (d)The plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined himself as P.W.1 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P15. The defendant-authority by way of rebuttal evidence examined two officials as D.Ws.1 and 2 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.D1 to 13. (e)The trial Court having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative and proceeded to decree the suit filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court having examined the material on record has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his lawful possession over the suit schedule properties and consequently, held that interference is also proved by the plaintiff and as such the trial Court was of the view that the defendant- authorities have to be injuncted from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. (f)Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant-BDA is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants-authority would vehemently argue and contend that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is contrary to the clinching rebuttal evidence on record and therefore, would warrant interference at the hands of this Court. (f)Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant-BDA is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants-authority would vehemently argue and contend that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is contrary to the clinching rebuttal evidence on record and therefore, would warrant interference at the hands of this Court. He would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the suit schedule properties are part and parcel of Survey No.78/2 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and therefore would contend that Ex.D8 which is the mahazar drawn while taking possession of 1 acre 30 guntas would clearly demonstrate and establish that suit schedule properties are situated within the portion measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and not in the portion of 22 guntas which was left out while passing the final declaration. Placing reliance on Exs. D4 and D5, he would submit that by way of rebuttal evidence, the defendant-authorities have succeeded in proving that the suit schedule properties stood vested with the BDA and therefore, the plaintiff cannot file a bare suit for injunction against the BDA when admittedly, the owner lost possession of the suit schedule properties on account of acquisition initiated by the BDA. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and another vs. Brijest Reddy and another, (2013) 3 SCC 66 Drawing attention of this Court to para 18 of the judgment, he would submit that in view of clinching rebuttal evidence adduced by the BDA, it is clearly established that suit schedule properties were acquired by the competent authority under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the provisions of Sec. 9 CPC would immediately come into play and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands excluded. On these set of grounds and also the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, he would submit that the appeal requires to be allowed and the suit requires to be dismissed. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff repelling the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the defendants-authority would submit that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is based on clinching evidence adduced by the plaintiff. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff repelling the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the defendants-authority would submit that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is based on clinching evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The documentary evidence, which is placed on record by the plaintiff would clearly establish that he is in lawful possession over the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in granting perpetual injunction against the BDA. Taking this Court to the ocular evidence of D.W.1, the learned counsel would submit that D.W.1 in his ocular evidence in an unequivocal terms has stated that the suit schedule properties which were existing in the area of 22 guntas was dropped from acquisition and final declaration was issued only in respect of 1 acre 30 guntas which was a vacant land excluding 22 guntas which also comprised structure. He would further take this Court to the clinching documentary evidence which is placed on record by him and placing reliance on building plan and also tax paid receipts as per Exs.P9, 10 and 13 would submit that it would clinch the issue. Lastly, he would conclude his arguments by contending that in a bare suit for injunction, the Courts are only bound to examine as to whether the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit. The fact that the BDA as miserably failed to demonstrate that suit schedule properties are part and parcel of 1 acre 30 guntas which was acquired in itself amounts to interference. The trial Court having taken note of this significant details has rightly proceeded to decree the suit and therefore, would request this Court to dismiss the appeal which is devoid of merits. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants-BDA and the learned counsel for the plaintiff. I have given my anxious consideration to the findings recorded by the trial Court. The following points would arise for my consideration: (1)Whether the trial Court was justified in granting perpetual injunction against the defendants-BDA by recording a categorical finding that plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property? I have given my anxious consideration to the findings recorded by the trial Court. The following points would arise for my consideration: (1)Whether the trial Court was justified in granting perpetual injunction against the defendants-BDA by recording a categorical finding that plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property? (2)Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the defendants- BDA has failed to prove that the suit schedule properties stood vested with BDA on account of acquisition proceedings and as such the suit is not maintainable? 7. Regarding Points 1 and 2: The plaintiff is asserting title in respect of suit schedule properties on the basis of the registered sale deed dtd. 2/3/1995 executed by the erstwhile owners as per Exs.P1 and P2. The plaintiff to demonstrate flow of title in favour of his vendors has also produced copy of the partition deed, which is marked as Ex.P3. The plaintiff has also relied on katha endorsements and tax paid receipts as per Exs.P5,6 and 10. On perusal of Ex.P13-sanctioned plan, this Court would find that the plaintiff applied for building permission and the competent authority has approved the sanction plan. On perusal of these documents, which comprises of title documents as well as building permission, this Court would find that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule properties under the registered sale deeds and consequently has put up construction in the suit schedule properties which is also evident from Ex.P13. Therefore, this clinching oral and documentary evidence would clearly indicate that the plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff's lawful possession is preceded by acquisition of right and title under registered sale deeds which are of the year 1995. 8. Therefore, on perusal of the title documents coupled with tax paid receipts and also building permission, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his lawful possession over the suit schedule properties. What needs to be looked into by this Court is as to whether the defendants-BDA having taken a specific plea that the suit schedule properties are also part and parcel of Survey No.78/2 wherein 1 acre 30 guntas was acquired have succeeded in establishing the same by leading rebuttal evidence. My answer is "No". What needs to be looked into by this Court is as to whether the defendants-BDA having taken a specific plea that the suit schedule properties are also part and parcel of Survey No.78/2 wherein 1 acre 30 guntas was acquired have succeeded in establishing the same by leading rebuttal evidence. My answer is "No". On perusal of rebuttal evidence let in by the defendants, this Court would find that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the suit schedule properties are also part and parcel of 1 acre 30 guntas which was acquired by the BDA. Though a feeble attempt is made by the authorities by placing reliance on the Mahazars as per Exs.D4 and D8 and other documents to indicate that possession was taken in respect of portion which was acquired by the BDA, however, these documents do not indicate that the present suit schedule properties were also subject matter of acquisition. 9. The BDA is a statutory authority and therefore, if 1 acre 30 guntas was acquired in Survey No.78/2, then it was incumbent on the part of the BDA authority to discharge their burden by producing cogent and clinching evidence to demonstrate that the suit schedule properties are also part and parcel of 1 acre 30 which was acquired. The rebuttal evidence which is placed on record by the defendants-authority would not come to the aid of the authorities. Exs.D4 and 8 also does not come to the aid of the defendant to prove that the suit schedule properties were also acquired and the same forms part and parcel of Survey No.78/2 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas. 10. On perusal of examination-in-chief of D.W.1, this Court is of the view that this would clinch the entire controversy between the parties. Therefore, this Court would deem it necessary to cull out the relevant portion of examination-in-chief, which reads as under: "2. I submit that the land measuring 1 acre village, kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk has been acquired by defendants authority for the formation of Layout called "Jnanabharathi": in pursuance of preliminary Gazette dtd. 19/1/1989, followed by final Notification No.HUD.483, MNX.91 dtd. 19/1/1994 and published in Karnataka Gazette dtd. 3/3/1994. I submit that the land measuring 1 acre village, kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk has been acquired by defendants authority for the formation of Layout called "Jnanabharathi": in pursuance of preliminary Gazette dtd. 19/1/1989, followed by final Notification No.HUD.483, MNX.91 dtd. 19/1/1994 and published in Karnataka Gazette dtd. 3/3/1994. Though the entire extent of 2 acres 12 guntas in sy.No.78/2 of Valagerehalli village was proposed for acquisition considering the structures existing in an area measuring 22 guntas, the said built up area was not included in the final notification." 11. The relevant cross-examination of D.W.1 conducted on 28/10/2005 would rather disprove the case of the defendant-authority, which reads as under: "It is true that we have not produced the original Notification and the possession mahazar before court." 12. If the ocular evidence of D.W.1 is taken into consideration, then this Court is of the view that the defendants-BDA have failed to prove that the suit schedule properties stood vested on account of acquisition of Survey No.78/2. On the contrary, this Court would find that the plaintiff has succeeded in producing sufficient materials indicating that he has constructed a building after securing permission from the authority and he is in lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Though, it is more than a trite that in a bare suit for injunction, the issue relating to title cannot be gone into, however, the plaintiff's possession is based on title documents and the same is placed on record as per Exs.P1 and P2. The plaintiff has further produced documentary evidence to corroborate and substantiate his claim that he is in lawful possession over the suit schedule properties and the same can be gathered from Exs.P1 and P2. On perusal of cross- examination of D.W.2, the plaintiff has succeeded in eliciting from the mouth of the concerned officials and has demolished the defence set up by the defendants- authority. The plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that evidence on record clearly indicates that the BDA has failed to establish the alleged mahazars. Even otherwise, the mahazars which are produced before the Court are quite ambiguous and the said mahazars do not depict the topography and location of the property. It also does not indicate that the present suit schedule properties are part and parcel of 1 acre 30 guntas. 13. Even otherwise, the mahazars which are produced before the Court are quite ambiguous and the said mahazars do not depict the topography and location of the property. It also does not indicate that the present suit schedule properties are part and parcel of 1 acre 30 guntas. 13. Therefore, I am of the view that the defence set up by the defendants-authority is not substantiated and corroborated by producing cogent and clinching evidence. If the cogent and clinching evidence adduced by plaintiff coupled with ocular evidence of D.W.1 is taken into consideration, I am of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his lawful possession over the suit schedule properties. The BDA has not produced any documents to support its contention that suit schedule properties are part and parcel of 1 acre 30 guntas which was acquired. Therefore, I am of the view that the BDA has made a false claim and under the garb of false claim has tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the trial Court in granting injunction is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any irregularities and infirmities. Accordingly, the points formulated by this Court are answered in the affirmative. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed.