Legally Bharat

Supreme Court of India

Lakshmesh M vs P. Rajalakshmi (Dead By Lrs.) And Ors. … on 11 September, 2024

Author: Abhay S. Oka

Bench: Abhay S. Oka

2024 INSC 678




                                                                     NON-REPORTABLE
                                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9731-9732 OF 2024


                              LAKSHMESH M.                            … APPELLANT

                                                           VERSUS

                              P. RAJALAKSHMI (DEAD BY LRS.)
                              AND ORS. ETC.ETC. AND ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

                                                      JUDGMENT

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. These two Appeals have been preferred against the
final judgment and order dated 05.12.2014 by the
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA Nos.
902 of 2008 and 887 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘impugned judgment’). While disposing of these
Regular First Appeals against the judgment and order
dated 31.03.2008 passed by XII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions (CCH No. 27) Judge at Bengaluru in O.S No.
5634 of 1980, by the common impugned order, the
High Court while upholding the Trial Court judgment
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
ASHISH KONDLE
decreeing the suit and holding that the
Date: 2024.09.11
16:12:23 IST
Reason:

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 1 of 13

Appellant/Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit
property, has further held that site allotted to
Defendant No. 20 (Respondent No. 27 in Civil Appeal
No. 9731 of 2024 and Respondent No. 01 in Civil
Appeal No. 9732 of 2024) is not the part of Sy. No.
305/2. Furthermore, the High Court has held that
Defendant Nos.9, 10(a), 11(a), 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23
and 24 (Respondent Nos.1 to 13 in Civil Appeal No.
9731 of 2024 and Respondent Nos.10, 12, 13, 14, 15,
17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28 and 29 in Civil Appeal No.
9732 of 2024) are entitled to receive 30 per cent of
the amount of compensation payable in respect of ten
sites situated on the suit property.

2. Aggrieved by the abovesaid findings and directions,
the Appellant/Plaintiff has preferred these two
Appeals. For ease of reference, the parties are
referred to by their original position before the Trial
Court. The limited questions for consideration before
this Court are as follows:

i. Whether the High Court by its impugned
judgment is correct in holding that the
Appellant/Plaintiff has failed to establish that

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 2 of 13
the site allotted to Defendant No.20 is not part
of Sy. No. 305/2.

ii. Whether the High Court by its impugned
judgment is correct in holding that ten allottees
(Defendant Nos.9, 10(a), 11(a), 12, 13, 14, 16,
18, 23 and 24) are entitled to receive 30 per cent
of amount of compensation payable in respect
of the ten sites, in spite of holding that the
Appellant/Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the
suit property and is entitled for full rights over
the same.

3. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to provide a
brief factual overview of the case at hand. To
elaborate, the Appellant/Plaintiff brought forward
O.S. No. 5634 of 1980 to seek a court declaration
affirming his title over 1 acre and 12 guntas of land
situated in Sy No. 132/2, Kempapura Agrahara Inam
village, Bangalore City. The suit also aimed to secure
possession of the land and obtain a mandatory
injunction against Defendant No.20, specifically to
remove any constructions erected on the suit
property. In addition to Defendant No.20, the suit
involved a total of 23 other defendants.

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 3 of 13

4. It is relevant to mention here that Kempapura
Agrahara village was an Inam village, and the land
stood vested in the State in terms of the provisions
contained in Mysore (Personnel & Miscellaneous)
Inams Abolition Act, 1954 with effect from
01.02.1959. Consequently, all jodidars retained
interests corresponding to their respective shares.

Among them was one Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma,
who held 1/7th share in the village. Pursuant to an
application submitted by her to the competent
authority, Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma was
granted occupancy rights for 1 acre and 3 guntas of
land in Sy No. 132/2, vide order dated 09.12.1969.
Although the initial mutation was sanctioned in her
name, the Tehsildar, following an on-site inspection,
adjusted the records to reflect the actual area in her
possession. As a result, a revised mutation order
dated 20.05.1972 was passed, updating the record to
1 acre and 12 guntas in Sy No. 132/2 in her name.
The land was subsequently renumbered as Sy No.
305/2, with a measurement of 1 acre and 12 guntas.
The Appellant/Plaintiff, Lakshmesh M. acquired this
land (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’)

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 4 of 13
from Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma through a
registered sale deed dated 10.06. 1975.

5. After the Appellant/Plaintiff acquired the suit
property, the Defendant No. 1, REMCO Industrial
Workers House Building Cooperative Society Limited
(Respondent 14 in Civil Appeal No. 9731 of 2024 and
Respondent 2 in Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2024), and
its members attempted to take forcible possession of
the same. The Defendant No.1-Society claimed rights
over 4 acres and 2 guntas within Sy No. 305. A survey
was conducted by the Police based on a complaint
moved by the Appellant/Plaintiff which indicated that
the claims of Defendant No.1-Society over suit
property are unfounded. Aggrieved thereby,
Defendant No.1-Society filed a suit seeking
permanent injunction. Although a temporary
injunction was initially granted, the possession of the
land remained with Defendant No.1-Society.

6. In such circumstances, the Appellant/Plaintiff filed
O.S. No. 5634 of 1980, a suit for declaration of his
title over the suit property and the consequential
reliefs of mandatory injunction and possession. This
suit was partly decreed on 30.10.1986 declaring the

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 5 of 13
title of the Appellant/Plaintiff over 1 acre and 3
guntas of the suit property, but the relief of
possession as sought was dismissed on the ground
that the sale deed did not detail the land in question
as the declaration of possession of Smt. B.C.
Subbalakshmamma was 1 acre and 12 guntas. Suit
of declaration for recovery of possession from out of
the scheduled property which measured 1 acre and
12 guntas was to be resorted to by the
Appellant/Plaintiff.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
30.10.1986, the Appellant/Plaintiff preferred RFA
No.747 of 1986 whereas Defendant No.1-Society
preferred RFA No.191 of 1987. The Regular First
Appeal as preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff was
allowed and that of the Defendant No.1-Society was
dismissed. The result thereof was that the suit of
the Appellant/Plaintiff was decreed.

8. Subsequently, Defendant No.1-Society preferred Civil
Appeal Nos.992-993 of 1997 before this Court
(correcting a typographical error in the impugned
judgment, referring to the years of the Appeals as
2007 instead of 1997). By Order dated 28.08.2003,

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 6 of 13
this Court allowed the said Appeals and remanded
the case to the Trial Court with directions to consider
the effect of the order granting occupancy rights in
favour of one Muniyappa on the subsequent grant
dated 09.12.1979. The Court further ordered the
Trial Court to identify the land covered by both grants
by framing necessary issues and providing an
additional opportunity to both parties.

9. The suit being OS No.5634 of 1980, as remanded by
this Court was decreed on 31.03.2008, and the
Appellant/Plaintiff was declared as the owner of the
scheduled property to the extent of 1 acre and 3
guntas in Sy No.305/2. He was also held entitled to
get possession of the same. The
Respondents/Defendants preferred appeals against
this judgment and decree before the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru. The Defendant No.1-
Society preferred RFA No.882 of 2008, Defendant
No.20 preferred RFA No.887 of 2008 and Defendants
Nos.9, 10(a), 11(a), 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23 and 24
preferred RFA No.902/2008.

10. The High Court vide the impugned judgment dated
05.12.2014 upheld the judgment passed by the Trial

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 7 of 13
Court in OS No.5634 of 1980 and dismissed the
appeal preferred by the Defendant No.1-Society, i.e.
RFA No.882/2008. However, RFA No.887 of 2008
preferred by Defendant No.20 was allowed. The High
Court set aside the judgment and decree so far as it
pertained to the land allotted to Defendant No.20,
declaring that the site allotted to Defendant No.20
was unrelated to the scheduled suit property.

11. Regarding RFA No.902 of 2008, the High Court
determined that Defendants Nos. 9, 10(a), 11(a), 12,
13, 14, 16, 18, 23, and 24 (hereinafter referred to as
‘private Defendants’) were entitled to receive 30 per
cent of the compensation for the acquired portion,
proportionate to the sites allotted to them in the suit
property. This amount was to be distributed
proportionately among these private Defendants.
Consequently, the High Court partly allowed their
appeals based on the above terms.

12. The Appellant/Plaintiff has brought forward these
Appeals in response to the impugned judgment
passed by the High Court.

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 8 of 13

13. It is the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for
the Appellant/Plaintiff that the High Court has failed
to appreciate that Defendant No.20 has not stepped
into the witness box to put forward his claim with
regard to the allotment of the land in his favour. He
further contends that the grant of relief to Defendant
No.20 in these circumstances is unsustainable.

14. This contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the
Appellant/Plaintiff cannot be accepted as the specific
plea of Defendant No.20 that the site allotted to him
does not form part of Sy No.305/2, but formed part
of Sy No.305/3 has not been disputed by the
Appellant/Plaintiff. Even the courts below have not
returned a finding holding that the site allotted to
Defendant No.20 and the construction made thereon
by him is part of Sy No.305/2. Since the
Appellant/Plaintiff has failed to establish that the site
allotted to Defendant No.20 was part of Sy No.305/2,
the High Court has rightly set aside the findings of
the Trial Court to the said extent. No interference
thus on this aspect is called for in the present
Appeal(s).

15. The learned Senior Advocate for the
Appellant/Plaintiff has further challenged the grant

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 9 of 13
of relief equal to 30 per cent of the amount of
compensation payable in respect of the sites which
were allotted to the private Defendants by asserting
that for the fault of Defendant No.1-Society, the
Appellant/Plaintiff cannot be held liable, nor can he
be forced to share the amount of compensation. The
liability, if any, would be of Defendant No.1-Society
of which these private Defendants were members. It
has further been asserted by him that the possession
and construction, if any, carried out by these private
Defendants was at their own risk and peril. After the
High Court had held the Appellant/Plaintiff to be the
absolute lawful owner of the suit property, being
entitled to full rights over the same, these private
Defendants cannot be held entitled to receive
compensation payable in respect of the sites built on
the suit property. Once it has been held that the
Appellant/Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property
merely because these private Defendants are in
possession of the sites built on the scheduled
property, they would not be entitled to any
compensation for the land acquired for the Metro Rail
Project.

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 10 of 13

16. Another expostulation which has been put forward by
the learned Senior Advocate for the
Appellant/Plaintiff is that the compensation was
neither asserted nor claimed by these private
Defendants at any stage and, in fact, the same was
not even argued what to say of taking a ground in the
appeal which has been preferred by the said private
Defendants before the High Court. Under such
circumstances, a portion of the compensation made
payable for the acquisition of the suit property of
which the Appellant/Plaintiff is the absolute owner,
is unacceptable and unsustainable in law.

17. On the other hand, the learned Senior Advocate for
the private Defendants submits that the factum of
possession and construction on the suit property by
the private Defendants is not disputed. Once they
are in possession of the sites built on the land in
question and that too as per the allotment made by
Defendant No.1-Society, they have rightly been
granted the benefit of compensation which is a
portion of the amount payable for the acquisition of
the suit property for the Metro Rail Project. Support
has, therefore, been made with regard to the grant of
compensation.

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 11 of 13

18. We have carefully considered the submissions made
by the learned Senior Advocate for the parties but are
unable to accept the stand as has been sought to be
projected by the learned Senior Advocate for the
private Defendants.

It is not in dispute that till date, no claim whatsoever
has been projected either in the appeal before the
High Court or before any other competent authority
for the grant of compensation for the land having
been acquired. The judgment as has been passed by
the High Court affirming the ownership and title of
the suit property in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff
has not been challenged by any of these private
Defendants. The said judgment and the findings
recorded therein have attained finality. In the
absence of any claim with regard to their entitlement
to compensation for the land acquired, the relief
granted by the High Court in the appeal is not
sustainable. Given the lack of pleadings, evidence on
record, and submissions made at the time of hearing
before the High Court, the judgment passed by it
granting 30 per cent of the amount payable by way of
compensation in respect of the ten sites in possession
of the private Defendants, deserves to be set aside.

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 12 of 13

The Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to receive the full
amount payable in respect of acquisition of the suit
property for the Metro Rail Project.

19. In the light of the above, the Civil Appeal No.9732 of
2024, titled as Lakshmesh M. v. C.N. Rangaraju
(since dead) by LRs. stands dismissed.

20. The Civil Appeal No.9731 of 2024 titled as
Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi (since dead) by LRs.,
is hereby allowed. The portion of judgment awarding
30 per cent of the compensation amount for the sites
allotted to the private Defendants by Defendant No.1-
Society concerning the suit property is set aside.
However, the private Defendants are at liberty to seek
any remedy as may be available to them under the
law for compensation, if they choose to do so.

21. There shall be no orders as to costs.

………………………………. J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

……………………………………. J.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 11, 2024.

Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 13 of 13

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *