Plaint 71501m

AMENDED PLAINT IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE O.S. No. 7545 OF 2008 BETWEEN: CHANDRAMMA W/o. Late Rangappa Aged about 62 years No.2514, 7th Main, 9th Cross, RPC Layout, Hampinagar Bangalore – 560 040

...PLAINTIFF

AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER Bangalore Development Authority Bangalore. 2. Smt.Sharadamma, W/o Sanjeevaiah, Aged 65 years, Residing at No.127, Kalyan Co-operative Housing Society, 7th Main, Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560 040.

....DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff submits as under:-

1. The address of the parties for the purposes of service of notice, issue of suit summons and other process from this Hon’ble Court are correctly set out in the above cause title. The address of the Plaintiff is that of his counsels M/s. LEX NEXUS, Advocates, No.21/1, 1 st Cross, Yamuna Bai Road, Madhava Nagar, Bangalore – 560 001. 2. An extent of 300 sq. Ft., situated on the 9 th Cross, 7th Main, RPC Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore was the property of the BDA. A small piece of

land was unoccupied and vacant. Sometime during March 1980, the Plaintiff had entered upon the said property and had put up a small hutment, as she was then doing some coolie work in a nearby vicinity. Though she had entered upon the property and had put up a hutment, it was not objected to or protested by the Defendant or any of its officers. 3. The Plaintiff continued to reside therein along with her family and slowly she had converted the hutment into a asbestos roof shed and by making timely alterations and additions. By 1992, the Plaintiff had put up a full fledged residential house.

Right from the year 1980 up to

1992,

uninterrupted

the

Plaintiff

continued

in

and

continuous

possession exercising acts of ownership in occupying the property and it was to the full knowledge of the Defendant. 4. The Plaintiff’s son had applied for the electricity connection in the year 1992 and secured electricity connection and she has also secured water connection for the said property. The Plaintiff has been enjoying these amenities in exercise of her acts of ownership in respect of the said property. 5. The Plaintiff has continued to be in possession of the said property and the said property came to be assigned with Municipal No.2514, some time during the year 1992-93 and the property is presently recognized by the Municipal No.2514, situated at 9th Cross, 7th Main, ward No. 34, Hampi Nagar, Bangalore – 40, which property is more fully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the Schedule Property. 6. The Plaintiff was informed sometime during the year 1989 that the BDA had undertaken to regularize all possession held unauthorizedly and

therefore, the Plaintiff had made an application on 25.11.1989. From the date of the endorsement, BDA is aware of the occupation of the Plaintiff of the Schedule Property. The Plaintiff has continued to be in possession thereof

by exercising acts of ownership in putting up a

residential construction, securing water connection and electricity connection

thereto.

The

Plaintiff

had

attempted

to

pay

the

assessments, but the BBMP had not accepted the same only on the ground that the khatha was not standing in the name of the Plaintiff and therefore, BBMP cannot collect the assessments from her. 7. The name of the Plaintiff has been included in the voters list at least since 1995. The Plaintiff knew that the Defendant is the owner of the Schedule Property and she had entered upon the Schedule Property in the year 1980 (March 1980) and continued in possession thereof by exercising acts of ownership hostile to the interest of the Defendant and to the knowledge of the Defendant. The Plaintiff has now been in uninterrupted possession of the Schedule Property for over 28 years. The Plaintiff has therefore perfected her title, by adverse possession as against the Defendant.

When such being the situation, on

05.07.2008, the officials of the Defendant had held out that the property will be demolished.

At that stage, the Plaintiff had

approached this Hon’ble Court. In fact after the Plaintiff had perfected her title by adverse possession by her continuous and uninterrupted possession, exercising acts of ownership, hostile to the interest and knowledge of the Defendant and had also attempted to pay the assessment.

Though the Plaintiff had asked for regularization of

unauthorised construction, the Defendant has not considered the same, but on the other hand is fully aware of the continuous and uninterrupted possession of the Plaintiff and her hostile acts of

ownership. The Defendant has therefore lost its right in respect of the Schedule Property and the Plaintiff has become the absolute owner by perfecting her title to the Schedule Property by adverse possession. 8. The cause of action for the suit arose during March 1980 when the Plaintiff entered upon the Schedule Property and has continued in possession by exercising acts of ownership hostile to the interest and knowledge of the Defendant and upon expiry of statutory period, upon which the Plaintiff has perfected her title by adverse possession and on 05.07.2008, when the Defendant has made attempts to demolish the existing constructions in the Schedule Property, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 9. The suit is valued and the court fee is paid as detailed in the accompanying valuation slip. 10.

The Plaintiff has not filed any other suit, seeking the same relief

or the cause of

action.

However, the Plaintiff had filed a suit for

injunction to protect her possession in O.S.No. 4445/2008 and has filed all original documents in the said suit.

However in view of urgency

copy of documents is produced in this suit. 11.

Other than the said suit, the Plaintiff has not filed any other suit

either in respect of the cause of action or the subject matter before this Hon’ble Court. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to a judgment and decree against the Defendant. a. Declaring that the Plaintiff has acquired title to the Schedule Property by adverse possession and consequently declaring that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property. b. Grant perpetual injunction against the Defendant, their officials or anybody claiming right through or under them from interfering with

the Plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property. c. Award costs of the Suit. d. such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice. SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property bearing site No.2514, situated at 9th Cross, 7th Main, RPC Layout, Vijayanagar II Stage, Bangalore -40, measuring East to West 10 + 15/2 and North to South 25 feet having a residential construction, consisting of one hall, room, kitchen, bath and toilet with one verandah and provided with amenities and bounded on: East by : West by : North by : South by:

Road Road Road Site No.2514/A

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF VERIFICATION

I, Chandramma, do hereby and declare the contents of the plaint to be true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. BANGALORE DATED :

PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE O.S. No. 7545 OF 2008 BETWEEN: CHANDRAMMA

...

PLAINTIFF

....

DEFENDANTS

AND: THE COMMISSIONER Bangalore Development Authority And Another.

ING AFFIDAVIT I, CHANDRAMMA W/o. Late Rangappa, aged about 62 years, No.2514, 7 th Main, 9th Cross, RPC Layout, Hampinagar, Bangalore – 560 040, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I am the plaintiff and conversant with the facts of teh case. Hence, I am swear to this affidavit. 2. I submit that the averments contained in the accompanying Amended Plaint from Paras 1 to 11 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Identified by Me.

Deponent. Advocate. Bengaluru Date: No. of Corrections.

Sworn to before me.