Obalappa vs Pawan Kumar Bhihani

2025 INSC 1450 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No…………. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.14966 of 2025)

Obalappa and Ors. …Appellants Versus Pawan Kumar Bhihani and Ors. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. A suit for permanent injunction, by the respondents

herein; the plaintiffs, from interference to the suit

scheduled properties was dismissed, which was reversed

by the High Court and decreed in First Appeal, against

which the appellants/defendants in the suit have filed the

above appeal.

3. Mr.Shailesh Madiyal, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellants would submit that the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SAPNA BISHT Date: 2025.12.17 17:15:24 IST property of the appellants in Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12, Reason:

situated in Kempapura Agrahara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Page 1 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.14966 of 2025 Bengaluru, North Taluq was acquired by the Bangalore

Development Authority1. Though possession was not taken

an agreement was executed, allotting the property to the

father of the respondents/plaintiffs. Later, a sale deed was

executed despite the conditions of the agreement having

not been complied with. Subsequently, on a writ petition

filed by the appellants, the acquisition itself was set aside.

The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction,

claiming allotment of Site No.66 comprised in Survey

Nos.349/1 and 350/12. While the matter was pending, a

rectification deed was executed by the BDA in favour of the

children of the original allottee, the respondents herein,

alleging that there was a mistake in the survey numbers

shown in the original deed and replacing it with Survey

Nos. 350/9, 350/10 and 350/11. A further suit was filed in

which the trial court found the claim of title to be not

established and even going by the documents produced,

the identification of the property, not possible. The trial

court rejected the claim for permanent injunction.

1 for short, ‘the BDA’ Page 2 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.14966 of 2025

4. The High Court reversed the judgment on the ground

that there was a survey conducted by the BDA on a request

made by the respondents’ advocate to the Police, in which

Site No.66 was found existing in the survey numbers as

mentioned in the rectified deed. It is urged that there can

be no injunction against the appellants, whose property,

though acquired was not taken possession of and later, the

acquisition itself was set aside. The rectification made after

two decades of the sale agreement cannot be

countenanced. The trial court clearly found that the

appellants/defendants traced the title of the property

existing in Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12 to their

grandfather. The learned Senior Counsel would urge that

the so-called survey conducted by the BDA was not proved

before the trial court nor was the document produced,

even authenticated by a seal of the BDA. The High Court

egregiously erred in reversing the dismissal of the suit, is

the plea in the appeal.

5. Mr. M.N. Umashankar, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents, however, would point out that the

respondents’ father had purchased the property in auction

Page 3 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.14966 of 2025 from the BDA and the possession was handed over to him

long back in the year 1993. There was also an adjacent

property purchased for which also an injunction was

sought, however, on which the appellants do not have any

right. The High Court correctly relied on the survey

conducted by the BDA and there is no scope for an

interference at this stage. The claim of the defendants is

with respect to a land in totally different survey numbers.

6. The plaintiffs/respondents herein, as is seen from the

plaint produced at Annexure P-8 sought injunction against

the defendants/appellants herein, from interference to the

property described as Site bearing No.66 in the layout

formed by the BDA in Survey Nos.350/9, 350/10 and

350/11. It is claimed that the purchase was made in an

auction pursuant to which an agreement was executed on

24.05.1993 (Annexure P-2). Later, a sale deed was

executed on 17.11.2003, produced as Annexure P-3. An

adjacent property also was purchased as is evident from

Annexure P-4, all of which, lying contiguously was

possessed by the respondents, on which when a

construction was attempted, the appellants created

Page 4 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.14966 of 2025 obstruction specifically on 29.01.2012, which was pleaded

as the cause of action for the suit.

7. In fact, in paragraph 14 of the plaint, as produced at

Annexure P-8, it was specifically pleaded that the

respondents had filed another suit bearing O.S. No. 26629

of 2011 against the second defendant, wherein there was

an ex-parte temporary injunction granted. It was also

admitted therein that the suit was with respect to the claim

on Site No.66, comprised in Survey Nos.349 and 352. The

present suit was filed after a rectification deed was

registered by the BDA on 03.08.2012. We are not apprised

of what transpired in O.S.No.26629 of 2011 which obviously

the respondents did not pursue. It is pertinent that

O.S.No.26629 of 2011 was filed earlier in time and there

was no leave sought to file a subsequent suit with respect

to the very same property, with the survey numbers in

which the plot is comprised, altered.

8. That the acquisition proceedings against the

property in Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12 was set a naught

by the High Court in a writ petition, is evident from

Annexure P-20. The preliminary notification dated

Page 5 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.14966 of 2025 30.07.1977 and the final notification dated 10.05.1978 with

respect to the said property was declared to have been set

aside. Though, the BDA filed an appeal, the same was

withdrawn, as is evident from Annexure P-13 order dated

13.01.2016.

9. Obviously, the allotment was made to the

predecessor of the plaintiffs on the basis of the acquisition

of the properties in Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12, as is

evident from the sale agreement and the sale deed which

were far apart in time, the former in the year 1993 and the

latter after a decade in the year 2003. As has been noticed

by the trial court, the sale agreement produced as

Annexure P-2 clearly insists on construction of residential

house in the allotted plot which also had to be completed

within a period of two years from allotment (Clause 2).

Clause 15 also provides that the sale deed in respect of the

scheduled property would be executed only after the

building has been put up in the site. Obviously, no building

was constructed by the father of the respondents or the

respondents themselves, even when the suit O.S. No.6887

of 2012 was filed. The clear admission in the plaint as

Page 6 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.14966 of 2025 produced at Annexure P-8 is that the appellants came to

the property and tried to demolish the pillars and the

foundation laid by the respondents /plaintiffs. Admittedly,

there was no construction of a residential building in the

property allotted in the year 1993, with a specific condition

that a residential unit has to be constructed within two

years. There was no such building existing even when the

suit was filed in the year 2012 seeking permanent

injunction. The title of the respondents/ plaintiffs, hence,

was rightly found, to have been not established, by the trial

court.

10. The trial court also found from the acquisition

notification dated 10.05.1978, produced as Annexure P-36

in the suit that the properties acquired in Survey

Nos.350/9, 350/10 and 350/11 having respective extents of

4 and 3 guntas each were in the name of third parties; who

were not arrayed in the suit. It was found that Site No.66 as

allotted, hence, cannot be found to be existing in Survey

Nos.349/1 or 350/12 and it was also not identified in Survey

Nos.350/9, 350/10 and 350/11. The rectification deed also

Page 7 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.14966 of 2025 does not speak of the specific grounds on which the

alleged errors were rectified.

11. The trial court, according to us, rightly refused to rely

on Exhibit P-24, a letter purportedly written by the Land

Acquisition Officer of the BDA, wherein there was no seal

or a clear signature, the latter being not legible. It was

categorically found that the building licence produced as

Annexure P-22 by the respondents also referred to a

different property from that described in the schedule to

the suit.

12. There was clear ambiguity in the identification of the

schedule property and the location of Site No.66, even on

a mere perusal of the pleadings. It was incumbent upon the

plaintiffs/respondents, hence, to have identified the

property by seeking deputation of a Commissioner who

could have identified the same with the assistance of a

Surveyor. The High Court in our opinion seriously erred in

having relied on the alleged survey carried out by the

BDA. The letter produced is silent insofar as it does not

refer to any clear boundaries or the measurements by

metes and bounds. Moreover, the said survey, if at all

Page 8 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.14966 of 2025 carried out was behind the back of the appellants which

could not have been relied upon by the High Court. The

document, though produced by the plaintiff who deposed

before Court, production is not proof and the author of the

said document, the Surveyor/Land Acquisition Officer was

not examined before Court.

13. Admittedly, the original allotment was made of the

property acquired from the mother of the appellants; who

succeeded to it on her father’s death, existing in Survey

Nos.349 and 352, which acquisition proceedings were

challenged successfully. Hence, the respondents cannot

claim any right over the property acquired by the BDA,

which was allotted to the father of the respondents, which

acquisition was later set at naught. Insofar as the

rectification deed is concerned, as noticed by the trial

court, the change of survey numbers after two decades,

especially without any valid reasons being shown, that too

after the acquisition proceedings in Survey Nos.349 and

352 were set at naught, does not inspire confidence nor can

it be treated as a valid rectification. The properties in the

survey numbers as shown in the rectification having not

Page 9 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.14966 of 2025 been identified, there can be no injunction granted. The

plaintiff has not proved the title, nor was Site No.66

properly identified on the ground, based on survey

numbers.

14. The judgment of the High Court in First Appeal is

liable to be interfered with and we do so, setting aside the

same. The order of dismissal of the suit, as passed by the

trial court is restored. The appeal stands allowed.

15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

……..…….………….…………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

…………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

New Delhi December 17, 2025.

Page 10 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.14966 of 2025