MANOJI RAO versus T. KRISHNA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 11-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MANOJI RAO 
v. 
T. KRISHNA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 11, 2001 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Section 96-0riginal decree-Appeal from-Plaintiff filed a suit for 
C declaration-Defendant claimed that he was residing in a portion of the suit 
property even prior to its allotment to the plaintiff-Trial court dismissed the 
suit-High Court held that mere residence did not confer title on the defendant 
and allowed the appeal-Correctness of-Held: The matter falls within the 
region of appreciation of material on record-Hence no interference is called 
for. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The respondents-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration as to the ownership 
of the suit property. The appellant-defendant claimed that he was in possession 
of a portion of the suit property even prior to its allotment to the respondents. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. 
The High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that no right would 
be conferred on the defendant although he was residing in a portion of suit 
property even prior to his allotment. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The matter falls within the region of appreciation of material 
on record. Though the trial court had taken a different view, on appreciation 
of the material the first appellate court took the view that the documents 
clearly establish the claim made by the plaintiffs and no documents were 
available with the defendant. 1328-FI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 482 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.99 of the Karnataka High 
Court in R.F .A. No. 153 of 1994 .. 
326 
' x 
M. RAO v. T. KRISHNA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 
327 
P.C. Jain and Balbir Singh Gupta for the Appellant. 
A 
S.K. Kulkarni and Vijay Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted. 
B 
This appeal arises out of a suit [O.S. No. I 0579/89] filed in the court 
of First Addi. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The respondents-plaintiffs sought 
for the relief of declaration as to the ownership of the suit site No. 20, 
measuring 20 ft. x 32.5 ft. at Ramakrishna Mutt Extension, Gavipuram, c 
Guttahalli, Bangalore as described in detail in the schedule to the plaint. 
They claimed that they have been residing in this site by putting up a hut 
-" 
and thereafter the C.l.T.B, the predecessors of the Bangalore Development 
Authority issued a letter of allotment dated 19.7 .1973 and a possession 
certificate was also given on 17.3.1981. Allegations against the appellant-
defendants are that they had trespassed over a portion of the property and D 
as regards rest of the property they were creating disturbance and thus the 
plaintiffs sought for declaration of right, title or injunction. The plaintiffs 
relied upon several documents such as the letter of allotment dated 19.7.1973 
_, 
Ji-
[Ex. P. l ]; a demand notice calling upon the plaintiffs to pay the value of the 
site as per Ex. P.2; the challans showing that amounts were remitted by the E 
plaintiffs [Ex. P.3 to P.5]; the possession certificate dated 18.3.1981 issued by 
the Bangalore Development Authority that the plaintiffs was given possession 
of site No. 20 with the measurements indicated in the plaint [Ex.P.6]; the 
certificate issued by the Bangalore Development Authority to indicate that 
the suit site stands in the name of the plaintiffs [Ex.P.7]; the licence issued 
by the Bangalore Development Authority for construction of building on site F 
No. 20 [Ex.P.8] and the plan approved by the Bangalore Development Authority 
[Ex. P.9]. The trial court, however, took the view that the possession certificate 
dated 17 .3 .1981 cannot be taken to be a document of title which is only a 
possession certificate and no document conveying the title to the plaintiffs 
had been made available for the court and, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be G 
declared to be the owner. Proceeding on this basis, the trial court dismissed 
/ 
~ 
the suit. It relied upon the circumstance that the defendants were in possession 
of a portion of the property and they were residing there at even prior to 1980. 
Therefore. the plaintiffs cannot seek a suit for ejection of the defendants on 
the basis that they had been allotted the site by the Bangalore Development 
Authority without obtaining any documents of title. When vacant possession H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I] I S.C.R. 
A has not been given to the defendants the pl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.