Obalappa & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar Bhihani & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
SC Restores Trial Court Dismissal of Injunction Suit; Title Not Proved & Property Identification Fatally Defective
The Supreme Court, in Obalappa & Ors. vs. Pawan Kumar Bhihani & Ors., set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the Trial Court’s dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction relating to an alleged BDA-allotted site in Bengaluru. The respondents/ plaintiffs claimed possession of Site No.66, asserting title through an auction purchase from the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and a subsequent sale deed, while the appellants/defendants traced title to ancestral land in Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12, the acquisition of which had been quashed.
The Court noted that the very foundation of the plaintiffs’ claim was flawed, since the original acquisition of Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12 by the BDA—on which the allotment was based—had been set aside by the High Court in writ proceedings. Despite this, the BDA executed a rectification deed after nearly two decades, changing the survey numbers to 350/9, 350/10 and 350/11, without disclosing any valid reasons. The Supreme Court held that such a belated and unexplained rectification did not inspire confidence and could not cure the defect in title.
The Trial Court had rightly found that the mandatory conditions of allotment, including construction of a residential building within two years, were never complied with, and even as on the date of filing the suit in 2012, no residential structure existed. Further, there was serious ambiguity in the identification of Site No.66, with conflicting pleadings, inconsistent documents, and failure to establish the property by metes and bounds. The alleged BDA survey relied upon by the High Court was neither proved in accordance with law nor conducted in the presence of the defendants, and the author of the document was never examined.
Emphasising that injunction cannot be granted without proof of title and clear identification of the property, the Supreme Court held that mere production of documents is not proof and that a court cannot rely on unproved surveys carried out behind the back of the opposite party. Accordingly, the High Court’s interference was found to be erroneous, and the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit was restored, allowing the appeal
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Leave granted.
