Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
2025 INSC 1450
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
J U D G M E N T
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
Reason:
property of the appellants in Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12,
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
1
Development Authority . 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
2025 INSC 1450
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
J U D G M E N T
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
Reason:
property of the appellants in Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12,
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
1
Development Authority . 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