Permanent Injunction — Proof of Title — Identification of Property — Rectification Deed — Effect of Setting Aside Acquisition — Evidentiary Value of Unproved Survey — Subsequent Suit without Leave

Permanent Injunction — Proof of Title — Identification of Property — Rectification Deed — Effect of Setting Aside Acquisition — Evidentiary Value of Unproved Survey — Subsequent Suit without Leave

Civil Law — Injunction — Acquisition — Bangalore Development Authority Act

1. Permanent injunction — Plaintiff must establish title and clear identification of suit property
   Where there is ambiguity in the identity of the schedule property and failure to establish title, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13)

2. Allotment based on acquisition — Acquisition subsequently set aside — Effect
   When the very acquisition proceedings forming the basis of allotment are set aside, the allottee or his successors cannot claim any enforceable right over the property. (Paras 8, 13)

3. Rectification deed executed after two decades — Without reasons — Not reliable
   A rectification deed changing survey numbers after two decades, without disclosing valid reasons, especially after acquisition proceedings are set aside, does not inspire confidence and cannot be treated as a valid rectification. (Paras 3, 10, 13)

4. Unproved survey report — Conducted behind the back of defendants — Cannot be relied upon
   A survey allegedly conducted by the BDA, not proved in accordance with law, without examination of the author, lacking seal and clear authentication, and carried out behind the back of the defendants, cannot be relied upon. (Paras 4, 11, 12)

5. Production of document is not proof — Author must be examined
   Mere production of a document does not amount to proof; the author of the document must be examined to establish its evidentiary value. (Para 12)

6. Violation of conditions of allotment — Non-construction within stipulated period
   Where the allotment agreement mandated construction within two years and execution of sale deed only after construction, failure to construct disentitles the plaintiff from claiming title or injunction. (Para 9)

7. Earlier suit on same property — Subsequent suit without leave — Relevant consideration
   Filing of a subsequent suit relating to the same property, with altered survey numbers, without seeking leave after abandoning the earlier suit, is a relevant circumstance against the plaintiff. (Para 7)

8. High Court reversing trial court without proper appreciation of evidence — Interference warranted
   The High Court erred in reversing the trial court by relying on an unproved survey and ignoring material findings regarding title and identification. (Paras 4, 12, 14)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming interference with Site No.66, alleged to be situated in Survey Nos. 350/9, 350/10 and 350/11 (Paras 2, 6).

2. The claim was based on an auction purchase from the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), pursuant to an agreement dated 24.05.1993, followed by a sale deed dated 17.11.2003 (Para 6).

3. The original allotment was traceable to acquisition of lands in Survey Nos. 349/1 and 350/12, which were properties belonging to the appellants’ predecessor (Paras 3, 8, 13).

4. The acquisition proceedings themselves were set aside by the High Court, and the BDA’s appeal against the said order was withdrawn (Para 8).

5. While the suit was pending, a rectification deed dated 03.08.2012 was executed by the BDA, changing the survey numbers to 350/9, 350/10 and 350/11 (Paras 3, 7).

6. The trial court found that:

   • The plaintiffs failed to establish title;

   • Site No.66 was not identifiable in the claimed survey numbers;

   • The survey numbers mentioned in the rectification deed stood in the names of third parties not impleaded;

   • The alleged survey and supporting documents were not proved (Paras 3, 10, 11).

7. The High Court reversed the trial court mainly relying on an alleged survey conducted by the BDA, which was neither proved nor supported by examination of its author (Para 4).

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Injunction follows title and possession
   The Supreme Court reiterated that injunction cannot be granted when title is not proved and the identity of the property is uncertain (Paras 9, 12, 13).

2. Effect of setting aside acquisition
   Once the acquisition proceedings are declared invalid, any allotment based thereon automatically loses its legal foundation (Paras 8, 13).

3. Rectification deed — Scope and limits
   Rectification is permissible only to correct genuine errors. A change of survey numbers after two decades, without explanation and after acquisition is quashed, cannot be accepted (Paras 10, 13).

4. Rules of evidence — Proof of documents
   The Court reaffirmed that production is not proof, and documents like survey reports require examination of the issuing authority (Para 12).

5. Procedural lapse — Identification of property
   Where there is serious dispute regarding identity, the plaintiff ought to have sought appointment of a Commissioner with a Surveyor, which was not done (Para 12).

6. Appellate interference
   Reversal of a well-reasoned trial court judgment without proper appreciation of evidence constitutes a serious error warranting interference (Paras 12, 14).

---

FINAL RESULT

• The Civil Appeal was allowed.

• The judgment and decree of the High Court in First Appeal were set aside.

• The trial court’s order dismissing the suit for permanent injunction was restored.

• Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of. (Paras 14–15)