Bangalore District Court
Suresh Kumar D vs Nalini D on 21 February, 2025
KABC010278182019 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF V ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT
AT BENGALURU
(CCH.No.13)
Present: Sri. ONKARAPPA.R, B.Sc., L.L.B.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 21st day of February, 2025
O.S.No.6521/2019
BETWEEN
Sri.D.Suresh Kumar,
S/o.Late Dorairaj,
Aged about 48 years,
Occ:- Ex-Serviceman
(ACP Nk-sub)
House No.142/A, 2nd Cross, 2nd Stage,
Viveknagar,
Bengaluru-47. Plaintiff
(By Sri.G.N.,Advocate)
-V/s -
Smt.D.Nalini,
W/o.Meghanadan (Kannan)
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.# 565, 5th Cross,
Binny New Layout,
Bengaluru-23. Defendants
(By Sri.G.S.,Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 05-09-2019
Nature of the suit Declaration & Possession
Date of commencement of recording of 07-09-2021
evidence
Date on which the judgment was 21-02-2025
pronounced
Total duration Years Months Date
05 05 16
[ ONKARAPPA.R ]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
2
O.S.No.6521/2019
:JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property along with such other relief.
SCHEDULE HOUSE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the house property being constructed in site No.565, which is a portion of Municipal No.1, (Old Municipal No.1-89, 1,2/2, 3/3, 4/4 & 4/5), PID No.31-42-1, New BBMP Ward No.121, situated at New Binny Mill Layout, Binnypet, Bengaluru-23, measuring East to West : 25 feet and North to South : 20 feet, totally measuring 500 sq.ft. And bounded on the:-
East by : Site No.580 West by : Road North by : Site No.564 South by: Site No.566
2. Brief facts are as under:-
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the house property being constructed in Site No.565, briefly described in the schedule premises, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 02.12.2016. The plaintiff had joined the Indian Army in the year 1994 worked as Soldier in Indian Army. He posted to Punjab Army services in the year 1995, later also worked in Punch Rajori, Jammu & Kashmir as a soldier, then he was posted New Misammari at Assam, later from the year 2002 to 2004 the plaintiff has worked at Mumbai, later 3 O.S.No.6521/2019 in the year 2007 he was posted Ladakh border, then in the year 2009 he was posted to Illahabad U.P., in the year 2011 was posted Nagaland, later he was posted to Udampur Dist., J & K and later he was posted to home town Bengaluru on his health issue. The plaintiff submits that he is blessed with four brothers and two sisters he is blessed in getting the elder sister and he was the only earnings for the welfare of his family, after owing to his responsibilities, got married in the year 2009 at the age of 42 later blessed with three children. It is submitted that Binny Ltd. A company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956, having registered office at No.106, Armenian Street, Chennai, was the owner of certain immovable properties of the same, certain dispute arose in the company and during the course of service, the company had occupied certain portion of the said properties, the said company became a sick unit was declared by the Board of Industrial Finance & Re-construction (BIFR) under provisions of Sick Industries (Special Provisions) Act, 985. As per the direction the understandings reached between the said ltd., its Ex-employees occupying the co.,quarters, each ex-employee of the said company would be allotted 500 sq.ft. Of the land and said properties on payment of Rs.25,000/-, on the said agreement one Muddiah was an ex-employee was allotted Site No.565 to 4 O.S.No.6521/2019 Muddiah the Binny Ltd., received Rs.25,000/-. Later said Madaiah died on 11.03.2004 leaving behind him his wife Mahadevamma and children M.Mahadevamurthy, M.Shanker, M.Yogesh, M.Bhagyalakshmi and M.Sridevi. The said Mahadevamma and children had expressed their intention to sell the property which they were the owners and later plaintiff started putting up construction work of his house extent of 5 squares being the schedule premises, out of the earnings being gained by him his salary and paid entire sale consideration amount to the said persons. Later, got registered his name on 02.12.2016 at Sub Registrar office, Vijayanagar. The plaintiff submits that defendant is the elder sister. The defendant and her husband were in financial constraint after their marriage, the plaintiff was in transferable job getting posting all over India and he was also in requirement of money as he had spent his entire earnings towards the construction of the schedule house the defendant No.1 and her husband expressed their desire to give rents to an amount of Rs.2,500/- staying in the plaintiffs house told that they would vacate the said house and also agreed to enhance the same on mutual understanding between the plaintiff and defendants. During August-2014 plaintiff was serving at Uddampur Dist., Jammu and 5 O.S.No.6521/2019 Kashmir, he was diagnosed that there was failure of one kidney and 80% failure with respect to other kidney in view of the same, the plaintiff was denied further promotions and his military services were reduced from 59 years to 49 years and said medical ground the plaintiff was transferred to home town, Bengaluru. The plaintiff having suffered lot in his life and view of his retirement being made earlier, thought to shift to his own house as pension would be very meager and he unable to afford the finance after his retirement with a sole intention of shifting his family being his wife and children to his own house, at the time of retirement, made a request to the defendant to quit and vacate the property belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant took two months time to hand over the schedule house and shift to other house. Despite expiry of more than two months, the defendants did not vacate the house and when asked by the plaintiffs, the defendants took one more month to vacate the schedule premises, when plaintiff once again asked to vacate the premises the defendant totally refused to vacate the same and very surprising warned the plaintiff that they would to go police station and file a complaint against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff being the brother of defendant working in military service, being a law abiding citizen, as such the plaintiff having no other option in order to protect his 6 O.S.No.6521/2019 wife and children he got approached the counsel and got issued legal notice dated 31.03.2018 seeking quit and vacate the schedule premises by terminating the tenancy. The plaintiff having no other option initiated proceeding under the Karnataka Rent Act, to get the possession of the suit schedule house in SC.No.1128/2018 on the file of XXIII Addl.Small Cause Court (SCCH-25), Bengaluru. On 31.10.2018, the cause of action arises to file the present suit, when the defendant filed here written statement. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Paid court fee is sufficient. Hence, the plaintiff has sought for decreed the suit.
3. In against the suit summons, the defendant has appeared and chosen to filed her written statement. Wherein the written statement she denies the plaintiff is the absolute owner of house property constructed on Site No.565 described in the schedule of the plaint. It is false that, the plaintiff has made valid purchase of schedule property under deed dated 02.12.2016. The plaintiff served in Army but the defendant do not know in which year the plaintiff joined the Indian Army. The defendant do not know the posting of the plaintiff. The defendant had five brothers and one sister, one brother is no more. The plaintiff was the only earning person in the family. Sri.Muddaih an employee of the Binny Mill 7 O.S.No.6521/2019 was allotted with a site measuring 500 sq.ft. Muddaiah demised leaving behind his wife and children as his legal heirs. The plaintiff expressed his intention to occupy the schedule premises and made it knows to the defendant. The defendant asked for two months time to vacate and handover the schedule house to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a case against the defendant in SC.1128/2018 on the file of 23rd Addl.Judge, Small causes at Bangalore (SCCH-25). In the month of October 2002, the defendant had come across the sale of property site No.565 in Binnypet New layout, under occupation of Sri.T.Srinivas, who had taken property of Muddaiah was an employee of Binnypet Mills Ltd., and who is an occupation of Staff quarter. From one Muddaiah bearing site No.565 was purchased by T.Srinivas entered into an agreement to sell the property to the defendant also residing in quarter No.739. The defendant making a payment of Rs.1,10,000/- initially and later Rs.25,000/-. In the year 2004 the defendant put up a construction got completed by September 2004. In the month of October 2004, she applied for electric connecting which was granted and she entered the building and occupied it as the owner. Thereafter in the year 2010, there arose a claim against the property from the original allot tees family and to settle that a payment of Rs.1,35,000/- was given to them on 8 O.S.No.6521/2019 16.4.2010. It is submitted that in the month of January 2018 when she received the electric bill of the property, she was surprised to find the name of the plaintiff in the electric bill instead of the name of defendant. The defendant went to the office of BESCOM to inquire and she was told that the installation have been changed in the name of plaintiff. Thereafter the defendant had told the plaintiff that she would going to file police complaint against the plaintiff notice dated 31.03.2018. The plaintiff has come with a new suit claiming possession which he is not entitled too. The plaintiff has breached the trust of the defendant. On these grounds prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost.
4. The plaintiff have also chosen to filed written statement in against the counter claim of the defendant. The same is here under:-
The plaintiff submits that in view of the settlement between the Binny Mills Company and its employees, one Sri.Muddaiah was allotted the suit schedule property. It is denied that T.Srinivas had ever purchased the site from Muddaiah or the said T.Srinivas had ever become owner of the site No.565 the suit schedule house has been constructed by the plaintiff. T.Srinivas never become owner of the said site the alleged agreement executed by T.Srinivas in favour of defendant 9 O.S.No.6521/2019 is totally sham document it is not legal sanctity, there is no title upon the defendant by virtue of the said alleged agreement is also barred by limitation in seeking its enforcement. As per the averments, the defendant is claiming title basing on the agreement alleged to have been executed by the said T.Srinivas which is not sustainable under law. The defendant has paid the consideration amount to T.Srinivas much less amount of Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.25,000/-. The defendant has put up construction work the suit schedule property during the year 2004 at any point of time from out of her own earnings, the plaintiff who has put up the construction of the house being suit schedule property. The plaintiff totally deny that the defendant got the electric connection by virtue of she claiming to be the owner of the suit schedule house, but the defendant is claiming ownership by virtue of the sale agreement alleged to have been executed by one T.Srinivas. By suppressing the fact that the plaintiff who was the owner of the suit schedule house and also taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff was performing his duties outside. The plaintiff submits that absolutely no dispute or claim arose amongst the family members of the original allottees with respect to the site being created by the defendant to knock down the suit schedule house. The plaintiff submits that the defendant is not entitled for the 10 O.S.No.6521/2019 relief as is been sought and the defendant does not have locus standi to challenge the same. The present claim of the defendant is barred by limitation. The claim of the defendant is not properly valued. The plaintiff seek to reject the counter claim as sought by the defendant with exemplary cost to meet the ends of justice.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings my predecessor in office has framed the issues at below:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his title over the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession of the schedule property?
3.Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief of declaration by way of counter claim as contended in para-19 of the written statement?
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
5. What order or decree?
6. As to prove the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff has himself examined as P.W.1 and he got marked the documents at 11 O.S.No.6521/2019 Ex.P.1 to P.8. One document confronted to D.W. 1 and it marked as Ex.P.9. On the other hand, the defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and she got marked Ex.D.1 to D.12 documents.
7. Heard argument on both the sides.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the negative
Issue No.4 : In the affirmative
Issue No.5 : As per final order for the
following:
:R E A S O N S:
9. Issue No.1 and 3 :- The plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration in the suit schedule property. In against the case of plaintiff, the defendant have also sought for declaration of title upon the suit schedule property in her counter claim. Hence, issue No.1 and 3 have interlinked with each other. Accordingly issue No.1 and 3 have taken for my common discussion.
10. It could be seen from the deposition of PW-1, the plaintiff being Ex-service men he purchased the suit schedule property from his lawful vendor under Ex.P1 sale deed. Based on Ex.P1 sale deed the plaintifft 12 O.S.No.6521/2019 got an khatha upon the suit schedule property at Ex.P2 B register extract. The transaction at Ex.P1 sale deed have also reflected at Ex.P6 encumbrance certificate.
Since, the defendant have facing the financial difficulties and in exigencies due to the job of plaintiff, the plaintiff have let out suit schedule property to defendant for monthly rent of Rs.2500/-. As the plaintiff being the absolute owner of suit schedule property and he badly need of the suit schedule property he issued Ex.P3 legal notice on the defendant by demanding vacated the suit schedule property and hand over the possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Even inspite of Ex.P3 legal notice served on the defendant and the defendant fail to vacated the suit schedule property and hand over the physical possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The Plaintiff have filed the case in against the defendant in SC No.1128/2018, where in that suit the court has passed an Ex.P7 Judgment by dismissing the suit. Henceforth to the present suit cause of action have been araised. In its contrary it could also be seen from the deposition of DW1 stated the plaintiff is not an true owner of the suit schedule property and he has utilized the opportunity when he was called to mediate in the settlement between the defendant and the Muddaiah on 16.04.2010 and has got the sale deed made in his 13 O.S.No.6521/2019 name which illegal, improper and unjust and he deceiving his own sister. The plaintiff has breached the trust of defendant. Because the plaintiff knew that the defendant had unregistered document and papers when he came back to Bengaluru from service, utilized that information that the defendant do not proper documentation and utilized his knowledge and prevailed upon the ETA estate to make a deed in his favour. When in fact he did not had any such of right to do so. The document registered in the name of plaintiff is invalid. The sale deed dated 02.12.2016 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Vijayanagar Bengaluru is a void document as fraudulently obtained. The defendant therefore lay a counter claim by sought and declare the defendant viz., registered sale deed dated 02.12.2016 as a void document. In support of the case of defendant, DW1 have the document at Ex.D12 sale agreement dated 01.10.2002. Based on Ex.D12 sale agreement, the defendant have got electrical and water connection to the suit schedule property as per Ex.D3 to Ex.D9 document. Hence, according to the defendant, the defendant her self is an absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
14O.S.No.6521/2019
11. On assimilating the controversy, there is no dispute suit schedule property have allotted by the ETA estate to Muddaiah's family. Further also no dispute suit schedule property have been carved out in the land left for the employees of Binny Mills. Now the controversy is according to the plaintiff, plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property as per Ex.P1 sale deed. In its contrary according to defendant, the plaintiff make use the situation to monitor the transaction in between Muddaiah's family and defendant with respect to the suit schedule property. By deceiving the defendant the plaintiff have obtained an Ex.P1 sale deed in his name. Hence, according to defendant no legal sanctity attached to Ex.P1 sale deed. On the other hand the defendant proposed to established her right upon the suit schedule property based on Ex.D12 sale agreement. Whether the vendor of the defendant have the lawful right to executed Ex.D12 sale agreement upon the suit property is the prime question to determined the controversy in between the parties. Admittedly suit schedule property was originally allotted by the ETA Karnataka Estate Limited to the LR's of Mudaiah by name Smt. Mahadevamma, M. Mahadevamurthy, M. Shankar, M. Yogesh and M. Bhagya Lakshmi. Ex.P1 sale deed executed by ETA Karnataka Estate Ltd., to 15 O.S.No.6521/2019 the plaintiff on behalf of family members of the Muddaiah. ETA Karnataka Estate Ltd., allotted the suit schedule property to the family members of Muddaiah stated Muddaiah was the former employee in the Binny Mill. On the contrary Ex.D2 sale agreement executed by one T. Srinivas S/o Thippaiah Naidu to the defendant for the valuable sale consideration. As to know whether T. Srinivas S/o Thippaiah Naidu was be the former employee of Binny Mill, neither a pleadings or an evidence on behalf of the defendant put forth on the record. Further even on meticulous examined Ex.D12 sale agreement , Ex.D12 sale agreement have also failed to evidence whether T. Srinivas S/o Thippaiah Naidu was be the former employee of Binny Mill. Not in dispute sites carved by ETA Karnataka Limited at in the premises of Binny Mill have only allotted to former employees of the Binny Mill. Without of be the employment at in Binny Mill, the site like that of suit schedule property would not to granted to any other 3rd person. When such being the case, the factum whether T. Srinivas S/o Thippaiah Naidu was be the employee of Binny Mill rest as fact in issue without of the legal proof. Further one more question kept open for discussion upon the counter claim of the defendant is, on what capacity vendor of the defendant have executed the Ex.D12 sale agreement?
16O.S.No.6521/2019 Admittedly there is no relationship between T. Srinivas S/o Thippaiah Naidu and family member of Muddaiah. If there is no relationship in between T. Srinivas S/o Thippaiah Naidu and family members of Mudaiah how it would possible to plaintiff to played an fraud upon the Will of defendant in getting the Ex.P1 sale deed. Case of the defendant is, the plaintiff have taken the chance with respect to execute the contract in between defendant and T. Srinivas S/o Thippaiah Naidu and the plaintiff have played an fraud upon the Will of defendant in getting Ex.P1 sale deed. If once T. Srinivas S/o Thippaiah Naidu have no better title upon the suit schedule property how it could have possible to played an forged by the plaintiff upon the Will of defendant and obtained an Ex.P1 sale deed in his name. Further if once the defendant once would have pay the sale consideration amount to T. Srinivas S/o Thippaiah Naidu under Ex.D12 sale agreement, the defendant could have no bar to enforce Ex.D12 sale agreement in against her vendor. If the defendant once have no case in against her vendor for enforcement of Ex.D12 sale agreement, the same stands taken by the defendant in against the case of plaintiff will make surprise to the law. With that being, the assertion of title by the defendant upon the suit schedule property on virtue of Ex.D12 sale agreement 17 O.S.No.6521/2019 in against Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 sale deed have not holds any kind of an water under the law. In its contrary if I go through cross examination of DW1, at through the mouth of DW1 it elicited the same herein extracted. ದಾವಾ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ಮುದ್ದ ಯ್ಯ ರವರಿಗೆ ಬಿನ್ನಿ ಮಿಲ್ ರವರು ಅಲಾಟ್ಮೆ ಂಟ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದ ರು. ದಾವಾ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತಿ ಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿ ಮುದ್ದ ಯ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ವಿಕ್ರೆ ಯದಾರಾದ ಶ್ರ ೀನಿವಾಸ್ ರವರ ನಡುವೆ ಯಾವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇರುತ್ತ ದೆ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿ ಲ್ಲ . ನಾನು ಮುದ್ದ ಯ್ಯ ರವರಿಗೆ ಈ ದಾವಾ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ಖರೀದಿಸುವಾಗ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಾವತಿಸಿಲ್ಲ . ಮುದ್ದ ಯ್ಯ ನಿಗೆ ಮಹದೇವಮ್ಮ ಎನ್ನು ವ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮಹದೇವಮೂರ್ತಿ, ಎಂ.ಶಂಕರ್ ಎಂ.ಯೊಗೇಶ್ ಮತ್ತು ಮಗಳು ಭಾಗ್ಯ ಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ರವರು ವಾರಸುದಾರು ಆಗಿದ್ದ ರು. ಅವರಿಗೂ ಸಹ ನಾನು ದಾವಾ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ಖರೀದಿಸುವ ಕಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಾವತಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . From the answer elicited from the mouth of DW1 herein the above have also make it obvious Muddaiah and T. Srinivas S/o Thippaiah Naidu are the two independent person, in between them there is no relationship. Further it also obvious suit schedule property have been allotted to Muddaiah, Muddaiah and his legal representatives are only have legal rights upon the suit schedule property to executed Ex.P1and Ex.D1 sale deed in the name of plaintiff by acknowledging the sale consideration amount . It pertinent to note it not case of the defendant, the 18 O.S.No.6521/2019 plaintiff have played an fraud upon the Will of vendor of the plaintiff in obtaining the Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 sale deed. If once lawful and title full owner of the property executed registered sale deed by acknowledging the sale consideration amount and such of the sale deed if not disputed by the such of the lawful owner of the property, there is no embargo to believe the case of plaintiff. As the plaintiff successfully established his case upon Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 sale deed by producing both oral and documentary evidence, the document relied by the defendant at Ex.D12 have not holds any of the legal friction in against the case of plaintiff. For the above all reason that I answered issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Issue No.3 in Negative.
12. Issue No.2 and 4:- According to the plaintiff, the defendant is one of his elder brother. The defendant and her husband were in financial constraint after their marriage. Since that financial constrainment of the defendant, husband of the defendant had expressed their desire to give rent to an amount of Rs.2,500/- if they stayed in suit schedule property by under take that they would vacate as and when demand made by the plaintiff. Agreeing with such of request of the defendant and her husband and also for lot of love and affection towards the defendant, the 19 O.S.No.6521/2019 plaintiff orally agreed and permitted the defendant and her husband to reside in the suit schedule property. In that respect the plaintiff have also agreed to received rent of Rs.2,500/- from the defendant at initially and also agreed to enhance the same on mutual understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant in every year. It also case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff having suffered a lot in his life and also in view of retirement being made earlier thought by him to shift his family to the suit schedule property. Accordingly the plaintiff requested the defendant to quit and vacate the suit schedule property. Upon such request husband of the defendant took two months time to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property by they would shift to other house. Later after expiry of two months the defendant did not vacated the suit schedule property even continuous further request of the plaintiff. Finally the defendant surprisingly warned the plaintiff that they would go to police station and file a complaint in against the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff have no other option otherwise to issued a legal notice to the defendant sought them to vacated the suit schedule property. Even issuance of statutory notice on the defendant and even filing of the case by the plaintiff in against the defendant at before the Small Causes Court in S.C. No.1128/2018 at before SCCH-25 the 20 O.S.No.6521/2019 defendant inspite of vacated the premises wherein the court she claimed ownership upon the suit schedule property. The same make the plaintiff in to surprise. On the contrary, it is also case of the defendant that in the year 2004 she had put a construction and got it completed by September 2004. In the month of October 2004, she had applied for electric connection which was granted and thus she had entered the building and occupied it as the owner thereof. Since then she is in occupation of the suit schedule property and enjoy it as full owner. Thereafter in the year 2010 there arose a claim against the property from the original allottee's family and to settle that issue payment of sum of Rs.1,35,000/- was given to them on 16/04/2010 paid by her. Hence, according to the defendant, the defendant has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. In support to the same, D.W.1 have also marked Ex.D.2 to D.4 electrical connection record, Ex.D.5 invoice to purchase electrical items to the suit schedule property and Ex.D.6 application for obtaining electric connection to the suit schedule property. Further as to established the defendant has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property D.W.1 also have the document at Ex.D.7, Ex.D.8 water connection and Ex.D.9 electrical bill. From the above set of controversy it obvious the 21 O.S.No.6521/2019 plaintiff have sought for the legal right and de-jure possession upon the suit schedule property based on Ex.P.1 and D.1 sale deed. It also case of the plaintiff that, based on Ex.P.1 and Ex.D.1 sale deed the katha of the suit schedule property has been made out in the name of plaintiff. The same case theory of the plaintiff has been denied by the defendant stated the defendant has been purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.D.12 sale agreement. According to the defendant, she purchased the suit schedule property from one T.Srinivas S/o Thippaiah Naidu by paying the sale consideration amount to him. Based on Ex.D.12 sale agreement she has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property by obtaining an electrical and water connection from the BESCOM and BWSSB as per Ex.D.2 to D.9 documents. Not in dispute one round litigation in between the plaintiff and the defendant have already been run at before SCCH-25 in S.C.No.1128/2018 as per Ex.D.10 and D.11 judgment and decree. Also not in dispute the case in between the plaintiff and the defendant in S.C. No.1128/2018 as per Ex.D.10 and D.11 judgment and decree dismissed on the ground of no relationship of tenant and landlord in between the parties. Now the plaintiff at before the court by asserting Ex.P.1 and D.1 sale deed stated he purchased the vacant site from 22 O.S.No.6521/2019 ETA Karnataka Estate Ltd., which said to be allotted to one Muddaiah. If once the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property on virtue of Ex.P.1 sale deed from its lawful vendor and if he constructed such of the house in the suit schedule property certainly the plaintiff would have the legal right and title of the suit schedule property. Further if the plaintiff once would have succeeded the legal right and title of the suit schedule property from its lawful vendor for the lawful consideration the possession of the property will always follow the plaintiff along with title. On the other hand the claim of the defendant, the defendant have been in the lawful possession of the suit schedule property on virtue of Ex.D.12 sale agreement and also on virtue of Ex.D.2 to D.9 revenue documents have do not helpful to the case of defendant. Admittedly on virtue of Ex.D.12 sale agreement, no title of the property have been passed to the defendant. If the defendant fail to established the lawful title upon the suit schedule property based on title documents, owning of the possession by the defendant is either it to be under permissive or he has been under illegal possession. Further if it gone through the cross-examination portion of D.W.1 at through the mouth of D.W.1 it elicited, she got her name at Ex.D.2 to D.9 electrical bills and other revenue records on virtue of Ex.D.12 sale agreement 23 O.S.No.6521/2019 said to executed by T. Srinivas. If T. Srinivas himself have no such of right, title and possession upon the suit schedule property how he could transfer the tile of property under Ex.D.12 sale agreement to the defendant and on the basis of Ex.D.12 sale agreement how it could the defendant's name entered at Ex.D.2 to D.9 documents. No other than the possession illegally or under permissive to the plaintiff, the defendant cannot owned the possession of the property as an lawful title owner. If the defendant cannot owned the possession of the property as an lawful title owner certainly the defendant should delivered the possession of the property to its lawful owner. With this being of all observation that I am of the view the plaintiff otherwise proved his case by placed an both oral and documentary cogent evidence. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 and 4 are in the affirmative.
13. Issue No.5:- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
:ORDER:
Suit of the plaintiff hereby decreed with cost.
That hereby declared the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.24
O.S.No.6521/2019 The defendant hereby directed to handover the physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by vacating all her belongings within 90 days from the date of judgment. If the defendant once fail to hand over the physical possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff within the time prescribed the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed in against the defendant as per law in execution of judgment and decree.
Draw decree accordingly.
In view of disposal of the suit, pending interlocutory applications if any do not survive for consideration and they stands disposed off.
(Dictated directly to the Stenographer on computer typed by her, corrected and then signed by me and pronounced in the open Court on this the 21st day of February, 2025) [ ONKARAPPA.R] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ***** :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : D.Suresh Kumar WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : D. Nalini
25
O.S.No.6521/2019
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Original registered sale deed dated 02/12/2016 Ex.P.2 Property extract Ex.P.3 Copy of notice Ex.P.4 Reply dated 05/04/2018 Ex.P.5 Document pertaining to electric power from BESCOM Ex.P.6 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.7 Certified copy of judgment and decree in S.C.No.1128/2018 Ex.P. 9 Certified copy of deposition in S.C.No.1128/2018
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Ex.D1 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 02/12/2016
Ex.D2 BESCOM connection verification report
Ex.D3 Electric connection letter
Ex.D4 Permission to purchase single phase meter
Ex.D5 Tax invoice
Ex.D6 Application given to KEB
Ex.D7 Sketch
Ex.D8 Water connection order letter
Ex.D9 Electricity bill
Ex.D10 Certified copy of judgment passed in S.C.No.1128/2018
Ex.D11 Certified copy of decree passed in S.C.No.1128/2018
Ex.D12 Sale deed dated 01/10/2002
[ ONKARAPPA.R ]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
*****
26
O.S.No.6521/2019
Operative portion of the judgment
pronounced in open court vide separate judgment:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff hereby decreed with cost.
That hereby declared the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
The defendant hereby directed to handover the physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by vacating all her belongings within 90 days from the date of judgment. If the defendant once fail to hand over the physical possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff within the time prescribed the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed in against the defendant as per law in execution of judgment and decree.
Draw decree accordingly. In view of disposal of the suit, pending interlocutory applications if any do not survive for consideration and they stands disposed off.
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 27 O.S.No.6521/2019