Bangalore District Court
Prakash Reddy A Alias A Prakash vs Chinna Reddy H N on 19 July, 2025
KABC010069152018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.44), AT BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN,
B.Com, LL.B.(Spl.)
XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU .
DATED: THIS THE 19 th DAY OF JULY, 2025
O.S.No.1811 of 2018
Plaintiff: Sri. A. Prakash Reddy @
A. Prakash
S/o late Annaiah Reddy,
Aged about 63 years
R/at NO.38/16, 12 th Cross,
4 th Main, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru-560 030.
(By Sri. B.M.S.K., Advocate)
-VS-
Defendants: 1. Sri. H.N. Chinna Reddy
Aged about 60 years
S/o late R. Narayana Reddy
2. Sri. Naveen,
Aged about Major,
S/o H.N. Chinna Reddy
2 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
3. Sri. Rakesh
Aged about Major,
S/o of H.N. Chinna Reddy,
4. Ms. Rajeetha
Aged about Major,
D/o H.N. Chinna Reddy
All are residing at
T. Ramaiah Garden,
Hulimavu Village, Begur
Hobli, Bengaluru South-76.
(D1 to D4- V.S.,-Advocates)
Date of Institution of the suit : 07.03.2018
Nature of the Suit : Injunction suit
Date of commencement of : 16.01.2020
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 19.07.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
07 04 12
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
3 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
J U D G M E N T
That, the plaintiff has filed this suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession & enjoyment of suit schedule properties by the plaintiff.
The suit schedule properties described in the schedule are as under :
SCHEDULE - ITEM NO.1 All that peace and parcel of immovable property bearing site NO.53/5R1, khatha No.509, situated at Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, presently situated within jurisdiction of BBMP and presently assigned PID No.509/53/5R1 and renamed as "Someshwara LT GIS" 16833, Hulimavu Layout, Bengaluru South measuring east to west 35 feet and north to south 100 feet and bounded on:
East by: Remaining portion of the same property bearing khatha No.509, H.L.NO.53/5-R2 West by: Property bearing Katha No.509, H.L.No.53/5Q of Smt. Bharathi North by: Private property belongs to Sri. Muniswamy and Pillappa South by: PWD Road 4 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 SCHEDULE-ITEM NO.2 All that peace and parcel of immovable property bearing site NO.53/5-R2, khatha No.509, situated at Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, presently situated within jurisdiction of BBMP and presently assigned PID No.509/53/5/R2 and renamed as "Someshwara LT GIS" 16833, Hulimavu Layout, Bengaluru South measuring east to west 35 feet and north to south 100 feet and bounded on:
East by: Storm water drain West by: Remaining portion of the same property bearing khatha No.509, H.L.NO.53/5-R1 retained by the vendor North by: Private property belongs to Sri. Muniswamy and Pillappa South by: PWD Road
2) Factual Background in brief are as under :-
a. The plaintiff pleads that he is the absolute owner in possession & enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff and his brother A. Narayana Reddy have purchased the suit schedule properties as per two separate registered Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998 from H.N. Chinna Reddy - the defendant No.1 herein. As on the date of execution of Sale Deed, 5 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 plaintiff & his brother were in possession of the properties. The plaintiff has also pleaded that before sale of property H.N. Chinna Reddy-def No.1 had entered into an agreement of sale coupled with possession and agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that suit for partition was filed by siblings of defendant No.1 herein at O.S.No.3506 of 1984 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru wherein the suit schedule properties along with other properties have been allotted to the share of 1 st defendant H.N. Chinna Reddy. Thereafter, H. N. Chinna Reddy has executed Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998 and therefore, the plaintiff and his brother A. Narayana Reddy have acquired right, title and interest over the suit schedule property.
b. It is specifically pleaded by the plaintiff that A. Narayana Reddy joint purchaser of the suit property 6 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 has executed two separate Release deeds dated 29.03.2000 in favour of plaintiff relinquishing his right in the schedule properties. Consequent to execution of Release deed plaintiff has become absolute owner of entire item No.1 and 2 properties. Revenue records pertaining to schedule properties have been changed in the name of plaintiff and he is regularly paying the taxes. The plaintiff has stated that in order to protect his possession over the suit schedule properties, he has also fenced stone post barbed wire fencing and recently had constructed compound around the schedule properties.
c. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he was intending to put up a construction in the schedule properties and therefore, had applied for permission for construction and sanctioning of plan to the competent authority as well as dug-up a borewell. The plaintiff 7 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 states that on 10.02.2018 plaintiff went near the schedule property along with workmen and JCB to get garbage dumped in the suit property cleaned so as to start construction work. All of a sudden defendants came and interfered with possession & enjoyment of suit schedule properties and have also threatened plaintiff and his workers of dire consequences if they start construction activities. The defendant No.2 to 3 have supported 1 st defendant and prevented plaintiff and workers from doing work in the schedule properties. The defendants are not having any kind of right, title or interest over the property and therefore, acts of the defendants is without justification and they have indulged in wrongful activities with an intention to make wrongful gain. It is the case of the plaintiff that H.N. Chinna Reddy-def No.1 herein himself has sold the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and his brother, hence neither def.No.1 nor the defendant 8 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 No.2 to 4 are having right, title or interest over the suit properties. Plaintiff claims that on 02.03.2018 he went to the suit property to perform Pooja for starting construction and at that time also 1 st defendant has entered into suit properties interfered with possession & enjoyment of suit properties by the plaintiff. Since, defendants are illegally interfering and preventing the plaintiff and his working from entering the schedule properties, plaintiff has filed this suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession & enjoyment of suit schedule properties.
3) a. In response to summons issued, the defendants have appeared and contested suit by filing written statement. In the written statement the defendants have denied that plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule properties. The 9 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 defendants have also disputed that the 1 st defendant has executed registered Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998 in favour of plaintiff and his brother. The defendants have also disputed that they have interfered with possession & enjoyment of suit schedule properties. It is specific claim of the defendants that the property is belonging to the defendant No.1, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant No.1 to 4 have contended that since the date of partition 1 st defendant is in possession & enjoyment of suit schedule property along with other properties. Signature and thump impression appearing in the Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998 is not that of defendant No.1 and plaintiff has manipulated the documents. The defendants have contended that they intend to initiate proceedings against the plaintiff who has played fraud. It is the specific case of the defendants that plaintiff & defendants are related and taking advantage of the 10 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 same, the plaintiff has created Sale Deed which is now being relied upon by him in the court. Sale Deed is forged document and it has to be referred to the Forensic Department to take thump impression and signature. The defendants have contended that since they have not executed the Sale Deeds in favour of the plaintiff, they are the still owners in possession of the suit schedule properties. As plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and the Sale Deeds through which plaintiff is claiming right over the property are forged, defendants have contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
b) It is submitted by the defendants that recently i.e, in the year 2009 they have dug a borewell in the schedule property and on 05.02.2018 defendant No.2 carried out leveling of land using JCB and cleaned the garbage in the site, to construct a compound on 11 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 northern side since owner of the adjacent site was attempting to encroach 8 square feet from the back and to avoid that illegal encroachment defendant No.2 carried out the JCB work and dig trenches. Later on defendant No.1 to 3 using workmen fenced the stone post barbed wire fencing on the northern side. The defendants have contended that bills are raised on 26.02.2018 in the name of 2 nd defendant and he has also paid charges of the JCB work. It is submitted by the defendants that they were busy in preparing yearly temple grand at Hulimavu Village since they are offering puja to Dodamma Devi Temple which is practice carried out from the time of their ancestors, no incident happened as claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants have contended that there is no cause of action to file this suit and as defendants are the owners in possession of the suit properties, suit is liable to be dismissed.
12 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
4) By considering pleadings and documents produced by the parties, my learned predecessor in offi ce had framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession of suit property as on the date of suit?
2. Whether the alleged interference is true?
3. What order or decree?
5) In order to prove the burden cast upon the plaintiff to prove the above issues, plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and he has produced 25 documents. PW-1 is not subjected to cross examination. The Defendants have also not adduced oral or documentary evidence.
6) On 16.06.2025 counsel for defendants had filed memo of retirement, thereafter I have heard counsel appearing for the plaintiff.
13 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
7) Perused the documentary evidence and in light of arguments advanced and my findings on the above issues are:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affi rmative
Issue No.2: In the Affi rmative
Issue No.3: Plaintiff is entitled for
relief of perpetual
injunction & as per final
order, for the following:-
REASONS
8) Issue No.1 :- That, plaintiff is before this
court seeking relief of perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with
possession & enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties. Suit properties are non-agricultural land- vacant sites. To be entitled for relief, plaintiff has to prove that he is in lawful possession & enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Though defendants have filed written statement, they have not participated in further 14 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 proceedings. The fundamental principle of law is that the plaintiff when he comes to Court must prove his case and he must prove it to the satisfaction of the Court. His burden is not lightened because the defendant is absent or not contested the case. On the other hand, the responsibility increases. When the defendant is set ex-parte or does not contest by cross examining the witness or does not lead evidence, the burden is heavy on the Court, as it would not have the advantage of defence. Therefore, the Court should be extra careful in such cases and it should consider the pleadings, & evidence and should arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree. Keeping this principles in mind, I have perused the oral and documentary evidence in detail.
15 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
9) Plaintiff who is examined as PW.1 has reiterated the contents of the plaint in his examination-in-chief affi davit. Plaintiff has produced 25 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.25. Ex.P.1 and P.2 are the original Sale Deeds dated 11.03.1998. The Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998 is duly executed by Chinna Reddy H.N., in favour of plaintiff A. Prakash and A. Narayana Reddy and same is registered in the offi ce of sub-registrar Bengaluru South. I have perused the recitals of Sale Deeds in detail. It is stated in the Sale Deeds that H.N. Chinna Reddy defendant No.1 herein has sold the suit item No.1 and 2 properties as per Ex.P.1 and P.2 for a consideration amount of ₹.1,25,000/- each. There is a recitals in the Sale Deeds that entire consideration amount is paid to the seller and seller has already handed over the possession of the schedule property to the 16 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 purchasers. Sale Deed is duly executed in accordance with provisions of Registration Act.
10) In the case of Rattan Singh v. Nirmal Gill, reported in (2021) 15 SCC 300 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 936 Hon'ble Apex court has observed as under :
33. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the courts below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as held by this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal [Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353] . The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below :
(SCC pp. 360-61, para 27) "27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed.
A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the 17 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption."
(emphasis supplied) In view thereof, in the present cases, the initial onus was on the plaintiff, who had challenged the stated registered document.
11) It is clear from the above decision it is clear that under the provisions of Registration Act, the registered documents are having presumptive value to the effect that, same is executed by the executant by understanding the contents of the document. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the present case the defendant has not adduced any oral evidence nor cross examined PW-1. Sub Registrar during the course of discharge of offi cial duty has endorsed that he has inquired with seller-def.No.1 and executant has admitted that he has executed the sale deed. 18 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
12) Next question considered by me is Whether it is necessary to examine attesting witness to prove execution of sale deed. In the case of Bayanabai Kaware v. Rajendra, (2018) 1 SCC 585 Hon'ble Apex court observed as under :-
18. We agree with the reasoning of the High Court. In our opinion also, the re-
spondent was able to prove the sale deed and was, therefore, rightly held entitled to claim decree for possession of the suit land on the strength of the sale deed dated 29-12-1981 (Ext. P-31) against the appellant. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the execution of the sale deed does not need any attesting witness like the gift deed, which requires at least two attesting witnesses at the time of its ex- ecution as per Section 123 of the Trans- fer of Property Act, 1882; and secondly, Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the examination of the attesting witness to prove the execution of the document, does not apply to sale deed, which is governed by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Therefore in the opinion of this court there is no necessity to examine witnesses to prove the due 19 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 execution of sale deed. In the light of presumption and evidence of PW-1, I am of the view that the sale deed dated 11.03.1998 were duly proved.
13) The defendants though contended that by playing fraud upon the 1 st defendant, the Sale Deed has been executed, have not led oral or documentary evidence Ex.P.15 is certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.3337 of 2018. It is clear from Ex-P15 that 1 st defendant has challenged the validity of Sale Deed and to declare Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998 is null and void obtained by act of forgery, fabrication, impersonation by the defendants. The plaintiff or defendants have not produced any documents to show that what is the stage of O.S.No.3337 of 2018. On Verification in the CIS, it is clear that the suit filed at O.S.No.3337 of 2018 has been dismissed by allowing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the plaintiff herein / defendant 20 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 No.4 of that suit. So, the declaratory suit filed by the defendant No.1 challenging the validity of Sale Deed is dismissed and therefore, coupled with presumption and decision in O.S.No.3337 of 2018 it is clear that Sale Deeds dated 11.03.1998 are legal and valid in all respect. Therefore, the plaintiff and his brother A. Narayana Reddy have acquired right, title and interest over the suit schedule item No.1 and 2 properties as per registered Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998.
14) I have perused Ex.P.3 and P.4 Release deeds dated 29.03.2000. It is clear from registered Release deeds marked at Ex.P.3 and P.4 that A. Narayana Reddy who is the joint purchaser of suit schedule properties under registered Sale Deeds dated 11.03.1998 has relinquished his share in the schedule properties in favour of another joint owner the plaintiff herein. The relinquishment/ Release deeds have been 21 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 duly executed by A. Narayana Reddy and same are registered in the offi ce of sub-registrar Bengaluru South. In view of Ex.P.3 and P.4 Release deeds plaintiff who had purchased the suit schedule property along with his brother A. Narayana Reddy has become the absolute owner in possession of the suit property. The defendant NO.1 who was the owner of the property has lost his right over the properties in view of execution of Sale Deeds dated 11.03.1998 and as such, plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
15) In pursuance to Sale Deeds katha was changed in the name of plaintiff and he has paid taxes to the concerned department which can be seen from Ex.P.5- Tax paid receipts. So, from the unchallenged oral evidence of PW.1, documentary evidence, i.e, registered Sale Deeds dated 11.03.1998 and Release deeds dated 29.03.2000 the plaintiff is able to establish 22 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 that he has purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 and he is in lawful possession & enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 : it is held by Hon'ble Apex court that if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed, in such cases the principle is that possession follows title is required to applied. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. Applying the above principles, in my considered opinion when defendant No.1 has sold the schedule properties to the plaintiff and his brother through sale deeds, plaintiff has become the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, I am of the considered view that plaintiff by producing cogent documentary evidence has proved 23 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 that he is owner in possession of suit properties. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the Affi rmative.
16) Issue No.2:- This issue is framed with respect to allegation of interference. The plaintiff has clearly deposed that defendants have interfered with possession & enjoyment of suit schedule property and also interrupted the JCB escalation work which plaintiff intended to carry out in suit schedule properties. The defence taken by the defendants and filing of suit by the defendants against the plaintiff clearly shows that they had intention to possess the suit schedule properties. Apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that defendants may dispossess him from the suit property is suffi cient cause to file suit for perpetual injunction. Therefore, in my considered view, plaintiff is able to prove the interference also. Hence, Issue No.2 is required to be answered in Affi rmative & in favour of the plaintiff herein.
24 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
17) Issue No.3 : This issue is framed with respect to entitlement of reliefs claimed. While answering issue No.1, I have concluded that plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties The act of interference is also proved by leading evidence of PW.1. That apart, contention taken by the defendants makes it clear that they had intention to possess the suit schedule properties which is already sold by 1 st defendant in favour of plaintiff and his brother A. Narayana Reddy. This being the case, the plaintiff who has proved his possession over the properties, is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction in order to protect his possession. There is no impediment under Specific Relief Act or any other law for the time being in force to grant the relief in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff has shown that he is entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
25 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
18) In view of the discussions and conclusion arrived at issue No.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed with cost. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
It is ordered & decree that the defendants are restrained by perpetual injunction from interfering with peaceful possession & enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 19th day of July, 2025.) (BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 26 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiffs:-
P.W.1 A. Prakash Reddy @ A. Prakash
II. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:-
NIL
III. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiffs:-
EX. P-1 Registered sale deed, dated 11.03.1998 EX. P-2 Registered sale deed, dated 11.03.1998 EX. P-3 Registered release deed, dated 29.03.2000 EX. P-4 Registered release deed, dated 29.03.2000 EX. P-5 Four tax paid receipts EX. P-6 Encumbrance certificates to 11 EX. P-12 Invoice EX. P-13 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.3298/2018 EX. P-14 Certified copy of written 27 O.S.No.1811 of 2018 statement filed in O.S.No.3298/2018 EX. P-15 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.3337/2018 Ex.P.16 Certified copy of written statement in the said suit Ex.P.17 Encumbrance certificates to 20 Ex.P.21 Property extracts & 22 Ex.P.23 Tax paid receipts & 24 Ex.P.25 Certified copy of sale deed, dated 05.01.1989 IV List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:
NIL (BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 28 O.S.No.1811 of 2018