Bangalore District Court
Sri.Joseph Mathew vs Sri.Sathyappan @ on 8 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (CCH-21)
Dated: This, the 8th day of December 2015.
Present: Sri.Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.
B.A.,LL.B(Spl)
IV Addl.CC & SJ, Mayohall Unit,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.26297/2007
Plaintiff: Sri.Joseph Mathew,
S/o.Mr.Kurian Mathew,
aged about 53 yrs,
R/at.No.207, Vasantha
Vilasam, Annasandrapalya,
Vimanapura P.O.,
Bengaluru-560017.
Rep. by his GPA Holder
Sri.Joseph Varghese,
S/o.Late.Thomas Varghese,
aged about 38 yrs,
R/at.No.422, Venkateshappa
Layout, Babusapalaya,
Bengaluru-43.
(By Sri.M.A.Sebastian, Advocate)
V/S
2 O.S. No.26297/2007
Defendant: Sri.Sathyappan @
T.Sathyananda,
S/o.Sri.Thimmarayappa,
aged about 49 yrs,
Green House, Near Shahi Baba
Ashram, Roopen Aagarahara,
Madivala P.O., Bengaluru-68.
(By Sri.K.Aswathanarayana, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 20.07.2007
Nature of the suit (Suit for Pro-note, Suit for Declaration,
Suit for Declaration and Possession, Permanent Injunction &
Suit for Injunction, etc.) Mandatory Injunction
Date of commencement of recording 18.01.2011
of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 08.12.2015
pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
08 04 18
JUDGMENT
Present suit has been filed under Order VII, Rule 1 of CPC for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and also for mandatory injunction to demolish 3 O.S. No.26297/2007 the structures erected by the defendant in the suit schedule property and for costs.
2. The description of the suit schedule property as shown in the schedule to the plaint, is as follows:-
All that piece and parcel of vacant site bearing No.12, formed in old No.5/10A, 5/10B and 5/10C of Roopenagarahara, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 40 feet and bounded on the:
East by: 20 feet Road; West by: Site No.11; North by: Private Property; and on South by: 20 feet Road.
3. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as below: -
The plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 25.01.2003 and khatha stands in the name of plaintiff and he has paid the tax. The land in Sy.No.5/10A, 5/10B and 5/10C of Roopenagarahara, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, originally belonged to one Y.Rangaswamy, who had agreed to sell the schedule property to one Munavar Khan. Y. Rangaswamy executed a GPA and authorizing the said Munavar Khan to deal 4 O.S. No.26297/2007 with the schedule property on 07.05.1987 and sold the property to one Smt.Soghara Begum, under sale deed dated 08.05.1987. Smt.Soghara Begum entered into an agreement of sale on 09.01.1991 in respect of schedule property with Ms.Ancy Kutty Varghese after receiving the entire sale consideration and executed a GPA dated 21.01.1991. Smt.Soghara Begum represented by GPA and agreement holder Mrs.Ancy Kutty Varghese has executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 25.01.2003 and plaintiff and his vendors are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property for the last 19 years. In the year 2003, one Nagaraj claiming to be the grandson of the original owner of the land/Sri.Rangaswamy and the defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property.
Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.6917/2003 for permanent injunction against them; since after the filing of the suit defendant stopped interference and accordingly, the suit was withdrawn on 18.01.2007. As such, on 03.07.2007 plaintiff noticed some construction materials being off loaded near the schedule property by the defendant, who is again trying to interfere 5 O.S. No.26297/2007 with the plaintiff's possession of the schedule property and also put up a temporary sheet shed type in one corner of the schedule property on 06.07.2007 and after passing the orders on IA-I by way of dismissal, the defendant has conveniently removed the same and started putting up permanent structure in spite of the resistance by the plaintiff and also illegally occupied a portion of the schedule premises. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property and the defendant or anybody else has any manner of right, title or interest over the schedule property. Defendant also tried to interfere with the site owners of vacant site in the same layout and cases filed against him and there were 12 sites in the layout formed by V.Rangaswamy and sold by him and out of these sites the purchasers already have been built houses and now only three sites are vacant. Hence, this suit arose.
4. After issuance of the suit summons and duly served upon him the defendant appeared through his advocate Sri.K.Aswathanarayana; thereafter the defendant has filed his WS. 6 O.S. No.26297/2007
5. Case of the defendant, in brief, is as below:-
The defendant contended in his WS that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either on law or on facts and it is fundamentally defective. The PA holder of the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. It is alleged that his name is T.Sathyananda and not Sathyappan @ T.Satyananda. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.6917/2003 against him for permanent injunction, in which he has appeared and contested the matter; but the plaintiff failed to obtain temporary injunction; therefore withdrawn the said suit and filed this suit for the same relief and as such this suit hit by the principles of resjudicata, and it is liable to be dismissed under Section 11 of CPC. Totally the defendant has denied that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the schedule property having purchased under sale deed dated 25.01.2003 and also the khatha standing in the name of the plaintiff. It is admitted that Rangaswamy, has not executed any agreement of sale, GPA and affidavit in respect of the schedule property. But, contended that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are forged, 7 O.S. No.26297/2007 concocted and fabricated. It is further admitted that Rangaswamy died on 20.06.1992 and contended that the plaintiff did not venture to file suit till his death. Further admitted that the sale deed dated 08.05.1987 executed by Sri.Munavar Khan/GPA holder of Y.Rangaswamy in favour of Smt.Soghara Begum is in convention of the provisions of the Karnataka prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings Act. Under the said act, there was a bar for registering the agricultural lands in the state of Karnataka within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar Office, where the property is situated. Further contended that the alleged sale deed was registered at Madras beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the property situated outside the local Sub-Registrar Office and the same is also hit by the provisions of the Indian Registration Act;
therefore the said sale deed, khatha extracts and tax-paid-receipts are all null and void. It is also denied that Smt.Soghara Begum has sold the property and received the entire sale consideration. Further denied that Mrs.Ancy Kutty Varghese/GPA holder of Smt.Soghara Begum has executed sale deed dated 25.01.2003 in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff and his vendors are in peaceful 8 O.S. No.26297/2007 possession and enjoyment of schedule property for the last 19 years. It is further denied that in the year 2003, one Nagaraj claiming to be the grandson of the original owner of the land, Sri.Rangaswamy and the defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. But, admitted that the plaintiff has filed O.S. No.6917/2003 for permanent injunction against this defendant and one said Nagaraj. Further denied that since after filing of O.S. No.6917/2003 defendant stopped interference and accordingly plaintiff withdrawn O.S. No.6917/2003 on 18.01.2007. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property from the date of purchase. It is further denied that the defendant has unloaded some construction materials near the schedule premises and in spite of the warning given by the police the defendant along with his rowdy elements has put a temporary sheet shed type in one corner of the schedule property on 06.07.2007. Further denied the para No.8 of the plaint and it is contended that this defendant as the rightful owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and he has constructed a shed in his property on which the plaintiff is claiming 9 O.S. No.26297/2007 the rights, falsely to knock off the valuable property of the defendant. Further denied the para No.9 of the plaint and it is contended that one Sri.Thammanna alleged to be the owner of site No.10 in Sy.No.5/10A, 5/10B and 5/10C of Roopena Agrahara Village filed O.S. No.6918/2003 against the defendant and another for permanent injunction and the same is dismissed on 22.01.2007 and it is also denied that V.Rangaswamy had formed the layout of 12 sites and the same was sold out to the purchasers and they have built up houses etc., and only 3 sites are vacant in the above said layout. In para No.14 & 15 the defendant has narrated about the denial of the cause of action arose for this suit and also defendant has made an obstruction and interference to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property etc. It is further contended that plaintiff had filed a O.S. No.6917/2003 for permanent injunction and the same was withdrawn knowing fully well that he has no merits again this suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the same subject matter of the suit and for the same relief. Therefore, the suit is barred by principles of resjudicata. 10 O.S. No.26297/2007
6. Defendant has further contended that originally on 16.01.1944 the partition was entered in between Sangappa @ Changappa, Venkataswamy, Rangaswamy, Ramaiah, Lakshmaiah, who are the sons of Vaddara Yellappa. In the said partition Sy.No.5/10 measuring 26 guntas of Roopena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, has been equally divided in between them and each were allotted 5 guntas. Out of above said 5 sons of Vaddara Yellappa, one Venkataswamy died issueless prior to 24.6.1976; among the remaining 3 sons Ramaiah was allotted Sy.No.5/10A and 5/12 to an extent of 4 guntas the Ramaiah is disappeared from 20 years earlier to 24.06.1976 and his whereabouts are not known. Therefore, khatha of the above said lands were made in the name of Rangaswamy on the statements given by eldest brother Changappa. The house property fallen to the Rangaswamy shall be delivered to his daughter Annamma for which defendant had no objection for registering the khatha in the name of Rangaswamy. Now the Changappa and daughter Annamma also died, Rangaswamy's another younger brother Lakshmaiah who is unmarried given a statement before the 11 O.S. No.26297/2007 Tahsildhar and since the Ramaiah unmarried also missing and whereabout not known. Defendant has got a objection for registering the khatha in the name of Rangaswamy and he is also entitled for half share in Sy.No.5/10B measuring 4 guntas and he has given a statement stating that he is entitled to enjoy the said land till his death and after death of his wife; the said land shall be gone to Sri.R.Srinivas, S/o.Rangaswamy. On the basis of the above said statements khatha was registered in the name of Rangaswamy in respect of Sy.No.5/10A to 5/10C and 5/12B to 5/12D in the revenue registers of the panchayath. The said khatha was nominally made in the name of Y.Rangaswamy, but the R.Srinivas and his children were the owners. The said lands are the ancestral and joint family properties of son and grandchildren of the Rangaswamy and the Rangaswamy had no absolute right to alienate the lands. It is also contended that at all any GPA, sale agreement, sale deeds executed; the same are not binding upon the son and grandchildren of the Rangaswamy as the said lands does not belonged to him. It is also contended that relating to the above said property defendant has produced the genealogical tree and 12 O.S. No.26297/2007 death certificate of Rangaswamy and also encumbrance certificate for the period 1.4.1980 to 22.10.2002 in respect of Sy.No.5/10A to 5/10C of the Roopena Agrahara. Accordingly, the Srinivas is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and mutation register extract is also produced which is as a part and parcel of this WS. His name is also appeared in the RTC as a owner and in possession of the suit lands, tax also paid to the panchayath. The Srinivas, his sons, Nagaraj and the daughters Padmavathi and Saraswathi were in possession and enjoyment of the same as their ancestral and joint family properties. No any partition effected in the family of the Rangaswamy. All the members are living jointly and enjoying the same. Further contended that suit schedule property being the joint family property of Rangaswamy and his brothers and as per their statements it was gone to the share of Srinivas and his son Nagaraj and above said 2 daughters. Late.Rangaswamy being a member of joint family had no absolute right to execute a GPA, affidavit, agreement or any other documents in favour of plaintiff or his vendors or others in respect of the suit properties 5/10A to 5/10C. It is also contended that in the absence of the partition deed it is to 13 O.S. No.26297/2007 be deemed that the LRs of the deceased Rangaswamy are in joint possession of the above said lands and deceased Rangaswamy being a co-owner has no right to alienate, deliver possession of the suit schedule property of the above said Sy. numbers in favour of the plaintiff or his vendors for which claiming that he is absolute owner. It is also contended that on 01.08.2003 R.Srinivas S/o.Late.Rangaswamy and his children executed a sale deed in favour of defendant Sathyananda in respect of Sy.No.5/10A, measuring 6 guntas and remaining property for valuable consideration and they kept the defendant in possession of the said lands as on the date of sale deed. After that khatha of the said land was transferred in the name of defendant T.Sathyananda as per M.R. No.6/03-04; through the said document the name of T.Sathyanandan has been shown in column No.9 as a owner and in possession of the land in Sy.No. bearing 5/10A measuring 6 guntas and his name is also mentioned in the cultivators columns of the RTC. It is also contended that this defendant has produced the original documents in O.S.No.6601/2004 on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge, CCH-19, at Bengaluru, wherein he filed the suit 14 O.S. No.26297/2007 for permanent injunction against A.Imtiyaz and others, who interfered in the land bearing Sy.No.5/10A. It is also contended that the defendant is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the said land and he has constructed the said in the suit property on which plaintiff has no right, title, interest and plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. But, defendant is in possession of the land purchased by him. The plaintiff is claiming his rights in the lands belonging to the defendant after lapse of 20 years with created documents, which are not acted upon at any point of time and the same is not binding upon the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief of permanent injunction against the defendant and also the mandatory injunction against this defendant in which sought a relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction to remove the temporary sheet shed put up in the suit schedule property etc.
7. The defendant has filed a additional written statement on 29.10.2010 by stating that after hearing the both side on IA filed in this suit was dismissed. After that plaintiff filed a amendment 15 O.S. No.26297/2007 application for seeking amendment in the plaint to include the prayer of declaration that plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also mandatory injunction to demolish the structure etc., are not considerable and plaintiff is not entitled for the said reliefs. Thereafter, this defendant denied plaint para No.7(a) and it is also denied that defendant colluding with the political persons and rowdy elements has put up a sheet shed in the corner of the suit schedule premises over night before filing of the suit. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, he has put up a sheet shed very long back before filing the suit by the plaintiff. It is also denied that plaintiff visited the suit schedule property on 30.08.2009 noticed that defendant is going on with the construction activities in illegally occupied portion of the schedule premises, etc. Further denied the para No.7(b) of the plaint by denying that plaintiff has dispossessed illegally in August-2009. But, the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property; there does not arise the question of dispossession, etc. It is also denied that plaintiff is entitled to enjoy the suit property and defendants have no right, title over it etc. 16 O.S. No.26297/2007 Further contended that the market value of the site is more than Rs.24 lakhs; plaintiff has paid a deficit court fee on the market value of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for a relief sought, declaration and possession and permanent injunction or mandatory injunction as prayed for and also contended that in earlier suit of plaintiff O.S. No.6917/2003 on the file of ACCJ, CCH-19, Bengaluru, which was filed for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with the suit schedule property, he had appeared and contested the matter in the said suit, then the plaintiff withdrawn the same on 18.1.2007 and the same nature of suit filed before this court for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on the point of resjudicata. Totally defendant contended in this suit that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase and put up a shed in it and the same is inexistence earlier to filing of the suit and denied the plaintiff's amended plaint, for which narrated about the events subsequently acquired. Thus, defendant prays to dismiss the suit with heavy costs.
17 O.S. No.26297/2007
8. From the above said pleadings, following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction without seeking the relief of title?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
4. What decree or order?
Additional Issues have been framed by my learned Predecessor in office on 29.10.2010 are as below:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his title over the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit schedule property?
3. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee?
9. On behalf of the plaintiff, affidavit evidence of GPA holder of plaintiff has been filed and he has been examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.31 documents have been got marked. 18 O.S. No.26297/2007
10. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendant also, affidavit evidence of defendant, has been filed and he has been examined as DW.1 and Exs.D.1 to D.32 documents have been marked.
11. Ex.P.1 is the sale deed executed by Soghara Begum, Exs.P.2 to P.7 are the tax-receipts, Ex.P.8 is the general power of attorney executed by Rangaswamy, Ex.P.9 is the affidavit of Rangaswamy, Ex.P.10 is the sale deed executed by Rangaswamy, Ex.P.11 is the sale agreement executed by Soghara Begum, Ex.P.12 is the general power of attorney executed by Soghara Begum, Ex.P.13 is the affidavit of Soghara Begum, Exs.P.14 to P.16 are the encumbrance certificates, Ex.P.17 is the copy of the complaint to the police, Ex.P.18 is the general power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in his favour, Ex.P.19 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S. No.6601/2004, Ex.P.20 is the certified copy of the decree in O.S No.6601/2004, Ex.P.21 is the copy of the complaint to the police, Exs.P.22 to 25 are the photos pertains to the schedule property, Ex.P.26 is the CD, Exs.P.27 to P.30 are the 19 O.S. No.26297/2007 photos pertains to the schedule property, and Ex.P.31 are the negatives.
12. Ex.D.1 is the certified copy of death certificate of Y.Rangaswamy, Ex.D.2 is the certified copy of genealogical tree, Exs.D.3 to D.5 are the certified copies of RTC extracts, Ex.D.6 is the certified copy of tax-receipt (Ex.D.6 is not legible), Exs.D.7 and D.8 are the encumbrance certificates, Exs.D.9 to D.11 are the RTC extracts, Ex.D.12 is the certified copy of judgment in O.S. No.6918/2003, Ex.D.13 is the certified copy of decree in O.S. No.6918/2003, Ex.D.14 is the certified copy of judgment in O.S. No.16379/2004, Ex.D.15 is the certified copy of decree in O.S. No.16379/2004, Exs.D.16 to D.27 are the photographs of the suit schedule property, Ex.D.28 are the negatives of the photographs, Ex.D.29 is the certified copy of the partition deed dated 16.01.1944, Ex.D.30 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 01.08.2003, Ex.D.31 is the certified copy of memo filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.6917/2003, and Ex.D.32 is the certified copy of the judgment in RFA No.871/2010 dated 08.08.2013. 20 O.S. No.26297/2007
13. Heard both side and also perused the written arguments filed by the learned advocate for the plaintiff.
14. After considering the evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1: In the negative, Issue No.2: In the negative, Issue No.3: In the negative, Addl.Issue No.1: In the negative, Addl.Issue No.2: In the negative, Addl.Issue No.3: Does not survival for consideration, Issue No.4: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS.
15. ISSUE No.1 & ADDL. ISSUE No.1 & 2: That the burden of proving all these issues lies upon the plaintiff. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, the GPA holder of the plaintiff by name Sri.Joseph Varghese is got examined as a P.W.1 by 21 O.S. No.26297/2007 submitting sworn affidavit evidence, in which he has categorically reiterated the plaint averments. The GPA holder of the plaintiff/P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 25.01.2003 from one by name Mrs.Ancy Kutti Varghese who was a GPA holder and agreement holder of Smt.Soghara Begum and khatha stands in the name of plaintiff and he has paid the up to date tax. Further P.W.1 stated that the land in Sy.No.5/10A, 5/10B and 5/10C of Roopenagarahara, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, originally belonged to one Y.Rangaswamy, and he has formed a private layout by forming 12 sites with approach roads and sold to different persons and also had agreed to sell the schedule property to one Munavar Khan and in turn Y.Rangaswamy executed a GPA and authorizing the said Munavar Khan to deal with the schedule property on 07.05.1987 and sold the property to one Smt.Soghara Begum, under sale deed dated 08.05.1987. Smt.Soghara Begum had entered into an agreement of sale on 09.01.1991 in respect of schedule property with Ms.Ancy Kutty Varghese after receiving 22 O.S. No.26297/2007 the entire sale consideration and executed a GPA dated 21.01.1991. He has stated that Smt.Soghara Begum represented by GPA and agreement holder Mrs.Ancy Kutty Varghese has executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 25.01.2003 and plaintiff and his vendors are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since the last 19 years. It is also stated in para No.8 to 16 of P.W.1 affidavit evidence that after dismissal of the IA-I by this court on 04.02.2008 by doubting the possession of the plaintiff as on the date of suit the plaintiff has got amended the suit for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession along with the consequential reliefs and it is also stated that the defendant being a local resident and politician with the assistance of the local rowdy elements has put up a sheet shed over night in the suit premises; after passing the order on IA the defendant has removed the sheet shed and started putting a construction materials. Therefore, P.W.1 approached to the jurisdictional police to stop the same; but the police directed to the plaintiff the dispute is in civil nature; therefore he has to approach to the civil court for got set righting the dispute of the possession of the suit property. The defendant is 23 O.S. No.26297/2007 in unlawful possession by dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property by making a trespass; hence plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the possession of the suit schedule properties. It is also stated that defendant had interfered with the 12 site owners of the above said layout, the cases are also pending in the courts O.S.No.6917/2003 was also filed by the plaintiff against this defendant and another one, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.01.2007. It is also P.W.1 stated that the sale deed was executed by Sri.Rangaswamy before the District Registrar at Chennai, since the fragmentation of small land act was in force in the Karnatak, which does not affect the validity of the sale deed executed by the Rangaswamy, the ownership of land survey No.5/10A, 5/10B and 5/10C of Roopenagaraha, Begur Hobli, and possession of Rangaswamy admitted in WS of defendant and being a owner Rangaswamy has developed the land by forming a 12 sites for the purpose of making sale. Accordingly, he sold out the number of sites in favour of the purchasers none of the family members objected for the development of the layout. Since, already they have perfected their residential houses and residing in 24 O.S. No.26297/2007 the above said houses, BBMP and other authorities have provided to them necessary facilities like electricity, telephone and road etc., and no more land was remained as a agricultural land to be purchased by the defendant from the legal heirs of late.Y.Rangaswamy in the year 2003. But, the defendant has created the false revenue records and mutation records and also sale deed by suppressing the real fact. Therefore, the defendant is not having any right, interest and ownership over the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the defendant himself had filed O.S. No.6601/2004 for claiming the possession over in possession of the land purchased under the created document against the owners of adjoining site No.11; it was dismissed and against this dismissal RFA No.965/2007 filed by the owner of site No.10 against the defendant before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The same is pending and the interim order of that case will also operating against the defendant. Ex.P.1 is a document of agreement of sale executed by the GPA holder of Soghara Begum in favour of the plaintiff on 25.01.2003 for sale consideration of Rs.2,64,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P.2 is a self-assessment of tax extract for 25 O.S. No.26297/2007 the year 2003-2004 relating to the property No.207 Vasantha Vilasam Vimanapura, Bengaluru, in which the name of plaintiff is mentioned as a owner and in possession of the said property. Ex.P.3 to 7 are the tax paid receipts and tax self-assessment extract of the suit properties which are in the name of plaintiff relating to property No.12 regarding payment of tax paid from 2005 to 2007; i.e., till the suit year. Ex.P.8 and 9 are the GPA executed in favour of Munavar Khan about the site No.12 and its supporting affidavit. Ex.P.10 is a sale-deed dated 08.05.1987 executed by the GPA holder by name Munavar Khan of the Y.Rangaswamy in favour of Soghara Begum for sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- relating to the site No.12 measuring 30 x 40 situated in land Sy.No.5/10A to 5/10C of the Roopenagarahara, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Ex.P.11 is a agreement of sale dated 09.01.1991 executed by the Soghara Begum in favour of Ancy Kutty Varghese and Ex.P.12 is a General Power of Attorney executed by her in favour of Ancy Kutty Varghese relating to above said site No.12 and Ex.P.13 is the affidavit of the Soghara Begum sworn for above said transaction for a sale consideration of Rs.61,000/- relating to the 26 O.S. No.26297/2007 above said site No.12. Exs.P.14 to 16 are the Nil Encumbrance Certificates for the period of 1987 to February 2007. Ex.P.15 discloses that (which is the EC for the period of 15 years from 01.04.1989 to 31.03.2004), Soghara Begum's GPA holder Ancy Kutty Varghese is a vendor of suit property for Rs.2,64,000/- in favour of plaintiff. Ex.P.16 is another EC for the period of 01.04.2004 to 27.02.2007 disclosing that the GPA holder by name Munavar Khan S/o.Rehman Khan of Rangaswamy has sold out site No.12 situated in land survey No.5/10A to 5/10C of Roopenagarahara in favour of Soghara Begum W/o.M.D.Anwar for sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-. In this regard memo received 05.02.2007. Ex.P.17 is a office copy of the complaint written by plaintiff to the PSI, Madiwala PS, on 04.07.2007 with request to stop the defendant interfere and forcibly putting up construction on his property. Ex.P.18 is a another power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of his brother-in-law Joseph Varghese in relating to the suit property by appointing him to make any transaction in respect of suit property. Ex.P.19 and 20 are a document of certified copy of the judgment and decree of O.S. 27 O.S. No.26297/2007 No.6601/2004 on the file of XVIII ACCJ, Bengaluru, in CCCH-19 dated 21.12.2009, which was filed by the defendant against the Imtiyaz and others in respect of suit survey No.5/10C measuring 26 guntas, which was divided among 5 sons of Vaddara Yellappa on 24.06.1976. The said suit was dismissed. Ex.P.21 is a another complaint dated 21.08.2009 given by the power of attorney holder of plaintiff Joseph Varghese to the PSI, Madiwala, with request to stop the interference of the defendant making interference in site No.12 situated in 5/10A to 5/10C of Roopenagaraha Village, Begur Holbi. Plaintiff has produced the documents Ex.P.22 to 30 Photographs of the suit schedule property by stating that defendant has erected a temporary shed in the suit schedule property.
16. On the other hand, defendant himself got examined as a D.W.1 and denied the very case of plaintiff/affidavit evidence of P.W.1 and all the documents and sale deeds of the plaintiff. He stated categorically in his affidavit evidence that he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property from the date of purchase. It is also stated by the D.W.1 that the originally on 16.01.1944 there was a partition entered in between the Sangappa @ 28 O.S. No.26297/2007 Changappa, Venkataswamy, Rangaswamy, Ramaiah, Lakshmaiah who are the sons of Vaddara Yellappa in Sy.No.5/10 measuring 26 guntas of Roopenagaraha Village and it was divided and allotted 5 guntas of land to each sons. Venkataswamy died issueless prior to 24.06.1976. Out of the remaining 3 sons measuring 4 guntas was allotted to Ramaiah in Sy.No.5/10A and 5/12; later on the said Ramaiah disappeared for 20 years earlier to 24.06.1976 and his whereabouts is not known from that day to till today. Therefore, his elder brother Changappa given a statement stating that the property fallen to the share of Rangaswamy shall be delivered to his daughter Annamma and he has no objection for the same and accordingly mutated in the name of Annamma. Thereafter, Changappa and Annamma both died. Another younger brother of Rangaswamy by name Lakshmaiah given a statement before the Tahsildhar stating that he is unmarried and their younger brother Ramaiah was also a unmarried and his whereabout is not known and no objection for registration of his property in the name of Rangaswamy and he is entitled for half share in the land Sy.No.5/10B measuring 4 guntas and he is entitled to enjoy the 29 O.S. No.26297/2007 said land till his death and after his death the said land shall be given to R.Srinvias, S/o.Rangaswamy. On the above said statements the khatha transferred in the name of R.Srinivas and his children were become the owners. Further D.W.1 stated that if at all any GPA, sale agreement or sale-deeds, executed are not binding on the children and grandchildren of the Rangaswamy as the said property does not belonged to him. D.W.1 further stated that after the death of Rangaswamy in the year 1992, khatha in respect of Sy.5/10A to 5/10C and 5/12A to 5/12C (4G) were mutated in the name of Srinivas s/o.Rangaswamy. G.Trees and EC for the period from 01.04.1980 to 22.10.2002 in respect of Sy.No.5/10A to 5/10C of Roopenagaraha, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, standing in the name of Srinivas. The above said documents are disclosing that Srinvias was a owner and in possession of the said lands by paying a tax to the panchayath; thus Srinivas and his children Nagaraj and daughter Padmavathi and Saraswathi were in possession and enjoyment of the same as their ancestral and joint family properties, no partition was effected in the family of Rangaswamy.
30 O.S. No.26297/2007
17. The suit schedule property of the present suit being a joint family property Rangaswamy and his brothers as per their statements which has gone to the share of Lakshmaiah given to Srinivas and his children the late.Rangaswamy had no right to execute a GPA affidavit or agreement or any other document in favour of the plaintiff or his vendors and others, in respect of suit property or any portion of the above said Sy.No.5/10A to 5/10C and Rangawamy had no right to alienate or deliver the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff or his vendors. D.W.1 further stated that on 01.08.2003 Srinivas s/o.late.Rangaswamy and his children executed a registered sale- deed in respect of land Sy.Nlo.5/10A, measuring 6 guntas of Roopenagaraha Village in favour of defendant which was bounded by East: Road; West: Property of Babu Reddy, North: By T.Sathyanandan's Property (Purchaser of Suit Property), South:
Property of Jockheer and remaining property of Sy.No.5/10. The khatha of the said property was mutated in the name of defendant and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The same is appearing in the RTC cultivators and owners column and for that 31 O.S. No.26297/2007 property he had filed a suit before the CCH-19, City Civil Court, Bengaluru, against the Imtiyaz and others, when they were interfered in the said property for seeking a permanent injunction against them which O.S. No.6601/2004 was dismissed and against this judgment he prepared RFA before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the same is pending. Accordingly, he being a owner and possessor of the above said land he has constructed a shed in the suit schedule property in which plaintiff is not at all entitled for possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After 20 years plaintiff came up with the false suit on the basis of the created documents. Thus he denied the title and possession of the plaintiff. In support of the case of defendant he has produced the certified copy of the partition deed dated 16.01.1944 Ex.D.29 taken place in between the sons of Vaddara Yellappa. Certified copy of the statement of Lakshmaiah S/o.late.Yellappa is also produced, which discloses that after his death the portion of his share of the above said Sy.No.5/10A to 5/10C shall be gone to Srinivas S/o.late.Rangaswamy. Certified copy of the death certificate and family tree of the Rangaswamy produced in this case and also 32 O.S. No.26297/2007 certified copies of the RTC for the year 2001-2002 also produced. The said document disclose that above said name of defendant was standing to the suit schedule property. Tax paid receipt for the year 2002 issued by the Roopenagarahara Panchayath relating to the suit property is produce and it is also standing in the name of Srinivas. Encumbrance certificate issued on 31.10.2002 which is for the period of 01.04.1980 to 22.10.2002 in respect of Survey No.5/10A to 5/10C is produced. The same is standing in the name son of Srinivas by name Nagaraju. Certified copy of the sale deed dated 01.08.2003 executed by R.Srinivas and others in favour of the defendant in respect of Sy.5/10A of Roopenagaraha Village and mutation register extract MR No.6/2003-2004 Ex.D.8 and 3 RTC Exs.D.9 to D.11 for the year 2003 to 2011 produced in this case.
The all the above said documents are disclosing that Srinivas and his children have sold out the suit property to the defendant as per Ex.D.30 from the date of purchase dated 01.08.2003; through the sale deed, the name of defendant is mutated to the property Sy.No.5/10A measuring 6 guntas of Roopenagaraha. Defendant has produced the certified copy of judgement and decree of O.S. 33 O.S. No.26297/2007 No.6918/2003 which was filed by the GPA holder Jayaraju of S.Thammanna against the defendant of this suit and his son Nagaraju in the court of 22nd Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, relating to the site No.10 formed in Sy.No.5/10A to 5/10C of Roopenagarahara; it was dismissed by holding that the said property is not belonging to the above said Thammanna; the same is relating to the defendants. Certified copy of the O.S. No.16379/2004 which was filed before the CCCH-22 in the court of 13th Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru, by the Sri.A.Imtiyaz against the defendant for seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants relating to site No.11 of the Sy.No.5/10A to 5/10C; it is also dismissed. Further the defendant has produced Ex.D.7 to D.27 are the photographs of suit property to show that the defendant has constructed a temporary shed in the suit schedule property. Ex.D.31 is a memo and certified copy of the order-sheet filed in O.S. No.6917/2003 by the plaintiff of this suit against the defendant for withdrawal of the said suit and Ex.D.32 is a certified copy of the judgment of the RFA No.871/2010 dated 8th August 2013 on the file of Hon'ble 34 O.S. No.26297/2007 High Court of Karnataka. The lordships of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed in that case that the appellant who was a plaintiff in O.S. No.6601/2004 which was disposed by the 8th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, on 21.12.2009 was challenged by the plaintiff; i.e., defendant of the present case relating to the land Sy.No.5/10C measuring 26 gunta of the Roopenagarahara Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, and it is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above said judgment that the lower court has unfairly negated the plaintiff suit while having accepted the defence set-up by the defendants even though they had no tendered evidence nor produced any material documents on record; the documents sought to be produced were relevant and this court finds with necessary to accept the same in support of the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the application seeking to produce additional documents is allowed and the appeal of the defendant is allowed by holding that the suit schedule property is apparently appearing as a property of the defendant through the title deed documents.
18. Upon perusal of the cross-examination of the P.W.1 it is nothing but he has denied the all suggestion of the defendant and 35 O.S. No.26297/2007 also case of the defendant. But, he answered that since the plaintiff is in difficulty for coming to the court and attending this suit P.W.1 himself being a power of attorney of the plaintiff he is deposing in this suit and further he answered that he does not know whether plaintiff has produced the document to the court regarding his health, condition, etc., and further he has not read the WS of defendant and I do not know that whether the suit schedule property is portion of suit Sy. Number which was originally belonging to Rangaswamy, which was acquired by him. Further it is answered that the name Munavar Khan and his father's name and the schedule of the property appearing in Ex.P.8 is in a different ribbon of the typewriter. He himself and plaintiff were not present at the time of execution of the Ex.P.8. Therefore, they do not know how Ex.P.8 came into existence. Ex.P.9 affidavit also relating to the site No., and measurement, the name of Munavar Khan and his details are also appearing in a different ribbon of the typewriter. Further he answered that he cannot say Ex.P.10 registered in the Sub-Registrar office of the Madras, which is relating to Sy.No.5/10A to 5/10C were converted for non- 36 O.S. No.26297/2007 agricultural purporse in the year 1997. It is also answered that he does not know whether the layout was approved by any authority etc., and further answered that he do not know that whether the defendant had filed RFA against the judgment passed in O.S.6601/2004. In total the P.W.1 has stated as above discussed only he does not know regarding the property was transferred in the name of defendant; his evidence outcome is that he is a purchaser of the suit property which was sold out by the Rangaswamy to his earlier owner. On the basis of the said evidence of P.W.1 and his documentary evidence the counsel for the plaintiff argued that Ex.P.27 and 28 shown photographs of the suit schedule property which is a vacant land at the time of filing of the suit. But, Ex.P.22 to 25 are disclosing that forcibly possession of the suit property was taken from the plaintiff and put up a construction by the defendant in the said property. Further it is argued that Ex.P.1 to 16 are not challenged by the defendant at the time of execution. It shows that defendant has admitted there are 12 sites formed in the suit survey number and the encumbrance certificate produced by the plaintiff shows that plaintiff has 37 O.S. No.26297/2007 purchased the suit property from his vendors, which cannot be questioned by anybody, since the title of the documents is standing in the name of plaintiff. The defendant challenged about the documents of plaintiff power of attorney and sale deed only on technical grounds such as typing in different fonts and ink alleging as a documents are created is baseless and without any substantial evidence. Further it is argued that O.S. No.6917/2003 is filed by the plaintiff of this suit and withdrawn does not amounts the principle of resjudicata. In total it is argued that the general power of attorney holder of the plaintiff duly executed a GPA for a bonafide reasons in favour of plaintiff brother-in-law in Bengaluru and given a powers for filing this suit. Accordingly, the GPA holder of plaintiff Joseph Varghese has filed this suit and GPA holder of Rangaswamy by name Munavar Khan on the strength of Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 affidavit of Y.Rangaswamy discloses that the suit property is sold out to the plaintiff etc., and relied on following authorities:-
1. MANU/KA/0317/2005 - Reliance placed on GPA Holders Evidence.38 O.S. No.26297/2007
2. MANU/KA/8690/2006-Defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to come and depose.
3. MANU/SC/1222/2011-GPA transaction is valid transactions.
4. MANU/KA/1584/2011-Documents executed by GPA holders are valid documents.
5. MANU/KA/1938/2012-Production of title documents
6. MANU/KA/3171/2013-RTC extract do not confer any title
7. MANU/RH/1055/2007- Suit for injunction can be filed when there is a threat for dispossession.
On the basis of the above said citation and above discussed evidence it is argued that the Rangaswamy sold the suit property in the year 1987 to the plaintiff after receiving the sale consideration amount. But, the defendant colluding with his children filed this false suit which cannot accepted etc. However, upon perusal of the plaintiff documents and above discussed cross-examination answers of the P.W.1 disclosing that the Rangaswamy has disposed the property as his absolute property when the suit survey number was not a joint property which was came to the share of Lakshmaiah and later on given to the Srinivas who has sold out the 39 O.S. No.26297/2007 said property in favour of the defendant. The counsel for the plaintiff relied on the citation of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.658/2005 dated 8.6.05 Kaju Devi and another v/s H.S.Rudrappa @ Rudy and others and another citation of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Writ Petition 9540/2006 dated 8.8.06 Sharadamma v/s Kenchamma and others and also citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court SLP (C) No.13917/2009 Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v/s State of Haryana and another, and also other two citations of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka RSA No.2688/2010 dated 24.11.11 Chev.K.M.Joseph v/s A.S. Raja and RFA No.2230/2006 dated 10.2.12 Hullappa v/s State of Karnataka. In all these citations the lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and High Court of Karnataka held that GPA holder of the parties are entitled to lead evidence and make any transaction like execution of sale of agreement and other documents etc., on behalf of the owner of the properties to the any other persons who will come forward to transact with the properties and also the power of attorney holders are entitled to give their evidence in case if any litigations arisen relating to the said documents. The above said 40 O.S. No.26297/2007 citations are even though helpful to the plaintiff; the only counsel for the defendant simply made a cross-examination regarding the plaintiff's power of attorney holder P.W.1 is not entitled to depose in this case; but, the said legal rights given to P.W.1 is not disputed as P.W.1 is not entitled to give a evidence etc. The above said citations relied by the plaintiff regarding the powers legally exercising by the GPA is not questionable and same is acceptable.
19. Upon perusal of the cross-examination of D.W.1 it discloses that he has denied the very case of the plaintiff that he is legally owner and being in possession of the suit property and it is also denied that the Rangaswamy executed a power of attorney in favour of Munavar Khan relating to the suit property and on the basis of the GPA Munavar Khan alienated the suit property in favour of Soghara Begum and she has executed a power of attorney in favour of Ancy Kutty Varghese relating to the suit property site No.12 formed in suit survey number 5/10A to 5/10C, Roopenagarahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. On the basis of the said power of attorney, above said GPA holder of Soghara Begum executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff 41 O.S. No.26297/2007 Joseph Mathew and after that said Joseph Mathew has executed a Ex.P.18 General Power of Attorney in favour of Joseph Varghese to give a evidence in this case relating to the suit property. But, no any admissions is given to the counsel for the plaintiff relating to suit property that he is not a owner of the suit property and not legally constructed a shed in it etc. Totally D.W.1 has strongly relied on his defence and led evidence accordingly.
20. Upon perusal of the Ex.P.8 a GPA executed by Y.Rangaswamy s/o.Yellappa in favour of Munavar Khan and Ex.P.9 affidavit of Y.Rangaswamy are disclosing that the matter of power of attorney relating to the property mentioned in Ex.P.8 and P.9 are typed in dark ink; but, the suit schedule boundaries and extension of the suit schedule site No.12 including the name of Munavar Khan and his address are typed in a different ink. The both the documents are appearing as a created documents. It is case of the defendant that from the beginning both the documents are a created documents. When it was came to the notice of the plaintiff and his counsel; it was bounded duty to send the documents to the handwriting expert regarding the execution of the 42 O.S. No.26297/2007 document and get examined the necessary witness and scribe of the above said documents, if they are alive. But, the said burden is not got discharged by the plaintiff. When the power of attorney of the Rangaswamy and his affidavit executed in favour of Munavar Khan are doubtful regarding the genuineness of the documents, the powers given by way of GPA to transact with the suit property. Under such circumstances, subsequent documents executed by the Munavar Khan in favour of Soghara Begum and she executed a power of attorney in favour of Ancy Kutty Varghese and after that the power of attorney of the Soghara Begum executed a absolute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and other documents becomes a useless for coming to conclusion that plaintiff is a owner and possessor of the suit site No.12 of the above said suit Sy.No.5/10A to 5/10C of the Roopenagaraha Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The whatever detail cross-examination done by the defendant advocate to the P.W.1 discloses that only the P.W.1 has given a answer that he does not know regarding the above said documents and alienation of suit property etc. But, not tendered his evidence as pleaded in the plaint and affidavit evidence. It is 43 O.S. No.26297/2007 also necessary to discuss that the sale deed executed by the Y.Rangaswamy on 8.5.1987 in favour of the Soghara Begum about the suit property is registered in the State of Madras, since there was a prevention of fragmentation of lands Act was in force in the Karnataka State. The above said transaction also is illegal and it also fatal the case of plaintiff. On the other hand, the documents Ex.D.1 to D.32 are disclosing that on the strength of the statement given by Lakshmaiah to the Tahasildhar the suit property was mutated to the name of Srinivas as appearing in Ex.D.3 to D.5 and Ex.D.8 is disclosing that the said Srinivas and his children have executed a sale deed as per Ex.D.30 in favour of the defendant; after that as per Ex.D.8 the said sale deed is acted upon and the property is mutated in the name of defendant. Ex.D.9 to D.11 are the RTC appearing in the name of defendant and other judgments Ex.D.12 to 15 also supporting to the case of defendant to hold that defendant is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances, the other citations relied by the plaintiff MANU/KA/1938/2012 which is speaking regarding production of title documents and MANU/KA/3171/2013 relating to RTC 44 O.S. No.26297/2007 extract, which speaks that RTC extract do not confer any title. MANU/KA/1055/2007 wherein held that suit for injunction can be filed when there is a threat for dispossession are not applicable to the present case on hand. On the other hand the said citations are helpful to the defendant. For the above discussed reasons, I came to conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove the issue No.1 and addl. issue No.1 & 2. Therefore, I would like to answer issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 and 2 as a Negative against the plaintiff.
21. ISSUE No.2: This issue does not requires a detail discussion; because it is detailed discussed in the issue No.1 and addl. issue No.1 and 2 regarding the ownership and possession of the parties and ultimately held that the defendant is owner and possessor of the suit site No.12 of the above said suit Sy. number of Roopenagarahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and he has legally constructed a shed in the suit schedule property on the strength of the documents Ex.D.1 to D.32 and oral evidence of the D.W.1. But, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership and possession over the suit schedule property as discussed in main issue No.1 and addl. issue No.1 and 2 and 45 O.S. No.26297/2007 under such circumstances plaintiff is not entitled for any mandatory injunction against the defendant as prayed for; since the title of the property itself is not proved by the plaintiff. Hence, I would like to answer issue No.2 also against the plaintiff as a Negative.
22. ADDL.ISSUE No.3: This issue does not requires a detailed discussion. Initially this suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for bare injunction and court fee was paid only Rs.50/- as per Section 7 (c) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act by making value of the suit property for Rs.1,000/-. But, later on the plaintiff got amended his suit for seeking possession and mandatory injunction relating to the suit property against the defendant; then he has submitted a valuation slip on 28.06.2010 of the suit property under Section 24 (d) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and sufficient court fee of Rs.18,095/- is paid for the valuation of suit property Rs.2,64,000/- as per Section 24A read with Section 1 Article (4) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. Therefore, this issue does not survival for consideration. Hence, I answer to this addl. issue No.3 as it does not survival for consideration. 46 O.S. No.26297/2007
23. ISSUE No.3: That the burden of proving this issue lies upon the plaintiff. This allegation of interference and illegal construction of the defendant in the suit property is not successfully proved by the plaintiff and his power of attorney holder P.W.1. On the other hand as already discussed in above said paras D.W.1 has proved the title and possession over the suit property on the strength of Ex.D.1 to D.32. Therefore this court held that the plaintiff is not a owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he is not entitled for any suit reliefs of possession of the suit property and mandatory injunction against the defendant as prayed in the suit etc. When the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the suit property, then the plaintiff is not entitled for any suit reliefs as prayed for. Therefore, I answer this main issue No.3 also against the plaintiff as a Negative.
24. ISSUE No.4: For the above discussed reasons and findings given to the issue No.1 to 3 and addl. issue No.1 to 3 which are answered against the plaintiff as a Negative, I proceed to pass the following:-
47 O.S. No.26297/2007
ORDER.
Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed without costs.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on online computer, thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of December, 2015).
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.) IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witness examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 - Sri.Joseph Varghese.
List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 - Sale Deed executed by Soghara Begum
Ex.P.2 to 7 - Tax-Receipts
Ex.P.8 - General Power of Attorney
Ex.P.9 - Affidavit
Ex.P.10 - Sale Deed executed by Rangaswamy
Ex.P.11 - Sale Agreement executed by Soghara
Begum
Ex.P.12 - General Power of Attorney
Ex.P.13 - Affidavit
Ex.P.14 to 16 - Encumbrance Certificates
Ex.P.17 - Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.18 - General Power of Attorney
Ex.P.19 - C/C of Judgment in O.S.No.6601/04
48 O.S. No.26297/2007
Ex.P.20 - C/C of Decree in O.S No.6601/2004
Ex.P.21 - Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.22 to 25 - Photos
Ex.P.26 - CD
Ex.P.27 to 30 - Photos
Ex.P.31 - Negatives
List of witness examined for the defendant:
D.W.1 - Sri.T.Sathyananda
List of documents exhibited for the defendant:
Ex.D.1 - C/C of Death Certificate
Ex.D.2 - C/C of Genealogical Tree
Ex.D.3 to 5 - C/C of RTC extracts
Ex.D.6 - C/C of Tax-receipt
Ex.D.7 & 8 - Encumbrance Certificates
Ex.D.9 to 11 - RTC Extracts
Ex.D.12 - C/C of Judgment in O.S.No.6918/2003
Ex.D.13 - C/C of Decree in O.S. No.6918/2003
Ex.D.14 - C/C of Judgment in O.S.No.16379/04
Ex.D.15 - C/C of Decree in O.S. No.16379/2004
Ex.D.16 to 27 - Photographs
Ex.D.28 - Negatives
Ex.D.29 - C/C of Partition Deed dtd.16.01.1944
Ex.D.30 - C/C of Sale Deed dated 01.08.2003
Ex.D.31 - C/C of Memo
Ex.D.32 - C/C of Judgment in RFA No.871/2010
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.)
IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
49 O.S. No.26297/2007
Judgment pronounced in the Open
Court(vide separate order).
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed
without costs.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.)
IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
50 O.S. No.26297/2007