Bangalore District Court
Subramanian vs Shanthamma on 13 October, 2025
1 O.S.No.15/2020
KABC010390912019 SHIVANAND
MARUTI
JIPARE
Digitally signed by
SHIVANAND MARUTI
JIPARE
Date: 2025.10.13
18:08:12 +0530
Presented on : 21-12-2019
Registered on : 02-01-2020
Decided on : 13-10-2025
Duration : 05 years, 09 months, 11 days
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH.76) AT: BENGALURU
PRESENT: Sri. SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE,
B.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
LXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2025
ORIGINAL SUIT No.15/2020
PLAINTIFF: Mr. Subramanian,
S/o.Sri.U.Sellakkutti,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.3038,
Prestige Kensington Garden Apts,
HMT Main Road, Jalahalli Post,
Bengaluru - 560013.
(By Sri.Unnikrishnan M., Advocate.)
:VERSUS:
2 O.S.No.15/2020
DEFENDANTS: 1. Smt.M.Shanthamma,
W/o. M.Mohan Raju,
Aged about 58 years,
2. Mrs.M.Sashai Kala M.D,
D/o. M.Mohan Raju,
Aged about 40 years,
3. Mr. M.Chandra Shekar Raju,
S/o. M.Mohan Raju,
Aged about 37 years,
4. Mr. M.Raja Shekar Raju,
S/o. M.Mohan Raju,
Aged about 36 years,
Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are
residing at No.15,
Near Sunrise English School
Road,
Mohan Raju Layout,
Doddakrishnappa Layout,
Bhoopasandra,
Bengaluru 560094.
5. Mr. Abdul Khaum Shaik
S/o. Abdul Ghani Shaik,
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at Rajanna Layout,
RBI Colony,
Bengaluru 560011.
6. Mr. M.Yousuf Khan,
S/o.Late M.Ahmed,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.188,
1st Block East, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru 560011.
3 O.S.No.15/2020
7. Mr. V.G.Pranav,
S/o.Sri.Gangadharan R,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.J 107,
10th Cross, L.N.Puram,
Bengaluru 560021.
8. Mr. Manikanta Η.Β,
S/o. Late Bettegowda,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.488,
1st Cross, 9th Main Road,
Bhuvaneshwarinagara,
T.Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru 560057.
9. Mr. Praveen Kumar V,
S/o. Mr.Divakar N,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at No.25,
Old Savar Lane,
Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru 560020.
(By Smt. R.Shyama., Advocate for D-1 to 4.)
(Defendant Nos.5 to 8 - Exparte.)
(By Sri.N.Dinakar., Advocate for D-9.)
**********
Date of Institution of the suit 21.12.2019
Nature of the suit Suit for Declaration and
Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of 08.11.2023
recording of evidence
4 O.S.No.15/2020
Date on which the judgment
was pronounced 13.10.2025
Total Duration Years Months Days
05 09 11
Digitally
signed by
SHIVANAND
SHIVANAND MARUTI
MARUTI JIPARE
JIPARE Date:
2025.10.13
18:08:23
+0530
(SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE)
LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
*************
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, with costs.
2. The brief facts averred in the plaint are as follows:
That the plaintiff is the absolute owner and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e. bearing site No.101, Khatha No.224/364, Doddabettahalli village 5 O.S.No.15/2020 Panchayat formed out of converted land bearing Sy.No.20, Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now under the revenue jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike of ward No.3 of Chikkabettahalli, Sai Nagar, phase II, Chikkabettahalli, Bengaluru measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 30 feet. The plaintiff has acquired the suit schedule property along with another site No.102, Khatha No.224/364, by way of a common deed of sale, dated: 23.01.2004, executed jointly by Sri.Abdul Kareem, Smt.Bibi Jan, Sri.Sheik Suban, Sri.Sheik Attaulla, Sri.Shari Allah Baksh, Sri.Mohammed Hanif, Sri.Zanu, Sri.Abdul Sattar, Sri.Abdul Rahman, represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder Sri.V.C.Reddappa Chetty, son of Late V.Venkataramaiah Chetty, in his favour and it was registered as document No.14939/2003-04, stored in CD No.YAND1, dated:
27.01.2004 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. The suit schedule property is plotted out of a larger property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli 6 O.S.No.15/2020 village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk which is measuring about 09- acres and 06 -guntas in extent. The said larger property was the absolute property of one Mr.Madar Sab which devolved upon one Mr.Abdul Karim Sab, who exercised domain and ownership over the same. The children of Mr.Abdul Karim Sab and other family members have also executed a confirmation cum affidavit on 22.12.1988, duly confirming the absolute ownership of Mr.Abdul Karim Sab over the said property.
On 20.05.1989, Mr.Abdul Karim Sab executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty, which was duly registered as document No.38/89-90, Book IV, volume 75, pages 140, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru North Taluk, authorizing Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty to change the nature of the land from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes and also to convey the same to third parties either as a whole or in parts. The said Power of Attorney empowering Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty to do all acts which is in the nature of a transfer is coupled with interest (since sale 7 O.S.No.15/2020 consideration was also paid to him) and the clauses in the Attorney clothed him with absolute and unfettered over the property. Accordingly, the Power of Attorney executed by Mr.Abdul Karim Sab in favour of Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty is irrevocable and cannot be extinguished or cancelled in law. Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty, as the Power of Attorney of Mr.Abdul Karim Sab and on the basis of the authority conferred upon him got the larger property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 06 -guntas, converted for non- agricultural residential purposes by way of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated: 12.11.1991. On 09.12.1991, Mr. Abdul Karim Sab and others i.e. his family members executed another General Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty authorizing him to sell and transfer the larger property by way of residential plots in favour of third parties. Thus by virtue of the transactions, Mr.Abdul Karim Sab and his legal heirs and other family members authorized that 8 O.S.No.15/2020 Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty could deal and transfer the entirety of the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9 -acres 06 -guntas absolutely. Thus the property could be dealt by Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty in favour of third parties without any let, hindrance, or interference from anybody. Subsequently, Mr.Abdul Karim Sab and his family members also executed an agreement of sale on 09.12.1991 in favour of Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty in order to acknowledge the receipt of the entire sale consideration by them. In fact, Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty also paid them an additional sum of Rs.30,000/- as a goodwill for co-operation in culminating the contract. In pursuance to the agreement of sale and General Power of Attorney, Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty formed a private layout over the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 06 -guntas and plotted the same into residential sites and of the many sites formed in the same, site bearing No.101, 9 O.S.No.15/2020 measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 30 feet in extent and measuring 1200 Sq.ft. was formed out thereof i.e. the suit schedule property. The said suit schedule property was then conveyed by Mr.Abdul Karim Sab, S/o. Late Chikka Madar Sab, Smt. Bibijan, wife of Late Sheik Ahmed Saheb, Mr. Shaikh Subhan S/o. Late Sheik Ahmed Saheb, Mr. Shaikh Ataulla S/o. Late Sheik Ahmed Saheb and Mr. Allah Bakash son of Mohammed Razak, Sri. Mohammed Hanif, son of Mohammed Razak, Sri.Zanu son of Mohammed Razak, Sri.Abdul Sattar son of Late Sheik Ibrahim, Sri. Abdul Rahman son of Late Sheik Ibrahim, represented by Mr. V.C.Reddappa Chetty, in favour of the plaintiff by way of a deed of sale, dated:
23.01.2004, with document No.BNG(U)YLNK14939/2003-
04, stored in CD No.YAND1, dated: 27.01.2004, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. The said sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of another site bearing No.102, also which has been subsequently conveyed by the plaintiff in favour of his brother Mr.S.Rajendran, in terms of a deed of gift, 10 O.S.No.15/2020 dated: 16.07.2007. After acquiring the suit schedule property, he got the revenue records of the same transferred in his name at the office of the Doddabettahalli village Panchayath. Upto date taxes have also been paid. The plaintiff was put in possession of the said plot in pursuance to the aforesaid deed of sale dated: 27.01.2004 in his favour by his vendors. In pursuance to the agreement of sale and Power of Attorney executed by Mr.Abdul Karim Sab and others, on the basis of which site No.101 was conveyed on 23.01.2004 in favour of plaintiff, Mr. Abdul Karim Sab and others ceased to have any right, title, interest or possession over the site No.101, the suit schedule property which is carved out the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 06 -guntas. After the execution of the agreement of sale, General Power of Attorney/s, which were irrevocable as they were coupled with interest in respect of survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North 11 O.S.No.15/2020 Taluk, measuring 9 -acres 6 -guntas and would never be cancelled even on the insolvency, death etc. of the principals, the legal heirs of Mr. Abdul Karim Sab (after his demise), notwithstanding the same clandestinely conveyed the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9 -acres 6 -guntas, in favour of one Mr.M.Mohan Raju i.e. the husband and father of defendant Nos.1 to 4 respectively in terms of 3 deeds of sale. In fact, they suppressed the fact of the larger property having already been converted for non- agricultural purposes and in collusion with the said Mr.Mohan Raju, sold the larger property in terms of 3 deeds of sale as an agricultural property instead of a converted land and without any right, title and interest over it having already entered into transactions with Mr. V.C.Reddappa Chetty. The legal heirs of Late Abdul Karim Sab namely Smt.Makbul Bi and others have executed the following sale deeds;
12 O.S.No.15/2020
a) Sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi wife of Late Abdul Kareem Sab, (2) Mohammad Raffik, (3) Samiulla @ Papa, (4) Saffiulla @ Munna, (5) Rahamathulla, (6) Inayathulla, No.2 to 6 are all sons of Late Abdul Kareem Sab, (7) Shaik Athaulla son of late Shaik Ahamad, (8) Fareeda Begam wife of Shaik Babu, (9) Mohammad Haneef son of Late Ahmad Razaak, (10) Shaik Jainulla son of Late Shaikh Ibrahim in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju son of Late Ramaraju being registered as document No.1153/2000-01, Book I, volume AV 1115, pages 165-169, at the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru in respect of 3- acres of land out of 9-06 acres of survey No.20, situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengalore North Taluk.
b) Sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi wife of Late Abdul Kareem Sab, (2) Mohammad Raffik, (3) Samiulla @ Papa, (4) Saffiulla @ Munna, (5) Rahamathulla, (6) Inayathulla, No.2 to 6 are all sons of Late Abdul Kareem Sab, (7) Shaik Athaulla son of late Shaik Ahamad, (8) Fareeda Begam wife of Shaik Babu, (9) Mohammad Haneef son of Late Ahmad Razaak, (10) Shaik Jainulla son of Late Mohammed Razaak, (11) Abdul Sattar son of Late Shaikh Ibrahim in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju son of Late Ramaraju being registered as document No.1419/2000-01, Book I, volume AV 1123, pages 105-109, at the office of the Sub- Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, in respect of 3- acres of land out of 9-06 acres of survey No.20, situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
c) Sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi wife of Late Abdul Kareem Sab, (2) Mohammad Raffik, (3) Samiulla @ Papa, (4) 13 O.S.No.15/2020 Saffiulla @ Munna, (5) Rahamathulla, (6) Inayathulla, No.2 to 6 are all sons of Late Abdul Kareem Sab, (7) Shaik Athaulla son of late Shaik Ahamad, (8) Fareeda Begam wife of Shaik Babu, (9) Mohammad Haneef son of Late Ahmad Razaak, (10) Shaik Jainulla son of Late Mohammed Razaak, (11) Abdul Sattar son of Late Shaikh Ibrahim in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju son of Late Ramaraju, being registered as document No.1067/2000-01, Book I, volume AV 1113, pages 71-75, at the office of the Sub- Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru in respect of 3 - acres of land out of 9-06 acres of survey No.20, situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
Further, Mr.M.Mohan Raju started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the various purchasers of the sites which were formed over the larger property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9 - acres 6 -guntas. Accordingly, some of the owners of the plots i.e. V.K.Rama and others have filed suit in O.S.No.5668/2000 for declaration and injunction against the legal heirs of Mr.Abdul Karim Sab viz. Mr.Mohammed Raffik, Mr.Samiulla, Mr.Shafiulla, Mr.Rahamathulla, Mr.Inayathulla (sons of Late Abdul Karim Sab), Mr.Shaik Attaulla son of Late Shaik Ahmed, Smt.Farida Begum 14 O.S.No.15/2020 D/o.Late Shaikh Babu, Mr.Mohammed Haneef, Mr.Jainulla i.e. sons of Mohammed Razaak, Abdul Sattar son of Late Shaik Ibrahim and Mr. M.Mohan Raju before the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. In view of the aforesaid Power of Attorneys in favour of Mr. V.C.Reddappa Chetty being subsisting, the aforementioned deeds of sale purported to have been executed by Makbul Bi and others in favour of Mr.M.Mohan Raju have no validity in the eye of law and did not bind the title of any of the purchasers of the sites formed in the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9 -acres 6- guntas. In fact, the sale deeds executed in favour of Mr.M.Mohan Raju by the legal heirs of Late Abdul Karim Sab and others were sham and concocted documents and Mr.M.Mohan Raju was not a bonafide purchaser, hence did not have any semblance of right, title or interest over the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9 -acres 6 -guntas and the alleged deeds of sale did not clothe him with any 15 O.S.No.15/2020 rights of ownership or domain over the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 6- guntas. During the pendency of O.S.No.5668/2000 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, the plaintiff and Mr.M.Mohan Raju entered into a deed of compromise on 25.03.2004, in terms of which, Mr.M.Mohan Raju agreed to withdraw all his defenses in O.S.No.5668/2000 and that the sale deeds under which Mr.M.Mohan Raju had purchased the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9 - acres 6 -guntas were not valid and subsisting in respect of the same. Furthermore in consideration of the said understanding, Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty on behalf of the owners of the sites paid a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to Mr.M.Mohan Raju by way of 2 cheques for Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-respectively as a compensation since Mr.Mohan Raju had erroneously purchased the larger property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk by spending a 16 O.S.No.15/2020 sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (though he was not obliged to do so since Mr.Mohan Raju was not a bonafide purchaser of the same). In this perspective, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.5668/2000 and M.Mohan Raju entered into a compromise in the said suit. However, the City Civil Court, strangely compromise on 21.02.2006, without any justification and understanding the procedure of law which is palpably illegal and untenable. In fact, the other defendants in the suit had no right over the property in the said suit as they had parted with whatever right they had firstly by way of the agreement of sale, General Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty. Accordingly, the O.S.No.5668/2000 continued and finally the same came to be dismissed by judgment and decree, dated: 11.06.2007. However, the same was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A.No.1952/2007, which was disposed off on 01.07.2009 in terms of which, the judgment passed by the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.5668/2000, dated: 11.06.2007 was set-aside. In fact, the Hon'ble 17 O.S.No.15/2020 High Court of Karnataka while disposing of the appeal specifically stated that the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru ought to have accepted the compromise between the plaintiff in the suit and Mr.M.Mohan Raju and ought to have considered the dispute between the plaintiff and the other defendants separately and as such non- consideration of the compromise was a grave error committed by the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The matter was remanded back to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru for fresh adjudication. The plaintiff was oblivious of the said litigation pending before the City Civil Judge and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and with no semblance of having any doubt and on the basis of the documents bonafidely purchased the suit schedule property bearing site No.101, formed in survey No.20, converted for non- agricultural residential purposes, Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 30 feet in all 1200 Sq.ft. from Sri.Abdul Kareem and others, represented by their Power of Attorney Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty by way of 18 O.S.No.15/2020 an absolute sale deed dated: 23.01.2004 being registered as document No.14939/2003-04, stored in CD No.YAND1, at the office of the Sub-Registrar Yelahanka, Bengaluru. He being a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property been in possession and exercising all rights of ownership over the same. In fact, there was no semblance of any litigation till 2015 over the schedule property at all and upto date taxes have been paid by him alone. In the meanwhile, Mr. Mohan Raju is said to have expired leaving behind the defendant No.1 to 4 as his legal heirs. The said defendant No.1 to 4 then clandestinely in order to defeat the just rights of the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 22.06.2015 after the plaintiff purchased the schedule property to convey many sites formed in the layout formed out survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk including the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 and 6 which is registered as document No.YAN-1-01593/2015-16, stored in CD.No.YAND599, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, 19 O.S.No.15/2020 Yelahanka, Bengaluru. When the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same in terms of an absolute sale deed dated: 23.01.2004, the defendant No.1 to 4 had no semblance of right, title or interest to convey the schedule property in favour of the defendant No.5 and 6 and as such, said agreement of sale is illegal and non-est in law. Further, all of a sudden i.e. on 03.11.2015, the plaintiff received a phone call from the association of the site owners of the layout informing that defendant No.3 Rajashekhar Raju along with the defendant No.5 and 6 were creating nuisance in the vacant sites formed in the layout out of survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, including the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff met the office bearers of the association of the site owners and decided to approach the jurisdictional Police. When the plaintiff approached the Police, he was informed that one Mr.Shashank a site owner in the layout had filed a complaint in respect of the same offence against the said 20 O.S.No.15/2020 defendants and that the jurisdictional Police were investigating the matter. The plaintiff was also advised by some persons to apply for encumbrance certificates from 01.06.1989 to 31.03.2004 and 01.04.2004 to 03.11.2015. In view of the interference of the defendant No.3, 5 and 6 over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff was constrained file O.S.No.9772/2015 before the 37 th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The defendants in the said suit filed an application seeking to reject the plaint and accordingly, the Court rejected the same by order dated: 27.11.2017 and plaintiff had to file a comprehensive declaratory suit since City Civil Judge had by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anathula Sudhakar -Vs- P.Buchi Reddy rejected the plaint. During the pendency of the said suit, the defendant No.1 to 4 conveyed the suit schedule property on 19.12.2016 in favour of defendant No.7 being registered as document No.YAN-1- 06629/2016-17, stored in CD No.YAND638, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. Further, the 21 O.S.No.15/2020 deed of sale, dated: 19.12.2016 executed by the defendant No.1 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.7 has the defendant No.5 and 6 as the consenting witness. The deed of sale dated: 19.12.2016 would not clothe any title of the schedule property in favour of the 7th defendant firstly because the defendant Nos.1 to 4 had no right, title or interest to convey the suit schedule property as the same was the absolute property of the plaintiff and secondly the defendant No.3, 5 and 6 who are parties in the O.S.No.9772/2015 had conveyed the same in favour of the defendant No.7, during the pendency of the said litigation. Accordingly, the deed of sale dated: 19.12.2016 executed in favour of the defendant No.7 is not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant No.7 is having come to know that he had purchased the suit schedule property during the pendency of the O.S.No.9772/2015 filed by the plaintiff before the 37th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.8 on 25.10.2017, which is registered as document No.BYP-1-03559/2017-28, stored 22 O.S.No.15/2020 in CD.No.BYPD248, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru. The defendant No.8 too did not get any title over the suit schedule property since his predecessors in title i.e. the defendant No.1 to 4 and the defendant No.7 had no right, title or interest at any point over the same. Accordingly, the deed of sale, dated:
25.10.2017 executed in favour of the defendant No.8 is also not binding on the plaintiff and is liable to be declared as illegal. The defendant No.8, who too came to know about the cloud in his title over the suit schedule property, then executed a deed of sale on 27.08.2018 in favour of defendant No.9 by way of an absolute sale deed dated: 27.08.2018 being registered as document No.YAN-
1-05114/2018-19, stored in CD No.YAND669, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. The said deed of sale, dated: 27.08.2018 in favour of the defendant No.9 too is illegal and does not bind the plaintiff and is liable to be declared as illegal as the defendant No.1 to 4, 7 and 8 had no right, title or interest over the same and the suit schedule property is the absolute property of the 23 O.S.No.15/2020 plaintiff. The plaintiff was not aware of any of the transactions since the defendant No.3, 5 and 6 had stopped interfering with the suit schedule property and accordingly the plaintiff under the bonafide impression that the said defendants would not create any further nuisance, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property. In fact, he and his brother wanted to club the site No.101 and 102 to form a composite property and put up construction over the same and were even intending to approach financial institutions for funds. When this being the factual situation, on 25.08.2019 the defendant No.9 started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by bringing goonda elements and other anti-social persons and forcibly tried to throw the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff somehow with great difficulty and on threatening that the said persons, he would file cases and complaints against them was able to thwart the said persons. The plaintiff also approached the Police at Yelahanka who did not help 24 O.S.No.15/2020 the plaintiff in any manner. However, for the reasons best known to the defendants, the goondas did not come back to the suit schedule property for some time. While leaving the suit schedule property the defendant No.9 had stated that he was the owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same from its owners. The said information altered the plaintiff who started probing at the office of the Sub-Registrar and make enquiries with the neighbours, who informed about the pendency of the litigation and also informed that there could be false and fabricated deeds also. Accordingly, in order to understand the matter in its right perspective, the plaintiff procured all documents from the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Sub-Registrar Office, Registrar of Stamps and other government offices, and Courts and found the fraud played by the defendants and others upon him. On perusal of the foresaid deed of sale, dated: 19.12.2016 in favour of the 7 th defendant by the defendant Nos.1 to 4, it clearly brings forth that it is a sham and bogus transaction. The said sale deeds have 25 O.S.No.15/2020 been executed in favour of the defendant No.7 by the legal heirs of Mr.M.Mohan Raju who had no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property since he himself had not derived any title by virtue of the sale deeds in his favour as the original owners of the property had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty who on the basis of same had conveyed sites to various persons with some sites being sold prior to the sale deed in favour of Mr.M.Mohan Raju. The conveyance is made on the basis of fabricated khatha, revenue records also. In fact, the Power of Attorney was coupled with interest, hence could not be cancelled and was thus irrevocable since the entire consideration had been passed to the owners. Furthermore, Mr.M.Mohan Raju having understood that he had no right over the survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9 -acres 6 -guntas had executed a deed compromise on 25.03.2004 specifically accepting the ownership of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.5668/2000 which 26 O.S.No.15/2020 was filed in respect of the sites formed over survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 6 -guntas in which the suit schedule property is also stated. Likewise, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA.No.1952/2007 had also accepted the factum of the compromise which has not been denied by Mr.M.Mohan Raju at any point of time. When this stood thus, the defendant No.1 to 4 cannot arrogate themselves to have a better title than Mr.Mohan Raju and accordingly, the sale deed dated:
19.12.2016 in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.7 is illegal, invalid and non-
existent in the eye of law and as such the same is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, said deed of sale dated:
19.12.2016 in favour of the defendant No.7 will have to be declared as illegal and not binding on the plaintiff as far as the suit schedule property is concerned. The defendant No.7 had also did not have any right, title and interest to convey the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.8 and since none of his predecessors 27 O.S.No.15/2020 had any right over the same. That apart the suit schedule property was the absolute property of the plaintiff.
Accordingly the deed of sale dated: 25.10.2017 in favour of the defendant No.8 and registered as document No.BYP-1-03559/2017-18 stored in CD No.BYPD 48, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, is to be declared as legal and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant No.8 too did not derive any title from the defendant No.7 and accordingly he had no subsisting right over the suit schedule property at any point of time and thus he could not have conveyed the same in favour of the defendant No.9 by way of deed of sale dated:
27.08.2018. In this perspective the deed of sale dated:
27.08.2018 executed by the defendant No.8 in favour of the defendant No.9 and registered as document No.YAN-
1-05144/2018-19 is liable to be declared as illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Likewise, the 3 deeds of sale, dated: 09.02.1996 executed by Maqbool Bi and others in favour of Mr.M.Mohan Raju in respect of the survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru 28 O.S.No.15/2020 North Taluk, measuring 9 -acres 6 -guntas are also not binding on plaintiff. The defendant No.9 and his henchmen yet again came to the suit schedule property on 27.10.2019 and tried to physically take possession of the schedule property and site No.101. However on getting information from the neighbors the plaintiff and his friends rushed to the schedule property and were able to prevent the defendant No.9 and his goonda elements from taking over possession of the schedule property. The defendant No.9 and his persons though retreated on the said date and have come back to harass the plaintiff on 03.12.2019 and when yet again prevented, they have threatened to come back and claim possession of the suit schedule property forcibly from the plaintiff. The threat of dispossession is hence looming large on the plaintiff and it is with great difficulty that he has been holding on to possession of the suit schedule property which he is finding it difficult with each passing day considering the fact that he is a law abiding citizen and has to frequently travel out on work, and the defendant No.9 is an anti- 29 O.S.No.15/2020 social element who would stoop to any level and has also proved the same. The plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also complained to the jurisdictional Police who have refused to take the complaint on the ground that the matter is civil in nature and the plaintiff has to approach this Court to redress his grievance. On the other hand as the defendants are fraudulent persons have created documents including revenue documents for fraudulent purposes, they would be put to no loss or hardship if the order of declaration and injunction is passed. The defendant No.9 on the basis of the false and fabricated documents and the sale deed dated: 27.08.2018 is negotiating with third parties to convey the suit schedule property in order to defeat the just rights of the plaintiff and to also run away after making easy money out of the property belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, hence the defendants will have to be restrained by an order permanent injunction from alienating the suit schedule property and also not to disturb the peaceful 30 O.S.No.15/2020 possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the same. The cause of action is arisen to file this suit on 23.01.2004 when the plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property from Abdul Karim Sab and others and on 19.12.1996 when Makbul Bi and others sold survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 6 -guntas in favour of Ramaraju and others and in 2015 when the defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property which constrained the plaintiff to file a Civil suit in O.S.No.9772/2015, on 27.11.2017 when the City Civil Judge rejected the plaint in O.S.No.9772/2015, on 19.12.2016 when the defendant Nos.1 to 4 executed a deed of sale in favour of the defendant No.7 and on 25.10.2017 when the defendant No.7 executed a deed of sale in favour of defendant No.8 and on 27.08.2018 when the defendant No.8 executed a sale of the schedule property in favour of defendant No.9 and on 25.08.2019, 27.10.2019 and on 03.12.2019 when the defendant No.9 and his henchman tried to interfere with the possession 31 O.S.No.15/2020 of the plaintiff over the schedule property and on the dates when the defendant No.9 is trying to sell the property and on all subsequent dates within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, declaration against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 that the sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by (1) Maqbol Bi wife of Late Abdul Kareem Sab, (2) Mohammad Raffik, (3) Samiulla @ Papa, (4) Saffiulla @ Munna, (5) Rahamathulla, (6) Inayathulla sons of Late Abdul Kareem Sab, (7) Shaik Athaulla son of late Shaik Ahamad, (8) Fareeda Begam wife of Shaik Babu, (9) Mohammad Haneef son of Late Ahmad Razaak, (10) Shaik Jainulla son of Late Shaikh Ibrahim in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju son of Late Ramaraju which is registered as document No.1153/2000-01, Book I, volume AV 1115, pages 165-169, at the office of the Sub- Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru in respect of 3 -acres of land out of 9-06 acres of survey No.20, situated at Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru 32 O.S.No.15/2020 North Taluk in respect of 3- acres of land out of 9-06 acres of survey No.20, situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk as not binding the plaintiff to the extent of the suit schedule property, declaration against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 that sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi wife of Late Abdul Kareem Sab, (2) Mohammad Raffik, (3) Samiulla Papa, (4) Saffiulla @ Munna, (5) Rahamathulla, (6) Inayathulla, No.2 to 6 are all sons of Late Abdul Kareem Sab (7) Shaik Athaulla son of Late Shaik Ahamad, (8) Fareeda Begam, wife of Shaik Babu, (9) Mohammad Haneef, son of Late Ahmad Razaak, (10) Shaik Jainulla, son of Late Mohammed Razaak, (11) Abdull Sattar son of Late Shaikh Ibrahim, in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju son of Late Ramaraju with the same being registered as document No.1419/2000-01, Book I, volume AV 1123, pages 105-109, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru in respect of 3 -acres of land out of 9-06 acres of survey No.20, situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk as not 33 O.S.No.15/2020 binding on the plaintiff to the extent of the suit schedule property, declaration against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 that sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, wife of Late Abdul Kareem Sab, (2) Mohammad Raffik, (3) Samiulla @ Papa, (4) Saffiulla @ Munna, (5) Rahamathulla, (6) Inayathulla, No.2 to 6 are all sons of Late Abdul Kareem Sab, (7) Shaik Athaulla son of late Shaik Ahamad, (8) Fareeda Begam wife of Shaik Babu, (9) Mohammad Haneef son of Late Ahmad Razaak, (10) Shaik Jainulla son of Late Mohammed Razaak, (11) Abdull Sattar son of Late Shaikh Ibrahim, in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju son of Late Ramaraju, with the same being registered as document No.1067/2000-01, Book I, volume AV 1113, pages 71- 75, at the office of the Sub- Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru in respect of 3 -acres of land out of 9-06 acres of survey No.20, situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk as not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of the suit schedule property, declaration against the defendant No.7 to declare that the sale deed, dated: 19.12.2016, 34 O.S.No.15/2020 registered as document No.YAN-1-06629/2016-17, stored in CD.No.YAND638, at the office of the Sub-Registrar Yelahanka, Bengaluru, executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.7 i.e. Mr.V.G.Pranav as not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of the suit schedule property, declaration against the defendant No.8 to declare that the sale deed, dated: 25.10.2017, registered as document No.ΒΥΡ-1-03559/2017-2018, stored in CD.No.BYPD248, at the office of the Sub- Registrar Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru, executed by the defendant No.7 in favour of the defendant No.8 i.e. Mr.Manikanta H.B, as not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of the suit schedule property, declaration against the defendant No.9 to declare that the sale deed, dated:
27.08.2018, registered as document No.YAN-1-
05144/2018-2019, stored in CD.No.YAND669, at the office of the Sub-Registrar Yelahanka, Bengaluru, executed by the defendant No.8 in favour of the defendant No.9 i.e. Mr.Praveen Kumar as not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of the suit schedule property and for permanent 35 O.S.No.15/2020 injunction to restrain the defendant No.9, his legal heirs, henchmen, representatives, successors, assigns etc. and all persons claiming through or under him from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff prays to decree the suit in his favour.
3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 9 have appeared through their respective learned Counsel. The defendant No.5 to 8 are remained absent, hence they are placed exparte. The defendant No.9 has filed written statement. The defendant No.1 to 4 have not filed their written statement.
4. The defendant No.9 has filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. The defendant No.9 contends that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has filed the present suit with malafide intention to harass and cause prejudice to him. The suit is barred by law of Limitation, there is no cause of action for the suit and alleged cause of action is imaginary, the suit is not 36 O.S.No.15/2020 properly valued and the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant No.9 denies that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e. bearing site No.101, Khatha No.224/364, Doddabettahalli village Panchayat formed out of converted land bearing survey No.20, Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk now under the revenue jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike of ward No.3 of Chikkabettahalli, phase II, Chikkabettahalli, Bengaluru measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 30 feet and the plaintiff has acquired the suit schedule property along with another site No.102, Khatha No.224/364, by way of a common deed of sale, dated:
23.01.2004, executed jointly by Sri.Abdul Kareem and others, represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder Sri.V.C.Reddappa Chetty, son of Late V.Venkataramaiah Chetty, in his favour and the suit schedule property is plotted out of a larger property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, 37 O.S.No.15/2020 Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk which is measuring about 9- acres and 6 -guntas belongs to one Mr.Madar Sab which devolved upon one Mr.Abdul Karim Sab, who exercised domain and ownership over the same. The defendant No.9 further denies that the children of Mr.Abdul Karim Sab and other family members have also executed a confirmation cum affidavit on 22.12.1988, duly confirming the absolute ownership of Mr.Abdul Karim Sab over the said property and on 20.05.1989, Mr.Abdul Karim Sab executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty, authorizing Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty to change the nature of the land from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes and also to convey the same to third parties either as a whole or in parts, to do all acts which is in the nature of a transfer, is coupled with interest and the clauses in the Attorney clothed him with absolute and unfettered over the property and accordingly, the Power of Attorney executed by Mr.Abdul Karim Sab in favour of Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty is 38 O.S.No.15/2020 irrevocable and cannot be extinguished or cancelled in law and Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty, as the Power of Attorney of Mr. Abdul Karim Sab and on the basis of the authority conferred upon him got the larger property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9 -
acres 06 -guntas, converted for non-agricultural residential purposes by way of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated: 12.11.1991 and on 09.12.1991, Mr. Abdul Karim Sab and others i.e. his family members executed another General Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty authorizing him to sell and transfer the larger property by way of residential plots in favour of third parties and thus by virtue of the transactions, Mr. Abdul Karim Sab and his legal heirs and other family members authorized that Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty could deal and transfer the entirety of the property bearing survey No.20 of measuring 9 -acres 06 - guntas in favour of third parties without any let, hindrance, or interference from anybody. The defendant 39 O.S.No.15/2020 No.9 further denies that Mr. Abdul Karim Sab and his family members also executed an agreement of sale on 09.12.1991 in favour of Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty in order to acknowledge the receipt of the entire sale consideration by them and in fact, Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty also paid them an additional sum of Rs.30,000/- as a goodwill for co-operation in culminating the contract and in pursuance to the agreement of sale and General Power of Attorney, Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty formed a private layout over the property bearing survey No.20 of measuring 9 -acres 06- guntas and plotted the same into residential sites and site bearing No.101, measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 30 feet was formed out thereof i.e. the suit schedule property conveyed by Mr.Abdul Karim Sab and others, represented by Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty, in favour of the plaintiff by way of a deed of sale, dated: 23.01.2004 and also which has been subsequently conveyed by the plaintiff in favour of his brother Mr. S.Rajendran, in terms of a deed of gift, dated: 16.07.2007. The defendant No.9 further denies 40 O.S.No.15/2020 that in pursuance to the agreement of sale and Power of Attorney executed by Mr. Abdul Karim Sab and others, on the basis of which site No.101 was conveyed on 23.01.2004 in favour of plaintiff, Mr.Abdul Karim Sab and others ceased to have any right, title, interest or possession over the site No.101, the suit schedule property which is carved out the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 06 -guntas.
The defendant No.9 admits that after the execution of the agreement of sale, GPA's which were irrevocable as they were coupled with interest in respect of Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 6 -guntas and would never be cancelled by the principals, the legal heirs of Mr.Abdul Kareem Sab, notwithstanding the same clandestinely conveyed the properties bearing No.20 measuring 9- acres 6- guntas in favour Mr.M.Mohan Raju i.e. the husband and father of defendant No.1 to 4 respectively in 41 O.S.No.15/2020 terms of 3 sale deeds by suppressing fact that they have already entered into transactions with Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty viz. (a) Sale deed dated: 09.12.1996, executed by legal heirs of Abdul Kareem Sab and others in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju in respect of the land measuring 3- acres out of 9 -acres 6 -guntas in Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, (b) sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by legal heirs of Abdul Kareem Sab and others in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju in respect of land measuring 3 -acres out of 9 -acres 6 -guntas in Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, (c) sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by legal heirs of Abdul Kareem Sab and others in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju in respect of the land measuring 3 -acres out of 9- acres 6 - guntas in Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The defendant No.9 contends that there is no whisper as to the date of demise of Mr.Abdul Kareem Sab. Further, after execution of aforesaid sale deeds in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju by 42 O.S.No.15/2020 the legal heirs of Abdul Kareem Sab and they have also handed over the vacant physical possession of the properties mentioned in the aforesaid sale deeds in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju. The said transactions have not challenged by GPA holder of Mr.Abdul Kareem Sab i.e. Sri.V.C.Reddappa Chetty for more than 12 years. Therefore, Sri.M.Mohan Raju has perfected his title by way of prescription. The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property said to be carved out of the larger portion of the land bearing Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, by way of sale deed dated: 23.01.2004 i.e. after lapse of 8 years from the date of purchase of the properties by Sri.M.Mohan Raju. The vendor of the plaintiff without having any right, title or interest and possession over the same has executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. So also the plaintiff has not at all mentioned the date of death of Mr.Abdul Kareem Sab, who has executed G.P.A in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit is bad in law for want of proper pleadings and the same is suppression of material facts. 43 O.S.No.15/2020 Further, on perusal of plaint and other documents in O.S.No.5668/2000, the suit schedule property is not involved in the said case. Neither the defendant No.9's vendor nor the defendant No.9 are the parties to the said case. Mr. V.C. Reddappa Chetty has paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to Mr. Mohan Raju as compensation in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties of the said suit, which clearly establishes that Mr. Mohan Raju has a valid right, title and interest along with the peaceful possession over the land bearing Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The defendant No.9 admits that in view of the interference of the defendants No.3, 5 and 6 over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.9772/2015 and the defendants in the said suit filed an application seeking to reject the plaint and accordingly the Court rejected the plaint vide order dated: 27.11.2017 and while rejecting the plaint has opined that the plaintiff has to file a comprehensive declaratory suit by relying upon the judgment of the 44 O.S.No.15/2020 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anathula Sudhakar -Vs- P.Buchi Reddy. The defendant No.9 further contends that the plaintiff has failed to take leave of this Court to file the instant suit as the plaintiff has no cause of action to seek declaratory relief on the same cause of action i.e. the cause of action accrued in the aforesaid suit for injunction. The cause of action is not recurring one and the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation as the plaintiff is asking declaratory relief based upon the sale deed dated: 23.01.2004. Though the plaintiff had knowledge about the alienation made by defendant No.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 to 7 while pendency of the suit for injunction, he has not taken any steps to change the injunction suit to a comprehensive suit and further he has failed to challenge the orders dated: 27.11.2017 passed in the aforesaid injunction suit. The defendant No.1 to 4 have rightly conveyed the site bearing No.101 carved out of Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli in favour of the defendant No.7 and who in turn executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.8 and the plaintiff has never possessed 45 O.S.No.15/2020 physical possession over the suit schedule property. Instead the defendants were possessed peaceful possession as per the sale deeds executed to their respective names. The defendant No.8 who possessed a valid right, title and interest along with the peaceful possession over the property bearing site No.101 carved out of Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, has rightly sold in favour of defendant No.9 who is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same. The defendant No.9 has also dug a bore well in it on 28.02.2020 by spending a huge sum of money. The plaintiff after obtaining a ground water investigating report from a Geologist to digged the bore well. The plaint itself disclosing the transactions between defendants and the question of unaware of the transactions by the plaintiff does not arise. The plaintiff had suppressed material facts and had come up with this suit only to harass defendant No.9 to grab the valuable property belongs to defendant No.9. The plaintiff is/was not at all in possession of the suit schedule property as it is crystal clear that he lost the suit filed by him for 46 O.S.No.15/2020 injunction and said orders in O.S.9772/2015 became final as unchallenged. As aforesaid, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit without taking permission from Court. The defendant No.9 further contends that he is an absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the residential converted site bearing No.101, Old BBMP Khatha No.926/101/20, New BBMP Khatha No.4653/20/101, formed in Sy.No.20, situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now Yelahanka Taluk, presently coming under the jurisdiction of BBMP, Attur ward, measuring East to West:
40 feet, North to South: 30 feet, in all measuring 1200 sq. feet, acquired by him from Sri.H.B.Manikanta, none other than the defendant No.8, for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated: 27.08.2018, registered as No.YAN-1-05114-2018-19, in Book -1, stored in CD.No.YAND669, in the office of the Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar (Yelahanka), Bengaluru. The name of defendant No.9 has entered in the relevant records of the BBMP and he has paid tax till date. The defendant No.9 is 47 O.S.No.15/2020 enjoying peaceful possession, right or title over his property and the plaintiff who is the stranger, without having any right title, interest and possession over the written statement schedule property approaching this Court suppressing the material facts with concocted documents only to knock off the valuable property belongs to defendant No.9. Hence, the defendant No.9 prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, following Issues have been framed by my learned Predecessor in Office. I have framed Recasted Issues.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he purchased the plaint schedule property and as such he is the owner of the said property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Maqbol Bi and others in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1153/2000- 01, Book No.1, Volume AV 1115, page 165- 169 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on plaintiff to the extent of plaint schedule property as against defendant No.1 to 4?
48 O.S.No.15/2020
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Maqbol Bi and others in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1419/2000- 01, Book No.1, Volume AV 1123 page 105- 109 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on plaintiff to the extent of plaint schedule property as against defendant Nos.1 to 4?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Maqbol Bi and others in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1067/2000- 01, Book No.1, Volume AV 1113 page 71- 75 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru North is not binding on plaintiff to the extent of plaint schedule property as against defendant Nos.1 to 4?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated: 19.12.2016 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.7 i.e., Mr.V.G. Pranav, registered document No.YAN-1- 06629/2016-17, stored in CD No.YAND638 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on plaintiff to the extent of plaint schedule property as against defendant No.7?
6. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated: 25.10.2017 executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.8 i.e., Mr.Manikanta H.B., registered document No.BYP-103559/2017-18, stored in CD No.BYPD248 at the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru is not binding on plaintiff to the extent of 49 O.S.No.15/2020 plaint schedule property as against defendant No.8?
7. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated: 27.08.2018 executed by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9 i.e., Mr.Praveen Kumar, registered document No.YAN-1-05144/2018-19, stored in CD No.YAND669 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on plaintiff to the extent of plaint schedule property as against defendant No.9?
8. Whether the defendants prove that, he is an absolute owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the residential converted site bearing No.101 old BBMP katha No.926/101/20, new BBMP kahta No.4653/20/101 formed in site No.20 situated at Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North as per sale deed registered as YAN-105114-2018- 19 in Book No.1, stored in CD No.YAND669 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru?
9. Whether the defendants prove that, the suit is suffered for non-joinder of necessary parties?
10. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that, he is the owner of the plaint schedule property?
50 O.S.No.15/2020
12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against defendant No.9 as prayed?
13. What order or decree?
RECASTED ISSUES FRAMED ON 10.10.2025
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is the owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1153/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1115, page 165-169 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.1 to 4?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1419/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1123 page 105-109 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit 51 O.S.No.15/2020 schedule property as against defendant Nos.1 to 4?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M. Mohan Raju, registered document No.1067/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1113 page 71-75 at the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru North is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant Nos.1 to 4?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated: 19.12.2016 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.7 registered document No.YAN-1-06629/2016-17, stored in CD No.YAND638 at the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.7?
6. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale seed dated: 25.10.2017 executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.8 registered document No.BYP-
103559/2017-18, stored in CD No.BYPD248 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.8?
52 O.S.No.15/2020
7. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated: 27.08.2018 executed by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9 registered document No.YAN-1- 05144/2018-19, stored in CD No.YAND669 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.9?
8. Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference by the defendant No.9 to his possession?
9. Whether the defendant No.9 proves that, he is owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the residential converted site bearing No.101 old BBMP khatha No.926/101/20, new BBMP khahta No.4653/20/101 formed in site No.20 situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North as per sale deed registered as YAN-105114-2018- 19 in Book No.1, stored in CD No.YAND669 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru?
10. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
11. Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation?
12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relied of the declaration as sought?
13. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction against the defendant No.9 as sought?
14. What order or decree?
53 O.S.No.15/2020
6. In support of the case, the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked 26 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26 and closed his side evidence. In rebuttal, the defendant No.9 is examined as D.W.1 and got marked 21 documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.21 and closed their side evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of both learned Counsels of both parties at length and perused the materials on record.
8. My findings on the above Recasted Issues are as under:
Recasted Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Recasted Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Recasted Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Recasted Issue No.4 : In the Negative
Recasted Issue No.5 : In the Negative
Recasted Issue No.6 : In the Negative
Recasted Issue No.7 : In the Negative
Recasted Issue No.8 : In the Negative
Recasted Issue No.9 : In the Affirmative
Recasted Issue No.10 : In the Negative
Recasted Issue No.11 : In the Negative
54 O.S.No.15/2020
Recasted Issue No.12 : In the Negative
Recasted Issue No.13 : In the Negative
Recasted Issue No.14 : As per the final
order for the following:
REASONS
9. RECASTED ISSUES NO.1 TO 9: These Issues are interrelated to each other and involve common appreciation of facts and evidence. Hence, to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken these Issues together for common consideration.
10. The plaintiff has asserted that he is the absolute owner and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has acquired the suit schedule property along with another site No.102, Khatha No.224/364, by way of a common deed of sale, dated: 23.01.2004, executed jointly by Sri.Abdul Kareem, Smt.Bibi Jan, Sri.Sheik Suban, Sri.Sheik Attaulla, Sri.Shari Allah Baksh, Sri.Mohammed Hanif, Sri.Zanu, Sri.Abdul Sattar, Sri.Abdul Rahman, represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder Sri.V.C.Reddappa Chetty, son of Late V.Venkataramaiah 55 O.S.No.15/2020 Chetty, in his favour and it was registered as document No.14939/2003-04, stored in CD No.YAND1, dated:
27.01.2004 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. The suit schedule property is plotted out of a larger property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk which is measuring about 9- acres and 06 -guntas in extent. On 20.05.1989, Mr.Abdul Karim Sab executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty, which was duly registered as document No.38/89-90, Book IV, volume 75, pages 140, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru North Taluk, authorizing Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty to change the nature of the land from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes and also to convey the same to third parties either as a whole or in parts. The said Power of Attorney empowering Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty to do all acts which is in the nature of a transfer is coupled with interest. Accordingly, the Power of Attorney executed by Mr.Abdul Karim Sab in favour of Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty is irrevocable and 56 O.S.No.15/2020 cannot be extinguished or cancelled in law.
Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty, as the Power of Attorney of Mr.Abdul Karim Sab and on the basis of the authority conferred upon him got the larger property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 06 -guntas, converted for non-agricultural residential purposes by way of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated:
12.11.1991. On 09.12.1991, Mr.Abdul Karim Sab and others i.e. his family members executed another General Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.V.C.Reddappa Chetty authorizing him to sell and transfer the larger property by way of residential plots in favour of third parties. The plaintiff was put in possession of the said plot in pursuance to the aforesaid deed of sale dated:
27.01.2004 in his favour by his vendors. In pursuance to the agreement of sale and Power of Attorney executed by Mr.Abdul Karim Sab and others, on the basis of which site No.101 was conveyed on 23.01.2004 in favour of plaintiff, Mr. Abdul Karim Sab and others ceased to have any right, 57 O.S.No.15/2020 title, interest or possession over the site No.101, the suit schedule property which is carved out the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9-
acres 06 -guntas. The legal heirs of Late Abdul Karim Sab namely Smt.Makbul Bi and others have executed the sale deeds. In fact, the sale deeds executed in favour of Mr.M.Mohan Raju by the legal heirs of Late Abdul Karim Sab and others were sham and concocted documents and Mr.M.Mohan Raju was not a bonafide purchaser, hence did not have any semblance of right, title or interest over the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9 -acres 6 -guntas and the alleged deeds of sale did not clothe him with any rights of ownership or domain over the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 6- guntas. When the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same in terms of an absolute sale 58 O.S.No.15/2020 deed dated: 23.01.2004, the defendant No.1 to 4 had no semblance of right, title or interest to convey the schedule property in favour of the defendant No.5 and 6 and as such, said agreement of sale is illegal and non-est in law. The deed of sale dated: 19.12.2016 executed in favour of the defendant No.7 is not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant No.7 having come to know that he had purchased the suit schedule property during the pendency of the O.S.No.9772/2015 filed by the plaintiff before the 37th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.8 on 25.10.2017. The defendant No.8, who too came to know about the cloud in his title over the suit schedule property, then executed a deed of sale on 27.08.2018 in favour of defendant No.9 by way of an absolute sale deed dated: 27.08.2018. When this being the factual situation, on 25.08.2019 the defendant No.9 has started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by bringing goonda elements and other anti-social persons and forcibly tried 59 O.S.No.15/2020 to throw the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff somehow with great difficulty and on threatening that the said persons, he would file cases and complaints against them was able to thwart the said persons. The defendant No.9 and his henchmen yet again came to the suit schedule property on 27.10.2019 and tried to physically take possession of the schedule property and site No.101. The plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property.
11. Per contra, the defendant No.9 has contended that there is no whisper as to the date of demise of Mr.Abdul Kareem Sab. Further, after execution of aforesaid sale deeds in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju by the legal heirs of Abdul Kareem Sab and they have also handed over the vacant physical possession of the properties mentioned in the aforesaid sale deeds in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju. The said transactions have not challenged by GPA holder of Mr.Abdul Kareem Sab i.e. Sri.V.C.Reddappa Chetty for more than 12 years. Therefore, Sri.M.Mohan Raju has perfected his title by 60 O.S.No.15/2020 way of prescription. The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property said to be carved out of the larger portion of the land bearing Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, by way of sale deed dated: 23.01.2004 i.e. after lapse of 8 years from the date of purchase of the properties by Sri.M.Mohan Raju. The vendor of the plaintiff without having any right, title or interest and possession over the same has executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. So also the plaintiff has not at all mentioned the date of death of Mr.Abdul Kareem Sab, who has executed G.P.A in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. Further, on perusal of plaint and other documents in O.S.No.5668/2000, the suit schedule property is not involved in the said case. Mr.V.C. Reddappa Chetty has paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to Mr.Mohan Raju as compensation in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties of the said suit, which clearly establishes that Mr.Mohan Raju has a valid right, title and interest along with the peaceful possession over the land bearing Sy.No.20 of 61 O.S.No.15/2020 Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The defendant No.1 to 4 have rightly conveyed the site bearing No.101 carved out of Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli in favour of the defendant No.7 and who in turn executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.8. The defendant No.8 who possessed a valid right, title and interest along with the peaceful possession over the property bearing site No.101 carved out of Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, has rightly sold in favour of defendant No.9 who is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same. The defendant No.9 has also dug a bore well in it on 28.02.2020 by spending a huge sum of money. The defendant No.9 has contended that he is an absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the residential converted site bearing No.101, old BBMP Khatha No.926/101/20, New BBMP Khatha No.4653/20/101, formed in Sy.No.20, situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now Yelahanka Taluk, presently coming under the jurisdiction of BBMP, Attur ward, measuring East to West: 62 O.S.No.15/2020
40 feet, North to South: 30 feet, in all measuring 1200 sq. feet, acquired by him from Sri.H.B.Manikanta, none other than the defendant No.8, for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated: 27.08.2018. The defendant No.9 is enjoying peaceful possession, right, title over his property.
12. In order to substantiate the contention, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief and he is examined as P.W.1. The P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint. The defendant No.9 has filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief and he is examined as D.W.1. The D.W.1 has reiterated the contents of written statement.
13. The plaintiff has relied on documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26.
14. The defendant No.9 has relied on documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.21.
15. The plaintiff has relied on Ex.P.1 - Demand register pertaining to the year 2003-04, Ex.P.2 - Receipt 63 O.S.No.15/2020 issued by Zilla Panchayath of Bengaluru for payment of tax dated: 04.05.2004, Ex.P.3 - Receipt issued by Zilla Panchayath of Bengaluru for payment of tax dated:
20.12.2010, Ex.P.4 - Receipt issued by Zilla Panchayath of Bengaluru for payment of tax dated: 04.12.2007, Ex.P.5 - Property tax receipt pertaining to the year 2019-
2020, Ex.P.6 - Encumbrance certificates pertaining to the year 01.06.1989 to 31.03.2004 for site No.101 khata No.224/364, Sy.No.20, Ex.P.7 - Encumbrance certificates pertaining to the year 01.04.2004 to 03.09.2019 for site No.101 khatha No.4653/20/101, Survey No.20, Ex.P.8 - Nil Encumbrance certificates pertaining to the year 29.08.2019 to 20.11.2019 for site No.101 khatha No.224/364, survey No.20, Ex.P.9 - Certified copy of sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi and others in favour of M.Mohan Raju, Ex.P.10 - Certified copy of sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi and others in favour of M.Mohan Raju, Ex.P.11 - Certified copy of sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi and others in favour of M.Mohan Raju, Ex.P.12 - 64 O.S.No.15/2020 Certified copy of the agreement of sale dated:
22.06.2015 executed by M.Shanthamma, Chandrashekhar Raju, Rajashekar Raju and Shashikala through GPA holder Rajashekhar Raju in favour of Abdul Khaum Shekh and M.Usuf Khan, Ex.P.13 - Original letter issued by Senior Sub-registrar of Byatarayanapura on 20.12.2015 for withholding of registration of the property, Ex.P.13(a) - RPAD cover, Ex.P.14 - Certified copy of the sale deed dated: 19.12.2016, Ex.P.15 - Certified copy of the sale deed dated: 05.01.2017 executed by V.G.Pranav in favour of Mohan Kumar M.R, Ex.P.16 - Certified copy of the cancellation of sale agreement dated: 25.10.2017 executed between the defendant No.7 and Mohan Kumar, Ex.P.17 - Certified copy of sale deed dated: 25.10.2017 executed by the defendant No.7 in favour of the defendant No.8, Ex.P.18 - Certified copy of the sale deed dated: 27.08.2018 executed by the defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9, Ex.P.19 - Certified copy of the order passed on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC by CCH-38 in O.S.No.9772/2015, Ex.P.20 - 65 O.S.No.15/2020
Sale deed dated: 23.01.2004, Ex.P.21 - Certified copy of affidavit, Ex.P.22 - Certified copy of General Power of Attorney, dated: 20.05.1989, Ex.P.23 - Certified copy of General Power of Attorney, dated: 09.07.1992, Ex.P.24 - Certified copy of letter of information dated: 18.10.2003, Ex.P.25 - Certified copy of official memorandum dated:
04.11.2003 and Ex.P.26 - Certified copy of settlement deed dated: 25.03.2004.
16. The defendant No.9 has relied on Ex.D.1 - Sale deed dated: 19.12.2016, Ex.D.2 - Sale deed dated:
25.10.2017, Ex.D.3 - Sale deed, dated: 27.08.2018, Ex.D.4 - Form-B property register extract issued by the BBMP, Ex.D.5 - Receipt issued by the BBMP, Ex.D.6 to Ex.D.17 - Property tax paid receipts, Ex.D.18 - Invoice, Ex.D.19 - Ground water level investigation survey report, Ex.D.20 - Letter given to the Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP, Bengaluru and Ex.D.21 - Encumbrance certificate.
17. The learned Counsel Sri.Unnikrishnan M, appearing for plaintiff has vehemently argued that the 66 O.S.No.15/2020 plaintiff is the absolute owner and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has acquired the suit schedule property along with another site No.102, Khatha No.224/364 and the suit schedule property is plotted out of a larger property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk which is measuring about 9- acres and 06 -guntas in extent. In fact, the sale deeds executed in favour of Mr.M.Mohan Raju by the legal heirs of Late Abdul Karim Sab and others were sham and concocted documents and Mr.M.Mohan Raju was not a bonafide purchaser, hence did not have any semblance of right, title or interest over the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9 -acres 6 -guntas and the alleged deeds of sale did not clothe him with any rights of ownership or domain over the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 6- guntas and when the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property 67 O.S.No.15/2020 having acquired the same in terms of an absolute sale deed dated: 23.01.2004, the defendant No.1 to 4 had no semblance of right, title or interest to convey the schedule property in favour of the defendant No.5 and 6 and as such, said agreement of sale is illegal and non-est in law and the defendant No.8, who too came to know about the cloud in his title over the suit schedule property, then executed a deed of sale on 27.08.2018 in favour of defendant No.9 by way of an absolute sale deed dated: 27.08.2018 and the plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. The learned Counsel Sri.N.Dinakar, appearing for defendant No.9 has vehemently argued that that there is no whisper as to the date of demise of Mr.Abdul Kareem Sab and after execution of aforesaid sale deeds in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju by the legal heirs of Abdul Kareem Sab and they have also handed over the vacant physical possession of the properties mentioned in the aforesaid sale deeds in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju and the vendor of the plaintiff without having any right, title or interest 68 O.S.No.15/2020 and possession over the same has executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant No.9 is an absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property.
18. The learned Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon following decisions:
1. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1725/20109 in case of Iqbal Basith and others -Vs- N. Subbalakshmi and others.
2. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8176/2022 in case of Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel and others -Vs- M/s.
S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited and others.
3. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R.F.A.No.744/2016 C/W RFA.No.743/2016 in the case of Sri. Chinnappa, since deceased by his LRs. and others -Vs-
Smt. Sharadamma W/o.Sharadamma.
4. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in Civil Revision Petition No.88/2024 (IO) in case of M/s. Jade Garden Plot Owner's Association, Bengaluru -Vs- Smt. Bhagyalakshmi and others.
69 O.S.No.15/2020I have bestowed my anxious considerations to the principles emerges from these respected decisions.
19. On perusal of Ex.P.1 which shows that property No.101 and 102 situated at Doddabettahalli village are standing in the name of plaintiff for the year 2003-04. The plaintiff has relied document at Ex.P.5 - Property tax paid receipt. On perusal of Ex.P.9 which shows that Sri.Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar have executed sale deed on 09.12.1996 in favour of Sri.Mohan Raju in respect of property bearing Sy.No.20 extent of 3 -acres 6- guntas out of 9- acres 6- guntas situated at Chikkabettahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. On perusal of Ex.P.10 which shows that Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar have executed sale deed on 09.12.1996 in favour of Sri.Mohan Raju in 70 O.S.No.15/2020 respect of property bearing Sy.No.20 extent 3 -acres out of 9- acres 6- guntas situated at Chikkabettahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. On perusal of Ex.P.11 which shows that shows that Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar have executed sale deed on 09.12.1996 in favour of Sri. Mohan Raju in respect of property bearing Sy.No.20 extent 3- acres out of 9 -acres 6- guntas situated at Chikkabettahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. On perusal of Ex.P.12 which shows that the defendant Nos.1 to 4, represented by General Power of Attorney Holder defendant No.4 have executed sale agreement on 22.06.2015 in favour of defendant No.5 and 6 in respect of item Nos.1 to 11 of schudule properties situated Chikkabettahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. On perusal of Ex.P.14 which shows that defendant Nos.1 and 2 represneted by the General Power of Attorney Holder M.Rajashekar and defendnat Nos.3 and 4 have 71 O.S.No.15/2020 executed sale deed on 19.12.2016 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P.15 which shows that the defendant No.7 has executed sale agreement dated: 05.10.2017 in favour of Mr.Mohan Kumar M.R in respect of suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P.16 which shows that cancellation of sale agreement is executed on 25.10.2017 between the defendant No.7 and Mohan Kumar M.R in respect of suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P.17 which shows that the defendant No.7 has executed sale deed on 25.10.2017 in favour of defendant No.8 in respect of suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P.18 which shows that the defendant No.8 has executed sale deed on 27.08.2018 in favour of defendant No.9 in respect of suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P.19 which shows that the plaintiff and another have filed a suit in O.S.No.9772/2015 wherein I.A. filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC against defendant Nos.4 and others, which is allowed on 27.11.2017 by XXXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. On perusal of Ex.P.20 which 72 O.S.No.15/2020 shows that Sri.Abdul Kareem, Smt.Bibi Jan, Sri. Sheik Suban, Sri.Sheik Attaulla, Sri.Shari Allah Baksh, Sri.Mohammed Hanif, Sri.Zanu, Sri.Abdul Sattar, Sri.Abdul Rahman represented by General Power of Attorney Holder Sri.V.C. Reddappa Chetty have executed sale deed on 23.01.2004 in favour of plaintiff in respect of property bearing No.101 and 102 in Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring East- West: 40 feet, North-South: 60 feet. On perusal of Ex.P.22 which shows that Sri.Abdul Kareem S/o. Chikka Madar Sab has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri.V.C.Reddappa Chetty in respect of land bearing Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. On perusal of Ex.P.23 which shows that Sri.Abdul Kareem S/o.Chikka Madar Sab and others have executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri.V.C.Reddappa Chetty in respect of land bearing Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. On perusal of Ex.P.25 which shows that conversion Order is passed on 04.11.2003 by 73 O.S.No.15/2020 the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk in respect of Sy.No.20 measuring 14-guntas out of 9-acres 20 -gunta Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. On perusal of Ex.P.26 which shows that deed is executed on 25.03.2004 between Sri.Mohan Raj S/o. Rajaraju and V.K.Rama and others in respect of Sy.No.20 measuring 14-guntas out of 9-acres 20 -gunta Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
20. On perusal of Ex.D.1 which shows that the defendant Nos.1 and 2, represented by General Power of Attorney Holder Sri.M.Rajashekar of the defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 have executed sale deed on 19.12.2016 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.D.2 which shows that the defendant No.7 has executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.8 on 25.10.2017 in respect of suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.D.3 which shows that the defendant No.8 has executed sale deed on 27.08.2018 in favour of defendant No.9 in respect of suit 74 O.S.No.15/2020 schedule property. On perusal of Ex.D.4 which shows that suit schedule property is standing in the name of defendant No.8. The defendant No.9 has relied documents at Ex.D.6 to 17 - Property tax paid receipts.
21. So far as oral evidence of both parties is concerned to lis that the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint. The P.W.1 has admitted in cross examination that: " ನಿ.ಪಿ.20 ರ ಪುಟ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 4, ಪ್ಯಾರಾ ನಂ.4 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಬ್ದು ಲ್ಖರೀಂ ರವರು ದಿಃ 20.06.1995 ರಲ್ಲಿ ತೀರಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನಮೂದು ಮಾಡಿರುವುದು ಸರಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ." The defendant No.9 is examined as D.W.1 and D.W.1 has reiterated averments of written statement.
22. In instant case, though the defendant No.1 to 4 have appeared, but they have not filed written statement. The defendant No.9 has deposed and contended that, he is absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of residential converted site bearing No.101, old BBMP Khatha No.9626/101/20, New BBMP Khatha No.4653/20/101 formed in Sy.No.20, situated at 75 O.S.No.15/2020 Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Now Yelahanka Taluk, presently coming under the jurisdiction of BBMP, Attur ward, measuring East to West:
40 feet, North to South: 30 feet, in all measuring 1200 sq. feet acquired by him from the defendant No.8 and his vendor defendant No.8 has said property by way of sale deed dated: 25.10.2017 and vendor's vendor defendant No.7 has acquired said property by way of sale deed, dated: 19.12.2016 from the defendant No.1 to 4 who are none other than the legal heirs of Late Mohan Raju and there is no whisper as to the date of demise of Mr.Abdul Kareem Sab in the plaint. Further, the defendant No.9 has contended that, vendors of plaintiff without having right, title and interest and possession over same has executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff. On perusal of recital of Ex.P.20 which demonstrates that:
"Whereas, Sri.Abdul Kareem who had executed irrevocable General Power of Attorney along with other Co-owners and received the entire sale consideration in respect of the entire land. Thus the 76 O.S.No.15/2020 Power of Attorney is an irrevocable one through Sri.Abdul Kareem died on 20.06.1995. The Power of Attorney being irrevocable one, supported by consideration, the Power of Attorney Holder is having right to execute deed of conveyance in respect of the above said property even on behalf of Sri.Abdul Kareem. Hence, he has also been made as Vendor."
23. The plaintiff has contended that he is bonafied purchaser of suit schedule property. The execution of sale deed dated: 23.01.2004 in favour of the plaintiff as per Ex.P.20 is subsequent to execution of the sale deeds dated: 09.12.1996 in favour of Sri.M.Mohan Raju as per Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11. Though the plaintiff has contended that the sale deeds executed in favour of Mr.M.Mohan Raju by the legal heirs of Late Abdul Kareem Sab and others are sham and concocted documents and Mr.M.Mohan Raju was not a bonafide purchaser, hence did not have any semblance of right, title or interest over the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli 77 O.S.No.15/2020 village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9 -acres 06 -guntas and the alleged deeds of sale did not clothe him with any rights of ownership or domain over the property bearing survey No.20 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 9- acres 06- guntas, these facts are not proved by him by leading corroborative evidence.
24. By considering entire evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and documents exhibited on both sides, on close scrutiny of pleadings of both parties and on careful appreciation of evidence, the plaintiff has not proved that, he is the owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated:
09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1153/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1115, page 165-169 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding 78 O.S.No.15/2020 on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.1 to 4. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1419/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1123 page 105- 109 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated:
09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1067/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1113 page 71-75 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru North is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as 79 O.S.No.15/2020 against defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated: 19.12.2016 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.7 registered document No.YAN-1-06629/2016-17, stored in CD.No.YAND638 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.7. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale seed dated:
25.10.2017 executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.8 registered document No.BYP- 103559/2017-18, stored in CD No.BYPD248 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.8. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated: 27.08.2018 executed by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9 registered document No.YAN-1-05144/2018-19, stored in CD.No.YAND669 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.9. The plaintiff has not proved 80 O.S.No.15/2020 that the alleged interference by the defendant No.9 to his possession. The defendant No.9 has proved that, he is owner and in possession and enjoyment of the residential converted site bearing No.101 old BBMP khatha No.926/101/20, New BBMP khahta No.4653/20/101 formed in site No.20 situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North as per sale deed registered as YAN-105114-2018-19 in Book No.1, stored in CD.No.YAND669 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. Hence, I answer Recasted Issue Nos.1 to 8 in the Negative and Recasted Issue No.9 in the Affirmative.
25. RECASTED ISSUE NO.10: The defendant No.9 contends that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff has denied this facts. The defendant No.9 has failed to prove this Issue. Hence, I answer Recasted Issue No.10 in the Negative.
26. RECASTED ISSUE NO.11: The defendant No.9 has contended that, suit is barred by law of Limitation. 81 O.S.No.15/2020 Further the defendant No.9 has contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action to seek declaratory relief on the same cause of action i.e. the cause of action accrued in the suit for injunction in O.S.No.9772/2015 in which the Court had rejected the plaint vide orders dated: 27.11.2017 and the cause of action is not recurring one and the suit is hopelessly barred by law of Limitation as the plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief based upon the sale deed dated: 23.01.2004. The plaintiff has denied these facts. Looking to the nature of the suit, facts and circumstances of this suit and on perusal of Ex.P.19, this suit is filed within time. Hence, the defendant No.9 has failed to prove this Issue. Hence, I answer Recasted Issue No.11 in Negative.
27. RECASTED ISSUE NO.12: At the outset, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case. The plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the defendants. The principles laid down in the respected Judgments relied by the learned Counsel for plaintiff are not applicable under the facts 82 O.S.No.15/2020 and circumstance to this case. The plaintiff has not proved that, he is the owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated:
09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1153/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1115, page 165-169 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.1 to 4. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1419/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1123 page 105- 109 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit 83 O.S.No.15/2020 schedule property as against defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated:
09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1067/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1113 page 71-75 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru North is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated: 19.12.2016 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.7 registered document No.YAN-1-06629/2016-17, stored in CD No.YAND638 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.7. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale seed dated: 25.10.2017 executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.8 registered document No.BYP- 84 O.S.No.15/2020
103559/2017-18, stored in CD No.BYPD248 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.8. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated: 27.08.2018 executed by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9 registered document No.YAN-1-05144/2018-19, stored in CD.No.YAND669 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.9. The defendant No.9 has proved that, he is owner and in possession and enjoyment of the residential converted site bearing No.101 old BBMP khatha No.926/101/20, New BBMP khahta No.4653/20/101 formed in site No.20 situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North as per sale deed registered as YAN-105114-2018-19 in Book No.1, stored in CD.No.YAND669 in the office of Sub- Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration as sought. Hence, I answer Recasted Issue No.12 in Negative. 85 O.S.No.15/2020
28. RECASTED ISSUE NO.13: The plaintiff has not proved that, he is the owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated:
09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1153/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1115, page 165-169 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.1 to 4. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated: 09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1419/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1123 page 105- 109 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit 86 O.S.No.15/2020 schedule property as against defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated:
09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi, Mohammed Raffik, Samiulla Alias Papa, Saffiulla Alias Munna, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Shaik Athulla, Fareeda Begam, Mohammad Haneef, Shaik Jainulla and Abdull Sattar in favour of M.Mohan Raju, registered document No.1067/2000-01, Book No.1, volume AV 1113 page 71-75 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru North is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated: 19.12.2016 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.7 registered document No.YAN-1-06629/2016-17, stored in CD No.YAND638 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.7. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale seed dated: 25.10.2017 executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.8 registered document No.BYP- 87 O.S.No.15/2020
103559/2017-18, stored in CD No.BYPD248 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.8. The plaintiff has not proved that, the sale deed dated: 27.08.2018 executed by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9 registered document No.YAN-1-05144/2018-19, stored in CD.No.YAND669 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on him to the extent of suit schedule property as against defendant No.9. The plaintiff has not proved that the alleged interference by the defendant No.9 to his possession. The defendant No.9 has proved that, he is owner and in possession and enjoyment of the residential converted site bearing No.101 old BBMP khatha No.926/101/20, New BBMP khahta No.4653/20/101 formed in site No.20 situated at Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North as per sale deed registered as YAN-105114-2018-19 in Book No.1, stored in CD.No.YAND669 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. Hence, the plaintiff is not 88 O.S.No.15/2020 entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought. Hence, I answer Recasted Issue No.13 in Negative.
29. RECASTED ISSUE NO.14: For aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is not entitled for reliefs of declaration, and permanent injunction of the suit schedule property. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Typist directly on computer online, typed by him corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 13th day of October, 2025) Digitally signed by SHIVANAND SHIVANAND MARUTI MARUTI JIPARE JIPARE Date:
2025.10.13 18:09:08 +0530 (SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE) LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU 89 O.S.No.15/2020 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Mr. Subramanian, S/o.Sri.U.Sellakkutti.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.P.1 : Demand registers pertaining to the year 2003-04.
Ex.P.2 : Receipt issued by Zilla Panchayath of Bengaluru for payment of tax dated:
04.05.2004.
Ex.P.3 : Receipt issued by Zilla Panchayath of Bengaluru for payment of tax dated:
20.12.2010.
Ex.P.4 : Receipt for payment of tax dated:
04.12.2007.
Ex.P.5 : Property tax receipt pertaining to the year 2019-2020.
Ex.P.6 : Encumbrance certificates pertaining to the year 01.06.1989 to 31.03.2004 for site No.101 in Sy.No.20.
Ex.P.7 : Encumbrance certificates pertaining to the year 01.04.2004 to 03.09.2019 for site No.101, in Sy.No.20.
90 O.S.No.15/2020Ex.P.8 : Nil Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the year 29.08.2019 to 20.11.2019 for site No.101 khatha No.224/364, Sy.No.20. Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of sale deed dated:
09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi and others in favour of M.Mohan Raju.
Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of sale deed dated:
09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi and others in favour of M.Mohan Raju.
Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of sale deed dated:
09.12.1996 executed by Makbul Bi and others in favour of M.Mohan Raju.
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of the agreement of sale dated: 22.06.2015.
Ex.P.13 : Original letter issued by Senior Sub-
Registrar of Byatarayanapura on 20.12.2015 for withholding of registration of the property.
Ex.P.13(a) : RPAD cover.
Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of the absolute sale deed dated: 19.12.2016.
Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of sale deed dated:
05.01.2017.
Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of the cancellation of sale agreement dated: 25.10.2017.
Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated:
25.10.2017 executed by V.G.Pranav in favour of Manikanta H.B. 91 O.S.No.15/2020 Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of the absolute sale deed dated: 27.08.2018 executed by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9.
Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of the order passed on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC in O.S.No.9772/2015 passed by XXXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.20 : Sale deed dated: 23.01.2004 executed by Sri.Abdul Khareem and others represented by their General Power of Attorney holder V.C.Reddappa Chetty in favour the plaintiff.
Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of affidavit.
Ex.P.22 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney, dated: 20.05.1989.
Ex.P.23 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney, dated: 09.07.1992.
Ex.P.24 : Certified copy of letter of information dated: 18.10.2003.
Ex.P.25 : Certified copy of conservation order dated: 04.11.2003.
Ex.P.26 :
Certified copy of deed dated: 25.03.2004. 92 O.S.No.15/2020 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : Sri.Praveen Kumar V,
S/o. Late Divakar N.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Sale deed dated: 19.12.2016.
Ex.D.2 : Sale deed dated: 25.10.2017.
Ex.D.3 : Sale deed, dated: 27.08.2018.
Ex.D.4 : Form-B property register extract issued
by the BBMP.
Ex.D.5 : Receipt issued by the BBMP.
Ex.D.6 to : Property tax paid receipts.
Ex.D.17
Ex.D.18 : Invoice.
Ex.D.19 : Ground water level investigation survey
report.
Ex.D.20 : Letter given to the Assistant Revenue
Officer, BBMP, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.21 : Nil Encumbrance certificate.
Digitally signed
by SHIVANAND
SHIVANAND MARUTI
MARUTI JIPARE
JIPARE Date:
2025.10.13
18:09:14 +0530
(SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE)
LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.