Bangalore District Court
Sri.C.Puttaiah vs Sri.Saranagapani on 19 December, 2015
[C.R.P. 67] Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.28]
Present: Ms.VELA.D.K., B.A.L., LL.B., (Hon's)
XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2015
O.S.No.8396/2002
Plaintiff/s : 1. Sri.C.Puttaiah,
Since deceased by LRs
1(a) Smt.Puttamma,
W/o. Late Puttaiah,
Aged about 65 years,
(b) Sri.P.Ramachandra,
S/o late Puttaiah,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at :No.22, Lakshminarasimha
swamy Nilaya,
Annapoorneshwarinagar,
Bengaluru-560091
(c) Sri.P.Ravikumar,
S/o late Puttaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
(d) Sri.P.Bettaswamy,
S/o late Puttaiah,
Aged about 33 years,
Applicants No.1(a), (c) (d) are
R/at : Kamakshipalya, Near
AmbaBhavani Temple, 1st Main,
2 O.S.No.8396/2002
Magadi Road, Bengaluru-560079.
(e) Smt.Kamalamma,
W/o Nanjappa,
Aged about 46 years
(f) Smt.Yeshodamma,
W/o Shivalingaiah,
Aged about 46 years
(g) Smt.Lakshmidevi,
W/o Jagadish,
Aged about 48 years
(h) Smt.Nagarathna,
D/o late Puttaiah,
Aged about 33 years
1(e) to 1(h) R/at : Vrushabhathi
Nagar, 5th Main, near Muneshwara
Temple, Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore-560079.
2. Sri.K.C.Channanarasimhaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
Since dead by his L.Rs:
(a) Smt.Thimmakka,
W/o late K.C.Channanarasimhaiah
Aged about 53 years,
(b) Sri.C.Nagaraju,
S/o late K.C.Channanarasimhaiah
Aged about 33 years
(c) Sri.C.Basavaraju,
S/o late K.C.Channanarasimhaiah
Aged about 31 years
(d) Smt. Narasamma,
D/o late K.C.Channanarasimhaiah
W/o Hanumanthegowda,
3 O.S.No.8396/2002
Aged about 28 years
All are R/at No.34/4, 1st Main Road,
Near Ambha Maheshwari Temple,
Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru-560079.
3. Sri.K.C.Ramaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
All are sons of late Chennigappa,
All are R/at: Kamakshipalya,
Near Ambha Bhavani Temple,
1st Main, Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru-560079.
(By Sri. N.G.H., Advocate)
- Vs -
Defendant/s : 1. Sri.Saranagapani,
S/o. Nagaraja Reddy,
Major, R/at: No.92,
Sy.No.47/2, Laggere,
(Premanagara),
Bangalore-560 058.
2. Smt. Chikkathayamma,
W/o B.Ningaiah, Major,
R/a: No.81, 9th Cross Road,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bangalore-560086.
3. M/s.Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-Op. Society, No.20,
2nd Main, Kodandaramapuram,
Bangalore-560003.
Rep. By its Secretary.
[By Sri. MGS, Advocate.
Defendants No.2 & 3 exparte)
4 O.S.No.8396/2002
Date of institution
of the suit : 13-12-2002
Nature of the suit :
[suit on pronote, suit
for declaration and
possession, suit
for injunction] : Declaration, Possession
and Permanent Injunction
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence: 07-02-2013
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 19-12-2015
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration 13- -00- -06-
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for Declaration, Possession and consequential relief of Permanent Injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners of the property bearing Sy.No.47/2 situated at Laggere village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 2 Acre 12 Guntas. The plaintiffs are said to have inherited the said property from their father. One Muniyappa is said to be the grandfather of all the plaintiffs who is said to have two sons namely Narasimhaiah and Chennigappa. Joint family properties of said Muniyappa is said to have been divided into two parts equally among his sons namely Narasimhaiah and Chennigappa. Subsequent 5 O.S.No.8396/2002 to the partition, the properties are said to have fallen to the share of Chennigappa and continued in his possession and his three sons i.e., plaintiffs jointly. The land in Sy.No.47/2 measuring 2.12 Acres is said to be the one such property fallen to the share of Chennigappa and to have continued in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and their father Chennigappa. Subsequent to the partition, Susheelamma i.e., daughter-in-law of Narasimhaiah is said to have filed a suit for partition before the Munsiff Court in Bangalore in O.S.No.726/1968. On the death of husband Muniyappa, it is said to have continued against the husband's brothers Channappa and his sister Ningamma. In the said suit Susheelamma is said to have claimed her share in the properties fallen to her father-in-law Narasimhaiah. The said suit was said to be decreed in favour of Susheelamma wherein the existence of the plaintiffs' land towards the north of Susheelamma is said to be mentioned. Subsequent to the partition, the plaintiffs are said to have been cultivating the land in Sy.No.47/2 and the revenue officials are said to have entered the name of Puttaiah in the RTC records. The revenue department is said to have effected inheritance katha of the land in Sy.No.47/2 of Laggere village, Yeshwanthapura hobli, wherein the suit schedule property situated by accepting mutation in favour of the plaintiffs vide IHC.No.1/2000-2001. The revenue 6 O.S.No.8396/2002 department is said to have assessed the plaintiff's property for assessment and collected the tax up to 2001. The village accountant of Peenya revenue circle, Bangalore North Taluk is said to have issued endorsement stating that the plaintiffs to have paid the tax up to date. The revenue department is said to have entered the RTC of the suit schedule property for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 in the name of the plaintiffs. The Bangalore Development Authority is said to have proposed to form outer ring road through and on the plaintiffs land in Sy.No.47/2. During the acquisition proceedings, the BDA is said to have issued award notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in the name of the plaintiffs who are said to be the owners of the land calling upon them to produce title document and to hand over the possession of the land enabling the authority for apportionment of the compensation in LAC No.4/1999-2000 dtd:24/03/2001. In response to the said award notice, the plaintiffs are said to have filed documents of their title claiming compensation with the BDA and the said case is said to be pending for adjudication before the City Civil Court, Bangalore. Defendant No.3 is said to have been forged the signatures of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and created, fabricated GPA dtd:12/03/1982 as if the parties to have appointed the defendant No.3 as their lawful attorney to do the acts, deed 7 O.S.No.8396/2002 and things mentioned therein. Defendant No.3 is said to have pretended as GPA and is said to be registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. The 3rd' defendant society is said to be knows for work of fraud, forgery and cheating in Bangalore. It is said to have indulged in such cases of creation of fake documents, fabrication of documents and forgery of the documents relating to third parties and to sell the said land for some body as if it is the owner of that land. This is said to be inspite that, it is said to have not acquired any valid title. Defendant No.3 is said to have indulged in creating antedated documents also. The plaintiffs were said to be capable to secure the copy of the GPA defendant:12/03/1982 forged by the 3rd defendant. Thereafter the plaintiffs are said to have started hunting to find out the forgery and fraud of the 3rd defendant, in regard to the existence of the registered GPA. In this regard Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, is said to have issued endorsement stating that no such document to be registered in their office.
3. The Sy.No.47/2 is said to be an agricultural land and there is said to be no formation of any lay out as on the date of the GPA dtd:12/03/1982. But against that fact, it is said to be mentioned in the alleged GPA about formation of 8 O.S.No.8396/2002 the sites and plaintiffs and others to have appointed the defendant No.3 as their attorney for the sites No.1 to 144 which is said to show fabrication of GPA and the forgery of the document fraudulently. According to the 2nd defendant, the 3rd is said to have acquired the title of the suit property and become its owner on account of the alleged GPA. On the strength of the forged GPA, the 3rd defendant is said to have claimed the source of title to the suit property from the 3rd defendant as he is said to have purchased the suit property vide dtd:17/02/1982 and to have sold in favour of the 1st defendant vide sale deed defendant:23/04/1998. The 1st defendant is said to have claimed the title to the suit property from the 2nd defendant who is said to be in its possession at present. The 3rd defendant's society is said to be declared as fake society.
4. The defendants 1 and 2 are said to have remained silent for all these years as they are said to have transacted with the fake society and sold the sites on forged documents. One of such instance and fraud is said to be that 3rd defendant to have obtained alleged GPA dtd:12/03/1982 whereas the society is said to have sold the site to one Jacob Pondu on 17/02/1982 by executing registered sale deed. If the alleged GPA dtd:12/03/1982 is said to be true then the 3rd defendant is said to have sold 9 O.S.No.8396/2002 the land as if it is the owner though there is no such right, title or interest in the suit property. Thereby the 3rd defendant is said to be not entitled to convey valid title to the 2nd defendant. The derivative title of the defendants is said to be defective and derogative. The sale deed executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and in turn the document executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant is said to be not binding on the plaintiffs.
5. The 1st defendant and the others are said to have formed association and paid betterment charges with the jurisdictional authority on 11/02/2001 and they are said to have purchased the sites in the year 1982 only when the plaintiffs are said to have questioned interference of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is said to have illegally constructed hut/small house on the suit property on the strength of the alleged, fabricated and forged document and asserting the title. The 3rd defendant is said to have fraudulently sold the property of the plaintiffs to the 2nd defendant vide registered sale deed dtd:17/02/1982 This is said to be beyond the scope of conveyance recognized under the Transfer of Property Act. Hence that sale is said to be not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs on 11/11/2002 is said to have issued legal notice to the 10 O.S.No.8396/2002 defendants to surrender the possession of the suit property, but that notice was said to have been returned unserved as not claimed. Hence, filed the suit.
6. In the written statement, the 1st defendant has contended that the suit to be barred by limitation. Specifically, it is contended that the suit schedule property was said to be one of the several sites formed by the Malleswara Tailoring Association prior to 1980 in terms of the GPA on 12/03/1982 coupled with the interest, the possession of the suit schedule property along with the adjacent properties were said to be made over to the possession of the said association. That association is said to have executed sale deed in favour of the original allottee Chikkathayamma in 1982. The possession was said to have been handed over to the 2nd defendant as per the law, thereby the plaintiffs are said to be never in possession on or after 1982 and the 1st defendant is said to be the true and lawful owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and perfected his title by operation of the law and by efflux of time from his predecessor in title. The suit is said to be bad for misjoinder of parties and that the 3rd defendant is said to be not at all a necessary party.
11 O.S.No.8396/20027. There are said to be several cause of action in the suit which are independent of the other and thereby the above suit is said to be multifarious in the nature based on different cause of action. The document pertaining to the IHC proceedings No.1/2000-2001 is said to be concocted document as the revenue officials are said to have been not effected for the year 2000-01 when the entire character of the land in and around the suit schedule property were changed from agricultural to non-agricultural land and that the suit schedule property along with the adjacent properties are said to be within the purview of the administrative jurisdiction of City Municipal Council, Dasarahalli.
The plaintiffs are said to have manipulated the documents and produced the same before the court. Therefore there is said to be no existence of accordingly, RTC, pahanies and mutation extract since the entire area is said to fall within the limits of City Municipal Council, Dasarahally.
The 2nd defendant was said to be in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property in terms of sale deed executed by the 3rd defendant. Thereby the 2nd defendant was said to have been put in possession of the suit 12 O.S.No.8396/2002 schedule property. Being the lawful owner of the suit schedule property, the 2nd defendant is said to have executed sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant on 23/04/1998. This is said to have been entered in the encumbrance certificate. The 1st defendant is said to have paid the betterment charges and property tax and obtained the registration of the katha in his name. The 1st defendant as true and lawful owner is said to have exercised all the rights of ownership and the possession of the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant is said to have purchased the suit schedule property for valuable consideration vide registered sale deed dtd:23/11/1998.
8. The defendants 1 and 2 are said to have exercised their right, ownership and the possession of the suit schedule property from 1982 and at no point of time, the plaintiffs are said to have any right, title and interest in respect of any portion of the suit schedule property. Therefore the claim of the plaintiffs is said to be barred by limitation. There is said to be no right to the plaintiff by virtue either of the revenue extract or the notice issued by BDA. The 1st defendant along with other occupants of the neighboring properties are said to have formed an association and to have been agitating rights with the concerned Government Departments and that the transfer 13 O.S.No.8396/2002 of the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant is said to be recognized as well as in accordance with law. Thereby the plaintiffs is said to be not entitled for any of the reliefs as sought for and denying all the other averments of the plaint thereby sought for the dismissal of the suit.
9. The defendants No.2 and 3 have been placed exparte vide order dated:12/07/2004.
10. My predecessor-in-office had framed the following issues on 20/12/2006:
1. Whether plaintiffs prove their title to the suit schedule property?
2. Whether plaintiffs prove that the General Power of Attorney dtd:12/03/1982 alleged to have been executed by the petitioner No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is null, void and fabricated?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dtd:17/02/1982 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?
4. Whether the court fee paid is proper?14 O.S.No.8396/2002
5. Whether 1st defendant proves that he is the owner of suit schedule property as contended in para 15 of the written statement?
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration, possession and other reliefs?
7. What order or decree?
Additional issues framed on 06/06/2013
1. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation?
11. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff No.1(b) is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-22. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants have submitted that the documents on behalf of the plaintiff to have been marked and kept in the earlier connected case O.S.No.8395/2002. The 1st defendant has examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-42.
12. The finding on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative Issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.3: In the Negative Issue No.4: In the Affirmative;
Issue No.5: In the Negative;15 O.S.No.8396/2002
Issue No.6: In the Negative;
Additional issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.7 : As per final order for the Following:
REASONS
13. ISSUE No.1 to 3 and 5: The plaintiffs have claimed to have the title to the suit schedule property and alleged that the GPA dtd:12/03/1982 in favour of the defendant No.3 to be null and void and fabricated and further that the sale deed dtd:17/02/1982 in favour of the 2nd defendant to be null and void. On the other hand, the 1st defendant has contended to be the owner of the suit schedule property. Hence these issues being interlinked, therefore are discussed and answered together in order to avoid repetition of facts.
14. As per the plaint the description of the suit schedule property has been as follows:
SCHEDULE "All that piece and parcel of the property bearing site No.92 and a house constructed thereon which is the part and parcel of Sy.No.47/2 of Laggere village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore-560 091, 16 O.S.No.8396/2002 measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet which is bounded on the:
East by Site No.79;
West by Road;
North by Site No.93;
South by Road.
15. At the out set it is necessary to note that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs has been to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Further to declare that the GPA dtd:12/03/1982 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in favour of the 3rd defendant to be null and void, forged and fabricated. In addition to further declare that the sale deed dtd:12/03/1982 executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant to be null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have further sought to direct the defendants jointly and severally to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property and as well as sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule property.
16. In the oral evidence P.W.1 has stated that the other LRs of the plaintiff No.1 to be his brothers and sisters. LRs 17 O.S.No.8396/2002 of 2nd defendant are said to be cousin brothers and sisters and 3rd defendant is his uncle. Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are said to be younger brothers of his father plaintiff No.1. He has stated that he has not produced any authorization letter issued by the remaining plaintiffs to depose on their behalf.
He has also stated that:
"There has been no partition between him and his brothers. The suit property according to him is said to be bounded East by Torehalla, West by Soorappanakere, North by property belonging to Gangalakshmamma and children and South by Ramamurthy and his brothers as well as Susheelamma."
Of-course, in the plaint schedule property these names have not been described. Narasimhaiah is said to be the elder brother of his grandfather. According to him there is said to be no sub division of the Sy.No.47 as names of his brothers were said to appear individually in the RTC for the year 2001-2002. Again he has stated that names of the brothers of his father said to be appear in the Pahani. The suggestion put forth to this witness has been that his father to have sold some portion of the Sy.No.47 in the year 1974 in favour of his junior uncle. The suit property is said to have been filed only in regard to the portion i.e., said to 18 O.S.No.8396/2002 have fallen to his share. In this regard he stated as follows:
"¸ÁQë ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁVAä ¸ÀéwÛ£À PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛêÉÉ "
He does not know as to how many sites to have been formed in the Sy.No.47/2. He also cannot say as to how many residential houses have been put up and to what extent the site area vacant in the Sy.No.47/2. He does not know the number of sites formed in the Sy.No.47/2 but the suit property is said to fall within the limits of BBMP.
17. From 1982 to 2001 he stated to have not paid the tax in regard to the suit property but the suit has been filed on 13/12/2002. Apart from the revenue documents he has said to have the other documents in order to substantiate his title in the suit property. In this regard his exact words have been as follows:
'®UÉÎgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA. 47-2 gÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G½zÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀݪÀÅ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀºÀtô ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JA.Dgï£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¸ÀzjÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀé vÉÆÃj¸ÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉU¼À À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è"
It is interesting to note that in spite of this admitted fact of the witness, at the same time the suggestion put 19 O.S.No.8396/2002 forth to this witness has been about the sale by his father in favour of Ramaiah and Chennanarasimhaiah his words are "£À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄÄ ¢B11-09-1974gÀ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÉ£ÀߣÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁjzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj "
In return those purchasers are said to have again are sold the suit property in favour of his father. But he is said to have not produced any document to show the same. This Ramamurthy is said to be son of his senior uncle. About 15- 20 sites in the Sy.No.47/2 are said to have been sold for which documents have not been produced before the court. In total according to him there may be about 20 residential houses in the Sy.No.47/2. This witness has stated that his father to have cultivated the Sy.No.47/2 of Laggere village, during the year 1980. This Sy.No.47/2 was said to be included in the CMC, Bangalore, in the year 1998. The 3rd defendant is said to be formed lay out in the Sy.No.47/2 and the prospective purchaser of the sites in the Sy.No.47/2 to have been named as Premanagar. He said to have come to know about the formation of the lay out in the year 1986. "He has admitted not to have paid the betterment charges of the suit schedule property and that the 1st defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property since 1998 till date".
20 O.S.No.8396/2002In regard to the title of the 3rd defendant and the formation of the lay out, the suggestion has been of-course denied by this witness which is as follows:
"It is false to suggest that Sy.No.47/2 of Laggere village had lost its nature for the year 1982 and later the defendant No.3 formed lay out and prospective purchaser constructed house in their respective sites and they got electricity and water connection".
The possession of the 1st defendant in the site No.23 of Sy.No.47/2 was said to have come to his knowledge for the year 1999-2000. But he does not know as to from whom the 1st defendant of O.S.No.8396/2002 to have purchased the site No.23. Of-course the 1st defendant Shankara said to have obtained the electric and water connection to the site No.23. The electricity connection was said to be obtained by the 1st defendant Shankara on 02/05/1992. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that the 1st defendant of the above suit is one Sarangapani. This witness has further admitted that his father said to have old the land in Sy.No.47/2 vide registered sale deed dtd:11/09/1974 marked as Ex.D.7. He has admitted as follows:
21 O.S.No.8396/2002"It is true to suggest that the 1st defendant has constructed houses over in schedule property in the year 1992".
Therefore it is elicited from the evidence of P.W.1 that he is said to have come to know about the formation of the lay out by the 3rd defendant in the year 1986 and that he has not paid the tax or betterment charges in respect of the suit schedule property from 1990. His uncles are said to have reconveyed the property sold by his father to them. They are said to have further relinquished their rights in favour of his father but the said document is said to be unregistered. What has happened between the father and his brothers are irrelevant for the reason that possession of the suit schedule property to his witness has been with the 1st defendant.
18. D.W.1 in the oral evidence has stated that not to have purchase the suit schedule property from the plaintiffs. He does not know if the Malleswram Tailoring Co-operative society i.e., 3rd defendant to be in existence or not? till date. In 1981 he said to have come to know about the formation of the lay out by the 3rd defendant. The situation of the suit property in the Sy.No.47/2 has been admitted. In the description of the plaint, the suit property is confined 22 O.S.No.8396/2002 only to site No.92 and the house constructed therein which is said to be part and parcel of the Sy.No.47/2. Further this site is shown to be measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet. Relevancy is about to when there was formation of sites in the Sy.No.47/2. He himself has stated the formation of lay out by the 3rd defendant in the Sy.No.47/2 in 1980. He said to have not collected any documents from his vendor the 2nd defendant about the title of the 3rd defendant over the Sy.No.47/2. In-fact he has admitted not to have insisted for the approval plan in respect of the Sy.No.47/2 and the title documents of the said property from the 3rd defendant.
One Channa Narasimhaiah and Ramamurthy are said to have executed General Power of Attorney to one Mohammed Fakruddin who was said to be the secretary to the 3rd defendant. But he does not know that an endorsement has been issued by the Sub-Registrar as per Ex.P.12 to the said about non existence of the said General Power of Attorney. Ex.D.1 is according to him the sale deed dtd:17/02/1982 executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. In Ex.D.1 it is admitted that the resolution to have passed on 29/11/1981 resolving the transfer of suit property in favour of the 2nd defendant but the nature is not mentioned. He has stated that there is no 23 O.S.No.8396/2002 mention of Sy.No.47/2 in Ex.D.1 as on 17/02/1982, the suit property was said to be vacant site and further there is said to be house list numbers in the portion described in Ex.D.1. He has also stated as follows:
" It may be true that as there was bar to register revenue sites, the 3rd defendant's society has assigned house list numbers in all the sale deeds".
There were said to be proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner Bangalore during 1988 to 1990 against 3rd defendant society for deviating from its main object and forming the layout in agricultural lands. There are said to be about 22 inhabitants of the locality who had preferred the Revision Petition No.123/2004 before the Special D.C. Bangalore, challenging the katha transferred to the name of the plaintiff and others in regard to the Sy.No.47/2. That order has been identified by this witness and marked as Ex.P.23. The appeal No.141/2002-03 before the Special D.C. Bangalore, was said to have been preferred by he and the other 21 persons wherein except him and Shankaraiah remaining appellants are said to have admitted the ownership of the plaintiff over the Sy.No.47/2. The other appellant are said to have withdrawn the appeal. The order was said to be not challenged before the Hon'ble High 24 O.S.No.8396/2002 Court of Karnataka and also he said to have not filed any suit against the plaintiff and others. His vendor Chikkatayamma is said to have purchased the suit property from the 3rd defendant and the 3rd defendant is said to have purchased the property from Chennigappa and his sons. There are no documents placed before the court executed by Chennigappa and his children in favour of the 3rd defendant.
19. The earlier litigation before the court as well as revenue authority from the oral evidence of the arties before the court goes to show that they are undisputed facts. The c/c of the judgment Ex.D.22 pertains to O.S.No.4528/2001 that was filed by the present deceased plaintiff No.1, deceased plaintiff No.2 and 3rd plaintiff against Jayalakhsmamma and others for Permanent Injunction. It was filed on 21.06.2001 and that suit was dismissed. The C/c of the decree has been marked as Ex.D.28 and the description of the properties therein does not include the present suit schedule property. Ex.P.8 is the C/c of the order in revision petition No.124/2003-04 passed by the Special D.C. Bangalore District. It was preferred by the present defendant No.1 and others against respondents therein which included the present deceased 1st plaintiff No.1, 2 and others. It was revision petition against the 25 O.S.No.8396/2002 dismissing the appeal by the A.C. Bangalore North Sub- Division in No.141/2002-04 dtd:07/09/2003 it pertains to A Acres 04 Guntas in Sy.No.47/2. As per this order the revision petition has been dismissed.
20. The right claimed by the plaintiffs has been on the ground that there was a partition in between the family whereby the Sy.No.47/2 measuring 2 Acres 12 Guntas is said to have fallen to the share of one of the son of Muniyappa i.e., Chennigappa. The father of the plaintiffs is Chennigappa. So the originally this Sy.No.47/2 measuring 2 Acres 12 Guntas is said to be the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. The original propositor as per the plaint is Muniyappa who is said to be the grandfather of the plaintiffs. The acquisition proceeding is undisputed fact between the parties. Ex.P.1 is the RTC produced for the year 1977 to 1980-81 measuring 4 Acres 24 Guntas with kharab of 15 guntas and it has the name of Narasimhaiah S/o of Muniyappa in column No.9 and name of Puttaiah son of Chennappa in column No.12(2). The word ancestral (¦vÁæfðvÀ) appears in column No.10. Ex.P.2 is the RTC for the same extent for the year 1997-98 to 2000-01 it has the entry joint IHC No.1/2000-01. Name of Narasimhaiah S/o Muniyappa has been deleted. The revenue department have issued Ex.P.3 to the effect that the Sy.No.47/2 measuring 2 26 O.S.No.8396/2002 Acres 4 and half guntas to have katha No.34 in the name of plaintiffs for the year 2000-01. This document is dtd:04/06/2001. The tax paid receipt Ex.P.4 has the names of the plaintiffs and it mentions up to 2001. Very importantly has been the award passed by the LAO which has been marked as Ex.P.5 and the at column No.(9) is as follows:
Name of the notified Sy. Class Total Kha Remaini Assesm Area required Khathedar/Anubhava No tedar ng ent dar extent Rs. P Extent Asses A-G ment Sri.Puttaiah,Bin 47 Dry 18-22 2-22 16-00 6-14 4-00 1-70 Pillappa, Boraiah bin Chikkanna, Narasimhaiah bin Muniyappa, Chennanarasamma W/o Krishnappa, Meranna bin Hamumantha, Ramaiah, Narayanappa, Krishnappa, Nigappa.
The extent acquired therefore is 4 Acres which is for the purpose of formation of ring road between Tumkur to Magadi road. In this award there is mention that the notices issued U/s 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act to have been received by the land owners and revenue site owners. It also further mentions that the land to be neither agricultural in nature or fertile. It is said to be bifurcated into the revenue sites and that there is no planned 27 O.S.No.8396/2002 development area, instead it is said to be developed in haphazard and scattered manner. Ex.P.6 is the endorsement issued by LAO stating that the LAC compensation amount to have been deposited before the concerned court and it has been addressed to Puttaiah, Ramaiah and Chennanarasaiah. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the details in column No.9 of Ex.P.5 is the name of this Puttaiah Son of Pillappa whereas the 1st plaintiff name is C. Puttaiah Son of Chennigappa. Ex.P.7 is the C/c of the Order passed by the A.C. Bangalore North Taluk, Sub-Division in No.141/2002-03 dtd:17/09/2003 wherein the appeal filed in respect of the 2 Acres 4 and half guntas in Sy.No.47/2 was dismissed. The petitioners therein are the defendant No.1 and others. This order was challenged before the Special D.C. in Revision Petition No.124/2003-
04. The C/c of the said order has been marked as Ex.P.8.
The present plaintiffs are also respondents No.4 to 6 in this proceeding. In this Order it is mentioned that about Sy.No.47/2 to have been converted into residential lay out falling which is the jurisdiction of CMC, Dasarahally but still order in IH.No.1/2000-01 to have been passed. These are the primarily facts that would enable to infer the nature of the right that would be claimed in respect of this type of property. This IHC.No.1/2000-01 is entered in the column No.10 of Ex.P.2.
28 O.S.No.8396/200221. Ex.P.9 is the C/c of the order of I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.726/1963 that was filed by one Susheelamma @ Doddamma widow of Muniyappa against Chennappa Son of Narasimhaiah, Ningamma Wife of Late Narasimhaiah. This pertains to the Sy.No.35 measuring 2 Guntas, Sy.No.40 measuring 20 Guntas, Sy.No.70/25 measuring 11 Guntas. I.A.No.7 filed for amendment was therefore allotted by the court and this order dtd:07/11/1974. This order does not contain the Sy.No.47/2 which is the suit property Ex.P.10 is the extract of the IHC book. In regard to IHC.No.1/2000-01 there is an order stating that the Sy.No.47/2 to an extent of 4 Acres 9 Guntas to be in the name of Narasimhaiah who had passed away and his younger brother Chennigappa also to have passed away. The sons of Narasimhaiah namely Chennappa, Muniyappa also to have passed away. Grand son of Narasimhaiah namely C. Rama Murthy, C. Nagaraja, C. Nigappa and the grand daughters Susheelamma to be the legal heirs of Narasimhaiah. The children of the younger brother of Narasimhaiah namely C. Puttaiah, K.C. Chinnanarasimhaiah K.C. Ramaiah also to be the legal heirs who are the present plaintiffs. The names are said to appear in katha in regard to Sy.No.47/2 measuring 4 Acres 0.41/2 guntas. The names of the plaintiffs also has been ordered to be entered in regard to the Sy.No.47/2 measuring 2 Acres 4 and half Guntas. This order is 29 O.S.No.8396/2002 dated:02/06/2001. But the award passed by the LAO is 07/03/2001. So this order Ex.P.10 is after the award passed by the LAO. The total extent of the Sy.No.47 as per the award is 18 acres 22 Guntas. Out of that, 4 Acres has been acquired for the purpose of formation of the road. The order in Ex.P.5 is to an extent of 2 Acres 0.4 and half guntas only. No-doubt there is no boundaries mentioned to this 2 Acres 4 and half guntas. The description of the suit schedule property as above noted is only a site No.92 said to be part of Sy.No.47/2 measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 30 feet. Therefore the name of the plaintiffs has been in regard to the site 92 to have been formed in Sy.No.47/2. As above noted the award Ex.P.5 mentions about non-existence of any agricultural land whereas Ex.P.10 mentions it is an agricultural land. Further the award Ex.P.5 sites about the bifurcation of the land into revenue sites and that there has been no planned development of the area. Even though the order Ex.P.10 is subsequent to the award Ex.P.5 but there is no iota of recital of about formation of sites as mentioned in the award Ex.P.5.
22. Ex.P.11 is the acknowledgement issued by the Sub- Registrar, dtd:20/08/2001 issued in the name of T. Ramachandra. An endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar 30 O.S.No.8396/2002 Ex.P.12 dated:20/08/2001 stats that there has been no registration of the GPA dated:12/03/1982. Ex.P.13 is the C/c of the sale certificate issued by the 3rd defendant dtd:12/03/1982 in the name of Smt. Jayalakshmamma and it pertains to 1318 (Site No.30) bounded by East road, West by Site No.47, North by site No.27 and South by site No.31, measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 30- feet. Ex.P.14 is the office copy of the legal notice dtd:18/09/2002 issued to the Dodamma W/o of Narasimha Murthy, Jayalakshmamma Wife of Pillappa and the 3rd defendant. The property described is as follows:
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property bearing site No.30 and a house constructed thereon which is the part and parcel of Sy.No.47/2 of Laggere village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore-560 091, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet which is bounded on the:
East by Road;
West by Site No.47;
North by Site No.29;
South by Site No.31.
Therefore, it means that this legal notice is pertaining to the site No.30 said to have been formed in Sy.No.47/2 for 31 O.S.No.8396/2002 which the concerned certificate has been issued by the 3rd defendant i.e., Ex.P.13.
Ex.P.15 is the C/c of the sale deed dtd:24/03/1998 executed in favour of the 1st defendant by Chikkatayamma and description of the property has been as follows:
µÉqÀÆå¯ï «ªÀgÀ "¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, AiÀıÀªÀAvÀ¥ÀÅgÀ ºÉÆç½, ®UÉÎgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ UÁæªÀÄoÁtzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ºË¸ï °¸ïÖ SÁvÁ £ÀA§gÀÄ 1121, SÁ£ÉõÀĪÀiÁj 92 (vÉÆA§vÉÛgÀqÀÄ) £Éà £ÀA§gÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ¸À»vÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢ B ¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ 79£Éà £ÀA§gÀÄ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ¥À²ª Ñ ÀÄPÉÌ gÀ¸ÉÛ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ 93£Éà £ÀA§gÀÄ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ zÀQëtPÉÌ gÀ¸ÉÛ"
Hence this is pertaining to the katha No.1121, Khaneshmari No.92 the boundaries are the same as per the suit schedule property. Ex.P.16 is the office copy of the legal notice dtd:11/11/2002 issued to defendants by the plaintiffs demanding possession of the property described therein which is suit schedule property. Ex.P-17 to Ex.P-19 are postal receipts of Ex.P-16. Ex.P.20 is the another C/c of the sale certificate issued by the 3rd defendant dtd:17/02/1982 issued to Chikkatayamma i.e., 2nd 32 O.S.No.8396/2002 defendant and it pertains to the present suit schedule property. In fact the original of this certificate has been produced by the defendants marked as Ex.D.1. The plaintiffs have also issued legal notice as per Ex.P.21 dtd:19/09/2002 to B. Shankar Yadav, Natarajan and 3rd defendant seeking to surrender the possession of the property bearing No.23 that the house therein said to be part and parcel of Sy.No.47/2 measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 30 feet bounded East by site No.2, West by road, North by site No.24 and South by site No.22. Therefore this legal notice is pertaining to the site No.23. Ex.P.22 is the C/c of the sale certificate issued by the 3rd defendant in regard to site No.23 which is questioned by way of legal notice by the plaintiffs as per Ex.P.21, the nature of the document produced by the plaintiff in the present case to show with regard to the sale certificate of the sites distributed by the 3rd defendant has been claimed to be in possession of the plaintiffs for which separately legal notice have been issued. Ex.P-22 is marked subject to objection.
23. It is also relevant to note that the sale certificate produced by the plaintiffs in fact or the sale certificate relied upon by the defendants to prove their contention about the suit schedule property. The C/c of the sale deed 33 O.S.No.8396/2002 Ex.P.15 is also been produced by the defendants which is marked as Ex.D.2. The extract of the miscellaneous register Ex.D.3 relevant entry 3345/1974-75 mentions about the sale deed said to have been executed by the second son of Chennappa namely Chennanarasimhaiah, Ramaiah, by the son of late Chennappa, Puttaiah. The suit property pertains to site property. Ex.D.4 is the encumbrance certificate for the period of 01-04-1980 to 31-03-1988 and has the entry of Ex.D.1. Ex.D.5 is the encumbrance certificate for the period 01-04-1988 to 10-02-2003 that has the reference of the sale deed i.e., Ex.P.15. This entry also appears in the encumbrance certificate for the period 01-04-2002 to 31- 03-2004 as per Ex.D.6. Ex.D.7 is the nil encumbrance certificate pertaining to the suit property with the name of the 1st defendant. The revenue receipt Ex.D.8 pertains to the collection of the tax and similarly has been Ex.D.9 to Ex.D.19 the tax collected has been for the period from 1997-98 to 2014-2015 in the name of the 1st defendant. Ex.D.20 is the tax paid receipt for the year 1997-98 issued by the Dasarahally CMC with regard to property No.92/47- 92 measuring 40 X 30 feet East by site No.79, West by road, North by site No.93 and South by road. It is vacant site and in the name of the 1st defendant. The BBMP has issued the certificate as per Ex.D.21 dtd:27/05/2010 as katha No.559 in the name of the 1st defendant. Specifically 34 O.S.No.8396/2002 the property No.92/47/2 appears in the katha certificate issued by the BBMP as per Ex.D.22. Similarly has been Ex.D.23 and this is dtd:21/01/2015. Ex.D.24 is the tax receipt issued by the BBMP wherein the description of the property is the suit property but there is mention about existence of one Square ACC in the column pertaining to the measurement of the building. This is not mentioned in the extract Ex.D.25 for the year 2012-13, 2014-15 as per Ex.D.26.
24. O.S.No.4528/2001 was filed by the present plaintiffs the C/c of the judgment has been marked as Ex.D.27 and it pertains to the property bearing sites Nos. 127 and 127A of the Sy.No.47/2.It was a suit for injunction which has been dismissed. Ex.D.28 is the C/c of the decree. Ex.D.29 is the intimation issued by the BBMP to the 1st defendant to the effect that there has been rectification of the property number in the property extract register and this is dated:19/05/2010. The electricity bills have been marked as Ex.D.D.30 and D.31. Ex.D.32 is the gazette notification inviting objections for estimating the market value of the immovable properties which includes the area of Laggere and this column is marked as Ex.D.32(a). The photographs have been marked as Ex.D.33 to Ex.D.40 and the concerned C.D. has Ex.D.41 and the receipt as Ex.D.42.
35 O.S.No.8396/200225. From the nature of the pleadings and the documentary evidence adduced by the parties before the court, it goes to show that there has been formation of the sites in Sy.No.47/2. Of course legal sanctity for the formation of the sites is not substantiated. But the fact remains that as per the award passed by LAO in the acquisition proceeding Ex.P.5 formation of the revenue sites.
As noted above there has been already mention about the existence of the Revenue sites in this Sy.No.47/2 in the award Ex.P.5. This award of the LAO Ex.P.5 is prior to the entry by the revenue authorities in IAC No.1/2000-01 as per Ex.P.10. On account of the nature of the documents pertaining to the existence of the suit land, the preliminary facts stated in Ex.P.5 that the said land to be no longer agricultural land. The order of the revenue authority as per Ex.P.10 does not contain the fact of existence of the revenue sites. Then mere Ex.P.10 by itself can not confront the ownership of the plaintiff. Ex.P.10 therefore, is not a document of title but the plaintiff has sought for the declaration of the ownership.
26. The plaintiffs have filed suit before the court and therefore it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove their 36 O.S.No.8396/2002 case. In this regard it is necessary to extend the benefit of the citations referred by the learned counsel for the defendant reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT page No.937 Union of India and others V/s Vasavi Co-op Housing Society Ltd., and others.
(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.34- Suit for declaration of tiled-Onus to prove his title is on plaintiff-He cannot succeed on weakness of defendant's case.
The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, Irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. Even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff's owner title, plaintiff must be non suited.
(B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S, 34-
Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.114-Suit for declaration of title -Revenue records- Not proof of title.
37 O.S.No.8396/2002In AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT page No.2966 T.K.Mohammed Abubuker(D) Thr.L.Rs. and others V/s P.S.M.Ahamed Abdul Khader and others (C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.101- Suit for declaration of title and possession - Burden of proof is on plaintiff to make out his title and entitlement to possession - He cannot succeed on any alleged weakness in title or possession of defendant.
In AIR 2004 KAR page No.444 Pennaiah and others V/s Thippamma Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.34 -
Declaration of title and possession - Suit for - Documents of title relied on by plaintiff did not correspond with suit schedule property - Plaintiff by amendment redescribed suit property in schedule -
There was no corresponding narrative pleading in plaint explaining how earlier description of property changed - In absence of necessary pleading and proof, plaintiff is not entitled to declaration - Defendant being in possession, relief of possession cannot be granted to plaintiff irrespective of valid title of defendants.
38 O.S.No.8396/2002Therefore, the benefit of the citations AIR 2004 Allahabad page No.273, Smt. Angoori Devi V/s Poornan singh and AIR 2003 Allahabad Page No.276 Dayawathi V/s Madan Lal Varma, AIR 2000 Madras page 465 (Madaswamy Thevar - Vs - A.M.Arjuna Raja) and AIR 2003 Gurarat page 82 (Heirs Hantilal Purshottamdas Patel - Vs - Dahiben Jagdish Rathod) can not be extended.
No material is placed to prove the GPA to be forged or fabricated. It is observed that rightly or wrongly there has been construction of the building unauthorisedly by the defendant. DW1 infact has admitted not to have obtained licence to construct the building. By virtue of the admitted facts of D.W.1, it means that there are no documents of title. Such being the case, hence the issues No.1 to 3 and issue No.5 are answered in the negative.
27. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1 : PW1 in the oral evidence has clearly stated that to be aware of the construction of the building as well as the GPA. His knowledge about the GPA is said to be in 1986 itself. He has stated to have seen suit property many a time between 1982 to 2002. The declaration relief pertaining to the GPA dated 12.03.1982. The sale deed executed by Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.2 is 12.03.1982. The cause of action is 39 O.S.No.8396/2002 described to have arose on 12.03.1982 and 18.09.2002 on issue of the legal notice. By virtue of the admitted fact of Defendant No.1, therefore it is necessary to extend the benefit of the citation T.K.Mohammed Abubuckar's case referred supra (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.6
- Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Arts. 64, 65- Suit for declaration of title - Sale deed and partition deed executed hardly three years prior to suit - Not sufficient to establish title.
When it is within the knowledge of the plaintiff in the year 1986 itself then there has been accrual of the right and the limitation period begins to run. Hence this suit being filed in the year 2002 is therefore barred by limitation and this issue is answered in the affirmative.
28. ISSUE No.4 : The reliefs of the plaintiffs has been for Declaration, Possession and consequential relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. The court fee has been paid U/sec. 24(c) & (d). The scope of the declaratory reliefs of the plaintiffs has been to declare the GPA and sale deed to be null and void. Hence, in terms of the citation AIR 40 O.S.No.8396/2002 2013 Kar. 159 Suguna V/s Sunilkumar Holla this issue is answered in the Affirmative.
29. ISSUE No.6 : The plaintiffs in the present case have not placed before the court documents of title. By virtue of the documents discussed above and the nature of the Sy.No.47/2 wherein acquisition proceedings has taken place and that the suit is filed only describing as a site property, the plaintiffs have failed to be entitled to any of the reliefs. Hence, I answered this issue in the Negative.
30. ISSUE NO.7: Due to the findings as above, the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer, the transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 19th day of December, 2015) (Ms.VELA.D.K.) XIV Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.41 O.S.No.8396/2002
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiffs:
P.W. 1 Sri. P. Ramachandra.
List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 & 2 : Two RTC extracts.
Ex.P.3 : The endorsement issued by village Accountant.
Ex.P.4 : The tax paid receipt.
Ex.P.5 : The true copy of the order in
Land Acquisition No.4/99-2000.
Ex.P.6 : The endorsement issued by the
Land Acquisition Officer.
Ex.P.7 : The certified copy of the order in
RA No.144/02.
Ex.P.8 : The certified copy of the
Revision Petition No.124/03.
Ex.P.9 : The certified copy of the order on IA No.7
in O.S.No.726/68 dated 07.11.1974.
Ex.P.10 : The certified copy of the IHC extract.
Ex.P.11 : The acknowledgment issued by
Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi.
Ex.P.12 : Another endorsement issued by Sub-Registrar,
Basavanagudi.
Ex.P.13 : The certified copy of the sale deed.
Ex.P.14 : The legal notice dated 12.09.2002.
Ex.P.15 : The certified copy of the sale deed
dated 28.04.1988.
42 O.S.No.8396/2002
Ex.P.16 : The legal notice dated 11.11.2002.
Ex.P.17 to 19: Three postal receipts.
Ex.P.20 : The certified copy of the sale deed
dated 17.02.1982.
Ex.P.21 : The legal notice dated 12.09.2002.
Ex.P.22 : The certified copy of the sale deed
dated 22.03.1982 subject to objection
Ex.P.22 : The certified copy of the
Revision Petition No.123/2004
(Common evidence was adduced by plaintiffs in the above case with O.S.No.8397/2002 and O.S.8395/2002. Exhibits of plaintiff are kept in O.S.8395/2002. But, defendants have adduced separate evidence).
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant :
D.W. 1 Sri. N. Sarangapani.
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant :
Ex.D.1 : Sale deed dated 17-02-1982. Ex.D-2 : The sale deed dated 23.02.1998. Ex.D-3 : Certified copy of the sale deed 11.09.1974.
Ex.D-4 to 7: The encumbrance certificates.
Ex.D-8 : Betterment charges receipt. Ex.D-9 to 19: Tax paid receipts.
Ex.D-20 : The tax assessment register extract. Ex.D-21 to 23: Katha certificates.
Ex.D-24 to D-26: The property register extracts.43 O.S.No.8396/2002
Ex.D-27 : Certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.4528/2001.
Ex.D-28 : Certified copy of the decree. Ex.D-29 : Katha endorsement. Ex.D-30 & 31: Electricity bill. Ex.D-32 : The gazette notification.
Ex.D-32(a): The relevant entry at Sl.No.50. Ex.D-33 to 42: Photographs along with CD and bills issued by the photo studio.
(Ms.VELA.D.K.) XIV Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.