Bangalore District Court
Sri. M.D.Ramakrishnaiah vs Smt.B.Hemavathi on 13 September, 2021
1
O.S.No. 6534/2011
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2021.
PRESENT: SRI. SATHISHA L.P., B.A.,LL.B.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.6534/2011
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Sri. M.D.Ramakrishnaiah,
Aged about 63 years,
S/o late M.Devaiahsetty Gowda,
At MIG-2, 80 feet road,
Kengeri satellite town,
Bangalore - 560 060.
2. Sri. Ratanshi D. Patel,
Aged about 56 years,
S/o Devshi Patel,
Residing at No.2075,
3rd A cross, RPC layout,
Bangalore - 560 040.
3. Sri. Keshavlal K Patel,
Aged about 66 years,
S/o Kanji Patel,
Residing at Shiv Shakthi Saw Mill,
Tumkur road, opp. WIDIA,
Bangalore,
No. 2 & 3 represented by their
2
O.S.No. 6534/2011
General power of attorney holder,
Sri M.D.Ramakrishnaiah.
5. Sri. H.S.Bharathi,
Aged about 41 years,
W/o K.Gavisiddaiah,
Residing at No.54,
khatha No.213,
Halagevaderahalli,
Bangalore.
6. Sri. V.Mohan Kumar,
Aged about 53 years,
S/o Sri Y. Venkatesha Murthy,
residing at No.51,
4th cross, BSK 1st stage,
Ashok Nagar,
Bangalore- 560 050.
9. Sri. Sadashiva Murthy,
Aged about 55 year,
S/o Sri. Veerabhadraiah,
No.312, 9th main,
Hanumanth Nagar,
Bangalore.
10. Sri.M.R.Rajagopal,
Aged about 53 year,
D/o Ramappa,
No.1097/4, 5th cross,
9th main, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560040.
11. Smt. Rachana Murthy,
Aged about 38 years,
W/o Ajay Murthy,
Rep. by GPA holder,
Sri. S.R.Vasudeva Rao,
No. 28, 2nd East main road,
BSK III stage,
3
O.S.No. 6534/2011
Bangalore - 560085.
12. Sri. Jayaramegowda,
aged about 41 years,
S/o Javaregowda,
No. 100, 12th cross,
Anantha Murthy layout,
Srinagar, Bangalore.
15. Sri.S.Prabhakara Reddy,
Aged about 56 year,
S/o Sidda Reddy,
Residing at No. 280/2,
Reddy's layout,
BEML III stage,
Rajarajeshwari nagar,
Bangalore - 98
Since dead rep. By his Lrs
(a) Smt. Shamala Reddy. L
W/o late S.Prabhakara Reddy,
aged about 52 year,
(b) Sri.Dilip Kumar S.P.
S/o late S.Prabhakara Reddy,
aged about 31 year,
(c) Sri.Naveen Kumar S.P.
S/o late S.Prabhakara Reddy,
aged about 29 year,
15(a) to (c) are residing at No.
280/2, Reddy Farm, BEML layout,
3rd stage, R.R.Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560098.
16. Smt.M.Parvathamma,
Aged about 48 years,
W/o B.Rajanna,
No.90/21-2, 2nd main road,
4
O.S.No. 6534/2011
Vittala Nagar, BMK Layout,
Kasturba Nagar,
Bangalore - 560026.
(By Sri.C.G. Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt.B.Hemavathi,
aged about 57 years,
W/o Harishchandra,
Residing at No.17,
Kuvempu cross road,
Jaraganahalli J.P.Nagar V phase,
Bangalore - 560078.
Since dead rep. by her Lrs
1(a). Sri. Harishchandra (dead)
Husband of late B.Hemavathi
1(b). Sri.H.Sharath Kumar,
S/o late B.Hemavathi,
aged about 47 year,
1(c). Sri.H.Punith Kumar,
S/o late B.Hemavathi,
aged about 45 year,
1(d). Smt.Rashmi,
D/o late B.Hemavathi,
aged about 43 years,
1(e). Sri.H.Rajesh,
S/o late B.Hemavathi,
aged about 39 years,
1(f). Smt.Surekha,
D/o late B.Hemavathi,
aged about 36 years,
Defendant No. 1(a) to (f)
are residing at No.17,
5
O.S.No. 6534/2011
Kuvempu cross road,
Jaraganahalli,
J.P.Nagar 6th phase,
Bengaluru - 560078.
2. Sri.B.Chandrashekar,
Aged about 55 years,
S/o late G.H.Bangera,
residing at No. 12/1, 2nd main,
9th cross, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560018.
3. Smt. B.Mangala Gowri,
Aged about 53 years,
W/o Raghuram,
R/at No. 8/1, 4th main,
9th cross, Ramachandra Agrahara,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560018.
4. Sri.Uttam Kumar,
aged about 46 years,
S/o G.H.Bangera,
No.404, Bilva shree nilaya,
1st main, 9th cross,
Panchasheela nagar,
Moddalapalya,
Bangalore - 560072.
5. Sri.N.R.Prasad,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o B.Nataraj,
R/at No.1000, Bank main road,
4th phase, BSK III Stage,
Bangalore - 560085.
6. Smt.Sujatha,
aged about 45 years,
D/o late G.H.Bangera,
W/o Sri.Kumar.S.
6
O.S.No. 6534/2011
R/at C/o Thanuja Srinivas,
(Ex-President)
Dodda Gubbi Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bagalur road,
Hosakote Taluk,
Bangalore East.
(D1 to 3 G.A.S. Advocate,
D4 & D6 N.R. Advocate
D5 Exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit : 08-09-2011
Nature of the suit : Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of : 05-10-2012
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 13-9-2021
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
10 00 05
(SATHISHA L.P.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs are before the court for the relief of declaration to declare the decree in O.S.No. 5442/2009 dated 04.01.2010 on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-3) entered into between the defendants No.1 to 5 7 O.S.No. 6534/2011 inter-se in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and without any right and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way deal with the suit schedule property, and for costs and such other reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiffs case is that, the land in Sy.No.67 of Halagevadevralli village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk, now within the limits of the BBMP, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Range, Bangalore measuring 4 acres, 24 guntas including kharab of the 10 guntas was originally owned by one G.H.Bangera. The said Bangera after purchase of Sy.No.67, got transferred the revenue records into his name. The original owner of G.H.Bangera got converted one acre, 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.67 of Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk out of 4 acres 24 guntas. The original owner of G.H.Bangera sold the entire 4 acres, 24 guntas of land during his lifetime in favor plaintiffs No.1 to 3 by means of three different sale deeds.
3. The first plaintiff purchased an extent of one acre 8 O.S.No. 6534/2011 10 guntas of land out of 4 acres 24 guntas from G.H.Bangera under the registered sale deed dated 23.9.1996.
4. The plaintiff No.2 purchased an extent of one acre, 04 guntas of land from B.H.Bangera under a registered sale deed dated 23.9.1996.
5. The plaintiff No.3 purchased an extent of one acre 5 guntas land from G.H.Bangera under a registered sale deed dated 23.09.1996. Thus the said G.H.Bangera sold entire extent of land in Sy.No.67 of Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk in favor plaintiff No.1 to 3.
6. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 submits that, after the purchase of 4 acres 24 guntas of land from G.H.Bangera the plaintiffs formed a layout of sites by obtaining the sanction plan from Rajarajeshwari Nagar City Municipal Council, as the entire extent of land was included with the city municipal counsel.
7. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 after obtaining sanction plan formed layout of sites in the said extent of land and 9 O.S.No. 6534/2011 then sold the site in favor of third parties including the plaintiffs 4 to 16 who are purchasers of the sites in the schedule property and who having common interest in the schedule property along with the plaintiffs No.1 to 3, as such they join plaintiffs No.1 to 3 in filing the suit.
8. That all the purchasers of sites in the suit schedule property have mutated the khatha into their name before the City Municipal Council, Rajarajeshwari Nagar and have paid the taxes to the said authority. The plaintiffs No.4 to 16 who are the purchasers of sites in the schedule property have obtained the khatha, paid taxes to the City Municipal Council, Rajarajeshawari Nagar, and then to BBMP, few of the plaintiffs have also constructed full fledged residential buildings in the suit schedule property by taking loan from the bank. The building constructed by the plaintiffs are having all the amenities from the concerned authorities viz., BBMP, BWSSB & BESCOM.
9. Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties in the form of sites in a well developed layout since 1997-98. The plaintiffs have been in 10 O.S.No. 6534/2011 possession and of the schedule properties along with the other purchasers who are similarly placed without any let or hindrance from anybody including the defendants. The plaintiffs who are in possession of the suit schedule property as absolute owners having derived title from the original owner G.H.Bangera and then from plaintiffs No.1 to 3.
10. That the things stands thus the original owners G.H.Bangera died leaving behind the defendant No.1 to 5 as his legal heirs. The defendants No.1 to 5 after the death of G.H.Bangera in order to cause harm to the plaintiffs and who having no right whatsoever over the suit schedule property in as much as the entire schedule property was sold by the G.H.Bangera during his life time with definite oblique motive and with criminal intention, filed a suit in O.S.No. 5442/2009 on the file of the 25 th Additional City Civil Judge Bangalore seeking partition of the suit schedule property among themselves. The defendant No.1 to 5 without intimating the said court about the sale of the suit schedule property by G.H.Bangera filed the above said suit and they entered into a compromise alleging that they have 11 O.S.No. 6534/2011 right and possession over the suit schedule property.
11. The fact remains same that the defendants No.1 to 5 filed a false suit by committing fraud on the court and obtained a compromise decree in respect of the properties not owned by the G.H.Bangera or not inherited by the defendants No.1 to 5. The said fact is clear from the sale deeds executed by G.H.Bangera in favor of the plaintiffs No. 1 to 3.
12. Not withstanding the sale fraud committed by the defendants No. 1 to 5 they further approached the revenue authorities namely Thasildar, Bangalore South Taluk, to mutate the revenue records into their names as per the alleged partition decree. The Tahasildar, without verifying the earlier records and without inspecting the spot, mutated the revenue records in to the name of the defendants No.1 to 5 in respect of schedule property by means of revenue M.R.Entry No. 8 to 12/2010- 11 and also made entires in the revenue records.
13. That the defendant No.1 to 5 obtained decree by playing fraud on the court, by suppressing the sale of the 12 O.S.No. 6534/2011 property by their father and further the defendants No.1 to 5 who are fully aware of the sale of the schedule property, so also the development of the schedule property and that they being not in possession, have obtained the decree in respect of the properties owned by the plaintiffs and others. The said decree was obtained by misrepresentation, non- information of the earlier sale and by suppression of material facts as such the said decree is a nullity in the eye of law and it is a void decree in as much as the decree was obtained in respect of the property not owned by the defendants No.1 to 5, who are the plaintiffs in the said suit.
14. That the defendants No.1 to 5 by making use of the said void decree, now got transferred the revenue records into their name and based on the said documents, trying to create the encumbrances on the suit schedule property and in this regard the defendants No. 1 to 5 have already entered into an registered agreement of sale dated 20.8.2011 in favor of the 6th defendant.
15. The very reading of the said agreement is very clear that the defendants are trying to commit fraud on the 13 O.S.No. 6534/2011 plaintiffs and others who are similarly placed and in respect of the suit schedule property, hence the plaintiffs who are the owners have no other option being aggrieved by the decree obtained by the defendants No.1 to 5 by committing fraud on the court, are approached this court for the relief of declaration and consequential injunction.
16. The defendants have hatched a plan to create encumbrances and then to interfere with the possession of suit schedule property of the plaintiffs and in this regard, the defendants who have already committed a fraud having nexus with anti-social elements and land grabbers are now trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property by using threat and criminal force. The defendants made such attempt on 29th/30th august 2011 wherein they came in a larger number and threatened the residents that they having decree and agreement and all the residents must vacate and deliver vacant possession of their respective houses and in this regard they ransacked some of the compound and barbed wire fencing put by the plaintiffs in respect of vacant sites. They created 14 O.S.No. 6534/2011 apprehension and threat in the minds of the plaintiffs that they may come at any time and dispossess the plaintiffs.
17. The cause of action for the suit arose in 2009 when the defendants No.1 to 5 fraudulently approached the court for partition of the suit schedule property and there afterwards when they entered in to a compromise and obtained the compromise decree dated 4.1.2010 and there afterwards they obtained mutation entries in to their name and lastly on 20.8.2011 when they entered into agreement of sale with the 6th defendant and then when they made attempt to ransack the property with the help of the rowdy elements and made attempt to demolish the compound, fencing and openly threatened the plaintiffs that they will going to dispossess the plaintiffs and create encumbrances on the schedule property, With these fact the plaintiffs seeks to decree the suit.
18. The defendant No.2 has filed the written statement, wherein he has contended that, the suit by filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration to declare that the compromise decree in O.S.No. 5442/2009 entered into 15 O.S.No. 6534/2011 between the defendants is null and void is not at all maintainable either in law or in facts the same is liable to dismissed with the exemplary cost.
19. The plaintiffs have not approached before this Hon'ble court with clean in order to exhaust their remedy by way of seeking declaratory relief.
20. It is true that the land in Sy.No.67 measuring to an extent of 4 acre 24 guntas including 10 guntas of Kharab situated at Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk, Bangalore belongs to the father of the defendants G.H.Bangera. Further it is true that subsequent to the acquisition of the said property by G.H.Bangera under the registered sale deed dated 5.4.1971 the revenue entries got transferred in his name and he was in possession of the property and there after he has obtain the conversion of 1 acre 10 guntas in the said survey number out of 4 acres 24 guntas. It is further false to say that the said G.H.Bangera has not at all sold any piece of land in the said survey number in favor of plaintiff No.1 to 3. The documents of the registered sale deed which are 16 O.S.No. 6534/2011 alleged to be produced before the court is only a created for the purpose of this case.
21. It is denied that plaintiff No.1 has purchased to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas under the registered sale deed dated 23/9/1996, the plaintiff No.2 purchased to an extent of 1 acre 4 guntas from G.H.Bangera under the registered sale deed dated 23.9.1996, the plaintiff No.3 purchased an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas of land from G.H.Bangera under a registered sale deed dated 23.9.1996. It is denied that at any point of time no sale deed was executed as alleged in favor plaintiff No.3 by the father of the defendant No.1 to 4.
22. It is denied that, after the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 purchase 4 acres, 24 guntas of land from G.H.Bangera, have formed a layout of sites by obtaining the sanction plan from Rajarajeshwari Nagar City Municipal Council, as the entire extent of the land was included in with in the City Municipal Council.
23. It is also denied that, the plaintiff No.1 to 3 after obtaining the sanction plan, the plaintiffs formed a layout of 17 O.S.No. 6534/2011 sites in the said extent of land and then sold sites in favor third parties including the plaintiffs No.4 to 19 who are the purchasers of sites in the schedule property and who having common interest in the schedule property along with plaintiffs No.1 to 3.
24. It is denied that, all the purchasers of sites in the suit schedule property have mutated the khatha into their name before City Municipal Council, Rajarajeshwari Nagar and have paid the taxes to the said authority. The plaintiffs No. 4 to 19 who are the purchasers of sites in the schedule property have obtained khatha, paid taxes to the city municipal council, R.R.Nagar, and then to BBMP. Few of the plaintiffs have also constructed the fully fledged residential buildings in the suit schedule property by taking loan from the bank. The building so constructed by the plaintiffs are having all the amenities from the concerned authorities viz., BBMP, BWSSB, BESCOM.
25. It is denied that, the plaintiffs No. 4 to 19 have procured the sale deeds from plaintiffs No.1 to 3.
26. It is denied that, the plaintiffs are in possession 18 O.S.No. 6534/2011 and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties in the form of sites, in a well-developed layout since 1997-98, the plaintiffs have been in possession of the schedule property along with other purchasers who are similarly placed without any let or hindrance from anybody including the defendants, the plaintiffs who in the possession of the suit schedule property as absolute owners having derived title from the original owners G.H.Bangera and then from plaintiffs No.1 to 3.
27. It is true that the original owner G.H.Bangera died leaving behind the defendant No. 1 to 5 as his legal heirs. It is denied that the defendants No.1 to 5 after the death of G.H.Bangera in order to cause harm to the plaintiffs and who having no right whatsoever over the suit schedule property in as much as the entire suit schedule property was sold by G.H.Banagera during his life time with a definite oblique motive and with criminal intention filed a suit in O.S.No. 5442/2009 on the file of 25 th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore seeking partition of the suit schedule property among themselves. The defendants No.1 to 5 19 O.S.No. 6534/2011 without intimating the said court about the sale of the suit schedule property by G.H.Bangera, filed the above said suit and they entered into a compromise alleging that they have right and possession over the suit schedule property.
28. It is denied that defendants No.1 to 5 filed a false suit by committing fraud on the court and obtained a compromise decree in respect of the properties not owned by the G.H.Bangera or not inherited by the defendants No.1 to 5. The said fact is clear from the sale deeds executed by the G.H.Bangera in favor of plaintiffs No.1 to 3.
29. It is contended that, during the life of G.H.Bangera has acquired certain properties including the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 5.4.1971, subsequent to the acquisition of the said property he was put in possession as absolute owner even in respect of the suit schedule property also. During his life time, he has also obtain conversion order from deputy commissioner for the formation of the layout from agriculture to residential purpose. In the mean while he died leaving behind the defendants No.1 to 4 to succeed his estate. 20
O.S.No. 6534/2011
30. It is further contented that, father of the defendant No.1 to 4 not executed any quantum of sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs, even it is assume that if it is executed the sale deed he has liberty to execute only to his share not whole share since the schedule property is a joint family property, the same was acquired from the income derived from the joint family fund. At any point of time late G.H.Bangera has not at all executed the sale deeds in favor of the plaintiffs.
31. The subject matter of the property is not valued properly and the court fee paid is insufficient. The cause of action is only an imaginary and does not survive for consideration. The suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties.
32. The LR's of the deceased defendant No.1(b) to (f) have also filed the additional written statement and also counter claim, wherein it is contended that, the suit schedule property is the joint family property acquired out of the nucleus of the joint family funds accordingly, the deceased defendant No.1 and these defendants having 21 O.S.No. 6534/2011 right, title and interest and possession of the said property. and they also denied that original owner G.H.Banagera during his life has sold entire suit schedule property in favor of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and further contended that in the absence of relief of declaration the present suit is not maintainable. And contends that deceased G.H.Bangera never executed any sale deed in favor of any person and plaintiffs have created bogus, concocted, created sale deeds to knock off the valuable property. and claims that even today the revenue records stands in their name and they are in possession of the suit schedule property. and further contends that the suit ought to have been valued under section 38 of the Karnataka court fee and suit valuation act, and thereby they seeks to dismiss the suit, and thereby to grant the reliefs of;
33. Declaration to declare the sale deed dated 23.9.1996 allegedly executed by the deceased G.H.Banagera in favor of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 is not binding upon them, and further to declare the subsequent sale deeds in favor of plaintiffs No.4 to 16 is not binding on them 22 O.S.No. 6534/2011 and for permanent injunction to restrain the plaintiffs No.1 to 16, their successors, agents, representatives and all others claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by these defendants No. 1(b) to (f) and defendants No.2 to 4 and 6.
34. For the said counter claim the plaintiff No.10 has filed the re-joinder by disputing and denying the averments made in the counter claim, and contends that counter claim is not maintainable either on law or facts and the same is liable to dismissed in limine as the same is false, vexatious and speculative. And the same is barred by the limitation and there is no cause of action for the counter claim. And court fee paid is not sufficient and with other contentions seeks to dismiss the counter claim with costs.
35. The defendant No.6 has also filed the written statement in same line of defendant No.2 to oppose the suit by denying and disputing the plaint averments and further contended plaintiff No.1 not only created the fraud document styled as sale deed in respect of the suit schedule 23 O.S.No. 6534/2011 property. he and his friend one K.R.Sathyanarayana have also created un stamped and non valued and in executable, a general power of attorney of late G.H.Bangera and sold several sites in favor of third parties in respect of Sy.No.66/1 of Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk. The plaintiffs No.1 and one K.R.Sathyanarayana are big cheaters in the said locality have created several sale deeds in respect of the other properties of late G.H.Bangera on the strength of fabricated general power of attorney which is said to have been executed by the late G.H.Bangera. moreover the sale deeds of Sy.No.66/1 there is no reference of fabricated GPA likewise in order to cheat these defendants the plaintiff No.1 and his friend have created the sale deed in respect of all the suit schedule properties. the schedule property is a joint family property and the same acquired by the G.H.Bangera arising out of the funds derived from some certain property sold in Mangalore. G.H.Bangera was wrestler and had Hindu undivided family properties at Mangalore. After sale of said properties he has shifted to Bangalore and opened hotel 24 O.S.No. 6534/2011 along with his family members and out of the income earning from the said business these properties being purchased. Along with these defendants he has earned some money from the hotel business and he is having some amount of the properties being sold at Mangalore He purchase these properties. having knowledge about the property is a joint family property in order to cheat this defendant the plaintiffs herein have acquired the aforesaid property certainly which cause great injustice to this defendant. As per the alleged sale deed in respect of the schedule property no revenue entries were changed in the name of the plaintiffs. Till today the revenue entries stands in the name of late G.H.Bangera and defendants herein. no revenue layout is permitted under law.
36. It is further contended that, the schedule property is a joint family property, taking undue advantage of ill health of late G.H.Bangera a fabricated sale deed were created and the same was also not within the knowledge of this defendant since the revenue entries remains stood in the name of this plaintiffs. This defendant is having equal 25 O.S.No. 6534/2011 rights over the schedule property. the subject matter of the suit is not valued properly and there is no cause of action for the suit. With these contentions seeks to dismiss the suit.
37. On the basis of the above pleadings the followings issues were framed on 07-08-2012.
1) Does the plaintiffs prove that, they are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule properties as contended in the plaint?
2) Does the plaintiffs prove that, the defendants are interfering in their possession over the suit schedule property?
3) Does the plaintiffs prove that, the compromise decree obtained by defendants in O.S.No.5442/2009 from City Civil Court, Bangalore is null and void and the same is not binding on them?
4) Does the plaintiffs prove that, suit is properly valued and court fee paid on the same is sufficient?
5) Does the defendants prove that, this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter as contended in the 26 O.S.No. 6534/2011 written statement?
6) What order or decree?
38. The following Additional issues were framed on 19-12-2018.
1) Whether the defendant No.1(b) to (f) proves that sale deed dated 23-09-1996 executed in favour of plaintiff No. 1 to 3 by deceased Bangera is not binding on defendant No.1 (b) to (f) & defendants No. 2, 4 & 6?
2) Whether the defendant No.1(b) to (f), defendant No.2, 4 & 6 proves that the subsequent sale deeds after the sale deeds dated 23-09-1996 is not binding on them?
3) Whether the defendant No.1(b) to (f), defendant No.2, 4 & 6 proves that they are in peaceful and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of counter claim?
4) Whether the defendant No.1(b) to (f), defendant No.2, 4 & 6 proves that they are entitle for permanent injunction?
5) What order or decree?
39. In order to substantiate the plaint averments, 27 O.S.No. 6534/2011 plaintiff No.1 is examined as P.W.1, who filed the chief examination affidavit by reiterating the plaint averments and Ex.P.1 to 98 are marked. Ex.P.1 is sale deed dated 12-
02-2004, Ex.P.2 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 31- 01-1997, Ex.P.3 is sale deed dated 12-02-2004, Ex.P.4 is certificate issued by the Hanumanthanagar co-operative bank, Ex.P.5 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-02- 1997, Ex.P.6 is sale deed dated 21-06-2007, Ex.P.7 is certified copy of the sale agreement dated 20-08-2011, Ex.P.8 to 12 are MR, Ex.P.13 is RTC's (10 in No's), Ex.P.14 is certificate issued by SBI, Ex.P.15 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-12-2001, Ex.P.16 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 30-04-1997, Ex.P.17 is blue print, Ex.P.18 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-01-2007, Ex.P.19 is Bescom bill, Ex.P.20 is tax paid receipts ( 7 in No's), Ex.P.21 to 32 are photographs, Ex.P.33 is CD, Ex.P.34 is certified copy of the sale deed, Ex.P.35 is certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.5442/2009, Ex.P.36 is certified copy of the compromise petition filed in O.S.No.5442/2009, Ex.P.37 to 41 are MR, Ex.P.42 is RTC, Ex.P.43 is certified copy of the 28 O.S.No. 6534/2011 agreement of sale dated 20-08-2011, Ex.P.44 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 15-04-1974, Ex.P.45 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-12-2001, Ex.P.46 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-12-1997, Ex.P.47 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-12-1997, Ex.P.48 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 30-04-1997, Ex.P.49 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 30-11-2006, Ex.P.50 is certified copy of sale deed dated 26-07-2004, Ex.P.51 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-01-2007, Ex.P.52 is certified copy of the conversion order dated 18-12-1991, Ex.P.53 is memorandum dated 18-03-2014, Ex.P.54 is Original sale deed dated 23-09-1996, Ex.P.55 is memorandum dated 18- 03-2014, Ex.P.56 is original sale deed dated 23-09-1996, Ex.P.57 is memorandum dated 18-03-2014, Ex.P.58 is original sale deed dated 23-09-1996, Ex.P.59 is memorandum 18-03-2014, Ex.P.60 is original sale deed dated 23-09-1996, Ex.P.61 is service certificate issued by Bescom dated 03-12-2014, Ex.P.62 is khatha certificate issued by BBMP, Ex.P.63 is demand register extract, Ex.P.64 is receipt, Ex.P.65 is EC, Ex.P.66 is demand register extract, 29 O.S.No. 6534/2011 Ex.P.67 is tax paid receipt, Ex.P.68 is blue print, Ex.P.69 to 81 are photographs, Ex.P.82 is CD, ExP.83 is certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.680/2015, Ex.P.84 is certified copy of the decree in O.S.No. 680/2015, Ex.P.85 is certified copy of the compromise petition filed in O.S.No.680/2015, Ex.P.86 is certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No. 683/2015, Ex.P.87 is certified copy of the compromise decree in O.S.No.683/2015, Ex.P.88 is certified copy of the compromise petition is O.S.No. 683/2015, Ex.P.89 is certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No. 435/2015, Ex.P.90 is certified copy of the compromise decree in O.S.No.435/2015, Ex.P.91 is certified copy of the compromise petition is O.S.No. 435/2015, Ex.P.92 to 97 are deed of confirmation dated 07-12-2015, Ex.P.98 is certified copy of the petition filed before special Tahasildar Bangalore south taluk.
40. From defendant side defendant No.6 is examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 to 13 are documents are marked and Defendant No.1(d) is examined as D.W.2 and Ex.D.14 to 59 are marked. Ex.D.1 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 30 O.S.No. 6534/2011 15-04-1971, Ex.D.2 is certified copy of memorandum of title deeds, Ex.D.3 is certified copy of the tenancy deed, Ex.D.4 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 05-10-2006, Ex.D.5 is certified copy of the amended compromise petition in O.S.No.5442/2009, Ex.D.6 to 8 are RTC's, Ex.D.9 to 13 are Mutation, Ex.D.14 to 17 are RTC extract, Ex.D.18 to 22 are certified copy of MR, Ex.D.23 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 15-04-1971, Ex.D.24 is death certificate of G.H.Bangera, Ex.D.25 is death certificate of M.Indira, Ex.D.26 is certified copy of memorandum of settlement, Ex.D.27 is certified copy of amended memorandum of settlement, Ex.D.28 is extract of revenue court case monitoring system. Ex.D.29 to 32 RTC extracts. Ex.D.33 & 34 are certified copy of RTC, Ex.D.35 to 39 are certified copy of MR, Ex.D.40 is certified copy of confirmation deed dated 23-11-2018, Ex.D.41 is certified copy of transfer deed dated 06-08-1973, Ex.D.41(a) is typed copy of Ex.D.41, Ex.D.42 is certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.9295/2013, Ex.D.43 is certified copy of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6910/2012, Ex.D.44 is certified copy of the plaint in 31 O.S.No. 6534/2011 O.S.No.6910/2012, Ex.D.45 is certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 6910/2012, Ex.D.46 is certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.6910/2012, Ex.D.47 & 48 are certified copy of the confirmation deed dated 04-12-2019, Ex.D.49 to 53 are certified copy of confirmation deed dated 20-12- 2019, Ex.D.54 is survey sketch, Ex.D.55 is certified copy of sale deed dated 03-07-1972, Ex.D.55(a) is typed copy of Ex.D.55, Ex.D.56 is copy of the confirmation deed dated 11- 02-2020, Ex.D.57 is digital online certificate for having issued the Ex.D.56 dated 01-06-2020, Ex.D.58 is copy of confirmation deed dated 11-02-2020 obtained through online, Ex.D.59 is digital online certificate for having issued the Ex.D.56 dated 01-06-2020.
41. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
42. My finding on the above issues are :-
Issue No.1: Does not survive for consideration Issue No.2: Does not survive for consideration Issue No.3: Does not survive for consideration Issue No.4: Does not survive for consideration Issue No.5: Does not survive for consideration Issue No.6: As per final order, for the following:-32
O.S.No. 6534/2011
43. My finding on the above Additional issues are :-
Addl. Issues Nos.1 to 5: Does not survive for consideration REASONS
44. Issue Nos.1 to 6 and Addl. Issue Nos.1 to 5:
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration to declare that the compromise decree in O.S.5442/2009 dated 4.1.2010 on the file of the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-3) entered by the defendants inter-se between the defendants Nos.1 to 5 in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and without any right and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way deal with the suit schedule property and for such other reliefs.
45. The above said reliefs sought by the plaintiffs on the ground that, suit property was originally owned by one G.H.Bangera and during his life he sold entire suit property in favor of plaintiff No. 1 to 3 under different sale deeds. The 33 O.S.No. 6534/2011 plaintiffs after the purchase by forming the layout have sold the suit schedule property to the various persons including the plaintiffs Nos. 4 to 16. The defendants Nos.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased G.H.Bangera, and by suppressing the fact that the suit property was sold to the plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3, have filed the suit for partition in O.S.No.5442/2009 and fraudulently obtained a compromise decree, which is not binding on the plaintiffs, hence seeks the said reliefs.
46. Therefore, the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.5442/2009 dated 4.1.2010 is now under challenge in this declaration suit. since the plaintiffs who are not parties to the said suit are seeking to declare the compromise decree is null and void.
As the compromise decree is under challenge, order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC which relevant provision is extracted for the sake of convenience;
Order 23, rule 3-A;- Bar to suit.- No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is 34 O.S.No. 6534/2011 based was no lawful.
From the plain reading of the above provision it makes it clear that the suit to challenge the compromise decree is by a separate suit is barred.
47. Now the question arises, whether such bar contained in the above provision is applicable only to the parties to the suit or to even to the third parties, because the plaintiffs in this case were not parties in O.S.No.5442/2009 in which compromise was entered by the defendants Nos.1 to 5. The plaintiffs being thirds parties/ not parties to the said suit are challenging the said compromise in the guise of declaration.
Recently Hon'ble Supreme court in a decision reported in AIR 2020 SC 2111, in the case of Triloki Nath singh v. Anirudh sigh (D) Thr. Lrs and others, has held that, (Head note) civil.P.C.(5 of 1908), O.23.R.3A- compromise decree- challenge by stranger- permissibility- decree passed on a compromise cannot be challenged by stranger to proceedings in a separate suit, in view of specific bar under 35 O.S.No. 6534/2011 rule 3A of order 23.
Para 22. " In other words, the appellant can only claim through his predecessor sampathiya, to the extent of rights and remedies available to the sampathiya in reference to the compromise decree. Merely because the appellant was not a party to the compromise decree in the facts of the present case, will be no avail to the appellant, much less given him a cause of action to question the validity of the compromise decree passed by the High court by way of substantive suit before the civil court to declare it as fraudulent, illegal and not binding on him. Assuming, he could agitate about the validity of the compromise entered into by the parties to the partition suit, it is only the High court, who could had accepted the compromise and passed the decree on that basis, could examine the same and no other court under 36 O.S.No. 6534/2011 provision to rule 3 of order 23 CPC. It must, therefore, follow that the suit instituted before the civil court by the appellant was not maintainable in view of the specific bar under rule 3A of order 23 CPC has held in the impugned judgment".
In view of the clear bar under the Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC and also in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decision, I am of the opinion that, the separate suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable, hence no findings given on the above issues, since any finding if given will definitely will affect the rights of the plaintiff, if they want to challenge the compromise decree in the same suit. Hence all the issues are not answered.
48. Now with respect to the additional issues No.1 to 5 burdened on the defendants No.1(b) to (f) on the basis of their counter claim .
49. Initially the suit is filed on 8.9.2011 by the 37 O.S.No. 6534/2011 plaintiffs against the defendants for the above said reliefs. It appears that the defendant No.1 Smt. Hemavathi is the daughter of G.H.Bangera, who sold the suit property to the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 under the registered sale deed dated 23.9.1996. It appears that the defendant No.1 to 5 claiming to be the children of the deceased G.H.Bangera have filed the suit in O.S.No.5442/2009 in which the impugned compromise decree is passed.
50. Defendant No.1 has not filed any separate written statement and she has adopted the written statement of defendant No.2 by filing memo. On the basis of the plaint and written statement issued were framed on 7.8.2012. evidence of plaintiff was commenced on 16.11.2012, from the defendants side D.W.1 was examined on 23.6.2016.
51. From the order sheet entry it seems that, defendant No.1 Smt Hemavathi died on 20.6.2017 and memo is filed reporting her death to that effect. After the death of the defendant No.1, defendant No.1 (a) to (f) were brought on record by filing necessary application. defendant 38 O.S.No. 6534/2011 No.1(a) also died on 7.7.2018. Defendant No.2(b) to (f) filed the additional written statement along with counter claim under order 8 Rule 6-A of CPC, praying for the reliefs of;-
Declaration to declare the sale deed dated 23.9.1996 in favor of plaintiff No.1 to 3 allegedly executed by the deceased G.H.Bangera, father of the defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 is not binding upon the deceased defendant No.1(b) to (f) and defendant No.2 to 4 & 6, and to declare the subsequent sale deed in favor of the plaintiff No. 4 to 16 are not binding upon the defendant No.1(b) to (f) and defendant No.2 to 4 and 6. And for permanent injunction to restrain the plaintiffs No.1 to 16, their successors, agents, representatives and all others claiming through them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the defendant No.1(b) to (f) and defendant No.2 to 4 and 6.
52. Since the counter claim is filed by the defendant No.1(b) to (f) on 10.9.2018, the provision relating to counter claim is to be considered which is essential for the just adjudication of the same.
39
O.S.No. 6534/2011 Rule 6-A. counter claim by defendant.- (1) A defendant in a suit may in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such courter claim is in nature of a claim for damages or not:
Provided that such counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
In a decision reported in 1999 AIR SCW 4910, it is held that, civil P.C.(5 of 1908), order 22 rule 5, order 1 rule 10- substitution of legal heirs- proposed L.Rs cannot take up all other defences arising from their individual rights- they are bound by the pleadings of their predecessor in whose 40 O.S.No. 6534/2011 place they are substituted.
In another decision reported In 2007 (3) AIR KAR R 467, (A) Civil procedure code ( 5 of 1908) order 22 rule 4(2)- additional written statement by legal representatives- legal representatives of deceased defendant are entitled to file additional written statement or objection before trial court- legal representatives are entitled to take a defence which is available to their predecessor in title- but LRs are not entitled to take inconsistent or contradictory plea on admitted facts made by the deceased- LRs are not entitled to take any defence relating to their independent right.
In the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 2508, at head note (D) civil p.c. (5 of 1908), O.8 R.6A- Civil procedure- counter claim-right to file- runs with right of filing of written statement- no written statement- no counter claim can be 41 O.S.No. 6534/2011 entertained- defendant set exparte- not entitled to file written statement - cannot attack plaintiff by filing courter claim.
Para 26. " a perusal of the above said provision shows that it is the amendment Act of 1976 which has conferred a statutory right on a defendant to file counter claim. The relevant words of rule 6A are - "a defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set off under rule 6,............. Before the defendant has delivered or before the time limited for delivery of defence has expired". These words go to show that a pleading by way of counter claim runs with the right of filing a written statement and that such right to set up a counter claim is in addition to the right of pleading a set off conferred by the rule 6. A set off has to be pleaded in the written statement. The counter claim must necessarily finds its place in the written statement. Once the right of the defendant to file written statement has been lost or the time limited 42 O.S.No. 6534/2011 for delivery of the defence has expired then neither the written statement can filed as of right nor a counter claim can be allowed to be raised, for the counter claim under rule 6A must finds its place in the written statement. The court has a discretion to permit written statement being filed belatedly but needless to say such discretion shall be exercised in a reasonable manner keeping in view all the facts and the circumstances of the case including the conduct of the defendant, and the fact whether belated leave of the court would cause prejudice to the plaintiff or take away vested right which has accrued to the plaintiff by lapse of time".
In the decision rendered by the hon'ble High court of Karnataka reported in AIR 1991 karnataka 283, Head Note (B). Civil P.C.(5 of 1908), O.8 R.6A, O.8.R6B, O.8.R.6C., O.8.R.6E, O.8.R.6F, 43 O.S.No. 6534/2011 O.8.R.G- suit- counter claim- time limit for setting up- such claim has to be set before recording of evidence commences.
'Para.8. point No.2;- in both the decisions of the supreme court referred to the above there is no indication as to when the counter claim can be set up. Both decisions are only to the effect that the counter claim must relate to the cause of action which had arisen before filing of the suit or before filing of the written statement or the last date fixed for filing the written statement. Therefore it is necessary to determine as to what is the time limit for setting up counter claim. A reading of the rule 6A and 6G of the order 8 of the CPC makes it clear that the counter claim has to be treated as a cross suit and it has to be tried along with the original claim made in the suit. When the counter claim has to be tried along with the original claim and all the rules of pleading apply to the counter claim and it becomes a plaint 44 O.S.No. 6534/2011 in the cross suit and the plaintiff is entitled to file a written statement in answer to the counter claim of the defendant, it necessarily follows that that a counter claim, if not set in the written statement, it has to be set up before the issues are framed, at any rate, before recording of the evidence commences. If a counter claim is permitted to be set up after evidence is adduced, he will not be aware of the counter claim, as it will not be on record. Therefore, he cannot be expected to, and he not required to, adduce evidence is recorded would be doing nothing but ignoring the rules 6A to 6C of order VIII of CPC. It would also result in protracting the trial and would defeat the very object of treating the counter claim as a cross suit and in trying the issues arising the therefrom along with the issues arising in the suit. The object of this is to avoid delay not only in the trial of the suit but also to decide all the controversies arising between the parties to suit before filing the 45 O.S.No. 6534/2011 written statement or before the last date fixed for filing the written statement inasmuch as by directing the counter claim to be tried along with the main suit, the controversies or the disputes between the parties can be settled in proceedings. Therefore, even though the rule do not specifically lay down that a counter claim should be filed with a particular date but, reading of rules 6A and 6 G together would make it clear that the counter claim cannot be permitted to be filed when once recording of evidence commences. Point No.2 answered accordingly".
And in an another decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 10, (Head Note) A.Civil .P.C.( 5 of 1908) O.8. R6A, O.8 R.6E- counter claim - maintainability- counter claim cannot be raised after issues are framed and evidence is closed.46
O.S.No. 6534/2011 So, from meaning full reading of the provision and above authorities, it is clear that, counter claim can be filed only if the written statement is filed, here in this case the defendants No.1(b) to (f) filed the additional written statement on 10.9.2018 by way of counter claim, but it seems that the defendant No.1 has not at all filed the separate written statement. Moreover the in this case issues were framed on 7.8.2012 and evidence of plaintiff was begun on 16.11.2012 and evidence of defendant was begun on 23.6.2016. Hence the defendants No.1(b) to (f) cannot file the counter claim in the form of additional written statement. Apart from that, the defendants No.1(b) to (f) are claiming the rights through the deceased defendant No.1 (they were brought on record since defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit), since the defendant No.1 during the life time did not exercise the right of counter claim, the legal heirs i.e. defendant No.1(b) to (f) also cannot exercise the same, because the said counter claim is not independent right of the LRs, but it is the right of the deceased defendant No.1 and when she has waived 47 O.S.No. 6534/2011 the same, they cannot make use of it.
53. Apart from that the defendant No.1(b) to (f) have sought for the declaration that the sale deed executed by the G.H.Bangera dated 23.9.1996 in favor plaintiff No.1 to 3 and subsequent sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favor of other plaintiffs, but it is to be noted that the suit of the plaintiffs No.4, 7, 8, 13 & 14 are withdrawn prior to filing of the additional written statement (counter claim) but the reliefs sought in the counter claim also affects of the rights of the said plaintiffs No.4, 7, 8 , 13 & 14. And defendant No.
(b) to (f) did not made any efforts to implead them in the suit. Therefore the counter claim does not survive for want of proper and necessary parties also. Hence the additional issues which are burdened upon the defendant No.1(b) to (f) are also does not survive for consideration. Therefore the I proceed to pass the following;
ODERS The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as not maintainable under Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC, a liberty is given to the plaintiffs to challenge the 48 O.S.No. 6534/2011 compromise decree in O.S.No.5442/2009 dated 4.1.2010 by filing necessary application/petition.
Further the plaintiff shall have the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
The counter claim of the defendants No.1(b) to (f) is hereby dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 13th day of September, 2021.) (SATHISHA L.P.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of site bearing Sy.No. 67 of Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore South taluk, which was within the limits of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Range, Bangalore and now within the limits of BBMP, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bangalore measuring 4 acres, 24 guntas and bounded on:
49
O.S.No. 6534/2011 East by: Land in Sy.No. 66 West by: BEML layout North by: Land in Sy.No. 282 South by: Land in Sy.No. 126 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a)Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Sri.M.D.Ramakrishna
(b)Defendant's side :
D.W.1: Smt.Sujatha
D.W.2: Smt.Rashmi
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a)Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1: Sale deed dated 12-02-2004
Ex.P.2: Certified copy of the sale deed dated
31-01-1997
Ex.P.3: Sale deed dated 12-02-2004
Ex.P.4: Certificate issued by the
Hanumanthanagar co-operative bank Ex.P.5: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-02-1997 Ex.P.6: Sale deed dated 21-06-2007 50 O.S.No. 6534/2011 Ex.P.7: Certified copy of the sale agreement dated 20-08-2011 Ex.P.8 MR to 12:
Ex.P.13: RTC's (10 in No's) Ex.P.14: Certificate issued by SBI Ex.P.15: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-12-2001 Ex.P.16: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 30-04-1997 Ex.P.17: Blue print Ex.P.18: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-01-2007 Ex.P.19: Bescom bill Ex.P.20: Tax paid receipts ( 7 in No's) Ex.P.21 Photographs to 32:
Ex.P.33: CD Ex.P.34: Certified copy of the sale deed Ex.P.35: Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.5442/2009 Ex.P.36: Certified copy of the compromise petition filed in O.S.No.5442/2009 Ex.P.37 MR to 41:51
O.S.No. 6534/2011 Ex.P.42: RTC Ex.P.43: Certified copy of the agreement of sale dated 20-08-2011 Ex.P.44: Certified copy of the sale deed Ex.P.45: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-12-2001 Ex.P.46: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-12-1997 Ex.P.47: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-12-1997 Ex.P.48: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 30-04-1997 Ex.P.49: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 30-11-2006 Ex.P.50: Certified copy of sale deed dated 26- 07-2004 Ex.P.51: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 12-01-2007 Ex.P.52: Certified copy of the conversion order dated 18-12-1991, Ex.P.53: Memorandum dated 18-03-2014 Ex.P.54: Original sale deed dated 23-09-1996 Ex.P.55: Memorandum dated 18-03-2014 Ex.P.56: Original sale deed dated 23-09-1996 52 O.S.No. 6534/2011 Ex.P.57: Memorandum 18-03-2014 Ex.P.58: Original sale deed dated 23-09-1996 Ex.P.59: Memorandum 18-03-2014 Ex.P.60: Original sale deed dated 23-09-1996 Ex.P.61: Service certificate issued by Bescom dated 03-12-2014 Ex.P.62: Khatha certificate issued by BBMP Ex.P.63: Demand register extract Ex.P.64: Receipt Ex.P.65: EC Ex.P.66: Demand register extract Ex.P.67: Tax paid receipt Ex.P.68: Blue print Ex.P.69 Photographs to 81:
Ex.P.82: CD Ex.P.83: Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.680/2015 Ex.P.84: Certified copy of the decree in O.S.No. 680/2015 Ex.P.85: Certified copy of the compromise petition filed in O.S.No.680/2015 Ex.P.86: Certified copy of the order sheet in 53 O.S.No. 6534/2011 O.S.No. 683/2015 Ex.P.87: Certified copy of the compromise decree in O.S.No.683/2015 Ex.P.88: Certified copy of the compromise petition is O.S.No. 683/2015 Ex.P.89: Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No. 435/2015 Ex.P.90: Certified copy of the compromise decree in O.S.No.435/2015 Ex.P.91: Certified copy of the compromise petition is O.S.No. 435/2015 Ex.P.92 Deed of confirmation dated to 97: 07-12-2015 Ex.P.98: Certified copy of the petition filed before special Tahasildar Bangalore south taluk.
(b)Defendants side :
Ex.D.1: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 15-04-1971 Ex.D.2: Certified copy of memorandum of title deeds Ex.D.3: Certified copy of the tenancy deed Ex.D.4: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 05-10-2006 Ex.D.5: Certified copy of the amended compromise petition in O.S.No.5442/2009 54 O.S.No. 6534/2011 Ex.D.6 to RTC's 8:
Ex.D.9 to Mutation 13:
Ex.D.14 RTC extract to 17: Ex.D.18 Certified copy of MR to 22:
Ex.D.23: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 15-04-1971 Ex.D.24: Death certificate of G.H.Bangera Ex.D.25: Death certificate of M.Indira Ex.D.26: Certified copy of memorandum of settlement Ex.D.27: Certified copy of amended memorandum of settlement Ex.D.28: Extract of revenue court case monitoring system Ex.D.29 RTC extract to 32:
Ex.D.33 Certified copy of RTC & 34: Ex.D.35 Certified copy of MR to 39:
Ex.D.40: Certified copy of confirmation deed dated 23-11-2018 55 O.S.No. 6534/2011 Ex.D.41: Certified copy of transfer deed dated 06-08-1973 Ex.D.41 Typed copy of Ex.D.41
(a):
Ex.D.42: Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.9295/2013 Ex.D.43: Certified copy of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6910/2012 Ex.D.44: Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.6910/2012 Ex.D.45: Certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 6910/2012 Ex.D.46: Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.6910/2012 Ex.D.47 Certified copy of the confirmation & 48: deed dated 04-12-2019 Ex.D.49 Certified copy of confirmation deed to 53: dated 20-12-2019 Ex.D.54: Survey sketch Ex.D.55: Certified copy of sale deed dated 03-07-1972 Ex.D.55 Typed copy of Ex.D.55
(a):
Ex.D.56: Copy of the confirmation deed dated 11-02-2020 Ex.D.57: Digital online certificate for having 56 O.S.No. 6534/2011 issued the Ex.D.56 dated 01-06- 2020 Ex.D.58: Copy of confirmation deed dated 11- 02-2020 obtained through online Ex.D.59: Digital online certificate for having issued the Ex.D.56 dated 01-06- 2020 XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.