Bangalore District Court
M/S. Raja Rajeshwari Co-Operative ... vs Sri.Mirle Varadaraju on 23 June, 2016
Govt. Of Karnataka
C.R.P.67] TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
Form No.9 MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Present: Sri. B.NARAYANAPPA, M.A, LL.B.,
suits (R.P.91)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
OS NO.25882/2010
(CCH-22)
PLAINTIFFS:-
1. M/s. Raja Rajeshwari Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., No.404,
3rd Main Road, 9th Cross, G.P.Rajaththnam Road, Hanumantha Ngar,
Bangalore-560 019. Represented by its President Sri.Narasingh Rao,
Aged about 62 years.
2. Sri.Rajashekaraiah, Aged about 58 years, S/o.Basappa, Residing at
No.32-E, 13th Main, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040.
3. Smt.Anuitha, Aged about 40 years, W/o.B.Manjunath, Residing at No.19,
9th Cross, 1st Main, Prashantha nagar, Bangalore- 560 079.
4. Sri.R.Muralidhar, Aged about 41 years, S/o.M.Ramachandra, Residing at
No.11, 6th Cross, 6th 'C' Main, Remco Layout, Vijayanagar II Stage,
Bangalore-560 040.
5. Sri.K.S.Ramesh, Aged about 52 years, S/o.Late. K.S.Shiva Setti,
Residing at No.488, 8th Main Road, 3rd Cross, Banashankari I Stage,
II Block, Bangalore-560 050.
6. Smt.Radha Murthy, Aged about years, W/o.B.S.N.Murthy, Residing
at No.4/E, 8th Cross, Bapuji Nagar, Bangalore-560 026.
2 OS No.25882/2010
7. Sri.S.Bharath, Aged about 41 years, S/o.Late Shashikumar, Residing at
No.6, Uttaradimath Road, Shankarmatt, Bangalore-560 084. Represented
by his GPA Holder Smt.Shantha.
8. Smt.M.Padmavathi, Aged about 41 years, W/o.K.Manju Prakash, Residing
at No.23, Near MSR College, Bangalore-560 054.
9. Smt.Yashodamma, Aged about 51 years, W/o.Dr.L.N.Murthy, Residing
at Dhanvanti Clinic, Kagepura building, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District.
10. Smt.P.L.Manjula, Aged about 61 years, W/o.Late. S.A.Druvamurthy,
Residing at No.35, 2nd Cross, Amarjyothi Nagar, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-560 040.
11. Smt.P.M.Manjula, Aged about 41 years, W/o.H.M.Mallikarjuna,
Residing at No.321, BCC Layout, 9th Cross, Bangalore-560 040.
12. Smt.Renuka, Aged about 61 years, W/o.T.H.Ramamurthy, Residing at
No.4/1, Spencers Town, Frazer Town, Bangalore-560 005.
13. Sri.Shivanna, Aged about 71 years, S/o.Late. Chennaiah, Residing at
No.72, 1st Cross, 7th A Main, Kalyan Co-operative Society, Vijayanagar
II Stage, RPC Layout, Bangalore-560 040.
14. Smt.Susheela.S.B., Aged about 61 years, W/o.Shivanna, Residing at
No.72, 1st Cross, 7th A Main, Kalyan Co-operative Society, Vijayanagar
II Stage, RPC Layout, Bangalore-560 040.
15. Smt.B.V.Padma, Aged about 61 years, W/o.Mahadevappa, Residing at
No.3100, 14th 'B' Main, 8th Cross, RPC Layout, Bangalore-560 040.
16. Smt.B.P.Janaki, Major, D/o. Late. B.K.Puttegowda, Residing at
Bharathi Bali Estate, No.8, Hosahalli Post, Moodigere Taluk,
Chikkamangalur District.
3 OS No.25882/2010
17. Sri.H.K.Anantharamaiah, Aged about 71 years, S/o.A.Komaramaiah,
Residing at G-1, Samaran Jyothi Apartments, 10th Main, Sampige Layout,
Bangalore-560 079.
(Plaintiffs: By Advocate Sri.N.R.JayaPrakash)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS:-
1.Sri.Mirle Varadaraju, Aged about 49 years, S/o.Late. Boregowda, Residing
at No.544, 5th Main, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore-560 060.
2. Smt.Girija V.Raj, Aged about 48 years, W/o.Sri.Mirle Varadaraj, Residing
at No.544, 5th Main, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore-560 060.
(Defendant No.1: By Advocate Sri.Sharath.S.Gowda
and Defendant No.2:Exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit 17.06.2010
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for Permanent Injunction
declaration and possession, suit for
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording of 9.12.2014/9.1.2015
the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was 23.06.2016
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 06 ---- 06
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT: BANGALORE.
4 OS No.25882/2010
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants seeking relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents etc., from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiffs case are that:
Plaintiff No.1 is a House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., constituted as per the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act with an object to provide house sites to its members. Plaintiffs-2 to17 are the members of Plaintiff No.1 Society. Plaintiff No.1 formulated a scheme for formation of residential layout in Nagadevanahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore and accordingly submitted a scheme to the Government of its intention to acquire various extent of land in the said village. One such land is in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village. The Government on the representation of plaintiff No.1 Society acquired an extent of 5 OS No.25882/2010 5 acres 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1 out of 7.35 guntas phoot kharab 29 guntas with definite boundaries and handed over the possession of the said land to plaintiff No.1 Society. In pursuance of the acquisition, plaintiff No.1 paid entire consideration to the land owners by way of general award as well as by way of consent award and plaintiff No.1 was put in possession of the acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas.
Then plaintiff No.1 approached revenue authorities and got mutated the revenue records and paid tax and approached BDA for sanction of plan and issuance of license, work order etc. After obtaining the work order, plaintiff No.1 started formation of layout on the said 5 acres 8 guntas of land including the other lands. While formation of layout, plaintiffs-2 to 17 have objected for the formation of layout, on the ground that, they have purchased definite number of sites from the original owners represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder one Mr.K.K.Byadagi. Plaintiffs-2 to 17 have also filed a suit and obtained an order of temporary 6 OS No.25882/2010 injunction. Plaintiff No.1 Society after considering the nature of possession of Plaintiffs-2 to 17 and their lawful possession over the portion of acquired property and in order to avoid litigation entered into a compromise. In the compromise, Plaintiffs-2 to 17 have agreed to pay definite consideration to the Society and the Society had agreed to admit them as members and to execute transfer deed in favour of Plaintiffs-2 to 17. Accordingly, plaintiffs-2 to 17 became the members of plaintiff No.1 Society and then paid the consideration to the Society. On receipt of the consideration, plaintiff No.1 confirmed the right, title and possession of plaintiffs-2 to 17 and the same was recorded by means of compromise petition in OS No.1573/2004. The defendants who are claiming to be the purchasers of certain extent of land from the original owners in respect of un-acquired portion [which is on the east of the acquired land] appears to have purchased 37 guntas of land in the said survey number. Defendant No.2 purchased an extent of 37 guntas of land dated: 26.8.2006 and then sold the 7 OS No.25882/2010 same to defendant No.1. Defendants purchased the property by the original owners, which was not acquired and not one which was acquired by plaintiff No.1 and which is nothing to do with the acquired land. Defendants-1 and 2 as per rule should have obtained 11[e] sketch from the revenue authorities before purchase. However, the revenue authorities without verifying the acquisition proceedings and the right of the Society and JMC sketch prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer in consonance with the revenue office at the representation of the defendants prepared a sketch showing the portion of acquired land as Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4. The said sketch is contrary to the boundaries shown in the preliminary notification and final notification, so also 16[2] notification as well as JMC sketch. Based on the wrong sketch, the defendants are making attempts to enter upon the portion of acquired land which is now in possession of plaintiffs-2 to 17. On coming to know about the said illegal sketch, plaintiff No.1 filed an appeal and obtained stay order and 8 OS No.25882/2010 plaintiffs have also given a petition to the Tahasildhar about the mis-use of the power in preparing 11[e] sketch. So, the Tahasildhar conducted enquiry and after giving notice to all the parties and also re-survey of the land, has come to the conclusion that, 11[e] sketch prepared while selling the property is wrong and Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 shown in the sketch is the portion of acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer has also independently conducted survey and issued certificate that, the acquired portion is as per the JMC Sketch and Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 comes within the acquired land. The land which is in possession of the Plaintiffs wrongly shown as Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas which is morefully described in the schedule. The defendants have no right, claim or interest over the acquired land i.e., the suit schedule property. On the guise of acquiring right over the un-acquired land, defendants are tying to trespass over the suit schedule property with the help of bulldozers and attempted to level the land and to dismantle the road formed by 9 OS No.25882/2010 plaintiff No.1 and also making attempts to erase the sites, drainages etc. On 6.6.2010, the defendants tried to trespass over the suit schedule property. Therefore, Plaintiffs have lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional police against the defendants. The concerned police warned defendant No.1 not to indulge in such activities. Therefore, defendant No.1 has stopped his activities. But, again defendant No.1 started illegal attempt on 12.6.2010. Immediately, the plaintiffs approached the local police. Plaintiffs-2 to 17 who are the senior citizens have also suffered by way of misrepresentation. Now, they are the verge of loosing the property. Plaintiffs are having joint and common interest in the suit schedule property. Hence, this suit.
3. After registration of this suit, suit summons were issued to defendants-1 and 2. Inspite of service of summons upon defendant No.2, defendant No.2 remained absent. Hence, defendant No.2 was placed exparte.
10 OS No.25882/2010
4. In response to the suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared before this court through his counsel and filed written-statement denying all material averments made in the plaint and contended that, defendant No.1 acquired land measuring 37 guntas in Sy.No.5/3 of Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, under a registered Sale Deed dated: 25.3.2008 executed by Smt.Girija.V.Raj, the GPA holder of Shashidhara, son of G.Siddegowda. Plaintiff No.1 Society claiming 5 acres 8 guntas out of 7 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village has been statutorily acquired by the State Government, cannot stake claim in respect of the entire land measuring 7 acres 34 guntas including Sy.No.5/3 of Nagadevanahalli Village. Admittedly, plaintiff No.1 Society confirms that, they have formed sites upon allotment and have executed Sale Deeds in favour of its members in the year 1994 and onwards. Since, then members are in possession of the acquired land measuring 5 Acres 8 Guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village. As such, 11 OS No.25882/2010 plaintiff No.1 Society is not in possession of any bit of land. As a matter of fact that, Doddaiah's father is Junjamaraiah who acquired 2 acres in Sy.No.5/1 along with other land under the registered Sale Deed dated: 19.4.1945 from Smt.Thimmakka, wife of Seenappa. Poojari Chikkanna who is an utter stranger, claimed revenue entries in respect of the above said land and after prolonged proceedings before the revenue authorities, the claim of Poojari Chikkanna was rejected by all the revenue courts, which culminated in the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.107/2004-05, which has become final. When Plaintiffs-2 to 17 came to know that, Poojari Chikkanna has no title in respect of 1 Acre 27 Guntas in Sy.No.5/1, a suit in OS No.1573/2004 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore was filed by Plaintiffs-2 to 17 against plaintiff No.1 seeking relief of Permanent Injunction. Plaintiffs-2 to 17 agreed to pay towards development charges to plaintiff No.1 Society. As such, without any basis of title, had declined to 12 OS No.25882/2010 safeguard the interest of Plaintiffs-2 to 17 who derive no title under the Sale Deed executed by K.K.Byadagi, the GPA holder of Poojari Chikkana, who in turn does not derive any marketable title or whatsoever nature to execute the same. The averments made in the written-statement filed by the Society and the averments made in the compromise petition dated: 17.1.2006 in OS No.1573/2004 are contrary to each other, only with an intention to grab the property of defendant No.1, the plaintiffs have played fraud and have obtained collusive decree. Earlier Doddaiah, son of Junjamaraiah had preferred WP No.24760/1993 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka seeking quashing of the acquisition proceedings in favour of the plaintiff Society. Since, his land was not part of the acquisition proceedings, the same was not pressed. During July-1989, his land was acquired by the BDA. However, it was deleted under notification dated: 14.12.2000 and since then, Doddaiah and his LRs and in pursuance of registered Sale Deed dated: 26.8.2006, defendant No.1 is in 13 OS No.25882/2010 possession of Sy.No.5/3, measuring 37 guntas situated at Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. The order passed by the Tahasildar dated: 18.2.2008 in Dispute No.4/2007-08, which is totally perfect and legal. Plaintiff No.1 has preferred an Appeal in Appeal No.44/2008 before the Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. Plaintiff No.1 Society in WP NO.24760/1993 in its objections has substantiated that, it is in possession of land to an extent of 5 acres 8 guntas and clearly admits as to the existence of two bits of lands totally measuring 1 acre 27 guntas belonging to Doddaiah towards northern and eastern portion of their property. It is the same bit which is now numbered as Sy.No.5/3. Plaintiff No.1 Society before allotting the sites in favour of their allotees have made a layout plan in respect of the land which was acquired on their favour by the Government and as per the plan, sites were allotted during the year 1993-94 and onwards. In the said Plan, towards eastern and northern side of their 14 OS No.25882/2010 layout plan, plaintiff Society themselves have shown as private property [i.e., the lands of defendant NO.1 herein and Kareshanaiah]. In the Sale Deed executed by plaintiff No.1 Society in respect of Smt.Sakhu Bai, private property shown in the boundary of the schedule as belongs to defendant No.1 and Kareshanaiah. If at all the possession of the same bit is handed over to the plaintiff Society, nothing prevented the plaintiff Society to execute Rectification deed in respect of site No.1 in favour of Smt.Sakhubai to that effect. Plaintiff No.1 Society themselves have conceded in the Appeal No.44/2008 that, they are not concerned to the extent of 1 Acre 27 Guntas and on the other hand, they claim the land belonging to defendant No.1 and Kareshanaiah without any right, title or interest. For all these reasons, defendant No.1 prays to dismiss the suit of the Plaintiffs.
5. On the basis of the above Pleadings, following Issues have been framed:
15 OS No.25882/2010
1) Whether Plaintiffs prove that, they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of the suit?
2) Whether plaintiffs prove that, defendants are illegally interfering into his possession in suit property?
3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for decree of Permanent Injunction as sought?
4) What decree or order?
6. Plaintiffs in order to prove their case, have got filed the Affidavits of plaintiffs-1 and 2 by way of examination-in-chief. Same were taken as PW1 and PW2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P197 and closed the evidence of the Plaintiffs. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. Same was taken as DW1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D1 to D62[a] and closed his side evidence.16 OS No.25882/2010
7. I have heard the arguments of both sides Advocates appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendants at length. Both sides advocates have also filed their respective written-arguments in support of their claim on the Main Suit.
8. My findings to 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: As per the final orders, for the following:
REASONS 9. ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2:- Since, Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are inter-linked to each other, hence, they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
10. PW1/plaintiff No.1 and PW2/plaintiff No.2 in their affidavits evidence have reiterated and re-affirmed the contents 17 OS No.25882/2010 of the plaint averments and have got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P197.
11. PW1 in his cross-examination led by the defendants counsel has stated that, he is the Vice President of plaintiff No.1 Society. The Society has given him Authorization Letter to give evidence. Prayer is for declaring 34 ½ guntas in favour of the Society. The suit is filed against defendant No.1.
He denied the suggestion that, plaintiff Nos. 2 to 17 are not related to plaintiff No.1 Society. He denied the suggestion that, plaintiffs-2 to 17 are wrongly narrated as members of plaintiff No.1 Society. The suit is filed in respect of land bearing Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village , Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South. Sy.No.5/1, totally measures 7 acres 39 guntas, out of which 5 acres 8 guntas belongs to plaintiff No.1 Society and 39 guntas is kharab land. He denied the suggestion that, 1 acre 27 guntas is not related to plaintiff No.1 Society and he admits the suggestion that, 5 acres 8 guntas already distributed and no land is remained in 5 acres 18 OS No.25882/2010 8 guntas. He denied the suggestion that, since 5 acres 8 guntas is distributed by way of sites, no cause of action for the Plaintiffs arose to file this suit. He admits the suggestion that, since the plaintiffs Society tried to interfere in land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas which not belongs to plaintiff No.1 Society, one Doddaiah filed WP No.24760/1993 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and he further admits the suggestion that, as per Ex.D1, an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas is not belonging to plaintiff No.1 Society. He does not know regarding acquisition of 1 acre 27 guntas by the BDA and the same has been denotified in the name of Doddaiah in the year 2000. Plaintiffs-2 to 17 filed suit against plaintiff No.1 in OS No.1573/2004. He denied the suggestion that, the said suit is filed in respect of land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas which not belongs to the Society. Plaintiffs-2 to 17 prayed in OS No.1573/2004 to allot sites to them in land measuring 1 Acre 27 guntas on the basis of the documents executed by one Byadagi. He admits the suggestion that, the suit schedule 19 OS No.25882/2010 property not comes within the land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas which belongs to plaintiff No.1 Society. He denied the suggestion that, OS No.1573/2004 has been compromised to engulf others property i.e., Doddaiah's property. The land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas were given wrong Phodi numbrs as 5/3 and 5/4. He denied the suggestion that, land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas stands in the name of Doddaiah divided and given phodi numbers as 5/3 and 5/4 and he denied the suggestion that, without making Karishanayya as a party, the said suit was filed and he further denied the suggestion that, on the basis of the false compromise petition, this suit is filed. Plaintiff No.1 Society had executed absolute Sale Deeds in the names of plaintiffs-2 to 17. He denied the suggestion that, BDA has declared layout formed by the first plaintiff was unauthorized. He has not applied for 11[e] sketch in respect of Sy.No.5/3. The suit schedule properties are pertaining to land Sy.No.5/1 and 5/3. He denied the suggestion that, there is no connection in between the land Sy.No.23 and the suit schedule 20 OS No.25882/2010 property. Totally an extent of 30 acres 14 guntas have been acquired for plaintiff No.1 Society including the suit schedule property. He admits the suggestion that, plaintiff No.1 Society has not produced layout plan in respect of 30 acres 14 guntas.. He denied the suggestion that, without producing layout plan, it is not possible to identify the location of the suit schedule property. He admits the suggestion that, except in acquired land of 30 acres 14 guntas, no sites have been formed in any other land. The sites belonging to plaintiffs-2 to 17 are situated in land measuring 30 acres 14 guntas. No plan or any other document are produced to show the location of sites of plaintiffs-2 to 17.
12. PW2/plaintiff No.2 in his cross-examination led by the defendants counsel has stated that, he is the 2nd plaintiff in the present suit. This suit is filed for Permanent Injunction. His property is a site measuring 50 feet X 70 feet, which is included in the suit schedule property, which is part and parcel of Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, 21 OS No.25882/2010 Bangalore South Taluk. Sy.No.5/1 totally measures 7 acres 34 guntas. He admits the suggestion that, he has stated that, in Sy.No.5/1, 1 acre 27 guntas not belongs to plaintiff No.1 Society. He admits the suggestion that, he had filed OS No.1573/2004 against plaintiff No.1 Society. He has purchased site through the GPA holder of Poojari Chikkanna by name K.K.Bydagi. He admits the suggestion that, 5 acres 8 guntas land in Sy.No.5/1 is belongs to plaintiff No.1 Society, which was acquired by plaintiff No.1 Society in the year 1992 and 1995. Plaintiff No.1 has not produced the layout plan. He does not know how Poojari Chikkanna had acquired the property, but, he know that, property is the ancestral property of Poojari Chikkanna. Land measuring 1 acre 26 guntas was allotted to Poojari Chikkanna, but, no documents are produced to show that, Poojari Chikkanna was owning 1 acre 26 guntas of land. Other 16 plaintiffs have also purchased sites through the GPA holder K.K.Byadagi of Poojari Chikkanna. The MR at Ex.D6 might have been cancelled by Assistant 22 OS No.25882/2010 Commissioner, which is in respect of land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas. He does not know that, the LRs of Poojari Chikkanna have preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the cancellation of MR by Assistant Commissioner. He denied the suggestion that, they have no right in respect of the schedule property in OS No.1573/2004. Therefore, they had entered into a compromise with plaintiff No.1 Society, which is invalid. In the confirmation deed, site numbers are shown, but, the site numbers are not new numbers. He denied the suggestion that, confirmation deed executed by plaintiff No.1 Society is not valid. He admits the suggestion that, Sy.No.5/1, totally measures 7 acres 34 guntas, out of which, 5 acres 8 guntas is belonging to plaintiff No.1 Society and 39 guntas is kharab land and remaining land is 1 acre 27 guntas. He admits the suggestion that, Doddaiah had filed WP No.24760/1993. He denied the suggestion that, he is not in possession of his site. He denied the suggestion that, 23 OS No.25882/2010 documents executed by the plaintiff No.1 Society are not valid documents. He does not know that, K.K.Byadagi who is the GPA holder of Poojari Chikkana had sold the property belonging to others and thereby cheated the land owners. He admits the suggestion that, in the suit schedule property, his site is not shown separately.
13. DW1/defendant No.1 in his affidavit evidence has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of written-statement and got marked the documents at Exs.D1 to D62[a]. In his cross-examination, DW1 has stated that, he is a BA Graduate and he did Diploma in JDC. He knows Kannada and English Languages and he know the evidence led by PWs-1 and 2 and the documents marked through them. The land bearing Sy.No.5/1, is totally measuring 7 acres 34 guntas, out of which 39 guntas is kharab, in which, storm water drain is running. Excluding kharab land of 39 guntas, there remains 6 acres 35 guntas, out of which, 5 acres 8 guntas belongs to plaintiff No.1 Society, which was acquired by the Government 24 OS No.25882/2010 in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society in the year 1986. He denied the suggestion that, remaining land of 1 acre 27 guntas and Kharab land measuring 39 guntas is shown in the document at Ex.D2 towards east. Before handing over 5 acres 8 guntas of land to plaintiff No.1, JMC sketch was prepared. Witness voluntarily says that, JMC sketch has been cancelled by Deputy Commissioner. He does not know that, the acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas includes the land of Poojari Chikkanna. He denied the suggestion that, the acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas includes land of Poojari Chikkanna to an extent of 1 acres 26 guntas. Witness voluntarily says that, 1 acre 27 guntas of Junjamaraiah has been acquired by BDA. He denied the suggestion that, acquired land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas is situated on the eastern side of the acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas. He admits the suggestion that, in the year 1993, Poojari Chikanna had executed GPA in favour of K.K.Byadagi in respect of 1 acre 26 guntas and he further admits the suggestion that, K.K.Byadagi had formed 25 OS No.25882/2010 sites in 1 acre 26 guntas of land and sold the same and executed Sale Deeds in favour of plaintiffs-2 to 17. He does not know that, said K.K.Byadagi after executing the Sale Deeds had handed over the possession of the sites in favour of plaintiffs-2 to 17. He denied the suggestion that, some of the plaintiffs had built houses and BDA had regularized the said houses. He admits the suggestion that, plaintiffs-2 to 17 have filed suit against plaintiff No.1 Society in OS No.1573/2004. In the said suit, compromise decree has been passed. Himself and Kareshanaiah are not the parties in the compromise decree. He denied the suggestion that, on the eastern side of the acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas except remaining land 1 acre 27 guntas and 39 guntas of kharab land, no other extent is situated. He denied the suggestion that, plaintiff No.1 Society had executed Confirmation Deeds in favour of plaintiffs-2 to 17 in respect of the sites and he denied the suggestion that, plaintiffs-2 to 17 are in possession of their respective sites. He denied the suggestion that, on the eastern 26 OS No.25882/2010 side of acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas, land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas belonging to Doddaiah is situated. He admits the suggestion that, on 19.4.1945, one Junjamaraiah, father of Doddaiah had purchased 1 acre 27 guntas of land from one Thimmakka. He denied the suggestion that, after the death of Junjumaraiah, his son Doddaiah had sold 1 acre 27 guntas in favour of K.K.Byadagi. He admits the suggestion that, BDA had acquired 1 acre 27 guntas. He denied the suggestion that, Doddaiah had given an application to Land Acquisition Officer stating that, already K.K.Byadagi had formed sites and distributed the same to their members, therefore, the said land may be de-notified. He does not know that, land measuring 33 acres 37 guntas has been de-notified, which includes 1 acre 27 guntas of Doddaiah in Sy.No.5/1. There is no connection in between the land acquired by plaintiff No.1 measuring 5 acres 8 guntas and the land de-notified by BDA measuring 1 acre 27 guntas. He admits the suggestion that, land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas 27 OS No.25882/2010 belongs to one Doddaiah in which he [DW1] had purchased 37 guntas. He admits the suggestion that, BDA has acquired 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.NO.5/1 and the same has been de-notified. He denied the suggestion that, before acquisition of 1 acre 27 guntas, Doddaiah had given the said land to K.K.Byadagi through GPA and the said K.K.Byadagi had formed layout thereon and recommended for the de-notification of the said land and ultimately it was de-notified. He denied the suggestion that, by taking undue advantage of de-notification, he has created two false Sale Deeds in the names of Kareshanaiah and Shashidhara. He denied the suggestion that, on the basis of Exs.D51 and D53, he got phoded the land belonging to plaintiff No.1 Society measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in collusion with the revenue officials and he denied the suggestion that, by the time he got phoded the land, plaintiff No.1 Society had formed sites in the land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas and distributed the same to its members. He denied the suggestion that, even though 28 OS No.25882/2010 the land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas was standing in the name of plaintiff No.1 Society, he got phoded the land as 5/3 and 5/4 in collusion with the revenue officials. He admits the suggestion that, plaintiffs preferred Appeal No.67/2006-07 on the phodding report before the DDLR. Witness voluntarily says that, the said appeal has been remanded back and Tahasildhar has confirmed the earlier order. He admits the suggestion that, against the order of Tahasildhar, plaintiff No.1 Society preferred an Appeal before the DDLR in No.44/2007-
08. He denied the suggestion that, in the representation submitted to the Tahasildhar and Special Land Acquisition Officer, it is mentioned that, the land acquired on behalf of plaintiff No.1 Society measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1, itself has been wrongly phoded as Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 and recommended to cancel the phody and he further denied the suggestion that, DDLR in the appeal passed order dated: 29.9.2010 stating that, Sy.Nos.5/3 and 5/4 has been wrongly phoded in Sy.No.5/1. He admits the suggestion that, 29 OS No.25882/2010 himself and Khareshanaiah have preferred Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in R.P.No.6/11 and 12. He denied the suggestion that, the learned Deputy Commissioner has passed order stating that, since already Sy.No.5/1 has been converted and phoded, hence the same cannot be cancelled. He admits the suggestion that, the learned Deputy Commissioner has upheld the order passed by the Tahasildar by setting-aside the order passed by DDLR. The witness voluntarily says that, the Deputy Commissioner has converted his land into non-agricultural purpose bearing land Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas and he admits the suggestion that, the plaintiffs have preferred Writ petition challenging the orders passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner and the Writ Petition was disposed-off stating that, civil suit is pending before the trial court. He admits the suggestion that, said Doddaiah had preferred Writ Petition on the basis of the sketch prepared by plaintiff No.1 Society bifurcating their land and the land of Doddaiah and said Doddaiah had 30 OS No.25882/2010 withdrawn the Writ Petition by filing a Joint memo. He admits the suggestion that, Ex.D12 is pertaining to land de-notified to an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas. He denied the suggestion that, by colluding with the revenue officials, he has obtained bogus conversion order in respect of the land acquired by plaintiff No.1 Society. He denied the suggestion that, Exs.D40 to D48- Photographs are not pertaining either to Sy.No.5/1 or Sy.No.5/3. He admits the suggestion that, Smt.Girija.V.Raj is his wife. He denied the suggestion that, one Shashidhara had not executed GPA in favour of Girija.V.Raj and he denied the suggestion that, himself and his wife colluding with each other have created Ex.D52-Sale Deed. He denied the suggestion that, either himself or his wife have no right over Sy.Nos. 5/1 and 5/3, even then, they have created Sale Deed in respect of the said survey numbers. He denied the suggestion that, he is not in possession of Sy.Nos.5/3 and 5/4 and he has no right over the same. He admits the suggestion that, there is no connection in between 31 OS No.25882/2010 Sy.No.2/7 and suit schedule Sy.No.5/1. He denied the suggestion that, on 4.4.1988, Giriappa had entered into an agreement with plaintiff No.1 Society agreeing to sell Sy.No.2/7 and received Rs.1,26,000/- from plaintiff No.1 Society and handed over the possession of Sy.No.2/7 to plaintiff No.1 Society and Giriappa had executed Affidavit on 4.4.1988. He denied the suggestion that, plaintiff No.1 Society had purchased the land situated adjacent to land Sy.No.2/7. He admits the suggestion that, land bearing Sy.No.2/7 and other properties are situated adjacent to the suit schedule Sy.No.5/1. He denied the suggestion that, plaintiff No.1 Society formed sites in Sy.Nos. 2/7, 5/1 and other lands and distributed the same to all its members and the members have constructed houses thereon and residing therein. He denied the suggestion that, with an intention to knock-off Sy.No.2/7, even though said Giriappa died in the year 2003, he has given false representation to the BDA in the name of Giriappa and created false FIR and by colluding with the AEE of BDA, 32 OS No.25882/2010 he lodged a complaint before BMTF, in which he is the master mind person.
14. The learned plaintiffs counsel has vehemently argued and submitted that, the suit schedule property is a piece and parcel of acquired land measuring 5 Acres 8 Guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village, acquired in favour of 1st plaintiff Society for formation of layout and to distribute the sites to its members. The separate sites purchased by Plaintiffs-2 to 17 are situated in the suit schedule property. The Sy.Nos.5/3 and 5/4 claimed by the defendants are wrongly phoded in Sy.No.5/1, which are the parts and parcel of acquired land measuring 5 Acres 8 Guntas in favour of 1st plaintiff Society and Sy.No.5/3 is included in the suit property. The defendant No.1 claiming to be the purchaser of Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas is unnecessarily interfering with the possession of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 17 over the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to decree the suit, as prayed for.
33 OS No.25882/2010
15. Per-contra, the learned defendants counsel has also vehemently argued and submitted that, the Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 are the two bits of lands totally measuring 1 Acre 27 Guntas which is unacquired land in Sy.No.5/1 and the same is totally separate property from that of acquired land measuring 5 Acres 8 Guntas. Defendant No.1 has purchased Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas under the registered Sale Deed and got converted the same into non-agricultural purpose and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Under such circumstances, the question of alleged interference of defendants over the suit schedule property does not arise. The Plaintiffs have filed false suit only to harass the defendants. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
16. It is not in dispute that, Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village , Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, totally measuring 7 acres 34 guntas out of which 39 guntas is kharab land and on the requisition given by the plaintiff No.1 Society, the Government acquired an extent of 34 OS No.25882/2010 land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 for the benefit of members of plaintiff No.1 Society and handed over the same to the possession of plaintiff No.1 Society. So, the acquisition of land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.NO.5/1 in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society is not in dispute and the same has been admitted by defendant No.1 and there remains 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.5/1, which is un-acquried land. After acquisition of 5 acres 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1, plaintiff No.1 Society approached revenue authorities and got mutated the revenue records and paid tax and approached BDA for sanction of plan and issuance of license, work order etc. After obtaining the work order, plaintiff No.1 started formation of layout on the said 5 acres 8 guntas of land including the other lands. While formation of layout, plaintiffs-2 to 17 have objected for the formation of layout, on the ground that, they have purchased definite number of sites from the original owners represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder one Mr.K.K.Byadagi.
35 OS No.25882/2010
17. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendants seeking relief of Permanent Injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by the Plaintiffs and shown the schedule property as:
"All the piece and parcel of portion of Sy.No.5/1, measuring one acre, 26 guntas of [old site No.1 to 18 and Katha No.2476/1 to 18] situated at Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk now within the limits of BBMP". It is pertinent to note that, plaintiff No.1 is M/s.Rajarajeshwari House Building Co-operative Society Limited and plaintiffs-2 to 17 are alleged to be the members of plaintiff No.1 Society and they have purchased their respective sites through one K.K.Byadagi, the GPA holder of Poojari Chikkanna in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village , Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, under various registered Sale Deeds which are marked at Exs.P25, P35, P42, P48, P56, P68, P82, P98, P104, P113, P120, P127, P134 36 OS No.25882/2010 and P143 and the sites purchased by Plaintiffs-2 to 17 under the above mentioned Sale Deeds are different and individual sites each having its own separate extent and boundaries and according to Plaintiffs-2 to 17, the sites which were purchased by them under the above said Sale Deeds are totally measuring 1 acre 26 guntas, which is the suit schedule property and it is the further case of the Plaintiffs that, when plaintiff No.1 Society started formation of layout in the land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas, in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village, plaintiffs-2 to 17 have objected for the same and they had filed a suit in OS NO.1573/2004 against plaintiff No.1 Society. Plaintiff No.1 Society by considering the possession of plaintiffs-2 to 17 in their respective sites/suit schedule property and in order to avoid litigation, had executed Confirmation Deeds as per Exs.P34, P41, P47, P55, P67, P81, P88, P97, P103,P112, P119, P126,P133, P142 and P158 in favour of plaintiffs-2 to 17 by receiving consideration amount 37 OS No.25882/2010 from them. Therefore, Plaintiffs-2 to 17 contends that, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
18. On the other hand, it is the specific case of defendant No.1 that, Sy.No.5/1, totally measures 7 acres 34 guntas out which 39 guntas is kharab land. The Government had acquired 5 acres 8 guntas of land in the said Survey Number and handed over the possession of the same to plaintiff No.1 Society for formation of layout. So, there remains 1 acre 27 guntas, which is originally belongs to Junjumaraiah, father of Doddaiah, who had purchased the same under registered Sale Deed dated: 19.4.1945 which is marked as Ex.D9 from one Smt.Thimmakka. When such being the case, defendant No.1 contends that, plaintiffs are claiming entire extent of 7 acres 34 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village and plaintiff No.1 Society has no right to claim the entire extent of 7 acres 34 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1, except acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas and it is the further case of defendant No.1 that, the contention 38 OS No.25882/2010 of the plaintiffs that, Plaintiffs-2 to 17 have purchased their respective sites from the original owner one K.K.Byadai, who is the GPA holder of Poojari Chikkanna. In-fact, said Poojari Chikkanna had no right in Sy.No.5/1. His right has been rejected by Revenue Courts. After coming to know that, said Poojari Chikkanna had no right in Sy.No.5/1, plaintiffs-2 to 17 have filed a suit in OS No.1573/2004 against plaintiff No.1 Society and both the parties by colluding with each other, have compromised the said case by filing a compromise petition and thereby plaintiff No.1 Society had executed Confirmation deeds as per Exs.P34, P41, P47, P55, P67, P81, P88, P97, P103, P112, P119, P126, P133, P142 and P158 in favour of plaintiffs-2 to 17 by receiving consideration amount from them. The alleged compromise entered into between both the parties in OS No.1573/2004 is illegal and invalid, since, Poojari Chikkanna had no right in Sy.No.5/1 as such, his GPA holder K.K.Byadagi cannot execute registered Sale Deeds in favour of plaintiffs-2 to 17 in respect of their 39 OS No.25882/2010 respective sites in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village. Under such circumstances, Plaintiffs-2 to 17 cannot file the said suit against plaintiff No.1 Society and they cannot enter into compromise in the said suit. Therefore, the alleged compromise entered into between the parties in the said suit [OS No.1573/2004] is invalid and it is the further case of defendant No.1 that, Doddaiah son of Junjamaraiah had preferred WP No.24760/1993 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka seeking quashing of acquisition proceedings in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society. Since, his land was not part of land measuring acquisition proceedings, the same was not pressed and it is further case of defendant No.1 that, in WP No.24760/1993, plaintiff No.1 Society had filed sketch as per Ex.D2 admitting the sketch that, there are 2 bits of land and the plaintiff No. 1 Society is nothing to do with the unacquired land in Sy.No.5/1 measuring 31 guntas, and another extent of land measuring 35 guntas in Sy.No.5/1, which are situated on the eastern side and northern side of the acquired land 40 OS No.25882/2010 measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village. It is the further case of defendant No.1 that, Government had acquired land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas belonging to Doddaiah son of Junjamaraiah and the same was de-notified on the requisition filed by Doddaiah. Therefore, land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas out of total extent of 7 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village remained un-acquired. The un-acquired land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas are 2 bits of land which are phoded and numbered as Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4. It is the further specific case of defendant No.1 that, Junjamaraiah, father of Doddaiah had purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hogli, Bengaluru South Taluk, under the registered Sale Deed dated:19.4.1945 from one Smt.Thimmakka and he [defendant No.1] got marked the Certified copy of the registered Sale Deed dated: 19.4.1945 as per Ex.D9, which clearly goes to show that, Junjamaraiah had purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli 41 OS No.25882/2010 Village from one Smt.Thimmakka and after the death of Junjamaraiah, his son by name Doddaiah succeeded the said property and he sold an extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village out of 1 acre 27 guntas in favour of one Kareshannaiah, as per Ex.D51-Certified copy of the registered Sale Deed dated: 27.4.2005 and the said Doddaiah had also sold 37 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village out of 1 acre 27 guntas in favour of one D.S.Shashidhara as per Ex.D53-Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated: 27.4.2005 and it is the further case of defendant No.1 that, the said Shashidhara executed GPA in favour of defendant No.2 who in turn sold 37 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village after phodding new number was given as Sy.No.5/3, in favour of defendant No.1 under registered Sale Deed dated: 25.3.2008 marked as Ex.D52. Therefore, defendant No.1 contends that, he is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas and defendant No.1 further contends that, plaintiff No.1 Society 42 OS No.25882/2010 in WP No.24760/1993 had filed a sketch as per Ex.D2 admitting that, the said 2 bits of land shown in Ex.D2 are nothing to do with the land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas acquired in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society. The Plaintiffs have contended that, plaintiff No.1 Society apart from acquiring 5 acres 8 guntas of land in Sy.NO.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village had acquired some other lands totally measuring 30 Acres 14 Guntas for formation of layout and to form sites thereon and distribute the same to its members, which could be seen from Ex.P2-Gazette Notification in which the Land Acquisition Officer issued Notification under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiffs have also relied upon Ex.P20-Sketch and Report submitted by the Surveyor, Special Land Acquisition Office. As per Ex.P20, Plaintiffs contend that, Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 comes within the acquired land measuring 5 Acres 8 Guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village. The plaintiffs have also relied upon Ex.P165-Orders passed by the Survey Technical Assistant and 43 OS No.25882/2010 Director of Land Records wherein it is ordered that, it is confirmed that Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 are belongs to Petitioner/ plaintiff No.1 Society and directed the respondents to hand over the possession of the same to plaintiff No.1 Society, after re-phodding the same. The plaintiffs have also relied upon Ex.P167-Orders passed by the Technical assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Land Records wherein, it is ordered that, land bearing Sy Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 are belongs to plaintiff No.1 Society and further ordered to re-phod the same in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society and the plaintiffs also relied upon Ex.P168-Orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner wherein the orders passed in Appeal NO.44/2007-08 dated: 29.9.2010 by the Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the ex-officio DDLR, Bangalore District is set-aside and the orders passed by the Tahasildhar in Case No.4/2007-08 dated: 18.2.2008 phodding of Sy.No.5/3 and 5/4 were upheld. Under such circumstances, the contention of the plaintiffs that, Sy.No.5/3 measuring 44 OS No.25882/2010 37 guntas and Sy.NO.5/4 wrongly phoded and the same are comes within the acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 acquired in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society, cannot be believed and accepted. Defendant No.1 specifically contended that, in view of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, in Revision Petition No.6/2010-11, which is marked as Ex.P168 and the same is produced by defendant No.1, which is marked as Ex.D18, Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas which belongs to defendant No.1 does not come within the acquired land of 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1, acquired in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society. The plaintiffs have also relied upon Ex.P169- Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.24032-041/2012 c/w WP Nos. 19043-049/2012 dated: 20.9.2012, wherein the plaintiffs herein have challenged the orders passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition 45 OS No.25882/2010 No.6/2010-11. The Hon'ble High Court in the said WPs has observed that:
"On careful perusal of the order under challenge, I find that, the dispute between the parties has to be finally decided and adjudicated before the appropriate court in accordance with law. Since the matter pertains to identification of the unacquired portion of 1 acre 27 guntas in the land in question and as suits are pending in OS Nos. 25882/2010 and 6293/2007 before the City Civil Court, this court cannot interfere in the matter at this stage and that, the civil court has to examine the matter and the matter has to be gone into by the civil court provided the scope of enquiry in the civil court requires identification of the property and disposed-off the said WPs".
Said orders passed in WPs have been challenged by the plaintiffs in W.A. Nos. 8358-8367/2012 c/w W.N.Nos.8337-39/2012 & 4540-43/2013 (KLR-RES) before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which is marked as 46 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.P170, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that:
"The scope and extent of the appellate jurisdiction of this court under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is settled by the precedents. What we find from the matrix on hand is the lies between the parties is about the title and identity of the property, requiring a detailed enquiry which is not possible under the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the learned Single Judge was not in error in disposing of the matter without going into the merits of the case having regard to the pendency of the civil suits. Now it is for the parties to work out their remedy before the civil forum by seeking appropriate relief. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed".
As per the order passed as per Exs.P169 and P170 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, unacquired land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village has to be identified by the parties to the suit by conducting enquiry. It is the specific case of defendant No.1 47 OS No.25882/2010 that, Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 are the unacquired lands measuring 1 acre 27 guntas of Nagadevanahalli Village in which plaintiff No.1 Society is nothing to do with the said 2 bits of land. The contention taken by the plaintiffs is that, Sy.Nos.5/3 and 5/4 are situated within the acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society in Sy.No.5/1. It is important to note that, plaintiffs-2 to 17 have contended that, they have purchased their respective sites in their respective names individually under the various registered Sale Deeds and Confirmation Deeds executed by plaintiff No.1 Society in their favour and all the sites purchased by plaintiffs-2 to 17 is totally measuring 1 acre 26 guntas, which is the suit schedule property. Plaintiff No.1 Society has not disputed that, plaintiffs-2 to 17 have purchased their individual separate sites in their respective names under various registered Sale Deeds and Confirmation Deeds executed by plaintiff No.1 Society and all the sites purchased by plaintiffs-2 to 17 totally measures 1 acre 26 guntas in Sy.No.5/1, which is morefully 48 OS No.25882/2010 described as the suit schedule property and it is pertinent to note that, plaintiff No.1 Society had formed a layout in Sy.No.5/1 measuring 5 acres 8 guntas and in other lands acquired by plaintiff No.1 Society totally measuring 30 acres 14 guntas of Nagadevanahalli Village including the suit schedule property and prepared layout plan, formed sites therein and distributed the sites to its members. Accordingly, plaintiffs-2 to 17 have also purchased various sites of various dimensions within the specified boundaries in the suit schedule property and as defendant No.1 caused obstructions to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs have come up with the present suit seeking relief of Permanent Injunction against defendant Nos.1 and 2. Admittedly, plaintiffs-2 to 17 have purchased their individual separate sites of different extent within the specified boundaries as per their respective Sale Deeds. Thus, it is crystal clear that, individual sites purchased by plaintiffs-2 to 17 are individual properties of each plaintiffs-2 to 17 and they are all different sites measuring different measurements 49 OS No.25882/2010 within its specified boundaries, but, plaintiffs-2 to 17 have amalgamated all their sites purchased under various registered Sale Deeds and together given total extent of 1 acre 26 guntas to all their individual sites and shown 1 Acre 26 Guntas as the suit schedule property and sought for the relief of Permanent Injunction against the defendants without seeking relief of declaration and admittedly, plaintiffs-2 to 17 have not at all produced the layout plan prepared by the plaintiff No.1 Society and except producing the various registered Sale Deeds as per Exs.P25, P35, P42, P48, P56, P68, P82, P98, P104, P113, P120, P127, P134 and P143 and Confirmation Deeds as per Exs.P34, P41, P47, P55, P67, P81, P88, P97, P103, P112, P119, P126,P133, P142 and P158 executed in their favour. They have not at all produced the layout plan to show the exact location of their individual sites in the layout formed by plaintiff No.1 Society and the plaint also does not discloses the description of the individual sites of plaintiffs-2 to 17 such as site Numbers, measurements and its boundaries. 50 OS No.25882/2010 Under such circumstances, it appears that, identification of each sites of plaintiffs-2 to 17 shown together stated to be located in the suit schedule property are itself un-identifiable property, therefore, they are not identified by the plaintiffs-2 to 17 as well as by the plaintiff No.1 Society. Moreover, the plaintiffs have not at all sought for declaration of their title in respect of their individual sites, whereas, defendant No.1 has disputed the existence and exact location of individual sites of plaintiffs-2 to 17 alleged to be situated in the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances, plaintiffs ought to have filed suit for declaration to declare that, they are the owners of their respective individual sites, as per the various registered Sale Deeds and Confirmation Deeds, said to be situated in the suit schedule property.
19. Even though the plaintiffs-2 to 17 have produced their respective registered Sale Deeds as per Exs.P25, P35, P42, P48, P56, P68, P82, P98, P104, P113, P120, P127, P134 and P143 and Confirmation Deeds as per Exs.P34, P41, P47, 51 OS No.25882/2010 P55, P67, P81,P88, P97, P103, P112, P119, P126, P133, P142 and P158 standing in their names and other relevant documents such as tax paid receipts, receipts issued by plaintiff No.1 for taking deposit from plaintiffs-2 to 17 and share Certificates in the names of plaintiffs-2 to 17 and Endorsements issued by the Chief Officer, Purasabhe, Kengeri, but, those documents does not confer any right, title or interest upon plaintiffs-2 to 17 about their lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, as I have already stated above that, plaintiffs-2 to 17 each are having different sites of different measurements and different boundaries, that too, all the sites of plaintiffs-2 to 17 are independent and individual sites of each of plaintiffs-2 to 17, but, plaintiffs-2 to 17 instead of mentioning their respective site numbers, its measurements and boundaries individually in the schedule to the plaint, they have come with the present suit seeking decree of Permanent Injunction against the defendants, by showing that, all their sites are situated in the 52 OS No.25882/2010 suit schedule property totally measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village. So, from the facts of case of plaintiffs-2 to 17, prima-facie which itself creates doubt regarding the actual location of each sites of plaintiffs-2 to 17 and its exact measurements and boundaries and doubt creates as to whether where exactly the individual sites of plaintiffs-2 to 17 are situated in the suit schedule property? Admittedly, plaintiff No.1 Society formed layout in an area measuring 30 acres 14 guntas of land in Nagadevanahalli Village including the acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village and the suit schedule property. According to Plaintiffs and as I have already stated above, though the plaintiff No.1 Society had formed such a big layout and prepared layout plan and formed sites therein and distributed the sites to its Members, including plaintiffs-2 to 17 herein, but, the plaintiffs have not at all produced layout plan to show where exactly the individual sites of each plaintiffs-2 to 17 are situated within its 53 OS No.25882/2010 specified measurements and boundaries in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the plaintiffs have not only failed to prove their lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of this suit, but, they have also failed to prove the exact location of individual sites of plaintiffs-2 to 17 and its boundaries and its measurements to show that, the sites of plaintiffs-2 to 17 are situated in the suit schedule property. On the other hand, defendant No.1 by producing Ex.D2-Sketch produced by the plaintiff No.1 Society in WP No.24760/1993, has showed existence of 2 bits of land in Sy.No.5/1, admitted by plaintiff No.1 Society, one bit of land measuring 35 guntas, in Sy.No.5/1, which is situated on the northern side of the acquired land and another bit of land measuring 37 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 which is situated on the eastern side of the acquired land. In view of the plaintiff No.1 Society acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village and as 54 OS No.25882/2010 plaintiff No.1 Society has also admitted the existence of 2 bits of lands in WP No.24760/1993, as per Ex.D2-Sketch, and as defendant No.1 by producing Ex.D9-Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated: 19.4.1945, has prima-facie proved that, Junjamaraiah, father of Doddaiah had purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village and defendant No.1 by producing Ex.D51-Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated: 27.4.2005 prima-facie proved that, Doddaiah, son of Junjumaraiah had sold 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village out of 1 acre 27 guntas in favour of one Kareshanaiah which is subsequently phoded as Sy.No.5/4 and defendant No.1 by producing Ex.D53-Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated: 27.4.2005 prima-facie proved that, said Doddaiah had also sold 37 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1 out of 1 acre 27 guntas in favour of one D.S.Shashidhara, which is subsequently phoded as Sy.No.5/3 and defendant No.1 by producing Ex.D52-Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated:25.3.2008 prima-facie proved 55 OS No.25882/2010 that, he has purchased 37 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1, after phoding its new Number is given as Sy.No.5/3 of Nagadevanahalli Village. The said 2 bits of land i.e., one purchased under Ex.D53 is Sy.No.5/3 of Nagadevanahalli Village measuring 37 guntas is standing in the name of defendant No.1 herein and another bit of land in Sy.No.5/4 of Nagadevanahalli Village, measuring 30 guntas is standing in the name of Kareshanaiah. Defendant No.1 claims that, Sy.No.5/3 belongs to him measuring 37 guntas and Sy.No.5/4 measuring 30 guntas belongs to one Kareshanaiah and the said 2 bits of lands are unacquired property. Sy.No.5/4 measuring 30 guntas is standing in the name of Kareshanaiah, who is not a party to this suit. Defendant No.1 got converted Sy.No.5/3 of Nagadevanahalli Village measuring 37 guntas under Ex.D27-Order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, dated: 16.12.2011 and it is shown in the Sketch as per Ex.D28 and Ex.D31-Demand Register goes to show that, Sy.No.5/3 of Nagadevanahalli 56 OS No.25882/2010 Village measuring 37 guntas is standing in the name of defendant No.1 and Exs.D32 to D36- Tax paid receipts goes to show that, defendant No.1 has paid tax to the concerned authority in respect of Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas of Nagadevanahalli Village. According to the case of defendant No.1, the said 2 bits of lands in Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas and land in Sy.No.5/4 measuring 30 guntas of Nagadevanahalli Village totally measuring 1 acre 27 guntas is unacquired land, which does not comes within the purview of acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village acquired in favour of the plaintiff No.1 Society. Defendant No.1 has relied on Ex.D18-Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, in Review Petition No.6/2010-11 dated: 12.4.2012, which goes to show that, the learned Deputy Commissioner has set-aside the order passed in Appeal No.44/2007-08 dated: 29.9.2010 and upheld the orders passed by the Tahasildhar in Case No.4/2007-08 dated: 18.2.2008 57 OS No.25882/2010 confirming the phody effected by the Tahasildhar as Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 of Nagadevanahalli Village. As I have already stated above, plaintiff No.1 Society by producing Ex.D2-Sketch produced before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.24760/1993 has admitted the existence of 2 bits of lands, one land in Sy.No.5/1 after phoding as Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas, which is situated on the northern side of acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village and admitted existence of another bit of land in Sy.No.5/1 after phoding as Sy.No.5/4 measuring 30 guntas, which is situated on the eastern side of the acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village acquired in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society. The said 2 bits of lands are claimed by defendant No.1 stating that, Sy.No.5/3 which is newly phoded measuring 37 guntas and Sy.No.5/4, which is newly phoded measuring 30 guntas totally measuring 1 acre 27 guntas, of Nagadevanahalli Village which are unacquired lands. The Hon'ble High 58 OS No.25882/2010 Court of Karnataka in WP No.24032-041/2012 c/w WP Nos. 19043-049/2012 dated: 20.9.2012, which is marked as Ex.P169, have observed that:
" Since the matter pertains to identification of the unacquired portion of 1 acre 27 guntas in the land in question and as suits are pending in OS Nos. 25882/2010 and 6293/2007 before the City Civil Court, this court cannot interfere in the matter at this stage and that, the civil court has to examine the matter and the matter has to be gone into by the civil court provided the scope of enquiry in the civil court requires identification of the property"..
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.A. Nos. 8358-8367/2012 c/w W.A.Nos.8337-39/2012 & 4540-43/2013 which is marked as Ex.P170, has observed that:
"The scope and extent of the appellate jurisdiction of this court under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is settled by the precedents. What we find from the matrix on 59 OS No.25882/2010 hand is the lies between the parties is about the title and identity of the property, requiring a detailed enquiry which is not possible under the writ jurisdiction.".
So, as per Exs.P169 and P170, the burden of proving identification of un-acquired land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas is upon the parties to this suit, but, neither the plaintiffs nor defendant No.1 have filed an application seeking appointment of court commissioner for identification of the suit schedule property in which the alleged sites of plaintiffs-2 to 17 with different dimensions and within the specified boundaries are situated and to identify the un-acquired portion of land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village. In the absence of appointment of court commissioner and in the absence of report of the court commissioner, about the identification of the suit schedule property as well as the identification of un-acquired property measuring 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village it is crystal clear that, the plaintiffs as well as defendant No.1 have 60 OS No.25882/2010 failed to identify the suit schedule property in which the separate and individual sites of plaintiffs-2 to 17 are situated and also failed to identify the un-acquired portion measuring 1 acre 27 guntas which is situated in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village which is subsequently phoded as Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 of Nagadevanahalli Village. So, in the absence of above said materials such as report of the court commissioner, sketch, mahazar etc., it is crystal clear that, parties to this suit have not only failed to find out the identity of the suit schedule property, but, they have also failed to identify the un-acquired portion measuring 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, both the properties i.e., the suit schedule property as well as the un-acquired property measuring 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village are remained as un-identified properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that, they are in lawful possession and 61 OS No.25882/2010 enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of the suit.
20. The plaintiffs have contended that, defendants having no right, claim or interest over the acquired land and the suit schedule property, on the guise of acquiring right over the un-acquired land trying to trespass over the suit schedule property in order to change the nature of the suit schedule property with the help of bulldozers and made attempt to level the land and to dismantle the road formed by plaintiff No.1 Society and also making attempts to erase the sites, drainage etc., in order to destroy the evidence of there being a layout of sites. The said attempt was started on 6.6.2010. The plaintiffs lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police warned defendant No.1 not to indulge in such activities of trespassing and damaging the suit schedule property. Again on 12.6.2010, the defendant No.1 brought bulldozers and lorries and started his illegal attempt. The police pleaded their helplessness. Therefore, the plaintiffs have 62 OS No.25882/2010 approached this court by filing the present suit seeking relief of Permanent Injunction against the defendants. In order to prove the aforesaid alleged interference of the defendants over the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs have not at all produced any piece of papers or photographs to show that, defendant No.1 on 6.6.2010 and on 12.6.2010 brought bulldozers and lorries and attempted to dismantle the road and to erase the sites, drainages etc., in the layout formed by plaintiff No.1 Society on the suit schedule property and attempted to dump mud thereon, except mere allegations. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas claimed by defendant No.1 and Sy.No.5/4 measuring 30 guntas of Kareshanaiah comes within the area of acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village, acquired in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society. But, the defendant No.1 has totally denied the aforesaid allegations made by the plaintiffs and it is specific case of defendant No.1 that, he had purchased Sy.No.5/3 63 OS No.25882/2010 measuring 37 guntas situated at Nagadevanahalli Village and he contends that, as per Ex.D18-Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, in Review Petition No.6/2010-11, dated: 12.4.2012, the Deputy Commissioner has upheld the orders passed by the Tahasildar in Case No.4/2007-08 dated: 18.2.2008, phodding Sy.Nos. 5/3 and 5/4 in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village. So, as per Ex.D18, prima-facie it appears that, Sy.No.5/3, measuring 37 guntas purchased by defendant No.1 is not coming within the purview of acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village acquired in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society. Under such circumstances, the claim of plaintiffs-2 to 17 that, they have purchased their respective sites under different measurements within the specified boundaries through Sri.K.K.Byadagi, the GPA holder of Poojari Chikkanna under various registered Sale Deeds and same has been confirmed by plaintiff No.1 Society by executing various Confirmation Deeds in favour of plaintiffs-2 to 17 does not 64 OS No.25882/2010 hold any water. Since, the right and ownership of Poojari Chikkanna to an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village was rejected by the Revenue Courts. Under such circumstances, the claim of plaintiffs that, Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas standing in the name of defendant No.1 comes within the purview of acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village, holds no water. Defendant No.1 by producing Ex.D52-Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated: 25.3.2008 has established that, he has purchased Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas of Nagadevanahalli Village from defendant NO.2 and defendant No.1 by producing Ex.D27- Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, converting the land Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas into Non-agricultural purpose and also defendant No.1 by producing Ex.D29-Khata extract, Ex.D30-Khata Certificate and Ex.D31-Property extract showed that, Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas of Nagadevanahalli Village is standing in his [defendant No.1] 65 OS No.25882/2010 name and defendant No.1 by producing Exs.D32 to D36-Tax paid receipts showed that, Sy.No.5/3 measuring 37 guntas of Nagadevanahalli Village is in his possession and the same is separate property than that of land acquired in favour of plaintiff No.1 Society measuring 5 acres 8 guntas. Under such circumstances the alleged question of interference of defendant No.1 over the suit schedule property does not arise at all and thereby the plaintiffs have failed to prove the alleged interference of the defendants in the suit schedule property. Therefore, I answer Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the Negative.
21. ISSUE NO.3:- The Plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents etc., from interfering with the Plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. I have already come to the conclusion and answered Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the Negative holding that, the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of the 66 OS No.25882/2010 suit and the Plaintiffs have also failed to prove the illegal interference of the defendants over their [Plaintiffs] possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the decree of Permanent Injunction, as sought for.
22. The learned counsel for defendant No.1 has relied on a ruling reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033 [Anathula Sudhakar Vs.P.Buchi Reddy [Dead] by L.Rs and Ors], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that:
"Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy".
In the present case on hand, the plaintiffs have claimed that, Sy.No.5/3 is a piece and parcel of acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village, whereas, defendant No.1 claims that, he has 67 OS No.25882/2010 purchased Sy.No.5/3, measuring 37 guntas of Nagadevanahalli Village. Therefore, he contends that, Sy.No.5/3 is not a piece and parcel of the acquired land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village acquired in favour of the plaintiff No.1 Society. Therefore, defendant No.1 has raised a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property. But, plaintiffs have filed the present suit only for grant of the relief of perpetual injunction and not sought for the relief of declaration to declare their ownership over their respective sites said to be situated in the Suit schedule Sy.No.5/1 of Nagadevanahalli Village. Therefore, the aforesaid respected ruling will come to the aid of defendant No.1. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the plaintiffs are not entitled for decree of Permanent Injunction, as sought for. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 also in the Negative.
68 OS No.25882/2010
23. ISSUE NO.4:- In-view of the reasons stated on Issue Nos.1 to 3 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of June, 2016).
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of portion of Sy.No.5/1, measuring one acre, 26 guntas of [old site No.1 to 18 and Katha No.2476/1 to 18] situated at Nagadevanahalli Village, 69 OS No.25882/2010 Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk now within the limits of BBMP and bounded on:
East by: Remaining portion of 5/1 owned by the first plaintiff out of 5 acres, 8 guntas of acquired land and there afterwards the portion of land left out of acquisition in Sy.No.5/1.
West by: Sy.No.8 North by: Sy.No.6 South by: Remaining portion of layout formed by First plaintiff in Sy.No.5/1 XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: P.W.1 : S.Narasingh Rao 9.12.2014/9.1.2015 P.W.2 : Dr.Rajashekaraiah 15.4.2015/10.7.2015 LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
70 OS No.25882/2010
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of the Preliminary Notification
Ex.P1[a] : Notary attested Gazette
Ex.P2 : Certified copy of the Final Notification
Ex.P2[a] : Notary attested final notification
Ex.P3 : Certified copy of the Award
Ex.P4 : Sketch
Ex.P5 : Certified copy of Possession taken certificate
Ex.P6 : Official Memorandum
Exs.P7 and : Certified copies of Notification issued U/S 16[2] P8 of Land Acquisition Act Ex.P9 : Mutation Exs.P10 to : RTCs P19 Ex.P20 : Sketch Ex.P21 : Spl.LAO Report Exs.P22 and : BDA Letters P23 Ex.P24 : Ledger Ex.P24[a] : Relevant pages and P24[b] Ex.P25 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P26 : BDA Order dated: 20.12.1996 Ex.P27 : Khata endorsement Ex.P28 : Assessment Register extract 71 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.P29 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P30 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P31 : Receipt Ex.P32 : Deposit receipt Ex.P33 : Share certificate Ex.P34 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P35 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P36 : Khata endorsement Ex.P37 : Assessment Extract Ex.P38 : Receipt Ex.P39 : Deposit receipt Ex.P40 : Share certificate Ex.P41 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P42 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P43 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P44 : Receipt Ex.P45 : Deposit receipt Ex.P46 : Share certificate Ex.P47 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P48 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P49 : Khata endorsement Ex.P50 : Assessment Extract Ex.P51 : Tax paid receipt 72 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.P52 : Receipt Ex.P53 : Deposit receipt Ex.P54 : Share certificate Ex.P55 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P56 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P57 : Khata endorsement Ex.P58 : Assessment register Extract Ex.P59 to Tax paid receipts P62 Ex.P63 : Development charges receipt Ex.P64 : Receipt Ex.P65 : Deposit receipt Ex.P66 : Share certificate Ex.P67 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P68 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P69 : Khata endorsement Ex.P70 : Assessment register Extract Ex.P71 Development charges receipt Exs.P72 to Tax paid receipts P77 Ex.P78 : Receipt Ex.P79 : Deposit receipt Ex.P80 : Share certificate Ex.P81 : Original Deed Of Confirmation 73 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.P82 : Original Sale Deed Exs.P83 to : Tax paid receipts P85 Ex.P86 : Receipt Ex.P87 : Deposit receipt Ex.P88 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P89 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P90 : Khata endorsement Ex.P91 : Assessment register Extract Ex.P92 : Development charges receipt Ex.P93 Tax paid receipt Ex.P94 : Receipt Ex.P95 : Deposit receipt Ex.P96 : Share certificate Ex.P97 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P98 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P99 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P100 : Receipt Ex.P101 : Deposit receipt Ex.P102 : Share certificate Ex.P103 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P104 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P105 : Certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P106 : Certified copy of the Khata endorsement 74 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.P107 : Certified copy of the assessment register extract Ex.P108 : Certified copy of the Development charges receipt Ex.P109 : Receipt Ex.P110 : Deposit receipt Ex.P111 : Share certificate Ex.P112 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P113 : Original Sale Deed Exs.P114 : Tax paid receipts and P115 Ex.P116 : Receipt Ex.P117 : Deposit receipt Ex.P118 : Share certificate Ex.P119 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P120 : Original Sale Deed Exs.P121 : Tax paid receipts and P122 Ex.P123 : Receipt Ex.P124 : Deposit receipt Ex.P125 : Share certificate Ex.P126 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P127 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P128 : Khata endorsement Ex.P129 : Assessment register Extract 75 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.P130 : Receipt Ex.P131 : Deposit receipt Ex.P132 : Share certificate Ex.P133 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P134 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P135 Original Khata endorsement Ex.P136 : Assessment register Extract Ex.P137 : Development charges receipt Exs.P138 Tax paid receipts and P139 Ex.P140 : Receipt Ex.P141 : Share certificate Ex.P142 : Original Deed Of Confirmation Ex.P143 : Original Sale Deed Ex.P144 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P145 : Khata endorsement Ex.P146 : Assessment extract Ex.P147 : Receipt for developmental charges Exs.P148 to : Tax paid receipts P154 Ex.P155 : Receipt Ex.P156 : Deposit receipt Ex.P157 : Share certificate Ex.P158 : Original Deed of Confirmation 76 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.P159 : Certified copy of the amended plaint in OS No.1573/2004 Ex.P160 : Certified copy of the compromise petition in OS No.1573/2004 Ex.P161 : Certified copy of order sheet in OS No.1573/2004 Ex.P162 : Certified copy of the decree in OS No.1573/2004 Ex.P163 : Certified copy of the notice Ex.P164 : Certified copy of the statement Ex.P165 : Certified copy of the DDLR order Ex.P166 : Certified copy of the Tahashildar Order Ex.P167 : Certified copy of the DDLR Order Ex.P168 : Certified copy of the Deputy Commissioner Order Ex.P169 : Certified copy of the WP orders in Nos.24032/2012 c/w WP Nos. 19043-049/2012 Ex.P170 : Certified copy of the WA orders in Nos. 8358- 8367/2012 c/w WA Nos. 8337-39/2012 and 4540-43/2012 Ex.P171 : Certified copy of the plaint in OS No.3583/2004 Ex.P172 : Certified copy of the Judgement passed in OS No.3583/2004 Ex.P173 : Certified copy of the decree passed in OS No.3583/2004 Ex.P174 : Certified copy of the Sale Deed 77 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.P175 : Karnataka Rajya Patra [Gazette Notification] Ex.P176 : Original share certificate Ex.P177 : Intimation letter dated: 6.4.2015 Ex.P178 : Intimation letter dated: 8.5.2015 Ex.P179 : RTI copy letter Ex.P180 : Objections filed by the defendant Certified copy of the RA No.44/2008-09 Ex.P181 : Intimation letter dated: 23.4.2015 Ex.P182 : Certified copy of the letter dated: 22.7.2009 to the DDLR by Tahasildhar Ex.P183 : Certified copy of the spot mahazar Ex.P184 : Certified copy of the spot inspection report by Tahasildhar Ex.P185 : Certified copy of the sketch showing the required portion Ex.P186 : Letter dated: 19.7.2000 R.T.I copy by K.K.Byadagi Ex.P187 : Letter dated: 9.10.2000 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister Ex.P188 : Letter dated: 10.11.2000 R.T.I copy Ex.P189 : Tippani and order sheets maintained by BDA, R.T.I copy Ex.P190 : Note Sheets of BDA, R.T.I copy 78 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.P191 : Notifications of R.T.I copy Ex.P192 : Endorsements dated: 29.9.2015, 1.6.2006, 1.6.2006 Ex.P193 : Notarized Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex.P194 : Vijayavani Daily Newspaper Ex.P195 : Deccan Herald Daily Newspaper Ex.P196 : Agreement of sale Ex.P197 : Agreement of sale dated: 7.11.2003 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT NO.1:
DW1 : Mirle Varadaraju 13.8.2015 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT NO.1: Ex.D1 : Certified copy of WP No.24760/1993 Ex.D2 : Certified copy of the sketch Ex.D2[a] : Signature of PW1 Exs.D3 and : RTCs D4 Ex.D5 : Certified copy of the sketch Ex.D6 : Compromise petition and Mutation Register Ex.D7 : RTC 79 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.D8 : Endorsement issued by BDA Ex.D9 : Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated: 19.4.1945 Ex.D10 : Denotification Gazette Ex.D11 : RAS 1/2004 Order copy Ex.D12 : Certified copy of the R.P 107/2004-05 order Exs.D13 : 2 MR copies and D14 Exs.D14[a] : 2 RTCs copies and D15 Ex.D16 : Copy of the DDLR order Ex.D17 : Certified copy of the order passed by Tahasildhar Ex.D18 : R.P No.6/2010-11 order copy Ex.D19 : Certified copy of the Order passed in WP No.24032-041/2012 c/w WP Nos. 19043- 049/2012 Ex.D20 : Certified copy of the order passed in WA No.8358-8367/2012 c/w WA Nos. 8337- 39/2012 and 4540-43/2013 Ex.D21 : RTC Ex.D22 : Mutation register extract Ex.D23 : RTC Ex.D24 : Another RTC 80 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.D25 : Conversion order and RTC Exs.D26 : 2 conversion orders and D27 Ex.D28 : Certified copy of the conversion sketch Ex.D29 : Notice issued by BBMP Ex.D30 : Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.D31 : Property register extract of BBMP Exs.D32 to : 5 tax paid receipts D36 Ex.D37 : Property register extract of BBMP Ex.D38 : Sketch Ex.D39 : Electricity bill Exs.D40 to : 8 photographs D47 Ex.D48 : CD Ex.D49 : Certified copy of the FIR Ex.D50 : Notice Ex.D51 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated: 27.4.2005 Ex.D52 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated: 25.3.2008 Ex.D53 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated: 27.4.2005 Ex.D54 : Certified copy of gift Deed dated: 18.2.2013 Ex.D55 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated:8.8.2013 Ex.D56 : Certified copy of the Sketch issued by the Tahasildhar 81 OS No.25882/2010 Ex.D57 : Copy of the Tippani issued by Tahasildhar Ex.D58 : Land conversion Sketch copy Ex.D59 : Certified copy of the license Ex.D60 : Certified copy of the FIR Ex.D61 : Certified copy of the complaint Ex.D62 : Notification No.BDA/ALAO/A3/139/88-89 Ex.D62[a] : Sy.No.2/7 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMETS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT NO.2: NIL XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT: BANGALORE. 82 OS No.25882/2010
23.6.16 Pltffs: NRJP Judgement pronounced in the open court D1: SSG (Vide separate detailed Judgement) D2:Exp.T Judgement Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT: BANGALORE.
83 OS No.25882/2010