Gangamma W/O Late Lingaiah vs Amenabi W/O Amirlal on 14 August, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Gangamma W/O Late Lingaiah vs Amenabi W/O Amirlal on 14 August, 2009

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

' m _ .. u

1
{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALGRE

DATED THIS TREE E'-1 Eh DAY OF AUGUST 

BEFORE:

THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTECE ANAND     ,  
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL.A:3\Iu>,:"?')jjﬂ2__Q0:}_(.'II).:}EiC'pf; X
BETWEEN: '     % % '    A

Gax1§a;12i§:@sV. 3 ' ' '-- »  'L . u'  .
Wis Latehiwliah;      

: MajQf,'VR§:sid§lng .-msic 27;:

;5F.grah&rad:ifsa1fah:;l3«i,__ " = .
7ihV_Cr(_3s$,  1}: p " ' « 
Mags-.:;1iRead_,  

 ' "B;1ngaiur:;._ V' V

Qgagadhapdiah  Raga

 T. S-:'g:>"La::3 Lingaéah

  Nizﬁgvx, Résidirag ak N13 2751,

A.gtaf1aI'adasarahalli,
'/"Q1 Cross, 4111 Main,

X T " Magadi Road,
 Bangalore.

.. APPELLANTS

°   1% Sri. G Baiakdshna Shasl1"_~;,Ac3vucaic 3

g



AND:

1 Amemabi,
W/0 Amirlal, 

Since dead by legal mprsscniﬁiivéﬁ' 3 

R1 (21) Sm£.H.N.Riz:uana,
D,/o.Smt Anenabi,
Age: Major:

R2 (b) H.Nus.raih Farhgéé;   
Die Smt.Anenabi_. .. A V
Aged }'\/iajarv,   . :-

_ VB¢..11h  '  j&£_:P§e5i«  3:1 4
 H.Ct>ic;v;y, "I ::t_ Stage,' 15: Main,

lvvindifmnagaig-~.,L' %   .
B3,;:.gaIeres_5'f%(}'  _ " ' é 

2   rszanjam    
"  ,S;'e Huchapp:-2---« "
  Ofﬁciai in {he Offmc
_ " . "e§ihé%'I,a1*§0ur Coxnmissiener and
« "fr3$iiy;i_i_ng'z'£i portion cf Site: Na. 1 5

::;f.S_;}1;?'<:i.79 of Agrahara Dasarahalli,

" z Bgtngaiorc.

    gdooichand,

' Son 0fPos::na.mcha:1d
Rriajnr, C130 MM and Company
N999, II Flam", A M Lam,
Barxgaiure-. g



4 K Srinivasa Shcliy,
Son of Late Medhapuri Setty,  V -
Majur, Residing ai Vivckana_nda_Naga1§" " *  .  '
Adugodi Vinage, % * ~ 

Bangalore. South.   "

(By Sri.S.Ramamurly for R3._ (a7b),  _ _ ,_   " "
Sn' B.V.Shankara Nai"a§£a.*1a  'for  Bangalare
Devciopmcm At:1.im:i£}:_w.-~---   _  

Smt. S.Sujatha' fgtxif «--Baz-§ga§.0r1e"I}e7s?é:EQpment Authcrity)

This Regular Fin.-ﬁ..AppcaiA is i'1"Ic:d"'i£v:i('3:c:r Section 96 uf
the Code: of Cixiii'--Pr0£;eduré,i I-908;jv3gaiif:st the judgement and
decrtztz dait;d3--.,V20§35__.20G3 gassed  '0.S'.'Nu.3S~O4/80 (Did OS.

No.1670f?8) antiié"£11c'k:2f-$153:VX£V*g\ddi1:io::ai City Civil Judge,

Bangalore, 'ﬂee;-ésqityg 1_:h9_ "suit __}'_}f:t' v£1ec:laratim3, pnssszesséimi and

mancfaldfy'i:ﬁv5:1_nc{i1{§n. _  

'I"his' VReguIa~_:5'~ F_T:*si""Appca3 having teen heard and
reserved ';;n_ 23.6.2009' and coming on for pronouncement of

Judgtnani this-d;iy,"ﬁ1e'Cuurl delivered the foﬂowingz

***$$

JUDGMENT

" the Cosmic? fur Eh: pariies,

2. The faults of the case are as fellows: -

The parties are referred [0 by {ﬂair rank before ihc ir£.-'xi Couri, for cenvcnicace.

This is as dcfcndanfs appeal. It was the before the Mia! court that the immuvcablc (ht: Schedule in the plzzini was oi1Agrahard Dasarzﬁzalli, It is stated Ehai the §n_ originally bciunged to the third : who is said to have fomzcsd a ;.~ri valc::.§2zy ¢.1--2.§[:: éitcs in the same, prior 10 lhc; " lh§sc"sH.¢s,VV_}u; had suid sites hearing !'i(3.l5: [.?V:l'.Il"£'.Vf(v assigned by the third dcfandéﬁiiz' 33}: dead daicd 19.4.1965 £0 Muhammad.' is; the plainiiifs cmzsin, and Hanif had . V. '-in' §£§§di"£.§:t; samcwiﬁv the plain£§fT under a rezgistttrcé saicz dead siics wmw: fenced with barbed wire. The pru'p<::riit._;$' -ﬁfubsequcniﬁy came under the jurisdiction of lbw '"B,anga1.0re..Mahanagar¢ Palikc: and khaia was aim made in {he _ 'plaizzﬁifs name, in the rewards mi' iiw Curporaiiun as an ~9;2.I978. Sh: has also paid betterment charges to the City Corporation .

E It was cunicndcd that sinus the plaintiff was..1'c§fieii::g_; in Indiranagar at Bangalurc, she only Qccasiunaify x{1s%£i:§'i;'}:e'v.4 plaint schedule property. And {:11 .:st1e..s;1c1i1; n V T she had mrizlzcd lhai this ﬁrs! dc{'c:1'bi:§:»;;1:[--'.AIié1;i ﬁﬁsgiasseé properly. She: had imIn6dial£:i3v..}:'f£:porie¢v} spolicé V lhmugh her brother Hanif. had got issued a Isgai notice, but zmscrved, as.

the ﬁrs!    on 18.6.1978,

when     3 ksmporary structure measuring

abuzzt 2Sf;:e: 2; IGf£>Ves€ Air3 £303 uf silt: 330.15 haei been erected and ;ii2cL.ﬁrsi.V(3e§:;.fﬁ(i'an[V' was residing there. Whan the pfainiiif first dtiezndani, Eu have the premises and in the first dcfcmdaai had dtmicd the Eilic uf . The sccund dsikndanl had 31:-ince} {he first 'A in opposing the piainﬁff fruit; entering upturn the ' Qgtrpﬁtriy and dtsciamd ihai they were pmpusing it} past»-up further construction in the remaining arca on (ht: sI'ics« It is in this bac-kgruund that a suit was ﬁled fur a eiedaraiiun that she:

§ was the absoiuic uwntn" of the property and sucking vacant possession.

The suit was opposed by in his written siaienzcni ihat.he.__was ﬁeiifiszr Lf;:§"ti.§:.arz;;Vr am' the;

tenant uf the suit scﬂeduic    had nu
cunneutiun with the    been: a tenant
under um: Srinigasgi   bearing no.1
in survey  ciiy and he
had Igéyﬁf  #5 anti 16 and that he has not

cuns{fuct;:(i--« structure on {he said prumriy and net vf {he plainiiffs pmptsrly and that the __ 'al1_eg:::1'ups»v ijzasslcss.

z nu.;2 similarly zieciarcd that he was mat ~ n;ti¥'a,rc~: gfany vacani siics bearing 119.15 and E6 and ihai he did I;1<,>£ knuxv ﬁle azuii schedtiit: premises ami that he had pure-Erased site net? of Agrahaxa Dasarailaili fmm one Jaxicmhand: uncissr 3. S336 deed dated 18.1.1973 anzi that he: was the absolute: uwncr é 7 vi' the said site measuring 40% ft:-est x 26 feet and that he had teased the same in fax-'cur of his neighbour 1131' the of tethering cams and that then: was an structure orrihei: };5Ic}£"'2211§"i'--'.%£ was a vacant site and pleaded that .}1t;'}' nu cg_§ﬁﬁ(:cﬁ'un:'«.wit.h ' the Suit schedule pmperty and thatttate gag: » \,x«::£s:";'i»1:t§c}_VV mischievously.

Defendant nu..3'~..had ._a wfivtieiiv statcmcntn admitting that the: suit pmpé;t3%"_t¥§.s parts} of sanity nc3.79Vt*an£§ he had formad Several sitrsss uf various a};d"{;ti;~~;iht:s::, he had said sites 1113,13 and 16 pf Hanif. And though the sate: deed rtscmived R3838!'-,, the same: in fang had not timugh it was aisu stated that posscssion was handéd.V__Aév¢r to Hanif, it was nut so handed uvctr. ii was aim; that ihr: sites were fenced with barbed wires, It was % = ~-étatad that since Hanif faiicd tn make pdyme-Iii ofiht: sake price, the tiﬁrd defaadant had demanded thai the salt: deed be % ' 3 canceilcd and on 11.7.1966, Hazzéf haé exccuitzai a deed uf canccilaliun. And ﬁlcrtsfurc, Hanif East 2211 his righi g-.:"3z;:r {he schedule: prupcrly. And hcncca, Lht: ciaim executed a 3316 deed in favuur of 131:: plaintiff {V43 also denied by the third acrendang :;;e%TTjﬁ:s:%%%%a:;.:i%%%se;m; defendants had occupied the sai¢§__gruf)eﬂ§i' and u u that the plainﬁff had any o£kt;s:l_}:1;;: 31131 property. On lhtssc pi-:a§§it:§.-:,_ A 13¢ had framed seven iSSu6é:I, l£} 'the'p§ainiiﬁ' had acquired Eiilt: to the suit projihrlg? ﬁruﬁlsr and whciher she: prcwed {hm (i£_Sf53n(:i;!iAii3.vvn0.1"h£1£§.___§2iti up icmpomr}; siruuiurcs unauihoriscdiy ' sfih whether she had pmved such encruachmcmi whp:.i}ié.'§ temporary structures require to be demolished and and whclher the Suﬁ was had far mix-juinder and 'ngrgéjuinder and whtzihtsz' the plaintiff vvas eniiiied for the V. ._ kciiefs.

9 In the light at defendant N133 not having chgscn tu tendcr nvidenuc er produce any ducumcnts in sup1gcrx:t"««Qt'.his claim that tht: sate deed in favour of Harri? trial court has auucptcd the tittc: Qfﬂanif gutnstﬁquént a transfer in favour of the p§ai;1titT ztiagi dcfcndants I and 2 did not Vt uvcftt the schuduk: pmperty, sijzﬁé 'tt§<§yVV'Vj:3!.;:adcd' "that they were ignorant of the suit was hsld to be estabtished, '3. registered sake deed. Insorazr =a,:.~; and encroachment and as to a c0nst2'u'a:--ti€3¥: having been putwup ever the: suit iﬁsgite of defendant I and 2 seeking tar deny the: tA:1*T,4§E£§.£:IlV!.3':';.(A}g:1..:+A75i§€;3 nus. I5 and i6 which was subject mattcr at x the Ii was hctd that the site nmsl and 2, which wrsrt: being by the first defendant and the Second dwiiendant, weft: fact site 3103. 15 and I6 claimed by the plaintiff. And in this rttgard, this triat cuurt has examincd the titis dctds pertaining to 5 10 site: 1103.} and 2 which are claimed by {he defendants vi and 2 and has {rancid the aariicr transfers uf the vcry_.vV§)i:fc.9;i;éc:vviies claimed by dcfzzndanls land 2 with reference: 19' of {he piainiiﬁ and has cunciudc*-J'"ﬂ':a£ }¢m(i»_.2i ' j claimed by dtsfcndanl. N¢.1s.l and 2 and 16 in ihc earlier saiei naiiiuﬁg dalciii 23.2.1966 by one " igﬁvgur ikﬁirisixnappa .

However, the third a sale dated in favoiﬁ-'._uf.iuh 19.4.1965, had iosi iilic over them an<iiii'iEiit::":::i'V:i§rc:, iL§1i:"siiibsca;ucn{ saic in respect of the: very in_ favour i{.}f"'i}i'i'1iB¥S ihruugh whom dezfemdanl 230.2 may the same property was a. nullity and in {his court has conciudevd that defendant 1 and 2 nhjavci derived any interest or Lisle: under the same and ii g_iacs:;$rding3y, has rvndmred judgment in fawur uf 93:3 plainiiff

-"igraniing the rciiefs suughi fur. E1 is this. which is sought to be uhaiicngcd E2: the prﬁsiﬁtti appcal by the legal rcprcstsnlaiives uf thts :st.=cv;z<.i dvfciadané. g H ""\ contends as Rzﬂuws :-

Thai there: is a seriuué» the suit propcriy which a'd;irt:ss. Ht:

would point out that :15.'-.' suit properly as siia 1105.15 """ 'V 'A site and 18 V' " if 'Si&£ia11n11a's land and ' S'<3V;':£.11':.I"3;';£»';'Site 210.14 " mg u£Ii§:ér"§iéiiid, dcfcndani m2 claimed Lhai he is ihc m3.2 having purchased {he saxne under the safe dew Ex_§iba{ rm am; 121.1973 wiih the foifuwing ' H " " V' .bx)unda§{es:

East by: Road Wad by: ;)mp<=:11}? §eI0:1ging to Shastzy N011}: by: propetﬁz belonging to Pviutxiveﬂkatazzttxla, South by: site 30.1 beiotlging to Kegizaéa Shetty, 6 .3. Shn" G.B.ShaslJ')', appearing E3 Rciiancc: piaucd by the (;(.}!31"i'bt3_ID\¥ un Exhibii P55'-.._which was a mere piain paper sketch and nui the lay-ou'Vt«..§_§;::;;1fi; i:E:.;éi3*iy xsiiiatcs tht: finding, of the cuuri in {his regard. M __ V ' 'M It is wnicndud ihai the plainlﬁﬂ' uriginal owner defcndani V r1x§;3._Ab Vp§,:aiuiz;i§;iT" her V pmcizauessur-in--iillc whfegarc Q:=;'}i()£«'-.53.' id in «psossesaésion uf the suit prupcrty. And the pIain'£iiff:i1as. i1§?s{i{u"g¢:d the suit scverai yeargé £1'£;{ef<icf§:i:Liz;i::i,VV.'i:e:.';?, Vpui up a rcsidcnliai huuse an his 19:): "Ly w'hiéi::_%'i5 tiiaiiiimi {L3 be flat: suit. 11} rtv. p .V 13 pt: , 5' ~ 'V 315:) ﬁled an appiicaiiun iiiidtil" Quiet of «Code of Civii Pmc--c:dur:::,}908, seeking in '£:i~AV..R;i'£§£Z£ifiC3i§Uﬂ Dead dated 26.2.1966 cxccuicd by 5:}: in Iiweur ofﬁrishnappa ouniunding £ha£ what V. " 2-zovivd under the: salt: deed 21.2.1966 is a vacant silt: which is 'étiiunceusiy £it:$~{3I"ih6L§ as sits nua;.iS and 36 zhuugh iht: boundaries mcnliuncd in Eh: sale dead are corwcl ami sale deed dﬁlcd 21.2.1966 has wrungiy described [kc téilti numbers £ 34 as 15 and 16 and what is Said is She silt: purchascd by A.M.Gandhi under ducumcni nu.72.'-38 whiuh has lh¢.fﬁli§xy_ing boundaries. » L. .

East by: Road West by: S}1esi1ad:i»AR:2a4;l, V ' North by: 2seiu11ivze:;i;ka§a.t:x1?§1a'£; "

Seuthby: I§:is§n:apf§a1ff;§'site 1 This appiicaliun V__is eff lht:

cuunsgzl b[«.:ﬁ3rt: [Hing the appeal, had c:nbark'cA:dL4'on rﬁﬁ in respect of [hit scvcrai salt: ricfcxrxrszi' i»u 1:fy triai court and ii was diswvtzrcci in the % ;(3:'§{i§.:t:.V 5'. 1:35' "S;_zb--Rcgis1rar {hat what was wk: by A.M.Gamihi "£2;"faxrﬁiu;-V'g;.fVKfishnappa uriginaliy under the salt: dated dated 21 ﬁis not the pmpcriy claimed by iht: prcscni piainiiil', A site 31:25.15 and 16. The: pwpcriy which was said by V. favercixand in favour of defendant 1213.2 was ihz: pmptsriy with the abusst'; buxmdarics and this fact had been currczcied by the Deed mf Rtxziiﬁcaiiun whiish is suugiﬁ to be prmimmd as 75 addiliemal evidence. And since: the Rezcliﬁcaliun Dead is a.

rcgisstcztxi dun-umcni, it wuuid be a crucial piact: of ex{§tir;ﬁ:.;c in flavour of defendant 229.2 which might in bc And in this regarci, Shri this court ihruugh the stzvcrai sale ii;:c:E':§c£)mi11ei1:_:§ngVV€31:

sale dam} dated 17-2.1966,V»%..,.Which i"s ";:3.ndc'1 which A.M.Gandhdi ;:313..1'cixa:&st:c§'-..{'§1s: 's=E;t_t: &¢maa§c;u1antnu.3 which is not described ixi 33¢ 35.1.; number, but 01:33.:

by gm deed dam 21.2.1966 - Exhibit P-12 ....;.h..., 1zm.%:5k.€ic:;.§i:.~§;'%:5e-ad 26.2-1966 which is suughi :9 be«.%.;fyﬁ:ds;ccd1'Ex'z2_Jt;:r appiic-alien which sacks £0 curred {he ' gsazit: i.i§..f,t:;i 21.2.1966 lu bring ii in cunsonance: wiih {he . " untitsr the 3211:: dam? dated 17.2.1966 and .d¥$¢;i.ﬁ§aied 2.3.1966 executed by Krishnappa in favour uf A AA.V.%%..i°g_&.G-andhi and Saks deed daieci 28.9.1966 cxecuicti by V. :?A.M.Gandhi in fawur uf Valazhand anzi sale deed éalad 31.1.1972 - Exhibit P-18 executed by Vakhand in fasmur of Javerchand and safe deed dated 18.1.1973 ﬂxﬂciiiﬁd by @ 36 Javerchand in favuur uf defendant no.2 marked as Exhibit D-1 and 23:30 as P-11. Ii is thus uuntended that if lhti Dead dated 26.2.1966 is iakcn into account, {hat silt: nos. 15 and 16 art: nut {ht:.~8iL'!1t3 \ ' u 2 subjtzc-1 maiicr of the sale deed in ihcreibrs, {here was a g3:=:I;JVa'§2.i'f£"'Vs:rrurV' in V uf prupcriics as fuund by '"1313: t:1'z~1i'Lx)anz:i";£.. ﬁicfcoixvnsci wwuki argue 31 length £9 subesianiiﬁltz' with reference is »rfIL£§i3i:remcni3, sic.

4. VC_m2:z§st:lA'fer respondent nu} wuuid, ht)WtWt32", iQ s::;-ztairi '1§~;t3Vj_{;{¢i'.gmcni and decree and wouid submii ihai ' j -sacking to make: uni an sniirtciy new case by van ailegtsd Reclificaiien Dead dated 26.12.1966 wuuid i:U{ be binding urn 131:: ﬁrsi respondent even if the Sziffitﬁ Véagggsfiabiishmi Lu have bacn ezxccuuicd. And the Cmmsc} wouid .. fhai 2: document of {hat naiurz: uughl {U have fmmcd par{ of the iiiit: deeds, whczn that: pmptzrly 'was said is": favuur uf defendant 119.2, ii could not have been iighiiy overiuukcd. 5

1'?

Further this would lead to a farmer complication of tilt:

pmwcdings, Lhc: appcilant wunid new-ssariiy have in cunscqucncs uf the judgment and camel be proceedings that have aitaincd ﬁnality; A ' The iriai camrl, in add113SSiﬁé,§,__ﬁ"if; .issu£:' _--.as~ idcnliiy of the suit cxaminaliun of the S::l1't'V:"(}¢.':V(ASV.V'V£§E:', narntzly, Exhibit 3.1, which is gag defendant 'by ._ Lhal ii indiuaitts the site n}t*.'.%i.'.~i!.!!'t33VViif1:_3'Ii"'l Sﬁfeml +53/2, this has 33661: divided sitar: 1103.3 and 2. P191 11:3,} was suit} 10 ' . KﬁS}_1ax§fi' and P301 no.2 to the sccurxd defendanl's falhar. under which J:-wcsrchand purchasttd the pruperly on 3: _:.1972 marked as Exhibit me is mi' idezaiicai 'vdi¥ﬁ4::nsions. And Waichanﬁ had t:xea;;u£cd Exhibit P-I0 as a A. ispczuiai Pmvcr of Aiivmwy huidcr of Alviﬁandhi, who ix:

turn, had purchased the prugcdy fmm Krishnappd on 26.2.l9é6 "Z 39 property as 15 and 16, and that the prupcriy""s«%>3djV'_j'V.§£é§:g; East, which is the subject matter uf 17.2.1966 sold by Muol5;h_andv'iHA E:x#our which is again a document goughi. ﬁgjoduced for the ﬁrs; lime, would cast: in establishing Ehatlhc apg3r:»§l:é1§;l'V'.si£c nu-2, which was carves: the subject ma.lt<::r of the same shall not bind the piainﬁffs {}n: i3'k€; ««g¢ﬁ:c the appficmiun undcr Order XL! Rui:#{27;If.Vis.n<:$i to be considered. Theft:

'By...:hr;,'u'iai court and it sannoi ﬁe said that-.ﬁ1r::.éi { §§aﬁ£, §:aS"madc out any vrmmd 11:2" hiitzrfertzncc. _ , 'k ' , "

VV apgécﬁis h¢zic:§.v_cifsmisscd.

Sd/* JUDGE I1'?

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court