Bangalore District Court
Sri. Vijay Kumar Chugh vs Shri Edward Howell on 18 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT,
BENGALURU (CCH-75)
Dated this 18th Day of April 2022
PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G. (B.A. LL.B.,)
LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.25322 & 25323/2015
Parties in O.S.No.25322/2015
PLAINTIFF: SRI. VIJAY KUMAR CHUGH
S/o. LATE Mangal Sain cHUGH,
Aged about 61 years
R/at: No. 14a, Khar West,
'dHANSHILA Building'
Flat No.602, 6TH FLOOR,
Nest TO Mahavir Hospital
Mumbai 400 052
(REP BY: Srivatsa Associates- ADVOCATES)
V/s
DEFENDANTS: 1 Shri Edward Howell,
S/p Capt. DEF Howell,
Major
R/at No.293/81,
Horamavu Agara,
Horamavu Post,
Bangalore 560 043
2 Shri Shaik Sabbir Ahmed
S/o Shri Mohammed Ali
Aged about 58 years,
2
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
R/at No.1-10, MHS
Devadas Building,
Dindia Petit Thaat
Mumbai.
D3: REP BY: Sri. NDT - ADVOCATE)
Date of Institution of the suit 30/03/2015
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pro-note,
suit for declaration and possession, Declaration, injunction
suit for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
23/03/2018
recording of the Evidence.
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 18/04/2022
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
07 00 18
OS. NO.25323/2015
PLAINTIFF: SRI. VIJAY KUMAR CHUGH
S/o. LATE Mangal Sain cHUGH,
Aged about 61 years
R/at: No. 14a, Khar West,
'dHANSHILA Building'
Flat No.602, 6TH FLOOR,
Nest TO Mahavir Hospital
Mumbai 400 052
(REP BY: Srivatsa Associates- ADVOCATES)
V/s
3
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
DEFENDANTS: 1 Shri Edward Howell,
S/p Capt. DEF Howell,
Major
R/at No.293/81,
Horamavu Agara,
Horamavu Post,
Bangalore 560 043
2 Shri Arif Ulla Khan,
S/o Shri Atha Ulla Khan,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.847,
Fathima Masjid Street,
Sarai Palya,
Thanisandra Main Road,
S.R.K. Post,
Bangalore- 560 077.
D3: REP BY: Sri. NDT - ADVOCATE)
Date of Institution of the suit 30/03/2015
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pro-note,
suit for declaration and possession, INJUNCTION SUIT
suit for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
16/03/2019
recording of the Evidence.
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 18/04/2022
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
07 00 18
4
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
COMMON JUDGMENT
Sri. Vijay Kumar Chug has filed O.S.No. 25322 and
25323/2015 to declare that he is the owner of site No.2,
House List katha No.232/5, property No.78/4 situate at
Horamavu Agara Village, K. R. Puram Holbi, Bangalore East
Taluk( Suit property), cancellation of sale deeds dated:
18.03.2015 executed by 1st defendant Sri. Edward Howell
in favour of Shaik Shabbir Ahmed( defendant No.2 in
O.S.No. 25322/2015) and Arif Ulla Khan( defendant No.2
in O.S.No. 25323/2015), perpetual prohibitory injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with his
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and cost.
2. Plaintiff and defendants in both the cases are
same. The reliefs sought and issues in both the cases are
same. Therefore, the above 2 cases are taken to pass
common judgment.
3. In both the cases, Vijay Kumar Chugh will be
referred to as plaintiff and Sri. Edward Howell will be
5
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
referred to as 1st defendant . Defendant No.2 in both the
cases are referred to by their names.
FACTS OF THE CASE
4. Plaintiff Vijay Kumar Chugh purchased the suit
property under registered sale deed dated: 3.2.2006. On
the basis of the said sale deed katha of the suit property
was effected in his name. He had an intention to acquire
some more properties in Bengaluru. In the year 2006 he
shifted to Mumbai. Before shifting to Mumbai on 4.2.2006
he executed General Power of Attorney in favour of 1 st
defendant inter alia authorising him to enter into
agreements to purchase properties in Bengaluru. 1 st
defendant did not identify suitable properties. Plaintiff
contends that in the year 2013 he heard about adverse
reports about 1st defendant . Therefore he
cancelled/revoked power of attorney dated: 04.02.2006 by
issuing citation in the newspaper. After revocation of power
of attorney, 1st defendant filed O.S.No. 25551/2013
seeking the relief of injunction in respect of suit property.
After appearance, he( plaintiff ) contested the suit by filing
6
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
written statement . On 20.03.2015 ie., during the
pendency of the above suit, plaintiff through his friend Ravi
came to know that 2nd defendant in both the cases and
their associates, came near the suit property by stating that
they purchased the said property under two registered sale
deeds both dated: 18.03.2015 by making the said property
in 2 equal halves each measuring 5005 Sq.ft. Plaintiff
contends that after he came to know about the execution of
the sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015 in favour of 2 nd defendant
of both the cases, he lodged complaint against 1 st
defendant. Plaintiff contends that after
revocation/cancellation of power of attorney dated:
4.2.2006 1st defendant has no authority to execute any
document on his behalf. He contends that while executing
the power of attorney dated: 4.2.2006, he did not hand-
over the possession of suit property to 1st defendant .
Therefore at the time of execution of sale deeds dated:
18.03.2015, 1st defendant could not and would not hand
over the possession of suit property to 2 nd defendant of
both cases. Plaintiff contends that on the basis of the sale
7
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
deeds dated: 18.03.2015 2nd defendant in both the cases
are interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the
suit property. Therefore he filed the instant suits. On
these and other grounds stated in the plaint plaintiff prays
to decree the suit and to grant the reliefs of
declaration,cancellation and injunction.
5. Defendant No.2 in both the cases, contested the
suits by filing written statement . They contend that on the
basis of power of attorney dated: 4.2.2006 executed by
plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant, the 1st defendant
executed sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015 in their favour in
respect of suit property by making it in 2 equal halves.
After purchase of suit property they are in possession and
enjoyment of the said property. They denied that plaintiff
cancelled/revoked power of attorney dated: 4.2.2006
executed by him in favour of 1st defendant by issuing
publication dated: 9.7.2013 and therefore,1st defendant
has no authority to execute sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015.
Defendant No.2 in both the cases contend that plaintiff sold
the suit property in their favour by making it in 2 equal
8
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
halves through his power of attorney holder has filed the
instant suits to harass and humiliate them. They contend
that they have no knowledge about O.S.No. 25551/2013
alleged to have been filed by 1st defendant against plaintiff
in respect of suit property. They contend that the sale
deeds dated: 18.03.2014 executed by 1st defendant in their
favour are legal and binding on plaintiff. After execution of
the said sale deeds, plaintiff has no manner of any right,
title, interest or possession over the suit property. Therefore
he is not entitle for any of the reliefs prayed for. On these
and other grounds stated in the written statement
defendant No. 2 prays to dismiss the suits.
6. In both the cases 1st defendant was placed exparte
on 3.11.2015.
7. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, on
06/02/2017 in both the cases, following issues were
formulated:
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is
the absolute owner and in
9
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
possession of the plaint schedule
property?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that the
power of attorney executed in faovur
of the 1st defendant in respect of
suit schedule property was revoked
on 09.07.2013 by duly publishing a
public notice in the newspaper?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that
defendant No.1 has sold the half
portion of the plaintiff purchased
property on 18.03.2015 by
executing a illegal sale deed in
faovur of defendant No.2 as
pleaded in the plaint, even though
power of attorney executed in favour
of him by the plaintiff is revoked. In
view of that plaintiff is entitled to get
cancel the above said sale deed as
prayed for?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that
alleged interference of the
defendants?
5. Whether plaintiff proves that he is
entitled for suit reliefs as prayed for?
6. What order ? What decree?
10
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
8. In both the cases, plaintiff examined his attorney
holder G.Shantharaj as PW.1. In O.S.No. 25322/2015
plaintiff produced 21 documents marked Ex.P. 1 to 21. In
O.S.No. 25323/2015 he produced 13 documents marked
at Ex.P. 1 to 13. 2nd defendant in O.S.No. 25322/2015
namely Shaik Shabbir Ahmed was examined as DW.1. He
produced 5 documents marked at Ex.D. 1 to 5. In O.S.No.
25323/2015 2nd defendant Arif Ulla Khan was examined
as DW.1. He produced 6 documents marked at Ex.D. 1 to
6.
9. The documents produced in both the cases are
more or less same. Therefore, for convenience the
documents will be referred to as per Exhibits in O.S.No.
25322/2015
10. Heard the arguments on both side and perused
record.
11. My findings on the above Issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1: In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2: In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3: In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.4: In the Affirmative
11
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
ISSUE NO.5; In the Affirmative
ISSUE NO.6: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
12. ISSUE NO. 1 to 3 :- These issues are in respect
of right, title, and interest over the suit property and also
regarding revocation/cancellation of power of attorney
dated: 4.2.2006 and validity of the sale deeds dated:
18.03.2015 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd
defendant in both the cases. Therefore to avoid repetition
of facts and evidence and also for convenience these 3
issues are taken together for consideration.
13. In the instant case, there is no dispute that under
registered sale deed dated: 3.2.2006 plaintiff purchased
the suit property from Rakesh for valid consideration and
on the basis of the said sale deed , katha of the suit
property was effected in his name and he executed GPA
dated: 4.2.2006 in faovur of 1st defendant inter alia to
purchase properties in Bengaluru. During the course of
cross-examination of PW.1 in O.S.No. 25322/2015 the
12
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
Counsel for 2nd defendant confronted original GPA dated:
4.2.2006. PW.1 has stated that the said GPA was executed
by plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant . Therefore it was
marked at Ex.D. 1.
14. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has strenuously
contended that Ex.D. 1 was executed by plaintiff in favour
of 1st defendant to purchase properties in Bengaluru. It
was not executed in respect of any specific property. He
submits that on the overleaf of page No.1 of Ex.D.1 para
No.1(a) and 1(b) were subsequently inserted by 1 st
defendant without the knowledge of plaintiff in order to
create and manipulate the said power of attorney to show
that plaintiff authorised the 1 st defendant to execute deeds
in respect of suit property.
15. A careful perusal of powers given by plaintiff to
1st defendant in Ex.D. 1 power of attorney stated in para
No.1 to 6 would show that the said power of attorney was
executed authorising the 1st defendant to purchase suitable
properties in Bengaluru by entering into agreements, sale
deeds and other relevant documents. On the overleaf of
13
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
page No.1 of Ex.D. 1, para No.1(a) and (b) are there. The
size of the font of para No.1(a) and (b) is larger than the size
of fonts at page No.1 and 2. The page having para No.1(a)
and (b) on the overleaf of page No.1 is not having page
number. A perusal of Ex.D. 1 power of attorney would
show that the powers given therein to 1 st defendant are
noted in paragraphs 1 to 6. At the time of execution of
Ex.D.1 power of attorney if the plaintiff had an intention to
give powers to 1st defendant inter alia authorising him to
execute all kinds of deeds in respect of suit property, the
same could have been noted by giving independent para
numbers. Para No.5 of Ex.D. 1 power of attorney is in
respect of powers given to the attorney holder for sale,
convey, transfer any immovable property belongs to
plaintiff or its portion. Para No.6 is a last para of the power
of attorney wherein it is stated that plaintiff would agree,
confirm, ratify all the acts and deeds made and executed
by the attorney holder. Para No.1(b) is also regarding the
affirmation of the plaintiff that he will confirm all the acts
and deeds made and executed by his attorney holder on
14
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
his behalf. Thus clause No.1(b) and 6 are more or less
identical. In view of the above, I hold that having regard to
the authority given by plaintiff to 1 st defendant by
executing Ex.D. 1 power of attorney stated in para No.1 to 6
and the fact that no page number is given to the page
having para No.1(a) and 1(b) and also the font size of para
No.1(a) and (b) and the rest of recitals of the said power of
attorney would support the submissioin of the Ld. Counsel
for plaintiff that para No.1(a) and (b) were inserted to
manipulate Ex.D. 1 power of attorney to show that plaintiff
authorised 1st defendant to execute all kinds of deeds in
respect of suit property.
16. PW.1, the attorney holder of plaintiff has stated
that plaintiff has executed Ex.D. 1 poer of attorney in favour
of 1st defendant authorising him to acquire suitable
properties for the plaintiff. After execution of the said power
of attorney 1st defendant did not identify any suitable
properties and the plaintiff has heard adverse reports
about 1st defendant, therefore, plaintiff cancelled/revoked
Ex.D. 1 power of attorney dated: 4.2.2006 by making
15
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
publication in the newspaper dated: 9.7.2013. plaintiff has
produced certified copy of newspaper and it was marked
at Ex.P. 21.
17. PW.1 has stated that 1 st defendant after came to
know about Ex.P. 21 publication filed O.S.No. 25551/2013
seeking the relief of injunction against plaintiff and the
plaintiff after appearance contested the said suit by filing
written statement . Plaintiff produced Ex.P. 17 certified
copy of ordersheet, Ex.P. 18 certified copy of of issues,
Ex.P. 19 certified copy of plaint, Ex.P. 20 certified copy of
written statement in O.S.No. 25551/2013. Defendant No.2
in both suits have not disputed the above said documents.
They stated that they do not know about the above said
suit and its records. The above documents are the certified
copies of court records, therefore the court can safely rely
upon the said documents.
18. A perusal of plaint of O.S.No. 25551/2013
marked at Ex.P. 19 would show that 1st defendant has
filed the said suit against the plaintiff restraining him from
alienating and disposing the suit property. In the plaint, 1 st
16
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
defendant has stated about the power of attorney executed
by plaintiff in his favour and also the powers given by
plaintiff in his favour under the said power of attorney. For
convenience para No.3 of the plaint of O.S.No. 2551/2013
is extracted below:
It is submitted that plaintiff and defendant
have made an oral agreement and reached an
understanding in respect of dealing in purchase
and sales of immovable properties in Bangalore
and surrounding areas and in this behalf the
defendant has given a power of attorney in
favour of the plaintiff by incorporating the
clauses such as
a) To enter into agreements of purchase
with suitable persons for a reasonable
consideration as defendant thinks fit.
b) To execute any agreement for
purchase to effectuate the aforesaid
purpose or purposes and to cause
the same to be stamped, registered
or authenticated as the case may be
c) To appear before the Sub-Registrar or
other authoriteis for the purpose of
the said purchase.
d) to take possession of the property
purchased from the vendor or
vendors as the case may be
e) This power of attorney can be used
for sale of any immovable property.
f) The defendant as an executor of the
power of attorney has further agreed
that all acts, deeds and things lawfully
17
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
done with respect to purchase of the
schedule property by any said
attorney shall be construed as acts
deeds and things done by me that his
attorney shall lawfully do and cause
be done for the defendant by virtue
of the power hereby given.
19. A comparison of the clauses stated in para No.3
of the plaint in O.S.No. 25551/2013 marked at Ex.P. 19
with Ex.D1 Power of attorney, it is clear that in Ex.P. 19
plaint the 1st defendant in verbatim reproduced the clauses
1 to 6 of Ex.D1 power of attorney. In para No.3 of Ex.P. 19
plaint 1st defendant has not stated about clauses 1(a) and
1(b) available on the overleaf of page No.1 of Ex.D. 1 power
of attorney. In Ex.P. 19, plaint 1 st defendant has not
stated that by executing Ex.D1 Power of attorney, plaintiff
authorised him to execute sale deed of the suit property.
On the other hand, he stated that at the time of making
power of attorney there was an understanding between
him and plaintiff that after sale of suit property the profit
will be shared between him and plaintiff. In Ex.P. 19 plaint
1st defendant has stated that if the plaintiff is not restrained
from alienating the suit property, he will be put to great
18
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
loss. As stated in para No.1(a) and 1(b) of Ex.D1 if the
plaintiff would have authorised the 1 st defendant to sell the
suit property, he would not have filed O.S.No.25551/2013
restraining the plaintiff from alienating the suit property.
Therefore, the averments of Ex.P. 19 plaint of
O.S.No.25551/2013 and the relief sought therein would
further support the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff that clauses 1(a) and 1(b) were subsequently
inserted in Ex.D1 Power of attorney. Therefore, there is
considerable force in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff that under Ex.D1 power of attorney, plaintiff has
not authorised the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed of
suit property.
20. A perusal of Ex.P 20 the certified copy of written
statement in O.S.No. would show that plaintiff has filed
the said written statement on 17.07.2013. In para No.10
of the Written statement, plaintiff has stated that he
revoked/cancelled Ex.D 1 power of attorney by publishing
the citation in 'The Hindu' English Daily Newspaper of
Bengaluru Edition dated: 9.7.2013. 1 st defendant has
19
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
executed sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015 of suit property in
faovur of 2nd defendant of both the cases. Thus, from the
documentary evidence available on record, it is evident that
1st defendant has executed sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015
after the plaintiff revoked/cancelled Ex.D1 power of
attorney by publishing citation in the newspaper dated:
9.7.2013. Therefore, for the sake of arguments, even if the
contention of 2nd defendant in both the cases that plaintiff
executed Ex.D1 power of attorney in faovur of 1 st defendant
inter alia authorising him to sell the suit property is
accepted for a while, the recitals of Ex.P 21 publication
would support the testimony of PW.1 that plaintiff
cancelled/revoked the said power of attorney by issuing
citation in the newspaper and also intimated the same to
the 1st defendant by filing Ex.P20 written statement dated:
17.07.2013 in O.S.No.25551/2013 . After revocation of
Ex.D1 power of attorney, 1 st defendant has no authority to
execute Sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015 in respect of suit
property. Therefore, under the said sale deeds, defendant
20
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
No.2 in both the cases would not derive right, title, interest
and possession over the suit property.
21. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant No.2 has
strenuously contended that in Ex.P21 publication
measurement of the suit property is not stated. Therefore,
the said publication would not revoke/cancel Ex.D1 power
of attorney.
22. In Ex.P21 publication, plaintiff has stated that he
is the owner of properties bearing katha No. 232/5 and
220/6, property No.78/4 situate in Horamavu Agara
Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk totally
measuring 16210 Sq.ft and he cancelled/revoked the
power of attorney dated: 4.2.2006 executed in favour of 1 st
defendant. Thus, having regard to the description given in
Ex.P21 citation, it is clear that the said citation is in respect
of cancellation of Ex.D1 power of attorney dated: 4.2.2006.
In the said citation in addition to mentioning the date of
power of attorney, which was cancelled/revoked the
description of the suit property is stated. In the said
citation, the description of 2 properties are given. Therefore
21
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
the total measurement of the 2 properties is noted. In
addition to the publication of citation in Ex.P. 21 newspaper
in Ex.P. 20 written statement in O.S.No.25551/2013
plaintiff intimated the 1st defendant regarding
cancellation/revocation of Ex.D.1 power of attorney. When
such is the case, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the
2nd defendant that Ex.P21 publication is not in respect of
suit property therefore, the said citation would not support
the contention of the plaintiff that he cancelled Ex.D1 power
of attorney does not hold water.
23. Arif Ulla Khan the 2 nd defendant in
O.S.No.25323/2015 has stated that before purchase of half
portion of the suit property, by showing documents of the
said property, he did not obtain legal opinion from legal
practitioner and he also did not make publication in the
newspaper. He stated that on the basis of information
given by Shaik Shabbir Ahmed the defendant No.2 in
O.S.No.25322/2015 he purchased half portion of the suit
property.
22
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
24. DW.1 Shaik Shabbir Ahmed in O.S.No.
25322/2015 has stated that he is doing real estate
business. He stated that before making the sale deeds
dated: 18.3.2015 agreement of sale was made. For the
reasons best known, the said agreement is not produced to
the court. DW.1 Shaik Shabbir Ahmed has stated that 1 st
defendant did not show original title deeds of the suit
property to him. The say of DW.1 Shaik Shabbir Ahmed
that though he is having knowledge regarding real estate
business, he purchased half portion of the suit property
without seeing the original title deeds appears to be very
strange. The facts stated by Dws in both the cases
regarding consideration would not support the
consideration shown in sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015.
Defendant No.2 in both the cases have not produced any
document to show that the cheques mentioned in the sale
deeds dated: 18.03.2015 regarding consideration amount
were encashed. In view of my aforesaid findings, I hold
that on threadbare evaluation of oral and documentary
evidence on record, would show that 1 st defendant by
23
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
inserting para No.1(a) and 1(b) in Ex.D1 Power of Attorney
dt: 4.2.2006 manipulated it as per his convenience and
executed sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015 in favour of
defendant No.2 of both the cases despite he had a
knowledge that plaintiff revoked/cancelled Ex.D1 power of
attotrney dated: 4.2.2006 by making publication in the
newspaper dated: 9.7.2013 and also by suppressing the
factum of pendency of O.S.No.25551/2013 filed by him
against plaintiff and defendant No.2 in both the cases
without verifying the original title deeds and without taking
necessary precautions which a bonafide purchaser is
expected to take got the sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015. In
view of my finding that clause 1(a) and (b) were
subsequently inserted by 1st defendant in Ex.D1 power of
attorney it can be said that under the said Power of
attorney plaintiff did not give authority to 1 st defendant to
alienate the suit property and at the time of registration of
sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015 Ex.D1 power of attorney was
not in force, therefore, on the basis of said power of
attorney, 1st defendant has no authority to execute sale
24
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
deeds dated: 18.03.2015 in favour of 2 nd defendant in both
the cases. Therefore, under the said sale deeds, defendant
No.2 in both the cases would not derive right, title and
interest over the suit property . When such is the case,
plaintiff who admittedly purchased the suit property under
the sale deed dated: 3.2.2006 would continue to remain as
owner of the said property.
25. Admittedly, the suit property is a vacant site. In
respect of vacant site , unless contrary is proved, the owner
is deemed to be in possession of the property. In Ex.D. 1
power of attorney it is not stated that at the time of
executing the said power of attorney plaintiff handed over
the possession of suit property to the 1 st defendant . When
1st defendant did not take the possession of the suit
property from plaintiff, he cannot hand over the possession
of the said property to the purchasers viz 2 nd defendant in
both the cases. In the written statement or in the evidence
2nd defendant of both the cases have not stated about their
physical possession over the suit property or making any
overacts in the said property. When such is the case, there
25
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW.1 that as
owner plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said
property.
26. The Ld. Counsel for the 2nd defendant placed
reliance on the judgment in O.S.No. 7333/2017 passed by
42nd Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said
judgment is not binding on this court. In addition to that in
view of my aforesaid findings on fact, the above cited
judgment is of no assistance to 2 nd defendant of both the
cases to substantiate their contention that 1 st defendant
was having authority to execute sale deeds dated:
18.03.2015 in their favour and by virtue of the said sale
deeds, they each became the owner of half portion of suit
property measuring 5005 Sq.ft.
27. 2nd defendant in both the cases, have produced
tax paid receipt and property register extract of half portion
of suit property. The said documents are made on the
basis of sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015. In view of my
finding that 1st defendant was not having authority to
execute the said sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015 and also to
26
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
handover the possession of suit property, the revenue
records ie., katha extracts and tax paid receipt are of no
assistance to 2nd defendant in both the cases to
substantiate their contention that under the above sale
deeds, they became the absolute owners of the suit
property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the
said property. In view of my aforesaid findings I hold that
plaintiff proved that he is the absolute owner and in
possession of the suit property, he revoked/cancelled Ex.D.
1 power of attorney executed in favour of 1 st defendant by
publishing in Ex.P. 21 citation in 'The Hindu' newspaper
dated: 9.7.2013. Therefore on 18.03.2015 1st defendant
has no authority to execute sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015
in favour of 2nd defendant of both the cases, hence, the said
two sale deeds are not valid and they are liable to be
cancelled. In view of the above I answer Issues 1 to 3 in
the Affirmative.
28. ISSUE NO.4: From the contention taken by
defendant No.2 in both the cases, it is clear that on the
basis of sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015 they are claiming
27
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
right, title and interest over the suit property. This would
support the testimony of PW.1 that on the basis of the sale
deeds dated: 18.03.2015 defendant No.2 of both the cases
along with their men came near the suit property claiming
possession over the said property. While answering issue
No.1 to 3, I have held that under the sale deeds dated:
18.03.2015 2nd defendant of both the cases did not derive
right, title, interest and possession over the suit property.
When such is the case, they have no manner of any right,
title, interest and possession over the said property.
Therefore claiming right by them over the suit property
amounts interference with plaintiff's possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. In view of the above, I hold
that plaintiff proved the interference by defendants with his
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Accordingly,
I answer Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
29. ISSUE No.5: In view of my reasons and findings
on Issues 1 to 4, plaintiff is entitle for the relief of
declaration that he is the absolute owner of suit property,
1st defendant executed sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015 in
28
OS. 25322/2015 &
OS. 25323/2015
favour of 2nd defendant of both the cases after cancellation
of Ex.D1 power of attorney, therefore he has no authority to
execute the said sale deeds, hence, the said sale deeds are
liable to be cancelled and he is entitled for relief of
injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his
possession and enjoyment of suit property. In view of the
above, I answer Issue No.5 in the Affirmative.
30. ISSUE NO.6 :- For the reasons and findings on
the above issues, I pass the following:
ORDER
O.S.No.. 25322 and 25323/2015 are decreed.
Plaintiff Vijay Kumnar Chugh is declared as absolute owner in possession of the suit property.
The sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015 executed by 1st defendant in favour of Shaik Sabbir Ahmed and Arif Ulla Khan in respect of suit property are hereby cancelled.
29
OS. 25322/2015 & OS. 25323/2015 Defendants are restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Office is directed to write letter to Sub-Registrar of Bidarahally, Bengaluru to cancel the sale deeds dated: 18.03.2015 executed by 1 st defendant in favour of Shaik Sabbir Ahmed and Arif Ulla Khan in respect of suit property No order as to costs.
Keep the original judgment in O.S.No. 25322 /2015 and its copy in O.S.No. 25323/2015.
****** (Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18 th day of April 2022) (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 75) 30 OS. 25322/2015 & OS. 25323/2015 ANNEXURES in OS. NO.25322/2015 LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW1 Sri. G. Shantharaj LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 GPA dtd.01/04/2015 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.01/08/2005 Ex.P.3 Katha certificate for the year 2005-06 Ex.P.4 Certified copy of sale deed dt: 03.02.2006 Ex.P.5 Encumbrance certificate for the year 2006-07 Ex.P.6 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.7 Encumbrance certificate for the year 2015- 16 Ex.P.8 Demand register extract Ex.P.9 Tax paid receipt form 2005-06 to 2015-16 Ex.P.10 to 14 Receipts Ex.P.15 Certified copy of sale deed dated:
18.03.2015 Ex.P.16 Complaint dated: 26.03.2015 given to Police Commissioner, Bengaluru Ex.P.17 Certified copy of order sheet from 28.03.2013 to 14.11.2015 in O.S.No. 25551/2013 Ex.P.18 Certified copy of Issues in O.S.No. 31 OS. 25322/2015 & OS. 25323/2015 25551/2013 Ex.P.19 &20 Certified copy of plaint and written statement in O.S.No. 25551/2013 Ex.P.21 Certified copy of the 'Hindu' Newspaper dt:
09.07.2013 LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:
DW1 Mr. Shaik Shabbir Ahmed LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D1 GPA dated 4.2.2006 Ex.D2 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.18/03/2015 Ex.D3 Katha extract
Ex.D4(1to11) Tax paid receipts Ex.D5 Encumbrance Certificate ANNEXURES in OS. NO.25323/2015 LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW1 Sri. G. Shantharaj LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of Power of attorney dt: 1.4.2005 32 OS. 25322/2015 & OS. 25323/2015 Ex.P2 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.01.08.2005 Ex.P3 Demand register extract Ex.P4 Certified copy of sale deed dated: 03.02.2006 Ex.P5(1to3) 3 Encumbrance certificates Ex.P6 Demand register Extract Ex.P7 (1to6) Tax paid receipts Ex.P8 Certified copy of sale deed dated: 18.03.2015 Ex.P9 Complaint dt: 26.03.2015 given to Police Commissioner, Bengaluru Ex.P10 Complaint dt: 22.3.2015 given to Kannur Police Station.
Ex.P11 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No. 25551/2013 Ex.P.12 Death certificate Ex.P13 Certified copy of the 'Hindu' Newspaper dt:
09.07.2013 LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:
DW1 Sri. Arif Ulla Khan LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D2 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.18/03/2015 Ex.D3 Khatha Extract Ex.D4(1to11) 11 tax paid receipts 33 OS. 25322/2015 & OS. 25323/2015 Ex.D5 Encumbrance certificate Ex.D6 Certified copy of GPA (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 75)