Bangalore District Court
Rajesh Chhabria vs Susheelamma Y on 19 June, 2025
KABC010116632009
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.8)
PRESENT
SRI. B.DASARATHA., B.A., LL.B.
XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JUNE, 2025
O.S.No.1734/2009
Plaintiffs:- 1. Sri. Rajesh Chhabria,
S/o. Inder Chhabria,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at SIJ Enterprises,
No.112/6, G.P. Road,
Chennai.
2. Sri. Manohar Venugopal,
S/o. Venugopal,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No.D2, 4th Floor,
Chandra Enclave, Kamalabai Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai.
(By Adv. Sri. M.Amar Babu)
Vs.
2 O.S. No.1734/2009
Defendants:- 1. Smt. Y.Susheelamma,
W/o. Y.Guruswami,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at No.198A,
6th Cross, AECS Layout,
Sanjaynagar,
Bangalore -560 094.
(Since dead, represented by her LR:
Defendant No.2)
2. Smt. Y.Sunitha,
D/o. Y.Guruswami,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at No.198A,
6th Cross, AECS Layout,
Sanjaynagar,
Bangalore - 560 094.
3. M/s. Kalasam Properties,
Rep. by its Managing Partner
Sri. T.Shashidhar Reddy,
S/o. P.Sudhakar Reddy,
Having its Office at No.417,
1st Floor, 12th Cross,
Opp: to Swimming Pool,
Sadashivanagar, Bangalore.
4. Sri. P.Ramakrishna,
S/o. Puttaiah.
5. Smt. D.Yeshodamma,
W/o. P.Ramakrishna.
6. Kum. Jamuna,
D/o. Sri.Ramakrishna.
3 O.S. No.1734/2009
7. Sri. R.Guruprasad,
S/o. T.Ramakrishna.
8. Kum. Ranjini,
Since minor, represented by her
Natural Guardian/ Father
Sri. P.Ramakrishna.
All are residing at 3rd Cross,
Puttaiah Compound, Ashwath Nagar,
Goddalahalli, Bangalore.
Sl. No.4 to 8 are represented by
their GPA Holder :
M/s. Kalasam Properties,
Rep. by its Managing Partner
Sri. T.Shashidhar Reddy,
S/o. P.Sudhakar Reddy,
Having its Office at No.417,
1st Floor, 12th Cross,
Opp: to Swimming Pool,
Sadashivanagar, Bangalore.
(D1 - Dead
D2 by Adv. Sri.N.Vishwanath
D3 to D8 by Adv. Sri.M.R.)
Date of institution of the suit : 11.03.2009
Nature of the suit : Declaration, Possession &
Injunction
Date of commencement of : 21.01.2010
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 19.06.2025
was pronounced
4 O.S. No.1734/2009
Total Duration : Years Months Days
16 03 08
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have instituted this suit seeking:
(a) declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated 12.01.2008 in favour of defendant No.1 and Gift Deed dated 17.12.2008 in favour of defendant No.2 are not binding on them;
(b) possession of the suit schedule property, Flat No. B.2, Oyster Apartment, measuring approximately 1113 sq. ft. with proportionate undivided share; and
(c) permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from interfering with their possession.
2. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows: -
The defendants No.4 to 8 being the owners of the suit schedule property entered into the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 11.09.2006 with defendant No.3 for Oyster Apartment. The defendants No.4 to 8 executed the General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 11.09.2006, authorizing defendant No.3 to sell flats. The defendant No.3 executed an unregistered Sale Agreement dated 14.05.2007 5 O.S. No.1734/2009 with the plaintiffs for ₹22,77,237.85, receiving ₹19,00,000/- (₹12,50,000/- + ₹6,50,000/-). Due to default, the plaintiffs invoked arbitration, resulting in an Award dated 14.10.2010 in CMP No.217/2009, directing execution of Sale Deed. The Court Sale Deed was registered in 2012, with possession delivered.
2(a). The defendants No.3 to 8 colluded with defendants No.1 and 2 to create third party rights through the Sale Deed dated 12.01.2008 in favour of defendant No.1 - Smt.Y.Susheelamma and Gift Deed dated 17.12.2008 in favour defendant No.2 - Smt.Y.Sunitha. The plaintiffs allege fabrication of Assignment Agreement dated 30.03.2007 and forgery of signature of defendant No.3 in the written statement of defendants No.3 to 8.
2(b). The plaintiffs have sought the following reliefs:
- Declaration that Sale Deed dated 12.11.2008 and Gift Deed dated 17.12.2008 are not binding.
- Possession of the suit property.
- Permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2.
3. The brief averments of written statement of defendant No.2 is as follows:-
The defendant No.2 is the daughter of defendant No.1 (deceased on 05.04.2019), aware of property transactions. The suit is false, frivolous and barred by limitation. The plaintiffs 6 O.S. No.1734/2009 have suppressed the material facts and come to the court with unclean hands.
3(a). The defendants No.3 to 8 entered into the registered Sale Agreement dated 05.03.2007 with Sri.Hari Krishna and Sri.S.S.Prakash Rao. The rights were assigned to defendant No.1 through an Agreement dated 30.03.2007. The registered Sale Deed dated 12.01.2008 was executed in favour of defendant No.1, who was put in possession and entered in BBMP Records. The defendant No.1 gifted the property to defendant No.2 through the registered Gift Deed dated 17.12.2008.
3(b). The Sale Agreement of plaintiffs dated 14.05.2007 is collusive and concocted. The plaintiffs failed to verify registered encumbrances. Agreement to Sell dated 14.05.2007 is not binding on defendants No.1 and 2, as they lack privity. The plaintiffs' claimed payments and receipts are fabricated. On these grounds, prays for dismissal of suit with costs.
4. The brief averments of written statement of defendant No.3 to 8 is as follows:-
The suit is frivolous, not maintainable and based on suppressed facts. The registered Sale Agreement dated
05.03.2007 was executed with Hari Krishna and S.S.Prakash Rao, reflected in the encumbrance certificate. The rights were assigned to defendant No.1 on 30.10.2007, followed by the Sale Deed dated 12.01.2008.
7 O.S. No.1734/20094(a). The Agreement of plaintiffs dated 14.07.2008 was for a financial arrangement, not a sale. The plaintiffs were financiers; payments were loans, not sale consideration. The plaintiffs were aware of special power of attorney and had no intent to purchase. They deny genuine payments or readiness to perform. The deny allege plaintiffs' collusion. The suit is barred by limitation and no cause of action.
4(b). These defendants by way of counterclaim seeks an injunction against the plaintiffs' claims and prays to dismiss the suit.
5. The plaintiffs have filed rejoinder to the written statement of defendant No.2. The brief averments of rejoinder is as follows:-
The unregistered Sale Agreement dated 30.03.2007 is fabricated and was not disclosed in the Sale Deed and Gift Deed nor in R.F.A. No.327/2012. The defendant No.1 is not a bonafide purchaser; Gift Deed to defendant No.2 is collusive. The rights of the plaintiffs under Arbitration Award dated 14.10.2010 and court execution are prior documents. The documents of defendants No.1 and 2 were created to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. On these grounds, plaintiffs seeks to reject the written statement and decree the suit.
6. The plaintiffs have filed rejoinder to the written statement of defendants No.3 to 8. The brief averments of rejoinder is as follows:
8 O.S. No.1734/2009The written statement contains the forged signature of defendant No.3, differing from known documents. The defendants No.1 to 3 colluded to create alleged Agreement and Sale Deed. The plaintiffs paid genuine sale consideration, confirmed by the Arbitration Award. The possession was delivered in 2012 in Ex.No.671/2011. The financial arrangement claim is baseless; the written statement is concocted. On these grounds, plaintiffs seeks to reject the written statement and decree the suit.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues and additional issues have been framed for determination:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No.4 to 8 entered into Joint Development Agreement with defendant No.3 on 11.09.2006?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No.3 in the capacity of Developer and General Power of Attorney Holder of defendant No.4 to 8 offer to sell the suit schedule flat to the plaintiffs by virtue of Agreement of Sale dated 14.05.2007?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No.4 to 8 have also given General Power of Attorney dated 11.09.2006 to defendant No.3 to deal with the suit property in connection with Joint Development Agreement?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No.3 in the capacity of Developer and as a Power of 9 O.S. No.1734/2009 Attorney Holder of defendant No.3 to 8 offer to sell suit schedule property under an Agreement of Sale dated 14.05.2007 for total sale consideration of ₹22,77,237.85?
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove under the said Agreement of Sale they have paid a sum of ₹12,50,000/- and further sum of ₹6,50,000/- on different dates?
6. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No.3 to 8 have created a third party rights in favour of defendant No.1 with malafide intention as pleaded?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract?
8. Whether the defendant No.1 is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property for valuable consideration?
9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Declaration as sought?
10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Possession as sought?
11. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as sought?
12. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 14.05.2007 relied upon by the plaintiffs was executed as security for a financial transaction and not as a genuine Sale Agreement?
10 O.S. No.1734/20092. Whether the plaintiffs were aware of the prior registered Agreement of Sale dated 05.03.2007 executed in favour of Shri.Hari Krishna and Shri.S.S.Prakash Rao?
3. Whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the counter-claim of the defendants seeking an injunction against the plaintiffs is maintainable?
5. Whether the plaintiffs have any enforceable right, title or interest in the suit schedule property?
6. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No.2 has fabricated the signature of defendant No.3 on the written statement?
8. After settlement of issues, the SPA Holder of plaintiffs by name Sri.Prakash G.Makhija has entered into the witness box as PW.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.35 were marked through him. The Power of Attorney Holder of defendant No.2 by name Sri.Harikrishna Mentha has entered into the witness box as DW.1 and Ex.D.1 was marked through him. The defendants No.3 to 8 have not adduced any independent evidence.
9. The plaintiffs have filed the written arguments. The defendants have not addressed their arguments.
10. 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 O.S. No.1734/2009
Issue No.5: In the affirmative.
Issue No.6: In the affirmative.
Issue No.7: In the affirmative.
Issue No.8: In the negative.
Issue No.9: In the affirmative.
Issue No.10: In the affirmative.
Issue No.11: In the affirmative.
Addl. Issue No.1: In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.2: In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.3: In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.4: In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.5: In the affirmative.
Addl. Issue No.6: In the negative.
Issue No.12: As per final order below
for the following:
REASONS
11. Issue No.1 to 5:- Since all these issues are
interlinked and involve common discussion, they are taken up together for consideration to avoid repetition.
12. The plaintiffs have filed Affidavit evidence of their SPA Holder - Prakash G. Makhija - PW.1, supported by Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.35, including the SPA at Ex.P.21, JDA at Ex.P.22, GPA at Ex.P.29, Sale Agreement at Ex.P.5, Payment Receipts at Ex.P.24, Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.10, Arbitration Award in CMP No.217/2009, Court Sale Deed at Ex.P.28, Possession Records at Ex.P.25, Encumbrance Certificate at Ex.P.4 and Appeal Memo in RFA No.327/2012 at Ex.P.27.
13. Affidavit by SPA holder for defendant No.2 - Harikrishna Mentha (DW.1) is supported by registered Sale 12 O.S. No.1734/2009 Agreement dated 05.03.2007, Assignment Agreement dated 30.03.2007 and Sale Deed dated 12.11.2008 at Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3
- Gift Deed dated 17.12.2008 and Ex.D.1 - SPA dated 23.04.2025. But, DW.1 has not produced the registered Sale Agreement dated 05.03.2007 and Assignment Agreement dated 30.03.2007.
14. The defendants No.3 to 8 have not adduced any independent evidence. Their written statement claims that Agreement to Sell dated 14.05.2007 was a financial arrangement, unsupported by documents.
15. The plaintiffs produced Ex.P.22 - certified copy of Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 11.09.2006, executed between defendants No.4 to 8 and defendant No.3 for constructing Oyster Apartment with 45:55 sharing ratio. Harikrishna Mentha (DW.1), the Special Power of Attorney holder for defendant No.2, confirmed the existence of JDA during his cross-examination on 24.04.2025. The document is undisputed and acknowledgement of DW.1 corroborates its authenticity. The certified copy of JDA is a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and its authenticity is undisputed. The acknowledgement of DW.1 further corroborates the claim of plaintiffs. No contrary evidence was adduced by the defendants.
16. Ex.P.29 - certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated 11.09.2006, establishes that defendants No.4 to 8 13 O.S. No.1734/2009 authorized defendant No.3 to manage and deal with the suit property, including executing Sale Agreements for flats under the JDA. DW.1 acknowledged the existence of GPA in his cross-examination. The GPA is a registered document, admissible under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Its terms explicitly empower defendant No.3 to act on behalf of defendants No.4 to 8. The defendants did not dispute its validity or execution. The GPA is undisputed, vesting defendant No.3 with authority to execute Sale Agreements.
17. The plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.5 - copy of Sale Agreement dated 14.05.2007, Ex.P.24 - Payment Receipts and Receipts at Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.10. The Arbitration Award dated 14.10.2010 in CMP No.217/2009, Ex.P.28 upheld Ex.P.5 as a genuine Sale Agreement for Flat No.B.2. PW.1 affirmed its execution in his affidavit and cross-examination. The defendant No.2 through DW.1 and defendants No.3 to 8 allege that Ex.P.5 was a financial arrangement, not a sale, but provided no loan Agreements or financial records. DW.1 admitted not challenging Ex.P.5 despite knowledge since 2010-11.
18. Ex.P.5, though unregistered, is validated by the Arbitration Award, which is binding under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as upheld in Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd.; (2018) 16 SCC 413. The absence of counter-evidence i.e., loan documents undermines the claim of defendants. However, registered Sale Agreement 14 O.S. No.1734/2009 dated 05.03.2007 stated in the evidence of DW.1 predates Ex.P.5 and its legal precedence under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act.
19. The plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.24 - Advance sale Consideration Receipts and Receipts at Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.34 - Bank Statement confirm payments totaling ₹19,00,000/- (₹12,50,000/- + ₹6,50,000/-) to defendant No.3. The Arbitration Award corroborates these payments. PW.1 clarified in the cross-examination that payments pertained to Flat B.2, despite references to Flat C.2. DW.1 denied specific knowledge and alleged manipulation, but provided no counter- evidence. The defendants No.3 to 8's financial arrangement claim lacks documentary support. The Receipts and Bank Statement are admissible under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and their authenticity is reinforced by the Arbitration Award. The failure of defendants to produce contradictory evidence renders their objections unsustainable. Hence, Issue No.1 to 5 are answered in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.6: - The plaintiffs rely on Ex.P.2 - Sale Deed dated 12.01.2008, Ex.P.3 - Gift Deed dated 17.12.2008, Ex.P.4 - Encumbrance Certificate and Ex.P.27 - Appeal Memo in RFA No.327/2012 to allege non-disclosure of Assignment Agreement dated 30.03.2007 in prior proceedings. DW.1 admitted not pursuing action against defendant No.3 for non- disclosure of Ex.P.5. No forensic evidence or testimony from 15 O.S. No.1734/2009 defendant No.3 proves fabrication of Ex.P.2. Ex.P.4 confirms registration of Ex.P.2. Non-disclosure of Assignment Agreement dated 30.03.2007 in RFA No.327/2012 and inaction of DW.1 suggest suppression, inferring malafide intent under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the absence of forensic evidence limits findings on fabrication. The Arbitration Award and Court Sale Deed at Ex.P.28 override subsequent transactions. Hence, above Issue No.6 is answered in the affirmative.
21. Issue No.7:- The plaintiffs in support of their case have produced Ex.P.24 - Payment Receipts, Ex.P.11 - Arbitration Notice and the Arbitration Award demonstrate that the plaintiffs paid ₹18,00,000/- and invoked arbitration when defendants No.3 to 8 failed to execute the Sale Deed. PW.1 affirmed readiness in the cross-examination. The claim of defendants that Ex.P.5 was not a Sale Agreement is unsupported. The actions of plaintiffs satisfy Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, requiring readiness and willingness. The objections of defendants lack evidentiary support. Hence, Issue No.7 is answered in the affirmative.
22. Issue No.8:- The defendant No.2 has stated about registered Sale Agreement dated 05.03.2007 in his evidence, Assignment Agreement dated 30.03.2007 and Ex.P.2 - Sale Deed dated 12.11.2008 and Ex.P.3 - Gift Deed dated 17.12.2008. DW.1 asserted defendant No.1's khatedar status 16 O.S. No.1734/2009 in BBMP Records. However, no payment records, bank statements or due diligence evidence i.e., encumbrance certificate verification were submitted. DW.1 admitted not challenging the Arbitration Award or acting against defendant No.3 for non-disclosure.
23. Under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, a bonafide purchaser must demonstrate good faith and reasonable inquiry, as per Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha; (2005) 7 SCC 534. The absence of payment proof and due diligence, coupled with inaction of DW.1, negates bonafides of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs' Court Sale Deed at Ex.P.28 and possession, pursuant to the Arbitration Award, override registered Sale Agreement dated 05.03.2007 under Section 47 of the Registration Act. The defendant No.1 failed to prove that he is a bondafide purchaser. The defendant No.1 is not a bonafide purchaser. Hence, Issue No.8 is answered in the negative.
24. Issue No.9:- Ex.P.25 - Order Sheet in Ex.No.671/2011, Ex.P.28 - Court Sale Deed and Ex.P.27 - Appeal Memo in RFA No.327/2012 establish the title of plaintiffs. Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 are undermined by inferred fraud and lack of defendant No.1's bonafides. The Arbitration Award's binding effect and court execution render Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 not binding on the plaintiffs, justifying a declaration under Section 17 O.S. No.1734/2009 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Hence, this Issue No.9 is answered in the affirmative.
25. Issue No.10: - The documents at Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.28 confirm possession was delivered to the plaintiffs in 2012 through court execution in Ex.No 671/2011. The claim of DW.1 that defendant No.1 has not shown any proof that she was in possession of the property after 2012 based on the Gift Deed at Ex.P.3 and she did not challenge the court order in Ex.No.671/2011. The court execution establishes lawful possession under Order XXI of CPC. The claim of defendants is unsupported by current possession evidence. Hence, this issue No.10 is answered in the affirmative.
26. Issue No.11:- The documents at Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.28 establish the plaintiffs' lawful possession. No evidence of specific interference by defendants No.1 or 2 was adduced, but the plaintiffs' title supports protection. A lawful possessor is entitled to an injunction to prevent interference under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. Hence, this issue No.11 is answered in the affirmative.
27. Additional Issue No.1: - The documents at Ex.P.5, Ex.P.24, Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.10 and the Arbitration Award confirm Ex.P.5 as a genuine Sale Agreement. DW.1 and defendants No.3 to 8 allege a financial arrangement, but provided no loan Agreements, Promissory Notes or financial records. DW.1's 18 O.S. No.1734/2009 denial of payment knowledge is inconsistent with the Arbitration Award's findings.
28. The Arbitration Award's validation of Ex.P.5 as a sale, coupled with payment evidence, negates the claim of defendants. The absence of loan documentation renders their assertion untenable under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, above Additional Issue No.1 is answered in the negative.
29. Additional Issue No.2:- PW.1 admitted in the cross- examination that not verifying ownership documents before entering Ex.P.5, indicating a lack of due diligence. Ex.P.4 - Encumbrance Certificate shows the registration of Sale Agreement dated 06.03.2007, but Ex.P.27 - Appeal Memo in RFA No.327/2012 suggests non-disclosure of Agreement dated 30.03.2007. DW.1 provided no direct evidence of the knowledge of the plaintiffs and his failure to act against defendant No.3 for non-disclosure weakens the defense.
30. The plaintiffs' lack of due diligence does not conclusively prove knowledge of Sale Agreement dated 06.03.2007. Non-disclosure of another Agreement dated 30.03.2007 in prior proceedings and the absence of direct evidence support the plaintiffs' claim of ignorance. Hence, the plaintiffs were likely unaware of prior registered Agreement of Sale dated 05.03.2007. Hence, Additional Issue No.2 is answered in the negative.
19 O.S. No.1734/200931. Additional Issue No.3:- The plaintiffs' affidavits state the cause of action arose in January 2009 and 25.02.2009 after obtaining certified copies of Ex.P.2/ Ex.P.3. The suit, filed in 2009, falls within the limitation period. DW.1's claim of earlier knowledge is unsupported by evidence.
32. Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for declaration has three-year limitation from the date the right to sue accrues. For possession, Article 65 provides 12-year period. The suit is in time, as the cause of action arose in 2009. Hence, suit is not barred by law of limitation. Hence, this Additional Issue No.3 is answered in the negative.
33. Additional Issue No.4:- For the findings given in Issue No.11. Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.28 establish the possession of plaintiffs, rendering the counter-claim of defendants unsustainable due to lack of title or possession evidence. The counter-claim of defendant No.3 to 8 relies on registered Agreement of Sale dated 05.03.2007, but Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.28 confirm the possession of plaintiffs. The defendants No.3 to 8 provided no evidence of superior title or current possession. They have not produced registered Agreement of Sale dated 05.03.2007.
34. The counter-claim for injunction requires proof of lawful possession or title, which the defendants lack against the Court Sale Deed. The counter-claim is unsustainable under 20 O.S. No.1734/2009 Order VIII, Rule 6A of CPC. Hence, the relief of counter-claim of defendant No.3 to 8 is not maintainable. Hence, this Additional Issue No.4 is answered in the negative.
35. Additional Issue No.5: - The documents at Ex.P.5, Ex.P.24, Ex.P.25, Ex.P.28 and the Arbitration Award conclusively establish the plaintiffs' title and possession through court execution in 2012. The documents such as Sale Agreement dated 06.0.2007, Agreement dated 30.03.2007, which are not produced and Ex.P.3 are overridden by the Arbitration Award's binding effect and defendant No.1's lack of bonafides. The failure of DW.1 to challenge the Award supports this finding.
36. The Court Sale Deed - Ex.P.28 vests enforceable title under Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Arbitration Award is binding under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The plaintiffs have proved this additional issue. Hence, this Additional Issue No.5 is answered in the affirmative.
37. Additional Issue No.6: - The plaintiffs alleged forgery in their rejoinders, claiming defendant No.2 fabricated the signature of defendant No.3 in the written statement of defendants No.3 to 8. No forensic evidence, expert testimony or direct testimony from defendant No.3 (T.Shashidhar Reddy) was adduced. DW.1's ongoing contact with defendant No.3 raises suspicion but lacks corroboration. The allegations of 21 O.S. No.1734/2009 forgery require strict proof under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The absence of forensic evidence or testimony from defendant No.3 renders the claim unproven. Hence, this Additional Issue No.6 is answered in the negative.
38. Issue No.12:- Based on the findings above, the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought and the defendants' counter-claim is dismissed. Hence, this court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs as follows:
It is declared that the registered Sale Deed dated 12.01.2008 in favour of defendant No.1 and the Gift Deed dated 17.12.2008 in favour of defendant No.2 are not binding on the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit schedule property, Flat No.B.2, Oyster Apartment, measuring approximately 1113 sq. ft. with proportionate undivided share, as delivered in Ex.No.671/2011.
The relief of permanent injunction is granted restraining defendants No.1 and 2, their agents or representatives from 22 O.S. No.1734/2009 interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.
Counterclaim of defendants No.2 to 8 is dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 19th day of June, 2025) (B.DASARATHA) XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs:
PW.1 : Sri. Prakash G.Makhija List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 : Special General Power of Attorney Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of Sale Deed Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Gift Deed Ex.P.4 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of Agreement of Sale dated 14.05.2007 Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Petition copy in CMP.No.217/2009 Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of Order sheet in CMP.No.217/2009 Ex.P.8 to 10 : Payment Receipts Ex.P.11 : Office copy of Legal Notice 23 O.S. No.1734/2009 Ex.P.12 to 19: Unserved Postal Covers Ex.P.20 : True copy of Arbitral award in CMP.No.217/2009 Ex.P.21 : Special Power of Attorney Ex.P.22 : Certified copy of Joint Development Agreement dated 11.09.2006 Ex.P.23 : Certified copy of Supplement Agreement Ex.P.24 : Certified copy of Advance Sale Consideration Receipts Ex.P.25 : Certified copy of Order Sheet of Ex.No.671/2011 Ex.P.26 : Certified copy of Judgment & Decree in O.S.No.1380/2009 Ex.P.27 : Office copy of Appeal Memo in R.F.A. No.327/2012 Ex.P.28 : Digital copy of Court Sale Deed Ex.P.29 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated 11.09.2006 Ex.P.30 : Form.B Property Register Extract Ex.P.31 : Computer generated Tax Paid Receipt Ex.P.32 : Copy of Letter issued to Sub-Registrar Ex.P.33 : Endorsement issued by Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, dated 15.02.2025 Ex.P.34 : Computerised Bank Statement Ex.P.35 : Certificate under Section 65.B of the Indian Evidence Act List of witnesses examined for defendants:
DW.1 : Sri.Harikrishna Mentha List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D.1 : Special Power of Attorney
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally
signed by
DASARATHA B
DASARATHA
B Date:
2025.06.25
11:31:41
+0530