Bangalore District Court
Mary Cecilia vs Srikanta on 15 October, 2025
KABC010162452011
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26).
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2025.
Present
Sri Vijaya Kumar Rai, B.Com., LL.B.,
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.4365/2011, 4366/2011, 4367/2011, 4368/2011,
4369/2011, 4370/2011 clubbed with O.S.No.4377/2011
Parties in O.S.No.4377/2011
Plaintiffs: Smt.Gowramma
w/o Srikantappa
Aged about 38 years
Permanently r/at Kalkere Village
Horamavu Panchayath
Bangalore East Taluk.
(By Sri U.Shivakumar, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Sri Ramadas
s/o E. Mannar Naidu
Aged about 40 years
r/at Seven Hills, No.17/A
Banaswadi Road
Maruthi Sevanagar
Bangalore-560 043.
(Reported to be dead)
2) Sri Balakrishnan
s/o Late Muddappa
Aged about 38 years
r/at Abalathi Village
Hebatur Post
Mysore District.
3) Sri Krishnappa
2
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
s/o Late Siddappa
Aged about 39 years
r/at Kalkere Village
Munivenkatappa Badavane
Horamavu Panchayath
K.R.Puram Hobli
Bangalore East Taluk.
4) Ramabai
w/o K. Anandan
Aged about 47 years
r/at No.28, Sai Ram Layout
Krishnamurthy Layout
Raghavendra Circle
Ramamurthy Nagar
Bangalore-560 016.
5) Smt.Ciliya Johnson
w/o Late Fedric Johnson
Aged about 33 years
r/at No.220, 3rd Main
O.M.B.R. Layout
Chikkabanasawadi
Bangalore-560 043.
6) Smt.Usha w/o Ramesh
Aged about 36 years
r/at No.19, Park Road
Cocks Town, Jeevanahalli
Bangalore.
7) Sri Manoharan
s/o Mariyadas
Aged about 52 years
r/at No.11, Coconut Garden
Manjunatha Nagar
Solur Taluk, Magadi Road Post
Bangalore-560 023
(Dead by his Lrs)
7(a) Smt.T.M. Vendamani
w/o Late Manoharan
aged about 57 years
r/at No.11, Colour Palyam
Coconut Garden, Canal Road
Magadi Road Post
3
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
Bengaluru-560 023.
7(b) Smt.Kavitha
d/o Late Manoharan
w/o Saminathan
aged about 30 years
7(c) Smt.Susila
d/o Late Manoharan
aged about 28 years
D.7(b) to (c) are r/at No.47/39(2)
Gowthampettai, Tirupattur, 9th Street
Vellore, Tamilnadu-635 601.
8) Sri Thyagaraj
s/o Mariyadas
Aged about 52 years
r/at No.4, 4th 'A' Cross
Munivenkatappa Layout
Chikkabanaswadi
K.R.Puram Hobli
Bangalore.
9) Sri Dhamodhar
s/o Muniswamy
Aged about 57 years
r/at No.19, Park Road
Cocks Town, Jeevanahalli
Bangalore.
10) Sri S. Narayanaswamy
s/o Late Siddappa
aged about 43 years
r/at Kalkere village
Horamavu Panchayath
Bangalore East Taluk
Bangalore-560 043.
11) Sri K. Prakash
s/o Sri M. Krishnamurthy
aged about 39 years
r/at No.1283, 36th Cross
19th Main, 5th Block
H.B.R.A.A. Layout
Bangalore.
4
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
12) Sri Maladri
s/o Sri Malakondaiah
Major in age
r/at No.22, Vijayanagar Colony
Udayanagara, Behind Tin Factory
Bangalore-560 016.
13) Sri O. Balakrishna
s/o Sri Obaiah
aged about 44 years
r/at No.19, Vijayanagar Colony
Udayanagara, Behind Tin Factory
Bangalore-560 016.
14) Sri Dinesh
s/o Sri Krishnappa
aged about 27 years
r/at Varanasi, Bidrahalli Hobli
Doddagubbi Post
Bangalore-560 077.
15) Sri M. Yedav Murthy
s/o Sri M. Muniyappa
aged about 37 years
r/at No.249, Kalkere Village
Horamavu Post
Bangalore-560 043.
16) Sri M. Ramegowda
s/o K. Muniyappa
aged about 61 years
r/at No.526, Maruthi Extension
Malur Town-563 130.
17) Sri G. Bharath Kumar
s/o Sri Gangadharaiah K.S.
aged about 28 years
r/at No.437, BWS 6th Cross
2nd Stage, K.H.B. Colony
Basaveshwara Nagar
Bangalore-560 079.
18) Sri K. Ravikumar
s/o Late S. Krishnappa
aged about 40 years
r/at No.159 & 160, 1st Main
5
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
1st Block, NRI Layout
Kalkere Main Road
Bangalore-560 016.
(By Mrs.M.D. Anuradha Urs, Adv. for D.3,
D.7(a) to (c); Sri Vivek, K., Adv. for D.4 to 6,
8, 9; Sri R.N.D., Adv. for D.11; Sri
Ramananda, Adv. for D.13; Sri S. Raj
Prabhu, Adv. for D.14 & 15; Sri Y. Vasu,
Adv. for D.16; Sri Vinay, T.R., Adv. for D.17;
D.1- Abated; D.2, 10 are placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 21.06.2011
Nature of the suit For declaration of title,
possession and permanent
injunction
Date of the commencement 12.11.2021
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 15.10.2025
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
14 03 24
Parties in O.S.No.4365/2011
Plaintiffs: 1) Smt.M.Usha w/o Sri K. Ramesh
Aged about 38 years
2) Sri K. Ramesh s/o C. Krishnan
Aged about 43 years
Both are r/at No.19, Park Road Jeevanahalli,
Cox Town, Bangalore-560 005.
(By Mrs.M. Anuradha Urs, Adv.)
vs.
Defendants: 1) Sri Srikanta s/o Late Siddappa
2) Smt.Gowramma w/o Srikanta
6
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
Aged about 53 years
3) Kumari Divya d/o Srikanta
Aged about 20 years
All are r/at Kalkere Village
Horamavu Post, Bangalore.
(By Mr.Muktha Ravindranath, Adv. for D.1;
Sri M.A.Shiva Reddy, Adv. for D.2 & D.3 is
placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 20.06.2011
Nature of the suit For permanent injunction
Date of the commencement 31.08.2017
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 15.10.2025
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
14 03 25
Parties in O.S.No.4366/2011
Plaintiffs: 1) Mary Cecilia
w/o Late Fredrick Johnson
Aged about 33 years
2) Kumari F. Jenifer Jeney
d/o Late Fredrick Johnson
Aged about 10 years
3) F. Melvin Johnson
s/o Late Fredrick Johnson
aged about 8 years
Plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are minors
represented by their natural mother
plaintiff No.1.
All are r/at No.220, 3rd Main
OMBR Layout, Chikkabanasawadi
7
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
Bangalore-560 043.
(By Mrs.M.D. Anuradha Urs, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Sri Srikanta s/o Late Siddappa
2) Smt.Gowramma w/o Srikanta
Aged about 53 years
3) Kumari Divya d/o Srikanta
Aged about 20 years
All are r/at Kalkere Village
Horamavu Post, Bangalore.
(By Mrs.Muktha Ravindranath, Adv. for D.1;
Sri M.A.Shiva Reddy, Adv. for D.2 & D.3 is
placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 20.06.2011
Nature of the suit For permanent injunction
Date of the commencement 31.08.2017
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 15.10.2025
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
14 03 25
Parties in O.S.No.4367/2011
Plaintiffs: 1) Sri M. Damodharan
s/o Late Muniswamy
Aged about 55 years
2) Smt.K. Shanthi
w/o M. Damodharan
Aged about 50 years
Both are r/at No.19, Park Road Jeevanahalli,
8
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
Cox Town
Bangalore-560 005.
(By Mrs.M. Anuradha Urs, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Sri Srikanta s/o Late Siddappa
2) Smt.Gowramma w/o Srikanta
Aged about 53 years
3) Kumari Divya d/o Srikanta
Aged about 20 years
All are r/at Kalkere Village
Horamavu Post, Bangalore.
(By Mr.Muktha Ravindranath, Adv. for D.1;
Sri M.A.Shiva Reddy, Adv. for D.2 & D.3 is
placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 20.06.2011
Nature of the suit For permanent injunction
Date of the commencement 31.08.2017
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 15.10.2025
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
14 03 25
Parties in O.S.No.4368/2011
Plaintiffs: 1) Smt.T.M. Vendamani
w/o Sri Manoharan
Aged about 45 years
r/at No.11, Colour Palyam
Coconut Garden, Canal Road
Magadi Road Post
Bangalore-560 023.
9
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
2) Sri Manoharan (Dead by Lrs)
2(a) Kavitha w/o Saminathan
aged about 40 years
2(b) Susila d/o Manoharan
Aged about 40 years
Plaintiffs No.2(a) & (b) are
r/at No.47/89(2), Gowthampettai
Tirupattur, 9th Street, Vellore
Tamil Nadu-635 601.
(By Mrs.M.D. Anuradha Urs, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Sri Srikanta s/o Late Siddappa
2) Smt.Gowramma w/o Srikanta
Aged about 53 years
3) Kumari Divya d/o Srikanta
Aged about 20 years
All are r/at Kalkere Village
Horamavu Post, Bangalore.
(By Mrs.Muktha Ravindranath, Adv. for D.1;
Sri M.A.Shiva Reddy, Adv. for D.2 & D.3 is
placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 20.06.2011
Nature of the suit For permanent injunction
Date of the commencement 31.08.2017
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 15.10.2025
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
14 03 25
10
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
Parties in O.S.No.4369/2011
Plaintiffs: 1) Smt.Bhanumathi
w/o Sri Thiyagarajan
Aged about 47 years
2) Sri Thiyagarajan
s/o Sri Natesh Mudaliar
Aged about 52 years
Both are r/at No.04, 4th Cross
Muniswamy Layout
Chikkabanasawadi
K.R. Puram Hobli
Bangalore.
(By Mrs.M.D. Anuradha Urs, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Sri Srikanta s/o Late Siddappa
2) Smt.Gowramma w/o Srikanta
Aged about 53 years
3) Kumari Divya d/o Srikanta
Aged about 20 years
All are r/at Kalkere Village
Horamavu Post, Bangalore.
(By Mrs.Muktha Ravindranath, Adv. for D.1;
Sri M.A.Shiva Reddy, Adv. for D.2 & D.3 is
placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 20.06.2011
Nature of the suit For permanent injunction
Date of the commencement 31.08.2017
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 15.10.2025
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
14 03 25
11
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
Parties in O.S.No.4370/2011
Plaintiffs: 1) Smt.G. Ramabai w/o Sri K. Anandan
Aged about 46 years
2) Sri K. Anandan
s/o Late Krishnoji Rao
Aged about 50 years
Both are r/at No.28, Sai Ram Layout
7th Main, 1st Cross, Krishnamurthy
Layout, Raghavendra Circle
Rammurthy Nagar
Bangalore-560 016.
(By Mrs.M.D. Anuradha Urs, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Sri Srikanta s/o Late Siddappa
2) Smt.Gowramma w/o Srikanta
Aged about 53 years
3) Kumari Divya d/o Srikanta
Aged about 20 years
All are r/at Kalkere Village
Horamavu Post, Bangalore.
(By Mrs.Muktha Ravindranath, Adv. for D.1;
Sri M.A.Shiva Reddy, Adv. for D.2 & D.3 is
placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 20.06.2011
Nature of the suit For permanent injunction
Date of the commencement 31.08.2017
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 15.10.2025
Pronounced
12
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
Total duration Years Months Days
14 03 25
(Vijaya Kumar Rai)
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
O.S.No.4377/2011 is filed by the plaintiff Smt.Gowramma to declare that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property measuring 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.403 of Kalkere village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk and to direct the defendants to deliver its possession by declaring that the general power of attorney dated 16.11.1990, sale deeds dated 14.03.2005, 13.09.2004, 28.05.2003, 12.03.1998 and another sale deed dated 12.03.1998 executed respectively in favour of defendants No.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are not binding on the plaintiff and also for an order of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as hereunder:-
(a) The plaintiff is the wife of one Srikantappa. The suit schedule property measuring 21 guntas in Sy.No.403 of Kalkere village originally belonged to one Late Sri Siddappa, who is the father of the Srikantappa. Siddappa died in the year 1989 and the 13 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 properties of Siddappa were partitioned on 15.07.1988 among his surviving legal heirs including the husband of the plaintiff Srikantappa. In the said partition, the husband of the plaintiff was allotted 21 guntas of suit schedule property. But, after the death of Siddappa, plaintiff's husband was addicted to bad vices and started to misuse the income of joint family properties for which the plaintiff has requested to transfer the properties in her name and in the name of her child. But, her husband Srikantappa has refused to do so and therefore, the plaintiff has instituted O.S.No.4595/2004 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in which, by the advice of elders and well wishers, a compromise was entered between them and in the said compromise petition, the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of the plaintiff and she was put in possession of the property and the name of the plaintiff is also entered in the revenue records. The final decree dated 03.06.2005 passed in O.S.No.4595/2004 is also registered and thereby the plaintiff became the owner of the suit schedule property. Taking undue advantage of the bad vices of the husband of the plaintiff, the defendants have created, fabricated and forged documents and tried to put up temporary sheds in the suit schedule property for which initially the plaintiff has instituted O.S.No.6230/2005 for bare injunction against defendant No.3, which came to be dismissed for proof of title. After the dismissal of the said suit, 14 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 defendants No.3 to 9 without any right put up temporary constructions with hollow bricks and ACC sheet sheds measuring in an area 30x40 feet each contending that the husband of the plaintiff has executed a registered general power of attorney dated 16.11.1990, though it was not executed by him. The defendant No.1 on the basis of this fake and created GPA dated 16.11.1990 executed an unregistered GPA dated 04.12.1990 notarized on 05.12.1990 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of a property measuring 30x40 feet without converting the property into non-agricultural purpose and without any sanction plan and on the basis of the GPA dated 04.12.1990 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 on 14.03.2005 to knock off the plaintiff's property. Similarly, defendant No.4 on the basis of the fake GPA dated 27.06.1990 obtained a sale deed dated 13.09.2004. Similarly, defendant No.5 by taking advantage of the fake GPA dated 27.06.1990 obtained a sale deed dated 28.05.2003. Similarly defendant No.6 on the basis of the fake GPA date 19.04.1991 obtained a sale deed dated 12.03.1998.
Similarly, the defendant No.9 on the basis of a fake GPA, obtained a sale deed dated 12.03.1998.
(b) The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendants colluding together created false documents to claim the suit schedule property without any right, tile and interest and tried to interfere over the suit schedule property and put up illegal constructions, 15 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 temporary sheds in it which is totally impermissible and on these pleadings sought the above reliefs.
3. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by this Court, defendant No.3, 4 to 9, 13 and 17 entered appearance and filed the written statement. During the pendency of the case defendant No.1 is reported to be dead. Defendant No.2, xxxxxxxxx10, 14 & 15 are placed exparte. Though the defendants No.12 & 16 have entered appearance, they have not chosen to file their written statement.
(a) In the written statement filed by the defendants, they have admitted that originally the 21 guntas of land which is claimed by the plaintiff belonged to her husband Srikanta. But, they have taken up a contention that Srikantappa, the plaintiff and her daughter Kumari Vidya obtained decree in OS No.4595/2004 fraudulently and collusively to defeat the right of the defendants. It is contended by defendant No.3, 4 to 9, 13 & 17 that Srikanta executed a registered power of attorney dated 16.11.1990 in favour of defendant No.1 Ramdas and sites are formed in the suit schedule property. It is also contended that though it is not converted into non-agricultural purpose, it lost the identity of agriculture nature decades ago and after forming the sites they were sold to different persons including the contesting defendants. It is further pleaded that OS No.6230/2005 filed by 16 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 the plaintiff against defendant No.3 dismissed after trial and as the plaintiff and her family members harassed the defendants, one of the defendants Balakrishna filed a suit for permanent injunction and obtained a judgement and decree against Sri Nagabhushan and Rathnamma, who are the wife of late brother of the plaintiff's husband. It is also stated that plaintiff being aware of the vulnerable position of the defendants tried to take advantage of the lacuna in the documents executed by the plaintiff and her family members. It is specifically pleaded by them that the purchasers of the sites are in possession of their respective sites and put up solid constructions in it, obtained electricity connection, and other necessary amenities. It is also stated that they have put up compound wall to protect their property and the plaintiff collusively approached this court without clean hands by taking advantage of their own wrong and the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. They have given the details of various suits filed by the defendants against the plaintiff and her family members and contended that this suit is also not valued properly. The defendant No.13 has taken up specific stand that the husband of the plaintiff has empowered one Ramdas son of E. Mannar Naidu to deal with the suit schedule property by executing the registered general power of attorney dated 14.11.1990 and on the basis of the said power of attorney, the defendant No.1 has formed layout and sold site bearing 17 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 No.8,9,10 & 11 measuring east-west on the northern side 15.6 feet and southern side 31 feet and North-South 155 feet in favour of Smt.Shafiya Khan under the registered sale deed dated 09.01.1991. It is also stated that the defendant No.13 is the bonafide purchaser of one site and constructed RCC roofed house consisting of first floor, investing lack of rupees by raising the loan and it was purchased through the sale deed dated 26.05.2011. The 17th defendant has taken up a contention that he is the absolute owner and actual possession and enjoyment of the landed property bearing site No.1, Khata No.155/5 formed in the suit schedule property measuring east west 30 feet, north south 40 feet having purchased the same through the absolute sale deed dated 29.01.2014 and enjoying the same as the absolute owner of the property. On these contentions, they have sought for dismissal of the suit.
(b) O.S.No.4365/2011 is filed by one Smt.M.Usha and Sri K. Ramesh against Srikanta, Smt.Gowramma and Kumari Divya for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the site No.6 measuring 30x40 feet totally measuring 1200 sq.ft. by declaring that the judgment and decree obtained by the defendants (plaintiff in O.S.No.4377/2011) in O.S.No.4595/2004 is not binding on them. In this suit, the plaintiffs have contended that they are wife and husband and the 18 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 defendant No.1 has approached the plaintiffs along with his GPA holder one Ramdas, who offered to sell the suit schedule property by forming sites and agreed to sell the same for a valuable consideration of ₹12,750/-. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have paid the entire sale consideration amount to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1, having received the entire sale consideration amount executed the power of attorney, affidavit and other documents in favour of plaintiff No.2. The said Ramdas who is the power of attorney holder has affixed his signature as a witness to the sale deed dated 12.03.1998 executed in favour of plaintiff No.1 by plaintiff No.2. But, defendants being ill advised and demanded money from the plaintiff for ₹10 lakhs, tried to interfere over the suit schedule property and therefore filed the suit for seeking the above reliefs. This suit is resisted by defendants 1 & 2 by filing separate written statement wherein they have taken up a contention that the defendant No.2 Gowramma is the absolute owner of the entire 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.403 having been acquired through the final decree dated 22.09.2004 passed in O.S.No.4595/2004, which is registered before the Sub-Registrar on 15.06.2005. It is also contended that on the basis of the decree the mutation entries are also made in the name of defendant No.2 and from the date of partition, the defendant No.2 is in actual possession and enjoyment of it. The right, title and interest accrued to the plaintiffs is denied by them contending that 19 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 the defendant No.1 at no point of time executed any document including the GPA claimed on behalf of Ramdas and the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration and possession. It is contended that by taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of the defendant No.1 Srikanta, the plaintiffs have created the documents and sought for a dismissal of the suit.
(c) O.S.No.4366/2011 is filed by the plaintiffs by name Mary Cecilia, Kumari F. Jenifer Jeney and F. Melvin Johnson against Srikanta, Gowramma and Kumari Divya for the relief of injunction declaring that the decree obtained by the defendants in O.S.No.4595/2004 is not binding on the plaintiffs contending that the husband of the first plaintiff late Fredrick Johnson purchased the site No.16 measuring 30x40 feet through a registered sale deed dated 28.05.2003 executed by one Jayasheela Rajan, who is the power of attorney holder of defendant No.1 Srikanta for a valuable consideration of ₹12,000/- and later the defendants have tried to interfere over the suit schedule property in the guise of the decree passed in O.S.No.4595/2004. This suit is also resisted by the defendants on the same defence raised in O.S.No.4365/2011 and on the basis of the contention raised by the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.4377/2011 and sought for dismissal of the suit.
(d) OS No.4367/2011 is filed by the plaintiffs by name Sri M. Damodaran and Smt.K.Shanthi against defendants Srikanta, 20 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Gowramma and Kumari Divya for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of site No.2 measuring 30x40 feet by declaring that the judgment and decree obtained by the defendants in O.S.No.4595/2004 is not binding on them. It is contended by them that this site is purchased by plaintiff No.1 from defendant Srikanta and his brother through plaintiff No.2 Smt.K.Shanthi, who was the GPA holder of Shankarappa and Srikanta through the registered sale deed dated 12.03.1998 for valuable consideration amount of ₹12,750/-. They have pleaded the interference of the defendants and sought for the above reliefs. The defendants 1 & 2 filed their separate written statement resisting the suit on the grounds urged in O.S.No.4365/2011 and also the grounds urged by the defendant No.2 Gowramma in O.S.No.4377/2011.
(e) O.S.No.4368/2011 is filed by the plaintiff No.1 by name T.M. Vedamani, plaintiff No.2 Manoharan dead by his LRS against Srikanta, Gowramma and Divya for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of site No.4 measuring 30x40 feet by declaring that the decree passed in OS No.4595/2004 obtained by the defendants is not binding on them contending that the plaintiff No.1 has purchased this site through a sale deed dated 21.04.2011 executed by Manoharan on behalf of Ramdas. It is contended that they are in possession of the suit property and the defendants tried to interfere with their 21 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 possession over the same. The suit is resisted by the defendants on the grounds raised in O.S.No.4365/2011 as stated above and as per the grounds urged by defendant No.2 Gowramma in O.S.No.4377/2011 and sought for dismissal of the suit.
(f) O.S.No.4369/2011 is instituted by Smt.Bhanumathi and her husband Sri Thiyagarajan contending that they have purchased the suit site No.3 measuring 30x40 feet through a sale deed dated 15.04.2011 executed by the 2nd plaintiff Thiyagarajan in favour of the first plaintiff on the basis of the power of attorney executed by Ramdas. They have also contended that thereafter they are in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendants have illegally attempted to dispossess them. The relief sought by them is for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the said suit schedule property and also to declare that the decree obtained by the defendants in O.S.No.4595/2004 is not binding on them. The defendants have resisted the suit on the grounds urged in O.S.No.4365/2011 and also on the defence raised by defendant No.2 Smt.Gowramma in O.S.No.4377/2011 and sought for dismissal of the suit.
(g) O.S.No.4370/2011 is instituted by one Smt.G.Ramabai and Sri K.Anandhan against Srikanta, Gowramma and Divya for an order of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of site No.23 measuring 30x40 feet and to declare that the judgement 22 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 and decree obtained by the defendants in O.S.No.4595/2004 is not binding on the plaintiffs contending that the suit schedule site is purchased by them through the sale deed dated 13.09.2004 executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1st plaintiff on the basis of the GPA executed by Srikanta and Shankarappa. It is contended by them that the defendants have illegally tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property and therefore instituted the suit seeking the above relief. This suit is also seriously resisted by the defendants on the grounds urged in O.S.No.4365/2011 and as per the grounds raised by the defendant No.2 Smt.Gowramma in O.S.No.4377/2011 and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings this Court has framed the following issues:-
ISSUES IN O.S.No.4377/2011
1) Whether the plaintiff proves her right and title over the suit schedule property?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit schedule property?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the GPA dtd:16.11.1990, sale deeds dtd:14.03.2005, 13.09.2004, 28.05.2003, 12.03.1998 and 12.03.1998 respectively are null and void and not binding on her?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged act of the defendants?
23
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
5) Whether the defendant No.13 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
6) Whether the defendant No.3 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as contended by him in para No.32 of his written statement?
7) Whether the defendants No.4 to 9 proves that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?
8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought by her?
9) What order or decree?
ADDL. ISSUE IN O.S.No.4377/2011
1) Whether the 17th defendant proves that he is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit property by virtue of GPA and sale deed dated 29.01.2014?
ISSUES IN O.S.No.4365/2011
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief's claimed?
4) What decree or order?
ADDL. ISSUES IN O.S.No.4365/2011
1) Does plaintiffs prove that the judgment in O.S.No.4595/2004 was obtained by the 24 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 defendants by playing fraud and therefore it is not binding upon the plaintiffs?
ISSUES IN O.S.No.4366/2011
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief's claimed?
4) What decree or order?
ADDL. ISSUES IN O.S.No.4366/2011
1) Does plaintiffs prove that the judgment in O.S.No.4595/2004 was obtained by the defendants by playing fraud and therefore it is not binding upon the plaintiffs?
ISSUES IN O.S.No.4367/2011
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief's claimed?
4) What decree or order?
ADDL. ISSUES IN O.S.No.4367/2011
1) Does plaintiffs prove that the judgment in O.S.No.4595/2004 was obtained by the 25 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 defendants by playing fraud and therefore it is not binding upon the plaintiffs?
ISSUES IN O.S.No.4368/2011
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief's claimed?
4) What decree or order?
ADDL. ISSUES IN O.S.No.4368/2011
1) Does plaintiffs prove that the judgment in O.S.No.4595/2004 was obtained by the defendants by playing fraud and therefore it is not binding upon the plaintiffs?
ISSUES IN O.S.No.4369/2011
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief's claimed?
4) What decree or order?
26
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 ADDL. ISSUES IN O.S.No.4369/2011
1) Does plaintiffs prove that the judgment in O.S.No.4595/2004 was obtained by the defendants by playing fraud and therefore it is not binding upon the plaintiffs?
ISSUES IN O.S.No.4370/2011
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief's claimed?
4) What decree or order?
ADDL. ISSUES IN O.S.No.4370/2011
1) Does plaintiffs prove that the judgment in O.S.No.4595/2004 was obtained by the defendants by playing fraud and therefore it is not binding upon the plaintiffs?
5. In support of the case of the plaintiff, in O.S.No.4377/2011, the plaintiff Smt.Gowramma is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 94 documents. On behalf of the defendants, defendants No.17 & 4 are examined as D.W1 & 2 respectively and got marked Ex.D.1 to 27 documents. In O.S.No.4365/2011, the plaintiff No.1 is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 25 documents. On behalf of the defendants, 27 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 defendants No.1 & 2 are examined as D.W1 & 2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 32 documents. In O.S.No.4366/2011, the plaintiff No.1 is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 29 documents. On behalf of the defendants, defendants No.1 & 2 are examined as D.W1 & 2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 32 documents. In O.S.No.4367/2011, the plaintiff No.1 is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 25 documents. On behalf of the defendants, defendants No.1 & 2 are examined as D.W1 & 2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 38 documents. In O.S.No.4368/2011, the plaintiff No.1 is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 20 documents. On behalf of the defendants, defendants No.1 & 2 are examined as D.W1 & 2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 32 documents. In O.S.No.4369/2011, the plaintiff No.1 is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 24 documents. On behalf of the defendants, defendants No.1 & 2 are examined as D.W1 & 2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 32 documents. In O.S.No.4370/2011, the plaintiff No.1 is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 31 documents. On behalf of the defendants, defendants No.1 & 2 are examined as D.W1 & 2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 32 documents.
6. Initially, O.S.No.4365/2011 to O.S.No.4370/2011 were pending before this Court and after completion of separate evidence, in all these six cases, O.S.No.4377/2011 is transferred to this Court. Thereafter, in the order dated 02.07.2025, all these 28 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 seven suits are clubbed. Heard the arguments of both the sides. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in OS No.4365/2011 to 4370/2011 has filed a common notes of arguments. Similarly, plaintiff in O.S.No.4377/2011 has filed a common notes of arguments.
7. Findings of this Court on the above issues and addl. Issues are as hereunder:-
O.S.No.4377/2011 Issue No.1: Partly in the affirmative & partly in the negative Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative & partly in the negative Issue No.3: Partly in the affirmative & partly in the negative Issue No.4: Partly in the affirmative & partly in the negative Issue No.5: In the negative Issue No.6: In the negative Issue No.7: In the negative Issue No.8: Partly in the affirmative & partly in the negative Addl. Issue No.1:- In the negative Issue No.9: As per final order.
O.S.No.4365/2011 Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the negative Issue No.3 : In the negative Addl. Issue No.1:- In the negative Issue No.4 : As per final order.
O.S.No.4366/2011 Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the affirmative Issue No.3 : In the affirmative Addl. Issue No.1:- Partly in the affirmative & partly in the negative 29 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Issue No.4 : As per final order.
O.S.No.4367/2011 Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the negative Issue No.3 : In the negative Addl. Issue No.1:- In the negative Issue No.4 : As per final order.
O.S.No.4368/2011 Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the negative Issue No.3 : In the negative Addl. Issue No.1:- In the negative Issue No.4 : As per final order.
O.S.No.4369/2011 Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the negative Issue No.3 : In the negative Addl. Issue No.1:- In the negative Issue No.4 : As per final order.
O.S.No.4370/2011 Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the affirmative Issue No.3 : In the affirmative Addl. Issue No.1:-Partly in the affirmative & partly in the negative Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 in O.S.No.4377/2011 and Additional Issue No.1 in O.S.No.4365/2011 to 4370/2011:- The plaintiff in O.S.No.4377/2011 Smt.Gowramma instituted the suit to declare that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property 30 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 measuring 21 guntas situated in Sy.No.403 of Kalkere village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk contending that earlier her husband acquired this suit schedule property measuring 21 guntas through a registered partition deed dated 15.07.1988 and thereafter addicted to bad vices and therefore, the plaintiff along with her minor daughter Kumari Divya instituted O.S.No.4595/2004 for partition in respect of 5 items of properties in which the suit schedule property measuring 21 guntas was allotted to her share. In this regard, she has produced the registered final decree passed in OS No.4595/2004 as Ex.P44, which shows that a final decree was passed to above effect on 22.09.2004 and registered before the Sub Registrar on 15.06.2005. The contesting defendants and the plaintiffs in OS No.4365/2011 to 4370/2011 seriously disputed the source of title claimed by the plaintiff Gowramma on the basis of this decree mainly on two grounds. Firstly, they have taken up a contention that plaintiff Gowramma had no pre-existing right over the 21 guntas of land claimed in O.S.No.4377/2011 and therefore the decree obtained by the plaintiff in O.S.No.4595/2004 is a collusive and fraudulent decree to defeat the right of the contesting parties. It is contended that a person who had no right over the property cannot maintain a suit for partition and therefore when there was no pre-existing right to the plaintiff Gowramma, the very decree passed in O.S.No.4595/2004 is not binding on 31 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 the contesting parties and will not derive any right and interest in respect of the suit schedule property in her favour. It is also contended that it is a fraudulent decree to defeat the right of the contesting parties and therefore fraud vitiates the justice and the same can be challenged in any court even in a collateral proceedings and therefore the plaintiff cannot base her title on the basis of this fraudulent and collusive decree obtained in OS No.4595/2004.
9. The contesting defendants have admitted that 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.403 claimed by the plaintiff Smt.Gowramma was fallen to the share of her husband Srikanta through the partition deed dated 15.07.1988. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendants, O.S.No.4595/2004 filed by the plaintiff Gowramma against her husband Srikantappa during his lifetime. Though the suit was filed along with her daughter Kumari Divya who was a minor at the time of institution of the said suit, it is contended by the contesting defendants that the suit was filed and decreed before the commencement of Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005, which came into force with effect from 05.09.2005 and therefore her minor daughter also did not had any right over the property. The plaintiff Gowramma has not pleaded that this 21 guntas of land was the ancestral property to her husband Srikantappa. If it was the ancestral property to Srikantappa, the plaintiff's daughter 32 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Kumari Divya could have succeeded to her share in the property at least by way of Karnataka Amendment, which was available to her at the time of institution of the suit. But, in the plaint, the plaintiff has merely stated that this 21 guntas of land along with other properties belonged to one Siddappa, who is the father of Srikantappa. If it was the property of Siddappa, right accrued to Srikantappa is under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956 and therefore, even the daughter of Gowramma did not had pre- existing right over the 21 guntas of land. Apart from that, in the decree passed in O.S.No.4595/2004, the suit schedule property was allotted to Gowramma and not to her daughter. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, plaintiff Gowramma had no pre-existing right over 21 guntas of land claimed in suit schedule property. But, it is relevant to note that the decree passed in O.S.No.4595/2004 dated 22.09.2004 is subsequently registered before the Sub Registrar on 15.06.2005.
10. Section 2(1)(d) of Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 defines conveyance. According to Section 2 (1)(d) of Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 conveyance includes every instrument including every decree or final order of any civil court. Further Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act 1908 provides that registration is not compulsory in respect of any decree or order of a court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and 33 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding. These provisions makes it clear that though a compromise decree or a decree comprising immovable property other than that, which is the subject matter of the suit requires compulsory registration, when it is registered, it is a conveyance within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Karnataka Stamp Act 1957. Therefore, even if plaintiff had no pre-existing right over the suit schedule property when the decree obtained by her in O.S.No.4595/2004 is registered before the Sub Registrar, it is a conveyance as if any other registered deed. Therefore, Section 17(2)(vi) of Registration Act makes it clear that in a compromise decree, even a property which is not the subject matter of the suit can also be included, but it requires compulsory registration of the decree. Under these circumstances, it is clear that if a property to which the parties have no pre-existing right have entered into a compromise and obtained a decree, if it is registered as per the provisions of Registration Act, the title in respect of the property will be conveyed as if any other conveyance deed. Hence, on this contention, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited on the ground that she has not acquired any right through the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.4595/2004.
11. The second important contention raised by the contesting defendants is that the decree in O.S.No.4595/2004 was obtained by the plaintiff by colluding with her husband and 34 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 daughter, just to defeat the rights of the defendants in O.S.No.4377/2011 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4365/2011 to 4370/2011. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, if any decree is obtained fraudulently, such decree is void and the contesting parties need not seek declaration with regard to such fraudulent decree. But the question for consideration is whether the decree obtained by the plaintiff in O.S.No.4595/2004 can be considered as collusive or fraudulent.
12. The main contention urged by the plaintiff Gowramma is that after acquiring the suit schedule property measuring 21 guntas, her husband Srikantappa was addicted to bad vices which was necessitated to the plaintiff and her daughter to institute the suit in OS No.4595/2004. The Court has accepted the contention of the plaintiff and passed the decree in O.S.No.4595/2004. In this regard, plaintiff Gowramma has testified before the court that due to the addiction of her husband to bad vices, it was necessitated to her and her daughter to institute the suit. Though the contesting defendants have seriously disputed it, the probability of case of the plaintiff Gowramma cannot be ruled out. The reason is that there is distinction between proceeding which is collusive and one which is fraudulent. Collusion in a judicial proceeding is a secret arrangement between two persons to institute the suit in order to 35 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 obtain a judicial decision by unreal contest with the object of confounding the third parties. A fraudulent decree means the claim made by the parties untrue, but the party manages to obtain the verdict of the court by practicing fraud on the court with an intention to injure the other side. It is true that if material documents are suppressed before the court, it amounts to fraud. But, the plaintiff in O.S.No.4595/2004 has pleaded that due to the bad vices and taking advantage of the illiteracy of her husband, certain documents were created. In this regard, in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Nagubai Ammal and others v/s B. Shama Rao and others 1956 SCC 321, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder:-
"Now there is a fundamental distinction between a proceeding which is collusive and one which is fraudulent. "Collusion in judicial proceedings is a secret arrangement between two persons that the one should institute a suit against the other in order to obtain the decision of a judicial tribunal for some sinister purpose" (Wharton's Law Lexicon, 14th Edition, page 212). In such a proceeding, the claim put forward is fictitious, the contest over it is unreal, and the decree passed therein is a mere mask having the similitude of a judicial determination and worn by the parties with the object of confounding third parties. But, when a proceeding is alleged to be fraudulent, what is meant is that the claim made therein is untrue, but that the claimant has managed 36 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 to obtain the verdict of the court in his favour and against his opponent by practicing fraud on the court. Such a proceeding is started with a view to injure the opponent and there can be no question of its having been initiated as the result of an understanding between the parties. While in collusive proceedings the combat is a mere sham, in a fraudulent suit is real and earnest".
13. In view of the above legal position, if some documents were executed by Srikantappa and the title of the property was legally conveyed in favour of the contesting defendants, the same cannot be neutralised by the plaintiff by obtaining decree in O.S.No.4595/2004. In other words, if Srikantappa had parted with his title in respect of the suit schedule property or any portion thereof in favour of third parties, the plaintiff Gowramma cannot acquire any right, title and interest over such property through O.S.No.4595/2004 as those parties were not impleaded as parties in O.S.No.4595/2004. If Srikantappa had not parted with his property to third parties and by the time when decree was obtained in O.S.No.4595/2004 if the property was in the ownership of Srikantappa, the decree will enure to the benefit of plaintiff Gowramma to the extent of the ownership possessed by Srikantappa. Therefore, the collusion claimed by the contesting parties in obtaining the decree in O.S.No.4595/2004 should be interpreted on the basis of the rights of the contesting parties in 37 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 respect of the property. If the contesting parties had no right over the suit schedule property, they cannot contend that the decree is collusive. If the contesting parties had acquired any valid right over the suit property or any portion thereof, they can claim that the decree passed in O.S.No.4595/2004 is not binding on them. In the absence of a valid title or right to the contesting parties in respect of the suit property or any portion thereof, they cannot contend that the decree passed in O.S.No.4595/2004 is collusive or fraudulent.
14. Needless to mention that in order to attribute fraud on the plaintiff, there should be clear evidence to show that the suit in O.S.No.4595/2004 was filed by the plaintiff and her daughter with a fraudulent intention without mere intention to claim property from the husband Srikantappa. Merely because certain documents claimed by the defendants are not placed in O.S.No.4595/2004, the court cannot infer fraud unless there is evidence to show that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4595/2004 were aware about the documents executed by Srikantappa in favour of the contesting parties. There is no acceptable evidence to hold that the plaintiff was aware about the documents executed by Srikantappa in favour of the contesting parties before the institution of the suit. Under these circumstances, the evidence on record is insufficient to attribute fraud or collusion to the plaintiff in obtaining decree in O.S.No.4595/2004.
38
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
15. In the meantime, the court should examine the rights derived by the parties. As stated above, if Srikantappa had transferred his right over the suit schedule property or any portion thereof before entering into compromise in OS No.4595/2004, the plaintiff Gowramma cannot acquire any right over such property even if there is a decree in O.S.No.4595/2004. In view of these reasons, it is necessary to examine the right claimed by the contesting parties in respect of the suit schedule property.
16. O.S.No.4365/2011:- This suit is filed by one Smt.M. Usha and her husband Sri K. Ramesh in respect of site No.6 measuring 30x40 sq.ft. said to be formed in the larger extent of 21 guntas claimed by Gowramma through the sale deed dated 12.03.1998 produced in this suit as Ex.P1. It was a sale deed executed by plaintiff No.2 K Ramesh in favour of plaintiff No.1 M.Usha claiming to the GPA holder of Srikanta and his brother Shankarappa. These plaintiffs in O.S.No.4365/2011 have also produced Ex.P11 sale agreement executed from Ramdas in favour of PW2 Ramesh. It is true that defendant Srikantappa has executed a registered GPA dated 16.11.1990 in favour of Ramdas as per Ex.P14. But, Ramdas has not executed any sale deed in favour of plaintiffs in O.S.No.4365/2011. If Ramdas had executed any sale deed that would have enured to the benefit of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4365/2011 as he was a holder of registered GPA dated 16.11.1990 from Srikantappa. Ex.P11 sale 39 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 agreement executed by Ramdas in favour of plaintiff No.2 K. Ramesh is not enforced by executing the sale deed. Therefore, Ex.P11 sale agreement will not convey any right to the plaintiffs. Though Ex.P12 GPA was executed by Ramdas on 19.04.1991 in favour of plaintiff No.2 K.Ramesh, Ramdas in the capacity of GPA holder of Srikanta he cannot execute one more GPA in favour of plaintiff No.2 on the basis of the GPA dated 16.11.1990. It is the fundamental principle of transfer of property that no one cannot confer a better title than what he himself has. A power of attorney holder cannot execute another power of attorney more particularly to sell an immovable property and therefore Ex.P12 GPA executed by Ramdas in favour of plaintiff No.2 conveyed any right to the plaintiff No.2 to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1. Therefore, the sale deed dated 12.03.1998 relied upon by plaintiffs in O.S.No.4365/2011 did not convey any right in favour of the plaintiffs. Though in the sale deed, it is claimed that plaintiff No.2 is the GPA holder from Srikanta and his brother, no such GPA is produced. If plaintiff No.2 had any such GPA executed by Srikanta, the sale deed dated 12.03.1998 would have conveyed title in respect of site No.6 in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4365/2011. Therefore, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4365/2011 cannot acquire any title in respect of site No.6 claimed by them.
40
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
17. O.S.No.4366/2011:- suit is instituted by one Mrs.Mary Cecilia, Kumari F.Jenifer Jeney and F.Melvin Johnson in respect of site No.16 measuring 30x40 feet said to be formed in larger extent of 21 guntas of land on the basis of sale deed dated 28.05.2003 executed by Jayasheela Rajan claiming to the GPA holder of Srikanta and his brother in favour of husband of the first plaintiff late Fedrick Johnson. The sale deed dated 28.05.2003 produced at Ex.P.1 was executed by Jayasheela Rajan in favour of the husband of the first plaintiff Mary Cecilia one late Fedrick Johnson. This Mary Cecilia is defendant No.5 in O.S.No.4377/2011. The question for consideration is whether Jayasheela Rajan was having GPA from defendant Srikanta to execute the sale deed in favour of the husband of the first plaintiff. In this regard, the plaintiffs have produced Ex.P17 GPA executed by defendant Srikanta and his brother K. Shankarappa in favour of Jayasheela Rajan dated 27.06.1990. Though it is unregistered GPA, the recital of GPA shows that it was executed before the Notary which carries presumptive value under Section 85 of Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff has neither sought any relief in respect of this Ex.P17 GPA executed by Srikanta in favour of Jayasheela Rajan nor Srikanta has denied his signature in the GPA. It contains the signature of Srikanta stated to be executed before the Notary and therefore when Srikanta has not denied his signature in the GPA executed in favour of Jayasheela 41 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Rajan, there was valid authority to Jayasheela Rajan to execute the sale deed dated 28.05.2003 in favour of the husband of the first plaintiff in OS No.4366/2011. Though this GPA is not registered, the site involved in this suit was directly transferred from Srikanta in favour of the husband of the first plaintiff. The property was not transferred to general power of attorney holder. He has acted as only an agent/representative of Srikanta in the year 1990. Hence, the document being of the year 1990, non- registration of Ex.P.17 GPA is inconsequential. Therefore the sale deed executed on 28.05.2003 executed in respect of site No.16 measuring 30x40 feet, which was executed prior to the institution of the OS No.4595/2004 has conveyed valid title in favour of the husband of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4366/2011 in respect of site No.16 measuring 30x40 feet and therefore the decree obtained by the plaintiff Gowramma in O.S.No.4595/2004 is not binding to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4366/2011.
18. O.S.No.4367/2011:- This suit is instituted by one Sri M. Damodharan and Smt.K Shanthi in respect of site No.2 measuring 30x40 sq.ft which is the part of larger extent of 21 guntas. The plaintiffs in this case have asserted their source of acquisition of the title in respect of this site through Ex.P1 sale deed dated 12.03.1998 executed by plaintiff No.2 K Shanthi in favour of plaintiff No.1 Damodharan in the capacity of GPA holder of Srikanta and Shankarappa. Though in the sale deed dated 42 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 12.03.1998, plaintiff No.2 K. Shanthi has averred that she is the GPA holder of Srikanta, the plaintiffs have not produced any such GPA executed by Srikanta. They have produced Ex.P12 sale agreement dated 15.02.1991 executed by Ramdas in favour of K.Shanthi. But, the said sale agreement was not enforced and executed as a sale deed. Therefore, the sale agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs dated 15.02.1991 cannot have any assistance to assert the title in favour of the plaintiffs. Similarly they have produced Ex.P14 GPA executed by Ramdas to plaintiff No.2 K. Shanthi. As observed earlier, a GPA holder cannot execute another GPA in favour of a third party. Therefore, even if such a GPA was executed by Ramdas in favour of Smt.K.Shanthi, it cannot be considered in the eye of law and therefore the sale deed dated 12.03.1998 claimed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4367/2011 was executed without any authority from Srikanta and hence the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4367/2011 cannot acquire any right, title or interest over the site No.2 measuring 30x40 feet in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs in this case cannot take up a contention that decree obtained by Smt.Gowramma is not binding on them.
19. O.S.No.4368/2011:- This suit is filed by one Smt.T.M.Vendamani and Sri Manoharan in respect of site No.4 measuring 30x40 feet which is stated to be a part of 21 guntas on the basis of Ex.P1 sale deed dated 21.04.2011 executed by her 43 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 husband Manoharan in favour of plaintiff No.1 Smt.T.M. Vendamani in the capacity of a GPA holder of Ramdas in the name of Ramdas. As stated above, Ramdas was a GPA holder from Srikantappa. Though Ramdas has executed a GPA in favour of Manoharan on 12.03.1997 as per Ex.P.12, Ramdas being only a GPA holder cannot execute another GPA and therefore the sale deed dated 21.04.2011 executed by Manoharan on the basis of the GPA said to be executed by Ramdas will not convey any right, title or interest over the site in favour of Smt.T.M.Vedamani. Further, in Ex.P.1 itself the vendor is shown as M. Ramadas who had admittedly no title. Hence, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4368/2011 cannot claim any right, title and interest in respect of site on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 21.04.2011 and questioned the decree obtained by Smt.Gowramma.
20. O.S.No.4369/2011:- This suit is filed by the plaintiffs Smt.Bhanumathi and Sri Thiyagarajan in respect of site No.3 measuring 30x40 feet which is also a part of 21 guntas on the basis of Ex.P1 sale deed dated 15.04.2011 executed by 2 nd plaintiff Thiyagarajan in favour of the first plaintiff in the name of Ramdas. They have relied upon Ex.P10 sale agreement dated 31.05.1990 executed by Ramdas in favour of Thiyagarajan. Admittedly said sale agreement was not transformed as a sale deed and therefore it will have no assistance to the plaintiffs. They have also produced Ex.P12 GPA executed by Ramdas in 44 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 favour of Thiyagarajan dated 30.04.1991. As stated above, Ramdas was merely a GPA holder and therefore he cannot execute another GPA in favour of Thiyagarajan and hence the sale deed dated 15.04.2011 executed by Thiyagarajan in favour of the first plaintiff will not convey any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property in respect of the site claimed by them. In view of this, they cannot question the decree obtained by Smt.Gowramma.
21. O.S.No.4370/2011:- This suit is executed by Smt.G.Ramabai and her husband K. Anandan in respect of site No.23 measuring 30x40 feet which is also a part of larger extent of 21 guntas on the basis of Ex.P1 sale deed dated 13.09.2004 executed by the second plaintiff K. Anandan in favour of the plaintiff in the capacity of GPA holder of Srikantappa. In support of the said contention they have produced Ex.P.19 GPA dated 27.06.1990 executed by Srikanta and Shankarappa in favour of plaintiff No.2 K. Anandan. This GPA was executed before the Notary by Srikantappa and his brother Shankarappa and it carries presumptive value under Section 85 of Indian Evidence Act. Though Srikantappa himself is examined before the court, he has not disputed his signature in the GPA dated 27.06.1990 executed by him in favour of K Anandan. Therefore, execution of GPA dated 27.06.1990 as per Ex.P.19 by Srikanta favour of K. Anandan who is the second plaintiff is proved. Though this GPA 45 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 is not registered, the site involved in this suit was directly transferred from Srikanta in favour of the plaintiff No.1. The property was not transferred to general power of attorney holder. He has acted as only an agent/representative of Srikanta in the year 1990. Hence, the document being of the year 1990, non- registration of Ex.P.19 GPA is inconsequential. Such being the case, the sale deed executed by K. Anandan in favour of plaintiff No.1 Rama Bai dated 13.09.2004 conveyed valid title in respect of site No.23 measuring 30x40 feet claimed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4370/2011. This sale deed was executed prior to the decree passed in OS No.4595/2004. Therefore O.S.No.4595/2004 is not binding to the right of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4370/2011. The plaintiff Gowramma cannot claim any right, title and interest in respect of site No.23 measuring 30x40 feet conveyed in favour of plaintiff Ramabai in O.S.No.4370/2011 as per the sale deed dated 13.09.2004. The said Ramabai is also defendant No.4 in O.S.No.4377/2011 filed by Gowramma.
22. The plaintiff Smt.Gowramma has instituted OS No.4377/2011 against one Sri G. Bharath Kumar as defendant No.17. Said Bharath Kumar has taken up a contention that he is the absolute owner of site No.1 measuring 30x40 feet having been acquired through a sale deed dated 29.01.2014 executed by his father K. Gangadhar. The original sale deed is produced by the 17th defendant as Ex.D19. It shows that the sale deed dated 46 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 29.01.2014 was executed by his father K. Gangadhar claiming to be the power of attorney holder of Ramdas. As stated above, Ramdas was only a power of attorney holder of Srikanta and therefore he cannot execute another power of attorney and delegate his rights. Such being the case, sale deed executed by his father in his favour has not conveyed any right, title or interest in respect of site No.1 claimed by the defendant No.17 and therefore he cannot protect his possession on the basis of the sale deed dated 29.01.2014.
23. The plaintiff has instituted the suit against other defendants also. None of them neither examined nor able to assert their right over the suit schedule property against the right claimed by the plaintiff Gowramma. In the previous paragraph, this court has held that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4366/2011 Mary Cecilia, Jennifer Jenny and Melvin Johnson have acquired valid title in respect of site No.16 measuring 30x40 feet through the sale deed dated 28.05.2003. Similarly, it is observed that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4370/2011 by name Smt.Ramabai and Sri K. Anandan have acquired valid title in respect of site No.23 measuring 30x40 feet through the sale deed dated 13.09.2004. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff Smt.Gowramma against defendant No.4, Ramabhai and defendant No.5 Smt.Cecilia Johnson is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the plaintiff Smt.Gowramma cannot claim possession of site No.16 sold in 47 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 favour of Fredrick Johnson through the sale deed dated 28.05.2003 and site No.23 sold in favour of Ramabai defendant No.4 through the sale deed dated 13.09.2004. Further, they are not liable to deliver the possession of those sites in favour of plaintiff Smt.Gowramma. The plaintiff Gowramma cannot interfere with the possession of these parties who have filed OS No.4366/2011 and 4370/2011. In view of this, OS No.4366/2011 and 4370/2011 are liable to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against Smt.Gowramma and others. Consequently, issue No.1 is OS No.4377/2011 is answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative and additional issue No.1 in O.S.No.4365/2011, 4367/2011, 4368/2011, 4369/2011 is answered in the negative. The Addl. Issue No.1 framed in O.S.No.4366/2011 and O.S.No.4370/2011 is answered in the affirmative.
24. Issue No.3 in O.S.No.4377/2011:- The plaintiff has pleaded that GPA dated 16.11.1990 and sale deed dated 14.03- 2005, 13.09.2004, 28.05.2003 and 12.03.1998 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The first document sought to be declared as null and void is the GPA dated 16.11.1990 executed by Srikanta in favour of Ramadas. It is produced by the contesting parties. This is a registered general power of attorney executed on 14.11.1990 and registered on 16.11.1990. It bears the signature of Srikanta. Though in the plaint, the plaintiff has 48 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 stated that Srikantappa had not executed such documents and Srikanta has also denied the execution of such document, it is a document registered before the Sub Registrar. Srikanta has not taken up a specific contention that he had never attended the office of Sub Registrar and the signature found therein is not his signature. When the executant has not specifically denied its execution and its signature in it and when it was registered before the Sub Registrar, it carries some presumptive value. Some other documents were also registered pursuant to this general power of attorney. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek that the general power of attorney registered on 16.11.1990 by Srikanta in favour of one M.Ramdas is not binding on the plaintiff.
25. The plaintiff has also sought to declare that the sale deed dated 14.03.2005 is not binding on the plaintiff. The said sale deed is produced at Ex.P8 by the plaintiff. The said sale deed reflects that it was executed by one Sri Balakrishnan i.e., defendant No.2 herein in favour of defendant No.3 Krishnappa. The recitals of this document shows that defendant No.2 Balakrishnan is the GPA holder of Srikanta and Ramdas. Though defendant No.2 is placed exparte, the defendant No.3 appeared before the court. But the defendant No.3 has not produced the GPA executed by Srikanta in favour of defendant No.2 Balakrishnan. The date of GPA is also not reflected in Ex.P8 sale deed. Therefore, the only inference that can be drawn is that 49 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 without there being any GPA, Ex.P8 sale deed dated 14.03.2005 came into existence and created by defendant No.2 & 3 without the GPA. Therefore, said sale deed dated 14.03.2005 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding the right of the plaintiff.
26. The third document is the sale deed dated 13.09.2004. The sale deed is executed by the husband of defendant No.4 Ramabai in favour of defendant No.4 Smt.Ramabai. It is produced as Ex.P1 by defendant No.4 in O.S.No.4370/2011. It was executed by the husband of the defendant No.4 K. Anandan on the basis of Ex.P19 GPA dated 27.06.1990 executed by Srikanta in favour of K. Anandhan. Therefore, while answering issue No.1, this court has held that the sale deed dated 13.09.2004 was executed on the basis of a valid GPA executed by Srikanta before the decree obtained by the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff cannot contend that the sale deed dated 13.09.2004 executed in favour of defendant No.4 is not binding on the plaintiff.
27. The next document sought to be null and void is the sale deed dated 28.05.2003. The sale deed dated 28.05.2003 is executed by one Jayasheela Rajan claiming to the GPA holder of Srikanta in favour of the husband of defendant No.5 one late Fredrick Johnson. The sale deed is produced as Ex.P1 in 50 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 O.S.No.4366/2011 filed by defendant No.5 in O.S.No.4377/2011. The said sale deed was executed on the basis of Ex.P17 GPA executed by Srikanta in favour of Jayasheela Rajan on 27.06.1990. Therefore, while answering issue No.1, this court has held that the title in respect of the site bearing No.16 measuring 30x40 feet is validly conveyed in favour of the husband of defendant No.5 one Mr. Frederick Johnson and therefore the plaintiff cannot seek that the said sale deed is not binding on her.
28. The next sale deed sought to be declared as null and void is sale deed dated 12.03.1998. The sale deed dated 12.03.1998 is executed in favour of defendant No.6 Smt.Usha, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.4365/2011. It was executed in favour of defendant No.6 Usha on the basis of GPA said to be executed by Srikanta and his brother. But, no such GPA is made available before the court in favour of K Ramesh who has executed the sale deed. Under these circumstances, sale deed dated 12.03.1998 executed in favour of defendant No.6 Usha is not binding on the plaintiff.
29. The other sale deed sought to be declared as null and void is the another sale deed dated 12.03.1998 executed in favour of Damodaran, who is defendant No.9. It is executed by his wife Smt.K. Shanthi claiming to be the GPA holder of Srikanta. But no such GPA executed by Srikanta in favour of K 51 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Shanthi is brought on record by these defendants. Therefore the sale deed dated 12.03.1998 executed in favour of defendant No.9 Damodaran has not conveyed any right in favour of defendant No.9 and hence it is not binding on the plaintiff. Consequently, Issue No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative holding that the GPA dated 16.11.1990 and sale deeds dated 13.09.2004 and 28.05.2003 executed in favour of Fredrick Johnson are binding on the plaintiff and the sale deed dated 14.03.2005, 12.03.1998, 12.03.1998 are not binding on the plaintiff.
30. Issue No.5 in O.S.No.4377/2011:- The contesting parties have taken up a contention that the suit is barred by limitation. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendants that the plaintiff has challenged the sale deeds dated 14.03.2005, 13.09.2004, 28.05.2023 and 12.03.1998 in the year 2011 and therefore the suit filed after the period of three years is barred by limitation.
31. This is a suit filed for possession of the property based on the title. If the possession of the immovable property is based on the previous possession and not on title , the suit is governed by Article 64 of the Limitation Act 1963 and the time begins to run from the date of dispossession. If the suit is not based on the title, the court is required to consider the date of dispossession to 52 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 ascertain the period of limitation. But, as stated above, this suit is based on title. While answering issue No.1, this court has held that the plaintiff has acquired title in respect of the suit schedule property except in respect of the two sites referred to above on the basis of the compromise decree obtained by her. Therefore, for the purpose of limitation, the suit shall be considered as under
Article 65 of the Limitation Act 1963. When the suit is brought under Article 65 of the Limitation Act 1963, the period of limitation begins to run when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff. It is well settled law that even if the defendants were in possession of the property for any length of time unless the possession is adverse to the plaintiff, the period will not begin to run to count the period of limitation. Admittedly, the contesting parties have not taken up a defence that their possession is adverse. Though learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendants relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mallavva and another v/s Kalsammanavara Kalamma (since dead) by legal heirs & others (2024 SCC Online 3846), in the very same decision in para No.31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that when the suit is based on title for possession once the title established on the documents and other evidence, unless the defendants proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. In this regard, the observation of the 53 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Hon'ble Supreme Court made in para No.31 of the judgement is extracted for ready reference:-
"It is well settled that when there are several reliefs claimed in a suit, the limitation period would be that of the main relief, the limitation for ancillary relief being ignored. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein is not sustainable in law as it proceeds on the assumption as if old Article 142 of the earlier Limitation Act was in force wherein the plaintiff who based his case on title had to prove not only title but also possession within twelve years of the date of the suit. The said provision of law as observed aforesaid has undergone a metaphoric sea change as we find under the Limitation Act. Article 65 reads as under: Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run
65. For possession of Twelve years When the possession of the immovable property defendant becomes adverse to or any interest the plaintiff. therein based on title It is, therefore, obvious that when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited (See:Indira v/s Arumugam and another reported in (1998)1 SCC 614)".54
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 In view of the above reasons and the legal position the present suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be termed as barred by limitation. Consequently, issue No.5 is answered in the negative.
32. Issue No.6 in OS No.4377/2011:- The defendant No.3 has taken up a contention that earlier the plaintiff had instituted O.S.No.6230/2005 before the Court of CCH-16, Bengaluru which came to be dismissed by a considered judgment dated 07.08.2010 and therefore, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as barred by resjudicata. The plaintiff herself has produced the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6230/2005. It was a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant No.3 Krishnappa for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction contending that Gowramma is in possession of the property and defendant No.3 Sri Krishnappa has tried to interfere with her possession. The said suit came to be dismissed by a judgment dated 07.08.2010 holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove her possession over the property. But, it is a suit for bare injunction. It is well settled law that even if a suit for injunction is dismissed, the plaintiff is not precluded from bringing a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and possession. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendants has argued that while dismissing the said suit, the court has made some observations with regard to the title, but even if there are such observations, they are incidental and any observation given 55 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 in the previous suit without framing an issue for title will not operate as resjudicata. Therefore, the dismissal of O.S.No.6230/2005 will not operate as resjudicata to the present suit. Consequently issue No.6 is answered in the negative.
33. Issue No.7 in O.S.No.4377/2011:- The defendants have taken up a contention that suit is not properly valued. The plaintiff has valued the suit schedule property on the basis of revenue assessment at Rs.32.20 and paid the court fee of Rs.200/-. The payment of court fee is based on the contention that the suit schedule property is 21 guntas of agricultural land. Though the defendants have taken up a contention that the property has lost the agricultural nature, the defendants have admitted that it is not converted into non-agricultural purpose. Therefore, the court cannot find fault with the plaintiff valuing the property as an agricultural land. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. Consequently, issue No.7 is answered in the negative.
34. Issue No.8 & 9 in O.S.No.4377/2011, Issues No.1 to 4 in O.S.No.4365/2011 to O.S.No.4370/2011:- While answering issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 in O.S.No.4377/2011 and additional issue No.in O.S.No.4365/2011 to 4370/2011, this court has held that the plaintiff has acquired valid title in respect of the 56 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 suit schedule property through the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.4595/2004 except in respect of site No.16 measuring 30x40 feet sold in favour of the husband of defendant No.5 one late Frederick Johnson through the sale deed dated 28.05.2003 and site No.23 measuring 30x40 feet sold to defendant No.4 Smt.Ramabai through the sale deed dated 13.09.2004. Though it is established that the defendants are in possession of the bits of portions in the suit schedule property and put up some construction in it, plaintiff having been established the title over the entire 21 guntas of land except the extent of two sale deeds, irrespective of the possession of the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled for possession of it. Similarly, when the court has held that defendant No.4 Smt.Ramabai and defendant No.5 Cicilia Johnson have acquired right over the sites in which they are in possession of the property through the respective sale deeds executed in their favour, the plaintiff Gowramma cannot interfere with their possession and claim possession. The evidence on record shows that the plaintiff has interfered with their possession, denying their right, title and interest in the property. Therefore, the inference of the plaintiff over the property purchased by defendants No.4 & 5 is established.
35. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4365 to 4370/2011 submitted that when several documents are already executed and possession is delivered to 57 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 the plaintiffs, it is not equitable to grant the relief in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No.4377/2011. It may be true that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4365/2011, O.S.No.4367/2011, O.S.No.4368/2011 and O.S.No.4369/2011 have paid the amount with a bonafide belief that they are acquiring valid title in respect of the sites claimed by them. But, when the Court has recorded a finding that title is not conveyed to them, though the relief claimed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.4377/2011 is equitable and discretionary, there are no reasons to reject the relief. It appears that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4365/2011 to 4370/2011 have put up some construction in their site and invested amount. But, they have neither taken up the defence of duel ownership nor there are materials to show that the possession was legally conveyed to them. Therefore, the Court has no other option than to dismiss O.S.No.4365/2011, O.S.No.4367/2011, O.S.No.4368/2011 and O.S.No.4369/2011.
36. In view of the reasons stated above, the suits filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4366/2011 and O.S.No.4370/2011 (defendants No.4 & 5 in O.S.No.4377/2011) are entitled to be decreed and the suit filed by plaintiff Gowramma in O.S.No.4377/2011 is liable to be decreed against other defendants except defendants No.4 & 5. But, the material on record shows that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4365/2011, O.S.No.4367/2011, O.S.No.4368/2011 and O.S.No.4369/2011 have filed it with a genuine and honest belief that they are entitled 58 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 to protect the possession. Hence, while dismissing their suit, it is not proper to direct them to pay costs. Similarly, they have invested the amount in the sites purchased by them and if they are directed to deliver the possession immediately, it would cause serious hardship to them. Under these exceptional circumstances, in the opinion of the Court, they are entitled for 6 months time to deliver the possession of their sites. Consequently, Issue No.8 in O.S.No.4377/2011 is answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative, Issues No.1 to 3 in O.S.No.4365/2011 and O.S.No.4370/2011 are answered in the affirmative. Issue No.1 in O.S No.4365/2011, O.S.No.4367/2011, O.S.No.4368/2011 and O.S.No.4369/2011 are answered in the affirmative and other issues in these suits are answered in the negative and the following order is passed:-
ORDER O.S.No.4377/2011 is decreed in part against defendants No.2, 3 & 6 to 18. O.S.No.4377/2011 is dismissed against defendants No.4 & 5.
The defendants No.2, 3 & 6 to 18 in O.S.No.4377/2011 are directed to deliver the possession of the portion of suit schedule property in which they are in occupation to the plaintiff within 6 months from today.
O.S.No.4366/2011 and O.S.No.4370/2011 are decreed.
59
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 The defendants in O.S.No.4366/2011 and O.S.No.4370/2011 are restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4366/2011 and O.S.No.4370/2011 by way of permanent prohibitory injunction.
O.S.No.4365/2011, O.S.No.4367/2011, O.S.No.4368/2011 and O.S.No.4369/2011 are dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
Office shall maintain the original judgment in O.S.No.4377/2011 and keep the copies in other cases.
(Dictated to the Dictaphone and Speech to Text App, carried out corrections by the Senior Sheristedar, print out taken and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 15th day of October, 2025) (Vijaya Kumar Rai) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE IN O.S.No.4377/2011 List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1 : Gowramma List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P1 : M.R. Extract Ex.P2 : RTC Ex.P3 & 4: C/c of judgment & decree in OS 6230/2005 Ex.P5 : C/c of GPA Ex.P6 & 7: Encumbrance certificates Ex.P8 : C/c of sale deed Ex.P9 to 16: Encumbrance certificates Ex.P17 : BESCOM letter Ex.P18 & 19: Endorsement issued by BESCOM 60 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Ex.P20 : C/c of GPA Ex.P21 to 23 : C/c of sale deeds Ex.P24 : True copy of police complaint Ex.P25 & 26: Endorsements Ex.P27 : Letter issued by AEE Ex.P28 : Receipt Ex.P29 : Statement of Gangadhar Ex.P30 : Police complaint Ex.P31 : Receipt Ex.P32 : Police complaint Ex.P33 : Receipt Ex.P34 : Endorsement Ex.P35 : Police complaint Ex.P36 : Complaint to Police Commissioner Ex.P37 : Complaint lodged to BBMP Ex.P38 : M.R. extract Ex.P39 : Complaint to BBMP Ex.P40 : Complaint to Police Commissioner Ex.P41 : Complaint to Tahashildar Ex.P42 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P43 : RTC Ex.P44 : C/c of final decree Ex.P45 : Copy of pouthi khatha Ex.P46 & 47: M.R. extracts Ex.P48 : Endorsement Ex.P49 to 54: RTCs Ex.P55 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P56 & 57: Police endorsements Ex.P58 & 59: Letters to Sub Registrar Ex.P60 to 65: Kannada & English Daily News papers Ex.P66 to 93: Photos and negatives 61 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Ex.P94 : CD List of witnesses examined for the defendants: D.W1 : G. Bharath Kumar D.W2 : G. Ramabai List of documents exhibited for defendants: Ex.D1 to 13 : Photos Ex.D14 to 18: Copy of Plaint, W.S., materials, depositions of plaintiff, defendants & witnesses Ex.D19 : Original sale deed Ex.D20 : Form 'B' register extract Ex.D21 : Photos and pendrive Ex.D22 : BESCOM receipt Ex.D23 : Letter of sanction of electricity Ex.D24 : Kannada Prabha news paper Ex.D25 : 3 photographs Ex.D25(a): Memory card Ex.D25(b): Certificate u/s 65(b) Ex.D26 : Property extract Ex.D27 : 3 electricity bills ANNEXURE IN O.S.No.4365/2011 List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff: PW.1 : M. Usha List of documents exhibited for plaintiff: Ex.P1 : Sale deed dtd:12.03.1998 Ex.P2 to 4: 3 encumbrance certificates Ex.P5 : Khatha extract Ex.P6 to 9: 4 tax paid receipts Ex.P10: Tax paid receipt Ex.P11: Sale agreement Ex.P12: GPA Ex.P13: Affidavit 62 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Ex.P14: C/c of GPA dtd:14.11.1990 Ex.P15: C/c of order sheet in OS 4595/2004 Ex.P16: Service certificate issued by BESCOM Ex.P17 & 18: Two photographs Ex.P19: CD Ex.P20: Copy of final decree Ex.P21: W.S. Ex.P22:Copy of plaint in OS 4377/2011 Ex.P23: Copy of amended plaint in OS 4377/2011 Ex.P24: Application along with affidavit in OS 4377/2011 Ex.P25: C/c of deposition of DW2 in OS 4377/2011 List of witnesses examined for the defendants: D.W1 : K.S. Srikanta D.W2 : Gowramma List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of the MR No.22/1988-89
Ex.D2 Certified copy of the partition deed dtd.15.06.2005
Ex.D3 MR order
Ex.D4 Certified copy of the tax paid receipts
&D5
Ex.D6 Judgment passed in OS 6230/2005 dtd.07.08.2010
Ex.D7 Certified copy of the decree in OS 6230/2005
Ex.D8 Representation given to BESCOM
Ex.D9 Representation given to BBMP
Ex.D10 Representation given to AEE, BBMP
Ex.D11 Representation given to Commissioner of Police
Ex.D12 Representation given to Sub-registrar
Ex.D13 Representation given to BBMP
Ex.D14 Representation given to Tahasildar
Ex.D15 Representation given to ADLR
Ex.D16 Communication made to Tahasildar
Ex.D17 RTCs
to D23
63
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
Ex.D24 Mutation order (This document is marked subject to objection
raised by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to its authenticity) Ex.D25 RTC Ex.D26 Photographs to D30 Ex.D31 CD Ex.D32 Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. This certificate is marked subject to the objection raised by the Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to the insufficiency of the contents required to be made therein.
ANNEXURE IN O.S.No.4366/2011 List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff: PW.1 : Mary Cecilia List of documents exhibited for plaintiff: Ex.P1 : Sale deed dtd:12.03.1998 Ex.P2 to 4: 3 encumbrance certificates Ex.P5 : Khatha extract Ex.P6 to 9: 4 tax paid receipts Ex.P10: Marriage certificate Ex.P11: Death certificate Ex.P12: Challan Ex.P13 & 14: Tax paid receipts Ex.P15: Sale agreement Ex.P16: Deed of conveyance Ex.P17: GPA Ex.P17(a) & (b): Corrected portions in Ex.P17 Ex.P18: C/c of GPA Ex.P19: C/c of order sheet in OS 4595/2004 Ex.P20: Service certificate Ex.P21 to 23: 3 photographs Ex.P24:CD List of witnesses examined for the defendants: D.W1 : K.S. Srikanta 64 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 D.W2 : Gowramma List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of the MR No.22/1988-89 Ex.D2 Certified copy of the partition deed dtd.15.06.2005 Ex.D3 MR order Ex.D4 Certified copy of the tax paid receipts &D5 Ex.D6 Judgment passed in OS 6230/2005 dtd.07.08.2010 Ex.D7 Certified copy of the decree in OS 6230/2005 Ex.D8 Representation given to BESCOM Ex.D9 Representation given to BBMP Ex.D10 Representation given to AEE, BBMP Ex.D11 Representation given to Commissioner of Police Ex.D12 Representation given to Sub-registrar Ex.D13 Representation given to BBMP Ex.D14 Representation given to Tahasildar Ex.D15 Representation given to ADLR Ex.D16 Communication made to Tahasildar Ex.D17 RTCs to D23 Ex.D24 Mutation order (This document is marked subject to objection
raised by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to its authenticity) Ex.D25 RTC Ex.D26 Photographs to D30 Ex.D31 CD Ex.D32 Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. This certificate is marked subject to the objection raised by the Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to the insufficiency of the contents required to be made therein.
ANNEXURE IN O.S.No.4367/2011 List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff: PW.1 : M. Damodharan List of documents exhibited for plaintiff: Ex.P1 : Sale deed 65 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Ex.P2 : Endorsement Ex.P3 & 4: 2 encumbrance certificates Ex.P5 : Khatha extract Ex.P6 to 11: 5 tax paid receipts Ex.P12: Sale agreement Ex.P13: Affidavit Ex.P14: GPA Ex.P15: C/c of GPA Ex.P16: C/c of order sheet in OS 4595/2004 Ex.P17: Service certificate Ex.P18 & 19: 2 photographs Ex.P20: CD Ex.P21: Copy of final decree Ex.P22: WS Ex.P23: Copy of plaint in OS 4377/2011 Ex.P24 & 25: Application & affidavit filed in OS 4377/2011 List of witnesses examined for the defendants: D.W1 : Gowramma D.W2 : K.S. Srikanta List of documents exhibited for defendants: Ex.D1: Certified copy of Final decree Ex.D2: MR extract Ex.D3: Panchayath paricat Ex.D4 & D.5: 2 Tax paid receipts Ex.D6 & D7: 2 RTCs Ex.D8: Certified copy of order sheet OS No.4377/2011 Ex.D9 Certified copy of the MR No.22/1988-89 Ex.D10 Judgment passed in OS 6230/2005 dtd.07.08.2010 Ex.D11 Certified copy of the decree in OS 6230/2005 Ex.D12 Representation given to BESCOM Ex.D13 Representation given to KEB Ex.D14 Representation given to BBMP 66 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Ex.D15 Representation given to AEE, BBMP Ex.D16 Representation given to Sub-registrar Ex.D17 Representation given to BBMP Ex.D18 Representation given to Tahasildar Ex.D19 Representation given to ADLR Ex.D20 Communication made to Tahasildar Ex.D21 Tax paid receipts &D22 Ex.D23 RTCs to D29 Ex.D30 Mutation order (This document is marked subject to objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to its authenticity) Ex.D31 RTC Ex.D32 Photographs to D36 Ex.D37 CD Ex.D38 Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act ANNEXURE IN O.S.No.4368/2011 List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff: PW.1 : T.M. Vendamani List of documents exhibited for plaintiff: Ex.P1 : Sale deed Ex.P2 to 4: 3 encumbrance certificates Ex.P5 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P6 : Khatha extract Ex.P7 to 11: 5 tax paid receipts Ex.P12: GPA Ex.P13: Affidavit Ex.P14: Sale agreement Ex.P15: C/c of GPA Ex.P16: C/c of final decree Ex.P17: WS Ex.P18: Copy of plaint in OS 4377/2011 67 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Ex.P19: Application filed in OS 4377/2011 Ex.P20: Deposition of D.W2 in OS 4377/2011 List of witnesses examined for the defendants: D.W1 : K.S. Srikanta D.W2 : Gowramma List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of the MR No.22/1988-89 Ex.D2 Certified copy of the partition deed dtd.15.06.2005 Ex.D3 MR order Ex.D4 Certified copy of the tax paid receipts &D5 Ex.D6 Judgment passed in OS 6230/2005 dtd.07.08.2010 Ex.D7 Certified copy of the decree in OS 6230/2005 Ex.D8 Representation given to BESCOM Ex.D9 Representation given to BBMP Ex.D10 Representation given to AEE, BBMP Ex.D11 Representation given to Commissioner of Police Ex.D12 Representation given to Sub-registrar Ex.D13 Representation given to BBMP Ex.D14 Representation given to Tahasildar Ex.D15 Representation given to ADLR Ex.D16 Communication made to Tahasildar Ex.D17 RTCs to D23 Ex.D24 Mutation order (This document is marked subject to objection
raised by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to its authenticity) Ex.D25 RTC Ex.D26 Photographs to D30 Ex.D31 CD Ex.D32 Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. This certificate is marked subject to the objection raised by the Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to the insufficiency of the 68 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 contents required to be made therein.
ANNEXURE IN O.S.No.4369/2011 List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff: PW.1 : Bhanumathi List of documents exhibited for plaintiff: Ex.P1 : Sale deed Ex.P2 : Encumbrance certificate Ex.P3 : Khatha extract Ex.P4 to 9: 6 tax paid receipts Ex.P10: Sale agreement Ex.P11: Affidavit Ex.P12: GPA Ex.P12(a) & (b): Signatures of Ramadas Ex.P13: C/c of GPA Ex.P14: C/c of order sheet in OS 4595/2004 Ex.P15: Service certificate issued by BESCOM Ex.P16 to 18: Three photographs Ex.P19: CD Ex.P20: Copy of final decree Ex.P21: letter of D.1 Ex.P22:Copy of plaint in OS 4377/2011 Ex.P23: Application along with affidavit in OS 4377/2011 Ex.P24: C/c of deposition of DW2 in OS 4377/2011 List of witnesses examined for the defendants: D.W1 : K.S. Srikanta D.W2 : Gowramma List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of the MR No.22/1988-89
Ex.D2 Certified copy of the partition deed dtd.15.06.2005
Ex.D3 MR order
69
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
Ex.D4 Certified copy of the tax paid receipts
&D5
Ex.D6 Judgment passed in OS 6230/2005 dtd.07.08.2010
Ex.D7 Certified copy of the decree in OS 6230/2005
Ex.D8 Representation given to BESCOM
Ex.D9 Representation given to BBMP
Ex.D10 Representation given to AEE, BBMP
Ex.D11 Representation given to Commissioner of Police
Ex.D12 Representation given to Sub-registrar
Ex.D13 Representation given to BBMP
Ex.D14 Representation given to Tahasildar
Ex.D15 Representation given to ADLR
Ex.D16 Communication made to Tahasildar
Ex.D17 RTCs
to D23
Ex.D24 Mutation order (This document is marked subject to objection
raised by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to its authenticity) Ex.D25 RTC Ex.D26 Photographs to D30 Ex.D31 CD Ex.D32 Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. This certificate is marked subject to the objection raised by the Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to the insufficiency of the contents required to be made therein.
ANNEXURE IN O.S.No.4370/2011 List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff: PW.1 : G. Ramabai List of documents exhibited for plaintiff: Ex.P1 : Sale deed Ex.P2 : Khatha extract Ex.P3 : Demand register extract Ex.P4 to 6: 3 encumbrance certificates Ex.P7 to 15: Tax paid receipts & acknowledgement 70 O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011 Ex.P16: Property tax receipt Ex.P17: Sale agreement Ex.P18: Deed of conveyance Ex.P19: GPA dtd:27.06.1990 Ex.P20: C/c of GPA dtd:14.11.1990 Ex.P21: C/c of order sheet in OS 4595/2004 Ex.P22: Service certificate issued by BESCOM Ex.P23 & 25: Three photographs Ex.P26: CD Ex.P27: Copy of final decree Ex.P28: W.S. Ex.P29:Copy of plaint in OS 4377/2011 Ex.P30: Application filed in OS 4377/2011 Ex.P31: C/c of deposition of DW2 in OS 4377/2011 List of witnesses examined for the defendants: D.W1 : K.S. Srikanta D.W2 : Gowramma List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of the MR No.22/1988-89
Ex.D2 Certified copy of the partition deed dtd.15.06.2005
Ex.D3 MR order
Ex.D4 Certified copy of the tax paid receipts
&D5
Ex.D6 Judgment passed in OS 6230/2005 dtd.07.08.2010
Ex.D7 Certified copy of the decree in OS 6230/2005
Ex.D8 Representation given to BESCOM
Ex.D9 Representation given to BBMP
Ex.D10 Representation given to AEE, BBMP
Ex.D11 Representation given to Commissioner of Police
Ex.D12 Representation given to Sub-registrar
Ex.D13 Representation given to BBMP
Ex.D14 Representation given to Tahasildar
71
O.S.No.4365 to 4370 & 4377/2011
Ex.D15 Representation given to ADLR
Ex.D16 Communication made to Tahasildar Ex.D17 RTCs to D23 Ex.D24 Mutation order (This document is marked subject to objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to its authenticity) Ex.D25 RTC Ex.D26 Photographs to D30 Ex.D31 CD Ex.D32 Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. This certificate is marked subject to the objection raised by the Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to the insufficiency of the contents required to be made therein.
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.