Bangalore District Court
Sri.N.Venkatesh vs Smt. Munichinnamma on 1 June, 2021
1
O.S.No. 4184/2012
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2021.
PRESENT: SRI. SATHISHA L.P., B.A.,LL.B.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No. 4184/2012
PLAINTIFF : Sri.N.Venkatesh,
S/o Narasimha Murthy,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.1597,
Near Glass Factory,
B.B.Nagar, Sahakaranagar post,
Kodigehalli, Bangalore - 560092.
(By Sri D.A.S, Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt. Munichinnamma,
W/o Ramarajappa,
aged about 70 years,
2. Sri. Ramarajappa,
S/o Chikkananjappa,
aged about 77 years,
Both are residing at
near government school,
2
O.S.No. 4184/2012
Sahakaranagar post,
Bangalore - 560092.
3. Smt. Akkayamma,
W/o late. Nanjappa,
aged about 59 years,
4. Sri Shailaja,
D/o late. Nanjappa,
aged about 39 years,
5. Sri. Srinivasa,
S/o late Munihuchappa,
aged about 68 years,
Defendant No. 3 to 5 are residing at
Krishnappa building,
Gangabhavani road,
Kodigehalli village,
Sahakaranagar post,
Bangalore - 560092.
6. Smt. Munivenkatamma,
W/o late. Muniarasappa,
aged about 45 years.
7. Smt. Soubhagya,
D/o Late Muniarasappa,
aged about 25 years,
8. Sri. Prakash,
S/o Late Muniarasappa,
aged about 23 years,
9. Sri. Krishnamurthy,
S/o Late Muniarasappa,
aged about 22 years,
10. Kum. Parvathi,
D/o Late Muniarasappa,
aged about 20 years,
3
O.S.No. 4184/2012
Defendants No. 6 to 10 are
residing at
Kodigehalli village,
next to Kodigehalli panchayath office,
Sahakaranagar post,
Bangalore - 560092.
(By D1, D2 - K.N.M Advocate, D3, 5 &
6 T.M.C.R. Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 14-06-2012
Nature of the suit : Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of : 16-08-2018
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 01-06-2021
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
08 11 19
(SATHISHA L.P.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
J UD GM E N T
The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants
to declare that he is the absolute lawful owner of the suit
schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated
7/8/2009, registered at the office of the sub-registrar,
Byatarayanapura vide document No.BYP-1-01400/2009-10,
4
O.S.No. 4184/2012
C.D.No.BYPD32, dated 7/8/2009, Book.No.I and to cancel the
registered Sale deed of the suit schedule property executed
by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2 nd defendant dated
9/7/2004 vide registered document No.YAN-1-08117/2004-
05, CD No.YAND 70, BooK No.I. registered in the office of
the sub-registrar office of the sub-registrar, Yelahanaka and
to declare the same is null and void and not binding upon
the plaintiff and such other reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff case is that, the plaintiff
is the absolute owner of the property bearing old Katha
No.45/2, 3 BBMP Khatha No.2889/45/3 and 2, measuring an
extent of East to West, 15 feet and North to South: 60 feet
in all measuring 900 sq.ft. Situated at Kothihosahalli village,
Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now coming under
BBMP, which is schedule property.
3. That the plaintiff has obtained the suit schedule
property for valuable consideration of Rs.6,75,000/- from
1)Smt.Akkayyamma, 2) Smt.Shailaja, 3)Sri.Srinivas,
4)Smt.Munivenaktamma, 5)Smt.Sowbhagya, 6:)Sri.Prakash,
7) Krishnamurthy, 8) Kumari Parvathi, minor who is
5
O.S.No. 4184/2012
represented by her mother and natural guardian
Smt.Munivenkatamma. The Sale deed is a registered at the
office of the Sub-registrar, Byatarayapanpura vide
document No.BYP-1-01400/2009-10, C.D.No.BYPD 32, dated
07/08/2009, Book No.1. The schedule property originally
belonged to Nanjappa, Muniarasappa, Krishnappa and
Srinivas and it is their ancestral property.
4. That the Nanjappa died leaving behind his wife
Akkayyamma and his daughter by name Smt.Shailaja,
Muninarasappa died leaving behind his wife by name
Munivenkatamma and his two daughters. Sowbhagya and
Parvathi and his two sons Prakash and Krishnamurthy. The
suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff by
Srinivasa and the LR's of Nanjappa and Muninarasappa.
that the Khatha of the schedule property was standing in
the name of the vendors of the plaintiff and they were in
physical possession and enjoyment of the same. The vendor
of the plaintiff are having marketable title in the schedule
property.
5. That, after purchase of the suit schedule property
6
O.S.No. 4184/2012
by the plaintiff, khatha was transferred in the name of the
plaintiff and he is paying property tax to the BBMP and he is
in physical possession and enjoyment of the same without
any let or hindrance from anybody else.
6. That being the true fact, the defendants are
utterly strangers to the suit schedule property and no way
concerned to the same. The plaintiff started putting up
construction of the compound wall of the suit schedule
property. At that time, the defendant No.2 is started
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff
has filed a suit for injunction against the defendant No.2 in
O.S.No.6847/2009 on the file of the Hon'ble City Civil Judge,
Bangalore (CCH-42) and the same is pending for
consideration. The plaintiff has filed an I.A. under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking ad-interim order against the
defendant No.2 and the Hon'ble High court was pleaded to
grant an injunction order against defendant No.2 from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property and the injunction order is
7
O.S.No. 4184/2012
continuing till today.
7. It is further submitted that the defendant No.2
has filed written statement and objection in
O.S.No.6847/2009 and he has taken a contention that he
obtained the suit schedule property from his wife, the 1 st
defendant herein who is the GPA holder of M.Krishnappa,
Nanjappa, Srinivasappa and Muninarasappa. The 1 st
defendant has executed the Sale deed in favour of her
husband on the strength of the alleged GPA dated
24/10/1986. The 1st defendant executed Sale deed to her
husband on 09/07/2004 vide document No.YAN-1-
08117/2004-05, CD No.YAND 70, book No.1, registered in
the office of Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka. In the said Sale deed
Khatha number is shown as 333B/1, Assessment No.45/3,
Site No.7-8, measuring East to West: 14 feet and North to
South: 60 feet situated at Kothihosahalli village, Yelahanka
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
8. It is submitted that the executants of the GPA
holder of the 1st defendant, Muninarasappa died on
18/04/1993, Krishnappa died on 13/08/1988, Nanjappa died
8
O.S.No. 4184/2012
on 16/12/2002 and hence the alleged GPA has no value in
the eye of law and further the said persons are not executed
any GPA in favour of the 1st defendant to execute the
registered Sale deed of the suit schedule property. The
alleged GPA is fictitious, created and concocted by the 1 st
defendant to knock of the suit schedule property and the
GPA has no right, title, interest over the suit schedule
property. The Sale deed executed by the 1 st defendant in
favour of her husband, the 2nd defendant herein is not
having any legal force and no sanctity in the eye of law.
Hence the said Sale deed dated 09/07/2004 executed by
the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant in respect of suit
schedule property is not binding and is liable to be quashed
by this Hon'ble high court and the same is null and void in
the eye of law.
9. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the suit schedule property and having
right, title, interest over the same and the concerned BBMP,
issued a possession certificate dated 06/09/2011 to the
plaintiff to show that he is in physical possession and
9
O.S.No. 4184/2012
enjoyment of the same. The BBMP has also issued an
endorsement dated 05/09/2011 that no Katha is standing in
the name of the 1st defendant. This fact itself clearly goes to
show that the plaintiff is in possession and having
marketable title over the suit schedule property.
10. The defendants No.1 and 2 by colluding with
each other and with malafide intention have created the
bogus and sham documents in the suit schedule property to
enrich unjustly for themselves and to cause wrongful loss
and injury to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has filed the
suit for cancellation of the Sale deed dated 09/07/2004
executed by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant vide
registered document No.YAN-1-08117/2004-05, CD No.YAND
70, Book No.1, registered in the office of Sub Registrar,
Yelahanka and also for declaration of his title to declare that
he is the absolute lawful owner of the suit schedule
property.
11. The cause of action for the suit arose on
28/06/2010 when the 2nd defendant filed written statement
in O.S.No.6847/2009 alleging that the 1st defendant
10
O.S.No. 4184/2012
executed registered Sale deed of the schedule property and
the cause of action is continuous in nature and continuing
within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. With these
facts the plaintiff seeks to decree the suit.
12. The defendant No.1 and 2 filed the written
statement by denying and disputing th plaint averments, to
oppose the suit, wherein they have contended that, the suit
filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on
facts, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The suit
is barred under order II Rule 2 of CPC. The plaintiff should
have included the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is
entitled to make in respect of the cause of action against
the defendants in earlier suit O.S.No.6847/2009 pending
before CCH.No.42. The plaintiff is restrained to file fresh
suit afterwards in respect of the portion so relinquished or
omitted the claim against the defendants. The plaintiff had
filed relief of permanent injunction against the defendants
in respect of the same subject matter of the suit in the
present suit. The plaintiff ought to have claimed the relief of
declaration and cancellation of the Sale deed dated
11
O.S.No. 4184/2012
09/07/2004 now sought in the present suit in the earlier suit
relief. The plaintiff has omitted to sue for declaration and
cancellation of the Sale deed, the plaintiff is lost his right to
sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished in
the earlier suit.
13. The defendants submit that, the suit is barred by
limitation. The cause of action to file the present suit arose
on 09/07/2004 itself when the defendants have taken the
Sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence
the suit is barred by limitation. The suit is liable to be
dismissed in limine on this ground also.
14. The defendants submits that, the suit is hit by
mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party. The
defendants vendors are necessary parties to the above suit.
The vendors of the defendants are not been made as party
to the above suit. Hence the above suit is liable to be
dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties to the suit.
15. it is denied that the plaintiff is the absolute
owner of the property bearing old khatha No.45/2, BBMP
Khatha No.2889/45/3 & 2, measuring an extent of East to
12
O.S.No. 4184/2012
West: 15 feet and North to South: 60 feet, in all measuring
900 sqft situated at Kothihoshalli village, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, now coming under BMP.
16. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
present suit against the defendants.
17. The defendants submits that, the plaintiff has not
in possession of suit property and hence the plaintiff has not
properly valued the suit and not paid sufficient court fee on
suit.
18. The defendants submits that the suit schedule
property and the defendants property are not one and the
same schedule.
19. The plaintiff has no right, title, and possession of
the suit schedule property. The question of interfering by
defendants into the suit schedule property will not be
arising at all.
20. The defendants submits that, 2nd defendant is
the absolute owner of the property number assessment
No.45/3, Katha No.333B/1 out of site No.7 and 8 on the
eastern side half of the portion measuring east-West 14' and
13
O.S.No. 4184/2012
North-South 60' in totally 860 Sq.ft situated at
Kothihosahalli village, Yelahanka hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk. The 2nd defendant has purchased the above said
property under registered Sale deed No.BNG(U0 YLNK
8117/2004-05 dated 12/07/2004 registered in the office of
the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore.
21. The defendants submits that the defendant has
purchased the above said property from 1)M.Krishnappa,
2)Nanjappa, 3)Srinivasappa and 4)Muninarasappa all of
them represented by their GPA holder Smt.Munichinnamma
GPA dated 24/10/1986. M.Krishnappa and three others have
received sale consideration from Smt.Munichinannamma
and they have executed GPA and affidavit in favour of
Smt.Munichinnamma, from the date of 24/10/1986
Smt.Munichinnamma was in possession till execution of the
Sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant herein, after
obtaining Sale deed by the 2 nd defendant is in possession of
the above said property till today.
22. The defendants submits that,
Smt.Munichinnamma as per document of GPA and affidavit
14
O.S.No. 4184/2012
she has paid revenue tax to the above said property to then
Kodigehalli Grama Panchayath and Smt.MuniChinnimma has
obtained Katha and she has paid tax to the Kodigehalli
Gramapanchayath.
23. The defendants submit that, Sri.Thimmarayappa
S/o Thimmaiah, 2)K.V.Munihanumappa S/o Venkatappa, 3)
Muninaraj S/o Narayanappa and 4)Gopalaswamy S/o
Pillappa they are alleged to be a owner of the property
No.45/3 and 45/2 of the Kothihosahalli village they got
issued notice to all the site holders of the above said lands
in among them the GPA holder of Smt.Munichinnamma is
one, in the said notice itself they have admitted the GPA
executed by Krishnappa and others, the GPA holder was in
possession according to the said notice itself, the said
notice is dated 06/08/2009.
24. 2nd defendant after obtaining Sale deed
No.BNG(U) YLNK 8117/2004-05 dated 12/07/2004 since
from then he has paid self assessment tax to the then CMC,
Byatarayanapura, Bangalore and after that the said
property comes under the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore
15
O.S.No. 4184/2012
Mahanagara Palike, Bytarayanapura, the 2 nd defendant has
paid revenue tax to the BBMP from 2005 to up to date in
respect of above property and the 2 nd defendant has
obtained the khatha certificate in his name from the BBMP
vide No.300/333B/1/45/3/7&8 certificate dated 15/07/2009.
25. The defendant submits that, the 2 nd defendant
has purchased the site formed out in Sy.No.45/3, the
plaintiff also referred Sy.No.45/2 and 45/3 , but there is no
as such sites available for him in the above said land. The
plaintiff has the Sale deed, which is a sham document, and
he is not having any kind possession as claimed under the
Sale deed. It is submitted that, 2 nd defendant is in
possession of the site, which he had purchased from 1 st
defendant. The 2nd defendant obtained revenue records up
to date and paid tax to the site, which he had purchased
from 1st defendant the GPA holder of M.Krishnappa and 3
others.
26. The defendants submit that, the plaintiff without
having any site available in the land as such referred land.
The plaintiff suit site physically not available and without
16
O.S.No. 4184/2012
having site and possession the suit schedule property of the
plaintiff suit is not maintainable one. The plaintiff has filed
suit by suppressing true facts. The act of suppressing true
facts before this Hon'ble Court by the plaintiff is amount to
abuse of court proceedings. The plaintiff vendors have no
right title and interest over the property Sy.No.45/2 and
45/3 he might have obtained Sale deed but his vendors
have no right to execute such Sale deed, without authority
plaintiff's vendor have executed Sale deed such Sale deed
has to be proved by the plaintiff with strict proof before this
Hon'ble Court. The plaintiff without having any right, title
and possession of the suit property by using such alleged
Sale deed the plaintiff has making use of the above suit
proceedings as a tool for his illegal gain from the
defendants. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable. The plaintiff is coming and interfere the
construction activities and the possession of 2 nd defendant
schedule property the same is resisted by the 2nd defendant,
thereafter the plaintiff had come up this frivolous suit before
this Hon'ble Court.
17
O.S.No. 4184/2012
27. The defendants submits that, the 2 nd defendant
is in peaceful possession property khatha No.333B/1
assessment No.45/3, site No.7 and 8 held of the eastern
side portion situated at Kothihosahalli village measuring
14'X 60'. the 2nd defendant after purchased the said
property he has paid revenue taxes and obtain revenue
records in his name and then defendant has made primary
development as such he has dig the foundation and work is
in progress. The 2nd defendant learnt that, due to road
widening there is a chance of portion of the property of the
2nd defendant will be going to taken by the authority and
hence the 2nd defendant has stopped his development of his
property. Under the juncture, the plaintiff has made out this
frivolous suit to harass and disturbed the construction
activities of 2nd defendant and hence this fact itself shows
that the plaintiff is not in possession of the said alleged site
and he has not having absolute right title in respect of as
such alleged site. This defendant is in possession of the
property of the above said referred site, which he purchased
from 1st defendant accordingly 2nd defendant is in physical
18
O.S.No. 4184/2012
possession of the above said property.
28. the defendants No.3, 5 and 6 have also filed the
written statement by supporting the case of the plaintiff,
but seeks to dismiss the suit against them.
29. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
following issues are framed by my predecessor on
19-02-2013.
1. Does the plaintiff prove that, he is the
absolute owner of the suit schedule property as
contended in the plaint?
2. Does the plaintiff prove that, the sale deed
executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2
on 09-07-2004 with respect to the suit schedule property
is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff for the
reasons stated in the plaint?
3. Does the plaintiff prove that, suit is properly
valued and the court fee paid on the same is sufficient?
4. Does the plaintiffs prove that suit is in time?
5. What order or decree?
19
O.S.No. 4184/2012
30. To substantiate the contention of the plaint,
plaintiff No.1 examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to P.27 are
marked. Ex.P.1 is Original sale deed dated 07-08-2009,
Ex.P.2 is Reply letter dated 11-08-2009, Ex.P.3 is Certificate
dated 11-08-2009, Ex.P.4 & 5 are Tax paid receipts, Ex.P.6 is
Acknowledgment, Ex.P.7 is Tax paid receipt, Ex.P.8 is
Property register extract, Ex.P.9 is Death certificate of
Nanjappa.M, Ex.P.10 is Death certificate of Muninarasappa,
Ex.P.11 is Notice dated 08-04-2010 issued by BBMP, Ex.P.12
& 13 is Endorsement issued by BBMP, Ex.P.14 is Sketch,
Ex.P.15 is Acknowledgment issued by BBMP, Ex.P.16 is Tax
paid receipt, Ex.P.17 is Acknowledgment issued by BBMP,
Ex.P.18 is Tax paid receipt, Ex.P.19 is Acknowledgment
issued by BBMP, Ex.P.20 & 21 are Tax paid receipts, Ex.P.22
is Khatha extract issued by BBMP, Ex.P.23 is Encumbrance
certificate, Ex.P.24 is Certified copy of sale deed dated 09-
07-2004, Ex.P.25 is Khatha register extract, Ex.P.26 is
certificate issued by BBMP, Ex.P.27 is Tax paid receipt.
31. From the defendants side defendant No.2 is
examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 to 67 are marked. Ex.D.1 is
20
O.S.No. 4184/2012
certified copy of deposition in O.S.No.684/2009, Ex.D.2 is
certified copy of judgment in RFA No. 979/2013, Ex.D.3 to 6
are certified copy of deposition in O.S.No. 6847/2009, Ex.D.7
& 8 is Tax paid receipts, Ex.D.9 to 11 are Demand register
extracts, Ex.D.12 is Original sale deed dated 09-07-2004,
Ex.D.13 is office copy of legal notice dated 06-08-2009,
Ex.D.14 is EC, Ex.D.15 to 25 are Tax paid receipts, Ex.D.26
is Demand register extract, Ex.D.27 is Certificate issued by
BBMP, Ex.D.28 to 31 are photographs, Ex.D.32 to 35 are
Negatives, Ex.D.36 is BBMP notice dated 08-04-2010,
Ex.D.37 is BBMP notice dated 11-07-2011, Ex.D.38 is
certified copy of sale deed dated 08-05-2002, Ex.D.39 & 40
are khatha ledger extracts, Ex.D.41 to 67 are RTC extracts.
32. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
33. My finding on the above issues are :-
Issue No.1: In the Negative
Issue No.2: In the Negative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: In the Affirmative
Issue No.5: As per final order,
for the following:-
21
O.S.No. 4184/2012
REASONS
34. ISSUE.No.1 & 2;- These issues are taken
together for common discussion since both are interlinked.
35. The plaintiff is before the court for the relief of
declaration to declare plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 7.8.2009
registered on the office of Sub-registrar Byataranapura vide
document No.BYP-1-01400/2009-10, and to cancel the sale
deed of the suit schedule property executed by the 1 st
defendant in favor of the defendant No.2 dated 9/7/2004
vide registered document No.YAN-1-08117/2004-05 in the
office of the sub-registrar, Yalahanka and to declare the
same as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and
such other reliefs.
36. The plaintiff has sought the above said reliefs on
the ground that, he has purchased the suit schedule
property by virtue of the sale deed 7.8.2009 for a total
consideration of the 6.75.000/- from defendants No.3 to 10,
the said property was their ancestral property and after the
purchase khatha was mutated in the name of the plaintiff in
22
O.S.No. 4184/2012
the concerned office and he is paying the taxes. The
defendants No.1 & 2 who are utterly strangers to the suit
property started to interfere in the suit property and hence
he filed a injunction against the defendants No.1 & 2 before
the city civil court (CCH.42) in O.S.No.6847/2009 for the
relief of injunction and in the said suit the defendants have
appeared and filed the written statement by contending
that the defendant No.2 (herein) is the owner of the suit
property by virtue of the sale deed 9/7/2004 which is
executed by defendant No.1 (herein) on the basis of the GPA
dated 24/10/1986 which is executed by the previous owners
of the suit property. Hence the present suit is filed for the
above reliefs.
37. On the other hand the defendants No.2 claims
that he is the absolute owner by virtue of the registered
sale deed 9.7.2004 executed by the defendant No.1 as a
GPA holder of the earlier owners, and he claims he is in
possession of the property and thereby seeks to dismiss the
suit.
38. Since the plaintiff has filed the suit for
23
O.S.No. 4184/2012
declaration he has to establish his title over the suit
property by cogent evidence and he cannot rely upon the
weakness of the defendants.
39. This suit is filed in respect of " all that piece and
parcel of the property bearing old khatha No.45/2, 3 BBMP
khata No.2889/45/3 and 2, measuring East to West; 15 feet
and North to south; 60 feet in admeasuring 900 sq.ft.
situated at Kothihosahalli village Yelahanka hobli, Bangalore
north taluk, now coming under BBMP and bounded on; East
by:- property of Narayanappa, West by:- Propety of
Mariyappa, North by:- Property of Plaintiffs' vendor. South:-
Kodigehalli main road.
40. The plaintiff is basing his title on the strength of
the sale deed dated 7.8.2009 executed by Smt Akkayamma,
Smt Shylaja, Srinivasa, Smt Munivenkatamma, Smt
Soubhagya, Sri Prakash, Sri Krishnamurthy, Kumari Parvathi
- the defendants No. 3 to 10, the said sale deed is produced
at Ex.P.1, and in Ex.P.1 schedule property is mentioned as
24
O.S.No. 4184/2012
ಷಷೆಡಷೆಡಡ್ಯೊಲಲ್ ಸಸ್ವತತ್ತಿನ ವಿವರ
ಬಬಬೆಂಗಳಳೂರರು ಉತತ್ತರ ತತಾಲಬಳೂಲಲ್ಲೋಕರು, ಯಲಹಬೆಂಕ ಹಬಳೂಲ್ಲೋಬಳ, ಕಬಳೂಲ್ಲೋತಿಹಬಳೂಸಹಳಳ್ಳಿ ಗತಾಗ್ರಾಮಕಬಕ
ಸಬಲ್ಲೋರಿದ ಹಳಬ ಖತಾತ ನಬೆಂ.೪೫/೨, ೩, ಬ.ಬ.ಎಬೆಂ.ಪ. ಖತಾತತಾ ನಬೆಂ.೨೮೮೯/೪೫/೩ & ೨
ನಬೆಂಬರರ್ ಪಬಪೈಕಿ ಖತಾಲಿ ನಲ್ಲೋವಬಲ್ಲೋಶನ ಸಸ್ವತಿತ್ತಗಬ ಚಕರುಕ ಬಬೆಂದದ-
ಪಪೂರರ್ವಕಬಕ: - ನತಾರತಾಯಣಪಪ್ಪನರರ ಸಸ್ವತರುತ್ತ
ಪಶಶ್ಚಿಮಕಬಕ:- ಮರಿಯಪಪ್ಪನರರ ಸಸ್ವತರುತ್ತ
ಉತತ್ತರಕಬಕ::- ಉಳಕಬ ಸಸ್ವತರುತ್ತ
ದಕಿಕ್ಷಿಣಕಬಕ:- ಕಬಳೂಲ್ಲೋಡಿಗಬಹಳಳ್ಳಿ ಮರುಖಖ್ಯರಸಬತ್ತ
ಈ ಮಧಬಖ್ಯ ಇರರುರ ಪಪೂರರ್ವದಬೆಂದ ಪಶಶ್ಚಿಮಕಬಕ ೧೫ ಅಡಿಗಳರು, ಉತತ್ತರದಬೆಂದ ದಕಿಕ್ಷಿಣಕಬಕ ೬೦
ಅಡಿಗಳರು, ಒಟರುಟ್ಟು ಜರುಮತಾಲ ೯೦೦ ಚದರ ಅಡಿಗಳ ಅಳತಬಯರುಳಳ್ಳಿ ಖತಾಲಿಲ್ಲೋ ನಲ್ಲೋವಬಲ್ಲೋಶನ ಸಸ್ವತರುತ್ತ ಈ
ಶರುದದ್ದಕಗ್ರಾಯಕಬಕ ಒಳಪಟಟ್ಟುರರುತತ್ತದಬ. ಸದರಿ ಸಸ್ವತಿತ್ತನ ಇಬೆಂದನ ಮತಾರರುಕಟಬಟ್ಟುಯ ಬಬಲಬ ರಳೂ
೬,೭೫,೦೦೦/- (ರಳೂ ಆರರು ಲಕಕ್ಷಿದ ಎಪಪ್ಪತಬಪೈದರು ಸತಾವಿರ ಮತಾತಗ್ರಾ) ರಳೂಪತಾಯಿಗಳಗಬ
ಸರಿಯತಾಗಿರರುತತ್ತದಬ
The suit schedule property and Ex.P.1 schedule
property are one and the same.
41. On the other hand the defendant No.2 is claiming
his property on the strength of the sale deed dated
9/7/2004 executed by the defendant No.1 on the strength of
the GPA dated 24/10/1986 executed by M.Krishanappa,
25
O.S.No. 4184/2012
Nanjappa, Srinivasappa and Muninarasappa, the said sale
deed is produced at Ex.D.12, in the schedule of the said sale
deed property is shown as;-
ಷಷೆಡಷೆಡ ಡ್ಯೊಲ್ ವಿವರ
ಬಬಬೆಂಗಳಳೂರರು ಉತತ್ತರ ತತಾಲಳೂಲಕರು, ಯಲಹಬೆಂಕ ಹಬಳೂಲ್ಲೋಬಳ, ಕಬಳೂಲ್ಲೋತಿಹಬಳೂಸಹಳಳ್ಳಿ
ಗತಾಗ್ರಾಮದಲಿಲರರುರ ಖತಾತತಾ ನಬೆಂ. ೩೩೩ಬ/೧, ಅಸಬಸಬಸಬೆಂಟರ್ ನಬೆಂ.೪೫/೩ ರವುಳಳ್ಳಿ ೭ ೮ ನಬಲ್ಲೋ ನಬೆಂಬರರು
ನವಬಲ್ಲೋಶನದ ಪಬಪೈಕಿ ಪಪೂವತಾರ್ವರರ್ವ ಭತಾಗದ ನವಬಲ್ಲೋಶನದ ಸಸ್ವತಿತ್ತಗಬ ಚಬಕರುಕಬಬೆಂದ;-
ಪಪೂರರ್ವಕಬಕ: - ನತಾರತಾಯಣಪಪ್ಪನರರ ಸಸ್ವತರುತ್ತ
ಪಶಶ್ಚಿಮಕಬಕ:- ಮರಿಯಪಪ್ಪನರರ ಸಸ್ವತರುತ್ತ
ಉತತ್ತರಕಬಕ:- ನತಾರತಾಯಣಪಪ್ಪನರರ ಸಸ್ವತರುತ್ತ
ದಕಿಕ್ಷಿಣಕಬಕ:- ಕಬಳೂಲ್ಲೋಡಿಗಬಹಳರ್ಳ್ಳಿ ಮರುಖಖ್ಯರಸಬತ್ತ
ಈ ಮಧಬಖ್ಯ ಇರರುರ ಪಪೂರರ್ವ ಪಶಶ್ಚಿಮ ೧೪ ಅಡಿಗಳರು, ಉತತ್ತರ ದಕಿಕ್ಷಿಣ ೬೦ ಅಡಿಗಳರು, ಈ ರಿಲ್ಲೋತಿ
ಅಳತಬ ಮತರುತ್ತ ಚಬಕರುಕಬಬೆಂದಗಬಳೂಳಪಟಟ್ಟು ನವಬಲ್ಲೋಶನದ ಸಸ್ವತರುತ್ತ ಈ ಕಗ್ರಾಯಕಬಕ ಒಳಪಟಟ್ಟುರರುತತ್ತದಬ .
ಸದರಿ ಸಸ್ವತಿತ್ತನ ಮತಾರರುಕಟಬಟ್ಟು ಬಬಲಬ ರಳೂ. ೧,೨೬,೦೦೦/-ರಳೂಪತಾಯಿಗಳಗಬ
ಸರಿಯತಾಗಿರರುತತ್ತದಬ.
42. It is undisputed fact that the suit property which
plaintiffs' claims and property which the defendant claims
are one and the same, because of the said reason only the
26
O.S.No. 4184/2012
present dispute is between them.
43. It is also undisputed fact that, the plaintiff and
defendant both claims the property through the previous
common owner/s.
44. The plaintiff claims that the suit property was
originally belonged to the family of Nanjappa, Muninarappa,
Krishnappa & Srinivasa. In this Nanjappa died leaving
behind his wife smt Akkayamma, and daughter Smt Shylaja,
and Muninarasappa died leaving behind his wife Smt
Munivenkatamma, sons Krishnamurthy and Prakash, and
daughters Smt Soubhagya and Kumari Parvathi. These legal
heirs of Nanjappa and Munivenkatappa along with Srinivasa
have sold the suit property to the plaintiff under the
registered sale deed dated 7/8/2009 which is produced at
Ex.P.1.
45. On the other hand the defendant No.2 claims
that the suit property was originally belonged to
27
O.S.No. 4184/2012
Krishnappa, Nanjappa, Srinivasa, and Muninarappa and they
executed the GPA and affidavit dated 24/10/1986 after
accepting the sale consideration amount and defendant
No.1 has sold the property to the defendant No.2 under the
registered sale deed dated 9/7/2004. since from the date of
GPA defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit property.
Now the defendants No 2 claims that he is the owner in
possession of the suit property.
46. Admittedly the suit property is a vacant property,
in respect of the suit property injunction suit was filed the
plaintiff against the defendants No.1 & 2 in
O.S.No.6847/2009 and the same was dismissed and against
which the plaintiff filed the RFA before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka vide RFA No.979/2013 and the RFA has
been disposed of on 13/03/2015 with the observation that "
the findings in the judgment in challenge shall be subject to
the result of the pending suit" i.e. present suit.
47. In this back ground let me consider the title
28
O.S.No. 4184/2012
document of the both the parties, let me first consider the
title document of the defendant No.2 because the same is
the earliest one compared to plaintiff.
48. In order to claim ownership over the suit property
defendant No.2 has produced Ex.D.12 registered sale deed
dated 9/7/2004, the same is executed by the defendant
No.1 in favor of defendant No.2 stating that the same was
belonged M.Krishnappa, Nanjappa, Srinivasappa, and
Muninarasappa, they executed the GPA in favor of
defendant No.1 on 24/10/1986. And on the said basis the
Ex.D.12 is executed. In the sale deed photographs of the
buyer and seller are taken as required under the procedure
for registration of the document and in front of the
photograph it is clearly mentioned " Smt Munichennamma
Rep GPA holder for M.Krishnappa, Nanjappa, Srinivasappa,
Muninarappa", the same is signed by the Senior sub-
registrar, Yalahanka, Bangalore. A statutory duty is cast
upon the sub-registrar to verify all the correctness/legality
of the document being registered, only after that the same
29
O.S.No. 4184/2012
will be registered. Here are also the sale deed executed by
the defendant No.1 might have been registered after
verification of the all the requirement, otherwise the said
sale deed should not have been registered executed as GPA
holder. When the document is legally registered we can
draw the presumption that it validly executed, in support of
this I rely upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 353 in the
Prem Singh Vs Birbal :-
"There is a presumption that a registered document
is validly executed. A registered document, therefore,
prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof,
thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to
rebut the presumption. In the instant case,
Respondent No.1 has not been able to rebut the said
presumption".
49. So it is clear that the sale deed in favor of the
defendant No.2 is validly registered and it is the burden
30
O.S.No. 4184/2012
upon the plaintiff to rebut the same. Demand register
extracts which reflects the khatha of the defendant No.1 in
the concerned office/register which are produced at Ex.D. 9,
10, 11. All these documents are also prior the sale deed of
the plaintiff. Ex.D.16 to 25 tax paid receipts are also prior
the sale deed of the plaintiff and even Ex.D.26 demand
register extract is also prior to the sale deed of the plaintiff,
which are all reflects the names of the defendant No.1 & 2.
50. So it clear that defendants No.1 & 2 have
acquired the valid title prior to the plaintiff.
51. Now let me consider the title of the plaintiff. the
plaintiff claims his title through the Ex.P.1, which is executed
by the defendants No.3 to 10. As it is already stated, it is
undisputed fact that the suit property was originally
belonged to M.Krishnappa, Nanjappa, Srinivasa and
Muninarasappa. The defendants No.3 & 4 are being the
legal heirs of Nanjappa & defendants No.6 to 10 are being
the legal heirs of Muninarasappa have executed the sale
31
O.S.No. 4184/2012
deed in favor of plaintiff as per Ex.P.1 on 7.8.2009 along
with defendant No.5. as on the date of Ex.P.1 no title was
vested with the defendants No.3 to 10, having no title they
cannot alienate the same to the plaintiff. because by the
time of execution of Ex.P.1 on 7.8.2009, the Ex.D.12 i.e.,
sale deed dated 9/7/2004 was already in existence. From
2004 to 2009 the same was not challenged by the vendors
of the plaintiff.
52. This suit is brought by the plaintiff stating that
the sale deed in favor of the defendant No.2 by the
defendant No.1 as a GPA holder is executed after the death
of Nanjappa (date of death 16/12/2002 as per Ex.P9) and
Muninarasappa (date of death 18/4/1993 as Ex.P.10) and
hence the same is not valid. If we believe the Ex.D12 sale
deed, then the GPA transaction relates back to 24/10/1986,
since then GPA or its transactions including the sale and
change of khatha in the name of the defendant No.1 & 2 is
not challenged by the LR's of Nanjappa and Muninarasappa.
And astonishingly the defendant No.4 Mr. Srinivasa who is
32
O.S.No. 4184/2012
also one of the person stated to have executed the GPA in
favor of Smt Munichinnamma ie defendant No.1, he has also
challenged the above said transactions i.e., change of
khatha, sale deed, payment of tax, etc.,. if it all the
defendant No.4 along with his deceased brothers have not
executed any GPA definitely he should initiated some legal
proceedings against the defendants No.1 and 2 and silence
on his part shows that his bothers including himself have
formed the sites and they have sold it to various persons
through GPA transaction, this aspect has been fortified by
the Ex.D.13 a copy of the legal notice dated 6.8.2009 issued
by one Mr. H.Maregowda, Advocate (he is advocate for the
present plaintiffs who has filed the suit), on the instructions
of T.Thimmarayappa, K.V.Munihanumappa, H.Muniraju,
Gopalaswamy to as many as 12 person in which defendants
No.1 and 2 were also parties. In said notice it is
categorically mentioned that;-
"1. my clients states that the land bearing Survey
No.45/3 measuring to the extent of 6 guntas and the land
33
O.S.No. 4184/2012
bearing survey No.45/2 measuring to the extent of 14
guntas both are situated at Kothihosahalli village,
Yelanhanka hobli, Bangalore north taluk, originally belongs
to late Krishnappa, late Nanjappa, Sreenivasiah, and late
Muninarasappa, and they got the same by virtue of their
ancestor . and all the revenue documents stands in their
name. my clients further states that except Sreenivasiah, all
the above said persons came to be died leaving behind their
L.R's to succeed to their estate. It appears that all the
above said (except Sreenivasaiah) persons might have been
executed the alleged GPA in favor of all of you only in
respect of alleged sites in the said survey number, even
though to the best of our clients knowledge there was no
such alleged GPA in your favor. In this connection my clients
further states that even all of you has got alleged GPA in
respect of the said land. Since the above said persons
(except Sreenivasaiah) came to be died, all the alleged GPA
automatically came to died. As such all of you do not have
any manner of right or interest over the said land in
question and the said GPA has no legal value in the eye of
34
O.S.No. 4184/2012
law.
2, my clients further states that after the death of the
above said persons (except Sreenivasaiah) their entire L.Rs
came and executed the GPA in favor of my clients in respect
of the above said land and accordingly my clients acquired
right, power and authority to deal with the said land as they
likes........."
From plain reading of this legal notice it is clear that
during the life time of Krishnappa, Nanjappa, and
Muninarasappa they formed the sites in the said Sy
numbers and after the death of them Mr. Sreenivasaiah
(Srinivasa) the defendant No.4 along with the legal heirs of
the deceased brothers is intending to take undue advantage
of their death and sale of the properties on the basis of the
GPA. Otherwise he should not have sold the suit property to
the plaintiff by suppressing the said fact and definitely he
should have challenged the GPA and its allied transactions
but he never did the same, it means that he was also one of
35
O.S.No. 4184/2012
the party who executed the GPA and he was knowing the
said transactions. The rise in the property value in the
recent years is reason for this. Prior of Suraj lamps decision
from the Hon'ble Supreme court, people practiced GPA
sale, this is also one of such kind transaction between
defendant No.1 and Krishanappa and his brothers. Now
taking advantage of the death of them, again property has
been sold by suppressing the earlier GPA transactions. In
the said Suraj lamps case supreme court has clarified that,
if on the Basis of GPA if the Khatha of the property is already
changed that cannot be affected. Herein this case also
khatha of the property was already changed in the name of
the defendant No.1 in the concerned authorities. When the
vendors of the plaintiff have not challenged the Ex.D.12
plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the same. Under
these circumstances I am of the clear opinion that the
vendors of the plaintiff were not having valid title as on the
date of execution of Ex.P.1 to convey the valid title and
hence no valid title is passed on to the plaintiff, hence
plaintiff has failed to prove the Issue No.1 and 2 and hence
36
O.S.No. 4184/2012
both issues are answered in negative.
53. Issue No.3;- The plaintiff has filed the suit for
the relief to declare his as the absolute owner of the suit
property and to cancel the sale deed dated 9/7/2004.
54. It is to be seen from the pleadings and prayer,
that the plaintiff has not at all sought for relief of possession
and his suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No. 6847/2009
has been dismissed and the present suit is only to declare
him as the absolute owner of the suit property and to cancel
the sale deed dated 9/7/2004.
In this regard Section 6, 24 and 38 are import and the
same are extracted for the better understanding.
Section.6;- multifarious suits.- (1) in any suit in which
separate and distinct reliefs based on the same cause of
action are sought, the plaint shall be chargeable with fee on
the aggregate value of the reliefs;
37
O.S.No. 4184/2012
Provided that, if the relief is sought only as ancillary to
the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the
value of the main relief.
(2) where more reliefs than one based on the same
cause of action are sought in the alternative in any suit, the
plaint shall be chargeable with highest of the fee leviable on
the reliefs.
(3) where a suit embraces two or more distinct and
different cause of action and separate reliefs are sought
based on them, either alternatively or cumulatively, the
plaint shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the
fees with which plaints would be chargeable under this Act
if separate suits were instituted in respect of the several
causes of action.
Provided that, where the causes of action in respect of
relief claimed alternatively against the same person arise
out of the same transaction, the plaint shall be chargeable
38
O.S.No. 4184/2012
only with the higher of the fee chargeable on them.
Nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to affect
any power conferred upon a court under rule 6 of order II of
the code of civil procedure.1908 (central Act V of 1908)
(4) the provisions of this section shall apply mutatis
mutandis to memorandum of appeals, applications,
petitions and written statements.
Section 24. suits for declaration.- in a suit for
declaratory decree or order, whether with or without
consequent relief, not falling under section 25,
(a) Where the prayer is for declaration and for
possession of the property to which declaration
relates, fee shall be computed on the market
value of the property or on rupees one thousand
whichever is higher;
(b) Where the prayer is for declaration and
39
O.S.No. 4184/2012
consequential injunction and the relief sought is
with reference to any immovable property, fee
shall be computed on one-half of the market
value of the property or on rupees one
thousand, whichever is higher.
(c) Omitted by Act 13 of 1982 w.e.f.1.4.1982.
(d) In other cases whether the subject matter of the
suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be
computed on the amount which the relief is sought
is valued in the plaint or on rupees one thousand
only whichever is higher.
Section 38-. Suit for cancellation of decree etc.- (1) in
a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other
property having a money value, or other document which
purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or
extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or
interest in money, movable or immovable property fee shall
be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit
and such value shall be deemed to be-
40
O.S.No. 4184/2012
If the whole decree or other document is sought to be
canceled, the amount or value of the property for which the
decree was passed or other document was executed;
If part of the decree or other document is sought to be
canceled such part of the amount or value of the property.
(2) if the decree or other document is such that the
liability under it cannot be split up and the relief claimed
relates only to a particular item of property belonging to the
plaintiff or to the plaintiff's share in any such property, fee
shall be computed on the value of such property or share or
on the amount of the decree, which is less.
Explanation 1- a suit to set aside an award shall be
deemed to be a suit to set aside a decree within the
meaning of this section.
Explanation 2- in suit for cancellation of decree and
possession of any property the fee shall be computed as in
41
O.S.No. 4184/2012
a suit for possession of such property.
From conjoint reading of these provisions it is clear
that, since the plaintiff has sought for distinct and separate
relief of declaration of his title as well as cancellation of sale
deed 9/7/2004, he has to pay the court fee on the
aggregate value of the reliefs.
55. He is seeking declaration of his title basing upon
the sale deed dated 7.8.2009 - produced at Ex.P.1 wherein
the value of the property is shown as Rs 6.75,000/- and he
seeking the cancellation of the sale deed dated 9.7.2004
which is produced at Ex.D.12 in which value of the property
is shown as Rs 1,26,000/-, so aggregate value of these two
is Rs 8,01,000/-, hence plaintiff has to pay the court fee on
Rs 8,01,000/- at Rs 51,180/-
But the plaintiff valuing the suit under sections 24(b) &
38(1) at Rs 4,00,000/- has paid the court of Rs 26,875/-,
which has no any basis, because as I already noted that the
42
O.S.No. 4184/2012
suit is only declaration not for any consequential injunction,
hence the plaintiff has to pay the deficit court fee of Rs
24,305/-
In view of the above discussion I hold that the Issue
No.3 in negative.
56. Issue No.4;- this issue is framed casting the
burden upon the plaintiff to prove the limitation.
57. As already noticed the suit by the plaintiff for two
separate and distinct reliefs of declaration of his title and
cancellation of sale dated 9/7/2004, both are guided by
different articles of the limitation act.
58. So far as 1st relief of declaration is concerned it is
covered under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.
Sl.No Description of suit Period ofTime from which
limitation
period begins to
run
58 To obtain any otherThree years When the right to
declaration sue first accrues
43
O.S.No. 4184/2012
59 To cancel or set Three When the facts
aside an years entitling the plaintiff
instrument or have the instrument or
decree or for the decree canceled or set
rescissions of a aside or the contract
contract rescinded first become
known to him
59. The plaintiff has shown cause of action for the
suit has arisen from 28.06.2010 when the defendants No.2
filed the written statement in O.S.6847/2009 stating that
the defendant No.1 has executed the registered sale deed in
respect of the suit schedule property. This suit is filed on
14/6/2012 within the three years from the date of the said
date and hence the suit is within the limitation for both
reliefs. Hence this issue is answered in Affirmative.
60. During the course of arguments learned counsel
for plaintiff produced the following citations;
O.S.A.No. 28/2015 in the case of R.Vatsala and others
Vs R Krishna Kumar and one, rendered by the Hon'ble
Madras high court, is not applicable to the facts on hand
and the case citated is entirely different from the facts of
44
O.S.No. 4184/2012
this case, the said case is partition suit and in the said suit
GPA has been adjudicated, and come to the conclusion that
it is fabricated.
And another decision in C.R.P.145/2014 rendered by
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is not applicable to the facts
of this case since the said decision is under Order 7 Rule 11
of CPC.
61. ISSUE No.5: For the above reasons I proceed
to pass the following;
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 1st day of June, 2021.) (SATHISHA L.P.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY SCHEDULE 45 O.S.No. 4184/2012 All that piece and parcel of the property bearing old khatha No.45/2, 3 BBMP Khatha No. 2889/45/3 and 2, measuring extent of East to West: 15 feet and North to South: 60 feet in all measuring 900 sq.ft. Situated at Kothihosahalli village, Yelahanka hobli, Bangalore north taluk, now coming under BBMP and bounded on;
East by: Property of Narayanappa West by: Property of Mariyappa North by: Property of the plaintiffs' vendor South by: Kodigehalli main road.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a)Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Venkatesh. N
(b)Defendant's side :
D.W.1: Ramarajappa
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a)Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1: Original sale deed dated 07-08-2009
Ex.P.2: Reply letter dated 11-08-2009
Ex.P.3: Certificate dated 11-08-2009
46
O.S.No. 4184/2012
Ex.P.4 Tax paid receipts
& 5:
Ex.P.6: Acknowledgment Ex.P.7: Tax paid receipt Ex.P.8: Property register extract Ex.P.9: Death certificate of Nanjappa.M Ex.P.10: Death certificate of Muninarasappa Ex.P.11: Notice dated 08-04-2010 issued by BBMP Ex.P.12 Endorsement issued by BBMP & 13:
Ex.P.14: Sketch Ex.P.15: Acknowledgment issued by BBMP Ex.P.16: Tax paid receipt Ex.P.17: Acknowledgment issued by BBMP Ex.P.18: Tax paid receipt Ex.P.19: Acknowledgment issued by BBMP Ex.P.20 Tax paid receipts & 21:
Ex.P.22: Khatha extract issued by BBMP Ex.P.23: EC Ex.P.24: Certified copy of sale deed dated 09-07-2004 Ex.P.25: Khatha register extract Ex.P.26: Certificate issued by BBMP 47 O.S.No. 4184/2012 Ex.P.27: Tax paid receipt
(b)Defendants side :
Ex.D.1: Certified copy of deposition in O.S.No.684/2009, Ex.D.2: Certified copy of judgment in RFA No. 979/2013 Ex.D.3 to Certified copy of deposition in 6:
O.S.No. 6847/2009 Ex.D.7 & Tax paid receipts 8:
Ex.D.9 to Demand register extracts 11:
Ex.D.12: Original sale deed dated 09-07-2004 Ex.D.13: Office copy of legal notice dated 06-08-2009 Ex.D.14: EC Ex.D.15 Tax paid receipts to 25:
Ex.D.26: Demand register extract Ex.D.27: Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.D.28 Photographs to 31:
Ex.D.32 Negatives
to 35:
48
O.S.No. 4184/2012
Ex.D.36: BBMP notice dated 08-04-2010 Ex.D.37: BBMP notice dated 11-07-2011 Ex.D.38: Certified copy of sale deed dated 08-05-2002 Ex.D.39 Khatha ledger extracts & 40:
Ex.D.41 RTC extracts to 67:
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.