Bangalore District Court
Arunprasad A vs Jayamma Alias Jayarakini on 29 March, 2025
KABC010247562018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-38), BENGALURU CITY.
:PRESENT:
Sri. Yashawanth Kumar, B.A.(Law)., LL.B.,
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
C/c XXXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-38),Bengaluru City.
DATED: This the 29th day of March 2025
O.S. NO. 6497 OF 2018
PLAINTIFF/S SRI. ARUNPRASAD A.
S/O. A. ANNAMALAI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.74, PRAGATHI NAGAR,
HONGASANDRA VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU
(By Sri. T.G.R., Adv.)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S 1. SMT. JAYAMMA ALIAS
JAYARAKINI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O. LATE AROKYASWAMY,
R/AT NO.62/5H, KEELUKOTAI,
DENKANIKOTE, KRISHNAGIRI
DISTRICT, TAMILNADU
DIED ON 4/11/2020
2 O.S. No. 6497/2018
1.(a). SMT. LILY PUSHPAM,
W/O. P. SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT. NO. 1/136A, NEAR INDIAN
BANK, NGM STREET,
RAYAKOTTAI,
DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DIST.
2: SMT. ANURADHA R REDDY
W/O. RABINDRANATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.16/1, HAUDIN ROAD
OFF ULSOOR ROAD
BENGALURU-42
3:SMT. SUCHITHRA R
W/O. N. MURALIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.18/1, 8TH CROSS
RASHTRAKAVI KUVEMPU ROAD
KANSHIRAM NAGAR
VIDYARANYAPURA POST
BENGALURU 97
4: SRI. SRINIVAS M V
S/O.LATE VENKATASHAMI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.127,
KEMBATTACHALLI
GOTTIGERE POST
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-83
(LR OF D-1 By Sri. GSS, Adv.)
(D-3 By Sri. MSR. Adv.)
(D-2 Exp.)
(DEF NO.4 BY SRI. BVN ADV)
Date of Institution of the suit 4.9.2018
3 O.S. No. 6497/2018
Nature of suit Injunction
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence. 29.3.2023
Date on which judgment was
pronounced. 29.03.2025
Total Duration. Years Months Days
06 06 26
XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
4 O.S. No. 6497/2018
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any one claiming through them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule B property by declaring that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1076/2008 dtd:
30.9.2010 in respect of schedule A property is not binding on the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 or any one claiming through her from alienating or encumbering the schedule A property to any one.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as under:-
(a) In a partition decree passed in O.S. No. 72/1983, defendant No.1 Jayamma @ Jayarakini was allotted 1 acre 6 guntas of land in Sy. No. 101 New Sy. No. 201/1, Chinnaswamy was allotted 1 acres 20 guntas of land and Anthoniyamma has allotted 1 acre 20 guntas of land in the said survey number.
The property allotted to the share of defendant No.1 is described as schedule A property. After partition decree mutation effected in the name of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 formed layout along with defendant No.2 in schedule A property in the year 1998. Defendant No.1 has given notarized GPA dtd: 30.10.1999 in favour of defendant No.2 to sell site No. 60 to 64 and 68 to 5 O.S. No. 6497/2018 88 carved out in schedule A property. The defendant No.1 also executed GPA in favour of one Rajendra and Anitha with consent of defendant No.2 to sell site No. 81 and 82 on 29.10.1999. Some of the sites carved out in schedule A property have been directly sold by defendant No.1 by way of registered sale deeds. Therefore he defendant No.1 has sold entire sites bearing No. 62 to 64 and 68 to 88 formed in schedule A property either by registered GPA and notarized GPA or through registered sale deed in the year 1998 to 2005 to different purchasers. Those purchasers are in possession and enjoyment of their respective sites by constructing residential houses in it. The defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest over the schedule A property, she does not have possession over the schedule A property.
(b) The plaintiff has purchased site No. 74 by way of registered sale deed dtd: 16.2.2010 from Ganga Patnam Ravindra Reddy, in turn said Ganga Patnam Ravindra Reddy purchased the same from defendant No.1,, which is described as schedule B property. From the date of purchase the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule B property by getting the Katha in his name and paying taxes to the Corporation. He has constructed a house by availing loan from 6 O.S. No. 6497/2018 IDBI Bank in the schedule B property. The plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser of schedule B property.
(c) One Rajappa Reddy has filed O.S. No. 9280/1997 challenging the decree of partition in O.S. No. 72/1993, in which this defendant No.1 was arrayed as defendant No.3. But she has not contested the suit as she has already sold the entire property by forming sites. The purchasers of sites from defendant No.1 were made as parties in O.S. No. 9280/1997. Said suit is pending before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru.
(d) Though the defendant No.1 does not have right, title or interest over the schedule A property, she filed a frivolous suit in O.S. No. 1076/2008 for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction against her family members and unconcerned persons having no right in the schedule A property. The purchasers of sites from defendant No.1 were not made as parties in the said suit, including the plaintiff herein. Therefore, the decree passed in O.S. No. 1076/2008 is not binding on the plaintiff. It has been obtained by the defendant No.1without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and others. The defendants in O.S. No. 1076/2008 are not necessary parties. Hence, they are not made as parties to this suit. The plaintiff came to know about the above said suit, only on 29.7.2018 7 O.S. No. 6497/2018 when defendant No.1 along with defendants No.3 and 4 tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule B property by the plaintiff. At this juncture the plaintiffs came to know about the suit filed by the defendant No.1. Immediately the plaintiff obtained the certified copies of the documents in O.S. No. 1076/ 2008 and came to know that the said suit was decreed on 30.9.2010 itself. Defendant No.1 suppressed the fact of filing the suit in O.S. No. 1076/2008 only with an intention to knock of the property. Again on 19.8.2018, defendant No.1 along with defendants No.3 and 4 came near the schedule B property and interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendants with the help of neighbours. Again on verification, it is found that defendant No.1 entered into a sale agreement of schedule A property with defendant No.3 through a registered agreement of sale dtd:
21.10.2014. Further she has also entered into an agreement of sale in respect of schedule A property with defendant No.4 through registered sale agreement dtd: 11.12.2017. The plaintiff cannot resist the illegal acts of defendant without the assistance of he court. Hence this suit.
3. (a) The defendant No.1 has filed written statement. He has contended that she is the owner in possession of the 1 acre 8 O.S. No. 6497/2018 6 guntas of land in Sy. No. 101 of Hongasandra village ie., schedule A property, Chinnaswamy and Anthoniyamma are the owners of 1 acre 20 guntas each in the said survey number.
G.C. Rajappa Reddy is the owner of 4 acres 6 guntas in the said survey number. As there was dispute between the members of the family of defendant No.1 in respect of Sy. No. 101 and other lands, defendant No.1 and other members filed a suit in O.S. No. 72/1983 for the relief of partition. Thereafter the parties entered in to a compromise and compromise decree was passed on 16.2.1987. In the compromise decree 1 acres 6 guntas of land in said Sy. No. allotted to defendant No.1. 4 acres 6 guntas of land allotted to one Innasi Muthu. Father of G.C. Rajappa reddy filed a suit in O.S. No. 9280/1997 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru contending that he has purchased different extents of land in total 4 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 101 under different sale deeds and became owners of said 4 acres 6 guntas of land. In the plaint in O.S. No. 9280/1997 father of G.C. Rajappa reddy has stated that compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 72/19083 is null and void as far as it relates to 4 acres 6 guntas of land, which was allotted to Innasi muthu. In the said suit, defendant No.1 herein is defendant No.3. The father of J.C. Rajappa Reddy had admitted the share of defendant No.1 in the 9 O.S. No. 6497/2018 said Sy. No. Hence defendants No.1 has not contested the said suit. The said suit in O.S. No. 9280/1997 is pending for adjudication.
(b) In the year 2008, one Brigitte and some others tried to encroach the land measuring 1 acre 6 guntas in Sy. No. 101 i.e., schedule A property. Defendant No.1 filed suit in O.S. No. 1076/2008 against the said Brigitte and others before the City Civil Court for declaration and injunction in respect of schedule A property. In the said suit G.C. Rajappa Reddy was defendant No.11. In O.S. No. 1076/2008 some defendants appeared through their counsel and some were placed exparte. G.C. Rajappa Reddy filed his written statement, but he has not led evidence. The court passed judgment and decree on 30.9.2010 declaring that defendant No.1 herein is the absolute owner of land measuring 1 acres 6 guntas ie., schedule A property. The court also passed an order of permanent injunction against Brigitte and others in the said suit. The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1076/2008 has attained finality.
(c) On 20.10.2014 the defendant No.1 along with her family members entered into a sale agreement with defendant No.3 in respect of 1 acre 6 guntas of land i.e, schedule A property. Defendant No.1 did not show any interest in purchasing the said 10 O.S. No. 6497/2018 property even after the lapse of 3 years from the date of said sale agreement. The defendant No.1 got issued registered legal notice dtd: 11.12.2017 to defendant No.3 asking her to treat said sale agreement as canceled and to take back the advance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. After issuing notice to defendant No.3, the defendant No.1 entered into registered sale agreement with defendant No.4 in respect of the schedule 'A' property. The defendant No.1 being absolute owner of schedule A property had all rights to execute sale agreement in favour of any person in respect of schedule A property. Defendant No.1 had executed notarized GPA on 30.10.1998 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of Sy. No. 101/1 and 101. As there were mistakes in the GPA, defendant No.1 canceled the same. Hence, the transaction done on the basis of GPA is not binding on defendant No.1. By virtue of judgment dtd: 30.9.2010 passed by city civil court Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No. 1076/2008, defendant No.1 has became the owner of schedule A property. The RTC shows that defendant No.1 is the owner in possession of schedule A property. The question of defendant No.1 interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs does not arise.
4. (a) The defendant No.3 has filed written statement. She has contended that the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not 11 O.S. No. 6497/2018 challenging the order passed in O.S. No. 1076/2008. The plaintiff claims that he has purchased the suit schedule property on 16.2.2010, during the pendency of O.S. No. 1076/2008. Inview of the decree passed in O.S. No. 1076/2008 the present suit is not maintainable. This court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit. The suit is barred by limitation and barred by the principles of res-judicata. The suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff not sought for the consequential reliefs. The title of the plaintiff is under cloud and therefore the suit for bare injunction without seeking the relief of declaration is not maintainable. The plaintiff has not came before the court with clean hands.
(b) The defendant No.3 has contended that suit property is the part and parcel of larger property measuring 4 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 101 of Hongasandra village. It belong to Smt. Sanjeevamma. She sold the same in favour of Gabriel who was the father in law of defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed dtd: 1.12.1938. Gabriel had executed a registered Will dtd:
7.1.1972 and bequeathed the suit property in favour of his son late Arokya swamy. Thereafter the suit property devolves in favour of his son Lawrence. In the mean time one of sons of late Gabiel by name Innasi muthu tried to meddle with the suit 12 O.S. No. 6497/2018 property. O.S. No. 72/1983 was filed for partition and they entered in a compromise on 16.2.1987, in the said compromise suit property allotted to share of late Arokya Swamy who is the father-in-law of defendant No.1. When Brigitte and others tried to encroach the suit property, defendant No.1 filed suit in O.S. No. 1076/2008 for the relief of declaration and injunction. Said suit also decreed in favour of defendant No.1 by declaring her as owner in possession of the suit property and granting the relief of permanent injunction. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 sold the suit property to defendant No.3 for consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs by receiving Rs. 2 lakhs as advance amount and executing sale agreement dtd: 20.10.2014. There was no time limit for the completion of the sale transaction. In the sale agreement the sale transaction agreed to be completed on defendant No.1 furnishing of revenue records, survey sketch and phodi and other BBMP documents in respect of the suit property. It is clearly stipulated that defendant No.1 shall not enter into any kind of dealing with any one for sale, mortgage or transfer of the schedule property in any manner. But defendant No.1 entered into another sale agreement with another person.
The defendant No.1 issued legal notice dtd; 11.12.2017. When the said sale agreement was executed, the sale agreement 13 O.S. No. 6497/2018 executed in favour of defendant No.3 was subsisting. On receipt of the notice, the defendant No.3 issued reply and denied cancellation of the sale deed executed in his favour and called upon the defendant No.1 and others to execute the sale deed in her favour. Thereafter whenever defendant No.3 demanded for execution of the sale deed, the defendant No.1 and others turned a deaf ear. On the other hand defendant No.3 learned that defendant No.1 and others were said to making efforts to dispose of the suit property in favour of 3 rd parties. Inview of the above information, defendant No.3 filed a suit in O.S. No.434/2018 and it is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural Dist.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues and additional Issues have been framed by me :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1076/2008 dated 30.09.2010 on the file of Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in respect of A schedule property is not binding on him?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves his possession and enjoyment of B schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are interfering with his possession and enjoyment of B schedule property?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 is trying to alienate and create encumbrance over A schedule property?14 O.S. No. 6497/2018
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle of the relief claimed in the suit?
6. What order or decree?
Addl. Issues framed on 14.2.2024:-
1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether this court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit?
3. Whether the suit is barred by Limitation?
4. Whether the suit is hit by by the principles of res-judicata?
5. Whether the plaintiff prove that he has got right, title and interest over the schedule B property?
6. To prove their case, the plaintiff has been examined as PW-1 and got marked 60 documents as Ex. P-1 to P-60. The defendant No.1 has been examined as DW-1 and the SPA holder of defendant No.3 has been examined as DW-2 and got marked 7 documents as Ex. D-1 to D-7.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiffs, and the arguments of learned counsel for defendants. The learned counsel for Defendant No.3 has filed written arguments and also filed Memo with list of citations:-
1) Regular second appeal No.1108/2013 (P. Bhavadasan J.
Puthiyapurayil Sireshan Vs.Mohanan.) 15 O.S. No. 6497/2018
2) Civil Suit No. WA-22NCVC-557-08/2019 ( Ra Ta Land SDN BHD Vs. Iskandar Hartha Holdings SDN BHD (ENCL 7)
3)(1973) 2 SCC 705 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Santa Singh)
4) Civil Appeal No.5919/2023( Shingara Singh Vs. Daljit Singh and another)
5)AIR 2008 SC 2033 (Anathulla Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi reddy)
6) (2010)2 SCC 114 (Dalip singh Vs. State of U.P.
7) (1994) 1 SCC 1(S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath)
8) Civil Appeal No. 7527-7528/2012 (Ghanshyam Vs. Yogendra Rathi)
9) (1997) 3 SCC 1( K.S. Vidyanadam Vs. Vairavan)
10) (2012)1 SCC 656 (Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Haryana. )
11) (1989) 4 SCC 131 ( Krishnaram Mahale Vs. Shobha Venkat Rao)
12) (2012) 5 SCC 370 ( Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria Fernandes)
13) Crl. Appeal No.1229/1973 (C. Chokkalingam Vs. V. Manikanasagam)
14) (2004) 1 SCC 769 ( Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu) 16 O.S. No. 6497/2018
8. My answer to the above issues are as under:
Issues No.1 : In the Affirmative, Issue No. 2 : In the Affirmative, Issue No. 3 : In the Affirmative, Issue No. 4 : In the Affirmative, Issue No. 5 : In the Affirmative, Addl.Issue No. 1 : In the Negative, Addl Issue No. 2 : In the Affirmative, Addl Issue No. 3 : In the Affirmative, Addl Issue No. 4 : In the Negative, Addl Issue No. 5 : In the Affirmative, Issue No. 6 : As per final order, for the following :-
REASONS
9. Issue No. 1 :- Suit schedule A property is Sy. No. 111 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas situated at Hongasandra village, Begur-2 Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and schedule B property is the site bearing No.74 measuring East to west 46+44/2 feet and North to south 39+40/2 feet formed in schedule A property.
10. The plaintiffs have contended that schedule A property was allotted to defendant No.1, Smt. Jayamma @ Jayarakini in a compromise decree passed in partition suit bearing No. O.S. 72/1983. Defendants No.1 and 2 formed layout in it. Defendant 17 O.S. No. 6497/2018 No.1 executed GPA in favour of defendant No.2 to sell the sites No. 60 to 64 and 68 to 88 formed in schedule A property. Defendant No.1 executed another GPA in favour of Gajendra and Anitha in respect of site No. 81 and 82. Defendant No.1 sold site No. 61 and 84 directly. The plaintiff has purchased site No. 74 i.e., schedule B property from defendant No.1.
11. In the written statement, defendant No.1 has contended that in O.S. No. 72/1983 she was allotted 1 acre 6 guntas of land ie., schedule A property and Innasi muthu was allotted 4 acres 6 guntas of land. Father of G.C. Rajappa Reddy filed a suit in O.S. No. 9280/1997 before the City Civil Court contending that he has purchased different extents of land in total 4 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 101 and became the owner of 4 acres 6 guntas in said survey number. In the said suit, father of G.C. Rajappa Reddy contended that compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 72/1983 is null and void, so far it relates to 4 acres 6 guntas of land which was allotted to Innasi muthu. In the said suit defendant No.1 herein was defendant No.3 and father of G.C. Rajappa Reddy has admitted the share of defendant No.1 in the said survey number and hence defendant No.1 has not contested the said suit. Said suit is pending for adjudication. Further it is contended that defendant No.1 had 18 O.S. No. 6497/2018 filed a suit in O.S. No. 1076/2008 for declaration and injunction in respect of schedule A property. In the said suit, G.C. Rajappa Reddy was defendant No.1. The City Civil Court passed a judgment and decree in O.S. No.1078/2008 on 30.9.2010 declaring that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner in possession of 1 acre 6 guntas of land i.e., schedule A property herein and also granted permanent injunction as prayed in the said suit. It is also pleaded that defendant No.1 and her family members have executed sale agreement dtd: 20.10.2014 in respect of schedule A property in favour of defendant No.3. Defendant No. 1 got canceled the said sale agreement by issuing legal notice dtd: 11.12.2017. The defendant No.1 executed one more register sale agreement in respect of schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of schedule A property. Prior to that defendant No.1 executed a notarized GPA dtd:
30.10.1999 in favour of defendant No.1, in respect of Sy. No. 101/1 and it was got canceled in the year 1999 itself.
12. Defendant No.3 has pleaded that Sy. No. 101 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas belonging to Smt. Sanjeevamma. She sold the same to Gabriel, who is the father-in-law of defendant No.1.
Gabriel executed a registered Will dtd; 7.1.1974 and in the said Will 1 acre 6 guntas of land given to Arokya swamy, who is the 19 O.S. No. 6497/2018 husband of defendant No.1. Thereafter, O.S. No. 72/1983 was filed and compromise decree passed on 16.2.1987. In the said compromise decree schedule A property allotted to the share of Arokya swamy the husband of defendant No.1 and now it is being represented by defendant No.1.
13. From the pleadings of parties, it is clear that schedule A property belonging to defendant No.1. She filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S. No. 1076/2008 and it was decreed in her favour.
14. It can also be made out that defendant No.1 executed registered sale agreement in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of schedule A property, but no sale deed has been executed on the basis of said sale agreement. Defendant No.3 has filed a suit in O.S. No. 434/2018 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural Dist and it is pending.
15. Ex. P-4 is the certified copy of the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 72/1983, it shows that in Sy. No. 101, 4 acres 6 guntas allotted to Innasi muthu, 1 acre 20 guntas each allotted to Chinnaswamy and Anthoniyamma and 1 acre 6 guntas allotted to defendant No.1 herein Smt. Jayamma @ Jayarakini. Ex. P-17 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dtd: 11.3.2002, it shows that defendant No.1 and her son 20 O.S. No. 6497/2018 Gunda Lawrence @ A. Lawrence represented by their GPA holder i.e., Smt. Anuradha R Reddy executed sale deed in respect of schedule B property i.e., site No. 74 in favour of Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy for valuable consideration of Rs. 1,78,000/-. EX. P-26 is the original registered rectification deed dtd:
10.7.2008 executed by defendant No.1 and her son Gunda Lawrence @ A. Lawrence represented by their GPA holder defendant No.2. Smt. Anuradha R Reddy in favour of Ganga Patnam Ravindra Reddy. In this rectification deed the boundaries to East and West stated in the sale deed dtd:
11.3.2002 executed by defendant No.1 and her son through their GPA holder in favour of Ganga Patnam Ravindra Reddy has been rectified as East by Private property, West by Road.
Ex. P-27 is the original registered GPA dtd: 7.9.2009 executed by Ganga Patnam Ravindra Reddy in favour of P. Narasimha Raju and K. Harish Babu in respect of schedule B property. Ex. P-18 is the certified copy of the registered rectification deed dtd:
1.2.2010 executed by Ganga Patnam Ravindra Reddy in favoour of Narasimha Raju and K. Harish Babu, wherein the northern boundary rectified as Private property and Southern boundary rectified as Site No. 73. Ex. P-18 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dtd: 15.2.2010 executed by Ganga Patnam 21 O.S. No. 6497/2018 Revindra Reddy represented by his GPA holder Narasimha Raju and K. Harish Babu in respect of schedule B property for a consideration of Rs. 20,72,080/-, EX. P-21 is the encumbrance certificate in respect of schedule B property, which depicts the rectification deed dtd: 10.7.2008 executed by defendant No.1 and her son represented by their GPA holder defendant No.2 in favour of Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy and another sale deed dtd: 16.2.2010 executed by Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy represented by his GPA holder P. Narasimha Raju and K. Harish Babu in favour of plaintiff. EX. P-30 is the house and site register extract of BBMP for the year 2010-11 in respect of schedule B property. It shows that said property entered into the name of plaintiff from the name of Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy. EX. P-31 is the certificate issued by BBMP stating that Katha of the schedule property stands in the name of plaintiff in BBMP records. Ex. P-32 is the Uttara Patra issued by BBMP dtd: 24.6.2010, it shows that on the basis of the sale deed , katha of the schedule B property transferred to the name of the plaintiff in BBMP records. Ex. P-33 , 34, 42, 43, 44 and 45 shows that Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy has paid taxes in respect of schedule B property. Ex. P-46 , 47, 48, and 49 shows that plaintiff has paid taxes in respect of schedule 22 O.S. No. 6497/2018 B property. Infact Ex. P-33 shows that Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy has paid betterment charges in respect of schedule B property on 27.9.2005. Ex. P-38 is the endorsement issued by Bommanahalli City Municipality in the name of Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy in respect schedule B property, that katha of schedule B property changed to his name. Ex. P-39 is the house if site register extract maintained by the BBMP for the year 2009-10, it shows that schedule B property stands in the name of Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy. EX. P-40 is the certificate issued by the BBMP dtd: 26.8.2009 stating that schedule B property is in the name of Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy in their records. Ex.P-35 is the sanctioned plan issued by BBMP for construction of building in schedule B property in the name of plaintiff. Ex. P-36 his the license issued by the BBMP for construction of house in schedule B property. It is dated 24.5.2012. Ex. P-53 and 54 are the documents in respect of Electricity sanction to the schedule B property in the name of plaintiff.
16. The above documents show that defendant No.1 and her son represented by their GPA holder i.e., defendant No.2 sold schedule B property in favour of Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy, thereafter Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy executed GPA 23 O.S. No. 6497/2018 in favour of Narasimha Raju and K. Harish Babu in respect of schedule B property. Subsequently, Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy represented by his above said GPA holders sold schedule B property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got changed katha of schedule B property to his name. Prier to that schedule B property was in the name of Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy. The plaintiff obtained license and sanctioned plan for the construction of building in schedule B property and obtained electricity connection to the same. Both Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy and subsequently the plaintiff has paid taxes in respect of schedule B property.
17. The plaintiff has not produced GPA executed by defendant No.1 and her son Lawrence in favour of defendant No.2. Smt. Anuradha R. Reddy. Though defendant No.1 has stated in her written statement that she has got canceled the GPA executed in favour of defendant No.2, the document under which GPA has been canceled not produced before the court. The above statement of defendant No.1 in the written statement shows that she admits the execution of GPA in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 died during the pendency of this suit. Her daughter i.e., LR Smt. Lily Pushpam brought on record in this suit. Though she has filed her chief examination 24 O.S. No. 6497/2018 in accordance with contentions taken by defendant No.1 in her written statement, she has not tendered herself for cross- examination. Therefore, the evidence of DW-1 without putting to the test of cross-examination cannot be considered for any purpose. Therefore, there is no evidence from defendant No.1 or her LR to prove the contentions of defendant No.1 taken in her written statement.
18. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and he has got marked certified copy of registered sale agreement dtd:
20.10.2014 executed by Smt. Jayamma @ Jayarakini in his favour along with her LRs and her son late Lawrence and along along with her daughter with her children have executed a registered sale agreement in favour of defendant No.3 R. Suchitra. It shows that defendant No.1.s son Lawrence is no more and he has got wife and 2 children. But the wife and children of late Lawrence are not made as parties to this suit.
Further in the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 and h er son represented by her GPA holder defendant No.2 in favour of Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy, the daughter of defendant No.1 Smt. Lilly pushapam has not joined. Further at the time of filing the suit both Lawrence and Lily pushpam were not made as parties. The document shows that 1 acre 6 guntas came to 25 O.S. No. 6497/2018 Arokya swamy the husband of defendant No.1. Therefore on the death of Arokya swamy intestate, the properties came to defendant No.1 and her 2 children i.e., Lawrence and Lily pushpam. Therefore defendant No.1 along with her both children ought have made parties to this suit. But they have not made as parties to this suit. As already stated in the sale deed executed in favour of Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy, Lilly pushpam has not joined and in the present suit both Lawrence and Lily pushpam has not made as parties. After the death of defendant No.1, Lilly pushpam brought on record as legal representative of deceased defendant No.1. But he LRs of late Lawrence are not brought on record.
19. Defendant No.2 is exparte. The Spl. P.A. holder of defendant No.3 has been examined as DW-2. There is nothing in the evidence of DW-2 to dispute the execution of the sale deed by the the GPA holder of defendant No.1 and her son in favour of the plaintiff in respect of schedule B property. The defendant No.4 neither filed the written statement nor led his evidence.
20. Considering the evidence available on record, it can be clearly made out that defendant No. 1 and her son executed GPA in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 as the GPA holder of defendant No.1 and her son has executed registered 26 O.S. No. 6497/2018 sale deed in respect of schedule B property in favour of the Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy. Subsequently, Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy through his GPA holders, sold schedule B property in favour of the plaintiff.
21. The decree passed in O.S. No. 1076/2008 is in respect of entire schedule A property. Admittedly schedule B property is a site formed in schedule A property. Subsequent to the execution of sale deed by the GPA holder of defendant No.1 and her son in favour of Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy, a decree in O.S. No. 1076/2008 has been passed by declaring that defendant No.1 is the owner of entire schedule A property. There is nothing to disbelieve the execution of sale deed by defendant No.2 as GPA holder of defendant No.1 and her son in respect of schedule B property in favour of the Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy. DW-1 though filed her chief examination in terms of the written statement filed by deceased defendant No.1, she has not tendered herself for cross-examination. Therefore, there is no evidence on behalf of defendant No.1 or on behalf of LR of defendant No.1. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove the contentions taken by deceased defendant No.1 in her evidence. Under such circumstances, when already a sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff in respect of schedule B property, 27 O.S. No. 6497/2018 the subsequent decree passed in O.S. No. 1076/2008 in favour of defendant No.1 will not bind on the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 1 in the Affirmative.
22. Issue No. 2 :- The plaintiff has been examined as PW-
1. He has stated that he has purchased the suit schedule B property through a registered sale deed dtd: 15.2.2010 and since from the date of purchase they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. In his cross-examination, plaintiff has stated that he has put up a residential building in the schedule B property. There is nothing in the cross- examination of PW-1 to dispute the possession of the plaintiff over schedule B property. DW-1 has stated that plaintiff has no right over the schedule property and her mother was in possession of schedule A property, which includes schedule B property. However DW-1 was not tendered for cross- examination. Therefore her evidence cannot be considered for any purpose.
23. DW-2 is the GPA holder of defendant No.3. There is nothing in the evidence of DW-2 to dispute the possession of plaintiffs over the schedule B property. As already stated the documents proved that the plaintiff has purchased the schedule property under the sale deed dtd: 15.2.2010. It has been stated 28 O.S. No. 6497/2018 that possession has been delivered to the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs have proved that they are in possession of the schedule B property. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 2 in the Affirmative.
24. Issue No. 3 :- PW-1 has stated that defendants are interfering with their possession of the suit property. There is nothing in the cross-examination of Pw-1 to discredit such evidence of PW-1. Even in the evidence of DW-2 there is nothing to disbelieve the contention of plaintiff that defendants are interfering with their possession over the suit property. Under such circumstances, it is to be accepted that plaintiffs have proved that defendants interfered with their possession of the schedule B property. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 3 in the Affirmative.
25. Issue No. 4 :- The plaintiffs have stated that defendant No.1 herself has stated that she has executed a sale agreement in favour of defendant No.3 and thereafter canceled it. Further, she has stated that she has executed a sale agreement in favour of defendant No.4. DW-1 who is the LR of defendant No.1 has not tendered herself for cross-examination. DW-2 the power of attorney holder of defendant No.3, also stated that defendant No.1 has executed sale agreement in favour of defendant No.3. 29 O.S. No. 6497/2018 Defendant No.4 has not appeared before the court to dispute the contention that defendant No.1 executed sale agreement in his favour. When defendant No.1 has contended that she has executed sale agreements in favour of defendants No.3 and 4, the contention of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is trying to alienate or encumber the suit schedule properties cannot be disbelieved. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 5 in the Affirmative.
26. Addl. Issue No. 1 :- It is true that the wife and children of late Lawrence not made as parties to this suit nor they are brought on record as his LRs of defendant No.1. However, said Lawrence himself has executed GPA along with defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. On the basis of said GPA, defendant No.2 has executed registered sale deed in favour of Ganga Patnam Ravindra Reddy and thereafter the said Ganga Patnam Ravindra Reddy has sold the schedule B property through his GPA holders in favour of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, said Lawrence or his LRs are not necessary parties to this suit. As far as the daughter of defendant No.1 Smt. Lily Pushpam is concerned, though she has not been made as a party to the suit, she has been brought on record as LR of defendant No.1. Under such circumstances, 30 O.S. No. 6497/2018 the suit cannot be said as bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, I answer Addl. Issue No. 1 in the Negative.
27. Addl. Issue No. 2 :- The suit schedule B property is situated in Sy. No. 101/1 of Hongasandra village, Begur hobli, Bengaluru South taluk. Hence, it comes within the local jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, this court has got territorial jurisdiction to try this suit. Accordingly, I answer Addl. Issue No. 2 in the Affirmative.
28. Addl. Issue No. 3 :- The plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 1076/2008 is not binding on them. The plaintiffs are not parties to the said suit. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they came to know about the suit in O.S. No. 1076/2008 when defendant No.1 along with defendants No.3 and 4 tried to interfere with their possession of schedule B property on 12.7.2018. There is no cross- examination regarding the same. Therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve that plaintiffs came to know about the decree in O.S. NO. 1076/2008 after 12.7.2018. The present suit has been filed on 4.9.2018. Therefore the suit has been filed within 3 years from the date of knowledge. Hence the suit is in time. Accordingly, I answer Addl. Issue No. 3 in the Affirmative. 31 O.S. No. 6497/2018
29. Addl. Issue No. 4 :- It is contended that the suit is hit by the principles of Res-judicata. In the previous suit i.e., O.S.No. 1076/2008 the plaintiff is not parties. The vendor of plaintiff has purchased the property before filing of the said suit i.e., on 11.3.2002. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit is hit by principles of Res-judicata. Accordingly, I answer Addl. Issue No. 4 in the Negative.
30. Addl. Issue No. 5 :- The plaintiff has proved that defendant No.1 and her son has executed GPA in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 as the GPA holder of defendant No.1 and her son executed sale deed in favour of the Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy, said Ganga Patnam Revindra Reddy has executed GPA in favour of Narasimha Raju and K. Harish Babu to deal with the said property, the said GPA holders executed registered sale deed in favour of present plaintiff. There is no evidence to disbelieve the same. Under such circumstances, it can be clearly made out that plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the schedule B property. Accordingly, I answer Addl. Issue No. 5 in the Affirmative.
31. Issue No. 5 :- The defendants have argued that the title of the plaintiff is in dispute and therefore the suit filed for the relief of bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking 32 O.S. No. 6497/2018 the relief of declaration of title. In support of their contention, they have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SCC 2033 (Anathulla Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi reddy), wherein it is held that when there is cloud over the plaintiff's title, in a suit, declaration of title with consequential relief is the remedy.
32. It is true that in this suit the defendants No.1 is disputing the title of plaintiff. However the documents clearly show that plaintiff has got title over the schedule B property. Further defendant No.1 though filed written statement, they have not led their evidence. Under such circumstances, merely on the ground that defence is taken disputing the title of the plaintiffs, it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to seek the relief of declaration of title. Therefore under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable.
33. The defendant No.3 has also relied on the following decisions:-
1) Regular second appeal No.1108/2013 (P. Bhavadasan J.
Puthiyapurayil Sireshan Vs.Mohanan.)
2) Civil Suit No. WA-22NCVC-557-08/2019 ( Ra Ta Land SDN BHD Vs. Iskandar Hartha Holdings SDN BHD (ENCL 7)
3)(1973) 2 SCC 705 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Santa Singh) 33 O.S. No. 6497/2018
4) Civil Appeal No.5919/2023( Shingara Singh Vs. Daljit Singh and another)
5)AIR 2008 SC 2033 (Anathulla Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi reddy)
6) (2010)2 SCC 114 (Dalip singh Vs. State of U.P.)
7) (1994) 1 SCC 1(S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath)
8) Civil Appeal No. 7527-7528/2012 (Ghanshyam Vs. Yogendra Rathi)
9) (1997) 3 SCC 1( K.S. Vidyanadam Vs. Vairavan)
10) (2012)1 SCC 656 (Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Haryana. )
11) (1989) 4 SCC 131 ( Krishnaram Mahale Vs. Shobha Venkat Rao)
12) (2012) 5 SCC 370 ( Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria Fernandes)
13) Crl. Appeal No.1229/1973 (C. Chokkalingam Vs. V. Manikanasagam)
14) (2004) 1 SCC 769 ( Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu) But these decisions are not aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
Inview of the above discussions, the plaintiffs is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 5 in the Affirmative.
34 O.S. No. 6497/2018
34. Issue No. 6: In view of above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
It is hereby declared that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1076/2008 dtd:
30.9.2010 is not binding on the right of the plaintiff over the schedule 'B' property.
The defendants or any one claiming through them are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over schedule 'B' property.
The defendants or any one claiming through them are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from alienating or encumbering the schedule 'B' property.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer grade-I, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 29 th day of March 2025) (YASHAWANTH KUMAR ) C/C. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38), BENGALURU 'A' SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 101, measuring 1-6-0 situated at Hongasandra village, Begur-2 Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk:
35 O.S. No. 6497/2018
East by : Land belonging to Pilla Reddy, West by: Land belonging to Thimma Reddy, North by: Land belonging to G.C. Rajappa Reddy, South by: Land belonging to Chinnaswamy Gabrial.
''B' SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing no. 74, property No. 120/4, Katha no. 101/1, situated at Hongasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, measuring East to west: (46+44)/2 feet, North to South: (39+40)/2 feet in all measuring 1,777.50 Sq. ft presently coming under the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore, vide BBMP No. 828/794/134/1/ 120/10/ 4/1/74, together with all the rights, appurtenances whatsoever underneath or above surface and bounded on the :
East by : Private property, West by: Road, North by: Private property, South by: Site bearing No. 73, ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW1 - A. Arunprasad, Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P-1 Certified copy of the plaint in
O.S.No.72/1983
Ex.P-2 Certified copy of the compromise
36 O.S. No. 6497/2018
petition in O.S.No.72/1983
Ex.P-3 Certified copy of the order sheet in
O.S.No.72/1983
Ex.P-4 Certified copy of the decree in
O.S.No.72/1983
Ex.P-5 MR Extract
Ex.P-6 to 10 RTC extracts of Sy.No.101/1
Ex.P-11 Photograph of the schedule
property (Marked subject to
production of U/s 65(B) certificate )
Ex.P-12 Certified copy of the registered sale
agreement dated 11.12.2017
Ex.P-13 Certified copy of the sale deed
dated 16.11.2005
Ex.P-14 Certified copy of the sale deed
dated 25.10.1999
Ex.P.-15 Certified copy of the sale deed
dated 16.04.2003
Ex.P.-16 Certified copy of GPA dated
29.10.1999
Ex.P.-17 Certified copy of the sale deed
dated 11.03.2002
Ex.P.-18 Certified copy of the sale deed
dated 15.02.210
Ex.P.-19 Bank letter dated 08.08.2018
Ex.P-20 and Encumbrance Certificates
Ex.P-21
Ex.P.-22 Certified copy of the amended
plaint in OS.No.9280/1997.
Ex.P.-23 Certified copy of the Judgment in
O.S.1076/2008
Ex.P.-24 Certified copy of the decree in
O.S.1076/2008
Ex.P-25 Certified copy of the register sale
agreement dated 20.10.2014
37 O.S. No. 6497/2018
Ex.P-26 Original registered rectification
deed dtd:10.7.2008
Ex.P-27 Original registered GPA dtd:
7.9.2009
Ex.P-28 Original registered rectification
deed dtd: 1.2.2010
Ex.P-29 Original registered GPA dtd:
20.1.2010
Ex.P-30 House & site register extract
Ex.P-31 Katha certificate
Ex.P-32 Uttarapatra.
Ex.P-33 &
34 Tax paid receipts
Ex.P-35 Sanctioned plan
Ex.P-36 Building license
Ex.P-37 Fee receipt
Ex.P-38 Endorsement dtd:29.9.2005 of
Bommanahalli CMC
Ex.P-39 House & site register extract
Ex.P-40 Katha certificate
Ex.P-41 Tax paid challans.
to 44
Ex.P-45 & Property tax receipts.
46
Ex.P-47 Tax paid receipt
Ex.P-48 & Property tax receipts
49
Ex.P-50 to Encumbrance certificates
52
Ex.P-53 Sanction letter from BESCOM
Ex.P-54 BESCOM Deposit receipt
38 O.S. No. 6497/2018
Ex.P-55 & Electricity Bills ( plaintiff is directed
56 to produce certified copy of Ex.
P-55 & P-56 as carbon print in Ex.
P-55 & P-56 are erasable)
Ex.P-57 & Two photographs
58
Ex.P-59 CD in respect of those photos.
Ex.P-60 Sec. 65-B certificate in respect of
those photos.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s: DW-1 Lily Pushpam DW-2 N. Muralidhara Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s: Ex.D-1 Spl. PA executed by defendant No.3.
Ex.D-2 Office copy of legal notice dated 11.12.2017
issued to defendant No.3
Ex.D-3 C/c of the Reply notice issued by defe
No.3 dated 13.12.2017
Ex.D-4 Certified copy of the Judgment in
O.S.1076/2008 dtd: 30.9.2010
Ex.D-5 Certified copy of the decree in O.S.1076/2008
Ex.D-6 C/c of the application filed by defendant No.3
for temporary injunction in O.S. No.
434/2018.
Ex.D-7 C/c of the registered sale agreement dtd:
20.10.2014.
C/C. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
(CCH-38), BENGALURU.
39 O.S. No. 6497/2018
Judgment pronounced in open court
vide separate Judgment
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
It is hereby declared that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1076/2008 dtd: 30.9.2010 is not binding on the right of the plaintiff over the schedule 'B' property.
The defendants or any one claiming through them are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over schedule 'B' property. The defendants or any one claiming through them are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from alienating or encumbering the schedule 'B' property.
Draw decree accordingly.
C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
40 O.S. No. 6497/2018Addl. Issue framed on 29.3.2024:-
5. Whether the plaintiff prove that he has got right, title and interest over the schedule B property?
C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.