Bangalore District Court
Devi vs Chander on 7 January, 2026
KABC010145922017
IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, (CCH-03).
Dated this the 7th day of January 2026
PRESENT :
Sri. SOMASHEKARA A., B.A.L., LL.M.,
XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S. No.4024/2017
PLAINTIFF: 1 Smt.Devi
W/o Late Linga Murthy
Aged about 49 years
2 Asha Shri
D/o Late Linga Murthy
Aged about 21 years
Both are R/at No.22, 'E' No. 11th Street,
Broadway road cross,
Shivajinagar,
Bengaluru
(By Sri.A.A. advocate)
Judge Sign
2 O.S.No.4024/2017
Judgment
V/s
DEFENDANT: 1. Sri.Chander
S/o Late Govindraj
Aged about 68 years
2 Smt.Lakshmi Bai
D/o Late Govind Raj
Aged about 66 years
3 Sri.Ravi Shankar
S/o Late Rama Murthy
Aged about 37 years
Sl. No. 1 and 2 are R/at No.21,
E. No. 11th Street,
Broadway road cross,
Shivajinagar,
Bengaluru
4 Sri.Babu G
S/o Late N.Ganesh
Aged about 48 years
5 Smt.Lakshmi P
W/o Babu G
Sl. No.3 and 4 are R/at No.670,
B-Type Quarters,
New Housing Colony,
Indian Institute of Science
Bengaluru
(defendant No.1 is deleted
defendants No.2 placed exparte
Sri.S.A.S. Advocate for defendant No.3
Sri.J.G. Advocate for defendants No.4
Sri.G.S. Advocate for defendant No.5)
Judge Sign
Judge Sign
3 O.S.No.4024/2017
Judgment
Date of institution of the suit : 16.06.2017
Nature of the suit : Suit for declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of :
recording of the evidence 15.12.2022
Date on which the Judgment :
was pronounced. 07.01.2026
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
08 06 21
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 28.07.2006 and the rectification deed dated 04.04.2007 executed by the defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiff also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, henchmen from alienating the suit schedule property by way of sale or dealing with in any manner.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 4 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of immovable property portion of bearing No.21 and 22, situated in E No. 11 th street, Broadway road cross, Bengaluru situated in 59th Division and bounded on:-
East by : E. No. 11th street
West by : Remaining property of co-owners
North by : Muneshwara Temple
South by : property of Smt.Saraswathi
Measuring East to west 12 ½ feet and North to South 16.8 feet.
2. The brief facts of plaintiff's case is that:-
It is averred in the plaint that the Plaintiffs are in peaceful possession & enjoyment of front portion of C-Portion in Immovable Property bearing No.21 & 22, Old No.12/B and 12/C, situated in E No. 11th Street, Broadway Road Cross, Shivajinagar, Bangalore, Ward No.78, measuring to the extent of 16 x 12% feet. The Suit Schedule Property was acquired by Judge Sign Judge Sign 5 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment Father-in-Law of Plaintiff No.1 and Grand father of Plaintiff No.2, by name Sri. M.V. Govindraj by virtue of Partition Deed dated 10/10/1983 measuring East to West 50 ¾ ft and North to South 16.8 ft. The Original Partition Deed is in the custody of the Co-
Owners Defendants No.1 & 2. Sri. M.V. Govindraj died intestate leaving behind his children as legal heirs to succeed to his estates.
GENEALOGICAL TREE
M.V. GOVIND RAJ
CHANDER LAKSHMI BAI LINGA MURTHY GOWRI (Died)
(Died) (Husband of Plaintiff No.1)
RAVI SHANKAR
(Son)
3. After the demise of M.V.Govindraj, his children were devolved with their respective shares in composite Suit Schedule Property and the Plaintiff No.1's husband got the share in front- portion of C-portion measuring to an extent of 16.8 ft x 12 ½ ft.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 6 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment The husband of Plaintiff No.1's Sri. Linga Murthy died on 16/03/05, leaving behind the Plaintiffs to succeed to his portion of share in respect of Suit Schedule Property. Such being the facts the defendants who have no right, title or interest in respect of the Plaintiff's share in the Suit Schedule Property have executed Sale Deed dated 28.07.2006 along with Rectification deed dated 04.04.2007 without their knowledge or consent. The Original Sale Deed & Rectification Deed are in the custody of Defendants No.3 & 4. The Sale Deed & Rectification Deed executed by the defendants is not binding on the Plaintiffs and the same is void. The Plaintiff No.1 is a widow and poor lady and the she is unemployed and they are facing difficulties and financial problems and the defendants after taking advantage of the Plaintiff's condition have deliberately executed the Sale Deed & Rectification Deed which is illegal. The Defendant No.1 herein had filed Eviction Petition in H.R.C.No. 10026/2008, on the file of Small Causes Judge SCCH-11, at Bangalore against one Judge Sign Judge Sign 7 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment Bhavani who was tenant in portion of the Suit Schedule Property, under false pretext stating that she is the owner, but actually the said Bhavani is the tenant under the Plaintiff No.1 and the tenancy is continued by her L.R.s since her demise in respect of Suit Schedule Property. The said H.R.C. Petition is dismissed on 04.07.2009. The defendants executed Rectification Deed without the knowledge and consent and the same is subsisting and within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Further the defendants are trying to alienate the Suit Schedule Property and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. Hence, this suit.
4. Upon service of notice to the defendants, defendant No.1 did not appeared before the court, hence the defendant No.1 is deleted. The defendants No.2 remained absent and placed exparte. The defendants No.3 to 5 have appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written statement.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 8 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment The defendant No.3 filed his written statement contending that he is the LR's of Late Gowri, who is a daughter of Late Govind Raj, Grandfather of this Defendant No 3 & father-in-law of Plaintiff No.1, Plaintiff No.2 is Grand Daughter of Late Govind Raj. He admitted the averment made in Para No.3, 4 & 5 of the plaint and has no claim over the same. He is expressly admitted the averments mentioned in Para No.6 is true the Plaintiff's shall take the share of herdemise husband namely Linga Murthy share absolutely share in the composite suit schedule property got the share in front portion of 'C' Portion measuring to an extent of 16.8 ft x 12.5 ft totally measuring 210 Sq.ft. The defendant No.3 further contended that he had no objection for Separate 'C' Portion in the schedule property. Plaintiff is in actual possession of the suit schedule property before death of their late husband Sri. Linga Murthy. As per the Amendment of plaint Defendant No. 1 to 3 has sold their respective share to purchaser No 4 & 5 The suit schedule property exclusively the shares of Plaintiff No 1 & 2 Judge Sign Judge Sign 9 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment does not include the share of the original Sale Deed and Rectification Deed in respective share of the Defendant No 1 to
3. The Plaintiffs are legally entitle to 210 Sq.ft. the Defendant No.4 & 5 have got Sale Deed dt: 28-07-2006, they have taken more extent of land in the Sale Deed which is not correct. The Plaintiffs are entitle to 16.8 feet x 12.5 feet = total 210 Sq ft. the Defendant No. 4 & 5 have also purchased the adjacent property belonging to Saraswati.
5. The defendants No.4 and 5 have filed their separate written statement contending that they admitted the averments mentioned in the para 3 and 4 of the plaint. They further contended that After the death of Govindaraj the suit schedule property fallen to the share of defendant no. 1 to 3 and accordingly they have sold the same to these defendants on 28.07.2006 and thereafter they have filed eviction petition against the tenant who was in occupation of the same and got the Judge Sign Judge Sign 10 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment possession through the court and thereafter she has demolished the building and planning to put up new construction thereon. However, the plaintiffs are in possession of their possession of the property and they have no claim over the same and the plaintiffs shall be put to strict proof of the same. they denied the other contents of plaint. Further the defendant no.1 to 3 become the owner of the same sold it to these defendants under the registered sale deed dated 28.07.2006 and thereafter they continued to be in possession and enjoyment of same as its absolute owner of the same and the plaintiffs cannot have any claim over the same in any manner. Amongst other grounds, the defendants prays to dismiss the suit.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, my learned Predecessor-in-office was pleased to frame the following Issues:-
Judge Sign Judge Sign 11 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 28.07.2006 nd the rectification deed dated 04.04.2007 executed by the defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendants No.4 and 4 is null and void and binding the plaintiffs?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
3) What order or decree?
7. In order to prove the said issues absolutely the burden was placed upon the plaintiff and in order to substantiate the above said issues, the plaintiff No.1 herself examined as P.W.1 and plaintiff No.2 examined as P.W.2 and got marked 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and closed their side. On the other hand, the defendant No.5 is examined herself as D.W.1 and defendant No.3 examined as D.W.2 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.D.1 to 9.
8 Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for plaintiff and materials perused by oral and documentary evidence on record.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 12 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment
9. My findings to the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. ISSUE No.1: The burden of proving this issue squarely lies upon the plaintiffs. In order to discharge the same, plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and plaintiff No.2 as PW-2 and relied upon documentary evidence marked as Exs.P-1 to P-14. On the other hand, defendant No.5 examined herself as DW-1 and defendant No.3 as DW-2 and relied upon Exs.D-1 to D-9.
11. PW-1, being the plaintiff herself, is admittedly an interested witness. However, it is well settled that evidence of an interested witness cannot be discarded merely on that ground and has to be tested on the touchstone of consistency, probability, and corroboration. In her examination-in-chief, PW-1 has reiterated the pleadings regarding the Judge Sign Judge Sign 13 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment origin of title under the Partition Deed dated 10.10.1983 (Ex.P-3), the devolution of share upon her husband late Linga Murthy, and her succession along with plaintiff No.2 after his demise. She has relied upon Exs.P-1 and P-2 (impugned sale deed and rectification deed), genealogical and personal documents, death certificates, revenue receipts and BBMP records to substantiate her claim of possession and entitlement.
12. The documentary evidence produced by PW-1 collectively establishes the genealogy, succession, and assertion of a defined share measuring 16.8 ft × 12½ ft (210 sq.ft.). Her oral testimony remains substantially consistent with the pleadings and is corroborated by contemporaneous documents.
13. In cross-examination by defendants No.4 and 5, PW-1 has admitted that an earlier suit in O.S.No.25305/2012 came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. However, such admission does not extinguish her substantive rights, particularly when the present suit is founded on Judge Sign Judge Sign 14 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment declaration and protection of her share. She has also admitted the existence of an earlier partition and allotment of 'C' schedule property, which in fact reinforces the plaintiffs' case of defined shares and settled possession.
14. Minor inconsistencies relating to measurements and her inability to read Kannada do not strike at the root of her claim. On the contrary, they appear natural and attributable to lapse of time and lack of technical knowledge. Her evidence, on the whole, inspires confidence insofar as it relates to non-alienation of her share and continuance of possession.
15. PW-2, the daughter of plaintiff No.1, though an interested witness, has deposed in a manner consistent with PW-1. In her chief- examination, she has reiterated the family arrangement, possession of respective portions, and lack of knowledge of the sale transactions at the relevant time. Her identity documents (Exs.P-13 and P-14) establish her locus.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 15 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment
16. During cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted the existence of family partition and allotment of portions as shown in Ex.D-2. These admissions do not advance the defence case; rather, they corroborate the plaintiffs' contention regarding defined possession of family members. Her consistent denial of any attempt to encroach upon excess land or pathway appears probable and natural. No material contradiction sufficient to discredit her testimony is elicited. Her evidence, therefore, supports the plaintiffs' case on possession and entitlement.
17. On the defence side, DW-1, examined on behalf of defendants No.4 and 5, is an admittedly interested witness. She has relied upon E-Khata, tax paid receipts and judgments in HRC proceedings (Exs.D-4 to D-9). These documents, at best, indicate municipal entries and collateral proceedings, but do not conclusively establish title, particularly when the root of title and extent conveyed are in dispute.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 16 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment
18. In cross-examination, DW-1 has failed to satisfactorily explain how her vendors were entitled to convey an extent larger than their admitted share. Her answers regarding measurements, common passage and property identity are inconsistent and evasive. She has admitted that the eviction proceedings relied upon do not pertain to the plaintiffs' property and that the plaintiffs were not parties thereto. Revenue records and E-Khata, being fiscal in nature, cannot override disputes relating to title. Consequently, the evidence of DW-1 does not inspire confidence.
19. DW-2, who is defendant No.3 and one of the vendors under Ex.D-1, occupies a crucial position. He has categorically admitted his signatures on the sale deed and rectification deed. Being a signatory and beneficiary of the transaction, he is an interested witness. In cross- examination, he has made material admissions regarding the family relationship, execution of Exs.D-1 and D-2, and preparation of his affidavit by an advocate. Significantly, though he has stated that the Judge Sign Judge Sign 17 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment documents are "not correct", he admits that he has never challenged them before any competent forum.
20. These admissions severely undermine the defence version. DW-2 has not produced any independent document to show that he or other vendors had authority to convey the plaintiffs' share. His testimony, being unsupported by corroboration and weakened by his own admissions, is of little probative value.
21. Having appreciated the oral evidence of PW-1, PW-2, DW-1 and DW-2, this Court now proceeds to examine the documentary evidence relied upon by both parties in support of their respective claims.
22. Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 28.07.2006 and Ex.P-2 is the Rectification Deed dated 04.04.2007. These documents are produced by the plaintiffs not to assert any right thereunder, but to contend that the same are not binding on their share in the suit schedule property. Being certified copies of registered Judge Sign Judge Sign 18 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment documents, they are admissible under Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act.
23. A perusal of Exs.P-1 and P-2 shows that defendants No.1 to 3 purported to convey the suit property in its entirety in favour of defendants No.4 and 5. However, it is well settled that mere execution of a registered sale deed does not confer valid title beyond the vendor's own share. A co-owner cannot convey better title than what he himself possesses (nemo dat quod non habet).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed, (1980) 4 SCC 396, has held that a transfer by a co-owner does not bind other co-owners to the extent of their shares. Applying the said principle, Exs.P-1 and P-2, though valid inter se between the vendors and vendees, cannot bind the plaintiffs' defined share.
24. Ex.P-3 is the certified copy of the Partition Deed dated 10.10.1983. This document forms the foundation of title and evidences Judge Sign Judge Sign 19 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment the partition under which late M.V. Govindraj acquired rights over the composite property. The existence and genuineness of this partition deed are not in dispute. Both DW-1 and DW-2 have admitted the earlier partition arrangements flowing from Ex.P-3.
25. Being a registered partition deed, Ex.P-3 conclusively establishes division of status and separate enjoyment. The Karnataka High Court in Thimmaiah v. Ningamma, ILR 2013 KAR 4702 , has held that a registered partition deed is a strong piece of evidence to prove separation and allotment of shares.
26. Exs.P-4 and P-7 are Voter Identity Cards, Ex.P-6 is the Marriage Invitation Card, Exs.P-5 and P-11 are Death Certificates, and Ex.P-12 is the Panchayat Certificate. Though these documents are not documents of title, they are relevant to establish genealogy, relationship, and succession. They corroborate the plaintiffs' assertion that plaintiff No.1 is the widow of late Linga Murthy and plaintiff No.2 is his daughter.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 20 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Yogendra v. Leelamma N., (2009) 15 SCC 184, has held that genealogical and personal documents, when read conjointly, are relevant in determining succession and locus. Accordingly, Exs.P-4 to P-7, P-11 and P-12 lend corroborative support to the plaintiffs' case.
27. Exs.P-8 and P-9 are revenue/tax paid receipts and Ex.P-10 is the BBMP re-assessment order. These documents indicate possession and enjoyment of the property. It is settled law that revenue records do not confer title, but they are relevant for the limited purpose of showing possession.
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and Ors (1996) 6 SCC 223, held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 21 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment
29. This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh & Ors vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs and Ors (1997) 7 SCC 137, wherein this Court held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land.
30. In Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, this Court after considering a catena of judgments, reiterated the principle of law as follows:
"6. ***mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose."
Accordingly, Exs.P-8 to P-10 support the plaintiffs' plea of settled possession over their portion of the suit schedule property.
31. Ex.D-1 is the Sale Deed dated 28.07.2006 and Ex.D-2 is the Rectification Deed dated 04.04.2007, which constitute the backbone of the defence case. However, DW-2, one of the executants of these documents, has admitted in cross-examination that the documents are Judge Sign Judge Sign 22 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment "not correct" and that he has not challenged them before any competent court. He has also admitted that the plaintiffs' share was not intended to be conveyed.
32. Such admissions by a vendor significantly weaken the evidentiary value of Exs.D-1 and D-2 insofar as they are sought to be enforced against non-consenting co-sharers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranganayakamma v. K.S. Prakash, (2008) 15 SCC 673 , has held that a sale by some co-owners without the consent of others does not bind the non-consenting co-owners.
33. Ex.D-4 is the E-Khata Certificate, Ex.D-5 is the Encumbrance Certificate, and Ex.D-6 comprises tax paid receipts. These documents are relied upon by the defendants to assert ownership and possession. However, DW-1 has admitted that objections were raised by the plaintiffs and that E-Khata was obtained during the pendency of the dispute.
34. It is trite law that municipal and revenue records are maintained for fiscal purposes and do not determine title. The Khata Judge Sign Judge Sign 23 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment entries do not confer or extinguish title. Therefore, Exs.D-4 to D-6 do not advance the defence case on the issue of title.
35. Exs.D-7 to D-9 are certified copies of judgments and decrees in HRC Nos.10026/2008 to 10028/2008. These proceedings relate to eviction of tenants. It is admitted that the plaintiffs were not parties to the said proceedings. Eviction proceedings are summary in nature and do not adjudicate title disputes between co-owners.
36. On a comparative assessment of the documentary evidence, it is clear that the plaintiffs' documents establish the root of title, succession, defined share, and possession, whereas the defendants' documents, at best, indicate payment of taxes and collateral proceedings without establishing lawful conveyance of the plaintiffs' share.
37. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that Exs.P-1 to P- 14 credibly support the plaintiffs' case, whereas Exs.D-1 to D-9 fail to establish a lawful and binding conveyance of the plaintiffs' share. From the cumulative appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, it is Judge Sign Judge Sign 24 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment evident that defendants No.1 to 3 could not have conveyed any right over the plaintiffs' defined share. A co-owner cannot convey a better title than what he possesses. Therefore, the sale deed dated 28.07.2006 and rectification deed dated 04.04.2007, insofar as they purport to affect the plaintiffs' share, are not binding on the plaintiffs. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
38. ISSUE No.2: In view of the categorical and well-reasoned findings recorded under Issue No.1, the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the reliefs sought flows as a necessary and unavoidable legal consequence. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the suit schedule property is ancestral/joint family property, in which the plaintiffs have acquired vested and defined shares by birth/succession, and such right cannot be divested except by a legally valid partition or transfer with consent of all co-sharers.
39. It is now a settled principle of Hindu law that a co-parcener or co-owner cannot convey a better title than what he himself possesses.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 25 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment Any alienation made in excess of his share, or without consent or legal necessity, is voidable at the instance of non-consenting co-owners. In the present case, the defendants have miserably failed to establish: Legal necessity, Benefit of estate, or Consent of the plaintiffs, which are the mandatory prerequisites to sustain such alienation. Mere execution and registration of sale deeds do not cure the substantive illegality inherent in the transaction. Registration is only a formal requirement and does not confer legitimacy upon an otherwise void or voidable transaction.
40. Further, the plea of bona fide purchaser for value without notice, even if raised, stands completely demolished by the evidence on record. The purchasers were either aware of the plaintiffs' rights or had constructive notice, as the property was admittedly joint, and the plaintiffs were in settled possession and enjoyment. A purchaser dealing with joint family property is bound to make reasonable enquiries, and failure to do so disentitles him from claiming bona fides. The plaintiffs have also successfully proved their lawful possession, which is sufficient to seek protection under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. It is trite law that Judge Sign Judge Sign 26 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment even a co-owner in possession is entitled to injunction against interference by a stranger or a transferee claiming under an invalid sale. In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that where title and possession are established, injunction necessarily follows to prevent unlawful interference.
41. The conduct of the defendants further warrants an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, as they have withheld material evidence and failed to explain the circumstances under which the sale deeds were executed, despite specific challenge by the plaintiffs. Courts cannot permit fraudulent or collusive alienations to defeat lawful succession.
42. The evidence also discloses a clear and reasonable apprehension of further alienation and interference, which, if not restrained, would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and irreparable injury to the plaintiffs. Equity, justice, and good conscience demand that such Judge Sign Judge Sign 27 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment acts be injuncted. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the impugned sale deeds are not binding on their lawful shares, and are further entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession or from alienating the suit schedule property in any manner prejudicial to the plaintiffs' rights. Accordingly, In answer Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
43. ISSUE No.3: In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
It is hereby declared that the Sale Deed dated 28.07.2006 and Rectification Deed dated 04.04.2007 executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 are not binding on the plaintiffs, insofar as the suit schedule property measuring 16.8 ft × 12½ ft (210 sq.ft.) is concerned.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 28 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment Defendants, their agents or any person claiming through them are permanently restrained from alienating or interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession.
[Dictated to the Stenographer through online, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 7th day of January, 2026].
(Somashekara A.) XV Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 29 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff:
PW.1 Smt.Devi
P.W.2 Asha Shri
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant:
DW.1 Nagesh T.N.
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed dated 28.07.2006 Ex.P.2 Rectification deed dated 04.04.2007 Ex.P.3 Certified copy of partition deed dated 10.10.1983 Ex.P.4 Election ID card of Govindaraju Ex.P.5 Death certificate of Govindaraju Ex.P.6 Marriage invitation card Ex.P.7 Election ID card of Lingamurthy Ex.P.8 Tax paid receipt dated 09.12.1999 Ex.P.9 Tax paid receipt dated 12.01.2000 Ex.P.10 General revision of property tax dated 4.09.2000 Ex.P.11 Death certificate of Lingamurthy Ex.P.12 Certificate issued by Adhi Andra Jambhav Panchayati Ex.P.13 Original SSLC marks card Ex.P.14 Original adhar card Judge Sign Judge Sign 30 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the Defendant:-
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.25305/2012 Ex.D.2 Certified copy of plan Ex.D.3 Certified copy of deposition in HRC No.10026/2008 Ex.D.4 E-khatha certificate Ex.D.5 Encumbrance certificate dated0 06.09.2024 to 22.10.2024 Ex.D.6 Tax paid receipts from 2009 to 2025 Ex.D.7 Certified copy of Judgment and decree passed in HRC No.10026/2008 Ex.D.8 Certified copy of Judgment and decree passed in HRC No.10027/2008 Ex.D.9 Certified copy of Judgment and decree passed in HRC No.10028/2008 (Somashekara A.) XV Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Judge Sign Judge Sign 31 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, VIDE SEPARATE JUDGMENT ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
It is hereby declared that the Sale Deed dated 28.07.2006 and Rectification Deed dated 04.04.2007 executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 are not binding on the plaintiffs, insofar as the suit schedule property measuring 16.8 ft × 12½ ft (210 sq.ft.) is concerned.
Defendants, their agents or any person claiming through them are permanently restrained from alienating or interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession.
Draw Decree accordingly.
[Somashekar A.] XV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Judge Sign Judge Sign 32 O.S.No.4024/2017 Judgment BENGALURU.
Judge Sign Judge Sign