Bangalore District Court
Venkatamma vs Nagaraja on 26 November, 2025
KABC010163102004
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
Title Sheet for Judgments in Suits
In the Court of the XXIV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge (CCH-6) at Bengaluru
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2025
Present:
Smt.Renuka.D.Raikar, B.Sc.,LL.B., (Spl),
XXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-6),
Bengaluru.
Original Suit No. 6571/ 2004
Plaintiffs : Smt. Venkatamma,
W/o Sri Muniyappa,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at Dasarahalli,
Avathi Post, Devanahalli Tq,
Bangalore Rural District
(By Sri G.S.S, Advocate)
-Versus-
2
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Defendants: 1. Sri Nagaraja,
S/o Gopalan Rao,
Major,
R/at No.58/2, Pipeline,
Shakambari Nagar,
Bangalore-560 078.
2. Sri Jayaram,
S/o Dodda Muniyappa,
Aged about 45 years,
Manarayanapalya Main Road,
Tulasamma Layout,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 032.
3. Sri Ramaiah
S/o Seethappa,
Aged about 87 years,
Since dead his Legal Heirs,
3(a) : Sri Adishesha,
S/o late T.Ramaiah,
Aged about 66 years,
3(b) : Sri Padmanabha,
S/o late T.Ramaiah,
Aged about 63 years,
3(c) : Sri R. Vijayakumar,
S/o late T.Ramaiah,
Aged about 61 years,
3(d) : Smt. Yeshasree,
D/o late T.Ramaiah,
Aged about 59 years,
3
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
3(e) : Smt Jayashree,
D/o late T.Ramaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
3(f) : Sri R.Suresh Babu,
S/o late T.Ramaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
3(g) : Smt. R.Premamani,
D/o late T.Ramaiah,
Aged about 53 years,
3(h) : Sri R.Venkatesh Babu,
S/o late T.Ramaiah,
Aged about 49 years,
D. Nos.3(a) to (h) r/at
Manarayanapalya, R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 032.
4. Sri K.M.Dastagir Sab,
S/o late Mainuddin Sab,
Major
R/at No.19, Papaiah Reddy Block,
Manarayanapalya,
Bangalore-560 032.
5. Sri Syed Jaleel Ahamad,
S/o late I.S.A Hakeem,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.5/2, 3rd Cross,
Pemmegowda Road,
J.C.Nagar, Bangalore-560 006.
6. Sri Balaji,
S/o Byrappa,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.983, 13th Cross,
4
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
K.H.B Main Road,
Cholanayakanahalli Dhakale,
R.T.Nagar, Bangalore-560 032.
7. Sri Syed Jameel Ahamad,
S/o late I.S.A Hakeem,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.5/2, 3rd Cross,
Pemmegowda Road,
J.C.Nagar, Bangalore-560 006.
8. Sri B.Poonaram,
S/o late Baggaji,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.579, 1st Cross,
3rd Main, Police Station Road,
Hebbal, Bangalore-24.
(By Sri S.M for D.1, 2
Sri V.V.S.G for D.4,
Sri H.S.R for D.5 to 7
Sri S.C for D.8, Advocates
D.3(a - h)- Placed Exparte,)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 01.09.2004
Nature of the Suit : For Declaration
and
Permanent Injunction
Date of the commencement : 27.10.2023
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 26.11.2025
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total duration : 21 02 25
5
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Judgment
Present suit is filed on behalf of plaintiff for Declaration
and Permanent Injunction against the defendants and such
other reliefs.
The description of the suit schedule property as
mentioned in the plaint is as under:
Schedule-I : Property bearing Sy.No.38,
Cholanayakanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk, measuring East to West 64 feet, North to South
145 feet, a mud house of 2 Square with A.C. Sheet
roofing, bounded by:
East by : Vishwanathaganahalli Govt Road
West by : Property of Smt.Thulasamma
North by : Property of Sri Govindaraju
South by : Property of Sri Mahesh
2. The factual matrix in the nutshell is as under:-
It is averred that, the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and
in physical possession of the land bearing No.38,
Cholayanakanahalli Village, more-fully described as plaint
schedule property and she has purchased the same under
6
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
registered Sale Deed dtd.29.05.1999 and defendant No.1
herein is the vendor of the plaintiff. Sy.No.38 of
Cholayanakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, totally measuring
14 Acres was originally belonged to the family of Sri
Ashwatha Narayana. His family members executed
registered Sale Deed dtd. 19.04.1949 in respect of various
lands inclusive of the land in Sy.No.38 also. However, said
Sri Ashwathanarayana and his two sons executed another
Sale Deed in favour of one Sri Gopala Rao i.e. father of
defendant No.1 on 30.10.1953 and transferred their right,
title, interest and possession to the extent of 1/6 th share in
favour of Sri Gopala Rao, S/o Sampangiramaiah. The land
sold in favour of Sri Gopala Rao, i.e., 1/6 th share in Sy.No.38
was clearly ear marked by indicating boundaries and said
boundaries are as follows:
East : Byrasandra Village
West : Sy.No.52
North : Sy.No.43 and 44
South : Sy.No.39
7
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
3. It is further averred that, said Sri Gopala Rao died
and his estate was succeeded by his son Sri Nagaraja, who
is defendant No.1 herein. Later as per M.R.No. 17/ 1997-98,
Khatha was effected in favour of defendant No.1 to the extent
of 30 guntas under Khatha No.27, which is part of Sy.No.38
of Cholanayakanahalli. Said Sri Nagaraja, executed the
registered Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff for valuable
consideration on 29.05.1999. On the same day said Sri.
Nagaraja executed another two Sale Deeds in respect of
remaining portion in Sy.No.38, one in favour of Sri Mahesh
and another in favour of Muniyappa and separate suits are
filed by respective plaintiffs. Suit schedule property is part
and parcel of Sy.No.38 covered under 30 guntas of land for
which defendant No.1 was the Khatedar.
4. It is further averred that, the vendor of plaintiff
Nagaraj had acquired the land bearing Sy.No.38 of
Cholanayakanahlli through Succession i.e., from his father
Gopala Rao and said Nagaraj had no other lands other than
8
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
the land in Sy.No.38. He offered to sell said land which was
in his possession and upon negotiation and deliberations, the
vendor of the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule
property and executed registered Sale Deed. But at that point
of time, Government of Karnataka banned the registration for
Agricultural land and the suit schedule property was included
within the limits of Cholanayakanahalli Village Panchayath
and was assessed by said local authority. Hence the suit
schedule property was described on square foot basis as it
lost the character of agricultural land. Therefore in the body
of the registered instrument the property in question was
described as:
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಉತ್ತರ ತಾಲ್ಲೂ ಕು , ಕಸಬಾ ಹೋಬಳಿ, ಚೋಳನಾಯಕನಹಳ್ಳಿ
ಗ್ರಾಮದ ಅಸೆಸ್ಮೆಂಟ್ನಂ. ಸ.38, ಮತ್ತು ಚೋಳನಾಯಕನಹಳ್ಳಿ ಗ್ರಾಮದ
ಪಂಚಾಯಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ 13 ನೇ ನಂಬರ್ ಆಗಿ ಖಾತೆಯಾಗಿರುವ ಖಾನೆ ಶುಮಾರಿ 1
(ಒಂದು) ನೇ ನಂಬರ್ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
5. It is averred that, though the land in Sy.No.38 lost
the agricultural character, in the revenue records it was
continued as agricultural land. The property purchased by the
9
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
plaintiff under registered Sale Deed is part and parcel of land
in Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli only. Even the
subsequent document executed by defendant No.1 herein,
reveals the fact that the property purchased by this plaintiff is
none other than the portion of the property comprised in
Sy.No.38.
6. It is further averred that, one Sri Muni Nagappa
and others filed applications before the Land Tribunal for
grant of Occupancy right and all these claims were registered
in case Nos. LRs/ 787, 883, 126, 3242 and 3251 of 1977-78.
On conducting enquiry the Land Tribunal granted Occupancy
right to the extent of 1.10 Acres out of total claim of 2 Acres
made by said Sri Muni Nagappa. So far as this 1.10 Acres of
land are concerned there are no disputes between the parties
and it was concluded also.
7. It is further averred that, remaining extent in
Sy.No.38 was 30 guntas which is the subject matter of the
suit and said 30 guntas was also claimed by Muninagappa
10
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
under Form No.7 and his claim was declined to that extent by
the Land Tribunal. However, being aggrieved by said order
Sri Muninagappa filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in W.P.No. 23999/ 1993 and said Writ
Petition came to be allowed and order passed by the Land
Tribunal was modified and Occupancy right granted by the
Tribunal was enlarged by including 30 guntas and
accordingly the entire 2 Acres of land was directed to be
granted in favour of said Sri Muninagappa.
8. It is further averred that, one T.Ramaiah who is
defendant No.3 in this suit filed Writ Appeal, before the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.A.No. 3410/ 2001. In
said Writ Appeal the Appellant was the 3 rd defendant who
challenged the validity of order passed by the Learned Single
Judge in enlarging the tenancy right to the extent of 30
guntas. According to defendant No.3 said 30 guntas of land
was purchased by him from Sri Dodda Muniyappa, under the
registered Sale Deed dtd.04.08.1960. Thereafter he
11
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
contended that defendant No.3 is the owner to the extent of
same and on this grievance defendant sought for interference
with the order of Learned Single Judge. While the Writ
Appeal was pending, the persons who contested seriously to
that extent of 30 guntas turned hostile because of collusion
between themselves and also to defeat the legitimate right of
the present plaintiff. The legal heirs of original tenant Sri
Muninagappa filed Memo before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka contending that the property was purchased by
defendant No.3 under the registered Sale Deed
dtd.04.08.1990, which was not a tenanted land and they have
no objections to modify the order passed by the Learned
single Judge. Based on the Memo, said Writ Appeal was
disposed off.
9. It is further averred that, defendant No. 1 also
filed an independent Writ appeal challenging the order
passed by Learned Single Judge contending that, said 30
guntas of land said to have been purchased by defendant
12
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
No.3 from one Sri Dodda Muniyappa is absolutely false and
said Sri Dodda Muniyappa has no right or title, over 30
guntas and he is totally stranger to the land in question.
Though such a contention was raised in Writ Appeal by
contesting the finding of Learned Single Judge, at the fag end
turned hostile in view of the collusion with defendants Nos.3
and 4. The legal heirs of original tenants had sought for
disposal of the Writ Appeal in terms of the order passed in
Writ Appeal No. 3410/ 2001, filed by defendant No.3 herein.
On accepting the claim, the Writ Appeal filed by defendant
No.1 was also disposed off with a liberty to work out the
remedy in the pending Civil Suit. All these things have been
completed only to defeat the legitimate right of the plaintiff
who acquired the title to the property under a registered Sale
Deed dtd. 29.05.1999.
10. It is further averred that, defendant No.1 who is
the owner of the land rightly executed the registered Sale
Deed in favour of plaintiff and while executing the registered
13
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Sale Deed plaintiff refers to the Khata No.27 of
Cholayanakanahalli and in view of certain technical reasons,
the Survey number was not indicated in the registered Sale
Deed, but the property purchased by the plaintiff is not other
than the property covered in Sy.No.38 of Cholayanakanahalli.
The land was sold by furnishing the clear boundary with
measurement on square feet basis and received valuable
consideration also.
11. It is further averred that, the registering
authority initiated under-valuation proceedings and later on it
was determined holding that the Sale Deed is valued at
Rs.4,61,000/- and the plaintiff was directed to pay a deficit
stamp duty and he has paid the same as per the directions of
the Sub-Registrar. All these facts are well within the
knowledge of defendant No.1 as he was respondent in the
Writ Appeal No.3410/ 2001 as well as he was the Appellant
in another Writ Appeal No. 3657/ 2001. He colluded with
14
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
defendants Nos.3 and 4, and conceded the title of defendant
No.3 to defeat the legitimate interest of the plaintiff.
12. It is further averred that, there is a consistent
finding recorded by the Land Tribunal that, the tenant Sri
Muninagappa is entitled for grant of Occupancy right only to
the extent of 1.10 Acres. Incidentally there was finding that
this extent of 30 guntas was in possession of one Sri Dodda
Muniyappa who neither made an application to the Tribunal
nor sought for grant of land and same has not been admitted.
So far as his possession and title is concerned there are
serious disputes. Even defendant No.1 has not disputed the
possession of Dodda Muniyappa and contended that he is
the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule
property.
13. It is further averred that, defendant Nos.1 and 3
suppressed the facts before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka as to how the title is conveyed from Sri Dodda
Muniyappa in favour of defendant No.3. Further with collusion
15
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
and with an intention to make wrongful gain by defeating the
legitimate right of this plaintiff, the Memo was filed through
the Legal Heirs of Muni Nagappa. The original tenant though
conceded with 30 guntas it was not a tenanted land and
defendant No.3 as the owner and on having this recourse
represented falsely that, they are the owners of land
measuring 30 guntas. Defendant No.4 who has purchased
30 guntas of land on square feet basis from defendant No.3
is now claiming to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule
property.
14. It is further averred that, plaintiff filed suit for Bare
Injunction in O.S.No.4737/ 2002 and in said suit, defendant
No.3 herein was arrayed as defendant No.2 . In the written
statement of defendant No.3, the acts done by defendant
No.1 was narrated which indicates that defendant No.3 is
fully aware of the commissions and omissions of defendant
No.1 and there is an unhealthy collusion between defendant
No. 1 and 3. Defendant No.1 referred to cancellation of Sale
16
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Deeds made by defendant No.1 which were executed by him
in favour of plaintiff.
15. It is further averred that, by playing fraud on the
Courts, before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ
Appeal, they approached the Revenue Authorities for change
of entries in the Revenue Records and when the request was
declined by the Tahsildar, on the reason that there is already
an entry in the name of defendant No.1 and no subsequent
alterations are desirable, the order of Tahsildar was
challenged by defendant No.4 in the Appeal before the
Assistant Commissioner, which came to be allowed. In all
these proceedings though defendant No.1, 3 and 4 were
aware that the plaintiff has interest in the property, she was
set apart from all these proceedings to gain orders behind
her back.
16. It is further averred that, the plaintiff who is the
owner in possession of the suit schedule property has
already constructed permanent structure and dug bore-well
17
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
and also constructed shops and all these constructions are in
occupation of various tenants. There is electrical and water
supply facilities to the house and shops constructed by the
plaintiff and she is in physical possession of the property.
Even after not being satisfied with the fraud, fabrication,
concocting documents, making misrepresentation and
playing fraud on public and on Courts, defendant No.4
instigated defendant No.1 to cancel the registered Sale Deed
executed in favour of plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has presented
the document of Deed of Cancellation before the Sub-
Registrar and got the Cancellation Deed registered by
concealing the registered Sale Deeds between plaintiff and
defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 alone has no authority to
cancel the contract unilaterally without notice to the plaintiff
and without following the provisions under the Specific Relief
Act. Merely because defendant No.1 refers a particular
document as void document it cannot become void and it
requires to be declared by the Court in Regular Civil suit.
The cancellation does not render the title and interest of this
18
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
plaintiff ineffective as she is not a party to the document and
it is fraud committed by defendant No.1 in collusion with
defendants Nos.3 and 4.
17. It is further averred that, defendant No.1 executed
a Rectification Deed in favour of defendant No.3 and in the
aforesaid Rectification Deed they have changed the very
property purchased by defendant No.3 and said Deed was
executed on 26.12.2001 and later defendant No.3 executed a
registered Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.4. Said Sale
Deed is wholly imaginary with respect to non-existing
property as defendant No.1 who is the owner of the property
has sold the same land in favour of plaintiff under registered
Sale Deed dtd. 29.05.1999.
18. It is further averred that, defendant No.3 claims to
be the purchaser of 30 guntas of land from one Sri Dodda
Muniyappa under registered Sale Deed dtd. 04.08.1960, in
fact on the date of the registered Sale Deed, Sri Dodda
Muniyappa was neither the owner to the property nor having
19
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
any interest or possession over said property. Sri Dodda
Muniyappa had no title or right to convey in favour of
defendant No.3.
19. It is further averred that, defendant No.4 claims to
be the owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of
right and interest transferred by 3 rd defendant, Ramaiah
under registered Sale Deed dtd.30.10.2002 and said
Ramaiah claims to have acquired the title by virtue of Sale
Deed executed by Dodda Muniyappa who is represented by
defendant No.2, as said Dodda Muniyappa is no more. At no
point of time, Dodda Muniyappa had any title or interest in
respect of suit schedule property in any manner, as such
defendant No.4, cannot acquire valid title over the suit
schedule property. The impleaded defendants viz.,
defendants Nos.5 to 8 are claiming title over the portion of
the properties through the defendant No.4 Dastagir Sab.
20. It is further averred that, though Defendant
No.4 filed written statement in the present suit dtd.
20
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
03.11.2004, no where it is whispered anything about transfer
of part of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant
No.5. Plaintiffs have obtained the Encumbrance Certificate
from the competent Authorities even before institution of the
suit and those documents also does not reflect the transfers
made by defendant No.4 in favour of defendants Nos.5 to 8.
Therefore, as on the date of filing of the suit as well as till the
date of filing application by the plaintiff for impleading
defendants Nos.5 to 8 in this proceedings the plaintiffs had
no knowledge about said transfer inter-se between 4 th
defendant and defendants Nos.5 to 8.
21. It is further averred that, the plaintiff and her
husband have constructed the residential and non-residential
premises in the suit schedule properties and almost all the
constructed premises are let out by the plaintiff and her
husband in favour of various tenants . Out of these premises
one of the non-residential premises measuring about 13 x 30
was let out in favour of one Sri Chathu who was running
21
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Bakery by paying the rent of Rs.2,500/- per month. He
committed default in making payment of rent, and later
vacated the premises and handed over the same to the
plaintiff's husband and same was let out in favour of one Sri
Rajesh, S/o Sri Raghavan who was running the bakery in the
premises from 01.08.2009.
22. It is further averred that, though said Chathu
ceased to be the tenant of the plaintiff, after vacating the
premises, he colluded with defendant No.4 and 7 and set up
false claim alleging that, Chathu was the tenant under
defendant No.7 Jameel Ahmed and as such they have
manipulated the documents. Said Chathu filed Caveat
Petition against defendant No.7, there upon defendant No.7
filed suit in O.S.No.26501/ 2009 on 09.07.2009 and said suit
came to be compromised. Thereafter Execution petition was
filed by defendant No.7 and delivery warrant was issued, and
the tenant in possession was illegally evicted. Plaintiff came
to know that defendant No.5 is holding a registered Sale
22
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Deed dtd. 05.06.2003 alleged to have been executed by
defendant No.4 to the portion of the suit schedule property.
23. It is further averred that, as against defendant
No.7, the plaintiff's husband instituted proceedings u/s. 151
of C.P.C pleading fraud played by defendant No.7, in
collusion with former tenant Chathu and obtaining Decree
thereof and same is sought to be recalled. Original tenant
Rajesh was yielded to money and muscle power of defendant
No.7 and sought to withdraw the proceedings making certain
allegations against the plaintiff herein. Since one of the
affidavits is false, an application is made to prosecute said
Rajesh for an offence of perjury and enquiry is pending
before the executing Court. Defendant No.5 claiming to have
acquired title with respect to part of the suit schedule property
which he alleged to have been purchased from defendant
No.4, since defendant No.4's title itself is in dispute by
specifically stating that, neither his vendor Ramaiah nor
Ramaiah's vendor Doddamuniyappa have any title to the
23
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
property, as such the title acquired if any by defendant No.4,
is illegal and void and no title was conveyed in favour of
defendant No.4. Hence the title if any acquired by defendant
No.5 has same status par with defendant No.4, as such
defendant No.5 has no title to the property concerned.
24. It is further averred that, defendants Nos.5 to 8
have constituted an assembly with common interest to snatch
the property of plaintiff and her husband in one way or the
other and are trying to interfere with the lawful and peaceful
possession of the plaintiff without any authority of Law.
25. It is further averred that, the plaintiff filed Bare
Injunction suit in O.S.No.4737/ 2002 and then realized the
effect of claim and counter claim between the plaintiff and
defendant No.4 by way of suits and registered instruments
and was advised to file a suit for declaration and
consequential reliefs. The cause of action for the suit arose
on 25.09.1999 when the plaintiff acquired title to the property
by way of registered Sale Deed and subsequently, on the
24
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
date of orders passed in Writ Appeal No.3410/ 2001,
dtd.10.01.2002, on execution of the Deed of Cancellation
dtd.18.07.2002 and Rectification Deed dtd. 26.12.2001 and
on the date on which defendant No.3 executed registered
Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.4 on 30.10.2002 within
the purview of this Court.
26. It is further averred that, the suit is one for
declaration and injunction based on registered instrument
dtd. 29.05.1999 and schedule property shown in registered
instrument is portion of the land in Sy.No.38, but in said Sale
Deed it was shown as Assessment No. 'Sa 27'. The Word
'Sa' is nothing but referring to Survey Number only. These
discrepancies are required to be amended or rectified in the
instrument by execution of registered Rectification Deed. In
view of strenuous relationship between plaintiff and in view of
collusion among the defendants, such rectification by mutual
consent of the parties is not possible. Hence, plaintiff is now
25
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
seeking the suitable amendment in the prayer which is also
imperative in law.
27. Hence plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit by
passing Judgment and Decree declaring that she is the
absolute owner in possession of the schedule property as per
the registered Sale Deed dtd. 29.05.1999, and further to
declare that the Cancellation Deed executed by defendant
No.1 dtd. 18.07.2002 is null and void, ineffective one and is
not binding on the plaintiff and declaring that the transaction
between defendants Nos.3 and 4 in respect of suit schedule
properties is not binding on the plaintiff and said transaction
did not affect the right and interest of the plaintiff over the suit
schedule property and to pass Permanent Injunction
restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or anybody
else from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff and to
rectify the registered instrument bearing Document No. 1946/
1999-2000 by adding Sy.No.38 in place of Assessment No.
26
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Ss " 27" and further the registering authority be directed to
rectify the registered instrument suitably and to declare that
right, title as claimed by defendant No.5 through defendant
No.4 under the registered Sale Deed dtd. 05.06.2003, is null
and void and illegal, which is not binding on the plaintiff.
28. In pursuance of service of suit summons,
Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 appeared through their
respective Counsels and defendants Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 7
filed separate written statements. After death of defendant
No.3, his legal heirs were brought on record as Defendant
Nos.3(a) to (h) and they did not appear before the Court,
hence they were placed as Ex-parte. After Amendment of
plaint, Additional written statement is filed by defendant No's
4,5,6 and 8.
29. Defendant No.2 in written statement contended
that, he is personally aware of the facts that there were
some transactions between defendant No.1, who sold the
property in favour of the plaintiff, her husband and also in
27
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
favour of son of plaintiff namely Sri Mahesh and they are in
possession of suit schedule properties. There are various
shops constructed in said property and defendant personally
knows that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the
properties. One Sri Muninagappa who is none other than
uncle of defendant No.2 was the tenant in respect of 1 Acre
10 guntas and remaining 30 guntas was never been in
possession of father of defendant No.2 or in possession of
Muninagapa. Owners of the land namely Gopala Rao and
Nagaraja Rao were in possession and later on it was
transferred in favour of plaintiff. However so far as the 30
guntas land is concerned, both Muninagappa and his family
members conceded that they are nothing to do with the
same.
30. It is further contended by defendant No.2 that, his
father absolutely had no right or title to the extent of 30
guntas in Sy.No.38 which is the subject matter of this suit and
said property is neither purchased nor inherited by the father
28
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
of defendant No.2 and it is nowhere belonging to family of
defendant No.2. No registered Sale Deed is executed by his
father and if any alleged Sale Deed is executed, the father of
this defendant had no authority or competency to execute
such Sale Deed. Alleged Sale Deed is concocted and got up
behind the back of this defendant's father. Since the father of
defendant No.2 was nothing to do with suit schedule property
much less any extent in Sy.No.38, no claim was made
before the Land Tribunal or any authority for grant of
occupancy right.
31. It is further contended that, father of defendant
No.2 had no interest much less not concerned with the suit
schedule property and if any document is alleged to have
been executed by the father of defendant No.2, it is totally
fabricated and concocted one. The alleged Rectification
Deed dtd. 26.12.2001 is not admitted by defendant No.2, and
same is fabricated document and concocted one. Signature
of defendant No.2 was forged by defendant No.3 or taking
29
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
assistance of some other persons who are interested in
knocking of this property. Signature shown in the alleged
Rectification deed is not the signature of defendant No.2 and
he never appeared before the concerned Sub-Registrar and
it is forged document. Absolutely there are no occasions for
defendant No.2 to execute the alleged Rectification Deed
since defendant No.2 consistently stated that his father is
nothing to do with said property much less any portion of the
land bearing Sy.No.38. Hence he submitted no objections to
decree the suit on its merits in the ends of justice and equity.
32. Defendant No.4 in his written statement has
contended that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not
maintainable in law and on facts. The suit is liable to be
dismissed for gross under valuation of the suit property,
which is worth more than Rs.25,00,000/- and plaintiff required
to pay the Court fee u/s. 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act and not under Section 7(2) of said
Act. The suit property is not referred as agricultural land in
30
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
the plaint and in fact no survey number of the land has been
mentioned in the document of title relied by the plaintiff in the
suit. The plaintiff is not the absolute owner much-less the
owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is not at all
in possession of the suit schedule property. The suit
schedule property which the plaintiff is claiming is not part of
land bearing Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli Village, Kasaba
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The plaintiff has not at all
purchased any part of the land bearing Sy.No.38 of
Cholanayakanahalli under the registered Sale Deed.
33. It is further contended that, one Gopala Rao, S/o
Sampangi Ramaiah had not at all derived any right, title and
interest in respect of land bearing Sy.No.38 of
Cholanayakanahalli Village, much less to the extent of
alleged 1/6th share in said land. Aswathanarayana and his
two sons had no right, title and interest in the property with
extent and boundaries referred to in the Sale Deed dtd.
13.10.1953 to convey the same in favour of said Gopala Rao,
31
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
S/o Sampangi Ramaiah. Said Gopala Rao had not at all
derived any right, title and interest in land bearing Sy.No.38
to any extent of land.
34. It is further contended that, the plaint does not
disclose when said Gopala Rao died and who are all his legal
heirs except alleging that defendant No.1, Nagaraj
succeeded to the estate of said Gopala Rao. Said Gopala
Rao was not at all the owner of land bearing Sy.No.38 to any
extent much-less to the 1/6th share which was said to have
been possessed by Aswathanarayana and his two sons. The
alleged mutation entries and Khata entries pertaining to 30
guntas of land are concocted documents. The Revenue
entries are not documents of title in order to confirm alleged
title and possession on the defendant No.1 in order to
alienate the same.
35. It is further contended that, the plaintiff has not at
all derived any right, title and interest or possession on the
basis of two registered Sale Deeds executed by defendant
32
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
No.1 in her favour. One Mahesh and Muniyappa also not
derived any right, title and interest possession in respect of
land bearing Sy.No.38. The suit schedule property is not the
part of land bearing Sy.No.38. Sri M.Muninagappa had not
cultivated the land bearing Sy.No.38 as a tenant to the extent
of 2 Acres but to the extent of 1 Acre 10 guntas only. The
Land Tribunal has granted Occupancy right to the extent of 1
Acre 10 guntas of land and rejected the rest of the claim of
late Muninagappa observing that late Muninagappa was only
cultivating to the extent of 1 Acre 10 guntas only. The Land
Tribunal rejected the claim to the extent of 30 guntas of land
in said Survey number. The plaintiff is projecting a false case
in order to knock of the property of defendant No.4.
36. It is further contended that, the Writ Petition
No.23999/ 1992 filed by late Muninagappa was allowed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by setting aside the
order of Land Tribunal by granting Occupancy right in respect
of entire 2 Acres of land in Sy.No.38 of said village. Said
33
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was challenged in
Writ Appeal No. 3410/ 201 before Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by defendant No.3, T.Ramaiah S/o Seethappa. It
is the prime contention of defendant No.3 in Writ Appeal that
late Muninagappa was not a tenant in respect of suit land to
the extent of 30 guntas in Sy.No.38. It is reiterated in said
Writ Appeal that said 30 guntas of land has been purchased
by defendant No.3 under registered Sale Deed
dtd.04.08.1960 executed by previous owner
Doddamuninayappa S/o Munishamappa.
37. It is further contended that, the plaintiff has made
self - serving statement in the plaint that the property
covered under the two Sale Deeds executed by defendant
No.1 is part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.38 without
being any proof. The plaintiff is trying to project false claim in
respect of said land in order to defeat the legitimate right of
defendant No.4.
34
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
38. Defendant No.4 contended that, he is the rightful
owner of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.38 for valuable
consideration and he is in lawful possession of the same and
has obtained Khata in his favour. Later the Corporation, City
of Bangalore assessed 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.38 and
collected betterment charges also. Defendant No.4 is in
lawful possession and enjoyment of Sy.No.38 and trying to
improve the same. The plaintiff has no locus standi to
question the acts and omissions of defendant No.4 in respect
of his property. Defendant No.4 is not a party in O.S.4737/
2002 and whatever the order passed in said suit is not
binding him. By looking into the schedule to the plaint in
O.S.No.4737/ 2002 it is clear that, the plaintiff herein is
claiming Site No.1 and Kaneshumari No.1 to the extent fo 64'
x 156' in said suit. Said alleged site is nothing to do with the
land bearing Sy.No.38 to the extent of 30 guntas belonging to
defendant No.4. The Kaneshumari number and site number
mentioned therein are concocted by plaintiff in order to make
35
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
false claim in respect of 30 guntas of land belonging to
defendant No.4.
39. It is further contended that, the plaintiff has not
challenged the Revenue entries in favour of defendant.No.4
inspite of the fact that, she is fully aware of the Sale Deed
executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant. No.4 and
change of Revenue Entries and assessment by the
Corporation. The plaintiff has no Civil right to question the
aforesaid proceedings for want of plaintiff's title to the land
bearing Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli. The plaintiff has no
legal sanctity in the eye of law to question said proceedings
in this suit by alleging fraud. The plaintiff has not
particularized the nature of fraud said to have been played by
defendant. No.4 against her anywhere in the plaint. The
plaintiff has not produced any material documents to
establish fraud.
36
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
40. It is further contended that, defendants Nos.3 and
4 are not party to the Sale Deed and cancellation Deed
executed by defendant No.1 and it is highly unimaginable to
call the transaction as fraud committed by defendants Nos.3
and 4. Only defendant No.1 has to answer said allegations
made in the plaint. The plaintiff has no locus standi to
question the Rectification Deed dtd. 25.09.1960, since the
plaintiff does not possess any right pertaining to land bearing
Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli. Defendant No.4 is
legitimate owner on the basis of registered sale Deed in
respect of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.38 and he is in
possession and enjoyment of the same. There is no cause of
action for the suit. The cause of action is imaginary and
speculative one. Hence, prayed for dismissing the suit.
41. After amendment of plaint, defendant No.4 filed
Additional written statement and denied all the averments
amended in the plaint and contended that, Sale Deed
executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff is not
37
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
concerned to the land bearing Sy.No.38 of
Cholanayakanahalli and it is concerned to Kaneshumari No.1
and Assessment No.38. Neither the alleged Assessment
number nor the Kaneshumari number can be read as
Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahlli. There was no offer and
acceptance with regard to sale transaction pertaining to said
land bearing Sy.No.38. The Sale Deed relied by the plaintiff
in the suit is pertaining to Kaneshumari No.1 and not the
agriculture land bearing Sy.No.38. The plaintiff cannot be
permitted to read Sy.No.38 in place of Assessment Number.
The document dtd. 18.07.2002 and reference to the Land
Reforms proceedings, Writ Petition, Writ Appeals are
pertaining to Sy.No.38 an agriculture land and not
Kaneshumari No.1 and Assessment No.38 and said
proceedings cannot be linked with that of Sy.No.38 of
Cholanayakanahalli.
42. It is further contended that, the plaintiff has
sought for additional prayer for a decree to rectify registered
38
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
instrument No. 1964/99-2000 by adding Sy.No.38 in place of
Assessment No.38 by seeking direction to the Sub-Registrar
to rectify the same. The Instrument sought for rectification is
of the year 1999 and the declaration has been sought in the
year 2008. The declaration sought for is opposed to law and
time barred. The plaintiff should have sought for such
declaration against her vendor within three years from the
date of execution of the Sale Deed and not after 9 years.
43. It is further contended that, there was no ban of
the sale of agriculture land at all when the defendant No.1
executed sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to
Khaneshumari No. 27. That agriculture lands are described in
guntas and not in square feet. In the Sale Deed relied upon
by the plaintiff, there is no reference to Sy.No.38 at all and
plaintiff cannot read something into the Sale Deed and seek
rectification of the property itself in the Sale Deed. The
amended prayer for rectification sought by the plaintiff is
unknown to law. The plaintiff amended the plaint in order to
39
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
de-horse the specific contention raised by defendant No.4 in
the suit that, the plaintiff is not the owner of the land bearing
Sy.No.38 to any extent and the Sale Deed relied by the
plaintiff refers to Kaneshumari No.27 and not Sy.No.38. It is
further contended that, the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is
insufficient. Hence, prayed for dismissing the suit.
44. Defendant No.5 in his written statement denied
some of the averments made in the plaint and contended that
the suit is not maintainable in law and on facts. The valuation
made is improper and inadequate. The suit is required to be
valued u/s 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation
Act, 1958 and not under Section 7(2) of said Act.
45. All the plaint averments are denied by
Defendant No.5 and it is contended that, defendant No.4 has
executed Sale Deed dtd. 05.06.2003 in favour of defendant
No.5 pertaining to property bearing No.31, portion of
Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli Village measuring East to
40
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
West 65 feet and North to South 64 feet with 5 Square RCC
roofed building, now assigned as Corporation No.31,
presently situated at KHB Main Road, Manarayanapalya.
Defendant No.5 is placed in possession of the same and
BBMP has assigned Khata of said property in favour of
defendant No.5 and collected tax.
46. It is further contended that, defendant No.5 has
let out the shops and vacant land which he has purchased
under said Sale Deed and enjoying the same as an absolute
owner and he has also purchased another two sites bearing
Nos.12 and 13, V.P.Khata No.06 of Sy.No.38 measuring East
to West 65 feet and North to South 64 feet under registered
Sale Deed dtd. 29.06.1998 from one Smt. R.Shobha D/o
T.Ramaiah and Adishesha @ Sheshappa s/o T. Ramaiah
through GPA holder Mr. M.Srinivas and was placed in
possession of said properties. Later defendant No.5 got
constructed 15 squares ACC sheet building therein and
running business of Iron Scrap in the name and style of
41
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
J.K.Steel Traders, situated at Cholanayakanahalli Village
now assigned as Corporation No.3 and BBMP has assigned
Khata in favour of defendant No.5 and collected tax.
Defendant No.5 has obtained 2 HP Power Connection to the
godown constructed in said property and said building has
been assessed by the Corporation. The plaintiff is making
false claim over the property of defendant No.5.
47. It is further contended that, the properties
purchased by the plaintiff are different and has nothing to do
with the land bearing Sy.No.38. The Khaneshumari number,
Khata Number and Panchayath Number referred in Sale
Deed relied by the plaintiff in the suit are concocted and got
up documents and plaintiff has not derived any right, title and
interest under said Sale Deed. Defendant No.4 was in lawful
possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.No.38 and
trying to improve the same. Subsequent to purchasing of 30
guntas of land, for his bonafide need said defendant No.4
sold site No.31 formed in Sy.No.38 measuring East to West
42
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
65 feet and North to South 64 feet under registered Sale
Deed along with existing structures, so also defendant No.4
sold other sites to defendants Nos.6 to 8 and others. The
purchasers are in possession and enjoyment of their
respective properties.
48. It is further contended that, the plaintiff cannot call
the proceedings before the Court in the Writ Appeal and
orders made therein as fraud and there is no findings by the
Hon'ble High Court with regard to alleged fraud played on the
plaintiff in any of the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff
herein as well as Smt. Thulasamma and others. The change
of revenue entries on basis of registered Sale Deed in favour
of defendant No.4 by the Revenue Authority cannot be
termed as fraud when the Assistant Commissioner in Appeal
set aside the order of Tahsildar who declined to give Khata in
favour of defendant No.4. Plaintiff has not challenged the
revenue entries in favour of defendant No.4 though he is fully
aware of Sale Deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of
43
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
defendant No.4 and also regarding subsequent Revenue
entries and assessment by the Corporation.
49. It is further contended by defendant No.5 that,
when he is in the possession of property bearing Nos.31 and
3, formed in Sy.No.38 one Sri Syed Riyaz and others made
an attempt to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of
said premises. Against the illegal, unlawful and unauthorized
acts of said Syed Riyaz, he was constrained to file
O.S.No.4313/ 2008 and O.S.No.4311/ 2008 for grant of
Permanent Injunction before this Court, which came to be
decreed on 01.09.2009 and 31.03.2009 respectively. Since
1998 till date defendant No.5 is running business in the
premises bearing Corporation No.3, presently situated at
K.H.B Main Road, in the name and style of 'M/s J.K.Steel
Traders. Inspite of knowing fully that this property belongs to
defendant No.5, plaintiff got concocted a Sale Deed in the
year 1999 and is claiming to be the owner in possession of
the suit schedule property and filed the present suit for
44
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Declaration and consequential relief against third parties,
who ceased to be the owners, without making the proper
parties to the suit and subsequently impleaded this defendant
in the case. As such the plaintiff has not approached this
Court with clean hands.
50. It is further contended that the documents
produced before this Court clearly reveals that, this
defendant is running Iron Scrap business much before filing
of this suit and till today, hence the suit is not maintainable.
The plaintiff is claiming to have purchased the suit schedule
property from one Sri Nagaraj on 29.05.1999 under
registered Sale Deed. As on the date of alleged Sale Deed
said to be executed by defendant No.1, he had no any right,
title, possession or revenue records and there is no
document to show the defendant No.1 acquired the suit
schedule property in Sy.No.38.
45
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
51. It is further contended that, in respect of said
property, one Sri Venkataswamappa, Gopallappa,
Muninagappa, Subhashraju and others filed pplication before
the Land Tribunal for grant of tenancy rights in LRF No. 787,
883, 3126, 3247 and 3351/ 1977-78 and in said matters
plaintiff's alleged vendor i.e., defendant No.1 deposed before
the Land Tribunal and admitted that, said Doddamuniyappa
was cultivating 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.38. Even
T.Ramaiah is also examined before the Land Tribunal and he
deposed that he had purchased the property from
Doddamuniyappa under registered Sale Deed dtd.
04.08.1960 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the
same. Defendant No.1 is party in the Land Tribunal and he
had knowledge that, T.Ramaiah purchased 30 guntas of land
in Sy.No.38 .
52. It is further contended that, after knowing about
the Sale Deed dtd. 04.08.1960 executed by
Doddamuniyappa in favour of T.Ramaiah, defendant No.1
46
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
never questioned about the validity of said Sale Deed inspite
of his personal knowledge. Hence, Ramaiah himself
perfected title by way of settled possession, even without
considering the Sale Deed dtd. 04.08.1960. Against Land
Tribunal order one Sri Muniyappa preferred Writ Petition No.
23999 / 1992 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka,
wherein defendant No.1 was respondent No.3 and said
Appeal came to be allowed on 28.03.2001. Against order of
Hon'ble Single Judge, T.Ramaiah preferred Writ Appeal No.
3410/ 2001 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and
said matter was disposed confirming that, T.Ramaiah was
the owner of 30 guntas of land in SyNo.38 which is admitted
by defendant No.1. As such the ownership, possession, right,
title on said property was confirmed in the name of
T.Ramaiah.
53. It is further contended that, inspite of the order
passed by Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 3410/
2001, 3657/ 2001, defendant No.1 without having any
47
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
manner of right, title or possession over said property alleges
to have executed Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff as against
the orders of Land Tribunal, Writ Petition and Appeals and
as on the date of alleged Sale Deed dtd. 29.05.1999 there is
no documentary evidence to show that he was the owner or
possessor of the property in question.
54. It is further contended that, defendant No.1
subsequently cancelled the Sale Deed dtd. 29.05.1999 and
specifically mentioned the reasons for cancellation of Sale
Deed as herewith:
"Whereas in said Sale Deed they contained inter-alia of the
necessary covenants as are usually on the part of the
vendors namely covenants as to good title, peaceful
possession acted upon or otherwise given effect to as much
as vendors, because the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North has
rejected the Respondent No.2 i.e., vendors application under
case No. LRF 787, 883, 3126, 3247 and 3351/ 77-78 and
vendor No.1 has approached the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka, Bangalore under Writ Appeal No. 3657/ 2001
(LR) and Writ Appeal No. 3410/ 2001 ( LR), said Court has
also rejected the appeals of the vendor No.1. As for these
48
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
orders the vendors did not have title and transfer would be
void in law and against the Transfer of Property Act".
55. It is further contended that, in the same
Cancellation Deed, defendant No.1 has stated that, no
possession has been delivered to the plaintiff. As such
defendant No.1 himself admitted the right, title, interest and
possession of T.Ramaiah before the Land Tribunal and
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and it is sufficient to hold
that, the plaintiff has no case on merits and the alleged sale
Deed said to be executed by defendant No.1 in favour of
plaintiff is only an invalid document. Plaintiff is claiming to
have purchased the suit schedule property from defendant
No.1 and on the other hand defendant No.1 himself admitted
before the Land Tribunal and at the time of cancellation of
Sale Deed that he had no right, over the property belonging
to T.Ramaiah and he was in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of property purchased by him for about 42 years.
The settled possession of T.Ramaiah is within the knowledge
49
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
of defendant No.1, who lost all their right, title over the
property.
56. It is further contended that, without looking into
the documentary evidence, inspite of the personal knowledge
of defendant No.1 about the property belonging to T.Ramaiah
and it being sold to defendant No.4 and later he sold it to
defendant No.5 under different Sale Deeds is sufficient to
hold that plaintiff has no case on merits nor is in possession
of said suit property.
57. It is further contended that, the suit is not properly
valued. There is no cause of action to the suit and it is
speculative and imaginary one. The suit is bad for mis-joinder
and non-joinder of parties. The defendant is not necessary
and proper party to the suit. Hence, prayed for dismissing the
suit with cost in the interest of justice.
58. Defendant No.6 has filed written statement by
denying all the averments made in the plaint and contended
50
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
that the suit is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. The
declaration sought for by the plaintiff pertaining to registered
instrument being registration No. 1964/ 1999- 2000 by adding
Sy.No.38 in place of Assessment No.38 by directing the
Sub-Registrar to rectify the registered Sale Deed is
unsustainable in law. There cannot be any direction to the
concerned Sub-Registrar to add survey number in place of
Assessment Number and by changing the nature of the
property already conveyed under Sale Deed as the
rectification sought for to the registered instrument changes
schedule itself by adding a new schedule, which is unknown
to the Registration Act.
59. It is further contended that the plaintiff has no
right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property. The
plaintiff is trying to rely on Sale Deed dtd. 30.10.1953
executed by Ashwathanarayana and his two sons in favour of
Gopal Rao, father of defendant No.1 pertaining to their
alleged 1/6th share. In fact he and his sons have no right
51
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
over suit schedule properties to convey their alleged 1/6th
share in favour of father of defendant No.1. The properties
mentioned and the boundaries given there under in said Sale
Deeds are imaginary and speculative one without having any
semblance of title.
60. It is further contended that the land bearing
Sy.No.38 to the extent of 30 guntas of Cholanayakanahalli
Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore is
an independent and separate property which was belonging
to late Doddamuniyappa and it has nothing to do with the
Sale Deed executed by Ashwathanarayana and his two sons
in favour of Gopal Rao. In fact Ashwathanarayana had no
title to said land and has not acquired the same under any
registered instrument from its lawful owners. Defendant No.1,
Nagaraj has not at all succeeded to the land bearing
Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli Village from his father,
Gopal Rao. Said Gopal Rao or his vendor were not in
possession of the suit property at any point of time.
52
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Defendant No.1 has not at all conveyed any land bearing
Sy.No.38 in favour of the plaintiff and the schedule
mentioned in Sale Deed relied by the plaintiff is nothing to do
with Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli Village.
61. It is further contended that, one Muninagappa has
no right, title and interest over land bearing Sy.No.38 to the
extent of 30 guntas to convey the same to the plaintiff. In fact
land Tribunal has rejected the application filed by him under
Form No.7. Said order was set aside in Writ Petition No.
23999/ 1992 by granting Occupancy right in favour of
Muninagappa in respect of 30 guntas and said order is set
aside in Writ Appeal No. 3410/ 2001 and thereby the
rejection of the claim of the tenancy rights of Muninagappa in
respect of 30 guntas of land by the Land Tribunal was upheld
and as such Muninagappa had no right to convey the suit
schedule property in favour of plaintiff or any other person.
53
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
62. It is further contended that, defendant No.4
K.M.Dastagir Sab purchased 30 guntas of land in S.No.38
from defendant No.3 Ramaiah and his children under the
Sale Deed dtd. 30.10.2002, which is valid. Defendant No.4
has obtained all Revenue entries in his name and got
assessed said properties from BBMP and paid betterment
charges up-to date. Defendant No.1 has challenged the
Revenue Entries which is given in favour of defendant No.4
by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No. 306/ 2002-03
before the Special Deputy Commissioner in No.65/ 2003,
which was dismissed by confirming the Revenue Entries in
favour of defendant No.4.
63. It is further contended that, defendant No.3
purchased said property from one Doddamuniyappa vide
Sale Deed dtd. 04.08.1960. It was Ancestral property of
Doddamuniyappa who got the same under Family Parikath /
Partition and during his life time he had valid title to convey
the same to defendant No.3. Later defendant No.3 conveyed
54
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
the same to defendant No.4 under registered Sale Deed dtd.
30.10.2002 and defendant No.4 conveyed the same to
defendants Nos.5 to 8 by way of sites with buildings thereon
under the various Sale Deeds.
64. It is further contended that, Defendant No.4 has
sold site No.2, Khata No.27, property No.38 of
Manorayanapalya, measuring 60 x 30 feet in favour of
defendant No.6 vide Sale Deed dtd. 06.11.2002 and
defendant No.6 is in possession and enjoyment of Site No.2.
There is an existing building in said property which is the part
of the properties carved out of land bearing Sy.No.38. The
brother of defendant No.6 is running Bar and Restaurant in
said Site No.2.
65. It is further contended that, defendant No. 6 has
acquired valid title to the property purchased by him under
valid Sale Deeds. There are no illegal or void transactions
between defendant No.4 in favour of defendants Nos.5 to 8,
defendants Nos.4 to 8 have acquired valid title to the
55
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
properties which they have purchased under Sale Deeds and
same are not fictitious. Defendants Nos.4 to 8 are in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the properties purchased by
them. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property at any point of time much-less on the
date of the suit.
66. It is further contended that, the declaration sought
for by the plaintiff that the sale transaction of defendants
Nos.5 to 8 as illegal and void is unsustainable in-law. The
transactions are valid based on valid title conveyed by the
vendor. The relief sought for by the plaintiff is barred by time.
The Court fee paid is insufficient. Hence, prayed for
dismissing the suit with costs.
67. Defendant No.7 reiterated in his Written Statement
almost all the contents taken by defendant No.5 in his Written
Statement with respect to the suit schedule property and
various litigations in respect of the same.
56
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
68. Defendants Nos.4, 5 and 7 have filed common
additional written statement and almost reiterated the
averments of the Written Statement filed earlier and contended
that, by virtue of amendment the relief of declaration as
sought is not maintainable.
69. It is further contended by them that, after
purchasing the property from T.Ramaiah, defendant No.4
conveyed the same to defendant Nos.5 to 8 on 30.10.2002
by way of sites with buildings thereon under the various Sale
Deeds. Defendant No.4 has retained site No.1 which is on
the Southern side of Balaji Bar and Restaurant and site
Nos.3 and 4 to the Northern side of Balaji Bar and Restaurant
and rough sketch has been prepared by defendant No.4 at
the time of execution of various Sale Deeds and he is in
possession and enjoyment of Site No.1. There is an RCC
building with ground and first floor. In Site Nos.3 and 4 are
there are shops and defendant No.5 is in lawful possession
and enjoyment of the Site Nos.1, 3 and 4.
57
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
70. It is further contended that, children of defendant
No.3 conveyed one site with buildings to defendant No.5 in
respect of part of Sy.No.38 by mentioning its Corporation
Numbers with buildings. Defendant No.5 purchased another
site with building in Sy.No.38 on 05.06.2003 from defendant
No.4 and he is in possession of those properties. The
properties purchased under registered Sale Deed dtd.
29.06.1998 wherein there is godown storing iron and steel
scrap materials having registered with Commercial Tax
Department under CST, KST and also registered with Central
Exercise in the name and style of M/s J.K.Steels Traders
represented by its Proprietor/ defendant No.5.
71. It is further contended that, in respect of another
property bearing Corporation No.31 in part of the land where
there is Bakery in the name and style of 'Sage Bakery and
Sweets' by P.K.Narayan, who was in permissive possession
under defendant No.5 and defendant No.5 has filed
58
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
O.S.No.5515/ 2010 and obtained an order of Eviction against
P.K.Narayan and an Execution Petition No. 1047/ 2012 is
pending before the City Civil Court, Bangalore and said
P.K.Narayan has filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 647/ 2012
for restoration of the suit which was decreed in favour of
defendant No.5 and same was also dismissed on
03.04.2018.
72. It is further contended that, defendant No.5 has
let out the hind portion of the property bearing No.31 to
Vijaya Bharathi School, who are parking their school vehicles
and said P.K.Narayan has filed O.S.No.25777/ 2011 for
Injunction against defendant No.5 and same was dismissed
on 29.03.2019. Defendant No.4 conveyed Site bearing No.29
to defendant No.7 in respect of part of the land by way of
sites, mentioning its Corporation numbers with buildings.
Defendant No.7 is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the
properties which are the part of the properties carved out of
land and defendant No.7 has let out the part of the property
59
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
purchased by him to one V.P.Chathu and he has filed
O.S.No.26501/ 2009 for ejectment, which was decreed on
03.08.2009. Later, defendant No.7 filed Execution Petition
No. 25142/ 2009 and obtained delivery warrant and evicted
him from said premises and defendant No.7 is in possession
and enjoyment of the same. The suit is barred by time and
Court fee paid is insufficient. Hence, prayed for dismissing
the suit with cost.
73. Defendant No.8 filed additional written statement
after amendment by the plaintiff and contended that, the
declaration sought for by the plaintiff with respect to the sale
transactions by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4
and further Sale Deed dtd. 06.08.2004 executed by
defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.8 and other sale
transactions in respect of other defendants is barred by time,
hence, no declaration can be granted.
60
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
74. It is further contended that, prior to filing of the
present suit, defendant No.8 purchased the property BMP
No.28, formed in Sy.No.38 out of 0-30 guntas situated at
Manorayanapalya, Cholanayakanahalli Dhakle, Kasaba
Hobli, measuring East to West 58 feet and North to South 40
feet, totally 2320 square feet consisting of ground and first
floors (commercial and residential building). Said defendant.
No.8 is in actual possession and enjoyment of his property.
At the first instance without seeking any relief against
defendant No.8 and without impleading him in this suit,
plaintiff filed the suit only against defendant's vendor and
obtained the interim order. Defendant No.8 and 5 to 7 have
got impleaded later and thereby the interim order passed by
this Court is vacated.
75. It is further contended that, plaintiff had
knowledge about the property purchased by defendant No.8
and building constructed by him much earlier to filing of the
present suit. The Declaration sought for by the plaintiff
61
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
pertaining to registered instrument bearing No.1964/ 1999-
2000 by adding Sy.No.38 in place of Assessment No.38 by
directing Sub-Registrar to rectify the registered Sale Deed is
unsustainable in law.
76. Other averments of Written Statement filed on
behalf of defendants Nos.4 to 7 is re-iterated by defendant
No.8. Said defendant No.8 has denied all the averments of
amended plaint and further contended that, as per the orders
of the Hon'ble High Court, defendant No.3 at the first
instance alienated 0-30 guntas of land in favour of defendant
No.4. Subsequent to that, there are several sale transactions
held. The various orders of Land Tribunal, Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka and other Courts have remained
undisputed and unchallenged. Hence, prayed for dismissing
the suit with cost in the interest of justice.
77. On considering the rival contentions, my Learned
Predecessor in office has framed the following :-
62
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
ISSUES
(1) Is suit property measuring 72/2 + 642 feet
East -West and 145 feet North - South,
carved by plaint Schedule boundaries and
consisting of two square A.C Sheet shed, a
part of Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli?
(2) Did the land in Sy.No.38 of
Cholanayakanahalli belong to
Aswathanarayana and his family members
as alleged in para-4 of plaint?
(3) Did first defendant's father Gopala Rao
derive title over the portion of land in
Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli under
registered Sale Deed dtd. 19.04.1949
executed by Aswathanarayana and his family
members?
(4) Was said Gopal Rao in possession of the
land conveyed under registered Sale Deed
dtd. 13.10.1953 executed by
Aswathanarayana?
63
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
(5) Had the first defendant marketable title to
convey in favour of plaintiff Venkatamma and
her son Mahesh under Sale Deeds dtd.
29.05.1999 referred in para-5 of plaint?
(6) Did 3rd defendant derive title over 30
guntas of land in Sy.No.38 of
Cholanayakanahalli under Sale Deed dtd.
04.08.1960 executed by Doddamuniyappa?
(7) If not, did defendant No.4 derive title over
30 guntas, under Sale Deed dtd. 30.10.2002
executed by defendant No.3?
(8) Does plaintiff prove that she sunk a bore
well and also put up structure on suit
property?
(9) Is the Deed of cancellation dtd.
18.07.2002 executed by first defendant
purporting to cancel the registered Sale Deed
dtd. 29.05.1999 executed in plaintiff's favour
and to rectify the Sale Deed in 3rd plaintiff's
favour, null and void?
64
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
(10) Is the suit property valued and the Court
Fee paid sufficient?
(11) Is the alleged interference true?
(12) Was the Compromise Memo by
Smt. Thulasamma and her children, filed in
Writ Appeal 3410/ 2001, with a view to defeat
present plaintiff's claim over suit property?
(13) What Decree or order?
Additional Issues framed on 05.09.2009
1. Whether plaintiff proves that there is a
bonafide mistake in the Sale Deed instead of
Sy.No. Assessment number is typed?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the
rectification of registered Sale Deed dtd.
29.05.1999?
3. Whether the suit is properly valued and
Court fee paid is sufficient?
65
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
78. In order to prove plaintiff's case, the Special
Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff got examined as Pw.1
and got marked 4 documents as per Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4.
On behalf of defendants, defendant No.5, 7, 6 and 4 got
themselves examined as Dws.1 to Dw.4 respectively and got
marked 220 documents as per Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.220. (Ex.D. 1
to 16 got confronted through Pw.1 during the cross-
examination of Dw.1)
79. Heard the arguments, perused the records.
80. On considering the materials placed before me, my
findings on the above Issues is as under:-
ISSUE No.1 - In the Negative
ISSUE No.2 - In the Negative
ISSUE No.3 - In the Negative
ISSUE No.4 - In the Negative
ISSUE No.5 - In the Negative
ISSUE No.6 - In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.7 - In the Affirmative
66
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
ISSUE No.8 - In the Negative
ISSUE No.9 - In the Negative
ISSUE No.10 - In the Negative
ISSUE No.11 - In the Negative
ISSUE No.12 - In the Negative
Addl. Issue-1 dtd. 05.09.2009- In the Negative
Addl. Issue -2 dtd. 05.09.2009- In the Negative
Addl. Issue-3 dtd. 05.09.2009- In the Negative
ISSUE No.13 - As per final order,
for the following :-
REASONS
ISSUE Nos.1 to 5 and 8: All these issues are inter-
linked with each other, hence they are taken together for
discussions, in order to avoid repetition of facts and
evidence.
81. Plaintiff has come up with the present suit
seeking declaration that, she is the absolute owner and in
possession of suit schedule property by virtue of registered
Sale Deed dated 29.05.1999 and further declaration that the
Cancellation Deed executed by defendant on 18.07.2002
are null and void and ineffective and not binding on the
plaintiff and that, no transaction between defendant No. 3
67
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
and 4 in respect of suit schedule property is binding on the
plaintiff and said transaction did not affect the right and
interest of plaintiff on the suit schedule property and for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents
or anybody from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and
passing decree directing the Sub- Registrar to rectify the
registered instrument by adding Survey No. 38 in place of
Assessment No. 38 and for passing Judgment declaring that
the right, title claimed by defendant No. 5 through defendant
No. 4 under Registrar Sale Deed dtd 05.06.2003 is null,
void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.
82. In support of the plaintiff's case, the S.P.A. Holder
of plaintiff by name Sree Manjunath, who is none other than
the son of plaintiff got examined as PW1 and filed his
examination in chief affidavit in consonance with the plaint
averments and got marked about 4 documents as Ex.P1 to
P4 which consists of Certified copy of registered Sale Deed
68
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
dated 29.05.1999, Certified cpy of Encumbrance Certificate,
Certified Copy of RTC and Certified Copy of Special Power
of Attorney dtd. 27.10.2023.
83. He was subjected to cross-examination by
Learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 5 and 7, wherein to the
suggestion as to whether in Exs.P1 and 2 Sale Deeds there
is reference of Survey No. 38, he stated that there is
reference of Assessment No. 38 and Assessment Number
itself is Survey No. 38. He has produced document to show
that Assessment No. 38 and Survey No. 38 are one and the
same, but he cannot say which is the document. He gave
evasive reply to the suggestion that, in the year 1995 all the
properties came to the jurisdiction of BBMP. He is aware
about the case pending before Land Tribunal. To the
suggestion that on 17.05.1979 Muninagappa had submitted
application that, he is the tenant under Nagaraju, S/o
Gopalrao in 2 acres of land in Survey No. 38 and said
69
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
application is dismissed, he stated that only with respect to 1
acre 10 guntas that order is passed.
84. He admitted that, the order passed by Land
Tribunal in the year 1979 is not challenged by Nagaraju. He
admitted that after passing of that order on 29.05.1999 his
parents and brother purchased the property from Nagaraju.
He admitted that Nagaraju was defendant in the case before
Land Tribunal. It is elicited that Ex.P.5 sale deed is not
questioned by Nagaraju. Mr. Ashwath Narayan acquired the
property in the year 04.08.1949 by virtue of Sale Deed. He
admitted that order as per Ex.P42 is passed during
pendency of the present suit. He admitted that Survey No.
38 is not vacant land and houses and shops are constructed
in said property. Since two photographs are identified by him
with respect to the property, same are marked as Ex.D1 and
Ex.D2 in confrontation. It is elicited that the building
forthcoming in Ex.D1 and 2 exists in suit property. Some
eight photographs are confronted to the witness and same
70
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
are admitted by him. Hence they are marked as Exs.D.3 to
Exs.D.10. He admitted that the buildings forthcoming in all
the photographs exists in suit property.
85. To the suggestion that defendant No. 7 is
carrying on business in that building which is seen in the
photographs, he has stated that highhandedly, since 1 year
defendant No. 7 is running business there and volunteered
that they have given police complaint against defendant No.
7. He admitted that one Balaji is running Bar and Restaurant
in the property pertaining to defendant No. 6 and he is aware
about the previous and pending suits with respect to suit
property. The original Survey Nos. 32 and 38, measuring 14
acres and 32 guntas, belonged to Gopalrao and his son
Nagaraju. He has produced the Sale Deed with respect to
Sy.No. 38 measuring 14 acres and 32 guntas and the Sale
Deed executed in their favour. He cannot tell the boundaries
mentioned in the Sale Deed pertaining to Gopalrao and
Ashwath Narayan. There are more than 15 buildings in suit
71
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
property. He admitted that towards Southern side of suit
property there is Vinutha Bar and Restaurant.
86. It is elicited that they have mentioned regarding
existence of said building, in their Sale Deed. He admitted
that there is electricity connection to said building and said
electricity meter is in the name of Balaji, and volunteered that
same was in the name of his father. He cannot say whether
any written objections were submitted while transferring the
electricity meter in the name of Balaji. To the suggestion that
towards Northern side of Balaji's property, Defendant No. 8
has constructed building of ground and first floor, he stated
that, his father constructed the same. His father did not
obtain any permission for putting up construction on said
property.
87. It is elicited that, they are not paying tax to
Municipal Corporation with respect to said property in their
name. Without their knowledge Jameel got filed O.S No.
26501 / 2011 against the tenants and obtained Decree. He
72
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
admitted that they have filed Miscellaneous No. 25130 / 2012
against the Judgment and decree in O.S No. 26501 /2011
and same has been dismissed and no appeal is preferred
against the same. He volunteered that in the present suit he
has arrayed them as parties. One Mr V.P Chattu is the
tenant of Jameel. He volunteered that earlier he was tenant
under their father for 10 years. They do not have any receipts
regarding the rent nor any documents regarding paying of
rent through bank transaction.
88. It is elicited that, from 1990 for about 15 years the
electricity meter pertaining to those shops was in the name of
his father. He can produce document regarding the same. To
the suggestion that Tea and Raddi shop is run in said
property, he stated that after filing of the present suit they are
running said shop highhandedly in the suit property. He
admitted that towards Northern side of the shop pertaining to
defendant No. 7 there is 25 feet road running East-West and
it is existing in Survey No. 38 since prior to 1995. In the Sale
73
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Deed produced by him, said road is not mentioned. He
admitted that in the present suit he has included that road
along with the suit property.
89. He admitted that towards Northern side of
suit property there is J.K Godown and it measures 60 x 70
feet. To the suggestion that it belongs to defendant No. 5, he
stated that it belongs to them. He gave evasive reply to the
suggestion that, by virtue of registered Sale Deed dtd.
29.06.1998 Jaleel has purchased the property and obtained
electricity connection to the building. He admitted that,
towards Southern side of J.K.Godown there are shops
measuring East to West 15 feet and North to South 50 feet
and towards Southern side of those shops, there is 25 feet
wide road described above. He admitted that, in 1953 Sale
Deed the boundary towards Eastern side is mentioned as
Byrasandra Village.
90. He admitted that, Ramaiah and his family
members executed Ex.P.10/ Sale Deed in favour of
74
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
defendant No.4. Except Ramaiah other members are not
made as parties in that suit. Since he admitted one
photograph pertaining to the property same is marked as
Ex.D.11 and it is elicited that, the building forthcoming in
Ex.D.11 consists of ground and first floor and same is
constructed in the year 1998-99 and even electricity
connection is obtained to that building. However, permission
was not taken for construction of building. He admitted that,
in said building there is Bar and Restaurant pertaining to
defendant No.6. Since he admitted the photograph regarding
the same it is marked as Ex.D.12.
91. It is elicited that, the building forthcoming in
Ex.D.12 is 25 year old building and measures about 60 x 30
feet. He admitted that said building is existing since prior to
1999. There is mention regarding the same in the Sale Deed
pertaining to his father. When Ex.P.1 is shown to him and it is
suggested that there is no reference regarding existence of
structure measuring 60 x 30 feet he admitted the same. To
75
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
the suggestion that since prior to 1999 defendant No.6 is
running Vinutha Bar & Restaurant, he stated that, his father
had given the building to defendant No.6 on rental basis.
92. It is elicited that, there are totally 15 shop
premises in suit property and there is electricity connection to
them. He admitted that in the Sale Deeds, there is reference
regarding two sheet A.C.C house. He admitted that, in Sale
Deed there is reference of 60 x 30 feet building and it
consists of building pertaining to Poonaram. Since he
admitted the photograph regarding the road running East to
West in Sy.No.38, same is marked as Ex.D.13. He admitted
that there is suit pending with respect to the ground
pertaining to Vijaya Bharathi School and admitted the
photograph regarding that property, hence it is marked as
Ex.D.14 another photograph pertaining to building of
J.K.Steel is admitted in confrontation, hence it is marked as
Ex.D.15.
76
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
93. It is elicited that in the year 1999 they got
measured Sy.No.38 and it was 30 guntas. However
document regarding said measurement is not produced
before the Court. The Khatha of 30 guntas was in the name
of Nagaraju. He has not produced the Khatha document and
documents regarding boundaries of said 30 guntas. Since he
identified another photograph of a house, same is marked as
Ex.D.16 and it is elicited that, the house forthcoming in the
photograph was constructed in the year 2004 and 3 rd party is
residing in that house and they are not arrayed as parties in
the present suit. Towards Southern side of Balajai Upahara
Gruha house in Ex.D.16 is situated and it measures 30 x 64
feet. He admitted that there are two shops below that house.
Towards Southern side of house forthcoming in Ex.D.16
there are shops and residential houses.
94. To the suggestion that as per the order of Land
Tribunal and order passed in Writ Appeal No.3410/ 2001 the
three Sale Deeds are cancelled, he stated that without
77
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
issuing any Notice to them and without bringing to their
Notice, said order is passed. To the suggestion as to whether
they have taken any steps with respect to cancellation of
Sale Deed, he stated that, even those parties are arrayed as
defendants in this suit. The fact regarding sale of property by
Ramaiah to Dastagir Sab in the year 2002 came to his
knowledge in the year 2004 and immediately they have filed
the present suit. He came to know regarding cancellation of
Sale Deeds in the year 2002.
95. It is elicited that, Muninagappa, Gullappa and
others submitted application before Land Tribunal with
respect to 14 Acres 32 guntas of land in Sy.No.38 and
Muninagappa had sought for tenancy rights with respect to 2
Acres of land, however only 1 Acre 10 guntas was granted in
his favour. Writ Petition was filed by Nagaraju against said
order. To the suggestion that in the year 2004, Sy.No.38 was
not agricultural land, he stated that when they purchased
78
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Sy.No.38 it was agricultural land. At the time of filing the suit,
shops were constructed in Sy.No.38.
96. He admitted that as on 02.06.2010 there were
residential houses, shops and Godown in Sy.No.38.
Nagaraju had filed O.S.No.2047/ 2000 with respect to 30
guntas of land. To the suggestion that on 06.11.2002
defendant No.2 purchased Site No.2 measuring 1800 feet
from defendant No.4, he stated that earlier he was tenant and
only in the year 2009 he came to know regarding the Sale
Deed.
97. To the suggestion as to in which building plaintiffs
are in possession as forthcoming in Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.18, he
stated that, they are in possession of the buildings
forthcoming in Exs.D.4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16. He has
produced documents regarding the same. He admitted that
he has not seen defendant No.3 Ramaiah, he saw defendant
No.2 Jayaram in childhood. To the suggestion that, during
life time Doddamuniyappa he sold 30 guntas of land in
79
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Sy.No.38 in favour of defendant No.3 Ramaiah by virtue of
registered Sale Deed dtd.04.08.1960, he stated that it is
created document and he has no knowledge about the same.
He admitted that, Sale Deed dtd. 04.08.1960 and
Rectification Deed dtd. 26.12.2001 are the documents
executed prior to filing of the present suit.
98. It is elicited that, defendant No.4 sold 6600
square feet in favour of defendant No.7. He has not produced
any documents to show that they got constructed building on
the land measuring 6600 square feet and are in possession
of the same and volunteered that, he has produced Electricity
bill. There are no documents regarding putting up of
construction by them on 6600 square feet area. There is no
Khata in BBMP in their names with respect to said lands.
99. He admitted that 2400 square feet is sold by
defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.8 and there is RCC
building in that property. He volunteered that his father has
80
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
constructed that building and stated that they have no
documents regarding the same. He admitted that out of 2400
square feet sold to defendant No.8, he has sold Southern
1800 square feet to defendant No.6 and defendant No.6 is
running Bar and Restaurant in that property.
100. It is elicited that himself and his parents are
residing at Dasarahalli which is about 45 to 60 KM away from
suit schedule property. They have constructed the shops in the
suit property and rented them and they have documents
regarding the same. He admitted that in the portion of the
property retained by defendant No.4 there are RCC buildings,
shop premises etc. They have not filed any separate suit
challenging the cancellation of Sale Deed.
101. In support of the defence taken by the
defendants, defendant No. 5 Syed Jaleel Ahmad got himself
examined as DW.1 and filed his examination- in- chief
affidavit in consonance with the written statement averments
filed on his behalf and he has got marked Exhibits D7 to
81
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
D111 which include the various sale deeds, taxpayer
receipts, Khata certificates, encumbrance certificates,
receipts regarding payment of betterment charges, the
judgment decree in OS No. 5515 / 2010, O.S No. 257 / 2011,
Electricity bills, document regarding obtaining electricity
connection, the copy of application submitted before
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, GSTIN number,
copy I.T returns, index of land, record of rights, mutation
extracts, Pahanis, Certified copy of order in LRF Nos. 787,
883, 3126, 3247 and 3351/77-78, certified copy of order in
Writ Petition No. 23999 / 1992, Writ Petition No. 3410 / 2001,
certified copy of order in RA 306 / 2002, 2003 before D.A.C
Bangalore, copy of Writ Petition Order in 65 / 2004 etc.
(Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.16 got confronted through Pw.1 during the
course of cross-examination).
102. He was subjected to cross examination on
behalf of plaintiff wherein he admitted that, he purchased the
suit property from defendant No. 4 and before purchasing the
82
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
property he has perused all the documents regarding the
same. He admitted that in Ex.D17 in the schedule, it is
mentioned that said property bearing number 31 is the part
and parcel of Re-Sy.38. He admitted that in Sale Deed
pertaining to defendant No. 4, property is described as
Survey No. 38. He cannot say on what basis they have
mentioned the property as Re-survey No. 38 in Ex.D17. In re-
survey number 38, he has purchased 65 x 64 feet of land
from defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4 purchased 30 guntas
of land from Sri T. Ramaiah in Sy.No.38. Out of that, 65 x
64 feet of land was sold by defendant No. 4 in his favour. In
30 guntas of land, defendant No. 4 has formed sites.
Defendant No. 4 has prepared sketch and handed over to
them and same has been produced by defendant No. 4 to the
court. He has purchased Site No. 31 and abutting to the
same there is BBMP Site No. 29. There is one bakery of 4
shutters and one tailor shop of 1 shutter in the property
purchased by him and he has rented the same. One Sri P.K.
Narayan runs the bakery and one Smt Pavitra runs the tailor
83
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
shop. There is no any written Rent Agreement between him
and tenants.
103. It is elicited that since the tenants did not
give the rent properly he has filed suit against them. He has
filed Execution petition No.1047 / 2012 against them in view
of the decree passed in that suit. He admitted that present
plaintiff appeared in that petition as Obstructor. Behind the
bakery there is open space and same is rented to Vijaya
Bharati School. He has produced the Rent Agreement with
respect to the same. He has not challenged the revenue
records standing in the name of plaintiff with respect to
Survey No. 38. He has Khata and Revenue documents with
respect to the property purchased by him since 2003.
104. To the suggestion that in the documents
produced by him with respect to Site No.31, it is mentioned
as Re-survey No. 38 and there is no mention as Survey No.
38, he stated that both the numbers are one and the same.
He admitted that plaintiff's son Manjunath gave complaint
84
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
against him before Hebbal Police on 05.01.2024 and F.I.R
was registered. Since he identified the certified copy of F.I.R
and complaint in confrontation same are marked as Ex. P52.
He admitted that with respect to the same, Case is pending
before I ACMM Court and he has obtained bail in the same.
Since he identified the certified copy of bail order, same is
marked as Ex. P53. The schedule mentioned in Ex. D17 is
correct. He admitted that he filed O.S No. 5515 / 2010
against P.K. Narayan. He admitted that in Ex.D48 there is no
mention that, the site mentioned in that document is part and
parcel of Survey No. 38. He admitted that in Ex.D48, Site
Nos. 12 and 13 are mentioned and volunteered that Revenue
Authorities have given those site numbers.
105. It is elicited that since the measurement of
the property bearing Sy.No. 38 was wrongly mentioned in the
Sale Deed of the year 1960, the Rectification Deed as per
Ex.P9 was executed on 26.12.2001. It is elicited that the
property mentioned in Ex.P9 and Ex.D.48 are one and the
85
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
same. He admitted that the main document based in the suit
is the Sale Deed of the year 1960 executed in favour of T.
Ramaiah. It is elicited that the property purchased by T.
Ramaiah in the year 1960 and the property pertaining to
Muniyappa are both different properties.
106. He admitted that Dastgir Sab who has sold
the property to him has filed several suits and applications
before various courts and revenue authorities alleging that
Survey No. 38 is agricultural land. He admitted that on the
basis of Ex.D97 Rectification Deed said to have been
executed by Ramaiah in favour of Jayaram, Sale Deed was
executed in favour of Dastgir Sab.
107. It is elicited that the property sold in favour
of defendant No.4 by virtue of Ex.D48 is part and parcel of 30
guntas of land in Sy No. 38. The property purchased by him
is part and parcel of the property purchased by Dastgir Sab
by virtue of Ex.D48. He has knowledge about The Sale
Deeds executed in favour of plaintiff and their family
86
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
members in the year 1999 with respect to the suit property
and volunteered that after appearing in this suit he came to
know regarding the same. He gave evasive reply to the
suggestion that Ashwath Narayana was the owner of said 14
acres of land, by virtue of Sale Deed dated 04.04.1949. He
gave evasive reply to the suggestion that Ashwath Narayana
sold said property in favour of Gopal Rao by virtue of Sale
Deed dated 30.10.1953. He knows that one Nagaraju is the
son of Gopal Rao and he is also party in this suit.
108. He admitted that after registration of
mutation and Khatha of the property in the name of Nagaraju,
he sold the property in favour of plaintiffs by virtue of three
different Sale deeds and volunteered that Nagaraju had no
authority to execute the Sale Deeds. To the suggestion that
when Muniyappa purchased the property from Nagaraju in
the year 1999 it was agricultural land, he stated that on
01.10.1995 itself said property came within the jurisdiction of
B.B.M.P and he has produced documents regarding the
87
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
same. He admitted that his brother i.e. defendant No. 7
Jameel Ahmad was Corporator in BBMP, at J.P Nagar
jurisdiction from the year 1996 up-to 2004.
109. Defendant No. 7 Syed Jameel Ahmad got
examined in this case as DW2 and he filed his examination in
chief affidavit in consonance with the written statement
averments and has got marked documents from Ex.D112 to
181 which include the sale deeds, Khatha certificates,
betterment charge paid receipts, Khatha extract, Tax paid
receipts, Encumbrance Certificates, Certified copies of order
sheet, plaint written statement, Compromise Petition in
O.S .No. 2650 /2009, Certified copies of order sheet, delivery
warrant and other documents in Ex.P.No. 25142 / 2009,
Certified copy of order sheet in Misc.No. 25130 / 2009, three
rent agreements, electricity bills, electricity paid receipts,
endorsement issued by BBMP, Letter addressed to Joint
Commissioner, Sanction Order by BESCOM etc.
88
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
110. He was also subjected to cross examination
by Learned Counsel for plaintiff wherein it is elicited that he
purchased the property from K.M. Dastigir Sab and K.M.
Dastigir Sab has purchased the property from T. Ramaiah.
He has purchased one site in 30 guntas of land. Plaintiff
was not party in O.S No. 26501 / 2009. He is aware of filing
of Misc.P.No. 25130 / 2009 by plaintiff with respect to O.S
No. 26501/ 2009. To the suggestion that on the basis of
decree in O.S No. 26501 / 2009 he has got obtained the
possession of the suit property, he has stated that by virtue of
Court process itself he has obtained the possession of suit
property. To the suggestion that suit property was purchased
by plaintiff from Nagaraju by virtue of three different Sale
deeds, he stated that after dismissal of the application of
Nagaraju by the Land Tribunal, these Sale Deeds were
executed.
111. Defendant No. 6, Sri. B. Balaji, s/o Late
Byrappa got examined in this case as DW.3 and he filed his
89
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
examination in chief affidavit in consonance with his written
statement averments and got marked the Certified copies of
Sale Deeds dtd. 30.10.2002, 06.11.2002, Encumbrance and
Nil Encumbrance Certificates, Tax paid receipts, Khatha
Extract, Khatha Certificate, License obtained from Excise
Department, Form No. C issued by Excise Department,
Electricity bills, Water bills and photographs as per Ex.D182
to Ex.D.220.
112. He was also subjected to cross-examination
by Learned Counsel for plaintiff wherein he admitted that, in
his examination in chief affidavit he has got mentioned that
Dastagir Sab formed layout in the suit property and also
formed sites and constructed buildings over the same area.
At the time of selling the property by Dastagir Sab to him,
sites were formed in said property. Dastagir sab purchased
the property on 30.10.2002 from T. Ramaiah. He purchased
the property from Dastagir Sab on 06.11.2002. Since 1990
he is in possession of the suit property and running Bar and
90
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Restaurant over there. Initially he took the property on rental
basis from T. Ramaiah. In the year 1990, T. Ramaiah had
formed sites in said property. After formation of sites by
Dastagir Sab, he purchased the property. When he obtained
the property in the year 1990 from T. Ramaiah, he was aged
about 18 years.
113. It is elicited that, Ramaiah has not executed
any document regarding handing over possession to him with
respect to the property described in Ex.D.183. The property
purchased by him from Dastagir Sab and the shop rented to
him by Ramaiah are one and the same. He was running Bar
and Restaurant in the property given to him by Ramaiah. He
has no documents to show that he was running Bar and
Restaurant in that property since 1990. He admitted that in
Ex.D.185 to 201 there is no mention of survey number or site
number of the property. He admitted that as per the
documents produced by him, it is forthcoming that the tax
pertaining to the year 2008 to 2023 and the betterment
91
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
charges of the property are paid by him in the year 2022
during pendency of this suit and has obtained said
documents.
114. He admitted that in Ex.D.204, Site No. 2 is
not mentioned. He admitted that Ex.D. 205 License is not in
his name and it is in the name of B. Radhakrishna and
volunteered that he is his brother. He admitted that in
Ex.D.208 the address is mentioned as No. 38-18
Manonarayanapalya R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru.
115. Defendant No. 4, K.M. Dasthagir Sab, S/o
Mohedin Sab, got examined himself as DW.4 and he filed his
examination- in -chief affidavit in consonance with his written
statement averments.
116. He was subjected to cross-examination by
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff wherein it is elicited that, at the time
of his purchasing the property from T. Ramaiah the
measurement of the property was mentioned in yards and
92
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
while selling the property in favour of defendant No. 5 and 7
he has mentioned the measurement of the property in square
feet. Before selling the property to defendant No. 5 and
defendant No. 7, he had formed sites in said property and
even the site numbers were given. He also got approved the
plan from Grama Panchayath. However, he has not produced
the sketch or plan to the court. T.Ramaiah purchased said
property from Doddamuniyappa. Sri T. Ramaiah and his
family members have signed on the sale deed executed in
his favour as per Ex.D.88. He does not know the extent of
suit property. He admitted that the property purchased by him
and the present suit property are both different properties.
117. He admitted that in the Writ Petition
pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, as
mentioned by him in his examination in chief affidavit,
Muniyappa and family members are not parties. According to
him, the property pertaining to Muniyappa and the property
purchased by him are both different. The property purchased
93
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
by him is in Survey No. 38. Ramaiah sold 30 guntas of land
in Survey No. 38 in his favour by virtue of registered Sale
Deed. In the petitions filed before A.C and D.C Courts, he
has mentioned the extent of the property as 30 guntas and
nature of the property as agricultural land. Before purchasing
the property from T. Ramaiah, he verified the revenue
records pertaining to 30 guntas of land standing in the name
of T. Ramaiah.
118. It is elicited that, he formed 10 sites in 30
guntas of land and retained 1 site by selling 9 sites. The
measurement of the sites were different. The site retained by
him is Site No. 1. He has not produced documents regarding
the same. After verifying the Rectification Deed, he got
executed the Sale Deed. Since the schedule was wrongly
mentioned in the Sale Deed, the Rectification Deed was
executed. He admitted that in Rectification Deed it is
mentioned that since there is mistake in the schedule of Sale
94
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Deed pertaining to the year 1960-61, the Rectification Deed
has been executed.
119. In the instant suit, plaintiff is seeking
declaration that she is the absolute owner of suit schedule
property as per registered Sale Deed dtd.29.05.1999 and
also sought the declaration that Cancellation Deed executed
by Defendant No. 1 on 18.07.2002 is null and void and not
binding on the plaintiff, Declaration that the transaction
between defendant Nos.3 and 4 in respect of suit schedule
property is not binding on her and for the relief of Permanent
Injunction, Rectification of instrument by adding Survey No.
38 in place of Assessment No. 38 and for declaring that the
title claimed by defendant No. 5 through defendant No. 4
under Registered Sale Deed is null and void, illegal and not
binding on the plaintiff.
120. The description of the scheduled property
as mentioned in the plaint schedule is Survey No. 38,
95
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Cholanayakanahalli, Bangalore North, measuring East-West
64 feet, North-South 156 feet, consisting of a mud house of 2
square with AC sheet roofing with following boundaries. The
document relied upon by plaintiff seeking declaration of
ownership over the suit property is the Sale Deed dtd.
29.05.1999 executed by G.Nagaraj S/o S.Gopal Rao,
G.N.Venugopal S/o G.Nagaraj. The description of the
property sold under said Sale Deed is as under:
Khata No.27, Assessment No.38, out of which site No.3,
Khaneshumari No.3, situated at Cholanayakanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, consisting of house
bounded by : East by Government road towards
Vishwanathanaganahalli, West by Property belonging to Smt.
Tulasamma, North by property belonging to Sri Govindaraju
and south by property sold under Sale Deed to Sri Mahesh,
measuring East to West towards Northern side 72 feet,
Southern side 64 feet and North to South 145 feet and it is
mentioned as site property consisting of mud wall house
without any Civic amenities, whereas in the plaint Schedule
96
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
the suit schedule property is mentioned as Sy.No.38,
Cholanayakanahalli measuring East to West 64 feet and
North to South 145 feet.
121. Ex.P.2 is the Encumbrance Certificate of
the year 01.04.1999 to 18.12.2003 which discloses alleged
transaction between G.Nagaraj, G.N.Venugopal and
Smt.Venkatamma. The Record of Right pertaining to suit
property for the year 1997-98 has been produced and the
name of S.Nagaraj S/o Gopal Rao.S, K.N.Sridhar Murthy has
been mentioned and further, there is name of Ramaiah,
Narayanappa, Chennappa, etc.,
122. On the other hand, defendant No.4
K.M.Dastagir Sab, is claiming to be the owner of property
bearing Re-Sy.No.38, to the extent East to West 27 Yards
(ಗಜ) and North to South 141 Yards (ಗಜ) or 0-30 guntas
situated at Cholanayakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore and he has produced the
Certified Copy of Sale Deed dtd. 30.10.2002 executed by
97
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
T.Ramaiah and others with respect to the same.
Subsequently said Dastagir Sab has sold portion of the
properties purchased by him in favour of defendant Nos.5
and 7 i.e., Syed Jaleel Ahmed and Syed Jameel Ahmed.
123. Here, no-doubt even in evidence of
defendants there are several contradictions and Dws.1 to 4
have admitted at some instances in cross-examination that,
the property purchased by plaintiff and the property
purchased by them are different. However, only based on
some stray admissions or considering the loopholes or
lapses in the defendants case, plaintiff cannot take
advantage. Here, since plaintiff has approached this Court
seeking the relief of declaration of title with respect to the suit
schedule property and also seeking direction to the Sub-
Registrar for making necessary rectification in the Sale Deed
bearing document No. 1964/ 1999- 2000 by adding Sy.No.38
in place of Assessment No. Ss-38 and to rectify the
instrument suitably, entire burden is on plaintiff to prove her
98
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
case and to establish her title over the suit schedule property
as described in the plaint.
124. In order to substantiate the measurement,
description and ownership over the suit schedule property
described in the plaint, along with the Sale Deed, RTC and
Encumbrance Certificate, plaintiff has produced the previous
Sale deeds of the years 1949, 1954, 1960 and the various
RTC extracts depicting the name of Gopal Rao and others
and in the RTC extract of Sy.No.38, the names of
Muniyappa, Venkatamma is jointly mentioned in respect of
30 guntas of land.
125. It is well settled principles of law that, mere
Revenue Records or RTC extracts are not the documents of
title and though it is categorically argued and so also
suggested in cross-examination of defendant witnesses that
plaintiff Venkatamma, Muniyappa and Mahesh purchased
30 guntas of land in Sy.No.38, there is no any Title Deed
regarding the same. The Sale Deed as per Ex.P.1 relied
99
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
upon by the plaintiff Smt.Venkatamma herein is with respect
to Site No.3, in Khata No.27 of Assessment No.38,
Cholanayakanhalli, Kasaba Hobli, measuring East to West
towards Northern side 72 feet, Southern side 64 feet and
North to South 145 feet comprising of site and Mud house
with A.C. Sheet roofing, whereas in Suit schedule the
property is mentioned as, Sy.No.38 to the extent measuring
East to West 64 feet, North to South 145 feet with 2 square
A.C. Sheet mud house
126. Here, though in the Sale Deed the
description of the property is as mentioned above, the
description in plaint is entirely different. In the instant case
along with claiming title over the suit schedule property, even
plaintiff has sought for direction to the Sub-Registrar, for
rectifying the Sale Deed and adding survey number in place
of Assessment number. If at all, there was mistake in the
description of the property by mentioning Assessment
number instead of survey number in the Sale Deed, there
100
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
was no impediment for plaintiff to get executed Rectification
Deed from the vendor within reasonable period. However,
plaintiff has not taken any steps nor made any efforts
regarding the same.
127. The main contention of plaintiff is that, the
property said to have been purchased by defendant No.4
Dastagir Sab and later sold to defendant Nos.5 to 7 is
mentioned as Re- Sy.No.38 and it is not at all the property
purchased by plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has succeeded to
prove title over the suit schedule property and as the Sale
Deed executed in favour of defendants is with respect to Re
Sy.No.38, same will not cause any effect on the right, title
and interest of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
128. Here, as already discussed above and as
per the settled principles of Law the mistakes, lapses or
contradictions in the defendants case cannot become trump-
card for the plaintiff to prove his / her contention and as
101
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
plaintiff is seeking declaration of title over the suit schedule
property along with several prayers of Rectifications of the
Sale Deeds etc, the entire burden is on plaintiff.
129. Here, though in the previous Sale Deeds
standing in the name of plaintiff's vendors and their vendors,
there is reference regarding Sy.No.38 and sale of the same,
in the very Sale Deed relied upon by plaintiff i.e., Sale Deed
dtd. 29.05.1999 there is no mention of Survey number and it
is mentioned as Assessment number and no documents with
respect to Assessment number are produced by the plaintiff.
Moreover, in the Sale Deed, Site number has been
mentioned, whereas in the plaint Schedule the plaintiff has
not mentioned site number as forthcoming in Ex.P.1/ Sale
Deed. Hence, there are several contradictions, loopholes in
the plaintiff's case and plaintiff has failed to prove the very
identity of the property.
102
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
130. Moreover, as the title and possession of
plaintiff over the suit schedule property and so also very
description of the property has been seriously disputed by the
defendants, the initial burden of proving the same is on the
plaintiff and only if plaintiff succeeds in discharging the initial
burden, onus shifts on the defendants. However plaintiff has
failed to discharge her initial burden of proving her title and
possession over the suit schedule property as described in
the plaint. Hence, plaintiff has absolutely failed to prove the
very existence of suit property as described in the plaint and
her ownership over the same. Even she has not placed on
record any documents to show that, Sy.No.38 of
Cholanayakanahalli, initially belonged to Ashwath Narayana
and his family members and that, Gopal Rao and Nagaraj
had authority to sell the same in favour of plaintiff.
131. Moreover, thought it is categorically averred
and stated by the plaintiff that, the suit schedule property is
part and parcel of Sy.No.38 and that, after purchasing the
103
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
property she sunk borewell and has put up structure on said
property etc., she has not produced any documents
regarding the same. The various documents produced in
O.S.No.6570/ 2004 filed by husband and son of present
plaintiff are all the RTC extracts, Encumbrance Certificates
and previous Sale Deeds. However, there are no documents
or Certificates issued by any concerned Revenue Authorities
to hold that the property sold in favour of plaintiff by virtue of
Ex.P.1/ Sale Deed and the suit schedule property described
in the plaint are one and the same.
132. Hence, in the above facts and
circumstances of the case, plaintiff has failed to prove that
Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli belonged to Ashwath
Narayana and his family members and defendant No.1
derived title over the same and conveyed said land to her by
virtue of registered Sale Deed and she being in possession of
the same, has put up structure and dug bore-well etc. Hence,
104
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
in view of my above discussions, I answer Issue Nos.1 to 5
and 8 in the Negative.
ISSUE Nos.6 and 7: Both these issues are inter-
related with each, hence they are taken together for
discussions, in order to avoid repetition of facts and
evidence.
133. Defendant No.4 has categorically averred
and stated that, defendant No.3 had derived title over 30
guntas of land in Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli vide
registered Sale Deed dtd. 04.08.1960 executed by Dodda
Muniyappa and by virtue of the same, said defendant No.3/
T.Ramaiah sold said land in favour of defendant No.4, by
virtue of registered Sale Deed dtd. 30.10.2002.
134. In support of said contention the defendants
herein have produced the Sale Deeds, Orders in Writ
Petition, Order passed by Land Tribunal etc, wherein it is
forthcoming that, after it is held by the Hon'ble High Court
that Ramaiah has acquired 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.38,
105
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Sale Deed was executed by T.Ramaiah and his family
members in favour of defendant No.4 K.M.Dastagir Sab in
respect of 30 guntas of land in Re-Sy.No.38 and
subsequently said defendant No.4 has executed Sale Deeds
in favour of defendants Nos.5 to 8.
135. On perusal of the order passed in
W.A.No.3410/ 2001 it is forthcoming that, T.Ramaiah
preferred said Writ Appeal and it came to be disposed off as
allowed, by setting aside the order of Learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition No. 23999/ 1992 wherein the order of Tribunal
granting Occupancy right in respect of 30 gunts of land in
Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli in favour of T.Ramaiah was
modified. Even another Writ Appeal No.3657/ 2001 was also
disposed off accordingly in view of allowing of Writ Appeal
No.3410/ 2001. Moreover, in Revision Petition No.757 / 2002
in Writ Appeal No. 3410/ 2001 filed by Thulasamma and
others against T.Ramaiah and others the Revision petition
was dismissed holding that only by filing Memo alleging fraud
106
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
is not sufficient and the party alleging fraud must plead and
prove the same beyond reasonable doubt and thereby liberty
was given to the petitioner to approach appropriate Court to
file necessary case and to plead and prove the fraud played if
any on them.
136. From the various orders discussed above, it
is forthcoming that, 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.38 was sold in
favour of T.Ramaiah and he was in possession and
enjoyment of the same along with his family members and
later sold the property in favour of defendant No.4. Even in
Writ Appeal No. 3410/ 2001 discussed above, it is observed
that, as the respondents filed Memo by not disputing the fact
that T.Ramaiah having purchased 30 guntas of land in
Sy.No.38 and is in possession of the same they have no
objections for allowing the Appeal.
137. Here the main arguments canvassed on
behalf of plaintiff and the main cross-examination done to the
defendants witnesses by Learned Counsel for plaintiff is to
107
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
the effect that, the property purchased by defendant No.4
from T.Ramaiah and then sold to defendants Nos.5 to 8 is
Re-Sy.No.38, whereas the property purchased by present
plaintiff and her family members from Gopal Rao and others
is Sy.No.38, hence both the properties are different and that,
the sale transactions between defendants Nos.3 to 8 are not
at all binding on the plaintiff's right, title or interest and
possession over the suit schedule property. However, said
contention of plaintiff Counsel is not sustainable for the
reason that, survey number and Re-Survey number belong to
same property and Survey number pertains to the original
property and after Division, Sub-division or Amalgamation
etc., Re-Survey Number will be given.
138. The Rectification deed dtd. 26.12.2001 is
produced on behalf of plaintiff wherein it is executed by
Jayaram i.e., defendant No.2 in favour of T.Ramaiah and it is
mentioned that, Sale Deed was executed on 26.09.1960 in
respect of East to West 27 yards and North to South 141
108
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
yards in Re-Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli and in said
document, instead of mentioning the measurement as East to
West 27 yards and North to South 141 yards, it was wrongly
mentioned Vice-versa as East to West 141 yards and North
to South 27 yards by typographical error. Hence, same
needs to be rectified and hence-forth the measurement of the
property may be considered and read as Re-Sy.No.38
measuring East to West 27 yards and North to South 141
yards. In the Sale Deed executed in favour of defendant No.4
Dastagir Sab by T.Ramaiah the description of property is
mentioned as Re-Sy.No.38 measuring East to West 27
yards, North to South 141 yards (0.30 guntas).
139. Hence, from the available documents and
from the admission of PW.1 in cross-examination it is proved
by defendants that, defendant No.3/T.Ramaiah derived title
over 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli
under registered Sale deed dtd. 04.08.1960 executed by
Dodda Muniyappa and later defendant No.4 derived title over
109
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
said land by virtue of Sale Deed dtd 30.10.2002 executed by
defendant No.3 in his favour. Hence, I answer Issue Nos.6
and 7 in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No. 9 and ADDITIONAL ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2
DTD.05.09.2009 :- All these issues are inter-related with
each other, hence they are taken together for discussions, in
order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
140. The main contention taken by plaintiff is
that, the Cancellation Deed dtd. 18.07.2002 executed by
defendant No.1 by purporting to cancel registered Sale Deed
dtd. 29.05.1999 executed in favour of plaintiff and seeking
Rectification of Sale Deed is null and void and that there is
bonafide mistake in the Sale Deed, wherein instead of
Survey Number, Assessment number is mentioned. Hence,
she is entitled for Rectification of Sale Deed dtd. 29.05.1999.
141. The Deed of Cancellation dtd. 18.07.2002
said to have been executed by defendant No.1 by cancelling
110
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
the Sale Deeds dtd. 29.05.1999 executed in favour of Smt.
Venkatamma, Sri Muniyappa and Sri Mahesh in respect of
suit schedule properties are produced on behalf of
defendants and same are marked as Exs.D.233 to 235,
wherein in said documents it is mentioned that, since there
was no transfer of possession of suit schedule property and
the covenants in the original Sale Deeds regarding peaceful
possession etc., said Sale Deeds could not be implemented
or given effect, hence vendors have unilaterally decided to
cancel those Sale Deeds and further, declared that, same are
null and void and does not have any effect etc.
142. No-doubt, one party cannot unilaterally
cancel the conveyance Deed without the consent or
knowledge of other side and also cannot suo-motto declare
the registered Document to be null and void and that, it has
to be done by any competent Court of Law. However, even if
it is considered that, the Deed of Cancellation dtd.
18.07.2002 are not lawful documents and that, they do not
111
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
effect any right, title, interest or possession of plaintiff with
respect to the properties acquired on the basis of registered
Sale Deed dtd. 29.05.1999, same will not discharge the
burden of plaintiff in proving the identification or the suit
schedule property and the title and possession of the plaintiff
over said property.
143. Learned Counsel for plaintiff very much
argued that, defendant No.2 Jayaram has filed Written
Statement and consented for decreeing the suit and has
stated in the Written Statement that, he has not at all
executed any Cancellation Deed by cancelling the Sale Deed
executed in favour of plaintiff. Hence, the Sale Deed
executed in favour of plaintiff is valid and the contention
taken by defendant is not sustainable etc. However, said
contention is not sustainable for the reason that, though
defendant No.2 has filed Written Statement by taking said
contention, he has not appeared before the Court to lead
evidence on his behalf in order to substantiate the contention
112
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
taken by him in the Written Statement. Hence, in view of the
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of
Vidyadhar V/s Manick Rao reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441,
adverse inference can be drawn against defendant No.2 as it
is clearly laid down in said decision that party taking specific
defence must appear to lead evidence in support of his
contention and tender for cross-examination. Hence, in view
of not leading evidence by defendant No.2 in support of
Written Statement averments, the contentions of his Written
Statement cannot be considered or believed.
144. As already discussed above, plaintiff has
absolutely failed to prove that the property purchased by her
is part and parcel of Sy.No.38 of Cholanayakanahalli and that
the property number was wrongly mentioned as Assessment
No.38 in the Sale Deed. Even she has failed to prove her
contention that there was bona-fide mistake in the Sale Deed
wherein Survey number was wrongly typed as Assessment
Number. Hence, she is not entitled for the relief of
113
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
Rectification of registered Sale Deed dtd. 29.05.1999 as she
has failed to place materials on record to prove that, property
purchased under Sale deed dtd. 29.05.1999 is part and
parcel of Sy.No.38 as claimed by her.
145. Moreover, as discussed above, if at all
there was any mistake in the Sale Deed with respect to
property Number, she ought to have sought for rectification
from her vendor within reasonable point of time. Hence, the
prayer claimed by plaintiff directing the Sub-Registrar to carry
out the rectification of property Number as Survey Number 38
instead of Assessment No.38 is not at all acceptable or
sustainable in the eyes of Law. Hence, Issue Nos.9 and
additional Issue Nos.1 and 2 dtd. 05.09.2009 are answered in
the Negative.
ISSUE No.10 and ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.3 dtd.
05.09.2009: All these issues are inter-related with each
other, hence they are taken together for discussions, in order
to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
114
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
146. One of the contention taken by defendants
is that valuation made and Court fee paid by the plaintiff is
not proper and correct. It is the specific contention of
defendants that, since plaintiff has sought for the relief of
declaration of his title, Rectification, Injunction etc., plaintiff is
liable to pay Court fee on the market value of the property as
on the date of seeking for the relief of Declaration.
147. On perusal of the plaint, valuation slip etc.,
it is forthcoming that plaintiff has valued the suit as per
Sections 7(2) and 47 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act and initially paid Court fee of Rs.275/- and on
perusal of original plaint and endorsement on the same, it is
forthcoming that, after amendment additional Court fee of
Rs.40,000/- is paid by the plaintiff. However, no fresh
valuation slip is forthcoming to ascertain as to how the
valuation is made and by considering which provisions of
KCF and SV Act. Here since it is categorically admitted by
Pw.1 that as on the date of filing the suit there were several
115
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
shops, houses and other buildings over the suit schedule
property and the suit property was not agricultural land, in
view of Declaration of ownership sought for by the plaintiff,
Court fee needs to be paid as per Section-24 (b) of KCF and
SV Act. Hence, the valuation made and Court fee paid by the
plaintiff is not proper and correct. Accordingly, I answer these
issues in the Negative.
ISSUE Nos.11 and 12:- All these issues are inter-
related with each other, hence they are taken together for
discussions, in order to avoid repetition of facts and
evidence.
148. As discussed above, plaintiff has absolutely
failed to prove that the property purchased by plaintiff by
virtue of sale Deed dtd. 29.05.1999 and the Schedule
property described in the plaint are one and the same and
thereby failed to prove the very ownership and possession
over the suit schedule property. Hence, there is no occasion
of considering the alleged interference by the defendants in
116
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of suit schedule
property.
149. So far as the contention of plaintiff
regarding filing of Compromise Memo filed by
Smt.Tulasamma and her children in W.P.No. 3410/ 2001 was
fraudulent and filed with intention of defeat plaintiff's claim
over suit schedule property is concerned, plaintiff has failed
to properly plead and prove the fraudulent act of Smt.
Tulasamma and her children. Moreover only if plaintiff
succeeds to prove her possession and entitle over the suit
schedule property, under such circumstances only all other
contentions can be considered. Hence, Issue Nos.11 and 12
are answered in the Negative.
ISSUE No.13 :
150. In view of my findings on aforesaid Issues, I
proceed to pass the following:-
117
O.S.No.6571/ 2004
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, directly on computer, typed by her and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this 26th day of November, 2025).
(Renuka D.Raikar) XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
P.W.1 : Sri Manjunath
2.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Sale Deed dtd. 29.05.1999 Ex.P.2 : Encumbrance Certificate for 1999- 2003 Ex.P.3 : RTC with respect to Sy.No.38 Ex.P.4 : Special Power of Attorney dtd. 27.10.2023 118 O.S.No.6571/ 2004
3. WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTs:
Dw.1 : Sri Syed Jaleel Ahmed Dw.2 : Sri Syed Jameel Ahmed Dw.3 : Sri B.Balaji Dw.4 : Sri K.M.Dasthagir Sab
4. DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTs:
Ex.D.1 to 15 : Photographs Ex.D.16 : C/c of deposition of Pw.1 in O.S.6570/ 2004 Ex.D.17 : C/c of original registered Sale Deed dtd. 05.06.2003 Ex.D.18 : C/c of Khata Certificate Ex.D.19 : C/c of Tax register extract Ex.D.20 to Ex.D.26 : C/copies of tax paid receipts Ex.D.27 : C/c of Acknowledgment issued by BBMP for the year 2013-14 Ex.D.28 : C/c of tax paid receipt Ex.D.29 : C/c of Acknowledgment issued by BBMP for the year 2012-13 Ex.D.30 : C/c of tax paid receipt Ex.D.31 : C/copies of Acknowledgments to issued by BBMP for the year Ex.D.33 2011-12, 28.03.2009, 30.8.2009 Ex.D.34, 35 : C/copies of tax paid receipts Ex.D.36,37 : C/copies of Acknowledgment for the years 2004-2005, 2007-2008 Ex.D.38 to 40 : C/copies of E/Cs for 2003-2004, 2004-2005 119 O.S.No.6571/ 2004 Ex.D.41, 42: C/copies of Judgment and decree in OS.No.5515/ 2010 Ex.D.43 : C/copy of Order in Misc. 647/ 2012 Ex.D.44, 45: C/copies of Judgment and decree in OS.No.25777/ 2011 Ex.D.46, 47 : C/copies of two Rent Agreements dtd 21.09.2023, 10.07.2003 Ex.D.48 : C/c registered sale deed dtd.
29.06.1998 Ex.D.49 : C/c of Betterment Charges Ex.D.50 : C/c Khata registration document dtd. 21.08.2004 Ex.D.51 to Ex.D.53 : C/c of Khata Certificate Ex.D.54 to Ex.D.56 : C/copies of Khata Extracts dtd.
13.09.2004, 23.09.2009 and 02.11.2011 Ex.D.57 : C/c of Acknowledgment for 1995- 2004 Ex.D.58 to Ex.D.63 : C/copies of tax paid receipts Ex.D.64 : C/c of Acknowledgment for 2015- 16 Ex.D.65 : c/c tax paid receipt Ex.D.66 : C/c of Acknowledgment for the year 2012- 13 Ex.D.67 :C/c of Tax paid receipt dtd. 30.04.2012 Ex.D.68 : C/c of Acknowledgment for the year 2011-12 Ex.D.69 :C/c of Tax paid receipt dtd. 30.04.2010 Ex.D.70 : C/c of Acknowledgment for year 2010-11 Ex.D.71 : C/c of Tax paid receipt dtd. 30.08.2009 120 O.S.No.6571/ 2004 Ex.D.72 : C/c of Acknowledgment for the year 2009-10 Ex.D.73 : C/c of Tax paid receipt for the year 2007- 2008 Ex.D.74 : C/c of Acknowledgment Ex.D.75 : C/c of Acknowledgment dtd. 22.06.2007 Ex.D.76 : CC of Encumbrance Certificate for to the period 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2004 Ex.D.78 Ex.D.79 : 63 Electricity bills and receipts Ex.D.80 : C/c of Central Excise Registration Certificate Ex.D.81 : C/c application dtd. 04.12.2008 issued to Central Excise Department Ex.D.82 : C/c of Registration Certificate Ex.D.83 : C/c of VAT registration Certificate Ex.D.84 : C/c of application dtd. 03.04.2001 issued to Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Department Ex.D.85 : C/c of GST Tin Number Ex.D.86 : C/c of Letter of Assistant Commissioner Ex.D.87 : C/c of Regtd. Sale Deed dtd. 30.10.2002 Ex.D.88 : C/c of M.R.No. 2/ 2003-04 Ex.D.89 : C/copies of four Pahanis of suit schedule property Ex.D.90 : C/c of affidavit issued by BBMP Ex.D.91 : C/c of Tax register Book Ex.D.92 : C/c of .tax paid receipt Ex.D.93 :
to Ex.D.95 : C/copies of Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D.96 : C/c of registered Rectification Letter dtd. 26.12.2001 121 O.S.No.6571/ 2004 Ex.D.97 : C/c of Index of Land Ex.D.98 : C/c of Record of Right Ex.D.99 : C/c of Mutation Register Extract Ex.D.100 : C/c of Pahani Ex.D.101 : C/copies of order in L.R.F Nos.787, 883, 3126. 3247 and 3351/77-78 Ex.D.102 and 103 : C/copies of Form No.10 Ex.D.104 : Challan Ex.D.105 and 106 : C/copies of order in W.P.23999/ 1992 and 3410/2001 Ex.D.107 : Letter issued by BBMP to Asst.
Revenue Officer Ex.D.108 and 109 : C/copies of order and proceedings in R.A. No. 306/2002- 2003 Ex.D.110 : C/c of Appeal submitted to Assistant Commissioner Ex.D.111 : C/c of order in Rev.V.65/ 2004 Ex.D.112 : C/c of Registered Sale Deed dtd.
05.06.203 Ex.D.113 : C/c of Registration certificate Ex.D.114 : Two receipts Ex.D.115 : C/c of Affidavit Ex.D.116 : C/c of Khata Certificate Ex.D.117 and 119 : C/c of Khata Extracts Ex.D.120 : C/copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.D.121 : C/copy of Challan Ex.D.122 : C/copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.D.123 : C/copy of Challan Ex.D.124 : C/copy of Tax paid receipts to Ex.D.126 Ex.D.127 : C/copy of Challan 122 O.S.No.6571/ 2004 Ex.D.128 : C/copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.D.129 : C/copy of Challan Ex.D.130 : C/copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.D.131 : C/copy of Challan Ex.D.132 : C/copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.D.133 : C/copy of Challan Ex.D.134 and 135 : C/copies of Tax paid receipts Ex.D.136 : C/copy Acknowledgment for 2015- 16 Ex.D.137 to Ex.D.142: C/c Tax paid receipts Ex.D.143 to Ex.D.148 : C/copies of Tax paid receipts and Acknowledgments Ex.D.149 : C/c of Acknowledgment Ex.D.150 : C/c of Receipt Ex.D.151 and 152 : C/copies of Acknowledgments Ex.D.153 : C/c of Receipt Ex.D.154 to Ex.D.160 : C/copies of Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D.161, and 162 : C/copies of Khata Certificates and Khata Extract Ex.D.163 to Ex.D.166 : Certified copies of Order sheet, Plaint, written statement, Compromise Petition in O.S.No.2650/ 2009 Ex.D.167 and 168 : C/copies of order sheet and Delivery warrant along with other documents in Ex.P.25142/ 2009 Ex.D.169 : C/c of order in Misc.No.25130/ 2009 123 O.S.No.6571/ 2004 Ex.D.170 to Ex.D.172 : C/copies of Rent Agreements Ex.D.173 to Ex.D.176: 4 Electricity bills Ex.D.177 and 178 : E-copy of Electricity bills Ex.D.179 : C/c of Endorsement issued by BBMP Ex.D.180 : C/c of letter addressed to Joint Commissioner Ex.D.181 : C/c of Sanctioned order of BESCOM Ex.D.182 : C/c of Registered Sale Deed dtd.
30.10.2002 Ex.D.183 : C/c of registered Sale Deed dtd.
06.11.2002
Ex.D.184 : C/c of E/c
Ex.D.185
to Ex.D.201 : C/copies of tax paid receipts
Ex.D.202 : C/c of receipt
Ex.D.203 : C/c of Khata Registration Document
Ex.D.204 : C/c of A-Katha Extract
Ex.D.205
and D.206 : C/copies of License and Form No.C
issued by Excise Department Ex.D.207 to Ex.D.213 : C/copies of Electricity bills Ex.D.214 :
to Ex.D.218 : C/copies of water bills Ex.D.219 : Photographs Ex.D.220 : C/c of Encumbrance Certificate (Renuka D.Raikar) XXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 124 O.S.No.6571/ 2004