Bangalore District Court
Ramegowda D vs Sadappa D on 25 July, 2025
KABC010150372017
THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-25) AT BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 25th DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT : Smt. Nisharani A.C., B.A., LL.B.,
III Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
O.S.No.4140/2017
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Sri.Ramegowda.D,
S/o Late Doddaramayya,
Aged about 52 years.
2. Mrs.Harshitha.J.R.
D/o Ramegowda,
Aged about 24 years.
3. Sri.Akash J.R.
S/o Sri.Ramegowda,
Aged about 20 years.
All are residing at
No.152/A, 2nd Main Road,
Jalahalli Village,
Near Muthyalamma Temple,
Bengaluru - 560 013.
(By Sri.B.Yogeendra Achar, Advocate)
V/S
2 O.S.No.4140/2017
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri.D.Sadappa,
S/o Late Doddaramayya,
Aged about 54 years,
2. Sri.Abhilash J.S.
S/o D.Sadappa,
Aged about 28 years,
3. Mrs.Aswini L.S.
D/o D.Sadappa,
Aged about 27 years,
4. Sri.Harsha Nayaka
S/o D.Sadappa,
Aged about 22 years.
The defendants No.1 to 4 are
R/at No.324/9, Patel Layout,
Bahubali Nagar, Jalahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 013.
5. Sri.D.Hanume Gowda,
S/o Late Doddaramayya,
Aged about 49 years.
6. Sri.J.H.Anup Kumar
S/o D Hanume Gowda,
Aged about 23 years.
7. J.H.Akila Nayaka
D/o D Hanume Gowda,
Aged about 18 years.
The defendants No.5 to 7 are
R/at No.324/9, Patel Layout,
Bahubali Nagar, Jalahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 013.
3 O.S.No.4140/2017
8. Mrs. Vijaya.L,
W/o L.Nagesh Rao,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.423, 3rd Block,
5th Main, 12th Cross, BEL Layout,
Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru - 560 097.
9. Sri. L.Nagesh Rao
S/o Ankaiah,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.423, 3rd Block,
5th Main, 12th Cross, BEL Layout,
Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru - 560 097.
(D.1 by Sri/Smt.S.M.T, Advocate
D.2 to 7 - Exparte
D.8 by Sri/Smt.V.M, Advocate
D.9 by Sri/Smt.V.H, Advocate )
Date of institution of Suit 21.06.2017
Nature of the Suit Partition
Date of commencement 11.06.2018
of recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 25.07.2025
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
08 01 04
(Nisharani A.C)
III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
4 O.S.No.4140/2017
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession and declaring the Sale Deed dated 31.08.2009 is not binding and sought for consequential relief of peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of site Municipal No.7, (formerly site No.6 and 9, old land property No.16/1, situated at Jalahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bahubalinagara, Bengaluru, Ward No.2, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South, Eastern side 63-60 feet, Western side 62-60 feet and bounded on:-
East: Site No.7 and 8,
West: Site No.5 and 10,
North: Road,
South: Road.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case are as under:-
The plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the children of the 1 st plaintiff. The defendants No.2, 3 and 4 are the children 5 O.S.No.4140/2017 of 1st defendant. The defendants No.6 and 7 are the children of 5th defendant. The 1st plaintiff is the younger brother of the 1st defendant. The 5th defendant is the youngest brother of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the members of Hindu Undivided Family governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law. The grandfather of the 1st plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 5, Late Patel Hanumaiah was having huge ancestral property including the property described in the schedule of property. He died intestate on 24.02.1996 leaving behind his son Patel Doddaramayya (since dead) the plaintiffs No.1 and 2, the defendants No.1 to 4 and the defendants No.5 and 6 as his only legal heirs.
The schedule property left by late Patel Doddaramayya devolved on the plaintiffs and the defendants herein as his only legal heirs. The plaintiffs and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule property ever since from their ancestors period. The 6 O.S.No.4140/2017 plaintiffs, the defendants No.1 to 4 and the defendants No.5 to 7 are having 1/ 3 rd equal joint share in the schedule property along with other property left by late Patel Hanumaiah and late Patel Doddaramayya. 2(a). The father of the 1st plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 5 late Patel Doddaramayya was looking after the schedule property with other property during his life time. The plaintiff No.1 and the defendants No.1 and 5 are looking after the schedule property after the death of their father late Patel Doddaramayya. The plaintiffs and defendants are the joint owners of the schedule property. Except the plaintiffs and the defendants no one is having any right, title or interest whatsoever in the schedule property. The copy of Sale Deed dated 18.02.1932 executed by late Patel Hanumaiah, the grandfather of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants No.1 and 5 is produced. The defendants No.1 and 5 are started to behave in a rude manner with 7 O.S.No.4140/2017 the plaintiffs. There is no cordial and harmonious relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants since sometimes. On 17.06.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., the defendant No.8 came near the schedule property along with five workers who were holding some property developing iron equipments and attempted to enter/ trespass into same. The 1st plaintiff's son the 3rd plaintiff herein fortunately was present there in the schedule property at that time and held up in the work of cleaning the schedule property. The 3rd plaintiff prevented the defendant No.8 and her workers from entering into the schedule property and questioned them under what authority they are trying to enter into the schedule property. The defendant No.8 answered that she has purchased the schedule property from one Mr.L.Nagesh Rao who is in no way concerned to the schedule property. The said Mr.L.Nagesh Rao is a stranger and 8 O.S.No.4140/2017 he has no right, title or interest whatsoever in the schedule property.
2(b). The plaintiffs further submits that the total extent of land in Sy.No.16/1 owned by Patel Hanumaiah was 7 acres and 33 guntas. Patel Hanumaiah had two sons namely Doddaramayya and Chikka Ramaiah. After demise of Chikka Ramaiah, his son Ramaanjanappa and Doddaramayya partitioned the properties on 12.05.1986. In this partition, the branch of Doddaramayya was allotted totally 2 acres and 14 guntas in Sy.No.16/1 and Ramaanjanappa was allotted 2 acres and 14 guntas in Sy.No.16/1. The remaining land in this survey number had been sold by them earlier to the partition itself. Sri. Doddaramayya and his sons had jointly sold the land allotted to their share except the suit schedule property. However, the suit schedule property which is a part of the land allotted to the branch of Doddaramayya was not sold to the 9 O.S.No.4140/2017 knowledge of the plaintiffs. The 1 st plaintiff has not executed the alleged power of attorney dated 02.11.1988 in favour of Sri.L. Nagesh Rao and the affidavit dated 02.11.1988. The alleged power of attorney dated 02.11.1988 based on which the said L.Nagesh Rao is alleged to have executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.8. Smt.Vijaya L. and the alleged affidavit dated 02.11.1988 are forged and concocted documents. Therefore, the Sale Deed dated 31.08.2009 alleged to have been executed by Sri.L.Nagesh Rao in favour of defendant No.8 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs on account of aforesaid happenings got suspicion about the very attitude of the defendants No.1 to 7 and apprehended that they may part with the possession of the schedule property and with the defendant No.8 and allow her and her workers, men etc. to develop or improve the same illegally with an intention to cause harassment to the 10 O.S.No.4140/2017 plaintiffs and to have some unlawful gain. The cause of action for the suit arose on 24.02.1996 when the father of the plaintiff No.1 and defendants No.1 and 5 died intestate and subsequently on 17.06.2017 when the defendant No.8 attempted to trespass into the schedule property. Therefore, to decree the suit.
3. On the other hand, after issuance of suit summons the defendants No.1, 8 and 9 have appeared through their counsels and filed their separate written statement stating. The defendant No.1 in his written statement has submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. The suit is vexatious an untenable and erroneous and not sustainable in law. The plaintiffs have made a false claim and the suit is an abuse of process of law. The defendant No.1 is specifically and emphatically denied all the averments made in the plaint for the claim made 11 O.S.No.4140/2017 in respect of the suit schedule property as false and incorrect the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The defendant No.1 further submits that as per the Registered Sale Deed No.1873/1931-32 dated 18.02.1932 in favour of Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah and their families were enjoying the property as joint family property. As both property for the purpose of marriage and family necessities have together sold the property, measuring 1 acre during the year 1972, 1 acre during the year 1981 and 1 acre during the year 1982 and balance remaining property in respect of Sy.No.16/1, was 4 acres 33 guntas only, both the families of Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah together were enjoying the remaining property as joint family property. After the death of Sri.Chikkaramaiah, Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Ramanajnappa S/o late Sri.Chikkaramaiah have partitioned the remaining property of Sy.No.16/1 i.e. 4 acres 33 guntas dated 12 O.S.No.4140/2017 12.05.1986 between them equally approximately 1 acres 16.5 guntas each i.e. Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Ramanjanappa. After the partition of the property dated 12.05.1986, Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Ramanjanappa separated and living independently enjoying their share of properties.
3(a). The defendant No.1 submits that as his father of defendant No.1 was not having permanent job, himself and the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.5 were also not having any permanent jobs. Upon the partition of properties dated 12.05.1986, with intention to get monthly regularly income Sri.Doddaramaiah kept approximately half acre land for their purpose to put up construction of residential houses, shops and sheds and the remaining property of approximately 1 acres in Sy.No.16/1, they have made sites and sold to the purchasers in the year 1988 and out of the sale consideration amounts received, the defendant No.1 13 O.S.No.4140/2017 and his father late Sri.Doddaramaiah have put up the industrial sheds, shops and residential houses for their living and also to get monthly income out of the shops and sheds. After the death of Sri.Doddaramaiah, the defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.5 have partitioned their properties dated 27.04.1998 including the residential houses, industrial sheds and shops constructed in the half of acre land and the residential house, industrial sheds and shops were again divided between the defendant No.1, his mother Smt.Sakamma and his wife Smt.Pushpangiamma, defendant No.5 and his wife Smt.Lalitha the partition deed was registered on 05.07.2000. Sri.Late Patel Doddaramaiah, the defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.5 have sold the suit schedule property in the year 02.11.1988 to defendant No.9 for a sum of Rs.71,000/- and upon the receipt of entire sale consideration amount they have executed an affidavit and General Power of Attorney 14 O.S.No.4140/2017 before the notary Sri.K.M.Mahamohan dated 02.11.1988 and they have given possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants No.9 and defendant No.8 wife of defendant No.9. The defendants No.8 and 9 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and obtained necessary revenue documents in their favour and now the suit schedule property comes into the limits of BBMP, Bengaluru. The plaintiffs have no right and title to claim in the suit schedule property, they have filed this false suit with an intention to threaten and claim/ make illegal money from the defendants No.8 and
9. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
3(b). The defendant No.8 in her written statement has taken contention as stated in written statement of defendant No.1 and further contended that Sri.L.Nagesh Rao has obtained possession and Holder Khatha No.DA/W2PR564/03-04 dated 09.09.2003 and Holder 15 O.S.No.4140/2017 Khatha Certificate No.BMP/REV/2009-10/KC/427488 dated 08.09.2009 respectively issued by ARO, BMP, Bengaluru and paid betterment charges and taxes. Sri.L.Nagesh Rao who is the GPA holder and Khatha Holder of the suit schedule property has executed absolute Sale Deed dated 31.08.2009 in favour of defendant No.8. The defendant No.8 has approached the Revenue Authorities, BBMP, and obtained transfer of Khatha into her name and the BBMP authorities vide letter No.124/09-10 dated 31.12.2009 transferring the Khatha into her name and she has paid up-to-date taxes to the BBMP authorities in respect of suit schedule property. She has also obtained the Encumbrance Certificate for the period of 01.04.2004 to 26.08.2009, 01.04.1992 to 31.03.2004 and 01.04.2009 to 22.12.2009. Since from the date of purchase, the defendant No.8 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and exercising absolute 16 O.S.No.4140/2017 rights of ownership by getting the revenue records transferred into her name. The plaintiffs are not the (co- parceners) of the family of the other defendants and the plaintiffs are not in joint possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have not disclosed anything about the land of 7.33 acres and with an intention to grab the suit schedule property have intentionally has filed this suit to harass the defendant No.8 with ulterior motives. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
3(c). The defendants No.8 and 9 have filed their additional written statement stating that they are specifically and emphatically denied all the averments made in the plaint as false and incorrect, the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The defendants No.8 and 9 are in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ever since from the date of purchase and the documents produced by them prima 17 O.S.No.4140/2017 facie clearly proves that they are the absolute possession of the same. They have given details in the para No.14 and 15 of the main written statement that the plaintiff No.1 is also signatory to the General Power of Attorney and other documents executed in favour of the defendant No.9. The plaintiffs without any valid documents making false averments and claims before this Court. The suit itself is barred by limitation as after lapse of 29 years, the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 7 are family members all are colluding with an intention to harass the defendants No.8 and 9 have filed this false suit. The revenue documents produced clearly establishes that they are in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ever since from the date of purchase in the year 1988. Further the plaintiffs have not paid the property Court fee as they are not in the possession of the schedule property. The plaintiffs have not come up with clean hands and they 18 O.S.No.4140/2017 have filed a false case and making false allegations with ulterior motives and to harass the defendants No.8 and
9. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4. On the above rival contentions, this Court has framed the following issues on 06.07.2019 and additional issues on 11.11.2021:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 prove that the Suit Schedule Property is Joint Family Property of Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and Defendants No.1 to 7?
2. Whether the Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 prove that they are entitled to 1/3rd share jointly in Suit Schedule Property, and entitled for partition and separate possession of the same?
3. Whether the Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 prove that they are entitled for Permanent Injunction against Defendant No.8 restraining her from trespassing into Suit Schedule Property and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Suit Schedule Property by Plaintiffs No.1 to 3?19 O.S.No.4140/2017
4. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient?
5. Whether the Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are entitled for the reliefs as claimed for?
6. What Order or Decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that even though the 1st plaintiff has not executed Power of Attorney dated 02.11.1998 and affidavit dated 02.11.1998 in favour of Sri.L.Nagesh Rao, the said documents were forged, created?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that based on created and concocted Power of Attorney Sri.L.Nagesh Rao Sale Deed dated 31.08.2009 in favour of defendant No.8?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Power of Attorney dated 02.11.1998 standing in the name of Sri.L.Nagesh Rao and subsequent Sale Deed standing in the name of defendant No.8 is not binding upon them with respect to their share in the suit property?
5. In order to substantiate their case, 1st plaintiff examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 6. The defendant No.1 examined as D.W.1 and defendant No.9 examined as D.W.2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 34. 20 O.S.No.4140/2017
6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the title deed of the plaintiffs is marked as Ex.P.2 and typed copy as Ex.P.2(a) which is a Sale Deed dated 18.02.1932. It is not a Sale Deed because no consideration shown in Ex.P.2, it is a gift by father for discharging his duty. Consideration is need not be money their property taken away and handed over his property to Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah. A property of a individual can it be putting to common hotspoch it is a joint family orally or by transaction by joint family. The property exclusively property of Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah. Jointly, they partitioned properties some to Sri.Doddaramaiah and sons and Sri.Chikkaramaiah S/o Ramanjinappa at that time Sri.Chikkaramaiah died. Sri.Hanumaiah, Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah. The plaintiffs are the son and grandson of Sri.Doddaramaiah properties divided 21 O.S.No.4140/2017 among Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah measuring 2 acres 14 guntas each respectively. Rest of the properties are disposed off. Sri.Doddaramaiah has got three children Sri.Ramegowda (plaintiff No.1), Sri.D.Sadappa (defendant No.1) and Sri.D.Hanume Gowda (defendant No.5). All the three entered into partition deed. The suit schedule properties site No.6 and 9 is not the portion that is disposed off. The defendants No.8 and 9 are interfered with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1/ Sri.Sadappa brother of the plaintiff No.1 has filed the written statement in para No.8(a) of the amended plaint. The defendant No.8 taken plea GPA executed on 02.11.1988 in favour of defendant No.9 he executed a Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.8 his wife on 31.08.2009. To challenge that General Power of Attorney document and Sale Deed are not binding 8(a) and (b). The defendant No.1 in his written statement 22 O.S.No.4140/2017 para No.11 stated that on 18.02.193, 1972, 1981, 1982 total 7 acres 33 guntas remaining 4 acre 33 guntas are equally divided 2 acre 16.5 guntas each on 12.05.1986. Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah living separately. The defendant No.1 in his written statement at para No.14 stated that on 27.04.1998, again there was a partition between the defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.5, being and treated joined as joint family property. The defendant No.1 in his written statement at para No.16 stated that 1988 in favour of defendant No.8 on 02.11.1988. The plaintiffs are not parties to General Power of Attorney. The property sold on 02.11.1988. Registered document/ Sale Deed. The defendant No.8 since possession delivered it is vacant site possession goes with a title. The defendant No.1 written statement para No.14 of defendant No.8 written statement on 02.11.1988 plaintiffs added defendant No.8. The defendant No.1 in his written statement para 23 O.S.No.4140/2017 No.15 stated that betterment charges paid. The defendant No.9/ Sri.L.Nagesh Rao who is the GPA holder and Khatha Holder of the suit schedule property has executed absolute Sale Deed dated 31.08.2009 in favour of defendant No.8. Para No.22, the defendant No.9 is in the possession. The defendant No.8 in his written statement at para No.25 has stated that on 18.02.1932 one site alone filed all other properties are sold, because this is the only property which is in dispute. Page No.2 of cross of P.W.1, subsequently it is a joint family property not deposed by the P.W.1 in his cross examination. D.W.1 in his chief affidavit, para No.10 stated that right from the beginning joint family and General Power of Attorney not contains the signature of the plaintiff No.1. In the year 1996, Sri.Doddaramaiah died, therefore, in the year 2000 property was partitioned. Ex.D.1 joint family partition deed, the plaintiff name is not there as a executant. At 24 O.S.No.4140/2017 the time of execution of Ex.P.5, Sri.Doddaramaiah was not alive. Ex.P.1 is the death certificate. Ex.D.6 shows that 62 years and in Ex.P.5 it shown reflected as 72 years. Sri.Ramegowda not given GPA wherein is valid as plaintiff not executed Sale Deed in his favour on 31.08.2009. Sri.Doddaramaiah died at the age of 72 years. Para No.2 in Ex.P.5 misleading that vendor No.1 is not alive. Then to whom the defendants No.8 and 9 paid the consideration amount as per the General Power of Attorney. The learned counsel further argued that the Sale Deed can be executed only contemplated as u/Sec.54 of T.P.Act under a registered document/ instrument. After the death of Principal that is defendant General Power of Attorney will be not in existence. Then that General Power of Attorney is irrevocable GPA. Even though either by documents or by the conduct, it is a joint family property. All the properties are divided only 25 O.S.No.4140/2017 this property is in dispute. Therefore, prays to decree the suit.
7. The learned counsel for defendants No.8 and 9 argued that in the year 21.06.2017 the plaintiff No.1 with his children filed this suit against the defendants No.1 to 7 all are joint family members. The defendant No.8 purchased property and defendant No.9 husband executed a Sale Deed in favour of his wife arrayed as defendant No.8 herein. Para No.1 to 6 of the plaint, the grandfather Sri.Patel Hanumaiah purchased the property in the year 1931-32. Para No.7 and 8 are the important in original plaint 1996. Death of his father 24.02.1996 confirmed 17.06.2017. Sri.Doddaramaiah executed General Power of Attorney obtained amount in favour of defendant No.9 in the year 1988. In the year 2017 suit is filed. 21 years delay in filing the suit therefore, suit is barred by limitation. No relief sought against the defendant No.8 in the original plaint. Ex.P.1 26 O.S.No.4140/2017 and 2, RTC which is not marked. Partition deed between the plaintiff and father, his brother 2.13 guntas each. In the year 1996 Sri.Doddaramaiah died. The defendant No.8 is not trespassed. Ex.P.6 is the sale agreement dated 02.07.2018. During his life time father sold property to defendant No.8 and 9 for a period of 8 years even after selling of the property. Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient and they are not in the possession of the property. On 10.04.2018, the defendant No.8 placed exparte. Later on 11.06.2018, he has filed his power. Later on 02.07.2018, her husband that is defendant No.9 executed sale deed in favour of his wife who later on impleaded as party to the suit and arrayed as defendant No.9 in the present suit. The plaintiffs amended their plaint and added another prayer saying that the alleged Sale Deed executed by the defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9 is not binding on the plaintiffs share. Ex.D.1 no source of income to all the 27 O.S.No.4140/2017 three brothers, plaintiffs father, defendant No.3 and 4 out of income of selling the sites in ½ acre is retained they are in possession. No doubt to sh ow that except suit schedule property sold all other properties. Sri.Sadappa and Sri.Hanume Gowda with his father signed to the General Power of Attorney coupled with interest after 29 years the plaintiffs now filed this suit seeking partition. The defendant No.8 is the retired HAL employee who is a bonafide purchaser. Therefore, this suit is barred by limitation, after lapse of 29 years he has filed this suit which is not maintainable. Therefore, the plaint liable to be dismissed. Therefore, to dismiss the suit by imposing exemplary cost.
8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied that all the 3 are in signatories, wherein the plaintiff No.1 is not the signatory to the GPA. Therefore, he is entitled for his share over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs No.2 and 3 being the children of plaintiff No.1 28 O.S.No.4140/2017 they are also entitled as they are the co-parceners of plaintiff No.1. Kartha is entitled to sell the property for legal necessity which is not proved, no reason but to avoid a son either in the GPA or in the declaration property sold 1988 by GPA and affidavit. Kartha cannot deprive the right of other co-parceners over the ancestral property, he cannot transfer what he don't have. In 1988 when GPA executed the defendants No.5 and defendant No.1 signs it. Not thought of neither defendant No.1 interest. It is the property of Sri.Doddaramaiah only two sons cannot entitled to sell the property. As plaintiff No.1 is not the signatory by inheritance after the death of Sri.Doddaramaiah other parties. I am not a party to the GPA. The defendant No.8 has not right to execute any of the Sale Deed which is void. GPA cannot be altered after the death of Sri.Doddaramaiah. Then in the citation also similar. Registration agreement of sale but GPA and affidavit is a 29 O.S.No.4140/2017 sale requires registration invalid. Ex.D.6 is the GPA for which plaintiffs are not a signatories. Page No.10 of the citation contemporary are the coupled with interest. Whether his son can question his sale, he is not the signatory to the Sale Deed. Therefore, he can question his right. Hence, to decree the suit.
9. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs during the course of his arguments has filed memo along with following citations:-
1) 2025 SCC Online SC 448 in the case of M.S.Ananthamurthy and another V/s.
Manjula etc.
2) 2009 (7) SCC 363 in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State ofo Haryana and another.
3) 2001 0 Supreme (Del) 1168 in the case of Kewal Krishan Mayour V/s. Kailash Chand Mayor.
10. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has vehemently argued that as per the Registered Sale Deed No.1873/1931-32 dated 18.02.1932 in favour of 30 O.S.No.4140/2017 Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah and their families were enjoying the property as joint family property. As both property for the purpose of marriage and family necessities have together sold the property, measuring 1 acre during the year 1972, 1 acre during the year 1981 and 1 acre during the year 1982 and balance remaining property in respect of Sy.No.16/1, was 4 acres 33 guntas only, both the families of Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah together were enjoying the remaining property as joint family property. After the death of Sri.Chikkaramaiah, Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Ramanajnappa S/o late Sri.Chikkaramaiah have partitioned the remaining property of Sy.No.16/1 i.e. 4 acres 33 guntas dated 12.05.1986 between them equally approximately 1 acres 16.5 guntas each i.e. Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Ramanjanappa. After the partition of the property dated 12.05.1986, Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Ramanjanappa separated 31 O.S.No.4140/2017 and living independently enjoying their share of properties. The defendant No.1 submits that as his father of defendant No.1 was not having permanent job, himself and the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.5 were also not having any permanent jobs. Upon the partition of properties dated 12.05.1986, with intention to get monthly regular income Sri.Doddaramaiah kept approximately half acre land for their purpose to put up construction of residential houses, shops and sheds and the remaining property of approximately 1 acres in Sy.No.16/1, they have made sites and sold to the purchasers in the year 1988 and out of the sale consideration amounts received, the defendant No.1 and his father late Sri.Doddaramaiah have put up the industrial sheds, shops and residential houses for their living and also to get monthly income out of the shops and sheds. After the death of Sri.Doddaramaiah, the defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.5 have 32 O.S.No.4140/2017 partitioned their properties dated 27.04.1998 including the residential houses, industrial sheds and shops constructed in the half acre land and the residential house, industrial sheds and shops were again divided between the defendant No.1, his mother Smt.Sakamma and his wife Smt.Pushpangiamma, defendant No.5 and his wife Smt.Lalitha the partition deed was registered on 05.07.2000. Sri.Late Patel Doddaramaiah, the defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.5 have sold the suit schedule property in the year 02.11.1988 to defendant No.9 for a sum of Rs.71,000/- and upon the receipt of entire sale consideration amount they have executed an affidavit and General Power of Attorney before the notary Sri.K.M.Mahamohan dated 02.11.1988 and they have given possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants No.9 and defendant No.9 in favour of his wife arrayed as defendant No.8. The defendants No.8 and 9 are the absolute owners of 33 O.S.No.4140/2017 the suit schedule property and obtained necessary revenue documents in their favour and now the suit schedule property comes into the limits of BBMP, Bengaluru. The plaintiffs have no right and title to claim the suit schedule property, they have filed this false suit with an intention to threaten and claim/ make illegal money from the defendants No.8 and 9. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
11. The learned counsel for the defendants No.8 and 9 has filed memo along with following citations:-
1) Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru - RFA No.744/2016 and RFA No.743/2016 dated 28.05.2024 in the case of Sri.Chinnappa V/s. Smt.Sharadamma and Sri.C.Krishna and Smt.Sharadamma.
2) Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, Sri.Vidhyabharan V/s. Shivasharanappa dated 11.06.2024.
3) Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, Smt.Puttathayamma V/s. Siddamma on 28.10.2024.
4) Hon'ble Supreme Court under Sec.17 of Limitation Act, 1963, by Justice JB 34 O.S.No.4140/2017 Pardiwala and Justice R.Mahadevan, 06.05.2025.
5) Hon'ble Supreme Court, LAWS (SC) 2025- 4-55.
6) Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, H.L.Pipariya V/s. R.L.Pipariya, 02.05.2025.
Perused.
12. Heard arguments and materials available on record, my findings on the above issues are as under:-
ISSUE No.1 : In the Affirmative ISSUE No.2 : In the Affirmative ISSUE No.3 : In the Negative ISSUE No.4 : In the Affirmative ISSUE No.5 : In the Partly Affirmative Addl. ISSUE No.1 : In the Affirmative Addl. ISSUE No.2 : In the Affirmative Addl. ISSUE No.3 : In the Affirmative ISSUE No.6 : As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
13. ISSUES No.1 and 2:- Since these two issues are inter-related with each other, they are being 35 O.S.No.4140/2017 taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetition of facts.
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, during the course of cross-examining P.W.1 who is none other than the one of the sons of late Sri.Doddaramaiah confronted one document which is a partition deed of the year 2000 and the same is admitted by the plaintiff No.1. Therefore, the properties in partition deed dated 05.07.2000 are ancestral properties. Then it is also mentioned in the Ex.D.6 which is a GPA wherein all the three have executed a GPA in the name of defendant No.8. Then he has produced a document Ex.P.2 which shows that the plaintiff No.1's grandfather has acquired the said property to the extent of 7 acre 33 guntas by virtue of Gift Deed. Therefore, it is a ancestral property. And also the very General Power of Attorney which is marked as Ex.D.6, the recitals of GPA clarifies it is ancestral property. Then the defendants also produced 36 O.S.No.4140/2017 Ex.D.1 which is a partition deed entered into among all the three brothers that is plaintiff No.1, defendant No.1 and defendant No.5 and their wives wherein this also shows that the properties are the ancestral property. Also in the cross-examination the learned counsel for the defendant No.8 put forth a suggestion that property obtained by his grandfather by way of Gift Deed in the year 1932. Therefore, as the suggestion is the reflection this property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff No.1. Again the G-tree was also produced by the plaintiffs, wherein it is marked as Ex.P.4, wherein it clarifies that the plaintiff No.1 is the brother of defendants No.1 and 5 and also son of Sri.Doddaramaiah which is also not disputed by the defendants No.1, 8 and 9. Therefore, with all these observations, I hold Issues No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
14. Addl. Issues No.1, 2 and 3:- The very important issue framed by the Court and the burden 37 O.S.No.4140/2017 casted upon the plaintiff to prove that whether this GPA which is got marked as Ex.D.6 is not valid and whether the share of the plaintiffs is not infringed as he is not the signatory to the document.
Here, it is very pertinent to note that the GPA executed in the year 1988 by late Sri.Doddaramaiah, Sri.Sadappa and also Sri.Hanumaiah. The very recital of the GPA that in Ex.D.6 it is clearly mentioned that it is a ancestral property and the plaintiff name is mentioned in the said deed/ GPA but he has not signed to the GPA then the right of the plaintiff No.1 has to be protected. Then General Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff No.1's father and his brothers to sell, mortgage and even to do other acts as a agent. It is also pertinent to note that the Ex.P.1 clarifies that Sri.Doddaramaiah died on 24.02.1996 and the same is not disputed by defendants No.8 and 9 and the registered Sale Deed executed by defendant No.9 in favour of defendant No.8 38 O.S.No.4140/2017 in the year 2009 the Sale Deed also produced by the plaintiff and got marked as Ex.P.5.
15. Now it is the case of the plaintiff No.1 that he is not the signatory to the Ex.D.6 therefore, his right is to be protected and his share to be allotted to him. Then the plaintiffs counsel also produced the citation with respect to Sec.17(1)(b) of the Registration Act wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in 2025 SCC Online SC 448 in para 54 to 55 has held that "This principle was recently elaborated by the High Court of Karnataka in Channegowda & Anr. v. N.S. Vishwanath & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 153. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"14. An attempt is made on behalf of the plaintiffs to contend that the second plaintiff has sold the property as a General Power of Attorney Holder and not as a title holder. It is argued that the Power of attorney is not compulsorily registrable. The submission is noted with care. Suffice it to note that a deed of power of attorney 39 O.S.No.4140/2017 is not one of the instruments specified under Section 17 of the Registration Act compulsorily registrable. However, if a power has been created empowering the attorney to sell the property i.e., if a document that gives a right to the attorney holder to sell the immovable property, then it would be a document creating an interest in immovable property, which would require compulsory registration. In the present case, the General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favor of the second plaintiff is coupled with interest i.e., power of alienation is conferred but it is not registered. The Apex Court in the SURAJ LAMP's case has held that the General Power of Attorney Sale, or Sale Agreements/Will do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be considered valid modes of transfer of immovable property. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the declaration of facts/statement of facts (affidavit) and General Power of Attorney do not convey title. They are inadmissible in evidence." (Emphasis supplied) 40 O.S.No.4140/2017
55. The High Court rightly held that even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the holder, this alone cannot be a factor to reach the conclusion that she had an interest in the POA. Thus, even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the same beneficiary, this cannot be the sole factor to conclude that she had an interest in the subject-matter. Even if such an argument were to persuade this Court, the document must have been registered as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. In the absence of such registration, it would not be open for the holder of the POA to content that she had a valid right, title and interest in the immovable property to execute the registered sale deed in favour of appellant No. 2."
Wherein it is clearly observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that whenever any right, title passes through a document/ GPA though it is not a contemporaneous 41 O.S.No.4140/2017 u/Sec.49 of the Stamp Act it is to be registered and it will comes under the ambit of Sec.17(1)(b) of the Stamp Act.
16. Therefore, in the case on hand the GPA which is produced by the defendants at Ex.D.6 is not a registered document but a notarized one. Therefore, when it is not a registered document the principal cannot pass on his title, right to an agent without a registration deed. Then, on clear reading of Ex.D.6 it is clear that once it is a ancestral property and when Sri.Doddaramaiah, Sri.Sadappa and Sri.Hanumaiah have their right over the suit schedule property then certainly Sri.Ramegowda the plaintiff No.1 herein also got his right over the suit schedule property which cannot be passed by h is brother and father. Then again the plaintiff No.1 has rightly argued that he is not a signatory to the Ex.D.6. Therefore, his share over the suit schedule property will not get affected. 42 O.S.No.4140/2017
17. Then with respect to Ex.D.1 that the partition deed between the brothers of the plaintiff No.1 in his evidence clarifies that he has not having the knowledge about the General Power of Attorney. Therefore, it is not considered by this Court. Again the another point with respect to General Power of Attorney Ex.D.6 is this Court noticed that in the year 1996 Sri.Patel Doddaramaiah one of the executant of General Power of Attorney/ Ex.D.6/ one of the principal of the GPA Ex.D.6 is dead the same is not disputed by the defendants No.8 and 9 herein. Then the Sale Deed executed by the said General Power of Attorney holder in the year 2009 in favour of his wife later on implied as a party and arrayed as defendant No.9. Therefore, when one of the principal was died on 1996 can that General Power of Attorney holder can execute a Sale Deed in the year 2009 and whether the said registered Sale Deed executed by a General Power of Attorney holder is valid. In my opinion, 43 O.S.No.4140/2017 when the one principal has transfers some of the authorization to General Power of Attorney holder when one of the principal dies then the powers passed on by the one principal to his agent/ through General Power of Attorney holder to the extent of his share will also comes to an end. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the Sale Deed executed by General Power of Attorney holder in respect of suit schedule property with respect to the share of late Sri.Doddaramaiah in favour of his wife got no value to the extent of his share after the death of the one of the principal. Also the Sale Deed itself invalid as already observed by this Court that the GPA/ Ex.D.6 is not a registered document and by way of the GPA/ Ex.D.6, the defendant No.8 who is a power of attorney holder himself has not got any title or right to execute the Sale Deed without a registered document, but a notarized document which is got marked as Ex.D.6. With this, I hold Additional Issues No.1 to 3 in Affirmative. 44 O.S.No.4140/2017
18. ISSUE NO.3:- this is with respect to the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.1 in his cross-examination admits and also in Ex.D.6 clearly stated that the possession handed over to the defendant No.8. Therefore, as he has admitted that he is not in the possession of the property. I hold this Issue in Negative.
19. ISSUE NO.4:- The plaintiffs have sought for permanent injunction and possession. They are pleaded that they are in joint possession as such Court fee paid is sufficient. I hold this Issue in Affirmative.
20. ISSUE NO.5:- In view of findings of above issues No.1 to 4, I answer this issue in Partly Affirmative.
21. ISSUE No.6: In view of the above observations to the Issues, I pass the following:-
ORDERS The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby partly decreed with costs.45 O.S.No.4140/2017
The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are together entitled for 1/ 3rd share over the suit schedule property.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, after correction pronounced by me in open Court on this day 25th day of July, 2025).
(NISHARANI A.C) III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiffs:
PW.1 Sri.D.Rame Gowda Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 Death certificate Sri.Doddaramaiah. Ex.P.2 Copy of Sale Deed dated 18.02.1932. Ex.P.2(a) Computerized copy of record of right Ex.P.3 Copy of attestation of family tree. Ex.P.4 Certificate of Genealogical tree. Ex.P.5 Certified copy of Absolute Sale Deed dated 31.08.2009.46 O.S.No.4140/2017
Ex.P.6 Sale agreement dated 02.07.2018.
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of D.W.1.
Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants:
D.W. 1 Sri.D.Sadappa D.W.2 Sri.L.Nagesh Rao
Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
Ex.D.1 Partition deed dated 05.07.2000.
Ex.D.1(a) Signature of D.W.1.
Ex.D.2 Sketch.
Ex.D.3 & 4 Photographs.
Ex.D.5 CD.
Ex.D.6 Affidavit along with GPA
Ex.D.6(a to Signatures of witnesses.
c)
Ex.D.7 Receipt dated:01.09.2003.
Ex.D.8 Receipt dated:06.09.2003.
Ex.D.9 Tax fixation letter dated:06.09.2003 issued
by BBMP.
Ex.D.10 Tax paid receipts dated:24.08.2009, for the
year 2004-08 and 2008-09 (02 in No.s).
Ex.D.11 Tax paid receipt dated:24.08.2009.
Ex.D.12 Acknowledgment for the tax paid receipt
issued by BBMP dated:26.12.2014.
Ex.D.13 Tax paid receipt dated:26.12.2014.
Ex.D.14 Acknowledgment for the tax paid receipt
47 O.S.No.4140/2017
issued by BBMP for the year 2010-11,
dated:26.12.2014.
Ex.D.15 Tax paid receipt dated:26.12.2014 for the year 2012-13.
Ex.D.16 Acknowledgment for the tax paid receipt issued by BBMP for the year 2011-12, dated:26.12.2014.
Ex.D.17 Tax paid receipt dated:26.12.2014 for the year 2011-12 Ex.D.18 Acknowledgment for the tax paid receipt issued by BBMP for the year 2012-13, dated:26.12.2014.
Ex.D.19 Tax paid receipt dated:26.12.2014 for the year 2012-13.
Ex.D.20 Acknowledgment for the tax paid receipt issued by BBMP for the year 2013-14, dated:26.12.2014.
Ex.D.21 Tax paid receipt dated:26.12.2014 for the year 2013-14.
Ex.D.22 Acknowledgment for the tax paid receipt issued by BBMP for the year 2014-15, dated:26.12.2014.
Ex.D.23 Tax paid receipt dated:26.12.2014 for the year 2014-15.
Ex.D.24 Tax paid receipts from the year 2015-16 to 2024-25 ( 8 in No.s).
Ex.D.25 Original registered sale deed dated:31.08.2009.
Ex.D.26 Khata certificate issued by BBMP dated:09.09.2003.
Ex.D.27 Khata extract dated:09.09.2003 issued by 48 O.S.No.4140/2017 BBMP.
Ex.D.28 Khata certificate dated:08.09.2009. Ex.D.29 Khata extract dated:08.09.2009. Ex.D.30 Receipt dated:31.12.2009 issued by BBMP Ex.D.31 Original Uttar patra issued by BBMP dated:31.12.2009.
Ex.D.32 Khata certificate dated:01.01.2010. Ex.D.33 Khata extract dated:13.07.2017. Ex.D.34 For Encumbrance certificate form No.15 for the year 01.04.2004 to 17.09.2018.
(NISHARANI A.C) III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.