Bangalore District Court
In vs In on 18 January, 2023
KABC010238732014
Presented on : 11-11-2014
Registered on : 11-11-2014
Decided on : 18-01-2023
Duration : 8 years, 2 months, 7 days
BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH67)
DATED: This the 18th day of January, 2023
PRESENT
Sri. S. Nataraj, BAL., L.L.B.,
LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
PLAINTIFF in:
OS.No.8454/2004 Sri. Sunil Joseph,
S/o Thomas Malical,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at New No.199, Old No.191 &
Very Old No.6 in Sy.No.49/17,
6th A Cross, Jakkasandra Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.AS & ANS, Advocates.)
2
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
PLAINTIFF in:
OS.No.8630/2014 Sri.M.Manjunath,
S/o Late Sri.Muniyandi,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.55, Janatha Colony,
Jakkasandra Village,
Sarjapura Main Road,
Bengaluru 560 034.
(By Sri.RBS, Advocate.)
- VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS in :
OS.No.8454/2004 Sri.Muniyandi,
S/o Late Chikkagundappa,
Aged aboaut 55 years,
Jakkasandra Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Since dead by LRs
1(a) Smt.Gowramma,
W/o lae Muniyandi,
Aged about 55 years.
1(b) M.Srinivas,
S/o late Muniyandi,
Aged about 37 years.
1(c) M.Krishnappa,
S/o late Muniyandi,
Aged about 35 years.
1(d) M.Manjunath,
S/o late Muniyandi,
Aged about 33 years.
3
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
1(e) M.Janardhana,
S/o Late Muniyandi,
Aged aboaut 30 years.
1(f) Smt.Munilakshmamma,
W/o late M.Nagaraj,
Daughterinlaw of Late Muniyandi,
Aged about 32 years.
All are residing at:
No.55, Janatha Colony,
Sarjapura Road,
Jakkasandra Village,
Bengaluru 560 039.
(By 1(a) to (f) Sri.RBM,Advocate)
OS.No.8630/2014 Sri. Sunil Joseph,
S/o Sri.Thomas Malical,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at New No.199 & Old No.191 and
Previous No.6 in Sy.No.49/17,
6th A Cross, Jakkasandra Village,
Ward No.173, Bengaluru 560034.
(By Sri.YBR,Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit:
OS.8454/2004 17.11.2004
OS.8630/2014 11.11.2014
Nature of the suit (suit on Injunction,declaration &
pronote, suit for declaration possession.
and possession suit for
injunction,etc) :
Date of the commencement of 28.04.2014
recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 18.01.2023
was pronounced:
4
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
OS 8454/2004 18 02 01
OS 8630/2014 08 02 07
(Sri.Nataraj.S.)
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.
COMMON JUDGMENT
The plaintiff/Sunil Joseph in OS.8454/2004 has filed
a suit for following reliefs:
a) To direct the defendants 1(a) to 1(f) to
come forward, and execute the Absolute Sale
Deed, in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the
Suit Schedule Property in terms of the Agreement
of Sale dated 20.09.1990 and Sale Receipt dated
10.12.1991, executed by the Deceased 1st
defendant Sri.Muniyandi and in the event of
Defendants, failing to do so, this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to execute the Sale Deed in
favour of the plaintiff, on behalf of the
Defendants 1(a) to 1(f).
b) To declare that the alleged
cancellation/revocation of power of Attorney
dated 20.10.2004 in respect of the Suit Schedule
Property is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff
as it is an irrevocable General Power of Attorney
5
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
executed by Sri.Muniyandi as it is an agency
coupled with interest;
c) To declare that the Partition Deed dated
17.01.2014, Registered as Document
No.20612/200405 of Book1, Stored in CD
No.BASD3, Registered in the office of the Sub
Registrar Bangalore South Taluk, entered by the
defendants and his family members in respect of
the suit schedule property is not binding on the
plaintiff.
d) Permanent injunction against the
defendant, his agents, servants, workmen or any
persons claiming through under him from any
manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property;
e) Grant such other relief/relief's as this
Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and
circumstances of the case, including the costs of
the proceedings.
2. The plaintiff/Manjunath.M. in OS.8630/2014 has
filed a suit for following reliefs:
a) Declare that the plaintiff is the absolute
owner of the schedule 'B' property measuring
17ft.x40ft. (which is a portion of the schedule 'A'
6
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
property) and also direct the defendant to vacate
and deliver vacant possession of the scheule 'B'
property to the plaintiff after removing the illegal
construction made on the 'B' schedule property.
b) and grant such other relief or reliefs as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the
circumstances of the case, including costs, in the
interest of justice and equity.
3. The plaintiff in OS.8454/2004 is the defendant in
OS.8630/2014. The defendant No.1(d) in OS.8454/2004 is
the plaintiff in OS.8630/2014.
4. Suit schedule property in OS.8454/2004 is the B
schedule property in OS.8630/2014.
5. Order sheet in OS.8454/2004 dated 12.6.2019
shows the suit is clubbed together with suit
OS.8630/2014, the common evidence is ordered to be
recorded in OS.8454/2004.
6. The plaintiff case in OS.8654/2004 and written
statement contentions in OS.8630/2014 are as follows:
a) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule
property, he has acquired the suit schedule property from
7
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
deceased defendant/Muniyandi through agreement dated
20.9.1990 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.35,000/.
The plaintiff has paid sum of Rs.20,000/ as advance sale
consideration and balance amount of Rs.15,000/ was to
be paid at the time of execution of General Power of
Attorney by the defendant in his favour.
b) On 20.3.1991 the plaintiff has paid balance
consideration to deceased defendant. After receipt of full
sale consideration amount the defendant/Muniyandi has
executed an affidavit and handed over possession of suit
schedule property. On the same day the defendant
Muniyandi has executed General Power of Attorney dated
23.2.1991 with a power to sell, to apply for building plans,
licence for putting up construction.
c) That on 10.12.1991 the deceased/Muniyandi
received further sum of Rs.5600/ and sold additional land
measuring EastWest 2 feet NorthSouth 40 feet totally
measuring EastWest 17 feet and NorthSouth 40 feet
totally measuring 680 feet against earlier measurement of
600 Sq.ft.
8
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
d) Subsequently, the plaintiff has put up 6 square
residential building on the suit schedule property and
residing therein since 12 years. The voter ID records along
with his family members are issued in his name the
telephone bill and other public documents are shown in
respect of suit schedule property.
e) On 25.10.2004 the defendant illegally issued a
notice alleging that he has executed a GPA on 23.2.1991 in
favour of plaintiff to look after and manage the affairs that
his sons have grown up they are able to manage the suit
schedule property and revoked and canceled the GPA. The
plaintiff has replied the legal notice. The GPA executed by
Muniyandi on 23.2.1991 in favour of plaintiff is coupled
with interest after receiving entire sale consideration
amount and it is irrevocable.
f) The defendants have no manner of right, title,
interest over the suit schedule property have illegally
entered into registered partition deed dated 17.1.2004 in
respect of suit schedule property and other joint family
properties and illegally allotted the suit schedule property
9
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
in favour of M.Manjunath, which is not binding on the
plaintiff. He has also contended in this suit as well as suit
filed by Manjunath that he is the absolute owner by way of
adverse possession, he is enjoying the suit schedule
property continuously adverse to the interest of owners.
The suit filed by Manjunath is barred by limitation. The
Partition Deed is not binding on him. The notice issued by
Muniyandi for cancellation of GPA is not valid.
g) The defendant and his children based on legal
notice illegally tried to interfere and dispossess the plaintiff
and his family members from the suit schedule property on
13.11.2004 at 7:00 a.m., the plaintiff has lodged the
complaint. The defendants are negotiating for sale of entire
land. Therefore filed the above said suit.
7. After receipt of suit summons in OS.8454/2004
Muniyandi has appeared and filed a written statement
through his counsel on 17.9.2007 denied the plaint
averments. He had contended the suit is bad for misjoinder
and non joinder of proper and necessary parties. His 4 th
son M.Manjunath (the plaintiff in OS.8630/2014) is the
10
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
owner in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule
property. The defendant has not executed any sale
agreement dated 20.9.1990 nor received sale consideration
or executed GPA. The GPA was canceled on 20.10.2004 by
issuing notice to the plaintiff. The sale agreement relied by
the plaintiff does not create any right, the plaintiff has not
put up any construction. The agreement is time barred
and he prayed for dismissal.
8. Subsequently defendant/Muniyandi has died, his
legal heirs are brought on record as defendant Nos.1(a) to
(f) filed additional written statement jointly. The averments
in the additional written statement and the plaint
averments in OS.No.8630/2014 filed by Manjunath.M. are
one and the same. The substance of their pleadings are
that their father Muniyandi had not executed agreement of
sale dated 20.09.1990 agreeing to sell the suit schedule
property in OS.8454/2004 and 'B' schedule property in
OS.8630/2014 in favour of Sunil Joseph. Their father has
not received any sale consideration. The GPA was canceled
by issuing notice on 20.10.2004 the GPA has no force.
11
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
Sunil Joseph has not obtained any plan to construct a
house. Manjunath is the absolute owner of 'A' schedule
property in OS 8630/2014 acquired under partition deed
dated 17.1.2004. The katha has been effected in his name
and paying tax to the BBMP, Sunil Joseph has no right
over the said property. The 'B' schedule property is a
portion of 'A' schedule property. He is the absolute owner
of 'B' schedule property. The defendant Sunil Joseph is in
illegal possession of 'B' schedule property. Manjunath has
sought for declaration to declare 'B' schedule property is
his absolute property and for possession from the
defendant Sunil Joseph. The further averments in OS
8454/2004 the Muniandi had died on his death GPA also
expires. The agreement relied by Sunil Joseph is not
registered. The alleged agreement does not create any
right, interest. The relief claimed by the Sunil Joseph is
barred by limitation and they prayed for dismissal of suit
filed by Sunil Joseph in OS.8454/2004 and prayed for
decreeing the suit filed by Manjunath in OS.8630/2014.
12
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
9. On the basis of pleadings in OS.8454/2004 as
many as 8 issues are framed. (Out of which issue No.5
was deleted by order dated 6.6.2022). Issue No.6 was
treated as preliminary issue and ordered on 14.11.2019.
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves his lawful and
actual possession of the suit schedule
property?
2. Whether plaintiff proves alleged interference
by defendant?
3. Whether suit si bad for misjoinder of parties
and non joinder of necessary parties?
4. Without seeking the relief of declaration or
specific performance whether suit for permanent
injunction is not maintainable?
5. Whether suit is liable to be rejected under
Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC?
(Deleted as per order dated 6.6.2022)
6. Whether suit is not properly valued and Court
fee paid is not sufficient?
(as per order dated 14.11.2019 treated as
preliminary issue)
7. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs
sought for?
8. What order or relief?
13
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the defendants prove that the suit of
the plaintiff is barred by limitation as contended
in their additional written statement?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
specific performance sought in relief (a) of the
plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration sought in relief (b) of the plaint?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration sought in relief (c) of the plaint?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction as sought in relief(d) of the
plaint?
The following 5 issues framed in OS.8630/2014
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the
absolute owner of the suit schedule property by
virtue of partition deed dated: 17.1.2004?
2. Whether defendant proves that they have
acquired the title of the suit property by way of
adverse possession?
3. Whether plaitiff is entitled for declaration of
title as prayed for?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession as
prayed for?
5. What order/decree?
14
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
10. Common evidence is recorded in OS.8454/2004.
The plaintiff Sunil Joseph examined himself as PW1 in his
support witness PW2/Manoj Anthony is examined. Exs.P
1 to 67 documents are marked.
11. The defendant No.1(d) in OS.8454/2004 and
plaintiff in OS.8630/2014 examined himself as DW1,
Exs.D1 to 5 documents are marked.
12. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the
records.
13. The findings of this Court on the above Issues in
OS.No.8454/2004 are;
Issue No.1 : Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Negative
Issue No.4 : Negative
Issue No.5 : Deleted by order
dated 6.6.2022
Issue No.6 : Treated as Preliminary Issue
Issue No.7 : Partly Affirmative
Additional Issues:
Issue No.1 : Partly Affirmative
Issue Nos.2 to 4: Negative
Issue No.5 : Affirmative
15
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
OS.No.8630/2014 are
Issue No.1 : Negative
Issue No.2 : Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Negative
Issue No.4 : Negative
Issue No.8 in OS.8454/2004 & Issue No.5 in
OS.8630/2014 :
As per the final order
for the following reasons.
REASONS
14. ISSUE NO.1 IN OS 8454/2004 ISSUE NOS.1
AND 2 IN OS.8630/2014:
The Sunil Joseph/plaintiff in OS.8454/2004 and
defendant in other suit has specifically pleaded that the
deceased defendant Muniyandi had executed agreement of
sale dated 20.9.1990 for sale consideration of Rs.35,000/
and executed affidavit and GPA, put in possession of suit
schedule property. The GPA is irrevocable he had put up
construction residing therein. The Muniyandi had also
executed a receipt , he is residing as a owner, the notice
issued by Muniyandi for revocation of GPA is not valid. He
has perfected title by adverse possession. The defendant
Manjunath in OS.8454/2004 and plaintiff in
16
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
OS.8630/2014 has created the Partition Deed in respect of
suit schedule property. It is not binding on him, he is not
the owner, the suit filed by him is barred by limitation.
15. Whereas, Manjunath the plaintiff in
OS.8630/2014 has disputed the claim of Sunil Joseph
stating that he is the absolute owner of 'B' schedule
property which is portion of 'A' schedule property acquired
under registered partition deed. The Sunil Joseph is in
illegal possession, he is entitled for declaration and
possession of 'B' schedule property.
16. The learned counsel for Sunil Joseph has argued
that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property
under agreement of sale dated 20.9.1990 subsequently, the
affidavit and GPA was executed put in possession, the
plaintiff has paid entire sale consideration amount. The
schedule and boundaries are not disputed. The possession
of plaintiff and construction of house is not disputed. The
GPA is irrevocable, it created interest in the suit schedule
property it cannot be revoked, the plaintiff has perfected
17
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
title, the partition deed is not binding. He is entitled for
specific performance, declaration as well as Injunction.
17. The learned counsel for defendants in
OS.8454/2004 and plaintiff in OS.8630 of 2014 argued
that:
The relief (b) and (c) are barred by limitation, the
amendment was carried out on 11.4.2012 which is came
into effect from the date of filing application IA.No.10. The
specific performance prayer was sought and allowed on
18.10.2019 it is also barred by limitation. The counsel
further submitted the adverse possession amendment was
rejected by passing an order on IA.No.9, the plaintiff Sunil
Joseph cannot contend that he is a owner by adverse
possession. Manjunath the plaintiff in OS.8630/2014 is
the absolute owner of 'A' schedule property, 'B' schedule
property is a portion of 'A' schedule property. PW1 has
admitted that he has no registered document to show that
he has acquired suit schedule property from Muniyandi,
the GPA is admitted, but it is cancelled on issuing notice
by Muniyandi, the said Muniyandi has also expired, on his
18
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
death the GPA also dies. The GPA was executed without
prejudice to his interest. The agreement is disputed, the
signatures of Muniyandi is not proved, the suit of Sunil
Joseph is barred by limitation, no reference about sale
consideration in GPA, without registered document the
Sunil Joseph cannot claim as a owner. The specific
performance relief is not entitled. The agreement relied by
the plaintiff Sunil Joseph is void, it is not enforceable
under law, it was came into existence when Karnataka
prevention of fragmentation and holding Act was in force.
It is further argued that the defendant Sunil Joseph is in
illegal possession of 'B' schedule property and he is liable
to hand over the possession to Manjunath who is the
owner of 'B' schedule property acquired under registered
Partition Deed. The learned counsel further argued that
the suit of Manjunath is not barred by limitation. The suit
is based on title. Article 58 is not applicable and it is
Article 65 of Limitation Act is applicable and he prayed to
dismiss suit of Sunil Joseph and decree the suit of
Manjuanth.
19
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
18. After considering the submissions, I have gone
through the material on record. PW1 Sunil Joseph in his
chiefexamination affidavit reiterated as per the plaint
averments. He has relied Ex.P1 original agreement of sale
dated 20.9.1990 said to have been executed by Muniyandi
in respect of suit schedule property Site No.6 formed in
Sy.No.49/70 totally measuring 680 Sq.feet situated at 6 th A
Cross, Jakkasandra, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,
Koramangala, Bengaluru. The existence of suit schedule
property and its boundaries are not in dispute. The
plaintiff Sunil Joseph is in possession of suit schedule
property is also not in dispute. Although DW1 Manjunath
in his crossexamination has given inconsistent evidence
contending that the plaintiff is not in possession at one
stretch, in another breath he admits the plaintiffs
possession. On reading the entire evidence on whole Sunil
Joseph possession over the suit schedule property and
residing in the house therein is established. The DW1 in
his crossexamination has contended that his father had
20
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
constructed house but he was not able to place any
material to that effect.
19. DW1 admits his father handed over possession
to Sunil Joseph. DW1 admits as on 17.1.2004 ie.. on the
date of Ex.D4 the building was already in existence. In
page No.17 DW1 further reiterated the plaintiff was in
possession of suit building when he partitioned the
properties as per Ex.D4. DW1 admits the photos at Ex.P
21 to 27, 39 to 35 are suit house. He also admits Ex.P23
and 24 reflected damage to compound wall, he also admits
the suit house had gate and compound wall. The plaintiff
has rebuild compound wall and put gate.
20. DW1 in his evidence has stated in the year 1991
he was aged about 20 to 21 years, he was doing tailoring.
That time his father was managing the landed properties.
Therefore, it appears that DW1 has no knowledge about
Ex.P1 agreement to sell executed in the year 1991, and
the deceased Muniyandi was managing the properties.
Ex.P2 is the affidavit wherein, it has mentioned about the
sale of suit schedule site No.6 in favour of Sunil Joseph for
21
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
sale consideration of Rs.35,000/ and executed GPA at
Ex.P67 on 22.3.1991. Under Ex.P2 affidavit and GPA at
Ex.P67 the Sunil Joseph was put in possession of the suit
schedule property.
21. As per the recitals of Ex.P1, the Muniyandi has
executed agreement of sale for sale consideration of
Rs.35,000/ and received Rs.20,000/ as advance and
agreed to deliver possession of vacant site at the time of
execution of GPA. The said GPA has been signed by one
witness Nagaraj and Narayanaswamy Reddy. No doubt the
agreement has been disputed by Muniyandi and his legal
heirs. The Muniyandi during his life time has filed written
statement. However, he died subsequently. Ex.P2 is the
affidavit in which Srinivas, Nagaraj and Krishnappa are the
witnesses. The said Srinivas and Krishnappa are none
other than defendant No.1(b) and (c). They have not
entered the witness box to deny their signatures.
Therefore, non examination of those persons would give
raise to adverse inference that in order to avoid subject of
crossexamination they have not entered the witness box.
22
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
Unfortunately Muniyandi not adduced evidence, as he has
died. Written statement of Muniyandi remains as written
statement.
22. If the signatures of Muniyandi and defendant
No.1 (b) and (c) created, no steps are taken against Sunil
Joseph for creating or forging the signatures. PW1 Sunil
Joseph in his crossexamination has withstood about the
execution of Ex.P1, 2 and 67. Admittedly, the Muniyandi
or other defendants have not executed registered document
in favour of Sunil Joseph. According to plaintiff Sunil
Joseph due to prohibition of registration of revenue sites
the Muniyandi had executed Ex.P67 GPA.
23. PW2 has been examined who speaks regarding
Exs.P 1, 2 and 67. PW2 also deposed regarding receipt
executed by Muniyandi at Ex.P66, the signature of
witness at Ex.P66(b). In his crossexamination he has
deposed under what circumstances Ex.P66 was executed
by Muniyandi. The identity of PW2 has been disputed, but
he has stated Sunil Jospeh known to him by birth and he
is his brother. In Ex.P10 Sl.No.5 refers to Manoj pertains
23
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
to him, he has explained that his father Narayana Naik. At
the time of writing Ex.P66 he and Muniyandi, his elder
son Nagaraj, his brother Sunil Joseph were present. He
also signed as a witness. The document was written near
house of Muniyandi. Thus he speaks consistently with
regard to execution of Ex.P66 receipt by Muniyandi.
24. DW1 has already admitted his father was
managing the properties, he was hardly aged about 20
years and doing tailoring work. Therefore, DW1 has no
personal knowledge about the transaction that were
entered into between Sunil Joseph and DW1 father
Muniyandi. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of
PW 1 and 2. On the other hand, the evidence and
circumstances brought on record would clearly establish
Muniyandi had executed agreement of sale on 20.9.1990
for sale consideration of Rs.35,000/ in which the elder
son of Muniyandi is one of the signatory. So also the
affidavit at Ex.P2 and handed over vacant possession of
suit schedule property to Sunil Jospeh along with Ex.P67
GPA. The witness to Ex.P2 affidavit Ex.P67 GPA are none
24
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
other than Srinivas and Krishnappa are the sons of
Muniyandi and brothers of DW1 Manjuanth.
25. The counsel for Manjuanth has argued that the
agreement is void, it came into existence at the time of
Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation
of Holdings Act 1967 was in force. In this regard the
learned counsel has relied judgment of Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka AIR 2011 KAR 58 Smt.Parvathamma Vs
Smt.Uma wherein it is held ' The transfer of fragment being
expressly prohibited. The contract is void abinitio being in
violation of Act 1966.' In view of above said judgment the
agreement in question at Ex.P1 was executed when the
said Act was in force. Thus the Ex.P1 is void abinitio. No
doubt Ex.P1 is void document, however the Sunil Joseph
has came into possession of suit schedule property as per
Ex.P1 void agreement, Ex.P2 the affidavit and GPA at
Ex.P67.
26. In order to decide whether Ex.P67 is irrevocable
GPA coupled with interest or not is to be looked into. For
25
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
better appreciation relevant portion of Ex.P67 reads as
follows:
" In general this general power of attorney is
irrevocable/ and the attorney holder is at full
liberty enjoy the property without prejudice to my
interests."
27. It is true in the recitals of Ex.P67 in page 3
there is reference without prejudice to the interest of
principal the GPA has been granted. However, while
interpreting the document the entire recitals of the
document, and surrounding circumstances has to be
looked into. Before execution of Ex.P67, Ex.P1 sale
agreement was executed, the sale consideration was
received by Muniyandi, Ex.P2 affidavit was executed, in
which there is clear recitals about handing over possession
to Sunil Joseph, he also undertaken that he will not revoke
or cancel the GPA. That apart in Ex.P67 GPA itself there
is reference about the GPA is irrevocable. Therefore, the
Ex.P67 came into existence in the background of Ex.P1, 2
and 66. Admittedly, on the date of execution of agreement
the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and
26
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
Consolidation of Holdings Act was in force, the transfer of
fragmentation was prohibited. The property under
question in Ex.P2 was also a fragmentation. PW1 and 2
in their evidence have consistently stated about those
documents. PW1 was put in possession of suit schedule
property. He has put up construction of residential house
and residing therein. The photographs produced by the
PW1 are all admitted by DW1. After construction of
house, the telephone bill at Ex.P11 electoral card at Ex.P
10 the demand notice at Ex.P9 were issued to PW1, in
Ex.P13 gas bill the income tax documents at Ex.P14, ID
card of ESI, Syndicate Bank passbook, voter ID at Ex.P54
to P56 of Sunil Joseph and his family members, electricity
bills are in his name. Above all, in the recitals of Ex.P67
in ClauseV there is clear reference that PW1 was
permitted to putup construction and buildings thereon.
The learned counsel for Sunil Joseph has relied following
judgments to show that the GPA is coupled with interest
and irrevocable.
27
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
28. AIR 1969 SCC 73 Seth Loon Karan Shetiya Vs
Ivan E John & Others it is held:
" On a tenor of document as well from its terms
that the power given to the bank was a power
coupled with interest and the same was
irrevocable under Section 202 of Contract Act.
a) AIR 2005 Orissa 147 Bharath Chandra Dagara
Vs M/s Taurian Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Another it is held;
" Interest is created in favour of power of
attorney holder in respect of properties Section
202 is attracted, such agency cannot be
terminated."
b) (2005) 12 SCC 77 State of Rajasthan Vs
Basanth Nahtha it is held :
" Execution of power of attorney subject to
provisions of the Act is valid not compulsorily
registrable."
c) AIR 2003 Gujarath 294 Bhagavan Bai Karaman
Bai Bharavath Vs Arogya Nagar Cooperative Society
Ltd. it is held:
28
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
" Irrevocable GPA executed by all land owners for
sale of land, land owners also parting with their
power in favour of power of attorney holder.
Death of one of the land holder no need for power
of attorney holders to obtain consent of other heir
of deceased land owner."
d) (2012) 193 DLT 168 High Court of Delhi,
Hardeep Kaur Vs Kailash & Another it is held:
" Agreement to sell may not create interest in the
property but agreement along with payment of
entire sale consideration handing over the
possession, execution of receipt, affidavit, will,
indemnity bond, and irrevocable GPA create an
interest in the property under Section 202 of
Contract Act."
e) (1993) ILR KAR 2306 Mohammed @ Kodiya Vs
Assistant Commissioner wherein it is held:
" The clause relating to irrevocability introduced
in the power of attorney which is confirmed on
him as a protection agency coupled with interest.
In that event the power of attoerny in question
must be construed as one assigning rights of the
petitioner arising out of certificate issued under
Section 65 of the Act."
29
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
f) 1979 AIR KAR 126 Nagar Susheela Naik Vs Head
Quarters Sub Registrar & Deputy Commissioner of
Stamps, Tumkur & another, the full Bench of High Court
has held:
" The interest in property is created in favour of
bank in terms of Clause 'C' and other clauses.
The petitioner has no power to revoke Deed
unilaterally."
g) (1977) 13 DLT 369 Harbas Singh Vs Shanti Devi
wherein it is held:
" Section 202 of Contract Act power of agency has
been confirmed not for the benefit of the principal
but for the benefit of Agent representing a third
party and not as representing principal the power
becomes irrevocable."
h) (2001) 94 DLT 841 Asha M Jain Vs Canara Bank
& Others wherein it is held:
" Under Section 202 of Contract Act power of
attorney concept of power of attorney sale has
been recognised as a mode of transaction."
30
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
i) 2010 (120 DRJ 602 Delhi High Court Sri.
Surjith Singh & Another Vs Sri.Paramajeet Singh
wherein Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and
Section 202 of Contract Act has been discussed.
29. By considering the principles laid down in the
above said case laws, as for as ownership or title in an
immovable property on the basis of Registered Sale is
concerned hardly any dispute arises. But the dispute raise
when the ownership or title is claimed on the basis of the
GPA/SPA, agreement to sell, WILL, affidavit or possession,
receipt etc., At this stage it is useful to refer the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court (2012) 1 SCC 656, Suraj Lamp and
Industries (Pvt.Ltd) Vs State of Hariyana para 12 and 13
read as under:
"12. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell)
which is not a registered deed of conveyance
(deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements
of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not
confer any title nor transfer any interest in an
immovable property (except to the limited right
granted under section 53A of TP Act). According
to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with
31
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
possession or without possession, is not a
conveyance. Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale
of immoveable property can be made only by a
registered instrument and an agreement of sale
does not create any interest or charge on its
subject matter.
13. A power of attorney is not an instrument of
transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in
an immovable property. The power of attorney is
creation of an agency whereby the grantor
authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified
therein, on behalf of grantor, which when
executed will be binding on the grantor as if done
by him (see section 1A and section 2 of the
Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or
terminable at any time unless it is made
irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an
irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of
transferring title to the grantee.
30. With reference to above paras shows that unless
there is a proper registered sale deed, the title of an
immovable property does not pass. Hon'ble Supreme court
has however reiterated that the rights which are created
pursuant to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act
32
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
1882 dealing with the Doctrine of part performance, an
irrevocable right of a person holding a power of attorney
given for consideration coupled with interest as per Section
202 of the Contract Act 1872. Therefore, no doubt a person
strictly may not have complete ownership rights unless
there is a duly registered sale deed. However, certain
rights can exists in an immovable property pursuant to the
provisions of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act,
Section 202 of Contract Act.
31. Before proceeding to consider whether the power
of attorney given for consideration would stand
extinguished on the death of the executant of the power of
attorney. Section 202 of the Contract Act illustration
reads as under:
" 202. Termination of agency, where agent has
an interest in subject matter - Where the agent
has himself an interest in the property which
forms the subject matter of the agency, the
agency cannot in the absence of an express
contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such
interest.
Illustrations:
33
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
(a) A gives authority to B to sell A's land,
and to pay himself, out of the proceeds, the
debts due to him from A. A cannot revoke this
authority, nor can it be terminated by his
insanity or death.
(b) A consigns 1,000 bales of cotton to B,
who has made advances to him on such cotton
and desires B to sell the cotton, and to repay
himself out of the price, the amount of his own
advancers. A cannot revoke this authority, nor is
it terminated by his insanity or death.
32. In view of above said provision the object of giving
validity to a power of attorney given for consideration even
after death of the executant is to ensure that entitlement
under such power of attorney remains because the same is
not a regular or routine power of attorney, but the same
has element of a commercial transaction which cannot be
allowed to frustrated on account of death of the executant
of the power of attorney.
33. The summarisation of the documents executed
by late Muniyandi the father of the Manjunath/the plaintiff
in OS.8630/2014 in favour of Sunil Joseph at Ex.P1, 2,
34
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
66 and 67 would not in strict sense confer complete
ownership rights, however, the said documents would
create rights to the extent provided under Section 202 of
the Contract Act. However, I am not giving benefit of
Doctrine of Part performance under Section 53A of the
Transfer of Property Act in favour of Sunil Joseph though
he has come in possession of suit schedule property under
in valid, void agreement at Ex.P1, the affidavit and GPA.
However to attract the said provisions he must always
ready and willing to perform his part of contract. There is
no pleading in this aspect , there is no explanation for not
performing his part till Muniyandi had issued notice for
revocation of GPA. On the other hand, the documents
relied by the Sunil Joseph would clearly establishes which
were executed for consideration, it is coupled with interest
attracting Section 202 of the Contract Act.
34. Once Ex.P67 power of attorney is coupled with
interest and attract Section 202 of Contract Act, the power
of attrorney cannot be revoked unilaterally. Therefore, the
legal notice issued by Muniyandi the deceased father of
35
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
Manjunath at Ex.P17 on 25.10.2004 for revocation of
Ex.P67 GPA is not permissible, under Section 202 of
Contract Act.
35. The plaintiff Sunil Joseph has also contended
that he has perfected title by adverse possession in
OS.8454/2004 and also in the written statement in
OS.8360/2014. The issue has been framed in
OS.8360/2014 with regard to adverse possession. The
learned counsel for defendant Manjunath submitted that
this Court while passing orders on IA.No.9 on 18.12.2019
has observed that there is no pleading with regard to
adverse possession. As per said observation the plaintiff
Sunil Joseph cannot contend plea of adverse possession. It
attracts resjudicata. The counsel has relied judgment
(2008) 14 SCC 445, Noharlal Verma Vs District Co
operative Central Bank Ltd., Jagadalpur earlier
application become infructuous rather than being decided
on merits held did not operate as resjudicata. The learned
has also relied Judgment 2002 (5) KLJ 594 Smt.
Lakshmidevamma Vs K.Chinnareddy, ' The principles of
36
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
resjudicata about the dismissal of order of interlocutory
application could not operate as resjudicata.'
36. In the present case though the court has
observed while passing orders on IA.No.9 that there is no
pleading about adverse possession in the plaint. However,
the plaint para 20 in OS.8454/2004 there is clear pleading
about adverse possession same is extracted here in under.
" Para 20: The plaintiff submits that he has
absolute right, title and interest over the suit
schedule property and also the plaintiff has
perfected his title by way of adverse
possession since he has been in continuous
possession of the suit schedule property to the
knowledge of the defendant without any
interference for the past over twelve years."
37. Even otherwise in connected OS.8630/2014
there is pleading about adverse possession, the issue has
been raised. The court has to given finding on adverse
possession. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit
schedule property has been established more importantly
admitted by the defendant. The plaintiff has come into
37
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
possession of suit schedule property on 23.2.1991 on the
date of execution of Ex.P2 affidavit and P67 GPA.
Thereafter, the plaintiff had constructed building, whether
by obtaining sanctioned plan or not. Since then the
plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment
of suit schedule property without any obstruction, adverse
to the interest of deceased Muniyandi and his
representatives. The Muniyandi had issued legal notice
terminating Ex.P67 GPA at Ex.P17 in the year 2004. By
that time the possession of plaintiff has ripened his title by
adverse possession openly, continuously adverse to the
interest of true owners. The adverse possession commence
on 23.02.1991 on execution of Ex.P2 and Ex.P67. The 12
years period has been expired in the year 2003. The
Muniyandi or his son Manjunath who claims to be a owner
by virtue of registered partition at Ex.D4 and revenue
entries at Ex.D1 and 2, has not taken possession.
38. The learned counsel for plaintiff Sunil Joseph
has contended the suit filed by Manjunath for possession
is barred by limitation. The suit filed by Manjunath is for
38
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
declaration and possession. As per Article 65 of Limitation
Act for possession of immovable property period of
limitation is 12 years, when the possession of the
defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The plaintiff
Sunil Joseph counsel has relied judgment AIR 1997 SC
1699 Kalika Prasad & Another Vs Chatrapal Singh by
LRs para 4 of the judgment reads as:
" 4. Shri.A.K.Chitale, learned senior counsel
for the appellant, contends that the view taken by
the High Court is not correct in law. According to
the learned counsel, the estate was abolished
with effect from February 15, 1954; the appellant
had obtained a patta on July 22, 1959; the
respondent made an application under Section
190 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code on August 10,
1965, for conferment of asami rights which was
rejected, for the first time, he asserted his title to
the rroperty only on making an application on
August 10, 1965, the suit came to be filed within
12 years from the date and, therefore, the
respondent had not perfected his title by
prescription. We are unable to agree with the
learned counsel. The learned Judge has recorded
the finding that even after the abolition till the
39
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
date of the filing of the suit, the respondent had
remained in uninterrupted possession and
thereby he perfected his title by prescription. It is
also an admitted position that the power of
attorney given to the respondent was cancelled
and thereafter no action was taken to have him
ejected from the lands in his possession. After the
abolition of the estate, no attempt was made to
have him ejected. When we have put a question to
the learned counsel whether any notice was given
to the respondent by the other party before
obtaining the patta under Section 189 on July 22,
1959, the learned counsel is unable to place
before under Section any material to show that
such a notice was given to him. Obviously,
therefore, the patta was obtained without notice
to him. The respondent having remained, without
any interrruption, for well over 12 years, it would
be obvious that he remained in possession in
assertion of his own right, that too after the
abolition of the estate. Thereby, he perfected his
title by perception since any person who got
superior right had taken no action to have him
ejected from the lands. Under these
circumstances, the finding recorded by the High
Court has not been vitiated by any manifest error
40
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
of law creating any substantial question of law for
interference in this appeal."
39. In view of the above judgment, in the present
case 12 years adverse possession against Muniyandi was
started on 23.2.1991. There is no evidence on record to
show that thereafter, the Muniyandi or his son Manjunath
had taken possession of the suit schedule property. The
plaintiff Sunil Joseph has perfected his title by adverse
possession because the suit is instituted by Manjunathj
only in the year 2014 i.e., On 11.11.2014. Thus Sunil
Joseph become the owner of the suit schedule property by
adverse possession. The Manjunath and his father rights,
interest has extinguished over 'B' schedule property in
OS.8630/2014 and the plaintiff schedule in
OS.8454/2004. The partition deed, revenue records relied
by Sri.Manjunath Ex.D1 to 4 will not rescue him the
limitation. Accordingly, answer Issue No.1 in
OS.8454/2004 and Issue No.2 in OS.8630/2014 in
Affirmative and Issue No.1 in OS.8630/2014 in
Negative.
41
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
40. Issue No.2 in OS.8454/2004: The Plaintiff in his
plaint has contended that the defendant is interfering his
possession over the suit schedule property DW1 in his
cross examination admitted the damage to compound wall
in Ex.P21 to 27 photographs. The complaint was also
filed against one Lokesh, Srinivas, Manju and Kumar.
Ex.P18 and 20 are the endorsements issued by the
concerned police. The Manjunath has claiming right over
the ssp, that itself amounts to interference in the plaintiff
Sunil Joseph possession and enjoyment. PWs 1 and 2 in
their evidence also deposed regarding damage to the
compound wall, thereafter the plaintiff has constructed
compound and interfering with his peaceful possession.
Accordingly, answered Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
41. Issue No.3 in OS.8454/2004 : The defendants
have contended that the suit is bad for misjoinder and non
joinder of necessary parties. DW1 Manjunath in his
evidence has not given any such evidence, whereas, DW1
in his cross examination has admitted the total extent of
Sy.No.49/17 is in the name of his father Muniyandi, had
42
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
around one acre. He has formed around 15 sites the
brothers have retained 7 sites. The evidence of DW1 does
not disclose that the suit is bad for misjoinder and non
joinder of parties. If there are any other interested parties
the Muniyandi would not have executed Ex.P1 to 66 and
67 documents in respect of suit schedule property. There is
no reference in the legal notice issued by Muniyandi
contending that apart from him there are any other
members have any right. Therefore, merely taking
contention in the written statement by itself is not
sufficient. Accordingly answered Issue No.3 in Negative.
42. Issue No.4 in OS.8454/2004: The said has
infringed on the basis of contentions of the defendants that
without the relief of declaration or specific performance the
suit for injunction is not maintainable. However,
subsequent to framing of issues, the plaintiff got amended
the plaint and sought relief of specific performance by
order dated 18.12.2019 as prayer 'a' , the plaintiff has also
sought prayer 'b' and 'c' declaration regarding partition
deed and the termination of power of attorney by
43
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
Muniyandi. In view of subsequent seeking of relief the
issue does not survive for consideration and answer the
Issue No.4 in Negative.
43. Issue No.7 and Additional issue Nos.1 to 5 in
OS.8454/2004: The plaintiff Sunil Joseph by way of
amendment he has sought prayer 'a' directing the
defendants 1(a) to (f) to execute the registered sale deed as
per the agreement of sale dated; 20.9.1990 and sale receipt
dated 10.12.1990 executed by deceased defendant No.1
Muniyandi. First of all it is held herein above that the
agreement at Ex.P1 is void, it came to be executed during
Karnataka Fragmentation and Consolidation Act was in
force. Secondly, the relief for specific performance has
been sought by way of amendment on 18.12.2019. The
learned counsel for plaintiff has submitted though the
amendment application, was filed in the year 2019 on
allowing the application it relates back to original plaint.
The counsel for defendants argued that the relief of specific
performance is barred by limitation it is not sought within
three years from the date of refusal by the executant of the
44
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
sale agreement or within the date fixed under the
agreement.
44. Ex.P1 agreement is dated 20.09.1990. The
Karnataka Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act
was repealed on 5.02.1991 from which date even
fragmented land came to be permitted for registration. The
period of limitation started to seek for relief of specific
performance immediately upon the lifting of ban. The due
date as contemplated is on 5.2.1991, regard being had to
their fact that the suit for permanent injunction was filed
on 17.11.2004, even the amendment for specific
performance carried out in the year 2019 and relates back
to original plaint date. Even then the agreement at Ex.P1
cannot be enforced as it is barred by limitation. The
agreement itself is not enforceable. The plaintiff though
has paid the entire sale consideration amount, however,
within the reasonable period after lifting of ban of
registration of fragmented land no steps were taken to get
registered sale deed and the plaintiff is not entitled for
relief of specific performance.
45
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
45. The plaintiff has also sought prayer (b) for
declaration to declare the revocation of power of attorney
dated 20.10.2004 in respect of suit schedule property is
illegal and not binding on plaintiff. Relief (c) to declare the
partition deed dated 17.1.2004 registered in the office of
Sub Registrar entered by defendant and his family
members is not binding on the plaintiff.
46. The above said reliefs were not there in the
original plaint. The said prayers were added by way of
amendment on IA.No.10 which came to be allowed on
11.04.2012. The amendment was carried out on
14.11.2012. IA.No.10 was allowed to seek prayer (b) & (c)
with a rider that the amendment will come into effect from
the date of filing of IA.No.10 i.e. on 20.10.2011. The
plaintiff in the plaint in para 14 has pleaded about the
notice issued by Muniyandi for revocation of GPA and his
reply notice to the said legal notice. Ex.D4 the partition
deed was entered into between the defendants and their
family members on 17.01.2004 i.e. before the institution of
suit i.e., on 17.11.2004. in respect of the said prayer the
46
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
cause of action was arose for the plaintiff to seek the above
said reliefs. However, the plaintiff has sought those
prayers by filing I.A.No.10 on 20.10.2011. The Court has
restricted the order from the date of filing the application.
Therefore, as on the date of filing of application for seeking
relief 'b' and 'c' the three years limitation period was
already expired. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for
declaration in respect of prayer 'b' and 'c'.
47. The plaintiff has also sought for permanent
injunction against defendants from interfering with his
peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule
property. The plaintiff no doubt not entitled for relief of
specific performance and declaration, however he has
proved that he has perfected title by adverse possession in
OS.8630/2014. The defendants interference is also
established by placing cogent material on record. The
Manjunath and his father have lost their right for not
seeking relief of possession within 12 years from the date
of adverse interest against him. The plaintiff is entitled for
permanent injunction against the defendants. They have
47
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
no right to interfere with plaintiffs possession and
enjoyment by taking law into their hands without due
process of law. Accordingly, answered Issue No.7 in
OS.8454/2004 partly Affirmative and additional Issue
No.1 partly Affirmative and additional Issue Nos.2 to 4
in Negative and additional Issue No.5 in Affirmative.
48. Issue No.3 and 4 in OS.8630/2004: The
plaintiff Manjunath failed to prove that he is the owner of
'B' schedule property by virtue of partition deed dated
17.1.2004. His ownership has been extinguished in view
of the defendant Sunil Joseph establishing his title by
adverse possession. The suit filed by the Manjunath is
barred by limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act
within 12 years from the date of commencement of adverse
possession the plaintiff has not sought possession.
Therefore, the plaintiff Manjunath is not entitled for
declaration and possession. The learned counsel for
defendant Sunil Joseph has relied judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court (2020) 7 SCC 366 Dahiben Vs Arvind Bai
Kalyanji Bhansari dead by LRs and others wherein
48
OS.No.8454/2004
C/w
O.S.No.8630/2014
Hon'ble Apex Court has imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/ for
filing vexatious suit and abusing process of Court.
49. In the present case considering the facts and
circumstances and conduct of parties the suit of the
plaintiff Manjunath is to be dismissed with costs.
Accordingly Issue Nos.3 and 4 in Negative in
OS.8630/2014.
50. Issue No.8 in OS.8454/2004 and Issue No.5 in
OS.8630/2014:
In view of findings on Issue Nos.1 to 4, 7 and
additional Issue Nos.1 to 5 in OS.8454/2004 and findings
on Issue Nos.1 to 4 in OS.No.8630/2014 as above,
following Order.
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff Sunil Joseph in OS.8454/2004 is decreed partly with costs against defendants 1(a) to (f).
The defendant No.1(a) to 1(f), their agents or any persons claiming through them from any manner permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession of suit schedule property, without due process of law.
49OS.No.8454/2004 C/w O.S.No.8630/2014 The relief of specific performance and declaration are dismissed.
The suit of the plaintiff/Manjunath.M. in OS.No.8630/2014 is dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
Office to keep the original judgment in OS.8454/2004 and copy in OS.8630/2014.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 18th day of January, 2023).
(S. NATARAJ), LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
SCHEDULE In OS.8454/2004:
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing New No.199, Old No.191, and very Old No.6 in Survey No.49/17, 6th A Cross, Jakkasandrda Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk now Koramangala, Bangalore measuring East to West 17 feet and North to South: 40 feet i.e., totally measuring 680 Sq.Ft and bounded on the:
East by : Defendants property (building) West by : Defendants property (building) North by : Andiyappa's property; and South by : Road.50
OS.No.8454/2004 C/w O.S.No.8630/2014 In OS.8630/2014:
"A" Schedule Property measuring 49'5"x41' bearing Corporation No.19 formed in Sy.No.49/17, 6th A cross, Jakkasandra village, Sarjapura Main Road, Bengaluru 560034 which is described in the letters ABCD and bounded on the:
East by: Property fallen to the share of Sri Krishna West by: Property which is fallen to the share of Sri.Janardhan.
North by: Private Property South by: Road.
"B" Schedule Portion of schedule 'A' property measuring East to West 17 ft. and North to South 40 with illegal construction of ground floor measuring 5 Sq.ft. Bearing Old No.191, New No.19, formed in Sy.No.49/17, 6 th A Cross, Jakkasandra Village, Sarjapura Main Road, Bengaluru 560034 which is described in the letters ABEF and bounded on the:
East by: Property of Sri Krishna West by: Property of the plaintiff herein North by: Private Property South by: Road.
(S. NATARAJ), LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.51
OS.No.8454/2004 C/w O.S.No.8630/2014 ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff:
PW.1 : Sunil Joseph
PW.2 : Manoj Antony @ Manojkumar
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Sale agreement dated 20.9.1990 Ex.P.2 Affidavit dated 23.2.1991 Ex.P.3 Photos to 8 Ex.P.9 Notice issued by Karnataka Municipal Corporation Ex.P.10 Voter ID Ex.P.11 Telephone connection receipt Ex.P.12 Gas connection Card Ex.P.13 Gas bill Ex.P.14 Saral application in respect of Income Tax Ex.P15 Pass book pertaining to Syndicate Bank Ex.P16 Income Tax returns Ex.P17 Notice dated 25.10.2004 Ex.P18 Reply dated 9.9.2004 Ex.P19 Police acknowledgment dated 26.4.2005 Ex.P20 Police acknowledgment dated 4.5.2005 Ex.P21 7 photos to 27 Ex.P21(a) Negatives to 27(a) 52 OS.No.8454/2004 C/w O.S.No.8630/2014 Ex.P28 Bill issued by Bangalore Water supply & Sewerage Board Ex.P29 Photos to 35 Ex.P29(a) Negatives to35(a) Ex.P36 FIR in Cr.No.1225/2004 Ex.P37 10 Photos to P46 Ex.P47 CD Ex.P48 to 5 bills issued by Bangalore water supply 52 and sewerage Board Ex.P53 Electricity bill Ex.P54 3 Identity cards issued by Government of to 56 India Ex.P57 5 Aadhar Cards to 61 Ex.P62 4 Gas bills to 65 Ex.P66 Cash receipt dated 10.12.1991 Ex.P66(a) Signature of original defendant Ex.P67 GPA dated 23.2.1991 Ex.P67(a) Signature of original defendant
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant:
DW1 : Manjunath.M. 53 OS.No.8454/2004 C/w O.S.No.8630/2014
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Defendant:
Ex.D1 : Katha certificate Ex.D2 : Katha extract Ex.D3 : Encumbrance certificate Ex.D4 : CC of partition deed dated 17.1.2014 Ex.D5 : True copy of Village Map (S. NATARAJ), LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru. 54 OS.No.8454/2004 C/w O.S.No.8630/2014 The order is pronounced in the open Court vide separate order with following operative portion.
ORDER LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru