Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed on 3 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH No.25).
Dated: This the 3rd day of March, 2020.
Present: Sri. SACHIN KAUSHIK R.N., B.Sc., LL.M.,
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No. 848/2017
Plaintif Sri. Meena Kumar Vaikundam,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of Sri. Vaikundam Palaniappan,
Residing at 5/49, Vinobha Nagar,
Sithala Pakkam, Chennai-600126.
by Sri. Promod Nair, Advocate.
vs.
Defendant Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed,
S/o. Late Sri.Anwar Ahmed,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at Survey No.221 & 221/1,
1st Cross, 1st Main, HBR Layout, 1st Block,
Ramdev Garden, Kacharakanahalli,
Kalyan Nagar Post, Bengaluru -560045.
by Sri.V.Vijayashekara Gowda, Advocate.
Date of institution 02-02-2017
Nature of Suit Declaration, and
Permanent Injunction.
Date of commencement of 27-07-2018
evidence
Date of pronouncement of 03-03-2020
Judgment
Total Duration: Years Months Days
03 01 01
2
O.S.No.848/2017
JUDGMENT
The Plaintif has filed this Suit for Declaring that he is the absolute owner, and in lawful possession of Suit Schedule Property, and for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of Suit Schedule Property. Suit Schedule Property is vacant site No.541 in Layout formed by Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Limited, measuring 1200 square feet in Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North.
2) The Plaintif states that he is the absolute owner of Suit Schedule Property by Registered Sale Deed Dated 24-10-2005. The Suit Schedule Property was sold by Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Limited in favour Sri.G.Prasad Reddy, and Possession Certificate issued on 17-4-2004. Said G.Prasad Reddy sold the Property in favour of Sri.Amit Bansal and Smt. Shruthi Bansal, by Registered Sale Deed on 30-3-2005. The Defendant having no rights, has trespassed into his Property on 11-10-2016, and hence he has filed the Suit, as the Defendant has started claiming interest in the Schedule Property by 3 O.S.No.848/2017 virtue of General Power of Attorney executed by one James Raju Reddy in his favour.
3) The Defendant has filed Written Statement denying the contents of the Plaint, and has stated about case in Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1930/2012 connected with 1931 to 1932/2012 on 24-4-2014 with respect to the Notification. He further states that the Notification of acquisition was withdrawn by the State Government on 4-6-2001 with respect to 52 Acres 17 Gunta of land. The withdrawal of the Notification was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.27205/2001, and the Hon'ble High Court directed the State Government to proceed with the acquisition of land pertaining to said 52 Acres 17 Guntas of land. The land owners challenged the said Order before the Division Bench, and the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka also dismissed the Appeal. The land owners then preferred the said Civil Appeal No.1930/2012, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the Order of the Hon'ble High Court, and allowed the Writ Petition, and Ordered for returning the lands to the land owners. His Principal, who has executed G.P.A. in his favour, James Raju Reddy is owner of 36 Guntas in Sy.No.35/9. The Suit Property belongs to the Defendant's 4 O.S.No.848/2017 Principal, James Raju Reddy, and not the Plaintif. He denies the Sale Deeds of the Plaintif, and Plaintif's vendors, and prays to dismiss the Suit.
4) The Court has framed following 5 Issues:
1. Whether Plaintif proves his title and possession over the Suit Schedule Property?
2. Whether Plaintif proves the allegations regarding interference?
3. Whether Plaintif is entitled for Declaration as prayed for?
4. Whether Plaintif is entitled for Injunction as prayed for?
5. What Order/Decree?
5) a) The Plaintif has examined himself as P.W.1, and got 24 Documents exhibited.
b) The Defendant has examined himself as D.W.1, and got 9 documents exhibited, and thereafter the Defendant/D.W.1 did not complete his Chief- Examination, and remained continuously absent, and 5 O.S.No.848/2017 the evidence of D.W.1 was discarded, and taken as nil on 13-12-2019.
6) Heard Learned Advocate for Plaintif, and Defendant has not placed his arguments.
7) The answers to the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.3 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.4 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.5 - As per Final Order, for the following:
REASONS
8) a) Issues No.1 to 4 : As these Issues are interconnected, they are taken together for consideration.
b) The Plaintif/P.W.1 has produced the Original Sale Deed dated 31-3-2004 of G.Prasad Reddy, Ex.P1.
The said Sale Deed shows the same Site No.541 in Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North, formed out of several Survey Numbers, and measuring 1200 square feet. Possession Certificate of said G.Prasad Reddy is marked as Ex.P2. Original 6 O.S.No.848/2017 Registered Sale Deed Dated 30-3-2005 in favour of Sri.Amit Bansal and Smt.Shruthi Bansal is marked as Exs.P3, and Ex.P4 is the Original Registered Sale Deed Dated 24-10-2005 of the Plaintif. Ex.P5 is the Khata Certificate in favour of Plaintif . The Tax Paid Receipts are also marked as Exs.P10 to P17. Ex.P21 is the Approved Layout Plan, in which the Site No.541 is also shown as in Sy.No.39/5. All these documents very clearly show the ownership of the Plaintif. The decision reported in AKR 2011 July Pg.198 lays that possession follows title, and decision reported in AKR December 2014 Pg.25 lays that possession is proved by Sale Deed, and the said decisions are applicable to this case. The Court finds that the Plaintif has proved his Ownership, Possession, and is entitled for Injunction.
c) Learned Advocate for Plaintif has relied upon 6 decisions:
1. (2012) 1 SCC 656 (Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd., through Directors vs. State of Haryana & Anr)
2. (2019) 10 SCC 229 (Shiva Kumar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.)
3. (2009) 5 SC 713 (Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors. vs. Ramakanth Eknath Jadoo) 7 O.S.No.848/2017
4. (2006) 5 SCC 353 (Prem singh & Ors. vs. Birbal & Ors.)
5. 2014 SCC OnLine Kar. 6032 (Smt. G.Eramma vs. Sri G.Dharmanagouda)
6. (2008) 5 SCC 25 (Patinhare Purayil Nabeesumma vs. Miniyatan Zacharias & Anr.) Out of the said 6 decisions, the 4 th decision, i.e., (2006) 5 SCC 353 which says that there is a presumption about the Registered Document, is applicable to this case, and the ratio laid down in the other decisions with respect to Registered Document, and Possession follows title, and entitlement of Injunction, are also applicable to this case, and accordingly, Issues No.1 to 4 are answered in the Affirmative.
9) Issue No. 5 : For the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintif is Decreed with costs.8
O.S.No.848/2017 The Plaintif is Declared as owner, and in possession of Suit Schedule Property, and the Defendant, and his men are restrained by Order of Permanent Injunction from interfering with Plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment of Suit Schedule Property.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 3rd day of March, 2020.) (Sachin Kaushik R.N.) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of Immovable Property being a vacant Site No.541, in the layout formed by the Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Limited approved by Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore situated in Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet or 9.14 meters and North to South 40 feet or 12.19 meters, in all measuring 1200 square feet, together with all rights, appurtenances, whatsoever underneath or above the surface and bounded on the:
East by - Site No. 542,
West by - Site No.540,
North by - Road,
South by - Site No.526.
9
O.S.No.848/2017
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the Plaintif:
P.W.1 - Meena Kumar Vaikundam List of documents exhibited for the Plaintif :
Ex.P1 - Sale Deed dated 31.3.2004 Ex.P2 - Possession Certificate Exs.P3 & P4 -2 Sale Deeds dated 30.3.2005 and 24.10.2005 Ex.P4 - Khata Patra Exs.P5 & P7 - Encumbrance Certificates Exs.P8 & P9 - BDA Challans Exs.P10 to P17 - BBMP Tax Paid Receipts Exs.P18 to P20 -Gazette Notifications Ex.P21 - BDA Map Ex.P22 - BDA Challan Ex.P23 -BBMP Tax Paid Receipt Ex.P24 - Certificate u/S.65 B of Evidence Act as BBMP Tax Paid Receipts are electronically generated documents.
List of Witnesses examined and Documents exhibited for the Defendant:
Nil (Sachin Kaushik R.N.) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.