Bangalore District Court
R.Babu Reddy vs Sri.K.M.Ramaiah Reddy on 13 August, 2020
[C.R.P. 67] Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.28]
Present: Sri. MALLIKARJUNA., B.Com., LL.M.,
XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2020
O.S.No.2383/2008
Plaintiff/s : R.Babu Reddy,
S/o K.M.Ramaiah Reddy,
aged about 53 years,
R/at No.73, 8th Block,
Koramangala,
Bangalore-560 095
(By Sri.V.B.S, Advocate)
- Vs -
Defendant/s : 1. Sri.K.M.Ramaiah Reddy,
S/o Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 90 years,
R/at No.73, 8th Block,
Koramangala,
Bangalore-560 095
2. Smt.Jayamma
W/o late H.Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged about 70 years,
3. Sri.Rani Reddy,
W/o Ravikumar,
Aged about 43 years,
4. Smt.Shamala Rajagopal,
W/o S.N.Rajagopal,
aged about 43 years
2 O.S.No.2383/2008
Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are
residing at No.277/3,
9th A-Main, 2nd Block,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 011.
5. Sri.H.R.Rajashekar,
S/o late H.Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.310
6th main, HAL II stage,
Bangalore - 560 038
6. Smt.Kanthamma,
W/o N. Chandrashekhar,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.53, 1st Floor,
Basappa Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-560 027
7. Smt.Lakshmi Devi,
W/o Venkatswamy,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at No.498,
1-Floor, 3rd A-Main,
16th Cross, HSR Layout,
6th cross, HSR Layout,
Bangalore-560 034.
8. M/s BREN Corporation,
A Proprietary Concern,
Having its Office at 3rd floor,
Balavana, plat No.61, 5th 'A' Block,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru -560095,
Represented by its Proprietor
Sri.J.Boopesh Reddy.
(By Sri.N.G., Advocate for Defendant
No.2 to 6 Sri. A.S.R., Advocate for
Defendant No.8, Deft.No.1 & 7 - Exparte)
3 O.S.No.2383/2008
Date of institution
of the suit : 23-01-2008
Nature of the suit
[suit on pronote, suit : For Declaration,
for declaration and Mandatory Injunction &
possession, suit for perpetual injn and
for injunction] such other reliefs.
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence : 30-01-2014
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 13-08-2020
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration 12 06 20
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration, perpetual injunction, mandatory injunction and other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs' case are as under:
The 1st defendant is the father of plaintiff. The 1st defendant was constituted Hindu undivided family, his father Muniyappa had seven sons and 4 daughters they are Munireddy, Narayanareddy, Pillareddy, Govindareddy, K.M.Ramaiah Reddy, Timmareddy, Papamma, Tayamma, 4 O.S.No.2383/2008 Gowramma and Munitayamma. The family of the 1 st defendant owned and possessed several properties. The sisters of 1st defendant Papamma, Tayamma, Gowramma, and Munitayamma were all married and they do not have any rights in respect of any of the immovable properties of joint family they were excluded from claiming rights. That apart from huge sums money were invested for purpose of their marriages and they settled in their husbands house. The sister of 1st defendant Papamma was given in marriage to the father of H.Ramaiah Reddy, The second defendant is the wife of H.Ramaiah Reddy, defendant No.5 is the son of 2nd defendant and H.Ramaiah Reddy . There was a close relationship interse between the family members of plaintiff and defendant, so agriculture was jointly under taken and landed properties were maintained between the family members with peace and harmony.
3. That H.Ramaiah Reddy was always keeping comond on the 1st defendant and the first defendant was always bestowing interest in terms of the instructions 5 O.S.No.2383/2008 that were given by H.Ramaih Reddy by virtue of the persuasions made by Jayamma. Keeping in view of close relationship of 1st defendant with H.Ramaiah Reddy being the brother in law, there arose a partition in the family of the 1st defendant. The brother of the first defendant got partitioned all the family properties equally between themselves, in respect of land Sy. No.33/1 measuring 4 acres 10 guntas situated at Haralur village, first defendant was alloted 2 acres 20 guntas. In addition to that some other properties were also alloted to the first defendant. The first defendant keeping in mind the instructions given by Smt.Jayamma and H.Ramaiah Reddy filed an application for occupancy right pertaining to schedule property stating that he is a tenant in occupation of the said property. It was a collusive proceeding. The extent of property alloted to defendant No.1 began the subject matter of a proceeding under the provisions of Land Reforms Act. H.Ramaiah Reddy made an application form No.7 in collusion with 2 nd defendant taking into consideration of fraudulent act to knock off the 6 O.S.No.2383/2008 entire property to deprive the legitimate right of the defendant No.1. The suit land SY. No.33/1 measuring 2 acres did not became the subject matter of any of the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal. The first defendant has not alienated the schedule property. The plaintiff being co-percener with the 1 st defendant having right and interest inherited to the estate of Pate Muniyappa. The land Sy. No.33/1 to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas the suit schedule property is shown in the name of 1st defendant in the survey sketch, therefore the plaintiff made an application for conducting the survey in respect of land Sy. No.33/1. Though the schedule property neither belonged to H.Ramaiah Reddy nor his father Hanumappa Reddy but it has been included in the family partition of their family. On the other hand suit property belonged to Pate Muniyappa, it is clear from registered sale deed dated 19.04.1956 executed by B.N.M.Razak Alikhan Pattari and sale deed held between Chinnappa Reddy and M.Munireddy. Therefore the suit schedule property included fraudulently in the schedule of 7 O.S.No.2383/2008 judgment and decree in O.S. No.208/1976, hence the decree is not binding on the plaintiff. Their is an act of collusion with a delebrate intention to knock of the schedule property, on the basis of false representations by one Ibrahim Alikhan, H.Ramayya Reddy filing application for seeking occupancy right in respect of suit schedule property. It is a fraud played by H.Ramaih Reddy in the tribunal for getting occupancy right in respect of the suit schedule property. The fraud was notice by plaintiff when he applied for encumbrances certificate on 16.08.2007. The surveyor given report in the year 2007. After seeing the copy of the decree in O.S. No.208/1976 provided by the surveyor the plaintiff questioned the same with the husband of 2nd defendant during his life time. The plaintiff was unable to get any answer from H.Ramaiah Reddy during his life time as stated that what has been done was illegal and unlawful, he did execute a will in respect of one item of the property in favor of plaintiff. That the title of the property will not be disturb and he would hand over the property to 8 O.S.No.2383/2008 the plaintiff with documents. But H.Ramaiah Reddy died without keeping up his words. After death of H.Ramaiah Reddy the defendants 2 to 7 resisted the claim of the plaintiff. The acts of the defendants 2 to 7 is illegal against the interest of plaintiff therefore present suit is filed for the relief of declaration, possession, injunction and other reliefs. Accordingly prayed for decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.
4. After service of summons, the defendant No.1 and 7 remained absent, hence they are placed exparte other defendants have appeared through their respective counsels and filed their written statements.
5. The brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.2 to 6 are as under.
The suit of the plaintiff is wholly false, frevilous and vicious same is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case . It is filed with sole intention of harassing the defendants to make unlawful gains. The plaintiff has 9 O.S.No.2383/2008 approached the court with unclean hand suppressing the material facts hence he is not entitle for the relief sought in the suit, therefore it is liable to be dismiss in limine. The suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is in insufficient. H.Ramaiah Reddy the husband of 2 nd defendant and father of defendant No.3 to 7 was absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He has filed the form No.7 against one Ibrahim khan before the Land Tribunal in LRSNO.59/61-62 seeking occupancy right in respect of land Sy. No.33/1 situated at Haralur village . After due enquiry the Land Tribunal conformed the rights over the entire extent of 4 acre 10 guntas which includes the suit schedule property in favor of H.Ramaiah Reddy by order dated 30.10.1962. Thereafter one Guruva Reddy the brother of H. Ramiah Reddy filed suit for partition in O.S. No.208/1976 against Ramaiah Reddy and his sister. The suit was ended in compromise decree. H.Ramaiah Reddy acquired absolute right over land Sy. No.33/1 measuring 4 acres 10 guntas. That said H.Ramaih Reddy apply for conversion of 2 acre 10 guntas out of total measuring 4 10 O.S.No.2383/2008 acres 10 guntas in Sy. No.33/1 for non agricultural residential house accordingly 2 acre 10 guntas land in Sy. No.33/1 has been converted by order dated 16.03.2002. Subsequently the government of Karnataka issued notification dated 04.08.2003 under section 17 (1) and (3) of BDA 1976 for acquisition of 2 acres of land in said survey number. Subsequently government has issued another notification under section 19 (1) of BDA Act 1976 dated 15.02.2005 restricting the acquisition to an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy. No.33/1. The plaintiff tried to change the khata in his name from the name of H.Ramaiah Reddy by giving frivolous applications and submissions before the concerned revenue authorities. After failing in the said attempt he has filed the present suit on false and frivolous grounds. The avernment that the family of the plaintiff 1st defendant and defendant No.2 to 7 there where benevolent marriages is denied as false the sister of first defendant Papamma was given in marriage to the father of H.Ramaiah Reddy is true, it is also true to say that 2nd defendant is the wife of 11 O.S.No.2383/2008 H.Ramaiah Reddy and defendant No.5 is their son it is false to say that their was a close relationship interse between the family members and agriculture was jointly undertaken and landed property were maintained jointly interse between family members hence denied. It is also denied that 1st defendant was always under command of H.Ramaiah Reddy his wife defendant No.2 . The plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same, it is also false to say that keeping in view of the close relationship of the 1 st defendant with H.Ramaiah Reddy being brother in law their arose a partition in the family of 1 st defendant hence denied. It is also false to say that keeping in mind the instructions given by Jayamma and her husband H.Ramaiah for occupancy right pertaining to immovable property stating that he is a tenant in occupation of the property hence denied. It is false to say that the proceedings held under Land Reforms Act in respect of the Sy. No.33/1 of Haralur village is a frivolous and collusion proceedings same is denied. It is also false to say that plaintiff made an application for conducting 12 O.S.No.2383/2008 survey in respect of Land Sy. No.33/1 and on perusal of the survey report he noticed that surveyor has indicated with regard to filing of suit by one Guruva Reddy against Hanumappa Reddy and H.Ramaiah Reddy regarding partition hence same is denied. It is also false to say that H.Ramaiah Reddy and his family members have obtained collusive decree fraudulently to knock of the property of the plaintiff. It is also false to say that plaintiff has notice fraud stated to be committed in respect of land Sy. No.33/1 while he applied for taking encumbrances certificate it is nothing but a created story hence denied. The contention of the plaintiff that he has enquired about alleged fraud stated to be committed by H.Ramaiah Reddy and he admitted the said fact further assured to rectify the same by executing will deed in favor of the plaintiff regarding suit schedule property but died without keeping his words are all false and denied in to, the plaintiff will put to strict proof of the same there is no cause of action for filing the suit the alleged cause of action shown in the cost title is created. Plaintiff is not 13 O.S.No.2383/2008 entitled relief sough in the suit. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. During pendency of the suit plaintiff got impleaded defendant No.8 in the suit by way of amendment he has appeared through his counsel filed written statement, the brief facts of the same are as under:
The defendant No.8 has reiterated the defence setup by defendants No. 2 to 7 further contended that the plaintiff as no right, title and interest of what so ever nature in respect of property developed by this defendant. That this defendant has entered into development agreement of property with defendant No.2 to 7. After death of H.Ramaiah reddy the defendant No.2 to 6 have partitioned the estate of H.Ramaiah Reddy under register partition deed they are the absolute owners of the said property have entered into MOU with this defendant, based on the said agreement this defendant has under taken development of property there is no cause of action to file the suit. The suit is hopelessly 14 O.S.No.2383/2008 barred by law of limitation hence liable to be dismissed and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, materials and documents, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves cause action for this suit?
5. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
7. What order or decree?
( Issue No 5 has been treated as prelimanary issue and tried the same and given findings on it as per order of this court dated 8.4.2013) 15 O.S.No.2383/2008 Additional Issues:
1. Wheher the defendant No.8 proves that partition deed dated 2.10.1969 is fabricated and concocted doucment?
2. Whether the defendant No.8 proves that suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by law of limitation?
8. That to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and examined 2 witness on his behalf and also got marked Ex.P.1 to 106 documents and closed his side. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.5 himself examined as D.W.1 and one witness examined on their behalf as D.W.2 got marked Ex.D.1 to 68 documents and closed their side evidence and case posted for arguments.
9. Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused pleadings, evidence and documents relied by both parties.
16 O.S.No.2383/2008
10. My findings to the above issues are as follows :
Issue No.1 : In the negative,
Issue No.2 : In the negative,
Issue No.3 : In the negative,
Issue No.4 : In the negative,
Issue No.5 : This issue already
disposed of vide
order of this Court
dated: 8.4.2013
Issue No.6 : In the negative,
Issue No.7 : As per final order
Addl.Issue No.1 : In the affirmative,
Addl.Issue No.2 : In the affirmative,
REASONS
11. ISSUE No.1: It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No.33/1 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas situated at Haralur village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. It is also contended that his ancestors have purchased land sy. no.33 under registered 17 O.S.No.2383/2008 sale deed dated 28.03.1956 from one Narasimha S/o Muninanjappa so also it is contended that said Narasimha S/o Muninanjappa had acquired 15 acres of land under registered sale deed, dated 25.03.1956. the plaintiff specifically contended that registered family partition was taken place on 2.10.1969 in his family between his father K.M.Ramaiah Reddy i.e. defendant No.1 and his brothers. Wherein 2 acres 10 guntas in Sy. No.33/1 i.e. suit schedule property along with other properties have been allotted to the share of defendant No.1. the plaintiff has made specific allegation against defendants that husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant No.3 to 7 was having dominate roll in the family of the plaintiff since he was close relative of the plaintiff's family. Taking undue advantage of the same has played fraud on the plaintiff's family and got created certain documents with regard to the suit schedule property. Based on the said documents he got allotted land Sy. No.33/1 in his name from, Inam Abolition Tribunal thereby played mischious with the plaintiff's family. In fact suit 18 O.S.No.2383/2008 schedule property absolutely belongs to the plaintiff's family. It was in actual possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his ancestors since long, recently the defendants 2 to 7 forcebly, illegally dispossess the plaintiff and his family members from the suit schedule property falsly claiming right over it. The claim of the defendants is illegal and plaintiff and his family member are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property.
12. These facts have been denied by the defendants No.2 to 8 in their written statement and contended that the claim of the plaintiff seeking right of absolute ownership over the suit schedule property is baseless, untenable, false, hence not maintainable. The plaintiff is claiming his right of ownership over the suit schedule property based on the alleged registered partition deed dated 2.10.1969 and some sale deeds stated to be executed in the name of his family members. The right of ownership cannot be made absolute under a partition. The partition cannot confirm 19 O.S.No.2383/2008 any title in respect of a immovable property, hence plaintiff claim is unsustainable, same is liable to be dismissed.
13. To prove the case of the plaintiff as already stated above he himself got examined as PW.1 also examined 2 witnesses to corroborate his evidence and got marked Ex.P.1 to 106 documents. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.5 himself examined as D.W.1 and one more witness examined on their behalf as D.W.2 also got marked Ex.D.1 to 68 documents. The Ex.P.1 and 2 are the certified copies of sale deeds, dated 28.03.1956 and 28.03.1955 in respect of 15 acres of land, survey number has not been disclosed in the sale deed. Even PW.1 in his cross examination catogorically admitted that Ex.P.1 and 2 does not disclose survey number and there is no reference about the land Sy. No.33/1 of Haralur village. Further the plaintiff has relied Ex.P-3 certified copy of partition deed stated to be held between his father defendant No.1 and others. On keen observation of contents of Ex.P-3 it clearly reveals 20 O.S.No.2383/2008 that there is no reference of Sy. No.33/1 of Haralur village. On the other hand there is reference of Sy. No.95. In the course of cross examination of PW.1 he has clearly admitted that Ex.P-3 does not mentioned about Sy. No.33/1 and there is reference of Sy. No.95. PW.1 in his further cross examination clearly stated that mentioning of Sy. No.95 in Ex.P-3 partition deed is incorrect and wrong. In the course of evidence plaintiff try to say that Sy. No.95 pertains to a tank.(Lake) If such would be the facts of the case the partition deed appears to be incorrect. So for as survey number referred under it therefore it requires correction or rectification argument appears to reasonable. Admittedly plaintiff and his father defendant No.1 have not made any efforts for rectification or correction of partition deed relied under Ex.P-3. Therefore the contention of the plaintiff that he and his father have acquired right in respect of land Sy. No.33/1 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas under the Ex.P-3 registered partition deed does not holds good. The PW.1 himself in an 21 O.S.No.2383/2008 unequivocal term categorically admitted that Ex.P-1 and 2 registered sale deeds does not disclose the survey number of suit land. So also the Ex.P-3 is also not disclosing survey number of the suit schedule property. His contention that defendant No.1 had acquired suit schedule property is unreasonable to accept. It is specific case of the defendant No.2 to 8 that Haralur village has been notified by Government as Jodi Inam Village in the year 1960 itslef, so from the date of notification the lands of Haralur village vested in the Government. In this regard the defendants have relied Ex.D-12 copy of Notification issued by Mysore State dated 1st February 1960, wherein Jodi Haralur village of Varthur Hobli of Bangalore East Taluk has been notified as Jodi Haralur village. Thereby by virtue of said notification the entire lands were vested with the Government and Government became absolute owner of the said properties. It is also contended by the defendants that at that point of time the husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant No.3 to 7 was 22 O.S.No.2383/2008 cultivating the land Sy. No.33/1 measuring 5 acres along with other lands of Haralur village, and he filed application seeking registration of his name as occupant. Considering his application Spl.Tahasildar for Inam Aboltion has granted the right of occupancy in favour of H.Ramaiah Reddy in respect of several survey numbers including the land Sy. No.33/1. In this regard they have relied Ex.D-13, 14 and 15 documents and contended that ever since from the date of grant order the father of the defendant No.3 to 7 and husband of defendant No.2 H.Ramaiah Reddy was enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owner and got mutated his name in the revenue records of the said property and paying tax to the Government regularly. Therefore the alleged partition deed stated to be held in the family of the plaintiff has no relevancy it does not confirm any right, title in respect of land Sy. No.33 either to the plaintiff or his family members much prior to said partition deed the property was vested in the Government. Hence prayed for rejection of the clam of the plaintiff. Though the 23 O.S.No.2383/2008 plaintiff has made several allegation against H.Ramaiah Reddy the husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant No.3 to 7 with regard to fraud misrepresentation and undue influence, in this regard except his self interested testamany oral contention he has not produced any other material or document to prove is contention. So also nature of fraud allegedly played by H.Ramaiah Reddy has not been properly explained nor placed any material to prove these facts. So mere allegation of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence itself cannot be suffice case of the plaintiff. On the other hand all these allegations have to prove independently with cogent and convincing evidence arguments cannot be over ruled. It is the contention of plaintiff that since the father of defendant No.2 to 7 and husband of defendant No.2 was also signed partition deed dated 2.10.1969 as witnesses having knowledge of the same had put his signature over the said document knowing well that said property belongs to the family of the plaintiff suppressing the 24 O.S.No.2383/2008 material facts he has filed application before Inam Abolition Tribunal seeking registration of right of occupancy. That itself amounts to fraud and misrepresentation. Even this argument is considered to be true as already discussed above the partition deed under Ex.P-3 does not disclosing survey number 33 of Haralur village. Moreover the partition deed is a private and family document of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to establish his contention that how the survey number has been wrongly mentioned in the partition deed. Since the plaintiff is disputing the recitals regarding of survey number mentioned in the deed. So the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that said mistake has been intentionally done by husband of defendant No.2 by examining the witnesses who is having knowledge of it. The recitals of the Ex.P-2 partition deed disclose that plaintiff was minor at that point of time so it is necessary to establish the fact of alleged commission of mistake by examining the witness who is having knowledge of the same. No such attempts have been made in this case. 25 O.S.No.2383/2008 Further admittedly the Government has issued Notification declaring Haralur village has Jodi Inam village. From the date of notification the property vested with the Government argument appears to be reasonable. Admittedly neither the plaintiff nor his father have challenged or questioned the notification relied under Ex.D-12. Even this fact has been admitted by PW.1 during his cross examination. Since the property vested with the Government after notification the Inam Aboltion Tribunal has registered the name of H.Ramaiah Reddy in respect of Sy. No.33/1 after holding due enquiry. The order of Tribunal is not challenged or questioned till today before appropriate forum. Without challenging the order of Inam Ablotion Tribunal the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of ownership of the subject matter of grant order whether maintainable is a question to be consider here. Moreover on going through the contents of the partition deed relied under Ex.P-3 there is no reference so for in respect of land Sy. No.33 or 33/1, even for the sake of argument the 26 O.S.No.2383/2008 contention of the plaintiff that though the survey number has not been refered in Ex.P-3 partition deed but the boundaries are specifically mentioned which is sufficient to identify the property in dispute which clearly refers to Sy. No.33/1 but the contents of the said partition deed discloses as under.
14. There are totally Six schedules have been mentioned at back side of page No.II. The schedule 'E' has been allotted to first defendant K.M.Ramaiah Reddy. According to it total 7 properties have been allotted to his share. The Descriptions of the said properties are mentioned at page No.12 of the 3 document para No.II thus reads as under.
E ಷಷಡಡಡಲಲK.M. ರರಮಯಡರಷಡಡಯವರ ಭರಗದ ಸಸತತತಗಳತ
1. ಬಷಬಗಳಡರತ ದಕಕಣ ತರಲಡಲಕತ ಬಷಬಗಡರತ ಹಷಡಬಬಳ, ಕಷಡಬರಮಬಗಲ ಗರಗಮದಲಲರತವ ಈತನ ಭರಗಕಕ ಬಬದರತವ ಮನಷ ಇರತವ ಭಡ ಪಗದಷಬಶ ಮತತತ ಮನಷಗಷ ಸಹ ಚಕತಕಬಬದ ಪಪವರಕಷಕ ಪಲಲಯಡರಷಡಡಯವರ ಭರಗ ಮತತತ ದರರ, ಪಶಶಮಕಷಕ ದರರ ಉತತರಕಷಕ ಎ ಮತನರಷಡಡಯವರ ಖರಲ ನವಷಬಶನ, ದಕಕಣಕಷಕ ತಮಮರಷಡಡಯತವರ ಭರಗದ ಜಮಬನತ ಈ ಮಧಷಡ ಪಪವರ ಪಶಶಮ 15 27 O.S.No.2383/2008 ಹದನಷನದಡ ಉತತರ ದಕಕಣ 22 ಇಪಪತಷರಡಡ ಭಡ ಪಗದಷಬಶ ಮತತತ ಇದರಲಲರತವ ಮನ ಸಹ ಈತನ ಭರಗಕಷಕ ಸಷಬರರತತತದಷ .
2. ಮಬಲಕಬಡ ಕಷಡಬರಮಬಗಲ ಗರಗಮದ ಸವಷರ 114ಃ5 , 114ಃ6 , 114ಃ7, (ಒಬದತನಡರ ಹದನರಲಕನಷ ಸಬಲ ಐದತ ಆರತ ಏಳತ ) ಈ ನಬಬರಗಳಲಲಈತನ ಭರಗಕಷಕ ಬಬದರತವ ಜಮರನಗಷ ಚಕತಕ ಬಬದ ಪಪವರಕಷಕ ತಮರಮರಷಡಡಯವರ ಕಣ ಪಶಶಮಕಷಕ ಜಯರರಮರಷಡಡಯವರ ಭರಗದ ಜಮರನತ ಉತತರಕಷಕ ದರರ ಮತತತ ಜತಬಜಪಪನ ಜಮರನತ ದಕಕಣಕಷಕ ಗಷಡಬವಬದರಷಡಡ ಜಮರನತ ಈ ಮಧಷಡ 0- 2 ¼ (ಎರಡತಕರಲತಗತಬಟಷ ಜಮರನಗಷ ) ಆಕರರ 0-9 ಪಷನಸಷ (ಒಬಬತತತ ಪಷನಸಷ) ವವಳಳ ಜಮರನತ ತರಕತ ಒಬದತ.
3. ಮಬಲಕಬಡ ಕಷಡಬರಮಬಗಲ ಗರಗಮದ ಸವಷರ 113ಃ2 (ಒಬದತ ನಡರ ಹದಮಡರನಷ ಸಬಲ ಎರಡನ ನಬಬರನಲಲ ) ಈತನ ಭರಗಕಷಕ ಬಬದರತವ ಜಮಬನಗಷ ಚಷಕತಕಬಬದ ಪಪವರಕಷಕ ಪಲಲಯಡ ರಷಡಡಯವರ ಭರಗದ ಎಬ. ಮತನರಷಡಡ , ಬಕಕಲಬ ಬರಹ ಜಮರನತ ಪಶಶಮಕಷಕ ಅಬಜನಯ ಸರಸಮ ದಷಬವಸರಸನದ ಇನರಬತ ಜಮರನತ ಉತತರಕಷಕ ಗಷಡಬವಬದರಷಡಡಯವರ ಭರಗದ ಜಮರನತ , ದಕಕಣಕಷಕ ತಮರಮರಷಡಡಯವರ ಭರಗದ ಜಮಬನತ ಈ ಮಧಷಡ 1 ಎ.3 ½ ಗಬ (ಒಬದತ ಎಕರಷ ಮಡರತವರಷ ಗತಬಟ ಜಮರನಗಷ ಆಕರರ 2 ರಡ 0-67 ಪಷನ ( ಎರಡತ ರಡಪರಯ ಆರವತಷತಬಳತ ಪಷನಸಷ ) ವವಳಳ ಜಮರನತ ತರಕತ ಒಬದತ.
4 . ಮಬಲಕಬಡ ಕಷಡಬರಮಬಗಲ ಗರಗಮದ ಬಳ 111ಃ1 , ನ 111ಃ3 , 111ಃ 4 ( ಒಬದತನಡರತ ಹನಷಡನಬದನಷ ಸಬ ಒಬದತ ಮತರರತ ನರಲತಕ ) ಈ ನಬಬರತಗಳಲಲ ಈತನ ಭರಗಕಷಕ ಬಬದರತವ ಜಮರನಗಷ ಚಕತಕಬಬದ ಪಪವರಕಷಕ 28 O.S.No.2383/2008 ಕತರತಳಷಪರಳಡದ ಎಲಷಲ ಪಶಶಮಕಷಕ ಕಷ.ಎ . ಜಯರರಮರಷಡಡಯವರ ಭರಗದ ಜಮರನತ ಉತತರಕಷಕ ಕಷ.ಎಬ. ಗಡಬವಬದರಡಡ ಮತತತ ತಮರಮರಷಡಡಯವರ ಜಮರನತ ದಕಕಣಕಷ ಪಷಬಟಷ ಮತನಯಪಪ ಮತತತ ವಷಬಕಟಪಪ ಇವರ ಜಮರನತ ಈ ಮಧಷಡ 0-20 ¾ (ಇಪಪತತತ ಮತಕರಕಲತ ಗತಬಟಷಗಷ )ಆಕರರ 1 ರಡ 86 ಪಷನ (ಒಬದತ ರಡಪಪಯ ಎಬಭತರತರತ ಪಷನಸಷ ) ಆಕರರವವಳಳ ಜಮರನತ ತರಕತ ಒಬದತ ಹಳಷ ಬರವ ಇದರಲಲರತವವದದರಲಡಲ ಪಷಬಟಷ ಮತನಶರಮಪಪನ ಜಮರನನಲಲರತವ ಕಲತಲ ಮರಳಗಷ ಮನಷಯಲಡಲ ನಮಗರತವ ಮತಕರಕಲತ ಭರಗದ ಹಕಕನಲಲ ನರಲಕನಷ ಒಬದತ ಭರಗದ ಹಕತ ಸಹತವರದ ಜಮರನತ ತರಕತ ಒಬದತ .
5. ಬಷಬಗಳಡರತ ದಕಕಣ ತರಲಡಲಕತ ಮಡವರಳದ ವಷಬಕಡಬಜ ರರಯರ ಖರನಷ ಸವಷರ 43ಃ2 (ನಲವತತ ಮಡರಲ ಸಬಲ ಎರಡನಷಬ ನಬಬರನಲಲ ) ಈತನ ಭರಗಕಷಕ ಬಬದರತವ ಸಸತತಗಷ ಚಷಕತಕಬಬದ ಪಪವಕಷಕರ ರರಜ ಕರಲಷಸ ಮಡಗಪಪ ವಗಷನರಷಯವರ ಜಮರನತ ಪಶಶಮಕಷಕ ರರಜಕರಲಷಸ ಮತತತ ದನನಪಪನ ಜಮರನತ ಉತತರಕಷಕ ಗಷಡಬವಬದ ರಷಡಡ ಭರಗದ ಜಮರನತ ದಕಕಣಕಷಕ ತಮರಮರಷಡಡಯತವರ ಭರಗದ ಜಮರನತ ರರಬ ಮಧಷಡ 0-34 (ಮಡವತತ ನರಲತಕ ಗತಬಗಷ ಜಮರನಗಷ ಆಕರರ 4 ರಡ 84 ಪಷನ ( ನರಲತಕ ರಡಪಪಯ ಎಬಬತತ ನರಲತಕ ಪಷನಸಷ ) ಆಕರರವವಳ ಜಮರನತ ತರಕತ ಒಬದತ ಇದರಲತಗವ ಚಕಕಬರವಯಲಲ ಆರನಷಯತ ಒಬದತ ಭರಗ ಈತನ ಭರಕಷಕ ಸಷಬರರತತತದಷ.
6 . ಬಷಬಗಳಡರತ ದಕಕಣ ತರಲಡಲಕತ ಬಷಬಗಡರತ ಹಷಡಬಬಳ ಗರಗಮದ ಸವಷರಲ 200 , 236 , 233 ( ಇನಡನರತ ಇನಡನರ ಮಡವತರತರತ ಇನಡನರ ಮತವತತಮಡರತ ) ಈ ನಬಬರತಗಳಲಲ ಈತನ ಭರಗಕಷಕ ಬಬದರತವ ಜಮರನಗಷ 29 O.S.No.2383/2008 ಚಕತಕಬಬದ ಪಪವಕಷರ ಕಷ.ಎಬ . ಗಷಡಬವಬದರಷಡಡ ಮತತತ ತಮರಮರಷಡಡ ಇವರ ಭರಗದ ಜಮರಬನತ ಪಶಸಮಕಷಕ ಪಲರಲರಷಡಡಯವರ ಭರಗದ ಜಮರನತ ಉತತರಕಷಕ ಚಷನನಮಮನ ಜಮರಬನತ ದಕಕಣಕಷಕ ಹಳಳ ಈ ಮಧಷಡ ಇರತವ 1 ಎ . 1 ಗತಬ ( ಒಬದತ ಎಕರಷ ಒಬದತ ಗತಬಟ ಜಮರನಗಷ ) ಆಕರರ 6 ರಡ (ಆರತ (ಆರತ ರಡಪರಯವವಳಳ ಜಮರಬನತ ತರಕತ ಒಬದತ .
7. ಬಷಬಗಳತರರತ ದಕಕಣ ವತಡರರತ ಹಷಡಬಬಳ ಹರಳಡರತ ಗರಗಮದ ಖರಜರಮಯರ ಸರಹಷಬಬರ ಕರವಲತ ಬಷನರಷಗಗಡರತ ಕರವಲತ ಜಮರನತ ಪಷನಕ ಈತನ ಭರಗಕಷಕ ಬಬದರತವ ಜಮರನಗಷ ಚಕಕಬಬದ ಪಪರರಕಕಕ ಪಲಲಯಯರಕಡಡ ಭಭಗದ ಜಮಮನನ ಪಶಶಮಕಕಕ ಹನನಮಪಪ ಉತತರಕಕಕ ಹನನಮಪಪ ರಗಕಗರಕಯರರ ಜಮಭನನ ದಕಕಣಕಕಕ ಹರಳನರನ ಗಕನಮವಬದಪಪನರರ ಜಮಭನನ ಈ ಮಧಕಯ 2 ಎ. 20 ಗನಬ ( ಎರಡತ ಎಕರಷ ಇಪಪತತಗತಬಟಷ ಜಮರನಗಷ ) ಆಕರರ 2 ರಡ 50 ಪಷನ ಎರಡತರಡಪರಯ ಐವತತತ ಪಷನಸಷವವಳಳ ಜಮರನತ ತರಕತ ಒಬದತ ಇದರ ಸವಷಬರ ನಬಬರತ ತಷಡಬಬತಷತನಬದತ ಆಗರತತಷತಬ.
15. On perusal of above contents of Ex.P-3 it clearly reveals that land survey number 95 has been allotted to members of the plaintiffs family according to PW.1 Sy. No.95 has been wrongly mentioned instead of mentioning 33 it is his further contention that boundaries of the said property matches with boundaries suit land. Even for the shake of argument this contention is 30 O.S.No.2383/2008 considered to be true admittedly there is no person by name Hanumappa in the family of the plaintiff. So the boundaries refered under Ex.P-1 and 2 sale deeds clearly reveals that towards western side of the said property lake is situated. According to the plaintiff said property has been got divided in the family of the plaintiff as per Ex.P-3 partition deed. If it is taken to be considered as true towards western side of the said property either their must be share of his family members in the same survey number or there must be lake as referred in Ex.P-1 & 2 document argument appears to reasonable. Admittedly there is no member having name of Hanumanthappa in the family of plaintiff. Such being the case how for his name has mentioned towards western side of the item No 7 property in E schedule of the Ex.P- 3 partition deed has not been properly explained nor any documents have been produced. So also in the partition deeds on several occasion Sy. No.95 has been mentioned. According to PW.1 it is wrongly mentioned. If such would be the fact the plaintiff has to seek rectification or 31 O.S.No.2383/2008 correction of partition deed before seeking declaration of ownership in respect of property alloted under said partition. The plaintiff has made several allegations against H.Ramaiah Reddy that he has committed fraud while mentioning the Survey number in the partition deed since he was dominating on defendant No.1. If the allegations of the plaintiff are true then the plaintiff ought to have been produce material evidence. Mere oral allegation of fraud against the defendants itself is not sufficient to seek the relief of declaration. The plaintiff has to prove each and every allegations made against defendants and late H.Ramaiah Reddy with cogent and convincing evidence. In this regard the defendants have relied following decisions
a) (2004) 8 SCC 588 (Para 5) To prove fraud, it must be proved that representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation or that the party could have no reasonable belief that it was true. The level of prof required in such cases is extremely higher. An ambiguous 32 O.S.No.2383/2008 statement cannot per se make the represent or guilty of fraud. To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that the representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation.
b) (1994) 1 SCC 502 (para 42) Merely pleading do not make a strong case of prima facie fraud. The material and evidence has to show it. No material whatsoever is referred to by the High Court.
16. On perusal of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred matters one point is clear that the allegations made in respect of fraud by one party against another party in a suit. The party who has made allegation has to prove his allegations with cogent and convincing evidence. Merely pleading such fact do not make a strong case of prima-facie fraud. Hence contentions of the plaintiff that father of the defendant No.3 to 7 and husband of the defendant No.2 he has played fraud by taking undue advantage of his 33 O.S.No.2383/2008 dominant role in the family of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not placed material to establish that deceased H.Ramaiah Reddy was having dominant rule in the family of the plaintiff. So on this score also plaintiff contention is unacceptable argument holds to be good.
17. The PW.1 in his cross examination has clearly admitted that the boundary descriptions of the plaint schedule property are quite different with the boundary descriptions of the item No.7 of schedule 'E' property of Ex.P-3 partition deed. The very base of the plaintiff's claim seeking declaration of ownership over the suit schedule property is being partition deed that itself is not corroborating with the boundary descriptions mentioned in the plaint schedule.
18. The defendants have denied the right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and contended that since the government of Karnataka has issued notification vide No. RD15 MIN27 dated 04.01.1960 under 34 O.S.No.2383/2008 section 1(4) of Inam Abolition Act 1954, with effect from 01.02.1960 all inam lands whether religious are charitable stood vested in the government free from all encumbrances from the date of notification. So any purchase of land prior to the above notification has no effect as they said lands vester with the state government, therefore the claim of the plaintiff based on the alleged sale deeds and partition deed relied by him have no legal sanctity hence they have no binding effect. On the other hand the special deputy commissioner conducted enquiry in a proceeding case vide No.59/1960/61 based on the application filed by H.Ramaiah Reddy and confirmed his occupancy right. He had got mutated his name in the Revenue records of the suit schedule property and enjoying the same without any hindrance. There is no dispute so far grant order is made in favour of H.Ramaiah Reddy in respect of the suit schedule property but the plaintiff has alleged that H.Ramaiah Reddy has played fraud while getting grant order in his favour. As already discussed the plaintiff has 35 O.S.No.2383/2008 miserably failed to prove the quantum of fraud alleged to be committed by late H.Ramaiah Reddy with cogent and convincing evidence. It is also contended that since the plaintiff is making allegations in this suit with regard to grant order passed by Inam Abolition Tribunal which is not a proper forum this court cannot decide validity of the order of tribunal. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide tenancy right. More ever the plaintiff has not challenged order passed by Inam Abolition Tribunal in the suit. The learned counsel of the defendants has relied following decisions in support of his oral argument.
19. In this regard the learned counsel for the defendants have placed various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Karntaka. On keen observation of the principles laid down in the referred below matters, it is quite clear that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to intervine in the order of Inam Abolition Tribunal.
20. List of Authorities relied by the defendants are as under.
36 O.S.No.2383/2008a. (2010) 3 SCC 214 The Jurisdiction of the Civil or Criminal Court of officer or authority stood ousted in matters where a decision had to be taken as to whether the land in question was agricultural land or not and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 1 st April, 1974.
b. (2009) 1 SCC 626 Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide as to whether the joint fmily or one of the members was a tenant, when that question was considered finally and authority on merits by the Land Tribunal. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decree suit for declaration and possession.
c. MANU/KA/1075/2006 Civil Courts shall not re-open the matters pertaining to grant of occupancy rights in favour of the permanent tenants or Kadeem tenants, once they become final. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that 37 O.S.No.2383/2008 the question relating to grant of occupancy rights should have been gone into by the Civil Court cannot be accepted.
d. 1983 (2)KL.J.248 An order made by the Land Tribunal, even if made in contravention of the rules of procedure, is nonetheless an order of the Tribunal which gets the protection of S.132 (2) of the act, and it cannot be questioned by a suit in a civil court.
e. 1989 (3) KLJ 373
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961,
sections 132 and 133 conferment of
occupancy rights on one of the co owner suit by other co owner for declaration that proceedings re-grant of occupancy not binding on him suit rejected as being not maintainable U/sections 132 and 133 of the act held proper.
38 O.S.No.2383/2008
f. MANU/SC/1163/2019 The present proceedings in question are what has been labeled as "side wind" to re- open the chapter which could not have been directly challenged, i.e., by challenging the certificate issued under section of32 M of the said Act.
21. That as per the principles laid down in the above referred matters and facts and circumstances of the present case the plaintiff cannot challenge the order of Land Tribunal regarding granting of occupancy right before a Civil Court under a suit for declaration. There is specific bar regarding jurisdiction of the civil courts in the special enactment. Section 132 and 133 of karnataka Land Reforms Act 1963 and Section 31(3) of The Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act 1954 specifically bars the civil suit. No reason is made out by 39 O.S.No.2383/2008 the plaintiff to deny these facts. As already discussed above PW.1 in an unequivocal term, in his cross examination admitted that neither himself nor his father ever challenged the grant order passed by Tribunal in favour of H.Ramaiah Reddy before any competent forum. Such being the case the contentions of the plaintiff seeking right of declaration in respect of the suit schedule property does not holds good.
22. The learned counsel of the plaintiff in his argument submitted that since the defendants have not produced the grant order passed by the Inam Abolition Tribunal they are relying only order sheet of the proceedings held before special Thashildar of Inam Abolition Act without producing the grant order claim of the defendants cannot be accepted. On the other hand the defendants vehemently argued and contended that plaintiff has filed present suit against the defendants seeking right of declaration in respect of the suit schedule property based on several allegations against 40 O.S.No.2383/2008 the father of defendant No.3 to 7 but has miserably failed to prove his contentions so also he has failed to establish his absolute right of ownership over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has to seek remedy on his own strength he cannot depend on the weakness of the defendants to get suit decreed and relied following decision:
MANU/KA/1869/2016 A decree of declaration is not granted as a matter of right but is at the discretion of the court as it is an equitable remedy. The discretion must be exercised with great care and caution, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and based on sound principles of law.
A declaration must not be granted in anticipation of a contingency, which may not arise. Moreover, declarations may be refused where the suit has not been brought honesty, or has been filed for mere speculation or where the intention of filing the suit is fraudulent. It may also be refused where the real object of the suit is different, or would enable the plaintiff to evade the law; or would nullify a decree or order of the court having special jurisdiction; nor should a 41 O.S.No.2383/2008 declaration be granted where the law provides another appropriate relief or remedy.
23. As per the principles laid down in the above referred matte rand facts and circumstances of the present case the plaintiff has brought suit for declaration of ownership after several decades of passing the order of Inam Abolition Tribunal. Admittedly his father has not taken any steps against the order of tribunal or mistake alleged to be kept in the partition deed. So the intention of the plaintiff bringing the present suit in the year 2008 can be gathered. More over the plaintiff either to succeed or fail in his suit on his own strength he cannot seek benefit on the witness of the defendants.
24. The father of the plaintiff that is defendant No.1 was alive at the time of filing the suit. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that his father defendant No.1 has acquired suit schedule property in a family partition held as per Ex.P.3. Even for the sake of 42 O.S.No.2383/2008 arguments the contentions of the plaintiff considered to be true then the plaintiff himself cannot be absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff as sought relief of declaration against defendants and admittedly one of the defendant is his father. On this core also plaintiff's contention is not acceptable arguments cannot be rejected.
25. So the contention of the plaintiff that he has proved that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by examining P.W.1 to 3 witnesses and producing several documents relied under Ex.P.1 to P.106 does not holds good. The evidence of PW.2 and 3 will not come to the help of the plaintiff to establish his right of ownership over the suit schedule property. There is no corroboration between oral and documentary evidence placed by plaintiff in support of his claim. Therefore plaintiff has miserably fail to prove issue No.1. Accordingly I have answered it in the negative.
43 O.S.No.2383/2008
26. ISSUE No.4: According to the plaintiff on 16.08.2007 when he has filed an application for obtaining Nil Encumbrance and came to know fraud committed by the defendants when the surveyor hand over the copy of fraudulent decree in O.S.No.208/1976 and on 18.08.2007 when the caveat petition was filed by the defendants 2 to 7 in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence cause of action arisen to file the instant suit.
27. These facts have been denied by the defendants and contended that the plaintiff has filed false suit, he has no cause of action file instant suit. Further contended that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that he has enquired with Smt. Jayamma and H.Ramaiah Reddy with regard to the entries in respect of Sy. No.33/1 in the revenue records. It is also case of the plaintiff that he has enquired with H.Ramaiah Reddy about schedule property in the month of September 2007. On the other hand said H.Ramaiah Reddy died in the month of March 2007. Therefore the contention of 44 O.S.No.2383/2008 the plaintiff that he has enquired in the month of September 2007 is utterly false. In the course of cross examination of PW.1 he has admitted that he does not know when he enquired with Jayamma and H.Ramaiah Reddy. Even PW.1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that he do not know whether contents of para- 18 of plaint are true or not. Therefore looking into these facts one point is clear that the plaintiff has set up dates showing cause of action to suit his convenient and create false cause of action for the purpose of filing the present suit. It is also contended that in the complaint given by plaintiff before concerned police in the year 2011 it is stated that he has acquired right in the suit schedule property after death of his father. On the other hand present suit is filed in the year 2008 itself, such being the case plaintiff contention that he has acquired cause of action to file the suit in the year 2008 itself does not holds good. Therefore the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the suit. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
45 O.S.No.2383/2008
28. Admittedly H.Ramaiah Reddy acquired right of occupancy in respect of land Sy. No.33/1 in the year 1962 itself. If really the plaintiff and his father have got any right, title and interest in respect of the suit schedule property they ought to have been questioned the grant order made in favour of H.Ramaiah Reddy at the earliest point of time. No efforts have been made except filing the instant suit. The name of H.Ramaiah Reddy is appearing in the RTC and other revenue records in respect of land Sy. No.33/1 from several decades continuously same has not been questioned. Even the plaintiff has not produced single piece of document to show that he was exercising right of ownership over the suit schedule property before filing the instant suit. As already discussed in the above issue it is quite clear that as on the date of suit the father of the plaintiff i.e., defendant No.1 was alive. So during his life time how the plaintiff got absolute right of ownership in respect of the suit schedule property as not been explained. Therefore the cause of action mentioned in the plaint is nothing 46 O.S.No.2383/2008 but illusory and only with a view to get the judgment and decree against defendants argument appears to be reasonable. That taking into consideration of all these facts and circumstances the contention of the plaintiff about cause of action arisen to file instant suit is nothing but imaginary created only to suit his convenient argument cannot be rejected. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the cause of action arosen to file the suit with cogent and convincing evidence. No reason is available to deny the same. The plaintiff has failed to prove issue No.4. Hence I have answered it in the negative.
29. Issue No.5: This issue has already disposed of as per order of this court, dated: 8.4.2013.
30. Additional issue No.1: According to the defendant No.8 the partition deed, dated: 2.10.1969 is fabricated and concocted document. It is the specific case of the defendant No.8 that the partition deed, dated 2.10.1969 is fabricated and concocted document. It is the case of the plaintiff that suit schedule property was 47 O.S.No.2383/2008 acquired under partition deed relied under Ex.P-2 the contents of the partition deed does not disclose about acquisition of said property by the family. Infact the land Sy.No.33/1 was granted to H.Ramaiah Reddy by the Inam Abolition Tribunal in the year 1962 itself. Admittedly the said grant order has not been challenged or questioned either by plaintiff or his ancestors before competent authority. It is also pertinent to note here that before the date of partition relied under Ex.P.3 the Government has issued Notification under section 1 (4) dated 4.01.1960 of Inam abolition Act 1954 declaring as Haralur village has Jodi Inam village. Immediately after notification the properties were vested with the Government, neither the plaintiff nor his family members have got any right and interest whatsoever of nature by virtue of said partition deed. Even for the sake of argument the contention of the plaintiff is considered to be true that partition deed, dated 2.10.1961 was held in the family of the plaintiff. The very document itself will became unenforcible and non est by virtue of the State Government issuing 48 O.S.No.2383/2008 notification declaring Haralur village as jodi Inam village and all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar including those in all communal lands, cultivated lands, uncultivated lands whether accessed or not, waste lands pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tank (lake)and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries shall cease and be vested absolutely in the state government free from all encumbrances. So no right has sought to be asserted by the plaintiff as claimed by him. Hence alleged parent deed i.e. sale deed executed inan the name of Munireddy itself has no subsisting right. So no further right could be create based on the said sale deed. On these ground the subsequent document stated to be held in the year 1962 is false, fabricated document. It does not create any right, interest in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not denied the fact of issuing notification declaring Harlur village as Jodi Inam village by the government. The plaintiff only questioning the grant order made in favour of H.Ramaiah Reddy by the Inam Abolition 49 O.S.No.2383/2008 Tribunal is not correct and said H. Ramaiah Reddy has played fraud in obtaining said order. For which this is not the proper fourm argument holds to be good. As clearly admitted by PW.1 either plaintiff or his father ever challenged the grant order made in favour of H.Ramaiah Reddy before competent authority. As already discussed in the above issue since this court has no jurisdiction to question the validity of the grant order made by Inam Abolition Tribunal. Therefore at this stage it is quite clear that considering the right of the plaintiff based on alleged partition deed under Ex.P.3 does not holds good. That considering all these facts and circumstances one point is clear that defendant No.8 has proved his contention that partition deed, dated 2.10.1969 is fabricated and concocted document it has no enforcing value. No reason is available to deny the same. Therefore the defendant has proved this issue. Accordingly I have answered it in the affirmative.
31. Additional Issue No.2:- According to the defendant No.8 suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred 50 O.S.No.2383/2008 by law of limitation. The land Sy.No.33/1 measuring 5 acres has been granted by Inam Abolition Tribunal in favour of H.Ramaiah Reddy in the year 1962. Ever since from the date of grant the name of H.Ramaiah Reddy is appeared in the Record of Rights and other revenue records as owners. Neither the plaintiff nor his ancestors have challenged the notification issued by Government nor the grant order confirmed in the name of H.Ramaiah Reddy by Inam Abolition Tribunal. Therefore the plaintiff abruptly filing suit for declaration of ownership in respect of the suit land in the year 2008 amount hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Hence prayed for dismissal.
32. These facts have been denied by the plaintiff and contended that in the year 2008 when he applied for nill encumbrance certificate in respect of the suit schedule property and tried to measure his property then surveyor has given copy of the judgment and decree passed in the year 1976 in respect of the suit schedule property then he found fraud played by the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. 51 O.S.No.2383/2008 Therefore got filed the suit in the year 2008 from the date of his knowledge about fraud committed by the defendants suit is well within time. Hence prayed for rejecting the contention of the defendants. Admittedly government has issued notification in the year 1960. Even for the sake of argument it is not came to the knowledge of the plaintiff and his father i.e. defendant No.1 is considered to be true. Admittedly as per the contention of the plaintiff the suit schedule property has been acquired by his father defendant No.1 under family partition in the year 1969 itself. Even after the partition the plaintiff or his father ought to have been made efforts for getting change the katha of the property in their name. No such effort has been made by them nor they have tried to pay tax to the Government in respect of the suit schedule property. The conduct of the plaintiff clearly reveals to show that they are having knowledge of the notification issued by Government consequently the grant order made in favour of H.Ramaiah Reddy in respect of land Sy. No.33/1 much 52 O.S.No.2383/2008 earlier. Thats why they inspite of having knowledge of the same they have kept quite several decades. The name of H.Ramaiah Reddy was continued in the R.T.C. and other revenue records. The value of the properties raised in the surrounding Bangalore city then the plaintiff might have thought of raising dispute with regard to title of the property and filed instant suit based on imaginary cause of action argument appears to be reasonable. That as already discussed above immediately after issuance of notice by Government under Inam Abolition Act, the property vested with the Government no right and interest left with the previous parties nor existing documents creates or transfers right in respect of the property arguments appears to be acceptable. Since from 1969 the plaintiff have not made any efforts for changing their name in revenue records of the suit schedule property reason has not been explained. Further the boundaries shown under Ex.P-3 partition deed are not tallying with the mother deeds relied by the plaintiff. Such being the case the plaintiff 53 O.S.No.2383/2008 and his father kept quit and slept over their right since from 1969 till 2008, now filing suit in the year 2008 is clearly goes to show that suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Even PW.1 has not explained the date of alleged dispossession from the suit schedule property nor it has been proved.
The learned counsel for the defendants have relied decision reported in (2013)14 SCC 81 Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statue so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.
"A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "Duralexsedlex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation.54 O.S.No.2383/2008
33. On perusal of the above principles laid down in the above referred matter it is quite clear that the fact and circumstances of the above referred matter are same with the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore as per the principles of the above referred cases the suit of the plaintiff is appears to be hopelessly barred by law of limitation, no reason is made out by the plaintiff to deny the same. In my view defendant No.8 has proved additional issue No.2. Hence I have answered it in the affirmative.
34. Issue No.2, 3 & 6:- As already discussed in the above issues, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his absolute right of ownership over the suit schedule property. So also he has failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule property and alleged forcible dispossession by the defendants. On the other hand the defendants are able to establish their contention that land Sy.No.33 measuring 4 acre 20 guntas has been granted by Inam Abolition Tribunal by 55 O.S.No.2383/2008 holding due enquiry. Ever since from the date of grant order made in favour of H.Ramaiah Reddy his name is entered in the Revenue Records of the schedule property, therefore the contention of the plaintiff that he is entitled for the relief of declaration of ownership and possession of the property does not holds good. Further plaintiff has also sought for relief of injunction against the defendants since is not able to prove his title over the suit schedule property relief of injunction claimed by him also does not survive for consideration the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove issue No.2, 3 and 6 Hence, I answered them in negative.
35. ISSUE No.7:- For the various reasons discussed in issues No.1 to 6 and Addl issue No.1 and 2 and findings given by me on those issues, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with cost.
56 O.S.No.2383/2008
Draw the decree accordingly.
[Some portion directly dictated to the judgment writer online, and some portions dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed & computerized by him, corrected by me and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 13th day of August, 2020] (MALLIKARJUNA) XIV Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
P.W.1 : Sri.Babu Reddy P.W.2 : Sri.Venkataswamy Reddy P.W.3 : Sri.Narayana Reddy List of documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 : C/c of the Sale deed dt.28.3.1956 Ex.P.2 : C/c of sale deed, dated 28.3.1955 Ex.P.3 : C/c of partition deed, dt.2.10.1969 Ex.P.4 : Mutation Register Ex.P.5 to 23: Photographs Ex.P.24 to 29 : Negaties Ex.P.30 : C/c of Writ Petition No.13841/2007 Ex.P.31 : C/c of W.P.No.30308-30313/2009 (GM-CPC) Ex.P.32 : Copy of complaint 57 O.S.No.2383/2008 Ex.P.33 : Copy of Acknowledgement Ex.P.34 : Copy of Complaint Ex.P.35 : Endorsement Ex.P.36 & 37 : Encurmbrance Certificates Ex.P-38 to 40 : Form 15 Ex.P.41 to 43 : RTCs Ex.P.44 : C/c of sale deed dated 19.4.1956 Ex.P.45 : Sketch Ex.P.46 : Quitrent Register Ex.P.47 : Copy of Release deed, dt.29.10.2004 Ex.P.48 : Partition Deed dt.23.2.2011 Ex.P.49 : Joint Development Agreement, dt.16.06.2014 Ex.P.50 : Death certificate of 1st defendant Ex.P.51 : Endorsement Ex.P.52 to 91 : RTC extracts Ex.P.92 : Certificate copy of W.P.No.1341/2007 Ex.P.93 : Acknowledge of reply to Notice to Tahasildar Ex.P.94 : Copy of Hissa Survey Tippani pertaining to Sy.No.33 of Haralur village Ex.P.95 : Copy of Hissa Survey Tippani pertaining to Sy.No.33 of Haralur village Ex.P.96 : Copy of Hissa Hissa Survey Pakka pertaining to Sy.No.33 of Haralur village Ex.P.97 : Copy of Tippani pertaining to Sy.No.33 of Haralur village Ex.P.98 : Copy of Hissa Survey Tippani pertaining to Sy.No.112 Ex.P.99 : Copy of R.R. of Haraluru village 58 O.S.No.2383/2008 Ex.P.100 & 101(a) : C/c of sale deed of Sy.No.112/2 and its typed copy Ex.P.102 : copy of Village map Ex.P.103 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 22.5.2003 Ex.P.104 & 104(a) ; C/c of Sale Deed dt.8.12.1947 and its typed copy.
Ex.P.105 & 105(a) : C/c of sale deed dt.12.10,1944 and its typed copy Ex.P.106 & 106(a) : C/c of sale deed dated 6.4.1949 and its typed copy List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant/s:
D.W.1 : Sri. H.R.Rajashekar Reddy D.W.2 : Smt.Sukhirani Karegoudar
List of documents marked on behalf of the defendant/s :
Ex.D.1 : C/c of grant order dt.30.10.1967
Ex.D.2 : C/c of deposion of H.Ramaiah Reddy
in case No.59/1960-61
Ex.D.3 : Copy of Endorsement
Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of order passed in case No.
92/1960-61
Ex.D.5 : Copy of Endorsement
Ex.D.6 : Copy of Register No.8
59 O.S.No.2383/2008
Ex.D.7 : C/c of order of Land Tribunal,
Bangalore in LRF 4593/1976-77
Ex.D.8 & 9 : C/c of From No.10 & 19(1)
Ex.D.10 : C/c of W.P.No.16738/2005 (LB-BMP) Ex.D.11 : C/c of Writ Appeal No.1677/2008 (LB-BMP) Ex.D.12 : Gattee Notification Ex.D.13 : C/c of order of Tahasildar Inam Abolition Ex.D.14 : Endorsement issued by Spl.D.C. dt.11.12.1964 Ex.D.15 : Copy of Register No.VIII assessment extract Ex.D.16 C/c of compromise petition in O.S.No.208/1976 Dt.27.11.1976 Ex.D.17 to 19 : Kandayam Paid receipts Ex.D.20 : C/c of order dated 16.3.2002 Ex.D.21 : Mutation Extract dt.16.3.2002 Ex.D.22 : Order of BDA dt.7.6.2004 Ex.D.23 : Bank Challan dt.8.12.2003 Ex.D.24 : Office Letter of BBMP dt.15.12.2012 Ex.D.25 : Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.D.26 : Registraton of Katha issued by BBMP 60 O.S.No.2383/2008 Ex.D.27to 34 : Kandaym paid receipts Ex.D.35 : Receipt issued by BBMP Ex.D.36 : Copy of Gazatee dt.4.8.2003 Ex.D.37 : Copy of Notice issued by BDA dt.20.8.2003 Ex.D.38 : Copy of Gattee Notification dt 15.2.2005 Ex.D.39 & 40 : Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D.41 to 61 : 21 Pahanies Ex.D.64 : Mutation Register Ex.D.65 : Letter to Tahasildar issued by plaintiff dated: 4.6.2007 Ex.D.66 : Copy of letter given by Tahasildar Ex.D.67 : Copy Report issued by RI Ex.D.68 : C/c of letter issued by defendant to The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore XIV Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.61 O.S.No.2383/2008 62 O.S.No.2383/2008