Bangalore District Court
Gangaram Prasad vs Smt. Achamma on 24 May, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 24th day of May 2021.
PRESENT: Smt.PREETHI K.P B.A.,LL.M.,
XI Addl.City Civil Judge, B'lore city.
O.S.No. 2107/1983
Plaintiff: Gangaram Prasad,
S/o.T.Lakshmi Prasad,
Since dead by LR.
Smt.G. Nagubai
W/o. Krishnamurthy,
D/o Gangarm Prasad, Hindu,
Aged about 92 years, No.42, 6th Cross,
Magadi Road, Bangalore 560 023.
Dead by her LR's
1(a) Sri. A.Krishna murthy
S/o Late Anjaniprasad,
aged about 70 years,
No.42, 6th Cross, Magadi Road,
Bengaluru -23
1(b) Smt.K.Manjula
D/O A.Krishnamurthy,
W/O V.Gopal Ram Prasad,
aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.8,
Behind Citizen High School,
Vivekananda Nagar, Hoskote, Bengaluru
Rural-562114,
2
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
1(c) Sri. K.Raghavendra S/O
A.Krishnamurthy,
aged about 48 years,
1(d) Smt. Usha Devi,
D/O A.Krishnamurthy
W/O Late Hariprasad,
aged about 48 years,
Both are residing at No.42,
6th Cross, Magadi Road,
Bengaluru -23
(P- dead
P.(1)- Dead
P(1) (a) to d) KGD and BS0
Vs.
Defendants: 1 Smt. Achamma,
W/O Late Vallabharayappa
Since dead by her LRs
1(a) N.V. Subba Rao
S/o late Vallabharayappa,
Aged about 62 years,
R/a No.67/35, 3rd Street,
Model House Block,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004.
1(b) M.V.Krishnmurhty,
S/o Vallabharayappa,
Aged about 60 years,
R/a No.23/5, Venkatappa Street,
Bangalore 560 004.
1(c) V. Rama Rao
S/o Late Vallabharayappa,
3
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
Aged about 72 years,
R/a No.879, 29th Main, 9th Block
Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011.
1(d) Smt.N.V. Vijayamba
W/o C.N.Sathyanarayana,
Aged about 55 years,
R/a No.16/2, 1st floor,
Srinivasa Nilaya, 1st Main Road,
Vijayarangam Layout,
(Behind Ward Office),
Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004.
2. Sri B.K. Chandrashekar
S/o N.V. Krishna Murthy
Aged about 29 years,
No.23/5, Yenkatappa Street,
Chickmavalli, Bangalore 560 004.
3. Sri. V.R.Srinivasa Murthy
S/O Late Sri. V.Rama Rao,
aged about 58 years,
Residing at NO.879, 28th Main,
9th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru -69
(d.1- Dead
D.1(a)-Dead
D.1(a)(a)- GDC
D.1(b)(d)- Expt.,
D.1(c)-Dead
D.2- M.M
D.3- MRM
Date of the institution of suit: 21.07.1983
Nature of the suit: Specific performance
Date of the commencement of 1.12.2000
recording of the evidence :
4
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
Date on which the judgment 24.05.2021
was pronounced :
Total duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
37 10 03
XI Addl.City Civil Judge,
B'lore city.
JU DG M E NT
The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants
for the relief of specific performance to direct the defendants
to execute re-conveyance deed in favour of plaintiff in respect
of the schedule premises by receiving balance amount of
Rs.2,000/- or in alternatively decree the suit for redemption
to redeem the mortgage dated 14.6.1965 in relation to the
suit schedule property by declaring the sale deed dated
14.6.1965 as mortgage deed .
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff was the
owner in possession and enjoyment of the property and he
had some commitments. The suit schedule property is an
ancestral property. After the death of his father, the
defendant had nominally sold it in favour of his brother in law
M.V.Thulisiram and again repurchased it in the year 1953
under registered sale deed dated 11.3.1953. In the year1963
the defendant was in need of money in order to discharge
5
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
certain debts inclusive of house building Co-operative loan
approached the defendant's son N.V.Subba Rao for a sum of
Rs.4,000/- accordingly the said Subba Rao agreed to lend
Rs.4,000/- at the rate of 5% interest per annum for the said
amount and plaintiff had executed an usufructury mortgage
deed . Upon the instance of the defendant the plaintiff had
executed a rent bond in lieu of interest to be payable for the
money taken from Subba Rao. The interest agreed by the
plaintiff was at Rs.50/- per month as against the principal
amount at Rs.4,000/- along with document which was
styled as mortgage and nominal rent bond was executed by
the defendant. It was only a simple mortgage agreeing to pay
interest at the rate mentioned above. At no point of time, the
possession of the plaintiff was disturbed nor handed over to
the defendant. The possession was continued up to 1965.
The plaintiff had to perform the marriage of his daughter
and he had no funds. Hence, he once again requested Subba
Rao to advance money and said Subba Rao had paid a sum of
Rs.3,000/- under the same terms of interest. The plaintiff
agreed to pay interest at 15% for a sum of Rs.7,000/- that
worked out to Rs.87.50, unfortunately though the
transaction in fact was really a mortgage the said Subba Rao
insisted the plaintiff to execute nominal sale deed in his
favour . Having no other alternative, plaintiff was constrain
to execute nominal sale deed in favour of defendant, the said
6
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
sale deed was executed by the plaintiff on 14.6.1965. The
defendant also promised and executed the re-conveyance
deed agreeing to re-convey the said property on the return of
Rs.7,000/-, hence the transaction entered into by the parties
was only a mortgage and not a sale deed . In order for
prompt and regular enforcement, defendant also had taken
lease deed from the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.87.50ps. The said
sale deed was only by way of security and nothing else.
When such being the state of affairs, though the property
worth Rs.25,000/- in the year 1961, no ordinary person
would execute sale deed in respect of such property for a
paltry sum of Rs.7,000/- and the plaintiff had paid kandayam
up to date. Even under the said deed, it is agreed that the
plaintiff has to pay tax . In the re-conveyance deed, the
condition stipulated to the effect that the plaintiff has to pay
the amount within 3 years. As the plaintiff was not in
possession to pay the entire amount, defendant extended the
time for payment from 14.5.1968 to 14.6.1970 in view of the
fact that the plaintiff was in difficulty. The plaintiff paid a
sum of Rs.2,025/- on 19.5.1968 towards interest in respect of
the above transaction . The plaintiff was the post man in the
year 1970. After his retirement, he received a sum of
Rs.2,000/- and immediately after receipt of the said amount,
plaintiff had paid the said amount to the defendant in the
year 1970 to adjust it towards principal amount. The
7
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
defendant again received on 28.2.1971 another sum of
Rs.3,000/- and said Rs 3000/- was received by the plaintiff
from the department towards GPF and the said amount was
paid to the defendant. After deducting the said amount and
in view of the settlement, defendant executed a deed on
3.8.1971 to the effect that after furnishing the account from
the defendant and the balance amount to be paid to the
defendant and defendant to execute the re-conveyance deed
in favour of plaintiff. When plaintiff demanded the
defendant for execution of re-conveyance deed he had not
complied with the same though the plaintiff was ready to
perform his part of contract. On the contrary, defendant had
filed the suit before Munsiff Court alleging that the plaintiff
is in arrears of rent. Unfortunately plaintiff could not attend
the court, hence suit was decreed exparte. Again defendant
had filed two more suits for arrears of rent for 3 years and
also one petition under Sec. 21(h) of K.R.C Act for eviction on
the ground of bonafide use and occupation. In all the
proceedings plaintiff had taken the contention that there is
no relationship of land lord and tenant between them. It was
only relationship of mortgage and debtor. However, the real
relationship of land lord and tenant could not go into the
merits of the registered sale deed and the dispute is only a
civil dispute and hence, Hon'ble court directed to pay rent to
the defendant. The plaintiff had approached the Taluka
8
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
Executive Magistrate to discharge the debt under Sec. 3 of
Karnataka Debit Relief Act. The Taluka Executive Magistrate
allowed the said petition . Aggrieved by the said order, the
defedant filed W.P.No.5482/1977. One of the relevant
questions raised by the defendant was that since the
transaction in question is sale the Taluka Executive
Magistrate has no power to interfere with it. Further the
contention urged was that no opportunity was given.
However, the court set aside the order of Taluka Executive
Magistrate and remanded the case to the Taluka Executive
Magistrate to pass order after giving opportunity to the
parties. The plaintiff had sent amount to the defendant a
sum of Rs.2,000/- by way of cheque towards performance.
On the contrary it was refused by the defendant. The plaintiff
is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The
defendant has refused to comply with the same. The cause of
action arose on 3.8.1981 and continued when the defendants
fails to comply with his part of contract and within
jurisdiction of this court. Hence, plaintiff prays to decree the
suit.
3. In response to the summons issued in this
case,defendant appeared through counsel and filed written
statement and she admits that the plaintiff was the owner of
the property bearing No.39 situated at 6 th cross, Magadi Main
9
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
Road, Bengaluru till 14.6.1965, on which date he sold the
said property in favour of defendant. The suit schedule
property was self acquired property of the plaintiff. She
admits that the plaintiff purchased the said property from
M.V.Thulasi Ram under the registered sale deed dated
11.3.1953. She further contended that during 1963 plaintiff
approached this defendant and requested her to advance a
sum of Rs.4,000/- on the security of the property and the
defendant advanced the said sum of Rs.4,000/- and plaintiff
mortgaged the said property with possession in favour of the
defendant executing the possession mortgage deed dated
4.4.1963 in favour of defendant. She further contended that
Sri. N.V.Subba Rao referred to in the plaint was nothing to do
with the said transaction. Since the plaintiff expressed
difficulties in securing some other accommodation for
residence and requested the defendant to lease out the said
premises in his favour and the defendant agreed to do so and
the plaintiff executed the lease deed in favour of the
defendant agreeing to pay the monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The
plaintiff has no right in law to contend mortgage deed as
simple mortgage deed. Immediately after execution of the sale
deed dated 14.6.1965 and the lease deed in favour of
defendant, the position of the plaintiff was that of a tenant
under the defendant. The absolute sale deed was executed
by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 14.6.1965. The
10
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
property in question was worth only Rs.7,000/- . Defendant
admits that plaintiff was previously paying kandayam as the
defendant instructed him to do so and adjust the same out of
the monthly rent. The plaintiff has paid recent kandayam
as he was directed to do by this defendant out of the portion
of arrears of rent prior to 14.9.1970. She admits that on the
request of the plaintiff, defendant executed an agreement on
14.6.1965 agreeing to sell the property in favour of plaintiff,
within three years from the said date for a sum of Rs.7,000/-.
The plaintiff did not act according to the terms of the said
agreement and again on the request of the plaintiff, the
defendant extended the time for a further period of two
years from 14.6.1968 and even then plaintiff did not
perform his part of the duty under contract. She further
admits that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.2,025/- on
19.5.1968. But said amount was paid towards the arrears of
rent and not towards the alleged interest. She further
admits that defendant filed suit in O.S.No.2689/1973 in the
court of 2nd Additional First Munsiff, Bengaluru for recovery of
arrears of rent from plaintiff for the period of 3 years from
14.10.1970 to 13.10.1973 . The defendant contended that
plaintiff appeared in the court through counsel and filed
written statement and therefore the said suit was decreed on
21.9.1976 . Thereafter plaintiff filed a miscellaneous petition
against the defendant and the same was dismissed after
11
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
contest. Further contended that the learned Munsiff had
framed 8 issues in O.S.No.2689/1973 and 1 st and 2nd issued
are held in favour of defendant, issue No.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are
held against the plaintiff. Ultimately the suit was decreed.
Hence the above suit is not maintainable as the same is
barred by the principles of resjudicata. The defendant
contend that she has filed suit bearing
S.C.No.8443/1980 on the file of the court of Small Causes
for recovery of arrears of rent for 36 months from 14.8.1976
to 13.8.1979 amounting to Rs.3,150/- .The defendant filed
HRC No.1271/1973 under Sec. 21(1)(a) and (h) of K.R.C Act .
She further admitted that in all the proceedings plaintiff
had taken the contention that there was no relationship of
landlord and tenant between them and that it was the
relationship of a debtor and creditor. Defendant contended
that the contention of the plaintiff is negatived in all the
proceedings. In fact, the learned III Additional Judge, Court
of Small Causes held in HRC No.8722/1980 on 24.10.1981
that the plaint is barred under the principles of Resjudicata .
The plaintiff preferred C.R.P.No.3558/1981 on the file of
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the said Civil Revision
Petition was dismissed on 2.6.1982 . She further contend
that the order passed by the learned Taluka Executive
Magistrate was an exparte order. The matter was remanded
by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
12
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
W.P.No.5482/1977. The said court has held the existence of
jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the
defendant and plaintiff on the basis of the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.2689/1973 on the file of 1 st Munsiff
Court, Bengaluru and thus the matter is already adjudicated.
The suit is hopelessly barred by time. In view of the relief
claimed by the plaintiff under Karnataka Debt Relief Act in
the court of Taluka Executiva Magistrate, this suit is not
maintainable. The defendant contended that there is no
mortgage subsisting on the property in favour of plaintiff to
seek redemption. There is no cause of action for the suit and
the plaintiff has not even stated the date as to when the
alleged cause of action arose. Specifically defendant denied
all the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint and
prays to dismiss the suit.
4. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff died and
his L.R came on record. D.1(a) also died and his L.Rs came
on record. D.1(b)(d) placed exparte and D.1(c) died during the
pendency of the suit. Defendant No.3 is L.R of defendant
No.1(c). L.Rs of defendant have appeared through counsel
and filed their written statement and also adopted the
written statement filed by their mother Achamma. In their
additional written statement, legal representatives of deceased
defendant contended that their mother Achamma executed
13
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
and registered Will dated 24.7.1986 registered in Sub
Registrar office Basavanagudi, Bengaluru and by virtue of
said Will deceased defendant Achamma bequeathed the
vacant site which is the eastern portion of the property
bearing old No.12 and New No.39 measuring east-west 33 feet
and north-south 30 ft., situated at 6 th Cross, Magadi Main
Road Bengaluru bounded on east by 6th cross road, west by
the portion of the property bearing old No.12 and new No.39
bequeathed under the said Will to B.K.Chandrashekar, the
impleaded defendant north by property of Narayana and
south by conservancy in favour of N.V.Subba Rao ie., the legal
representatives 1(a) of the deceased defendant Achamma. By
virtue of the said Will dated 24.7.1986, deceased defendant
Achamma bequeathed the western portion of the property
bearing old No.12, New No.39, which is the RCC roofed
building measuring east-west 36 feet, on the northern side
and 33 feet situated at 6 th Cross, Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru bounded on the east by portion of the property
bearing old No.12, new No.39, which is vacant site
bequeathed to N.V.Subba Rao, legal representative 1(a) , west
by voni, north by property of Narayanappa and south by
conservancy and this property is described as "B" schedule in
Will. D.1(a) and (b) contended that the above property
described as "A" schedule property in the Will absolutely
belongs to D.1(a) N.V.Subba Raoand that described as "B"
14
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
schedule property in the Will absolutely belongs defendant
No.2 . Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary
costs.
5. 2Nd defendant appeared through counsel and filed his
written statement and he contended that plaintiff was the
owner of the property bearing No. 39 situated at 6 th cross,
Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru till 13.6.1965. He learnt that
plaintiff sold the suit schedule property in favour of the
deceased defendant Achamma. The said property was the
self acquisition of the deceased plaintiff to the knowledge of
the 2nd defendant. 2Nd defendant is not aware of the facts that
after the death of his father, plaintiff had nominally sold the
property in favour of his brother-in-law M.V.Tulsiram. To the
knowledge of 2nd defendant the plaintiff purchased the said
property from M.V.Thulasiram under the registered sale deed
dated 11.3.1953. He does not know the fact that somewhere
in the year 1963 plaintiff was in need of money in order to
discharge certain debts inclusive of the house building co-
operative society loan and therefore he approached the
defendant's son N.V.Subba Rao for a sum of Rs.4,000/- and
he does not know that the plaintiff executed the rental bond
in lieu of interest to be payable for the money taken from
Subba Rao and that the rental deed was nominal. The
plaintiff was a tenant under the deceased defendant
15
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
Achamma, the paternal grand mother of 2 nd defendant. He
further contended that his paternal grand mother Achamma
who is the 1st defendant in the above suit expired on
26.6.1993. The property bearing old No.12 and new No.39
measuring east-west 69 feet on the northern side and on the
southern side 66 feet and north-south 30 feet comprising of
RCC roofed house situated at 6th Cross, Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru was the self acquired property of the deceased
defendant Achamma. The deceased defendant executed a Will
dated 24.7.1986 registered in Sub Registrar Office,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru . By virtue of the said Will the
deceased defendant Achamma bequeathed the RCC roofed
house together with the site measuring east-west 36 feet on
the norther side 33 feet on the southern side and north-
south 30 feet, which is the western portion of said property in
favour of 2nd defendant. The eastern portion of the said
property which is the vacant site is bequeathed in favour of
K.V.Subba Rao, who is L.R1(a). The portion which is
bequeathed in favour of 2nd defendant is described under
Schedule "B" to the Will dated 24.7.1986. According to the
said Will 2nd defendant is entitled to the western portion and
the L.Rno.1(a) is entitled to the eastern portion of the
property. The 2nd defendant is an absolute owner in respect
of the western portion of the property. Specifically 2 nd
defendant denied the other allegations made by the plaintiff in
16
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
the plaint and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
6. Defendant No.3 after impleading has filed his written
statement and contended that the deceased plaintiff was the
owner of suit schedule property. Deceased plaintiff offered
to sell the suit schedule property to the deceased defendant
for a consideration of Rs.7,000/-. On the earlier occasion
plaintiff had already received Rs.4,000/- therefore deceased
defendant agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a
consideration of Rs.7,000/- keeping the payment of
Rs.4,000/- made earlier as part of consideration amount and
paid the balance of Rs.3,000/-. Thereafter, deceased plaintiff
executed the sale deed dated 14.6.1965 in favour of deceased
defendant with respect to the suit schedule property. The
said document is an out and outright sale deed under which
deceased original defendant has acquired absolute and
indefeasible right, title and interest over the suit schedule
property. Deceased plaintiff after selling the suit property to
the deceased original defendant continued to occupy the suit
property as a tenant on a monthly rent. It was an
arrangement between the deceased plaintiff and deceased
defendant that plaintiff should pay the taxes and adjust the
same out of the rent payable by him to the deceased
defendant and there was a re-conveyance agreement in which
the period stipulated was 3 years from the date of the sale
17
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
deed dated 14.6.1965. The date of re-conveyance agreement
is also same. Since the deceased plaintiff pleaded his
inability to pay the agreed consideration amount he
requested for extension of time by two years and accordingly
the time was extended till 14.6.1970. It is a matter of fact
that deceased plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform
his part of the re-conveyance agreement even within the
stipulated time. Further contends that deceased defendant
had filed a suit against the deceased plaintiff in the court of
the then Munsiff for recovery of arrears of rent and the said
suit was decreed in favour of the deceased defendant . On
the other hand, the judgment and decree clearly establishes
that deceased plaintiff was a tenant under the deceased
defendant in the suit schedule property. Subsequently
deceased defendant filed petition against the deceased
plaintiff seeking his eviction from the suit schedule property
and also for arrears of rent . The suit is hopelessly barred by
limitation. Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his
part of contract. He specifically denied all the allegations
made in the plaint and prays to dismiss the suit.
7. The defendant No.1(aa) adopts the written statement
of deceased defendant and deceased defendant No.1(a) and
defendant No.2.
18
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
8. On the basis of the above respective pleadings, my
predecessor in office has framed the following issues and
additional issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
Mortgage deed dated 4.4.63 executed by him
in favour of the defendant was only a simple
mortgage and the rent bond executed by the
plaintiff was only nominal for the purpose of
security interest as alleged?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale
deed dated 14.6.1963 executed by him in
favour of the defendant was only a nominal
sale deed and that the same was the
mortgage deed in nature?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that his
transactions with the plaintiff were the effect
transactions of simple mortgage and the
lease deeds executed by him in favour of the
defendant were nominal and meant only to
ensure regular and prompt payment of
interest?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has paid
a sum of Rs.2,000/- during the year 1970
and Rs.3,000/- on 28.2.1971 towards the
alleged principal and the defendant executed
the alleged deed on 3.8.1981 agreeing to
execute the re-conveyance deed in favour of
the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff proves
that he sent a sum of Rs.2,000/- by cheque
towards his performance as alleged?
19
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
5. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is
not maintainable and is barred by the
principles of res-judicata in view of the
findings given in O.S.No.2689/1973 by the
learned Munsiff , Bengaluru?
6. Whether the suit is hopelessly barred by time?
7. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC?
8. Whether the suit is maintainable in view of
the relief prayed for by the plaintiff under the
provisions of Karnataka Debt Relief Act before
the Taluka Executive Magistrate?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
specific performance of the alleged contract
and alternatively for the redemption of the
alleged mortgage?
10. Whether the suit is not properly valued?
11. To what relief the parties are entitled to?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON
13.08.2015
1. Whether plaintiff's L.R proves that the alleged
sale deed dated 14.6.1965 though styled as
sale deed, but in reality, it is deed of mortgage
and liable for redemption?
2. Whether plaintiff's legal representatives
proves that in the alternative, she is entitled
for specific performance of contract by
execution of re-conveyance deed through
defendants in respect of suit schedule
20
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
property after payment of balance sale
consideration amount of Rs.2,000/-?
9. On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff got examined Sri.
B.R.Ramachandrappa, Tahasildar, Bangaluru North Taluk as
P.W.1 and daughter of deceased plaintiff got examined as
P.W.2 , Sri. A.Krishna Murthy, husband of P.W.2 is examined
as P.W.3, Sri. M.S.Mani is examined as P.W.4 and
Sri.Puttaswamy got examined as PW.5 and got marked Ex.P.1
to P.36. On behalf of defendants, th 2 nd defendant is examined
as D.W.1, defendant No.1(a) got examined as DW.2 and got
marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9. Sri. V.R.Srinivas Murthy, the
impleading applicant got examined as A.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to A.3.
10. Learned counsel appearing for plaintiff filed written
submission. Heard arguments of learned counsel for
defendant No.2 and L.R of defendant No.1(a)(a). Arguments not
addressed on behalf of defeated no 3
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the negative;
Issue No.2: In the negative;
Issue No.3: In the negative;
Issue No.4: In the negative;
Issue No.5: In the negative;
Issue No.6: In the affirmative:
Issue No.7: Does not survive for consideration ;
21
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
Issue No.8: Does not survive for consideration
Issue No.9: In the negative;
Issue No.10: In the negative;
Addl. Issue No.1: In the negative;
Addl. Issue No.2: In the negative;
Issue No.11: As per final order for the following reasons:
R E A S ON S
12. Issue No.1 to 4, Additional Issue No.1 and 2: All
these issues are interlinked with each other. Hence, I answer
all these issues in common to avoid repetition of facts and
circumstances.
13. It is the specific case of the deceased plaintiff
L.Gangaram Prasad, who has filed this suit against 1 st
defendant (deceased) Smt. Achamma for the relief of execution
of re-conveyance deed in his favour or in alternative
redemption of mortgage alleging that the deed executed by
deceased plaintiff in favour of deceased 1 st defendant dated
14.6.1965 though styled as sale deed, but it is only a nominal
document executed for the security of the loan as insisted by
1st defendant Smt.Achamma, wherein deceased plaintiff had
obtained loan of Rs.4,000/- from deceased 1st defendant on
4.4.1963 through the intervention of the co-worker of deceased
plaintiff namely M.V.Subba Rao, who was also postal employee
working in market post office along with deceased plaintiff, who
was sister's son of 1 st defendant through his intervention, the
22
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
plaintiff obtained Rs.4,000/- as loan in order to discharge the
outstanding loan obtained by the plaintiff from Chickpet House
Building Co-operative Society and thereafter, the plaintiff
intended to perform the marriage of his only daughter namely
Smt. Nagu Bai and her marriage was fixed on 19.6.1965 and
again plaintiff was in dire need of finance to perform her
marriage and again approached the 1st defendant for loan sum
of Rs.3,000/- as loan subject to deceased plaintiff execute a
sale deed for the security of the loan and the said document
has to be a nominal document by creating simple mortgage of
the schedule property and accordingly, deceased plaintiff
executed document styled as sale deed and as such, the
possession was not handed over though sale deed was
registered on 14.6.1965, wherein plaintiff had retained
possession and also paying tax to the said property and
deceased plaintiff residing along with his family and hence, it is
the specific contention of the deceased plaintiff that the alleged
transaction sale deed dated 14.6.1965 is one a mortgage
transaction subject to redemption after repayment of loan and
it is also case of the plaintiff that he agreed to pay interest on
Rs.4,000/- loan availed by him at Rs.50/- per month and
thereafter obtaining further loan amount of R.3,000/-,
wherein the interest rate payable was Rs.87.50 ps and he has
paid interest amount of Rs.2,025/- and further alleges that he
has made further payment of Rs2000/- received from GPF
23
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
amount on his retirement from his service during 1974. As
such it also the case of the plaintiff that he had paid interest
per month at Rs.50/- from 4.4.1963 to 14.6.1965 and at the
rate of Rs.87.50ps from 14.6.1965 and it is the case of the
deceased plaintiff that the deceased defendant executed re-
conveyance agreement on 14.6.1965 and as per the terms of
agreement time stipulated is 3 years, but upon the request of
the plaintiff time was extended for two more years later on the
deceased defendant executed an agreement before the
panchayath conveyed on 3.8.1971 agreeing to receive the
amount of Rs.7,000/- from deceased plaintiff and to execute
re-conveyance deed and deceased 1 st defendant admitted
payment of Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff in earlier occasion out
of Rs.7,000/- on 3.8.1971. The plaintiff requested the
defendant to execute re-conveyance deed but she did not
execute the same and did not redeem the mortgage also.
14. The deceased 1st defendant specifically denied
that the sale deed executed on 14.6.1965 is a mortgage
transaction without possession towards security for the loan
executed by the plaintif and 1st defendant specifically
contended that the sale deed dated 14.6.1965 is out right
sale of schedule property in her favour for Rs.7,000/- sale
consideration agreed between herself and deceased plaintiff
and 1st defendant relied upon HRC proceedings initiated by
24
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
her and also relied upon the suit filed by her for recovery of
rents for 3 years and filing of suit before the Court of Small
Causes and also suit filed before the City Civil Court in O.S.
No.2689/1973 for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.3,150/- on
the file of First Munsiff Court, Bangalore and the said suit
came to be decreed, wherein deceased plaintiff had filed
written statement on 28.6.1974 and suit was decreed on
21.9.1976 and deceased 1st defendant also contended that
deceased plaintiff had approached the Tahasildar and filed
petition under Sec. 4(i) Karnataka Debt Relief Act 1974
alleging that there was relationship of debtor and creditor
between himself and 1st defendant and in the said proceedings
initiated before Tahasildar it was held in favour of deceased
plaintiff holding that it was a loan transaction and thereafter
being aggrieved by the said order, deceased 1 st defendant had
preferred writ petition in W.P.No.5482/1970, wherein the said
writ petition came to be allowed and matter was remanded to
the Tahasildar for deciding the issue once again and again the
Tahasildar held that it was case of mortgage and loan
transaction and thereafter, 1st defendant again filed writ
petition in W.P.No.11867/1984, wherein Hon'ble High Court
decided that sale deed dated 14.6.1965 is not conditional sale
or mortgage deed, but it is out right sale transaction in
respect of schedule property by deceased plaintiff. Deceased
plaintiff had filed writ appeal in W.A.No.2478/1986, wherein
25
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
the Hon'ble High Court held that there is no relationship of
creditor and debtor between deceased plaintiff and deceased
1st defendant Smt. Achamma and thereafter the deceased
plaintiff had preferred SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court by
filing SLP No.13634/1990 wherein the said SLP came to be
dismissed. The deceased 1st defendant denied the execution
of the alleged receipt dated 3.8.1971 for execution of sale deed
after discharge of loan amount of Rs.7,000/- in favour of
plaintiff and also 1st defendant denied receipt of Rs.5,000/-
and on the contrary, 1st defendant relied upon the HRC
proceedings initiated by her and decree passed in HRC
proceedings and a decree passed in O.S. No.2689/1973 for
recovery of rent, wherein the deceased plaintiff had deposited
arrears of rent by depositing amount in HRC No.8722/1980
and there was also application filed by the deceased plaintiff
under Sec. 29 of KRC Act denying the relationship of landlord
and tenant, but after disposal of the said application and HRC
proceedings, wherein the HRC court held that there exists
relationship between landlady and tenant between the
deceased plaintiff and deceased 1st defendant Smt. Achamma
ie., 1st defendant died on 26.6.1993 leaving behind her LRs,
who have come on record as LRs 1(a) to 1(d) and LR 1(a) and
(b) have filed additional written statement denying the case of
the plaintiff and also they have adopted the written
statement filed by their mother Smt. Achamma and
26
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
subsequently defendant No.2 has been impleaded and
defendant No.2 claims to be a legatee under the "Will"
executed by deceased 1st defendant Smt. Achamma in his
favour and also in favour of LR D.1(a) in respect of the open
site under "Will" dated 24.7.1986 by deceased
Smt.Achamma. Defendant no 3 after remand of the matter has
not led evidence .
15. This court disposed off the said suit after recording
the evidence of both the parties, wherein plaintiff and
defendant side evidence was recorded and plaintiff died on
9.7.1991 and his only daughter Smt. Nagu Bai, who came on
record as his LR and continued the suit, wherein plaintiff side
evidence was recorded. Plaintiff got examined herself, her
husband and attesting witnesses on agreement dated 3.8.1971
and also examined the Tahasildar as P.W.1 and got marked
Ex.P.1 to P.36 and closed her side and thereafter defendant
No.2 was examined as D.W.1 and defendant No.1(a), who also
claims to be the legatee under the "Will" dated 24.7.1986 was
examined as D.W.2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.9 and closed
defendant's evidence . My learned predecessor at office after
concluding the evidence by both the parties and after hearing
the arguments of both the sides and on appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence rendered judgment in the above
suit on 16.4.2002, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff came
27
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 16.4.2002.
Before filing of this suit, the deceased plaintiff had filed
application under KDR Act before the Asst., Commissioner
and in the said proceedings, it was held that the
transaction between plaintiff and 1st defendant
Smt.Achamma was debt transaction, wherein against order of
learned Asst., Commissioner, 1st defendant had filed a writ
petition in the W.P.No.5482/1977. The Tahasildar has
decided the matter in favour of plaintiff after remand and
thereafter, again 1st defendant filed writ petition, it was allowed
and against that order, plaintiff had filed writ appeal in
No.2478/1986 wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that it
was out right sale and not mortgage or loan transaction and
thereafter, deceased plaintiff being aggrieved by the order in
the writ appeal had approached the Supreme Court of India
by filing SLP No.13664/1990 and said SLP No.13664/1990
was dismissed leaving the parties "to settle the scores in an
appropriate forum". After dismissal of this suit, plaintiff's LR
Smt. Nagu Bai preferred RFA No.851/2002 before Hon'ble
High Court and challenged the dismissal of O.S.
No.2107/2002 dated 16.4.2002 by preferring 1 st appeal and
also she preferred HRRP in No.671/2004 against defendant
No.2, wherein the Hon'ble High Court after clubbing RFA
No.851/2002 C/W HRRP No.671/2004 disposed off the 1 st
appeal and this HRRP, wherein the Hon'ble High Court allowed
28
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
the 1st appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed
by this court dated 16.4.2002 and remanded the matter for
denova enquiry, thereby remanded the suit.
16. Therefore plaintiff has to prove his case independently
with cogent evidence . At this juncture, I would like to refer a
decision reported in 2004(1) KCCR 662 between K.Gopala
Reddy (deceased) by Lrs Vs. Suryanarayana and others
wherein our Hon'ble High Court has held that " whenever a
party approaches the court for a relief, based on pleadings and
issues, he has to prove his case. A suit has to be decided
based on merits and demerits of the party, who approaches
the court. Weakness of the defendant cannot be considered as
a trump card for the plaintiff."
17. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff after
remand of the case, LR of the plaintiff was examined as
P.W.2, has filed her affidavit evidence as further evidence by
way of examination-in-chief and also subjected to cross-
examination. After closure of evidence, while at the time of
defendant arguments being heard, P.W.2 died and her L.Rs
were brought on record. At this juncture it is relevant to refer
some of the statement made during the course of cross
examination of P.W.2 who has depose that her marriage was
took place on 19.6.1965 and her father had no money at that
29
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
time, therefore her father again approached 1 st defendant for
further loan of Rs.3,000/- to perform her marriage and
accordingly, 1st defendant advanced loan amount of
Rs.3,000/- to her father and as such, 1st defendant had totally
advanced loan a sum of Rs.7,000/-, wherein monthly interest
was payable was Rs.87.50 ps per month. LR of the plaintiff
examined P.W.1, who was working as a Tahasildar namely
B.R.Ramachandrappa and this witness was examined in order
to prove that they have produced original agreement dated
3.8.1971 ie., EXP 24 in KDR application before Tahasildar
and the said file was sent to Hon'ble High Court and as such,
plaintiff relied upon this certified copy of receipt dated
3.7.1971 marked at Ex.P.24, which is secondary evidence .
P.W.1, the then Tahasildar, Bangalore North Taluk has
deposed before the court stating that he has appeared in the
suit by receiving witness summons, wherein P.W.1 stated
that he was directed to produce certain documents in DRA
No.180/76-77 and though he searched for the said records in
his office through his assistant, but the said records could
not be traced out and P.W.1 stated that entire records were
consized to High court and hence, by examining P.W.1, the
plaintiff made efforts to prove that original file in which the
original receipt was sent along with original records and as
such, they have produced certified copy of the said receipt
Ex.P.24 in this case.
30
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
18. At this juncture it is relevant to refer some of the
statement made by PW2 during her course of cross
examination, wherein P.W.2 deposed that 1 st defendant had
executed re-conveyance deed in favour of her father and in
the said document, it was recited that deceased plaintiff to
pay Rs.7,000/- within 3 years and 1 st defendant to execute
original re-conveyance deed and hence, P.W.2 made reference
of payment of interest by her father in the year 1965 and also
depose that her father made payment of further amount after
he had received retirement benefit and hence, P.W.2 deposed
that her father had cleared off Rs.5,000/- towards loan
amount and balance remains Rs.2,000/- and P.W.2 stated
that 1st defendant executed receipt for having received
Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff and P.W.2 relied upon Ex.P.24,
the certified copy of receipt and alleged that as it was
executed by the 1st defendant in the presence of herself, 1 st
defendant, her sons and another Subbarao witnesses namely
Puttaswamy, Mani, Ramachandrappa and others and
accordingly, P.W.2 stated that she was having amount ready
with her of Rs.2,000/- for payment of interest . P.W.2 further
on confrontation admits another document dated 14.6.1965
lease deed executed by her father and she also admits the
signature of her father on Ex.D.2, which are marked at
Ex.D.2(a) to (c) and she admits that her father had executed
this lease deed for 11 months and after expiry of 11 months,
31
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
her father had agreed to vacate the premises. In Ex.D 2, there
is no mention about payment regarding interest and she
admits that her father as per Ex.D.2 had paid regularly rent
to 1st defendant P.W.2 further depose that on 14.6.1965, the
defendant executed agreement in favour of her father to re-
convey property within 3 years if Rs.7,000/- amount is
repaid to the 1st defendant within 3 years time P.W.2 further
depose that her father had paid Rs.2025/-, but she has not
produced any receipts for the said payment made by her father
and even P.W.2 do not remember the date of alleged payment
of Rs.2,025/- and P.W.2 depose that her father sought
extension of 2 years time and accordingly, time was extended
and within two years extended period, her father had paid
Rs.2,000/- to the defendant, but she do not remember the
date and month of payment of Rs.2,000/- to defendant No.1
but she do not remember the house number where her father
had paid amount of Rs.2,000/- to 1 st defendant. P.W.2
further depose that she do not remember whether there is any
document to show that in the month of September 1970 her
father retired from services and P.W.2 admits that she has not
produced any documents to show that her father had received
amount of Rs.2,000/- towards retirement benefits and also
regarding Rs.2,000/- received by her father as gratuity and
provident fund and she expressed ignorance as to the suit
filed by the 1st defendant in O.S. No.2689/1973 for arrears of
32
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
rent on the file of 1st Munsiff court, Bangalore and also
regarding her father contested the suit by filing written
statement on 28.6.1974 and express ignorance that suit
came to be decreed on 21.9.1976 and she expressed
ignorance as to whether her father did not give evidence in
that case and whether her late father had filed any case for
setting aside judgment and decree passed in O.S.
No.2689/1973 . P.W.2 further deposed that her father had
issued cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, Magadi Road,
branch, Bangalore, but she do not know the account number
and even she do not know whether any passbook issued to
her father and P.W.2 do not know the date of cheque, but
stated that it was a cheque of Syndicae bank and She
depose that the original of Ex.P.24 was written in Cottonpet,
volunteers that it was written in the house of defendant's elder
sister, but she expressed ignorance as to the house number
and also the street . P.W.2 stated that prior to execution of
agreement dated 3.8.1971, sale negotiations were held at
Mavalli Circle house and she do not know the number of that
house so also street, wherein one Ramachandra was the
scribe of Ex.P.24 and defendant's sister son one Subbarao
instructed to write Ex.P.24 and P.W.2 deposed that one
Ramachandra Rao, brother-in-law of 1st defendant, who had
brought witness namely Mani, Puttaswamy and
P.Ramachandrappa and P.W.2 admits that she has not
33
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
signed original of Ex.P.24 so also her husband has not signed
it and even Subba Rao son of 1 st defendant has not signed
Ex.P.24 . She expressed her ignorance whether 1 st defendant
had filed a case before Small Cause court in O.S.
No.8443/1980 for recovery of rent of Rs.3,150/- due from
14.7.1976 to 13.8.1979 and P.W.2 expressed her ignorance
that the said suit came to be decreed and her father did not
pay decretal amount and she admit that her father has filed
written statement denying the relationship of landlady and
tenant and contending that there was relationship of debtor
and creditor and she expressed her ignorance that 1 st
defendant had filed HRC case in HRC No.8722/1986 against
her father and in that case, court has held that there exists
relationship of landlady and tenant and not debtor and
creditor . She also expressed her ignorance whether present
defendant No.1 had filed interim application under Sec. 29 of
KRC Act and court has ordered holding that there exists
relationship of landlady and tenant and directed her father to
pay a sum of Rs.9,712.50 towards arrears of rent and she do
not remember whether her father had deposited the said
amount in the HRC proceedings. P.W.2 during the course of
her cross-examination in page No.7 admits her signature and
also her mother signature on sale deed dated 14.6.1965 at
Ex.D.1 and also admits the signature of original plaintiff i.e.,
her father at Ex.D.1(c) in sale deed dated 14.6.1965 and
34
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
admits on 19.6.1965 her marriage took at Bengaluru. PW.2
also admits that her father had no money to arrange for her
marriage and also admits that at the time of her marriage, her
father had no money to discharge the mortgage and to
arrange money for her marriage and also categorically admits
that at the time of Ex.D.1 sale deed the defendant adjusted
Rs.4,000/- mortgage money towards sale consideration and
paid remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- to her father i.e.,
plaintiff in presence of Sub Registrar. Accordingly the
defendant paid Rs.7,000/- to her father and also admits that
on the date of sale deed there was no other encumbrance to
the suit property and also admits that in Ex.D.1 there is
mention that wife and daughter of the executants have signed
the documents and it was marked as Ex.D.1(f) and also
admits that in Ex.D.1 there is no mention about mortgage
and also admits that her father has signed on Ex.D.2 and said
signature was marked as Ex.D.2(a)(b) and (c) and also
categorically admits that Ex.D.2 is lease deed executed by her
father in favour of the defendant for 11 months and also
admits that there may be mention in Ex.D.2 that after expiry
of 11 months her father agreed to vacate the premises. In
Ex.D.2 there is no mention regarding payment of interest and
categorically admits that as per Ex.D.2 her father regularly
paid the rent to the defendant and also admits that her father
was paying the tax deducting the interest as per the direction
35
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
of the deceased defendant.
19. PW.3 during the course of cross-examination admits
that on 4.4.1963 plaintiff borrowed Rs.4,000/- from the
defendant and mortgaged the suit property to the defendant
with possession and also admits that he has heard that for
some period he paid monthly rent to the defendant and
expressed his ignorance that except mortgage deed dated
4.4.1963 whether there are any other documents to show the
loan transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. Pw3
also admits that plaintiff had executed a possessary mortgage
on 4.4.1963 in favour of the defendant . PW3 also admits that
Plaintiff had executed sale deed at Ex.D.1 in favour of the
defendant. Plaintiff signed on all pages of Ex.D.1 and also
categorically admits that plaintiff had no money to discharge
the loan of Rs.4,000/- and to arrange marriage, he executed
Ex.D.1. At Ex.D.1(a) and (b), wife and daughter of the plaintiff
have signed the said document. PW3 also admits that in
Ex.D.1 there is no mention that it has been executed for
security of the loan. The consideration shown in Ex.D.1
includes the loan of Rs.4,000/- and admits that the houses
for rent were not available at that time and plaintiff executed
lease deed in favour of the defendant on 14.6.1965 on monthly
rental of Rs.87-50. PW.3 admits that the plaintiff has
executed lease deed in favour of the defendant at Ex.D.2 and
36
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
also admits that as per Ex.D.2 the plaintiff was in possession
of the property. P.W.3 admits that within 3 years from
14.6.1965 if plaintiff pay Rs.7,000/- to the defendant, the
defendant to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
Accordingly as per agreement, within 3 years, plaintiff did not
get the sale deed and also admits that at the request of the
plaintiff 2 years time was extended. P.W.3 admits that an
amount of Rs.2025/- paid on 19.5.1968 by the plaintiff to the
defendant was towards arrears of rent and also categorically
admits that within extended period of 2 years, plaintiff did not
get the sale deed and also admits that there is no documents to
show that an amount of Rs.2,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to
the defendant and also admits that he has not produced any
documents to show that in the month of February 1974,
plaintiff received an amount of Rs.3,000/- and also admits
that he has no documents to show that he was present at the
time of panchayath on 3.8.1971 and also admits that he has
not signed on the original receipt at Ex.P.24 and also admits
that his wife i.e., P.W.2 has not signed on Ex.P.24 and also
admits that Ramachandra Rao also not singed on Ex.D.2 and
also admits that he has no documents to show that original
receipt at Ex.P.24 was produced before Assistant
Commissioner in DRA proceedings. Shanbogh, Ramachandra
Rao gave instructions to draft the original of Ex.P. 24. Plaintiff
and defendant did not give instructions to scribe the draft of
37
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
original of Ex.P.24. PW.3 admits that to perform the
marriage of plaintiff 's daughter the plaintiff has executed sale
deed dated 14.6.1965 in favour of defendant and Rs.4,000/-
money lent on the mortgage deed on 4.6.1963 was adjusted
towards the total consideration of Rs.7,000/-.
20. The categorical admissions made by P.W.2 and 3
clearly shows that the deceased plaintiff has sold the suit
schedule property to perform his daughter's marriage . It is
an admitted fact that the mortgage deed was executed by the
plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit
schedule property on 4.4.1963. On careful examination of
Ex.D.1 sale deed dated 14.6.1965 at Ex.D.1 there is no
mention that the said sale deed is a security for the loan
transaction. Though deceased plaintiff alleges that for the
loan amount, they have to pay15% monthly interest on the
principal amount. Therefore Rs.2025/- was paid to the
deceased defendant during the year 1968 as an interest, but
the admission of P.W.3 clearly shows that the said amount of
Rs.2,025/- made by the plaintiff during the year 1968 towards
the rent and not towards the interest. Though sale deed was
executed on 14.6.1965, but for the non availability of houses,
the plaintiff also executed a lease agreement on same date of
sale deed in respect of schedule property to the defendant and
continued in possession as a tenant. PW.3 who is none other
38
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
than son-in-law of deceased plaintiff who categorically admits
that as per Ex.D.2 lease agreement, the plaintiff was in
possession of the suit schedule property. After execution of sale
deed on 14.6.1965, the question of paying interest to the loan
does not arise at all. After execution of sale deed on 14.6.1965,
the plaintiff continues in possession of suit schedule property
on the strength of lease agreement at Ex.D.2 having executed
by him in respect of suit schedule property to the deceased
defendant.
21. On careful examination of sale deed Ex.D.1 dated
14.6.1965 there is a recital that on 4.4.1963 the suit schedule
property was mortgaged by deceased plaintiff in favour of
deceased defendant by taking a sum of Rs.4,000/- as loan and
the deceased plaintiff was unable to pay the mortgage amount
and to meet the expenses of his daughter's marriage he was
intended to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the
defendant. The admissions during the course of cross-
examination of P.W.2 and 3 shows that the deceased plaintiff
was intended to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the
defendant to perform his daughter's marriage i.e., P.W.2. There
is also recital in Ex.D.1 that including Rs.4,000/- amount
received under the mortgage deed and the balance sale
consideration of Rs.3,000/- was received by the deceased
plaintiff before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of
the sale deed. P.W.2 also clearly admits that her father
39
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
deceased plaintiff has received balance sale consideration
amount before Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the
sale deed and with respect to possession also, there is a recital
that possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to
the deceased defendant on the date of registration of sale deed
at Ex.D.1. The oral and documentary testimony adduced by
the plaintiff clearly shows that Ex.D.1 sale deed dated
14.6.1965 was not a nominal sale deed, but it was executed
with an intention to transfer the right, title and interest over
the suit schedule property in favour of deceased defendant.
When deceased plaintiff himself executed a registered sale deed
on 14.6.1965, the previous mortgage deed dated 4.4.1963
executed by him automatically stands nutralized and it will
become unenforceable. In other words, when the sale deed was
executed in favour of the mortgagee the owners of the property
looses entire right over the suit schedule property and
consequently his right of redemption will get extinguished .
Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of redemption
of mortgage deed dated 4.4.1963.
22. The plaintiff has sought for specific performance
based on the agreement of re-conveyance. Though the plaintiff
claim relief of specific performance based on the agreement of
re-conveyance dated 14.6.1965, but plaintiff has not at all
produced the re-conveyance agreement dated 14.6.1965
40
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
before the court. The deceased defendant in his written
statement admits agreement of re-conveyance on 14.6.1965,
but it is the contention of the defendant that in the agreement
of re-conveyance, there is a time stipulation for a period of 3
years from the date of agreement of re-conveyance. Therefore if
plaintiff pays Rs.7,000/- on or before 13.6.1965, the defendant
has to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but on the
request of the plaintiff , the time was further extended for 2
years. Such being the case, the plaintiff has to pay Rs.7,000/-
as sale consideration on or before 13.6.1970 to get the sale
deed from the deceased defendant. But there is no evidence to
show that before 13.6.1970, the plaintiff has requested the
deceased defendant to get the re-conveyance deed by paying
consideration amount. The deceased plaintiff also alleges that
he has paid Rs.2,025/- on 19.5.1968 towards the interest in
respect of the loan transaction and upon his retirement, he
received Rs.2,000/- and immediately paid the said amount to
the defendant during the year 1970 towards principal amount
and thereafter out of GPF amount, the plaintiff has paid
Rs.2,000/- on 28.2.1971, but there is no documentary
evidence produced by LR of the plaintiff in support of this
contention . Though deceased plaintiff has stated that suit
schedule property is an ancestral property, but P.W.2 in her
evidence affidavit clearly admits that suit schedule property is
self acquired property of her father. PW2 also categorically
41
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
admits that in Ex.D.1 it is not mentioned that sale deed has
been executed as security for loan and it is also not mentioned
in the sale deed that it is a mortgage deed and P.W.2 also
further admits that in Ex.D.1 there is mention what requires to
be mentioned in sale deed and in number of places at Ex.D.1 it
is mentioned as "Shudda Kraya Pathra" . PW.2 admits her
father had signed Ex.D.2 and said signatures were marked as
Ex.D.2 (a)(b) and (c) and also admits that in Ex.D.2 there is no
mention regarding payment of interest and also admits that
she has not produced any receipts for payment of Rs.2,025/-
to the defendant by her father and she admits that she has not
signed receipt at Ex.P.24 and she categorically admits that her
father was paying tax deducting the interest as per the
directions of deceased defendant. PW.3 expressed his ignorance
that except the mortgage deed dated 4.4.1963 whether there
are any other documents to show the loan transaction between
the plaintiff and the defendant and also admits that plaintiff
had no money to discharge the loan of Rs.4,000/- and to
arrange marriage therefore he has executed Ex.D.1 and also
admits that the wife and daughter of plaintiff have signed
Ex.D.1 and there is no mention in ExD 1 that sale deed has
been executed for security of loan and consideration shown in
Ex.D.1 includes the loan of Rs.4,000/- and as per Ex.D.2
plaintiff was in possession of suit property and Pw3 also
admits that amount of Rs.2,025/- paid on 19.8.1968 by the
42
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
plaintiff to the defendant was towards the arrears of rent and
also admits that there is no documents to show that plaintiff
has paid Rs.2,000/- to the defendant. PW.2 and P.W. 3 admits
that they have no document to show that in the month of
September 1970 plaintiff received retirement benefit of
Rs.2,000/- . PW3 admits that Sri.Ramachandra Rao has not
signed the receipt on 3.8.1971 and he also admits that there is
no documents to show that he was present at the time of
panchayath on 3.8.1971 but on the contrary he deposed that
he had actually seen signing of original receipt at Ex.P.24 by
the defendant and PW.3 admits that defendant had filed HRC
No.2562/1997 on the ground of arrears of rent amounting to
Rs.7,175/- and as per the order of the court he has deposited
arrears of rent amounting to Rs.7,175/-. Though it is the
contention of the plaintiff that the rent mentioned in Ex.D.2
represent interest, but as per the admission of P.W.2 and 3
deceased plaintiff had paid monthly rent to the deceased
defendant . More over P.W. 3 categorically admits because of
possessary mortgage and lease deed, possession of the suit
schedule property remained with the deceased plaintiff and
plaintiff had no money to discharge the mortgage and to
arrange the marriage of his daughter, he has sold the suit
schedule property to the deceased defendant . In order to
prove that transaction between plaintiff and defendant was
loan and not sale hence interest was paid by the deceased
43
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
plaintiff, no documents were produced before the court.
Payment of rents by the deceased plaintiff to the deceased
defendant was admitted by P.W.2 and 3. In written statement
the defendant has admitted payment of Rs.2,025/- by the
plaintiff but it is the specific contention of the defendant that
the said amount is rent and not interest. It is also an admitted
fact that deceased defendant has filed O.S.No.2689/1973 was
filed for arrears of rent for a period of 3 years and said O.S.No.
2689/1973 was decreed . PW.3 also admits that he has
deposited arrears of rent as per the court order. Such being the
case contention of the plaintiff that the rent mentioned in
Ex.D.2 represent as interest and the deceased plaintiff was
paying interest cannot be accepted at all.
23.With respect to possession of plaintiff over suit
schedule property is on the basis of Ex.D.2 lease agreement
executed on the same date of sale deed. PW.3 also admitted
that at the time of sale deed at Ex.D.1 plaintiff had no
alternative accommodation and house was not available for
rent. Hence, Ex.D.2 was executed. While ascertaining the
document the intention of the parties as well as circumstances
has to be verified . On careful examination of Ex.D.1 the
terms clearly shows that Ex.D.1 is absolute sale deed . There
is no condition in Ex.D.1 that the suit schedule property
should be re-conveyed. Therefore it cannot be held that sale
44
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
deed at Ex.D.1 is a mortgage deed. P.W.2 and 3 categorically
admits that it is not mentioned in sale deed at Ex.D.1 that the
said document is a security towards the loan. The right, title
and interest was transferred to the deceased defendant
through registered sale deed dated 14.6.1965 by the plaintiff .
If right, title interest was not transferred to the defendant
through registered sale deed dated 14.6.1965 there is no
question of plaintiff executing lease deed at Ex.D.2 on
14.6.1965 in respect of suit schedule property for monthly
tenancy. With respect to payment of rents by the deceased
plaintiff P.W.2 clearly admitted that her father was paying
rents to the deceased defendant . If at all Ex.D.1 is a nominal
sale deed then the question of executing lease agreement by
deceased plaintiff in favour of deceased defendant in respect of
suit schedule property and paying rents does not arise at all.
There is no document on record to show that the deceased
plaintiff was paying interest to the deceased defendant after
executing sale deed dated 14.6.1965 at Ex.D.1 . Plaintiff has
transferred all rights, title and interest over the suit schedule
property in favour of deceased defendant. It is also the specific
contention of the plaintiff that on the date of Ex.D.1 the
market value of the suit schedule property was Rs.25,000/-
but consideration amount mentioned in Ex.D.1 is Rs.7,000/- .
P.W. 2 has produced certified copy of sale deed at Ex.P.28 the
adjacent site of suit schedule property measuring 15X30 ft.,
45
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
which was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.5,000/-. As per
Ex.D.1 sale deed the sale consideration amount is Rs.7,000/-
and suit schedule property measuring 30 X 60 ft., and house
had been constructed in the suit schedule property . Few
years earlier to Ex.D.1 sale deed the suit schedule property had
been purchased by the plaintiff but P.W.2 has not disclosed
the amount of sale consideration for having purchased the
schedule property prior to Ex.D.1. More over except the
statements of P.W. 2 and 3 with respect to market value of the
schedule property there is no other evidence to substantiate
their contention . Under such circumstances the evidence of
P.W.2 and 3 is not sufficient to hold that the market value as
on the date of sale deed at Ex.D.1 was Rs.25,000/- hence, it
cannot be held that the market value shown in Ex.D.1 is not
proper .
24. Learned counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the
following decisions reported in (1). Tamboli Ramanlal Motilal
(dead) by Lrs Vs.Ghanchi Chimanlal Keshvlal (dead) by Lrs and
another AIR 1992 SC 1236, (2). Chunchun Jga Vs. Ebadat Ali
and another AIR 1954 SC 345, ( 3).Bhaskar Waman Joshi
(deceased ) and others Vs. Shrinarayan Rambilas Agarwal
(deceased) and others AIR 1960 SC 301, (4). Umabai and
another Vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan(dead) by Lrs and
another (2005) 6 SCC 243,(5).Bapuswami Vs. N.Pattay
46
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
Gounder AIR 1966 SC 902. Perused the aforesaid decisions the
facts and circumstances of the present case is different from
the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid decisions.
25. It is also the case of the plaintiff that on 3.8.1971
there was a panchayath held between the deceased plaintiff
and deceased defendant wherein the deceased defendant had
agreed to re-convey the suit schedule property through
registered deed on payment of balance consideration amount
of Rs.2,000/-. Plaintiff has produced certified copy of receipt
dated 3.8.1971, but defendant has seriously disputed the
certified copy of receipt dated 3.8.1971. PW.2 alleges that the
deceased defendant has executed receipt on 3.8.1971 agreeing
to execute re-conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff after
furnishing accounts . But on careful examination of Ex.P.24, it
clearly shows that there is no signature of deceased defendant,
but it was only mentioned as "sd" and there is no signature of
the witness, but only the names of the witnesses were
mentioned in Ex.P.24. In order to establish that the deceased
defendant has executed a receipt on 3.8.1971 the LR of the
plaintiff has made an efforts to examine the witnesses as PW.4
and PW.5. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the
statements made by P.W.4 and 5 during the course of cross
examination , wherein P.W.4 admits that he had no occasion to
talk with 1st defendant and he had occasioned to see her only
47
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
at the time of panchayath and he was unable to recollect the
date of panchayath. PW.4 also admits that prior or subsequent
to the panchayath he had not seen the deceased defendant and
he also deposed that after he came to the court to depose in
this case he saw P.W.2 and he does not know the husband of
P.W.2 i.e., P.W.3. Before and after panchayath, he has not
seen the deceased plaintiff and personally he does not know
him and he depose that he does not know anything about the
suit properties and he was unable to say on what time, the
panchayath commenced and concluded and he also deposed
that nobody had informed him about the panchayath and he
also deposed that none have seen that he had participated in
the panchayath and he also deposed that he has not seen the
agreement dated 14.6.1965 and 3.8.1971. He also deposed
that he had no occasion to see the signature of the 1 st
defendant in his life time and 1st defendant had no occasion to
sign in his presence and he also deposed that he does not know
R.Ramachandrappa and he also deposed that he does not know
the contents of original of Ex.P.24 and he also deposed that as
elderly person, he did not talk on 3.8.1971 and none acted as
elderly person on that day and voluntaries that they
themselves have resolved. The admission made by P.W.4
clearly shows that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.24
i.e., receipt dated 3.8.1971 . The admission made by P.W.4
creates a doubt about his presence in panchayath alleged to be
48
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
held on 3.8.1971. PW.3 in his evidence deposed that plaintiff
and defendant did not give instructions to scribe to write the
receipt at Ex.P.24. P.W.4 deposed that none acted as elderly
persons on the date of panchayath and the parties have
resolved. Such being the case, the presence of the P.W.4 as a
witness to sign the alleged receipt on 3.8.1971 at Ex.P.24 is
not believable at all. The over all evidence of P.W.4 does not
inspire the confidence of the court .
26. PW.5 in his cross-examination deposed that he never
spoke with defendant except on that day and further depose
that he do not know he spoke with deceased defendant on that
day and he had no personal acquaintance with the deceased
defendant and also further deposed that P.W.3 and deceased
plaintiff took him to the panchayath. Though LR of the
plaintiff has made an efforts examine P.W.4 and 5 witnesses to
the alleged receipt at Ex.P.24, but the evidence of P.W.2 and 3
and 4 and 5 are contradictory. Therefore the evidence of P.W.1
to 5 does not inspire the confidence of the court with respect
to execution of receipt on 3.8.1971. Such being the case,
plaintiff fails to prove the execution of receipt dated 3.8.1971
by the deceased defendant agreeing to re-convey the suit
schedule property through registered deed. Therefore
execution of Ex.P.24 by the deceased defendant is not proved.
When the execution of Ex.P.24 is not proved, no obligation lies
49
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
on the part of the defendant to execute the re-conveyance deed
in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff sought for execution of re-
conveyance deed by the defendant in respect of suit schedule
property therefore it shows that the plaintiff has admitted the
ownership of the defendant over the suit schedule property .
27. Admittedly the defendant has filed the suit O.S.No.
2689/1973 before the learned Munsiff Bengaluru, for arrears
of rent . Therefore it shows that the deceased defendant was
never intended to execute re-conveyance deed in favour of the
plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property, but still plaintiff
kept quite for long period. It is clear evidence on the part of
deceased defendant to deny the execution of re-conveyance
deed in favour of the plaintiff. No other evidence is required
other than the suit filed for ejectment and arrears of rent in
O.S.No.2689/1973 to gather the intention on the part of the
deceased defendant in respect of suit schedule property, but
still the plaintiff totally remained silent. This inaction on the
part of the plaintiff to sue for execution of re-conveyance deed
for a long period of 10 years after the suit filed in
O.S.No.2689/1973 is an unnatural behavior on a party, who
claims the execution of specific performance. The plaintiff has
filed objections to the main HRC petition in HRC
No.1271/1973 before Hon'ble 1 st Munsiff, Bengaluru on
31.5.1974. Though plaintiff herein is a respondent in HRC
50
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
No.1271/1973, who has filed objections to the main petition on
31.5.1974 contending that the defendant herein, petitioner
therein had executed a contemporaneous document providing
an option to the plaintiff to repurchase the suit schedule
property, but it is specifically pleaded by him that such a
document was executed in the year 1965 prescribing the time
limit of 3 years for such repurchase and later it was extended
for two more years. But it is important to note that plaintiff
though stated that the panchayath was held between the
plaintiff and the defendant before the witnesses, but has not
whispered anything in the said objection statement regarding
execution of receipt i.e., Ex.P.24 by the deceased defendant on
3.8.1971. If Ex.P.24 was really executed on 3.8.1971, nothing
would have prevented the plaintiff from revealing the execution
of Ex.P.24 in the objection statement filed by him on
31.5.1974. The plaintiff has not given any explanation for not
mentioning the alleging existence of Ex.P.24 in the objection
statement filed by him. Further this creates a strong doubt
about execution of alleged Ex.P.24 on 3.8.1971. Apart from the
above, the plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance
of alleged re-conveyance deed after 13 years even if it is held
that deceased defendant had agreed to execute a re-conveyance
deed until the year 1971, there is no evidence to show that
deceased defendant had extended the time after the year 1970
has already observed in the previous paragraphs in normal
51
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
course on human conduct, a person will not keep quite even
after the specific denial of the defendant transfer the title by
filing a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. Plaintiff if at all
really intended to get the re-conveyance deed, he would not
filed petition under K.D.R Act. Therefore this fact shows
plaintiff never intended to get specific relief of re-conveyance
deed. Plaintiff fails to prove with cogent evidence he has paid
in total Rs.5,000/- to the deceased defendant . Plaintiff
alleged that though sale deed was executed on 14.6.1965 as
per Ex.D.1, but it is only a nominal sale deed. The recitals in
Ex.D.1 clearly shows the right, title and interest over the suit
schedule property was transferred and there is no ambiguity in
this regard and plaintiff fails to prove Ex.P.24. Therefore over
all evidence on record clearly shows that EXD1 is a sale deed
executed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of
defendant by the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs 7000/-
thereby right title interest over the suit schedule property was
transfered in favour of defendant. Hence, I answer Issue No.1
to 4 and additional Issue No.1 and 2 in negative.
28. Issue No.5: The defendant claims resjudicata on the
basis of previous proceedings. One of such proceedings was
in O.S.No.2689/1973 filed by the deceased defendant for
ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the plaintiff.
The other proceedings were eviction under K.R.C Act. In both
52
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
the proceedings, the question of title was not involved, but in a
suit for ejectment and in a petition for eviction under the Rent
Control Act, the court would decide the question of landlord
and tenant relating between the parties. In order to give a
finding about landlord and tenants relationship, the court may
looked into incidentally the question of title, but the finding
given in such suit, arbitration, writ cannot be equated with the
finding given in a suit for title. Therefore any such finding
given in the previous proceedings cannot operate as a
resjudicata. Therefore while remanding this case, Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in RFA No.851/2002 in Page No.24
observed as follows:-
"Therefore even if there is any observation by
the High Court that it was a sale and not a
mortgage, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it
clear that the High Court's view so far as
inapplicability is concerned, is upheld but the
parties are directed to 'settle their scores in the
appropriate forum.' This means, their rights had to
be adjudicated before the competent civil court.
That is exactly what the plaintiff did by filing the
suit in O.S.No.2107/83. Therefore the learned trial
judge had to independently decide the issue based
on the material on record and not record finding
53
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
only by misleading the judgments and orders in
collateral proceedings in HRC and O.S regarding
arrears of rent and the observation in writ action
initiated by the plaintiff."
Hence, I answer Issue No.5 in negative.
29. Issue No.6: Plaintiff contends that defendant has
executed a re-conveyance deed on 14.6.1965 immediately after
execution of sale deed in respect of suit schedule property.
According to the plaintiff, the time prescribed as per the terms
of re-conveyance agreement dated 14.6.1965 is 3 years. But
later on, upon the request of the plaintiff, the time was
extended for two more years. As per Art. 54 of Limitation Act
1963, the time limit for filing the suit for specific performance
of contract is 3 years from the date fixed for performance or if
no such date is fixed when the plaintiff has noticed that the
performance is refused. The plaintiff alleges that the time was
stipulated for execution of re-conveyance deed in respect of
suit schedule property in total 5 years ie., from 14.6.1965 to
13.6.1970 but suit was filed during 1980 . Admittedly plaintiff
has filed O.S.No.2683/1973 and HRC No.1271/1973 . Hence
during the year 1973 itself, deceased defendant has filed the
suit for arrears of rent against the plaintiff in respect of suit
schedule property. Thereby he has denied the execution of re-
54
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
conveyance deed. But plaintiff has filed the present suit on
21.7.1983. Time limit to file the suit for specific performance
had already been expired during the year 1973. Therefore ,
the suit is hopelessly barred by time. Hence, I answer Issue
No.5 in affirmative.
30. Issue No.7: The evidence already been recorded and
suit is being disposed off on merits . Hence, this issue does not
survive for consideration.
31. Issue No.8: In view of order of Hon'ble High Court
at ExP16 , this issue does not survive for consideration.
32. Issue No.9: For the relief of specific performance,
plaintiff has to prove his readiness and willingness that he was
ever ready to get the sale deed in his favour. It is already been
held that Ex.D.1 is a sale deed and it is not mortgage deed.
Such being the case, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of
redemption. While answering issue No.4, this court has held
that the agreement of sale itself is not proved. Again answering
limitation issue, this court has observed suit is barred by
limitation. Therefore, there is no need to give finding with
regard to the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to get
the re-conveyance deed. Even if the question of readiness and
willingness is considered the plaintiff kept quite for about 13
55
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
years inspite of suit filed by the defendant for arrears of rent
and ejectment in OS 2689/1973 . There was complete inaction
and silence on the part of the plaintiff for about 10 years
during the period of hotly contested suit between the parties.
Hence, at any stretch of imagination the claim of the plaintiff is
not sustainable. It is already been held that the suit is time
barred. The conduct of the plaintiff clearly shows that plaintiff
was never intended to get re-conveyance deed in respect of
schedule property from the defendant. Therefore conduct of
the plaintiff dis entitled the plaintiff for the relief of specific
performance. Hence, I answer Issue No. 9 in negative.
33. Issue No.10: Suit is valued on the sale consideration
mentioned in Ex.D.1 sale deed dated 14.6.1965. It is an
admitted fact that the agreed amount for re-conveyance deed
is Rs.7,000/- and the sale consideration amount as per Ex.D.1
is Rs.7,000/- and the court fee paid is sufficient. Hence, I
answer this issue in negative.
34. Issue No.11: In view of my discussions and
findings on Issue No.1 to 10 and additional Issue No.1 and 2,
I proceed to pass the following:-
56
O.S.No.2107 of 1983
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
{Dictated to the Judgment Writer transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this 24 th day of May 2021} (PREETHI K.P) XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXUERE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff PW.1 Sri.B.R.Ramachandrappa P.W.2: Smt. G.Nagu Bai P.W.3: Sri.A.Krishna Murthy P.W.4: M.S.Mani PW.5: Sri.Puttaswamy List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 & 2: Death certificates of deceased possession and his wife Ex.P.3 to P.5: Tax paid receipts Ex.P.6: Assessment extract of suit property Ex.P.7: Tax Demand notice 57 O.S.No.2107 of 1983 Ex.P.8: Notice issued by corporation regarding change of property number. Ex.P.9: Show cause notice issued by the corporation.
Ex.P.10: Self assessment application Ex.P.11 and 12: Tax paid receipts Ex.P.13: Show cause notice Ex.P.14: Assessment extract of suit property Ex.P.15: Certified copy of the order in W.P.No.5482/1977 Ex.P.16: Certified copy of the order in W.A.No.2478/1986 Ex.P.17: Certified copy of order in SLP No.13664/1990 Ex.P.18: Certified copy of petition in HRC No.8722/1980 Ex.P.19: Objections in HRC No.8722/1980 Ex.P.20: Certified copy of order Ex.P.21: Certified copy of CRP No.373/1986 Ex.P.22: Certified copy of petition in HRC No.2562/1990 Ex.P.23: Certified copy of petition in HRC No.685/1997 Ex.P.24: Certified copy of receipt dated 3.8.71 Ex.P.25: Unserved postal cover Ex.P.26: Certified copy of special notice issued by corporation Ex.P.27: Certified copy of tax paid receipts(17) Ex.P.28: Certified copy of sale deed Ex.P.29: Certified copy of mortgage deed 58 O.S.No.2107 of 1983 Ex.P.30: Certified copy of rent note Ex.P.31: Certified copy of deposition in HRC No.8722/1980 Ex.P. 31(a): Relevant portion in deposition in HRC No.8722/1980 Ex.P.32: Certified copy of deposition in HRC No.2562/1990 Ex.P.33: Voters list Ex.P.34: Assessment extract Ex.P.35: Voters list Ex.P.36: Certified copy of deposition in HRC No.2562/1990 List of witnesses examined for defendants :-
DW.1 Sri. B.K.Chandra Sekhar DW.2: Sri.N.V.Subba Rao List of documents exhibited for defendant : -
Ex.D.1: Sale deed Ex.D.1(a): Signature of P.W.2 Ex.D.1(b) Signature of mother of P.W.2
Ex.D.1(c) to D.1(e): signature of father of P.W.2 Ex.D.1(f) Relevant portion at page No.3 Ex.D.2: Lease deed Ex.D.2(a) to (c): Signature of P.W.2 Ex.D.3 and D.l4; Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.2689/1973 Ex.D.5: Certified copy of order in W.P.No. No.5482/1977 Ex.D.6: Certified copy of order in DRD 59 O.S.No.2107 of 1983 No.249/83-84 Ex.D.7: Certified copy of order in W.P.No. No.11867/1984 Ex.D.8: Certified copy of order in W.A.No.2478/1986 Ex.D.9: Will dated 24.7.1986 List of witnesses examined for impleading applicant:-
A.W.1: Sri.V.R.Srinivasa Murthy List of documents exhibited for impleading applicant:-
Ex.A.1: Death certificate Ex.A.2: SSLC Marks card Ex.A.3: Voter I.D card
XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY 60 O.S.No.2107 of 1983 61 O.S.No.2107 of 1983