Bangalore District Court
Prameelamma K vs Munivenkata Reddy on 7 June, 2024
1
O.S.No.2842/2010
KABC010138212010
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH-45)
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2024
PRESENT: SRI. DODDEGOWDA.K, B.A., L.L.B.,
XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU.
O.S.No.2842/2010
PLAINTIFF : Smt. K. Prameelamma
aged about 41 years
W/o Veeraswamy Reddy
No.64, 2nd main, 5th Cross,
Gawdanapalya, Manjunatha
Nagar, Subramanyapura
Main Road, Bangalore-61.
(By Sri.V.M., Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS: 1. Sri. Munivenkata Reddy
S/o Sri. K. Narayanna Reddy
aged about 67 years,
R/at No.15,
2
O.S.No.2842/2010
Subramanyapura Main Road,
Bangalore-560061.
2. Sri Hari Reddy
S/o Sri. K. Veeraswamy Reddy
aged about 38 years,
R/at No.270, 2nd Floor
Sai Ram Complex,
100 Ft. Road
5th Block, BSK 3rd Stage
3. Smt. Jyothiamma
W/o V. Hari Reddy
aged about 31 years,
R/at No.270, 5th Cross,
5th Block, 3rd Phase,
B.S.K. 3rd Stage
Bangalore-560085.
D.1 Exparte
D.2 and 3 C.L.N Advocate
Date of Institution of the suit 20/01/2005
Nature of the suit Declaration,
Possession,
Cancellation of sale
deed and injunction
Date of commencement of
recording of the evidence 02-01-2012
Date on which the Judgment 07-06-2024
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
19 04 18
(DODDEGOWDA.K)
XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
3
O.S.No.2842/2010
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration of ownership and to declare the sale deed dated 18/04/2004 as not binding on the plaintiff and cancellation of the sale deed and also for the relief of possession.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-
One N.Jayaram Reddy, had formed layout in Survey No.14/2 of Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and in the said layout, he sold site bearing No.15 measuring to an extent 25' + 62 /2 X 50'+65' /2 infavor of plaintiff.
On receipt of consideration amount the said N.Jayaram Reddy executed G.P.A. and other necessary documents on 1/3/1998 before Metropolitan Magistrate V Court, and since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of above site. The Plaintiff is the 2nd wife of Veera Swamy Reddy and the said Veera Swamy Reddy 4 O.S.No.2842/2010 through his 1st wife, got two children namely Hari Reddy , the 2nd Defendant herein and one Krishna Reddy.
The said Veera Swamy Reddy through his 2 nd wife i.e the plaintiff herein got two daughters namely N. Rajalakshmi and V Shobha. Since there is a difference of opinion among the family members, partition was taken place among them in respect of properties bearing No.2904, 2 nd "A" Main Road, BSK 2nd Stage, Bangalore. The southern portion of the said property was allotted in favour of the Plaintiff, her husband and two daughters. The northern portion of the property was allotted in favour of Krishna Reddy and the 2nd Defendant herein. Both the parties have sold the properties allotted to their share for legal necessities and maintenance of the family. As there is division in the family except blood relationship, there is no any relationship between them. Earlier, the suit schedule property was mortgaged by the plaintiff to one N. Raju for a sum of 40000/- and the same was 5 O.S.No.2842/2010 redeemed on 06/12/1999 on payment of mortgage money. The Plaintiff who acquired the property on the basis of GPA and affidavit executed registered Sale Deed on 15/10/2003 in favour of her daughter by name V.Rajalakshmi on receipt of sale consideration amount.
Due to formation of road, some portion of the property was encroached by the authorities and the remaining portion is in occupation of the Plaintiff. The Daughter of the plaintiff, by name V.Rajalakshmi in turn executed the sale deed dated 09/02/2004 infavor of the plaintiff herein. Now the suit schedule property totally measuring 1866.5 sq. feet is the property in dispute and hereinafter called as suit schedule property.
3. The Plaintiff had purchased a property bearing site No.180 Chikkalasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli under registered Sale Deed dated 7/3/1995 from one Smt.Jayamma and the said site so purchased by the plaintiff was sold under registered Sale Deed dated 6 O.S.No.2842/2010 24/07/2002 in favour of T.Subramanyam Naidu and said sale proceeds was given to the defendant No.2, who is a civil contractor, for construction of building in the suit schedule property and also handed over the require documents to the defendant No.2. The Plaintiff herself was managing all the affairs and under her supervision the 2nd Defendant has constructed 5 shops and one residential accommodation on the suit schedule property.
4. It is submitted by the plaintiff that without right, title, or interest the 2nd Defendant executed lease agreement in favour of occupants of shop premises and in the said agreement he claimed himself as the absolute owner of the property, and when the Plaintiff came to know about the same, got issued legal notice on 16.09.2004 calling upon the tenants to enter fresh agreement of lease. Prior to the said legal notice to the tenants public notice was also issued by the plaintiff. The tenants have filed suit in OS No.8317 to 8321/2004 7 O.S.No.2842/2010 and got the interim order. The tenants are claiming their rights under the 2nd defendant through lease agreement dated 30/01/2003. Later on, the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant allegedly executed GPA infavor of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant on the strength of the said GPA executed registered sale deed dated 18/10/2004 infavor of the defendant No.3, who is none other than wife of the 2nd defendant.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the 1 st defendant is neither owner of the land nor having any right over the suit schedule property to execute GPA infavor of 2nd defendant. Infact, one Jayaram Reddy S/o Late. Muniswamappa was the absolute owner of land in Survey No.14/2 of Uttarahalli village, who formed a revenue layout and sold sites to public at large by executing G.P.A on 1/3/1988/1998 on receipt of entire consideration amount and also executed affidavits before Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. It is further 8 O.S.No.2842/2010 submitted that the 2nd defendant fraudulently executed sale deed infavor of 3rd defendant herein, in respect of the very same property which was purchased by the plaintiff through the GPA of Jayarama Reddy. The plaintiff came to know that the 2nd defendant has created some documents to get electricity connection. The plaintiff has no option except to challenge the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 infavor of defendant No.3, to which the plaintiff is not a party to the sale transaction dated 18/10/2004. Since the plaintiff is intend to create some more documents in order to deprive the rights of the plaintiff, the relief of permanent injunction is sought for. The 3rd defendant has no manner of right to claim ownership in respect of suit schedule property as the sale deed is fraudulently executed by the 2 nd defendant through forged GPA. The defendants are influential persons and have manipulated some documents against to the lawful rights of the plaintiff in a fraudulent manner 9 O.S.No.2842/2010 in order to knock of the property. The defendants have no manner of rights in respect of the suit schedule property and not in lawful possession. The plaintiff is only the lawful owner and entitled to get possession of the property. The defendant No.2 and 3 have deceived the plaintiff by fabricating the documents. The disputed sale deed dated 18/10/2004 presented on 27/10/2004 said to have been executed by the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant infavor of the 3rd defendant is void and fabricated and sham document and hence, liable to be cancelled. The 1st defendant was not the owner of the suit land at any point of time and not in possession, who is an imaginary person. The suit schedule property was handed over to the defendant No.2 and permitted him to put up construction over it, but the 2nd defendant has created documents without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Now, the defendants No.2 and 3 are unlawfully getting income from the suit schedule property by inducting the 10 O.S.No.2842/2010 tenants and the defendants are liable to pay the rents as damages to the plaintiff. Now, the defendant No.2 and 3 have continued the construction work unlawfully and started to raise building further.
6. It is further case of the plaintiff that subsequent to the filing of the suit, the defendants have produced the confirmation deed dated 05/04/2007 and 09/03/2018 executed by M. Jayrama Reddy and V. Hari Reddy infavor of 3rd defendant, which are manipulated and created documents during pendency of the suit. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for in the plaint hence, the present suit.
7. In pursuance of the institution of the suit, suit summons was issued to defendants. Though suit summons was served on the defendant No.1, he remained absent and consequently he has placed exparte. The defendant No.2 and 3 are appeared through their counsel and filed detailed written statement denying 11 O.S.No.2842/2010 the averments of the plaint as under:
The averments stated in the para 2 of the plaint are denied as false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. No details are forthcoming as to whether one N. Jayarama Reddy had formed a layout in Sy No.14/2 of Uttarahalli Village and as to whether the said layout formed out of agricultural land has been permitted by the concerned authorities to form a private layout and out of such layout one of the site bearing No.15 has been sold to the plaintiff and if so can such a transaction be considered as one, as per details furnished in this paragraph, "Site No,15 sold in favor of the plaintiff.
8. The averments in paragraph 3 of the plaint so far as it relates to the partition of the family properties and its disposal by the family members are admitted that there is no any relationship between the plaintiff and this defendant, since the day of partition, due to difference of opinion among themselves. As regards the averment 12 O.S.No.2842/2010 contained in paragraph 4 of the plaintiff it is submitted that the averment relating to the alleged mortgage of vacant site to one Raju for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and redemption of the said mortgage on 06/12/1999 on payment of mortgage money, reads like a fairytale, with no legs to stand on the hard earthly soil, to take cognizance of such fact and rely upon in the eye of law. The further averment that the plaintiff based on the GPA and affidavit executed registered sale deed dated 15/10/2003 infavor of her daughter by name Smt.V. Rajalakshmi on payment of consideration amount, due to formation of road some portion of the property encroached by the authorities and remaining portion is in occupation of the plaintiff, is again a hollow exercise, yielding no tangible/ substantial relief to the party concerned within the parameters of law. The measurement of the property referred in the plaint is not correct and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. 13
O.S.No.2842/2010
9. As regards the averments in paragraph 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same . The averments to the effect that without right, title 2 nd defendant executed lease agreement infavor of occupants of shop premises is a false averment. The defendant No.2 as an absolute owner executed the lease agreement infavor of the tenants. The defendant is not aware of the alleged legal notice dated 16/09/2004. The averments to the effect that GPA was received by the 2 nd defendant to put up construction is denied as false. The xerox copy referred to is not genuine and it is a forged one. It is further stated that Jayarama Reddy S/o Muniswamappa has not executed any GPA infavor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
10. The allegation to the effect that the 2nd defendant played a fraudulent role to deprive the right of the plaintiff and thus executed sale deed infavor of his wife, the 3rd defendant herein, are denied as false. 14
O.S.No.2842/2010 Jayarama Reddy has not executed any documents infavor of the plaintiff at any point of time in respect of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The plaintiff is in no way connected to the property detailed in the registered sale deed dated 18/10/2004 executed between the 2 nd and 3rd defendants and the question of treating the said sale deed as null and void would not arise for consideration. The bundle of facts stated in paragraph No.11 of the plaint, would not make out cause of action and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. The averments made in paragraph 12 of the plaint is not within the knowledge of the plaintiff. As regard the averments in paragraph 13, it is submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed her income and filed the above suit as an indigent person. The plaintiff has not furnished the correct measurement and discretion of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, earlier, filed a suit in OS No.8364/2004 on the file of City 15 O.S.No.2842/2010 Civil Court against the 2nd defendant herein, in respect of the suit schedule property for the relief of permanent injunction and after contest, the said suit was dismissed on 22/04/2010 and the said decision has become final. The defendants deny all other allegations which are not specifically traversed herein as false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
11. The defendant No.2 and 3 have also filed additional written statement on 25/10/2018 as under:-
The allegations and contentions of the plaintiff that the confirmation deed dated 05/04/2007 and 09/03/2018 executed by M. Jayarama Reddy and V. Hari Reddy in favour of the 3rd Defendant are manipulated, created, impersonated and forged documents they are manipulated the confirmation deeds subsequent to the filing of the suit and thereby committed cheating and fraud and hence the said documents are not binding on the plaintiff and they are void ab-initio etc are false. The 16 O.S.No.2842/2010 relief sought for by the plaintiff is not sustainable as the cancellation of the sale deed has sought for after lapse of 8 years from filing of the suit.
12. The 2nd defendant submits that he had no transaction of any kind with the plaintiff nor this defendant received any amount from the Plaintiff either by cheque or cash at any time. The 2nd Defendant did not undertake to put up construction on behalf of the Plaintiff nor the 2nd Defendant had entered into any agreement with the Plaintiff promising her to construct the building on the suit schedule property. The further averments in the plaint to the effect that the Plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property by M. Jayarama Reddy and that the suit schedule property was mortgaged by the Plaintiff to one N. Raju and the said mortgage was redeemed on 06-12-1999 is totally false.
13. The allegations to the effect that the Plaintiff had entrusted the work of construction of a building on 17 O.S.No.2842/2010 the suit schedule property to the 2 nd Defendant by paying the amount through Cash and Cheques and accordingly the 2nd Defendant has put up construction of five shops and one residential accommodation on the suit schedule property by utilizing the amount of the plaintiff is totally false. Neither the plaintiff nor her daughter was in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. The plaintiff was not holding any Power of Attorney for and on behalf of M. Jayarama Reddy nor the Plaintiff was entitled to effect sale of the suit schedule property in favour of her daughter V. Rajalakshmi. The Sale Deed dated 15-10-2003 was created in collusion in order to create a title deed in respect of the suit schedule property. Smt. V. Rajalakshmi was not having any income to pay the sale consideration and the consideration shown in the Sale Deed dated 15-10-2003 was concocted. The Plaintiff on the basis of the concocted and created Sale Deed dated 15-10-2003 18 O.S.No.2842/2010 obtains a registered Sale Deed from her daughter on 09-02-2004 making it appear as if she had purchased the property for a valuable consideration.
14. It is further submitted by these defendants that the suit schedule property was owned by M. Jayarama Reddy, S/o Muniswarmappa. The 1 st Defendant had purchased the suit schedule property from said M. Jayarama Reddy and as the schedule property was a revenue site and as there was ban on registration of the Sale Deed the said M. Jayarama Reddy executed Power of Attorney and Affidavit conveying the schedule property by receiving the sale consideration, in favour of 1st Defendant. In turn the 1st Defendant being in possession of the schedule property as the owner, effected sale of the schedule property for a valuable consideration to the 2nd Defendant. The suit schedule property was a revenue site and there was an embargo on registration of revenue sites at that time. The 2 nd 19 O.S.No.2842/2010 Defendant, therefore, effected payment of full sale consideration of 90000/- to the 1st Defendant and the 1 st Defendant delivered vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the 2nd Defendant by executing General Power of Attorney and Affidavit dated 18-09-1991 and full Settlement Agreement date 18-09-1991. Pursuant to the Agreement, G.P.A. and Affidavit the 2nd defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and on the basis of the aforesaid documents the katha of the property came to be registered in the name of the 2nd Defendant, who applied for plan and license from Grama Panchayath and constructed five shops and one residential unit of 10 square RCC roofed building comprising of Ground floor and leased out the five shops to different tenants vide Lease Agreements dated 01-03-2003. The 2 nd Defendant had also obtained electricity from the BESCOM and the katha of the property stands in the name of 3 rd 20 O.S.No.2842/2010 Defendant, who obtained loan from Allahabad Bank, by mortgaging the property. It is further submitted that at the time of borrowing the loan from the bank, the bank officials insisted the 3rd Defendant to get the confirmation deed from previous Vendor of the land and accordingly these Defendants got the Confirmation Deed dated 05- 04-2007 from the previous Vendor of the 1st Defendant i.e M. Jayarama Reddy and the said document is an unregistered document and the same was executed much prior to the filing of the suit. On the approach of the plaintiff, the Vendor of the 1st Defendant, by name M. Jayarama Reddy executed a registered Confirmation Deed in favour of the 3rd Defendant confirming the execution of GPA in favour of the 1st Defendant and in turn executed a GPA and Affidavit in favour of the 2 nd Defendant.
15. The Plaintiff and her daughter have in collusion created and concocted Sale Deeds dated 21 O.S.No.2842/2010 15-10-2003 and 09-02-2004 by describing that the suit property consists of one square AC sheet house when there is already existing 10 square RCC building in the Ground floor of the property. The Plaintiff also filed suits in OS No.747/2005, 748/2005, 749/2005, 750/2005 and 751/2005 against the Defendants 2 & 3 and also the tenants seeking decree of mandatory and Permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suits so filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed on merits on 22-04-2010. The Plaintiff also filed a suit O.S. No. 7085/2014 for the relief of Permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. The said suit came to be dismissed on 01-02-2018 and challenging the Judgment and decree she has preferred an appeal in RFA No.462/2018 which is pending for consideration. In none of the above suits, the plaintiff has produced the alleged GPA executed by M. Jayarama Reddy.
22
O.S.No.2842/2010
16. The Defendants 2 and 3 are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought in the plaint. The suit is filed making false and baseless allegations. The Plaintiff has filed the above suit with vengeance to make an unlawful gain. Accordingly, the defendant No.2 and 3 prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
17. The counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the following rulings:-
1. (2009) AIR SCW 5416 in the case of Rajni Tandon vs Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar and Another.
2. AIR Online 2022 SC 65 in the case of Amar Nath vs Gian Chand
3. AIR 1922 Pre counsel 279 in the case of Chhotey Lal vs Collector Of Moradabad
4. RSA No.2549/2017 in the case of M/s Lakshmi Chemical Industries V/s M. Rajgopal and two others.23
O.S.No.2842/2010
18. The counsel for the defendant No.2 and 3 has placed reliance on the following rulings:-
1. AIR 2014 Supreme Court 937 in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Vasavi Co. op.
Housing Society Ltd. And others.
2. 2022 Live law (SC) 19 in the case of Smriti Debbarma (Dead) Through legal representative vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and Others
3. AIR 1973 Supreme Court 782 (Para-3) in the case of Balai Chandra Mondal Vs. Smt. Indu Rekha Debi
4. AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2966 (Paras 7, 14 and 15) in the case of T.K. Mohammed Abubucker (D) Vs. PSM Ahmed Abdul Khader.
5. AIR 2019 Supreme Court 2465 in the case of Pramod Kumar and another Vs. Zalak Singh and others.
6. AIR 2014 Supreme Court 937 (Para-15) in the case of Union of India Vs. Vasavi Co. op. Housing Society Ltd.
7. AIR 2020 Supreme Court 4321 in the case of Nazir Mohammed Vs. J Kamala and others.
19. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, and upon perusal of the records, this court has framed the 24 O.S.No.2842/2010 following issues and additional issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has purchased suit property through G.P.A. dt. 1-3-1998 & registered sale deed dt:9.2.2004 from V.Rajalakshmi?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 colluded each other without any right over the suit property have executed the sale deed in respect of suit property in favour of defendant No.3 dt. 18.10.2004 and registered on 27-10-2004 and that sale deed does not bind the right title and interest of the plaintiff?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant Nos.2 and 3 ?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are attempting to create charge for alienating the property and thereby they be restrained through permanent injunction?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for recovery of rentals from the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in so far as the suit property till its delivery in her favour?
6. Whether defendant No.2 & 3 prove that the plaintiff is liable to pay court fee on her own, on the additional reliefs of 25 O.S.No.2842/2010 declaration of ownership and recovery of possession since she got amended the plaint after obtaining the leave to the sue inform of papuries?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relieves as prayed for through amended plaint?
8. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether the defendant No.2 and 3 prove that defendant No.1 having absolute right over the suit schedule property sold the said property in favour of defendant No.2?
2. Whether the defendant No.2 and 3 prove that in turn defendant No.2 sold the property to defendant No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 18/10/2004 and he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
3. Whether the defendant No.2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
4. Whether defendant No.2 and 3 prove that the suit is barred by law of limitation?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed in amended plaint?
26
O.S.No.2842/2010 ISSUE dated 22/11/2023
1. Does the plaintiff proves that unregistered consent/confirmation deed dt 05.04.2007 executed by M.Jayaram Reddy and V.Hari Reddy in favour of D.3 and another confirmation deed dt 09.03.2018 vide document No.BSK-1-14302/2017- 2018 executed by M.Jayaram Reddy and V.Hari Reddy in favour of D.3 are void and not binding on her ?
20. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 42 documents. The defendant No.2 has been examined as DW.1 and got marked as Ex.D.1 to 39 documents.
21. Having heard the arguments of both side and upon careful perusal of the records and the written arguments, submitted by the parties, the findings of this court to the aforesaid issues and additional issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: As negative Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative Issue No.3: As negative Issue No.4: As Negative Issue No.5: As Negative 27 O.S.No.2842/2010 Issue No.6: In the affirmative Issue No.7: As negative Additional Issue No.1: As negative Additional Issue No.2: As negative Additional Issue No.3: As negative Additional Issue No.4: As negative Additional Issue No.5: As negative Issue dated: 22-11-2023: Partly in the affirmative Issue No.8: As per the final order, for the following;-
REASONS
22. Issue No.1 to 3 and additional issue No.1 to 3 and issue dated 22/11/2023: Since all these issues are intrinsically interconnected and required to be discussed together, they are taken up for discussion together in order to avoid the repetition of the law and the alleged facts.
It is the specific case of the plaintiff in brief that the suit schedule property bearing khatha No.14/2 situated at Utharahalli Village and Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk 28 O.S.No.2842/2010 measuring East to West towards northern side 18 ft. and Southern side 49.3 ft. and North to South on Western side 60.06 bounded on east by site No.14 West by Road, North by 30 ft Road, and South by Sy. No.16 and 17 was originally belonging to one M. Jayaramreddy, who executed GPA and affidavit in favour of the plaintiff dated 01.03.1998/1988 on receipt of consideration amount and the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the defendant No.2 was requested to put up construction in the suit schedule property and accordingly, he plaintiff has paid money to construct the house in the suit schedule property. Later on, the plaintiff has executed sale deed dated 15.10.2003 in favour of her daughter and in turn her daughter executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 09.02.2004. Accordingly, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Such being the case. The defendant No.1 having no 29 O.S.No.2842/2010 manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property executed GPA in favour of defendant No.2 and he in turn executed registered sale deed dated 18.10.2004 in favour of the defendant No.3, who is none other than the wife of defendant No.2. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 and 3 have deceived the plaintiff by fabricating the documents and during the pendency of the suit they built the structure in the suit schedule property and later turned hostile to the plaintiff for wrongful gain and in order to knock of suit schedule property. Hence, the sale deed dated 18.10.2004 registered on 27.10.2004 alleged to have been executed defendant No.2 in favour of his wife Smt.Jyothiamma, the defendant No.3 herein, is liable to be set aside and the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff.
23. In order to proof the case of the plaintiff, she filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and 30 O.S.No.2842/2010 examined as PW.1. PW.2 to 5 are also examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Ex.P.1 is the sale deed dated 09.02.2004 executed by V.Rajalakshmi in favour of the plaintiff herein. Ex.P.16 is the original sale deed dated 15.10.2003 executed by the plaintiff in favour of her daughter V. Rajalakshmi. As could be seen from Ex.P.1 the sale deed, it appears that the said sale deed is executed by the daughter of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff herein. Ex.P.16 is the sale deed depicts that the plaintiff who claims to be the GPA holder of M.Jayaramareddy executed the said sale deed in favour of her daughter V.Rajalakshmi. On perusal of the said sale deed, it is crystal clear that the date of the GPA is not forthcoming. Ex.P.16 is the first sale deed alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of her daughter. Which is said to have been executed on 15.10.2003. Ex.P.2 is the sale deed executed by plaintiff's daughter in favour of the plaintiff on 09.02.2004. As 31 O.S.No.2842/2010 could be seen from the sale deeds, it is clear that the second sale deed is executed with in four months from the first sale deed. Admittedly, the alleged sale deeds are executed between the mother and daughter, and vice versa.
24. According to the plaintiff, the original owner M. Jayarama Reddy had executed GPA and affidavit in favour of the plaintiff and thus sold the suit schedule property for the sale consideration of Rs.21,000/-. The plaintiff has contended that the said GPA executed on 01.03.1998. In the evidence PW.1 deposes that the alleged GPA was executed in her favour on 01.03.1988. The plaintiff is not sure as to the date of the alleged GPA. That apart, the said GPA is not produced before the court. It is not in dispute that originally the property bearing Sy. No.14/2 belonging to M.Jayaramareddy, who formed layout and allotted sites to various persons. The suit schedule property bearing site No.15 said to have 32 O.S.No.2842/2010 been sold to the plaintiff by executing GPA and affidavit on receipt of sale consideration. This suit is one for declaration of title, possession and cancellation of the sale deed. The plaintiff is required to establish flow of title. The title refers to 3 components. Viz., ownership, occupation or possession, and the right of possession. Ownership can be defined as the relationship between the property and a person. It includes the rights of possession, disposition and destruction. While possession can be defined as the power a person has over a property that excludes other people from using or controlling the property. Though the plaintiff has pleaded that one M.Jayaramareddy was original owner of property and she acquired the same through GPA and affidavit, no document is forthcoming to show the flow of title in fvour of the plaintiff. It is settled position of law that a person cannot convey better title than he had. In other words, since the plaintiff herself had no title over 33 O.S.No.2842/2010 the property she cannot convey the title to her daughter in respect of the said property. Similarly, the sale deed executed by her daughter, in favour of the plaintiff is not legally valid. As discussed hereinabove, the sale deeds between the mother and daughter i.e., the plaintiff and her daughter within a span of four months, probably in order to create title deed. In other words, the sale transactions between the mother and daughter in such hurried manner within a span of four months leads to a suspicion as to the alleged transactions.
25. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant No.1, was requested by her to construct building over the suit schedule property and on account of the construction of the building, the plaintiff has paid required money to the defendant No.2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.2 has constructed one A.C roofed house in the suit schedule property. But whereas the documents produced by he defendants discloses that 34 O.S.No.2842/2010 the defendant No.2 had obtained sanctioned plan and license and constructed ground floor with five shops. Ex.D.17 is khatha extract. Ex.D.19 is the khatha certificate which depicts the name of the defendant No.3. Ex.D.12 is the plan. As could be seen from Ex.D.12 and other documents produced by the defendant, construction was over much prior to the execution of sale deed by B.Rajalakshmi in favour of the plaintiff herein. In other words the construction of the building was over, much prior to the sale deed marked as Ex.P.16 dated 15.10.2003. On perusal of the Ex.P.16, the sale deed, the schedule depicts A.C sheet roofed house. The evidence on record depicts that the defendants have constructed house with five commercial shops much prior to the sale deed dated 15.10.2003. The plaintiff has sought for possession of the suit schedule property. Astonishingly, when the possession was delivered to the defendants is not stated by the plaintiff. As could be seen from Ex.P.1 35 O.S.No.2842/2010 and Ex.P.16 sale deeds, it is clear that the plaintiff and her daughter are shown to have been resided in the same address and door number. As discussed hereinabove, what transpired between them to execute sale deeds with each other hurriedly within the period of four months is not known. Though the plaintiff has admitted the fact that one M.Jayaramareddy was the original owner of the property, she has not produced any document to show the flow of title in her favour. Since the plaintiff had not acquired the title over the suit schedule property she executing the sale deed in favour of her daughter and in turn her daughter executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has no legal sanctity. That apart, the evidence discloses the said sale deeds are not acted upon. In other words, revenue entries were not mutated in their name. Per contra, categorical admission of PW.1 to the effect that defendant No.2 was entrusted to construct house and the same was constructed by 36 O.S.No.2842/2010 defendant No.2 depicts the possession of defendant No.2
26. Ex.P.7 is the mortgage deed dated 22/07/1996, which discloses that AC sheet roofed shed and vacant site was mortgaged by the plaintiff infavor of one Raju. PW.1 in the course of cross examination admits that herself and her daughter were residing under same roof as on the date of the sale deeds. Ex.P.1 and 16 sale deeds also discloses that they were residing under common roof during the alleged sale deeds. As discussed hereinabove, since the plaintiff had not acquired any title over the property, she cannot convey better title than he had. In other words, when the plaintiff herself had no title over the property she cannot convey title to her daughter in respect of the suit schedule property. As such, the sale deed dated 09/02/2004 executed by her daughter infavor of the plaintiff would not convey title in respect of the suit schedule property.
27. Ex.P.8 is the form No.10 which is tax demand 37 O.S.No.2842/2010 register extract for the year 2004-2005. Ex.P.9 is the license dated 11/07/2003 issued by the concerned panchayath. Ex.P.8 and 9 would not create any right over the suit schedule property. As could be seen from Ex.P.11 plan was issued for construction of ground and 1st floor. But Ex.P.1 the said sale deed discloses that only 1 Square A.C roofed shed was constructed in the suit schedule property as on the date of 15/10/2003. Hence, the sanctioned plan marked as Ex.P.11 is not helpful to the case of plaintiff. No doubt, Ex.P.12 the RTC forms would depict the name of M. Jayram Reddy, the original owner of the property bearing Sy No.14/2. The said RTC is not helpful to the case of the plaintiff as the plaintiff has not produced any document to show flow of title from the original owner. Ex.P.36 is the form No.10, infact, discloses the name of the defendant No.2. The said document pertains to the year 1991-92. Which shows the possession of defendant No.2 much prior to the sale 38 O.S.No.2842/2010 deed alleged to have been executed infavor of the plaintiff. Ex.P.37 the photographs discloses the existence of the commercial shops. According to the plaintiff only 1 Square A.C sheet roofed shed with vacant site was conveyed to the plaintiff as on the sale deed dated 15/10/2003. But the photographs depicts the existence of commercial shops. In Ex.P.42, the written statement filed by the plaintiff herein in OS No.8364/2004 it is pleaded that only 1 Square A.C sheet roofed shed with vacant site was in existence as on the date of the sale deed dated 15/10/2023. The evidence produced by the defendant No.2 and 3 discloses that as on the date of Ex.P.16 the original sale deeds dated 15/10/2003 the defendant No.2 was in possession and constructed 5 shops with one residential unit consisting of ground floor. But in the sale deed dated 15/10/2003 only 1 Square A.C sheet roofed shed is shown. The said evidence goes to show that, the construction was made by the 39 O.S.No.2842/2010 defendant No.2 much prior to the sale deed dated 15/10/2003. Further the evidence on record discloses that defendant No.3 has constructed 1st floor building on borrowing loan from Allahabad bank. So, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff colluding with her daughter has created sale deed suppressing the fact that the ground floor and 1st floor construction was over by the December 2002. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, one thing is clear that the ground floor and 1 st floor construction was made by the defendant No.2 and 3 and 5 shops are let out to the tenants for rent. It is the case of the defendant that originally the property was owned by the defendant No.1, which was a revenue site and there was an embargo on sale of revenue sites and the defendant No.1 delivered possession of the suit schedule property on executing GPA and affidavit dated 18/09/1991 on receipt of Rs.90,000/- as sale consideration. It is further case of the defendants that 40 O.S.No.2842/2010 on the basis of the said documents katha was transferred into their names and the defendant No.2 had obtained plan and license and also constructed 5 shops and 1 residential unit consisting ground floor and let out those shops to various tenants. It is further case of the defendant that pursuant to the GPA executed by the defendant No.1, the defendant No.2 herein executed the sale deed dated 18/10/2004 and it is subsequent to the said sale deed the defendant No.3 has constructed 1 st floor on obtaining loan from Allahabad bank.
28. Suffice to discuss here that, the defendant No.2 and 3 have failed to produce the alleged GPA before the court. Though the bank has issued an endorsement stating that the GPA is with the bank, the same is not available before the court for scrutiny. It is important to discuss here that, the GPA holder being the agent cannot execute GPA. In other words, the delegated power cannot be sub-delegated. There is nothing on record to show as 41 O.S.No.2842/2010 to whether the defendant No.1 being the alleged GPA holder was authorized to execute GPA infavor of defendant No.2. When it is specifically contended by the defendant No.2 and 3 that the original owner Jayaram Reddy had executed GPA infavor of the defendant No.1 and in turn the defendant No.1 executed GPA infavor of defendant No.2 and on the basis of the said GPA and affidavit, the defendant No.2 has executed the sale deed dated 18/10/2004, infavor of the defendant No.3, it is for the defendants to prove the same by preponderance of probabilities. As discussed hereinabove, GPA's are not produced for the inspection of the court. The delegated power cannot be sub-delegated unless the contrary is proved. In other words, the defendant No.1 who is said to be the GPA holder of the original owner M.Narayanappa cannot execute GPA infavor of defendant No.2. Hence, the alleged sale deed dated 18/10/2004 executed by the defendant No.2 infavor of defendant No.3 42 O.S.No.2842/2010 cannot be said to be a valid document.
29. The counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the ruling reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5416 in the case of Rajni Tandon vs Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar. The said rulings is with regard to execution of documents and its presentation for registration by power of attorney holder. The said ruling is not applicable to the case on hand as the plaintiff has claimed right over the property based on the GPA executed by one Jayrama Reddy in her favor.
30. AIR Online 2022 SC 65 in the case of Amar Nath vs Gian Chand is with regard to presentation of document for registration by power of attorney holder who is also executant of documents. The said rulings is also not applicable to the case on hand as the facts and circumstances stated in the said ruling is totally different from the case on hand.
31. He also placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble 43 O.S.No.2842/2010 High Court rendered in RSA No.2549/2017 in the case of M/s Lakshmi Chemicals Industries and others V/s M. Rajgopal and 2 others the said ruling is with regard to amendment of plaint in the appellate stage.
32. In the ruling reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1526 in the case of Shakeel Ahmed vs Syed Akhlaq Hussain at para No.10 to 12 held as under:-
10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question.
At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed 44 O.S.No.2842/2010 relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same proposition. Reference may also be made to the following judgments of this Court:
(i). Ameer Minhaj Vs. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and Others2
(ii). Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi3
(iii). M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr.4
12. The embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable property. Once this is the settled position, the respondent (2018) 7 SCC 639 In Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022 could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne profits against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the property in question whether as an owner or a licensee. 45
O.S.No.2842/2010
33. The evidence on record discloses that earlier the plaintiff had filed a suit in OS No.8364/2004 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants herein. The said suit so filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed on 22/04/2010. Similarly, the plaintiff herein had filed suits in OS No.747/2005, 748/2005, 749/2005, 750/2005 and 751/2005 against the defendant No.2 and 3 and the tenants seeking the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit so filed by the plaintiff also came to be dismissed on 22/04/2010. Likewise, the tenants have filed OS No.8317/2004 to 8321/2004 against the plaintiff seeking decree of permanent injunction from interfering with their possession. The said suits came to be decreed. On careful perusal of the evidence on record including the judgments and decree passed in the above suits, one thing is clear that the defendant No 3 is in possession of 46 O.S.No.2842/2010 the suit schedule property. None of the parties have produced evidence to establish their title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has sought for possession from the defendants thus she admits the possession of the defendant. The oral and documentary evidence of the defendants coupled with the admission made by the plaintiff, makes it clear that the defendant No.3 is in possession of the suit schedule property. 1 st floor construction is made by the defendant No.3. As discussed hereinabove, the sale deed executed infavor of the defendant No.3 has no legs to stand. In other words, no document is forthcoming by the defendants to show the flow of tile. Any amount of oral evidence in the absence of the documentary evidence is not helpful to the case of the defendants to prove their alleged title. None of the defendants have produced the alleged GPA's. That apart, the defendant No.1 being a GPA holder of original owner cannot execute another GPA infavor of defendant 47 O.S.No.2842/2010 No.2, in the absence specific term to that effect and hence the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 infavor of his wife cannot be said to be a valid document.
34. It is suffice to discuss herein the validity and evidentiary value of the confirmation deeds executed by M. Jayaram Reddy and the defendant No.1 herein. The said confirmation deeds are marked as Ex.D.24 and 25. Ex.D.24 is not a registered confirmation deed. As per Sec.17 (1) (b) and (e) of the Registration Act, non-testamentary instruments which purport to operate, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards shall be registered. Ex.D.25 is the confirmation deed dated 09/03/2018 executed by M. Naryana Reddy and the defendant No.2 infavor of the defendant No.3. The said confirmation deed is executed subsequent to filing of the suit. Be that as it may, what has been confirmed by way of the said 48 O.S.No.2842/2010 confirmation deed is execution of GPA by M. Jayarama Reddy infavor of the defendant No.1. Even as could be seen from the confirmation deed dated 09/03/2018, there is a recital to the effect that the said deeds were executed on account of the fact that the defendant No.1 had not acquired any title and right over the suit schedule property by way of alleged GPA and hence, the GPA dated 18/09/1991 executed infavor of V. Hari Reddy, the defendant No.2 herein, empowering and authorizing him to sell the suit schedule property has no basis. In other words, the original land owner M. Narayna Reddy confirms the GPA executed infavor of the defendant No.1. The said GPA is not produced to know the recitals stated therein. Whether there is a clause authorizing or empowering the agent to sell the property, is not known. The normal rule is that in the absence of specific clause to that effect a power delegated cannot be sub-delegated. Hence, the sale deed dated 18/10/2004 49 O.S.No.2842/2010 executed by the defendant No.2 infavor of his wife the defendant No.3 herein would not confer flow of title to the defendant.
35. No doubt, as per Sec.101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. The weakness in the defendant case, if any, do not absolve the plaintiff from fully satisfying the court. The weakness in the defendants case does not invite the punishment in the form of an automatic decree. Though the defendants have produced the documents such as judgment and decree passed in various suits, none of them are dealt with the relief of declaration of ownership. However, the possession of the defendant No.2 and 3 has been reiterated in the judgment passed in OS No.8364/2004 and other suits filed by the tenants. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged GPA dated 01/03/1998/1988 50 O.S.No.2842/2010 and her ownership over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the issues Nos.1 & 3 and additional issues Nos.1 to 3 are answered as negative and issue dated 22/11/2023 is answered partly in the affirmative to the effect that the confirmation deed dated 05/04/2007 and 09/03/2018 executed by M. Jayarama Reddy and V. Hari Reddy infavor of defendant No.3 are void and do not confer right to the defendant No.3 in respect of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative to the effect that the defendant No.1 and 2 colluding with each other executed the sale deed dated 08/10/2004 infavor of the defendant No.3.
36. Issue No.4 and 5:- The plaintiff has not produced any documents to show the flow of title in her favor. PW.1 admits the possession of the defendants. Evidence on record would go to show that the defendant nos.2 and 3 have put up construction of ground and first floor with five commercial shops over the suit schedule 51 O.S.No.2842/2010 property. The evidence on record, abundantly makes it clear that the defendant No.3 is in physical possession of the suit schedule property. The person in possession of the property cannot be restrained from alienating or creating charge over the suit schedule property. As discussed hereinabove, the plaintiff neither proved the title nor the possession of the property and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction. With regard to the entitlement of rentals from the defendant No.2 and 3, it is suffice to discuss here that the suits filed by the plaintiff against the defendant No.2 and 3 and the tenants have already been dismissed, wherein it is observed that the defendant no.2 and 3 are in possession of the suit schedule property and 5 shops are leased out to various tenants. That apart, the suits filed by the tenants against the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction came to be decreed. On perusal of the said decrees, it is crystal clear that the construction 52 O.S.No.2842/2010 was made by the defendant No.2 and 3 and they let-out the shops to various tenants. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the rents from defendant No.2 and 3. Accordingly, issue No.4 and 5 are answered as negative.
37. Additional Issue No.4:- This suit is for the comprehensive relief of declaration of ownership, possession and cancellation of sale deed. As per article 65 of the Limitation Act for recovery of possession based on the alleged title the period of limitation is 12 years. The present suit is filed in the year 2010 and the alleged sale deed was executed infavor of the plaintiff in the year 2004. The suit is filed within 12 years as required under Article 65 of the schedule. Hence, the very contention of the defendant No.2 and 3 that the suit is barred by the law of limitation does not hold good and the same is hereby rejected. Accordingly, the additional issue No.4 is answered as negative.
38. Issue No.6:- This issue is with regard to the 53 O.S.No.2842/2010 payment of court fee. Earlier, the plaintiff had filed a Misc Petition in P.Misc No.7/2005 seeking permission to institute suit as an indigent person without payment of requisite court fee. The petition so filed by the plaintiff under Order 33 rule 14 of C.P.C came to be allowed vide order dated 18/03/2010. The order exempts such person from paying the court fee at the 1st instance and allows him to prosecute the suit in-forma pauperis. In the 1 st instance, an inquiry into means of the plaintiff was made and permission was granted to the plaintiff to institute the suit. The said permission is not revoked. It is needless to mention here that if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the court shall calculate the amount of court fee and costs and recover from the party as ordered by the court. In other words, when an indigent person succeeds in a suit, the Stat Government can recover the court fees from the party as per the direction in the decree and it will be the first charge on the subject matter of the suit. 54
O.S.No.2842/2010 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a ruling reported in (2001) 5 SCC 22 in the case of Union Bank of India V.s Khader International Construction and others held that even where an indigent person fails in the suit, the court fee shall be paid by him. In view of order 33 rule 14 of C.P.C the plaintiff is liable to pay the requisite court fee. Accordingly, issue No.6 is answered in the affirmative.
39. Issue No.7 and additional issue No.5 dated 06/02/2019:- The plaintiff has failed to prove the flow of title in her favor. The alleged GPA on the basis of which the sale deed dated 15/10/2003 executed by the plaintiff in favor of her daughter and the 2 nd sale deed dated 09/02/2004 executed by the plaintiff's daughter infavor of the plaintiff herein would not confer any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendant No.2 and 3 have proved the physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. In the 55 O.S.No.2842/2010 absence of flow of tile the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration of ownership. Since, title of the plaintiff is not established, she is not entitled to seek the relief of possession. Though the defendant No.2 and 3 have failed to establish their ownership over the suit schedule property and the confirmation deeds dated 05/04/2007 and 09/03/2018, have not conferred any right to the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief sought for. Accordingly, issue No.7 and additional issue No.5 are answered as negative.
40. Issue No.8:- In view of the foregoing discussion on the above issues and additional issues and the findings thereon, this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
56
O.S.No.2842/2010 No order as to costs.
In view of the findings of the court on issue No.6, the plaintiff shall pay the requisite court fee.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 7th day of June, 2024.) (DODDEGOWDA.K) XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side :
PW.1 K. Prameelamma
PW.2 Balaraja Reddy
PW.3 Vaikuntavasalu Reddy
PW.4 Krishna Reddy
PW.5 Govinda Reddy
PW.6 B.S. Padma Prasad
(b) Defendant's side :
DW.1 V. Hari Reddy
List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side : 57
O.S.No.2842/2010 Ex.P.1 Sale deed dated 09.02.2004 Ex.P.2 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.3 Notice dated 24-09-2004 Ex.P.4 Returned RPAD cover Ex.P.5 Acknowledgment Ex.P.6 & UCP and acknowledgment 7 Ex.P.8 Assessment extract Ex.P.9 license Ex.P.10 General receipt Ex.P.11 Approved plan Ex.P.12 RTC Ex.P.13 Mutation Extract Ex.P.14 Iccha related to stability Ex.P.15 Absolute sale deed Ex.P.16 original sale deed Ex.P.17 declaration in the form of affidavit Ex.P.18 certified copy of sale deed dated 24-7-
2002
Ex.P.19 certified copy of electro list containing 77
pages from the year 1988-1995
Ex.P.20 bank statement
Ex.P.21 & two encumbrance certificates 22 Ex.P.23 to survey hissa, tippani & re-survey 25 settlement documents containing 10 pages from all the three documents Ex.P.26 to certified copies 28 Ex.P.29 endorsement issued by BBMP Ex.P.30 & two certified copies of the sale deeds 31 dated 5-7-84 & 20-10-82 along with typed copies of those two documents to show the boundaries of suit property Ex.P.32 paper publication 58 O.S.No.2842/2010 Ex.P.33 Signature on declaration given to the Sub-Registrar, Mulbagal Ex.P.34 Xerox copy of affidavit dated 23/8/2018 Ex.P.35 copy of the declaration given to the Election Commissioner Ex.P.36 Demand Register Ex.P.37 Photo Ex.P.38 Sanctioned letter Ex.P.39 to under RTI Act are shown to the witness
41 who admitted the suggestion that they are the copies of the my certificates of renewal of my notary for the year 2011 and 2016.
As the witness admitted the documents Ex.P.42 Written Statement filed in O.S.8364/2004
(b) Defendants' side :
Ex.D.1 & D.2 certified copies of judgment and decree of O.S.No.8364/2004 Ex.D.3 certified copy of deposition in O.S.No.8364/2004 as P.W.1 Ex.D.4 & D.5 certified copies of judgment and decree in O.S.No.751/2005 Ex.D.6 & D.7 certified copies of judgment and decree of O.S.No.8319/2004 Ex.D.8 certified copy of deposition in O.S.No.8319/2004 Ex.D.9 & D.10 The certified copies of judgment and decree in O.S.No.747/2005 Ex.D.11 Letter issued by the Bank Manager, Allahabad Bank stating that the original documents stated in the letter were deposited in the bank 59 O.S.No.2842/2010 Ex.D.12 Plan approved by office of the Uttarahalli Ex.D.13 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 18/10/2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 Ex.D.14 to 16 Three tax paid receipts for the year 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 Ex.D.17 Khatha extract for the year 2008 to 14-3-2016 Ex.D.18 Fee receipt dated 14/3/2016 for having remitted fee to obtain khatha Ex.D.19 Khatha certificate dated 14/1/2016 Ex.D.20 Certified copy of simple mortgage deed dated 22/3/2010 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of Allahabad Bank Ex.D.21 Certified copy of additional mortgage deed dated 28/8/2010 to borrow additional loan Ex.D.22 Certified copy of encumbrance certificate from 1-4-2004 to 30-1- 2017 Ex.D.23 Letter dated 1/2/2017 issued by Allahabad Bank stating that original property papers are with them Ex.D.24 Confirmation deed dated 5/4/2007 Ex.D.25 Registered confirmation deed dated 9/3/2018 Ex.D.26 Bank statement pertaining to the bank account of defendant No.2 and 3 60 O.S.No.2842/2010 Ex.D.27 Tax demand register for the year 1991-92 Ex.D.28 Cash receipt Ex.D.29 Building license Ex.D.30 5 Bescom receipts Ex.D.31 Certificate issued by Bescom Ex.D.32 5 electricity receipt. Ex.D.33 Certified copy of the plaint, written statement, depositions of PW.1 in O.S.8364/2004 collectively marked Ex.D.34 Certified copy of the depositions of PW.1 and documents exhibited in O.S.751/2005 are collectively marked Ex.D.35 Certified copy of the plaint, written statement depositions, Judgment and decree in O.S.748/2005 filed by Smt. Pramilamma are collectively marked Ex.D.36 Certified copy of the plaint, Judgment and decree and depositions of PW.1 along with documents exhibited in O.S.8317/2004 are collectively marked Ex.D.37 Certified copy of the plaint, written statement, depositions, exhibited documents, Judgment and decree in O.S.8318/2004 are collectively marked Ex.D.38 Certified copy of the plaint, written statement, exhibited documents and judgment and decree in O.S.8319/2004 are collectively 61 O.S.No.2842/2010 marked Ex.D.39 Certified copy of the plaint, documents and judgment and decree in O.S.8320/2004 are collectively marked XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
62 O.S.No.2842/2010