Bangalore District Court
B Gayathramma vs B T Srinivas And Others on 1 July, 2025
KABC0A0027322015
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for Judgment in suit
(R.P. 91)
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU,
(CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N,
B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2025
O.S.No.25665/2015
Plaintiff:- Mrs. B. Gayathramma,
W/o Late Horakerappa,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.664/1,
New H.A.S.B Khatha No.664/1,
Old Sy.No.63,
Konena Agrahara Village,
HAL 3rd Stage, now known as
Erappa Lane, Anandapura 8th Cross,
Bangalore-560 017.
[By Sri. K.N. Somaiah - Adv.]
V/s
2 O.S.No.25665/2015
Defendants:- 1. Mr. B.T. Srinivas,
S/o Late Thimmaiah,
Aged about 67 years,
2. Smt. Parvathy,
W/o B.T. Srinivas,
Aged about 45 years,
3. Mr. S. Dinesh Kumar,
S/o B.T. Srinivas,
Aged about 31 years,
4. Mr. S. Yathish Kumar,
S/o B.T. Srinivas,
Aged about 29 years,
All are residing at No.124,
New No.10, 9th Cross,
Nanjareddy Colony,
HAL 3rd Stage, Bangalore-560 017.
(By Sri. D.G. Gangadhar Adv.,
for Defendants)
Date of Institution of the suit 23.7.2015
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for
declaration and possession, suit for Declaration & Injunction
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording of
the Evidence. 21.3.2022
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced. 1.7.2025
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 09 11 08
LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
3 O.S.No.25665/2015
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the Defendants to declare that the registered GPA dtd:
4.8.1995 stands in the name of 1 st Defendant and Deed of Gift on 31.3.2000 executed by the 1 st Defendant in favour of Defendant No.3 & 4 is null and void and not binding on the part of the Plaintiff and also for mandatory injunction directing the concerned Sub-Registrar to remove the entry of B.T. Srinivas in GPA and also to remove the names of Defendant No.3 & 4 in the Encumbrance Certificate, if the Defendants to do so, for cost and for other consequential reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Plaintiffs is that:
(i) The entire Sy.No.63 of Konena Agrahara Village, was acquired by the BDA for formation of residential layout known as HAL 3rd Stage, Bangalore-17. A bit of land even though the BDA acquired was kept open without acquiring the said land. Hence, the down trodden people and financially weaker section staying in the slub acquired and 4 O.S.No.25665/2015 occupied this bit of land without any objection from BDA, BBMP or any such concerned authority. Hence, the Plaintiff constructed building as per her capacity and from the past 30 years staying there with her large family who are poor and leading their life below poverty line. The BDA has left that piece of land and totally neglected without questioning the occupants including the Plaintiff as on today.
(ii) Further it is stated that the 1 st Defendant being an electric and plumber contractor approached the Plaintiff assured to get electricity connection to the Schedule Property and obtained signatures of the Plaintiff on several papers including registered GPA dtd. 4.8.1995 without disclosing the contents of the same. With an intention to knock of the property of the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant got electricity connection for the Schedule Property in the name of one Mr. Joseph but not in favour of Plaintiff. Again he changed the said connection in favour of his wife Smt. Parvathy. When he unable to succeed the same, he filed number of petitions and suits. The 1 st Defendant filed HRC Petition against the Plaintiff treating her as a tenant and the said petition was withdrawn after 5 O.S.No.25665/2015 Plaintiff filed her objection and written statement.
Again, the 1st Defendant filed O.S.No.8985/1999 against the Plaintiff for ejectment and the said suit was dismissed on merits. Again 1st Defendant filed O.S.No.3294/2003 for damages, the same was also dismissed. After all the efforts the 1 st Defendant instigated the KEB and BWSSB to disconnect electricity and water connections. In the meantime the Plaintiff filed O.S.No.15867/2002 against KEB & BWSSB and obtained permanent injunction and in the said suit the 1st Defendant is also a party. Again the 1st Defendant filed O.S.No.8189/2000 for declaration and seeking for possession and the same was dismissed. In the said suit on one side 1 st Defendant claimed that he is an agreement holder on the other hand he claimed that he has purchased the Schedule Property under the registered Sale Deed from the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the 1st Defendant executed Gift Deed in favour of his children i.e., Defendant No.3 & 4 by creating concocted documents without having clear title. The Defendant No.3 & 4 represented by their GPA holder the 1st Defendant have filed suit in O.S.No.7333/2000 for declaration and injunction against the BDA and BBMP and the Plaintiff is not 6 O.S.No.25665/2015 made as a party in the said suit. The BDA or Corporation have not contested the said suit and the same is dismissed with costs. Further stated that, the Gift Deed executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of his sons i.e., Defendant No.3 & 4 which is entered in the Encumbrance Certificate and the Plaintiff is unable to develop or alienate the Schedule Property even after having clear title with all Court orders. Therefore, the Plaintiff has prayed to allow the suit.
3. On filing of the suit, summons have been issued to the Defendants, the Defendant No.1 to 4 through their counsel, the Defendant No.1 filed his written statement.
4. The Defendant No.2 to 4 have filed memo adopting the written statement filed by the Defendant No.1.
5. The Defendant No.1 in his written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that the Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property. Apart from that, the BDA has already issued notice to the Defendant No.1, for that 1st Defendant has claimed possession 7 O.S.No.25665/2015 questioning the claim of the BDA and he has paid taxes to the BBMP towards Schedule Premises. Apart from that the 1st Defendant has already filed Writ Petition No.12217/2000 with regard to the notice issued by the BDA for confirmation of possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has allowed the said Writ Petition. Hence, the claim of the Plaintiff is not having any legality or sanctity. Further contended that the Plaintiff posing that she was having absolute right, title and ownership in respect of the Schedule Property, has executed General Power of Attorney dtd:
4.8.1995 in favour of the 1 st Defendant and in that connection the 1st Defendant has paid amount to her.
The Plaintiff herself has executed the undertaking letter about the Suit Schedule Property after receiving the amount of Rs.15,000/- from the 1 st Defendant on 5.1.1984. Since 1995 to till date the Plaintiff has not cancelled the General Power of Attorney or she was not approached the court of law. Now after lapse of 20 years the Plaintiff has filed this suit for cancellation of GPA. The Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. She has suppressed the facts and manipulated many illegal documents in 8 O.S.No.25665/2015 collusion with the BDA officials which she greated and got up documents with the support of BBMP and BDA officials and she is misusing the due process of law. Moreover, the Plaintiff in one transaction disclosed her husband's name as Gayathramma Wife of Mr. Horekerappa and in another transaction she has disclosed Gyarathramma Wife of Mr. Kenchappa and in another transaction she has disclosed as Gayathramma Wife of Mr. Bhaskarappa. All these names has been used by the Plaintiff in many proceedings and she has not disclosed correct name of her husband and she has disclosed her caste as Schedule Caste wherein she is actually Lingayath. The Plaintiff is facing criminal initiated by BDA in Spl.C.No.39/2012 i.e., SC/ST atrocity case. For declaring the wrong caste. The suits filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant & BDA in respect of Suit Schedule Property in O.S.No.15449/2002 was dismissed on 8.12.2010, O.S.No.16051/2000 was dismissed on 111.3.2008, O.S.No.5795/2005 was dismissed, O.S.No.16295/2005 was dismissed on 21.6.2011. The suit filed against the Defendant in O.S.No.2857/2006 was decreed in favour of the tenants by order dtd: 30.11.2006 by protecting the 9 O.S.No.25665/2015 possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs Anand and M.S. Ganesh against the same Gayathramma. The PCR filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in PCR No.140/2002. The Plaintiff is regular court bird and more than 10 civil cases and 07 criminal cases is faced by the same Plaintiff for her illegal benefits. Further denied the plaint averments in toto and contended that the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, my leaned predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that she is absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property as contended in Para No.10 of the suit plaint?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that she had occupied the Suit Schedule Property and has staying their since 30 years, consequently having possession over the Suit Property as alleged in Para No.4 of the suit plaint?
3. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendant No.1 has obtained her 10 O.S.No.25665/2015 signature fraudulently on several papers including registered GPA dt:
4.8.1995 as contended in Para No.5 of the suit plaint?
4. Whether the Plaintiff proves that Gift Deed executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 is created and concocted document, thus not binding on her as contended in Para No.7 of the suit plaint?
5. Whether the suit is properly valued and Plaintiff has paid proper court fee?
6. Whether the Defendant proves that the suit of the Plaintiff is hit by law of limitation as contended in Para No.40 of his written statement?
7. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed by her in the suit plaint?
8. What order or decree?
7. The Plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.48 and closed her side. The Defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW.1 11 O.S.No.25665/2015 and two more witnesses as DW.2 & DW.3 and got marked Ex.D.1 & Ex.D.116 documents and closed their side.
8. Heard both sides. The Counsels for both parties have filed their written synopsis, perused the same.
9. On appreciation of the evidence and documents on record, my findings on the above issues is as under:
Issue No.1: In the Negative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.4: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.5: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.6: Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.7: Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.8: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 to 4 :-
Since the above issues are inter related and finding on one issue is having bearing on the other, in order to avoid repetition of facts, the above issues have been taken up together for consideration.12 O.S.No.25665/2015
11. The burden of proving these issues casted upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff in order to prove these issues has relied upon her oral evidence and also Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.48.
12. The Plaintiff specifically stated in her plaint and as well as in her evidence stated that the Suit Schedule Property belongs to her and originally the Suit Property acquired by the BDA and the Plaintiff has constructed building over the same as the BDA also not at all formed any layout in this Suit Property as it is situated near the drainage. Accordingly, as on today she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and paying tax to the HAL Sanitary Board. The 1st Defendant who is an Electrician and Plumbing Contractor had approached her and obtained her signature on several papers including GPA without disclosing the contents of the same. Even the Defendant No.1 got electricity connection for the Schedule Property in the name of wife of Joseph and again he changed the connection in favour of his wife with an intention to knock off the Schedule Property. Further she contended that the Defendant No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.8985/1999 treating her as a 13 O.S.No.25665/2015 tenant and the same came to be dismissed and thereafter again he filed O.S.No.3294/2003 for damages and the same also came to be dismissed. In the meantime she filed suit in O.S.No.15867/2002 against KEB & BWSSB and obtained permanent injunction. Once again the Defendant No.1 has filed one more suit in O.S.No.8189/2000 for declaration and possession and the said suit came to be dismissed. When he did not succeed in those suits he got executed the Deed of Gift in favour of his children who being the Defendant No.3 & 4 by creating concocted documents. Even the Defendant No.3 & 4 represented by Defendant No.1 as a GPA holder filed suit in O.S.No.7333/2000 against hte BDA and BBMP. In the said suit she is not a party and thereafter she herself impleaded as a party in this suit and resisted the said suit and ultimately the said suit also came to be dismissed. Further she contended that she filed suit in O.S.No.25888/2015 against the Defendants in respect of Suit Property and the said suit came to be decreed. Further specifically contended that the Defendant No.1 has created concocted documents including GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 and on the basis of the said concocted documents he 14 O.S.No.25665/2015 also executed false Gift Deed in favour of Defendant No.3 & 4 which are not at all binding on her etc.
13. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff during the course of arguments submitted that the Plaintiff in order to prove her lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property has produced so many documents and mainly the judgment passed by the Civil Courts and accordingly he has drawn the attention of this Court mainly on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.35. Admittedly, Ex.P.1 is the HRC Petition No.1075/1995 filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff contending that he has purchased the property from his vendor and the Plaintiff has executed a Rent Agreement and the Plaintiff is in possession of the property as a tenant. However, the said Petition has been withdrawn by the Defendant No.1 herein. Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of the Judgment passed by the City Civil Court in O.S.No.8189/2000 and the Defendant has sought for possession against the present Plaintiff contending that he is the absolute owner of the Schedule Property. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has contended that she is the absolute owner and she has 15 O.S.No.25665/2015 constructed building in the Schedule Property 20 years back and staying in the same etc. The said suit came to be dismissed. On perusal of Ex.P.6 it is clear that the present Plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction against the KPTCL seeking for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from disconnecting the power supply from the Schedule Property and the said suit came to be decreed and the permanent injunction has been granted in favour of the Plaintiff.
14. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff also drawn attention of this Court to the Ex.P.8 i.e., Judgment passed in O.S.No.3294/2003 which was filed by the Defendant No.1 against the BWSSB and as well as Plaintiff of this suit and prayed for the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff. It is further pertinent to note here that in this suit the Defendant No.1 herein claimed that he has acquired the Schedule Property under the Ashraya Scheme and Property Card had been issued in his name etc. Further on careful perusal of Ex.P.10 it is 16 O.S.No.25665/2015 clear that the Defendant No.1 herein has also filed a suit in O.S.No.8985/1999 against the Plaintiff herein and in this suit he prayed ejectment of the present Plaintiff from the Schedule Property on the ground that the Plaintiff is a tenant under him by way of Sale Deed dtd: 17.8.1995 for a period of 11 months etc. However, the Court has dismissed the said suit on 25.7.2003. Further on perusal of Ex.P.11 i.e., the Judgment passed in O.S.No.25888/2015 on the file of CCH-74, it is clear that the present Plaintiff had filed a suit against the Defendants of this suit and in the said suit she claimed permanent injunction against them from obstructing her possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. In the said suit the Defendants have appeared and contested the matter. However, the Court decreed the suit holding that the Defendants are restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by the Plaintiff. Admittedly, this judgment has been passed on 15.2.2021 itself. Further on perusal of this Judgment it appears that the Defendants herein have taken up contention that the Plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property and she has not 17 O.S.No.25665/2015 constructed building etc. However, the said contention has been negatived by the Court. Similarly, the counsel for the Plaintiff also drawn the attention of this Court on Ex.P.34 i.e., Judgment passed in O.S.No.8189/2000 and the said suit has been filed by the Defendant No.1 herein against the Plaintiff and claimed the damages of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Plaintiff herein. However, the said suit also came to be dismissed on 5.11.2014. On perusal of Ex.P.35 it is clear that the Defendant No.3 & 4 represented by the Defendant No.1 have filed the suit in O.S.No.7333/2000 against the BDA, BBMP and as well as against the Plaintiff herein and in the said suit they prayed the relief of declaration that they are the absolute owner and in possession of the Suit Property as they perfected their title by way of adverse possession and also prayed for permanent injunction against the Defendants etc. In the said suit the Plaintiff herein has taken up contention that she is the absolute owner of the property and Gift Deed is fabricated and she is in possession of the Suit Property since 30 years etc. However, the said suit also came to be dismissed with cost of the Defendants on 11.3.2015. So it appears from these important 18 O.S.No.25665/2015 documents produced by the Plaintiff i.e., Judgments it is clear that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property as on the date of filing of the suit.
15. It is the specific contention of the Plaintiff herein is that in the above referred exhibits i.e., Judgments passed in various Civil Courts it is already held that the Plaintiff is in possession of the Schedule Property as the absolute owner and when the Defendants have not placed any materials to show that the Plaintiff is not at all in possession of the Suit Property as the owner, it is very much clear that the signature of the Plaintiff had been fraudulently obtained by the Defendant No.1 in various papers including GPA dtd: 4.8.1995.
16. The Learned Counsel for the Defendants has cross-examined PW.1 at length and during the course of cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she came to know the existence of GPA in HRC Case filed by the Defendants in the year 1997. Further admitted that she sought for cancellation of GPA executed in favour of Defendant No.3 & 4 by the 1 st Defendant. Further she denied about the initiation of criminal proceedings 19 O.S.No.25665/2015 against her in Spl.C.C.No.39/2012 and later she admitted that she was convicted and later obtained bail. Further she specifically denied that she sold the Suit Property to the Defendants about 20 years back. Further she admits that she had filed suit in O.S.No.16295/2005 against the Defendant and it was dismissed on 21.6.2011. Further she also admits that she had filed one more suit in O.S.No.15795/2005 against the Defendant. Further admits the suggestion that she alleged in the suits filed by her that she has not executed GPA in the year 1985. Further stated that HAL Sanitary Board allotted the Suit Property in her favour. Further stated that a bogus document has been given to the Defendant by HAL Sanitary Board and so also it is created one. Further she denied that the Suit Property originally belongs to one Joseph S/o J. Rajan. Further stated that she got transferred the electric meter in her name from the order of this Court. Further she admitted the Ex.D.3 which is the conviction order passed against her. Further she clearly admitted that the Defendant No.1 had filed HRC No.10215/1997 against her and she had entered appearance and filed objections. Further she admits the suggestion 20 O.S.No.25665/2015 that she had applied for transfer of khatha in her name with BBMP on 21.9.2015 and prior to that the Defendant No.1 has also applied for transfer of khatha from the BBMP. The BBMP had issued Notice to produce documents to establish the ownership. Further she denied that she failed to produce documents to establish her ownership and in this connection Endorsement was issued on 25.07.2016. However, later she admitted the said endorsement which is marked as Ex.D4. Further contended that, the BBMP directed her to approach Civil Court to secure the Decree in her favour as per Ex.D4. Further she stated that she has produced the documents to prove her possession over the Suit Schedule Property, but she has not produced the documents regarding the title of the property.
17. On perusal of all the above cross-
examination of PW.1, it is clear that in the year 1997 itself the Plaintiff came to know about the existence of GPA in HRC Case filed by the Defendant in the year 1997. Further it is also clear from the above cross- examination that the BBMP has initiated criminal proceedings against the Plaintiff and the said case 21 O.S.No.25665/2015 has been convicted. Further it is also clear that she has no title documents in respect of Schedule Property. However, in some judgments it is observed that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Further in the suit filed by her in O.S.No.15795/2005 against the Defendants & others she alleged that she has not executed GPA in favour of the Defendant No.1 in the year 1995. Further she specifically contended that HAL Sanitary Board has allotted the Suit Property in her favour. Further she has failed to produce the documents before the BBMP, as such BBMP has directed the Plaintiff to prove her title before the Civil Court etc.
18. The Defendant No.1 who examined as DW.1 has reiterated most of the written statement averments in his examination-in-chief. In support of the case of the Defendants they have relied as many as 116 documents. The Defendants in order to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property as on the date of filing of the suit, they relied on Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 which are the order sheet of O.S.No.16295/2005, O.S.No.15795/2005 and as well as Judgment in Spl.C.C.No.39/2012. Admittedly, 22 O.S.No.25665/2015 these documents are not at all establishes the possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by the Defendants. Further Defendants relied upon Ex.D.8, Ex.D.9 & Ex.D.26 to show that the Plaintiff has given false statement and pleaded false facts on the basis of the story and documents she is claiming. Admittedly, Ex.D.8 is the original General Power of Attorney dtd: 1.8.1995 which is alleged to be executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1. Ex.D.9 is the certified copy of registered General Power of Attorney dtd: 4.8.1995 alleged to be executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1. Admittedly, in these documents it is mentioned that the Plaintiff has given Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No.1 to deal with the KEB and Water Supply Department, to mortgage the Schedule Property enter into Agreement of Sale of the Suit Property etc. Further, Ex.D.10 is the Affidavit alleged to be executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1 and on the basis of this document, the Defendants contended that the Plaintiff has executed 02 GPAs in favour of the Defendant No.1. Apart from that he has also executed Sale Agreement in favour of the Defendant No.1. Therefore, the Defendants are in 23 O.S.No.25665/2015 possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property as absolute owners.
19. On the contrary, on perusal of Ex.P.35 i.e., the Judgment passed by XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, it is clear that this suit has been filed by the present Defendants herein against the Commissioner of BDA, Commissioner of BBMP and as well as the Plaintiff herein for the relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners of the Suit Property as under adverse possession and further prayed to grant permanent injunction, thereby restraining the Defendants, their henchmen etc., from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property. Admittedly, in the said suit, the Defendants herein specific ally claimed that they are the absolute owners of the Suit Property and on the other hand, in the said suit the Plaintiff herein has claimed that the present Defendant No.1 had no right over the Suit Schedule Property to execute Gift Deed in favour of Defendant No.3 & 4 herein. Further taken up contention that the Defendants herein have created Gift Deed in order to knock off the Schedule Property.
24 O.S.No.25665/201520. Admittedly, in the said suit the Court gave findings that the oral and documentary evidence produced by both parties, it is clear that when the Defendant No.1 herein had no such salable interest or did or he did not so far acquired any title over the present Suit Property, how he can execute the Gift deed in favour of his sons? So, in case such documents are executed, it is definitely nonest in the eyes of law because, so far Defendant No.1 had become the owner to the property. So, the intention is definitely to harass the Plaintiff of this suit and the documents is definitely created. Further held that the Defendants herein are not entitled either for declaration or for perpetual injunction against the Plaintiff herein etc. Further on careful perusal of the above judgment at Para No.17, it is clearly held that the present Defendants have not took the title or right over the property with proper documents or even by virtue of law. Such being the case, Defendant No.1 had no right to execute such Gift deed in favour of his children. Without title if such a document is executed that will not carry any power and right. There is no such document to substantiate that suit property has been purchased by the Defendant No.1 from the 25 O.S.No.25665/2015 Plaintiff because this Plaintiff even had not took title to the Suit Property since her application for grant is pending. Further in Para No.18 of the judgment it is held that it is the contention of the Plaintiff herein that by misleading her the Defendant No.1 had taken signatures on several documents while he being the Electrical contractor, which allegedly required for obtaining electricity connection to the building situated in the suit property. Hence, on that ground the Plaintiff also taken the contention that alleged Gift deed executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the Defendant No.3 & 4 only with an intention to knock off the property. So, the intention is definitely to harass the Plaintiff herein, the said document is created etc.
21. It is the contention of the Plaintiff herein is that the findings in Ex.P.35 i.e., judgment passed in O.S.No.7333/2000 remain unchallenged and it has attained finality. The said findings is supported by the relief sought by the Plaintiff in this suit. It is the contention of the Defendants that they have filed suit for ejectement against the Plaintiff. Even the Defendants have preferred RFA against the judgment 26 O.S.No.25665/2015 passed in Ex.P.35 and which are pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Even he has filed Petition seeking regularization of enjoyment of the Suit Property in W.P.No.12217/2000. Further another Writ Petition is also pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6721/2021. Even in W.P.No.12217/2000 the interim order of stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in favour of Defendant No.1 to protect their possession in relating to the regularization and enjoyment of the Defendant etc. In this regard, further also taken up contention that the suit filed by the Plaintiff in O.S.No.15275/2000 has been dismissed. Even the Defendants are paying taxes and electricity bills of the Suit Property, in this connection they have relied upon Ex.D.88, Ex.D.93 to Ex.D.95, Ex.D.80 to Ex.D.84, Ex.D.63 to Ex.P.68, Ex.D.61.
22. Admittedly, the Defendants herein have not placed sufficient materials to show that they have preferred appeal against the Judgment passed in O.S.No.7333/2000. Even so many judgments produced by the Plaintiff herein are discloses that she is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property.
27 O.S.No.25665/2015No doubt, though the Defendants have produced Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.116 to support their case, but all these documents are not at all establishes that as on the date of filing of the suit, they are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. On the other hand, as discussed above, the Defendants have failed to establish their possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Even the findings of the O.S.No.7333/2000 i.e., Ex.P.35 manifestly clear that the Defendant No.1 herein had not acquired any saleable interest or he did not so far acquired any title over the Suit Property. Therefore, he had no right to gift away the Suit Property in favour of his children. So, the opinion expressed in O.S.No.7333/2000 regarding the alleged Agreement of Sale, Gift Deed, Power of Attorney are definitely nonest in the eye of law. Further though the Defendants contended that they are the absolute owners and have filed a suit for ejectment against the Plaintiff, but no records forthcoming to show that the present Plaintiff had been vacated from the Suit Property in the due process of law or the present Plaintiff also had not at all taken absolute title of the Suit Property. Further on perusal of the findings of the O.S.No.7333/2000 it is clear that in the said suit the 28 O.S.No.25665/2015 Defendant No.1 to 3 herein claimed that they become absolute owners of the Suit Property by way of adverse possession and seeking permanent injunction against the present Plaintiff. No doubt, when they have claimed adverse possession, they have to admit the title of the other side. So, by filing of the said suit against the Plaintiff by the Defendants herein, they have interestingly admitted the title of the Plaintiff over the Suit Property. Therefore, they cannot further claim that the Defendant No.1 had executed Gift Deed in favour of Defendant No.3 & 4 in respect Suit Property. Even in the said suit it is further opined that no such documents to substantiate that the present Defendant No.1 had purchased the Suit Property from the Plaintiff. Therefore, looking to all the above circumstances, the findings given by the Court in O.S.No.7333/2000 are not at all been challenged by the Defendants, which clearly supported the relief sought by the Plaintiff in this suit with regard to possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by the Plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit.
23. Further on careful perusal of Ex.P.6 also it is clear that the suit filed by the present Plaintiff;
29 O.S.No.25665/2015against the KPTCL has been decreed and the KPTCL has been restrained by way of permanent injunction from disconnecting the power supply to the Suit Schedule Property. Further Ex.P.8 also discloses that the suit filed by the Defendant No.1 against the Assistant Executive Engineer, BWSSB and the present Plaintiff had been dismissed holding that the Defendant No.1 had admitted that the Plaintiff is in occupation of the portion of the Suit Schedule Property and her attempt to obtain electricity and water connection, if permissible cannot be termed an act of interference so as to claim permanent injunction and accordingly, dismissed the said suit. Further on perusal of Ex.P.11 also it is clear that the present Plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction against the Defendants herein in O.S.No.25888/2015 in respect of Suit Property. In the said suit it is clearly observed that the suit filed by the present Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.3294/2003 against the BWSSB and the present Plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction and the same has been dismissed. Further observed that the Defendant No.3 & 4 have filed suit against the BDA and BBMP and Plaintiff to declare that they are the owners of the Suit Property by virtue 30 O.S.No.25665/2015 of registered Gift Deed executed by their father, but as discussed above the said suit came to be dismissed. Further also observed in that suit that the certified copy of of judgment in O.S.No.15867/2005 filed by the present Plaintiff against the KPTCL and its officials for not disconnecting the power supply also decreed in her favour. Further observed in Para No.16 of the said judgment that the Defendant No.1 herein has filed suit in O.S.No.8189/2000 against the Plaintiff for recovery of money and damages and the said suit also dismissed. Further in Para No.17 of the said judgment it is clearly observed that the suit filed by the Defendant No.1 herein in O.S.No.8985/1999 against the Plaintiff in respect of Suit Schedule Property for ejectment and the same was dismissed. Further observed that so many documents have been produced by the present Plaintiff to establish her possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property and it is clear that she is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by virtue of occupancy right granted by the Government under the schedule of 'Akrama Sakrama' and in this connection occupancy right granted by the Government in favour of Plaintiff. Since 31 O.S.No.25665/2015 1982 the she is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property etc.
24. Admittedly, the documents referred in O.S.No.25888/2015 also referred by the Plaintiff in this suit also it is clear that the Defendants have not placed any materials to show that they have preferred appeal against the findings of the O.S.No.25888/2015 i.e., Ex.P.11. When there are several findings in respect of the Suit Schedule Property in various suits and as well as alleged documents relied above and when there is no challenge to the said findings by the Defendants before the Hon'ble Appellate Courts, it is clear that the Plaintiff has established that she is in possession of the Suit Property and she had occupied the same and staying there since 30 years. Further the Plaintiff has clearly established that her signatures have been obtained by the Defendant No.1 fraudulently on several papers including the GPA, since 1997 as the Plaintiff is denying about execution of the GPA in favour of Defendant No.1 in respect of Suit Property. When the Plaintiff has established that the Defendant No.1 with an intention to knock of the Suit Property 32 O.S.No.25665/2015 had obtained her signatures on various documents including GPA and when already in Ex.P.35 it is held that the Defendant No.1 had no saleable interest or he did not so for acquired any title over the Suit Property he cannot executed Gift Deed in favour of the Defendant No.3 & 4. Such being the fact, the said Gift Deed is also not at all binding on her as contended in the plaint. Further it is very much clear from the pleadings of the Defendants or in the evidence that there is no specific averments that the General Power of Attorney dtd: 4.8.1995 is executed voluntarily by the Plaintiff in respect of the Suit Property. So this itself amounts to admission of Defendants that their suit is not correct. Further in Ex.P.10 i.e., in O.S.No.8985/1999, the Defendants herein have contended that they have acquired the Suit Property under Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16 i.e., Hakku Patra. This shows that Hakku Patra got issued in the name of Defendant No.1. Subsequently he made an attempt to take the electricity connection in the name of the Joseph in the year 1994 in Ex.P.13. That apart, he has taken contention that the Plaintiff had executed General Power of Attorney and Affidavit on 19.5.2006 etc. However, the Court after considering all the 33 O.S.No.25665/2015 materials has dismissed the suit of the Defendant No.1 herein.
25. It is pertinent to note here that the Defendants are claiming right over the Suit Property under General Power of Attorney dtd: 4.8.1995 and the original registered GPA not at all produced by the Defendants in this suit. Further no proper reasons have been assigned by the Defendants for not producing the original registered General Power of Attorney before the Court. Further according to the Defendants in the year 1992 itself, Hakku Patra has been issued in the name of Defendant No.1. Such being the fact once again entering into the Agreement of Sale and GPA with the Plaintiff as contended by the Defendants does not arise. So, the creation of Agreement of Sale, General Power of Attorney and as well as Affidavit cannot be ruled out as contended by the Plaintiff. Therefore, as contended by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff already clear findings has been given in O.S.No.7333/2000 about the prayer of declaration of alleged Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000. Therefore, once again considering the said Agreement of Sale etc., does not arise in this case.
34 O.S.No.25665/201526. The Defendant No.1 was very much particular that he is in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property and the Plaintiff has given false information and misleading this Court only to damage his rights and possession over the Suit Property etc. No doubt, the Defendants in order to prove their case have produced so many documents. However, this Court has to looked into some of the admissions given by DW.1 in this suit. First of all Defendant No.1 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he had filed HRC No.10215/1997 against the Plaintiff and withdrew the same. Further contended that he filed suit against the Plaintiff in O.S.No.8189/2000 and sought for compensation in respect of illegal use of the Suit Schedule Property, but the said suit came to be dismissed. Further also admitted that he filed suit in O.S.No.8989/1999 against the Plaintiff and the said suit also came to be dismissed. Further also admits that he filed O.S.No.8985/1999 against the Plaintiff seeking the relief of ejectment against the Plaintiff on the ground that she is tenant under Lease Deed dtd:
17.8.1995 and the said suit also came to be dismissed. Further he denied that the Plaintiff has filed the suit against him in O.S.No.25888/2015 for 35 O.S.No.25665/2015 the relief of permanent injunction in respect of Suit Property. Further also denied that permanent injunction has been granted against him in the said suit. Admittedly, already the Plaintiffs have produced the judgment of all the above suits in this suit and on perusal of the above, it is clear that the suits filed by the Defendant No.1 have been dismissed. On the other hand, the suits filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant No.1 herein has been decreed and the permanent injunction has been granted against the Defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property.
Ex.P.11 is the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.25888/2015 which manifestly clear that already permanent injunction has been granted against the Defendants herein, but they have not produced any documents to show that they have preferred any appeal against the said judgment.
27. Further DW.1 denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that he being an Electrical Contractor and Plumbing Contractor for the purpose of getting water connection created documents and took 36 O.S.No.25665/2015 signatures of the Plaintiff on several papers. On the other hand, he admits the suggestion that he is an Electrical Contractor for the Suit Property. Further admitted the suggestion that the ejectment suit filed by him against the Plaintiff has been dismissed. However, he denied that the said suit dismissed on the ground that he had forged the signatures of the Plaintiff. Anyhow, the O.S.No.8985/1999 filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff for ejectment of the Suit Property has been dismissed. The Defendant No.1 failed to prove that the Plaintiff is tenant under him. Further admitted the suggestion that the Electric Meter of the Suit Property is in his name and denied that in the year 2015 itself it transferred in the name of Plaintiff by cancelling his name.
28. The Defendants very much contended that the Plaintiff has executed GPA in respect of the Suit Property. The certified copy of GPA is produced in this case. However, the original of the same is not at all produced. In this connection DW.1 stated that original copy of Ex.D.9 is produced in O.S.No.17037/1995 on the file of Mayohall Court and the said suit came to be dismissed. Further denied the suggestion that he has 37 O.S.No.25665/2015 not produced original Ex.D.9 in the said suit. Further denied the suggestion that he has forged the signature of the Plaintiff, as such he is not ready to produce original copy of Ex.D.9 in this case. Further contended in the cross-examination that he has obtained electric connection from one R. Joseph. He has transferred electric connection from one R. Joseph to his name. However, he further admits that electricity connection was in respect of Door No.129/70. Though he has produced Ex.D.20 in this regard, but he further admits that he does not remember when he has been given application for transfer of connection in his name. Further the Defendants have produced Ex.D.82 & Ex.D.83 to show that he has given application for disconnection of electric connection of the Suit Schedule Property. Admittedly, these documents are not proved that the Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. During the course of further cross- examination DW.1 further admitted that, according to him the Suit Property came to him as per Hakku Patra at Ex.P.15. Further stated that HA Sanitary Board has issued 02 Hakku Patra in his name as per Ex.P.15 & Ex.P.16. Further denied the suggestion that 38 O.S.No.25665/2015 if really Hakku Patra was granted in his favour in the year 1994 itself, the question of executing GPA from the Plaintiff in respect of the Suit Property does in the year 1995.
29. Here in this case, the Plaintiff specifically contended that she is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property and also prayed to declare that the registered GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 standing in the name of Defendant No.1 and Deed of Gift dtd: 31.3.2000 executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.3 & 4 is null and void. Further also prayed to grant mandatory injunction directing the concerned Sub-Registrar to remove the entry of of B.T. Srinivas in GPA and also to remove the names of Defendant No.3 & 4 in the Encumbrance Certificate. No doubt, already in O.S.No.7333/2000 the XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Court clearly held that the Defendants are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property and the Defendant No.1 had no right to execute the Gift Deed in favour of his sons in the said suit. Further also clearly held in this suit that the Khata Extract of the Suit Property standing in the name of Plaintiff and she 39 O.S.No.25665/2015 is paying tax to the Suit concerned authority. Further also opined that the Plaintiff herein had applied for grant of Suit Property in her name and so many private documents and as well Residential Certificate issued by the Tahsildar reveals that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property since many years. It is an admitted fact that till today the Suit Property is not at all granted in the name of Plaintiff. No title deeds have been produced by the Plaintiff to show that she has acquired the Suit Property. That apart, the Court has already held that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by constructing a building and residing in the Suit Property. Admittedly the said findings is not at all set aside by any Court. Therefore, this Court can easily say that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property since 30 years, consequently having possession over the Suit Property.
30. It is also clear from the findings of Ex.P.35 judgment and as well as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.35 judgments of various Courts that the Defendant No.1 had not at all taken the physial 40 O.S.No.25665/2015 possession over the Suit Schedule Property. Even, the alleged original GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 had also not at all been produced by the Defendant No.1 in this suit, even no reasons have been assigned by the Defendant No.1 for not producing the original of the same in this suit. That apart, as discussed above, the findings of O.S.No.7333/2000 and as well as findings of other suits decreed in favour of Plaintiff has been remained unchallenged. In the O.S.No.7333/2000, as discussed above, the Court has clearly held that the Gift Deed executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of his sons is not a valid document. Further also clearly opined that the Defendant No.1 is not at all become the owner of the Suit Property nor he got himself as the owner by virtue of adverse possession against the present Plaintiff. On the other hand, the present Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Suit Schedule Property etc. Therefore, looking to all the above circumstances and also findings of the above said judgments, it is clear that the Defendant No.1 in order to give unnecessary troubles to the Plaintiff only had obtained her signatures on several documents including GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 and created Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000. Therefore, as contended by the 41 O.S.No.25665/2015 Plaintiff, the said GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 and as well as Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000 are not at all binding on the Plaintiff. However, as discussed above, the Plaintiff has not at all acquired clear title of the Suit Schedule Property till today, but it is clear that she is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property since many years. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Negative, Issue No.2 to 4 in the Affirmative.
31. Issue No.5:-
The Defendants have taken up contention that the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid by the Plaintiff is not proper and correct. Further contended that the Plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction against the Defendants, as such the Plaintiff has to pay court fee on the market value of the Suit Property and the present market value is more than Rs.55,00,000/- and the Plaintiff has shown lessor value of the property only for the purpose of filing of the suit etc. However, the Defendants have not at all explained in the written statement or in their oral evidence that, how much amount of the court fee ought to have been 42 O.S.No.25665/2015 paid by the Plaintiff for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. Admittedly, the Plaintiff has valued the court fee for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction for Rs.1,000/- and accordingly paid the court fee of Rs.50/- under Section 24(d) & (e) of Karnataka Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act. So by considering the relief as claimed in this suit and considering the court fee paid by the Plaintiff, it appears that the court fee paid by the Plaintiff is sufficient. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 in the Affirmative.
33. Issue No.6:-
The Defendants have taken up specific defense in their written statement that the suit of the Plaintiff is hit by law of limitation, as the Plaintiff had filed this suit for declaratory relief after more than 22 years of execution of GPA and Gift Deed, as such the relief claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be granted. Therefore, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
33. The Learned Counsel for the Defendants contended that the Plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration in respect of GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 after 43 O.S.No.25665/2015 lapse of 20 years and similarly she prayed the relief of declaration to declare the Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000 is not binding on her i.e., after 15 years from the date of Gift Deed. So, prima-facie the relief of declaration in respect of GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 as claimed by the Plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation. Further argued that there is inordinate delay in filing the suit and the Plaintiff has not explained the delay in filing the suit. Further as argued that PW.1 has clearly admitted in her evidence that she came to know about the GPA in the year 1997 itself. So, she has not made any attempts to cancel the said GPA within limitation.
Similarly, the documents and oral evidence placed by the parties itself will clearly goes to show that the Plaintiff was in knowledge of the alleged Gift Deed long back, but she kept quite for long period and now filed this suit after lapse of so many years. So she cannot entitle for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction.
34. On the other hand, it is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is that since the suit for the relief of declaration filed by the Defendant No.3 & 4 herein came to be dismissed under Ex.P.35, 44 O.S.No.25665/2015 hence declaring the Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000 is molded in the present suit. On perusal of GPA dtd:
4.8.1995 it is clear that it is only agency created by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendants. Hence, it can be rectified at any point of time. However, the GPA dtd:
4.8.1995 is the registered document and it can be cancelled only through Court. Further argued that the GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 has not convey any right or title over the same, hence it can be cancelled at any point of time as per Section 201 of Indian Contract Act.
Further it is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is that though the Defendants contended that the registered Gift Deed dtd: 4.8.1995 has been executed by the Plaintiff in his favour in respect of Suit Property, but the Defendant No.1 has not at all produced the GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 in any of the earlier proceedings, but for the first time he has produced the same in O.S.No.7333/2000 on 31.3.2000 without any pleadings in his evidence. Hence, the suit filed on 27.3.2015 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is well within the period of limitation.
35. It is an admitted fact that already this Court come to conclusion that the Defendant No.1 has 45 O.S.No.25665/2015 obtained the signatures of the Plaintiff fraudulently on several papers including the GPA dtd: 4.8.1995. It is the specific case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.1 has obtained her signatures on the GPA and other various documents stating that her signatures are required for obtaining electricity connection to the Schedule Property etc. On the other hand, the Defendants also not at all proved by placing materials that the Plaintiff has voluntarily executed GPA in his favour in respect of Suit Property etc. Already the competent Civil Court held in O.S.No.7333/2000 that the alleged Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000 is not at all binding on the Plaintiff. Even the said Gift Deed is also executed by the Defendant No.1 on the strength of registered GPA dtd: 4.8.1995. when the Defendant No.1 has not obtained any title over the Suit Property and the materials placed are discloses that the GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 appears to be executed only agency created by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant No.1 for obtaining electricity connection etc.
36. Let me go through the cross-examination of PW.1. she admitted in her cross-examination that she came to know about the existence of GPA in HRC case 46 O.S.No.25665/2015 filed by the Defendant No.1 in the year 1997. Admittedly, the HRC case is filed in the year 1997 itself. From 1997 till filing of this suit,the Plaintiff has not made any efforts to declare that the GPA dtd:
4.8.1995 as null and void and not binding on her etc. The Article 58 & 59 of the Limitation Act prescribe the period of limitation for filing the suit where the declaration is sought or cancellation of any instrument is for 03 years when the right to sue first accrues.
Though the counsel for the Plaintiff contended that since GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 will not convey any right and it can be cancelled at any point of time as per Section 201 of Indian Contract Act. The said provision reads as under:
201. Termination of agency.--
An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority, or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; or by the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors.
47 O.S.No.25665/201537. No doubt, according to the above provision, if the agency was created for specific task or project, it automatically terminated upon completion of the task or project. Though it appears from materials that the Defendant No.1 had obtained the GPA from the Plaintiff for obtaining electrical connection to the Schedule Property etc., but on this ground alone now this Court cannot say that according to the above provision the Power of Attorney can be revoked at any point of time. Hence, the provision of Section 201 of Indian Contract Act is no way helpful to the Plaintiff.
38. It is the another limb of the argument of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is that the Defendants never referred about the GPA dtd:
4.8.1995 in the previous proceedings, but for the first time he produced the copy of the same in O.S.No.7333/2000 in the evidence which commenced on 3.8.2012. So, the suit filed on 23.7.2015 is well within the period of limitation. Admittedly, as discussed above, PW.1 has in unequivocal terms admitted in her cross-examination that she came to 48 O.S.No.25665/2015 know about the GPA in the year 1997 itself.
Therefore, it is clear that the prayer made by the Plaintiff to declare the GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 cannot be granted to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Plaintiff also prayed the relief of declaration of Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000 as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff. This Gift Deed is concern, the Defendants themselves have filed suit in O.S.No.7333/2000 against the present Plaintiff and sought for the relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners of the Suit Property by adverse possession and also claimed the relief in respect of the said Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000. However, the Court has dismissed their suit on 11.3.2015 itself by holding that the present Defendant No.1 has no right to execute Gift Deed as the present Plaintiff herein has no clear title over the Suit Property. Such being the fact and also considering the date of filing of this suit, after dismissal of suit in O.S.No.7333/2000 on 11.3.2015, this Court opines that the relief of declaration claimed by the Plaintiff in respect of Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000 is well within the period of limitation. That apart, the Defendants have not placed any materials to show that the Plaintiff was having 49 O.S.No.25665/2015 knowledge of this Gift Deed within 03 years from the date of Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000. Hence, I answer Issue No.6 Partly in the Affirmative.
39. Issue No.7:-
In view of detailed discussions and findings given by this Court on the forgoing issues, it is clear that the Plaintiff is entitle for the relief of declaration in respect of Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000 only, but she cannot entitled for the relief of declaration in respect of GPA dtd: 4.8.1995, as it prima-fascie barred by law of limitation.
40. It is an admitted fact that though the Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000 has been registered by the Sub- Registrar, but as contended by the Plaintiff, it is clear that the Defendant No.1 had in fact not produced any title deeds in respect of the Suit Property. That apart, as per the judgment passed in O.S.No.7333/2000 i.e., Ex.P.35 judgment, it is clear that already the competent Court gave finding that the said Gift Deed is non-est in the eye of law, because the Plaintiff of this suit herself had not acquired title over the Suit Property. When she herself did not acquired the title 50 O.S.No.25665/2015 of the Suit Property, the question of acquiring the right by the Defendant No.1 by virtue of alleged GPA dtd:
4.8.1995 does not arise etc. As aforesaid the Sub-
Registrar without verifying the title deeds of the Suit Property got registered the said Gift Deed in respect of Suit Property in favour of Defendant No.3 & 4. Therefore, the said Gift Deed is liable to be declared as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff. Hence, I answer Issue No.7 Partly in the Affirmative.
41. Issue No.8:-
In view of the findings on the above issues, the suit of the Plaintiffs deserves to be decreed in part with costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiffs is hereby decreed in part, with cost.
The Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000 executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.3 & 4 is 51 O.S.No.25665/2015 declared as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff.
The prayer of the Plaintiff to declare that the registered GPA dtd: 4.8.1995 as null and void is hereby rejected.
The Plaintiff can place the certified copy of the Judgment before the concerned Sub-Registrar to take appropriate action for cancellation of the aforesaid Gift Deed dtd: 31.3.2000.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictation given to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, after correction, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of July 2025.) [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of residential property bearing H.A.S.B Khatha No.1220/A/664/1 but the 52 O.S.No.25665/2015 actual property No.664/1 formed in old Sy.No.63 situated at Konena Agrahara Village, HAL Sanitary Board Area Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, now known as Erappa lane, HAL 3rd Stage, Anandapuram, Bangalore-17, bounded on:
East by : Private Property of Kadirvelu.
West by : Private Property of B.D.A.
North by : Road.
South by : Private Property.
[Sri. Sreepada N]
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).
ANNEXURES
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1: Gayathramma.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 to : Certified Copy of Petition, deposition Ex.P.3 of PW-1 and Order sheet in HRC No. 10215/1997 respectively.
Ex.P.4 & : Certified Copy of the Judgment Ex.P.5 and Decree passed in O.S.No. 8189/2000 respectively.53 O.S.No.25665/2015
Ex.P.6 & : Certified Copy of the Judgment and Ex.P.7 Decree passed in O.S.No. 15867/2022 respectively.
Ex.P.8 & : Certified Copy of the Judgment and Ex.P.9 Decree passed in O.S.No. 3294/2003 respectively.
Ex.P.10 : Certified Copy of the Judgment passed in O.S.No. 8985/1999.
Ex.P.11 : Certified Copy of the & Judgment and Decree passed in Ex.P.12 O.S.No.25888/2015 respectively.
Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of Sanction Order issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM.
Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of 03 Proceedingsn Sheets of BDA.
Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of 02 Property Certificates & respectively.
Ex.P.16 Ex.P.17 : Demand issued by the BWSSB.
Ex.P.18 : 02 Receipts.
& Ex.P.19 Ex.P.20 : Electricity Requisition with Bill. & 20(A) 54 O.S.No.25665/2015 Ex.P.21 : Tax Paid Receipts.
Ex.P.22 : Certified copies of 04 Receipts issued by to the BBMP respectively.
Ex.P.25 Ex.P.26 : Certified coy of the GPA dated 4.8.1995.
Ex.P.27 : Certified copy of Gift deed dtd.31.03.2000.
Ex.P.28 : Cash Tax Demand Extract issued by HASB.
Ex.P.29 : Certified copy of the Residential certificate issued by Tahasildhar, dtd.30.09.2008.
Ex.P.30 : Certified copies of 3 Tax paid receipt Ex.P30a issued by HASB.
& Ex.P30b Ex.P.31 : 9 Tax paid receipts issued by BBMP Ex.P31a respectively.
to Ex.P31h Ex.P.32 : Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.P.33 : Encumbrance Certificate from 01.03.20222 to 07.08.2002.
Ex.P.34 : Certified copy of the Order in OS No.8189/2000.
Ex.P.35 : Certified copy of Judgment and Decree in 55 O.S.No.25665/2015 OS No.7333/2020.
Ex.P.36 : Certified copy of Letter dated 03.05.2002.
Ex.P.37 : Certified coy of Residential certificate issue by the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike dated 05.03.2005.
Ex.P.38 : Certified copy of certificated issued by the Nanjareddy Colony Residents welfare center dated 10.10.1995.
Ex.P.39 : Certified copy of certificate issued by the HAL 3rd Stage extension residents welfare association dated 04.03.1998.
Ex.P.40 : Tax paid receipt for the period of 2022-23.
Ex.P.41 : Electricity bill and payment receipts. & Ex.P.41a Ex.P.42 : Gas bill dated 01.05.2022.
Ex.P.45 : Photo of Identity Card.
Ex.P.46 : Photograph.
Ex.P.47 : FIR Cr.No.44/2006.
Ex.P.48 : Photograph.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : B.T. Srinivas.
56 O.S.No.25665/2015
DW.2 : Muniraju M.
DW.3 : Sri. M.S. Ganesh.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of Order sheet in O.S.No.16295/2005.
Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of Order sheet dtd:
8.12.2010.
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of Judgment of conviction passed against the Plaintiff in Spl.C.C.No.39/2012.
Ex.D.4 : Endorsement given by the BBMP.
Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of Enquiry Proceedings before the BBMP.
Ex.D.6 : GPA dated 04.06.2012.
Ex.D.7 : Original agreement of Sale Deed dtd:
05.09.1984 between 1st Defendant and Plaintiff.
Ex.D.8 : GPA dated 01.08.1995 executed by Plaintiff in favour of 1st Defendant.
Ex.D.9 : Certified Copy of GPA dtd.04.08.1995.
Ex.D.10 : Certified Copy of affidavit of the Plaintiff dated 17.08.1995.
Ex.D.11 : Certified Copy of Endorsement issued by 57 O.S.No.25665/2015 Hindustan Aeronautics Sanitary Board dtd.23.12.1993.
Ex.D.12 03 Tax paid challans.
to
Ex.D.14
Ex.D.15 Certified Copy of of Complaint dated
03.02.1991 given by DSS to
superintendent of Police.
Ex.D.16 Certified Copy of Possession Certificate
dtd. 26.06.1993 issued by BDA in favour of Plaintiff.
Ex.D.17 : Certified Copy of affidavit dated 12.04.1989 of the Plaintiff.
Ex.D.18 Certified Copy of of Caste certificate of Plaintiff.
Ex.D.19 2 Study certificates of Meenakshi and Swapna the daughters of sister of the Plaintiff.
Ex.D.20 : Certified Copy of Transfer certificate of B.K. Rajappa S/o the Plaintiff.
Ex.D.21 : Certified Copy of the Admission letter dtd.10.07.1989.
Ex.D.22 : Certified Copy of transfer certificate.
Ex.D.23 : Certified Copy of Admission Register Extract.
58 O.S.No.25665/2015Ex.D.24 :
to 12 Tax Paid Receipts. Ex.D.35
Ex.D.36 : Certified Copy of No Objection letter.
Ex.D.37 : Certified Copy of Receipt No. 40749.
Ex.D.38 : Original Tax Assessment Notice.
Ex.D.39 : Original affidavit dated 19.61995.
Ex.D.40 : Certified Copy of Khata Extract.
Ex.D.41 : 2 Certified Copies of Letters issued by the & KPTCL.
Ex.D.42 Ex.D.43 : Certified Copy of the proceedings of BDA in respect of schedule property.
Ex.D.44 : 2 Certified Copies of Notice issued by the & BBMP.
Ex.D.45 Ex.D.46 :
& 2 Bank challans. Ex.D.47
Ex.D.48 : Original Marriage Invitation card of Meenakshi.
Ex.D.49 : Original letter dated 15.09.2006.
59 O.S.No.25665/2015Ex.D.50 : Application form under RTI Act.
Ex.D.51 : Original letter dated 3.11.2006 from EPF Organization.
Ex.D.52 : Empty Postal cover fro, EPF Organization.
Ex.D.53 : Endorsement from BBMP dtd.07.05.2005.
Ex.D.54 :
& 2 Certified Copies of the sanctioned plan. Ex.D.55 Ex.D.56 : Report of Junior Engineer KPTCL dtd.18.06.2002.
Ex.D.57 : Letter of the Defendant dtd.02.12.2002.
Ex.D.58 : Certified Copy of police complaint to Jeevan bhimanagar Police station.
Ex.D.59 : Certified Copy of KPTCL Letter & dtd.16.05.2002.
Ex.D.60 Ex.D.61 : Certified Copy of order sheet passed in Spl.CC No.39/2012.
Ex.D.62 Charge sheet.
Ex.D.63 : Certified Copy of letter from additional Director General of Police dtd.30.06.2006.
Ex.D.64 : Certified Copy of letter dated 10.07.2006 from Superintendent of Police.60 O.S.No.25665/2015
Ex.D.65 : Certified Copy of Statement of R.Narayana.
Ex.D.66 : Certified Copy of the FIR in Crime No.261/2006.
Ex.D.67 : Certified Copy of proceedings of District level caste verification committee, Bangalore Urban District.
Ex.D.68 : 2 Certified Copies of statement of & Tahasildhar and Managing director. Ex.D.69 Ex.D.70 : BBMP endorsement dtd.07.08.2005.
Ex.D.71 : Certified Copy of endorsement issued by Hindustan Aeronautics Sanitary Board dtd.23.12.1993.
Ex.D.72 : KEB permission dtd. 24.07.1996.
Ex.D.73 : 5 BESCOM official memorandum. to Ex.D.77 Ex.D.78 : Letter to commissioner BDA dtd.27.11.2000.
Ex.D.79 : Endorsement BBMP dtd.25.11.2016.
Ex.D.80 :
to 4 Electricity bills.
Ex.D.83
61 O.S.No.25665/2015
Ex.D.84 :
(a to z, 28 Water bills.
aa, ab)
Ex.D.85 : Certified Copy of letter dtd.17.5.2006.
Ex.D.86 : Certified Copy of letter dtd.20.09.2005.
Ex.D.87 : Letter from BWSSB dtd.15.06.2003.
Ex.D.88 : Certified Copy of the order passed in WP No. 12217/2000.
Ex.D.89 : Certified Copy of Order in WP No 11055- 59/2000 and other connected matters.
Ex.D.90 : Certified Copy of Legal Notice dtd.07.10.1999.
Ex.D.91 : Notice from BDA dtd.24.02.2009.
Ex.D.92 : Certified Copy of Gift deed dtd.31.03.2000.
Ex.D.93 : Certified Copy of the Order sheet in O.S. 16295/2005.
Ex.D.94 : Certified Copy of IA U/Or. 39 R 1 and 2.
Ex.D.95 : Certified Copy of Plaint in the said suit.
Ex.D.96 : Certified Copy of Order sheet in O.S. 15795/2005.62 O.S.No.25665/2015
Ex.D.97 : Certified copy of Order sheet in W.P.No.12217/2000.
Ex.D.98 : Endorsement dtd: 2.11.2022 issued by Spl. Land Acquisition Officer.
Ex.D.99 : 02 Applications submitted by the & Defendant under RTI Act.
Ex.D.100 Ex.D.101: BDA Remittance Challan.
Ex.D.102: Certified copy of Complaint dtd: 28.1.2006 lodged by the BWSSB to Jeevan Bhima Nagar Police Station.
Ex.D.103: Certified copy of Complaint dtd:
27.12.2005 lodged by the BWSSB to Jeevan Bhima Nagar Police Station.
Ex.D.104: Certified copy of Complaint dtd: 17.8.2007 lodged by the BWSSB to Jeevan Bhima Nagar Police Station.
Ex.D.105: Certified copy of Complaint dtd: 17.8.2007 lodged by the BWSSB to Jeevan Bhima Nagar Police Station.
Ex.D.106: Certified copy of Complaint lodged by the Plaintiff to BWSSB on 27.7.2007.
Ex.D.107: Letter dtd. 22.11.2007 by BWSSB to Public Information Officer.
Ex.D.108: Letter dtd: 22.3.2011 to the Defendant by 63 O.S.No.25665/2015 Public Information Officer.
Ex.D.109: Letter from BWSSB dtd. 23.6.2005 to Defendant.
Ex.D.110: CD containing BDA documents.
Ex.D.111: The attested copy of charge sheet filed by Jeevan Bhima Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.112: Certified copy of Judgment and Decree & passed in O.S.No.2857/2006 Ex.D.113 dtd.30.11.2006 on the file of CCH-8, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.114: Copy of Complaint dtd. 26.9.2005 given by L. Anand Kumar.
Ex.D.115: Another copy of Complaint dtd. 26.9.2005.
Ex.D.116: Endorsement given by the Police dtd.
5.9.2005.
[Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).