Bangalore District Court
Smt.H.S.Geetha vs Sri.Raghunath Singh C on 12 February, 2020
1
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BANGALORE CITY - CCH NO.23.
DATED THIS THE 12 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020.
PRESIDING OFFICER
PRESENT : Sri.Sadananda M.Doddamani,
B.A., L.LB.,
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
O.S.No.2661/2014
PLAINTIFF/S: Smt.H.S.Geetha,
W/o N.Gangadhar,
Aged about 38 years,
No.B-16/5, MES Quarters,
Sathyanarayana temple street,
Bengaluru - 560 008.
Presently Residing at
No. 403E, 'B' Block,
2 nd cross,
Behind Shakthi Vinayaka Temple,
Behind HAL Airport,
Vinayakanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 017.
(By Sri.KRR, Advocate)
Vs.
2
DEFENDANT/S: 1. Sri.Raghunath Singh C,
S/o Sri.Chandra Singh,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No. GBJ245,
9 th cross, HAL Quarters,
Marathalli,
Bengaluru - 560 037.
2. Sri.V.Manjunath,
S/o late T.Venkatesh,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No. 154,
Muneshwaranagar,
T.C.Palya main road,
Rammurthy Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 016.
3. Smt.Anjinamma,
S/o late Muninanjappa,
Aged about 58 years,
4. Sri.Narayana Murthy,
S/o Late Muninanjappa,
Aged about 39 years,
5. Sri.Venkatesh,
S/o Late Muninanjappa,
Aged about 36 years,
Defendant No. 3 to 5 are
R/at No.96, B.Channashandra,
Banaswadi post,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
3
(By Sri.BES, Advocate)
* * * * *
Date of institution of suit : 27.03.2014
Nature of suit : Declaration,
injunction &
possession
Date of commencement
of recording of evidence : 15.10.2015
Date on which the judgment
was pronounced : 12.02.2020
Duration of the suit :Year/s Month/s Day/s
05 10 26
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and possession.
2. In brief the case of the plaintiff is as under:
That the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as detailed in the plaint schedule 4 and she has purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 18.9.1997. It is further contended that formerly the schedule property was belonging to one Muni Nanjappa from whom the plaintiff's vendor Lakshmi Devi W/o Ramakrishna Reddy had purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 8.11.1989. In fact the plaintiff's vendor had purchased two sites under the sale deed dated 8.11.1989, i.e., site No. 38 and 43. The vendor of plaintiff had sold the site No. 43, i.e., suit schedule property to the plaintiff. It is further contended that the plaintiff's husband N.Gangadhar is a defence personnel and still he is in service. In the process of looking after the household the plaintiff could not submit her application in time to effect the Khatha of the suit schedule property in her favour. However later she has submitted the same. The plaintiff could not visit the suit schedule property 5 for a considerable length of time as she is a house wife and was under the impression that her husband takes care of the same through his friends. It is further contended that recently during the month of November 2013 when her husband returned to Bengaluru on leave they have visited the site and on such visit to their utter shock and surprise they found that somebody has put up construction on the suit schedule property without their knowledge and on enquiry they came to know that the defendant No. 1 had put up construction over the suit schedule property and he is in possession of the same. It is further contended that in pursuance of the complaint given by the plaintiff the jurisdictional police authorities called the defendant No. 1 to the police station wherein he has shown some concocted documents in the form of sale deeds alleged to be executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 claiming to be 6 the legal representatives of late Muni Nanjappa. So the police have washed their hands saying that it is a civil dispute and advised the plaintiff to approach competent civil court for her redressal.
3. It is further contended that subsequently the plaintiff had obtained the certified copy of the sale deed dated 17.5.2010 alleged to be executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 claiming to be legal representatives of Muni Nanjappa in favour of defendant No. 2 herein. So also the plaintiff obtained certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.7.2010 alleged to be executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1. The legal representatives of Muni Nanjappa, i.e., defendant No. 3 to 5 had no right to execute sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 as the title of the suit schedule property was already 7 transferred during the life time of late Muni Nanjappa. It is further contended that the defendant No. 1 and his vendor defendant No. 2 in collusion with the legal representatives of Muni Nanjappa within a period of 2½ months from the date of execution of sale deed by the legal representatives of Muni Nanjappa, defendant No. 2 has executed sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1. This itself substantiates the malafide and fraudulent intention and acts of the defendants. It is further contended that the plaintiff has acquired the title over the suit schedule property way back in the year 1997, as such the sale deed alleged to be executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 claiming to be the legal representatives of late Muni Nanjappa in favour of defendant No. 2 dated 17.5.2010 and the sale deed dated 28.7.2010 alleged to be executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 are void ab initio 8 and not binding on the plaintiffs title over the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the defendants herein are utter strangers to the suit schedule property and they have no right, title or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule property. The defendants are attempting to knock of the valuable suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff. It is further contended that though the plaintiff approached the defendants and requested them to handover the suit schedule property for which they have declined and thereafter the plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 30.11.2013 calling upon the defendant No. 1 to demolish the existing structure and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to her, for which the defendant No. 1 has not given any reply so far, etc. In view of her above contentions and other contentions taken in the plaint she has come up 9 with the present suit and accordingly prays for to decree the suit.
4. The suit summons sent by this court was duly served upon defendant No. 1 to 5. The defendant No. 1 appeared before the court through his counsel and filed his detailed written statement by denying all the plaint averments. Inspite of service of suit summons sent by this court upon defendant No.2 to 5 they failed to appear before the court and consequently they have been placed exparte.
5. The defendant No. 1 in his written statement contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. He further contended that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant No. 1 after 10 purchasing the property under sale deed dated 28.7.2010 from defendant No. 2 got the Khatha in his name in respect of the suit schedule property and himself paying the taxes to the BBMP authorities regularly. It is further contended that the defendant No. 1 has let out the suit schedule property to the tenants and the tenants are in possession of the suit schedule property. So the defendant No. 1 contended that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as because the plaintiff has failed to made the tenants and also the vendor of the plaintiff as party to the proceedings. It is further contended that the suit of the plaintiff is also barred by limitation. The suit schedule property is un-existed property and there is no legal entity in the eye of law. The plaintiff has created the sale deed in respect of un-existed property and it can be seen on the face of 11 records that the plaintiff contention that she has purchased the property on 18.9.1997, but the plaintiff has not got Khatha in her name and she has not been paying taxes to the concerned authority in respect of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that when the vendor of 1 st defendant was constructed house in the year 2010 itself in the suit schedule property the plaintiff has approached this court only for monetary gain from the 1 st defendant. It is further contended that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit. The cause of action shown by the plaintiff in the plaint is imaginary, as such on the said ground alone the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
6. It is further contended that the defendant No. 1 has purchased the suit schedule property with 12 constructed house on 28.7.2010 from one V.Manjunath who is the defendant No.2 in the present case. Thereafter defendant No. 1 has got Khatha from the BBMP and he has been paying taxes to the BBMP regularly. It is further contended that the defendant No. 1 has let out the suit schedule property to the tenants and the tenants are in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant No. 1 is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit schedule property muchless the property as shown in the written statement schedule. It is further contended that the vendor of defendant No. 1 had got every right to sell the suit schedule property to him. It is further contended that the defendant No. 1 has purchased the suit schedule property by availing loan in Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited and now he is paying EMI of loan. The defendant No. 1 is a 13 bonafide purchaser of schedule property and after due diligence only he has purchased the schedule property out of his hard earned money. So the defendant No. 1 contended that the suit of the plaintiff is false, vexatious, frivolous and filed with mis-conception of law and with ulterior motive of causing wrongful loss to defendant No. 1. So in view of his above contentions and other contentions taken in his written statement he prays for to dismiss the suit.
7. Heard the arguments of both the sides.
8. On the basis of the above rival pleadings of the parties this court has framed the following as many as 7 issues.
(1)Whether the plaintiffs proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ?
14 (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 17.5.2010 executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 2 and sale deed dated 28.7.2007 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 are void ab initio and they are not binding upon him?
(3)Whether the defendant No. 1 proves the contents of para No. 14 of his written statement ?
(4)Whether the defendant No. 1 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(5)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation ?
(6)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought by him ?15
(7)What order or decree ?
9. The plaintiff in order to establish her case she herself got examined as PW1 and got marked 8 documents from Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and closed her side evidence. The defendant No. 1 in order to establish his case he himself got examined as DW1 and got marked 11 documents from Ex.D1 to Ex.D11 and closed his side evidence.
10. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Negative
Issue No.5 : In the Negative
Issue No.6 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.7 : As per the final order
for the following:
16
REASONS
11. Issue No. 1 to 3: Since all these issues are inter-
connected, as such they are taken up together for common consideration and discussions in order to avoid repetition of facts and also for the sake of convenience.
12. The plaintiff in order to establish her case she herself got examined as PW1. The plaintiff filed her affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief, wherein she reiterated all the averments made in the plaint, as such there is no need to again repeat the same facts herein. The plaintiff in order to establish her case got marked 8 documents from Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. In view of her oral and documentary evidence she prays for to decree the suit.
13. The defendant No. 1 in order to establish his case he himself got examined as DW1 and filed his 17 affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief. The perusal of affidavit evidence of DW1, it would show that it is nothing but replica of plaint averments, as such there is no need to repeat the same facts herein. The defendant No. 1 in order to establish his case got marked 11 documents from Ex.D1 to Ex.D11. In view of his oral and documentary evidence he prays for to dismiss the suit.
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff during the course of his arguments contended that the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants for declaration of title, declaration of the sale deed executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 2 dated 17.5.2010 and the sale deed dated 28.7.2010 executed by 2 nd defendant in favour of 1 st defendant are void ab initio and not binding on her, 18 for mandatory injunction and possession. He further contended that formerly the suit schedule property was belonging to one Muni Nanjappa S/o Chinnanna. Even the defendant No. 1 has not disputed the said aspect. He further contended that the above said Muni Nanjappa had sold the suit schedule property, i.e., site No. 43 and another site bearing No. 38 which is located on the eastern side of the suit schedule property in favour of one Lakshmi Devi under registered sale deed dated 8.11.1989 as per Ex.P2. It is further contended that subsequently the said Lakshmi Devi had sold the suit schedule property, i.e., site No.43 in favour of plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 18.9.1997 as per Ex.P1. He further contended that since then the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owner. He further contended that since the plaintiff's 19 husband was in army service and most of the time he posted to north India, as such the plaintiff and her husband could not visit the site for considerable length of time, since the plaintiff was residing with her husband. He further contended that the suit schedule property was a vacant site, as such there is clear flow of title in favour of the plaintiff. He further contended that the very document produced by the plaintiff at Ex.P6, i.e., certified copy of the sale deed dated 6.10.1997 would show that the vendor of the plaintiff by name Lakshmi Devi sold another site bearing No. 38 in favour of one Anand which was purchased by her under registered sale deed dated 18.11.1989 along with the suit schedule property, i.e., site No. 43. He further contended that the said Anand in turn sold site No. 38 in favour of one Uma Karthik under registered sale deed dated 9.10.2002 as per Ex.P7. So he 20 contended that all these facts clearly reveals that there is clear flow of title in favour of plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property.
15. He further contended that admittedly Muni Nanjappa was the owner of suit schedule property and he had sold the same during his life time in favour of plaintiff's vendor under registered sale deed dated 8.11.1989 as per Ex.P2. After the death of Muni Nanjappa his wife Anjinamma and her children by name Narayana Murthy and Venkatesh, i.e., defendant No. 3 to 5 have executed sale deed dated 17.5.2010 as per Ex.P3 with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No. 2 fraudulently suppressing the sale made by Lakshmi Devi in favour of the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 18.9.1997 as per Ex.P1. He further contended that within a span of two 21 months ten days the defendant No. 2 in turn has executed registered sale deed dated 28.7.2010 as per Ex.P4 in favour of defendant No. 1 even though he had not derived any right over the suit schedule property. He further contended that in the sale deed dated 17.5.2010 as per Ex.P3 the sale consideration is shown as Rs.6,60,000/-, whereas in the sale deed dated 28.7.2010 as per Ex.P4 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 sale consideration shown as Rs.26,00,000/-. He further contended that they have created a scene as if they have constructed a house within the span of two months and they have registered the said sale deed fraudulently and occupied the suit schedule property illegally by trespassing into it. He further contended that since late Muni Nanjappa had parted title way back in the year 1989 as per Ex.P2, as such the subsequent sale deed 22 executed by his legal representatives relating to the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No. 2 and the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 are illegal, void ab initio and they are not binding on the plaintiff.
16. He further contended that in the month of November 2013 when the husband of plaintiff returned to Bengaluru they have visited the suit schedule property at that time they noticed somebody has put up the construction on the suit schedule property without their knowledge and on enquiry they came to know that the defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit schedule property. He further contended that the plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police authorities with regard to the above said act of the defendants and the police have called the defendant No. 1, 23 wherein he has shown some concocted documents in the form of sale deeds alleged to be executed by defendant No.3 to 5 claiming to be legal representatives of late Muni Nanjappa, as such the police directed the plaintiff to approach the competent civil court for her redressal. He further contended that the legal representatives of Muni Nanjappa, i.e., defendant No. 3 to 5 have absolutely no right to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 2 has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1, as such the defendant No. 1 would not get valid right and title in respect of the suit schedule property as because Muni Nanjappa way back in the year 1989 itself parted with the suit schedule property. What he contended that in the year 1989 itself Muni Nanjappa sold the suit schedule property and subsequently the vendor of plaintiff by 24 name Lakshmi Devi has sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff under Ex.P1 sale deed dated 18.9.1997. He further contended that though the plaintiff approached the defendants and requested them to handover the suit schedule property, but they decline to handover the same. There afterwards plaintiff caused legal notice through her counsel as per Ex.P8 on 30.11.2013. But the defendant No.1 has not chosen to give any reply to the said notice. He further contended that the defendant No. 1 claims that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property and he has purchased the same by availing loan in Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited and he is paying the EMI to the said bank. He further contended that the defendant No. 1 claims that he had purchased the constructed house on 28.7.2010 itself from the defendant No. 2 as such he is a bonafide 25 purchaser. So far as the said contention of the defendant No. 1 what he contended that though the defendant No.1 claims that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property to prove the said aspect no acceptable evidence has been placed before the court. He further contended that the defendant No. 1 and 2 in collusion with legal representatives of late Muni Nanjappa, i.e., defendant No. 3 to 5 had got created all the sale deeds in order to knock of the suit schedule property. So he contended that on the basis of the concocted and created sale deeds, the defendant No. 1 got the Khatha in his name in respect of the suit schedule property. He further contended that when Muni Nanjappa parted with the suit schedule property in the year 1989 itself, his legal heirs have absolutely no right to execute sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2. When that would be the case the 26 defendant by virtue of sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in his favour would not get valid and legal right in respect of the suit schedule property. So he contended that the defendant No. 1 is not a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. So in view of his above arguments he urged to answer issue No. 1 and 2 in the Affirmative and issue No. 3 in the Negative.
17. The learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 during the course of his arguments contended that the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and possession. He further contended that the plaintiff has filed the present suit in respect of un-existed property and there is no legal entity in the eye of law and she has created the sale deed in respect of un-existed property. He 27 further contended that it can be said on the face of the record itself that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is a concocted and created document. What he contended that the plaintiff claims that she has purchased the suit schedule property on 18.9.1997, but she has not got Khatha in her name in respect of the suit property and she has not even paid taxes in respect of the suit schedule property till this date. He further contended that the plaintiff has filed the present suit with ulterior motive to get money from defendant No. 1.
18. He further contended that the defendant No. 1 is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing house site No.43, Khatha No. 407, property No. 91/1 situated at Horamavu village, K.R.Puram hobli, Bengaluru south 28 taluk, now Bengaluru east taluk, comes under the jurisdiction of BBMP, measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 30 feet in all measuring 1200 sq.ft. as detailed in the written statement schedule. He further contended that the defendant No.1 has purchased the schedule property mentioned in the written statement schedule under Ex.D3 sale deed dated 28.7.2010 from defendant No. 2 for valuable consideration of Rs.26,00,000/-. He further contended that the vendor of defendant No. 1, i.e., defendant No.2 has purchased the schedule property shown in the written statement from legal representatives of Muni Nanjappa, i.e., defendant No. 3 to 5 under Ex.P2 sale deed dated 17.5.2010. So what he contended that the defendant No. 2 has got saleable right and by virtue of defendant No. 1 having purchased the suit schedule property mentioned in the written statement schedule 29 under Ex.D3 sale deed became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He further contended that the defendant No. 1 after having acquired the written statement schedule property got entered his name in respect of the said property in the revenue records, i.e., 'B' Khatha as per Ex.D4. He further contended that even the encumbrance certificate relating to the written statement schedule property which is produced at Ex.D8 would show the name of defendant No. 1 is forthcoming in the said document. He further contended that defendant No.1 after having acquired the written statement schedule property himself paying the taxes in respect of the said property. In order to substantiate his contention he placed his reliance upon Ex.D7 six tax paid receipts. He further contended that the defendant No. 1 after having purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.D3, sale deed put up 30 residential construction in the suit schedule property by obtaining loan from Punjab National Bank. In order to substantiate his contention he placed his reliance upon Ex.D5, i.e., letter issued by the Punjab National Bank and Ex.D6 loan sanction letter issued by the said bank. So what he contended that the above aspect itself would clearly shows that the defendant No. 1 is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property for total sale consideration of Rs.26,00,000/- from defendant No. 1 and revenue documents are also standing in his name and by obtaining loan from Punjab National Bank he has constructed residential house in the suit schedule property. He further contended that the defendant No. 1 after putting up construction in the written statement schedule property he himself paying electricity charges. In order to substantiate his contention he placed his reliance upon 31 Ex.D9 eight KEB bills and also to show that the house constructed in the written statement schedule property is belongs to defendant No. 1 he placed his reliance upon Ex.D10 three photos and one CD. So what he contended that all the above said documents would clearly goes to show the defendant No. 1 being the absolute owner of the written statement schedule property is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
19. He further contended that though the plaintiff claims that she acquired suit schedule property from Lakshmi Devi under registered sale deed dated 18.9.1997 but even after lapse of nearly 17 years till this date she has not made any attempts to get enter her name in respect of the suit schedule property in the revenue records and till this date she has not paid 32 taxes in respect of the suit schedule property. So what he contended that Ex.P1 sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is a concocted and created document. He further contended that absolutely there is no explanation by the plaintiff though she has claims to obtain suit schedule property in the year 1997, but till this date why she has not made any attempts to get her name enter in the revenue documents. He further contended that even the plaintiff to prove the factum of execution of Ex.P1 sale deed in her favour by her vendor, she has not examined her vendor before the court. So what he contended that Ex.P1 alleged sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is a concocted document, when such would be the case the question of declaring her as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property does not arise at all. He further contended that the legal representatives of Muni 33 Nanjappa to whom the written statement schedule property belongs have sold the same to defendant No.2 under Ex.D2 sale deed, as such the defendant No. 2 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He further contended that subsequently defendant No. 2 sold the written statement schedule property to defendant No. 1 under Ex.D3 sale deed and by virtue of the same all the revenue documents came to be entered in the name of defendant No. 1. When such would be the case the contention of the plaintiff that the sale deed dated 17.5.2010 executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant No. 2 and sale deed dated 28.7.2010 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 are not binding upon her does not arise at all. Per contra the very oral and documentary evidence placed before the court would show that defendant No. 1 has placed acceptable oral 34 and documentary evidence to show that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property and he has satisfactorily proved the stand taken by him in para No. 14 of his written statement. He further contended that Ex.P1 sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is a concocted and created document. What he contended that in Ex.P1 sale deed in the schedule at page No. 5 it was mentioned that the suit schedule property consists of 2 square ACC sheet, whereas in Ex.P2 sale deed dated 8.11.1989 which is of the vendor of plaintiff would show that wherein in the schedule it is mentioned that 1 square sheet roofing house built thereon. So what he contended that the above aspect itself would clearly goes to show that Ex.P1 is a concocted and created document. He further contended that why the said difference has been occurred in 35 Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 sale deed he has not examined the vendor of plaintiff, i.e., Lakshmi Devi. So he contended that plaintiff is claiming absolute right over the suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.P1 concocted and created sale deed. In view of his above arguments he urged to answer issue No. 1 and 2 in the Negative and issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
20. In the light of the arguments canvassed by the respective counsels for the parties I have gone through the records. Admittedly this is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration of title, declaration of the sale deed executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 2 on 17.5.2010 and the sale deed dated 28.7.2010 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 are void ab initio 36 and not binding on the plaintiff, for mandatory injunction and for possession.
21. Upon hearing the rival contentions it would show that absolutely there is no much dispute with regard to the factum that the suit schedule property originally belongs to one Muni Nanjappa. It is the contention of the plaintiff that Muni Nanjappa had sold the suit schedule property, i.e., site No. 43 and another site No. 38 to one Lakshmi Devi under registered sale deed dated 8.11.1989 as per Ex.P2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the said Lakshmi Devi in turn sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 18.9.1997 as per Ex.P1. It is the contention of the plaintiff since then the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as the absolute owner. It is 37 the contention of the plaintiff that her husband was in army service and most of the time he was posted to north India, as such she herself and her husband could not visit the site for considerable length of time. The plaintiff also produced Ex.P6 certified copy of sale deed dated 6.10.1997 to show her vendor Lakshmi Devi had sold another site bearing No. 38 in favour of one Anand which was purchased by her under registered sale deed dated 8.11.1989 along with the suit schedule site No. 43. The plaintiff also produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.10.2002 executed by the above said Anand in favour of Uma Kartik and he is in possession of the said site now. So what she contended that the above said sale deeds would clearly shows the flow of title in respect of the suit schedule property to her. Per contra it is the main contention of the defendant No. 1 Ex.P1 sale deed relied upon by 38 the plaintiff is a concocted and created document and there is a variation in the schedule of Ex.P1 which alleged to be belongs to the plaintiff and Ex.P2 alleged sale deed which belongs to the vendor of the plaintiff by name Lakshmi Devi. It is the contention of the defendant No. 1 that though plaintiff claims she obtained suit schedule property in the year 1997 but till this date no revenue documents are entered in her name in respect of the suit schedule property. So he contended that the plaintiff in order to knock of the suit schedule property of defendant No. 1 has come up with the present false and frivolous suit on the basis of the concocted and created document. It is the specific contention of the defendant No. 1 that the legal representatives of Muni Nanjappa, i.e., defendant No. 3 to 5 have sold the written statement schedule property to defendant No. 2 under Ex.D2 sale deed and 39 subsequently the defendant No. 2 sold the written statement schedule property to defendant No. 1 under Ex.D3 sale deed dated 28.7.2010. In pursuance of having acquired the written statement schedule property to defendant No. 1 got entered his name in the revenue records in his name in respect of the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the defendant No. 1 that by obtaining loan from Punjab National Bank he has put up residential house in the suit schedule property and he himself paying the taxes and electricity charges. So he contended that the defendant No. 1 is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property.
22. In the light of the above rival contentions the most important aspect to be taken note of here is that admittedly formerly the suit schedule property belongs 40 to Muni Nanjappa which his an undisputed fact. The plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the sale deed of her vendor Lakshmi Devi at Ex.P2 and the same was executed on 8.11.1989 by Muni Nanjappa. The said Lakshmi Devi subsequently sold site No. 43, i.e., suit schedule property to the plaintiff on 18.9.1997 as per Ex.P1. So it can be said that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from Lakshmi Devi in the year 1997. The records would show that though the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1997 but till this date she has not got Khatha changed into her name in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has given explanation why they have not made any attempts to get change her name in respect of the suit schedule property in the revenue records. The plaint averments and the evidence of 41 PW1 would show that since her husband was working in army service and most of the times he posted to north India, as such they could not made efforts or taken any steps to change the name of plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in the revenue records. The most important point to be taken note of here is that the plaintiff is having absolute registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. Mere not got entered her name in the revenue documents relating to the suit schedule property is not a ground to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff, as because the revenue documents are not the documents of title. Another important aspect to be taken note of here is that the plaintiff has produced four encumbrance certificates at Ex.P5. The first encumbrance certificate would show that it is of the year 1.4.1988 and wherein the name of vendor of the 42 plaintiff Lakshmi Devi is reflecting. The second encumbrance certificate is from 1.7.1989 to 1.12.1999. The perusal of the said document would show that wherein there is reference with regard to the selling of suit schedule property by Muni Nanjappa in favour of Lakshmi Devi. Encumbrance certificate No.3 is from 1.6.1989 to 31.3.2004. The perusal of the same would show that wherein also the name of the vendor of plaintiff Lakshmi Devi is reflecting. Encumbrance certificate No. 4 is from 1.4.2004 to 22.1.2014 which also reflects the name of Lakshmi Devi. Now the point to be taken note of here is that the defendant No. 1 claims that he acquired the written statement schedule property from defendant No. 2 under Ex.D3 sale deed on 28.7.2010 and his vendor, i.e., defendant No. 2 acquired the written statement schedule property from defendant No. 3 to 5, who are none other than the 43 legal heirs of late Muni Nanjappa under Ex.D2 sale deed on 17.5.2010. But admittedly the defendant No. 1 has not produced encumbrance certificate to show whether the legal heirs of Muni Nanjappa, i.e., defendant No. 3 to 5 have got any saleable right to execute Ex.D2 sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No. 2 and in turn defendant No. 2 has got any valid saleable right to sell the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.
1. Per contra as it is already stated above Ex.P5, four encumbrance certificates would show that till 2014 the suit schedule property is kept intact and it is standing in the name of Lakshmi Devi. If according to the defendant No. 1 the legal representatives of Muni Nanjappa, i.e., defendant No.3 to 5 have got any saleable right in respect of the suit schedule property definitely their name would have been reflected in the 44 encumbrance certificate. So also if defendant No. 2 purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No. 3 to 5 definitely the same would have been reflected in encumbrance certificate. So also if defendant No. 2 executed Ex.D3 sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 definitely that would have been reflected in the encumbrance certificate. So looking at the above said aspect a doubt may arises with regard to the sale deeds placed before the court by the defendant No.1 at Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. Absolutely there is no explanation by defendant No. 1 nor his counsel why they have not produced encumbrance certificate to show the transaction as referred above.
23. Another important aspect to be taken note of here is that though the defendant No. 1 contending that the plaintiff has filed the present suit in respect of 45 un-existed property, the said contention of the defendant No. 1 cannot be accepted. The perusal of the suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint and the schedule of the written statement schedule property would show that the boundaries of both properties is one and the same. Only thing is that in the written statement schedule property Khatha No. shown as 407 whereas in plaint schedule property Khatha No. is shown as 408. By changing the Khatha number the defendant No. 1 claiming that the written statement schedule property is altogether different property from the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff has filed the present suit in respect of the un-existed property. The perusal of the schedule of both plaint and written statement schedule properties would show that the boundaries of both properties are one and the same. When such would be the case the contention of 46 defendant No. 1 that both are different properties cannot be accepted. Another important circumstances why a doubt may arises to accept the stand taken by the defendant No. 1 is that he claims that the legal representatives of Muni Nanjappa, i.e., defendant No. 3 to 5 executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 17.5.2010. The perusal of the said document would show that wherein the sale consideration is shown as Rs.6,60,000/-. The defendant No. 1 claims that he purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No. 2 on 28.7.2010. The perusal of the said document would show that wherein the sale consideration is shown as Rs.26,00,000/-. Another important aspect to be taken note of here is that Ex.D2 sale deed was executed on 17.5.2010 by defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 2 and in turn within 2 months 10 days 47 the defendant No. 2 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No. 1 under Ex.D3 sale deed. As it is already stated above the sale consideration amount mentioned in the above referred two sale deeds, no prudent man will accept the contention of the defendant No. 1 within a span of 2 months 10 days the value of the property purchased by him would increased by nearly Rs.20,00,000/-. So the above said aspect itself creates a doubt about the genuinity of the sale deeds as referred above.
24. Another doubtful circumstance and also why a doubt may arises to believe the contention of defendant No. 1 is that in his cross-examination he has admitted that he has purchased 1050 sq.ft. RCC roof house from defendant No. 2. Whereas in his written statement contended that he has put up residential construction 48 in the suit schedule property by obtaining loan from the Punjab National Bank and he is paying EMI. At this juncture it would be relevant to quote the above said evidence given by DW1 in his cross-examination at page No. 9, 3 rd line from the top wherein he deposed as under:
" ನನನ ಕಕಯ ಪತಕದಲಲ 1050 ಸಸಸಸರರ ಫಸಟರಆರರ ಸ ಸ ರರಫನ ಮನನಯನನನ ಎರಡನನಸ ಪಕತವವದಯಯದ ಕನರಯಡನಕನರಯಡರನತನತಸನನ ಎಯದನ ಬರನಸಕನರಯಡರನತನತಸನನ ಎಯದರನ ನಜ ."
25. The above said evidence given by DW1 in his cross-examination also goes to create a doubt in the mind of the court about the genuinity of the sale deeds relied upon by the defendant No. 1. Another doubtful circumstance is that the defendant No. 1 in his cross- examination stated that prior to he obtained the suit schedule property from defendant No. 1 there was an 49 agreement of sale in between himself and defendant No. 2. What he said in his evidence is that three months prior to purchasing the suit schedule property under Ex.D3 sale deed there was an agreement of sale in between himself and defendant No. 2. Admittedly the alleged Ex.D3, sale deed is dated 28.7.2010. If according to him prior to three months of the said sale deed means it is on 28.4.2010 there was an agreement of sale in between himself and defendant No. 2. Whereas the sale deed of defendant No. 2 which the defendant No.1 claims that the defendant No. 2 has purchased the same from defendant No. 3 to 5 is on 17.5.2010. Looking into the date of agreement of sale as stated above, i.e., 28.4.2010 and the sale deed of defendant No. 2 as per Ex.D2 dated 17.5.2010 would clearly shows that as on the date of execution of Ex.D3 sale deed dated 28.7.2010 the defendant No.2 was not 50 at all the owner of the suit schedule property. The above said aspect itself creates a doubt in the mind of the court about the genuinity of sale deeds relied upon by defendant No. 1. At this juncture it would be relevant to quote the evidence given by DW1 at page No. 12, 1 st para wherein he deposed as under:
"ನ.ಡ.3 ಕಕಯ ಪತಕ ಆಗನವ 3 ತಯಗಳ ಪಪವರದಲಲ ಎರಡನನಸ ಪಕತವವದಯವಯದಗನ ಕಕಯದ ಕರವರನ ಪತಕ ಮವಡಕನರಯಡರನತನತಸನನ . ನವನನ ಆಗಸರಸ 2010 ರಲಲ ಬವಬಯಕಗನ ಸವಲ ನಸಡನವಯತನ ಅರರ ಸಲಲಸರನತನತಸನನ .
ಬವಬಯಕನವರನ ನನಗನ ಸವಲವನನನ ಆಗಸರಸ 2010 ರಲಲ ಮಯಜರರನ ಮವಡರನತವತರನ ಹವಗರ ಸನಪನಸಯಬರರ ಮದಲನನಸ ವವರದಲಲ ಸವಲದ ಹಣ ಬಡನಗಡನ ಮವಡರನತವತರನ ."
26. The above evidence given by DW1 would clearly goes to show that as on the date of execution of Ex.D3 sale deed the defendant No. 2 has absolutely no right to sell the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1. So also the very alleged sale deed 51 relied upon by defendant No. 1 as per Ex.P3 would show that it is obtained by him on 28.07.2010, whereas the above evidence given by DW1 and also the documents produced by him at Ex.D5 and Ex.D6 would show that the Punjab National Bank sanctioned loan in the month of August 2010 and they have released the loan amount in the first week of September 2010. The said evidence of defendant No. 1 also goes to falsify his stand that he has put up residential construction in the suit schedule property by obtaining loan from the Punjab National Bank. So the above referred doubtful circumstance would clearly goes to falsify the contention taken by defendant No. 1 and also a doubt may arises about the genuinity of the sale deeds relied upon by the defendant No. 1. No doubt in this case the plaintiff after having purchased the suit schedule property on 18.9.1997 as per Ex.P1 not taken steps to 52 change her name in respect of the suit schedule property in the revenue records, but it is not a ground to reject the claim of the plaintiff as because as it is already stated above the revenue documents are not the documents of title. When there is sufficient acceptable evidence to believe the sale deed of the plaintiff merely the plaintiff has not taken steps to change her name in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property is not a ground to disbelieve the case set up by the plaintiff.
27. The learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 during the course of his arguments contended that in Ex.P1 sale deed dated 18.9.1997 in the schedule it is mentioned that the suit schedule property includes 2 square sheet roofing house. Whereas in Ex.P2 sale deed which belongs to the vendor of the plaintiff, 53 wherein in the schedule it is mentioned that the suit schedule property includes 1 square sheet roofing house. So what he contended that the said aspect itself would shows that Ex.P1 sale deed dated 18.9.1997 relied upon by the plaintiff is a concocted and created document. So far as the said contention of the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 is concerned it can be said that the above said variation in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 sale deed in no way it would goes to affect the right of the plaintiff, as because it is already stated above the boundaries of plaint schedule property and written statement schedule property are one and the same, though the defendant No. 1 contended that the suit schedule property is nothing to do with the written statement schedule property, but looking into the boundaries and extent of both properties it would show that both are one and the 54 same property, i.e., the suit schedule property claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit. Apart from that DW1 though contending that Ex.P1 sale deed dated 18.9.1997 is a concocted and created document, but in his cross-examination at page No. 9, 2 nd para the evidence given by him would show that he has not whole heartedly contending that the Ex.P1 sale deed dated 18.9.1997 is a concocted and creating document. At this juncture it would be relevant to quote the said portion of evidence which reads as under:
" ವವದ ಈ ಕನಸಸನಲಲ ಹವಜರನ ಪಡಸರನವ
ದವಖಲವತಗಳನನನ ಒದ ತಳದನಕನರಯಡರನತನತಸನನ . ದವವವ
ಆಸತ ಹವಗರ ಸಸಟರ ನಯ.38 ನನನ ಮರರನನಸ ಪಕತವವದಯ ಗಯಡ ಮನನನಯಜಪಪ ತನನ ರಸವತ ಕವಲದಲಲ ದದ08.11.1989 ರಲಲ ಲಕಕಕದನಸವ ಎನನನವವರಗನ ಮವರವಟ ಮವಡರನವ ವಷಯ ನನಗನ ಗನರತತರನವವದಲಲ ."
28. So the above evidence given by DW1 in his cross-examination would clearly shows that he has not 55 whole heartedly contending that Ex.P1 sale deed of the plaintiff is a concocted and created document and even the above evidence given by him would clearly shows that he does not know anything about late Muni Nanjappa at the first instance executed sale deed in respect of site No. 43 and 38 in favour of Lakshmi Devi under Ex.P2 sale deed dated 8.11.1989. Thereafter Lakshmi Devi in turn sold the suit schedule property site No. 43 to the plaintiff under Ex.P1 sale deed dated 18.9.1997. When that would be the case the contention of the defendant No. 1 that Ex.P1 sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is a concocted and created documents cannot be accepted. Another important aspect to be taken note of here is that if according to defendant No. 1 Ex.P1 is a concocted and created document, he would have established the said aspect either by examining the legal representatives of 56 Muni Nanjappa, i.e., defendant No. 3 to 5 or defendant No. 2 who is the vendor of defendant No. 1, but the same has not been done by defendant No. 1. Apart from that as it is already stated above Muni Nanjappa the original owner parted with the suit schedule property in the year 1989 itself. If according to the defendant No. 1 the legal heirs of Muni Nanjappa, i.e., defendant No. 3 to 5 have succeeded to the suit schedule property he could have produced the documents to show that defendant No. 3 to 5 being the legal heirs of Muni Nanjappa acquired the suit schedule property and on the strength of the same they have executed sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 and then defendant No. 2 executed sale deed in his favour. Admittedly defendant No. 1 has not produced any such acceptable and reliable materials before the court. As it is already stated above with regard to the doubtful 57 circumstances in the case set up by defendant No.1, when that would be the case whatever the contention taken by the defendant No. 1, i.e., the plaintiff is claiming to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.P1 concocted and created sale deed cannot be accepted. The discussion as made above would clearly shows that the plaintiff has made out acceptable grounds to declare that the sale deed dated 17.5.2010 executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 2 and the sale deed dated 28.7.2007 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 are void ab initio and they are not binding upon the plaintiff. Though defendant No. 1 in para No. 14 of his written statement contended that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property, but the over all evidence and the discussion made above would show that he is not a bonafide purchaser. 58 So also the evidence on record would show that he has not produced the encumbrance certificate to show the alienation of property by legal representatives of Muni Nanjappa, i.e., defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 2 and then by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1. So also the evidence on record would show that the defendant has not taken any paper publication with regard to the factum of any objection by any other person in respect of the suit schedule property which is going to purchase from defendant No. 2. So also the evidence on record would clearly shows that defendant No. 1 without properly verifying the documents relating to the suit schedule property he has purchased the same. Under such circumstance it can be said that defendant No. 1 is not a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. The evidence on record would clearly shows 59 that defendant No. 1 to 5 in collusion with each other in order to knock of the suit schedule property and taking advantage of plaintiff husband was in Army and most of the time he was posted to north India and the plaintiff was staying along with him, the defendants by colluding with each other have got created and manipulated the documents relied upon by them. When such would be the case the contention of the defendant No. 1 that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property cannot be accepted. By considering the over all oral and documentary evidence on record it can be said that the plaintiff has succeeded to prove issue No. 1 and 2 and the defendant No. 1 has failed to prove issue No. 3. Accordingly issue No. 1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative and issue No. 3 is answered in the Negative.
60
29. Issue No. 4: The defendant No. 1 in his written statement contended that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. What he contended that the defendant No. 1 after he purchasing the suit schedule property has given the same on rental basis to the tenants, as such the tenants in occupation of the suit schedule property are also parties to the proceedings. So also it is the contention of the defendant No. 1 that the vendor of the plaintiff, i.e., Lakshmi Devi is also necessary party to the proceedings, in order to ascertain when and how she acquired the suit schedule property from Muni Nanjappa. So far as the said contention of the defendant No. 1 is concerned it can be said that admittedly in this suit the plaintiff has not sought any kind of relief against the tenants who are alleged to be in possession of the suit schedule property or the 61 vendor of the plaintiff Lakshmi Devi. Admittedly the plaintiff has produced the sale deed of her vendor at Ex.P2. When such would be the case and when absolutely the plaintiff has not sought any kind of relief against those persons, the question of adding them as party to the proceedings does not arise at all. For the foregoing reasons and discussions the contention of the defendant No. 1 that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties cannot be accepted. Accordingly issue No. 4 is answered in the Negative.
30. Issue No. 5: The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 during the course of his arguments contended that the plaintiff has claimed absolute ownership in respect of the suit schedule property and also other consequential reliefs. The alleged sale deed 62 relied upon by the plaintiff would show that it was executed on 18.9.1997 whereas the present suit is filed in the year 2014. He further contended that the consequential relief sought by the plaintiff would show that he has to file the suit within three years from the date of knowledge. He further contended that the plaintiff in the plaint stated that in the first week of November 2013 the cause of action accrues to him to file the present suit. He further contended that the defendant No. 1 purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.D3 sale deed on 28.7.2010 and the plaintiff is very well aware of the above said aspect. The plaintiff sought the relief of declaration and to cancel the sale deed dated 17.5.2010 executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 2 and sale deed dated 28.7.2007 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1. If that would be the case the 63 plaintiff is required to file a suit within three years as per section 59 of the Limitation Act. So he contended that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
31. So far as the above said contention of the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 is concerned it can be said that and also I have gone through section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff in the present case sought to declare sale deed dated 17.5.2010 executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 2 and sale deed dated 27.7.2010 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 are void ab initio and not binding upon her. The plaintiff has not sought for cancellation of the said sale deeds. When that would be the case section 59 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. Per contra the 64 plaintiff sought possession of the suit schedule property from defendant No. 1. The plaintiff in para No. 10 of her plaint and also in her evidence has specifically stated that the cause of action accrues to her to file the present suit in the first week of November 2013 and immediately they have filed the present suit in the year 2014. To seek the relief of possession of the immovable property the limitation period is 12 years as per section 65 of the Limitation Act. Even otherwise also if we taken into consideration the sale deed of defendant No. 2 dated 17.5.2010 and the sale deed of defendant No. 1 dated 28.7.2010, the suit filed by the plaintiff would show that she has filed present suit well within time. When that would be the case whatever the contention taken by the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 that the suit of the plaintiff is 65 barred by limitation cannot be accepted. Accordingly issue No. 5 is answered in the Negative.
32. Issue No. 6: In view of my findings to the above issues the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought by her. Accordingly issue No. 6 is answered in the Affirmative.
33. Issue No.7: In view of my findings to the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
The plaintiff is hereby declared as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Further it is hereby declared that the sale deed dated 17.5.2010 executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of 66 defendant No. 2 and the sale deed dated 28.7.2010 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 are void ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiff. Further the defendant No. 1 is hereby directed by way of mandatory injunction to demolish the existing structure on the suit schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within five months from the date of this order. Failing which the plaintiff is entitled to take steps in accordance with law.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcribed, computerized and printout taken by her, revised and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of February 2020.) (Sadananda M.Doddamani) XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.67
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the plaintiff/s :
PW1 - H.S.Geetha Witness examined for the defendant/s :
DW1 - Raghunath Singh Documents marked for the plaintiff/s :
Ex.P1 - Registered sale deed dated 18.09.1997 Ex.P2 - Certified copy of sale deed dated 8.11.1989 Ex.P3 - Certified copy of sale deed dated 17.5.2010 Ex.P4 - Certified copy of sale deed dated 27.7.2010 Ex.P5 - 4 encumbrance certificates Ex.P6 - Certified copy of sale deed dated 6.10.1997 Ex.P7 - Certified copy of sale deed dated 9.10.2007 Ex.P8 - Notice dated 30.11.2013 68 Documents marked for the defendant/s :
Ex.D1 - Certified copy of partition deed
dated 6.9.1965
Ex.D2 - Certified copy of sale deed
dated 17.5.2010
Ex.D3 - Certified copy of sale deed
dated 28.7.2010
Ex.D4 - B Khatha extract
Ex.D5 - Letter issued by Punjab National Bank
Ex.D6 - Loan sanction letter
Ex.D7 - 6 tax receipts
Ex.D8 - Encumbrance certificate
Ex.D9 - 8 KEB bills
Ex.D10 - 3 Photos and 1 CD
Ex.D11 - 6 Tax paid receipts
(Sadananda M.Doddamani)
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
69
Judgment pronounced in the open
court(vide separate detailed
Judgment)
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is
hereby decreed.
70
The plaintiff is hereby declared
as the absolute owner of the suit
schedule property. Further it is
hereby declared that the sale deed
dated 17.5.2010 executed by
defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of
defendant No. 2 and the sale deed
dated 28.7.2010 executed by
defendant No. 2 in favour of
defendant No. 1 are void ab initio
and not binding upon the plaintiff.
Further the defendant No. 1 is
hereby directed by way of
mandatory injunction to demolish
the existing structure on the suit
schedule property and handover the
vacant possession of the suit
schedule property to the plaintiff
within five months from the date of
this order. Failing which the
plaintiff is entitled to take steps in
accordance with law.
71
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
72