Bangalore District Court
M/S Cauvery Social And Educational ... vs Chaitra B on 17 January, 2026
1
OS NO. 6795/2023
KABC010282932023
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY: (CCH.7)
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2026
PRESENT
SRI. VIJETH.V, B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S. NO.6795/2023
Plaintiffs : 1. M/s.Cauvery Social & Education Trust
(Reg) Having its office at No.354, 'F' Block,
Sahakarangara
Bengaluru-560 092.
Rep. By its Secretary
Smt.N.C.Indira
W/o.B.M.Devarajappa
Aged about 61 years
No.354, 'F' Block,
Sahakaranagara
Bengaluru-560 092.
(By Sri.B.R.V.P., Advocate)
V/s.
82
O.S. No.6795/2023
Defendants : 1. Smt.B.Chaitra
D/o.Late Byalappa &
Smt.Lakshmidevamma
Aged about 35 years
R/a.No.4, Maruthi Niliya,
Near Gold Finch "Sai Krupa" Hospital,
Kodigehalli Main Road, Sahakaranagara
Bengaluru-560 092.
2 Sri M.Venkatesh
Aged about 47years
S/o.Sri Muniswamappa
3 Smt.Munithayamma
Aged about 77 years
W/o.late Chikka Munithayappa
Both are R/a.Maruthinagara
(Kothihoshalli), Sahakaranagara Post
Bengaluru-560 092.
4 Smt.Lakshmidevamma
W/o.Late Bylappa
Aged about 66 years
R/a. No.4, Maruthi Niliya
Near Gold Finch "Sai Krupa" Hospital,
Kodigehalli Main Road
Sahakaranagara
Bengaluru-560 092.
(By Sri.M.A.P., Advocate for D1 & D4)
(Defendant No.2 & 3 - Exparte)
82
O.S. No.6795/2023
Date of Institution of the suit : 20.10.2023
Nature of the suit : DECLARATION AND
INJUNCTION
Date of commencement of : 01.02.2024
recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment : 17.01.2026
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
02 02 27
(VIJETH.V)
XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property under sale deed dated 16.01.2006, to direct the defendant No.1 to quit and deliver the vacant possession of suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, to declare that the sale deed dated 04.04.2006 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of one Bylappa is not binding on the plaintiff with 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 respect to suit schedule property, to declare that the gift deed dated 24.09.2021 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.1 is not binding on the plaintiff with respect to suit schedule property, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up construction on the suit schedule property, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction to direct the defendant No.1 to remove the illegal construction/structure put up in the suit schedule property & for other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as under; The plaintiff is the absolute owner and is in peaceful possession & enjoyment of converted landed property bearing new Sy. No.3/12, Old Sy. No.3/2 measuring to the extent of 0.01 ½ gunta out of 0.11 guntas of defendant No.2 and the same Sy.No.3/2 measuring 0.1 ½ guntas out of 0.11 guntas of defendant No.3, totally measuring 3 guntas situated at Kothi Hosahalli Village, 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The plaintiff is a trust registered under the Indian Trust Act under the name and style of 'M/s.Cauveri Social and Educational Trust (R)'. The plaintiff trust is running a school under the name and style of 'M/s.Dev-In-National School' at land bearing Sy. No.3/1 measuring 0.37 guntas situated at Kodigehalli Main Road, 60 ft. road adjacent to Kaveri College, Sahakar Nagar, Bengaluru-92. The plaintiff with an intention to expand school premises for the purpose of educational activities had purchased agricultural dry land bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring 3 guntas situated at Kothi Hosahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bengaluru which is described in the suit schedule herein after called the suit schedule property from M.Venkatesh and Mrs.Munithayamma for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs through registered sale deed dated 16.01.2006. Thereafter the khatha of the schedule property was mutated in the name of the plaintiff as per M.R. No.6/2005 - 2006, the RTC transferred to the name of the plaintiff for the period 2005-2006 to 2013-2014 with respect to land bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring 0.3 guntas of Kothi Hosahalli Village. Sri M.Venkatesh the vendor No.1 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 of plaintiff who is the defendant No.2 in the present case initially owned 11.08 guntas of land as per M.R.4/2000-2001 and the vendor No.2 Smt.Munithayamma the defendant No.3 herein who inherited 11.08 guntas of land towards her share as per IHC 2/2005-2006 and as per the same revenue entries were made as per M.R No.2/2005-2006, jointly conveyed 1½ guntas each together measuring to an extent of 0.03 guntas in favour of the plaintiff as per the sale deed dated 16.01.2006. Subsequent to purchase of suit schedule property, the plaintiff had applied for conversion of land bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring to an extent of 0.3 guntas for educational purposes together with land bearing Sy. No.3/1 measuring 0.36 guntas. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban accorded sanction in favour of the plaintiff by converting the agricultural land to non agricultural educational purposes as per the order dated 07.10.2008 in No.ALN(NAY)SR 141/07-08. In pursuance there off, the khatha of the land bearing Sy. No.3/1 and 3/2 measuring 31.08 guntas mutated in the name of the plaintiff as per M.R. No.6/2008-2009. The plaintiff once again applied for 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 conversion of the remaining extent of 0.1 guntas in land bearing Sy. No.3/1 and obtained sanction from the Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru as per the order dated 22.09.2009 vide No.ALN(NAY)SR 114/08-09. After conversion of land the plaintiff applied for registration of khatha for total extent of 1 acre of converted land comprising of Sy. No.3/1 measuring 0.37 guntas and Sy. No.3/2 measuring 0.3 guntas respectively as per the order of Joint Commissioner, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru. The plaintiff has remitted the statutory charges to BBMP and obtained khatha vide No.KTR/307/2009-2010 dated 02.10.2009. The plaintiff is paying tax to the concerned authority regularly. The plaintiff has fenced the converted property in land bearing Sy. No.3/1 measuring 0.037 guntas with a compound wall and the portion of converted property in the land bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring 0.3 guntas of Kothi Hosahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru was left undeveloped. The plaintiff was planning to develop the property bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring 0.3 guntas post conversion the converted portion of land bearing Sy. No.3/2 was assigned with new number Sy. 82
O.S. No.6795/2023 No.3/12 in the name of plaintiff Trust and has mutated the RTC vide M.R. No.T1/2014-15.
Further the defendant No.1 is the daughter of defendant No.4. The defendant No.3 claims to be the close relative of defendant No.1 and 4. On growing up the market value the defendants with an intention to knock off the valuable property of the plaintiff hatched a plan and indulged in fabrication of documents. The defendant No.1 without any authority allegedly started claiming rights over the suit property subsequent to plaintiff's sale deed having obtained the title through defendant No.3 colluding with one Late Bylappa the father of defendant No.1 and relative of defendant No.3 in land bearing Sy. No.3/2measuring 5.08 guntas out of 11.08 guntas (11 ½ guntas) in respect of suit schedule property fraudulently with out the knowledge of the plaintiff under sale deed dated 04.04.2006. After the death of Bylappa, the father of defendant No.1 by way of after thought they concocted and fabricated a document styled as 'Gift Deed' dated 24.09.2021 in favour of defendant No.1describing the property as site bearing No.8 and 9 by fabricating some of the BBMP 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 documents appears to be standing in the name of defendant No.1, mutating the agricultural land as 'A' Classified Property in BBMP Records without any conversion order. The defendant No.3 who is one of the vendor of the plaintiff has no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property to make a second sale. The defendant No.3 ceases to hold any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property after conveying the title in favour of the plaintiff.
Further, on 01.09.2023 the defendant No.1 started to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property claiming to be the property purchased by her late father and bequeathed in her favour by her mother. The plaintiff clarified and explained that the suit schedule property is the absolute property in plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment. The defendant No.1 cannot claim title over the suit schedule property as the plaintiff is the first purchaser of the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed. There cannot be a second sale by the same vendor on the same property. The defendant taking 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 opportunity of the absence of the plaintiff trust on account of vacation after midterm exams taking shelter of the height of the compound wall in the other portion of the converted land bearing Sy. No.3/1, the defendant No.1 and 3 being close relatives colluded with local politicians and BBMP Officials have indulged in illegal construction making all kinds of hectic efforts to dig the land through JCB and has put up with in instant pillars loading raised the structure to the beam level which is below the level of plaintiff's compound wall in the land bearing Sy. No.3/1. On coming to know about the same, the plaintiff immediately lodged a complaint before Kodigehalli Police on 10.10.2023 with respect to interference in the trust property unauthorizedly. The police have refused to interfere in the matter stating that it is purely Civil Nature. The defendant No.1 has no manner of right, title and interest in the suit schedule property and the attempt of defendant No.1 to put up illegal construction in the suit schedule property is highly illegal and unethical. The boundaries mentioned in the alleged second sale deed dated 04.04.2006 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 No.1 and husband of defendant No.4 & that of the alleged gift deed dated 24.09.2021 said to have bequeathed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.1 are entirely different with the suit schedule property and is nothing to do with the plaintiffs property. The defendant has no nexus with that of the plaintiff & the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property to create a second sale against the interest of plaintiff and ruled principles of law. The conversion order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru and the boundaries appendix to it establish that the land bearing Sy. No.3/1 and 3/2 having converted jointly are abutting to each other which clearly reveals that sale deed of plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule property is the absolute property of plaintiff. The defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.3 and 4 knowing fully well that the suit schedule property does not belonging to them and instead of putting up construction in the property fallen to their share are wrongly claiming the plaintiff's suit schedule property as the property of defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 is one of the vendor of plaintiff 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 and the suit is for declaration and possession, hence the defendant No.2 is a proper party to the suit. The defendant No.1 to 3 and 4 have jointly threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences for having questioned their title and interest on substantiating the validity of the title of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1, 3 and 4 colluding with each other used to file false atrocity cases against the office bearers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff without any alternative and efficacious remedy approached this court for the relief of declaration, possession, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendants. Hence, prays to decree the suit as prayed for.
3. After service of suit summons the defendant No.1 & 4 have appeared through their common counsel & filed their written statement. The defendant No.2 and 3 remained absent. As such they have been placed ex-parte.
4. The sum and substance of the written statement filed by the 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 defendant No.1 and 4 is as under;
The defendant No.1 is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property carved out of Sy. No.3/2, site No.8, 9, K.No.3/2, BBMP Khatha No.293/3/2/8 and 9 measuring east - west 36 ft and north to south 52 ft. totally measuring 1,872 sq. ft. situated at Kothihosahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, presently coming under BBMP Ward No.8, Bengaluru which is the written statement schedule property. The father of defendant No.1 has purchased land bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring 3 guntas and 2 ½ guntas totally measuring 5 ½ guntas with two boundaries asper the sketch annexed to the sale deed dated 04.04.2006 from defendant No.3. The father of defendant No.1 was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy. No.3/2 measuring 5 ½ guntas as stated above and revenue documents were mutated as per M.R. No.1/2007-08. Consequently the property came under BBMP Ward No.8. The father of the defendant No.1 by name Bylappa obtained BBMP Khatha and paid taxes to BBMP and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 absolute owner till his death. The father of defendant No.1 died on 19.09.2019 leaving behind defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 as legal heirs. As such defendant No.4 obtained transfer of revenue records under inheritance in her favour in respect of the property. The defendant No.4 has executed registered gift deed dated 24.09.2021 in respect of written statement schedule property in favour of her daughter defendant No.1. After the gift deed the revenue documents of BBMP were also transferred to the name of defendant No.1 and she is paying taxes to the concerned authority. The defendant No.1 is residing with her mother in the address shown in the plaint and she wish to put up construction of dwelling house in the written statement schedule property carved out of Sy. No.3/2. The defendant No.1 has obtained license and building approval sanction plan for construction of dwelling house.
Further, originally the land in Sy. No.3/2 totally measuring 1 acre 34 guntas of Kothi Hosahalli and land in respective portion held by the following persons;
I. An extent of 0.28 guntas in the name of Nanjundappa 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 (Presently Trio World School belong to Sri Manjunath) II. An extent of 1 acre 6 guntas was in the name of Late Kempaiah and his four sons namely Doddananjundappa, Chikkananjundappa, Doddamunishyamappa, Chikkamunishyamappa who divided equally by 11 and ½ guntas each by virtue of partition between them now all these owners dead Further two sons of Late Kempaiah by name Doddananjundappa and Chikkananjundappa have retained their extent till this date by constructing building thereon. The third and fourth son of late Kempaiah i.e., Doddamunishyamappa, Chikkamunishyamappa jointly formed revenue layout in the year 1986-87 in the 11 ½ plus 11 ½ guntas in totally 23 guntas of land. One Gopalacharya and Sheshadri are behind the revenue layout formation. Eastern portion of Sy. No.3/2 belongs to Doddamunishayamappa and western portion belongs to Chikkamunishyamappa totally measuring 23 guntas. Land in Sy. No.3/2 on the southern side, Kodigehalli bus stand road exists from time immemorial. The total land in Sy. No.3/2 on the southern side 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 of Kodigehalli main road, assessable to all the owners of said land. Some extent/portion of land in Sy. No.3/2 has already gone to Kodigehalli Govt. Road long ago and the RTC reflects the original extent even though land in Sy. No.3/2 has been reduced due to road widening on the southern side of comprehensive property. The afore said owners of land have not got surveyed the land belonged to them as to the actual extent since then RTC reflects their names jointly in respect of Sy. No.3/2.
Further, Doddamunishyamappa and Chikkamunishyamappa have provided road from (from Government Bus Road) South to North of Sy. No.3/2 measuring 18 ft. width and more than 280 ft. length private road in the middle of the shares of both. The eastern portion of Sy. No.3/2 they have made nine revenue sites and in the western portion nine revenue sites were formed with different dimensions. As such, the public have purchased revenue sites and put up permanent houses on both sides of revenue layout since 1990. The road provided in the southern side to northern side 18 ft. X 250 ft., met dead end of 12. ft of plaintiff's society property now 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 called Dev-In-National School. The plaintiffs after construction of Mamooth Building for Dev-In-National School with compound wall erected by plaintiff society about 15 years back on the northern side of Schedule property of defendant No.1. As could be seen from the goolge photos the written statement schedule property having AC Asbestos Sheet Houses prior to construction of new house building clearly goes to show that the defendant No.1 and her family is in possession and enjoyment of the property all these years. Further a bore-well as dug up in written statement schedule property in the year 2009. The father of the defendant No.1 had obtained electricity connection.
Further, during 1986 revenue sites were not registered as there was a ban on revenue site registration. Accordingly, Chikkamunishyamappa S/o.Kempaiah has sold all sites carved out of his share to several persons including site No.8 and 9 which is the written statement schedule property under unregistered GPA with agreement of sale, affidavit etc., along with revenue site developer Goplacharya to defendant No.4, who is the mother of defendant No.1 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 on 19.02.1986. Similarly, site No.4 was sold to father of defendant No.1 under unregistered document and pakka house is built by the father of defendant No.1 long ago somewhere in 1992 during his life time. The defendant No.1 and 4 are residing in the said house since 1992-1993. The defendant No.4 under powers conferred under GPA has executed registered sale deed dated 06.06.2001 in favour of Bylappa her husband to have title over the written statement schedule property bearing site No.8 and 9 measuring east to west 36 ft. and north to south 52 ft. in the office of Sub Registrar, Yelahanka. Chikkamunishyamappa died in the year 2005 leaving behind his wife Smt.Muniythamma.
Further, the father of defendant No.1, requested the wife of Late Chikkamunishyamappa to execute registered sale deed to set right the defect in title with regard to site No.4, 8 and 9, the written statement schedule property purchased under agreement/GPA/affidavit dated 19.02.1986. Munithayamma W/o.Chikkamunishayamappa agreed to execute registered sale deed in respect of Sy. No.3/2 measuring 5 ½ guntas equivalent to site 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 No.4, 8 and 9. As such the father of defendant no.1 has obtained registered sale deed dated 04.04.2006 by paying additional Sale consideration of Rs.4,82,000/- to defendant No.3 even though he has put up construction of house in site No.4 and compound wall and a shed in site No.8 and 9 since 1990. The written statement schedule property was carved out of Sy. No.3/2 belonged to Chikkamunishayamappa which was brought under revenue layout in 1986 itself and no land was available for sale to plaintiff's society. The plaintiff's society in collusion with defendant No.2 and 3 taking advantage of RTC Extract's standing in their name obtained alleged sale deed dated 16.01.2006 in respect of 1 1/2 guntas each totally measuring 3 guntas in Sy. No.3/2 which is non existant. The land in Sy. No.3/2 total extent was shown as 1 acre 6 guntas in RTC. The suit schedule property claimed by the plaintiff is not in existence and the plaintiffs society is not in possession. Whatever the land the plaintiff society purchased has been fortified with high compound wall of 12 ft. with huge building thereon standing in the land of plaintiff's society. The Dev-In-National School has school ground 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 abutting an apartment and servant quarters on the western side of written statement schedule property. Nothing prevented the plaintiffs society to erect compound wall if at all alleged suit schedule property purchased as it was belonging to them in the year 2008 when they have constructed huge school building called Dev-In-National School. The plaintiffs society not in possession of written statement schedule property which is exclusively belonging to defendant No.1. The plaintiff society wants the written statement schedule property to have ingress and egress to the revenue layout from the Dev-In- National School Compound as the plaintiffs society did not have any assessable road on the southern side of school building. The suit schedule property as pleaded in the plaint do not disclose road on the eastern side which BBMP has erected long ago and now it has been concreted with drainage on both sides of private road. The plaintiffs society is bared from purchase of agricultural lands under Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 wherein Section 79(a) and (b) deals with societies cannot purchase any agricultural land without permission. In fact the defendant No.1 under legal notice dated 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 19.10.2023 addressed to plaintiffs society indicating the title of defendant No.1 and construction building/concrete of dwelling house on the first floor on the basis of the sanction plan issued by BBMP, the defendant No.1 has obtained loan of Rs.90 Lakhs from Canara Bank for construction of house in written statement schedule property. The Chairman of Plaintiffs society, Secretary along with their henchmen everyday get inside the property of defendant No.1 by illegally removing the compound wall. The defendant No.1 caused legal notice to the society on 19.10.2023 to which the plaintiff has given reply on 25.10.2023 with untenable defense. Thereafter the plaintiffs society had filed police complaint against defendant No.1. The written statement schedule property is distinct and different in which the defendant No.1 is constructing house. Infact land bearing Sy.No.3/1 prior to purchase by the plaintiffs society was also under revenue layout and the roads drainage were carved out some where in 1986-87 and it was sold in khatha nos.3/1 remained as such in RTC. The adjacent to Dev-In- National School 12 ft compound wall site No.9, three flooried house 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 was constructed by one Indiramma who was one of the site purchasers. The defendant No.2 had no vacant land to sell the same to the plaintiffs society. The defendant No.1 is in possession of the property since 37 years. The plaintiff after lapse of 17 years of alleged sale deed dated 16.01.2006 came up with ulterior motive which is barred under Limitation Act. The defendant No.4 is not a necessary party to the suit, as such the suit is hit by misjoinder of necessary parties. The sy No.3/2 measuring 3 guntas was merged with Sy. No.3/1 under official memorandum order of Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru dated 07.10.2008 with common boundaries. Further the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No.3/2 was merged with BBMP Tax Demand Register Extract. Now the plaintiff trust by using money power and influence obtained illegal new survey number 3/12 which is converted land to lay false claim over the written statement schedule property. The podi and durasthi obtained by plaintiff in the year 2014-15 is by illegal means. Among all other grounds prays to dismiss the suit.
82
O.S. No.6795/2023
5. On the above pleadings the following issues were framed;
1. Whether plaintiff trust proves that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property measuring 3 guntas having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 16-01-2006, separately as contended in para No.3 of the plaint?
2. Whether plaintiff trust further proves that it has got converted Sy.No.3/1 and 3/2 on 07-10-2008 from the Dy. Commissioner as contended in para No.7 of the plaint?
3. Whether plaintiff trust proves that sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of father of defendant No.1 on 04-04-2006 and in turn gift deed executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.1 is not binding on the plaintiff?
4. Whether the plaintiff trust proves that the suit schedule property is the part and parcel of Sy.No.3/1, 3/2 and new number 3/12?
5. Whether the plaintiff Trust further proves that the suit schedule property and written statement schedule property are one and the same property?
6. Whether the plaintiff Trust proves that the defendant Nos.1 and 4 have illegally constructed the building as contended in the plaint and therefore, trust is entitle for mandatory injunction and also possession as claimed in the plaint?
82
O.S. No.6795/2023
7. Whether the defendant No.1 and 4 proves that the father of the defendant No.1 had purchased property bearing Sy.No.3/2 measuring 3 ½ guntas and 2 ½ guntas under
registered sale deed dated 04-04-2006 & also its boundaries?
8. Whether the defendant No.1 and 4 proves that suit of the plaintiff is hit by Article 65 of the Limitation Act?
9. Whether the plaintiff Trust proves that it is entitle for relief as claimed in the plaint?
10. What Decree or Order?
6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the President of the plaintiff trust examined as PW-1 & got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 documents & closed its side evidence. On the other hand, Defendant No.1 got himself examined as DW-1 and produced & got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.32 and closed their side evidence. Further the Court Commissioner is examined as CW-1 and got marked Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.9 documents.
7. Heard arguments of both sides & perused the materials placed on record.
82
O.S. No.6795/2023
8. My findings to the above issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1 : As affirmative
ISSUE NO.2 : As affirmative
ISSUE NO.3 : As affirmative
ISSUE NO.4 : As affirmative
ISSUE NO.5 Partly Affirmative
ISSUE NO.6 As affirmative
ISSUE NO.7 In the negative
ISSUE NO.8 In the negative
ISSUE NO.9 As Affirmative
ISSUE NO.10 : As per final order, for the
following;
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 to 7:- In order to avoid repetition of facts, issue No.1 to 7 have been taken for common discussion.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and is in peaceful possession & enjoyment of converted landed property bearing new Sy. No.3/12, Old Sy. No.3/2 measuring to the extent of 0.01 ½ gunta out of 0.11 guntas of defendant No.2 and the same Sy.No.3/2 measuring 0.1 ½ guntas out of 0.11 guntas of defendant No.3, totally measuring 3 guntas situated at Kothi Hosahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 North Taluk. The plaintiff is a trust registered under the Indian Trust Act under the name and style of 'M/s. Cauveri Social and Educational Trust (R)'. The plaintiff trust is running a school under the name and style of 'M/s.Dev-In-National School' at land bearing Sy. No.3/1 measuring 0.37 guntas situated at Kodigehalli Main Road, 60 ft. road adjacent to Cauveri College, Sahakar Nagar, Bengaluru-92. The plaintiff with an intention to expand school premises for the purpose of educational activities had purchased agricultural dry land bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring 3 guntas situated at Kothi Hosahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bengaluru which is described in the suit schedule herein after called the suit schedule property from M.Venkatesh and Mrs.Munithayamma for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs through registered sale deed dated 16.01.2006. Thereafter the khatha of the schedule property was mutated in the name of the plaintiff as per M.R. No.6/2005 - 2006, the RTC transferred to the name of the plaintiff for the period 2005-2006 to 2013-2014 with respect to land bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring 0.3 guntas of Kothi Hosahalli Village. Sri M.Venkatesh the vendor No.1 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 of plaintiff who is the defendant No.2 in the present case initially owned 11.08 guntas of land as per M.R.4/2000-2001 and the vendor No.2 Smt.Munithayamma the defendant No.3 herein who inherited 11.08 guntas of land towards her share as per IHC 2/2005-2006 and as per the same revenue entries were made as per M.R No.2/2005-2006, jointly conveyed 1½ guntas each together measuring to an extent of 0.03 guntas in favour of the plaintiff as per the sale deed dated 16.01.2006. Subsequent to purchase of suit schedule property, the plaintiff had applied for conversion of land bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring to an extent of 0.3 guntas for educational purposes together with land bearing Sy. No.3/1 measuring 0.36 guntas. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban accorded sanction in favour of the plaintiff by converting the agricultural land to non agricultural educational purposes as per the order dated 07.10.2008 in No.ALN(NAY)SR 141/07-08. In pursuance there off, the khatha of the land bearing Sy. No.3/1 and 3/2 measuring 31.08 guntas mutated in the name of the plaintiff as per M.R. No.6/2008-2009. The plaintiff once again applied for 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 conversion of the remaining extent of 0.1 guntas in land bearing Sy. No.3/1 and obtained sanction from the Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru as per the order dated 22.09.2009 vide No.ALN(NAY)SR 114/08-09. After conversion of land the plaintiff applied for registration of khatha for total extent of 1 acre of converted land comprising of Sy. No.3/1 measuring 0.37 guntas and Sy. No.3/2 measuring 0.3 guntas respectively as per the order of Joint Commissioner, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru. The plaintiff has remitted the statutory charges to BBMP and obtained khatha vide No.KTR/307/2009-2010 dated 02.10.2009. The plaintiff is paying tax to the concerned authority regularly. The plaintiff has fenced the converted property in land bearing Sy. No.3/1 measuring 0.037 guntas with a compound wall and the portion of converted property in the land bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring 0.3 guntas of Kothi Hosahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru was left undeveloped. The plaintiff was planning to develop the property bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring 0.3 guntas post conversion the converted portion of land bearing Sy. No.3/2 was assigned with new number Sy. 82
O.S. No.6795/2023 No.3/12 in the name of plaintiff Trust and has mutated the RTC vide M.R. No.T1/2014-15.
Further the defendant No.1 is the daughter of defendant No.4. The defendant No.3 claims to be the close relative of defendant No.1 and 4. On growing up the market value the defendants with an intention to knock off the valuable property of the plaintiff hatched a plan and indulged in fabrication of documents. The defendant No.1 without any authority allegedly started claiming rights over the suit property subsequent to plaintiff's sale deed having obtained the title through defendant No.3 colluding with one Late Bylappa the father of defendant No.1 and relative of defendant No.3 in land bearing Sy. No.3/2measuring 5.08 guntas out of 11.08 guntas (11 ½ guntas) in respect of suit schedule property fraudulently with out the knowledge of the plaintiff under sale deed dated 04.04.2006. After the death of Bylappa, the father of defendant No.1 by way of after thought they concocted and fabricated a document styled as 'Gift Deed' dated 24.09.2021 in favour of defendant No.1 describing the property as site bearing No.8 and 9 by fabricating some of the BBMP 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 documents appears to be standing in the name of defendant No.1, mutating the agricultural land as 'A' Classified Property in BBMP Records without any conversion order. The defendant No.3 who is one of the vendor of the plaintiff has no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property to make a second sale. The defendant No.3 ceases to hold any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property after conveying the title in favour of the plaintiff.
Further, on 01.09.2023 the defendant No.1 started to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property claiming to be the property purchased by her late father and bequeathed in her favour by her mother. The plaintiff clarified and explained that the suit schedule property is the absolute property in plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment. The defendant No.1 cannot claim title over the suit schedule property as the plaintiff is the first purchaser of the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed. There cannot be a second sale by the same vendor on the same property. The defendant taking 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 opportunity of the absence of the plaintiff trust on account of vacation after midterm exams taking shelter of the hight of the compound wall in the other portion of the converted land bearing Sy. No.3/1, the defendant No.1 and 3 being close relatives colluded with local politicians and BBMP Officials have indulged in illegal construction making all kinds of hectic efforts to dig the land through JCB and has put up with in instant pillars loading raised the structure to the beam level which is below the level of plaintiff's compound wall in the land bearing Sy. No.3/1. On coming to know about the same, the plaintiff immediately lodged a complaint before Kodigehalli Police on 10.10.2023 with respect to interference in the trust property unauthorizedly. The police have refused to interfere in the matter stating that it is purely Civil Nature. The defendant No.1 has no manner of right, title and interest in the suit schedule property and the attempt of defendant No.1 to put up illegal construction in the suit schedule property is highly illegal and unethical. The boundaries mentioned in the alleged second sale deed dated 04.04.2006 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 No.1 and husband of defendant No.4 & that of the alleged gift deed dated 24.09.2021 said to have bequeathed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.1 are entirely different with the suit schedule property and is nothing to do with the plaintiffs property. The defendant has no nexus with that of the plaintiff & the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property to create a second sale against the interest of plaintiff and ruled principles of law. The conversion order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru and the boundaries appendix to it establish that the land bearing Sy. No.3/1 and 3/2 having converted jointly are abutting to each other which clearly reveals that sale deed of plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule property is the absolute property of plaintiff. The defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.3 and 4 knowing fully well that the suit schedule property does not belonging to them and instead of putting up construction in the property fallen to their share are wrongly claiming the plaintiff's suit schedule property as the property of defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 is one of the vendor of plaintiff 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 and the suit is for declaration and possession, hence the defendant No.2 is a proper party to the suit. The defendant No.1 to 3 and 4 have jointly threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences for having questioned their title and interest on substantiating the validity of the title of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1, 3 and 4 colluding with each other used to file false atrocity cases against the office bearers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff without any alternative and efficacious remedy approached this court for the relief of declaration, possession, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendants.
10. On the contrary it is the contention of the defendant No.1 and 4 that the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property carved out of Sy. No.3/2, site No.8, 9, K.No.3/2, BBMP Khatha No.293/3/2/8 and 9 measuring east - west 36 ft and north to south 52 ft. totally measuring 1,872 sq. ft. situated at Kothihosahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, presently coming under BBMP Ward 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 No.8, Bengaluru which is the written statement schedule property. The father of defendant No.1 has purchased land bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring 3 guntas and 2 ½ guntas totally measuring 5 ½ guntas with two boundaries asper the sketch annexed to the sale deed dated 04.04.2006 from defendant No.3. The father of defendant No.1 was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy. No.3/2 measuring 5 ½ guntas as stated above and revenue documents were mutated as per M.R. No.1/2007-08. Consequently the property came under BBMP Ward No.8. The father of the defendant No.1 by name Bylappa obtained BBMP Khatha and paid taxes to BBMP and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owner till his death. The father of defendant No.1 died on 19.09.2019 leaving behind defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 as legal heirs. As such defendant No.4 obtained transfer of revenue records under inheritance in her favour in respect of the property. The defendant No.4 has executed registered gift deed dated 24.09.2021 in respect of written statement schedule property in favour of her daughter defendant No.1. After the gift deed the 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 revenue documents of BBMP were also transferred to the name of defendant No.1 and she is paying taxes to the concerned authority. The defendant No.1 is residing with her mother in the address shown in the plaint and she wish to put up construction of dwelling house in the written statement schedule property carved out of Sy. No.3/2. The defendant No.1 has obtained license and building approval sanction plan for construction of dwelling house.
Further, originally the land in Sy. No.3/2 totally measuring 1 acre 34 guntas of Kothi Hosahalli and land in respective portion held by the following persons;
I. An extent of 0.28 guntas in the name of Nanjundappa (Presently Trio World School belong to Sri Manjunath) II. An extent of 1 acre 6 guntas was in the name of Late Kempaiah and his four sons namely Doddananjundappa, Chikkananjundappa, Doddamunishyamappa, Chikkamunishyamappa who divided equally by 11 and ½ guntas each by virtue of partition between them now all these owners dead Further two sons of Late Kempaiah by name 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 Doddananjundappa and Chikkananjundappa have retained their extent till this date by constructing building thereon. The third and fourth son of late Kempaiah i.e., Doddamunishyamappa, Chikkamunishyamappa jointly formed revenue layout in the year 1986-87 in the 11 ½ plus 11 ½ guntas in totally 23 guntas of land. One Gopalacharya and Sheshadri are behind the revenue layout formation. Eastern portion of Sy. No.3/2 belongs to Doddamunishayamappa and western portion belongs to Chikkamunishyamappa totally measuring 23 guntas. Land in Sy. No.3/2 on the southern side, Kodigehalli bus stand road exists from time immemorial. The total land in Sy. No.3/2 on the southern side of Kodigehalli main road, assessable to all the owners of said land. Some extent/portion of land in Sy. No.3/2 has already gone to Kodigehalli Govt. Road long ago and the RTC reflects the original extent even though land in Sy. No.3/2 has been reduced due to road widening on the southern side of comprehensive property. The afore said owners of land have not got surveyed the land belonged to them as to the actual extent since then RTC reflects their names jointly in 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 respect of Sy. No.3/2.
Further, Doddamunishyamappa and Chikkamunishyamappa have provided road from (from Government Bus Road) South to North of Sy. No.3/2 measuring 18 ft. width and more than 280 ft. length private road in the middle of the shares of both. The eastern portion of Sy. No.3/2 they have made nine revenue sites and in the western portion nine revenue sites were formed with different dimensions. As such, the public have purchased revenue sites and put up permanent houses on both sides of revenue layout since 1990. The road provided in the southern side to northern side 18 ft. X 250 ft., met dead end of 12. ft of plaintiff's society property now called Dev-In-National School. The plaintiffs after construction of Mamooth Building for Dev-In-National School with compound wall erected by plaintiff society about 15 years back on the northern side of Schedule property of defendant No.1. As could be seen from the goolge photos the written statement schedule property having AC Asbestos Sheet Houses prior to construction of new house building clearly goes to show that the defendant No.1 and her family is in 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 possession and enjoyment of the property all these years. Further a bore-well as dug up in written statement schedule property in the year 2009. The father of the defendant No.1 had obtained electricity connection.
Further, during 1986 revenue sites were not registered as there was a ban on revenue site registration. Accordingly, Chikkamunishyamappa S/o.Kempaiah has sold all sites carved out of his share to several persons including site No.8 and 9 which is the written statement schedule property under unregistered GPA with agreement of sale, affidavit etc., along with revenue site developer Goplacharya to defendant No.4, who is the mother of defendant No.1 on 19.02.1986. Similarly, site No.4 was sold to father of defendant No.1 under unregistered document and pakka house is built by the father of defendant No.1 long ago somewhere in 1992 during his life time. The defendant No.1 and 4 are residing in the said house since 1992-1993. The defendant No.4 under powers conferred under GPA has executed registered sale deed dated 06.06.2001 in favour of Bylappa her husband to have title over the written statement 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 schedule property bearing site No.8 and 9 measuring east to west 36 ft. and north to south 52 ft. in the office of Sub Registrar, Yelahanka. Chikkamunishyamappa died in the year 2005 leaving behind his wife Smt.Muniythamma.
Further, the father of defendant No.1, requested the wife of Late Chikkamunishyamappa to execute registered sale deed to set right the defect in title with regard to site No.4, 8 and 9, the written statement schedule property purchased under agreement/GPA/affidavit dated 19.02.1986. Munithayamma W/o.Chikkamunishayamappa agreed to execute registered sale deed in respect of Sy. No.3/2 measuring 5 ½ guntas equivalent to site No.4, 8 and 9. As such the father of defendant no.1 has obtained registered sale deed dated 04.04.2006 by paying additional Sale consideration of Rs.4,82,000/- to defendant No.3 even though he has put up construction of house in site No.4 and compound wall and a shed in site No.8 and 9 since 1990. The written statement schedule property was carved out of Sy. No.3/2 belonged to Chikkamunishayamappa which was brought under revenue layout 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 in 1986 itself and no land was available for sale to plaintiff's society. The plaintiff's society in collusion with defendant No.2 and 3 taking advantage of RTC Extract's standing in their name obtained alleged sale deed dated 16.01.2006 in respect of 1 1/2 guntas each totally measuring 3 guntas in Sy. No.3/2 which is non existant. The land in Sy. No.3/2 total extent was shown as 1 acre 6 guntas in RTC. The suit schedule property claimed by the plaintiff is not in existence and the plaintiffs society is not in possession. Whatever the land the plaintiff society purchased has been fortified with high compound wall of 12 ft. with huge building thereon standing in the land of plaintiff's society. The Dev-In-National School has school ground abutting an apartment and servant quarters on the western side of written statement schedule property. Nothing prevented the plaintiffs society to erect compound wall if at all alleged suit schedule property purchased as it was belonging to them in the year 2008 when they have constructed huge school building called Dev-In-National School. The plaintiffs society not in possession of written statement schedule property which is exclusively belonging to defendant No.1. 82
O.S. No.6795/2023 The plaintiff society wants the written statement schedule property to have ingress and egress to the revenue layout from the Dec-In- National School Compound as the plaintiffs society did not have any assessable road on the southern side of school building. The suit schedule property as pleaded in the plaint do not disclose road on the eastern side which BBMP has erected long ago and now it has been concreted with drainage on both sides of private road. The plaintiffs society is bared from purchase of agricultural lands under Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 wherein Section 79(a) and (b) deals with societies cannot purchase any agricultural land without permission. In fact the defendant No.1 under legal notice dated 19.10.2023 addressed to plaintiffs society indicating the title of defendant No.1 and construction building/concrete of dwelling house on the first floor on the basis of the sanction plan issued by BBMP, the defendant No.1 has obtained loan of Rs.90 Lakhs from Canara Bank for construction of house in written statement schedule property. The Chairman of Plaintiffs society, Secretary along with their henchmen everyday get inside the property of 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 defendant No.1 by illegally removing the compound wall. The defendant No.1 caused legal notice to the society on 19.10.2023 to which the plaintiff has given reply on 25.10.2023 with untenable defense. Thereafter the plaintiffs society had filed police complaint against defendant No.1. The written statement schedule property is distinct and different in which the defendant No.1 is constructing house. Infact land bearing Sy.No.3/1 prior to purchase by the plaintiffs society was also under revenue layout and the roads drainage were carved out some where in 1986-87 and it was sold in khatha nos.3/1 remained as such in RTC. The adjacent to Dev-In- National School 12 ft compound wall site No.9, three floored house was constructed by one Indiramma who was one of the site purchasers. The defendant No.2 had no vacant land to sell the same to the plaintiffs society. The defendant No.1 is in possession of the property since 37 years. The plaintiff after lapse of 17 years of alleged sale deed dated 16.01.2006 came up with ulterior motive which is barred under Limitation Act. The defendant No.4 is not a necessary party to the suit, as such the suit is hit by misjoinder of 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 necessary parties. The sy No.3/2 measuring 3 guntas was merged with Sy. No.3/1 under official memorandum order of Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru dated 07.10.2008 with common boundaries. Further the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No.3/2 was merged with BBMP Tax Demand Register Extract. Now the plaintiff trust by using money power and influence obtained illegal new survey number 3/12 which is converted land to lay false claim over the written statement schedule property. The podi and durasthi obtained by plaintiff in the year 2014-15 is by illegal means.
The learned Advocate for plaintiff contended that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and is in peaceful possession & enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property bearing Site No.522 formed in Sy. No.2, 3/5 and 6, 8/2 and 3, 52/1 and 2, 53/1 to 4, 54/part, 57/1 to 8 and 9, 102/1 to 8 (a), 104/1 to 3 and 105/1 in the layout formed by the NGEF Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited situated at Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli. Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru measuring 967 Sq. Ft bearing Khata No. 522/522 in BBMP Ward No. 129. The Plaintiff is the absolute owner 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 of the Schedule Property through registered Sale Deed, dated 04.08.2021. Since from the date of purchase the plaintiff is in peaceful possession & enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property. The plaintiff got the khatha with respect to the Suit Schedule Property. Originally Suit Schedule Property was acquired by M/s.NGEF Employees & Ex-Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., (NGEF Society) through the acquisition proceedings initiated and completed by Govt. Of Karnataka vide (I) RD 160 AQB/90 dated 29.09.1992 and LAQ (7) SR 378/86-87 dated 03.10.1992 (ii) RD 244 AQB/19 dated 30.10.1992 and LAQ (7) SR 398/86-87 dated 04.11.1992 for the purpose of forming layout and to distribute the sites to its members. NGEF Society has developed the afore said property and formed residential sites obtaining required sanction and approval from the BDA vide resolution No.307/1992 dated 244.09.1992 and the layout plan was sanctioned by the BDA. The plaintiff's vendor Sri B A Raju being the member of NGEF Society was allotted site No.522 vide allotment letter No.003 dated 24.03.2021 as per the resolution dated 22.02.2021. In pursuance of the afore said allotment letter the 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 schedule property was registered in favour of vendor of the plaintiff by name B.A.Raju through registered sale deed dated 26.03.2021 & vendor of the plaintiff was put in possession of the Suit Schedule Property vide possession certificate No.003 and in pursuance of afore said sale deed, the plaintiff's vendor was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property. Since, there were some typographical errors in the sale deed dated 26.03.2021 the NGEF Society rectified the same by executing the rectification deed dated 04.08.2021 in favour of vendor of the plaintiff Sri B.A.Raju. As things stood thus, the defendant claiming to be the owner of schedule property based on judgment dated 17.09.2022 in OS No.4628/2021 passed by the CCH-8, tried to forcefully enter the schedule property. But the said judgment dated 17.09.2022 was against the vendor of the plaintiff B.A.Raju for the relief of permanent injunction with respect to site No.1 Khatha No.55/1 situated at BBMP Ward No.129, presently at 11th cross NGEF Layout, Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. But the said judgment & decree is not with respect to 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 present suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not executed any sale deed in favour of defendant. The plaintiff has diligently put up compound wall across the Suit Schedule Property and is in peaceful possession and occupation of the same. The defendant base don the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2022 forcefully trespassed the Suit Schedule Property and tainted the suit OS No.4628/2021 number on the compound wall put up by the plaintiff. That on 18.11.2022 the defendant claiming to be the owner of the schedule property based on the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2022 trespassed into the property with the assistance of anti social elements and painted on the compound wall and tried to unlawfully dispossess the plaintiff from the Suit Schedule Property. The plaintiff immediately approached the jurisdictional police and tried to lodge a complaint. The police authorities refused to take police complaint and failed to take any action against the defendant. Hence, without alternative the plaintiff approached this court.
82
O.S. No.6795/2023
11. On the other hand it is the contention of the defendant that In fact the documents produced by the plaintiff are fabricated documents for the purpose of the present suit. The Khatha extract produced by the plaintiff is a bogus document created by the plaintiff. The endorsement issued by the BBMP clearly reveals that no such document existing in the records of BBMP. Sy. No.55/1 of Malathahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North taluk was not a part of acquisition of NGEF society. Where the defendant site is in existence which is claimed by plaintiff as suit schedule property. The formation of layout by the society with intention to distribute sites to its members may be true but the NGEF society has not formed any site bearing No.522 measuring 967 sq ft as described in the scheduled. The N.G.E.F. Society has developed the layout and formed residential sites obtaining required sanction and approval from the Bangalore Development Authority vide Resolution No. 307/92, dated 24.09.1992 and layout plan was sanctioned by the BDA may be true. But there is no site No.522 & there is no odd 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 dimension site formed by the society. As such question of allotting the said site does not arise.
Further in OS No.4628/2021 on the file of CCH-8 which was filed by the present defendant against vendor of the plaintiff and the said court granted permanent injunction restraining the vendor of the plaintiff Sri B.A.Raju from interfering with respect to site No.1, khatha No.65/1 situated at BBMP Ward No.129, presently at 11th cross, NGEF layout, Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwnathapura Bengaluru North Taluk. The property of defendant measuring east west 30 and north south 40 ft carved out of Sy. No.55/1 of Mallathahalli village is not the part of NGEF layout. The defendant is in settled possession and enjoyment of the site bearing No.1. Khatha No.55/1 ward No 129, 11th cross Mallathahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk since from the date of purchase dated 08.05.2014 much earlier to the execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff and his vendors. Sy. No.55/1 of Mallathalli village is not at an acquired by the BDA or government which is not the part of NGEF layout project while approving the layout by the BDA there is no any specifications 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 about site No. 522 therefore the NGEF house building society will not get any right to alienate site No.522 since there is no existence of such site neither the plaintiff nor the vendor will get any title or possession. The office bearers of the managing committee of NGEF Layout Society seems to have hatched a conspiracy to grab the adjacent property by creating fake documents and alleged sale deed may be executed in favour of plaintiff vendor, knowingly well the vendor of the plaintiff did not contest the suit filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 4628/2021 and the present plaintiff is also very well aware about the pendency of the suit and possession of the defendant & despite he has purchased the property. The defendant has purchased the site bearing No.1-55/1 carved out of Sy. No.55/1 by a registered sale deed dated 08.05.2014 and since from the date of sale deed he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property, he has obtained the electricity and water sanitary connection and khatha is standing in the name of the defendant. Only to deprive the rights of the defendant, the plaintiff filed the present suit. 82
O.S. No.6795/2023
12. In order to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the President of the plaintiff trust filed his examination-in-chief on oath as PW-1 and he reiterated the averments of plaint. He has also produced and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.40 documents. Ex.P.1 is the Board Resolution of plaintiff trust dated 21.01.2024, Ex.P.2 is the Deed of Amendment of trust Deed dated 29.02.2021, Ex.P.3 is the official memorandum dated 19.12.2005 issued by Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District dated LRF(N.A) C.R.10/2015-16 permitting the plaintiff Education Trust to purchase land measuring 37 guntas in Sy. No.3/1 and land measuring 3 guntas in Sy. No.3/2 of Kothihosahalli Village, Ex.P.4 is the Original sale deed dated 16.01.2006 executed by defendant No.2 Venkatesh.M and defendnat No.3 Munithayamma in favour of plaintiff Trust with respect to suit schedule property, Ex.P.5 is the Computerized Mutation Extract pertaining to Sy. No.3/1 bearing M.R. No.13/2005-06 measuring 28 guntas, Ex.P.6 is the computerized mutation extract pertaining to Sy. No.3/1 bearing M.R. No.9/2005-06 measuring 9 guntas, Ex.P.7 is the computerized mutation extract, Ex.P.8 is the computerized 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 mutation extract bearing M.R. No.6/2007-08pertaining to 37 guntas in Sy. No.3/1 and 3 guntas in Sy. No.3/2 standing in the name of plaintiff trust, Ex.P.9 is the computerized mutation extract bearing M.R. No.2/05-06 pertaining to Sy. No.3/2 measuring 11 ½ guntas mutated to the name of defendant No.3 Munithyamma, Ex.P.10 is the computerized RTC Extract for the year 2005-06 to 2013-14 pertaining to Sy. No.3/2 of Kothihosahalli which reveals that defendant No.2 M.Venkatesh had 11 ½ guntas and Defendant No.3 Munithyamma had 11 ½ guntas in the said Survey Number. Ex.P.11 is the official memorandum regarding conversion of 39 guntas including 36 guntas in Sy. No.3/1 and 3 guntas in Sy. No.3/2 of Kothihosahalli dated07.10.2008, Ex.P.12 is the notice issued by the office of Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District dated 16.06.2008, Ex.P.13 is the challan pertaining to payment of conversion charges, Ex.P.14 is the official memorandum issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District dated 22.09.2009 regarding conversion of 1 gunta in Sy. No.3/1, Ex.P.15 is the notice issued by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 District dated 27.08.2009 regarding conversion of 1 gunta of land in Sy. No.3/1 of Kothihosahalli Village, Ex.P.16 is the Challan towards conversion charges of 1 gunta in Sy. No.3/1, Ex.P.17 is the Moola Tippani of Sy. No.3 of Kothihosahalli, Ex.P.18 is the copy of resurvey sketch, Ex.P.19 is the village pakka book copy, Ex.P.20 is the Survey notice, Ex.P.21 is the copy of mahazar, Ex.P.22 is the mutation pakka book, Ex.P.23 is the Survey Mahazar, Ex.P.24 is the atlas copy of resurvey No.3/2, Ex.P.25 is the survey notice copy, Ex.P.26 is the copy of Karnataka Revision Settlement Akarbandh, Ex.P.27 is the khatha certificate, Ex.P.28 is the copy of tax assessment extract for the year 2023-24, Ex.P.29 is the BBMP tax paid receipts, Ex.P.30 is the computerized M.R. No.T1/2014-15, Ex.P.31 is the photographs in No.8, Ex.P.31(a) is the compact Disk, Ex.P.32 is the complaint dated 22.11.2023 lodged by plaintiff trust against defendant No.1, 2, 4 and others, Ex.P.33 is the complaint lodged by plaintiff against defendant No.1 to 4 dated 03.01.2024, Ex.P.34 is the Acknowledgment issued by PSI, Kodigehalli P.S. dated 03.01.2024, Ex.P.35 is the complaint dated 07.01.2024 lodged by plaintiff trust 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 against defendant No.1 and her husband by name Kamaraju, Ex.P.36 is the acknowledgment of police dated 08.01.2024, Ex.P.37 is the FIR in Cr. No.328/2023 of Kodgehalli P.S., Ex.P.38 is the RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.3/2 for the year 1997-98 to 2000-01, Ex.P.39 is the photographs, Ex.P.40 is the sketch prepared by Taluka Surveyor with respect to Sy. No.3/1, 3/2 for conversion of land for non agricultural purpose.
13. On the other hand the defendant No.1 filed her examination-in-chief on oath as DW-1 and reiterated the averments of written statement. She has also produced and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.P.32 documents. Ex.D.1 is the certified copy of sale deed executed by Munithayamma in favour of father of defendant No.1 by name Bylappa dated 04.04.2006 along with sketch wherein Munithyamma sold 5 ½ guntas in Sy. No.3/2 having different boundaries, Ex.D.2 is the computerized RTC Extracts pertaining to Sy. No.3/1 of Kothihosahalli village from the year 2003-04 to 2014- 15, Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.6 are the photographs, Ex.D.7 is the RTI 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 application, Ex.D.8 is the memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 27.09.2023 executed between Defendant No.1 and Canara Bank, Ex.D.9 is the letter of Canara Bank, Yelahanka Branch, stating that Defendant No.1 has taken loan of Rs.90,95,000/-, Ex.D.10 is the sale deed dated 06.06.2001 executed by defendant No.4 Lakshmidevamma as a General Power of Attorney Holder of one Sheshadri & S.Gopalacharya in favour of Bylappa with respect to property bearing khatha No.3/2, site No.8 & 9, Ex.D.11 is the sale deed dated 04.04.2006 executed by defendant No.3 Munithayamma in favour of father of defendant No.1 by name Bylappa with respect to 5 ½ guntas in Sy. No.3/2 along with sketch, Ex.D.12 is the computerized M.R. No.1/2006-07, Ex.D.13 is the computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.3/2 of Kothihosahalli Village for the year 2009-10 till 2019-20, Ex.D.14 is the khatha certificate pertaining to No.293/3/2/8 & 9 standing in the name of Bylappa, Ex.D.15 is the assessment extract for the year 2007-08 standing in the name of Bylappa, Ex.D.16 is the death certificate of Bylappa who died on 19.09.2019, Ex.D.17 is the khatha certificate pertaining to property 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 No.293/3/2/8 & 9 standing in the name of Defendant No.4 Lakshmi Devamma, Ex.D.18 is the Uttarapathra dated 24.09.2020, Ex.D.19 is the assessment extract pertaining to property bearing No.293/3/2/8&9 for the year 2020-21, Ex.D.20 is the gift deed dated 24.09.2021 executed by defendant No.4 Lakshmi Devamma in favour of her daughter defendant No.1 with respect to property bearing No.293/3/2/8&9, Ex.D.21 is the khatha certificate standing in the name of defendant No.1 pertaining to property bearing No.293/3/28&9, Ex.D.22 khatha certificate, Ex.D.23 is the copy of assessment extract pertaining to property No.293/3/2/8&9 standing in the name of defendant No.1 Chaithra, Ex.D.24 is the tax paid receipt of defendant No.1 for the year 2023-24, Ex.D.25 is the building license of BBMP, Ex.D.26 is the photographs in Nos.8, Ex.D.26(a) is pen drive, Ex.D.27 is the official memorandum of BESCOM dated 08.06.2023, Ex.D.28 is the copy of legal notice dated 19.10.2023 issued to plaintiff by defendant No.1, Ex.D.29 is the reply notice issued by plaintiff to defendant No.1, Ex.D.30 is the project issued by V.Build Company, Ex.D.31 is the details of 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 properties and RTC extracts pertaining to President of Plaintiff Trust, Ex.D.32 is the computerized mutation extract pertaining to M.R. No.6/2005-06.
14. Further the Court Commissioner appointed by this Court examined as CW-1 and got marked Ex.C.1 to C.9 documents. Ex.C.1 is Commissioner report, Ex.C.2 is sketch, Ex.C.3 is photographs, Ex.C.4 is Court Warrant, Ex.C.5 is Memo of Instruction of plaintiff, Ex.C.6 is Memo of Instructions of defendant No.1 and 4, Ex.C.7 and Ex.C.8 are the Mahazar, Ex.C.9 is Tippani and other documents.
15. The learned Advocate for plaintiff has produced and relied on the following decisions;
1. Civil Appeal No.1382/2022 between Pudhiyar Prahladji Chenaji through LRS V/s. Maniben Jagmabhai through LRS wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that - 'An injunction has always issued in 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 favour of true owner and not against true owner or title holder and in favour of trespasser or a person in unlawful possession'.
2. Sajidabegum V/s. Raheembi where in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that - 'In a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction & permanent injunction if the construction made is found to be illegal grant of mandatory injunction for demolition of illegal structure and restraining the defendants by way of permanent injunction is proper'.
16. The learned Advocate for defendant has produced and relied on the following decisions;
82
O.S. No.6795/2023
1. 2018 (4) KCCR 3429 (Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka) between B.M.Devarajappa and another V/s. S.Gayathri wherein it is held that - 'Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 34, Rules 1 & 2 - Temporary Injunction -
Suit land found to be vacant land - Title of plaintiff could be inferred - Possession follows title-Plaintiff claiming title under registered sale deed in respect of sites carved out of land in question - Plaintiff possession can be presumed - defendant constructing compound wall around entire land obstructing access to plaintiff's sites/property-Order granting temporary injunction does not suffer from any infirmity'.
82
O.S. No.6795/2023 With due respect the above decision even though pertaining to the present plaintiff cannot be considered in the present suit as the decision reported was with respect to temporary injunction against one Gayathri who is not a party to the present proceedings.
2. AIR 2023 SC 379 between Smrithi Debbarma Dead by LRS V/s. Prabharanja Debbarma and Others wherein it is held that
- 'Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.34 - Suit for declaration - Decree of possession -
Cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that defendants unable to fully establish their right, title and interest in the property'.
17. It is pertinent to note that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No.3/2 measuring 1 ½ guntas from its vendor M.Venkatesh and 1½ guntas from another vendor Munithayamma 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 who are the defendant No.2 and 3 in the present case in all 3 guntas situated at Kothihosahalli Village through registered sale deed dated 16.01.2006. The plaintiff also produced original sale deed dated 16.01.2006 which is marked at Ex.P.4. When we meticulously gone through the said sale deed defendant No.2 M.Venkatesh and Defendant No.3 Munithayamma have jointly executed the said sale deed out of their land measuring 11 ½ guntas each.
18. On the other hand the learned advocate for defendant contended that the defendant No.4 being the General Power of Attorney Holder of one S.Sheshadri and S.Rajagopalacharya executed sale deed marked at Ex.D.10 dated 06.06.2001 in favour of her husband Byalappa with respect to written statement schedule property bearing khatha No.3/2, site No.8 & 9 of Kothihosahalli. But it is significant to note that when we gone through Ex.D.10 it is the defendant No.4 said to have executed sale deed in favour of her own husband Byalppa on the basis of General Power of Attorney. But it is significant to note that the defendant No.1 and 4 have not produced 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 the General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by S.Sheshadri and S.Rajagopalacharya in favour of defendant No.2 Lakshmidevamma. So without production of General Power of Attorney it cannot be held that S.Sheshadri and S.Rajagopalacharya have duly authorized defendant No.4 to execute sale deed in favour of Sri Byalappa and further the defendant No.1 and 4 have not placed any documents to show that S.Sheshadri and S.Rajagopalacharya had any right in the written statement schedule property. As such, the sale deed marked at Ex.D.10 will not come to the aid of defendant No.1 and 4 and the said document is not proved before this Court. This is one aspect.
19. Further, it is significant to note that it is not in dispute between the parties that defendant No.2 Venkatesh and defendant No.3 Munithayamma had 11 ½ guntas each in Sy. No.3/2 of Kothihosahalli Village. Ex.P.10 RTC extract also reveals the same. Further Ex.D.11 is the sale deed dated 04.04.2006 said to have been executed by defendant No.3 Munithayamma in favour of father of 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 defendant No.1 by name Bylappa through which Munithayamma conveyed 5 ½ guntas in favour of Bylappa out of her 11 ½ guntas in Sy. No.3/2. The said sale deed is also annexed with a sketch which reveals that Munithayamma had sold two bits of property under Ex.D.11. But Ex.D.13 produced by defendant No.1 is computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.3/2 reveals that even after selling 11 ½ guntas in favour of plaintiff and 5 ½ guntas in favour of Bylappa she retained 6 guntas. But Munithayamma had only 11 ½ guntas in Sy. No.3/2. But not 13 guntas. This is another aspect.
20. Further it is significant to note that AEE is appointed as Court Commissioner at the instance of defendant No.1 & 4 who has visited the spot, prepared sketch and submitted report. Even though both parties filed their objections to Commissioner's report and also cross-examined court commissioner, but nothing worth has been elicited to discredit his report and sketch. This is another aspect. 82
O.S. No.6795/2023
21. Further it is pertinent to note that Ex.P.18 Resurvey sketch & Ex.P.19 village pakka book clearly reveals that the land said to have been purchased by plaintiff measuring 3 guntas from defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 is renumbered as Sy.No.3/12. The mutation extracts also reveals the same. When we gone through the Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 along with sketch prepared by court Commissioner it is crystal clear that Sy. No.3/12 is the land purchased by plaintiff. But when we meticulously gone through sale deed of defendant No.1 marked at Ex.D.11 which is also consisting of sketch having been sold in two bits to Bylappa by defendant No.3 Munithayamma the green colour bit shown in sketch annexed to the sale deed Ex.D.11 over lapse with land bearing Sy. No.3/12 measuring 3 guntas. This is another aspect.
22. Learned Advocate for defendant No.1 and 4 much relied on Ex.D.32 which is a mutation extract pertaining to Sy. No.3/2 to an extent of 3 guntas which was transferred from the name of M.Venkatesh. As per the contention of Defendant No.1 and 4 it is 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 transferred only from the name of M.Venkatesh but not from the name of defendant No.3 Munithyamma. When we meticulously gone through Ex.D.32, which is computerized M.R. No.2005/2006 in the particulars it is clearly mentioned that the sale was made by M.Venkatesh and Others in favour of plaintiff Trust. It is also the case of the plaintiff that M.Venkatesh and Munithayamma jointly executed sale deed dated 16.01.2006 which is marked at Ex.P.14 in favour of plaintiff trust. Ex.P.4 also clearly reveals that it is defendant No.2 M.Venkatesh and defendant No.3 Munithayamma jointly executed 1 ½ guntas each belonging to their share. As such, Ex.D.32 will not support the contention of defendant No.1 and 4 as it clearly recites that the sale deed was executed by M.Venkatesh and Others, but not defendant No.2 M.Venkatesh alone.
23. It is further significant to note that plaintiff purchased 3 guntas of land from defendant No.2 and 3 out of 11 ½ guntas each belonged to defendant No.2 and 3 through registered sale deed dated 16.01.2006. But as per Ex.D.11 the defendant No.3 Munithayamma 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 sold 5 ½ guntas to father of defendant No.1 in the same Survey number. AS already discussed above, the sketch annexed to Ex.D.11 clearly reveals that one bit shown in green colour is the same property again sold to Byalappa on 04.04.2006. But it is significant to note that the earlier sale is in favour of plaintiff on 16.01.2006. When defendant No.3 sold the said property as shown in sketch annexed to Ex.D.11 to plaintiff how can she again sell the same property in favour of Byalappa which is not valid under law.
24. Further it is significant to note that the defendant No.1 said to have got gift deed on 24.09.2021 executed by defendant No.4 in her favour marked at Ex.D.20. As already discussed above, the defendant No.1 did not produce General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by one Sheshadri and Gopalacharya she has not proved her flow of title in accordance with law. At the same time as the land measuring 5 ½ guntas said to have sold by defendant No.3 Munithayamma in favour of Bylappa over lapse with the property purchased by plaintiff under earlier sale deed. As such to the extent 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 of land over laps with the property of plaintiff the sale deed is not valid and not in accordance with law. This is another aspect.
25. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has established that he has purchased the suit schedule property under sale deed dated 16.01.2006 bearing Sy. No.3/2 resurvey number 3/12 measuring 3 guntas. The plaintiff also produced Ex.P.10 RTC extract, Ex.P.27 khahta certificate, Ex.P.28 assessment extract, Ex.P.29 tax paid receipts, Ex.P.30 mutation extract to show that after sale deed dated 16.01.2006 all the revenue documents are transferred to the name of plaintiff with respect to suit schedule property. At the same time even though the defendant No.1 & 4 have also produced revenue documents. But as already discussed above, the defendant No.1 & 4 have not established title over the written statement schedule property as it over lapse with suit schedule property. As such any amount of revenue documents without absolute title over the written statement schedule property will have no value under law. This is another aspect.
82
O.S. No.6795/2023
26. Further, it is significant to note that Ex.P.3 official memorandum dated 19.12.2005 issued by Deputy Commissioner permitted the plaintiff trust to purchase the landed property and after purchase of suit schedule property the office of Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District vide its official memorandum dated 07.10.2008 got converted the suit schedule property for non agricultural purpose.
27. Further the photographs produced by the parties as well as court commissioner reveals that the defendant No.1 is constructing building by encroaching the suit schedule property which is also forth coming in Court Commissioner's sketch. Hence, the plaintiff established that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and the defendant No.1 is constructing building by encroaching on the suit schedule property. Hence, I answer issue No.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 as affirmative, issue No.5 as partly affirmative and issue No.7 in the negative.
82
O.S. No.6795/2023
28. ISSUE No.8:- Learned Advocate for defendant No.1 and 4 contended that suit of the plaintiff is hit by Article 65 of Limitation Act after 17 years of purchase of property in the year 2006 which is denied by plaintiff.
It is pertinent to note that it is the contention of plaintiff that cause of action to file the suit has arose on 01.10.2023 when the defendant tried to claim the property of plaintiff and on 03.10.2023 when the defendant No.1 tried to put up illegal construction with out the knowledge of plaintiff and on 10.10.2023 when the defendant lodged the police complaint and on subsequent dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendants to quit the suit schedule property.
29. It is significant to note that it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant taking advantage of absence of plaintiff trust on the account of vacation after mid term exams indulged in illegal construction & making hectic efforts to dig the land through JCB and put up instant pillars in the month of October 2023 and it is also not the case of defendant No.1 and 4 that they have started 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 construction about 17 years back or more than 12 years back as such the suit is well within the limitation from the date of starting construction by the defendant No.1. Limitation starts from the date of construction but not from the date of sale deed. Hence, I answer issue No.8 in the negative.
30. ISSUE No.9:- In view of my finding on issue No.1 to 4 & 6 as affirmative and issue No.5 as partly affirmative, issue No.7 and 8 in the negative, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Hence, I answer issue No.9 as affirmative.
31. ISSUE No.10:- Inview of my findings on issue No.1 to 4, 6 and 9 as affirmative, issue No.5 as partly affirmative and issue No.7 and 8 in the negative, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
It is declared that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property under sale deed dated 16.01.2006.
82
O.S. No.6795/2023
It is declared that sale deed dated
04.04.2006 executed by defendant No.3
Munithayamma in favour of Sri Bylappa is not binding on the plaintiff with respect to suit schedule property.
It is further declared that gift deed dated 24.09.2021 executed by defendant No.4 Lakshmidevamma in favour of defendant No.1 B.Chaitra is not binding on plaintiff with respect to suit schedule property.
The defendant No.1 is directed to remove the illegal construction/structure put up in the suit schedule property, quit and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property by way of mandatory injunction with in 30 days from the date of decree.
If the defendant No.1 fails to remove the illegal construction on the suit schedule property and fails to hand over the same within 30 days from the date of decree, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same through Court agency at the cost of defendant No.1.
The defendants are here by restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 enjoyment of the suit schedule property by plaintiff and further restrained from putting up construction in the suit schedule property.
In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, revised by me and after corrections pronounced in the open court on this the 17 th day of January, 2026.) (VIJETH.V) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
PW.1: B.M.Devrajappa List of documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Board Resolution of plaintiff trust dated 21.01.2024 Ex.P.2 Deed of Amendment of trust Deed dated 29.02.2021 Ex.P.3 Official memorandum dated 19.12.2005 issued by Special Deputy Commissioner,Bengaluru District dated LRF(N.A) C.R.10/2015-16 permitting the plaintiff Education Trust to purchase land measuring 37 guntas in 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 Sy. No.3/1 and land measuring 3 guntas in Sy. No.3/2 of Kothihosahalli Village Ex.P.4 Original sale deed dated 16.01.2006 executed by defendant No.2 Venkatesh.M and defendant No.3 Munithayamma in favour of plaintiff Trust with respect to suit schedule property Ex.P.5 Computerized Mutation Extract pertaining to Sy. No.3/1 bearing M.R. No.13/2005-06 measuring 28 guntas Ex.P.6 Computerized mutation extract pertaining to Sy. No.3/1 bearing M.R. No.9/2005-06 measuring 9 guntas Ex.P.7 Computerized mutation extract Ex.P.8 Computerized mutation extract bearing M.R. No.6/2007-08 pertaining to 37 guntas in Sy. No.3/1 and 3 guntas in Sy. No.3/2 standing in the name of plaintiff trust Ex.P.9 Computerized mutation extract bearing M.R. No.2/05-06 pertaining to Sy.
No.3/2 measuring 11 ½ guntas mutated to the name of defendant No.3 Munithyamma Ex.P.10 Computerized RTC Extract for the year 2005-06 to 2013-14 pertaining to Sy.
No.3/2 of Kothihosahalli which reveals that defendant No.2 M.Venkatesh had 11 ½ guntas and Defendant No.3 Munithyamma had 11 ½ guntas in the said Survey Number 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 Ex.P.11 Official memorandum regarding conversion of 39 guntas including 36 guntas in Sy. No.31 and 3 guntas in Sy.
No.3/2 of Kothihosahalli dated
07.10.2008
Ex.P.12 Notice issued by the office of Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District dated 16.06.2008 Ex.P.13 Challan pertaining to payment of conversion charges Ex.P.14 Official memorandum issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District dated 22.09.2009 regarding conversion of 1 gunta in Sy.
No.3/1 Ex.P.15 Notice issued by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District dated 27.08.2009 regarding conversion of 1 gunta of land in Sy. No.3/1 of Kothihosahalli Village Ex.P.16 Challan towards conversion charges of 1 gunta in Sy. No.3/1 Ex.P.17 Moola Tippani of Sy. No.3 of Kothihoshalli Ex.P.18 Copy of resurvey sketch Ex.P.19 Village pakka book copy Ex.P.20 Survey notice Ex.P.21 Copy of mahazar Ex.P.22 Mutation pakka book Ex.P.23 Survey Mahazar 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 Ex.P.24 Atlas copy of resurvey No.3/2 Ex.P.25 Survey notice copy Ex.P.26 Copy of Karnataka Revision Settlement Akarbandh Ex.P.27 Khatha certificate Ex.P.28 Copy of tax assessment extract for the year 2023-24 Ex.P.29 BBMP tax paid receipts Ex.P.30 Computerized M.R. No.T1/2014-15 Ex.P.31 Photographs in No.8 Ex.P.31(a) Compact Disk Ex.P.32 Complaint dated 22.11.2023 lodged by plaintiff trust against defendant No.1, 2, 4 and others Ex.P.33 Complaint lodged by plaintiff against defendant No.1 to 4 dated 03.01.2024 Ex.P.34 Acknowledgment issued by PSI, Kodigehalli P.S. dated 03.01.2024 Ex.P.35 Complaint dated 07.01.2024 lodged by plaintiff trust against defendant No.1 and her husband by name Kamaraju Ex.P.36 Acknowledgment of police dated 08.01.2024 Ex.P.37 FIR in Cr. No.328/2023 of Kodgehalli P.S. Ex.P.38 RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.3/2 for the year 1997-98 to 2000-01 Ex.P.39 Photographs 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 Ex.P.40 Sketch prepared by Taluka Surveyor with respect to Sy. No.3/1, 3/2 for conversion of land for non agricultural purpose List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants:
DW.1 Chaitra.B List of documents exhibited on behalf of the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of sale deed executed by Munithayamma in favour of father of defendant No.1 by name Bylappa dated 04.04.2006 along with sketch wherein Munithyamma sold 5 ½ guntas in Sy. No.3/2 having different boundaries Ex.D.2 Computerized RTC Extracts pertaining to Sy. No.3/1 of Kothihosahalli village from the year 2003-04 to 2014-15 Ex.D.3 to 6 Photographs Ex.D.7 RTI application Ex.D.8 Memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 27.09.2023 executed between Defendant No.1 and Canara Bank Ex.D.9 Letter of Canara Bank, Yelahanka Branch, stating that Defendant No.1 has taken loan of Rs.90,95,000/-
Ex.D.10 Sale deed dated 06.06.2001 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 executed by defendant No.4 Munithayamma as a General Power of Attorney Holder of one Sheshadri & S.Gopalacharya in favour of Bylappa with respect to property bearing khatha No.3/2, site No.8 & 9 Ex.D.11 Sale deed dated 04.04.2006 executed by defendant No.3 Munithayamma in favour of father of defendant No.1 by name Byalappa with respect to 5 ½ guntas in Sy. No.5/2 along with sketch Ex.D.12 Computerized M.R. No.1/2006-07 Ex.D.13 Computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.3/2 of Kothihosahalli Village for the year 2009-10 till 2019-20 Ex.D.14 Khatha certificate pertaining to No.293/3/2/8 & 9 standing in the name of Byalappa Ex.D.15 Assessment extract for the year 2007-08 standing in the name of Bylappa Ex.D.16 Death certificate of Bylappa who died on 19.09.2019 Ex.D.17 Khatha certificate pertaining to property No.293/3/2/8 & 9 standing in the name of Defendant No.4 Lakshmi Devamma Ex.D.18 Uttarapathra dated 24.09.2020 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 Ex.D.19 Assessment extract pertaining to proeprty bearing No.293/3/2/8&9 for the year 2020-21 Ex.D.20 Gift deed dated 24.09.2021 executed by defendant No.4 Lakshmi Devamma in favour of her daughter defendant No.1 with respect to property bearing No.293/3/2/8&9 Ex.D.21 Khatha certificate standing in the name of defendant No.1 pertaining to property bearing No.293/3/28&9 Ex.D.22 Khatha Certificate Ex.D.23 Copy of assessment extract pertaining to property No.293/3/2/8&9 standing in the name of defendant No.1 Chaithra Ex.D.24 Tax paid receipt of defendant No.1 for the year 2023-24 Ex.D.25 Building license of BBMP Ex.D.26 Photographs in Nos.8 Ex.D.26(a) Pen Drive Ex.D.27 Official memorandum of BESCOM dated 08.06.2023 Ex.D.28 Copy of legal notice dated 19.10.2023 issued to plaintiff by defendant No.1 Ex.D.29 Reply notice issued by plaintiff to defendant No.1 Ex.D.30 Project issued by V.Build Company 82 O.S. No.6795/2023 Ex.D.31 Details of properties and RTC extracts pertaining to President of Plaintiff Trust Ex.D.32 Computerized mutation extract pertaining to M.R. No.6/2005-06
Name of Court Commissioner examined before the Court:-
CW.1 Somashekar.G.N. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Court Commissioner:
Ex.C.1 Commissioner report
Ex.C.2 Sketch
Ex.C.3 Photographs
Ex.C.4 Court Warrant
Ex.C.5 Memo of Instruction of plaintiff
Ex.C.6 Memo of Instructions of
defendant No.1 and 4
Ex.C.7 Mahazar
Ex.C.8 Mahazar
Ex.C.9 Tippani and other documents
(VIJETH.V)
XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.