Bangalore District Court
Shaik Silaiman vs Krishnappa D on 7 July, 2025
KABC010106982018
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
Title Sheet for Judgments in Suits
In the Court of the XXIV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge (CCH-6) at Bengaluru
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025
Present:
Smt.Renuka.D.Raikar, B.Sc.,LL.B., (Spl),
XXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-6),
Bengaluru.
Original Suit No. 2836/ 2018
Plaintiff/s : Sri Shaik Silaiman,
S/o Sri Shaik Kashim,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.243, 9th Main,
Narasipura Layout,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-560 097.
(By Sri.A.U, Advocate)
-Versus-
Defendants : Sri D.Krishnappa,
Since dead by his LR's
a) Smt. Janaki,
W/o late Krishnappa,
Aged about 65 years,
b) Smt. Rashimi,
D/o late Krishnappa,
Aged about 39 years,
Both are r/at No.140,
Vidyaranyapura Main Road,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru-560 097
c) Smt. Rajani,
D/o late Krishnappa,
W/o Sri Sunil Kumar,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.140,
Vidyaranyapura Main Road,
Narasipura Layout,
Vidyanarapura,
Bengaluru-560 097
( By Sri.J. Manjunath Advocate for
D.1 (a to c) )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 13.04.2018
Nature of the Suit : For Declaration
and Injunction
Date of the commencement : 15.12.2022
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 07.07.2025
was pronounced
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total duration : 07 02 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Present suit is filed on behalf of plaintiff for the relief of Declaration, Permanent Injunction and for other reliefs.
The description of the suit schedule property as mentioned in the plaint is as under:
All that piece and parcel of Residential House Constructed on bearing No.132, now northern portion in BBMP Khata No.113/ 40/ 132 of Byatarayanapura Sub- Division, situated at Narasipura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East - West- 30 feet and North-South 20.4 feet in all measuring 612 Square feet consisting of 5 Square RCC roofing, Red Oxide Flooring House, with jungle wood door and windows, bounded on:
East by : Road
West by : Site No.131
North by : Site No.122
South by : Remaining portion of same
site number.
2. The factual matrix in the nutshell is as under:-
It is averred that, plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Residential House constructed on property bearing No.132, Now Northern portion in BBMP, Khatha No.113/40/132 more fully described as suit schedule property, which was purchased by the plaintiff on 24.02.2010 from one Smt. Yellamma, represented by her G.P.A holder Smt. Azeema Bee. Said property was granted to Smt. Yellamma W/o Sri Huchanagappa by the Government of Karnataka on the occasion of 28th Independent Anniversary under certain Terms and Conditions through Order No DPC-15, DRH, dtd.30 May 1972 and allottee sold the suit schedule property to the above mentioned vendor through G.P.A on 16.04.1993. She became the owner thereof without any claim, objections or hindrances from anyone whatsoever and in turn Smt. Aazeema Bee sold the suit property by virtue of registered Sale Deed and since then, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and holding all the revenue documents in his favour.
3. It is further averred that, defendant Krishnappa was doing Finance Business in their locality and plaintiff approached the defendant for loan of Rs.2,50,000 in the year 2015. Said defendant was not maintaining any Books of Accounts, documents etc and used to give loan on the basis of blank papers, Cheques , blank Stamp papers etc and defendant had received 16 blank Cheques, 10 white blank papers bearing signatures of plaintiff as security to the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and inspite of repayment of said amount by the plaintiff, defendant did not return those Cheques and blank signed papers and demanded to pay additional Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff due to which case is filed against defendant before 18th A.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
4. It is further averred that, that as security purpose the defendant obtained E-Stamp paper on 21.12.2010 in the name of plaintiff as first party and defendant as second party and got signed on the blank papers and defendant asked to attest the signature while purchasing E-stamp as Sale Agreement, but by misusing the blank papers the defendant has drafted G.P.A on the blank papers and got registered Sale Deed in his favour on 14.02.2016 before the Sub-Registrar Office, vide Document No. 3988/ 1915-16. The defendant has used the G.P.A in such manner that, he being the G.P.A holder has got a clause typed in the blank paper given by the plaintiff that the G.P.A holder can execute Sale Deed in favour of the GPA Holder, keeping this fake GPA the defendant has got executed the Sale Deed in his favour without the knowledge of the plaintiff.
5. It is further averred that, when plaintiff came to know about the fake G.P.A, he lodged complaint before jurisdictional police on 04.01.2018 and FIR is registered and matter is pending before XVIII ACMM against this defendant. Thus the defendant fraudulently obtained GPA and by keeping the fraudulent GPA obtained registered Sale Deed regarding the suit schedule property which is illegal and not maintainable. On the other hand, plaintiff is to be declared as the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the basis of legal and valid Sale Deed dtd.04.02.2010. On the basis of fraudulently created Sale Deed the defendant is trying to trespass over the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff without any other alternative filed this suit for appropriate reliefs.
6. It is further averred that, the cause of action for the suit arose on 09.03.2018 when the plaintiff came to know that the suit schedule property is been fraudulently misused by the defendant on the basis of blank papers given as security to loan by creating the GPA and Sale Deed fraudulently in his favour.
Hence, prayed for passing Decree to declare that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of registered Sale Deed dtd.24.02.2010 and to declare that, the Sale Deed dtd.04.02.2016 is not binding on the plaintiff and further praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his supporters, agents from interfering in plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property and for such other reliefs.
7. In pursuance of service of suit summons, defendant appeared through his Counsel and filed written statement. During pendency of suit, the original defendant was reported to be dead, hence his legal heirs were brought on record as defendants Nos.1
(a) to (c) and they appeared before the Court through their Counsel, but did not file any separate written statement to contest the claim of the plaintiff, in-spite of providing sufficient opportunities.
8. Defendant No.1 denied the averments made in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 of the plaint and contended that, plaintiff and defendant are well known to each other from several years. The plaintiff has approached the defendant to sell the suit schedule property for his financial problems, for Rs.18,36,000/- and he agreed to purchase the same for said consideration and paid amount to the plaintiff on 22.12.2010. Upon receiving the total sale consideration amount towards the suit schedule property, the plaintiff executed G.P.A on the same date in favour of defendant with terms and conditions that the defendant may give on rent or lease, may fix the remedies to sale, to receive the sale amount from the purchaser and register by himself in his name and to pay the tax etc,.
9. It is further contended that, the plaintiff handed over the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property in favour of defendant and since the date of execution of G.P.A. the defendant has been managing the suit schedule property by receiving the rents from the tenants who are in the occupation of the suit schedule property.
10. It is further contended that, during 1st week of February 2016 defendant called the plaintiff to come and execute the Sale Deed in his favour since he has received the total sale consideration with respect to the suit property, and even plaintiff told to defendant that, he has already executed Notarized GPA in favour of defendant and defendant can get registered the Sale Deed in his own favour. Hence without any alternative, the defendant presented Sale Deed dtd.04.02.2016 on behalf of plaintiff as GPA holder in his own favour and same is registered before the Sub-Registrar on 04.02.2016. In view of the registration of the Sale Deed, the defendant became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and he gave suit schedule property on rental basis and is receiving rents from the tenants.
11. It is further contended that, the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant without having any right, title and interest over the same and just to harass the defendant he has filed this false suit. The defendant is absolute owner and bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying hard earned money to the plaintiff as sale consideration at the time of execution of G.P.A.
12. It is further contended that, no cause of action arose for the suit and it is created for the purpose of filing the suit. The Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. The suit is barred by Law of Limitation since the GPA was executed in the year 2010 and sale deed is executed in the year 2016. Hence, prayed for dismissing the suit with cost in the interest of justice.
13. On considering the rival contentions, my Learned Predecessor in Office has framed the following :-
Issues (1) Whether plaintiff proves that deceased defendant has created the General Power of Attorney under the circumstances as pleaded in para.Nos.3 and 4 of his plaint?
(2) Whether the defendants prove that plaintiff has executed G.P.A on 22.12.2010 by agreeing to sell the suit schedule residential house for Rs.18,36,000/- and received said amount on the same day?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule residential house as on the date of filing of this suit.?
(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that deceased defendant tried to trespass into the suit schedule residential house?
(5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the declare that, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of the registered Sale Deed dtd.24.02.2010?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Declaration that Sale Deed dtd.04.02.2016 is not binding on him?
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed in prayer (b) of the plaint?
(8) What Order or Decree?
14. In order to prove plaintiff's case, plaintiff himself got examined as Pw.1 and one witness by name Smt. Umamaheshwari.S got examined as Pw.2 and got marked 20 documents as per Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.20. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunities, the defendants have not cross-examined Pw.1 nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.
15. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.
16. On considering the materials placed before me, my findings on the above Issues is as under:-
ISSUE No.1 - In the Affirmative ISSUE No.2 - In the Negative ISSUE No.3 - In the Negative ISSUE No.4 - In the Negative ISSUE No.5 - In the Negative ISSUE No.6 - In the Negative ISSUE No.7 - In the Negative ISSUE No.8 - As per final order, for the following :-
REASONS ISSUE Nos.1 and 2: Both these issues are inter-linked with each other, hence they are taken together for discussions, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
17. Here the present suit of the plaintiff is for the relief of Declaration of title and for Permanent injunction. It is the contention of plaintiff that, he is the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property by virtue of registered Sale Deed dtd.24.02.2010 from one Smt. Yellamma represented by G.P.A holder Smt.Azeema Be. Said property was originally granted to Smt. Yellamma W/o Huchangappa on the occasion of 28 th Independent Anniversary, under certain Terms and Conditions as per Government Order No.DPC-15, dtd.30.05.1972 and said Yellamma sold the schedule property to Smt. Azeema Bee by virtue of G.P.A dtd.16.04.1993 and she became the owner of the same without anybodies interference and later, she sold the same in favour of plaintiff on 24.02.2010 vide registered Sale Deed.
18. It is further his contention that, since the date of purchasing the suit property by virtue of registered Sale Deed dtd.24.02.2010 plaintiff was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendant is the Financier in the locality and was doing finance business without maintaining any books of Accounts, documents etc and he gave loan on the basis of blank Cheques, blank Stamp papers, blank signed white papers etc., Since plaintiff was in need of money he approached the defendant in the year 2015 and availed loan of Rs.2,50,000/-. With respect to the same, defendant obtained 16 blank Cheques as security. However, plaintiff already repaid the amount to the defendant. Inspite of that, defendant did not return the blank Cheques and signed papers and demanded Rs.30,000/- additionally. Hence, case is filed by plaintiff against the defendant before 18 th A.C.M.M, Bangalore.
19. Further the specific contention of plaintiff is that, on 21.12.2010 defendant obtained e-Stamp paper and asked the plaintiff to attest his signature on the same and by misusing said paper, he drafted G.P.A and later got registered Sale Deed in his own favour on the basis of G.P.A. The G.P.A as well as Sale Deed are created by the defendant without the knowledge of plaintiff and plaintiff has given necessary complaint against the defendant before jurisdictional police and case is pending before 18th A.C.M.M, Bangalore.
20. It is further the contention of plaintiff that, on the basis of created G.P.A and Sale Deed, defendant started interfering in plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, he is constrained to file the present suit for Declaration of his title and injunction.
21. In support of his contentions, plaintiff himself got examined as Pw.1 and has got marked totally 20 documents as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.20 which includes original Hakkupathra issued in favour of Smt. Yellamma, original Sale Deed dtd.24.02.2010, Tax Register Extract, BBMP Khata Certificate, BBMP Uttarapathra, tax paid receipts, Sanctioned plan, Electricity and water bills, Photographs, C.D, Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.04.02.2016 and Certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.2469/ 2016.
22. He was partly cross-examined by Learned Counsel for defendants, wherein it is elicited that, towards Eastern side of suit property there is road, towards Western side there is Site No.131, towards Northern side Site No.122 and towards Southern side there is remaining portion of Site No.132. Smt.Azeema Bee obtained G.P.A from Smt. Yellamma and executed Sale Deed in his favour. He has produced that G.P..A. When the exhibited documents were handed over to the witness, and asked which is that G.P.A, he has stated that, he handed over original G.P.A to his Counsel, but it is not forthcoming in the Court documents. He denied to the suggestion that, Smt.Yellamma had not executed any G.P.A in favour of Azeema Bee. He admitted that, suit property was allotted to Yellamma from Government. He is not aware of the conditions forthcoming in the Hakkupathra. He gave evasive reply to the suggestion that, in Hakkupathra there is one of the condition the property shall not be alienated for a period of 25 years.
23. On perusal of records, it is forthcoming that further cross-examination of Pw.1 was deferred and at later stage, inpsite of sufficient opportunity being given, defendants did not cross- examine Pw.1 completely and even they failed to lead evidence on their behalf.
24. The main defence taken by the defendants in the written statement is that, plaintiff and defendant are well-known to each other since several years and plaintiff approached the defendant to sell the suit schedule property for his financial requirement and agreed to sell the same for Rs.18,36,000/- and accordingly, defendant paid sale consideration amount to the plaintiff on 22.12.2010 and on receiving the same plaintiff executed G.P.A in favour of defendant on the same day with the Terms and Conditions that, defendant may give the property on rent or lease, may fix the remedies to sale, receive the sale amount from the purchaser, shall pay the tax etc.
25. It is further his contention that, plaintiff has also handed over documents pertaining to the suit schedule property to the defendant and since the date of executing G.P.A, defendant is managing the suit schedule property by receiving rent from the tenants who are in occupation of the same. During the last week of February 2016, defendant called upon the plaintiff to execute Sale Deed in his favour as he has received the entire consideration amount. However, plaintiff informed that since he has already executed G.P.A in favour of defendant, he may register Sale Deed in his favour. Hence, by acting on the G.P.A, the defendant got registered Sale Deed in his favour on 04.02.2016 and thereby became the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and is also receiving the rentals from the tenants.
26. Even it is contended by defendant that, no cause of action arose for filing the suit and that, the suit is barred by law of Limitation, Court fee paid is not proper and the suit is not maintainable as it is filed on false and frivolous grounds.
27. Inspite of taking several contentions defendant has failed to prove the same by placing sufficient materials and evidence on his behalf. Even defendant failed to cross-examine Pw.1 completely. Only for the reason that, defendants have failed to prove their contention, it does not mean that plaintiff has succeeded to prove his case.
28. It is well settled principles of Law that plaintiff approaching the Court seeking discretionary reliefs, is duty bound to prove the same on his own and plaintiff must stand on his own leg and he cannot take the benefit of the weaknesses in the defendant case. Here as the plaintiff has sought for declaration of his title over the suit schedule property, burden is on plaintiff to adduce reliable evidence and documents to substantiate his claim.
29. Here admittedly plaintiff claims to be the owner of suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.P.2 / registered Sale Deed, which is executed by Smt.Azeema Bee representing herself as G.P.A holder of the true owner Smt.Yellamma. Hence the first and foremost responsibility of plaintiff is to prove the contention that, G.P.A was executed by Smt.Yellamma in favour of Smt.Azeema Bee and that, the GPA was legally valid document. The plaintiff has absolutely failed to prove the very existence of G.P.A as he has not produced either the original or the photo copy of alleged G.P.A.
30. Here first of all, the suit property is granted property to Smt.Yellamma by the Government by virtue of Hakkupathra which is marked as per Ex.P.1 and on perusal of said document it is clear that, same was issued in her favour in the year 1975 and there was specific condition that, said property shall not be transferred or alienated in any manner for a period of 25 years. However, it is the contention of plaintiff that, Smt.Yellamma transferred the suit property in favour of Smt.Azeem Bee by virtue of G.P.A dtd. 16.04.1993. Here if at all the property was alienated or transferred in the year 1993 then it becomes clear violation of the conditions imposed by the Government while granting the property and it is clearly mentioned in condition No.9 of Ex.P.1 that, if anyone of the condition is violated by the Grantee the property shall revert back to the Government.
31. Here, admittedly the plaintiff is seeking Declaration of his title over the suit schedule property. Under such circumstance, the entire burden is on plaintiff to prove that, his vendor had acquired valid title over the suit property and by virtue of Sale Deed executed in his favour by his vendor he has also acquired valid title and possession over the suit property. However, on considering the conditions imposed in Ex.P.1 and from the recitals of plaint, it is very clear that there is violation of the condition imposed by the Government and any transfer by violating the conditions, becomes illegal and unenforceable under Law.
32. As, plaintiff is seeking declaration of title over the suit property even the original owner Smt.Yellamma and her legal heirs were necessary parties in the suit as it is forthcoming that, there was violation of the conditions imposed in Ex.P.1. However, none of them are arrayed as parties in the present suit.
33. So far as the title of plaintiff over the suit property on the basis of Sale Deed executed by Smt.Azeema Bee is concerned, as discussed above, plaintiff has not produced the very G.P.A on the basis of which Azeema Bee said to have acquired right, title and possession over the suit property. Hence, without proving valid execution and existence of G.P.A by Smt.Yellamma in favour of Smt.Azeema Bee, said Azeema Bee had no right whatsoever to execute Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff with respect to the suit property. Hence, by virtue of said Sale Deed plaintiff will not acquire any right, title or interest over the suit property. When plaintiff himself has not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit property even defendant or his legal heirs will not acquire any right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, even the G.P.A said to have been executed in favour of defendant and the Sale Deed said to have been executed by defendant in his favour becomes illegal and unenforceable under Law.
34. The very contention of plaintiff is that, he did not execute any G.P.A in favour of defendant and by misusing the blank signed papers obtained from plaintiff at the time of giving loan of Rs.2,50,000/- defendant has got created alleged G.P.A as if it is executed by plaintiff and later got fabricated Sale Deed in his favour. Plaintiff has averred said facts and also led evidence to substantiate the same and defendant has failed to prove his contention by adducing any materials and evidence on record. Though, defendant took the contention that, plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property in his favour for Rs.18,36,000/- and executed G.P.A on 22.12.2010 by receiving the sale consideration amount, defendant has failed to prove the same by leading evidence on his behalf. Hence, in view of my above discussions, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 in the Negative.
ISSUE Nos.3 and 4: Both these issues are inter-linked with each other, hence they are taken together for discussions, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
35. Plaintiff has sought for Declaration of his title and also claimed that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and also claimed that, defendant on the basis of fabricated Sale Deed tried to interfere in his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and also tried to trespass into his residential house. However, as discussed above, plaintiff has absolutely failed to prove valid execution of Sale Deed in his favour by Smt.Azeema Bee on the basis of G.P.A said to have been executed by actual owner of suit property Smt.Yellamma for the reasons stated above. Hence, plaintiff has absolutely failed to prove his title as well as possession over the suit property as on the date of the suit. Hence, there is no question of he being in lawful possession over the suit property and the defendant trespassing or interfering in plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, plaintiff has absolutely failed to prove said contentions. Accordingly, Issue Nos.3 and 4 are answered in the Negative.
ISSUE Nos.5 to 7: All these issues are inter-linked with each other, hence they are taken together for discussions, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
36. Here plaintiff is seeking Declaration of his title over the suit schedule property on the basis of registered Sale Deed dtd. 24.02.2010 said to have been executed in his favour by Smt.Azeema Bee as G.P.A holder of Smt.Yellamma in whose favour the suit property was originally grantee by the Government by virtue of Ex.P.1. As discussed above, plaintiff has absolutely failed to prove the valid execution of G.P.A by Smt.Yellamma in favour of Smt.Azeema Bee and acquisition of right, title and possession over suit schedule property by said Smt.Azeema Bee. Even it is clearly forthcoming that there is clear violations of the conditions imposed in Ex.P.1. hence, when Smt.Azeema Bee herself did not acquire valid right, title or possession over the suit schedule property or any authority as G.P.A holder of Smt.Yellamma, the very Sale Deed executed by Smt.Azeema Bee in favour of plaintiff is invalid and illegal document and by virtue of the same, plaintiff has not at all acquired any valid right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, he is not entitled for the relief of Declaration of title as prayed by him.
37. When plaintiff has failed to prove and established his own title over the suit property even the defendants will not acquire any right, title or possession over the suit schedule property by virtue of Sale Deed dtd. 04.02.2016. In view of failure of plaintiff to prove his valid, title and possession over the suit schedule property he is not entitled for the relief of Declaration and Injunction as prayed by him. Accordingly, I answer Issue Nos.5 to 7 in the Negative.
38. In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, directly on computer, typed by her and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this 7 th day of July, 2025) (Renuka.D.Raikar) XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
P.W.1 : Mr. Shaik Silaiman
Pw.2 : Smt. Umamaheshwari.S
2.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Original Hakkupathra
Ex.P.2 : Absolute Sale Deed dtd. 24.02.2010
Ex.P.3 : Register Extract with regard to houses
and vacant place
Ex.P.4 : BBMP Khata Certificate
Ex.P.5 : BBMP Uttarapathra
Ex.P.6 : Register Extract with regard to houses
and vacant place
Ex.P.7 : Tax receipt
Ex.P.8 : Sanctioned plan
Ex.P.9 : Water bill
Ex.P.10, 11 : Electricity bills
Ex.P.12
to Ex.P.16 : Photographs
Ex.P.17 : Photo bill
Ex.P.18 : C.D
Ex.P.19 : Registered Sale Deed dtd. 04.02.2016
Ex.P.20 : C/c of plaint in C.C.No.24469/ 2016
3. WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE
DEFENDANTs:
- NIL-
4. DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANTs:
- NIL-
(Renuka.D.Raikar)
XXIV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.