Bangalore District Court
Bhasker B R vs Krishnappa on 11 April, 2025
KABC010184962010
Form No.9
(Civil) Title
Sheet for
Judgment
in Suits
R.P. 91 PRESENT: Sri. Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv,
XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025
PLAINTIFFS: - 1. Sri.B.R.Basker
S/o Late B.Ramaiah
Aged about 28 years.
2. Sri. B.R.Shanthakumar
S/o Late B.Ramaiah,
Aged about 30 years.
Both are residing at No.202,
4th Cross, 5th Main,
B.Chandrappa Nagar,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru-560 030.
[By Sri. T.S.C, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Sri.Krishnappa
S/o Narasappa,
Aged about 55 years.
2. Sri.K.Babu
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 35 years.
3. Sri.K Naveen Kumar S/o Krishnappa,
Since Dead by his LRs
3(a) Smt.Manjula
W/o Late K.Naveen Kumar,
Aged about 35 years.
2 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
3(b) Krishna
S/o Late K.Naveen Kumar,
Aged about 15 years.
3(c) Kirthana
D/o Late K Naveen Kumar
Aged about 13 years.
Since 3(b) & (c) are minors and they are
represented by their mother and natural
guardian Smt.Manjula.
3(a) to (c) are residing at
Hosapalya, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk.
4. Sri.K Raghu S/o Krishnappa
Since dead by his LRs.
4(a) Smt.Devi
W/o Late Raghu
Aged about 27 years.
4(b) Chaithanya
D/o Late Raghu
Aged about 13 years.
4(c) Prajwal
S/o Late Raghu
Aged about 10 years.
4(b) and (c) are minors represented by
their mother and natural guardian
Smt.Devi.
5. Sri.Puttaramu Sa
S/o Late Sunder Sa,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.21, 5th Cross, 6th Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-10.
6. Sri.R.Srinivas
S/o Puttaramu Sa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.7/27, 14th C Cross, 6th Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-10.
7. Sri.Y.V.Gangaiah
S/o Late Veera Rangappa,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at No.870, Sharada Vidhyamandira,
Near Water Tank, Varthur,
Bengaluru-560 087.
8. Smt.S.G.Deepa
3 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
W/o N.Jayarama Reddy,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.10, 1st Main, 1st Cross,
Hosapalya, Bommanahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 068.
9. Sri.G.Muni Reddy
S/o Late Gurappa,
R/at Bikkanahosahalli Village,
Handenahalli Post, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District.
[D1 reported to be Dead]
[D2 & 6 by Sri. P.S.R., Advocate]
[D3(c), D4(a to c) & D5-Exparte]
[D7 & 8 by Sri.M.R., Advocate]
[D9 by Sri.B.S., Advocate]
Date of institution of the suit :: 29/10/2010
Nature of the suit :: Declaration and Injunction
Date of commencement of :: 22/08/2013
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment is :: 11/04/2025
pronounced.
:: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
14 05 13
****
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the
defendants for the relief of cancellation of sale deeds and
also for the relief of possession and permanent injunction
with respect to suit property bearing site No.2 in
Sy.No.49/2 of Hosapalya Hamlet of Haralaguntte, Begur
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which is more specifically
described in the plaint.
4 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief as under:-
The suit site bearing No.2 in Sy.No.49/2 of
Hosapalya Hamlet of Haralaguntte, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk was originally belonging to
defendant No.1/Krishnappa. He sold the said property in
favour of plaintiffs under registered sale deed dated
05/02/1984, which is registered before Joint Sub-
Registrar, in the cadre of District Registrar, Madras,
Tamilnadu. At the time of registration of the sale deed,
plaintiffs were minors, hence represented by their father.
They came into possession and enjoyment of the same and
their names are also entered into the BBMP records and
they are paying tax for the same. Their father B.Ramaiah
died on 17/03/1996.
It is further case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1
to 4 have created the sale deed dated 09/02/2005 in
favour of defendant No.7 with respect to half portion of
western side of the property measuring East-West: 15feet
and North-South:30 feet including eastern half portion of
site No.1. Thereafter they created another sale deed i.e.,
defendants No.1 to 7 have executed the sale deed on
24/02/2010 in favour of defendant No.8 with respect to
5 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
western half portion of suit property totally measuring
East-West: 45 feet and North-South:30 feet i.e., including
site No.1.
Thereafter defendant No.8 has executed the sale
deed dated 03/05/2010 in favour of defendant No.9 with
respect to an area totally measuring East-West:45 feet
and North-South: 30feet i.e., including suit property. The
sale deeds with respect to half portion of western side of
suit property is illegal, void ab initio and also not binding
upon plaintiffs. Defendants No.1 to 4/original owners of
the property have no right, title and interest over the suit
property as defendant No.1 has already sold the suit
property to plaintiffs. The cause of action arose to the
plaintiff on 09/02/2005, 24/02/2010, 03/05/2010, when
all these three sale deeds were registered and thereafter
they continued.
So, plaintiffs prayed to cancel the sale deed dated
09/02/2005 executed by defendants No.1 to 6 in favour of
7th defendant with respect to western half portion of suit
site, sale deed dated 24/02/2010 executed by defendant
No.1 to 7 in favour of defendant No.8 and also cancel the
sale deed dated 03/05/2010 executed by defendant No.8
6 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
in favour of defendant No.9. They also sought for
injunction restraining defendant No.9 from putting up any
sort of construction over the suit property. So, with these
grounds plaintiffs prayed to decree the suit.
3. On service of suit summons, defendant No.1
has appeared through his counsel and filed written
statement. Defendants No.2 to 6 also appeared through
their counsel and they have adopted the written statement
of defendant No.1 by filing memo of adoption dated
29/01/2011. Defendant No.9 has also appeared through
his counsel and he filed separate written statement.
4. Defendant No.1 in his written statement has
admitted about his ownership over the suit property but
he denied about execution of sale deed dated 05/02/1984
in favour of plaintiffs, delivery of possession in their favour
and also they became owners and possessors of suit
property by virtue of said document.
He has specifically contended that he has sold the
suit property in favour of 5th defendant, who in-turn sold
the same in favour of 6th defendant and again this
defendant and other defendants sold the western half
portion of suit site in favour of 7th defendant. Later he
7 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
himself and defendants No.2 to 7 sold the same in favour
of 8th defendant. So, these sale deeds covers both the
western half portion in site No.2 and site No.1 totally
measuring East-West:45 and North-South:30 feet.
He also contended that defendant No.8 has sold the
said property in favour of defendant No.9, who is in
possession of said property including suit site and he has
put up the construction over the suit property. He also
contended that the name of defendant No.9 is appearing
in BBMP records and he is also paying tax to the BBMP.
He also contended that the suit is barred by law of
limitation. He also denied the contents of plaint including
cause of action. So, with these grounds he prayed to
dismiss the suit with costs.
5. Defendant No.9 in his written statement
admitted that he has purchased the suit property under
sale deed dated 03/05/2010 but he denied about
execution of sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of
plaintiffs and their ownership and possession over the suit
property. He further denied that he is putting up illegal
construction but he contended that on the basis of sale
deed he came into possession of the suit property, his
8 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
name is appearing in BBMP records and he is paying the
tax to the BBMP. He also contended that he has put up
construction over the suit property by obtaining necessary
permission from concerned authority.
He has contended that Court Fee paid by plaintiffs is
not proper and correct. The alleged cause of action arose
on 09/02/2005 i.e., on the date of first sale deed executed
by defendants No.1 to 6 in favour of defendant No.7 but
the suit is filed in the year 2010 and hence, it is barred by
law of limitation. So, he prayed to dismiss the suit with
costs.
6. On the basis of above pleadings, my
predecessor in office has framed the following Issues:-
(1) Whether plaintiffs prove the purchase of Suit
Schedule property by them under registered 1984
from 1st defendant as pleaded?
(2) Whether plaintiffs entitled western half portion of
Suit Schedule property from defendant No.8 as
prayed for?
(3) Whether plaintiffs further prove the registered sale
deed 09/02/2005 by defendant No.1 to 6 in favor
of defendant No.7 in respect of western half
portion of Suit Schedule property is fraudulent
transaction?
(4) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are not bound by
sale in favour of defendant No.7 and entitled for
cancellation of sale deed dated 24/02/2010
executed by defendant No.1 to 7 in favour of
9 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
defendant No.8 in respect of the western half
portion of the schedule site as prayed?
(5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of
registered sale deed dated 03.05.2010 executed
by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9 as
prayed.
(6) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for injunctive relief
against defendant No.8 in respect of western half
portion of schedule site and also for an order of
injunction against alienation of western half
portion of suit schedule site?
(7) What order or decree?
Additional Issues dated 20/02/2020:-
(1) Whether defendants No.3 & 9 prove that suit is
undervalued and Court Fee paid is insufficient?
(2) Whether defendants prove that suit of the
plaintiff is barred by limitation?
7. In order to prove the case, plaintiff No.1 has got
examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 23.
During pendency of the suit defendant No.1 died and his
LRs are already on record as defendant No.2 to 4.
Defendant No.4 also died, his LRs are added by the
plaintiffs. Except D3(a) & (b) and D9, none of the
defendants have contested the suit. Defendant No.9 has
got examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D-1 to
28.
10 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
8. I have heard the learned counsel for plaintiff
and defendant No.9. Perused the pleadings of the parties,
issues, oral and documentary evidence and materials on
record. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 :- In the Negative,
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,
Adl. Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative,
Adl. Issue No.2 :- In the Affirmative,
Issue No.7 :- As per final order for
the following:
9. ISSUE NO.1 AND 2:- Both issues are interlinked
with each other and in order to avoid repetition and to
appreciate the evidence on record, they are taken up
together for common discussion.
The burden of proving these issues is upon the
plaintiffs. It is their specific case that they purchased the
suit property under registered sale deed dated
05/12/1984 from defendant No.1 and by virtue of sale
deed they became owners and possessors of said property
11 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
and subsequently they have been dispossessed from suit
property.
10. Ex.P1 is the original sale deed dated 5th
Decmeber 1984. This document is registered before Joint
Sub-Registrar No.II, in the cadre of District Registrar,
Madras, Tamilnadu. The property described in the
schedule of sale deed is site No.2, Sy.No.49/2, situated at
Hosapalya Hamlet of Haralaguntte, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk. So, the property is situated at
Bengaluru South Taluk and hence, sale deed with respect
to suit property should have been registered before Sub-
Registrar of Bengaluru South Taluk but no reasons are
given or assigned in this document as to why this
document was presented before joint Sub-Registrar of
Madrass. The bond/stamp paper was purchased at
Madrass and document was also drafted at Madrass.
11. The document at page No.7 discloses that this
document was drafted by P.Egambaram, Document writer
and typed by S.A.Shaik Dawood, Subair Job, Typing
Service at Madras. The defendant No.1 has disputed the
execution of this sale deed. So, the burden lies upon
12 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
plaintiffs to show that defendant No.1 has appeared before
Joint Sub-Registrar No.II, in the cadre of District
Registrar, Madras, Tamilnadu and signed this document.
But plaintiffs except producing this document have not
produced any evidence to prove the execution of this
document. Since, the document is not registered where
the property is situated, this document has to be
considered as per Section 28 of Registration Act. The said
provision reads as under:-
"28. Place for registering documents relating
to land.- Save as in this Part otherwise provided,
every document mentioned in section 17, sub-section
(1), clauses (a), (b), (c) [,(d) and (e), section 17, sub-
section (2), insofar as such document affects
immovable property,] [Substituted by Act 33 of 1940,
Section 3, for "and (d)" .] and section 18, clauses (a),
(b), [(c) and (cc)] [Substituted by Act 33 of 1940, Section
3, for "and (c)" .], shall be presented for registration in
the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district
the whole or some portion of the property to which
such document relates is situate".
12. On this point I rely upon the direct judgment of
our own High Court in Sri K.S. Basavanagowda Vs. Sri
Prahlada Rao And Ors., R.F.A.No.785/2013 C/W
R.F.A.No.784/2013, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of
13 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
Karnataka by considering the Section 28 of Registration
Act, has specifically framed the following points for
consideration:-
"(i) Whether the Court below has committed an
error in dismissing both the suits and it
requires interference of this Court?
(ii) Whether the Court below has committed an
error in not considering Section 28 of the
Registration Act, 1908 and whether it requires
interference of this Court
(iii) What order".
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in said
judgment by considering the judgment of Hon'ble
Culcutta High Court in para No.49 held as under:-
"The principles laid down in the judgments referred
supra and also proviso to Section 28 of the
Registration Act,1908 is clear that the document shall
be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-
Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some
portion of the property to which such document relates
is situate. In the case on hand, defendants have not
disputed the registration of the sale deed at Hosur,
Tamil Nadu State and also not placed any material
before the Court that the document was registered
based on any relaxation of Section 28 of the
Registration Act. It is not the case of the defendants
also that there was a relaxation of Section 28 of the
14 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
Registration Act and hence, it is permissible to register
the document outside the State".
14. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para
No.41 of said judgment further held as under:-
"41. Having considered the factual aspects in the
case on hand, admittedly, the property situates at
Bengaluru and the document was registered at Hosur,
Tamil Nadu and there is no relaxation to register the
document outside the State and hence, the document
registered at Tamil Nadu becomes non-est in the eye of
law. Apart from that, it is to be noted that if the
document is registered at Bengaluru, there will be an
entry in the concerned Sub-Registrar office that the
document has been registered and in view of the said
entry, the purchaser will also come to know that there
was a sale transaction in respect of the very same
property and if the property is registered at Hosur,
Tamil Nadu, the same will not be entered in the office of
the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru. In addition to that, the
defendants claim that their right is based on the sale
deed and it is an admitted fact that Dr. H. Anjanappa is
a Doctor by profession and he is a literate and he has
put his thumb impression in the sale deed of the year
1987. Apart from that, the plaintiffs also contend that
there was palpatti between the family of said
Anjanappa in the year 1992, immediately after the
death of said Anjanappa and in one suit, the same is
marked as Ex.P14 and in another suit, the same is
marked as Ex.P17. But the Court below, while
considering those documents has held that the plaintiffs
have not placed the said documents of partition before
the Court and these are the aspects, which clearly
discloses that the Court below did not apply its mind
and no decision has been taken with regard to the fact
that the document was registered at Hosur, Tamil Nadu
and though it only discussed about the same, no finding
was given. When such being the case, I am of the
opinion that the Court below has committed an error in
not appreciating the case on hand in a proper
perspective. The Court below has failed to consider the
15 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
proviso to Section 28 of the Registration Act and also
failed to consider the documents Exs.P14 and 17 with
regard to palpatti. If the document is non-est in the eye
of law, automatically, all the successor of said Dr.H.
Anjanappa would succeed to the estate of the deceased.
In this background, I am of the opinion that the Court
has committed an error in not invoking Section 28 of the
Registration Act and hence, the document which has
been registered at Hosur, becomes non-est and hence, it
does not confer any right in favour of the vendor of the
defendants and so also the vendor of the plaintiffs, who
claim their right based on the sale deed of Sri A.
Shankar which also registered on the very same day.
Hence, I answer point No.1 as 'affirmative'.
So, in said case, the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka held that where the document was registered at
Hosur, Tamil Nadu, the trial Court has committed an error
in not invoking the proviso to Section 28 of the Registration
Act'.
15. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was
pleased to hold that 'such document does not confer any
right in favour of purchasers'. It is also held that such
document is non-est in the eyes of law. The said citation is
aptly applicable to the facts of this case. In this case also
the property is situated at Bengaluru South Taluk and
document was also registered at the office of Joint Sub-
Registrar, Hosur, Madras, Tamilnadu. As above stated the
document does not disclose any exemptions i.e., why the
16 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
document is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar at
Madrass.
16. In said judgment the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by considering the judgment of Hon'ble
Calcutta High Court has held that the Sub-Registrar had
no power to register the document, unless it be by virtue
of Sections 7 and 30 of the Registration Act. In this case
also there was no reason for Joint Sub-Registrar, who in
the cadre of District Registrar to register the document
because the property is situated at Bengaluru and not
within the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar of Madrass,
Tamilnadu. Plaintiffs have not disputed that the document
was registered at Madrass, Tamilnadu. In the plaint itself
they have pleaded that it was registered in the office of
Sub-Registrar, in the cadre of District Registrar, Madrass,
Tamilnadu.
17. PW1 has deposed that it is registered at Hosur
in the year 1984, then this document is non-est in the
eyes of Law. In aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble our own High
Court held that 'the document which has been registered at
Hosur becomes non-est in the eyes of law and hence, it
17 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
does not confer any rights in favour of vendor of the
defendants and so, also the vendor of plaintiffs, who claim
their rights based on this sale deed'. In this case also
plaintiff's sale deed/Ex.P.1 is non-est in the eyes of law
and hence, it will not create any right, title or interest in
their favour over the suit property.
18. Ex.P3/Encumbrance Certificate is from
01/04/1995 to 17/01/2010 but plaintiffs have not
produced Encumbrance Certificates from the date of sale
deed i.e., from 05/12/1984. So, this document is not at
all helpful to the plaintiff. In Ex.P3 there is the reference
that sale deed dated 05/12/1984 is received in the office
of Bommanahalli Sub-Registrar on 10/12/84 and if it was
received on 10/12/84 then, Encumbrance Certificate
should have disclosed the same from that day itself. But
plaintiffs have not produced the Encumbrance Certificate
from 1984 till 1995. Ex.P4/Encumberance Certificate is
from the year of 2005 to 2009 and Ex.P6/Encumbrance
Certificate is from the year of 2004 to 2010. So, these
Encumbrance Certificates will not helpful to the plaintiffs
to show that the sale deed registered on 5 th December
1984 was received on 10/12/84 at office of Sub-Registrar,
18 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
Bommanahalli Sub-Registrar/Bengaluru South Taluk,
Karnataka and this document is acted upon.
19. Ex.P7 is the B-Khata Extract standing in the
name of plaintiffs and it is of the year 2010. This
document also not helpful to plaintiffs to prove their title
over the suit property. It is not 'A' Khata but it is just 'B'
Khata Extract and date of issue is 19/01/2010 but
plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that
on the basis of sale deed dated 05/12/1984 their names
are entered in 'A' Khata of suit property. So, 'B' Khata
Extract is document to collect the tax but that will not
create any title in favour of plaintiffs. Ex.P8/Tax Paid
receipt, Ex.P9, 11, 14 are Self declaration of Assessment of
Tax, Ex.P12/CMC Extract are not at all sufficient to confer
the title of plaintiffs over the suit property.
20. Ex.P15 to 17/ tax paid receipts issued by
BBMP up to 2010 are not sufficient to hold that plaintiffs
became owners of the suit property by virtue of sale deed
and they came into possession of the suit property. These
tax paid receipts are not at all helpful plaintiffs to declare
their ownership. Infact, plaintiffs have not sought the
relief of declaration of ownership but they sought the relief
19 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
of possession. In order to grant the possession, they have
to prove their ownership but as stated above, Ex.P1/sale
deed dated 05/12/1984 itself is non-est in the eyes of Law
and hence, based on 'B' Khatha Extract or tax paid
receipts or Assessment Declaration of property, this Court
cannot grant the relief of possession infavour of plaintiffs.
21. Ex.P22 is the office copy of the police
complaint lodged by plaintiffs before HSR Layout Police
Station and Ex.P23 is its endorsement but these
documents are also not sufficient to grant the relief in
favour of plaintiffs. As above said defendant No.1 has
disputed the execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs.
So, plaintiffs should have proved the Ex.P.1/sale deed in
their favour by examining any attesting witness though
the document is not compulsorily attestable but since it is
registered at Hosur, Madras, Tamilnadu, I hold that
plaintiffs should have proved the execution of this
document. Since, the sale deed of the plaintiffs is not at all
acted upon, I hold that this document will not create any
right, title or interest in favour of plaintiffs.
20 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
22. The evidence on record discloses that plaintiffs
never came into possession of the suit property but
defendant No.9 is in possession of the suit property at
present. Plaintiffs are claiming suit property on the basis
of non existing document i.e., Ex.P1/sale deed dated
05/12/1984, which will not create any title in favour of
plaintiffs. In said sale deed there is specific reference that
the property under sale is site No.2 out of Sy.No.49/2 of
Hosapalya Hamlet of Haralakunte, Beguru Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk. So, document should have been
registered in the office of Bommanahalli Sub-Registrar but
sale deed of plaintiffs was not at all registered before said
office and it was not entered in the register of said office
since 1984 itself. So, I hold that plaintiffs have failed to
prove that they have purchased the suit property under
Ex.P1/sale deed dated 05/12/1984 and also they have
not proved their possession over the suit property. Hence,
I answer issue No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
23. ISSUE NO.3 TO 6:- All these issues are
interlinked with each other and in order to avoid
repetition, they are taken up together for common
consideration.
21 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
Defendant No.1 has specifically admitted that he has
sold the suit property in favour of defendant
No.7/Y.V.Gangaiah. Ex.P19 is the certified copy of said
sale deed dated 09/02/2005 executed by defendant No.1
and his son in favour of defendant No.7 with respect to
Eastern ½ portion of site No.1 and western half portion of
site No.2 out of Khatha No.49/2.
24. Ex.P20 is the certified copy of sale deed dated
24th February 2010 executed by defendant No.1 to 7 in
favour of defendant No.8/Smt.S.G.Deepa with respect to
site No.1 and 2 out of Khata No.49/2 measuring East-
West:45 feet and North-South: 30 feet and later defendant
No.8 has sold the same in favour of defendant No.9 under
Ex.P21/sale deed dated 3rd May 2010. Now, defendant
No.9 is in possession of the suit property and he has put
up construction over the suit property.
25. The learned counsel for plaintiff cross
examined DW1 stating that his vendor had no right to sell
the suit property i.e., an area measuring East-West:45
feet and North-South:30 feet but he denied said
suggestions. It was also suggested that his possession is
22 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
also not lawful possession but he denied it. But the
evidence on record discloses that plaintiffs have not
proved their ownership over the suit property and hence,
they cannot challenge the sale deeds in favour of
defendant No.5 to 9.
26. Ex.D-5 is the Khatha Certificate issued in
favour of defendant No.6 by BBMP. Ex.D-6 is the Tax
Assessment Extract standing in the name of defendant
No.6. Ex.D7 is 'Form B Register standing in the name of
defendant No.8 and Ex.D8 is also Property Extract
standing in the name of defendant No.9. Ex.D.9 is tax
paid receipts standing in the name of defendant No.6.
Ex.D.10 to 21 are the tax paid receipts of the suit property
standing in the name of defendant No.9/G.Munireddy.
27. Ex.D-23 is Encumbrance Certificate from
01/04/2004 to 26/09/2019, which discloses that
property was standing in the name of defendant
No.8/Smt.S.G.Deepa and property was purchased by
G.Munireddy i.e., defendant No.9 from defendant No.8. It
also discloses that on 22nd March 2006, the GPA holder of
23 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
defendant No.1 i.e., defendant No.5/Puttaramu has sold
the property in favour of defendant No.6/Srinivas.
28. It also discloses that the sale deed executed by
defendant No.1 in favor of defendant No.7/Gangaiah dated
9th February 2005. But this Encumbrance Certificate does
not discloses the sale deed in favor of plaintiffs dated
05/12/1984. Ex.D-25 to 27 are the photographs to show
that defendant No.9 has constructed the four stored
building over the suit property including site No.1. Ex.D-
28 is CD of said photographs. So, defendant No.9 is in
possession of the suit property and plaintiffs have no right
to challenge the sale deed dated 09/02/2005,
24/02/2010 and lastly 03/05/2010. Hence, I answer
issue No.3 to 6 in the Negative.
29. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1:- Defendants have
taken the specific contention that the suit is under valued
and it is barred by law of limitation. In this suit plaintiffs
have sought the relief of cancellation of sale deeds dated
09/02/2005, 24/02/2010 and 03/05/2010. So, the Court
fee has to be paid as per Section 38 of Karnataka Court-
Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. So, the plaintiff has
24 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
to pay Court fee on the consideration amount shown in
the said sale deeds but they have improperly valued the
suit for Rs.2,70,000/-.
30. As per Ex.P19/Sale deed dated 09/02/2005
the consideration amount was shown as Rs.1,35,000/-, as
per Ex.P.20/Sale deed dated 24th February 2010 the
consideration amount was Rs.8,91,000/- and as per last
sale deed i.e., executed by defendant No.8 in favour of
defendant No.9 is dated 3rd May 2010 the consideration
amount was Rs.8,91,000/-. So, the Court fee should have
been paid at Rs.8,91,000 and not on Rs.2,70,000/- as
paid by plaintiffs. Hence, I hold that the valuation of the
suit as well as Court fee paid by them is not proper and
correct. Hence, I answer additional issue No.1 in the
affirmative.
31. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.2:- The first sale deed
is challenged by plaintiffs is dated 09/02/2005 i.e., as per
Ex.P.19, which is executed by defendant No.1/Krishnappa
and his son in favour of defendant No.7. This sale deed is
registered. So, from the date of registration of this sale
deed, the suit should have filed within 3 years from the
25 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
date of registration of said document but this suit is filed
in the year 2010 i.e., beyond 3 years. In the plaint itself
plaintiffs have pleaded that the cause of action arose to
them to file this suit on 09/02/2005 i.e., the date of this
sale deed but there is no pleading that plaintiff came to
know about this sale deed recently or before filing of this
suit in the year 2010. So, the suit is barred by law of
limitation.
32. As per Article 58 of Limitation Act to obtain
any other declaration, the suit shall be filed within 3
years, when the right to sue first accrues. As per the
plaint averments the right to sue accrues to the plaintiff
on first time on 09/02/2005 so from that date the suit
should have been filed within 3 years. But this suit is filed
in the year 2010. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation as
per Article 58 of Limitation Act.
33. As per Article 59 of Limitation Act, to cancel or
set aside any instrument shall be filed within 3 years
when the plaintiff first time came to know about the said
instrument. In this case, there is no pleading and evidence
that plaintiffs came to know about first sale deed in the
26 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
year 2010 i.e., soon before filing of this suit. Hence, suit is
barred under Article 59 of Limitation Act also. Hence, I
answer additional issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
34. ISSUE NO.7: In view of my finding on the
above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcription, the Script is corrected directly on computer, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2025].
[Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiffs:-
PW.1 :: B.R.Basker
2. List of documents marked on behalf of plaintiffs:
Ex.P1 Original sale deed dtd 05/120/1984; Ex.P2 Death Certificate of plaintiffs' father; Ex.P3 to 6 Encumbrance Certificates;
Ex.P7 'B' Khata Extract;
Ex.P.8 & 13 Tax paid receipts;
Ex.P.9, 11, 14 Self Assessment Declaration;
Ex.P.12 CMC Extract ;
Ex.P.15 to 18 Tax paid receipts issued by BBMP;
Ex.P.19 Sale deed dated 09/02/2005;
Ex.P.20 Sale deed dated 24/02/2010;
27 / 27 O.S.No.7555/2010_Judgment
Ex.P.21 Sale deed dated 03/05/2010;
Ex.P.22 Police complaint dtd.03/10/2010;
Ex.P.23 Its endorsement .
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:-
DW.1 :: G.Munireddy
4. List of documents marked on behalf of defendant:
Ex.D.1 to 4 Certified copy of sale deeds dtd.09/02/2005, 22/03/2006, 24/02/2010 & 03/05/2010 (4 in Nos) ;
Ex.D.5 Khata certificate ;
Ex.D.6 assessment register extract;
Ex.D.7 & 8 Form B khata extracts (2 in number);
Ex.D.9 to 21 Tax paid receipts (13 in Nos.) ;
Ex.D.22 & 23 Encumbrance Certificate (2 in Nos); Ex.D.24 to 27 Photographs (4 in Nos.);
Ex.D.28 Its CD;
XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.