Bangalore District Court
Sri.Venkataraju vs Sri.R.H.Veeranna on 30 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.7).
Dated: This the 30th day of November, 2018
Present:
Smt.Maheshwari.S.Hiremath, B.A., LL.B.(Spl.)
XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.9488/1999
Plaintiffs 1. Sri.Venkataraju,
Aged about 73 years,
Since dead, his Lr's
a) Sri.Y.V.Krishnamurthy,
S/o late Venkataraju,
Aged about 52 years,
b) Sri.Thimmaiah,
S/o late Venkataraju,
Aged about 50 years,
Both are r/at No.11, 2nd cross,
Model Colony Corporation
Ward Office road,
Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru.
c) Smt.V.Nagaratnamma,
W/o Suryanarayan,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at NO.40/10, Behind
Lokesh tent, Lingarajapura,
Bengaluru.
d) Smt.Kalavathi,
W/o Bhanuraj,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.602, Raiway Parallel road,
Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru.
e) Smt.Lakshmi,
W/o Nagaraju,
Aged about 41 years,
2 O.S.No.9488/1999
R/at No.602, Railway Praralle
Road, Ambedkar Nagar,
Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru
f) Smt.Parvathi,
W/o Babu,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.90, Venkataramana
Temple street, Chikkadagodi,
Tavarakkere post, Bengaluru.
g) Smt.V.Saraswathi,
W/o Ganesh Murthy,
Age about 37 years,
R/at No.11, 2nd cross,
Model Colony, Yeshwanthapura
Bengaluru.
h) Smt.V.Padmavathi,
W/o Shivanna,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.22, Patila Mansion,
Anjaneya temple road,
Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru
i) Smt.V.Giriraj,
S/o late Venkataraju,
Aged about 31 years,
j) Sri.V.Anil Kumar,
S/o late Venkataraju,
Aged about 29 years,
Sl Nos.(i) and (j) are r/at
No.11, 2nd Cross, Model Colony,
Corporation ward office road,
Yeshawanthapura, Bengaluru.
By Sri H.P.L, Advocate.
Vs.
Defendants 1. Sri.R.H.Veeranna,
S/o Sri.Hanumanthappa,
Major,
3 O.S.No.9488/1999
R/at No.7, Police Quarters,
S.C.Road, 7th block,
Bangalore-560 009
2. Sri.Y.V.Krishnappa,
Major,
S/o late Venkatappa,
R/at No.559, Ambedkar Nagar,
Railway Parallel road,
Bangalore-22.
3. Sri.V.Muniswamy,
Major,
S/o late Venkatappa,
R/at No.11, 2nd cross,
Corporation Ward Office road,
Yeshawanthapura,
Bengaluru-22.
(By SriDRP for D.2, and 3
D.1- exparte).
Date of institution of suit 22.12.1999
Nature of the suit Permanent injunction
Date of commencement of 22.12.1999
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment was 30.11.2018
pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
18 11 08
*****
4 O.S.No.9488/1999
JUDGEMENT
This suit is instituted for Permanent Injunction. The suit schedule property is as under:-
All that part and parcel of Sy.No.53/1B8(2) measuring 10 guntas situated at Jarakabande Kaval Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District, bounded on:-
East by : Lands of Abdul Khuddus,
West by : Remaining property of plaintiff bearing
Sy.No.53/1B:2;
North by : Private Property
South by : Land in Sy.No.53/1:B8(2) belongs to the
plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
Plaintiff is an absolute owner of the suit schedule property to an extent of 2 acres. He has got the said Property under registered Partition Deed dt.16.05.1983. Since then he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The mutation entries have been entered in his name in respect of said property.
3. In the year 1996, plaintiff's younger brother i.e., defendants Nos.2 and 3 herein have approached the plaintiff and requested him to execute Power of Attorney in favour of 1st defendant herein in order to look after and manage an extent of 5 O.S.No.9488/1999 10 guntas in said survey number. Being the eldest brother, the plaintiff has bonafidely believed their version and has executed Power of Attorney along with said two brothers in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of aforesaid land to an extent of 10 guntas of schedule property. The plaintiff along with his 2 brothers has executed the registered General Power of Attorney on 25.7.1996 in favour of 1st defendant in respect of schedule property.
4. The defendant No.2 got mutation effected in his name in respect of entire extent of said survey number in the year 1995-96 without the knowledge and against the Will of the plaintiff herein even though the said 2nd defendant has no interest, right, title or interest over the said property, because the said property has fallen to the share of plaintiff in the partition effected among his brothers. After coming to know the said fact, the plaintiff has demanded the explanation from 2nd defendant, he assured and promised to co-operate with the plaintiff in order to restore the Katha again in his name only. But he has not kept up his promises and he has been evading the same on some pretext or the other with ulterior motives. On suspicion the plaintiff has made enquiries with the neighbors and also with the 6 O.S.No.9488/1999 power of attorney holder and found that defendants Nos.2 and 3 have colluded in order to deprive the rights of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. Thereafter the plaintiff has filed necessary application for rectification of Pahani before the Jurisdictional Tahasildar, which is still pending for consideration. The plaintiff has also revoked the Power of Attorney given to the 1st defendant by way of Registered Deed of Revocation dt.13.12.1999 as the said brothers of plaintiff are acting detrimental to the plaintiff's interest in collusion with 1st defendant and hence plaintiff was compelled to revoke the said power of attorney.
5. The plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of said survey number since the date of partition. Now, the 1st defendant with the assistance of plaintiff's brothers have trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in order to make wrongful gain to themselves and thereby cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff.
6. After canceling the power of attorney, the defendants have tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property with the help of henchmen, goondas on 18.12.1999. At that time, the plaintiff has resisted the illegal act with the assistance of his friends, relatives and well-wishers. But 7 O.S.No.9488/1999 the defendants warned the plaintiff that they would come again and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property by brining more men and goondas. Therefore the plaintiff has approached this Court for appropriate reliefs. Court fee paid is sufficient. Hence, this suit.
7. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendants Nos.2 and 3 have appeared before the Court through their counsel but not filed any written statements. Defendant No.1 has not appeared before the Court, hence he was placed exparte.
8. The following points that would arise for my consideration:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendants over the suit schedule property ?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
4) What Order or decree?
9. In order to prove the case, son of plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.6. The defendants have not let their defence evidence.
10. Heard arguments on both the sides.
8 O.S.No.9488/1999
11. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 - In the Negative
Point No.2 - In the Negative
Point No.3 - In the Negative
Point No.4 - As per Final Order,
for the following:
REASONS
12.My answer to points Nos.1 to 3 :- All these points are taken up together for discussion as they are inter-related.
Sri.Giriraj who is son of plaintiff has reiterated the contents of plaint in his examination-in-chief. In support of his claim, he has produced in all 6 documents such as:-
Ex.P.1 is Partition Deed dt.16.5.1983 executed between plaintiff and his brother defendants Nos.2 and 3 in respect of suit schedule property.
Ex.P.2 is Certified copy of the General Power of Attorney dt.22.7.1996 executed by plaintiff No.1 and defendants Nos.2 and 3 in favour of one Sri.Muniyappa in respect of Sy.No.53:1B8(2) of Jarakabande Kaval grama measuring 0-10 guntas.
Ex.P.3 is original General Power of Attorney dt.13.12.1999 executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 3 in respect of Sy.No.53:1B8(2) of Jarakabande Kaval grama measuring 0-10 guntas.
9 O.S.No.9488/1999
Ex.P.4 is RTC for the years 1998-99 and 1988-99 standing in the name of Y.V.Krishnappa, s/o Venkatappa in respect of Sy.No.53.
Ex.P.5 is certified copy of Sale Deed dt.11.3.1971 executed by S.K.Sheik Mohammed s/o Abdul Kareem in favour of Y.V.Krishnappa/defendant no.2 in respect of Sy.No.53:1, of Jarakabande Kaval Grama, Yelahanka Hobli.
Ex.P.6 is M/R No.1982, 1986 to 1987 standing in the names of Venkataraju, Y.V.Krishnappa and V.Muniswam in respect of Sy.No.53.
13. Originally plaintiff Venkataraju has sought for the relief of permanent injunction against defendant No.1- R.H.Veeranna and own brothers Y.V.Krishnappa and V.Muniswamy alleging that, they are interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. According to plaintiff, he has acquired the suit schedule property under registered Partition Deed dt.16.5.1983. Defendants Nos.2 and 3 who were his own brothers by way of misrepresentation got executed General Power of Attorney dt.25.7.1996 in favour of 1st defendant R.H.Veeranna in respect of suit schedule property. Thereafter defendant No.2/ Y.V.Krishnappa behind the back of plaintiff got his name entered to the entire extent of suit schedule property. Later it came to light that, 1st defendant 10 O.S.No.9488/1999 and 3rd defendant have also joined hands in this act. Accordingly, plaintiff by way of registered deed of Revocation dt.13.12.1999 revoked the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of 1st defendant. In this background, defendants are interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
14. P.W.1 Giriraj has reiterated the plaint averments on oath. However, on perusal of the documents exhibited by plaintiff side, certified copy of General Power of Attorney at Ex.P.2 dt.22.7.1996 and deed of cancellation of General Power of Attorney at Ex.P.3 dt.13.12.999 are relating to General Power of Attorney holder by name Muniyappa s/o Obalappa. The documents mentioned in the plaint i.e, General Power of Attorney dt.25.7.1996 executed in favour of 1st defendant R.H.Veeranna is not at all produced in this case nor deed of cancellation of General Power of Attorney dt.13.12.1999 in respect of General Power of Attorney executed in favour of 1st defendant is produced herein. Therefore, though the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.1 registered Partition Deed to show as to how he acquired the suit schedule property, there are no documents to infer that 1st defendant was General Power of Attorney holder and even after 11 O.S.No.9488/1999 cancellation of said General Power of Attorney he is causing interference in the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Therefore, absolutely there are no grounds to ascertain the truthfulness of the plaint averments as to alleged interference by the defendants.
15. On the basis of Ex.P.1 at the most it can be inferred that, plaintiff was allotted suit schedule property during partition dt.16.5.1983. Only on this ground, injunction cannot be granted as establishment of lawful possession as on the date of suit and alleged interference by the defendants are the factors equally important to be established in order to seek relief of injunction. With these observations, this Court concludes that, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for. Accordingly, I answer these points in the Negative.
16. Point No.4: In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit is hereby dismissed with costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on Computer and computerised print-out taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 30th day of November, 2018) (Maheshwari.S.Hiremath) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.12 O.S.No.9488/1999
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 Giriraj List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Partition Deed dt.16.5.1983
Ex.P2 C/c of GPA dt.22.7.1996
Ex.P.3 Original GPA dt.13.12.1999
Ex.P.4 RTC extracts for the year 1998-1999 and
1988-1999
Ex.P5 C/c of Sale Deed dt.11.3.1971
Ex.P5(a) Typed copy
Ex.P.6 M/R for the years 1982, 1986 to 1987
List of witnesses examined and documents on behalf of defendants:
-NIL-
(Maheshwari.S.Hiremath) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.13 O.S.No.9488/1999