In 1. Mrs. Renuka Vijayakumar W/O ... vs In 1. Sri. Narayanappa S/O Late ... on 22 September, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

In 1. Mrs. Renuka Vijayakumar W/O ... vs In 1. Sri. Narayanappa S/O Late ... on 22 September, 2021

IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22).

Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.

OS.No.16322/2005 C/w OS.No.3483/2005

Dated this the 22nd day of September 2021

Plaintiffs in 1. Mrs. Renuka Vijayakumar W/o Vijayakumar
OS.No.16322/2005: Aged 41 years, R/at No.12/53(F.F),
Udani Layout, Cambridge Road,
Ulsoor, Bangalore- 560 008.
2. Mrs. Shylaja Viswanathan W/o Viswanathan,
Aged 49 years, R/at No.12/53 (G.F),
Udani Layout, Cambridge Road,
Ulsoor, Bangalore- 560 008.
3. Mr.V.M. Raveendran S/o K.K.Nair,
Aged 46 years, R/at No.40, Lyods Road,
Cooke Town, Bangalore- 560 005.
4. Mr. V.M. Hareendran S/o K.K.Nair,
Aged 43 years, R/at No.40, Lyods Road,
Cooke Town, Bangalore- 560 005,
(Represented by his Special Power of
Attorney Holder V.M. Raveendran,
Plaintiff No.3 above named).
5. Mr. A. Sahadevan Pillai S/o P. Achuthan Pillai,
Aged 48 years, R/at No.37, 3rd Cross,
Jayanthi Nagar, Horamavu Village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore- 560 043.
2
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

6. Mr. Narayan Unni S/o late T. Narayan Kurup,
Aged 57 years, R/at No.21, 2nd Cross,
Jayanthi Nagar, Horamavu Village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560 043.

7. Mr. Gangadharan S/o M. Ranganathan,
Aged 30 years, R/at No.41, 3rd Cross,
Jayanthi Nagar, Horamavu Village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore- 560 043.

8. Mr. P. Ajayan S/o T. Appukuttan Nair,
Aged 35 Years, R/at No.20, 2nd Cross,
Jayanthi Nagar, Horamavu Village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore- 560 043.
9. Mr. Madhusoodhana Karnavar
S/o Late N. Raghava Kurup, Aged 45 Years,
R/at No.38 & 39, 3rd Cross, Jayanthi Nagar,
Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore- 560 043.
Presently serving in Indian Army as Subedar
Clk.No.664 ENGR PLANT-UNIT.
C/o 56 A.P .O. (Represented by his wife and
Special Power of Attorney Holder,
Smt. Ramadevi)
10. Smt. Thanga Rani W/o Siddagangaiah,
Aged 35 years, R/at No.41, 3rd Cross,
Jayanthi Nagar, Horamavu Village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560 043.
11. Mr. B. Kishore Kumar S/o G. Balakrishna,
Aged 31 years, R/at No.41, 10th Main,
6th Cross, Nandanam Colony,
Horamavu Village, Bangalore- 560 043.
3
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

12. Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan S/o Kunhikrishan Nair,
Aged 46 years, R/at No.36, 3rd Cross,
Jayanthi Nagar, Horamavu Village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore- 560 043.

13. Mr. Sonny Mathew S/o Mathew Rocky,
Aged 37 years, R/at No.45, 3rd Cross,
Jayanthi Nagar, Horamavu Village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore- 560 043.
14. Mr. Gopinatha Menon S/o
Late Chandraskhara Menon,
Aged 52 years, R/at No.42, 3rd Cross,
Jayanthi Nagar, Horamavu Village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore- 560 043.

15. Mrs. Baby Madhavan W/o Madhavan Nair,
Aged 38 years, R/at No.20, Aravind Nagar,
Oil Mill Road, Lingarajapuram,
Bangalore-560 084.

(Rep by Sri Cariappa & Co.,)

V/S
Defendants in 1. Sri. Narayanappa S/o Late Venkataswamappa
OS.No.16322/2005: @ Chikkabbaiah, Aged about 50 years,

2. Sri. Nagaraj S/o Late Venkataswamappa,
@ Chikkabbaiah, Aged about 45 years,
Since deceased, represented by his L.R.
2(a) Smt.Shashikala W/o late C.Nagarajappa,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at Horamavu Village and Post,
4
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Near Mariyamma Temple Street,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore- 560 043.

3. Sri. Jayaram S/o Late Venkataswamappa,
@ Chikkabbaiah, Aged about 40 years,

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are
Residents of Horamavu Village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560 043.

4. Smt. Madi Reddy Sri Padmavathy
W/o Jagadish,Aged 36 years,
R/at No.7, Scientist Hostel,
C.V. Raman Nagar, DRDO Township,
Bangalore- 560 093.

5. Sri. Y.N. Konda Reddy S/o Narayan Reddy,
Aged 42 years, R/at No.83,
Yerandahalli, Hennagar Post,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore- 562 106.

6. Smt. Varalakshamamma D/o Narayanappa,
Aged 24 years.
7. Smt. Manjuala D/o Narayanappa,
Aged 24 years.
8. Kumari. Shylaja D/o Narayanappa, Major.
9. Kumari Kavya M D/o Jayaram, Major.
10. Kiran S/o Jayaram, Major.
5
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

11. Kavitha D/o Jayaram, Major.

12. Karthik S/o Jayaram, Major.

Defendants 6 to 12 residing at
Horamanu Village, Bangalore- 560 043.
(D1 to D3 by Sri - C. Gnanamurthy, D5 by - Sri G.A. Vishwanatha
Reddy, D2(a) by - B. Somashekar Naidu, & D4, 6 & 7 - Exparte)

Plaintiff in Sri. Y.N. Konda Reddy S/o Narayana Reddy,
OSNo.3483/2005:- Aged about 43 years, R/at Yarandahalli village,
Hennagara post, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru district.
(Rep by Sri. G.A.Vishwanatha Reddy,)

V/S
\\

Defendants in 1. Sri. Narayanappa S/o late Venkataswamappa,
OS.No.3483/2005 Aged about 50 years,

2. Sri. Nagaraju S/o Late Venkataswamappa,
Died on 05/01/2018 his Lrs
(a) Smt. Shashikala W/o Late Nagaraju,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at Near Mariyamma Temple Steet,
Horamavu village & Post, K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru.

3. Sri. Jayaram S/o Late Venkataswamappa,
Aged about 40 years,
D1 to 3 are residing at Horamavu village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East taluk,
Bengaluru district.
6
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

4. Smt. Padmavati Madireddy W/o Jagadish,
Aged about 37 years, R /at No.7,
zzz
Scientist Hostel, C.V. Raman Nagar,
D.R.O. Township, Bangalore-560093.
5. Smt. Thangarani W /o Sidalingaiah,
Aged about 35 years, R /at No. 41,
3rd Cross, Jayanthinagar, Horamavu village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560043.
6. Sri. T.N. Narayanaunni S/o late N. Raghavakurup,
Aged about 57 years, R /at No. 21, 2nd Cross,
Jayanthinagar, Horamavu village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore - 43.
7. Sri. R.Gangadharan S/o Ramanathan,
Aged about 30 years, R /at No.41, 3rd Cross,
Jayanthinagar, Horamavu village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore - 43.

8. Sri. Madhusoodan Karanavar
S/o late N. Raghavakurup,
Aged about 45 years, R/at Papanna Layout,
M.S. Nagar post, Bangalore - 43.
9. Sri. Sahadevan Pillai S/o Achuthan Pillai,
Aged about 48 years R/at No.37, 3rd Cross,
Jayanthinagar, Horamavu village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore- 43.
10. Sri. P. Ajayan S/o T. Appukuttan Nair
Aged about 35 years, R/at No. 20, 2nd Cross
Jayanthinagar, Horamavu village,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore - 43
11. Sri. I.K. Lazarus S/o K.Venkatappa,
Aged about 61 year, R/at S.G.M. Palya,
Dommalur, Krishnappa House,
7
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

New Thippasandra, Bangalore-560075.
12. Sri. Kishorkumar S/o G. Balakrishna,
Aged about 31 years, R / at No. 41,
10th Main, 6th Cross, Nandanam Colony,
Horamavu Road, Doddabanasavadi,
Bangalore - 560 043.
[

13. Mrs. Renuka Vijayakumar W/o Vijayakumar
Aged about 41 years, R /at No.12/53,(F.F)
Udani Layout, Cambridge Road,
Ulsoor, Bangalore-08.

14. Mr. P. Gopalakrishnan S/o Kunnikrishna Nair,
Aged about 46 years, R /at No. 266 ,
Omana Nivasa, Subbanna Palya,
Banasawadi Post, Bangalore - 05.

15. Sri. Gopinath Memon S/o Mathew Rocky
Aged about 37 years, R /at No.45,
3rd cross, Jayanthinagar,
Banasawadi post, Bangalore - 43.

16. Sri. Sony Mathew S/o Mathew Rocky,
Aged about 44 years, R /at No.45, 3rd Cross,
Jayanthi Nagar, Banasawadi Post,
Bangalore - 43.

17. Sri. V.M. Hareedran S/o K.K. Nair,
Aged about 44 years, R /at No.40,
Lyords Road, Cooke Town, Bangalore-05.

18. Sri. Syyalaja Vishwanath W/o Viswanath,
Aged about 50 years, R /at No.12/53,
(G.F) Udani Layout, Cambridge Road,
8
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Ulsoor, Bangalore - 08.

19. Sri. V.M. Raveenderan S/o K.K. Nair,
Aged about 44 years, R /at No.40,
Lords road, Cooke Town, Bangalore-05.

20. Baby Madhavan W/o Madhavan Nair,
Major, No. 20, Aravind Nagar,
Oil Mill road, Lingarajapuram,
Bangalore-84 .

21. Sri. V.K. Sarala W/o C. Vishnu Menon,
R/at House No.23, Mosque Road,
Bangalore - 05.

22. Sri. Shobhana C.K. Nair W /o M.Vasu,
Aged about 49 years, No. B -212,
Millenium Habitat, Kundalahalli post,
Bangalore - 37.
23. Smt. Indira Stanly W/o A. Stanly
Aged about 35 years, R/at No.C-76,
Shalom, 3rd Main, 3rd Cross, Malleshpalya,
New Thippasandra, Bangalore-75.
24. P. Prema Latha S/o Narayan Nair,
Aged about 48 years, R /at No. 655,
B -Type, B.D.A.House, Domlur,
Bangalore - 71.
25. Sri. Shinode P.U. S/o M.P. Unniraman
Kutty Nayar, Aged about 38 years,
26. Smt. Nisha P.V W /o Shinode P.U
Aged about 32 years,
Both are residing at Flat No.101,
Shanthikirana Apartments, 5th Street,
9
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Bark Avenue, Babusapalya,
Kalyananagar, Bangalore.
27. Mr. Shankar Gowda Patil
S/o Ramanna Gowda Patil,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at Bantur village, Bantur Post,
Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkote District.
[Defendant No.1 to 3 by Sri Gnana Murthy, D2(a) by Sri - B.
Somashekara Naidu, D5, 5, 8, 10, 15, 9, 14 by Sri - K.N.
Purushotham, D11 by - Sri M. Isaiah, D4, 24 - Exparte, D-23 by Sri
K.N.Purushotham & D25 & 26 by Sri - B.N. Prakash]

OS.No.16322/2005 OS.No.3483/2005
Date of Institution of the suit 15/04/2005 04/05/2005
Nature of the (Suit or pro-
note, suit for declaration and Declaration & Declaration, Possession
possession, suit for Mandatory & Permanent
injunction, etc.) injunction Injunction

Date of the commencement
14/07/2009 14/07/2009
of recording of the Evidence
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced. 22/09/2021 22/09/2021

Total duration Years Months Days Years Months Days
16 05 07 16 04 18

XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
10
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

:COMMON JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff of OS.No.16322/2005 filed suit against defendants

for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction.

The plaintiff of OS.No.3483/2005 filed suit against defendants

for Declaration, Possession & Permanent Injunction.

2. The Brief facts of plaint averments in OS.No.16322/2005

is as under:

The plaintiffs submits that defendants No.8 to 12 are minors

and they are represented in this suit by their natural guardian and

father and plaintiffs have filed application U/o 32 Rule 3 CPC for

appointment of guardian for minor defendants for this suit. The

defendants No.1 to 3 being absolute owners of property bearing

No.81/2 measuring 3 acres 17 guntas of Horamavu Village, K.R

Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk under registered WILL

executed by their grand mother Venkatamma on 13/06/1988. After

death of said testator relevant revenue records was mutated vide MR
11
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

No.17/1989-90 in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 in respect of said

land. Thus defendants No.1 to 3 became absolute owners of said

property. That in the year 1991 defendants No.1 to 3 formed layout of

house sites in the northern portion of their said agricultural dry land

in Sy.No.81/2 in Horamavu Village to an extent of 1 acre 24 guntas.

The defendants No.1 to 3 took assistance of defendant No.4 to form

layout and to find out purchasers and transact with the plaintiffs and

other site purchasers in this layout. The defendants No.1 to 3 had

executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.4 for

the purpose of transactions with purchasers in this layout. A portion

of land measuring 30 guntas was sold to defendant No.4 by

defendants No.1 to 3 under registered sale deed and that portion of

land also made into part of this layout. Totally 47 sites were formed

in this layout by defendants No.1 to 4. After formation of the layout,

the defendants No.1 to 4 got house list numbers assigned for sites

formed in this layout from local authority namely, Horamavu Village
12
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Panchayat and katha were registered in respect of house sites formed

in layout in revenue records of local Horamavu Panchayat.

3. The plaintiff further submits that in the year 1991-92, the

defendants No.1 to 3 sold sites formed in this layout to plaintiffs

under separate registered sale deeds and also sold sites to some of

plaintiffs through the defendant No.4 through their duly constituted

attorney. The plaintiffs were in actual physical possession and

enjoyment of sites purchased by them. In northern portion of

Sy.No.81/2of Horamavu Village to an extent of 1 acre 24 guntas,

wherein the defendants No.1 to 4 formed 47 sites bounded by North:

land in Sy. No.81/1 belongs to Yamanna, South: land in Sy.No.84

belongs to Baluki Dasappa, West: Jayanthi Grama a part of

Horamavu Village, South: the portion of the land sold to the

defendant No.4 in Sy.No.81/2 by defendants No.1 to 3. The plaintiff

and many others purchased sites formed in this layout from

defendants No.1 to 4 and all 47 sites of different dimensions were

thus sold to plaintiff sand other purchasers during the year 1991-92.
13
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

The defendants No.1 to 3 did not retain any other right, title or

interest over portion of land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village

wherein the sites were formed and sold to plaintiffs and other

purchasers under registered sald deeds. Thus since year 1991-92

defendants No.1 to 3 ceased to be the owners of northern portion of

land in Sy. No.81/2 of Horamavu Village. The plaintiffs after

purchase of sites got katha of respective sites purchased by them

registered in revenue records of Horamavu Panchayat and paid

property tax in their names for house sites. The local authority,

Horamavu Panchayat thus approved residential layout formed

Sy.No.81/2 Local village authority, Horamavu Panchayat issued

licenses to construct houses in their respective sites to many of

plaintiffs and they have built up their houses and they are living in

the houses with their families since many years. The plaintiffs and

other purchasers of sites are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of

their respective sites. This layout of 47 sites, now part of the large

layout, known as Jayanthi Nagar which is fully developed residential
14
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

layout. There is main road Horamavu Agara-K.R Puram Road

running west to east and passing through the Southern portion in

Sy.No.81/2.

4. The plaintiffs further submit that there are 3 cross roads from

the Agara-K.R Puram Main Road across layout formed in Sy.No.81/2

providing access to all the 47 sites formed. These 3 cross roads

further towards North into layout formed in Sy.No.81/1, (land

belongs to Sri. Yamanna) and provide access to main road from

layout formed in Sy.No.81/1. Since 1991 there was no agricultural

operation in any portion of Sy.No.81/2 and land was fully developed

into layout of sites. The Sy.No.81/1 and Sy.No.84 (presently Eastern

Layout) were developed into layout of sites and many houses have

been constructed in those sites.

5. The plaintiffs further submit that eight of plaintiffs have

already constructed their houses in their respective sites after

obtaining building licenses from the panchayat and occupied their
15
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

houses before 2003 itself. Many more have put up their foundations

and compounds after obtaining license from local Horamavu

Panchayat and they are proceeding with their constructions and

plaintiffs are continuing in occupation of their respective properties.

On 21/10/2004 the defendant No.5 appeared in the layout along with

group of his supporters with strange and equally un-tenable claim

that he purchased the land measuring 1 acres 7 guntas in Sy.No.81/2

wherein the layout has already been formed, from the defendants

No.1 to 3 and their children under registered sale and the defendant

No.5 threatened the plaintiff and other purchasers of site in layout of

forceful dispossession from the properties. The defendant No.5 later

filed caveat against plaintiff before the Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Bangalore (which is not the court having jurisdiction on the area).

Thereafter the defendant No.5 filed suit in OS.No.983/2004 against

defendant No.11 and another purchasers. The defendant No.5

pursuant to sale deed dated 01/03/2004 executed by defendants No.1

to 3 and their respective children fraudulently got the phoding done
16
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

in Sy.No.81/2 and got mutation in respective revenue records and he

falsely representing and claiming that defendant No.5 is in possession

of the agricultural land in Sy.No.81/2 to the extent of 1 acre and 7

guntas (Phodied in his name as Sy.No.81/32) and purchased under

the sale deed dated 01/03/2004 from defendants No.1 to 3 and their

children got revenue records got the revenue department to make

entries in Records of Rights in his name in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village. That after obtaining copies of defendant No.5 documents

from suit in OS.No.983/2004 in Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Bangalore, they came to know that defendants No.1 to 6 have played

serious fraud in executing registered the sale deed of agricultural dry

land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village to an extent of 1 acre 7

guntas and 6 guntas Kharab land from defendants No.1 to 3 and their

children on 01/03/2004 and rectification deed dated 29/02/2004. The

property covered under principal deed as per description of

boundaries in schedule show that it is southern portion of Sy.No.81/2

and middle portion shown as portion sold to defendant No.4.
17
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Whereas the property covered under rectification deed dated

29/03/2004 as per its schedule and boundaries described in the

schedule, it becomes clear that the property intended to be covered

under instrument is shifted to northern portion of Sy.No.81/2

maintaining portion of land sold to defendant No.4 at the middle of

Sy.No.81/2 and forming Southern Boundary to the land, 1 acre 7

guntas as described in the schedule to rectification deed dated

29/03/2004. It shows evil designs of defendants to fraudulently claim

northern portion of Sy.No.81/2. But the defendant No.5 by virtue of

these fraudulent instruments of transfer got phoding done in

Sy.No.81/2 by illegally influencing officials in survey and land

records department without knowledge of plaintiffs and other site

owners and said phoding land in favour of defendant No.5 in

Sy.No.81/2 was done illegally. The officials of survey department

were influenced by defendants did not observe and report about the

existent of layout and possession of plaintiffs and others with houses

in land phoded in the name of defendant No.5 (Sy.No.81/3) and
18
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

fraudulently prepared public document in favour of the defendant

No.5 without any enquiry with persons actually found in possession

in order to cause wrongful loss to plaintiffs and to support the illegal

dispossession of the plaintiffs and other purchasers of site by

defendant No.5. The defendant No.5 after getting the sale deed and

registered deed in his name and after getting done the entries in the

records of rights and mutation and phoding in the said survey

numbers in his name he started to threaten the plaintiffs with

dispossession of their properties from 21/10/2004. Hence the

plaintiffs constrained to file separates suits against the defendant

No.5 and defendants No.1 to 3 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore

(CCH-22) and these suits are pending adjudication Where in court

granted interim injunction in those suits and defendant No.5 and

defendants No.1 to 3 appeared and filed their statement that no layout

was formed in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village and no sites were

ever sold to the plaintiffs. But the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs

have purchased the sites in the layout by investing their hard earned
19
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

money and the defendants have planned to take over plaintiffs

properties by such manipulation and machinations with sold aim of

amassing wealth by illegal and unscrupulous means with the aid of

officials and rowdy elements. The defendants are aware of the

purchase of sites from the concerned defendants earlier and

constructions of residential house by some of the plaintiffs. The sale

deed dated 01/03/2004 and rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 in

favour of the defendant No.5 is fraudulent documents and phoding

also done in favour of the defendant No.5 in survey and land records

is bound to be canceled.

6. The plaintiff further submits that cause of action arose on

01/03/2004 and 29/03/2004 which defendant No.5 got executed and

registered the fraudulent sale deed described in the schedule and on

subsequent dates when defendant No.5 got entries in the records of

rights in Sy.No.81/2 in his name and afterwards on 21/10/2004 when

the defendant No.5 armed with the said fraudulent instruments and

revenue documents set up in his name started to threaten the plaintiffs
20
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

to dispossess from their northern portion of Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village and on subsequent dates. The plaintiffs prays decree the suit

for declaration declaring that sale deed dated 01/03/2004 and its

rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 described in the schedule and

executed by the defendants No.1 to 3 and defendants No.6 to 12 in

favour of the defendant No.5 is null and void. The plaintiffs prays to

direct concerned revenue authorities to cancel the entries made in the

record of rights pertaining to Sy.No.81/2 and the phoding of the sub-

survey No.81/3 in favour of the defendant No.5 pursuant to sale

declare null and void. The plaintiffs prays to direct concerned Survey

and land records authority to cancel the phoding done in favour of the

defendant No.5 in sub-No.81/3 in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village

pursuant to instrument of sale declared as Null and Void. The plaintiff

also prays for direct the concerned government authorities or

department to nullify or remove the effect of the fraudulent deed of

sale described in schedule on declaring it null and void. The plaintiff

prays to award the costs of this suit.
21
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

:SCHEUDLE:

The sale deed dated 01/03/2004 and registered as

Document No.27884 of 2003-2004 and its Rectification

Deed dated 29/03/2004 and registered as Document

No.28640/2003-2004 in the office of the Sub-Registrar,

Krishnarajapuram Bangalore, executed by the defendants

No.1 to 3 and defendants No.6 to 12 in favour of the 5 th

defendant and produced at Annexure-27 & 28.

7. The defendant No.1 Narayanappa in OS.No.16322/2005 filed

written statement and submits that suit of plaintiff is not maintainable

either in law or on facts of the case. The suit of plaintiff is frivolous,

vexatious, mischievous in nature and plaintiff has suppressed

material facts and misrepresented the facts and there is no cause of

action for suit and not paid proper court fee. The defendant No.1

submits that defendants No.1 to 3 out of total extent of 3 acres 17

guntas of land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village and they have sold
22
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

1 acre 20 guntas in favour of Munivenkatamma and another extent of

30 guntas of land in favour of Padmavathi Madireddy. The

defendants No.1 to 3 were title holders in possession and enjoyment

of an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas in Sy. No.81/2 and they have sold said

land in favour of Y.N. Kondareddy/ defendant No.5 under registered

sale deed on 01/03/2004 and rectification deed dated 29/03/2004.

That ever since that date of sale, defendant No.5 has been exercising

his right or ownership and possession in respect of 1 acre 7 guntas in

Sy.No.81/2. They have sold only an extent of 30 guntas in Sy.No.81/2

in favour of the defendant No.4 and they have not entered into any

other transaction with the defendants No.4 except for the sale deed

refer to above. That no sites have been formed in land measuring to

an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas which has been sold in favor of

defendant No.5. The defendant No.1 denied averments of plaint paras

No.4 to 17. The plaintiffs are seeking imaginary reliefs in the plaint.

The plaintiffs are not entitle for relief as sought in plaint. The suit is
23
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The

defendant No.1 prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

8. The defendants No.2 and 3 filed memo adopting the written

statement filed by the defendant No.1. Thereafter the defendants No.1

to 3 appointed GPA holder and filed written statement on 05/10/2009

and he narrated the same set of facts in the written statement as

contended by defendant No.1 as discussed above.

9. That inspite of service of suit summons defendant No.4 of

OS.No.16322/2005 not appeared and placed exparte. The defendant

No.5 of OS.No.16322/2005 filed written statement submitting that suit

of plaintiffs for relief of declaration, declaring that the sale deed dated

01/03/2005 and rectification deed dated 29/03/2005 executed by the

defendants No.1 to 3 and the defendants No.6 to 12 in his favour as

null and void and for others reliefs is not maintainable either in law or

on facts.
24
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

10. The defendant No.5 submits that plaintiffs are making an

attempt to lay claim for land measuring an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas in

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village K.R Pura Hobli, Bangalore East

Taluk under the guise of having purchased the sites, bearing the

alleged house list numbers under the registered sale deeds. Their

cannot be property bearing house list numbers in the agricultural land

the house list numbers indicates that the properties are gramatana

properties. As such the contention of plaintiffs that their alleged sites

are in land in Sy.No.81/2 is false and in correct by contending so, the

plaintiffs are laying claim for land of defendant No.5 measuring an

extent of 1 acre 7 guntas in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village, K.R

Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. That admittedly land in

Sy.No.81/2 is an agricultural land. It is not converted for residential

purpose. As such the question of forming the residential sites in the

agricultural land does not arise at all. Hence the claim of plaintiffs that

their alleged sites are situated in portion of land in Sy.No.81/2 is false

and incorrect and the same is contrary to their sale deeds. It has not
25
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

been stated anywhere in the sale deed that sites are located in the land

in Sy.No.81/2 thus it is clear that alleged sites of plaintiffs are the

gramata1nas sites and said sites are not at all located in the land

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village.

11. The defendant No.5 further submits that defendants No.1 to 3

were title holders and in possession and enjoyment of land measuring

an extent of land 3 acre 17 guntas in Sy. No.81/2 of Horamavu Village

K.R Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk having sold an extent of 1

acre 20 guntas in favour of Munivenkatamma and an extent of 30

guntas in favour of defendant No.4/Padmavathi Madireddy and they

have retained land measuring 1 acre 7 guntas, they were in possession

and enjoyment of said extent 1 acre 7 guntas of land as absolute

owners thereof. The defendants No.1 to 3 have sold the said extent of

1 acre 7 guntas in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village, K.R Puram Hobli,

Bangalore East Taluk in his favour under registered sale deed on

03/01/2004 and by rectification deed dated 29/03/2004, ever since

01/03/2004 the date on which possession of land has been delivered in
26
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

his favour, he is in possession of said extentof land and katha of said

land has been transferred/ mutated in his name as per M.R No.48/03-

04 and his name has been entered in pahanies in respect of said land.

Then he approached the survey department and said land in

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village, being surveyed and phoded, the land

measuring an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas has been assigned with new

Sy.No.81/3. The aforesaid extent of 1 acre 7 guntas in new Sy.No.81/3

(old Sy.No.81/2) of Horamavu Village and same has not been

converted for non-agricultural residential purpose and it remains as an

agricultural land. The defendant No.5 denied entire allegations of

plaint paras No.3 to 21. The defendant No.5 prays to dismiss the suit

of plaintiff with costs.

12. The defendants No.8 to 12 of OS.No.16322/2005 were cited

as minors. The court guardian for defendants No.8 to 12 filed written

statement submitting that plaintiff have to prove the allegations made

in the plaint against defendants. The children of defendants No.1 to 3,

defendants No.6 to 12 did not acquire any right in said property during
27
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the life time of their father even though they are shown as parties to

the instrument of sale deed dated 01/03/2004 and its rectification deed

dated 29/03/2004 described in schedule and they are also impleaded as

defendants in this suit. The defendants No.8 to 12 to pass suitable

order.

13. The brief facts of plaint averments in OS.No.3483/2005 is

as under:

The plaintiff submits that he is absolute owner of landed

agricultural property bearing Sy.No.81/2 presently Sy.No.81/3 after

being phodied measuring 1 Acre 07 guntas excluding karab of 06

guntas situated at Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore

East Taluk and he acquired said property under registered sale deed on

01/03/2004. That in view of discrepancy crept in with regard to the

boundaries of the schedule under sale deed dated 01/03/2004, the

vendors of schedule property executed registered rectification deed on

29/03/2004 in his favour and rectified defects mentioning the correct
28
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

boundaries and he had been put in physical possession of schedule 'A'

property from the date of purchase.

:SUIT SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY:

All that piece and parcel of the agricultural dry land

bewaring Sy.No.81/2 presently Sy.No.81/3, after being

phodied measuring 1 Acre 07 guntas excluding karab of 06

guntas of land situated at Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram

Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk (earlier Bangalore South

Taluk) bounded by East:Baluki Dasappa's Land, West:

Jayanthi Grama and Gomala, North:Vemanna's land,

South: Padmavathi's Land.

The revenue entries for schedule-A land were also mutated as per the

sale deed under M.R.No.48/03-04 in his name in the concerned

revenue authority, accordingly RTC for schedule-A land is running in

his name. Thereafter he has got phoded schedule-A land from survey

authority, as per the phody new Sy.No.81/3 was assigned to the
29
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

schedule-A land for an extent of 1 Acre 07 guntas. That as such being

situation, the persons namely, G. Balakrishna and C.Y. Das S/o

Chandramma although not having any manner of right had made an

attempt to interfere by way of digging the schedule-A land, hence he

filed suit in OS.No.983/2004 for permanent injunction against them.

In the said suit Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn) Bangalore Rural granted an

ad-interim order of temporary injunction against them from doing or

committing any such unlawful acts over schedule-A land. However

the said suit came to be dismissed, rejecting the plaint on the sole

ground that it bars the jurisdiction of court. That out of land in

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village the defendants No. 1 to 3 being

original owners of the land, as they had acquired the same by their

grandmother late Venkatamma W/o Late Venkatappa @ Kullappa by

means of registered WILL dated:13/06/1988, they have sold an

extent of 1 Acre 20 guntas in favour of Munivenkatamma W/o

Dasappa under registered sale deed, extent of 30 guntas in favour

defendant No.4/ Padmavathi Madhireddy W/o Jagadish under
30
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

registered sale deed and schedule-A land an extent of 1 Acre 07 guntas

his favour (plaintiff). As such being the situation the plaintiff in order

to put up fence around the schedule-A land has conducted survey

during the month of July 2004 to measure and identify the actual

extent to dig the pits for planting poles. During the survey defendants

No.5 to 10 and 16 have objected to conduct survey and to put up fence

around the schedule-A land, since it was noticed that the defendants

No.5 to 10 and 16 have been placed illegally over the portion of the

schedule-A land by constructing buildings thereon, which is schedule

'B' property as mentioned in schedule of plaint i.e., item Nos.1 to 8.

The said schedule 'B' is part of schedule 'A' property. The schedule

'B' of the plaint properties are item No.1 is site No.41 in house list

katha No.135/4, item No.2 is site No.21, house list katha No.122/2,

item No.3 is site No.41 in house list katha No.135/4, item No.4 is

site No.38 in house list katha No.122/2, item No.5 is site No.39 in

house list katha No.135/4, item No.6 is site No.37 in house list katha

No.122/2, item No.7 is site No.20 in house list katha No.122/2, item
31
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

No.8 is site No.45 in house list katha No.135/4 situated at Horamavu

Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru. The

plaintiff further submits that on inquiry with the defendants No.5 to 10

and 16 the plaintiff told that they have purchased the said properties

described under the schedule-B property under alleged registered sale

deeds from defendant No.4/Padmavathi Madareddy W/o Jagadish as

she had entered in to sale being alleged GPA holder of defendants

No.1 to 3. That in view of said developments, he had taken utter

surprise, had an enquiry with the defendants No.1 to 3 with regard to

alleged sale of the schedule-B property to defendants bit by bit in the

capacity of sites as schedule-A land has never been converted from

agricultural land into non agricultural land from any of the authorities

either from the hands of the defendants No.1 to 3 or from their

ancestors, apart that the revenue records for the schedule-A land

clearly reflects that it is still being an agricultural revenue land.

However defendants No.1 to 3 have told to the plaintiff that they had

never executed any kind of alleged GPA pertaining to the schedule-A
32
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

or schedule-B property in favour of defendant No.4 Padmavathi

Madareddy to transact with these properties. Therefore alleged sale

deeds on which defendants No.5 to 10 and 16 are claiming their rights

alleged to be the owners of schedule-B property are not substantial.

Hence he having been examined the said facts, has explained and

advised defendants No.5 to 10 and 16 that their possession over

schedule-B property is not legal and proper, since same is being

unauthorized possession, accordingly, they were requested to quit and

deliver the vacant possession of schedule-B property to him, but the

defendants No.5 to 10 and 16 instead of doing so, and they have filed

as many as injunction suits along with the defendants No.11 to 15 in

OS.No.17465/04, 17466/04, 17467/04, 17068/04, 17069/04,

17070/04, 17071/04, 17126/04, 17127/04, 1208/04, 15300/05 and

OS.No.15296/05 on the file of City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall,

Bangalore, and on the file of Addl. Civil Judge, (Jr. Dvn) Bangalore

Rural, Bangalore against the plaintiff. The defendants No.11 to 15

have also filed suits on the file of the City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall,
33
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Bangalore for the similar relief of injunction for the sites on the basis

of alleged sale deeds. He came to know about all these aspects after he

had received summons of said case during the month of January 2005.

On receipt of case papers and documents, it is clear that defendant

No.4 had obtained alleged registered GPA dated 30/12/1991 from

defendants No.1 to 3 herein in respect of sites but not for the schedule-

A land. Since the alleged GPA had not recited any particulars as regard

to survey number, conversion of land, nature of flow of title of the

owners of the land and from which land the alleged sites referred

thereto were carved out, thus defendant on the basis of the unrelated

alleged GPA sold as many as sites to different persons, thereby

committed total fraud on the basis of unconcerned alleged GPA for

schedule-A land. That while selling said schedule-B property and

other sites under alleged sale deeds to defendants No.5 to 16 had

mentioned house list numbers thereto, which in fact, the schedule-A

land has never been converted at any point of time from agriculture

into non agricultural one. On verification with the concerned
34
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

panchayath, they gave an endorsement stating that no such house list

numbers were issued in the name of defendants No.1 to 3 for

schedule-A land. Thus in toto defendant No.4 on the basis of unrelated

forged alleged GPA has sold as many as sites to third parties, under the

circumstances defendants No. 5 to 16 do not derive any manner of

right and title on the basis of alleged sale deeds, accordingly the

possession of defendants No.5 to 10 and 16 on the schedule-B

property is unauthorized and not legal possession, therefore in the said

event, he having left with no other alternative than to file this suit for

the relief of declaration and possession of the schedule-A and B

property respectively. That he came to know that the defendants No.5

to 16 having realized their unlawful title for schedule-B property and

other alleged sites referred under the alleged sale deeds, and on the

basis of the stubborn entries, have been making attempts to dispose

the said properties by way of sale or creating third party encumbrance,

but the very alleged documents do not create any right or interest over

the said properties on the defendants No.5 to 16. Therefore the alleged
35
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

GPA and alleged sale deeds, which alleged to have been effected by

defendants are not pertaining to schedule property and are not binding

on him, as the said alleged documents are forged, concocted and

created to knock of valuable schedule property by illegal means. The

defendant No. 5 to 16 on the basis of alleged sale deeds said to have

been executed by the defendant No.4 on the basis of alleged bald GPA

have been making hectic efforts to interfere with peaceful possession

and enjoyment of schedule-A land, in fact none of the defendants

herein are having any manner of right and title over the schedule

property. Therefore the attempt of defendants No.5 to 16 on the basis

of concocted forged documents of alleged GPA and sale deeds are not

sustainable under the law, as the same would tantamount to have

wrongful gain to knock off the valuable schedule-A land from the

hand of the plaintiff by illegal means. The defendants No.5 to 10 and

16 are having realized their illegal title and possession of the

schedule-B property and the defendants No.11 to 15 on the basis of

alleged documents of GPA and sale deeds which are nullity in the eye
36
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

of law, however defendant No.5 to 16 with active collusion of

defendant No.4 being supported with money and men are using all

sorts of force over the plaintiff to knock off the schedule-A land by

illegal means, in this connection the defendants have also posed threat

with dire consequences to the life and limb of plaintiff, apart that

defendants No.5 to 16 are making illegal attempts being supported

with the money and men, they have been making hasty attempts to

dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule-A land. In fact he is absolute

owner of schedule-A land acquired title under valid process of law. In

view of the above said illegal developments happened pertaining to

the schedule-A land by the alleged acts of the defendants, the plaintiff

is having every right and title over the schedule-A land.

14. The plaintiffs further submits that the cause of action to file the

suit arose when the defendants have filed injunction suits in the year

2004 on the file of the City Civil judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore and

Addl. Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn) Bangalore Rural and when the defendant

No.5 to 10 and 16 have made an obstruction to put up fence around
37
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the schedule-A land during the time of conducting survey in the month

of July 2004 and subsequently. The plaintiff prays to declare that he is

the absolute owner of the schedule 'A' property. The plaintiff prays to

direct the defendants No.5 to 10 and 16 to quit and deliver the vacant

possession of the schedule 'B' property. The plaintiff prays to decree

the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their

agents, servants, coolies, workers or anybody claiming under them or

through them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the schedule 'A' property by means of granting a

decree of permanent injunction. The plaintiff prays to award costs of

the suit.

15. The defendant No.1 Narayanappa in OS.No.3483/2005 filed his

written statement and same is adopted by defendants No.2 and 3 by

filing memo. The defendant No.4 not appeared and placed exparte.

The defendant No.1 in his written statement submits that defendants

No.1 to 3 were original owners of land bearing Sy.No.81/2 measureing

3 acre 17 guntas of Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore
38
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

East Taluk. These defendants acquired said property under registered

will executed by their grandmother dated 13/06/1988. Out of 3 acre

17 guntas they have defendants sold 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of

Munivenatamma under registered sale deed. They have also sold 30

guntas of land in favour of the defendant No.4 under registered sale

deed and put them in possession over the same. The defendants No.1

to 3 sold portion of land measuring 1 acre 7 guntas of Horamavu

Village in favour of plaintiff under registered sale deed dated

01/03/2004. There are some discrepancy in boundaries at the time of

executing sale deed. The plaintiff approached defendants No.1 to 3 for

rectification of boundaries. On verification these defendants comes to

conclusion that there are some discrepancies in boundaries at the time

of executing sale deed and therefore they have executed rectification

deed on 29/03/2004 in favour of plaintiff. On the date of executing the

sale deed defendants No.1 to 3 put him in possession and enjoyment

of said property. Since the date of purchase plaintiff has been

exercising his lawful ownership and possession over the said property.
39
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

The revenue authorities have lawfully effected mutation and pahanies

in his name. The said land was surveyed by department of survey

settlement and land records. As per the phode new survey number has

been assigned as Sy.No.81/3. That these defendants have not made

any application before concerned authority not only in respect of suit

schedule property but also to the entire extent of land to convert for

non residential purposes. Apart from that these defendants have not at

all executed the GPA in favour of defendant No.4 much less anybody.

Even if there is any GPA it is a created, concocted, and forged

document and no reliance could be placed on the said GPA. If any

transactions taken place on the strength of alleged GPA the purchasers

does not derive any right, title, interest or possession over the same.

16. The defendant No.1 further submits that the plaintiff during the

month of July 2004 conducted the survey to measure and identify the

actual extent of said property. At that time the defendants have

objected for the same. These defendants have not converted the land

in Sy.No.81/2 for non agricultural purposes from any of authorities.
40
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Even to this day schedule property is an agricultural land. These

defendants have not executed any GPA's in favour of anybody much

less the defendant No.4 and they have also not executed sale deeds at

all in respect of the property in question. The alleged GPA's and sale

deeds are all created, concocted and forged documents. On the

strength of the alleged GPA's and sale deeds defendants No.5 to 24

does not derive any title or possession over the same. The alleged sale

deeds executed by defendant No.4 on the strength of alleged created,

forged and got up GPA, the defendants does not derive title or

possession over the same. The suit schedule property is not at all

gramatana property. At no point of time the defendants have not at all

formed any layout in the property in question much less obtained any

layout plan from any authorities as well as the village panchayat. The

suit schedule property is still an agricultural land. If any documents

obtained from the panchayat by the defendants 5 to 16 are all nothing

but created, concocted and collusive documents. Actually the suit

schedule property is not at all village panchayat property. At no point
41
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

of time the names of defendant entered in village panchayat records.

The sale deeds obtained by defendants on the strength of panchayat

records are all null and void documents. They have not derive any title

or possession over the same. In fact the properties claimed by

defendants No.5 to 16 are not at all in existence and the properties are

not at all find place in the panchayat records. The claim made by the

defendants No.5 to 16 as if they are panchayat properties is not at all

correct. At no point of time suit schedule property vest with village

panchayat. The claim made by defendants 5 to 24 are unrighteous and

illegal. The plaintiff is lawful owner in possession of suit schedule

property. Further reiterates that even to this day suit schedule property

is an agricultural land and at an no point time the land has been

converted for non agricultural purposes and even to this day the

property is not at all vest with the Village panchayat and the names of

purchasers have not at all been entered in the panchayat records. Even

the names of defendants have not at all been entered in panchayat

records at any point of time. That the defendants No.1 to 3 who being
42
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the original owners of 1 acre 7 guntas not only sold by them but also

defendant No.1 daughters and third defendant daughters and sons

represented by the defendant No.3 as their father and natural guardian

in favour of the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 01/03/2004

and put him possession over the same. The rectification deed also

came to be executed by the aforesaid persons in respect of the

boundaries under registered rectification deed dated 29/03/2004. The

above said facts are very well within the knowledge of the defendants

No.4 to 24. The defendants 4 to 24 have no manner of right, title

interest and possession in respect of suit schedule property at all since

the date of sale plaintiff has been in exercising his right of ownership

in respect of suit schedule property. Admittedly revenue authorities

have lawfully effected mutation and pahanies in the name of the

plaintiff. Admittedly suit schedule 'A' property got phoded by the

survey authorities and assigned new number as Sy.No.81/3 and the

said new number has been implemented in all the survey records and

also in the revenue records. Admittedly suit filed by plaintiff against
43
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the G. Balakrishna and C.Y. Das for relief of permanent injunction and

in the said suit injunction is granted. Admittedly defendants No.1 to 3

acquired entire extent of land bearing Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village from their grandmother under registered will dated 13/06/1988

and defendants No.1 to 3 sold 1 acre 20 guntas of land in favour of

Munivenkatamma and 30 guntas in favour of defendant No.4 and

remaining 1 acre 7 guntas in favour of the plaintiff. There is no land in

Sy.No.81/2 belonged to defendants No.1 to 3 at all. That in para 8 of

the plaint that the GPA refereed to by the plaintiff alleged to have been

executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the defendant No.4 is a

created, concocted and forged document. Any sale deeds executed by

the defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant No.5 to 24 are all null and

void documents and they does not derive title or possession over the

same. Admittedly the alleged sale deeds in the schedule 'B' property to

the defendants bit by bit in the capacity of sites has never been

converted from agricultural land to non agricultural one and the suit

schedule property is still agricultural land. The said fact is evidenced
44
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

by the revenue documents. The defendants No.1 to 3 never executed

any kind of alleged GPA pertaining to the schedule 'A' or schedule B'

property in favour of defendant No.4 to transact with this properties.

Admittedly the defendants No.5 to 10 and others filed the suit against

the defendants No.1 to 4 and the plaintiff on the file of the City Civil

Judge, Bangalore City for the reliefs of permanent injunction on the

strength of the created and concocted sale deeds. The said suits are

pending. Admittedly, the alleged GPA dated 30/12/1991 in respect of

the alleged sites does not recited any particulars as regard to survey

number conversion of land and title of the owners and same is not in

accordance with the Power Attorney Act and on the strength of the

alleged GPA any sites have been sold is nothing but a created one.

Admittedly, in the sale deeds it had mentioned the house list numbers.

The House list numbers have to entered only after conversion from

agricultural to non agricultural purposes. No such house list numbers

were issued in the name of the defendants No.1 to 3 in respect of

schedule 'A' property. The defendants No.5 to 24 on the strength of
45
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

alleged sale deed does not derive title or possession over the same and

they are not in possession on the strength of the alleged sale deeds.

The alleged sale deeds and GPA are all null and void documents

created in active collusion with defendant No.4. The plaintiff is entitle

for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the

suit schedule 'A' and B' properties. The defendant No.1 prays to decree

the suit of plaintiff as prayed.

17. The defendant No.5 of OS.No.3483/2005 filed written statement

submitting that there is no comments on para No.1 & 2 of the plaint

averments and in response to para No.3 of the plaint, the defendant

No.5 submits that the sale deed produced at Document No.1 is

fraudulently executed and registered instrument of transfer and the

agricultural land described in its schedule did not exist as on the date

of this sale deed defendants No.1 to 3 and the plaintiff executed and

registered instrument in respect of a non-existent land with a purpose

to play fraud on him and other defendants herein who purchased sites

from defendants No.1 to 3 in the residential layout formed by them in
46
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the Northern portion of the land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village,

K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. That the defendant 1 to 3

had formed the said layout in the Northern portion of their land in

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village, K.R.Puram Hobli as early as in the

year 1991 and had sold sites under registered sale deeds to intending

purchasers after obtaining house list numbers and Khatha from the

local Panchayat in their names. After sale of sites in favour of

intending purchasers during 1991-1992 under registered sale deeds the

purchasers were put in physical possession of the sites. That the

rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 to the registered sale deed dated

01/03/2004 is a meticulously drafted fraudulent instrument. The

change brought in the description of boundaries in the original sale

deed, brought in an altogether different property under the

rectification deed. It was not brought to the notice of the Sub Registrar

and got the rectification deed registered by practicing fraud on the

authorities. It could be seen from the description of boundaries to the

property covered under the principal sale deed dated 01/03/2004 that
47
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the property covered under this sale deed in the Southern portion of

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village situated towards South of the 30

guntas land sold to Smt. Sripadmavathy Madireddy. But the property

described in the schedule to the rectification deed dated 29/03/2004

clearly goes to show that it is the land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village situated towards North of the land sold to Smt. Sripadmavathy

Madireddy in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village. In other words it

becomes very clear from the description of the property in the

schedule to the sale deed dated 01/03/2004 that the sale deed is not in

respect of the Northern portion of Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village

whereas the rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 produced at

Document No.2 is an invalid, fraudulent instrument and it does not

confer any right or title on the defendant No.5 in respect of the

Northern portion of the land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village

wherein the residential layout was formed by the defendants No.1 to 3

and sites were sold to him and other purchasers of sites. A close look

and verification of the Atlas and Tippani of Sy.No.81/2 placed on
48
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

record again establish the fact that property described in the principal

sale deed schedule is the Southern portion of Sy.No.81/2 situated

towards South of the land sold to Sripadmavathy Madireddy in

SyNo.81/2. The contents of para 5 are denied. It is absolutely false to

say that the plaintiff was put in physical possession of the schedule

property on the date of the purchase. He and other defendant who had

purchased their respective sites formed in the Northern portion of

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village were already in possession of the

land since the year 1991-92 and the purchasers are continuing in

possession of their respective sites. Many site owners have put-up

their houses after obtaining building license from the local authority

Horamavu Village Panchayat. RTC and M.R. Extract produced by the

plaintiff at Document Nos-3 and 4 are fraudulently got-up

manipulated revenue records and those documents do not confer any

right or title on the plaintiff in respect of the agricultural land

described in those documents as the land described in those revenue

documents were not in existence as on the date of the issue of those
49
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

documents. The plaintiff has illegally obtained the land phoded with

Sy.No.81/3 in his name without issuing notices to the site owners,

including him who have been in actual possession of the land and

officials of the survey department also acted in collusion with the

plaintiff to play fraud on him and other site owners. The documents

placed on record at document No-5 to 9 are all got-up documents

obtained at the back of this defendant without following legal

procedure in obvious collusion with officials and they do not confer

any right or title on the plaintiff in respect of the Northern portion of

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamau Village. The contents of para 6 and the facts

stated therein are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the dispute

in this suit. All the averments in para 7 are admitted, except the

averments that schedule-A land to an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas was

sold in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged sale of schedule land in

favour of the plaintiff by defendants No.1 to 3 is a fraudulent

instrument and same is liable to be declared void by the Court. This

defendant and other defendants have already fled a suit in
50
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

OS.No.16322/2005 pending on the file of the City Civil Court, CCH2,

Bangalore to declare the sale deed dated 01/03/2004 and its

rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 claimed by the plaintiff as null

and void and plaintiff has entered his appearance in that suit.

18. The defendant No.5 further submits that averments in para 8 are

not true. That these were fully developed sites with three layout roads

leading to the Agra-Krishnarajapura road passing East to West through

the southern portion of Sy.No.81/2. It is absolutely false to say that the

plaintiff noticed the occupation of the land by him and other

purchasers only in July 2004 when the plaintiff came to put-up fencing

around the schedule-A land after purchase in March 2004. That many

of the site owners had already constructed their houses and many

owners have put compounds and foundations in their respective sites

and they were in existence on the schedule-A land many years prior to

the year 2004. That most of the registered sale deeds were executed by

defendants No.1 to 3 directly collecting money from the site owners

before the Sub-Registrar and only very few sale deeds were executed
51
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

through the registered GPA Holder Smt. Padmavathy Madireddy. In

any view of the matter he and other purchasers of the sites were in

physical possession and enjoyment of their respective properties

formed in the Northern portion of Sy.No.81/2 under their respective

registered sale deeds and title documents for more than 12 years prior

to the plaintiff's sale deed dated 01/03/2004. Defendants 1 to 3 had no

subsisting title to the Northern portion of Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village wherein the layout was formed to confer title to the plaintiff as

on 01/03/2004.

19. The defendant No.5 denied the plaint para Nos.9 to 16. The

defendant No.5 submits that the defendants No.5 to 16 were acted to

defend their respective properties taking recourse to legal remedy. The

plaintiff attempted to invade on defendants property after obtaining

the fraudulent sale deed and manipulated the revenue records in his

name and defendants No.5 to 16 have filed separate suit for

injunction, now pending before the CCH-22. The defendants also filed

OS.No.16322/2005 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru to declare
52
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the sale deed claimed by the plaintiff as null and void. The suit for

possession of the schedule property is barred by Limitation. The

plaintiff nor his vendors never in possession of the schedule property

within 12 years immediately precedeing to filing of this suit. The suit

is not filed with proper. By seeking the relief of clause (a) in prayer

column, the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of individual sale deed of

the defendants in respect of their respective sites. Further under clause

(b) in prayer column the plaintiff seeking the relief of possession of 'B'

schedule properties which are site with buildings and Court Fee ought

to have been paid on the market value of the property covered under

the schedule 'B' and also market value of the sites other than described

in the schedule 'B' in existence on 'A' schedule land and also taken

into account for the Court Fee. The plaintiff is not entitled for the

relief. The defendant No.5 prays to dismiss suit with exemplary costs.

20. The defendants No.6 to 10 and 12 to 16 of OS.No.3483/2005

have filed separate written statement narrating the same set of facts as
53
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

narrated by the defendant No.5 in his written statement as discussed

above.

21. The defendant No.17 of OS.No.3483/2005 filed written

statement submitting that there is no comment on plaint para Nos.1 &

2. With reference the para No.3 of the plaint, he submits that the sale

deed produced at Document No.I is fraudulently executed and

registered instrument of Transfer and the agricultural land described in

its schedule did not exist as on the date of the sale deed. The

defendants No.1 to 3 and the plaintiff executed and registered

instrument of sale in respect of a non-existent land with an intention to

play fraud on him and other defendants herein who purchased sites

from defendants No.1 to 3 in the residential layout formed by them in

the Northern portion of the land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village,

K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. That the defendants No.1

to 3 had formed the said layout in the Northern portion of their land in

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram Hobli as early in the

year 1991 and had sold sites under registered sale deeds to intending
54
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

purchasers after obtaining House List numbers and khatha from local

panchayat in their names. After sale of sites in favour of intending

purchasers during 1991-92 under registered sale deeds the purchasers

during 1991-92 under registered sale deeds the purchasers were put in

physical possession of the sites. Defendants No.5 to 23 in this suit are

purchasers of sites in this layout formed in schedule 'A' land.

22. The defendant No.17 further submits that the rectification deed

dated 29/03/2004 is meticulously drafted fraudulent instrument. The

change brought in the description of boundaries in the original sale

deed brought in an altogether different property under the rectification

deed. It was not brought to the notice of the Sub-Registrar and got the

rectification deed registered by practicing fraud on the authorities. It

could be seen from the description of the boundaries in the original

sale deed dated 01/03/2004 that the property covered under this sale

deed is in the Southern portion of Sy.No.81/2 of Horavamu Village

situated towards South of the 30 guntas land sold to Smt. Padmavathy

Madireddy. But the property described in the schedule to the
55
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 clearly goes to show that it is the

land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village situated towards North of the

land sold to Smt. Padmavathy Madireddy in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village. In other words it becomes very clear from the description of

the schedule property in the sale deed dated 01/03/2004 that the sale

deed is not in respect of the Northern portion of Sy.No.81/2 of

Horamavu Village, whereas the rectification deed dated 29/03/2004

produced at Document No.2 is an invalid, fraudulent instrument and it

does not confer any right or title on the plaintiff in respect of the

Northern portion of the land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village,

wherein the residential lay out was formed by the defendants No.1 to

3 and sites were sold to this defendant and other purchasers of sites. A

close look and verification of the Atlas and Tippani of Sy.No.81/2

placed on record in the principal sale deed schedule is the Southern

portion of Sy.No.81/2 situated towards South of the land sold to

Sripadmavathy Madireddy in Sy.No.81/2.
56
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

23. The defendant No.17 further submits that the contents of para-5

are denied. It is absolutely false to say that the plaintiff was put in

physical possession of the schedule property on the date of purchase.

This defendant and other defendants who had purchased their

respective sites formed in the Northern portion of Sy.No.81/2 of

Horamavu Village were already in possession of the land since the

year 1991-92 and the purchasers are continuing in possession of their

respective sites. Many site owners have put up their houses after

obtaining building license from the local authority, Horamavu Village

Panchayat. RTC and MR extract produced by the plaintiff at

Document Nos.3 and 4 are fraudulently got-up manipulated revenue

records and those documents do not confer any right or title on the

plaintiff in respect of the agricultural land described in those

documents. The plaintiff has illegally obtained the land phoded with

Sy.No.81/3 in his name without issuing notices to the site owners,

including this defendant, who have been in actual possession of the

land and officials of the Survey Department also acted in collusion
57
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

with the plaintiff to play fraud on this defendant and other site owners.

The document placed on record at Document Nos.5 to 9 are all got up

documents obtained at the back of this defendant without following

legal procedure obviously in collusion with officials and those do not

confer any right or title on the plaintiff in respect of the Northern

portion of Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village.

24. The defendant No.17 of OS.No.3483/2005 further submits that

the averments made in para-7 are admitted, concept the averments

that schedule 'A' land to an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas was sold in

favour of the plaintiff. The alleged sale of schedule land in favour of

the plaintiff by defendants No.1 to 3 is a fraudulent instrument and the

same is liable to be declared void by the Court. He and other

defendants have already filed suit in OS.No.16322/2005 pending on

the file of City Civil Judge, CCH-22, Bengaluru to declare the sale

deed dated 01/03/2004 and its rectification deed dated 29/03/2004

claimed by the plaintiff is null and void and the plaintiff has entered

appearance in that suit. That the averments made in para-8 of the
58
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

plaint are not true. That these were fully developed sites with three

layout roads leading to the Agra-Krishnarajapura Main Road passing

East to West through the Southern portion of Sy.No.81/2. It is

absolutely false to say that the plaintiff noticed the occupation of the

land by this defendant and other purchasers only in July 2004 when

the plaintiff came to put up fencing around the schedule 'A' land after

purchase in March 2004. That many of the site owners have put up

compounds and foundations in their respective sites and they were in

existence on the schedule 'A' land many years prior to the year 2004.

That most of registered sale deeds were executed by defendants No.1

to 3 directly collecting money from the site owners before the Sub-

Registrar and only few sale deeds were executed through the

registered GPA Holder/ Padmavathy Madireddy. In any view of the

matter he and other purchasers of the sites wherein physical

possession and enjoyment of their respective properties formed in the

Northern portion of Sy.No.81/2 under their respective registered sale

deeds and title documents for more than 12 years prior to the
59
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

plaintiff's deed dated 01/03/2004 defendants No.1 to 3 had no

subsisting title to the Northern portion of Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village wherein the layout was formed to confer title to the plaintiff as

on 01/03/2004. The defendant No.17 submits that the contents of

plaint para No.10 to 15 are all false. The plaintiff deliberately avoided

to implead many of the purchasers of the sites including him in this

suit. The plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed. The

defendant No.17 prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

25. The defendants No.18 to 23 of OS.No.3483/2005 have five filed

their separate written statement narrating the same set of facts as

submitted by the defendant No.17 in the written statement as

discussed above.

26. The defendant No.24 not appeared inspite of service of

summons and placed exparte. The defendant No.11 appeared through

counsel, but not filed written statement and contested the suit.
60
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

27. The defendant No.25 and 26 have filed common written

statement submitting that the plaintiff filed suit seeking the relief of

Declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner of suit schedule 'A'

property and also directing the defendants No.5 to 10 and 16 to quit

and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule 'B' property and also

for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents,

servants, coolies, workers or anybody claiming under or through them

from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment

over the suit schedule 'A' property. The suit of plaintiff is not

maintainable either in law of on facts. The plaintiff has deliberately

sought for relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the

schedule 'A' property suppressing the fact that Sy.No.81/2 has lost its

agricultural character as the owners of the land namely children of Sri

Venkataswamappa @ Cheekabbayya have formed private layout and

sold lthe sites to several persons. Therefore Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk is no more an

agricultural land. Further, the plaintiff has not valued the suit on the
61
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

market value of the schedule property and therefore Court Fee paid is

insufficient. In view of the same the plaintiff may be directed to pay

the Court Fee on the market value of the property failing which the

plaint may be rejected U/o VII R.11 of CPC. The plainitff is neither

owner nor in possession of suit propeprty. The land bearing

Sy.No.81/2 situated at Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bengaluru South Taluk originally belong to Venkatasamy S/o

Muthappa. In the said survey number the owner/his children have

formed private layout of residential sites and sold most of the sites to

the outsiders. The Children of Venkataswamappa namely 1)

Narayanappa, 2) Nagaraja and 3) Jayaram have sold site No.46

measuring East to West 37 feet and North to South 30 feet totally 1110

sq.ft in favour of N.S. Kaimal under the sale deed dated 18/12/1991.

They have also sold another site bearing No.47 measuring East to

West (39+37)/2 and North to South 30 feet totally 1140 sq.ft in favour

of T. Vijayan. The said T. Vijayan and N.S. Kaimal have sold both the

site Nos.46 & 47 totally measuring 2250 sq.ft to Smt. M. Malini W/o
62
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

V. Rajan under the sale deed dated 13/07/2001. The said Smt. Malini

has in turn sold Northern portion of site No.47 and entire site No.46

measuring East to West 37 feet and North to South 30.5 feet in all

measuring 1129 sq.ft in favour of these defendants under the sale deed

dated 14/06/2004. Since then these defendants are enjoying the said

sites purchased by them as its owners and in fact, these defendants

have also dug a bore well on the said site purchased by them. Further

these defendants have been paying taxes to the concerned authority.

Inspite of knowing the formation of the layout, selling of the sites in

favour of these defendants the plaintiff has suppressed the same and

not challenged the sale deeds. Even according to the plaint averments,

plaintiff is claiming schedule properties on the basis of sale deed dated

01/03/2004. Even before said sale deed owners have transferred their

rights in favour of various purchasers including these defendants.

Therefore sale deed dated 01/03/2004 is void, illegal, unauthorized

and without authority of law. The plaintiff is neither the owner not in

possession of the schedule properties. No relief is claimed against him
63
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

and sites for which these defendants are owners in possession are not

subject matter of suit and on this ground alone the suit as against these

defendants is liable to be dismissed. The defendants No.25 & 26

denied allegations of plaint para No.3 to 15. The defendants No.25 &

26 submits that there is no cause of action for the suit against them.

The defendants No.25 & 26 prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary

costs. The defendant No.27 filed memo adopting written statement of

defendants No.6, 16, 17 and 19.

28. On the basis of above pleadings Issues and Additional Issue

framed in both suits as under:

:ISSUES IN OS No.16322/2005:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that sale deed dated
01/03/2004 followed by a rectification
dt.29/03/2004 executed by defendant No.1 to 3
and 6 to 12 in favour of defendant No.5 is not
binding on them as it is null and void?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to restrain the
defendant in the matter of cancellation of entries
64
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

made in the record of rights concerning
Sy.No.81/2 and the phoding of sub Sy.No.81/3 in
favour of defendant No.5 pursuant to the above
refereed deed?

(3) Whether the plaintiff are entitled to obtain a decree
against the surveyor and land records authorities in
the matter of cancellation of the phoding done in
the favour of D5 in Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
claimed?

(5) What decree or order?

:ISSUES IN OS NO.3483/2005:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute
owners in possession of suit schedule 'A' property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant
possession of schedule 'B' properties from the
respective defendants?
65
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as
sought ?

(4) Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference
by the defendants in respect of the suit schedule
'A' property?

(5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
injunction sought for?

(6) What decree or order?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN OS NO.3483/2005

(1) Whether the valuation of the suit is improper and
court fee is insufficient as contended by
defendants No.25 and 26?

29. OS.No.3483/2005 on 06/02/2009 court passed the order

application filed by the defendant No.5 under Section 151 CPC in

O.S.No.16322/2005 and this suit is clubbed with O.S.No. 16322/2005

for recording the evidence and disposed by common judgment and

O.S.No.16322/2005 is treated as main suit. Thereafter common
66
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

evidence was recorded in the suit in both the suits. The plaintiff No.6

in O.S.No. 16322/2005 examined as PW1 and marked the documents

ExP1 to ExP100 and 110 to 133. The plaintiff No.5 examined as

PW.2 and marked ExP101 to ExP109. The defendant No.1 is common

in both suits O.No.16322/2005 and OS.No.3483/2005 examined as

DW.1 and the defendant No.5 in OS.No.16322/2005 and plaintiff in

OS.No.3483/2005 examined as DW.2 and marked documents ExD1 to

ExD50 and ExD63 to ExD82. The defendant No.25 in

OS.No.3483/2005 examined as DW.3 and marked documents ExD51

to ExD62. The defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 in OS.No.3483/2005 have

examined witness DW.4.

30. The plaintiff in O.S.No.16322/2005 argued and filed memo

with citations. The defendant No.1 to 3, 5, 8 to 12 counsel argued and

filed memo with citation. The plaintiff counsel in O.S.No.3483/2005

argued in common and filed memo with citations. The defendant No.1

to 3 counsel in O.S.No. 3483/2005 argued and filed memo with

citation. The defendant No.5 to 10, 12, 22, 27 counsel argued and
67
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

filed memo with citation. The defendant No.25 and 26 counsel

argued. That in spite of defendant No.11 and 23 and their counsel not

argued. Perused the record.

31. Afterwards the defendants No.8 to 12 counsel filed vakalath

and IA.No.32 U/o 32 Rule 9 R/w Sec.151 of CPC for discharging the

minor guardianship of defendants No.8 to 10 as now they are attained

the majority. The plaintiff counsel was submitted no objection to the

IA.No.32. Hence IA.No.32 was allowed and minor guardianship of

defendants No.8 to 12 was discharged.

32. My findings to above Issues in both suits are as under.

:ISSUES IN OS.No.16322/2005:

Issue No.1) In Negative

Issue No.2) In Negative

Issue No.3) In Negative

Issue No.4) In Negative

Issue No.5) See final order for following:
68
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

:ISSUES IN OS.No.3483/2005:

Issue No.1) In Affirmative

Issue No.2) In Affirmative

Issue No.3) In Affirmative

Issue No.4) In Affirmative

Issue No.5) In Affirmative

Addl. Issue No.1) In Negative

I Issue No.6) See final order for following:

:REASONS:

33. Issues No.1 to 4 in OS.No.16322/2005 and Issues No.1 to 5 in

OS.No.3483/2005:

The plaintiff No.6 T.N. Narayana Unni S/o Late T. Narayan

Kurup filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of examination in chief of

PW.1 and deposed evidence that defendants 1 to 3 represented to the

plaintiff that the defendant No.1 to 3 became absolute owner of land

bearing Sy.No. 81/2 of Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bengaluru South Taluk (presently Bengaluru East Taluk) under
69
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

registered WILL executed by their grandmother/Venkatamma on

13/6/1988. After the death of said Testator relevant revenue records

was mutated vide MR No.17/1989-90 in favour of the defendant No.1

to 3 and thus they became absolute owners in possession and

enjoyment of the said land measuring 3 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.81/2

of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk. That

during the year 1991 the defendant No.1 to 3 formed house sites in the

Northern portion of their said Sy.No. 81/2 in Horamavu village to an

extent of 1 acre 24 guntas. The defendant No.1 to 3 took the assistance

of the defendant No.4 to form layout and to find out purchasers and

transact with the plaintiffs and other site purchasers in this layout.

The defendants No.1 to 3 had executed General Power of Attorney in

favour of the defendant No.4 for purpose of transaction with

purchasers of sites in this layout. A portion of this land measuring 30

guntas was sold to defendant No.4 by defendant No.1 to 3 under

registered sale deed and that portion of land also made into part of this

layout. That totally 47 sites were formed in the layout by defendant
70
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

No.1 to 4. After formation of the layout, the defendants No.1 to 4 got

House List numbers assigned for the sites formed in this layout from

the local authority namely, Horamavu village Panchayat and Khatha

were registered in respect of House sites formed in the layout in the

revenue records of the local Horamavu panchayat. That during the

year 1991-1992 defendant No.1 to 3 sold the sites formed in the

layout to the plaintiffs under separate registered sale deeds registered

in the office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram defendant No.1 to 3

sold sites and received payment of sale consideration from many of

the plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar as evidenced by this respective

sale deeds of sites produced herewith. The defendants No.1 to 3 also

sold sites to some them through defendant No.4 their duly constituted

attorney. They were put in actual physical possession and enjoyment

of sites purchased by them. The northern portion of Sy.No. 81/2 of

Horamavu village to an extent of 1 acre 24 guntas wherein the

defendant No.1 to 4 formed 47 sites, bounded by North:land in

Sy.No.81/1 belongs to one Yamanna, South :land in Sy.No.84 belongs
71
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

to one Baluki Dasappa, West: Jayantigrama a part of Horamavu

village, South :the portion of the land sold to the defendant No.4 in

Sy.No.81/2 by defendant No.1 to 3. The plaintiffs and many others

purchased the sites formed in this layout from defendant No.1 to 4 and

all the 47 sites of different dimensions were thus sold to him and other

purchasers during the year 1991-92 defendant No.1 to 3 did not retain

any right, title or interest over the portion of the land in Sy.No.81/2 of

Horamavu Village wherein the sites were formed and sold to the

plaintiffs and other purchasers under registered sale deeds. Thus since

the year 1991-92 the defendant No.1 to 3 ceased to be the owners of

the northern portion of the land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village

wherein the said layout was formed and sites were sold to the

plaintiffs and other purchasers. That after purchase of sites got the

khatha of the respective sites purchased by them registered in the

revenue records of Horamavu Panchayat and paid property tax in their

names for the house sites. The local authority, Horamavu panchayat,

thus approved the residential layout formed in Sy.No.81/2 Local
72
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

village authority, Horamavu panchayat issued licenses to construct

houses in their respective sites to many of them and they have built-up

their houses and are living in those houses with their families since

many years. They along with other purchasers of sites are in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of their respective sites. This layout of 47

sites, now a part of the larger layout,known as Jayanthi Nagar which is

fully developed residential layout. There is main road Horamavu

Agra, K.R. Puram Road running west to east and passing through the

southern portion in Sy.No.81/2. There are three cross roads from the

Agra-K.R.uram main road across the layout formed in Sy.No. 81/2

providing access to all the 47 sites. There three cross roads extend

further toward north into the layout formed in Sy.No.81/1 (land

belongs to Yamanna) and provide access to the main road from the

layout formed in Sy.No.81/1. That since 1991 there was no

agricultural operation in any portion of Sy.No.81/2 and land was fully

developed into layout of sites. The adjoining Sy.No.81/1 and Sy.No.84

(presently easther layout) were also developed into layout of sites and
73
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

many houses have been constructed in those sites. That eight of them

have already constructed our houses in their respective sites after

obtaining building licences from the Panchayat and occupied the

houses before 2003 itself. Many more of them have put up the

foundations and compounds after obtaining license from the local

Horamavu panchayat and are proceeding with their constructions. In

total they are continuing in occupation of their respective properties.

The defendant No.5 for the first time on 21/10/2004 appeared in

layout along with group of his supporters with strange and equally

untenable claim that he purchased the land measuring 1 acre 7 guntas

in Sy.No.81/2 from the defendants No.1 to 3 and their children under

registered sale deed, wherein the layout has already been formed, and

the defendant No.5 threatened them and other purchasers of sites in

the layout of forceful dispossession from their respective properties.

They have filed complaints before the jurisdictional police for

protection of their properties. The defendants No.1 to 4 even though

contacted by them were not prepared to intervene. The defendant No.5
74
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

later filed caveat against some of them before the Civil Judge

(Jr.Dvn.) Court, Bengaluru which is not the Court having jurisdiction

on the area and copies of the caveat petition were served on the

plaintiffs. Thereafter defendant No.5 filed suit in OS No.983/2004 in

the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Court against the plaintiff No.11 and another

purchaser of site and produced his sale deed and other revenue

documents, defendant No.5 pursuant to sale deed dated 01/03/2004

executed by defendants No.1 to 3 and their children fraudulently got

the phoding done in Sy.No.81/2 and got mutation in respective

revenue records. The defendant No.5 falsely representing and

claiming that he is in possession of the agricultural land in Sy.No.81/2

to the extent measuring 1 acre and 7 guntas (phoded in his name as

Sy.No.81/3) purchased under sale deed dated 01/03/2004 from

defendants No.1 to 3 and their children got the revenue records got the

revenue department to make entires in the records of rights in his

name in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village. That after obtaining copies

of the defendant No.5 documents from the above said suit in OS
75
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

No.983/2004 in Civil Judge (J.D) Bengaluru, they came to know that

the defendants have played serious fraud in executing and registering

the sale deed of the agricultural dry land in Sy.No.81/2, Horamavu

village to an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas and 6 guntas kharab land from

defendants No.1 to 3 and their children, defendants No.6 to 12 under

the registered sale deed dated 01/03/2004 and its rectification deed

dated 29/03/2004 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R.

Puram, Bengaluru.

34. The PW.1 deposed evidence that careful look at the property

covered under the said principal sale deed dated 01/03/2004 as

described in its schedule and the property described in the schedule to

the Rectification Deed dated 29/03/2004 will go to establish the fact

that these instruments are very meticulously engineered fraudulent

instruments of transfer to wrongfully claim and gain the plaintiffs

properties covered under their title deeds executed by defendants No.1

to 4 about 13 years ago after forming the layout in question during

1991-92. The property covered under the principal deed (sale deed
76
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

dated 01/03/2004) as per the description of boundaries in the schedule

show that it is the Southern portion of Sy.No.81/2 and the middle

portion shown as portion sold to defendant No.4 Padmavathy

Madireddy. Whereas the property covered under the Rectification

deed dated 29/03/2004 as per its schedule and the boundaries

described in the schedule, it becomes clear that the property intended

to be covered under the instrument is shifted to Northern portion of

Sy.No.81/2 maintaining the portion of the land sold to defendant No.4

(Padmavathy Madireddy) at the middle of Sy.No.81/2 and forming

Southern boundary to the land, 1 acre 7 guntas as described in the

schedule to the rectification deed dated 29/03/2004. It obviously

shows the evil designs of the defendants to fraudulently claim the

Northern Portion of Sy.No.81/2 wherein the layout was formed

defendant No.5 by virtue of these fraudulent instruments of transfer

got the phoding done in Sy.No.81/2 by illegally influencing the

officials in the survey and land records department without the

knowledge of the plaintiffs and other site owners who have been in
77
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

possession of land for the past 13 years and over and got the land

phoded as Sy.No.81/3 in his name without any notice to the plaintiffs

whose possession and physical presence with house on the land

phoded in favour of the defendant No.5 would be clear and evident to

any official from the survey and land record department. It is obvious

that the phoding in favour of the defendant No.5 in Sy.No.81/2 was

done illegally, improperly and by playing fraud on the plaintiffs and

other purchasers of sites who are in actual occupation of the Northern

portion of the land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village to an extent of

1 acre 24 guntas. That the officials of the survey department who were

the defendants did not observe and report the existence of the layout

and the possession of the plaintiffs and others with houses in the land

phoded in the name of the defendant No.5 and fraudulently prepared

public documents to favour the defendant No.5 with out any enquiry

with the persons actually found in possession in order to cause

wrongful loss to the plaintiffs and to support the illegal dispossession

of the plaintiffs and other purchasers of sites by defendant No.5 who
78
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

also got his name entered in the records of rights and mutation register

in respect of Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village by virtue of the

fraudulent instrument of sale dated 01/03/2004 and its Rectification

deed dated 29/03/2004 without any proper enquiry and with out notice

to plaintiffs and other purchasers. That there was no agricultural

operation in the land in question in Sy.No.81/2 in the year 2003 or

2004 and since 1992 land was not agricultural. That the instrument of

sale dated 01/02/2004 and its Rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 are

bound to be declared null and void as the same being fraudulent and

do not confer any title on the defendant No.5 in respect of Northern

portion of the land in Sy.No.81/2 to the extent of 1 acre 7 guntas

(phoded as Sy.No.81/3 in the name of the defendant No.5) and the

entries made in the records of rights in Sy.No. 812 of Horamavu

village and phoding done in the name of the defendant No.5 in

pursuance of the instrument of transfer are liable to be cancelled. That

the defendants No.1 to 3 were absolute owners of land in Sy.No.81/2

of Horamavu Village which they acquired under the registered Will of
79
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

their grand mother as stated above. Their children, defendants No.6 to

12 did not acquire any right in the said property during the life time of

their father even though they are shown as parties to the instrument of

sale dated 01/03/2004 and its rectification deed dated 29/03/2004.

They are also impleaded as defendants in this without prejudice to the

contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 to 3 were the

absolute owners of the land in northern portion of Sy.No.81/2 of

Hoamavu Village wherein the layout in question was formed and sites

were sold to the plaintiffs and other purchasers by defendant No.1 to

3. That the defendant No.5 after getting the fraudulent instrument of

sale executed and registered in his name and after getting done the

entries in the Records of Rights and Mutation and phoding in the said

survey number in his name in the concerned revenue records and

survey records started threatening the plaintiffs with dispossession of

their properties from 21/10/2004, defendant No.5 cunningly and

stealthy completed the process of setting-up his fraudulent title to the

and in question with active collusion of the officials of the revenue
80
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

and survey departments. The plaintiffs apprehending danger to their

peaceful possession and enjoyment of their properties filed separate

suit against defendant No.5 and defendants No.1 to 3 for permanent

injunction in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH-22) and these

suits are pending adjudication. The court has granted interim

injunction in those suits and defendant No.5 and defendants No.1 to 3

appeared and filed their statements taking collusive stand to the effect

that no layout was formed in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village and no

sites were ever sold to the plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have purchased the

sites in the layout by investing their hard earned money and the

defendants have planned to take over the plaintiffs properties by such

manipulations and machinations with sole aim of amassing wealth by

illegal and unscrupulous means with the aid of officials and rowdy

elements. The defendants are aware of the purchase of the sites from

the concerned defendants earlier and constructions of residential house

by some of the plaintiffs were also carried out not with in short span

of time. All the plaintiffs being in the middle income group
81
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

construction was carried out step by step and defendants were mute

witnesses for all these developments and change taking place.

Purposely they waited so as to brow beat and coerce the plaintiffs into

submission, concerned revenue officials have also gave their whole

hearted co-operation in fulfilling the evil designs of the defendants.

The defendant No.5 has set up a fraudulent instrument of sale

described in the schedule without any title conferred on him under the

said instrument from his vendors in respect of the land covered under

the said sale deed. The said instrument of sale is fraudulent, devoid of

title and in respect of a property which does not exist as on the date of

its execution on 01/03/2004 and rectification deed dated 29/04/2004

and it was executed and registered with the malicious and evil motive

to grab the plaintiffs properties and to make wrongful gain by

perpetuating fraud. The instrument of sale described in the schedule is

bound to be declared by this Court as null and void. That the entires

made in the records of rights in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village in

favour of defendant No.5 pursuant to the said fraudulent instrument of
82
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

sale are also liable to be cancelled and removed. The phoding done in

favour of the defendant No.5 in the survey and land records

(Sy.No.81/3) is also bound to be cancelled. It is also imperative to

issue such directions from this court to the concerned revenue

departments to nullify the fraudulent entries made in those records

hence this suit. The above facts prove the mischief played by the

defendants on the purchasers of the sites in the said layout. That each

of the plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of

permanent injunction. Further the defendant No.5 has filed another

counter suit in O.S.No.3483/2005 which has been clubbed along with

this suit. The PW.1 prays to decree the suit as prayed. In support of

oral evidence PW.1 marked ExP1 to ExP100 and ExP110 to ExP133.

35. The plaintiff No.5 Sahadevan Pillai S/o Late P. Achuthan Pillai

has filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief of PW.2

and deposed the evidence same set of evidence as deposed by PW.1 as

discussed above. The PW.2 prays to decree suit as prayed. In support

of oral evidence PW.2 marked ExP101 to ExP109.
83
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

36. The defendant No.1 Narayanappa S/o Venkateshwarappa @

Chikkabbaiah filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as

DW.1 and deposed evidence that the plaintiffs filed above frivolous

suit based on concocted documents and distortion of the facts only to

harass him. The defendants No.1 to 3 are absolute owners of land

bearing Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bengaluru South Taluk, (presently Bangalore East Taluk) measuring 3

acres 0.17 guntas. That earlier the said land acquired by their

grandmother Venkatamma under registered sale deed dated

28/09/1964 from one Venkataswamy, her name entered to revenue

records as owner in cultivation, thereafter their grandmother

Venkatamma executed registered Will dated 13/06/1988 in their

favour i.e., himself, his brothers Nagaraja, Jayaram and his sister Smt.

Pullamma. Their grandmother Venkatamma died leaving behind above

said Will, thus they became the absolute owners of land measuring 3

acres 0.17 guntas including kharab of 0.06 guntas, the same bounded

by East:land of Balki Dasappa, West:Jayanthi Village, North:Land of
84
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Yamanna and South: land of Baluki Dasappa. That out of afore said

land they sold 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of Munivenkatmma thereby

retained remaining extent measuring 1.37 guntas with 6 guntas of

kharab. They defendants No.1 to 3 sold another portion of 30 guntas

out of the above said land in favour of Padmavathy Madireddy under

registered sale deed om 17/07/1991 and they retained 1 acre 13 guntas

including 6 gunta karab.

37. The DW.1 further deposed the evidence that the defendants No.1

to 3 along with their family members continued to enjoy the

remaining extent of 1 acre 13 guntas treating it as their joint family

property. That in order to meet their urgent family necessities, they

sold the said extent of 1 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village in favour of defendant No.5 Y.N. Kondareddy under registered

sale deed dated 01/03/2004. that after registration of the said sale deed

it is noticed that there is some mistake crypt in mentioning of

boundaries under aforesaid sale deed dated 01/03/2004, there after

they along with their family members executed rectification deed
85
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

dated 29/03/2004 in favour of Y.N. Kondareddy, the property sold

bounded by East:land of Baluki Dasappa, West:Jayanthi Village,

North: Land of Yamanna and South:Land of Padmavathi Madireddy.

That the property they sold in favour of Y.N. Kondareddy situated

towards the north of land sold to Padmavathi. That pursuant to the

registered sale deed in favour of Y.N. Kondareddy, the Sy.No.81/2 it is

sub phoded and assigned with a new Sy.No.81/3 measuring 1 acre 7

guntas in favour of the purchaser Y.N. Kondareddy, the mutation and

RTC entered to the name of purchaser Y.N. Kondareddy. That they the

defendants No.1 to 3 and their family members never sold an inch of

land in aforesaid Sy.No.81/2 which was already sold in favour of Y.N.

Kondareddy.

38. The DW.1 further deposed evidence that defendants No.1 to 3

are uneducated not acquainted with worldly affairs. He know to put

his signature in Kannada but he do not know reading and writing of

any of the language. The false allegation of the plaintiffs that in the

year 1991 defendants No.1 to 3 formed layout of house sites in the
86
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Northern portion of their agricultural dry land bearing Sy.No.81/2 of

Horamavu Village in an extent of 1 acre 24 guntas by taking

assistance of defendant No.4/Padmavathi Madireddy is absolute false,

the defendants No.1 to 3 never ever executed any power of attorney in

favour of defendant No.4, since at no point of time they have any

transaction with Padmavathi except land sold to her measuring 30

guntas of land. The allegations of plaintiffs that they formed 47 sites

including 30 guntas of land sold in favour of defendant No.4 is utter

false, the said land retained by them after sale in favour of

Padmavathi Madireddy measuring only 1 acre 13 guntas the same

remained and retained as agricultural land assessable for land revenue,

the false allegation of plaintiffs that plaintiffs alleged sites unexisted

layout of sites was assigned with house list numbers including katha

in the Village Panchayath records of Horamavu Panchayath is another

blatant false. That Horamavu village panchayath situated for from

their agricultural land i.e., Sy.No.81/2 new No.81/3, they never

approached said village panchayathfor katha and house list number to
87
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

their names. That to his knowledge the village panchayth had no

authority or power to issue katha of house list numbers in respect of

revenue land. Hence he denied alleged katha numbers as claimed by

the plaintiffs. Their further allegations that katha numbers alleged to

be issued by Horamavu Village Panchayath is a bogus document.

39. The DW.1 further deposed evidence that further allegations of

plaintiffs that they the defendants No.1 to 3 executed alleged General

Power of Attorney in favour of Padmavathi Madireddy etc.,

allegations are false. Even such documents are got up by plaintiffs,

same are concocted, created for false convenience of plaintiffs and

Padmavathi Madireddy. The northern portion to the property of Smt.

Padmavathi Madireddy, there remains only 1 acre 7 guntas and 6

guntas kharab retained as agricultural land, thereafter they sold the

same in favour of Y.N. Kondareddy and put him in actual physical

possession of the same, he continued to be owner in possession. After

alienation of portion i.e., 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of

Munivenkamma 30 guntas in favour of Padmavathi Madireddy and
88
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the remaining portion of 1 acre 7 guntas in favour of Y.N.

Kondareddy, they have not retained any portion of land in the said

property, so also they never sold sites much less an inch of land in

aforesaid survey number at any point of time, the allegations of

plaintiffs is false. The defendants No.1 to 3 are uneducated, drown

trident community, the plaintiffs misusing their innocence in order to

harass humiliate and expose to hardship filed above false suit on

concocted stories and documents. The plaintiffs have no locus standi

or right to question the register sale deed dated 01/03/2004 and

rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 executed by them in favour of

Y.N. Kondareddy, the plaintiffs have no semblance of interest or

property rights in respect of Sy.No.81/2 ( 81/3).

40. The DW.1 further deposed evidence that plaintiffs have

concocted and fabricated some of make believable sale deeds referring

to as sites under katha Horamavu Village Panchayath, in fact they

have no property with the alleged katha and sites in their name and

possession in the Village limits of Horamavu Village. The plaintiffs to
89
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

knock off their survey number property had factiously set up alleged

katha numbers with Horamavu Village Panchayath and alleged sites.

That as already submitted their land in Sy.No.81/2 never converted for

any purposes and never changed its character as non agricultural land

at any time up till the alienation in favour of Y.N. Kondareddy and the

same on the date of sale to said persons remained as survey number

property assessed for land revenue and the RTC stands in their name

as on the date of sale to said persons remained as survey number

property assessed for land revenue and the RTC stands in their name

as agricultural land thereafter same assigned with new pode No.81/3,

the revenue entries the name of purchaser Y.N. Kondareddy. The

plaintiffs with ulterior motives included their names to the above suit,

the above suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The plaintiffs

themselves not sure or certain about the existence of alleged sites and

not furnished the boundaries for the same, the plaintiffs filed above

suit for imaginary un existed property, hence above suit not

sustainable in law liable to be dismissed with costs. That there is no
90
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

cause of action for the above suit, the one asserted is false concoction,

the plaintiffs never have any locus standi or property interest in

respect of Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village, hence suit liable to be

dismissed for mis joinder of causes of action. That the defendant No.5

Y.N. Konareddy filed OS.No.3483/2005 against him and others as

already submitted since they sold the property measuring 1 acre 7

guntas in old Sy.No.81/2, nor new Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu Village,

they concedes and admits Y.N. Kondareddy is the absolute owner in

possession of said property. Hence they have no objection to decree

the said suit in OS.No.3483/2005 of Y.N. Konda Reddy. The DW.1

prays to dismiss the suit of plaintiff in OS.No.16322/2005 with

exemplary costs and decree the suit in OS.No.3483/2005 of Y.N.

Kondareddy.

41. The defendant No.5 in O.S.No.16322/2005 and plaintiff in

O.S.No.3483/2005 Y.N.Kondareddy S/o Narayanareddy filed his

affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as DW.2 and deposed

evidence that plaintiffs filed suit against him and others for the reliefs
91
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

of declaration that the sale deed dated 01/03/2004 and rectification

deed dated 09/03/2004 executed by defendants No.1 to 3 and 6 to 12

in favour of the defendant No.5 is null and void cancel the revenue

entires made in records of rights pertaining to Sy.No.81/2 and phoded

Sy.No. 81/3 in favour of defendant No.5. Pursuant to sale declared

null and void and the survey and the land records authority to cancel

the phoding done in favour of the defendant No.5 and other reliefs.

The suit filed by plaintiff seeking for imaginary reliefs without

seeking for declaration to establish their title and possession in respect

of the suit schedule properties is not maintainable in law or on facts

and as such suit has to be dismissed. That the plaintiffs suppressed the

actualities and factualities and filed the suit for declaration and other

reliefs with seeking for appropriate reliefs is not at all maintainable

in law and same is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs filed suit

seeking for reliefs in respect of defendant No.5 property without

seeking for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of

plaintiffs properties is not maintainable in law. There is no cause of
92
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

action for the plaintiffs to file the suit and cause of action as stated in

para 18 of the plaint does not give legal right to the plaintiffs to file

the above suit. The plaintiffs misrepresented the facts and filed suit.

The suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient and

plaintiff has not valid the suit on the basis of market value of the suit

properties. The plaintiffs are making an attempt to lay claim for the

land measuring to an extent of 1 acre 07 guntas with 6 guntas of pot

kharab in Sy.No.81/2 and after phode conducted by the department of

survey settlement and land records as Sy.No.81/3 of Hoamavu Village

under the guise of having purchased the sites bearing the alleged

house list numbers under alleged registered sale deeds. There cannot

be the property bearing house list numbers in the agricultural land the

house list numbers in the case that the properties are gramatana

properties and as such the contentions of the plaintiffs that their

alleged sites are in the land in Sy.No.81/2 is false and incorrect by

contending so the plaintiffs are laying claim for the land of the

defendant No.5 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas with 6
93
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

guntas of foot kharab in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram

Hobli, Bengluru South Taluk. The land in Sy.No.81/2 is an agricultural

land. It is not converted for residential purpose and as such the

question of forming the residential sites in the agricultural land does

not arise at all. Hence claim of plaintiff that alleged sites are situated

in portion of land in Sy.No.81/2 is false and incorrect and same is

contrary to their sale deeds. It has not been stated any where in the

sale deeds that the sites are located in the land in Sy.No.81/2. It is

clear that the alleged sites of the plaintiff are the gramatana sites and

the said sites are not at all located in the land in Sy.No.81/2 of

Horamavu Village.

42. The DW.2 further deposed evidence that the defendants No.1 to

3 who are the title holders and in possession and enjoyment of the

land measuring to an extent of 3 acres 17 guntas of Sy.No.81/2 of

Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The

defendants No.1 to 3 acquired property through their grandmother

Venkatamma. After the death of Venkatamma they became absolute
94
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

owners in possession over the same. The grand mother Venkatamma

acquired under registered sale deed dated 28/09/1964 and her name

has been entered in revenue documents. The said Venkatamma

executed registered will dated 13/06/1988 in favour of the defendants

No.1 to 3 the said Venkatamma died. After her death the defendants

No.1 to 3 became absolute owners in possession over the same. The

the defendants No.1 to 3 sold 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of

Munivenkatamma and retained remaining extent of land measuring 1

acre 37 guntas with 6 guntas of karab. Thereafter the defendants No.1

to 3 sold 30 guntas of land in favour of the defendant No.4 under

registered sale deed dated 17/07/1991 and retained remaining 1 acre

13 guntas with 6 guntas of pot karab. The defendants No.1 to 3 along

with their family members who were in possession and enjoyment of

1 acre 13 guntas for urgent family necessities sold in Sy.No.81/2

measuring 1 acre 13 guntas in his favour under a registered sale deed

dated 01/03/2004. After registration it was noticed that there is a

mistake in the boundaries. Thereafter defendants No.1 to 3 and their
95
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

family members who are parties to said sale deed executed a

rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 in his favour with specific

boundaries. That the property sold by the defendants No.1 to 3 along

with their family members is towards north of the land sold in favour

of the defendant No.4. Subsequent to purchase the survey settlement

and land records surveyed and phoded and assigned with new

Sy.No.81/3. The revenue authorities have lawfully effected mutation

and pahanies on the basis of his lawful ownership and possession.

The defendants No.1 to 3 have not retained any land in Sy.No.81/2 at

all. That an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas with 6 guntas of put kharab in

old No.81/2 and New No.81/3 of Horamavu Village, has not at all

been converted for non-agricultural residential purposes and it remains

an agricultural land.

43. The DW.2 denied the allegations of plaint paras No.3 to 19. The

DW.2 deposed evidence that the sale deeds does not pertain to the

alleged sites in Sy.No.81/2 since no sites have been formed in

Sy.No.81/2. The sale deeds produced by the plaintiff are nothing to do
96
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

with the land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village and they are all

created, concocted and fabricated documents. That after the land

measuring to an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas with 6 guntas of karab in

Sy.No.81/2 was surveyed and boundaries was fixed and it is found that

some of the houses have been illegally built in a portion of the land

belongs to him. In this regard he filed a suit in O.S.No.3483/2005 for

the reliefs of declaration and possession of the portion of the lands

wherein houses have been illegally built and said suit is pending

before this court. On the basis of lawful ownership and possession the

revenue authorities have lawfully effected mutation and pahanies in

his name and the survey authorities have phoded and given hissa

numbers as 81/3. That after perusing all the relevant documents and

after conducting due enquiry he has lawfully purchased 1 acre 13

guntas with 6 guntas of kharab in old Sy.No.81/2 and New Sy.No.81/3

of Horamavu village for a valuable consideration. As on the date of

purchase no body as objected for the same. Therefore his right title

interest as to be protected under law. That the boundaries as stated by
97
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the plaintiffs under their alleged sale deeds are nothing to do with the

land bearing Sy.No. 81/3. There is no existence of the properties as

claimed by the plaintiffs in old Sy.No.81/2 and new No.81/3. The

layout plan produced by the plaintiffs is created and concocted

document. The plaintiffs have created, concocted and fabricated

documents to believe that the sale deeds referred to sites under the

katha of Horamavu village panchayat. That the names of defendant

No.1 to 3 does not find a place in the village panchayat records. Apart

from that the land in Sy.No.81/2 not at all converted for residential

purposes. Even to this day the said land is an agricultural land. All the

revenue documents even to this day standing in his name. Earlier to

the purchase his vendors name has been entered in the revenue

documents There is no katha's transferred in the names of the plaintiffs

in any of the panchayat records so he submits that one K. Lazar who is

the defendant No.11 in OS.No.1208/2004 filed a suit against him for

the reliefs of permanent injunction in respect of site No.14. In the said

suit the said K. Lazar filed the application for the grant of temporary
98
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

injunction and after contest the said application came to be rejected.

Thereafter the said suit also came to be dismissed. That there are no

documents in the village panchayat records to show that as per the sale

deeds the names of the plaintiffs have been entered. The properties

claimed by the plaintiffs as per the sale deeds are not at all existence

in old Sy.No.81/2 and new No.81/3 of Horamavu Village.

44. The DW.2 further deposed the evidence that the village

panchayat of Horamavu village and BBMP Mahadevapura issued

endorsements stating that the names of defendant No.1 to 3 have not

been entered in the Horamavu Village panchayat and also issued the

endorsement stating that they have not issued the license and plan in

favour of the plaintiffs. The documents produced by the plaintiffs

issued by the chairman is a created, concocted and bogus documents

created for the purpose of the case. In fact the chairman has no

authority to issue such documents and only the Secretary is the

competent authority to issue such documents. That he has also filed a

suit in OS.No.3483/2005 on the file of this Court against the plaintiffs
99
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

and the defendant No.1 to 4 in O.S.No.16322/2005 for the reliefs of

declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property

directing the defendants No.5 to 10 and 16 to quit and deliver vacant

possession of he suit schedule 'B' property and for permanent

injunction. That he has taken a specific contention that he is the lawful

owner in possession of the suit schedule 'A' property and got the

Schedule 'A' property under a registered sale deed dated 01/03/2004.

In view of discrepancy in the boundaries the said sale deed was

rectified under a rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 through his

vendors. He has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule 'A' property . The revenue entries were lawfully effected in

his name in M.R. No.48/2003-2004. The survey authorities have

phoded and assigned new survey number as 81/3 which could be seen

from atlas hissa tippani, akarbandh, Utaar and other survey records.

That one G.Balakrishna and C.Y. Das have no manner of right

attempts to interfere by digging the schedule 'A' land. He filed suit in

O.S.No.983/2004 for the reliefs of permanent injunction on the file of
100
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the principal civil judge (Jr.Dvn.) Bengaluru district in the said suit he

got an order of temporary injunction. The said suit came to be

dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. That the defendants No.1 to 3

being the original owners acquired Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village

from their grand mother late Venkatamma under a registered Will

dated 13/06/1988 and sold 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of

Munivenkatamma and to an extent of 30 guntas in favour of the

defendant No.4 and sold suit schedule 'A' property in his favour.

45. The DW.2 further deposed the evidence that in order to put up

fence around the schedule 'A' property during the month of July 2004

to measure and identify actual extent to dig the pits for planting poles

and during the survey the defendant No.5 to 10 and 16 have objected

to conduct survey and noticed that defendant No.5 to 10 and 16 have

been illegally encroached in the portion of the suit schedule 'A'

property and constructed building thereon. On enquiry the

defendants No.5 to 10 and 16 told that they purchased said properties

described as 'B' schedule properties by means of alleged registered
101
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

sale deeds from defendant No.4 as she had entered in the sale being

alleged GPA holder for the defendants No.1 to 3. That an enquiry with

the defendants No.1 to 3 with regard to the alleged sale of 'B' schedule

property they have told him that they had never executed the alleged

GPA in favour of defendant No.4 and suit schedule 'A' properties

never converted from agriculture to non agricultural from any

authorities. He advised the defendants No.5 to 10 and 16 that their

possessions in the 'B' schedule property is not legal, unauthorized

possession and required to deliver vacant possession of the suit

schedule 'B' property. Instead of doing they filed as many as injunction

suits on the file of the City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bengaluru and said

suits are pending in the said suits he filed his written statement and

contesting the same.

46. The DW.2 further deposed evidence that after receiving the

summons in the said cases during the month of January 2005, it has

stated in the plaint that the defendant No.4 had obtained the alleged

GPA on 13/12/1991 from the defendants No.1 to 3 in respect of the
102
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

sites and not for the suit schedule 'A' property and it does not recited

any particulars regarding survey number, conversion, nature of title of

the owners. That the defendants have not produced the GPA before

this Court itself goes to show that the defendants No.1 to 3 have not at

all executed the GPA in favour of the defendant No.4 at all. That the

schedule 'A' has never been converted at any point of time on

verification of the consent panchayat got endorsement stating that no

such house list numbers were issued in the name of the defendants

No.1 to 3 for suit schedule 'A' property. The defendants No.5 to 16

does not derive any right title interest or possession under the alleged

sale deeds. That the defendants No.5 to 16 have realized their

unlawful titles for the schedule 'B' property making attempts to

dispose of the same by way of sale or creating and encumbrance. The

alleged GPA and alleged sale deeds are not at all pertaining to suit

schedule properties and not binding on him and they are all forged

concocted and created documents to knock of the suit schedule

property his illegal means. That on the strength of the alleged sale
103
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

deeds they are making hectic efforts interfere with his peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'A' property and

defendants have no any manner of right title interest or possession

over the same. The alleged attempts on the basis of concocted and

forged documents are not sustainable under law and also to make

wrongful gain. The alleged documents are nullity in the eye of law

and hectic collusion of defendant No.4 to knock of the suit schedule

'A' property by illegal means making illegal attempts being supported

with money and men of dispossess him from the 'A' schedule property.

He is the absolute owner of 'A' schedule property. Therefore, he filed

the above suit for the reliefs of declaration and other reliefs. That the

defendants No.1 to 3 filed their written statement admitting almost all

averments made in the plaint. The defendants No.4 failed to file any

written statement and contest in the suit. The defendant No.5 to 16

filed their written statement and taken whatever contentions taken in

OS.No.16322/2005 and also contentions taken in the suits filed for the

reliefs of permanent injunction. The contentions taken by the
104
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

defendants 5 to 16 are all frivolous and false contentions. He denied

the said contentions specifically. The DW.2 prays to dismiss the suit

filed by the plaintiff in OS.No.16322/2005 and decree the suit in

OS.No.3483/2005 filed by him. In support of oral evidence the DW.2

marked the documents ExD1 to ExD50 and ExD71 to ExD82.

47. The defendant No.25 in OS.No.3483/2003 Shinode P.U. S/o

M. Unni Raman Kutty Nair filed his affidavit in lieu of examination of

chief as DW.3 and deposed the evidence that himself and his wife the

defendant No.26 are absolute owners in possession of all that piece

and parcel of site No.47 and Site No.46, Katha No.122/1 and 135/4

measuring East to West 37 feet and North to South 30.5 feet formed in

Sy.No.81/2 situated at Horamavu Village, Jayanthinagar Extension,

K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East taluk. That the erstwhile owners of

the land formed several residential sites in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk and Defendants

No.1 to 3, the owners of the said lands have sold Site No.46, Katha

No.135/4 measuring measuring East to West 37 feet and North to
105
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

South 30 feet situated at Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bangalore East Taluk formed in the said Sy.No.81/2 to one Mr. N.S.

Kaimal under the registered Sale Deed dated 18/12/1991 and put the

said Mr. N.S. Kaimal in possession of the same. Further the

defendants No.1 to 3 have also site No.47 measuring East to West (39

+37)/2 and North to South 30 feet formed in the said Sy.No.81/2 to

one Mr. T. Vijayan under the registered Sale Deed dated 29/12/1991

and put him in possession of the same. Thereafter the Said purchasers

of Site No.46 and 47 namely T. Vijayan and N.S. Kaimal sold both the

sites 46 and 47 to one M. Malini under the registered Sale Deed dated

13/07/2001 and she was put in possession of the same. He and his

wife have purchased said sites from M.Malini under registered Sale

Deed dated 14/06/2004 and they were put in possession of the said

sites. Pursuant to purchase, the katha in the records of the Hormavu

Grama Panchayath was transferred to their names and they have been

paying the taxes. After the said sites came into the jurisdiction of the

Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palik, they have been paying taxes to
106
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the said sites. That he has been in possession of the said sites as the

absolute owner since, 14/06/2004 and prior to them their predecessors

in title were in possession of the same. In fact the defendants No.1 to 3

have lost their right, title and interest in the said sites formed in

Sy.No.81/2 as early as on 18/12/1991 when the sold the sites to N.

Kaimal and Mr. T. Vijayan. In fact sites formed in Sy.No.81/2 have

been developed and there amenities like roads, electricity connection

etc to the said layout in Sy.No.81/2. In fact layout is now called

Jayanthinagar Extension. That in the layout there are several houses

constructed even before the filing of the suit and several owners are in

possession and enjoyment of the same. That he has also dug a bore

well in the said sites. That Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the

said sites in Sy.No.81/2 and the allegation that the land bearing

Sy.No.81/2 is an agricultural land and no layout of sites are formed are

all absolutely false and incorrect. That the plaintiff has filed the suit

only to harass them like individual buyers of the sites to pressurize

them to heed to his illegal bargains. The DW.3 prays to dismiss the
107
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

suit with exemplary costs. In support of oral evidence the DW.3

marked the documents ExD51 to ExD62.

48. The defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 of OS.No.16322/2005 have

examined the witness DW.4 S. Sridhar S/o late K.M. Srinivasa Reddy.

He filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of examination in chief as DW.4

and deposed evidence that he know the defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 in

the above case. He know the agricultural land bearing old Sy.No.81/2

and new Sy.No.81/3 after phode measuring 1 acre 7 guntas and 6

guntas of phod kharab situated at Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram

Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, bounded by East:Baluki Dasappa's land,

West:Jayanthi grama and gomala, North: Vemanna's land, South:

Padmavathy's land. He is permanent resident of Dodda Banasawadi

Village adjacent to the village of Horamavu. The aforesaid property

comes within the jurisdiction of Horamavu village. The said land is

an agricultural land. He is doing agriculture and also doing real estate

business. His father and grand father are all agriculturists by

profession. He has to pass through by the side of the said land to reach
108
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

to his agricultural lands, which bearing Sy.No.82/3 of Horamavu

village. That originally the said property belongs to Narayanappa,

Nagaraju, Jayaram and their children. They sold the said property in

favour of Y.N. Kondareddy under registered sale deed dated

01/03/2004 and put him in possession over the same. Earlier to the

sale the aforesaid persons were in possession and enjoyment of the

said property by raising crops in the said land. Since the date of

purchase the sad Y.N. Kondareddy has been exercising his right of

ownership and possession by raising crops in the said land. That

earlier to the sale the revenue documents namely RTC and pahanies

stands in the name of Narayanappa and his brothers. After the sale the

said Y.N. Kondareddy's name has been effected in mutation and

pahanies as the said property is an agricultural land surrounded by

agricultural lands. The said property as about 1½ kms from the

Gramatana of Horamavu. The said property is not at all Gramatana

property and at no point of time the said property vest with the village

panchayath. That at no point of time the said Narayanappa and his
109
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

brothers sold the said property in favour of the plaintiffs or anybody

except the said Y.N. Kondareddy. At no point of time they are in

possession of the said property. Their contention is that Narayanappa

and his brothers sold the Gramatana properties in favour of the

plaintiffs is not at all correct. The names of Narayanappa and his

brothers have not at all entered in village panchayat records of

Horamavu. Further the land in Sy.No.81/2 and New No.81/3 has not

at all been converted for residential purposes. The said Narayanappa

and his brothers belong to agricultural family doing agriculture. The

said Narayanappa and his brothers at no point of time formed the sites

in the said land and sold it to anybody as if a Gramatana property.

There is no conversion of the said land by the competent authority.

Even to this day the said land is an agricultural land. That he

possessed agricultural lands and doing agriculture. At no point of time

the said land is a Gramatana property in fact after purchase by the said

Kondareddy the land has been measured by the department of Survey

Settlement and land records by fixing the boundaries by erecting a
110
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

stones and given new No.81/3 he was also present at that time. At the

time of settlement for sale of the said land he was also present.

49. The defendant No.5 counsel while arguing relied upon the

decisions reported in 1) ILR 2005 KAR 884 2) AIR 1979 CaL 50, 3)

AIR 1999 SC 1441, 4) AIR 1962 Madras 149, 5) ILR 2010 KAR

2996, 6) ILR 1998 KAR 1, 7) AIR 1990 Orissa 124, 8) ILR 1988

KAR 215, 9) ILR 2007 KAR 339. The relevant citations are discussed

below.

ILR 2005 KAR 884

T.L.Nagendra Babu V/s Manohar Rao Pawar

Suit for Declaration and Injunction requirement of
evidence - Duty of the Court - Held - Unless the Court is
satisfied with regard to material details in the light of the
material evidence with regard to the identification of the
property, no declaration and injunction can be granted.

ILR 2007 KAR 339

Aralappa V/s Jagannath and others
111
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Specific Relief Act 1963-Section 34-Declaration of status
or right-Discretion of Court-Held, In a suit for declaration
of ownership and permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to
prove his title to the property and also his possession over
the property on the date of the suit-Further held, when the
plaintiff is not in possession of the property on the date of
suit, relief of permanent injunction is not an appropriate
consequential relief-The appropriate relief consequential to
declaration of ownership would be recovery of possession
of the property -When the plaintiff is out of possession of
the property and does not seek relief for possession, a mere
suit for declaration is not maintainable-Court below was
justified in dismissing the suit as not maintainable-Appeals
are dismissed.

50. The counsel for the plaintiff in OS.No.16322/2005 while

arguing relied upon the decisions reported in 1) ILR 2005 Kar Page

5155, 2) (2008) 4 SCC 594, 3) (1998) 3 SCC page 612, 4) (2007) 14

Supreme Court Cases 200, 5) ILR 1999 KAR 2033 and 6) (2004)1

Supreme Court Cases page 769.
112
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

51. The counsel for the defendants No.1 to 3 in both suits while

arguing relied upon the decisions reported in 1) (1998) 1 Supreme

Court Cases page 614 & 2) 2007 AIR SCW page 6953.

52. The counsel for the defendants No.25 & 26 in OS.No.3483/2005

while arguing relied upon the decisions reported in 1) Nagalinga

Nadar V. K. Mebrrunnisa Begum, 2) 1972 SCC Online Kar 128

(Azeezulla Sheriff and Others Vs. Bhabhutimul) & 3) 1965 SCC

Online AP 27 (The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rajab Ram

Janardhana Krishna Rangarao Bahadur Varu & others).

53. The burden is on plaintiffs of O.S.No.16322/2005 to prove

that the sale deed dated 01/03/2004, Rectification Deed dated

23/04/2004 executed by defendant No.1 to 3 and defendant No.6 to

defendant No.12 in favour of defendant No.12 is null and void and

also the revenue entries made in the record of right pertaining to

Sy.No.81/2 and the phode sub Sy.No.81/3 in favour of defendant No.5

pursuant to the instrument of sale is declared as null and void. Further
113
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the burden is on said plaintiffs to prove that the phoding done in

favour of defendant No.5 in Sub-No.81/3 in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk pursuant to the

instrument of sale as null and void. There are 15 plaintiffs in

O.S.No.16322/2005 and out of them plaintiff No.6 examined as PW1

and plaintiff No.5 examined as PW.2. The plaintiffs No.1 to 15 in

OS.No.16322/2005 are independent persons and they ought to have

deposed evidence separately but all have not deposed the evidence

before the Court and only the plaintiffs No.5 and 6 have deposed

evidence. The PW.1 and 2 examination in chief and deposed the

evidence as discussed above and in support of oral evidence

documents ExP1 to ExP133.

54. The ExP1 is power of attorney marked as it have been executed

by the other plaintiffs in favour of PW1. The ExP2 is certified copy of

encumbrance certificate for the period from 01/06/1989 to 31/03/2004

wherein there is entry regarding sale of site No.41 katha No.135/4 of

Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk by
114
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Narayanappa, Nagaraj, Jayaram to T.V.K Krishnakumari and in turn

the said P.V.K. Krishnamumari sold the said property to R.

Gangadharan. The ExP3 is DCB Register of the said property Site

No.41 in the name of plaintiff No.7 R. Gangadharan. The ExP4 is tax

paid receipt by R. Gangadharan. The ExP5 is Certified cpy of

construction plan, site No.41 given to all Gangadharan by the Town

Planning authority. The ExP6 complaint given to the Ramamurthy

Nagar police station for harassment to residents by some miscreants.

The ExP7 is certified copy of sale deed dated 29/12/1991 executed by

defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff No.1 Renuka Vijayakumar

in respect of site No.29 in the portion of House List katha No.122/1

measuring East-West: 40 feet and North to South 30 feet of Horamavu

village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk. The ExP8 is DCB

in the name of plaintiff No.1 Renuka Vijayakumar. The ExP9 &

ExP10 are certified copies of tax paid receipts by plaintiff No.1

Renuka Vijayakumar. The Ex11 is Certified copy of encumbrance
115
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

certificate for the period from 1/6/1989 to 31/03/2004 , wherein there

is entry regarding sale of site No. 29 khatha No.122/1 of Horamavu

village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk by defendant No.1

to 3 infavour of plaintiff No.1. The ExP12 is Certified copy of

encumbrance certificate of site No.29 of Horamavu village for the

period from 01/04/2004 to 20/11/2004 in the name of plaintiff No.1

Renuka Vijayakumar.

55. The ExP13 is certified copy of sale deed dated 18/12/1991

executed by defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff No.2 Shylaja

Vishwanatha in respect of site No.28 in a portion of House List khata

No.135/4, measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 30 feet

situated at Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south

taluk and ExP14 is certified copy of DCB register extract of the said

property in the name of plaintiff No.2 and ExP15 and ExP16 are tax

paid receipts in the name of plaintiff No.2. The ExP17 is Certified

copy of encumbrance certificate from 01/06/1989 to 31/03/2004

wherein there is entry regarding sale of site No.28 khatha No.135/4 of
116
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Horamavu village by defendant No.1 to 3 in favour f plaintiff No.2.

The ExD18 is encumbrance certificate for the period from 01/04/2004

to 20/11/2004 relating to site No.28 of Horamavu village in the name

of plaintiff No.2.

56. The ExP19 is certified copy of sale deed dated 13/01/1992

executed by defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff No.3 V.M.

Raveendran in respect of site No.27, in a portion of House List Khata

No.122/1 measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 30 feet

of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk. The

ExP20 is DCB register extract of said property in the name of plaintiff

No.3 for the year 1992-93 and ExP21 and ExP22 are tax paid receipts

in the name of plaintiff No.3. The ExP23 is certified copy of

encumbrance certificate for the period from 01/06/1989 to 31/03/2004

, where in there is entry regarding sale of site No.27 house list khatha

No.122/1 measuring East to West: 40 ft. and North to South: 30 feet of

Horamavu village of defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff No.3.

ExP24 is certified copy of the encumbrance certificate for the period
117
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

from 01/04/2004 to 20/11/2004 relating to site No.27. The ExP25 is

certified copy of sale deed dated 13/01/1992 executed by defendant

No.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff No.4 V.M.Hareendran in respect of

site No.26 in portion of house list No.122/2 measuring East to West:

40 feet and north to South: 30 feet of Horamavu village, K.R.Puram

Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and ExP26 is certified copy of DCB

period 1992/1993 and ExP27 and ExP28 are certified copies of tax aid

receipts in the name of plaintiff No.4.

57. The ExP29 the certified copy of encumbrance certificate for the

period from 18/06/1998 to 31/02/2004 relating to site No.25 of

Horamavu village in the name of plaintiff No.4. The ExP30 is

certified copy of the sale deed dated 20/02/1992 executed by the

defendant No.1 to 3 through their GPA holder Madireddy Padmavathi

in favour of plaintiff No.6 Narayan Unni S/o T. Narayana Kurup in

respect of site No.21 measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to

South: 30 feet of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru
118
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

South Taluk. The ExP31 is certified copy of encumbrance certificate

for the period from 1.6.1989 to 31.3.2004 wherein there is entry

regarding sale of site No.21 of Horamavu village by defendant No.1

to 3 through their GPA holder Smt. Madireddy Padmavathi in favour

of plaintiff No.6 Narayana Unni. The ExP32 is Certified copy of

unregistered agreement of sale dated 05/10/1991 executed by

defendant No.1 to 3 through their GPA holder Madireddy Sri

Padmavathi in favour of plaintiff No.6 T.N. Narayan Unni in respect

of site No.21 measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30

feet of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk.

The ExP33 is Certified copy of DCB register in respect of property

No.122/2 in the name of plaintiff No.6 Narayana unni and ExP34 and

35 are certified copies of tax aid receipt in the name of Narayana

Unni. The ExP36 is certified copy construction permission given to

plaintiff No.6 Narayana unni for construction of building in property

No.122/2 of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south

taluk and ExP37 is Certified copy of plan and ExP38 is certified copy
119
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

of receipt. The ExP39 is certified copy of tax paid receipt by plaintiff

No.6 Narayan Unni. The ExP40 is complaint given by the plaintiffs

to the Ramamurthy Nagar police station for harassment to residents by

miscreants.

58. The ExP41 is certified copy of sale deed dated 13/02/2002

executed by C.K. Manohara Nambiyar in favour of plaintiff No.8 P.

Ajayan S/o T. Appukutan Nair in respect of site No.20 khatha

No.122/2 measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet

of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk. The

ExP42 is certified copy of sale deed dated 05/05/1992 regarding

purchase of site No.20 katha No.122/2 measuring East to West 40 feet

and North to South 30 feet of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bengaluru south taluk by C.K. Manoharan from defendant No.1 to 3

through their GPA holder Madi reddy Sri Padmavathi. The ExP43 is

certified copy of encumbrance certificate for the period from

01/06/1989 to 30/09/2003, wherein there is entries regarding sale of

site No.20 khatha No.122/2 measuring East to West 40 feet and North
120
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

to South 30 feet of Horamavu village by defendant No.1 to 3 through

their GPA holder Madireddy Padmavathi through K. Manoharan on

25/05/1992 and in turn sale of said property by C.K. Manoharan to

plaintiff No. 8 P. Ajayan on 13/02/2002. The ExP44 is Certified copy

of DCB register in the name of plaintiff No.2 relating to site No.20

katha No.122/2 of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru

south taluk and ExP45 is tax paid receipt by plaintiff No.8. The ExP46

is certified copy of construction premises and ExP47 is certified copy

of plan for construction of house by plaintiff No.8 P. Ajayan in site

No.20 of Horamavu village. The ExP48 is endorsement issued by

Secretary, Horamavu grama panchayath stating that P. Ajayan S/o T.

Appukuttan Nair started construction in katha No.122/2 and plaintiff

No.2 and it is come within jurisdiction of Horamavu grama

panchayath. The ExP49 to ExP51 are certified copies of tax paid

receipts of site No.20 of Horamavu village by plaintiff No.8 P. Ajayan.

The ExP52 is certified copy of encumbrance certificate for the period

from 30/09/2003 to 31/03/2004 and ExP53 is certified copy of
121
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

encumbrance certificate for the period from 01/04/2004 to 25/10/2004

relating to site No.20 of Horamavu village in the name of plaintiff

No.8 P. Ajayan. The ExP54 is certified copy of complaint given by

plaintiffs to Ramamurthy nagar police station about harassment to the

residents by miscreants.

59. The ExP55 is certified copy of sale deed dated 11/06/2001

executed by Prashanth Radhakrishnan S/o M. Radhakrishnan in

favour of plaintiff No.9 Madhusoodhana Karnavar in respect of site

No.38, Khatha No.122/2 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to

South 40 feet of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru

south taluk and site No.39 khatha No.135/4 measuring 1040 sq.ft.

Situated at Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south

taluk. The ExP56 is certified copy of sale deed dated 25/05/1992

executed by defendant No.1 to 3 through their GPA holder Madireddy

Sripadmavathy in favour of Prasanth Radhakrishnan S/o M.

Radhakrishnan in respect of property bearing site No.38 measuring

East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet in house list katha
122
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

No.122/2 of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south

Taluk .

60. The ExP57 is certified copy of sale deed 29/3/1993 executed

by Karnataka Nair Service Society represented by Secretary to

K.S.Babu in favour of Prashanth Radhakrishnan in respect of property

bearing site No.39 house list khatha No.135/4, measuring 1040 sq.ft.

of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram hobli, Bengaluru South taluk. The

ExP58 is copy of encumbrance certificate for the period from

01/06/1989 to 31/03/1964 wherein entry regarding sale of site Nos.38

and 39 by defendant No.1 to 3 through their GPA holder Madireddy

Sripadmavahi to Prashanth Radhakrishnan on 25/05/1992 and in turn

sale of said property by Prashanth Radhakrishnan to plaintiff No.9

Madhusoodhana karnavar on 11/06/2001. The ExP59 is certified

copy DCB Register of site No.38 and 39 of Horamavu village in the

name of plaintiff No.9 for the period 2001-2002. The ExP60 and 62

are certified copies of tax paid receipt in he name of plaintiff No.9.

The ExP61 is certified copy of construction permission and ExP63 is
123
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

certified copy of plan for construction of house building to site No.38

and 39, khatha No.122/2 and 135/4 of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram

Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk to plaintiff No.9 Madusoodhana

Karnavar. The ExP64 is certified copy of the encumbrance certificate

for the period from 01/04/2004 to 25/10/2004 in respect of site

No.38and 39 in the name of plaintiff No9. The ExP65 is certified copy

of complaint given by plaintiff to Ramamurthy Nagar police station

about harassment to the residents by miscreants. The ExP66 and

ExP67 are certified copies of tax paid receipt by plaintiff No.9

Madhusoodhana Karnavar. The ExP68 is certified copy of DCB

Prashanth Radhakrishnan. The ExP69 is certified copy of

encumbrance certificate for period from 01/06/1989 to 31/03/2004

relating to site No.41 of Horamavu village wherein there is entry

regarding sale of said property by defendant No.1 to 3 favour of T.V.K

Krishnakumari on 13/01/1992 and in turn sale of said property by

TVK Krishnakumari in favour of plaintiff No.10 Tangarani on
124
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

01/08/2001. The ExP70 is certified copy of DCB register of plaintiff

No.10 Tangarani W/o Siddaganagiah for the year 2004-2005. The

ExP71 is certified copy of tax paid receipt in the name of plaintiff

No.10 and ExP72 is certified copy of construction permission.

61. The ExP73 is certified copy of sale deed dated 29/01/2004

executed by The Karnataka Nair Service Society through its Secretary

E.K. Gopinatha Panicker in favour of plaintiff No.11 B. Kishore

Kumar S/o G. Balakrishna in respect of northern portion of site No.4,

5 and 7 khatha No.135/4 situated at Jayanthi grama, Horamavu

village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East taluk and northern portion

of site No.4 measuring 15x26, site No.5 measures (26+30)/2x30 feet.

site No.6 measuring 30x30 feet, site No.7 measuring 30x20 feet. The

ExP74 is certified copy of the encumbrance certificate for the period

from 01/06/1989 to 31/03/2004 there are entries regarding sale of site

No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, house list No.135/4 of Horamavu village by

defendant No.1 to 3 through their GPA holder Madireddy

Sripadmavahi in favour of Karnataka Nair Service Society on
125
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

04/06/1983 and in turn sale of site No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 by the Karnataka

Nair Service Society to its Secretary E.K. Gopinatha Panicker in

favour of plaintiff No.11 B. Kishore Kumar S/o G. Balakrishna on

29/01/2004. The ExP75 is certified copy of encumbrance certificate

for the period from 01/04/2004 to 03/11/2004 relating to site no. 4, 5,

6, 7 khatha No.135/4 of Jayanthi grama, Horamavu village, K.R.

Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East taluk. The ExP76 and ExP80 are

certified copies of the plan and construction permission of building in

site No. 4, 5, 6, 7, khatha No. 135/4 to B. Kishore Kumar. Ex.P77 &

78 are copies of tax paid receipts.

62. The ExP79 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 04/06/1993

executed by the Karnataka Nair Service Society executed by

defendant No.1 to 3 through their GPA holder Madireddy

Sripadmavathi infavour of Karnataka Nair Service Society in respect

of site No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bengaluru East taluk to the extent of measurement of the property

mentioned in the said sale deed.
126
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

63. The ExP81 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 18/12/1981

executed by defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff No.12 R.

Gopalakrishnan S/o Kunhikishnan Nair in respect of site No.36 in a

portion of house list No.135/4 measuring 40x30 feet of Horamavu

village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk. The ExP82 is

certified copy of encumbrance certificate for the period from

01/06/1989 to 31/03/2004 wherein the entry regarding the sale of site

No. 36 House list khatha No.135/4 of Horamavu village by

defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff No.12 Gopalakrishnan. The

ExP83 is certified copy of DCB register in the name of plaintiff No.12

for the period from 1992 to 1994. The ExP84 is certified copy of tax

paid receipt of plaintiff No.12 Gopalakrishnan.

64. The ExP85 is certified copy of sale deed dated 05/11/2001

executed by K. Padmavathi W/o Raghava Kurup in favour of plaintiff

No.13 Sonny Mathew S/o Mathew Rocky in respect of site No.44

khatha No.135/4 situated at Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bengaluru south taluk measuring East to West 36.6 feet and North to
127
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

South 30 feet of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru

south taluk. The ExP86 is certified copy of Exchange Deed dated

25/11/2004 between plaintiff No.13 Sonny Mathew S/o Mathew

Rocky and Shankar Gowda Patil S/o Ramana Gowda Patil. As per this

Exchange Deed Sonny Mathew mentioned as owner of suit schedule

'A' property Site no.44, khatha No.135/4, property No.81/2 situated at

Horamavu village measuring East to West 36.6 feet and North to

South 30 feet. In the said sale deed and 2nd party Shankar gowda patil

S/o Ramanagowda patil name is mentioned as owner of suit schedule

'B' property bearing site No.45, katha No.135/4, propert No.81/2 of

Horamavu village and it is mentioned that they have exchanged their

properties to each other. The ExP87 is certified copy of tax paid

receipt in the name of plaintiff No.13 Sonny Mathew. The ExP88 is

certified copy of encumbrance certificate for the period from

01/06/1989 to 31/03/2005 wherein the entries regarding sale of site

No.44, 45 katha No.135/4 by defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of K.

Padmavathi on 13/01/1992 and in turn sale of said property by K.
128
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

padmavathi in favour of Shankar Gowda Patil on 05/11/2001 and there

is entry that Sonny Mathew and Shankaragowda patil have exchanged

their property. The ExP89 is certified copy of encumbrance certificate

for the period from 01/04/2003 to 01/07/2006 relating to site No.45

katha No.135/4 of Horamavu village in the name of Sonny Mathew.

The ExP90 is Certified copy of sale deed dated 13/01/1992 executed

by defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of K. Padmavahy in respect of sites

No.44 and 45 of Horamavu village as per the bounday mentioned in

the said sale deed.

65. The ExP91 is certified copy of plaint in O.S.No. 4270/2010 of

City Civil Judge, Bengaluru filed by Y.N. Konda Reddy S/o C.

Narayana Reddy against the defendants, The Commissioner, BBMP,

Bengaluru and 25 other defendants for Mandatory Injunction and

permanent injunction. The ExP101 is information furnished by

Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP, to Narayanan Unni called under

RTI Act relating to Form No. 10 and 12 of Sy.No.81/2, khatha

No.122/2, House list No.21 of Horamavu grama panchayath and it is
129
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

mentioned that the said information and document is furnished. The

ExP102 and ExP103 are Demand registers wherein there is entry of

name of T.N. Narayanan unni to given No.122/2. The ExP104 is

information furnished by Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP, to R.

Madhusoodhana Karnavar called under RTI Act relating to Form No.

10 and 12 of Sy.No.81/2, khatha No.122/2, House list No.38, 39 of

Horamavu grama panchayath and it is mentioned that the said

information and document is furnished. The ExP105 and ExP106 are

demand register wherein there is entry of name of R. Madhusoodhana

Karnavar site No.38/39 of Horamavu village. The ExP107 is

information furnished by Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP to

Sahadevan Pillai called under RTI Act relating to Form No. 10 and 12

of Sy.No.81/2, khatha No.122/2, House list No.37 of Horamavu grama

panchayath and it is mentioned that the said information and

document is furnished. The ExP108 and ExP109 are Demand registers

wherein there is entry of name of A. Sahadevan Pillai. The ExP110 is

information furnished by Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP,
130
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Horamavu sub-division, Bengaluru to J.H.S. & Partners, No.15,

Devatha Plaza, Residency road, Bengaluru regarding information

called bythe RTI Act relating to Sy.No.81/1 and information furnished

was with Sy.No. 81/1 of Horamavu revenue property. Hence house

list katha is not available in their office and further Sy.No. 81/2 is also

revenue property and house list katha are not available in the office

and further Sy.No.81/1 and 81/2 of Horamavu village are called by

Jayanthinagara extension. The ExP111 to ExP128 are marked as

photographs belonging to schedule property and ExP129 C.D. of the

said photographs. The ExP130 and ExP131 are two applications filed

under RTI Act by JHS and partners to the BBMP, Bengaluru for

furnishing information as called in the said application and as per

ExP132 and ExP133 the Asst. Revenue Officer, BBMP, Horamavu

village Bengaluru furnished information that at present Sy.No.81/2

and 81/3 katha No.25 are comes within the jurisdiction of Horamavu

village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk and the 21 site

holders are paid taxes under SAS for the 1, 2 nd and 3rd cross road
131
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

properties of the said survey number and further information furnished

that in cross No.1, 2 and 3 road there are 21 buildings in Sy.No.81/2

and 81/3 for further information furnished that relating to agriculture

in the said land information may by obtained from the Tahsildar.

66. The defendant No.1 examined as DW.1 and deposed the

evidence as discussed above and in support of oral evidence not

marked any documents. The defendant No.5 Y.N. Kondareddy S/o

Narayana Reddy examined as DW.2 and deposed the evidence and

discussed above and in support of oral evidence marked ExD1 to

ExD50 and ExD63 to ExD82. The ExD1 is original sale deed dated

01/03/2004 executed by defendant No.1 Narayanappa and his wife

and children and defendants No.2, defendant No.3 and his children in

favour of defendant No.5 Y.N. Konda Reddy in respect of land

measuring 1 acre 17 guntas including 6 guntas kharab in Sy.No.81/2

of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk

bounded by land of Baluki Dasappa, West: land of Baluki Dasappa,

North by : land of Padmavathi and South: land of Baluki Dasappa.
132
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

The ExD2 is original rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 executed by

defendant No.1, his wife and children, defendant No.2, defendant

No.3 and his children in favour of defendant No.5 rectifying the sale

deed executed on 01/03/2004 as per ExD1, wherein the boundary is

made rectified as west: Jayanthi grama, gomala land, North:

Vemanna's land, South:Padmavathi's land. The ExD3 is Mutation

defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of 1 acre

07 guntas in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village. The ExD4 is record of

right of Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village discloses name of

MuniVenkatamma W/o B. Dasappa to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas,

name of Padmavathi Madireddy entered to the extent of 30 guntas and

name of Y.N. Kondareddy S/o Narayana Reddy to the extent of 1 acre

7 guntas. The ExD5 is Atlas of Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu village and

ExD6 is Tippani of said land. The ExD7 is from No.5 relating to land

in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village, ExD8 is Karnataka Revision

Settlement Aakarband (utharu). The ExD9 is Record of Right of 81/3
133
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

measuring 1 acre 7 guntas of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bengaluru East taluk discloses the name of defendant No.5 Y.N.

Konda Reddy as owner and cultivator of the said land for the year

2004-2005. The ExD10 is encumbrance certificate for the period from

01/06/1989 to 06/06/2002, wherein there is entry regarding sale of 1

acre 7 guntas in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bengaluru south taluk by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant

No.5/Y.N.Kondareddy and also Rectification deed dated 29/02/2004

executed by defendants No.1 to 3 to defendant

No.5/Y.N.Kondaredddy.

67. The ExD11 is endorsement issued by Horamavu grama

panchayath on 15/12/2004 mentioning that relating to khatha

No.122/1, 122/2, 129/3, 135/4 of Sy.No. 81/2 and 81/3 of Horamavu

village, there are no records standing in the name of Narayanappa,

Nagaraj and Jayaram in their records. The ExD12 is copy of plaint in

OS.No.983/2004 of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Bengaluru Rural District and

it was returned by the said court. The ExD13 is marked in evidence as
134
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

certified copy of the sale deed dated 15/04/1972 subject to objection

of production of original documents. But in the said document the

written subject matter is not in readable condition, hence he said

document is not disclosed and not taken into consideration, since his

original document is also not produced. The ExD14 to ExD21 are

endorsements issued by BBMP, Bengaluru on application filed by

Y.N. Kondareddy under RTI Act relating to information called in

respect of House list Nos.122/1, 122/2, 135/4, 129/2, 129/3, site

numbers 28, 29, 27, 26, 21, 41, 38, 39, 45, 6, 7, 36, 44, 45 and 42 and

BBMP informed that relating to said sites in Sy.No. 81/2, new

Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu village there are no records i.e. the lay out

plan, sanctioned plan, in their office records. The ExD22 is

endorsement issued by Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk informing that

the land bearing Sy.No.81/3 measuring 1 acre 07 guntas of Horamavu

village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk, there is no order of

conversion for non agricultural purpose. In ExD23 M.R.No.16/2004-

05 dated 09/08/2004, ExD24 M.R. No.48/2003-04 dated 29/03/2004
135
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

and ExD25 continuation of page of ExD23 MR 16/2004-2005 relating

to transfer of 1 are 07 guntas in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu village from

Narayana Reddy to Y.N. Konda Reddy. The ExD26 record of right of

Sy.No.81/3 of 1 acre 07 guntas of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram

Hobli, Bengaluru East taluk for the year 2008-09 discloses the name

of defendant No.5 Y.N. Kondareddy as owner and cultivator of the

said land. The ExD27 is copy of Atlas of Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu

village. The ExD28 is endorsement issued by Ramamurthy Nagar

police Station on the application of Y.N. Kondareddy informing that

there are no cases registered against Ravichandra in their police

station and ExD29 is copy of application filed by Y.N. Kondareddy to

Ramamurthy Nagar police station under RTI Act calling the

information and ExD30 is from 'A' of Right to Information Act given

by Y.N. Konda Reddy to the police station. The ExD31 is letter

regarding information furnished by Sub-Registrar, Banasawadi to Y.N.

Kondareddy filed under RTI Act. The ExD32 is endorsement issued

by Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru to Y.N. Konda Reddy relating to
136
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

the information called by Y.N. Konda Reddy about conversion of land

bearing Sy.No. 81/2 of Horamavu village for non agriculture purpose

and Deputy Commissioner furnished information that there are no

records in their office relating to information called by Y.N.

Kondareddy. The ExD33 and 34 are tax paid receipts. The ExD35 is

application given by Y.N. Konda Reddy to Tahsildar, Bengaluru East

Taluk for surveying the land and making phode in Sy.No.81/2

measuring 1 acre 07 guntas of Horamavu village. The ExD36 is

information furnished by Revenue Officer BBMP Ramamurthy Nagar,

Sub-Divison Bengaluru on application of Y.N. Konda Reddy and

information furnished that katha relating to Sy.No.81/2 new

Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu grama panchayath Ramamurthy nagar sub-

division which is comes within the jurisdiction of BBMP but in the

revenue record the said documents are not available. The ExD37 is

application filed by Y.N. Kondareddy BBMP Bengaluru under RTI

Act for furnishing the information and to the said application

information was furnished as per ExD38.
137
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

68. The Further ExD39 is certified copy of sale deed dated

17/07/1991 discloses that Narayanappa S/o Late Venkataswamappa,

Nagaraj S/o late Venkataswamappa and Jayarama S/o

Venkataswamappa i.e. defendants No.1 to 3 have sold 30 guntas of

land in Sy.No. 81/2 of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bengaluru south taluk in favour of defendant No.4 Madireddy

Sripadmavathi W/o Jagadisha. The ExD40 is certified copy of order

sheet in O.S.No.1208/2004 of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) Bengaluru

Rural filed by Lazares K against Kondareddy Y.N. and ExD 41 is

certified copy of oder on I.A.No.1 in the said suit. The ExD42 is

information furnished by Asst. Executive Engineer, BBMP, Bengaluru

Horamavu sub-division of application of Y.N. Konda Reddy filed

under RTI Act and information called was whether lay out plan,

sanctioned plan, and any permission to construct the residential house

in respect of Sy.No.81/2 (old) New Sy.No.81/3 measuring 1 acre 13

guntas of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk

comes under the Horamavu grama presently comes under BBMP
138
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Bengaluru was issued and information furnished was that as per the

BBMP record, the survey sketch, sanctioned plan and construction

permission documents are not available in their records and also

regarding issuance of said documents there are no documents

available in their records. Further in ExD43 is information furnished

by Asst. Executive Engineer BBMP Horamavu sub-division to Y.N.

Kondareddy on application filed by him caling the information that as

per the office records of BBMP in respect of Sy.No.81/2 (old) new

Sy.No.81/3 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas of Horamavu village, K.R.

Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk earlier called Bengaluru south

taluk comes under the Horamavu grama panchayath, whether any

endorsement/letter was issued regarding work done in the said survey

number by the BBMP and to the said information the Assistant

Executive Engineer furnished information that there are no documents

available in their records regarding work done in the said survey

numbers by the BBMP.
139
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

69. The ExD44 is Record of Right of Sy.No. 81/3 measuring 1 acre

07 guntas of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south

taluk for the year 2005-2006 discloses the name of Y.N. Kondareddy

as owner and cultivator of the said land. The ExD45 is record of right

of Sy.No.81/3 measuring 1 acre 07 guntas of Horamavu village, K.R.

Puram Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk for the year 2009-2010 discloses

the name of Y.N. Kondareddy as owner and cultivator of the said land.

The ExD46 is certified copy of the survey sketch regarding fixing of

the boundary of Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu village and ExD47 mahazar

conducted at the time of fixing the boundaries of the land. The ExD48

is letter regarding information furnished by Asst. Revenue Officer,

BBMP Ramamurty nagar sub-division, Mahadevapura division,

bengaluru on application of Y.N. Kondareddy and information called

was that as per the record of BBMP katha of house list No.122/1,

122/2, 135/4, 129/2, 129/3 in respect of Sy.No.81/2 (old) Sy.No.81/3

measuring 1 acre 13 guntas of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bengaluru East taluk earlier called Bengaluru South Taluk comes
140
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

under Horamavu grama panchayath issued in favour of Narayanappa,

Nagaraja and Jayaram sons of Venkataswamappa @ Chikabbaiah and

information furnished was that house list khatha No. not given from

BBMP. The ExD49 is letter regarding information furnished by Asst.

Executive Engineer, BBMP, Horamavu sub-division on application of

Y.N. Kondareddy under RTI Act and information called was whether

the work regarding trenching for water supply and also digging the

drainage if any done in Sy.No.81/2, new Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu

village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East taluk site No.44 khatha

No.135/4, then information to be furnished and the Assistant

Executive Engineer furnished the information through the BBMP no

trenches and drainage were not made in the said land and also there is

no order for making such trenches and drainages in the said land. The

ExD50 is endorsement issued by Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru

North taluk to Y.N.Konda reddy informing about non filing of any

case for purchase of land in Sy.No.81/3 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas in

violation of section 79(A) and (B) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
141
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

70. The ExD63 is certified copy of letter furnishing the information

by Secretary, Hennagara grama panchayath to Y.N. Kondareddy on the

application filed by Y.N. Kondareddy calling the information that

whether the President Grama panchayath is authorised to issue

permission for construction of building with sanctioned plan and

answer was given 'No'. Further two to three information called and

Secretary was answered to the said information and ExD64 is Mysore

Village Panchayath and Local Boards Act copy and same is furnished

by Secretary, Hennagara panchayath along with the information given

in ExD63. The ExD65 is certified copy of tax paid receipt. The

ExD66 is certified copy of Record of Right of Sy.No.81/2 measuring 1

acre 07 guntas of Horamavu village for the year 2011-2012, wherein

name of Y.N. Kondareddy is appeared as owner and possessor of the

said property. The ExD67 certified copy of MR No.48/2003-04

regarding transfer of 1 acre 07 guntas in Sy.No. 81/2 of Narayanappa

to Y.N. Kondareddy. ExD68 is information furnished by Senior Sub-

Registrar, Banasawadi, Bengaluru to Y.N. Konda Reddy on
142
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

application filed by him under RTI Act and information called was,

there is compulsion to accept registration of site in which from No.9,

10, 11, 12 or khatha in the name of the vendor and reply given was

registration had been done as per direction given in Circular

No.RGN/12/09-10 dated 13/12/2009 issued by Inspector General of

Registration and Commissioner of Stamp. The ExD69 is letter of

information furnished by Tahsildar, Bengaluru taluk to Y.N.

Kondareddy on application filed by him as per the RTI Act for

furnishing order copy regarding conversion of Sy.No.81/1, 81/2 of

Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East taluk for non-

agriculture purpose and reply given was that the concerned record not

available in the office. The ExD70 is letter of information furnished

by the Secretary of Rural Development and panchayath Raj

Department to Y.N. Kondareddy on application filed by him under

RTI Act along with the ಕಟಟಡಗಣ ನಮಮಣರದ ಮಮಲಲ ಗಮಗಮ ಪಪಚಮಯತಗಳ

ನಯಪತಗಣ ನಯಮಗಳಳ, 1994 Act copy. The ExD71 is letter of

information furnished by Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP,
143
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Horamavu Sub-division, Bengaluru to Y.N.Kondareddy on application

filed by him under RTI Act and the information furnished that on

25.4.2017 Sy.No.81/1, 81/2 become the revenue property and relating

to said Sy.No. House list katha information furnished that there is no

Notification from the Government or BBMP declaring Jayanthinagar

badavane and earlier the same is comes within the jurisdiction of

Horamavu grama panchayath and afterwards it is merged with the

BBMP. The ExD72 is information furnished by Assistant Executive

Engineer, Horamavu sub-division, BBMP on application of Y.N.

Kondareddy, the information called to furnish the documents relating

to merger of Sy.No.81/2, 81/3 and Sy.No.81/1 new Sy.No.81/4 of

Horamavu grama panchayath to BBMP, Bengaluru and for that the

Assistant Executive Engineer furnished the information. The ExD73 is

letter of information furnished by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East taluk,

K.R. Pura to Y.N. Kondareddy on application filed by him under RTI

Act that Sy.No.73/2 of Horamavu village is Gomala property and in

this property the hakkupathra of the sites issued for public but this
144
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

area is not mentioned as Jayanthinagar grama in the revenue records

and in the list of revenue villages there is no entry regarding Jayanthi

nagar village. The ExD74 is letter of information furnished by

Tahsildar Bengaluru East Taluk, K.R. Pura to Y.N. Kondareddy filed

by him under RTI Act to furnish the record of rights and mutation

relating to Sy.No.73 of Horamavu village and information furnished

that relating to said Survey number, there is no mutation number

mentioned in the Record of Right and only available record of right is

furnished and same is produced with ExD74 i.e. Record of Right of

Sy.No.73 of Horamavu village and it discloses the said land is

Government Gomala land. The ExD75 is letter of information

furnished by Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, K.R.Pura, Bengaluru on

application of Y.N. Kondareddy filed under RTI Act and information

furnished that relating to Sy.No.81/2 and 81/3 of Jayanthi nagar,

Bengaluru East Taluk, there is no entry in the revenue records relating

to Jayanthi Nagar. Hence information regarding RTC and mutation of

said Sy.No.81/2 and 81/3 of Jayanthi nagara grama, Bengaluru East
145
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Taluk was not furnished. The ExD76 letter of information furnished

by Asst. Revenue Officer BBMP, Horamavu Sub-Division on

application of Y.N. Konda Reddy is under RTI Act and he called the

information furnished that Sy.No.81/2 new Sy.No. No.81/3 measuring

1 acre 07 guntas and 6 guntas of kharab land of Horamavu grama

panchayath, K.R. Pura hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk is presently ward

No.25 on 14/08/2017 , the information furnished in the letter under

RTI Act that the said Sy.No. is of Jayanthinagar village and on what

basis Jayanthi nagar was mentioned, the Asst. Revenue Officer

furnished the information that earlier the said property is within the

jurisdiction of Horamavu grama panchayath, K.R. Puram hobli,

Bengaluru East Taluk and now it is included in BBMP and ward

No.25 on 16.1.2007. The ExD77 information furnished by Asst.

Revenue Officer, BBMP, Bengaluru to Y.N.Kondareddy on

application filed by him to furnish the documents relating to issue of

construction permission to 21 site holders and they have paid

kandayam relating to properties in 1st, 2nd and 3rd of Sy.No.81/2 and
146
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

81/3 of Jayanthinagar village in K.R. Puram hobli, Bengaluru East

Taluk and he called the documents construction permission and

sketch relating to said 21 site holders and the Asst. Revenue Officer

furnished the information that the said 21 site holders paid tax relating

to ward No.25 in Sy.No.81/2, new Sy.No.81/3 of Jayanthinagar. But

regarding lay out plan, construction permission, conversion of the land

documents are not available in th office. The ExD78 is letter of

information furnished by Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP,

Horamavu sub-division on application of Y.N. Kondareddy under RTI

Act, the information called by Y.N. Kondareddy to furnish the

notification regarding merger of Sy.No.81/2 new Sy.No.81/3, new

Sy.No.81/4 of Horamavu village in BBMP and the Assistant Revenue

Officer to furnished the information to Y.N. Kondareddy. The ExD79

is certified copy of judgment in MFA 3342/2014 (CPC) of Hon'ble

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru wherein the present defendant

No.5 Y.N. Kondareddy against defendants challenging the order

passed on IA No.19 dated 03/04/2014 in this suit U/O 39 Rules 1 and
147
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

2 of CPC and said appeal was disposed off. The ExD80 to ExD82 are

Record of Rights relating to Sy.No.73 of Horamavu village, wherein

there is entry that the said land is Gomala land.

71. The defendant No.25 examined as DW.3 and he filed his

affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as discussed above and in

support of oral evidence DW.3 marked the documents ExD51 to

ExD62. The ExD51 is registered sale deed dated 18/12/1991 executed

by Narayanappa, Nagaraja, Jayaram/defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of

N.S. Kaimal S/o Sridhar Kaimal in respect of residential building

bearing site No.46 in portion of House List khata No.135/4,

Horamavu village, K.R. Puram hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk

measuring East to West 37 feet and North to South 30 feet. The

ExD52 is registered sale deed dated 29/12/1991 executed by

Narayanappa, Nagaraja, Jayaram defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of

defendant No.10 P. Vijayan S/o T.P. Raghavan Nair in respect of site

No.47, House List khata No.122/1 of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram

hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring East to West 39+37/2 feet
148
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

and North to South 30 feet. The ExD53 is original sale deed dated

13/07/2001 executed by one P. Vijayan S/o T.P. Raghavan Nair and

N.S. Kaimal S/o Sridhar Kaimal in favour of M.Malini W/o V. Rajan

in respect of property bearing site No.47 katha No.122/1 and site

No.46 katha No.135/4 situated at Horamavu village, K.R. Puram

Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk. The ExD54 is original sale deed dated

14/06/2004 executed by one M. Malini W/o E. Rajan in favour of

Shinode P.U. S/o M.P. Unni Raman Kutty Nair and Nisha P.V. W/o

Shinode P.U. in respect of northern portion of vacant site No.47 and

site No.46 katha No.122/1 and 135/4 ofhv , Bengaluru East Taluk

measuring East to West 27 feet and North to South 30.5 feet. In

ExD55 three demand registers are marked for the year 1992-93 which

are in the names of N.S. Kaimal, P. Vijayan and Shinode P.U. and

Nisha P.U. The ExD56 is certified copy of order in

W.P.No.25591/2011 (GM-CTC) clubbed with W.P.Nos.2715/2011 &

33642/2009. The ExD57 is demand register relating to katha No.122/1

and site No.46 and 47 in the joint name of P.V. Shinode and Nisha. In
149
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

ExD58 eight tax paid receipts are marked. The ExD59 is encumbrance

certificate for the period from 01/06/1989 to 31/03/2004, wherein

there is entry regarding sale of site No.47 and 46 by T. Vijayan and

N.S. Kaimal to M. Malini. The ExD59 is encumbrance certificate for

the year from 01/04/2004 to 21/01/2005 wherein the entry regarding

sale of site No.46 and 47 by M. Malini in favour of Shinode P.U. and

Nisha. In ExD60 three documents are marked as borewell completion

report with bills. In ExD61 three photographs are marked and in

ExD62 three negatives of ExD61 are marked.

72. The plaintiffs of OS.No.16322/2005 contention that they are

purchasers of the sites formed in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village by

the defendants No.1 to 3 and after purchasing the sites, they have

obtained license from the concerned Horamavu Grama Panchayath

and constructed building and residing in their houses. But the

defendant No.5 claiming that he has purchased 1A-7Gs in Sy.No.81/2

of Horamavu Village from defendants No.1 to 3, but already layout

was formed in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village by defendant and
150
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

there is no land remains in the said land. Hence claim of defendant

No.5 is not proper. Further the plaintiff of OS.No.16322/2005

contended that the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in

respect of 1A-7Gs of Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village in favour of

defendant No.5 is illegal, void and not binding on them. The said

plaintiffs in OS.No.16322/2005 prays to decree the suit declaring that

the sale deed dated 01/03/2004 executed by the defendants No.1 to 3

in favour of defendant No.5 and after rectification deed dated

29/03/2004 are null and void and also prays directing the concerned

revenue authorities to cancel entries made in the ROR pertaining to

Sy.No.81/2 and phoding said Sy.No.81/3 and also directing the

concerned survey and land record authorities to cancel the phoding

done in the name of defendant No.5.

73. The said plaintiffs in OS.No.16322/2005 are individual persons

as per their contention taken in the plaint and they have purchased

individual sites from defendants No.1 to 3. But all plaintiffs are not

examined before the Court. The plaintiff No.6 examined as PW.1 and
151
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

deposed the evidence as discussed above and plaintiff No.5 is

examined as PW.2 and deposed the evidence as discussed above. The

PW.1 marked ExP7 certified copy of sale deed dated 29/02/1991

regarding purchase of site by plaintiff No.1 Renuka from defendants

No.1 to 3. The PW.1 marked ExP13 certified copy of the sale deed

dated 18/12/1991 marked regarding purchase of site by plaintiff No.2

Shylaja from defendants No.1 to 3. The PW.1 marked ExP19 the

certified copy of the sale deed dated 13/01/1992 regarding purchase of

site by the plaintiff No.3 P.M. Raveendran from defendants No.1 to 3.

The ExP25 is certified copy of sale deed dated 13/01/1992 regarding

purchase of site by P.M. Hareendran from defendants No.1 to 3. The

PW.1 marked Ex.P30 certified copy of the sale deed dated 20/02/1992

regarding purchase of site by the plaintiff No.6 P.N. Narayanan Unni

from defendants No.1 to 3. The PW.1 marked ExP41 certified copy of

the sale deed regarding purchase of site by plaintiff No.8 P. Ajayan

from C.K. Manohara Nandyala on 13/02/2002. The ExP55 is certified

copy of the sale deed dated 11/06/2001 regarding purchase of site by
152
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

plaintiff No.9 Madusudhan Karnavar from Prashank Radha Krishnan.

The ExP56 is certified copy of sale deed dated 25/03/1992 regarding

purchase of site by Prashanth Radha Krishnan from GPA Holder of

defendants No.1 to 3. The ExP57 is certified copy of sale deed dated

29/03/1992 regarding purchase of site by Prashanth Radha Krishnan

from Karnataka Nair Services Society. The ExP73 is certified copy of

sale deed dated 29/01/2004 regarding purchase of site by plaintiff

No.11 B. Kishore Kumar from the Karnatka Nair Services Society.

The ExP81 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 18/12/1991

regarding purchase of site by plaintiff No.12 R. Gopala Krishnan from

defendants No.1 to 3. The ExP85 is certified copy of the sale deed

dated 05/11/2011 regarding purchase of site by plaintiff No.13 Sony

Mathew from K. Padmavathi. The ExP86 is exchange deed dated

25/11/2004 between plaintiff No.13 Sony Mathew and Shankar

Gowda Patil relating to their sites.

74. The defendants No.1 to 3 have denied regarding execution of

sale deeds relating to the sites in favour of the plaintiffs. Further the
153
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

defendants No.1 to 3 denied regarding formation of sites in

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village by them and sold the sites formed in

the said land in favour of plaintiffs. The defendants No.1 to 3

contention that, they have not formed any sites in Sy.No.81/2 of

Horamavu Village. The defendants No.1 to 3 contention that they have

sold 1A-7Gs + 6 gunts of kharab land to the defendant No.5 Y.N.

Konda Reddy of OS.No.16322/2005 and plaintiff of OS

No.3483/2005 on 01/03/2004. Further said Y.N. Konda

Reddy/defendant No.5 of OS.No.16322/2005 and plaintiff in

OS.No.3483/2005 examined as DW.2 and he deposed the evidence

that the defendants No.1 to 3 have sold 1A-13Gs of land in Sy.No.81/2

of Horamavu Village in his favour and thereafter executed the

rectification deed in his favour and he has got mutated katha of the

said property in his name and said Sy.No.81/2 was phoded as

Sy.No.81/3 and record of right of the said land is standing in his name.

He further contended that he is owner in possession and enjoyment of

the said extent of 1A-13Gs of land in Sy.No.81/2 (new No.81/3). The
154
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

said defendant No.5 denied regarding formation of 47 sites in

Sy.No.81/2 of measuring 1A-24Gs of Horamavu Village by

defendants No.1 to 3. In support of oral contention the defendant

No.5/DW.2 marked ExD1 original sale deed dated 01/03/2004

regarding purchase of 1A-13Gs land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village by him from defendants No.1 to 3 and also produced ExD2

rectification deed dated 29/03/2004 executed by defendants No.1 to 3

in his favour rectifying the boundaries towards West, North, South in

the sale deed. Further as per ExD3 MR.No.48 the katha of 1A-7Gs in

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village transferring in the name of defendant

No.5 Y.N. Konda Reddy from defendants No.1 to 3. Further as per

ExD4 record of rights of Sy.No.81/2 measuring 1A-7Gs of Horamavu

Village for the year 2004-05 the name of defendant No.1 appeared as

owner and cultivator. Further the name of Padmavathy Madireddy

appeared as owner to the extent of 13 guntas and name of

Munivenkatamma appeared as owner to the extent of 1A-20Gs.
155
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

75. The ExD5 is Atlas of Sy.No.81/2. The ExD6 is Tippani of

Sy.No.81/3, ExD7 is from No.5 of Sy.No.81/3 and ExD8 is Karnataka

Revision Settlement Akarbank Utar relating to Sy.No.81/3 measuring

1A-7Gs of Horamavu Village. The ExD9 is ROR of Sy.No.81/3 of

Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk for the

period 2002 to 2005 wherein the name of defendant No.5 Y.N. Konda

Reddy appeared as owner and to the extent of 1A-7Gs as owner and

possessor and way of possession appeared in column No.10 as per

MR.No.48/2003-04 dated 07/07/2004. That as per ExD1 said Y.N.

Konda Reddy purchased 1A-7Gs of land in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu

Village from defendants No.1 to 3 and as per the ExD3 mutation

appeared in the revenue records and in ExD4 record of rights name of

Y.N. Konda Reddy appeared in the revenue records as cultivator of the

land. Under the circumstances the burden is on the plaintiff to prove

that the said land Sy.No.81/2 to an extent of 1A-24Gs of Horamavu

Village the defendants No.1 to 3 formed 47 sites and sold to the
156
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

different purchasers through their GPA holder defendant No.4. But to

prove the said fact the plaintiffs have not produced the conversion

order copy of the land measuring 1A-24Gs of Sy.No.81/2 of

Horamavu Village for non-agricultural purpose issued by the

competent authority along with lay out plan, sketch of the said land

and also house list number given to the said 47 sites by the competent

revenue authority.

76. The plaintiff contended that to the sites purchased by them

house list, katha number 135/4, 121/2, 122/2, 129/2 and 129/3 were

given. But to prove the said fact the plaintiffs have not produced any

specific documents. As discussed above there are 15 plaintiffs in

OS.No.16322/2005 and all are claiming independent relief. But all the

plaintiffs have not examined. Only plaintiffs No.5 & 6 are examined

as PW.1 and PW.2 as discussed above. The PW.1 in his cross

examination deposed the evidence that "It is true that, plaintiff

No.14 & 15 have not authorized to me to give evidence on their

behalf. I do not remember who have executed the sale deed in
157
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

favour plaintiff No.2 to 5, 7 to 13." The PW.1 further deposed the

evidence that "It is true that in none of the sale deeds executed in

favour the plaintiffs survey number is mentioned." The PW.1

further deposed the evidence that "I am not aware if after

01/03/2004 the name of defendant No.5 is shown in the RTC of

Sy.No.81/2. It is true that the defendant No.1 to 3 have executed

rectification deed in favour defendant5 on 29/03/2004, the witness

states that they have challenged the same. It is true that after

rectification deed Sy.No.81/2 has been subdivided and Sy.No.81/3

is allotted. It is true that now the name of defendant No.5 is shown

in RTC in respect of Sy.No.81/3".

77. The PW.1 further deposed the evidence that "Now ExP2 is

shown to me. There is no reference to Sy.No.81/2 in Ex.P2. Now

ExP58 is shown to me, in this also there is no reference to

Sy.No.81/2. Now ExP31 produced in my suit is shown to me

Property No.81/2 is mentioned in this document but Sy.No.81/2 is

not mentioned. It is true that in none of the Encumbrance
158
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

Certificate produced by me Sy.No.81/2 is shown." The PW.1

further deposed the evidence that "It is true that as per my Sale

Deed one Padmavathi 4th defendant has executed the sale deed as

a General Power of Attorney holder of defendants No.1 to 3. I

have not produced her General Power of Attorney."

78. That as per the PW.1 he purchased site from defendnt No.4

Padmavathi Madireddy GPA Holder of defendants No.1 to 3. That in

the evidence of PW.1 the alleged General Power of Attorney executed

by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is not produced

and marked by PW.1 and PW.2. That after conclusion of the trial and

case posted for arguments in part, the plaintiff No.6 of

OS.No.16322/2005 filed IA No.31 U/o 16 Rule 2 of CPC praying to

summon the certified copy of Power of Attorney dated 30/12/1991

executed by Narayanappa, Nagaraj and Jayaram in favour of

Madireddy Padmavathi from the office of Sub-Registrar,

Krishnarajapura, Bengaluru. The said IA.No.31 was rejected by this

court on 23/09/2020. Aggrieved by the said Order the plaintiffs filed
159
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in

WP.No.1281/2020, wherein the order was passed by the Hon'ble High

Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru on 20/11/2020 by passing the order

that, copy of the subject document obtained from the office of the

jurisdictional Sub Registrar under RTI with the original covering letter

may be examined by the Court Below with participation of all the

participants and said Court shall take a decision after hearing the

parties thereon. Thereafter the plaintiff filed IA.No.33 U/o 7 Rule

14(3) R/w Sec.151 of CPC praying to produce the documents as per

the memo annexed to the said application. In the memo the documents

mentioned are certified copy of the registered Power of Attorney dated

30/12/1991 and covering letter dated 28/10/2020 issued by the Sub-

Registrar of Krishnarajapura, Bengaluru, further another one

document availment of the loan for construction of house by the

defendant N.5 is also produced. The IA.No.33 was partly allowed. The

only documents the power of attorney and covering letter are taken on

record. But mere production of certified copy alleged GPA said to
160
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

have been executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant

No.4 SriPadmavathi Madireddy is not suffiient and same has to be

proved by the plaintiff of OS.No.16322/2005. That the defendant No.4

Padmavathi Madireddy is the material person, because as per the

plaintiffs of OS.No.16322/2005 they have purchased sites through

GPA holer of defendants No1 to 3 i.e., defendant No.4 Padmavathi

Madireddy. The said defendant No.4 inspite of service of suit

summons not appeared and placed exparte. Even the plaintiffs of

OS.No.16322/2005 they have not made effort to lead the evidence of

witnesses of the alleged GPA dated 30/12/1991. Further as per the

direction of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No.1281/2020 it

is observed that the copy of the said documents obtained from the

office of Sub-Registrar under RTI of covering letter and may be

examined by the court below with participation of all the participants

and the said court can take decision after having th parties there on.

But the plaintiffs of OS.No.16322/2005 have not examined the

material witnesses of said GPA. Therefore regarding execution of GPA
161
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

by the defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is not proved

by the plaintiffs of OS.No.16322/2005.

79. The plaintiff No.6 of OS.No.16322/2005 examined as PW.1

further deposed evidence in his cross-examination that "It is true that

in all the sale deed properties are different, boundaries are

different and purchasers are different." The PW.1 further deposed

the evidence that "It is true that in all sale deeds house list numbers

are mentioned in the schedule. In any of the sale deeds it is not

mentioned and said sites are formed in Sy.No.81/2 near Sy.No.81/3

of Horamavu Village. It is true that, there is no mention in any of

the sale deed as how our vendor acquired the title over property.

It is true that it is not mentioned in any of the sale deeds that said

land has been converted for non-agricultural land and sites have

been formed." That in the sale deeds marked at Ex.P7, 13, 19, 25, 30,

42, 65, 67, 73, 79, 81, 85 and 86 there is no reference that in

Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East

Taluk, the sites mentioned in the said sale deeds are formed. Further to
162
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

prove that sites were formed in Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Village, the

plaintiffs of OS.No.16322/2005 have not produced the conversion

order copy issued by the competent authority along with the approved

sanctioned layout plan.

80. The defendant No.5 of OS.No.16322/2005 and plaintiff of

OS.No.3483/2005 Y.N. Konda Reddy examined as DW.2 marked

ExD15 endorsement discloses that house list No.129/2 site No.12

relating to Sy.No.81/2 new No.81/3 of Horamavu Village is not

available in the rcords. The Ex.D16 is endorsement discloses that no

sanction plan or layout plan relating to site No.20, 27, 28, 26, 21, 29,

41, 38, 39, 4, 5, 6, 36, 44, 45and 42 of Sy.No.81/2 and new

Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu Village are found in the records and such

documents are not in the name of Narayanappa, Nagaraj and Jayaram

in their office records. In ExD17 the defendant No.5 called

information regarding furnishing the copies of katha of site Nos.28,

29, 27, 26, 37, 21, 41, 38, 4, 5, 6, 7, 36, 42, 45, 43 and 23 in katha

Nos.122/2, 122/1, 135/4 of Horamavu Village and the revenue officer
163
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

furnished the information that Namuna No.9 & 10 of the said

properties are not in the name of Narayanappa, Nagaraj and Jayaram.

That further ExD18 is endorsement discloses that relating to the site

Nos.20, 29, 28, 27, 26, 37, 21, 41, 39, 4, 5, 6, 7, 36, 44, 45 and 42 of

Sy.No.81/2 new Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu Village for the period of

1991 to 2005 the lay out plan, sanction plan for construction of house,

issued are called by Y.N. Konda Reddy revenue officer information

that there are no said documents of document plan, sanction plan

available in the records. The ExD22 is endorsement issued by the

Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk mentioning that relating to

Sy.No.81/3 measuring 1A-7Gs of Horamavu Village there is no

conversion of land. Therefore from these exhibits discussed above it is

clear that land was Sy.No.81/2 (new No.81/3) measuring to an extent

of 1A-7Gs of Horamavu Village is not converted for non-agricultural

purpose and sites were not formed in the said land. Further the record

of rights for the year 2004-2005 & 2011-12 marked at ExD4 and

ExD9, ExD66 discloses that the land measuring 1A-7Gs in Sy.No.81/2
164
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

(new Sy.No.81/3) of Horamavu Village in the name of defendant No.5

Y.N. Konda Reddy is an agricultural land. Hence at the time of filing

the suit by the plaintiffs in the year 2005 the said land is agricultural

land. Further DW.2 marked ExD78 information furnished by the

Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP, Horamavu Division to the

defendant No.5 Y.N. Konda Reddy as possession and enjoyment it the

defendant No.5 called information regarding furnishing information

about inclusion of Sy.No.81/2 new Sy.No.81/3 and Sy.No.81/1 new

Sy.No.81/4 of Horamavu Village to the BBMP limit and information

is furnished by Assistant Revenue Officer that as per the Notification

No.UDD-92-MNY-200 dated 16/01/2007 Horamavu Village

Sy.No.81/2 and new Sy.No.81/3 and Sy.No.81/1 new Sy.No.81/4 are

included in the BBMP Limits. Therefore in the year2007 the said land

Sy.No.81/2 new Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu Village comes within the

jurisdiction of BBMP. Under the circumstances burden is on the

plaintiff to prove that till the suit schedule sites are in the limits of

Horamavu Grama Panchayath Limits. But to prove the said fact the
165
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

plaintiffs of OS.No.16322/2005 have not produced any documents and

further as per ExD78 the Sy.No.81/2 new Sy.No.81/3 of Horamavu

Village comes within the jurisdiction of BBMP. But the plaintiffs have

not produced katha certificate and katha extract of respective sites

purchased by them issued by BBMP Authority to prove their lawful

possession and enjoyment over the sites purchased by them. Therefore

plaintiffs of OS.No.16322/2005 have failed to prove their lawful

possession and enjoyment of the sites. That in the citation reported in

ILR 2005 Karnataka 884 relied by the defendant No.5 counsel in

OS.No.16322/2005 and plaintiff counsel in OS.No.34832005 counsel

it is held that "Unless the Court is satisfied with regard to material

details in the light of the material evidence with regard to the

identification of the property, no declaration and injunction can

be granted." Further in the another citation reported in ILR 2007

Karnataka 339 relied by the defendant No.5 counsel counsel in

OS.No.16322/2005 and plaintiff counsel in OS.No.34832005 counsel

it is held that "In a suit for declaration of ownership and
166
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to prove his title to the

property and also his possession over the property on the date of

the suit-Further held, when the plaintiff is not in possession of the

property on the date of suit, relief of permanent injunction is not

an appropriate consequential relief-The appropriate relief

consequential to declaration of ownership would be recovery of

possession of the property -When the plaintiff is out of possession

of the property and does not seek relief for possession, a mere suit

for declaration is not maintainable-Court below was justified in

dismissing the suit as not maintainable-Appeals are dismissed".

The both citation discussed above applies to the present case in hand,

as in OS.No.16322/2005 the plaintiffs are failed to prove that they are

lawful owners in possession of their respective sites as mentioned in

the plaint. On the contrary the defendant No.5 in OS.No.16322/2005

and plaintiff in OS.No.3483/2005 proved that he is purchased 1 Acre

13 Guntas in Sy.No.81/2 (new Sy.No.81/3) of Hormvu village and

plaintiffs of OS.No.16322/2005 are illegally trespassed in his land
167
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

constructed house. Hence the plaintiffs of OS.No.16322/2005 are not

entitle for the reliefs claimed by them in said suit and plaintiffs of

OS.No.16322/2005 failed to prove Issues No.1 to 4. On the contrary

plaintiff of OS.No.3483/2005 proved that he is the absolute owner in

possession of the suit schedule 'A' property, hence the plaintiff of

OS.No.3483/2005 is entitle for the vacant possession of the suit

schedule 'B' properties from the respective defendants and also entitle

for the relief of declaration and possession and permanent injunction

as prayed. The citations referred by plaintiffs of OS.No.16322/2005

and defendants No.25 and 26 of OS.No.3483/2005 are not applicable

to the stand taken by them. The plaintiffs of OS.No.3483/2005 proved

Issues No1 to 5. Hence I answer Issue Nos.1 to 4 in

OS.N.16322/2005 in Negative and I answer Issues No.1 to 5 in

OS.No.3483/2005 in Affirmative.

81. Addl. Issue No.1 :
168
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

The defendants No.25 & 26 in OS.No.3486/2005 have filed

common written statement, wherein they have taken contention that

the plaintiff has not valued the suit on the market value of the schedule

property and Court Fee paid is in sufficient and prays to reject the

plaint. The defendant No.25 is examined as DW.3 as discussed above.

But in the entire examination in chief of DW.3, he has not deposed

regarding the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient and also

not narrated about the market value of the schedule property and also

not mentioned how much Court Fee is insufficient. The plaintiff of

OS.No.3483/2005 filed suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction

and Possession of 'B' schedule property and properly paid the Court

Fee. The defendants No.25 & 26 of OS.No.3483/2005 have failed to

prove additional Issue. Hence I answer Additional Issue in

OS.No.3483/2005 in Negative.

82. Issue No.5 in O.S.No.16322/2005 and Issue No.6 in

O.S.No.3483/2005:-
169
O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005

In view of above discussion I proceed to pass following:

:ORDER:

The suit of plaintiffs in OS.No.16322/2005 is hereby dismissed with costs.

The suit of plaintiff in OS.No.3483/2005 decreed with costs.

It is ordered and decreed that the plaintiff of OS.No.3483/2005 is absolute owner of schedule "A" property.

Further it is ordered and decreed that the defendants of OS.No.3483/2004 and their agents, servants, coolies, workers or anybody claiming under them are permanently restrained from interferring with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule 'A' property by the plaintiff.

It is ordered and decreed that the defendants No.5 to 10 and 16 of OS.No.3483/2004 are directed to hand 170 O.S.No.16322/2005 Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005 over vacant possession of schedule 'B' property in favour of plaintiff within one month from the date of this order. In case of failure on the part of defendants No.5 to 10 and 16, then the plaintiff of OS.No.3483/2005 is at liberty to get recover the possession of schedule 'B' property in due procedure of law.

Draw decree accordingly.

Keep original of this common Judgment in OS.No.16322/2005 and certified copy of common Judgment in OS.No.3483/2005.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, taken print out, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 22 nd day of September 2021).

(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE :ANNEXURE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 171

O.S.No.16322/2005 Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005 PW1 : T.N. Narayana Unni S/o Late T. Narayana Kurup PW2 : Sahadevan Pillai S/o Late Sri P. Achuthan Pillai DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF :

ExP1            : Power of Attorney
ExP2            : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate
ExP3            : Certified copy of assessment register extract
ExP4            : Certified copy of tax paid receipt
ExP5            : Certified copy of sanction plan
ExP6            : Certified copy of police complaint
ExP7            : Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 29/10/1991
ExP8            : Certified copy of Khata Extract
ExP9&10         : Certified copies of Tax paid receipts
ExP11&12        : Certified copies of Encumbrance Certificates
ExP13           : Certified copy of sale deed dated 18/12/1991
ExP14           : Certified copy of katha extract
ExP15&16        : Certified copies two tax paid receipts
ExP17&18        : Certified copies of two Encumbrance Certificates
ExP19           : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 13/01/1992
ExP20           : Certified copy of Katha Extract
ExP21&22        : Certified copies of two Tax paid receipts
                                172
                                                     O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment                                  C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005


ExP23&24     : Certified copies of two Encumbrance Certificates
ExP25        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 13/01/1992
ExP26        : Certified copy of Katha Extract
ExP27&28     : Certified copies of two Tax paid receipts
ExP29        : Certified copies of Encumbrance certificate
ExP30        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 20/02/1992
ExP31        : Certified copies of Encumbrance certificate
ExP32        : Certified copy     of   agreement      of   sale   dated
               05/10/1991
ExP33        : Certified copy of Katha Extract
ExP34&35     : Certified copies of two Tax paid receipts
ExP36        : Certified copy of building license
ExP37        : Certified copy of sanction plan
ExP38&39     : Certified copy of tax paid receipts
ExP40        : Certified copy of police complaints
ExP41        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 13/02/2002
ExP42        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 05/05/1992
ExP43        : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificates
ExP44        : Certified copy of Katha Extract
ExP45        : Certified copy of Tax paid receipts
ExP46        : Certified copy of building licensees
                                173
                                                     O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment                                  C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005


ExP47        : Certified copy of Sanction Planning
ExP48        : Certified copy of Certificate issued by Horamavu
               Grama Panchayath
ExP49to51    : Certified copy of three tax paid receipts
ExP52&53     : Certified copies of Encumbrance Certificates
ExP54        : Certified copy of police complaint
ExP55        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 11/06/2001
ExP56        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 25/05/1992
ExP57        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 29/03/1993
ExP58        : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate
ExP59        : Certified copy of Katha Extract
ExP60        : Certified copy of Tax paid receipts
ExP61        : Certified copy of building license
ExP62        : Certified copy of Tax paid receipt
ExP63        : Certified copy of Sanction Plan
ExP64        : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate
ExP65        : Certified copy of police complaint
ExP66&67     : Certified copy of 2 Tax paid receipts
ExP68        : Certified copy of Khata Extract
ExP69        : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate
ExP70        : Certified copy of Khata Extract
                               174
                                                     O.S.No.16322/2005
Common Judgment                                  C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005


ExP71        : Certified copy of Tax paid receipt
ExP72        : Certified copy of Sanction Plan
ExP73        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 29/01/2004
ExP74&75     : Certified copy of 2 Encumbrance Certificates
ExP76        : Certified copy of building license
ExP77&78     : Certified copy of 2 Tax paid receipts
ExP79        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 04/06/1993
ExP80        : Certified copy of Sanction Plan
ExP81        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 18/12/1991
ExP82        : Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate
ExP83        : Certified copy of Khata Extract
ExP84        : Certified copy of Tax paid receipt
ExP85        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 05/11/2001
ExP86        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 25/11/2004
ExP87        : Certified copy of Tax paid receipt
ExP88&89     : Certified copy of 2 Encumbrance Certificates
ExP90        : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 13/01/1992
ExP91        : Letter addressed to BBMP Horamavu Sub Division

for issuance of certified copy of Form No.10 & 12 of House list katha No.122/2, Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Grama Panchayath.

ExP92 : Form No.10 & 12 issued by BBMP 175 O.S.No.16322/2005 Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005 ExP93 : Letter addressed to the BBMP, Horamavu Sub Division for issuance of certified copy of Form No.10 and 12 of house list katha No.122/2, Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Grama Panchayath. ExP94 : Form No.10 & 12 issued by BBMP ExP95 : Letter addressed to the BBMP, Horamavu Sub Division for issuance of certified copy of Form No.10 and 12 of house list katha No.122/2, Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Grama Panchayath.

ExP96         : Form No.10 issued by BBMP
ExP97         : Letter addressed to the BBMP, Horamavu Sub

Division for issuance of certified copy of Form No.10 and 12 of house list katha No.122/2, Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Grama Panchayath. ExP98 : Form No.10 & 12 issued by BBMP ExP99 : Letter addressed to the BBMP, Horamavu Sub Division for issuance of certified copy of Form No.10 and 12 of house list katha No.122/2, Sy.No.81/2 of Horamavu Grama Panchayath. ExP100 : Form No.10 & 12 issued by BBMP ExP101 : Letter dated 12/01/2012 issued by Assistant Revenue Officer ExP102&103 : Certified copies of two demand registers ExP104 : Letter dated 24/01/2012 issued by Assistant Revenue Officer ExP105&106 : Certified copies of two demand registers 176 O.S.No.16322/2005 Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005 ExP107 : Letter dated 12/01/2012 issued by Assistant Revenue Officer ExP108&109 : Certified copies of two demand registers ExP110 : Letter issued by BBMP in favour of JHS and Partners ExP111to128 : 18 photos ExP129 : CD ExP130&131 : 2 applications filed under RTI Act ExP132&133 : 2 Informations furnished by BBMP to JHS and Partners WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS: DW1 : Narayanappa S/o Late Venkateshwarappa DW2 : Kondareddy S/o Narayana Reddy DW3 : Shinode P.U S/o M.P. Unni Raman Kutty Nair DW4 : S. Sridhar S/o Late K.M. Srinivasa Reddy EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFFENDANTS ExD1 : Original Sale Deed dated 01/03/2004 ExD2 : Original Rectification Deed dated 29/03/2004 ExD3 : Mutation register extract ExD4 : RTC extract ExD5 : Certified copy of Atlas ExD6 : Certified copy of Hissa Tippani 177 O.S.No.16322/2005 Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005 ExD7 : Certified copy of Form No.5 ExD8 : Certified copy of Karnataka Revision Settlement Akara Bhand ExD9 : RTC extract ExD10 : Encumbrance Certificate ExD11 : Endorsement issued by Horamavu Grama Panchayath ExD12 : Original plaint in OS.No.983/2004 ExD13 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 15/04/1972 ExD14to21 : 8 Endorsements issued by BBMP ExD22 : Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Bengaluru ExD23to25 : Three Mutation Register extracts ExD26 : RTC extract ExD27 : Certified copy of Tippani ExD28 : Endorsement issued by Police ExD29&30 : Copy of applications filed under RTI Act ExD31 : Details of information furnished under RTI Act ExD32 : Endorsement issued by D.C, Bengaluru ExD33&34 : 2 Tax paid receipts ExD35 : Copy of application submitted to Tahsildar ExD36 : Information furnished by BBMP ExD37 : Copy of application filed under RTI Act ExD38 : Information furnished by the BBMP ExD39 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 17/07/1991 178 O.S.No.16322/2005 Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005 ExD40 : Certified copy of order sheet in OS.No.1208/2004 ExD41 : Certified copy of order on I.A.No.I in OS.No.1208/2004 ExD42&43 : Endorsements issued by BBMP ExD44&45 : Two RTCs ExD46 : Certified copy of Survey Sketch ExD47 : Certified copy of Mahazar ExD48&49 : Two Endorsements issued by BBMP ExD50 : Endorsement issued by Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru ExD51 : Original Sale Deed dated 18/12/1991 ExD52 : Original Sale Deed dated 29/12/1991 ExD53 : Original Sale Deed dated 13/07/2001 ExD54 : Original Sale Deed dated 14/06/2004 ExD55 : Total 3 Tax demand registers from Gramapanchayath ExD56 : Copy of order in WP.No.25591/2011 ExD57 : 3 Copy of Tax demand registers by Gramapanchayath ExD58 : Total 9 Tax paid receipts ExD59 : Total 2 Encumbrance Certificates ExD60 : Receipt issued by Borewell company with completion report and estimate total three documents ExD61 : Total 3 photographs ExD62 : Total 3 negatives of ExD61 ExD63 : Certified copy of endorssement issued by Hennagara Grama Panchayath 179 O.S.No.16322/2005 Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005 ExD64 : Certified copy of Mysore Village Panchayath and Local Board Act ExD65 : Certified copy of the Tax paid receipt ExD66 : Certified copy of the RTC ExD67 : Certified copy of the mutation register extract ExD68 : Certified copy of the endorsements issued by Banaswadi Sub Registrar, (Ex.D68(1) & (2)) ExD69 : Certified copy of the endorsement issued by Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk ExD70 : Certified copy of the prevention of unauthorized Construction Act issued by Secretary Government of Karnataka ExD71&72 : Two Informations furnished by BBMP under RTI Act ExD73 : Endorsement issued by Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk ExD74&75 : Two Informations furnished by Tahsildar, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru East Taluk under RTI Act ExD76&77 : Two Informations furnished by BBMP under RTI Act ExD78 : Letter regarding information furnished by the Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP, Horamavu.

ExD79 : Certified copy of Judgment in MFA.No.3342/2014 (CPC) of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru 180 O.S.No.16322/2005 Common Judgment C/w O.S.No. 3483/2005 ExD80to82: Record of Rights XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bangalore District Court

In 1. Mrs. Renuka Vijayakumar W/O ... vs In 1. Sri. Narayanappa S/O Late ... on 22 September, 2021