Bangalore District Court
Shamsia Begum vs Teresa Tellis on 27 June, 2024
1 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
KABC010176742009
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 27 th day of June, 2024
PRESENT: SRI. GANGADHARA.K.N., B.A.,LLM.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.7805/2009 C/W. O.S.No. 6628/2013
O.S.No. 7805/2009
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Teresa Tellis
Bengaluru - 46,
by her legal heirs :
1. Bennet Tellis,
DEAD BY his legal heirs :
1(a) Florine Eula Joyce Tellis,
aged about 66 years.
W/o. Late Bennet Tellis,
17-2-45, Alwyin View Compound,
Suvana Lane,
Near Fr Muller Hospital,
Mangalore, Kankanady,
Dakshina Kannada,
Karnataka 575 002.
2 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
1(b) Kavya Tellis,
aged about 29 years,
Adoptive / Foster,
D/o. Late Bennet Tellis,
Ashraya Paying Guest for ladies,
790, 5th Main road,
Opposite Kuvempu Park,
B.T.M. Layout, II stage,
Bengaluru 560 076.
2. Loo Tellis V.
aged about 57 years,
D/o. Late Kolandai Swamy,
C/o. Victor Stanley,
Maria Krupa, ITC 3rd Cross,
Kammanahalli Main Road,
Bengaluru.
3. Rita Tellis,
aged about 55 years,
D/o. Late Kolandai Swamy,
R/o. No.134, 7th Cross,
Williams town,
Bengaluru 560 046.
4. Linet Lobo,
aged about 53 years,
D/o. Late Kolandai Swamy,
W/o. Normon Lobo,
R/o. No.134, 7th Cross,
Williams town,
Bengaluru 560 046.
5. Patricia Cardoza,
aged about 51 years,
D/o. Late Kolandai Swamy,
3 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
R/o. No.100, 7th Cross,
Williams town Extension,
Bengaluru 560 046.
6. Jude Tellis,
aged about 49 years,
S/o. Late Kolandai Swamy,
Scindia Garden,
Flat No.G-1, 11th Cross,
Sadashiva Temple road,
Kammanahalli Main Road,
Bengaluru 560 003.
7. Jerald Tellis,
aged about 47 years,
S/o. Late Kolandai Swamy,
R/o. Flat No.302,
G.M. Nilaya, No.5,
Ramesh Kumar Road,
R.S. Palya,
Bengaluru 560 003.
8. Beena Tellis,
aged about 45 years,
D/o. Late Kolandai Swamy,
R/o. 1St Cross,
No.3, Williams town,
Bengaluru 560 046.
9. Godwin Tellis,
aged about 43 years,
S/o. Late Kolandai Swamy,
Emirates Techno Casting LLC,
Ajman U.A.E. Post Box-2895,
Permanent R/o. No.134,
7th Cross, Williams town,
4 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
Bengaluru 560 046.
(By Sri.M.U.S. Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. The Commissioner,
Bruhath Mahanagara Palike,
Office of the Bruhath Mahanagara
Palike, Hudson Circle,
Bengaluru 560 001.
2. Assistant Commissioner,
East Division,
Bruhath Mahanagara Palike,
Queen's Road,
Bengaluru.
3. X. John Briato,
S/o. Late Xavier,
aged about 57 years.
4. X. Wilfred,
S/o. Late Xavier,
aged about 69 years,
having Bengaluru address at :
No.73, 3rd Cross,
Vannarpet Layout,
Viveknagar,
Bengaluru 560 047.
And permanent resident of :
No.13, Subramaniar Koil Street,
Subramanipuram,
Tiruchi 620 020.
5 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
5. Shamsia Begum,
aged about 41 years,
W/o. Anwar Sharieff,
No.47, Stephen's road,
Frazer Town,
Bengaluru 560 005.
(D1 & 2 : By Sri.T.P.
D3 : By Sri.M.S..
D5 : By Sri. S.C.R. Advocates
D4 : Ex-parte)
O.S.No.6628/2013
PLAINTIFF : Shamsia Begum,
W/o. Anwar Sharieff,
aged about 51 years,
No.80, Benson Cross road,
Benson Town,
Bengaluru 560 046.
(By Sri. S.C.R. Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Teresa Tellis,
W/o. Late Kolandai Swamy,
Since dead by L.Rs.
1(a) Rita Tellis,
D/o. Teresa Tellis,
aged about 56 years,
R/o. No.134, 7th Cross,
William's town,
Bengaluru 560 046.
6 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
1(b) Lobo Tellis V.
D/o. Teresa Tellis
aged about 53 years,
W/o. Normon Lobo,
R/o.No.134, 7th Cross,
William's town,
Bengaluru 560 046.
1(c) Jude Tellis,
aged about 49 years,
S/o. Late Kolandai Swamy,
Seindia Garden,
Flat No.G-1, 11th Cross,
Sadashiva Temple road,
Kammanahalli Main Road,
Bengaluru 560 003.
(By Sri.M.U.S. Advocate)
Date of Institution of the : 17/9/2009
suit
Nature of the suit : Specific Performance of
Contract
Date of commencement of : 5/3/2018
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 27/06/2024
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
14 09 10
(GANGADHARA.K.N.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
7 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
COMMON JUDGMENT
:Prayer of the plaintiff in OS No. 7805/09:
1. The plaintiff's suit is for the prayer for Specific
Performance of Contract seeking direction to the
defendant No.2 to execute the registered sale deed of the
suit property in terms of the lease cum sale deed dated
17/7/2003 and also seeking directions to the defendant
No.2 to treat the plaintiff as lessee in terms of the lease
cum sale, during the lease period 17/7/2003 to
16/7/2013. And also to hold the order dated 2/3/2009
wherein the defendant no.1 by his executive order has
canceled the lease cum sale dated 17/7/2003 executed
in favor of the plaintiff herein as null and void and also to
declare the sale deed dated 28/8/2007 and 11/2/2008
are not binding on the plaintiff, consequently sought the
relief of injunction restraining the defendants from
dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule
property.
8 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
Brief facts of the suit of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.7805/2009 are as follows :-
2. The suit property is the property bearing
No.134 situated at 7th cross, William's town, Ward No.91,
Bengaluru 560 005 measuring East to West 23 feet and
North to South 22 feet was the Corporation property. It
was leased to one Smt. Anjaleena, W/o. Xavier in the
year 1942. She without surrendering her lease and
leased premises to her Lessor the defendant no. 1 and 2,
but by handing over the leased premises to one Smt.
Gracy and Kolandaswamy (husband of the plaintiff), in
the year 1957 she relocated to Trichy, as her husband,
who was working in a Railway got transfer to the said
place. On 11/12/1959 both Gracy and Kolandaswamy
gave a representation to the defendant no. 1 and 2 to
treat them as their tenants. Accordingly the Corporation
vide their letter dated 3/3/1960 under Order
No.U815/1959-1960 have permitted Smt. Gracy to reside
9 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
in the suit property as tenant for a period of 6 months.
The plaintiffs have pleased that, Smt. Anjaleena wrote a
letter to the defendant No.2 informed them on she
vacating the suit property, by handing over the same to
Smt. Gracy and Kolandaswamy.
3. It is the plaintiffs further contention is that,
approximately in the year 1965-66 Smt. Gracy after
constructing her own house shifted her residence. It is
Kolandaswamy and his family members were continued
to be in possession. In facts and circumstances of this
case, the plaintiff, her husband claims to have been in
possession of the suit property since 1957. It is the
plaintiffs further contention is that, the Government vide
its order dated 18/5/1978 vide order bearing
No.HUD251/MNG77 permitted the defendant no.2 to
herein to sell the corporation Quarters to the occupants
of that day, for which the husband of the plaintiff herein
gave a representation to the Corporation for accepting
10 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
him as the occupant and also for agreeing to sell the suit
property in his favor. In the mean time, Kolandaswamy
passed away, its his wife the plaintiff continued the
occupation of the suit property. In the mean time, Smt.
Anjaleena being knew of the facts that its the defendant
no.2 is selling the quarters to the occupants, through a
land grabbers made an attempt to cause interference to
the plaintiff and her family members, allegedly created
some documents in collusion with the corporation
officials. The defendant No.1 authority after knowing all
these, conducted an enquiry, suspended the erred
officials. Thereafter the defendant No.1 authority called
the plaintiff to pay the entire arrears of rent, accordingly
the plaintiff claims to have paid Rs.1,400/- against the
arrears of rent for the period 1986 to 2003. And, on
27/6/2003 she also claims to have paid the sale
consideration of Rs.8,755/- fixed for the suit property.
On 7/7/2003 the defendant No.2 had executed the lease-
11 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
cum-sale agreement registered as document
No.1928/2003-04, according to which the said lease is
for 10 years. Thereafter the defendant No.2 agreed to
execute the registered sale deed. The said document is a
part performance under Section 53A of Transfer of
property Act.
4. She further contended that, in the year 2007
the defendant No.3 and 4 by claiming themselves as Lrs
of original Lessee Smt. Anjaleena have approached the
2nd defendant, with an extraneous reason have managed
to got the sale deed of the suit property and got the
khatha, plaintiff claims to have challenged the transfer of
khatha before the defendant no.1 authority when the
petition was for pending for consideration, the defendant
No.3 and 4 have alienated the suit property in favor of
defendant No.5 herein on 11/2/2008. The defendant
No.1 while adjudicating the objection of the plaintiff
herein was passed an erroneous order vide order bearing
12 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
No.ADD.C(E)/PR/28/ 144A/2008-09 and
DA/W91/KTR/PR/108/2007-08 under which they have
canceled the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 17/7/2003
executed in favor of plaintiff herein. Thus, its the
plaintiff's contention is that as the document is a
registered document, which cannot be canceled
unilaterally, it should be done either mutually or through
the process of the Court. Thus the order of the defendant
no.1 authority dated 2/3/2009 is nullity in the eye of
law. Even assuming that the plaintiff is a lessee under
lease-cum-sale, as per Section 106 of T.P. Act, before
cancellation of lease-cum-sale dated 17/7/2003 they
ought to have served the 15 days prior notice, same was
not done. She pleaded that, she had not violated any of
the terms of the lease cum sale, immediately after expiry
of lease, she was always ready to get the registered sale
deed.
5. The plaintiff contended that since 1957 the
13 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
suit property is in their possession. Though the
defendant No.2 executed the sale deed in favor of
defendant No.3 and 4 in turn who sold the same in favor
of defendant No.5, in the said document there is no
whisper of delivery of possession. In fact, the possession
has not been delivered in favor of the defendant no. 3
and 4, in turn who have not delivered the same to the
defendant no.5. as it is in the custody of the plaintiff.
Thus the cause of action was arose to seek the relief
sought under this suit.
DEFENSE OF THE DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2:
6. The defendant No.1 and 2 filed their written
statement by denying the plaint averments as false.
They contended that suit property is allotted in favor of
Smt. Anjaleena vide allotment dated 7/7/1942 by the
C.M. Station, Municipality, Bengaluru City, demand
notice being issued to the said Smt. Anjaleena under the
notice bearing No.HUD-151/MNG77 dated 18/5/1978 by
14 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
demanding her to get the sale deed by paying the
consideration. Accordingly she paid Rs.8,755/- on
19/10/1985. She expired on 27/9/2006. Thus her legal
heirs have got the sale deed of suit property on
28/8/2007. The documents relied by the plaintiff are
created for the purpose of this case. No irregularity or
illegality has been committed in executing the registered
sale deed of the suit property in favor of defendant No.3
and 4.
DEFENSE OF THE DEFENDANT NO.5:
7. The defendant No.5 who is allegedly got
purchased the suit property from the defendant No.3 and
4 filed his written statement contending that the
defendant No.1 and 2 have not committed any error in
selling the suit property in favor of the legal heirs of
original leseee Smt. Anjaleena, same was done in terms
of the policy and procedures adopted by them.
8. She further contended that neither the plaintiff
15 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
nor her husband was and is in possession of the suit
property at any point of time. The sale deed of the suit
property in favor of defendant No.3 and 4 in accordance
with law. The defendant No.2 committed no wrong in
executing the said sale deed. The plaintiff is not entitled
for the equitable relief of Specific Performance of
Contract.
9. With regard to possession of the suit property
is concerned, It is her contention is that, it is the
defendant No.3 and 4 were in possession of the suit
schedule property. The plaintiffs were in permissive
possession. The defendant No.2 vide order dated
2/3/2009 canceled the lease-cum-sale executed in favor
of the plaintiff which attained the finality, same has not
been challenged.
10. She further contended that, according to the
plaintiff, the lease-cum-sale was for a period of 10 years.
Suit is for Specific Performance of Contract is
16 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
prematured in nature. In fact, the plaintiff has not
valued the same and paid the proper Court fee. The
plaintiffs suit is not maintainable as they have not
sought all the relief and suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties, which is barred by time. Thus suit of
the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as they are only in
permissive possession and they have no subsisting right
over the suit schedule property.
11. Issues and Additional Issues Framed for
adjudication of this case:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has to be
treated as lessee of the suit schedule property in
terms of the contract dated 17.07.2003 till
16.07.2003?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant
No.2 is liable to execute sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that sale deed
dated 28.08.2007 is not binding on the plaintiff?
17 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
4. Whether the plaintiff proves her and their
family members actual possession and enjoyment of
the suit property as a tenant?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
interference and obstruction caused by the
defendants?
6. Whether the suit is properly valued and
requisite Court fee is paid on the plaint?
7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
8. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of
cause of action?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the decree
claimed in the suit?
10. What order or decree?
Additional Issues :
1. Does the plaintiff proves that his amended
relief in prayer A was sought in time?
2. Does the plaintiff proves that this Court has
18 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
the jurisdiction to adjudicate order dated
02.03.2009 passed by the defendant No.1 and 2
authorities?
FACTS OF THE CASE IN O.S. NO.6628/2013:
12. The defendant No.5 in O.S.No. 7805/2009 filed
the suit in O.S.No. 6628/2013 by seeking the relief of
declaration to declare herself as the absolute owner of
the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 11/2/2008,
sought for the possession and consequently sought for an
injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating or
encumbering the suit schedule property and also
restraining them her from not to demolish or cause
alterations to the suit schedule property.
13. As the original plaintiff in O.S.No. 7805/2009
died, thus in the present suit her legal heirs were
brought on record as defendant No.1(a) to (c). In fact the
defendant is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 7805/09, if the list of
Lrs of the plaintiff therein is compared, the plaintiff in
19 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
O.S.No. 6628/2013 had not arraigned all the Lrs of the
defendant.
14. The plaintiff contended that the Corporation
had built the quarters in Williams Town, Bengaluru. In
the year 1978 they made the policy to sell the said
quarters to the tenants in occupation. Accordingly Smt.
Anjaleena who was the tenant was in possession paid
the consideration of Rs.8,755/- on 18/10/1985 in favour
of the Corporation. Smt. Anjaleena died on 27/1/2006
by leaving her two sons namely Mr. X.John Briato and
Mr. X.Wilfred. Thus they have applied to the Corporation
by requesting to execute the sale deed. Accordingly the
BBMP had executed the registered sale deed dated
28/8/2007 registered as document No.SHV/1/02100/
2007-08, book No.1, stored in CD No.SHV88 and
delivered the possession. Further said Mr. John Briato
and Wilfred have sold the said property in favor of the
plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 11/2/2008,
20 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
which was registered as document No.SHV/1/04197/
2007-08 and she was put into the possession of the suit
schedule property. Before sale of the property in favor of
plaintiff, his vendors have got the khata in their name.
Smt.Teressa Tellis the mother of the defendant No.1(a) to
(c) herein had challenged the same by filing Review
petition under Section 114A of KMC Act before the
Additional Commissioner, wherein the application of the
applicant has been dismissed. Consequently the lease-
cum-sale dated 17/7/2003 is also canceled. Thus the
defendants have no whatsoever right title, interest in the
suit schedule property.
15. The plaintiff contended that since 1942 to until
the death of Smt. Anjaleena on 27/1/2006 she was in
possession of the suit schedule property. After her death,
her sons were in possession. In the year 2008 when the
suit schedule property has been kept locked, the
defendant herein trespassed into the suit property and
21 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
having the possession. In another breath the plaintiff
contended that until 27/11/2006 Smt. Anjaleena was in
possession, thereafter till 8/8/2009 it was her sons were
in possession. When the suit schedule property is kept
locked to carry out the repair work, the defendants
herein have unlawfully trespassed into the said property
is in possession and same was came into her knowledge
only on 10/8/2009. After that the plaintiff approached
the defendant, but who regretted for the incident and
requested 3 months time to vacate the same and agreed
to pay the rents for the said period, by considering their
request, humanitarian ground she claims to have
conceded to their requests, but by taking her leniency as
an advantage, defendant filed false and frivolous suit in
O.S.No. 7805/2009. As the defendant who is in
permissive possession failed to deliver the same, thus the
plaintiff pleaded that there was a cause of action to file
this suit.
22 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
16. The defendants have filed their written
statement by denying the plaint averments as false.
Their contention is that, the suit property was the
property of the Bengaluru City Corporation (BCC) who
have allotted the said property in favor of Smt. Anjaleena
on lease, as her husband who was working in Railway got
transferred to Trichi, thus she had delivered the suit
schedule property in favor of one Smt. Gracy and one
Kolandaswamy, and relocated permanently to Trichi in
the year 1957 itself. Smt. Gracy made a requisition to
the Corporation by seeking permissions to continue in
the suit schedule property, same has been permitted.
Approximately in the year 1965-66 Smt. Gracy by
constructing her new building, shifted to her residence.
But Kolandaswamy and the defendant Smt. Teressa
Tellis and her children were continued be in the suit
schedule property. The Corporation vide its Resolution
agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the occupant
23 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
of the same. In the meantime Smt. Anjaleena through a
land grabber made an attempt to get the sale deed from
the Corporation by creating some document. Her request
has been rejected. Kolandaswamy died by leaving his
wife Smt. Teressa Tellis and her children. Thereafter the
Corporation agreed to sell the suit schedule property in
favour of Smt. Teressa Tellis for a consideration of
Rs.8,755/-, same has been paid. Thereafter on
17/3/2003 executed the registered sale deed on the
condition that after 10 years the lessee entitled to get the
sale deed. Based on which, the lessee got the khata,
paying taxes, got the electricity connection and continued
to be in possession. But the plaintiff and her husband
who was an Ex-Corporator with intent to knock away the
property created the two fictitious persons namely X.
John Briato and X. Wilfred. During the pendency of the
lease-cum-sale in favor of the defendant, they managed
to get the sale deed registered on 28/8/2007 in their
24 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
name claiming that they are the legal heirs of late Smt.
Anjaleena. In fact, in the said sale deed there is no
reference on delivery of possession. Behind the back her
back, the said X. John Briato and X. Wilfred have
managed to file an application before the Joint
Commissioner, got canceled the khata of the defendant,
they got mutated the khata. By challenging the same,
Smt. Teressa Tellis filed Review petition before the
Additional Commissioner, who supposed to examine the
validity of cancellation of the khata. Instead of doing the
same, by rejecting her application for review for mutation
of khtha in favor of the said fictitious persons, with no
authority went to the extent of passing an order to
canceled her lease-cum-sale executed in favor of Teressa
Tellis. Even prior to that, X-John Briato and X. Wilfred
have sold the suit schedule property in favor of the
plaintiff herein on 11/2/2008. Which are the bogus sale
deeds, based on which they are attempting to dispossess
25 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
the plaintiff. In fact, mother of the defendants herein
have filed O.S.No. 7805/2009 by seeking various reliefs.
Thus suit in the hand is not maintainable, prays to
dismiss the same.
17. By considering the pleadings of the parties
in O.S.No. 6628/2013, following issues are framed :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit
schedule property?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to for vacant
possession of the suit schedule property free from
all encumbrances?
3. What relief the plaintiff is entitled to?
4. What order?
:EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES:
18. The plaintiff No.6 in O.S.No.7805/2009 in
order to prove her case, examined herself as P.W.1 and in
all produced 185 documents which were marked as
Ex.P.1 to 185. The GPA holder of the defendant No.5 got
examined as DW.1, produced in all 30 documents which
26 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
were marked as Ex.D1 to D30.
19. in O.S.No. 6628/2013 the GPA holder of the
plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and produced in
all 25 documents which were got marked as Ex.P1 to
P25. The defendant No.1(c) was examined as DW.1. In
support of her case produced in all 190 documents,
which were got marked as Ex.D1 to D190.
20. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
for the plaintiffs & defendants in both cases
21. My findings to the issues framed in the
O.S.No. 7805/2009 are as follows :-
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
Issue No.6: In affirmative
Issue No.7: In the negative
Issue No.8: In the negative
Issue No.9: In affirmative
Addl. Issue No.1: In affirmative
27 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
Addl. Issue No.2: In affirmative
Issue No.10: As per final order,
for the following:-
22. My findings to the above said issues framed in
the O.S.No. 6628/2013 are as follows :-
Issue No.1: In Negative
Issue No.2: In Negative
Issue No.3: In Negative
Issue No.4: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
23. Issue No.1 & 2 in O.S.No. 7805/2009 :
Since these two issues are interconnected, they are
taken up for common discussion.
24. Before adverting on disputed facts, to narrow
down the point which requires to be adjudicated by this
court in this case, its proper to culled out the admitted
facts. The suit schedule property including the building
28 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
existed was the property of the Corporation. In the year
1942 the then Corporation has leased the suit property
in favor of one Smt. Anjaleena. Her husband was an
employee of Railway, she was residing in the said
property.
25. The plaintiff's case is that, in the year 1957
husband of Smt. Anjaleena got transferred to Trichi at
State of Tamilnadu. Accordingly, Smt. Angaleena by
delivering the suit schedule property in favour of Smt.
Gracy, who is the niece of husband of the plaintiff, herein
relocated to the Trichi. In the said house it is Smt. Gracy
and also husband of the plaintiff named Kolandaswamy
were continued to reside. By that time, around in the
year 1960 Smt. Gracy gave a representation to the
Corporation by seeking permission to reside and
continue in the suit property as lessee. Same has been
accorded by the Defendant no. 1 authority vide their
order. In the year 1965-66 Smt. Gracy by constructing
29 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
an house had shifted her residence. But, Kolandaswamy
and his wife the plaintiff and their children were
continued to reside, even today. As the suit property
was allotted in favor of Smt. Anjaleena, though she had
shifted her residence permanently to Trichi, but Smt.
Gracy, thereafter Mr. Kolandaswamy, after his demise the
plaintiff continued to pay the rent to the defendant no.1 ,
but receipts were issued in the name of original lessee.
The plaintiff contended that in the year 1978 the
Planning Finance Committee of the defendant no.1 had
proposed an idea to sell the quarters in Williams Town in
favor of the person who is in occupation. By that time
the plaintiff's husband gave a representation claiming
that as he is in possession of the suit property, requested
to sell the same in his favor. Though the plaintiff alleged
that by knowing this development Smt. Anjaleena gave a
representation to the Bengaluru City Corporation (in
short BCC) claiming that she is an occupant of the suit
30 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
schedule property, requested to sell the same in her
favor. The Plaintiff further alleged that said Smt.
Anjaleena had managed to create some documents in
connivance with the officials of BCC. On the
representation of the plaintiff's husband to the BCC, who
conducted an inquiry, found that Smt. Anjaleena got
created some documents in connivance with their
officials, thus her application has been rejected and
action has been initiated against the erred officials.
Thereafter Kolandaswamy died by leaving the plaintiff.
Thereafter the plaintiff gave a representation to the
Corporation by requesting to transfer the suit property.
By receiving Rs.8,755/- the defendant no.2 had executed
the lease-cum-sale as per Ex.P109 on 17/7/2003,
execution of the lease cum sale by the defendant no.2 is
an undisputed fact. As the defendant no.1 and 2 have
admitted in their statement.
26. Now before adverting on Ex.P109 lease cum
31 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
sale and events taken place pursuant to it. Its relevant to
examine the evidence of the plaintiff to show, does really
Smt. Anjaleena relocated to Trichy by handing over the
suit property Smt. Gracy and her nephew
Kolandaswamy? Thereafter Gracy relocated her own
house by allowing her nephew Koalandaswamy and his
family to continue in the suit property? Does really the
defendant no. 1 and 2 have acknowledged that,
occupation of the suit property by Smt. Gracy, thereafter
its Mr. Kolandaswamy and the plaintiff have continues to
have the occupation of the suit property. In that process,
Ex.P112 is the order of the ARO Corporation of the City
of Bengaluru dated 3/3/1960 plays a vital role stating
that atleast prior to that order, Smt. Anjaleena left the
suit property by handing over the same to Smt. Gracy. IF
the contents of the Ex.P112 are read, which speaks that
Smt. Gracy by writing a letter dated 11/12/1959 to the
Corporation had sought the permission of the Bengaluru
32 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
City Corporation to reside in the property bearing
No.134, 7th Cross, Williams town, Ward No.91, Bengaluru
560 005, bounded on East by 7th Cross road, West by
private property, North by private property No.135 and
South by private property No.133 measuring East to West
23 feet, North to South 22 feet, as tenant. Wherein under
Ex.P112 the Corporation has permitted Smt. Gracy to
reside in the said house for a period of 6 months with a
condition to pay the rent regularly without fail on every
10th of the month with a condition to not to sublet the
same to anybody and if she fails to deliver the vacant
possession, within the 6 months, warned to initiate
proceedings to evict her from the suit schedule property
at her risk and cost. This is the vital piece of evidence to
show, after atleast 11.12.1959 onwards Smt. Anjaleena
was not the occupants of the suit property.
27. Further, the following documents would throws
the light on the facts that, said Smt. Anjaleena was a
33 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
permanent resident of Trichy, and she breathed last
there itself. If the documents particularly the death
certificate of Smt. Anjaleena as per Ex.P184, she died on
27/01/2006 at Tiruchi and her husband Xavier died on
25/4/1991, which is as per Ex.P185 death certificate.
The address of the residence of both Anjaleena and
Xavier is shown as No.13, Subramanyapuram, Tiruchi
620020. Though it is the case of the plaintiff that since
1957 itself Smt. Anjaleena relocated her residence to
Tiruchi, as her husband got transferred, but if the
Ex.P184 an 185 are perused, atleast from the year 1991
itself they would suggest that they are residents of
Tiruchi. It means to say, they were not residing in the
suit schedule property.
28. But the document of the plaintiff in
particularly at Ex.P169 to 175 which are the progress
report of the plaintiff's daughter, which would suggest
that since 1976 to 1984 the plaintiff is a resident of the
34 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
suit schedule property and Ex.P176 is the vehicle
insurance obtained in the name of the plaintiff's husband
on 16/9/1988, Ex.P177 is the bank passbook of the
plaintiff for the year 1978 issued by the Bank of India
and Ex.P178 is the bank passbook of the plaintiff issued
by the Bank of India for the year 1993, and Ex.P180 is
the pension card of the plaintiff's husband and Ex.P181
is the widow of ex-serviceman identity card, in all the
records suit schedule address is mentioned in the
document.
29. Ex.P108 is the letter written by the plaintiff's
husband by requesting the Estate Officer, the
Corporation of the City to allot the suit property in his
favor. Ex.P114 and 120 are the bank passbooks of the
plaintiff for the year 2018 and 2014 and Ex.P121, 122,
123 are the electricity bills of the year 2018 and Ex.P130
to 141 are the electricity bills standing in the name of
plaintiff herself pertaining to the year 2008-2009 of the
35 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
suit schedule property. Ex.24 is the ration card of the
plaintiff issued by the Department of Food and Civil
Supplies, which shows that it was for the period from
29/12/2001 to 31/12/2006 and she is shown to be a
resident of the suit schedule property. Ex.P140 to 155
are the LPG receipts of the plaintiffs for the period
between 2006 to 2009 in which also the plaintiff is
shown as resident of the suit schedule property.
Ex.P156 to 166 are the receipt issued by St. Francis
Xavier's Cathedral for the period from 1995 to 2009 in
which also the address of the plaintiff is shown as the
suit schedule property. If these documents are perused
carefully, at least from the year 1977, the plaintiff is a
permanent resident of the suit schedule property till
date.
30. Ex.P112 is the letter written by the ARO, East
Range Corporation Office, dated 3/3/1960 in favor of
Smt. Gracy, wherein by considering her application dated
36 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
11/12/1959 she has been permitted to live in the
Corporation House No.134, Williams Town, which is the
suit schedule property. It means to say, as on 1959 itself
Smt. Anjaleena and her family members were not
residing in the suit schedule property. In the said
property the Corporation authority has permitted Smt.
Gracy to reside there for a period of 6 months with a
condition that she has to pay the rent regularly on every
month on or before 10th and she had no right to sub-let
the same, and if the legal tenant do not return within the
said period, she has to handover the vacant possession
of the house to the Corporation. It means to say, from
1960 itself the original tenant Smt. Anjaleena was not at
all residing there and no single document has been
produced by the defendants to show that after 1959 Smt.
Anjaleena at any time she had to back to the suit
schedule property and started to reside. In the absence
of material to show original Lessee came back to the suit
37 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
property, she had no right to seek any relief over the suit
property. And, there are material to show, the suit
property was and is in possesson of the plaintiff family.
In that event, its the Corporation has the authority to
deal in respect of the said property in accordance with
the law.
31. It appears though the plaintiff and her
husband Kolandeswamy have not been inducted as a
tenant in the suit property legally by the Corporation
authority, but after vacating Smt. Gracy, they appears
have continued in the suit property having occupation of
the same. In that background the Corporation vide its
order dated 17/6/1987 vide subject No.10(16) had
resolved that Corporation quarters situated in Williams
town have to be sold in favour of actual occupants and
said resolution has been forwarded to the Government,
the same has been accepted by the Government by its
order dated HUD/42/MNG/87 dated 11/12/1987. The
38 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
same can be found in Ex.P109. It means to say, the
Corporation authority resolved to sell the suit schedule
property in favor of the occupants and not to the original
tenants. In that event, the documents produced by the
plaintiff would clearly suggest that it is the plaintiff and
her family members were occupants of the suit schedule
property at least from the year 1977. It means to say, as
per the resolution of the corporation the defendant no.1,
as found in the paragraph No.2 of Ex.P109 lease-cum-
sale agreement, the suit schedule property shall be sold
in favor of the plaintiff and her family members alone.
32. It is not in dispute that the defendant No.1 and
2 have executed the registered lease-cum-sale deed dated
17/7/2003 and the defendant No.1 and 2 can cancel the
same in the event that the plaintiff violated any of the
terms. According to the Ex.P109 the lease-cum-sale has
been executed in terms of the BDA Allotment Rules 1983,
which is a registered document. Firstly it is not been
39 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
revoked, it has not been canceled in accordance with law
and even no proceedings has been initiated to cancel the
same on the ground that it is the plaintiff violated any of
the terms of the lease terms. From the date of execution
of the lease to till date, it is the plaintiff and thereafter
her legal heirs are continued to be in possession, their
possession under the lease-cum-sale agreement dated
1707.2003 as lessee. As this Court found that it is a
valid legal document, the same has not been canceled in
accordance with law, then until canceling the same in
accordance with law, the plaintiff will be continued as
tenant.
33. To know, what is the procedure laid down
under the BDA rules to cancel the lease cum sale
executed in favor of the allottees. After expiry of the lease
period, if the lessee is not come forward to get the sale
deed, it is the lessor can execute the sale deed voluntarily
and can recover the expenses as if the tax is due on the
40 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
leased property. Thus this Court is of the opinion that
from the date of execution of lease-cum-sale ie., from
17.03.2003 to completion of 10 years ie., till 16.07.2013,
the plaintiff is a lessee of the suit property and as the
plaintiff proved that she is eligible to get the sale deed of
the suit property, thus it is the defendant No.2 is bound
to execute the same.
34. In fact, if the written statement content of the
defendant No.1 and 2 are perused, they have not denied
the execution of the lease-cum-sale dated 17.07.2003,
they have not denied the fact that the plaintiff was
always ready to perform her part of contract to get the
sale deed, they have not pleaded that does really the
plaintiff violated any of the terms of the lease terms. In
that event, the defendant No.2 shall bound to execute the
sale deed unless they have canceled the same in
accordance with law and even cancellation cannot be
done unilateral, they should assign reasons as to why
41 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
they are canceling and what is the terms of the lease has
been violated by the plaintiff. In the absence of it the
plaintiff deserves for the sale deed. Thus I answer the
issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
35. Issue No.3 & 4 in O.S.No. 7805/2009: This
Court while discussing on the issue No.1 and 2 this court
had categorically hold that atleast since from the year
1975 the plaintiff and her family members are continued
to be in possession of the suit property. Though the
plaintiffs contended that original lessesse Anjelena had
relocated to Trichy and it has been sub leased to Smt.
Gracy, even she vacated, but the plaintiff's husband
Kolandeswamy was continued to be in possession of the
suit property as tenant. But the documents produced by
the plaintiff in particularly the rent receipts from the year
1969 to 1984, the plaintiff herein continued to pay the
rent in the name of original lessee.
36. As per the terms of the Ex.P109, it is not in
42 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
dispute that, it is the plaintiff was in possession of the
suit property who is an occupant, thus it is the
defendant No.1 and 2 have decided the Corporation
Quarters will be sold in favour of the actual occupants,
not necessarily the occupants shall be the original lessee.
Thus atleast from the date of acknowledging the
possession of the plaintiff as an occupant, the plaintiff
continued as an occupant of the suit property.
Thereafter also the plaintiff continued to pay the rent,
then the status of the plaintiff shall be construed as
tenant only. And thereafter lease-cum-sale has been
executed as per Ex.P109 recognized the status of the
plaintiff as lessee. As this Court while discussing on
issue No.1 & 2 has categorically hold that the execution
of the sale deed dated 28.08.2007 in favor of defendant
No.3 and 4 is not in accordance with law, in fact, they
have no eligibility to get the sale deed . There is no
reference in the said sale deed which is being produced
43 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
as Ex.P110 to show under which circumstances they
have got the sale deed. What is their qualification,
whether they were an occupants of the property or got
the sale deed as Lrs of the Original Lessee. Even in the
said sale deed there is no explanation as to what is the
resolution of the corporation, did they passed the
resolution to sell the quarters to the original lessee? For
which the government had accepted their proposal? In
that background did the defendant no. 3 and 4 are
entitled to get the sale deed.
37. But where in the Ex.P109 there is a categorical
reference as to what is the eligibility criteria met by the
the plaintiff to get the lease cum sale. According which
she is the occupants of the suit property, even the
resolution of the defendant no.1 was that, they passed
the resolution to sell their quarters to their occupants,
not to the original lessee. Accordingly, they sent the
proposal to the Government, who have accepted their
44 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
resolution, permitted to sell them to the occupants alone.
In that event unless the Ex.P109 is canceled in
accordance with law, the possession of the plaintiff over
the suit property do not get changes. In fact as on the
date of execution of Ex.P110 in favor of the defendant
No.3 and 4 and on the date of sale of the suit property in
favour of defendant No.5 by the defendant No.3 and 4 as
per Ex.P111, the Ex.P109 was in force, thus this Court
has no hesitation to hold that Ex.P110 and Ex.P111 are
illegal, invalid and documents executed unauthorizedly
with a blatant violation of law by the defendant No.1 and
2. Thus the documents of the defendant no. 3 to 5 have
no legal recognition, thus the Ex.P109 will remain
unblemished.
38. With regard to passing of executive order to
cancel the lease cum sale is concerned? the defendant
No.1 authority in a proceedings initiated under 114(A) of
KMC Act, where the defendant No.1 is authorized to
45 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
adjudicate the dispute in respect of the khata with no
authority was placed them to pass an illegal order by
canceling the lease cum sale at Ex.P109 document. The
said order being placed before this Court by the
defendant No.5 himself as per Ex.D24, which has no
place in the eye of law. In fact, the act of the Additional
Commissioner is a highly illegal, he has passed an order
as if he thought he is no accountability under law and as
if he can do whatever he thought can do, and he is not
requires to act in accordance with law. Thus an illegal
order which has no place in the eye of law cannot take
away the valid document. Thus mere on the order at
Ex.D24 or any attempt on the part of the defendant no.1
to cancel the Ex.P109 unilaterally causes no damages to
the status of the plaintiff and to their document the lease
cum sale. Thus even the Ex.D8 dated 07.11.2009 cannot
be hold it as a valid cancellation. Thus this Court is of
the opinion, even till date the plaintiff is continued as
46 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
Lessee as per the lease. Thus I answer issue No.3 and 4
in the affirmative.
39. Issue No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.6628/2013 :
The plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration to
declare her as absolute owner of suit property as she
claims to have acquired the same under a registered sale
deed dated 11.02.2008 executed by one X. John Briato
and X. Wilfred. Her vendors claims to be the legal heirs
of Smt. Anjaleena, who was the original lessee of the suit
schedule property. The plaintiffs contentions is that, the
said Anjaeleena was in possession of suit property since
1944 to till her death on 27.01.2006. It is the Bangalore
city Corporation has given an opportunity to the said
Anjaleena to buy the suit property, on the ground that
she is in occupation of the same, accordingly she paid
the consideration. But before getting the sale deed as
she passed away, thus her sons said X-John Briato and
X. Wilfred have got the sale deed on 28.08.2007. But she
47 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
has alleged that the defendant herein has created bogus
documents such as lease-cum-sale dated 17.07.2003 and
some other documents by virtue of them, when the
vendors of the plaintiff have kept the suit property
locked, the defendant herein in the year 2008 trespassed
into the suit property, occupied the same. In another
stretch, she until 08.08.2009 it is her vendors were in
possession of suit property, who have delivered the
possession, when she kept locked the same, it is the
defendant trespassed into the suit property unlawfully,
continued her possession, on noticing her illegal
occupation, she demanded the defendant to quit and
deliver the vacant possession, initially promised latter,
she filed the suit for specific performance of lease cum
sale against the BBMP, plaintiff and her vendors, and
disputed the validity of her sale deed, thus claims that
there was a cause of action to file the present suit for
declaration and possession.
48 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
40. In fact, the defendant herein filed
O.S.No.7805/2009 by seeking various reliefs. Firstly she
is seeking Specific Performance of Contract by directing
the Corporation authority to execute the registered sale
deed on the ground that she has the valid lease cum sale
deed dated. 17.07.2003 and during the subsistence of
said document illegally the corporation authority had
created various documents such as sale deed dated
28.08.2007 in favour of one Mr. X-John Briato and X.
Wilfred, through whom the plaintiff herein claims to have
got purchased the suit property on 11.02.2008.
41. The defendant contended that in 1957 itself
Smt. Anjelena along with her family relocated her
residence permanently to Trichi. It is the corporation
authority by agreeing to sell the suit property in favour of
the occupants executed the lease-cum-sale dated
17.07.2003 by receiving entire sale consideration, based
on which she has got the khata, she has got transferred
49 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
the electricity from BESCOM but the plaintiff's husband
who is an ex-corporator with intent to knock off the
property with an active connivance with the officials of
the Corporation had crated the fictitious persons namely
X-John Briato and X. Wilfred, managed to get the sale
deed in their name and later created the sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff herein. Based, on which, the
plaintiff continued to cause an interference, thus she has
chosen to file suit in O.S.No. 7805/2009.
42. In that background the plaintiff who is also
defendant No.5 in O.S.No.7805/2009, the defendant
herein who is the plaintiff in the said case have led their
evidence separately, but this Court decided to take up
this matter to dispose of the same under the common
judgment. Suit of the defendant is much prior, almost 4
years after the suit of the defendant, present suit being
filed. In that background let us examine the case of the
plaintiff herein. Firstly the defendant herein was having
50 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
lease-cum-sale dated 17.07.2003, which is for period of
10 years, after expiry of the same, she is entitled for the
absolute sale deed. It means to say, as on 28.08.2007
when the vendors of the plaintiff herein have got the sale
deed, there was an existance of valid lease-sum-sale.
Before executing the sale deed in favour of vendors of
the plaintiff, the corporation authority made no efforts to
canceling the lease-cum-sale executed in favour of
defendant herein. Unless it has been canceled in
accordance with law, the corporation authority cannot
enter into an another sale transaction with anybody.
Just because the corporation is a statutory authority,
they do not have a separate Transfer of Property Act, they
are bound by the law of transfer of property Act. The
property exceeding the value of Rs.100/- shall be
transferred through registered deed. Accordingly the
corporation had executed the lease-cum-sale in favour of
the defendant herein, unless it is been canceled by way of
51 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
an another registered cancellation of lease cum sale deed
or they have got the decree for cancellation of the said
document, the corporation has no authority to entered
into an another sale transactions, which is illegal, that
does not make any impact on the document is already in
force. However, the Corporation executed the sale deed
dated 28.08.2007 in favour of the vendors of the plaintiff
herein and said sale deed is under challenge in O.S.No.
7805/2009, wherein this Court while answering issue
No.1 and 2 in the said suit had categorically hold that
the plaintiff in O.S.No. 7805/2009 is entitled for the
Specific Performance of Contract in the hands of the
corporation authority to get the registered sale deed as
she is holding valid lease-cum-sale agreement. In that
event, during the existence of valid lease-cum-sale, the
corporation authority had no competency to sell the same
in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff, in turn the
vendors in favour of plaintiff herein, then both the sale
52 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
deeds have no legal sanctity, when the corporation itself
had no competency to transfer any right, title and
interest in the suit property in favour of vendors of the
plaintiff herein, then the vendor of the plaintiff cannot
transfer any better right, interest in the suit property in
favour of plaintiff herein. Thus by virtue of the sale deed
dated 10.08.2009 and 11.02.2008 the plaintiff will not
get any right, title, interest in the suit property. Thus
she cannot be declared as owner of the same.
43. Interestingly by considering the facts of this
case, the plaintiff not even falls in the category of the
bonafide purchasers for the value on the ground that she
entered into a sale transaction without a prior charge
over the suit property in favor of the defendant herein. As
the P.W.1 has categorically admitted that as on the date
of purchasing the suit property under sale deed dated
11.02.2008 in the encumbrance certificate still the lease-
cum-sale is in existence. Thus on that ground also the
53 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
suit of the plaintiff for declaration do not deserves for the
decree in the hands of this Court.
44. With regard to possession is concerned, the
case of the plaintiff is totally doubtful, inconsistent,
which shows and which gives raise a doubt on the
conduct of the plaintiff stating that the sale deed dated
28.08.2007 and 11.02.2008 are the product of the
conspiracy committed by the plaintiff, her husband, the
plaintiff's vendor and corporation authority for the simple
reason that it is the corporation authority has
appreciated, accepted the fact that as on 17.07.2003 it is
the defendant was in possession of the suit property,
wherein the corporation got resolved to sell the
corporation quarters to only to the occupants not to the
original lessee. By considering the fact they have
received the sale consideration executed the lease-cum-
sale, based on which the defendant has got the khata,
got transferred the electricity and water connection. But
54 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
the plaintiff herein pleads that since 1944 to 27.01.2006
it is Anjanleena was in possession of suit property. In
this regard, the plaintiff absolutely produced no material
before this Court. Secondly, she contended that after
demise of Smt. Anjaleena, her sons X-John Briato and
X. Wilfred have continued to have possession. Even this
aspect of contention is also highly unbelievable for the
simple reason that the whole documents plaintiff herein,
produced in O.S.No. 7805/2009 in D Series, in
particularly if the Ex.D26 which is a representation given
by her vendors to the corporation authority is considered,
they have stated that they are the resident of No.73, 3 rd
Cross, Vanarpet layout, Vivekananda nagar post,
Bengaluru 560 047, it menas to say the plaintiffs vendors
X-John Briato and X. Wilfred were not in the possession
of the suit property, otherwise for all communications,
they would have given the suit property address alone.
45. Further if another document the Ex.D24 which
55 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
is an order of the Additional Commissioner, BBMP,
Ex.D25 the letter of the defendant herein given to the
corporation, notice of the BBMP at Ex.D27, Ex.D29,
Ex.D30 (all these documents are produced by the
plaintiff herein in O.S.No.7805/2019 where she is the
defendant No.5, her GPA holder examined as DW.1) the
corporation authority have repeatedly issued the notice
to the defendant herein to the suit schedule address. If at
all she was not residing there, then question of issuing
the notice to the defendant showing the suit schedule
address do not arise. Then question of Anjelena after her
demise, its her sons have continued to reside in the suit
property do not arise.
46. Very interestingly in Ex.P2 sale deed dated
28.08.2007 the corporation has not delivered the actual
possession of the suit plaintiff in favour of vendors of the
plaintiff, even in Ex.P3 sale deed of the plaintiff there is
no reference of delivery of possession, there is only
56 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
reference on delivery of constructive possession. In the
absence of delivery of possession, the plaintiff occupying
the suit property do not arise. If her evidence during
cross-examination is considered, which is contradictory
to For the suggestion of the defendant the P.W.1
admitted that in the year 2008 when her vendors were in
possession the defendant has dispossessed them and is
in possession, and wherein in her plaint the plaintiff
pleaded that till 08.08.2009 it is her vendors were in
possession, thereafter its the defendant dispossessed her
by trespassing into the suit property. This aspect of the
plaintiff cannot be believable for the simple reason that,
even assuming that the vendor of the plaintiff has got the
suit property into their possession on the date of sale
deed dated. 28.08.2007, if they have sold the suit
property in favor of the plaintiff herein on 11.02.2008,
the plaintiff's vendors cannot be in possession until
08.08.2009. If that aspect is considered, it is clear that
57 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
under Ex.P3 sale deed the plaintiff has not at all taken
the delivery of possession, and further she was not at all
in possession at any point of time. These aspects are
clear, there is no ambiguity and clinching to hold that
that the plaintiff, her vendors and corporation authority
to knock away the property of the defendant, have went
on creating one after another document, which are
having no place in the eye of laws. Thus this Court is of
the clear opinion that the plaintiff is not an owner, she do
not deserve the possession and any reliefs in the hands
of this Court. Thus suit in O.S.No. 6628/2013 is
deserves to be dismissed. Thus I answer issue No.1 and
2 in O.S.No. 6628/2013 in the negative.
47. Issue No.3 in O.S.No. 6628/2019 : As the
plaintiff do no deserves any relief in the hands of this
Court, thus suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, issue No.3 is answered in the negative.
48. Issue No.5 in O.S.No. 7805/2009 : With
58 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
regard to possession is concerned, the case of the
plaintiff is very crystal and clear from their material no
inch of doubt has been created to dispute their
possession over the suit schedule property. While
discussing supra, this Court is on firm from the material
placed by the plaintiff that it is the plaintiff is in
possession atleast since from the year 1975 to till date.
But this aspect has not been denied by the defendant
No.1 and 2. But the defendant No.5 had taken an
inconsistent stand in the written statement. Stating that
since 1994 to 2006 it is original lessee Anjalena was in
possession of suit property, she died by leaving her two
sons, they are X-John Briato and X. Wilfred, who have
got the sale deed of the suit property from the defendant
No.1 and 2 herein on 28.08.2007, who have continued to
have in possession, who sold the same in favour of the
defendant No.5 herein on 11.02.2008. But she pleaded
that until 08.08.2009, it is the defendant No.3 and 4
59 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
were in possession of suit property. If that aspect is
considered, under Ex.D3 sale deed dated 11.02.2008 the
defendant No.5 has not taken the delivery of possession
and the word used in the said sale deed is constructive
possession, not the actual possession. And that apart,
the plaintiff has produced sufficient document to show
that they are in uninterrupted possession atleast from
the year 1975. Thereafter she got the lease-cums-sale as
per Ex.P109, pursuant to which she got the khata,
electricity and water connection, the lease cum sale at
Ex.P109 is for a period of 10 years. If at all the
defendant No.1 and 2 would wants to cancel the said
lease it shall be in accordance with law, they cannot
bypass the law on property in particularly cancellation,
registration, delivery of possession. To cancel the lease-
cum-sale, it shall be through an another registered
cancellation deed and prior to which the defendant No.1
and 2 shall assign a reason alleging that why did the
60 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
plaintiff herein is not entitled for the absolute sale. As
the defendant No.1 and 2 are statutory authorities, they
must be very sensible, they cannot act like a dictators
and cannot take the decision unilaterally. They are
bound to act in accordance with law, any deviation is
accountable to the authorities and also to the law, but in
the case in had the defendant no.1 and 2 have acted
hastily, in a khatha proceedings, went to the extent of
canceling the registered lease cum sale. Surprisingly,
there was no occasion on the authority to deal on the
lease cum sale.
49. It appears the defendant No.1 and 2 were
under the impression that nobody could question their
authority. And, not even minded as to does he can pass
such order, does he vested with such authority. During
the validity and subsistence of the valid lease-cum-sale
agreement, without issuing a notice calling an
explanation from the Lessee, in the event of any deviation
61 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
or violation of terms of the lease, without assigning a
reason as to why the plaintiff is not entitle for the
absolute sale deed of the suit property behind the back of
her, the defendant No.1 and 2 executed the sale deed in
favour of defendant No.3 and 4, no delivery of possession
of suit property has been done. Without a possession, the
defendant no. 3 and 4 have sold the suit property in favor
of the defendant no.5. However, the defendant no.5 by
taking the sale deed in her favor as an advantage had
continued to cause an interference, thus the plaintiff has
knocked the door of this Court by seeking multiple
reliefs. Circumstances would clearly suggest that the
plaintiff were under imminent threat of an interference
and dispossession from all the defendants. Particularly
the above said transaction held between defendant No.1
to 5 which are sufficient to infer a fact that there was an
attempt to coerce the plaintiff to vacate from the suit
property. As the plaintiff is continued as Lesee of the suit
62 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
property under Ex.P109 in the suit property, as she is
entitled for the absolute sale deed, thus her possession in
the suit property shall be protected. During the pendency
of the suit, the plaintiff died, now her Lrs are on record,
who are having right to continue the possession without
anybody's interference. Thus I answer issue No.5 in the
affirmative.
50. Issue No.6 in O.S.No. 7805/2009: The
plaintiff filed the suit for Specific Performance of Contract
seeking directions to the defendant No.1 and 2 herein to
execute the registered sale deed of suit property in terms
of the contract agreed under the lease-cum-sale dated
17.07.2003 and to declare the sale deed dated
28.08.2007 executed in favour of defendant No.3 and 4
and the sale deed of defendant No.5 dated 11.02.2008
are not binding. But the defendant No.5 categorical
contended that suit of the plaintiff is not valued properly
and paid the Court fee. But the plaintiff valued her suit
63 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
by taking the consideration mentioned under the lease-
cum-sale and paid the Court fee, for which there is no
dispute by the defendants. The defendant No.5 has no
right to dispute the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of
court fee, for the simple reason that the plaintiff is not a
party to the sale deed of the defendant No.3 and 4 dated
28.08.2007 and sale deed dated 11.02.2008 for the
simple reason that the plaintiff proved that she is entitled
for the relief under lease-cum-sale dated 17.07.2003
which is valid document, during the subsistence of the
said document the defendant No.1 and 2 have had no
whatsoever right, title, interest to sell or alienate the suit
schedule property under sale deed dated 28.08.2007.
The said sale deeds are fraudulent, created, just to knock
away the plaintiffs property, in that event the plaintiff is
not obligated to value the suit by paying the Court fee on
the market value, as it is a settled law that when the
party who is seeking relief for not binding on the
64 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
particular document, for which he is not a party to the
said document in that event he is not bound to value the
suit by paying the advaleroum court fee. In this regard
this Court would like to rely on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court decided in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool
Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors, reported in (2010) 12
SCC112
6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to
be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of
the deed. But if a non-executant seeks
annulment of a deed, he has to seek a
declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-
est, or illegal or that it is not binding on
him. The difference between a prayer for
cancellation and declaration in regard to a
deed of transfer/conveyance, can be
brought out by the following illustration
relating to `A' and `B' -- two brothers. `A'
executes a sale deed in favour of `C'.
Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale.
`A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed.
On the other hand, if `B', who is not the
65 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he
has to sue for a declaration that the deed
executed by `A' is invalid/void and non-
est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In
essence both may be suing to have the deed
set aside or declared as non-binding. But
the form is different and court fee is also
different. If `A', the executant of the deed,
seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to
pay ad-valorem court fee on the
consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B',
who is a non-executant, is in possession
and sues for a declaration that the deed is
null or void and does not bind him or his
share, he has to merely pay a fixed court
fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of
Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a
non- executant, is not in possession, and
he seeks not only a declaration that the
sale deed is invalid, but also the
consequential relief of possession, he has to
pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided
under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section
7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a
declaratory decree with consequential relief,
66 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
the court fee shall be computed according
to the amount at which the relief sought is
valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto
makes it clear that where the suit for
declaratory decree with consequential relief
is with reference to any property, such
valuation shall not be less than the value of
the property calculated in the manner
provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.
51. And moreover, the defendants have not came
forward with a fact under which law and why the
valuation made in the suit is not proper and what is the
actual valuation requires to be made by her. But wherein
this Court is completely convinced the valuation done by
the plaintiff for the reliefs sought in the suit. thus I
answer issue No.6 in the affirmative.
52. Issue No.7 in O.S.No. 7805/2009 : The
plaintiff sought the relief of Specific Performance of
Contract to get the registered sale deed of suit property
as per the lease-cum-sale dated 17.07.2003. Under the
67 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
said document immediately after completion of 10 years
lease period, the plaintiff is entitled for sale deed. But
prior to that the defendant No.1 and 2 have sold the suit
property in favour of defendant No.3 and 4 on
28.08.2007 and who have sold the same in favour of
defendant No.5 herein on 11.02.2008. Here the said sale
deeds were happened behind the back of the plaintiff.
However, immediately after having knowledge on the said
sale deeds, she gave a representation to the defendant
No.1 and 2 and also sought an order to maintain the
khata in her name. But said application being dismissed
when she has got the knowledge of existence of sale deed
in favour of defendant No.3 and 4, consequently in favour
of defendant No.5, the plaintiff cannot keep quiet. She
has approached the Court within 3 years from the date of
knowledge, as she filed the suit on 17.09.2009. But with
regard to enforcing the contract agreed under the lease-
cum-sale is concerned, its a double edged sword, mere
68 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
on the ground that she has still a time to file a suit for
enforcing the agreement, if she kept quiet her right is
going to be diminished. As the sale deed of the defendant
No.3, 4 and 5 are going to prevail over the said lease-
cum-sale. By having knowledge on the said documents,
which are coming in her way to seek the relief of specific
performance of the contract, she has to sue immediately.
As such ought to have taken some action against the said
documents. Thus made the plaintiff file the suit for
Specific Performance of Contract prematurely. But now
10 years time has been lapsed, now as the lease term is
lapsed, which ripened the plaintiff to get the sale deed by
enforcing the decree for the Specific Performance of
Contract. Though as on the date of filing of suit, the suit
for Specific Performance of Contract is premature one,
but in her first prayer she had sought the direction to the
defendant no. 2 herein to treat her as lessee as per the
lease cum sale for the period of 10 years, ie. 17.07.2003
69 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
to 16.07.2013, to that extent the suit of the plaintiff is
maintainable, as the said relief is valid and entitled by
the plaintiff. As the defendant by executing the sale deed
of the suit property in favor of the defendant no. 3 and 4,
in turn who by selling the same in favor of the defendant
no.5 have created serious shadow of fear on her right and
interest is created over the suit property. During the
pendency of the suit the lease period has been expired, to
avoid the multiplicity of proceedings the relief sought
under prayer (b) is also requires to be granted in favour
of the plaintiff, If that aspect is considered, the plaintiff
suit is well in time. Thus I answer issue No.7 in the
negative.
53. Additional Issue No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.
7805/2009 : Plaintiff initially sought following prayer
No.1(a) Directing the 2nd defendant to treat the plaintiff
as a lessee in terms of the contract dated 17 th July 2003
till 16th July 2013, "holding that order passed by the
70 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
authorities of the defendant No.1 on 02/03/2009 to the
effect that they have canceled the agreement of sale deed
17/07/2003 executed in favour of the plaintiff, as
nullity".
54. Later plaintiff filed I.A.No.25 under Section 22
of Specific Relief Act, by seeking permission to amend the
the prayer (a), same came to be dismissed on 23/9/2021.
Thus the plaintiff being aggrieved from the said order
preferred the W.P.No.18380/2021, wherein the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka was pleased to set aside the
order of this Court and permitted the plaintiff herein to
amend the plaint and permitted the defendant herein to
raise an objection on the limitation and also holding that
the amendment will came into effect from the date of
application, and that will not relate back to the suit. The
whole intention behind imposing such rider is to, does
the plaintiff has the limitation to seek such a relief as on
the date of filing of application?
71 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
55. In that background the above said additional
issues are framed. The plaintiff's case is that she is an
occupant of the suit schedule property. On the decision
on the Corporation to sell the Corporation quarters to the
occupants, have got the permission from the Government
to sell the same, pursuant to which executed the lease-
cum-sale dated 17/7/2003, based on which the plaintiff
got the khata, paying taxes and even paying the rent to
the defendant no. 1 and 2, got the electricity and water
connections in her name. But during the subsistence of
said lease-cum-sale, the Corporation without giving an
opportunity to hear the plaintiff, also without assigning a
valid reason as to why the plaintiff is not entitled for
absolute sale deed, sold the suit schedule property in
favour of the defendant No.3 and 4 herein. And also got
canceled her khata, for which she filed an objection
before the Additional Commissioner under Section 114A
of KMC Act.
72 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
56. Under Section 114A of KMC Act, the dispute
can be raised only for the limited purpose to raise an
objection on entry on transfer. It means to say, the
aggrieved party on entry of the khatha based on the title
deed or based on the death of khatha holder in favor of
his Lr, can raise the dispute before the said authority.
In that event, the Additional Commissioner/
Commissioner has to exercise his power in accordance
the procedure laid therein. But, the Additional
Commissioner without adjudicating as to why he has
withdrawing khata of the plaintiff herein was pleased to
pass an order by canceling the lease-cum-sale. The said
order has been produced by the defendant No.5 herself,
which is marked as Ex.D24. If the order is perused,
there is no clarity as to what is the authority of the
defendant no.1 to pass such an order. Infact the
authority itself had no clarity on the subject before it, it
appears they were under the confusion. In fact, the
73 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
plaintiff herein objected the Corporation authority for
canceling her khata. But in the order at Ex.D24 they
have treated the objection as revison petition, as if being
filed under Section 114A of KMC Act. But the plaintiff
has objected the same before the Additional
Commissioner, in that the said authority shall examine
whether the appellate authority has exercised its power
judiciously while canceling the khata stands in the name
of plaintiff, and mutating the same in favor of the
defendant No.3 and 4. But without doing so, they went
to the extent of canceling the lease-cum-sale dated
17/7/2003 itself. The said order has not been
challenged before any authority. The plaintiff filed the
present suit by seeking various relief. Under the prayer
No.(a), it only sought that a direction is requires to be
issued to the defendant No.2 to treat the plaintiff as
lessee in terms of the lease-cum-sale dated 17/3/2003
for the period between 17/3/2003 to 16/3/2013, which
74 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
is the lease period. But subsequently the plaintiff got
amended the said prayer stating that apart from treating
the plaintiff as lessee for the said period, sought to hold
the order of the defendant No.1 dated 2/3/2009 under
which it had canceled the lease-cum-sale dated
17/7/2003 as nullity.
57. Now the question of the defendant No.5 is that,
firstly, the order of the defendant No.1 is dated
2/3/2009, the said order has reached its finality, non
challenging the said order within the time period is fatal
to the case of the plaintiff. Secondly, the said order
cannot be challenged before this Court, as it is an order
which is supposed to be challenged under the Writ.
58. Now it is the duty of the Court to find out does
it really the plaintiff is requires to challenge the order of
the defendant No.1 dated 2/3/2009, whether the civil
Court is requires to pass any order to set aside the order
dated 2/3/2009 as null and void is the question?
75 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
59. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in his
arguments vehemently contended that, firstly Section
114A of KMC Act is for the purpose of reviewing the order
of the appellate authority in respect of mutation of khata.
The defendant No.1 had no right or authority to pass
such an order to cancel the registered lease-cum-sale.
The document in the nature of registered lease cum sale
shall be canceled only mutually through an another
document or through the order of the civil Court. In the
absence of these two, the order in the nature dated
2/3/2009 is null and void without any authority, it has
no legal sanctity, on which the plaintiff is not requires to
seek any relief. However on the safer side in the interest
of justice said order is being sought in the suit. In this
regard he has placed a reliance on the decision Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ajudh Raj & others Vs. Moti
S/o.Mussadi reported in (1991) 3 SCC 136 . Wherein
at Para-6 of the judgment it is held that,
76 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
6. The provisions of Section 27(4) of the Act as
also the other provisions are limited in their
scope. The preamble indicates that the object of
the Act is to provide for the abolition of the big
landed estates and to reform the law relating to
tenancies in the Himachal Pradesh. The
expressions 'tenant', 'sub-tenant' as also other
similar expressions have to be understood in the
sense they have been used in the other statutes
dealing with the relationship of landlord and
tenant in agricultural lands. Section 27 of the
Act provides for a transfer by the law of the right
title and interest of the land owner to the State
Government under sub-section (1) Sub-section
(2) is by way of an exception with respect to land
under the personal cultivation of the land owner.
Sub-section (4) directs that the right, title and
interest of the land owner thus acquired, shall
be transferred by the State, On payment of
compensation, to the tenant who cultivates such
land. Under this provision, the order in the
present case was passed in favour of Moti. If
Moti was not a tenant or sub-tenant he was not
entitled to the benefits under the sub-section. If
the land was in cultivating possession of the
77 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
plaintiffs, as held in the present suit, the
Compensation Officer did not have the
jurisdiction to pass any order in defiance of sub-
Section (2) and the land did not vest in the State
at all. Further, for the additional reason that
Moti was not a tenant of the land the order
passed in his favour under Section 27(4) was
again without jurisdiction. In absence of the
conditions necessary for the exercise of power
under Section 27(4) the Officer lacked
jurisdiction to act and it was not necessary for
the civil court to formally set aside his order
before passing a decree. What necessitated the
plaintiff to come to the civil court was the
challenge to his title, and the suit must be held
to be covered by Article 65, and, therefore, not
barred by shorter periods of limitation either
under Article 100 or Article 113.
60. By considering the facts and circumstances of
this case and also the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex
Court laid down in the supra referred judgment, this
Court is of the considered opinion that firstly the
defendant No.1 has committed an error by passing an
78 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
order dated 2/3/2009 under which by passing an order
by canceling the lease-cum-sale dated 17/7/2003.
which is an illegal order without any authority, thus on
which the plaintiff need not to seek any relief in the
hands of this Court to set aside the same as nullity.
61. That apart, firstly subject matter of the suit is
an immovable property having value of more than
Rs.100/- on which to alienation of the same, the
defendant No.1 had executed the lease-cum-sale in favor
of the plaintiff, which is a registered document. There is a
process and method to cancel it. It can be done mutually
before which the defendant No.1 ought to have issued a
notice by seeking an explanation why the lease-cum-sale
shall not be canceled, on the ground of violation of any of
the terms imposed therein. Admittedly the plaintiff has
not at all violated any of the terms of the lease-cum-sale.
Then the question of canceling the said lease-cum-sale
do not arise. However, the defendant No.1 authority
79 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
shown its highhandedness as if it thinks that they have
no accountability to law or to any other authority. Such
an act is a condemnable as the same is without
application of mind. And even by way of registered
document cannot unilaterally cancel the same. The same
shall be canceled by way of an order of the Court. In the
absence of it, the lease-cum-sale dated 17/7/2003 will
remain intact on which the plaintiff is entitled to reap the
reward and benefit accrued thereon. Thus this Court is
of the opinion that though the plaintiff is not entitled to
seek any relief on the order dated 2/3/2009 before this
Court, in particularly the passing of order canceling the
lease-cum-sale dated 17/7/2003, however it has been
sought. There is nothing wrong. For which the
Limitation Act will not apply to that. Thus it is necessary
to hold it has been sought in time and this Court has the
jurisdiction adjudicating the validity of the order.
Accordingly I answer additional issue No.1 and 2 in the
80 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
affirmative.
62. Issue No.8 in O.S.No.7805/2009 : No relief
sought in the suit is a result of misjoinder of causes of
action. Infact for all the reliefs are result of chain of
incident taken place pertaining to the suit property. That
do not bars the plaintiff bring them under one suit for
adjudication, as that do not prejudice any of the parties
herein. Infact all the reliefs are interlinked, timely. Thus,
this court is of the opinion that the defendant no. 5 took
the objections, which are in many fold, with soley
intention an intention defeat the interest of the plaintiff.
The approach of the defendant no.5 wants to see that,
the plaintiff shall not be succeeded in his efforts to fight
against the might of the power and money. Thus this
court of the opinion that the suit of the plaintiff is
perfectly blended to seek all the relief sought in the suit,
as that saves the precious time and money of the parties,
and that effort in any way leads to absurd or confusion.
81 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
The suit of the plaintiff is straight, as the actions of the
defendants are causing adverse effects to her right and
interest accrued by virtue of the lease cum sale, which
prompted this suit to file multiple relief, starting from the
specific performance, declaration and injunction. Non
seeking any of the relief, infact that would have been
threat to her case, which would have been non suited the
plaintiff, for not seeking all the reliefs entitled by her. The
suit in compliance of the provision under Section 31 and
34 of the Specific relief Act., Thus, I answer the Issue no.
8 in negative.
63. Issue No.9 in O.S.No. 7805/2009 : In view
of my findings on issue No.1 to 8 and additional issue
No.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought.
Hence I answer issue No.9 in the affirmative.
64. Issue No.4 in O.S.No. 6628/2013 and issue
No.10 in O.S.No. 7805/2009 : In view of my findings
on aforesaid issues, I proceed to pass the following :-
82 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w.
O.S.No. 6628/2013
COMMON ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff/s in O.S.No. 7805/2009 is hereby decreed with cost.
It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is continued as lessee from the date of execution of lease-cum-sale dated 17/7/2003 to till 16/7/2013, which is the lease period and further it is the defendant No.1 and 2 are having bounden duty to execute the registered sale deed of suit property in favor of the plaintiff/s in terms of the lease-cum-sale dated 17/7/2003.
Further the sale deed dated 28/8/2007 registered as document No.2100 registered in favour of the defendant No.3 and 4 and sale deed dated 11/2/2008 registered as document No.4197 registered in favour of the defendant No.5 is declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
As the plaintiff proved that she is continued to be in possession of the suit 83 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w. O.S.No. 6628/2013 property, thus the defendants, their agents or anybody acting through them are hereby permanently restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff and her family members from the suit schedule property.
The suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 6628/2013 is dismissed with cost.
Office is to draw the decree accordingly.
Keep the original of this judgment in O.S.No. 7805/2009 and a copy in O.S.No. 6628/2013 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 27 th day of June, 2024.
(GANGADHARA.K.N.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY 84 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w. O.S.No. 6628/2013 ANNEXURE IN OS No.7805/2009 List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
I. Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Jude Tellis
II. Defendant's side :
D.W.1: Salman Shariff
List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1 to74 Rent paid receipts Ex.P.75 to 107 Water bills Ex.P.108 Letter to Bengaluru City Corporation Ex.P.109 Lease-cum-sale ded dated 17/7/2003 Ex.P.110 Certified copy of sale deed dated 28/8/2007 Ex.P.111 Certified copy of sale deed dated 11/2/2008 Ex.P.112 True copy of letter dated 3/3/1996 Ex.P.113 True copy of letter dated 23/4/2007 85 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w. O.S.No. 6628/2013 Ex.P.114 Bank passbook Ex.P.115 Election ID card Ex.P.116 Aadhar card Ex.P.117 RC card in respect of vehicle No.KA-04-PM-1876 Ex.P.118 Telephone bill Ex.P.119 Election I.D. card Ex.P.120 Bank passbook Ex.P.121 to 123 Electricity bills Ex.P.124 Ration card Ex.P.125 Extract from the register of Baptisns Ex.P.136 Extract from the register of Baptisns Ex.P.127 Extract from the register of Baptisns Ex.P.128 Extract from the register of Baptisns Ex.P.129 Extract from the register of Baptisns Ex.P.130 to 141 BESCOM bills Ex.P.142 to 155 Gas bills Ex.P.156 to 167 Church Subscription receipts Ex.P.168 Family record Ex.P.169 to 175 Progress report cards 86 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w. O.S.No. 6628/2013 Ex.P.176 Motor vehicle insurance policy Ex.P.177 Savings bank pass book (Bank of Baroda) Ex.P.178 Savings bank pass book (Bank of Baroda) Ex.P.179 Pension card Ex.P.180 Retired employees medical benefits scheme card Ex.P.181 Widows ID card Ex.P.182 Inland Letter Ex.P.183 Deposition of Salman Shariff in O.S.No. 6628/2013 Ex.P.184 Translated version of death certificate of Anjaleena Ex.P.185 Translated version of death certificate of Xavier
(b) Defendants side :
Ex.D.1 Special power of attorney dated 20/2/2019 Ex.D.2 Certified copy of sale deed dated 28/8/2007 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of sale deed dated 11/2/2008 87 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w. O.S.No. 6628/2013 Ex.D.4 & 5 Certified copy of tax paid receipts Ex.D.6 Certified copy of order dated 5/9/2007 Ex.D.7 Certified copy of lease cum sale agreement Ex.D.8 Certified copy of cancellation of lease cum sale agreement dated 7/11/2009 Ex.D.9 Certified copy of acknowledgement Ex.D.10 Certified copy of letter dated 17/7/1942 Ex.D.11 Certified copy of endorsement Ex.D.12 to 18 Certified copies of rent receipts Ex.D.19 Certified copy of encumbrance Ex.D.20 Khata extract Ex.D.21 Khata certificate Ex.D.22 The reply issued by the public information officer on the application of the one Namman.S the counsel who sought the documents pertaining to the proceedings held on the suit property before 88 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w. O.S.No. 6628/2013 the addl commissioner Ex.D.23 The endorsement dt 09.11.2009 issued under RTI Ex.D.24 The order in the review petition dt 02.03.2009 passed by Addl commissioner east, issued under RTI Ex.D.25 The objections of the plaintiff filed before the ARO dt 21.09.2007 issued under RTI Ex.D.26 Applications of D.3 and 4 filed before ARO to mutate the khata of suit property issued under RTI.
Ex.D.27 Enquiry notice issued by ARO to the plaintiff and D.3 and 4 issued under RTI Ex.D.28 Order sheet of the proceedings in appeal no.28/08-09 before the Addl commissioner east, issued under RTI Ex.D.29 Enquiry notice dt 12.03.2008 issued by ARO to the plaintiff and D.3 and 4 issued under 89 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w. O.S.No. 6628/2013 RTI Ex.D.30 Enquiry notice dt 12.03.2008 issued by ARO to the plaintiff and D.3 and 4 issued under RTI XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE IN OS No.6628/2016
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Salman Shariff Defendant's side :
D.W.1: Jude Tellis
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(c) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1 GPA dated 07.11.2017 90 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w. O.S.No. 6628/2013 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of sale deed dated 28.08.2007 Ex.P.3 Certified copy of sale deed dated 11.02.2008 Ex.P.4 Tax paid receipt Ex.P.5 Katha extract Ex.P.6 Katha certificate Ex.P.7 Certified copy of lease cum sale agreement dated 17.07.2003 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of cancellation of lease cum sale agreement dated 07.11.2009 Ex.P.9 Acknowledgment issued by BBMP Ex.P.10 Letter dated 17.07.1942 issued by Civil & Military station, Bangalore Municipal department Ex.P.11 Endorsement issued by the Corporation city of Bangalore for the year 1978 Ex.P.12 to 18 7 Tax paid receipts Ex.P.19 Original sale deed dated 28.08.2007 Ex.P.20 Original sale deed dated 11.02.2008 Ex.P.21 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.22 Tax paid receipt Ex.P.23 Registration of katha Ex.P.24 Katha extract Ex.P.25 Katha certificate 91 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w. O.S.No. 6628/2013 Defendants side :
Ex.D.1 to 74 Certified copies of receipts Ex.D.75 to 106 Certified copies of BWSSB Bills Ex.D.108 Certified copy of Letter dated 13.10.2009 Ex.D.109 Certified copy of lease cum sale agreement dated 17.07.2003 Ex.D.110 Certified copy of sale deed dated 28.08.2007 Ex.D.111 Certified copy of sale deed dated 11.02.2008 Ex.D.112 Certified copy of letter dated 03.03.1960 of BBMP Ex.D.113 Certified copy of letter dated 23.04.2007 to BBMP Ex.D.114 Certified copy of pass book of Bank of Baroda Ex.D.115 Certified copy of voter ID Ex.D.116 Certified copy of Aaadhar card Ex.D.117 Certified copy of RC Ex.D.118 Certified copy of BSNL bill Ex.D.119 Voter ID of Theresa Tellis Ex.D.120 Certified copy of pass book of Bank of Baroda 92 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w. O.S.No. 6628/2013 Ex.D.121 to 123 Certified copy of BESCOM bills Ex.D.124 Certified copy of ration card Ex.D.125 Certified copy of register of Baptisms Ex.D.126 Certified copy of register of Baptisms Ex.D.127 Certified copy of register of Baptisms Ex.D.128 Certified copy of register of Baptisms Ex.D.129 Certified copy of register of Baptisms Ex.D.130 Certified copy of voter ID Ex.D.131 Certified copy of death certificate of Anjalina Ex.D.132 Certified copy of death certificate of Xavier Ex.D.133 ID card of Anjalina Ex.D.134 to 145 BESCOM bills Ex.D.146 to 159 Gas bills Ex.D.160 to 171 Church subscription receipts Ex.D.172 Family record Ex.D.173 to 180 Progress report cards Ex.D.181 Motor vehicle insurance policy Ex.D.182 Bank passbook 93 O.S.No.7805/2009 C/w. O.S.No. 6628/2013 Ex.D.183 Bank passbook Ex.D.184 Ration card Ex.D.185 Medical benefit scheme card Ex.D.186 I.D.Card Ex.D.187 Inland letter Ex.D.188 Certified copy of cross-
examination of DW.1 in O.S.No. 7805/2009 Ex.D.189 Death certificate of Anjaleena Ex.D.190 Death certificate of Xavier XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.