Bangalore District Court
M.S.Sudarshan vs Bangalore Development Authority on 31 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.42]
PRESENT: SRI.BASAVARAJ B.COM., LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil Judge
Dated this the 31st day of October 2018
O.S.No.4990/2005
PLAINTIFFS : 1. M.S.Sudarshan
S/o M.K.Suryanaryana Rao
Aged about 37 years
No.1402, 23rd Main
Banashankari II Stage
Bangalore-560 070
2. M.L.Seetharam
S/o M.L.Lakshminarayan
Aged about 48 years
812, 19th Cross, 16th Main
Banashankari II Stage
Bangalore-560 070
3. Lakshmidevamma
W/o Late L.S.Krishna Murthy
Aged about 78 years
Since deceased by LR
S.Shamanna
4. S.Vijayalakshmi
W/o S.Shamanna
Aged about 58 years
Plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are residing
At No.2774, 6th Main
2 OS No.4990/2005
16th Cross, Banashankari II Stage
Bangalore-560 070
5. Radha.C
W/o C.Vishwanath
Aged about 34 years
No.280, 2nd Main
7th Cross, Hanumanthanagar
Bangalore-560 019
6. S.Sheshadri
S/o T.S.Sitaramarao
Aged about 47 years
No.595, 42nd Cross
10th A Main, 5th Block
Jayanagar
Bangalore-560 041
7. T.K.Srinivasamurthy
S/o T.N.Krishnappa
Aged 85 years
8. Jalaja.S
D/o Krishnappa
Aged about 45 years
Plaintiffs No.7 and 8 residing at:
No.595, 42nd Cross
10th A Main, 5th Block
Jayanagar
Bangalore-560 041
9. Jayamma.C
W/o G.K.Balakrishna
Aged about 72 years
3 OS No.4990/2005
10. B.Suresh Babu
S/o Smt.Jayamma.C
Aged about 48 years
11. B.Subash
S/o Smt.Jayamma
Aged about 46 years
12. Dr.B.S.Jayaram
S/o B.V.Srinivasa Iyengar
Aged about 43 years
13. Dr.B.Sunitha
W/o Dr.B.S.Jayaram
D/o Jayamma.C
Aged about 40 years
Plaintiffs No.9 and 13
Are R/at No.147, 30th Cross
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 070
14. Nagalakshmi Venkataraman
W/o Late K.Venkataraman
Aged about 52 years
No.322, Albart Victor Road
Fort Centre,
Bangalore-560 002
15. M.B.Vidya
W/o N.S.Santhosh
Aged about 34 years
No.792, 14th Cross
I Phase, J.P.Nagar
Bangalore-560 078
16. Lakshmi Venkataraju
4 OS No.4990/2005
W/o S.Venkataraju
Aged about 66 years
No.658, 30th main
14th Cross, 1 Phase
JP Nagar
Bangalore-560 078
17. R.Subramanya
S/o T.S.Ramanathan
Aged about 32 years
"Vani Mahal" No.694
13th Cross, 32nd Main
I Phase, J.P.Nagar
Bangalore-560 078
18. K.S.Kanthamma
W/o K.Sathyanarayana
Aged about 48 years
No.14/85, Mount Joy Road
Hanumanthanagar
Bangalore-560 019
19. Siva Prakash.M
S/o Late M.Sathyanarayana
Aged about 38 years
No.318, 9th Main, 4th Block
52nd Cross, Rajajinagar
Bangalore-560 010.
20. Nagarathna S.Murthy
W/o Sridhar Murthy.K
Aged about 54 years
No.808, 37th Cross
22nd Main, 4th T Block
Jayanagar
Bangalore-560 041
(By Sri.G.N.A., Advocate)
5 OS No.4990/2005
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Bangalore Development Authority
Sankey Road
Kumara Park West
Bangalore-560 020
Represented by its Commissioner
2. Hanuma Reddy
S/o Lakshmaiah Reddy
Major
Residing at No.75, 17,
Rathnavilasa Road
Basavanagudi
Bangalore-560 004
(D1 By Sri.P.R.,
D2 By Sri.G.P.R., Advocates)
Date of Institution of the Suit: 04.07.2005
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Declaration and
declaration & possession, suit mandatory injunction
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 08.11.2005
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced: 31.10.2018
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
13 03 27
6 OS No.4990/2005
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs filed this suit for mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to allot the sites of the same dimensions as they owned in Naidu Layout or in any of the layouts that is formed by 1st defendant on the terms as in WP.No.20875-38, 23198-318, 23433-549, 25192 & 27103- 1234 of 2001, 14361/2002, 7699-7703/2003, 8751/2003, 25838-25839/2003 etc., for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs being the erstwhile owners of their respective items of the suit schedule properties are entitled to obtain allotment of alternate sites in terms of the order dated 17.3.2015 passed in WP.5404-24/2005 and that the 2nd defendant has no manner of right or title over the suit schedule properties and to pass such other reliefs.
2. The suit schedule properties as described in the plaint is as under:-
7 OS No.4990/2005
SCHEDULE A) All that part and parcel of the (1st plaintiff property) bearing House List No.59, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 30 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on:
East by : Site No.58
West by : Site No.60
North by : Road
South by : Site No.64
B) All that part and parcel of the (2nd plaintiff property) bearing House List No.30 A type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 30 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on :
East by : Site No.29 of A
type
West by : Road
North by : Site No.31 of A
type
8 OS No.4990/2005
South by : Passage (Galli)
C) All that part and parcel of the (3rd and 4th plaintiffs' property) bearing House List No.37 & 38 A Type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 60 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on:
East by : Road
West by : Site No.39 A type
North by : Road
South by : Site No.45 and 46
of A type
D) All that part and parcel of the (5th plaintiff property) bearing House List No.11 A type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 30 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on:
East by : Site No.12
West by : Site No.10 of A
9 OS No.4990/2005
type
North by : Road
South by : Site No.2 of A type
E) All that part and parcel of the (6th plaintiff property) property bearing House List No.47 A Type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 30 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on the:
East by : Road
West by : Site No.48
North by : Road
South by : Site No.56
F) All that part and parcel of the (7th plaintiff property) property bearing House List No.50, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 30 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on the:10 OS No.4990/2005
East by : Site No.49
West by : Site No.51
North by : Road
South by : Site No.56
G) All that part and parcel of the (7th and 8th plaintiffs' property) property bearing House List No.48 A Type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 30 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on the:
East by : Site No.47
West by : Site No.49
North by : Road
South by : Site No.55
H) All that part and parcel of the (9th, 10th & 11th plaintiffs' property) property bearing House List No.6 B Type, New No.72 and 2C Type, New No.79, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east 11 OS No.4990/2005 to west: 45 feet, north to south: 116 feet and bounded on:
East by : Site No.3 of C Type
New No.78 and 5 of
B Type New No.71
West by : Site No.1 of C type
New No.80 and 7 of
B Type New No.73
North by : Private property
South by : Road
I) All that part and parcel of the (12th and 13th plaintiffs' property) property bearing House List Nos.75 & 76, Old No.5 and 6 of C Type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 90 feet, north to south: 55 feet and bounded on the:
East by : Site No.74 (Old
No.7 of C Type)
West by : Site No.78 (Old
No.4 of C Type)
North by : Road
South by : Site No.68 and 69
(Old No.2 and 3 of
12 OS No.4990/2005
B Type)
J) All that part and parcel of the (14th plaintiff's property) property bearing House List No.19 A Type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 30 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on the:
East by : Site No.20
West by : Road
North by : Road
South by : Site No.18
K) All that part and parcel of the (15th plaintiff's property) property bearing House List No.12 A Type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 30 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on:
East by : Private property
West by : Site No.11
North by : Road
13 OS No.4990/2005
South by : Site No.07
L) All that part and parcel of the (16th plaintiff's property) property bearing House List No.54 & 55 A Type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 40 feet, north to south: 60 feet and bounded on the:
East by : Site No.56 of A
Type
West by : Site No.53 of A
Type
North by : Site No.48 & 49 of
A Type
South by : Road
M) All that part and parcel of the (17th plaintiff's property) property bearing House List No.74 Old No.7 of C Type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 45 feet, north to south: 55 feet and bounded on:
East by : Private property
14 OS No.4990/2005
West by : Site No.76 Old Site
No.6
North by : Road
South by : Site No.87 (Old
Site No.1)
N) All that part and parcel of the (18thplaintiff's property) property bearing House List No.3 of A Type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 30 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on:
East by : Site No.02 of A
Type
West by : Site No.04 of A
Type
North by : Site No.10 of A
Type
South by : Road
O) All that part and parcel of the (19th plaintiff's property) property bearing House List No.31 of A Type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, 15 OS No.4990/2005 Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 30 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on:
East by : Site No.32
West by : Road
North by : Passage
South by : Site No.30
P) All that part and parcel of the (20th plaintiff's property) property bearing House List No.41 of A Type, Katha No.114 situated at Anjanapura Village, Anjanapura Village Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west: 30 feet, north to south: 40 feet and bounded on:
East by : Site No.41
West by : Private property
North by : Passage
South by : Site No.42 of A
Type
All that part and parcel of the sites in Naidu Layout bearing Nos.59, 30, 37 & 38, 11, 47, 48 & 50, 72B & 79C, 75 & 76, 19, 12, 54 & 55, 74, 03, 31 and 41 16 OS No.4990/2005 carved out in Survey No.40/6B, 40/8, 40/10 of Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
3. The plaint averments in brief is as under:
The plaintiffs are the owners of the sites bearing Nos.59, 30, 37 & 38, 11, 47, 48 & 50, 72 & 79, 75 & 76, 19, 12, 54 & 55, 74, 03, 31 and 41 carved out in Survey No.40/6B, 40/8, 40/10 of Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District and the said layout is known as Naidu Layout wherein about 88 sites formed. The sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiffs by the erstwhile owners were during the period for the year 1992 to 1997.
The plaintiffs filed WP.5405-20/2005 before the High Court of Karnataka for seeking the allotment of sites in their favour in lieu of the sites acquired as directed in WP.20875- 38, 23198-318, 23433-549, 25192 & 27103-124 of 2001, 14361/2002, 7699-7703/2002, 8751/2003, 25839/2003 etc. the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was disposed off the matter on 17.3.2005 directing the plaintiffs to approach the 17 OS No.4990/2005 City Civil Court, Bangalore for the said relief in view of the BDA statement that the 2nd defendant has caused objections for the allotments to be made in favour of the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have purchased the property from defendant No.2 - L.Hanuma Reddy represented by his General power of attorney holder Balachandra Naidu as per the Naidu layout plan. Subsequently to the purchase the plaintiffs' names were mutated in the khatha certificates, tax demand receipts and other revenue records. The said sites bearing Nos.59, 30, 37 & 38, 11, 47, 48 & 50, 72 & 79, 75 & 76, 19, 12, 54 & 55, 03, 31 and 41 carved out in Survey Number 40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District. The defendant No.-2 in affidavit executed before the various authorities has declared that certain sites have been sold by him and the remaining sites in the said layout have been sold by Balachandra Naidu through General Power of Attorney.
The said sites morefully described in the schedules are carved out of Sy.No.40/6b, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura 18 OS No.4990/2005 Village. The same were notified for acquisition, the award was passed and the same is not challenged by the 2nd defendant as on date. The objections filed by the 2nd defendant seeking dropping of acquisition proceedings was not considered by the 1st defendant. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka disposed the writ bearing WP.5404-20/2005 on 17.3.2005 directing the plaintiffs to seek the relief from the City Civil Court, Bangalore as such the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking directions to the 1st defendant for allotment of sites in their favour as directed in the WPs.20875-38, 23198-318, 23433-549, 25192 & 27103-124 of 2001, 14361/2002, 7699-7703/2003, 8751/2003, 25838- 25839/2003 etc. The 2nd defendant has no right, title or interest or whatsoever over the sites owned by the plaintiffs, the claim of the 2nd defendant is imaginary and unsustainable in the eye of law. The 2nd defendant has executed various sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs.
19 OS No.4990/2005
The Village Panchayat of Anjanapura approved layout plan for the plaintiffs' layout and other layouts. The plaintiffs approached the Bangalore Development Authority to enquire whether any notification for acquisition is made or not before the purchase at that time the BDA issued a letter dated 02.12.1992 stating that these sites carved in Sy.No.4/6B, 40/8, 40/10f of Anjanapura Village have not been acquired. The BDA issued preliminary notification dated 15.5.1999 and published in news paper i.e. in Times of India publication dated 15.5.1999 for development of Anjanapura Township without specifying the plaintiffs' property numbers. On 20.3.1999 BDA issued preliminary notification. On coming to know of the same the sites belonging to the plaintiffs are included for the said purpose of acquisition, the plaintiffs presented their objections. The plaintiffs notified the BDA that the property in their possession as owners thereof is already developed, it is in accordance with the scheme of Anjanapura Township, thus the plaintiffs requested the BDA 20 OS No.4990/2005 not to acquire their property but to levy betterment charges if necessary.
In the paper publication dated 15.5.1999 (Vide Annexure-C the BDA assured the plaintiffs that the properties of Anjanapura Township will be developed taking into consideration the existing site holders/owners sentiments. The BDA called for suggestions from the public regarding the development of the Township and demanded public participation in the development of those areas of which they are in possession. In this regard, they presented a petition notifying the BDA about the existence of their sites and requested the BDA not to acquire their properties.
The actions of the 1st defendant deprive the right of the plaintiffs to live in dignity and with equal status. The BDA on one hand is trying to acquire these sites, which belong to middle class/weaker strata people and on the other hand are trying to protect the property belonging to influential people. There are other layouts adjoining the plaintiffs' property that have not been included in notification as it belongs to 21 OS No.4990/2005 influential political personalities, who have contracts/access to power and politics. This is a clear infringement of Article 14 that envisages equality and equal protection before law. The 2nd defendant chose the plaintiffs, who are of fixed income group to sell the site formed by him as they have no access to the people in power.
It is the duty of the 1st defendant to provide right opportunity and facilities to the public at large in order to enable them to acquire shelter of their own. The action of the 1st defendant deprives the plaintiffs' right to livelihood and shelter required in a civilized society.
The plaintiffs have acquired sites that are adequate to put up small houses and have a descent living so that they and their family can have the right to livelihood as envisaged in Article 14, 19 and 21. The plaintiffs' sites should be excluded as they were formed after getting approval from competent authorities. The 1st defendant unmindful of Government guidelines and problems of small site holders, who have invested their lifetime earnings into the purchase 22 OS No.4990/2005 have gone ahead to discriminate by attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs. Hence prays to decree the suit.
4. Upon service of summons, the defendant No.1 appeared before the court through its counsel and filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs are not the khatedhars of the property comprised in the above said survey numbers. It is not a party not aware of any transaction between the plaintiffs and Balachandra Naidu - General Power of Attorney holder to Hanuma Reddy.
As per final notification dated 28.8.2000, published in Karnataka Gazette dated 11.9.1990 the Government of Karnataka has sanctioned an improvement scheme for the formation of Layout called Anjanapura Township by the 1st defendant authority vide Govt. Order No.UDD/141/MNX/99 Bangalore dated 26.8.2000. In exercise of the power conferred under Sub Section (1) of Section 19 of the BDA Act, 1976, the Government of Karnataka has declared the said notified lands specified in the schedule therein were acquired 23 OS No.4990/2005 for the public purpose of formation of layout called Anjanapura Township and acquired the lands as per law. As on the date of Notification, Hanuma Reddy was the Khatedhar and the owner in respect of land comprised in Sy.No.No.40/6B, 40/8 & 40/10 of Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Notice was issued to the land owner and Award has been passed fixing the compensation. The BDA has acted legally in acquiring the lands to form the layout. The said acquired lands were vacant. The Land Acquisition Officer after considering all the facts and circumstances has passed the order and thereby awarded the compensation.
BDA is the planning authority to approve all development plans and also layouts. The alleged Naidu Layout was not approved nor within the knowledge of the BDA. The Revenue Recodes were in the name of Hanuma Reddy as Khatedar. The plaintiffs were not purchased any portion of the lands comprised in the above said Survey Numbers.
24 OS No.4990/2005
The BDA after acquiring the land as per law, has formed the layout by name Anjanapura Township and allotted sites to various subscribers. The plaintiffs are not entitled for allotment of sites either in the above said Survey numbers or any other layout formed by the BDA. Since the plaintiffs have not made any applications for allotment of sites, their requests cannot be considered without proper application and payment of amount as per the terms and conditions of Site Allotment by the BDA. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The defendant No.2 appeared before the court through his counsel and filed written statement contending that they have no legal right or possession over the suit schedule properties or any portions thereof. He disputes the truth of the case set out in the plaint. The plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the above suit. The plaintiffs claimed to have distinct interest in the suit schedule properties. A single suit by them is not at all maintainable. The suit as brought is not properly constituted and there is 25 OS No.4990/2005 no cause of action to approach this court seeking a direction to allot the sites to them.
The description of the properties specified in the schedule to the plaint are not correct. The house List numbers and katha numbers and the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the plaint are non-existing and the same are created for the purpose of this case. The alleged sale deeds upon which the plaintiffs are allowing the claim over the suit schedule property was forged and fabricated. They have filed the Writ Petitions No.5405-5424/2005 (LA-BDA) in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the acquisition notifications and also for a direction against the BDA to allot sites. He was not a party to the said writ proceedings. The plaintiffs had conveniently omitted to implead him as party to the proceedings with oblique notifications. The order passed in the said writ petition will not give legal right to approach this court seeking allotment of sites.
26 OS No.4990/2005
The plaintiff No.5 has filed a frivolous suit OS.5564/2004 in the Court of Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-13) for permanent injunction against him. He has filed his written statement in that suit and opposing the reliefs claimed therein. Filing of that suit by the plaintiff No.5 has not been disclosed in this suit. The plaintiffs have no bonafides in filing this suit seeking allotment of sites in their favour. The suit schedule properties as per the schedule of the plaint situated at Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The suit schedule properties falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit and decide this suit.
The defendant No.2 is the rightful owner in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing No.40/6-B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village. Those lands are agricultural in nature and thy have not been converted either for residential purpose or for commercial purpose. The defendant No.2 has not formed any layout in the lands comprised in those survey numbers. He has not executed any General Power of Attorney 27 OS No.4990/2005 in favour of Balachandra Naidu nor authorized him to deal with the said lands. The said Balakrishna Naidu has not formed any layout in these lands. In fact, he has not seen the said Balachandra Naidu and there is no transaction between him and them. The said Balachandra Naidu is an utter stranger to him. He denied the averments made in the plaint. He has not executed any sale deed or document in favour of anyone of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule properties. The alleged execution by Balachandra Naidu in favour of the plaintiffs is without any legal authority. The alleged execution of the sale deeds referred to in the plaint and the contents therein are hereby denied by him.
The lands bearing Sy.No.40/6-B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village belonging to him does not come within the jurisdiction of Grama Panchayat. The Grama Panchayat has no jurisdiction to assign khatha number to any portion of the said lands belonging to him. The said lands even today are coming in the revenue authority. The documents stated to have been obtained from the Grama Panchayath are all 28 OS No.4990/2005 created for the purpose to lay a false claim. The documents referred to and relied upon by the plaintiffs do not create any legal right in respect of the said properties and the same have no legal sanctity.
The averments that the plaintiffs are the owners of the sites No.59, 30, 37, 38, 11, 47, 48, 50, 72, 79, 75, 76, 19, 12, 54, 55, 3, 31 and 41 carved out in Sy.No.40/6-B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village are false and the same are hereby denied in the absence of a layout formed in those survey numbers. The site numbers, House list numbers or khatha numbers, mentioned in the schedule to the plaint are all created. He deny the execution of the alleged sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs by the erstwhile owners during the years 1992-93 and there is no layout or Naidu layout in those survey numbers. It is absurd and meaningless to say the plaintiffs are having sites in the alleged Naidu layout. It is misleading to state that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed the plaintiffs to approach this court for allotment 29 OS No.4990/2005 of sites in view of the alleged statement made by the defendant No.1.
He has not executed any affidavit before any authority declaring that certain sites have been sold by him and the remaining sites in the said alleged layout have been sold by Balachandra Naidu. The suit schedule properties are not carved out of Sy.No.40/6-B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village as claimed. It is true that the lands belonging to him have been notified for acquisition. He has filed objections opposing the acquisition of his lands. He is not aware of filing of the writ petition.
The defendant No.2 has not executed any sale deed in favour of one of the plaintiffs. The averments that the plaintiffs and their families have invested their hard earned money and live savings so as to own a shelter of their own and so as to acquire the suit schedule properties are false and the same are hereby denied.
The defendant No.1 is not aware of the plaintiffs and approached the defendant No.1 to enquire any notification 30 OS No.4990/2005 made before the purchase. The BDA has issued the preliminary notification propose to acquire the lands comprised in Sy.No.s.40/6B and 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village belonging to him. He has been shown an khatedar in the notification also. No respects of the said notification, objections even filed opposing the acquisition.
The Bangalore Development Authority had not called for suggestions regarding the development of the Township. The suit is not properly valued. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. The defendant No.2 filed additional written statement contending that there is no difference between the prayer made earlier and the amended prayer at prayer column (a) except by adding the words 'by issue of a decree of decree of mandatory injunction'. The plaintiffs are claiming mandatory injunction against the defendant No.1, which is a statutory body. There is no statutory obligation or contractual obligation on the part of the defendant No.1 to 31 OS No.4990/2005 allot sites in favour of the plaintiffs. Further, the above suit seeking mandatory injunction without seeking relief of declaration when the plaintiffs were the rightful owners in possession and enjoyment of the land/property acquired y the defendant No.1, the BDA as ont eh date of initiating the acquition proceedings and completing the same. In Fact, the plaintiffs have misconstrued the orders passed in Writ Petition No.5405-24 of 2005 and has approached this court with the aboave suit. The plaintiffs have approached this court with this suit basing on the order dated 17.3.2005 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No.5450- 24 of 2005.
By formal and meaningful reading of the above said order, it is clear that it is imperative for the plaintiffs to get their rights adjudicated in a properly instituted proceedings before the Civil Court and after adjudication of the rights by a Civil Court the plaintiffs have to approach BDA for consideration of their request for allotment of sites. Even after remand the plaintiffs are not seeking for declaration of 32 OS No.4990/2005 their ownership over their alleged sites/land or property as on the date of acquisition by the BDA.
The plaintiffs have intelligently have added an additional prayer at prayer column (c) for declaring that plaintiffs being the erstwhile owners of their respective owners of the suit schedule properties are entitled to obtain allotment of alternative sites from the 1st defendant authority. Instead of seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners of their respective items of the suit schedule properties on completion of acquisition under the BDA Act, 1976 in order to avoid payment of Court Fee on the prayer for declaration of ownership. The relief of declaration specified in prayer column (c) clearly indicates that the plaintiffs themselves have declared that they are the erstwhile owners of their respective items of suit schedule properties instead of seeking to declare that they were the owners of the suit schedule properties. In fact, the prayer in column No.(c) is already covered in Prayer column (a). It is in prayer column
(a) the plaintiffs are asking for a direction to allot the sites 33 OS No.4990/2005 and in prayer column (c) they are asking to declaring that they are entitled to obtain allotment of alternative sites. By reading the meaning in between the lines at prayer column (a) and prayer column (c) there is no substantial difference in those two prayers. That being so the amended prayers in the prayer column of the plaint have not made much difference when compared to the original prayer. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
7. The defendant No.2 filed additional written statement contending that the plaintiffs under the amended plaint are unrighteously claiming a decree to declare that they are entitled to obtain allotment of alternative sites in terms of the order dated 17.3.2005 passed in WP.5405-24/2005 and also to grant a negative declaration that he has no manner of right or title over the suit schedule properties. They misconstrued and tenor of the order dated 17.3.2005 referred to in the prayer column.
34 OS No.4990/2005
It is only after adjudication all the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs, it is thereafter the BDA shall consider the request of the petitioners/plaintiffs for allotment of sites. There is no statutory obligation or legal obligation on the part of the BDA to allot sites in favour of the plaintiffs even if the decision of this court is rendered in their favour.
Interestingly in order to avoid payment of required Court Fee the plaintiffs have made their declaration relief in such a way to declare that they being the erstwhile owners of their respective items of the suit schedule properties are entitled to obtain allotment of alternative sites. There is no positive prayer for declaration of the plaintiffs' alleged ownership over the suit schedule properties instead of requesting the Court to declare their ownership the plaintiffs themselves are declaring them as being the erstwhile owners of their respective items of the suit schedule properties. More interestingly their negative declaration is that defendant No.2 has no manner of right or title over the suit schedule 35 OS No.4990/2005 properties in so far as plaintiffs are concerned they declare themselves that they are being the erstwhile owners. On the other hand, whiel coming to the rights of him, they want a negative declaration that he has no manner of right or title over the suit schedule properties. The prayer made at prayer column © in the plaint is improper and same is not in accordance with law. The prayer sought for is required to be disallowed.
In the order dated 17.3.2005 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petitions No.5405-24/2005 there is no direction issued to the BDA for allotment of alternative sites. The plaintiffs are claiming a declaration that they are entitled to obtain allotment of alternative sites in terms of the order dated 17.3.2005. But in the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, nowhere it has ben stated that the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain allotment of alternative sites. In the absence of such an order the prayer made at prayer column (c) is not only misleading but also mischievous. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 36 OS No.4990/2005
8. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues have been recasted by my learned predecessor in office and additional issues are framed by me:-
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the allotment of the sites of the dimension of the schedule properties?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the direction sought for?
3) Whether the court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit?
4) To what decree or order?
ADDL. ISSUES FRAMED ON 1.7.2017
1) Whether the suit is properly valued and the court fee paid is sufficient?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration?
9. The 6th plaintiff in order to prove the case examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.122 and examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3. The defendant No.1 examined its Asst. Executive Engineer, BDA as DW1 and 37 OS No.4990/2005 got marked Ex.D.1. The defendant No.2 examined himself as DW2 and got marked Ex.D.2 to D.5.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the records of the case.
11. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Recasted Issue : In the negative
No.1, 2 & Addl.
Issue No.2
Recasted Issue : Does not arise for
No.3 consideration
Addl. Issue No.1 : In the negative
Recasted Issue : As per the final order,
No.4 for the following;
REASONS
12. RECASTED ISSUE NOs.1, 2 AND ADDL. ISSUE NO.2:- Since these Issues are interconnected with each other and hence in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence they are taken up together common discussion 38 OS No.4990/2005
13. It is pertinent to note that this suit was dismissed on merits on 08.07.2009. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiffs preferred RFA No.795/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the same was allowed and matter is remitted back to this court for disposal of the same in accordance with law by observing that if there is need then the parties can seek the amendment. After remanding the matter, the plaintiffs got amended the plaint and the PW1 was further examined and produced Ex.P.71 to 122 and examined PW2 and PW3 and also the DW2 was further examined and he has produced Ex.D.2 to D.5.
14. It is admitted fact that the defendant No.2 was the owner of Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village. It is admitted fact that the defendant No.1 acquired the Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village under the preliminary notification dated 20.8.1999 and final notification dated 28.8.2000 for formation of Aanjanapura 39 OS No.4990/2005 town ship in the name of defendant No.2 as Anubhavdar and khatedar of them.
15. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.2 formed layout in Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village consisting of 88 sites known as Naidu Layout and out of them the defendant No.2 sold 17 sites under the Sale Deeds during the period 1992 to 1997, which are the suit schedule properties and among them two sites were sold by the defendant No.2 himself and the remaining 15 sites were sold by his General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No. 2 by name Balachandra Naidu. It is further case of the plaintiffs that they have filed WP.No.20875-78, 23198-318, 23433-549, 25192 and 27103-124 of 2001, 14361/2002, 7699-7703/2002, 8751/2003 and 25839/2003 and the same was disposed off by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and thereafter the plaintiff filed WP.No.5405- 20/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein 40 OS No.4990/2005 the plaintiffs are directed to approach the civil court and accordingly they have filed this suit.
16. It is further case of the defendant No.1 that with respect to the acquiring of Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village award was passed and the acquired lands are vacant.
17. It is further case of the defendant No.2 that his lands bearing Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village are agricultural in nature and they have not been converted either for residential or for commercial purpose and he has not formed any layout in them and he has not sold any sites and he has not executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Balachandra Naidu to deal with the said lands and the said lands even today are coming under the revenue authority.
41 OS No.4990/2005
18. The learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs argued that the plaintiffs are having common interest and hence they have joined together and filed this suit and the single suit filed by them is maintainable.
19. The learned Advocate appearing for the defendant No.2 filed written arguments stating that these 20 plaintiffs are not related to each other and all of them claiming distinct and different interest in the suit schedule sites and hence a single suit filed by all the plaintiffs not at all maintainable and the suit as brought is not properly constituted. .
20. The defendant No.2 contended in the written statement that a single suit filed by all the plaintiffs is not at all maintainable and the suit as brought is not properly constituted. In this suit, there are 20 plaintiffs and they joined together and filed this suit with respect to 17 items of properties, which are the suit schedule properties. 42 OS No.4990/2005
21. The Order I Rule 1 of CPC reads thus:
"Who may be joined as plaintiffs: All
persons may be joined in one suit as
plaintiffs where -
a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and
b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise."
22. The Order II rule 3 of CPC reads thus:
Joinder of causes of action- (1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.
(2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the 43 OS No.4990/2005 aggregate subject - matters at the date of instituting the suit.
23. So, as per the above provisions as stated above, all the plaintiffs claiming that they have purchased respective sites from the defendant No.2 and the power of attorney holder of defendant No.2 under the different Sale Deeds and later on the same were acquired by the defendant No.1 under the same notifications and in pursuance of that the plaintiffs are seeking for alternative sites from the defendant No.1 and thereby the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs arising out of the alleged series of transactions of defendant No.2 and General Power of Attorney holder of the defendant No.2 and the common question of law is involved and hence the plaintiffs united in the same suit having several cause of action against the same defendants and the filing of the common suit by all the 20 plaintiffs is maintainable. In other words if the plaintiffs were to file separate 17 suits with respect to the 17 items of suit schedule property, then 44 OS No.4990/2005 those suits are to be clubbed together and common evidence has to be recorded and the common judgment has to be delivered. So this court of the opinion that the filing of the single suit by all the plaintiffs are maintainable.
24. The learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs argued that the plaintiff No.6 filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of him and other plaintiffs and though the affidavit evidence filed by the plaintiff No.6 on 8.11.2005 and additional affidavit evidence of him filed on 16.12.2014 is not authorized by the other plaintiffs, but on 11.9.2017 the plaintiff No.6 filed his additional affidavit evidence and then the General Power of Attorney executed by the other plaintiffs is produced and hence there is authorization by the other plaintiffs to the plaintiff No.6 to depose in this suit.
25. The learned Advocate appearing for the defendant No.2 filed written arguments stating that there is no authorization by the other plaintiffs to the plaintiff No.6 to 45 OS No.4990/2005 depose in this suit. The PW1 is only concerned with Site No.6 and he has no personal knowledge regarding the disputed General Power of Attorney of defendant No. 2 and disputed sale transactions relating to other sites involved in this suit.
26. The plaintiff No.6 filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of PW1 on 8.11.2005, wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the plaint stating that he has authorized to tender his evidence on behalf of other plaintiffs and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.17 and he was cross- examined by the defendants No.1 and 2's counsel. During the course of cross-examination he deposed that he has also filed the affidavit on behalf of the other plaintiffs and the other plaintiffs have not executed any power of attorney in his favour for giving evidence on their behalf, but they have orally informed him to give evidence on their behalf also. During the course of further cross-examination he also deposed that the other plaintiffs will not be examined in this suit and other plaintiffs have not given any power of attorney in his favour 46 OS No.4990/2005 for deposing on their behalf. Thereafter, the PW1 filed his additional affidavit evidence on 16.12.2014 and he was cross- examined by the defendants' counsel. Again the PW1 filed his additional affidavit evidence on 11.9.2017 with the power of attorney executed by plaintiffs No.1 to 5 and 7 to 10 as per Ex.P.112 and on that day the other Ex.P.113 to 122 were also marked through him. So, the plaintiff No.6 was not authorized by the other plaintiffs to depose before the court as filed his affidavit evidence on 8.11.2005 and on 16.12.2014.
27. Order 1 Rule 12 of CPC reads thus:
"Appearance of one of the several plaintiffs or defendants for others: 1) Where there are more plaintiffs than one, any one or more of them may be authorized by any other of them to appear, plead or act for such other in any proceeding; and in like manner, where there are more defendants than one, any one or more of them may be authorized by 47 OS No.4990/2005 any other of them to appear, plead or act for such other in any proceeding.
2) The authority shall be in writing signed by the party giving it and shall be filed in Court.
28. So, as per the above provision, when there are more than one plaintiff and if one of the plaintiffs is examined on behalf of all the plaintiffs, then there must be authorization by the other plaintiffs to depose before the Court. As stated above, though the PW1 deposed that he is authorized by the other plaintiffs to give evidence but there was no authorization by the other plaintiffs to depose by the plaintiff No.6 on their behalf with respect to his affidavit evidence filed on 8.11.2005, wherein reiterated the averments made in the plaint and additional affidavit evidence on 16.12.2014. The additional affidavit evidence filed by the plaintiff No.6 on 11.9.2017 is with the power of attorney of other plaintiffs will not cure the defect and hence it has to be treated that there is only evidence of plaintiff No.6 on record and there is no evidence on behalf of other plaintiffs. Moreover, during the 48 OS No.4990/2005 course of the cross-examination of PW1, he has deposed that he was not present at the time of registration of the sites of other plaintiffs and he cannot say the suit site numbers and their boundaries. When the defendant No.2 contending that all the sale deeds relied by the plaintiffs are forged and fabricated, then the evidence of each of the plaintiffs is very much necessary as initial burden is on them.
29. The plaintiffs' counsel argued that the defendant No.2 and his General Power of Attorney holder Balachandra Naidu formed the layout in Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village and out of them suit schedule properties are carved out and out of 17 items of the suit schedule properties the defendant No.2 himself sold two sites in favour of plaintiff No.6 and in favour of vendor of plaintiff No.7 and the said Balachandra Naidu sold 15 sites in favour of defendants No.1 to 5, 8 to 20.
49 OS No.4990/2005
30. The defendant No.2's counsel filed written arguments stating that the defendant No.2 not formed layout in his lands and the alleged sale deeds relied by the plaintiffs do not disclose that they are the portions of Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village. To form private layout there must be approved plan by the planning authority as per Section 32 of the BDA Act. The defendant No.2 has not executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Balachandra Naidu and disputes the alleged sale deeds executed by Balachandra Naidu in favour of defendants No.1 to 5 and 8 to 20.
31. The PW1 deposed that the defendant No.2 formed layout in Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village and out of them the suit schedule properties are carved out. The plaintiffs produced Ex.P.76 to P.92 - original registered sale deeds and out of them the Ex.P.76 to P.79, P.82 to P.92 are alleged to be executed by the power of attorney holder of defendant No.2 one Balachandra Naidu in 50 OS No.4990/2005 favour of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 and 8 to 20 and Ex.P.80 - sale deed executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff No.6 and Ex.P.81 - sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the vendor of plaintiff No.7. In this Ex.P.76 to P.92 there is no mentioning that the suit schedule properties are carved out of which Sy.Nos. In the schedule of the plaint also there is no mentioning that out of which Sy.Nos. the suit schedule properties are carved out.
32. The plaintiffs further contended that the Village Panchayat of Anjanapura Village approved the layout plan of Naidu Layout and to that effect the plaintiffs produced Ex.P.96, which is the Xerox copy of the approved layout plan of Anjanapura Panchayat and the same was allowed as secondary evidence in pursuance of the orders passed by this court on 31.7.2014 by relying on the ruling reported in ILR 2006 KAR 169. To substantiate the same, the plaintiffs have not examined any of the officials of the Anjanapura 51 OS No.4990/2005 Panchayat. So, the plaintiffs have not proved the Ex.P.96 as per Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act.
33. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, he pleaded ignorance whether the layout formed by the 2nd defendant was approved layout or not and further elicited in his cross-examination that in the year 1993 Balachandra Naidu formed the layout. Admittedly the defendant No.2 was the owner of Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village, but he denies formation of layout in those lands and carving of sites in it. The official of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 filed their affidavits in lieu of their examination-in-chief as DW1 and DW2 respectively, wherein they have reiterated the averments made in their respective written statements and DW1 pleaded ignorance with respect to the purchase of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs from the 2nd defendant and at the same time he has admitted that the suit schedule properties purchased by the plaintiffs is in Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura 52 OS No.4990/2005 Village are unauthorized sites and the DW2 during the course of cross-examination deposed that the suit schedule properties formed out of Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village.
34. The plaintiffs examined PW2 - P.Narendra, who is the son of P.Balachandra Naidu deposed in his evidence that the 2nd defendant with the assistance of his father formed layout named as 'Naidu Layout' in Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village and the 2nd defendant entered agreement of sale with his father on 9.1.1992 agreeing to effect the sale of 3 acres 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 for sale consideration of Rs.16,75,000/- and pursuant to that his father was put in possession of the said lands by receiving the entire sale consideration and his father formed layout and the 2nd defendant having received full sale consideration executed General Power of Attorney dated 5.4.1993 empowering his father to effect sale of 88 sites and the 2nd defendant also executed declaratory affidavit dated 53 OS No.4990/2005 5.4.1993 in favour of his father making it clear that he had sold the above mentioned sites in favour of his father. He further deposed that his father sold the sites as power of attorney holder of defendant No.2 and certain sites were sold by the defendant No.2 himself and original agreement of sale dated 9.1.1992 and original power of attorney dated 5.4.1993 have been lost and not traceable and as summoned by the Court he is producing the copies of those documents. During the course of his further examination-in-chief the Xerox copy of the agreement of sale dated 9.1.1992, Xerox copy of General Power of Attorney dated 5.4.1993, Xerox copy of affidavit dated 31.7.2004 and Xerox copy of affidavit dated 31.7.2014 are marked as Ex.P.93 to P.96 as secondary evidence as per the orders passed on 31.7.2014. Later on the plaintiffs filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and 7 r/w Section 151 of CPC to direct the PW2 to produce originals of Ex.P.93 to P.96 as the plaintiffs came to know that those documents are traced and the same was allowed and accordingly the originals are produced by PW2 and originals of Ex.P.93 to 54 OS No.4990/2005 P.96 are respectively marked as Ex.P.102 to P.105 through him. During the course of cross-examination of PW2, he deposed that he has filed complaint to the J.P. Nagar police station regarding the documents lost. It is further came in the cross-examination of PW2 that the Ex.P.102 to 105 were behind the photograph of his father. Taking into consideration of above answer the PW2 in the cross- examination it can be gathered that after tracing of Ex.P.102 to 105 the same were produced to the court. Apart from this the defendant No.2's counsel cross-examined the PW2 at very length with regard to production of Ex.P.102 to P.105, but nothing was elicited to dis-credit his testimony.
35. The PW3 - T.S.Ramachandra Rao, who is the attestor to the Ex.P.102 deposed that P.Balachandra Naidu and defendant No.2 formed layout in the lands of defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 executed General Power of Attorney in favour of P.Balachandra Naidu with respect to formation of layout, which is dated 5.4.1993 and for that he 55 OS No.4990/2005 is the attestor and in pursuance of the said General Power of Attorney P.Balachandra Naidu sold several sites to several persons and to those sale deeds he has signed and defendant No.2 also effected sale of certain sites and he has identified the signature of defendant No.2. During the course of his further examination-in-chief the PW3 identified his signatures on Ex.P.94 to P.96, P.3, P.76 to P.92 and he was cross- examined at very length, but there is no worth in the cross- examination and he denied the suggestion that himself, P.Balachandra Naidu and plaintiffs colluded together and created Ex.P.76 to P.79, P.81, P.82, P.84 to P.92 on the basis of created Ex.P.4.
36. So, from the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and admission of DW2 that the suit schedule properties are the portions of Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village coupled with Ex.P.93 to P.96, P.102 to P.105, it can be very well said that the defendant No.2 in his lands bearing Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village formed in all 88 sites 56 OS No.4990/2005 with the help of P.Balachandra Naidu, who is the father of PW2 and the said Balachandra Naidu was authorized to sell the sites formed by the defendant No.2 in his lands.
37. As stated above it is further case of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the respective suit schedule properties in between 1992 to 1997 from the defendant No.2 and General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.2. It is stated in the plaint with respect to the ownership of the plaintiffs over the respective suit schedule properties as under:
"The plaintiffs submit that they are the owners of sites bearing No.59, 30, 37 & 38, 11, 47, 48 & 50, 72 & 79, 75 & 76, 19, 12, 54 & 55, 03, 31 & 41 carved out in Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District the said layout is known as Naidu Layout. There are about 88 sites formed in the Naidu Layout. The sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiffs by the erstwhile owners 57 OS No.4990/2005 were during the period for the year 1992 to 1997. The plaintiffs have sites in the Naidu Layout. The details of the purchases made by the plaintiffs are as appended and detailed in chart Annexure-A...............The plaintiffs submit that they have purchased the property from L.Hanumareddy represented by his power of attorney holder Balachandra Naidu, subsequently to the purchase the plaintiffs names were mutated in the khatha certificates, tax demand receipts and other revenue records...............The said sites were sold by Balachandra Naidu - General Power of Attorney holder to Hanumareddy as per the layout plan, the layout was known as Naidu Layout plan."
38. The PW1 further deposed in his examination-in- chief as contended in the plaint, which is stated as above and further deposed in his examination-in-chief as under:
"The sale deed executed in my favour by the erstwhile owner C.Hanumareddy on 31.3.1993 is registered before registering 58 OS No.4990/2005 authority of Kengeri Sub- Registrar's office, Bangalore as document No.335, Book No.I, Volume No.708, Page No.197-201-1993-94 the sale deeds registered in favour of the plaintiffs are as stated below.............."
39. So, the PW1 further deposed that the defendant No.2 executed the Sale Deed dated 31.03.1993 but not specifically stated with respect to which item of the suit schedule property. The Ex.P.8 - Sale Deed dated 31.03.1993, which reveals that the he has purchased item No.E of the Schedule property from the defendant No.2. As stated above, the defendant No.2 contended that he has not executed any sale deed in favour of any of the plaintiffs and the alleged sale deeds upon which the plaintiffs are claiming are forged and fabricated. So, in the plaint it is not stated that which plaintiff purchased which item of schedule property from whom and it is also not stated that the plaintiff No. 6 purchased item No.E of the suit schedule property from the defendant No.2 under the registered Sale Deed dated 59 OS No.4990/2005 31.03.1993 and only stated or vaguely stated that he has purchased the property from the defendant No.2 under the registered Sale Deed dated 31.03.1993. So there is no pleadings in the plaint regarding the purchase of respective suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs and from whom and the plaintiff No.6 purchased item No.E of the suit schedule property from the defendant No. 2 under registered Sale Deed dated 31.03.1993. In this regard the defendant No.2's counsel rightly relied on the ruling reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2179 (Vinod Kumar Arora V/s Smt.Surajit Kaur), wherein it is held that the pleadings of the parties form the foundation of their case. So, there is no pleadings in the plaint to show that which plaintiff purchased which item of the suit schedule property from whom.
40. Further the plaintiffs got appointed finger print expert for the comparison of signatures of the defendant No.2 on the sale deed dated 25.4.1993 and another sale deed dated 7.4.1992 along with vakalath, written statement and certified 60 OS No.4990/2005 copy of the Will and after the scientific examination report was submitted to the Court stating that the signature and thumb impression on sale deed dated 25.4.1993 and another sale deed dated 7.4.1992 tallies with the vakalath, written statement, c/c of the Will of the defendant. The defendant No.2 filed objections to commissioner's report. The Court commissioner is not examined and the said report is not got marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' counsel relied on the ruling reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1840(Parappa and others V/s Bhimappa and another), wherein it is held as without marking the commissioner's report with respect to the local inspection and without examining the Commissioner, his report can be relied. Hence relying on the principles held in this ruling the report of the finger print expert can be looked into. As stated above, sale deed dated 25.4.1993 and another sale deed dated 7.4.1992 are not the Sale Deeds of the either the plaintiff No. 6 or of other plaintiffs. It is pertinent to note the Ex.P.80 and 81 were not sent to the finger print expert along with the admitted 61 OS No.4990/2005 signatures of defendant No.2. Hence the report of the finger print expert will no way helpful to the case of the plaintiffs. Hence it cannot be said that the plaintiff No. 6 purchased item No.E of the suit schedule property from the defendant No.2.
41. PW1 deposed that the defendant No.2 executed power of attorney in favour of Balachandra Naidu for the sale of the suit schedule properties. As stated above I came to the conclusion that the defendant No. 2 executed Ex.P.102- General Power of Attorney dated 05.04.1993 authorizing the P.Balachandra Naidu for the sale of the sites formed in Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura village. As stated above, the defendant No.1 to 5 and 7 to 20 have not entered into the witness box. In this regard the defendant No. 2's counsel rightly relied on the ruling reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1441 (Vidyadar V/s Manik Rao and another) wherein it is held that if the party to the suit not entered in to the witness box then adverse inference has to be drawn 62 OS No.4990/2005 against him and the presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct which is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
42. The plaintiffs produced Ex.P.81 - alleged Sale Deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of vendor of 7th plaintiff and the Ex.P.1 to 79 and 82 to 92 alleged Sale Deeds executed by the power of attorney holder of the defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff No.1 to 5 and 8 to 20. As stated above I came to the conclusion that there is no oral evidence on behalf of plaintiff No.1 to 5 and 7 to 20. Such being the case in the facts and circumstances of the case it is not necessary to consider whether Ex.P.81 is executed by the defendant No.2 to the vendor of the Plaintiff No.7 and whether the Ex.P.1 to 79 and 82 to 92 executed by the power of attorney holder of the defendant No. 2 does not arise. Hence it cannot be said that the plaintiff No. 6 and vendor of plaintiff No. 7 purchased respective item of the suit schedule property from the defendant No.2 and the remaining plaintiffs 63 OS No.4990/2005 purchased respective item of the suit schedule property from the General Power of Attorney of defendant No.2.
43. The learned Advocate appearing for the defendant No.2 filed written arguments stating that the plaintiffs got amended the plaint for the prayer (c) in prayer columns of the plaint after the lapse of 8 years and hence as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act the suit is barred by limitation. In this regard, he has relied on the ruling reported in AIR 2015 KAR 83 (H.B. Shivakumar V/s L.C. Hanumanthappa), wherein it is held that the amendment with respect to the declaration of title and possession has to be sought by the plaintiff within 3 years from the date of filing of denial in the written statement. The defendant No. 2's counsel further relied on the ruling reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2018 (The state of Rajastan V/s Rao Raja Kalayan Singh dead by his legal representatives, wherein it is held as ' Though the this issue is not very specific but undoubtedly it covers the plea taken by the respondent in paragraph 1 of his written 64 OS No.4990/2005 statement. That apart the plea of maintainability of the suit is essentially a legal plea. If the suit on face of it is not maintainable, the fact that n specific pleas were taken or no precise issues were framed is of little consequences.'
44. The learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs argued that though the amendment sought after the lapse of 8 years, it dates back to the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the amendment with respect to declaration is not barred by limitation. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs relied on the following rulings reported in:
i) AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2896 (Siddalingamma and another V/s Mamtha Shenoy), wherein his lordship held as under:
"On the doctrine of relation back, which generally governs amendment of pleadings unless for reasons the Court excludes the applicability of the doctrine in a given case the petition for eviction as amended would be deemed to have been filed originally as 65 OS No.4990/2005 such and the evidence shall have to be appreciated in the light of the averments made in the amended petition".
ii) AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3369 (Sampath Kumar V/s Ayyakannu and another), wherein their lordship held as under:
"In the present case the amendment is being sought for almost 11 Years after the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new suit seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is pending. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be a sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession being sought for in the pending suit. The plaintiff has alleged the cause of action for the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him during the pendency of the suit. The merits of the averments 66 OS No.4990/2005 sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. However, the defendant is right in submitting that if he has already perfected his title by way of adverse possession then the right so accrued should not be allowed to be defeated by permitting an amendment and seeking a new relief which would relate back to the date of the suit and thereby depriving the defendant of the advantage accrued to him by lapse of time, by excluding a period of about 11 years in culcating the period of prescriptive title claimed to have been earned by the defendant. The interest of the defendant can be protected by directing that so far as the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession, now sought for, are concerned the prayer in that regard shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the application for amendment has been filed.
On the averments made in the application, the same ought to have been allowed. If the facts alleged by plaintiff are 67 OS No.4990/2005 not correct it is open for the defendant to take such plea in the written statement and if the plaintiff fails in substantiating the factual averments and/ or the defendant succeeds in substantiating the plea which he would obviously be permitted to raise in his pleading by way of consequential amendment then the suit shall be liable to be dismissed. The defendant is not prejudiced, more so when the amendment was sought for commencement of the trial."
iii) ILR 2004 KAR 2571 (H.Aziz Khan and others V/s Smt.Muniyamma and others), wherein his lordship held as under:
"Given the facts in the case, this Court finds that this case is one such where there should be an exception to the doctrine of relation back in the context of amendment of pleading, as application of the general doctrine would cause grave injustice to the defendant by taking away the right of defendant to set up the defence of adverse possession which has come to vest in him.68 OS No.4990/2005
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the amendment has to be allowed, but with a clear rider that it would date back not from the date of the filing of the suit but from the date of filing of application for amendment in this Court -i.e., 10-2-2004."
iv) ILR 2012 KAR 5552 (Ravindrakumar V/s The State of Karnataka rep. by Deputy Commissioner, Bidar and others), wherein his lordship held as under:
"13. In the above case the Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that amendment of plaint was filed after lapse of eleven years and as such held that said doctrine would be applicable to the facts on hand. In the instant case the Trial Court has noticed that title of the plaintiff was disputed by the defendant way back in the year 1999 itself and came to a conclusion that relief of declaration being barred by limitation cannot be a ground to reject the application for amendment which is otherwise necessary for the final and proper adjudication of real controversies between the parties. It also held that when 69 OS No.4990/2005 the defendant raises plea of limitation, it would be a fit case to order that amendment should take effect from the date of filing of the application. The said order passed by the Trial Court is in complete consonance with the dicta laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sampath Kumar's case referred to supra. As discussed herein above the application for amendment having been filed after 14 years from the date of filing of the suit and the stay of the suit not being a bar to file such application, Trial Court has rightly applied the 'doctrine of relation back' to the facts on hand. No infirmity can be found from the order of Trial Court on whatsoever ground. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered by holding that Trial Court was justified in applying 'doctrine of relation back' to the facts on hand and said order does not call for any interference."
45. I have gone through the rulings relied by the both the counsels. On going through the records of the case, it is clear that this suit was filed on 4.7.2005. The defendant No.2 70 OS No.4990/2005 filed his written statement on 30.9.2005, wherein of course denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. On 06.6.2018 the plaintiffs filed application to amend the plaint to incorporate the (c) relief in the prayer column of the plaint, which is with respect to declare them being the erstwhile owners of their respective items of suit schedule properties are entitle to obtain allotment of alternative sites in terms of WP.5404-24/2005 and the defendant has no manner of right or title over the suit schedule properties and the same was allowed on 28.06.2018. In this suit the amendment application is rightly or wrongly already allowed and the same is not challenged by the defendant No. 2 and thereby it attained finality. Now the defendant No.2 cannot contended that the amendment with respect to the declaration is barred by limitation. The rulings relied by the plaintiffs' counsel aptly applicable to the case on hand, wherein their lordships held that the amendment dates back to the date of filing of the suit unless there is mentioning in the order as it comes into effect 71 OS No.4990/2005 from the date of filing of the application. In this suit, there is no such order is passed by the Court. Hence, relying on the rulings relied by the plaintiffs' counsel, I am of the opinion that the amendment is dates back to the date of filing of the suit and it is not barred by limitation.
46. As stated above, admittedly the Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village were belongs to the defendant No.2 and they were acquired by the defendant for formation of Anjanapura Township under the preliminary notification dated 20.08.1999 and final notification dated 28.08.2000. In this regard, the plaintiffs produced Ex.P.114 to P.119 - RTC Extracts, Ex.P.120 to P.122 - award copies, which show the same.
47. The learned Advocate appearing for the defendant No.2 filed written arguments stating that as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.5405-24/2005 the plaintiffs have to seek relief of declaration to declare that 72 OS No.4990/2005 they are the owners of the suit schedule properties, but instead of that they sought the relief as they being the erstwhile owners entitle for alternative site and through the amendment they themselves declared that they are the erstwhile owners of the suit schedule property.
48. The learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs' counsel argued that the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are proper and if the court comes to the conclusion that the relief of declaration to declare the plaintiffs as erstwhile owners is not proper the court can mould the relief.
49. In Ex.P.11 - orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.5405-24/2005 (L.A.-BDA) it is held as under:
"In this view of the matter, alternative prayer sought for by the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid unreported decisions in respect of the same notification is questioned cannot be granted 73 OS No.4990/2005 in these petitions. However, as the application filed before the respondent by the vendors of the petitioners seeking an allotment of sites under the scheme would amount to disputing the claim of the petitioners, the disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in these proceedings.
Therefore, it would be proper and appropriate for the parties to get their rights adjudicated in properly instituted proceedings before the Civil Court. If such suits are filed, having regard to the claim and counter claim of the petitioners and their vendor, Civil Court shall consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible but, not later than one year from the date of institution of such suits."
50. So, from the above observation of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the plaintiffs have to get the rights adjudicated before this court as they were the erstwhile owners of the respective suit schedule properties before acquiring the Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura 74 OS No.4990/2005 Village including the suit schedule properties. As stated above, the plaintiffs have sought the relief as they entitle for alternative sites being erstwhile owners, but not sought the relief as they were the erstwhile owners of the respective suit schedule properties. In the circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs would have sought the relief of declaration to declare them as erstwhile owners of the respective suit schedule properties.
51. When I came to the conclusion that the relief of declaration sought by the plaintiffs is not proper, whether the court can mould the relief and declare them as erstwhile owners of the respective suit schedule properties has to be considered. In this regard, the plaintiffs' counsel relied on the rulings reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 633 (L.Janakirama Iyer and others V/s P.M.Nilakanta Iyer and others), wherein his lordship held as under:
"In construing the plaint the Court must have regard to all the relevant allegations made in 75 OS No.4990/2005 the plaint and must look at the substance of the matter and not its form".
52. In this regard, the plaintiffs' counsel further relied on the rulings reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 436 (Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and others V/s V.Konduru Seshu Reddy and others), wherein his lordship held as under:
"Section 42 of Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and the Courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the, requirements of the Section. It follows, therefore, a suit by the plaintiff worshipper for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on the deity is maintainable as falling outside the purview of S.42 of the Specific Relief Act. A declaration of this character, namely, that the compromise decree is not binding upon the deity is in itself a substantial relief and has immediate coercive effect. A declaration of this kind falls outside the purview of S.42 of the Specific Relief Act and 76 OS No.4990/2005 will he governed by the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Code like S.9 or O.R.7."
53. The learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs relied on the ruling reported in AIR 1956 Bombay 243 (Shingounda Shidgounda-Ganesh Yeshwant and others), wherein his lordship held as under:
"The court has jurisdiction to adjust the rights of the parties as ascertained by it and to grant a declaration accordingly, if it is necessary in the ends of justice to do so and the Court's jurisdiction cannot be restricted because the plaintiff has asked for a more extensive declaration or a declaration in a different form."
54. As stated above, it cannot be said that respective plaintiffs purchased respective item of the suit schedule property from whom and thereby the title of the plaintiffs over the respective suit schedule property is not proved. Such being the case the court cannot mould the relief and 77 OS No.4990/2005 declare that the plaintiffs are erstwhile owners respective items of suit schedule property.
55. The defendant No.2's counsel argued that the plaintiffs before instituting the suit did not issue notice to the defendant No.1 under Section 64 of Bangalore Development Authority Act as it is a statutory authority and hence the suit is not maintainable. In this suit, all the plaintiffs sought the relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to allot sites in terms of WP.No.20875-38 and its connected matters. When such being the case, the plaintiffs ought to have issued notice as per Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act or sought for dispensation of issue of notice. In this regard, the defendant No.2's counsel rightly relied on the ruling reported in ILR 1992 KAR 307 (K.P.Harini V/s Government of Karnataka), wherein it is held that prior to the presentation of the plaint the plaintiff has to issue one month notice in writing and the same has to be averred in the plaint. On perusal of the plaint, there is no such averment in the 78 OS No.4990/2005 plaint regarding the issue of notice and also no notice was issued and dispense of notice was sought and hence the plaint suffers from inherent defect of non-compliance of Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Act and thereby the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.
56. To put it in nutshell the plaintiffs have proved that the defendant No.2 himself and along with his General Power of Attorney holder - P.Balachandra Naidu formed Naidu Layout in Sy.No.40/6B, 40/8 and 40/10 of Anjanapura Village and carved out sites in it and there is no pleadings to the effect that which of the plaintiffs purchased which item of the schedule property from whom i.e. the defendant No.2 or from the General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.2 and even there is no oral evidence by the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 and 7 to 20 and thereby the plaintiffs have not proved the purchase of respective suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs ought to have sought for declaration to declare that they were the erstwhile owners of respective suit schedule 79 OS No.4990/2005 properties and before instituting the suit the plaintiffs have not issued one month notice to the defendant No.1 and hence they are not entitle for the relief of declaration and apart from these aspects this court has no jurisdiction to direct the 1st defendant to allot the sites of same dimensions in terms of WP.No.20875-38 and its connected matters.
57. So, from the discussions and reasons assigned above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitle for the relief of mandatory injunction and declaration. Hence, Recasted Issue Nos.1, 2 and Addl. issue No.2 are answered in the negative.
58. RECASTED ISSUE NO.3: The defendant No.2 taken contention in his written statement that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and this issue was treated as preliminary issue and it was considered holding that this court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as 80 OS No.4990/2005 per the orders passed on 27.7.2006. Hence, recasted issue No.3 does not arise for consideration.
59. ADDL. ISSUE NO.1: The defendant No.2 taken contention in the additional written statement that the suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient on the relief of declaration and since the suit schedule properties are immovable properties and hence the suit has to be valued in requirements of Section 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.
60. As stated above, subsequent to the filing of the suit the plaintiffs got amended the plaint for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiffs being the erstwhile owners of their respective items of the suit schedule properties are entitled to obtain allotment of alternate sites in terms of the order dated 17.3.2015 passed in WP.5404- 24/2005 and in this regard the plaintiffs did not file the valuation slip and did not pay the court fee. The site 81 OS No.4990/2005 properties purchased under the Ex.P.76 to 92 are the site properties and hence the same are to be valued accordingly and the plaintiffs are liable to pay the court fee on the market value as per Section 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Hence, Addl. Issue No.1 is answered in the negative.
61. RECASTED ISSUE NO.4: In view of my findings on recasted Issue No.1 and 2 and additional issue No.2 in the negative and against the plaintiffs, the suit of the plaintiffs has to be dismissed without cost. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Office is directed to draw decree accordingly after payment of court fee on the 82 OS No.4990/2005 relief of declaration as per Section 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.
(Dictated to the judgment writer on computer, thereafter corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 31st day of October 2018).
( BASAVARAJ ) XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 : S.Sheshadri
P.W.2 : P.Narendra
P.W.3 : T.S.Ramachandra Rao
b) Defendants' side:
D.W.1 : Lakshminarasimhaiah
D.W.2 : Hanuma Reddy.L
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiffs' side:
Ex.P.1 & 2 C/c of sale deeds
83 OS No.4990/2005
Ex.P.3 C/c of General Power of Attorney
executed in favour of 2nd defendant
Ex.P.4 Final notification
Ex.P.5 C/c of order passed in WP.20875-
938/2001
Ex.P.6 C/c of order passed in
WP.40415/2001 and connected
matters
Ex.P.7 C/c of order passed in
WP.39834/2002 and connected
matters
Ex.P.8 C/c of order passed in
WP.7699/2003 and connected
matters
Ex.P.9 C/c of order passed in
WP.25838/2003 and connected
matters
Ex.P.10 C/c of order passed in
WP.8751/2003
Ex.P.11 C/c of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.5405-
24/2005 Ex.P.12 Endorsement given by BDA to the plaintiff No.19 Ex.P.13 Endorsement given by BDA to the plaintiff No.5 84 OS No.4990/2005 Ex.P.14 Notice given by BDA to the plaintiff No.7 Ex.P.15 Notice given by PW1 to BDA Ex.P.16 Another notice given by BDA to plaintiff No.7 Ex.P.17 Notice given by BDA to plaintiff No.3 Ex.P.18 Office copy of representation given by plaintiffs No.3 and 4 to the Chairman BDA, Commissioner BDA and SLAO, BDA Ex.P.19 to 21 Acknowledgments given by BDA Ex.P.22 C/c of endorsement given to defendant No.2 by BDA Ex.P.23 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.1 Ex.P.24 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.2 Ex.P.25 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.3 & 4 Ex.P.26 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.27 & 28 Tax paid receipts Ex.P.29 Tax demand register extract Ex.P.30 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.5 85 OS No.4990/2005 Ex.P.31 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.1 Ex.P.32 Tax demand register extract pertaining to PW1 Ex.P.33 & 34 Tax paid receipts pertaining to PW1 Ex.P.35 Tax demand register extract pertaining to PW1's site for the year 1993-94 Ex.P.36 Tax paid receipts pertaining to PW1's site Ex.P.37 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.7 Ex.P.38 Demand register extract pertaining to plaintiff No.7 Ex.P.39 & 40 Tax paid receipts pertaining to plaintiff No.7 Ex.P.41 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiffs No.7 and 8 Ex.P.42 & 44 Tax demand register extracts pertaining to plaintiff No.7 and 8 E.xP.43 & 45 Tax paid receipts pertaining to plaintiff No.7 and 8 Ex.P.46 C/c of sale deed executed by def.
No.2 in favour of Smt.Savithri, who is vendor of plaintiff No.7 86 OS No.4990/2005 Ex.P.47 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.9 to 11 Ex.P.48 Tax demand register extract pertaining to plaintiff No.9 to 11 Ex.P.49 Tax paid receipt pertaining to plaintiff No.9 to 11 Ex.P.50 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.12 and 13 Ex.P.51 Tax demand register extract pertaining to plaintiff No.12 and 13 Ex.P.52 Tax paid receipt pertaining to plaintiff No.12 and 13 Ex.P.53 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.14 Ex.P.54 EC produced by plaintiff No.14 Ex.P.55 Tax demand register extract pertaining to plaintiff No.14 Ex.P.56 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.15 Ex.P.57 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.16 Ex.P.58 Tax demand register extract pertaining to plaintiff No.16 Ex.P.59 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.17 87 OS No.4990/2005 Ex.P.60 Tax demand register extract pertaining to plaintiff No.17 Ex.P.61 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.18 Ex.P.62 EC produced by plaintiff No.18 Ex.P.63 & 65 Tax paid receipts pertaining to plaintiff No.18 Ex.P.64 & 66 Tax demand register extracts pertaining to plaintiff No.18 Ex.P.67 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.19 Ex.P.68 C/c of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.20 Ex.P.69 Tax paid receipt pertaining to plaintiff No.20 Ex.P.70 Tax demand register extract pertaining to plaintiff No.20 Ex.P.71 & 72 C/c of complaint filed by DW2 and FIR Ex.P.73 & 74 Income Tax Clearance certificates Ex.P.75 Photographs Ex.P.76 to 92 Originals sale deeds of Ex.P.23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 37, 41, 46, 47, 50, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61, 67 and 68 88 OS No.4990/2005 Ex.P.93 Agreement of ale dated 9.1.1992 Ex.P.94 & 95 General Power of Attorney and affidavit dated 5.4.1993 Ex.P.96 Layout plan Ex.P.97 to 101 C/c of sale deeds Ex.P.102 Original General Power of Attorney dated 5.4.1993 Ex.P.103 Affidavit dated 5.4.1993 Ex.P.104 General Power of Attorney dated 30.3.1996 Ex.P.105 Affidavit dated 30.3.1996 Ex.P.106 The common judgment of OS.651/2004 and 653/2004 Ex.P.107 & Decree in OS.651/2004 & 653/2004 108 Ex.P.109 Common judgment in RA.90/2011 and 91/2011 Ex.P.110 & Decree in RA.90/2011 and 91/2011 111 Ex.P.112 General Power of Attorney dated 20.8.2017 Ex.P.113 Acknowledgment issued by BDA dated 21.3.2005 89 OS No.4990/2005 Ex.P.113(a) Copy of application submitted to BDA Ex.P.114 to 6 RTC Extracts 119 Ex.P.120 to 3 Copies of awards 122
b) Defendants' side :
Ex.D.1 True copy of final notification Ex.D.2 & 3 Copy of presentation forms in RSA.1167/2016 and 1168/2016 Ex.D.4 C/c of guidelines Value Ex.D.5 C/ c of depositions of T.S.Ramachandra Rao in OS.3936/2014 Digitally signed by BASAVARAJ ( BASAVARAJ ) DN: XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE cn=BASAVARAJ ,ou=GOVERNM BANGALORE ENT OF KARNATAKA,o BASAVARAJ =HIGH COURT OF .
KARNATAKA,st =Karnataka,c=I N Date:
2018.10.31 17:11:37 IST 90 OS No.4990/2005