Bangalore District Court
In : Mr. Mahaboob Ali Khan vs In : Mr. Ananda Kumar S/O S. Panchajanyam on 24 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22)
Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
OS.No.17124/2005 C/w OS.No.9449/2006
Dated this 24th day of January 2022
Plaintiff in : Mr. Mahaboob Ali khan
OS No.17124/2005 S/o Late Ghouse Khan,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at House List No.80 & 81,
Bommanahalli Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
Represented by his General
Power of Attorney holder,
Mr. Amjad Khan S/o Sardar Khan,
Aged about 33 years, No.3, 1st Cross,
Marappa Garden, J.C. Road,
Muni Reddy Palya, Bangalore.
(Rep by Sri Suresh S. Lokre, Advocate)
V/S
Defendant in : Mr. Ananda Kumar S/o S. Panchajanyam,
OS No.17124/2005 Aged Major, R/at No.22/31, 2nd Cross,
1st Main, Maruthi Nagar, Bangalore-560 068.
[
(Rep. by Sri M.S.Prakash., Advocate) \
Plaintiff in :- Mahaboob Ali Khan S/o Late Ghouse Khan,
O.S.No.9449/2006 Aged about 46 years, No.47,
Venkatappa Road, Queens Road Cross,
2
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Tasker Town, Bangalore-560 051,
Presently at Jeddah, Soudi Arabia.
Represented by his General
Power of Attorney,
Sri Amjad Khan S/o Late Sardar Khan,
Aged about 34 years, No.3, 1st Cross,
Marappa Garden, J.C. Nagar,
Muni Reddy Palya, Bangalore-560 006.
(Rep by Suresh S. Lokre, Advocate)
V/S
Defendants in 1) Sri P. Anand Kumar S/o S. Panchajanyan,
OS.No.9449/2006 Aged about 49 years, Residing at No.22/31,
2nd Cross, 1st Main, Maruthi Nagar,
Madiwala Extension, Bangalore-560 008.
2) Sri R. Paramesh S/o Ramaswamy,
Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.42,
5th Main, 10th Cross, Sampangiramnagar,
Bangalore-560 027.
3) Sri Athish S/o Panchapi Kesan,
Aged about 36 years, Residing at No.10,
Bhaskeran Street, Nehru Nagar,
Saligramam, Chennai-600 093.
(Rep by Sri VSK, Advocate)
OS.No.17124/2005 OS.No.9449/2006
3
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Date of Institution of
23/08/2005 30/10/2006
the suit
Nature of the
(Suit or pro-note, suit
Declaration, Possession
for declaration and Permanent Injunction
& Permanent Injunction
possession, suit for
Injunction, etc.)
Date of the
commencement of
05/08/2014 05/08/2014
recording of the
Evidence
1) Suit of the plaintiff
was already dismissed
on 22/09/2013 as per
memo of plaintiff
Date on which the counsel
Judgment was 24/01/2022
pronounced 2) Judgement relating to
counter claim of
defendant No.1
pronounced on
24/01/2022
Years Months Days Years Months Days
Total duration 16 05 01 15 02 24
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru
4
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
:COMMON JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff of OS No.17124/2005 filed suit against the
defendant for Permanent Injunction.
The plaintiff of OS No.9449/2006 filed suit against
defendants for Declaration & Permanent Injunction.
That both suits are connected to each other, hence as per
order on IA No.8 in OS.No.17124/2005, OS.No.9449/2006
clubbed with OS.No.17124/2005 for recording common evidence
and delivering the Common Judgment.
2) The brief facts of plaint averments in OS No.
17124/2005 is as under:
The GPA holder of the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff
is the owner of the suit schedule property mentioned below:
5
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
:SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY:
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing
House List Nos.80 and 81, Katha No.22/1-F situated
at Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk, Bangalore measuring East to West 60
feet, North to South 66 feet and consists of one
square A.C.C sheet house and bounded by East:
Property No.82, West: Property No.79, North: Road,
South: Road.
The GPA holder of plaintiff further submits that plaintiff
purchased suit schedule property from A. Munireddy through his
GPA Holder Tabassum Banu under registered sale deed on
25/08/1999 and since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and his name entered
in the concerned record of CMC Bommanahalli and CMC
Bommanahalli issued katha extract of suit schedule property in
favour of plaintiff.
6
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
3) The GPA Holder of plaintiff further submits that the
defendant is residing in Bommanahalli and having political
background and he is in the habit of intimidating the residents of
Bommanahalli and surrounding area and posing himself to be
landlord of the property. The defendant is no way concerned to
the suit schedule property and also not having any right, title and
interest over the suit schedule property. On 18/08/2005 the
defendant came to the suit schedule property stating that he is the
owner of the suit schedule property and trying to interfere in the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property,
the plaintiff on the intervention of locality people and
intervention of neighbors the defendant left the place and on
21/08/2005 defendant made attempts to interfere with plaintiff's
peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property.
4) The GPA Holder of plaintiff further submits that the cause
of action to file suit arose on 18/08/2005 and on 21/08/2005 when
7
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
the defendant and his henchmen came to suit schedule property
and attempted to trespass the plaintiff from suit schedule property
and on subsequent date. The plaintiff prays to decree the suit for
permanent injunction restraining defendant, his agents,
supporters, henchmen or any other person claiming under or
through them interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment over suit schedule property and demolishing building
in any other manner except in due process of law.
5) The defendants has filed written statement with counter
claim submitting that suit of plaintiff is not maintainable either in
law or on facts and there is no cause of action to file the suit and
hence liable to be rejected U/o 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The allegation
of the plaintiff made in para-4 is that he is owner of suit schedule
property and plaintiff purchased suit schedule property from A.
Munireddy on 25/08/1999 under registered sale deed is false. The
averments made in para-5 of plaint that plaintiff is in possession
8
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
and enjoyment of suit schedule property is false. Further the
averments made in para-6 of plaint that defendant is resident of
Bommanahalli having political background and he is in the habit
of intimidating residents of Bommanahalli and surrounding areas
posing himself as local property lord and he attempts to grab the
property of others are all false. The defendant denied the
allegations made in para-8 to 10. The defendant submits that there
is no cause of action as alleged in para-5 of plaint and alleged
cause of action dated 18/08/2005 and 21/08/2005 are false. The
plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as
prayed.
6) The defendant No/1 further submits that he is Class-I
Painting Contractor having vast business activities in Bengaluru
City and entire State. He studied up to PUC and law abiding
citizen. He employed more than 170 people in his organization
and he is income tax Assessee under VAT. That he is permanent
9
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
resident at No.22/31, 2nd Cross, 1st Main, Maruthinagar, Madiwala
Extension, Bengaluru wherein he is residing since many decades.
Hence allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant is resident of
Bommanahalli is false. That defendant further submits that he
purchased portion of vacant site bearing No.81, Bommanahalli
CMC Katha No.22, Assessment No.22/1-B situated at Yellukunte
Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring East to
West 30' and North to South 33' for valuable consideration from
its previous owner Khaja Nayyamuddin under registered sale
deed on 10/02/2005 and got mutated katha in his name in
Bommanahalli Municipality and also paying tax of the said
property. His vendor purchased said property on 15/01/2005 from
A. Munireddy. That he also purchased one abutting property
bearing Site No.80 measuring East to West 30' and North to
South 31+32/2' situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk under registered sale deed from its
previous owner for valuable consideration and he did not possess
10
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
any other property in Bommanahalli. That he is in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of site No.80 and he has put up 2
square building therein and also he provided accommodation to
his employees, he applied and obtained electricity power to his
property. The defendant further submits that alleged property of
the plaintiff is not at all in existence and schedule property is not
at all in existence. The measurement of property alleged to be
belonging to plaintiff and measurement of properties belonging to
defendant are quite different from each other and having nothing
to do in common.
7) The defendant No.1 submits that he is absolute owner and
in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'A' & 'B' schedule
property as mentioned below;
WRITTEN STATEMENT 'A' SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that part and parcel of the property bearing No.81,
Ward No.5, situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru
11
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, consisting of one
square residential premises, with amenity of the water
and measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South
33 feet in all measuring 990 sq.ft and bounded on East:
Site No.82 (Private Property), West: Portion of the site
No.80 (Now belonging to Atish, North: Road and
South: Portion of site No.81 (Now belonging to
Paramesh).
:WRITTEN STATEMENT 'B' SCHEDULE PROPERTY:
All that part and parcel of the property bearing No.80,
Ward No.5 situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru
Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk consisting of two
squares residential premises with the amenity of
electricity power measuring East to West 30' and North
to South 31+32/2 and bounded by East: Portion of site
bearing No.81 (Now belonging to Paramesh), West:
Private Property, North: Portion of site No.80 (Now
belongs to Mr. Athish) and South: Road.
8) The defendant further submits that plaintiff is stranger to
the 'A' & 'B' schedule properties and attempted to interfere with
12
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
his peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'A' & 'B' schedule
properties. The cause of action for counter claim arose on
18/08/2005 and 21/08/2006 and also in the last week when the
plaintiff attempted to interfere in his lawful and peaceful
possession and enjoyment of schedule properties belonging to
him. The defendant prays to dismiss the suit of plaintiff and
decree the counter claim restraining the plaintiff, his agents,
representatives or any other person claiming through or under
him from interfering with in any manner with his peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the written schedule properties and
award the cost of the proceeding.
9) The plaintiff filed written statement/rejoinder to counter
claim of defendant No.1. The plaintiff denied that defendant No.1
is owner of the site No.81, Ward No.5 of Yellukunte Village,
Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring East to West 30'
and North to South 33'. The plaintiff further submits that he has
13
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
already filed suit for declaration and possession against the
defendant in OS.No.9449/2006 which is pending for disposal
before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The contention of
defendant that he has raised 1 square building after obtaining
entire revenue records in his name and obtained water connection
to 'A' schedule property is false. The defendant is in unlawful
possession and illegally created documents and forcibly occupied
suit schedule property and since he has no title over suit schedule
property, the plaintiff himself has earlier title over same
purchased under registered sale deed dated 25/08/1999. There is
earlier sale deed in respect of same property though the survey
number is mentioned differently for all purposes, the defendant
does not get title as he is subsequent purchaser from very same
owner through alleged GPA. The said GPA of A. Munireddy is
concocted document by defendant. The defendant is a land
grabber and created document and illegally built up large area
land in his name by squatting over everybody's property in and
14
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
around the suit schedule 'A' & 'B' properties. The defendant has
not paid proper Court Fee on counter claim relief. Hence the
counter claim is not maintainable. The averments made in counter
claim that schedule property is in possession of defendant and he
is exercising all acts of owner is false. The defendant trespassed
into suit schedule property and he has no right over the same. His
possession is illegal and unlawful and subject to result pending
comprehensive suit filed by plaintiff in OS.No.9449/2006. The
plaintiff further submits that he is in possession and enjoyment of
suit schedule property as on the date of purchase and also as on
date of suit. In fact defendant No.1 came to dispossess plaintiff on
18/08/2005 and subsequently on 21/08/2005 and therefore
apprehending that the defendant No.1 may dispossess the
plaintiff, he filed the suit. Therefore counter claim is not
sustainable. Hence the defendant is not in possession of suit
schedule property. The defendant is not entitle for the relief
15
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
claimed in the counter claim. The plaintiff prays to dismiss the
counter claim of the defendant.
10) On the basis of pleadings following Issues were framed
in OS.No.17124/2005 on 18/07/2006:
:ISSUES :
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves his law possession
and enjoyment over the suit schedule property
as on the date of suit?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves alleged obstructions
from defendant?
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief
claimed?
(4) What decree or order?
11) That after framing Issues in OS.No.17124/2005 case
posted for plaintiff evidence then on 22/09/2007 the plaintiff
16
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
counsel filed memo praying permission to withdraw the suit
OS.No.17124/2005 as plaintiff filed comprehensive suit for
Declaration and Possession filed against the defendants in
OS.No.9449/2006 before the CCH-32 and prays for dismissal of
the suit OS.No.17124/2005 as not pressed and on the same day
22/09/2007 this Court passed order that in view of the memo suit
claim of the plaintiff is dismissed as not pressed. The counter
claim of the defendant shall be continued and tried in this suit and
further noted that it is seen that no issues are framed on the
counter claim and further posted for recasting of Issues and later
on 15/10/2008 this court framed re-casted Issues as mentioned
below and posted the case for defendants evidence on counter
claim.
:RECASTED ISSUES IN OS.No.17124/2005 ON 15/10/2008:
(1) Whether the defendant proves his lawful
possession and enjoyment of written statement
17
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
schedule 'A' & 'B' properties as on the date of
counter claim?
(2) Whether plaintiff defendant proves alleged
obstruction and interference by the plaintiff?
(3) Whether the defendant is entitle for the relief
sought for?
(4) What decree or order?
12) Then on 27/09/2009 the plaintiff counsel filed application
U/s 151 of CPC for recall of DW.1 and another application U/s
151 of CPC praying permission to plaintiff to lead his evidence
on counter claim and one application was allowed by this Court
on the same day and D.W-1 recalled for cross-examination and
another I.A disposed and ordered permitting the plaintiff to lead
evidence on counter claim after closure of defendant evidence.
Thereafter defendant led his evidence and case posted for plaintiff
evidence on counter claim on 13/01/2010 and later on case
adjourned on several dates. Then plaintiff filed IA.No.8 U/s 151
18
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
of CPC praying to club OS.No.17124/2005 with connected suit
OS.No.9449/2006 and said application was allowed on
14/03/2013 and OS.No.9449/2006 is clubbed in this suit and the
evidence for the purpose of this suit and OS.No.9449/2006 shall
be recorded in this case only and thereafter the Court shall deliver
the common Judgment.
13) The brief facts of plaint averments in OS.No.9449/2006
is as under:
The GPA Holder of plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is
owner of suit schedule property mentioned below:
SUIT 'A' SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing House
List Nos.80 and 81, Katha No.22/1-F situated at
Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, presently Yellukunte Village within the limits of
CMC Bommanahalli, Bangalore measuring East to
19
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
West 60 feet, North to South 66 feet and bounded by
East: Property No.82, West: Property No.79, North:
Road, South: Road.
The GPA holder of plaintiff further submits that suit schedule
property is carved out of Sy.No.22/1 of Yellukunte Village,
Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru and it was originally owned
by A. Muni Reddy S/o Venkataramappa and said land measuring
37 guntas and it was developed by Sardar Khan S/o Khader Khan
and late Sardar Khan in all formed 10 sites of various dimensions
of sites in said survey number. The said Sardar Khan formed sites
in adjoining land belonging to M. Muniyappa and his brothers in
all 100 sites. In the land belonging A. Muni Reddy S/o
Venkataramanappa 10 sites were formed bearing sites No.76 to
85 and same were sold to various persons by late A. Muni Reddy.
14) The GPA Holder of plaintiff further submits that plaintiff
is purchaser of suit schedule property under registered sale deed
20
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
from Munireddy through his GPA Holder of Tabassum Banu
(wife of plaintiff) on 25/08/1999 and plaintiff was put in physical
and actual possession of the suit schedule property and enjoying
the same from day of registration till end of August 2005 up to
18/08/2005. The plaintiff was constrained to file suit for
injunction relief against defendant P.Ananda Kumar in
OS.No.17124/2005 on the file of City Civil Court, Mayo Hall,
Bengaluru and was having the benefit of injunctive relief against
P. Ananda Kumar from 23/08/2005 to 13/12/2005. The said
Ananda Kumar and his friend R. Paramesh and Athish who
proclaimed to be subsequent purchasers from various portions of
same property joined together in violation of interim order passed
in OS.No.17124/2005 at the behest of P. Ananda Kumar
dispossessed plaintiff from suit schedule property forcibly
asserting imaginary right on 18/08/2005. Hence the plaintiff is
out of possession with effect from 18/08/2005. The GPA Holder
of plaintiff submits that structures on suit schedule property
21
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
comprising of one portion was constructed by the plaintiff vendor
and sold same which was hardly one square. The plaintiff later
put up 12 square structure consisting of four units i.e., to make
each of residential unit self sufficient and independent, as such
the construction measures 12 squares. The same was constructed
from the funds of plaintiff which he earned as an NRI working in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The plaintiff purchased site bearing No.80
and 81 of Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk now within the limits of CMC, Bommanahalli on
25/08/1999.
15) The GPA Holder of plaintiff further submits that suit
schedule property was carved out of Sy.No.21/1-F and said land
was granted in favour of M. Muniyappa S/o Munishamappa who
was the absolute owner thereof as found from RTC extract. That
said A. Muniyappa S/o Munishamappa out of an arrangement
within the family has executed sale deed on 28/03/1983 for 8
22
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
guntas in Sy.No.22/1-F in favour of A. Munireddy and thereby A.
Munireddy having absolute right, title and interest over portion of
land in Sy.No.22/1-F and afterwards Munireddy formed two sites
and sold the same to plaintiff's vendor. Hence the plaintiff is
absolute owner having purchased property for valuable
consideration from original owner and having all manner of right,
title and interest over suit schedule property. That the subsequent
sale/conveyance by alleged General Power of Attorney Holder A.
Abdul Azeez S/o Abdul Sattar Sab in favour of Khaja
Nayeemuddin, P. Anand Kumar, P.J. Krishna, Adil Khan and
Mumtaz Ahmed do not confer any right as such the subsequent
sales from the above said intermediaries in favour of P. Ananda
Kumar, R. Paramesh and Athish do not have any right over the
property mentioned in sale deed dated 15/01/2005, 10/02/2005,
10/02/2005, 10/02/2005 and 10/02/2005, 07/05/2005,
07/03/2005, 07/03/2005 and 15/04/2005. The defendants are not
entitled for any right or interest over the property mentioned in
23
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
sale deed. The act of defendants and their alleged vendor acts in
dispossessing plaintiff from suit schedule property is unlawful
and as such plaintiff filed suit for declaration and possession.
16) The GPA Holder of plaintiff further submits that case of
defendants that Munireddy represented by A. Abdul Azeez sold
property to Khajaj Nayeemuddin under sale deed dated
15/01/2005. The said Khaja Nayeemuddin in turn sold it under
four different sale deeds to P. Ananda Kumar, P.J. Krishna, Adil
Khan and Mumtaz Ahmed. The properties sold to them are
subsequent to that of plaintiff purchased schedule properties, as
defendant P. Ananda Kumar and R. Paramesh were admitted in
OS.No.17124/2006 and OS.No.2955/2006. The defendants have
unlawfully proclaimed that plaintiff's schedule property belongs
to them on the basis of imaginary rights and has dispossessed the
plaintiff in the end of August 2005. Hence the cause of action
occurred to file suit on 18/08/2005 when the defendants and their
24
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
henchmen dispossessed plaintiff from suit schedule property. The
GPA holder of plaintiff prays to decree the suit declaring that
plaintiff is absolute owner and entitle for vacant possession of
suit schedule property. The GPA holder of plaintiff prays to
decree the suit declaring that sale deed executed by defendants
and all their previous vendors are not binding on plaintiff's right,
title and interest over the suit schedule property. The GPA Holder
of the plaintiff further prays to declare that decree for permanent
injunction obtained by R. Paramesh in OS.No.2955/2006 before
the CCH-10 Bengaluru City dated 06/03/2010 is not binding on
plaintiff. The GPA Holder of plaintiff prays to direct defendants
to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from the
defendants from the date of suit till delivery of possession.
17) The defendants No.1 & 2 have filed their written
statement submitting that the suit of the plaintiff is false and filed
with an intention to grab the schedule property of the defendants.
25
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
There is no cause of action to file the suit and alleged cause of
action is false. Hence suit is liable to be rejected U/o 7 Rule 11 of
CPC. The defendants No.1 & 2 further submits that the averments
of plaint para No.3 that plaintiff is the owner of the property
bearing No.80 & 81 of Yellukunte Village, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk is false. The further contention of the
plaintiff has made out in the same paras that the so called
residential sites in Sy.No.22/1F of Yellukunte Village, Bangalore
South Taluk originally owned by A. Munireddy S/o
Venkataramanappa and it measures 37 guntas and said land was
developed by Sardar Khan S/o Khader Khan and he formed 10
sites in the said land are all false. The remaining para No.3 of the
plaint that Sardar Khan also formed sites in adjoining lands
belonging to M. Muniyappa and his brothers in all 100 sites and
also formed 10 sites No.76 to 85 belonging to the land of A.
Munireddy S/o Venkataramanappa are all false. The defendants
No.1 & 2 denied para-4 of the plaint that, plaintiff purchased the
26
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
suit schedule property from A. Munireddy through his GPA
holder Tabassum Banu on 25/08/1999 and since then the plaintiff
is in actual possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till
the end of August 2005 up to 18/08/2005. The defendants submits
that the averments made in para-5 of the plaint that the plaintiff
was filed suit for injunctive relief against the defendant No.1 in
OS.No.17124/2005 on the file of City Civil Court, Mayo Hall
Unit, Bengaluru and was having benefit of injunctive relief
against the defendant No.1 is a matter of record. The say of
plaintiff that defendant No.1 and his friends i.e., other defendants
proclaimed to be the subsequent purchaser of various portions of
the property join together and violated interim order passed in the
said suit are all false. The contention of the plaintiff that he is out
of possession with effect from 18/08/2005 is false. The other
allegations of the plain para No.5 are all false. The further
contention of the plaintiff in para No.6 of the plaint that the
plaintiff purchased site No.80 and 81 of Yellukunte Village on
27
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
25/08/1999 and as such neither A. Munireddy nor his Attorney
Holder A. Abdul Azeez S/o Abdul Sattar Sab have no right, title
land interest what so ever to convey the schedule property or any
portion of it to the defendants or any other persons as Munireddy
had lost right, title land interest over the suit schedule property in
view of the sale deed dated 25/08/1999 in favour of plaintiff are
all false. The defendant denied the entire allegations of plaint para
No.7 to 18. The defendants further submit that the plaintiff is not
entitle for the relief as claimed in the plaint.
18) The defendants further submits that defendant No.1
Ananda Kumar purchased the portion of vacant site bearing
No.81, Bommanahalli CMC Katha No.22, Assessment No.22/1B,
Ward No.5 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 33
feet in all measuring 990 sq.ft situated at Yellukunte Village,
Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk on 10/02/2005 under the
registered sale deed from its previous owner Khaja
28
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Nayeemuddin. In fact said site was purchased by the vendor of
the defendant No.1 under the registered sale deed dated
15/01/2005 from his previous owner A. Munireddy. The
defendant No.1 after purchase of the said property got mutated
katha in his name and he is in possession and enjoyment of the
said property and afterwards he put up 1 square building for the
purpose of his employees to stay and also obtained water
connection. Hence the defendant No.1 is in lawful possession of
the said property. The defendant No.1 further purchased another
adjoining side No.80 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to
South 31+32/2 in all measuring 945 sq.ft under the registered sale
deed on 07/03/2005 from its previous owner Mamtaz Ahmed and
he got mutated the katha in his name in Bommanahalli CMC and
he is in possession of the said property and afterwards he has put
up 2 squares building thereon and provided for accommodation to
his employees and he obtained electricity connection to the said
property.
29
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
19) The defendants No.1 & 2 further submits that abutting to
the site bearing No.80 (80/22/1B) as per Katha endorsement
measuring East to West 30' and North to South 33' in all 990 feet
of Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was
purchased by Adil Khan but in turn purchased the said property
under the registered sale deed on 10/02/2005 from Khaja
Nayeemuddin S/o Khaja Abdul Sattar. The said Adil Khan sold
the said site under the registered sale deed on 07/03/2005 to one
Athish S/o M. Panchapi Kesan and said owners of the site were in
absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant
No.1 purchased the said site from Athish (defendant No.3) under
the registered sale deed on 22/06/2006 and got mutated the said
property in his name and he is in possession and enjoyment of the
said property as absolute owner.
20) The defendants No.1 & 2 submits that defendant No.2 R.
Paramesh is owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
30
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
property bearing remaining portion of site No.81, Old Khatha
No.22, Assessment No.22/1B situated at Yellukunte Village,
Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk under the registered sale
deed on 15/04/2005 from his previous owner P.J. Krishna and got
mutated katha in his name and also he is in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the said property. Afterwards the defendant
No.2 put up two square building on said property and also
obtained electricity connection to the said premises from
BESCOM. The properties of these defendants No.1 & 2 i.e., four
properties are situated in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village,
Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. That earlier owner of the
above said four sites purchased by defendants No.1 & 2 owner of
said property was A. Muni Reddy and he was executed GPA in
favour of Abdul Aziz. The said GPA executed by Muni Reddy
was witnessed by Sardar Khan who is none other than father-in-
law of the plaintiff. The said Power of Attorney Abdul Azeez sold
sites formed in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukinge Village, Beguru Hobli,
31
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Bengaluru South Taluk in favour of Khaja Nayamulla Khan and
said Khaja Nayamulla Khan purchased said sites in Sy.No.22/1B,
divided those two sites in four and sold the same under four
different registered sale deeds. The Sy.No.22/1F situated at
Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was
owned by Muniyappa @ Munishamappa and even if the said land
was purchased by A. Munireddy, it is completely a different piece
of land and nothing to do with Sy.No.22/1B. The Sy.No.22 had
been phoded long back and said sub numbers were assigned long
back and Sy.No.22/1 was phosed as 22/1A, 22/1B, 22/1C, 22/1D,
22/1E, 22/1F, 22/1G, 22/1H, 22/1I & 22/1J as per records
maintained by revenue department of Karnataka Government till
1962. Hence Sy.No.22/1B and 22/1F of Yellukunte Village are
different bit of land and nothing to do with each other.
21) The defendants further submits that as per Government
records and existing facts Sy.No.22/1B has nothing to do with
32
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Sy.No.22/1F of Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk. The properties of these defendants having been
situated in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village, Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk they have nothing to do with the non-
existing and alleged schedule property situated at 22/1F of
Bommanahalli Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
The alleged property of house list No.80 & 81, Khatha No.22/1F
situated in Sy.No.22/1F of Bommanahalli Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk be considered and compared with
properties of these defendants which are situated at Sy.No.22/1B
of Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk are
one and the same.
22) The defendants further submits that they got surveyed
Sy.No.22 by competent Surveyor before filing the written
statement and as per the survey report properties of defendants
are situated in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village, Beguru Taluk,
33
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Bengaluru South Taluk. It is admitted fact that plaintiff filed suit
OS.No.17124/2005 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru
against defendant No.1. The said suit was filed on 23/08/2005 for
relief of permanent Injunction restraining the defendant No.1
from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit
schedule property. The suit schedule property mentioned in the
present suit and OS.No.17124/2005 are one and the same except
"Yellukunte Village" now newly added in the present schedule
without any basis and authority. The suit OS.No.17124/2005 filed
by plaintiff inter alia contending that he is in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of suit schedule property from the date of
purchase dated 25/08/1999 the plaintiff herein urged an alleged
interference by defendant No.1 in both plaint and IA No.1 filed
U/o 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC and obtained order of injunction. The
defendant No.1 submits that plaintiff has intentionally and
deliberately by making false statement that he was in possession
of schedule property to obtain interim order. That after service of
34
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
notice the defendant filed his written statement and raised counter
claim against plaintiff for an order of permanent injunction. That
the plaintiff in OS.No.17124/2005 in reply to counter claim raised
by defendant No.1 on 01/03/2006 placing on record that "he is in
possession of the suit plaint property in his own rights". However
the plaintiff for first time in contradiction to his above plea took
up contention and pleaded that "the plaintiffs were disposed by
the defendant in the last week of August 2004-05 during the
pendency of the suit when the plaintiff GPA Holder was out of
town." Thus the plaintiff according to his own statement and plea
was not in peaceful much less in actual possession of schedule
property on the date of filing OS.No.17124/2005. The plea of
plaintiff alone patently demonstrates that he made intentionally
false statement and plea in OS.No.17124/2005 that he was in
possession on the date of its filing. Such conduct of plaintiff may
be viewed seriously by this court and may be further draw an
inference that the plaintiff is person who has no regards to truth
35
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
and shall go to the extent of making false pleadings before
competent court of law only with an intention to grab properties
belonging to others.
23) That defendants further submits that admittedly plaintiff
paid court fee of Rs.32,660/- on the plaint and as such valuation
should be on the basis of value of his sale deed dated 25/08/1999.
However the present suit is filed on 28/10/2006 for relief of
declaration of title and consequential relief of possession and it is
well settled law that the plaintiff is bound to pay the court fee on
the market value of the property in question as on the date of
filing of the suit and not on the value of its purchase. The plaintiff
intentionally and deliberately not valued his suit properly. Hence
court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient and inadequate.
24) The defendants No.1 and 2 further submit that in sale deed
dated 25/08/1989 there is no mention of the vendors title to
property conveyed. Hence mere holding katha is not title of the
36
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
property and does not become owner and now the plaintiff prove
his title of vendor. The sale deed dated 25/08/1999 discloses that
property sold there under the sites carved out in Sy.No.21/1F of
Bommanahalli Village. The plaintiff claimed now against the
defendants is with respect to their property situated at Sy.No.22/B
of Yellukunte Village. Hence the claim of plaintiff is barred and
highly illegal. The plaintiff's property not in existence. The
measurement of property alleged to be belonging to plaintiff and
properties in existence of these defendants differ and are quite
different. The plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit
schedule property. Hence claim of possession is barred by
Limitation since the same was in possession of vendors of
defendant earlier which continued to be in possession of
defendant on its purchase. The plaintiff is not entitle for the relief
claimed in the plaint. The defendants No.1 and 2 pray to dismiss
the suit of the plaintiff with exemplary costs.
37
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
25) The defendants No.1 & 2 filed additional written statement
submitting that they are entitle the sites formed in Sy.No.22/1B of
Yellukunte Village, Now the plaintiffs pleads that this
Sy.No.22/1B originally belongs to one Muniyappa. He sold the
suit schedule property during 1983 in favour of Muni Reddy and
in turn Muni Reddy sold the above said properties bearing
Sy.No.22/1F in favour of the plaintiff situated at Bommanahalli
Village etc., now the plaintiff pleads that property situated at
Yellukunte Village. Where the property situates at Bommanahalli
Village are all denied as false. The plaintiffs now pleads his
source of title saying that he is the owner of the suit schedule
property bearing Sy.No.22/1F of Bommanahalli Village. Now the
plaintiff' wants to plead his source of title from Sy.No.22/1F
purchased from Munireddy are all denied as false. The property
belongs to the defendants No.1 & 2 are situated at Yellukunte
Village, whereas as per the schedule of the plaint the suit
schedule property situated at Bommanahalli Village. Thereby say
38
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
of plaintiff that plaintiff purchased property belongs to
Muniyappa are all denied as false. The defendants No.1 & 2 pray
to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
26) On the basis of above pleadings following Issues and
Additional Issues are framed as follows.
: ISSUES IN OS.No.9449/2006 :
1) Whether plaintiff proves that he is the absolute
owner of the suit schedule property?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants
dispossessed him from the suit schedule
property on 18/08/2005?
3) Whether the valuation of the suit and payment
of Court Fee is insufficient and inadequate as
contended by defendants?
4) Whether the suit relief for possession is barred
by limitation?
39
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the
declaration sought for?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for vacant
possession of the suit schedule property from
the defendants?
7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne
profit at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month or
any other rate from the defendants from the
date of suit till delivery of possession of suit
schedule property?
8) What decree or order?
Note:- Issue No.3 shall be heard and decided as
preliminary issues.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 21/10/2013
a) Whether plaintiff prove that sale deeds
executed by defendants and all their vendors
are not binding right, title and interest of him
in suit schedule property?
40
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
b) Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for
decree of declaration as, Permanent Injunction
decree passed in OS.No.2955/2006 is not
binding on the plaintiffs rights?
27) That out of the above framed Issues, Issue No.3 is treated
as preliminary issue and posted for hearing on preliminary issue
on 10/06/2011 and thereafter adjourned on several dates for
hearing on preliminary issue. Then afterwards the plaintiff filed
application for amendment of plaint in OS.No.9449/2006 in
IA.No.8 and said I.A was allowed and then again additional issue
No.(a) & (b) were framed as mentioned above and then the case
posted for plaintiff evidence. Hence, issue No.3 treated as
preliminary issue is not decided. Hence the said issue also taken
for discussion along with the main suit.
28) The defendant of OS.No.17124/2005 examined as DW.1
on counter claim on 19/02/2009 and he was cross-examined by
the plaintiff side. Thereafter OS.No.17124/2005 and
41
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
OS.No.9449/2006 were clubbed on 14/03/2013. Thereafter
plaintiff in both suits Mehaboob Ali Khan is common and he
examined as PW.1 on 05/08/2014 in common relating to his
evidence on counter claim in OS.No.17124/2005 and also his
evidence in OS.No.9449/2006 and marked ExP1 to ExP68. Then
the defendant of OS.No.17124/2005 and defendant No.1 of
OS.No.9449/2006 Ananda Kumar common in both suits and he
examined as DW.1 and marked ExD1 to ExD114 and examined
the witnesses DW.2 & 3 in his favour. The defendants No.2 & 3
of OS.No.9449/2006 have not examined.
29) The plaintiff counsel in both suits argued and filed memo
with citations and defendant counsel in OS.No.17124/2005 and
defendant No.1 counsel in OS.No.9449/2006 argued and filed
memo with citations. The defendants No.2 & 3 counsel in
OS.No.9449/2006 not argued. Perused records.
42
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
30) That as per the order sheet in OS.No.17124/2005 dated
22/09/2007 the suit against the plaintiff was dismissed as per the
memo filed by the plaintiff counsel and in the said suit only
findings relating to the Issues framed on counter claim are to be
given. Hence my findings to the re-casted Issues on counter claim
in OS.No.17124/2005 are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In Affirmative
Issue No.4 : See final order following
31) My findings to above Issues and additional Issues in
OS.No.9449/2006 are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In Negative
Issue No.2 : In Negative
Issue No.3 : In Negative
Issue No.4 : In Negative
43
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Issue No.5 : In Negative
Issue No.6 : In Negative
Issue No.7 : In Negative
Additional Issue No.a) In Negative
Additional Issue No.b) In Negative
Issue No.8 : See final order for following:
:REASONS:
32) Re-casted Issues No.1 to 3 in OS. No.17124/2005 dated
16/10/2008 and Issues No.1 to 7 & Addl. Issue No.(a) & (b) in
OS. No.9449/2006:
The plaintiff Mahaboob Ali Khan S/o late Ghouse Khan
filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief as PW.1 and
deposed the evidence that he is owner of suit schedule property
bearing No.80 and 81 of Yellukunte Village, Bonmanahalli,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore presently within
the Municipal limits of CMC, Bommanahalli. The aforesaid
residential sites schedule property are carved out in survey
44
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
No.22/1F of Yellukunte Village, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore and same was originally owned by A. Munireddy S/o
Venkataramanappa, the said land measured in all 37 guntas. The
said land was developed by Sardar Khan S/o Khader Khan of
No.55, 1st Main Road, Parvathipuram, Bangalore and Late Sardar
Khan in all formed 10 sites of various dimensions in the property
bearing Survey No.22/1F of Yellukunte Village, Bangalore South
Taluk, Bangalore. The said Sardar Khan formed sites in the
adjoining lands belonging to M. Muniyappa and his brothers, in
all 100 sites. In the land belonging to A. Munireddy S/o Venkata
Ramanappa, 10 sites were formed bearing Sites No.76 to 85. The
same were sold to various persons by late A. Munireddy.
33) The PW.1 further deposed evidence that he is purchaser of
property under one sale deed bearing Site Nos.80 and 81, each
measuring 30 ft. X 66 ft. i.e., the total measurement of Site
Nos.80 and 81 is 60ft. X 66 ft totally measuring 3960 sq.ft i.e.
45
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
suit scheduleproperty. That he purchased the suit property from
Munireddy through his General Power of Attorney Holder
Tabasum Banu (Wife of Plaintiff). The sale consideration was
fully paid to the seller A. Munireddy, the said A. Munireddy on
receipt of full sale consideration amount executed General Power
of Attorney in favour of Tabasum Banu to execute sale deed.
Accordingly Tabasum Banu as General Power of Attorney of A.
Muni Reddy executed sale deed on 25/08/1999 in his favour. He
was put in physical and actual possession of suit schedule 'A'
property and enjoying the same from the day of registration till
end of August 2005 up to 28/08/2005.
34) The PW.1 further deposed evidence that he was
constrained to file suit for injunctive relief against the defendant
P. Ananda Kumar in OS.No.17124/2005 on the tile of City Civil
Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore and was having the benefit of
injunctive relief against the defendant P. Ananda Kumar from
46
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
23/082005 to/ 13/12/2005. The said P. Ananda Kumar and his
friends R. Paramesh and Athish, who proclaimed to be
subsequent purchasers of various portions of same property
joined together in violation of the Interim Order of City Civil
Court, Bangalore in OS No.17124/2005 at the behest of P.
Ananda Kumar dispossessed him from the suit schedule property
forcibly asserting imaginary rights on 28/08/2005. He is out of
possession with effect from 18/08/2005. The structures on the suit
schedule property comprising of one portion was constructed by
his vendor and sold the same which was hardly one square. He
later put up 12 squares structures consisting four units i.e., to
make each of residential unit self-sufficient and independent, as
such the construction measures 12 squares. The same was
constructed from his funds which he earned as an NRI working in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
47
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
35) The PW.1 further deposed the evidence that he purchased
sites bearing Nos.80 and 81 of Yellukunte Village, Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, now within the limits of CMC,
Bommanahalli on 25/08/1999. As such neither A. Munireddy nor
his alleged General Power of Attorney Holder A. Abdul Azeez,
son of Abdul Sattar Sab had no right, title and interest of
whatsoever to convey the suit schedule property or any portion of
it to the defendants or any other persons as A. Munireddy had lost
all his right, title and interest in and over the suit schedule
properties in view of the sale deed dated 25/08/1999 in his favour.
The suit schedule property was formed out of the land bearing
Survey No.22/1F and the said land was granted in favour of M.
Muniyappa S/o Munishamappa who was the absolute owner
thereof as found from the RTC Extracts and entries contained
therein. The said M. Muniyappa S/o Munishamappa out of an
arrangement within the family has executed an absolute sale deed
dated 28/03/1983 for 8 guntas of land in Survey No.22/1F in
48
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
favour of A. Munireddy and thereby said A. Munireddy having
absolute right, title and interest over the portion of the land in
Survey No.22/1F, thereafter Munireddy formed two sites and sold
the same to his vendor. That in view of this fact he is absolute
owner having purchased the said property for a valuable sale
consideration from its original owner and has all manner of right,
title and interest over suit schedule property. That subsequent
sale/conveyances by alleged General Power of Attorney Holder
A. Abdul Azeez S/o Abdul Sattar Sab in favour of Khaja
Nayeemuddin, P. Ananda Kumar, P.J. Krishna, Adil Khan and
Mumtaz Ahmed do not confer any rights as such the subsequent
sales from the above said intermediaries in favour of P. Ananda
Kumar, R. Paramesh and Athish do not confer any right as Sale
Deeds dated 15/01/2005, 10/02/2005, 10/02/2005, 10/02/2005
and 10/02/2005, 07/05/2005, 07/03/2005 and 07/03/2005,
15/04/2005. The various sale deeds executed by alleged GPA
holder and Muni Reddy and others and do not confer any
49
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
semblance of right, title and interest in favour of the defendants.
The defendants are not entitled for any semblance of right, title
and interest whatsoever. The acts of the defendants P. Ananda
Kumar, R. Paramesh, and Athish and their alleged Vendors acts in
dispossessing him from the suit schedule property is an unlawful
act as such my present suit for declaration and possession.
36) The PW.1 further deposed evidence that according to his
knowledge Late A. Muni Reddy has not executed any Agreement
of Sale or General Power of Attorney in favour of A. Abdul
Azeez the same are fabricated by the defendants and their alleged
vendors. His father in law late Sardar Khan has never attested any
of the documents of A. Abdul Azeez as a witness or in any other
capacity the same are engineered by the defendants. The assertion
of P. Ananda Kumar, Mr. R. Paramesh and Mr. Athish that their
vendors have derived their title from A. Abdul Azeez is a figment
of imagination. The alleged General Power of Attorney in favour
50
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
of A.Abdul Azeez is an engineered document by the
defendants to make an unlawful claim against him. The LTM
A.Munireddy Vis-a-vis the signature of the witnesses on alleged
General Power of Attorney of A. Abdul Azeez reflect that the said
document is fabricated. The Late Sardar Khan never subscribed
the signature to any of the documents through which the
defendants are claiming their rights said documents are no nest in
the eye of Law.
37) The PW.1 further deposed evidence the defendants claims
to be in possession of the four items (b) to (e) by virtue of the
alleged purchase made by them. The defendants cannot have
better title than him as he was the prior and bonafide purchaser of
the property bearing Site Nos.80 and 81. The defendants
possession is unlawful as they have taken forcible possession on
18/08/2005 when he and his family members were out of town.
The complaint was lodged with the Jurisdictional police declined
51
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
to entertain the complaint and advised him to approach Civil
Court as the dispute is civil in nature. The defendants case is that
A. Munireddy represented by A. Abdul Azeez sold to Khaja
Nayeemuddin under sale deed dated 15/01/2005. The said Khaja
Nayeemuddin in turn sold it under four different sale deeds to P.
Ananda Kumar, P.J. Krishna, Adil Khan and Mumtaz Ahmed. The
said P.J. Krishna sold his portion of property to R. Paramesh
under sale deed dated 15/04/2005. Adil Khan sold his portion of
property to Athish under sale deed dated 07/03/2005. Mumtaz
Ahmed has sold his portion of the property to P. Ananda Kumar
under sale deed dated 07/03/2005, as such P. Ananda Kumar is in
possession of sites measuring 30 x 33 feet and 33 x 31+32/2. The
remaining portions are in possession of R. Paramesh and Athish
through fabricated documents. The sale to Khaja Nayeemuddin,
P. Ananda Kumar, P.J. Krishna, Adil Khan and Mumtaz Ahmed
and through them to P. Ananda Kumar (portion acquired from
Mumtaz Ahmed, R. Paramesh and Athish) are subsequent to that
52
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
of plaintiff, as the defendants P. Ananda Kumar and R. Paramesh
have admitted in OS.No.17124/2005 and OS.No.2955/2006. The
defendants have unlawfully proclaimed that his schedule property
belongs to them on the basis of imaginary rights and has
dispossessed him in the end of August 2005.
38) The PW.1 further deposed evidence that he had approached
CMC Bommanahalli for payment of betterment charges but was
informed that in absence of the Government Circular and
Guidelines they are not authorized to collect the same and to that
effect they issued an endorsement dated 30/08/2000 and the same
is already produced. The defendants have no manner of right, title
and interest over the schedule property to interfere with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property. To his
shock, the defendants trespassed into the schedule property and
have forcibly occupied the four residential units, he questioned
the acts of the defendants the defendants gave evasive reply and
53
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
asserted that the schedule property belongs to them. That except
him no other person has got right, title, or interest over the
schedule property. The PW.1 prays for decree against the
defendants declaring that he is owner and entitle for vacant
possession of the schedule property. The PW.1 further prays to
declare that sale deeds executed by defendants and all their
previous vendors are not binding on his right, title and/or interest
over the suit schedule property. The PW.1 further prays to declare
that the decree for Permanent Injunction obtained by R. Paramesh
in OS.No.2955/2006 before CCH No.10 Bangalore City dated
06/03/2010 is not binding on him and that he is entitle to mesne
profit at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month or any such other sum
from the defendants from the date of the suit till the delivery of
the possession and cost of the Suit. In support of oral evidence
PW.1 marked the documents ExP1 to ExP68.
54
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
39) The defendant of OS.No.17124/2005 and defendant No.1 of
OS.No.9449/2006 P. Ananda Kumar S/o Panchajanyam filed his
affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief as DW.1 and deposed
evidence that he purchased the vacant site bearing No.81
(Northern Portion), Khatha No.22, Assessment No.22/1B, Ward
No.5 presently Bommanahalli CMC comes under ward No.190,
Mangammana Palya, Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk measuring East to west 30 feet North to
South 33 feet in all measuring 990 Sq.Ft through registered deed
of sale dated 10/02/2005 from its previous owner Khaja
Nayeemuddin for valuable sale consideration. The said site
originally belongs to A. Munireddy. He in turn sold the property
to Khaja Nayeemuddin on 15/01/2005 through registered sale
deed. That in pursuance of the registered sale deed dated
10/02/2005 the khatha of the above said site was transferred in
his name and he used to pay Taxes to Bommanahalli
Municipality. After purchased of the above said property he put
55
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
up three square building in the above said property for the stay of
his employees in the said property. He obtained water connection
to the above said property. He is in lawful possession and
enjoyment in the above said property without any hindrance from
any person. Towards Southern portion of the same property got
purchased by R. Paramesh/defendant No.2 in OS.No.9449/2006.
40) The DW.1 further deposed evidence that he purchased
another site bearing No.80 (southern portion) which is a abutting
Site No. 81 through registered sale deed dated 07/03/2005 from
its previous owner Mumtaz Ahmed for valuable sale
consideration. This property originally being vacant site. The said
property measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South
31+32/2 feet in all measuring 945 Sq.Ft. He is in lawful
possession and enjoyment of above said property as per sale deed
and Bommanahalli CMC had transferred the revenue records in
his name. The DW.1 further deposed evidence that after transfer
56
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
of the khatha in his name he constructed now six square building
for the stay of his employees. He also obtained power connection
to this property. He also made deposit to the Electricity
Department. That another abutting site bearing No.80 (Northern
portion 80/22/1B) as per khatha endorsement situated at
Yellukunte Village Beguru Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk
measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 33 feet in all
measuring 990 feet which was purchased by Adil Khan. He
purchased through registered deed of sale dated 10/02/2005 from
Khaja Nayeemuddin S/o Khaja Abdul Sattar. Later said Adil
Khan sold the above said property/site through registered sale
deed dated 07/03/2005 from Athish S/o Panchapi kesan. He
purchased above said site from Athish through registered deed of
sale dated 22/06/2006 and got transferred the revenue records in
him name. Thereby he is absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of above said property 6 square building constructed
in two portions i.e., Northern and Southern sites bearing No.80 in
57
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
all. The defendant No.2 also purchased site No.81 Southern
portion from its previous owner P.J. Krishna through registered
deed of sale dated 15/04/2005 measuring East to West 30 feet
North to South 32+33/2 in all measuring 975 square feet and he
also constructed two square building in his property i.e., southern
portion of site No.81 and he is the absolute owner in possession
and enjoyment of suit schedule property. These 4 properties are
situated in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village Beguru Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. All these properties were purchased by
him and also by R. Paramesh the defendant No.2 through
registered sale deed.
41) The DW.1 further deposed evidence that originally A.
Munireddy was owner of property. He executed GPA in favour of
Abdul Azeez. The GPA was witnessed by Sardar Khan. He is
father-in-law of plaintiff. Through GPA Abdul Azeez sold sites
formed in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village in favour of Khaja
58
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Nayeemuddin. Khaza Nayeemuddin purchased site in
Sy.No.22/1B divided those 2 sites into 4 and sold those 4 sites on
executing independent registered sale deed. Originally
Sy.No.22/1F situated at Yellukunte Village Beguru Hobli was
owned by Muniyappa @ Muniswamappa. Even if the said land
was purchased by A. Munireddy it is different piece of land
nothing to do with the property bearing Sy.No.22/1B. That
Sy.No.22 had been phoded long back and sub number were
assigned and Sy.No.22/1 was phoded was 22/1A 22/1B 22/1C
22/1D 22/1E, 22/1F, 22/1G, 22/1H, 22/11, 22/1J as per the
records maintained by Government of Karnataka till 1962. Hence
Sy.No.22/1B and Sy.No.22/1F of Yellukunte Village are 2
independent different piece of land nothing to do with each other.
That Sy.No.22/1B is nothing to do with Sy.No.22/1F of
Yellukunte Village. That the properties belong to him and the
defendant No.2 are situated in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village.
These properties are not only different in survey number but in
59
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
the locality the location of the Village also different. The
property bearing Sy.No.22/1F of Bommanahalli Village and the
properties belongs to him and the defendant No.2 are situated at
Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village. The entire Sy.No.22 was
surveyed by competent Surveyor before filing his written
statement. As per his report the properties belongs to him and the
defendant No.2 are situated in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village,
Beguru Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
42) The DW.1 further deposed evidence that plaintiff also filed
the suit OS.No.17124/2005 before the City Civil Court at
Bangalore Seeking the relief of permanent injunction. That suit
was filed on 23/08/2005 restraining him from interfering with
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by
adding the Village Yellukunte without any basis contending that
he in possession of the property from the date of purchase that is
25/08/1999. He filed his counter claim on 01/03/2006 that he is in
60
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
possession of the suit schedule property on his own rights. The
plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs were dispossessed by him
and defendant No.2 during first week of August 2004 and 2005,
when the GPA Holder of plaintiff was out of town. That plaintiff
has not paid court fee on the market value of the property. Hence
the payment of court fee paid by plaintiff is insufficient. That the
plaintiff is no title his wife acted as GPA Holder on behalf of
alleged Munireddy without any authority of law. Thereby the
plaintiff can't seek the relief of declaration and possession of the
suit schedule property without mentioning the title of the vendors
of the plaintiff. The khatha is not title and he can't be called is
owner. Thereby now he can't claim Sy.No.22/1B is his property
whereas his alleged sale deed is for SyNo.22/1F. Hence he filed
his written statement contending that he is the absolute owner of
the site No.81 (Northern portion) and in site No. 80 Northern and
Southern portion consisting of two sites totally 3 sites belongs to
him. Since he is in physical possession of the above 3 sites and
61
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
the defendant No.2 in physical possession of Southern Portion of
site No.81. Thereby plaintiff is not entitle to above said sites.
Hence he is claiming counter claim of declaration in respect of
the above said 3 sites formed in site No.81 and one site Northern
portion of site No.80. Hence he filed the counter claim in respect
of these sites against the plaintiff. In support of his oral evidence
DW.1 marked documents ExD1 to ExD114.
43) The defendant No.1 of OS.No.17124/2004 and defendant
of OS.No.9449/2006 examined the witness P. Rajendran S/o
Panchajanyam, he filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in
chief as DW.2 and deposed evidence that one Mumthaz Ahmed
resident of RBI Colony, Jayanagara East sold the site bearing
No.80, Bommanahalli CMC Khatha No.22 Assessment No.
22/1B Ward No.5 situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk measuring East to West 30 feet, North to
south 31+32/2 feet in all measuring 945 sq.ft under registered
62
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
sale deed on 06/03/2005 in favour of P. Anandakumar for total
sale consideration of Rs.1,42,000/-. He signed as witness No.2 in
the said sale deed. He can identify the signature of Mumtaz
Ahmed and P. Ananda kumar and his signature in the sale deed.
That he is also one of witness to General Power of Attorney
executed by A. Munireddy in favour of A. Abdul Azeez resident
of Kalasapalyam Bangalore as witness No.5. He can identify his
signature in the witness column and also the signature of M.
Nagaraja and Sardar Khan. He has not seen the date of stamp
paper or the date of purchase of stamp paper. He has not seen
where the GPA was typed, who gave instruction to prepare the
GPA by Munireddy. He signed as witness to the GPA executed by
Munireddy. In his presence he signed the GPA. From the date of
purchase P. Anandkumar is in continuous possession and
enjoyment of suit schedule property as on today. Immediately
after purchase P. Anandkumar constructed residential house
having electricity and water supply as on today.
63
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
44) The defendant No.1 of OS.No.17124/2004 and defendant
of OS.No.9449/2006 examined the witness M. Venugopal S/o
Muniappa, he filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-
chief as DW.3 and deposed evidence that during the sale
transaction dated 10/02/2005, 06/03/2005 and 22/06/2006 in
favour of defendant No.1 Anand Kumar, he mediated the entire
transaction and he signed the sale deed as witness. He know
personally defendant No.1 Anand Kumar constructed the
residential house by using AC sheet roofing. He is residing at
No.787/B, ITI Layout, Muneeshwara Circle, Old Mangamman
Palya Road, Bengaluru since 1999. He is having office in the
locality since 1992. He know defendants No.1 and 2. The
defendant No.1 permitted his workers to reside in the property
belongs to him and defendant No.2. He is not related to defendant
No.1 or defendant No.2. After purchase of the property/vacant
site, his laborers are residing in the said address. So far he has not
seen the plaintiff in the locality or in the suit schedule property.
64
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
He can identify his signature in the sale deeds executed in favour
of defendant No.1 on 10/02/2005, 06/03/2005 and 22/06/2006.
He know these facts personally.
45) The plaintiff counsel while arguing relied upon the
decisions reported in (1969) 2 SCR 244, (1995) 5 SCC 709, SCC
(1994) 1 SCC and (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 112.
46) The defendants counsel while arguing relied upon the
decisions reported in AIR 2002 Rajasthan 66, AIR 2014 Madhya
Pradesh 59, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 656, 2011(6) Supreme
737. ILR 2005 KAR 884. The relevant citations are discussed
below.
AIR 2002 Rajasthan 66
Davendra Singh and others V/s. State Respondents
Transfer of property Act(4 of 1882), S.54-
Transfer of property- Registration-
Necessity-Sec.54: Comprehends value of
property as distinguished from purported
65
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
consideration of alienation-Transfer of
Property worth more than Rs.100/- for
consideration of less than Rs. 100/-, without a
registered document-Not proper-Such transfer
by unregistered document cannot have effect
of conferring any title on purchaser.
Registration Act (16 of 1908), S.17
AIR 2014 Madhya Pradesh 59
Ramswaroop (D) Th. Rs. Vs. State of M.P
(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.34-
Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S. 54-
Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 17-Suit for
declaration-Property allegedly purchased vide
unregistered sale deed-Value of land
mentioned as only Rs.90/- but sale deed
required to be registered u/s. 54 to be
admissible as evidence-Title and possession
not proved-Declaratory relief cannot be
granted.
(b) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34-
Suit for demarcation-No document produced
to prove ownership-Survey number of plot of
mentioned in plaint-in suit for declaration filed
earlier by plaintiff against Municipal
Corporation, Land was held to be Government
land-Title and possession not proved-
66
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Declaratory relief cannot be granted.
ILR 2005 KAR 884
T.L. Nagendra Babu V/s. Manohar Rao Pawar
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Order 6
Rule 15-Verification of pleadings under-
Held-pleadings should be verified by the party
who is acquainted with the facts of the case-A
party must also specify the number of
paragraphs and his knowledge, information
and belief with regard to the paragraphs-
Verification must be signed by the concerned
party by mentioning the date and place.
(B) Evidence Act 1872-Sec.85-Presumption
as to Powers of Attorney under-Held-
Presumption operates in favour of the party
relying on a document, provided he must
prove that the document is duly executed and
authenticated.
(C) Suit for Declaration and Injunction-
Requirement of Evidence -Duty of the court-
Held-Unless the court is satisfied with regard
to material details in the light of the material
evidence with regard to the identification of
the property, no declaration and injunction can
be granted.
67
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
47) The contention of plaintiff in OS.No.9449/2006 is that he
is the absolute owner of suit schedule property mentioned in the
said both suits bearing House list No.80 & 81, katha No.22/1F
situated at Bommanahalli Village, Beguru Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South
66 feet and he has purchased the said property under the
registered sale deed on 25/08/1999 from previous owner
Munireddy through his GPA Holder Tabassum Banu and since
then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property and katha of the said suit schedule property
standing in his name. But the defendants are causing obstruction
to his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule
property. The said plaintiff Mahaboob Ali Khan commonly
examined as PW.1 in both suits as discussed above and in support
of oral evidence the PW.1 marked the documents ExP1 to ExP68.
68
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
48) The ExP1 is unregistered sale deed dated 28/03/1983
executed by Muniyappa S/o Munishamappa in favour of A. Muni
Reddy S/o Venkataramanappa, wherein there is averment that in
Sy.No.22/1F measuring 2 acres of Yellukunte Village is sold 8
guntas to Munireddy and remaining 1A-32G is in his possession.
The ExP2 is unregistered GPA executed by A. Munireddy S/o
Venkataramanappa in favour of Tabasum Banu W/o Mahaboob
Ali Khan relating to site No.80 & 81 formed out of Sy.No.22/1F
of Bommanahalli Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk
measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 66 feet. The
ExP3 is affidavit executed by A. Munireddy S/o
Venkataramanappa mentioning that he sold site No.80 & 81
formed out of Sy.No.22/1F situated at Bommanahalli Village,
Begurt Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in favour of Tabassum
Banu W/o Mahaboob Ali Khan for Rs.60,000/- and received
entire amount and also he executed GPA and handed over
possession of the property to the purchaser. The ExP4 is
69
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
registered sale deed dated 25/08/1999 executed by Tabasum Banu
W/o Mahaboob Ali Khan as GPA Holder of A. Munireddy S/o
Venkataramanappa in favour of Mahaboob Ali Khan S/o Late
Ghouse Khan @ Jumma Khan relating to House list No.80 & 81
katha No.22/1F situated at Bommanahalli Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk i.e., suit schedule property. The ExP5 is
affidavit of Mahabood Ali Khan given to Bommanahalli CMC.
The ExP6 is self assessment declaration furnished by Mahaboob
Ali Khan to CMC, Bommanahalli. The ExP7 & ExP8 are
receipts. The ExP9 to ExP12 are Encumbrance Certificates for
the period from 01/04/1989 to 31/03/2006, 01/04/1986 to
16/09/2008, 01/04/1986 to 16/09/2008 and 01/04/1986 to
16/09/2008, wherein there are entries regarding sale of site No.80
& 81, katha No.22/1F of Bommanahalli Village. The ExP13 to
ExP16 are tax paid receipts relating to site No.80 & 81 of
Bommanahalli Village.
70
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
49) The ExP17 is certified copy of record of right of
Sy.No.22/1F measuring 1 acres 35 guntas of Yellukunte Village,
Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2004-05,
wherein column No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered as owner
and cultivator of the said property. The ExP18 is certified copy of
order of Land Tribunal, wherein Sy.No.22/1F measuring 16
guntas is granted A. Muniswamappa. The ExP19 is record of
right of Sy.No.22/1F measuring 1 acres 35 guntas of Yellukunte
Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2011-
12, wherein column No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered as
owner and cultivator of 1 acres 35 guntas. The ExP20 is certified
copy of the sale deed dated 25/11/2002 executed by Nanda Reddy
S/o Late Munireddy in favour of G.N.T. Thimmarayan S/o
Narasimhan and Muddammal W/o G.N.T Thimmarayan in
respect of site bearing No.79 katha No.22/1B-F situated at
Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The
ExP21 is layout sketch of site No.80 and 81, Katha No.22/1F of
71
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Bommanahalli Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
The ExP22 is record of right of Sy.No.22/1F measuring 1 acres
35 guntas of Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk for the year 1974-75 to 1978-79, wherein column No.9
name of M. Muniyappa is entered as owner and cultivator of the
said property. The ExP23 is record of right of katha No.22/1F
measuring 1 acres 35 guntas of Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 1968-69 to 1973-74, wherein
column No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered as owner and
cultivator of the said property. The ExP24 is record of right of
Sy.No.22/1F measuring 1 acres 35 guntas of Yellukunte Village,
Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 1979-80 to
1984-85, wherein column No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered
as owner and cultivator of the said property. The ExP25 is record
of right of Sy.No.22/1F measuring 1 acres 35 guntas of
Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the
year 1985-86 to 1989-90, wherein column No.9 name of M.
72
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Muniyappa is entered as owner and cultivator of the said
property. The ExP26 is record of right of Sy.No.22/1F measuring
1 acres 35 guntas of Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk for the year 1990-1991 to 1994-95, wherein column
No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered as owner and cultivator
of the said property. The ExP27 is record of right of Sy.
No.22/1F measuring 1 acres 35 guntas of Yellukunte Village,
Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 1995-96 to
1996-97, wherein column No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered
as owner and cultivator of the said property. The ExP28 is record
of right of Sy.No.22/1F measuring 1 acres 35 guntas of
Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the
year 1997-98 to 1999-2000, wherein column No.9 name of M.
Muniyappa is entered as owner and cultivator of the said
property.
73
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
50) The ExP29 is Encumbrance Certificate for the period from
15/01/2005 to 31/03/2005 wherein there is entry regarding sale
transaction of site No.80 & 81 of Bommanahalli Village as
mentioned in the above sale deed. The ExP30 is record of right of
Sy.No.22/1F measuring 3 acres of Yellukunte Village, Beguru
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2001-2002, wherein
column No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered as owner and
cultivator of the said property. The ExP31 is record of right of
Sy.No.22/1F measuring 3 acres of Yellukunte Village, Beguru
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2002-2003, wherein
column No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered as owner and
cultivator of the sasid property. The ExP32 is record of right of
Sy.No.22/1F measuring 1 acres 35 guntas of Yellukunte Village,
Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2003-2004,
wherein column No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered as owner
and cultivator of the said property. The ExP33 is record of right
of katha No.22/1F measuring 1 acres 35 guntas of Yellukunte
74
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2004-
2005, wherein column No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered as
owner and cultivator of the said property. The ExP34 is record of
right of Sy.No.22/1F measuring 1 acres 35 guntas of Yellukunte
Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2005-
2006, wherein column No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered as
owner and cultivator of the said property. The ExP35 is record of
right of Sy.No.22/1F measuring 1 acres 35 guntas of Yellukunte
Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2011-
2012, wherein column No.9 name of M. Muniyappa is entered as
owner and cultivator of the ssaid property.
51) The ExP36 is certified copy of sale deed dated 15/01/2005
executed by A. Abdul Azeez S/o Abdul Sattar Sab, i.e., GPA
Holder of A. Munireddy S/o Venkataramanappa in favour of
Khaja Nayeemuddin S/o Khaja Abdul Sattar in respect of site
No.80 & 81 presently jurisdiction of Bommanahalli CMC Katha
75
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
No.22 and Assessment No.22/1B situated at Yellukunte Village,
Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The ExP37 is certified
copy of sale deed dated 10/02/2005 executed by Khaja
Nayeemuddin S/o Khaja Abdul Sattar in favour of Adil Khan S/o
Ghouse Khan relating to portion of vacant site No.80 of
Bommanahalli CMC Katha No.22, Assessment No.22/1B,
Bommanahalli CMC situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The ExP38 is certified copy of the
sale deed dated 10/02/2005 executed by Khaja Nayeemuddin S/o
Khaja Abdul Sattar in favour of P.J. Krishna S/o Jadia Gounder in
respect of property bearing site No.81 of Bommanahalli CMC
Katha No.22, Assessment No.22/1B of Bommanahalli CMC,
Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The ExP39 is certified
copy of sale deed dated 10/02/2005 executed by Khaja
Nayeemuddin S/o Khana Abdul Sattar in favour of P. Ananda
Kumar S/o S. Panchajanyam in respect of property bearing
portion of Vacant Site No.81 of Bommanahalli CMC Katha
76
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
No.22, Assessment No.22/1B, Bommanahalli CMC, Beguru
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The ExP40 is certified copy of
Sale Deed dated 06/03/2005 executed by Mumtaz Ahmed S/o
Abdul Razak in favour of P. Ananda Kumar S/o S. Panchajanyam
in respect of site No.80, Bommanahalli CMC Katha No.22,
Assessment 22/1B, situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk. The ExP41 is certified copy of the Sale
Deed dated 07/03/2005 executed by Adil Khan S/o Ghouse Khan
in favour of Athish S/o M. Panchapi Kesan in respect of portion
of vaant site No.80, Bommanahalli CMC Katha No.22,
Assessment No.22/1B situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The ExP42 is certified copy of the
Sale Deed dated 15/04/2005 executed by P.J. Krishna S/o Jadia
Goundar in favour of R. Paramesh S/o Ramaswamy in respect of
site No.81, Old Katha No.22, Assessment No.22/1B,
Bommanahalli situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. The ExP43 is certified copy of sale deed
77
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
dated 22/06/2006 executed by Athish S/o M. Panchapi Kesan in
favour of P. Anandakumar S/o S. Panchajanyam in respect of
property bearing vacant site No.80, CMC Katha No.22,
Assessment No.22/1B New Bommanahalli situated at Yellukunte
Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The ExP44 to
ExP56 are marked as documents relating to survey of Sy.No.22 of
Yellukunte Village. The ExP57 to ExP66 are Tax Paid Receipts
relating to Property No.80 & 81 by plaintiff P. Anandakumar.
52) On the contrary in OS.No.17124/2005 the defendant is
Anand Kumar and same defendant is defendant No.1 in
OS.No.9449/2006 and one Paramesh is defendant No.2 in
OS.No.9449/2006. The defendant of OS.No.17124/2005 and
defendant No.1 of OS.No.9449/2006 Anand Kumar examined as
DW.1 in common in both suits and he deposed the evidence that
he is absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
schedule property bearing Property No.80 & 81 situated at
78
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. He
purchased site No.80 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to
South 31+32/2 feet from its previous owner under the registered
sale deed on 07/03/2005 and he purchased the site No.81
measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 33 feet from
its previous owner under the registered sale deed dated
10/02/2005 and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
both properties. That the site No.81, katha No.22, assessment
No.22/1B of Bommanahalli CMC originally belongs to A.
Munireddy, A. Munireddy sold schedule property to Khaja
Nayeemuddin on 15/01/2005 and he purchased the said site
No.81 from Khaja Nayeemuddin. Further another site No.80
which is abutting site No.81 towards Southern side and it
originally belongs to Mumtaz Ahmed and he purchased the said
property from said Mumtaz Ahmed. The further contention of the
defendant AnandKumar that there are four properties in
Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village and A. Munireddy was the
79
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
owner of the said property and A. Munireddy executed GPA in
favour of Abdul Azeez and said GPA is witness by name Sardar
Khan who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff. The Abdul Azeez
sold the site formed in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village in
favour of Khaja Nayeemuddin. Khaja Nayeemuddin purchased
the site in Sy.No.22/1B divided those two sites into four and sold
on executing the independent registered sale deeds. That
originally Sy.No.22/1F situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru
Hobli was owned by Muniyappa S/o Muniswamappa, even the
said land was purchased by A. Munireddy it is different piece of
land nothing to do with the property bearing No.22/1B. That
Sy.No.22 has been phoded long back and some numbers are
assigned and Sy.No.22/1 was phoded as 22/1A, 22/1B, 22/1C,
22/1D, 22/1E, 22/1F, 22/1G, 22/1H, 22/1I & 22/1J as per records
maintained by the Government of Karnataka till 1962. The
Sy.No.22/1B and 22/1F of Yellukunte Village are two different
pieces of land and nothing to do with others. The property
80
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
belongs to him and defendant No.2 are situated in Sy.No.22/1B of
Yellukunte Village. Therefore the contention of defendant Ananda
Kumar of both suits is that Sy.No.22/1F of Yellukunte Village in
which the plaintiff claiming his site No.80 & 81 are nothing to do
with the Sy.No.22/1B in which he is claiming the property and
both survey numbers are different and not one and the same. The
said Anand Kumar examined as DW.1 and in support of oral
evidence marked ExD1 to ExD114. That in the cross-examination
of PW.1 by defendant counsel on 07/10/2014 ExD1 and ExD3
record of right of Sy.No.22/1F of Yellukunte village and ExD2
record of right of Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte village are
confronted and marked. The said documents are ExD1 is record
of right of Sy.No.22/1F measuring 2 acres of Yellukunte Village,
Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2013-14
standing in the name of A. Muniyappa. The ExD2 is record of
right of Sy.No.22/1B measuring 39 guntas of Yellukunte Village
for the year 2013-14 standing in the name of A. Munireddy S/o
81
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Venkataramanappa. The ExD3 is record of right of Sy.No.22/1F
measuring 2 acres of Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2013-2014 standing in the
name of A. Muniyappa.
53) The defendant No.1 in OS.No.9449/2006 and defendant
in OS.No.17124/2005 Anand Kumar examined as DW.1 and in
support of oral evidence marked ExD1 to ExD114. The ExD1 is
receipt issued by BBMP regarding payment of Tax. The ExD2 is
the Form 'B' Register Extract of property No.80/22/1B of
Yellukunte Village standing in the name of defendant Anand
Kumar S/o Panchajanyam. The ExD3 to ExD12 are tax paid
receipts of Sy.No.22/1B by Ananda Kumar. The ExD13 is Bill
and Receipt issued by BWSSB to Ananda Kumar relating to
water supply. The ExD14 is provisional demand notice issued by
BWSSB to P. Ananda Kumar for depositing the charges for
getting water and sanitary supplies to premises No.81, K.No.22,
82
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
9th Cross, Gangamma Layout, M.P.Palya. The ExD15 is
application filed by Ananda Kumar defendant to BWSSB for
connection of water. The ExD16 is one receipt issued by
Bengaluru One. The ExD17 to ExD19 are Electricity Bills. The
ExD20 is Demand Notice by BWSSB. The ExD21 is sale deed
dated 10/02/2005 executed by Khaja Nayeemuddin S/o Khaja
Abdul Sattar in favour of Adil Khan S/o Ghouse Khan relating to
portion of vacant site No.80 of Bommanahalli CMC Katha
No.22, Assessment No.22/1B, Bommanahalli CMC situated at
Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The
ExD22 is copy of sale deed dated 07/03/2005 executed by Adil
Khan S/o Ghouse Khan in favour of Athish S/o M. Panchapi
Kesan in respect of portion of vacant site No.80, Bommanahalli
CMC Katha No.22, Assessment No.22/1B situated at Yellukunte
Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The ExD23 is copy
of sale deed dated 22/06/2006 executed by Athish S/o M.
Panchapi Kesan in favour of P. Anandakumar S/o S.
83
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Panchajanyam (defendant No.1) in respect of property bearing
vacant site No.80, CMC Katha No.22, Assessment No.22/1B
New Bommanahalli situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk. The ExD24 & ExD25 are encumbrance
certificates for the period 01/04/1992 to 31/03/2005 and from
01/04/2006 to 08/11/2006 wherein there is entry regarding sale
transaction relating to site mentioned in the above sale deeds. The
ExD26 is receipt issued by the BBMP to Anank Kumar regarding
payment of tax. The ExD27 is Form 'B' Register relating to
property No.81/22/1B of Yellukunte Village in the name of
defendant Ananda Kumar S/o Panchajanyam. The ExD28 to
ExD37 are Tax Paid Receipts by Ananda Kumar relating to
property No.22/1B of Bommanahalli Village. The ExD38 is test
certificate regarding electricity issued by BESCOM. The ExD39
& ExD40 are invoices issued by Landis+Gyr Limited regarding
purchase of Energy Meter by Ananda Kumar. The ExD41 is
receipt issued by BBMP to Ananda Kumar regarding receipt of
84
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
the Tax. The ExD42 is Form 'B' Property Register relating to
property No.80/22/1B of Yellukunte Village in the name of
defendant Ananda Kumar S/o Panchajanyam. The ExD43 to
ExD52 are tax paid receipts regarding payment of tax by Ananda
Kumar relating to property No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village. The
ExD53 to ExD56 are self assessment of Tax with respect to Site
No.80, Katha No.22, Assessment No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village
in name of Ananda Kumar. The ExD57 to ExD82 are electricity
bills and receipts. The ExD83 to ExD86 are photographs and
ExD88 is C.D marked as they belongs to schedule property of
defendant. The ExD89 and 90 are two tax invoices.
54) The ExD91 is unregistered General Power of Attorney
dated 10/02/1999 executed by A. Munireddy S/o
Venkataramanappa in favour of A. Abdul Azeez relating to
property bearing Site No.80 & 81 formed in Sy.No.22/1B situated
at Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and
85
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
ExD92 is affidavit of Munireddy mentioning about execution of
GPA and receipt of consideration amount regarding sale of the
said property mentioned in ExD91. The ExD93 is unregistered
agreement of sale dated 12/12/1988 executed by A. Munireddy
S/o Venkataramanappa in favour of Abdul Azeez S/o Abdul Sattar
Ssab in respect of Site No.80 & 81 formed in Sy.No.22/1B
situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk. The ExD94 is original sale deed dated 10/02/2005
executed by Khaja Nayeemuddin S/o Khaja Abdul Sattar in
favour of P. Anand Kumar S/o S. Panchajanyam relating to
portion of vacant site No.81 of Bommanahalli CMC Katha
No.22, Assessment No.22/1B, Bommanahalli CMC situated at
Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The
ExD95 is self assessment declaration form No.3 for the year
2005-2006 in the name of defendant AnandKumar. The ExD96 is
tax paid receipt. The ExD97 is tax paid receipt. The ExD98 is
86
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Receipt. The ExD99 is application filed by Ananda Kumar to
CMC Bommanahalli for water connection.
55) The ExD100 is original sale deed dated 06/03/2005
executed by Mumtaz Ahmed S/o Abdul Razak in favour of P.
Ananda Kumar S/o S. Panchajanyam in respect of site No.80,
Bommanahalli CMC Katha No.22, Assessment 22/1B situated at
Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The
ExD101 is self assessment declaration form No.3 of CMC
Bommanahalli for the year 2005-06 in the name of
AnandaKumar. The ExD102 to ExD104 are Tax Paid Receipts.
The ExD105 is sanction given by BESCOM for Electricity
connection to Ananda Kumar. The ExD106 to ExD113 are
photographs and negatives of photographs marked as they
belongs to the property of Ananda Kumar and ExD114 is bill.
56) The burden is on the plaintiff of OS.No.9449/2006
Mehaboob Ali Khan to prove that he is absolute owner in lawful
87
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing
House list No.80 & 81, Katha No.22/1F situated at
Bommanahalli, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk presently
Yellukunte Village within the limits of CMC, Bengaluru
measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 66 feet. The
said plaintiff examined as PW.1 and marked several documents as
discussed above. As per the plaintiff Mehaboob Ali Khan he
purchased the suit schedule property from Munireddy S/o
Venkataramanappa through his GPA Holder Tabassum Banu and
he marked said sale deed as per ExP4. The contention of the
plaintiff in both suits that his vendor Munireddy executed GPA in
favour of Tabassum Banu who is his wife relating to the site
No.80 & 81 formed out of Sy.No.22/1F of Bommanahalli Village,
Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and also executed affidavit
regarding receipt of consideration amount from Tabassum Banu
mentioning that he sold said property to Tabassum Banu and said
GPA and affidavits marked as ExP2 & ExP3. The further
88
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
contention of plaintiff that originally suit schedule property is
formed in Sy.No.22/1F measuring 2 acres of Yellukunte Village
and said land belongs to Muniyappa S/o Muniswamappa and said
Muniyappa executed sale deed of 8 guntas in the said land in
favour of Munireddy S/o Venkataramanappa. That one Sardar
Khan developed the said land of 8 guntas in Sy.No.22/1F of
Yellukunte Village belongs to Munireddy and formed sites.
Thereafter Munireddy executed GPA in favour of Tabassum Banu
relating to the suit schedule property and he purchased the said
suit schedule property from Tabassum Banu GPA Holder of
Munireddy.
57) The plaintiff marked ExP1 unregistered sale deed dated
28/03/1983 executed by Muniyappa S/o Muniswamappa in
favour of Munireddy S/o Venkataramanappa regarding sale of 8
guntas out of 2 acres in Sy.No.22/1F of Yellukunte Village.
Therefore from ExP1 & ExP2 it is clear that said documents are
89
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
unregistered documents. That the property mentioned in ExP1
i.e., 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.22/1F of Yellukunte Village sold by
Muniyappa to Munireddy is an agricultural land and said ExP1 is
unregistered document. Therefore as per Sec.17 of Registration
Act the immovable property worth more than Rs.100/-
registration is compulsory. But the ExP1 is unregistered
document. Hence the property mentioned in ExP1 is not
transferred from Muniyappa in favour of Munireddy in due
procedure of law. The citation referred by defendants counsel as
discussed above on this aspect reported in AIR 2002 Rajasthan
66 applies to the present case in hand. Further as per plaintiff
Mehaboob Ali Khan one Sardar Khan has formed layout in 8
guntas in Sy.No.22/1F of Yellukunte Village as mentioned in
ExP1. But relating to formation of the plots in the said land the
plaintiff Mehaboob Ali Khan has not produced any specific
documents i.e., conversion order issued by the competent
authority regarding conversion of the land for non-agricultural
90
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
purpose. The PW.1 cross examined by the defendants counsel and
in the cross-examination the PW.1 deposed the evidence that "It
is true to suggest that I have produced ExP1 the Unregistered
Sale Deed. I am not claiming any rights through ExP1, but
ExP1 is produced to show the flow of rights. In ExP1 it is not
mentioned at where exactly and in which particular portion
of 2 acres of land 8 guntas is situated. In ExP1 boundaries to
8 guntas of land is not mentioned. I came to know that land
was granted to Muniyappa by Land Tribunal. I do not know
the date or year of forming the layout by Munireddy in 8
guntas of land. The witness volunteers that before I
purchased the suit schedule property the layout was formed.
There is approved layout plan in respect of layout formed by
Munireddy. Mutation was entered in the name of Munireddy
but I have not produced the same." Therefore as per PW.1 there
is absolute layout plan in respect of layout formation by
Munireddy, but no such layout plan is produced by the plaintiff.
91
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Further in the cross-examination itself the PW.1 clearly deposed
the evidence that "I came to know the fact of formation of 10
sites in Sy.No.22/1F from Munireddy and Sardar Khan. The
said Sardar Khan was my father-in-law. I do not have any
documents to show about formation of sites by Sardar Khan
in the land of Munireddy and others." Hence from the
evidence of plaintiff itself it is clear that, there are no documents
relating to formation of sites in Sy.No.22/1F of Bommanahalli
Village.
58) But the defendant No.1 of OS.No.9449/2006 Ananda
Kumar and defendant in OS.No.17124/2005 examined as DW.1
deposed evidence that he purchased the vacant site bearing No.81
Northern portion of Katha No.22, Assessment No.22/1B, Ward
No.5 presently Bommanahalli CMC comes under Ward No.190
Gangammana Palya, Yellukunte Village, Bengaluru South Taluk
measuring Easts to West 30 feet and North to South 30 feet from
92
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
previous owner Khaja Nayeemuddin on 10/02/2005. The said site
originally belongs to A. Munireddy and in turn he sold the
property to Khaja Nayeemuddin on 15/01/2005 under the
registered sale deed. That towards Southern portion of the same
property purchased by the defendant No.2 R. Paramesh in
OS.No.9449/2006. Therefore as per the defendant No.1 in
OS.No.9449/2006 and defendant in OS. No.17124/2005 Ananda
Kumar his property comes in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village
and he produced and marked ExD23 regarding purchase of
vacant site No.80 CMC Katha No.22, Assessment No.22/1B of
Yellukunte Village by said defendant Ananda Kumar from Athish
S/o Panchapi Kesan and also marked ExD22 regarding purchase
of same property by Athish S/o Panchapi Kesan from previous
owner Adil Khan on 07/03/2005 and also marked ExD21
regarding purchase of same property by Adil Khan S/o Ghouse
Khan from his previous owner Khaja Nayeemuddin S/o Khaja
Abdul Sattar. Further the DW.1 Ananda Kumar marked ExD27 'B'
93
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
katha extract relating to property No.81/21/1B of Yellukunte
Village standing in his name in the BBMP Register and further he
marked ExD42 'B' katha extract relating to property No.80/21/1B
of Yellukunte Village standing in the name of Ananda Kumar. As
discussed above the defendant Ananda Kumar contention that his
property site No.80 & 81 of Yellukunte Village formed in
Sy.No.22/1B and said sites originally belongs to Munireddy. The
PW.1 in his cross examination deposed the evidence that "It is
true to suggest that land bearing Sy.No.22/1F standing in the
name of one Muniyappa for the period 2013-14 which marked
at ExD1. It is true to suggest that Sy.No.22/1B standing in the
name of A. Munireddy which is marked at ExD2. I do not
know regarding granting of Sy.No.22/1B measuring 37 guntas
to Munireddy by Land Tribunal."
59) The ExD1 marked in the evidence of PW.1 on 07/10/2014.
But on 19/02/2009 the defendant Ananda Kumar examined as
94
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
DW.1 and in his evidence sale deed dated 10/02/2005 marked as
ExD1. Hence for two different documents similar ExD1 was
given and further ExD2 ROR were marked in the evidence of
PW.1. The ExD2 is also marked in the evidence of PW.1 on
07/10/2014 by confrontation and further in the evidence of PW.1,
on 10/08/2015 ExD3 ROR is confronted and marked. Thereafter
in the evidence of DW.1 on 19/02/2009 again ExD1 to ExD3
other documents are given numbers. That on 07/10/2014 in the
cross-examination of PW.1 ExD1 and ExD2 confronted to PW.1
and marked those are record of rights and further in the cross-
examination of PW.1 on 10/08/2016 ExD3 record of right is
confronted and marked. The ExD1 marked on 07/10/2014 is a
ROR bearing Sy.No.22/1F measuring 2 acres of Yellukunte
Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2013-
14, wherein the name of M. Muniyappa appeared as cultivator of
the said land. Further the ExD2 marked on 07/10/2014 in ROR of
Sy.No.22/1B measuring 39 guntas of Yellukunte Village, Beguru
95
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the year 2013-2014, wherein
the name of A. Munireddy S/o Venkataramanappa mentioned as
cultivator and possessor. Further ExD3 marked on 10/08/2016 in
the cross-examination of PW.1 is ROR of Sy.No.22/1F of
Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the
year 2013-2014 in the name of M. Muniyappa. In ExD1 and
ExD3 the way of possession of M. Muniyappa to the said land
mentioned in column No.10 as Inamdar RR-315, DFO 64-65 and
in Ex.D2 the way of possession of Muni Reddy to the said land
mentioned in column No.10 as RR-5, 85-86 LRF. Therefore from
these ExD1 to ExD3 it is clear that Sy.No.22/1F of Yellukunte
Village and Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village are different lands
and not one and same. Further as per ExP18 land in Sy.No.22/1F
of Yellukunte Village granted to Muniyappa by Land Tribunal
and in the ExP19 ROR of Sy.No.22/1F the name of Muniyappa
entered as cultivator and possessor of the land and way of
possession mentioned as inamdar and similar document of ExP19
96
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
in the cross-examination by defendant counsel confronted and
marked at ExD1 & ExD3 on 07/10/2014 as discussed above.
Further as per ExD2 marked on 07/10/2014 the ROR column
No.10 name of the previous vendor of defendant Ananda Kumar
by name Munireddy is mentioned as owner of Sy.No.22/1B of
Yellukunte Village and it is also granted land to him. Therefore
from the said document it is clear that Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte
Village granted to previous original owner of the site No.80 & 81
formed in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village and further
Sy.No.22/1F of Yellukunte Village granted to Muniyappa by the
Land Tribunal.
60) Further the documents produced by the defendant No.1 in
OS.No.17124/2005 marked as Ex.D2 on 07/10/2014 discloses
regarding land bearing Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village was
granted to Munireddy and as per ExD91 said Munireddy
executed GPA in favour of Abdul Azeez relating to site No.80 &
97
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
81 formed in Sy.No.22/1B of Yellukunte Village and after ExD92
and ExD93 unregistered agreement of sale in respect of said site
No.80 & 81 of Yellukunte Village. The PW.1 in his evidence
marked ExP36 certified copy of sale deed dated 16/01/2005
executed by Abdul Azeez S/o Abdul Sattar GPA holder of
Munireddy S/o Venkataramanappa in favour of Khaja
Nayeemuddin S/o Abdul Sattar in respect of site No.80 & 81
presently jurisdiction of Bommanahalli CMC Katha No.22 and
Assessment No.22/1B situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Then as per ExD94 said Khaja
Nayeemuddin S/o Abdul Sattar sold the site No.80, CMC Katha
No.22 of Bommanahalli Village situated at Yellukunte Village,
Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in favour of Adil Khan S/o
Ghouse Khan. Further as per ExD22 the said Adil Khan executed
portion of vacant site No.80, CMC Katha No.22, Assessment
No.22/1B situated at Yellukunte Village, Beguru Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk in favour of Athish S/o Panchapi Kesan
98
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
and as per ExD23 said Athish S/o Panchapi Kesan sold the said
property on 22/06/2006 in favour of Ananda Kumar S/o
Panchajanyam the defendant No.1 of OS.No.17124/2005 and as
per ExD42 Form 'B' property register relating to said Site No.80
is in the name of defendant No.1 Anandkumar of
OS.No.17124/2005 i.e., counter claim 'B' schedule property in
OS.No.17124/2005. Further relating to counter claim 'A' schedule
property site No.81 the defendant of OS.No.17124/2005 marked
the document ExD100 original sale deed dated 06/03/2005
executed by Mumtaz Ahmed S/o Abdul Razak in his favour and
as per ExD27 name of defendant No.1 Ananda Kumar of
OS.No.17124/2005 appeared in the revenue records and ExD27 is
the 'B' katha extract of the said property standing in the name of
defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 of OS.No.17124/2005
examined the witnesses DW.2 & DW.3, both have deposed
evidence in support of defendant No.1 of OS.No.17124/2005.
The DW.2 is attesting witness of ExD91 GPA executed by
99
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
Munireddy in favour of Abdul Azeez and he deposed the
evidence that in his presence the said GPA was executed, he has
been cross-examined by the plaintiff, but nothing is elucidated
from his mouth to disbelieve the version deposed in his
examination-in-chief. Further DW.3 is attesting witness of ExD94
sale deed executed by Khaja Nayeemuddin in favour of Adil
Khan who is the previous vendor of the defendant Ananda
Kumar. Therefore the defendant No.1 of OS.No.17124/2005
proved by way of oral and documentary evidence as discussed
above proved regarding the flow of title and counter claim
schedule 'A' & 'B' property is his previous vendor and also proved
that as on now the katha extract of said properties are standing in
his name and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said
properties by way of oral and documentary evidence and also
Further as discussed above there is no proper flow of title of the
property from Muniyappa S/o Muniswamappa to Munireddy S/o
Venkataramanappa as per ExP1, since the said ExP1 sale deed is
100
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
unregistered document, hence Munireddy S/o Venkataramanappa
does not get the valid title over 8 guntas in Sy.No.22/1F of
Yellukunte Village. Hence the plaintiff OS.No.9449/2006 cannot
claim right over the suit schedule property on the basis of said
unregistered sale deed of his vendor and failed to prove his
ownership and possession over the suit schedule property and
hence not entitle for the reliefs claimned in OS.No.9449/2006.
Therefore the defendant No.1 of OS.No.17124/2005 proved re-
casted Issues No.1 to 3. The plaintiff of OS.No.9449/2006 failed
to prove Issues Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 and additional Issues No.(a)
and (b). Therefore I answer re-casted Issues No.1 to 3 in
OS.No.17124/2005 in Affirmative and I answer Issues No.1, 2,
4, 5, 6 and 7 and additional Issues No.(a) and (b) in
OS.No.9449/2006 in Negative.
61) Issue No.3 in OS.No.9449/2006:
101
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
The Issue No.3 is framed regarding valuation of the suit
and payment of Court Fee. In view of the contention taken by the
defendants in the said suit in the written statement. But on this
aspect DW.1 has not deposed the evidence and not marked any
documents. As per the prayer the claimed by the plaintiff in
OS.No.9449/2006 for the relief he has paid the proper Court Fee
and properly valued the suit. Hence defendants failed to prove the
contention taken by them relating to the aspect of Court Fee.
Hence I answer Issue No.3 in OS.No.9449/2006 the Negative.
62) Issue No.4 in OS.No.17124/2005 and Issue No.8 in
OS.No.9449/2006:
In view of above discussion I proceed to pass the following
102
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
:ORDER:
The counter claim of the defendant No.1 in OS.No.17124/2005 for the relief of Permanent Injunction is hereby decreed with costs.
The plaintiff of OS.No.17124/2005 is hereby restrained from causing obstruction to defendant No.1's peaceful possession and enjoyment of counter claim 'A' & 'B' schedule properties.
The suit of the plaintiff in OS. No.9449/2006 is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
Keep original Judgment in OS.No.17124/2005 and certified copy of Judgment in OS.No.9449/2006.
(Dictated to the stenographer, script translated and typed by him. Then corrected on line in computer, then taken printout, then again corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this 24th day of January 2022).
(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
103Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005 C /w OS.No.9449/2006 :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 : Mahaboob Ali Khan S/o Late Ghouse Khan DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
ExP1 : Unregistered Sale Deed dated 28/03/1983
ExP2 : Unregistered GPA
ExP3 : C/C of Affidavit of A. Munireddy
ExP4 : Registered Sale Deed dated 25/08/1999
ExP5 : Affidavit of Mehaboob Ali Khan
ExP6 : Self Assessment declaration of Mehaboob Ali
Khan
ExP7&8 : Receipts
ExP9 to12 : Encumbrance Certificates
ExP13 to16 : Tax paid receipts
ExP17 : Certified copy of Record of Right of
Sy.No.22/1F
ExP18 : Certified copy of order of Land Tribunal
ExP19 : Record of Right
ExP20 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 25/11/2002
ExP21 : Layout Sketch of site No.80 & 81
ExP22to28 : Record of Rights
104
Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005
C /w OS.No.9449/2006
ExP29 : Encumbrance Certificate
ExP30to35 : Record of Rights
ExP36 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 16/01/2005
ExP37 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 10/02/2005
ExP38 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 10/02/2005
ExP39 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 10/02/2005
ExP40 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 06/03/2005
ExP41 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 07/03/2005
ExP42 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 16/04/2005
ExP43 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 22/06/2006
ExP44 to56 : Documents relating to Sy.No.22
ExP57to66 : Tax paid receipts relating to Property No.80 & 81
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S: DW.1 : P. Ananda Kumar S/o Panchajanyam DW.2 : P. Rajendran S/o Panchajanyam DW.3 : M. Venugopal S/o Muniappa DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S:
ExD1to3 : Record of Rights ExD1 : Receipt issued by BBMP payment of Tax ExD2 : Form 'B' Register Extract ExD3to12 : Tax paid receipts ExD13 : Bill and Receipt issued by BSWWB 105 Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005 C /w OS.No.9449/2006 ExD14 : Provisional Demand Notice issued by BWSSB ExD15 : Application of Ananda Kumar to BWSSB ExD16 : Receipt of Bengaluru One ExD17to19 : Electricity Bills ExD20 : Demand Notice of BWSSB ExD21 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 10/02/2005 ExD22 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 07/03/2005 ExD23 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 22/06/2006 ExD24&25 : Encumbrance Certificates ExD26 : Receipt issued by BBMP ExD27 : Form 'B' Register ExD28to37 : Tax paid receipts ExD38 : Test Certificate of BESCOM ExD39&40 : Two invoices of Landis+Gyr Limited ExD41 : Receipt of BBMP to Ananda Kukmar ExD42 : Form 'B' Property Register ExD43to52 : Tax Paid Receipts ExD53to66 : Self Assessment of Tax with Receipts ExD67to82 : Electricity Bills & Receipts ExD83to87 : Photographs ExD88 : CD ExD89to90 : Two Tax Invoices 106 Common Judgment OS.No.17124/2005 C /w OS.No.9449/2006 ExD91 : Unregistered GPA dated 10/02/1999 ExD92 : Affidavit of Munireddy ExD93 : Unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 12/12/88 ExD94 : Original Sale Deed dated 10/02/2005 ExD95 : Self Assessment Declaration Form No.3 ExD96&97 : Tax Paid Receipts ExD98 : Receipt ExD99 : Application of Ananda Kumar to CMC Bommanahalli ExD100 : Original Sale Deed dated 06/03/2005 ExD101 : Self Assessment Declaration Form No.3 ExD102to104: Tax Paid Receipts ExD105 : Sanction given by BESCOM ExD106to113: Photographs & Negatives ExD114 : Bill of photos.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE 4MAYOHALL UNIT : BANGALORE.