Bangalore District Court
Sri.P.Subbareddy vs Sri.S.K.Gurumurthy on 10 March, 2022
KABC010164082017
Presented on : 05.07.2017
Registered on : 05.07.2017
Decided on : 10.03.2022
Duration : 4 years 6 months 5 days
IN THE COURT OF THE LXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SRI. SUBHASH SANKAD
B.A., LL.M.
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 10 th day of March, 2022
O.S.No.4554/2017
PLAINTIFFS: 1. Sri.P.Subbareddy,
S/o. Late P. Changareddy,
Aged about 58 years.
2. Smt.Padmamma,
W/o. P. Subbareddy,
Aged about 43 years.
Both are r/at No.68/1, Sriramnagar,
Garvebhavipalya, Near MICO Layout,
Bengaluru-560 068.
(Sri.G.Papi Reddy, Advocate)
- VS -
DEFENDANT :- 1. Sri.S.K.Gurumurthy,
S/o. M.Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at Somasandrapalya, Agara Post,
Haralukunte Dhakle, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru.
2 O.S.No.4554/2017
2. Sri. S.K.Muralidhara,
S/o. M. Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at Somasandrapalya,
Agara Post, Haralukunte Dhakle,
Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,
(Sri. Y.N.Sathyanarayana Rao, Adv.)
Date of Institution of the suit 05.07.2017.
Nature of the Suit (suit for pronote, Permanent Injunction.
Suit for declaration & possession,
Suit for injunction, etc.):
Date of the commencement of 18.06.2018.
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 10.03.2022.
pronounced:
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration:
04 06 05
***
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties.
2. The suit schedule properties in respect of which the present suit is filed, described in the schedule appended to the plaint is as follows.-
3 O.S.No.4554/2017SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
1. All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.37/1, measuring to an extent of 0-03 guntas, situated at Haralakunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru and bounded on East by : Road, West by : Kere, North by : Parvathamma's Land, South by : Property of Padma, plaintiff No.2 herein.
2. All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.37/1, measuring to an extent of 0-03 guntas, situated at Haralakunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru and bounded on East by : Road, West by : Kere, North by : P.Subba Reddy's land, plaintiff No.1 herein. South by : Plaintiffs vendors remaining land.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
The plaintiffs have contended that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties. They have purchased the suit schedule properties through two registered sale deeds dated 12.09.2000 from its previous owners Sri.M.Gopala Reddy and his son by name Sri.G.Nagesh for valuable sale consideration. From the date of purchase of the properties, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Subsequent to the purchase of the properties, the revenue records are transferred in their names. Thereafter, 4 O.S.No.4554/2017 they have constructed one ACC sheet roof shed in the suit schedule property and obtained electricity connection to the said shed. They have let out the said shed to one Shabi. Thus, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
4. The plaintiffs further contend that the defendants who are strangers to the suit schedule properties, without brining to the plaintiffs' notice, have phoded the suit schedule properties. After coming to know about the phodi, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal before DDLR, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.59/2012-13 challenging the phodi order. The defendants have contested the matter. After hearing both sides, the DDLR allowed the appeal and canceled the phodi by order dated 08.01.2014. The plaintiffs further contend that the defendants are unnecessarily trying to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and they are making frequent efforts to demolish the existing shed in the suit schedule property by threatening them. Hence, they have filed the present suit.
5. The suit summons were issued to the defendants. The defendants have appeared through their counsel and filed written statement denying all the plaint averments. The defendants further contend that the suit brought about by the plaintiffs seeking for imaginary relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of unascertained and unidentified properties. Hence, the same is not maintainable. The plaintiffs have no legal right to file the present suit. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs without seeking for appropriate reliefs and the plaintiffs have suppressed the 5 O.S.No.4554/2017 material facts, as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any orders from this Court. They have further contended that, there is no cause of action to file the present suit. The plaintiffs have earlier filed suit in O.S.No.108/2014 before the Addl. II Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. Subsequently, the plaint was returned and the present suit is filed.
6. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 further contend that, the land bearing Sy.No.37 is a vast extent of land measuring 10 acres 9 guntas including 28 guntas of phut kharab. One Sri.Gopala Reddy and the father of these defendants are brothers and sons of one Sri.Muniswamy Reddy and Smt. Parvathamma is their sister. The name of Sri.Gopala Reddy is entered to the extent of 6 Acres 16 Guntas of land bearing Sy.No.37 from the year 1968-69. There was an oral partition in the year 1990 between Sri.Gopala Reddy, father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their sister Smt.Parvathamma. As per the oral partition entered in the year 1990, an extent of 20 guntas of land in the land bearing Sy.No.37 was allotted to the share of Smt.Parvathamma and remaining extent of 6 acres 12 guntas continued in the name of Sri.M.Gopala Reddy. Accordingly said Sri.M.Gopala Reddy and the father of these defendants were in joint possession and enjoyment of the said 6 acres and 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.37. The names of Sri.Gopala Reddy and Smt.Parvathamma continued in the RTC extracts till 2002-03. One Smt.Jayamma is also interested person in respect of 3 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.37. Thus, the total extent of the land bearing Sy.No.37 was entered in the name of Sri.Gopala Reddy, Smt.Jayamma 6 O.S.No.4554/2017 and Smt.Parvathamma to the extent of 5 acres 36 guntas, 3 acres 5 guntas and 20 guntas respectively.
7. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have further contended that Sri.Gopala Reddy and father of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have entered into a registered partition deed dated 05.07.2003 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.37 situated at Somadandra Palya, Haralukunte Dhakale, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru. As per the said registered partition deed, portions of the land bearing Sy.No.37 measuring 20 guntas and 2 acres in all measuring 2 acres 20 guntas was allotted to the share of these defendants and their father with specific boundaries. Likewise, portions of the land bearing Sy.No.37 measuring 32 guntas, 2 acres and 1 acre in all measuring 3 acres 32 guntas were allotted to the share of Sri.M.Gopala Reddy. There was a kharab land of 28 guntas in the land bearing Sy.No.37. The said kharab land was partitioned between said Sri.Gopala Reddy and his brother. Based on the said partition deed, the parties have approached the survey authorities for conducting hadbasth and durasth in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.37. Accordingly, the land was phoded and divided as Sy.Nos.37/1, 37/2, 37/3, 37/4 and 37/5.
8. The defendants have further contended that Smt. Parvathamma has gifted her share in favour of her son Sri.Nagaraja and that has been given with new Sy.No.37/4. Sri.Nagaraja sold the said property and now the apartments have come up in the said portion of the land.
Smt.Parvathamma had also mutated the land as per M.R.No.18/2005-06. After coming to know about the mutation entries, Smt.Venkatalakshmamma W/o. Gopala Reddy filed an 7 O.S.No.4554/2017 appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division in RA No.64/2012-13 challenging the mutation order. The said mutation order was canceled by order dated 26.06.2012. In the meantime, Smt.Venkatalakshmamma and her son Sri.Nagesh and the father of these defendants had entered into a partition deed in respect of said 21 guntas of land in the land bearing Sy.No.37/5 on 11.07.2012. In the said partition, a portion of 11 guntas including 1 gunta of phut kharab was alloted to the share of the father of these defendants and a portion of the land bearing Sy.No.37 measuring 10 guntas was allotted to the share of said Smt.Venkatalakshmma and her son. Based on the said partition deed, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order to change the entires in the names of the father of the defendants and said Smt.Venkatalakshmamma. Accordingly, mutation was entered in their names.
9. The defendants have further contended that the defendants have filed application for conversion of the portion of the land bearing Sy.No.37 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and 10 guntas before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru. By order dated 04.10.2005, the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order of conversion by converting the said extent of land in all measuring 2 acres for non-agricultural commercial purpose. The father of the defendants to meet out the legal necessities, have sold the portion of the converted land bearing Sy.No.37 measuring 1 Acre in favour of M/s.N.D.Developers Pvt. Ltd., under the registered sale deed dated 15.11.2005 with specific boundaries. The remaining extent retained by the father of the 8 O.S.No.4554/2017 defendants was the portion of the land bearing Sy.No.37/1 measuring 20 guntas and portion of the land bearing Sy.No.37/5 measuring 10 guntas. Accordingly, the father of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 was in possession of the said land.
10. The defendants have further contended that after setting aside the phodi order in an appeal filed by the plaintiffs herein in Appeal No.59/2012-13, the DDLR has directed the Assistant Director of Land Records to issue notices to the interested persons and to conduct the survey work and also by giving new survey numbers. Subsequently, there is no notice by the office of the ADLR and knowing fully well about the said order, instead of participating the matter before the survey authorities, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendants.
11. The defendants have further contended that the plaintiffs herein have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs have filed a false suit in respect of unascertained and unidentified properties. The suit is filed against a wrong person since these defendants or their father are not the vendors of the plaintiffs herein and the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit against Sri.Gopala Reddy and his children and not against these defendants. The same goes to show the malafide intention, conduct and motive of the plaintiffs in filing the present suit and taking advantage of filing of the present suit, the plaintiffs have started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties belong to the defendants. The Act of the plaintiffs is contrary to law as the suit is filed against a wrong person.
9 O.S.No.4554/201712. These defendants have further contended that one Sri.K. Srinivasa Reddy has filed suit in O.S.No.7702/2004 in respect of Sy.No.37 saying that the properties are the joint family properties and also sought for the relief of partition and separate possession of his alleged 1/4th share in the said properties against the father of these defendants, Sri.Gopala Reddy and others. The said suit filed by Sri.Srinivasa Reddy came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2014 holding that, he is entitled to 1/4th share in the land bearing Sy.No.37 against the father of these defendants, Sri.Gopala Reddy and others. Sri.Gopala Reddy, father of these defendants and Smt.Parvathamma were parties in the said suit. Against the said judgment and decree, the LRs of Gopala Reddy and father of these defendants preferred a Regular First Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.1433/2014. The said RFA is still pending.
13. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have further contended that, the plaintiffs have initiated the proceedings before the survey authorities in JDLR Appeal No.59/2012-13. In the said appeal, the order of phodi was cancelled and the Assistant Director of Land Records was directed to conduct the survey to identify the properties. Instead of filing the necessary application before the necessary authorities for identification of their property, they have filed the present suit. The plaintiffs have not given the boundaries to the suit schedule properties. A careful perusal of the boundaries show that the land bearing Sy.No.37 is a vast extent of land bearing Sy.No.37/1 comes on the eastern side of the land bearing 10 O.S.No.4554/2017 Sy.No.37. The property alleged to have been claimed by the plaintiffs is 3 guntas each and there is no sketch to identify the alleged property of the plaintiffs and the vendors of the plaintiffs have to substantiate or clarify the alleged sale deeds or the alleged possession of the plaintiffs and not these defendants and the boundaries given by the plaintiffs is to the whole extent of 10 acres 9 guntas of land in the land bearing Sy.No.37. Without identifying the properties, the plaintiffs have filed a false case against the defendants. With these contentions, they have sought for dismissal of the suit.
14. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, my predecessor has framed the following issues as under:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged obstructions caused by the defendants ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for
4. What decree or order ?
15. In order to substantiate their case, the 1st plaintiff examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.29. On the other hand, the 2nd defendant examined as DW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9.
16. Heard the counsels for both sides. Perused the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.
11 O.S.No.4554/201717. My findings on all the issues are as under :-
Issue No.1 :- In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 :- In the affirmative,
Issue No.3 :- In the affirmative ,
Issue No.4 :- As per the final order;
for the following :-
REASONS
18. ISSUE NOs.1 to 3: Before adverting to issue
No.1, I feel it necessary to refer, at this juncture, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that "suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable, when there is an interference in the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff and when clouds of title have not been raised".
19. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court at para-17 has held as under.-
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not 12 O.S.No.4554/2017 be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where dejure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.13 O.S.No.4554/2017
20. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that they have purchased the suit schedule properties from one Sri.Gopala Reddy through registered sale deeds. They have contended that from the date of purchase, they are in possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendants have protested the present suit mainly on the ground that the suit schedule properties are not property identifiable and the suit is not filed against a proper person. The defendants contend that they are not the vendors of the plaintiffs. The suit ought to have been filed against Sri.Gopala Reddy, who is the vendor of the plaintiffs and the suit cannot be entertained as the same is not filed against a proper person. By these contentions, it is clear that the defendants have not disputed the fact of purchase of the properties by the plaintiffs from Sri.Gopala Reddy. With this, I hold that there is no cloud on the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. Hence, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of injunction simpliciter can be entertained.
21. Now, the burden caste on the plaintiffs to prove the possession and interference. So far as the possession of the suit properties, the plaintiffs have placed reliance on Ex.P.1 sale deed. Ex.P.1 is the sale deed dated 12.09.2000 executed by one Sri.Gopala Reddy and his son Sri.Nagesh in favour of the plaintiff No.1. The property that is mentioned in Ex.P.1 is the land measuring 0-03 guntas, out of 1 Acre 20 Guntas of land in Sy.No.37/1 of Haralukunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The boundaries of the said property is shown as towards East by road, towards West by Tank, 14 O.S.No.4554/2017 towards North by property belonging to Smt.Parvathamma and towards South by property sold to Smt.Padmamma on the same date. Another sale deed at Ex.P.2 dated 12.09.2000 is also produced by the plaintiffs. By this sale deed, said Sri.Gopala Reddy has sold the property to plaintiff No.2 Smt.Padmamma. In the said sale deed also, land measuring 0-03 guntas out of 1 Acre 20 Guntas of land in Sy.No.37/1 is sold to plaintiff No.2. The boundaries of the said property is shown as towards East by road, towards West by Tank, towards North by property sold to Sri.P.Subba Reddy and towards South by remaining portion of the vendor. Subsequently, the revenue records are also transferred in the name of the plaintiffs herein. Ex.P.3 is the Record of Rights pertaining to Sy.No.37/1 showing that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the land measuring to an extent of 0-03 guntas each. Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 are the Encumbrance Certificates in respect of the suit schedule properties. In both these encumbrance certificates, the names of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are appeared. These documents have been relied by the plaintiffs to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties. Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.23 are relied upon by the plaintiffs herein to show that they have paid the taxes in respect of the suit schedule properties. No doubt, all these documents appear the name of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The properties mentioned in these documents i.e., Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.24 are the properties measuring 0-03 guntas each in Sy.No.37/1.
22. Further, the plaintiffs have contended that they have taken up power connection from BESCOM. Two 15 O.S.No.4554/2017 certificates issued by BESCOM and two electricity bills issued by BESCOM are produced by the plaintiffs, which are marked at Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.27. All these four documents bear the name of the plaintiffs. By placing reliance on all these documents, it can be held that the plaintiffs have produced sufficient documents to establish their possession over the suit schedule properties measuring to an extent of 0-03 guntas of land each in Sy.No.37/1 situated at Haralakunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
23. The contention of the defendants is that the properties are not properly identifiable. The plaintiffs are not sure about their properties and the alleged possession. All the properties are not the same as they have claimed ownership. The defendants have produced documents i.e., record of rights pertaining to Sy.No.37. It is an undisputed fact that subsequently the phodi was effected in respect of Sy.No.37 and the land was divided into different numbers. Thereafter, the order of phodi was cancelled in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs herein and there was a direction by the Deputy Director of Land Records to the Assistant Director of Land Records to conduct the survey and get the property measured and to identify the respective properties. The said order was in respect of conducting fresh survey and to identify the properties is still not given effect. According to the defendants, it is due to the fault of the plaintiffs, but now the plaintiffs contend that the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession of the property and they have threatened to demolish the shed existing in the property.
16 O.S.No.4554/201724. The contention of the defendants is that the shed in the property is constructed by the defendants and the shed is situated at the property of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The major contention raised by the plaintiffs as I have stated herein above is non-identification of the suit schedule properties. In this regard, it is necessary to look into the evidence of witnesses.
25. PW.1 has been cross-examined at length by the counsel for the defendants. Now, it is necessary to have look on the evidence of PW.1. In the cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that the entire Sy.No.37 measures 10 acres 9 guntas. Out of 10 acres 9 guntas, 28 guntas was karab land. PW.1 has admitted the boundaries of entire 10 acres 9 guntas as towards East by Road, towards West by Tank, towards North by Road and towards South by fertilizer factory belonging to BBMP. PW.1 pleaded ignorance about the fact that who are all the original owners of the said properties. PW.1 further admits that towards east of 10 Acres 9 Guntas of land, 1 acre land is belonging to Gopala Reddy and Krishna Reddy. PW.1 further admits that he knows that towards West of Krishna Reddy, property of Jayamma is situated. He further admits that towards west of Jayamma's property measuring 3 acres 5 guntas again there is a land of Gopala Reddy and Krishna Reddy. PW.1 states that property of Gopala Reddy is not the ancestral property of Gopala Reddy, it is self-acquired property of Gopala Reddy by way of purchase. In the land of Gopala Reddy, share was given to the daughter of Gopala Reddy Smt.Parvathamma to an extent of 20 guntas. In the remaining land, Gopala Reddy and Krishna Reddy were divided the property and in the said partition, Krishna Reddy was given 20 17 O.S.No.4554/2017 Guntas and another 2 acres of land. Gopala Reddy was given 32 guntas, 1 acre and 2 acres totally 3 acres 32 guntas. He further admits that he has not seen the survey sketch while purchasing the properties. He further admits that out of 20 guntas of land, the father of the defendants Krishna Reddy was also having share and towards east of 20 guntas of land, there was a road, towards west property of Jayamma, towards North property of Gopala Reddy and towards South fertilizer factory of BBMP and towards west of 20 guntas of land of Gopala Reddy, no tank is there and it is the property of Jayamma and towards east of Sy.No.37, there is no property of Parvathamma and Parvathamma land is situated towards west of Sy.No.37 and towards south of Parvathamma, land of Gopala Reddy is situated. Witness denies that in the said land, father of Krishna Reddy is also having share.
26. In the cross-examination, DW.1 admits that 6 acres 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.37 was came to Gopala Reddy and Krishna Reddy by way of sale deed. He pleads ignorance that there was a oral partition between Krishna Reddy and Gopala Reddy. He also admits that one Jayamma is also having share in the land measuring 10 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.37 and in the registered sale deed dated 05.07.2003 his father Krishna Reddy was given 2 acres 20 guntas, they are in possession of land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas. He says he cannot tell the boundaries of the property, which was given to his father. He stated that he cannot tell the actual boundaries of the property of Gopala Reddy. He pleads ignorance that towards west of his father's property, 1 acre of land given to the share of Gopala Reddy is situated. However, 18 O.S.No.4554/2017 he denies the suggestion that out of said 1 acre land of Gopala Reddy, the plaintiffs have purchased the properties and the same are the suit schedule properties. He denies the suggestion that the suit schedule property is the part of 1 acre land of Gopala Reddy. He further admits that the boundaries that are mentioned in Ex.D.6 are true. He denies the fact that after purchase of the suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs have constructed the shed in the suit schedule property. He denies the suggestion that katha is entered in the name of the plaintiffs after purchase of the property. He further pleads ignorance that he does not know that phodi order was challenged by the plaintiffs and the same was set aside. However, he admits about preferring of an appeal against the said phodi order.
27. The specific contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties are the part of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.37/1 and the same is bounded by the boundaries mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint. Though, the defendants have denied the boundaries of the suit schedule properties, DW.1 is unable to give proper boundaries to the property of Gopala Reddy and the admissions that are given by DW.1 with regard to the situation of land measuring 1 acre of Gopala Reddy shows that the plaintiffs have purchased the property of Gopala Reddy. Mere denial by the defendants itself is not sufficient to reject the claim of the plaintiff.
28. DW.1 has further stated that he is not residing in Sy.No.37 and he is residing in Somsandrapalya. It can be held that DW.1 is not residing in the suit schedule property. The 19 O.S.No.4554/2017 plaintiffs have stated that they have constructed the shed in the suit schedule property. They have placed reliance on Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25 electricity bills. These documents show that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties. Though, DW.1 denies the boundaries given by the plaintiffs, however, in his evidence, he is unable to tell the correct boundaries. The suggestion put to PW.1 and answer given by the plaintiff and the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs clearly show that they are in possession of the properties, which is bounded by boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule properties. Hence, it has to be held that the plaintiffs have established the possession of the suit schedule properties. Since the defendants have denied the possession of the suit schedule properties, it can be presumed that there is an interference by the defendants. With these observations, I hold that the plaintiffs have established the possession over the suit schedule properties and interference by the defendants.
29. The defendants have stated that the suit ought to have been filed against Gopala Reddy. However, this contention cannot be accepted as the plaintiffs are the masters of the suit. They can file the suit against the person against whom interference is alleged. In the present case, the plaintiffs have not alleged interference against Gopala Reddy, they have alleged interference by the defendants herein. Hence, it cannot be held that, the suit cannot be entertained because of not making Gopala Reddy as party. Hence, I answer Issue Nos.1 to 3 are in the affirmative.
20 O.S.No.4554/201730. ISSUE NO.4: For the aforementioned discussion on issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with cost.
The defendants are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcription computerised by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of March, 2022.) (SUBHASH SANKAD) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 : Sri.P.Subba Reddy.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Original Sale Deed dated 12.09.2000. Ex.P.2 : Original sale deed dated 12.09.2000.
Ex.P.3 : RTC Extract 2013-2014 (2 pages)
Ex.P.4 : M.R.09/2006-07 (2 pages)
21 O.S.No.4554/2017
Ex.P.5 to 7 : 5 BESCOM Bills.
Ex.P.8 : Power Sanction order dated 09.03.2011.
Ex.P.9 : Tax invoice dated 23.04.2011.
Ex.P.10 & : 2 ECs
11
Ex.P.12 & : 2 Tax assessment extracts.
13
Ex.P.14 to : 9 Tax paid receipts.
22
Ex.P.23 : Order of DDLR in Appeal No.59/2012-2013
dated 08.01.2014.
Ex.P.24 & : 2 Electricity bills.
25
Ex.P.26 to : 4 receipts.
29
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 : Sri.S.K.Muralidhara.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of Ex.D.31 - judgment and decree in O.S.No.64/2000.
Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of Ex.D.37 in
O.S.No.7707/2004 sale deed dated
15.11.2005.
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of Ex.D.39 O.S.7702/2004 -
Joint Development agreement dated
15.12.2009.
Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of Ex.D.46 in
O.S.No.7702/2004 - Conversion order dated 28.05.2005.
Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of the revision settlement akarband.
Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of Ex.D.45 in O.S.No.7702/2004 registered partition deed.
22 O.S.No.4554/2017Ex.D.7 : Certified copy of RTC Extract from 1974-75 to 2015-16.
Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.7702/2004.
Ex.D.9 : Certified copy of the memorandum of appeal in RFA No.1433/2004.
(SUBHASH SANKAD) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.