Bangalore District Court
Navaneeth Kumar vs Syed Nuserath on 20 December, 2024
KABC010273302015
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2024
PRESENT
Sri.Gangappa Irappa Patil, B.A., LL.B. (Spl.).,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S.No.9778/2015
BETWEEN:
S.G NAVANEETH KUMAR,
S/o S.L. Govinda Rao,
Aged: about 52 years, residing PLAINTIFF
at No.5,"GOVINDA NIVAS'',
3rd,
Main, 7th Cross, Lal
Bahadur Shastry Nagar,
Vimanapura post,
Bangalore-560 017.
2
OS No. 9778/2015
Judgment
(By Sri.Kothwal R. Advocate for the plaintiffs)
A N D:
Sri SYED NUSERATH
S/o late Syed Gaffor,
Aged about 55 years, DEFENDANT
residing at No.5, Nuserath No.01
Building, 5th Cross, Gaffor
Road,
L.B. Shastry Nagar, H.A.L.,
BANGALORE-560 017.
Sri SYED ANWAR
S/o late Syed Gaffor,
Aged about 77 years, DEFENDANT
residing at No.52, 8th Cross, No.02
R.K. Hegde Nagar,
BANGALORE-560 077
Smt. ASHRAF
W/o late Syed Mehaboob,
Aged about 52 years,
residing at No.5, Mehaboob DEFENDANT
Building, 5th Cross, Gaffor No.03
Road, L.B. Sastry Nagar. Hal,
BANGALORE- 560 017
Sri SYED NAYAZ
S/o late Syed Mehaboob,
Aged about 31 years, DEFENDANT
residing at No.5, Mehaboob No.04
3
OS No. 9778/2015
Judgment
Building, 5th Cross, Gaffor
Road, L.B. Sastry Nagar. Hal,
BANGALORE- 560 017
Sri SYED ANSAR
S/o late Syed Gaffor,
Aged about 57 years, DEFENDANT
residing at Old Basha No.05
Compound, adjacent to Ex -
Counselor House, Islampura
Annasandra Palya, H.A.L
BANGALORE-560 017.
Sri SYED RIYAZ,
S/o late Syed Gaffoor,
Aged about 50 years,
residing at No.585, 2nd Main DEFENDANT
Road, 8th Cross, K.G Halli, No.06
BANGALORE-560 045
Smt. BALKEES BHANU
W/o late Syed Yousuff,
Aged about 33 years,
residing at No.542/1, DEFENDANT
Dr.Ambedkar Medical College No.07
Cross, S.R. Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
BANGALORE-560 045.
Sri SYED HUSSAIN
4
OS No. 9778/2015
Judgment
S/o late Syed Yousuff, DEFENDANT
Aged about 27 years, No.08
residing at No.542/1,
Dr.Ambedkar Medical College
Cross,
S.R. Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
BANGALORE-560 045.
Sri SYED AHAMED
S/o late Syed Yousuff,
Aged about 27 years, DEFENDANT
residing at No.542/1, No.09
Dr. Ambedkar Medical College
Cross,
S.R. Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
BANGALORE-560 045.
(By Sri JS for D1
Sri LY for D2 to D4 and D6
Sri VP for D7 (a)(b), 8, 9)
Date of Institution of the suit 01.12.2015
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pro-note,
suit for declaration and possession, Suit for declaration.
suit for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
27.3.2019
recording of the Evidence.
5
OS No. 9778/2015
Judgment
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 20.12.2024
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
09 00 19
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 1 R/w Sec.26 of CPC, praying to pass judgment and decree against the defendants.
a. The plaintiffs prays to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having all manner of right, title and interest over it.
b. To declare that the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2015 obtained by the defendants in collusion with one another in OS No. 4216/2013 by playing fraud not binding on the plaintiffs in so far as it relates to the suit schedule property.
c. To declare that the Deed of Release dated 17.06.2015 executed by the defendants No. 2,3,4,5,6 in favor of defendant No.1 in collusion with one another registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Krishnarajapuram, Bengaluru as Document No. KRI-
6OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment 1-02053-2015-16 of Book-I and stored in C.D. at No. KRID558, dated 17.06.2015 does not effect and is not binding on the plaintiffs in so far as it relates to the suit schedule property.
d. To restrain the defendants, their Agents, PA Holders, servants henchmen or any other person or persons claiming any right or rights in any manner whatsoever through or under them from alienating transferring or encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner either by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, creating lien or change, etc either by themselves or through their servants, henchmen, agents, power of attorney holders or any other person or persons claiming any right or rights in any manner whatsoever in favor of any person/s by granting permanent injunction.
e. To restrain the defendants either from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful, lawful, physical, actual and exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property or meddling with or dispossessing the plaintiffs of suit schedule property or otherwise disturbing with the peaceful 7 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property either by the defendants themselves or through their workers, henchment, authorized agents, GPA, servants or any person or persons claimig any right or rights in any manner whatsoever under through the defendants by granting permanent injunction.
f. To direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit.
2. It is the categorical case of the Plaintiff that the suit schedule property was the part of a land in Sy.No.147/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Vibhuthipura Village, Bangalore, which property originally belonged to Sri Syed Gaffor who had acquired the same in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 31.10.1946. It is further case of the plaintiff that Syed Gaffor in order to meet his legal requirements had sold the said property in favour of Syed Hussain through a Sale Deed dated 17.06.1953. It is further case of the plaintiff that Syed Hussain had three sons namely Syed Yoursuf, Syed Nooruallah and Syed Khaleel. It is the case of 8 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment the Plaintiff that Syed Hussain was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforementioned mentioned property and consequent to his demise his sons ie., Syed Noorullah, Syed Yousuf and Syed Khaleel had formed a layout of residential sites in the aforementioned land and thereafter they had equally divided the aforementioned mentioned property between themselves and in terms of the said partition each of the sons of Syed Hussain was allotted 20 guntas of land.
3. Thereafter said Syed Noorulla the second son of Syed Hussain sold the suit schedule property in favor of Sri P.Viswanathan through Sale Deed dated 13.04.1992 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, KR Puram as document No. 211/1992-93 of Book I of volume 520 and recorded in between pages 35 and 36. Thereafter the sale transaction between Syed Noorulla and P.Viswanathan had been reflected in the Register of Encumbrance.
9OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment
4. Said P.Viswanathan had obtained Khatha and water and electricity connection also , then he sold the same in favor of Sri D.Manivasagan through Sale Deed dated 30.03.1994 duly registered in the office of Senior Sub Registrar, K.R.Puram, as document No. 7053/1993-94 of Book I of volume 770 and recorded in between pages 213 and 217. The khatha and other revenue entries in all the revenue records which stood in the name of P.Viswanathan had been transferred and effected in the name of D.Manivasagan.
5. Thereafter that on 31.10.2001. Manivasagan had sold that same in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently the plaintiff has got his name entered into the revenue documents and has been paying requisite taxes to the concern authority. Thereafter upon payment of betterment charges of Rs. 18,410/- all the evenue records in respect of suit schedule property , consequent on acquisition, had been effected in the name of the plaintiff.
10OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment
6. It is further case of the plaintiff that all the aforementioned documents would substantiate that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyments over the suit schedule property and neither of the defendants have any right title or interest over the schedule property. Plaintiff categorically contends that the defendants had filed a suit in O.S No. 27422/2012 for declaration possession and injunction arraying the plaintiff as a party to the said suit. Since the Defendant No.1 herein has not paid the requisite court fees in the plaint the trail court had directed the Defendant No.1 herein to pay the deficit court fees. The Defendant No.1 being aggrieved by the orders had preferred to file a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP. No. 9551/2013 and the matter is pending consideration.
7. It is further case of the plaintiff that during the pendency of the proceedings in OS. 27422/2012 and WP.9551/2013 the Defendant No.1 herein had proceeded to file a suit in O.S 4216/2013 11 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment suppressing the earlier suit; furthermore the 1st Defendant had willfully not arrayed the Plaintiff as the party to the said suits. Ultimately the Defendant No.1 herein had succeeded in obtaining a decree behind the back of the plaintiff which is nothing but a fraud played upon the court. It is further case that the Defendant No.1 having obtained a fraudulent decree had proceeded to file a memo in the Revision Petition allowed. During the said interregnum the Defendant No.2 to 6 had proceeded to execute a Deed of Release in favour of the d1st Defendant vide Release Deed dated 17.06.2015. 19.12.2024.
8. It is further case of the Plaintiff that on 01.11.2015 @ 10.30 a.m. and on 14.11.2015 @ 4.30 p.m. the Defendants along with their henchmen had tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. The Plaintiff being aggrieved by the collusionary tactics played by the defendants and in view of the interference had proceeded to file the above suit for the relief as stated in the plaint. The 12 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment cause of action arose to file on 24.01.2015. Hence, this suit.
9. On summons being served, the defendants have appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement. The defendant No.1 has filed the separate written statement.
10. The defendant states that defendant's father Late Syed Gaffor purchased a property bearing Sy.No.147/1, measuring 3 acre 18 guntas situated at Vibuthipura Village, Bangalore South Taluk on 31.10.1946 from Angadi Chinnamma as well as her son Muniswamappa for a sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- under registered sale deed registered as document No.2782, Book-I, volume 866, pages 17 to 20, in the office of Sub-registrar, Bangalore. During 1953 Syed Gaffor Sab was in urgent need of funds for the purchase of a Lorry and in this regard half portion of the land was mortgaged in favour of his younger brother Syed Hussian and realized Rs.1,000/- and this deed was registered before the 13 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Sub-registrar as document No.2127/1953-54 dated 17.06.1953 instead of executing a mortgage deed a nominal sale deed was executed. Within span of 5 months Late.Syed Gaffor discharged the mortgage loan and obtained a convenience Deed/Sale Deed from Late Syed Hussain and this deed was registered before the Sub-registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, vide document No.5584/53-54, dated 17.11.1953. Subsequently that on 30.11.1953 Syed Gaffor borrowed a sum of Rs.200/- from Sri.Dhanraj Jain and in this regard a nominal sale deed was executed in favour of the Banker Sri.Dhanraj Jain, and this deed was registered as document No.380/1953-54.
11. This defendant further contended that during 1968 defendant's father Late Syed Gaffoor Sab was seriously affected by Psoriasis and his condition became very vicarious. In fact his eldest brother Syed Basha who was residing adjacent to the resident of Syed Gafoor was looking after Syed Gafoor as well as his family members, even managing the land possessed by Syed Gaffoor, he entrusted his 14 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment brother to release the document pledged with Dhanraj Jain and according paid a sum of Rs.500/- towards interest and principal. Accordingly, his eldest brother Syed Basha approached Dhanraj Jain and got conveyance deed in his name instead of getting the same in the name of Syed Gaffoor. Defendant states further that shortly after the release of the documents Syed Basha proceeded to Mecca Medina in attending Haj and the conveyance deed so obtained on 31.01.1969 kept in his custody. Even after return from Haj, Syed Basha continued to look after the affairs of the family of Late Syed Gafoor and also providing adequate treatment to Late Syed Gafoor. It was on 29.08.1979 Syed Gaffoor passed away after a prolonged illness. The death of Syed Gafoor caused considerable worry and anxiety in the mind of Syed Basha who was also undergoing ill aged sickness and his condition also deteriorated day be day. It was 11.10.1979 after attending Chilam that is the 40th day ceremony of deceased Syed Gafoor, executed a HIBA in the name of eldest son of Syed Gaffoor with regard to half portion of the property in 15 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Sy.No.147/1 of Vibhuthipura Village, which was released from Dhanraj Jain making provision to other male children of Syed Gaffoor and accordingly the HIBA was accepted by Syed Anwar.
12. The defendant No.1 further contended that the land bearing Sy.No.147/1 measuring in all 3 acres 18 guntas stood in the name of Syed Gaffoor right from the date of purchase from Angadi Chinnamma on 31.10.1946. The encumbrance certificate right from the year 1931 to 10.05.2011 consisting of 5 extracts shows that the property continues to be standing in the name of Late Syed Gaffoor. Defendant No.1 states further that consequent to the purchase made by Syed Gaffoor Sab vide sale deed dated 31.10.1946 mutation was affected in the name of Syed Gaffoor vide MR.10/1946-47 which continued in the name of Syed Gaffoor till 1983. It was for the year 1982-83 and 1983-84 fraudulent entries were made in the name of Syed Yousuff along with his brother i.e., plaintiffs herein along with the names of the children 16 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment of Late Syed Gaffoor. It is necessary to state at this juncture that Syed Hussain passed away in the year 1956 and he was not possessing any land in Sy.No.147/1 presently 147/4 of Vibhuthipura Village, however clandestine entries were made in entering name of the family members of Syed Hussain without having any title or possession with regard to Sy.No.147/1 presently 147/4 of Vibhuthipura Village. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs could able to get their names entered in the Revenue Records Vide IHC No.7/1983-84, needless to mention that their names have been incorporated in the Mutation Register on the basis of inheritance and not on the basis of the alleged purported partition deed as such the very act of the plaintiffs and Syed Yousuff fortifies that stand of this defendant that Syed Gaffoor was the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule 'A' property. Furthermore it is known proposition of law that inheritance Khata can be effected only upon the legal heirs of the deceased, in the instant case neither the plaintiffs nor Syed Yousuff were the legal heirs of Late Syed Gaffoor to 17 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment have got their names mutated in the Revenue Records. In any event the plaintiff have not got mutated their names on the basis of the partition as could be reflected from the revenue records. Fraud and stratagem played by the plaintiffs as well as Syed Yousuff in getting their names incorporated in the mutation on the basis of inheritance Khata and the same will not confer any right title or interest in favour of the plaintiff's or Late Syed Yousuff. The RTC extracts for the year 1983-84 to 1987-88, 1988-89 to 1993-94, 1994-95 to 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2004-05 and 2011-12 discloses that the plaintiffs as well as Late Yousuff entered their name as legal heirs of Late Syed Gaffoor and not based on any other registered deeds of conveyance and as such the defendant No.1 to 6 have approached the Tahasildar in set-aside the order in IHC.7/1983-84 in deleting the names of plaintiffs and Late Syed Yousuff for which an endorsement was issued with regard to the non availability and also declined to consider the demand made by defendant No.1. Thereafter defendant No.1 and others opted to prefer an appeal before the 18 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Assistant Commissioner in RA.270/2012-13 which came to be rejected vide order dated 02.01.2013 against which the defendant No.1 and other preferred Revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore in Revision Petition No.303/2012-13 in which the plaintiffs also entered appearance and the Deputy Commissioner was pleased to allow the Revision Petition and directed the Special Tahsildar to make necessary entries in the Revenue records. After remand the Tahsildar was pleased to conduct an enquiry and passed requisite orders in deleting the name of the plaintiffs and others and ordered to enter the name of 1st defendant in the revenue records vide MR.No.H5/2014-15 and accordingly the mutation and revenue records entered in the name of 1st defendant and others. The plaintiffs as well as Late Syed Yousuff did not have any iota of right title or interest over the plaint schedule property and no documents of title or interest over the plaint schedule property and no documents of title produced by them in any of the proceedings. Defendant No.1 is the 19 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment absolute owner in respect of the plaintiff schedule property and the larger extent of land having acquired the same by virtue of the execution of the HIBA dated 16.01.2012 as wellas in furtherance of Registered Deed of Release dated 17.06.2015 executed by defendant No.2 to 6 vide registered document No.KRI-1-02053/2015-16 before the Sub- registrar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore. Consequently thereafter H.A.Sanitary Board has issued a Khata certificate in the name of this defendants subsequently thereafter the BBMP has issued Khata in the name of this defendant and defendant has been paying the taxes periodically. All these documents makes it manifestly clear that this defendant absolute owner over the suit schedule property and the plaintiff have no manner of right title or interest over the same.
13. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, following Issues are framed by my learned Predecessor-in-office.
20OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment ISSUES
1.Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property ?
2.Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?
3.Whether the plaintiffs further prove the interference of the defendants with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property ?
4.Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendants have obtained judgment and decree in O.S.No.4216/2013 dated 24.1.2015 by colluding with each other and it is not binding upon them with respect to the suit schedule property ?
5.Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the release deed dated 17.6.2015 executed by defendant No.2 to 6 in favour of defendant No.1 is collusive and it is not binding upon them so far as suit property is concerned?
6.Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the plaintiffs have not properly valued 21 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment the suit plaint and they have not paid proper court fee?
7.Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit is barred under Karnataka Land Revenue Act as stated in para No.31 of the written statement?
8.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declarations as prayed for in the suit plaint?
9.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunctions as prayed for?
10.What order or decree?
14. After framing of the Issues, the case was posted for recording of evidence. The plaintiff has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has been examined as PW.1 and he has got marked Ex.P. 1 to 43. On the other hand the defendant No.1 is examined as DW. 1 and he has got marked Ex.D.1 to 32 are got marked.
22OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment
15. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant. Perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and other materials available on record.
16. Having done so, this court answers to the aforesaid Issues as follows:
Issue No.1,2,3,4,5,8 & In the Negative 9 :
Issue No.6 In the Negative
Issue No.7 In the negative
Issue No. 10 As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
17. ISSUE NO.1, PW. 1 deposes that Sri.
Syed Gaffoor Sab in order to meet his legal
requirements and to discharge the legal debt, sold the said property in favour of Sri Syed Hussain Sale Deed, dated: 17.06.1953 registered in the Office of Sub -23
OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Registrar, Bangalore Taluk as Document No.2127/1953-54 of Book - I of Volume 1338 recorded in between Pages 193 and 194, dated:
29.06.1953.
18. It is further deposed by PW. 1 that said Syed Hussain had three sons namely Syed yousfuf, Syed Noorullah and Syed Khaleel. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Syed Hussain was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforementioned mentioned property and consequently to his demise his sons ie., Syed Nooruallah, Syed Yousuf and Syed Khaleel had formed a layout of residential sites in the aforementioned land and thereafter they had equally divided the aforementioned mentioned property between themselves and in terms of the said partition each of the sons of Syed Hussain was allotted 20 guntas of land.
19. It is further deposed by PW. 1 that said Syed Noorulla the second son of Syed Hussain sold the suit schedule property in favor of Sri P.Viswanathan through Sale Deed dated 13.04.1992 24 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment registered in the office of Sub Registrar, KR Puram as document No. 211/1992-93 of Book I of volume 520 and recorded in between pages 35 and 36. Thereafter the sale transaction between Syed Noorulla and P.Viswanathan had been reflected in the Register of Encumbrance.
20. It is further deposed that said P.Viswanathan had obtained Khatha and water and electricity connection also , then he sold the same in favor of Sri D.Manivasagan through Sale Deed dated 30.03.1994 duly registered in the office of Senior Sub Registrar, K.R.Puram, as document No. 7053/1993- 94 of Book I of volume 770 and recorded in between pages 213 and 217. The khatha and other revenue entries in all the revenue records which stood in the name of P.Viswanathan had been transferred and effected in the name of D.Manivasagan.
21. It is further deposed that thereafter that on 31.10.2001. Manivasagan had sold that same in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently the plaintiff 25 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment has got his name entered into the revenue documents and has been paying requisite taxes to the concern authority. Thereafter upon payment of betterment charges of Rs. 18,410/- all the evenue records in respect of suit schedule property , consequent on acquisition, had been effected in the name of the plaintiff.
22. On the contrary the DW.1 deposed that defendant's father Late Syed Gaffor purchased a property bearing Sy.No.147/1, measuring 3 acre 18 guntas situated at Vibuthipura Village, Bangalore South Taluk on 31.10.1946 from Angadi Chinnamma as well as her son Muniswamappa for a sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- under registered sale deed registered as document No.2782, Book-I, volume 866, pages 17 to 20, in the office of Sub-registrar, Bangalore. During 1953 Syed Gaffor Sab was in urgent need of funds for the purchase of a Lorry and in this regard half portion of the land was mortgaged in favour of his younger brother Syed Hussian and realized Rs.1,000/- and this deed was registered 26 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment before the Sub-registrar as document No.2127/1953- 54 dated 17.06.1953 instead of executing a mortgage deed a nominal sale deed was executed. Within span of 5 months Late.Syed Gaffor discharged the mortgage loan and obtained a convenience Deed/Sale Deed from Late Syed Hussain and this deed was registered before the Sub-registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, vide document No.5584/53-54, dated 17.11.1953.
Subsequently that on 30.11.1953 Syed Gaffor borrowed a sum of Rs.200/- from Sri.Dhanraj Jain and in this regard a nominal sale deed was executed in favour of the Banker Sri.Dhanraj Jain, and this deed was registered as document No.380/1953-54.
23. DW.1 deposed that during 1968 defendant's father Late Syed Gaffoor Sab was seriously affected by Psoriasis and his condition became very vicarious. In fact his eldest brother Syed Basha who was residing adjacent to the resident of Syed Gafoor was looking after Syed Gafoor as well as his family members, even managing the land possessed by Syed Gaffoor, he entrusted his brother to release the document pledged with Dhanraj Jain and according paid a sum of 27 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Rs.500/- towards interest and principal. Accordingly, his eldest brother Syed Basha approached Dhanraj Jain and got conveyance deed in his name instead of getting the same in the name of Syed Gaffoor. Defendant states further that shortly after the release of the documents Syed Basha proceeded to Mecca Medina in attending Haj and the conveyance deed so obtained on 31.01.1969 kept in his custody. Even after return from Haj, Syed Basha continued to look after the affairs of the family of Late Syed Gafoor and also providing adequate treatment to Late Syed Gafoor. It was on 29.08.1979 Syed Gaffoor passed away after a prolonged illness. The death of Syed Gafoor caused considerable worry and anxiety in the mind of Syed Basha who was also undergoing ill aged sickness and his condition also deteriorated day be day. It was 11.10.1979 after attending Chilam that is the 40th day ceremony of deceased Syed Gafoor, executed a HIBA in the name of eldest son of Syed Gaffoor with regard to half portion of the property in Sy.No.147/1 of Vibhuthipura Village, which was released from Dhanraj Jain making provision to other 28 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment male children of Syed Gaffoor and accordingly the HIBA was accepted by Syed Anwar.
24. DW.1 further deposed that the land bearing Sy.No.147/1 measuring in all 3 acres 18 guntas stood in the name of Syed Gaffoor right from the date of purchase from Angadi Chinnamma on 31.10.1946. The encumbrance certificate right from the year 1931 to 10.05.2011 consisting of 5 extracts shows that the property continues to be standing in the name of Late Syed Gaffoor. Defendant No.1 states further that consequent to the purchase made by Syed Gaffoor Sab vide sale deed dated 31.10.1946 mutation was affected in the name of Syed Gaffoor vide MR.10/1946-47 which continued in the name of Syed Gaffoor till 1983. It was for the year 1982-83 and 1983-84 fraudulent entries were made in the name of Syed Yousuff along with his brother i.e., plaintiffs herein along with the names of the children of Late Syed Gaffoor. It is necessary to state at this juncture that Syed Hussain passed away in the year 1956 and he was not possessing any land in Sy.No.147/1 presently 147/4 of Vibhuthipura Village, however 29 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment clandestine entries were made in entering name of the family members of Syed Hussain without having any title or possession with regard to Sy.No.147/1 presently 147/4 of Vibhuthipura Village. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs could able to get their names entered in the Revenue Records Vide IHC No.7/1983-84, needless to mention that their names have been incorporated in the Mutation Register on the basis of inheritance and not on the basis of the alleged purported partition deed as such the very act of the plaintiffs and Syed Yousuff fortifies that stand of this defendant that Syed Gaffoor was the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule 'A' property. Furthermore it is known proposition of law that inheritance Khata can be effected only upon the legal heirs of the deceased, in the instant case neither the plaintiffs nor Syed Yousuff were the legal heirs of Late Syed Gaffoor to have got their names mutated in the Revenue Records. In any event the plaintiff have not got mutated their names on the basis of the partition as could be reflected from the revenue records. Fraud and stratagem played by the plaintiffs as well as Syed 30 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Yousuff in getting their names incorporated in the mutation on the basis of inheritance Khata and the same will not confer any right title or interest in favour of the plaintiff's or Late Syed Yousuff. The RTC extracts for the year 1983-84 to 1987-88, 1988-89 to 1993-94, 1994-95 to 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2004-05 and 2011-12 discloses that the plaintiffs as well as Late Yousuff entered their name as legal heirs of Late Syed Gaffoor and not based on any other registered deeds of conveyance and as such the defendant No.1 to 6 have approached the Tahasildar in set-aside the order in IHC.7/1983-84 in deleting the names of plaintiffs and Late Syed Yousuff for which an endorsement was issued with regard to the non availability and also declined to consider the demand made by defendant No.1. Thereafter defendant No.1 and others opted to prefer an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in RA.270/2012-13 which came to be rejected vide order dated 02.01.2013 against which the defendant No.1 and other preferred Revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore in Revision Petition 31 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment No.303/2012-13 in which the plaintiffs also entered appearance and the Deputy Commissioner was pleased to allow the Revision Petition and directed the Special Tahsildar to make necessary entries in the Revenue records. After remand the Tahsildar was pleased to conduct an enquiry and passed requisite orders in deleting the name of the plaintiffs and others and ordered to enter the name of 1st defendant in the revenue records vide MR.No.H5/2014-15 and accordingly the mutation and revenue records entered in the name of 1st defendant and others. The plaintiffs as well as Late Syed Yousuff did not have any iota of right title or interest over the plaint schedule property and no documents of title or interest over the plaint schedule property and no documents of title produced by them in any of the proceedings. Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner in respect of the plaintiff schedule property and the larger extent of land having acquired the same by virtue of the execution of the HIBA dated 16.01.2012 as well as in furtherance of Registered Deed of Release dated 17.06.2015 executed by defendant No.2 to 6 32 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment vide registered document No.KRI-1-02053/2015-16 before the Sub-registrar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore. Consequently thereafter H.A.Sanitary Board has issued a Khata certificate in the name of this defendants subsequently thereafter the BBMP has issued Khata in the name of this defendant and defendant has been paying the taxes periodically. All these documents makes it manifestly clear that this defendant absolute owner over the suit schedule property and the plaintiff have no manner of right title or interest over the same.
25. To substantiate their case the defendants have produced 32 documents.
26. Ex.D.1 is the Certified copy of sale deed and it's typed copy dated 13.10.1946 which evidences that late Syed Gafoor had purchased 3 acres 18 guntas of land in Sy. No. 147/4 in his individual capacity.
27. Ex.D. 2 is the Certified copy of mutation No.10/46-47 which discloses that the property solely 33 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment in the name of Syed Gafoor. The name of Syed Hussain is not forthcoming. The learned counsel for the defendants argued , the concept of joint family property is alien to Mohammadan Law. Hence, the question of jointness of the property between Syed Gafoor and Syed Hussain does not arise.
28. Ex.D. 3 is Certified copy of sale deed dated 17.06.1953., as per this Sale Deed one acre 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 147/1 (presently sy.No. 147/4) was alienated by Gaffoor Sab in favor of Syed Hussain. Thereafter Syed Hussain reconveyed the said property in favor of his brother Syed Gaffoor as per Ex.D.4 Sale Deed dated 17.11.1953. In view of the execution of the Sale Deed in favor of Gaffoor Sab, hence the ownership of the aforesaid land remains with Syed Gaffoor himself.
29. On 30.11.1953 late Syed Gaffoor had alienated the land as per Ex.D.5 Sale Deed to one Dhanraj Jain. Thereafter, said Dhanraj Jain had sold the aforesaid property in favor of late Syed Basha 34 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment who is the brother of late Syed Gaffoor as per Ex.D.
6.
30. Further late Syed Basha executed Hiba in favor of Syed Anwar son of late Syed Gaffoor as per Ex.D.7. Syed Anwar thereafter executed Hiba in favor of defendant No. 1 by gifting one acre 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 147/1 (presently Sy.No. 147/4) as per Ex.D. 8 dated 16.01.2012.
31. Syed Anwar as well as other sons of late Syed Gaffoor jointly releases their right over 1 acre 20 guntas of land in favor of defendant No.1 as per Ex.D.9, Certified copy of release deed dated 17.06.2015.
32. Ex.D.10 is the Certified copy of order in R.P.No.303/2012-13 wherein the Deputy ommission in the said petition remanded the case to the Tahsildar to dispose off the same by setting aside the inheritance khatha vide IHC7/1983-84. The names of Syed Yousuff , Syed Noorulla and Syed Khaleel 35 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment have all participated in the said revision petition and the revision petition order is unchallenged . Hence it has attained the finality.
33. ExD.11 is the RTC of Sy.No.147/4 (old Sy.No. 147/1) from 1982-83 to 1987-88 which disclose the name of late Syed Gaffoor was rounded vide IHC No. 7/1983-84. The children of late Syed Hussain i.e. Syed Yousuff, Syed Nooralla and Syed Khaleel could get their names entered vide IHC No. 7/1983-84 upon the basis of demise of Syed Gaffoor. But said Syed Yousuff, Syed Noorulla and Syed Khaleel are not legal heirs of late Gaffoor. Hence, they could not have get their names entered vide inheritance khatha.
34. Ex.D.12 and 13 are the RTC of Sy.No.147/4 for the year pertaining to 1988-99 to 1993-94 and RTC of Sy.No.147/4 from 1994-96. which shows the joint names of children of late Syed Hussain, i.e. Syed Yousuff, Syed Noorulla and Syed Khaleel and children of late Syed Gaffoor.
36OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment
35. Ex.D. 14 is the RTC of Sy.No.147/4 from 2012-13 which shows that RTC was rectified and the names of children of late Syed Hussain i.e. Syed Yousuff, Syed Noorulla and Syed Khaleel was rounded off by the Revenue Authorities, the same was not challenged. The same has attained the finality.
36. Ex.D.15 is the Certified copy of Mutation No. H5/14-15 which shows that the name of defendant No.1 Syed Nusrath was entered in the Mutation Register.
37. Ex.D. 19 is the Certified copy of order sheet in OS 5452/2016 which was filed by one of the alleged site owners namely Parthasarathy who has purchased the site from Syed Noorulla . The said suit was filed against defendant No.1.The said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff as not pressed without seeking liberty to file fresh suit. Ex.D 20 is the 37 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Certified copy of memo of withdrawal dated 08.08.2019.
38. Ex.D 21 Certified copy of evidence of PW.1 in O.S.5452/2016 which discloses about the possession of the disputed site by defendant No.1 in the suit schedule property.
39. Ex.D. 22 is the Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.1088/2016 which was filed for permanent injunction filed by one of the purchaser Sri Agnish Norman who had purchased the site from Syed Noorulla, The suit was filed against defendant No.1, the same was also dismissed for non prosecution.
40. Ex.D. 24 is the Certified copy of order on IA.No.1 in O.S. 6423/2015 which discloses that the vendor of the plaintiff herein had filed a suit against the defendant No.1 Syed Nusrath and had sought for an temporary injunction against this defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment, which was rejected. Para 12 of the order would 38 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment clearly establish the theory of the children of late Hussain that late Hussain and late Syed Gaffoor are joint owners of the property is farce since the alelged division of oral partition even according to them was not evidenced in any deed much less a registered instrument.
41. Ex.D. 25 is the Certified copy of IA.No.2 in O.S.6423/2015 which shows that the vendor of the plaintiff herein had filed a suit against the defendant No.1 and had sought for temporary injunction directing the first defendant herein from alienating encumbering or creating any charge over the property, which interim application was rejected. It reveals that the vendor of the plaintiff themselves had suffered an order in the hands of the defendant No.l.
42. Ex.D.26 is the Certified copy of orders on IA.2 in O.S.6423/2015 which discloses that the IA filed by the plaintiff was rejected.
39OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment
43. Ex.D.32 is the Certified copy of partition deed dated 09.09.1980. Since the plaintiffs as well as their vendors had claimed that 1 acre 20 guntas of land was joint family property, the defendant`s had produced the copy of the Partition Deed between the children of late Nanu Sab father of late Gaffoor Sab. Late Syed Hussain and late Basha Sab wherein the property bearing No. 147/4 (old Sy. No.147/1) is not the subject matter of partition, which makes it clear that it is not joint family property. In any event concept of joint family property is alien to the Mohammadan Law.
44. On perusal of Ex.P. 6, 8, 10, 31 Encumbrance Certificates discloses that those are not obtained for Sy.No.147/4 or for Sy.No. 147/1, especially when there was no sanctioned layout plan or conversion order. Further, the plaintiff has not produced any layout plan or conversion order with respect to the suit schedule property to show the exact location of the suit schedule property.
40OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment
45. In view of the aforesaid documents and the evidence adduced by both the parties, it is forthcoming that plaintiffs vendors were not having right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. When the plaintiff`s vendors have no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, he cannot transfer the same , hence under such circumstances what ever the contentions raised by the plaintiff with regard to the purchase of the suit schedule property from its vendor do not holds water. As the said property was not exclusively belongs to the plaintiff`s vendor. Hence, on the basis of the documents produced by the plaintiff the ownership of the suit schedule property cannot be conferred upon plaintiff. Further , on perusal of the schedule of the plaint, it is forthcoming that the plaintiff has not mentioned about of which survey number the schedule property is carved out and the same is not properly descripted and even it is not been described in the Sale Deed relied by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.12. Hence, under such circumstances, if the property is not property described no relief could be 41 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment granted. Hence, in view of the aforesaid reasons this court answer Issue No. 1 in the Negative.
46. ISSUE NO. 2,3, 8 AND 9; Since these Issues are inter linked to each other, they are taken up together for discussion so as to avoid repetition of facts.
47. The defendant submits that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their right over the schedule property as their predecessor in title had sold the largest extent of land i.e. 1 acre 20 guntas of land in favor of Syed Gafoor, thereby the plaintiff predecessor in title did not have any iota of right, title or interest over the larger extent of land much less on the schedule property to have alienated the same in favor of the plaintiff.
48. The plaintiffs have categorically contended that the suit schedule property was sold by the children of late Hussain and as per the plaint averments they have relied on a Partition purported to 42 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment have been executed between the sons of late Hussain I.e Syed Noorulla , Syed Yousuff and Syed Khaleel. The said partition deed has not seen the daylight and there is no reflection of the said Partition in the encumbering certificate. It is further case of the plaintiff that the respective brothers i.e. Syed Noorulla, Syed Yousuff and Syed Khaleel had formed layouts in their respective partition of the land; the plaintiff have miserably failed to produce a single document to establish the existence of the layout; No layout plan has been produced to substantiate the existence of the layout. It is pertinent to mention that apart from a created and concocted Khatha Certificate purported to have been issued by the HA Sanitary Board no documents have been produced to establish the identity of the Site in question. It is pertinent to mention that the documents relied on by the plaintiff would not establish the identity of the land in question; hence the injunction is sought on a land which identity cannot be proved.
43OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment
49. The plaintiff himself is not clear who came and interfered with the property; the detals of the alleged cause of action is not substantiated by PW. 1 in the cross examination . Infact, she has never deposed that defendant No.1 was present at the time of alleged interference. No complaint was lodged by the plaintiff; the cause of action mentioned in the suit is only imaginary for the purpose of filing of the present suit.
50. The counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration since the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his ownership over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has categorically claimed that Syed Hussain had acquired right, title and interest over the property from Syed Gafoor in terms of the Sale Deed dated 17.6.1953 and that the property so acquired was divided among the sons of late Syed Hussain who in turn had formed layout and sold the same in favor of the plaintiff. It is worthwhile to mention that, the property so purchased by Syed 44 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Hussain was reconveyed in favor of Syed Gafoor the father of the 1st defendant in terms of the Sale Deed dated 17.11.1953, which is marked as Ex.D.4. In view of the Ex.D.4 late Syed Gaffoor became the exclusive owner of Sy. No. 147/1 and after his demise his successors i.e. defendant No.1 to 6 succeeded to the property. Hence, on perusal of the aforesaid documents, it clearly discloses that at no point of time plaintiff`s vendors become the owner of the property bearing Sy. No.147/1. When the vendors of the plaintiff are not the exclusive owners , then they cannot have any right to sell the suit schedule property as alleged to be carved out in Sy. No. 147/1. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be declared as owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of the alleged Sale Deed Ex.P.12 produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed in OS NO. 4216/2013. In the said suit the court has passed the judgment in favor of the defendant No.1 herein and the court has directed the vendors of the plaintiffs for not to disturb with the peaceful 45 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment possession of defendant No.1 who was plaintiff in OS No. 4216/2013.
51. When the plaintiff fails to prove the relief of declaration as to the ownership of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction against the owner of the suit schedule property. This cardinal principle has been discussed by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Padhiyar Prahladi Chenaji vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai 2022 SCC 258. Hence the plaintiff cannot now canvas that the plaintiff is in lawful possession over the same since the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration of ownership.
52. In view of the reasons assigned while answering Issue No.1 and in view of the aforesaid reasons, these Issue No.2,3,8 and 9 are answered in the Negative.
53. ISSUE NO.4; It is argued by the defendant No.1 that since the entry in IHC7/1983-84 did not 46 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment pertain to the plaintiff herein, there was no occasion to plaintiff to array as party to the above proceedings.
54. It is further argued that the defendant had sought for declaration that the Mutation Entry made in the name of Syed Yousuff in IHC 7/1983-84 is fictitious and fraudulent entry and the same is liable to be cancelled. The RTC for the year 1983 onwards did not reflect the names of the plaintiff and IHC No. 7.1983-84 did not reflect the name of the plaintiff as such arraying the plaintiff as party to the above proceedings is uncalled for. Since the defendant No.1 grievance was only as with regard to the entry, the defendant had proceeded to only question the same against Syed Yousuff. The name of the plaintiff is not reflected in either the RTC or the Mutation, as such the question of arraying the plaintiff as party to the above proceedings is not justifiable.
55. In the said suit bearing OS No. 4216/2013 the court has given the judgment in favor of the defendant No.1 herein and the court has directed the 47 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment vendors of the plaintiff for not to disturb with the peaceful possession of defendant No.1 who was plaintiff in OS NO. 4216/2013.
56. While answering Issue No.1,2,3, 8 and 9 , this court has already discussed about the ownership of Sy. No. 147/1 which was exclusively belongs to late Syed Gaffoor. Defendant No.1 to 6 are the successors of late Syed Gaffoor. Either late Syed Hussain or his successors i.e. the defendant No. 7 to 9 are not having any right or interest in Sy. No. 147/1. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff regarding ownership of suit schedule property which is alleged to be carved out in Sy. No. 147/1, on the basis of the Ex.P.5 Sale Deed alleged to be executed by the successor of Syed Hussain I.e defendant No.7 to 9 herein, is not tenable in the eye of law. If the plaintiff is having any claim, that should be against the successors of late Syed Hussain i.e. against defendant No. 7 to 9 and not against the successors of late Syed Gaffoor i.e. defendant No. 1 to 6. Hence, the allegation of fraud made by the plaintiff against 48 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment the defendant No.1 to 6 are not tenable in the eye of law.
57. If the fraud is pleaded by the plaintiff, under such circumstances the particulars of fraud has to be proved by leading cogent evidence. Mere pleading of fraud without its particulars , the same cannot be tenable in the eye of law. This cardinal principle has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Placido Francisco Pinto (D) by Lrs. and Another Vs. Jose Francisco Pinto and Another reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 842 has held that; "In terms of order VI Rule 4 of CPC in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, or undue influence shall state in the pleadings the particulars with dates and items in the pleadings."
58. In the case on hand before this court, the plaintiffs who alleges fraud have not proved the allegations of fraud by leading cogent evidence before this court. Hence, under such circumstances 49 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment the contentions of the plaintiffs with respect to the obtaining of the judgment and decree in OS No. 4216/2013 dated 24.1.2015 by defendants by colluding with each other is not tenable in the eye of law.
59. In view of the reasons assigned while answering Issue No.1,2,3,8 and 9, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the judgment passed in OS No. 4216/2013. Hence in view of the aforesaid reasons this court answers Issue No.4 in the Negative.
60. ISSUE NO. 5; In view of the reasons assigned in the aforesaid Issues, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek declaration as the Release Deed dated 17.06.1953 executed by defendant No. 2 to 6 in favor of defendant No.1 is collusive and not binding on the plaintiff with respect suit schedule property is concerned. On perusal of the records produced before this court, it is forthcoming that the plaintiff`s predecessor late Syed 50 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Hussain had lost the right over the schedule property way back on 17.11.1953 and cannot seek for declaration. Hence, in view of the above said discussion Issue No. 5 is answered in the Negative.
61. ISSUE NO.6; On perusal of the records, it is forthcoming that the office has raised objection regarding deficit court fee. Thereafter the learned counsel for the plaintiff has paid proper court fee on the plaint and filed the Memo on 04.12.2015 complying the office objection. Hence consideration of present Issue No.6 does not arise. Hence Issue No.6 is answered in the Negative.
62. ISSUE NO.7; The defendant has taken the contention that the suit is barred under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. But on perusal of the plaint averments and the documents produced before this court, it is revealing that the present suit is of civil in nature and permissible and is not barred under any provisions of law and there is no bar u/sec. 9 of CPC to entertain the present 51 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment nature of the suit. Hence, Issue No.7 is answered in the Negative.
63. ISSUE NO.10; In view of the reasons discussed above, this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Sr.Shr/SGI, script thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of December, 2024).
GANGAPPA I Digitally signed by GANGAPPA I PATIL PATIL Date: 2025.01.10 11:26:48 +0530 (Gangappa Irappa Patil) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 S.G.Navaneeth Kumar
52
OS No. 9778/2015
Judgment
List of the documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of manual RTC for 1988-89 to 993-94 Ex.P.2: Certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 3.4.1992 Ex.P.3: Original khatha endorsement issued by Sanitary Board, dated 15.10.1992 Ex.P.4: Original tas assessment list issued by Town Municipal Council, Sanitary Board, Bangalore. Ex.P.5: Original tax paid receipt for 1992-93 Ex.P.6: Original tax paid receipt for 1993-94 Ex.P.7: Certified copy of sale deed, dated 30.3.1994.
Ex.P.8: Original tax paid receipt for 2001-02 Ex.P.9: Original receipt for change of khata. Ex.P.10: Original tax paid receipt for Rs.2931/- Ex.P.11: Original holders khatha issued by CMC, K.R. Puram, Bangalore.
Ex.P.12: Certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 31.10.2001.
Ex.P.13: Consolidated tax paid receipts for 2003-04 to 2006-07.
53OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Ex.P.14: Original tax paid receipt for 2007-08. Ex.P.15: Certified copy of encumbrance certificate for 1.6.1989 to 11.10.2001 Ex.P.16: Certified copy of encumbrance certificate for 1.6.1989 to 31.3.2004 Ex.P.17: Certified copy of encumbrance certificate for 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 Ex.P.18: Original copy receipt for khatha Ex.P.19: Original khata certificate issued by BBMP Ex.P.20: Original extract of register for houses and vacant sites Ex.P.21: Original tax paid receipt for 2008-09. Ex.P.22: Original tax paid receipt for 2008-09. Ex.P.23: Original extract of register for houses and vacant sites Ex.P.24: Original khata certificate, dated 13.9.2012 Ex.P.25: Original encumbrance certificate, fro 1.4.2004 to 30.5.2013 Ex.P.26: Original receipt for having paid betterment charges of Rs.18410/-
Ex.P.27: Certified cop7 of encumbrance certificate for 1.4.2004 to 10.11.2015 54 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Ex.P.28: Original tax paid receipt for 2000-10 together with acknowledgment Ex.P.29: Original tax paid receipt for 2010-11 together with acknowledgment Ex.P.30: Original tax paid receipt for 2011-12 together with acknowledgment Ex.P.31: Original tax paid receipt for 2012-13 together with acknowledgment Ex.P.32: Original tax paid receipt for 2013-14 together with acknowledgment Ex.P.33: Original tax paid receipt for 2014-15 Ex.P.34: Original tax paid receipt for 2015-16 together with acknowledgment Ex.P.35: Original receipt for having paid Rs.15,600/- for water connection to BWSSB Ex.P.36: Original water sanction order Ex.P.37: Original initial deposit receipt for water. Ex.P.38: Original water sanction order Ex.P.39 Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.4216/2013. Ex.P.40 Certified copy of Written Statement of defendant No.1 to 5 in OS.No.4216/2013. Ex.P.41 Certified copy of Written Statement of defendant No.6 to 8 in OS.No.4216/2013.
55OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Ex.P.42 Certified copy of judgment in OS.No.4216/2013.
Ex.P.43 Certified copy of Decree in OS.No.4216/2013.
List of the witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 Syed Nusrath List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of sale deed and it's typed copy dated 13.10.1946.
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of mutation No.10/46-47 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of sale deed dated 17.06.1953. Ex.D.4 Certified copy of sale deed and it's typed copy dated 17.11.1953.
Ex.D.5 Certified copy of sale deed dated 30.11.1953. Ex.D.6 Certified copy of sale deed and it's typed copy dated 30.01.1969.
Ex.D.7 Certified copy of Original Hiba dated 11.10.1979.
Ex.D.8 Original Hiba dated 16.01.2012. Ex.D.9 Certified copy of release deed dated 17.06.2015.
Ex.D.10 Certified copy of order in R.P.NO.303/2012-
13. Ex.D.11 RTC of Sy.NO.147/4 from 1982-83 to 1987-
88. 56 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Ex.D.12 RTC of Sy.NO.147/4 from 1988-99 to 1993-
94. Ex.D.13 RTC of Sy.NO.147/4 from 1994-96. Ex.D.14 RTC of Sy.NO.147/4 from 2012-13.. Ex.D.15 Certified copy of mutation no. H5/14-15. Ex.D.16 Family tree affidavit.
Ex.D.17 Certified copy of death certificate of Syed Gaffer Sab.
Ex.D.18 Certified copy of death certificate of Syed Bhasha Sab.
Ex.D.19 Certified copy of order sheet 5452/2016. Ex.D.20 Certified copy of memo of withdrawal dated 08.08.2019.
Ex.D.21 Certified copy of evidence of PW.1 in O.S.5452/2016 Ex.D.22 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.1088/2016.
Ex.D.23 Certified copy of IA.No.1 filed in O.S.6423/2015.
Ex.D.24 Certified copy of orders on IA.No.1 in O.S. 6423/2015.
Ex.D.25 Certified copy of IA.No.2 in O.S.6423/2015. Ex.D.26 Certified copy of orders on IA.2 in O.S.6423/2015.
Ex.D.27 Original conformation deed dated 07.10.2021. Ex.D.28 Certified copy of EC from 01.04.1934 to 14.02.1957.
57OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Ex.D.29 Certified copy of EC from 15.12.1957 to 31.05.1989.
Ex.D.30 Certified copy of EC from 01.06.1989 to 31.04.2004.
Ex.D.31 Certified copy of EC from 01.04.2004 to 04.08.2022.
Ex.D.32 Certified copy of partition deed dated 09.09.1980.
GANGAPPA I Digitally signed by GANGAPPA I PATIL PATIL Date: 2025.01.10 11:27:01 +0530 (Gangappa Irappa Patil) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
58 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
59 OS No. 9778/2015 Judgment LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.