Bangalore District Court
Sri. Rajendra M. Reddy vs Ms. K.P.Vinutha on 22 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
(CCH-21)
Dated this the 22nd day of December 2020
PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G. B.A. LL.B.
IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
(Concurrent Charge)
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 26958/2007
PLAINTIFFS: 1 SRI. RAJENDRA M. REDDY
Aged about 61 years
S/o Late Sri. Ramakrishna Reddy
2 SMT.NIRMALA REDDY
W/o. G.Gopal Reddy
Aged about 60 years
3 SRI. MAHINDHAR M. REDDY
S/o. Rajendra M.Reddy
Aged about 30 years
PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED BY:
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER:
SRI. M. DAYASAGAR REDDY
Aged about 45 years
S/o. Sri.M. Narasimha Reddy
2
OS.26958/2007
ALL ARE R/AT:
Flat No.5, Shraddha Lakshmi
50/1, 5th cross
10th Main Road
HAL II Stage
Bangalore-560 008.
(REP BY M/S HOLLA & HOLLA)
V/s
DEFENDANTS: 1 MS. K.P.VINUTHA
D/o Late Sri. Pattabhirama Reddy
Aged about 41 years
Residing at D.No.303
10th Main, 3rd Block
Jayanagar
Bangalore-560 011.
2 MRS. J. KAVITHA
W/o Sri. Hanumanthareddy
Aged about 27 years
R/at Doddashivara village
Doddakadathur Post
Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk
Kolar District.
3 MR. J. GAUTHAM
S/o Sri. Janardhanareddy
Aged about 19 years
3
OS.26958/2007
Residing at No.423,5th Main
6th cross, Jagadhishnagar
Bangalore-560 075.
4 SRI. K. N.MOHAN REDDY
S/o Sri. D. Narayana Reddy
Aged about 34 years,
Kattriguppa village,
Kugur Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District.
Date of Institution of the suit 12.11.2007
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pro-note, suit for
declaration and possession, suit for injunction, INJUNCTION
etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording of the
06.12.2008
Evidence.
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 22/12/2020
Year/s Month/ Day/s
Total duration
s
13 01 10
4
OS.26958/2007
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs have filed the instant suit through their attorney holder to declare that, they are the absolute owners of suit property, perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining defendants, their men, agents or whomsoever on their behalf from interfering with their peaceful possession & enjoyment of the suit property and cost.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. Suit property originally belonged to Late.Pattabhirama Reddy, the father of 1 st defendant & grandfather of defendants 2 & 3. On 28/08/1996 Pattabhirama Reddy sold the suit property in favor of J.Kodandarama Reddy, C.Srinivasa Reddy & A.Narayana Reddy by executing 3 sale deeds measuring 5 guntas(5445 sq.ft), 5½ guntas(5990 sq.ft) & 4 guntas(4356 sq.ft) respectively. After purchase, the above named 3 purchasers effected katha of their respective properties in City 5 OS.26958/2007 Municipal Council (CMC), Mahadevapura. Since the date of purchase, they had been in possession & enjoyment of their respective properties. On 07/06/2002 the above named 3 persons sold their respective portions of land in favor of M/s.Vaibhav Developers by executing 3 sale deeds & put M/s.Vaibhav Developers in possession of the suit property. After purchase, M/s.Vaibhav Developers consolidated the 3 portions of land in to one composite block and got consolidated katha in its name.
On 18/02/2005 M/s.Vaibhav Developers sold the suit property in favor of M/s.Sowparnika Projects and hand over the possession of the suit property. Since the date of purchase M/s.Sowparnika Projects had been in possession & enjoyment of the suit property and the katha of the said property was effected in its name. Plaintiffs contend that, under the registered sale deed dated:05/05/2005 they purchased the suit property from M/s.Sowparnika Projects. Since the date of purchase, they are in possession & enjoyment of the said property. They contend 6 OS.26958/2007 that, now the suit property comes within the limits of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Therefore they effected katha of the suit property in BBMP. Plaintiffs contend that, Pattabhirama Reddy, the father of 1st defendant & grandfather of defendants 2 & 3 and his family members have sold all the land belonged to them in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru by executing different sale deeds. Therefore no land belonged to Pattabhirama Reddy is remaining in Sy.No.111. Plaintiffs contend that, about 18 guntas of land was acquired in Sy.No.111 for the formation of KIADB Road. Even after the acquisition, in the RTC of Sy.No.111, 18 guntas of land was shown in the name of Pattabhirama Reddy. Taking undue advantage of the same, defendants 1 to 3, the daughter & granddaughters of Pattabhirama Reddy and 4th defendant, the agent of defendants 1 to 3 came near the suit property on 01/11/2007, threatened their (plaintiffs) watchmen & workmen and made 7 OS.26958/2007 attempts to forcibly remove them from the suit property. In this regard, complaint was given to SHO of Whitefield police station. Plaintiffs contend that, defendants told their watchmen & workmen that, they will bring JCB machines and demolish the structure existing therein. Plaintiffs contend that, the aforesaid acts of defendants and their men are illegal, high handed and tortuous. Defendants are the powerful persons. Therefore they are not in a position to resist the aforesaid illegal acts of defendants & their men. Plaintiffs contend that, defendants on the basis of entry of the name of Pattabhirama Reddy in the RTC of land in Sy.No.111 measuring 18 guntas are making attempts to alienate the suit property. Therefore left with no alternative, they have filed the instant suit for declaration & injunction. On these and other grounds stated in the plaint, plaintiffs pray to decree the suit and to grant the relief of declaration & injunction as prayed for. 8
OS.26958/2007
3. Defendant No.3 & 4 filed independent written statements. Defendants 1 & 2 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.3. Initially plaintiffs have filed mere suit for injunction. After defendants filed written statement denying plaintiffs' title over the suit property, plaintiffs amended the plaint and sought the relief of declaration. After amendment of plaint, defendants 1 & 2 have filed additional written statement. Defendant No.4 has also filed additional written statement. The contentions taken by defendants are one and the same.
4. Defendants denied plaintiffs title & possession over the suit property. They contend that, the suit property is the part and parcel of land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village. Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village is totally measuring 3 acres 32 guntas including 17 guntas of kharab land. It is the Coparcinary property of Pattabhirama Reddy. Pattabhirama 9 OS.26958/2007 Reddy and his brothers effected partition of the said land by making registered deed of partition dated:13/11/1963. In the said partition, 1 acre of land was allotted to the share of Pattabhirama Reddy. He had 3 daughters namely Usharani, Vanajakshi & Vinutha, the 1 st defendant. After partition, Pattabhirama Reddy & his 3 daughters as members of joint family had been in possession & enjoyment of the said property. The daughters of Pattabhirama Reddy namely Vanajakshi & Usharani died intestate living behind their children, the defendants 2 & 3. Defendants contend that, Pattabhirama Reddy has no independent right to deal with 1 acre of land in Sy.No.111. His daughters & grandchildren have not permitted him to sell the suit property. On the basis of sale deeds referred to by plaintiffs, mutation was not effected in the RTC of the Sy.No.111. Defendants contend that, plaintiffs & their vendors created and concocted sale deeds and records in the CMC of Mahadevapura & BBMP without converting the agricultural 10 OS.26958/2007 land into non-agricultural purpose. Therefore the CMC and BBMP records referred to by plaintiffs in the plaint having no value in the eye of law. Defendants contend that, the 18 guntas of land acquired by Government in Sy.No.111 for formation of KIADB Road not belongs to Pattabhirama Reddy. They contend that, plaintiff by creating and concocting sale deeds, CMC & BBMP records, by giving imaginary katha numbers & boundaries have filed the instant suit. They contend that, the relief of declaration inserted by amendment to plaint is barred by limitation. The court fee paid is insufficient. 4 Th defendant contend that, he is not only the agents of defendants 1 to 3, but also having interest in the land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village. Defendants contend that, the property as described in the plaint schedule is not in existence in the land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village. At no point of time, plaintiffs or their vendors were in possession of any portion of land in Sy.No.111. They contend that, when the plaintiffs were never in possession 11 OS.26958/2007 of any portion of land in Sy.No.111, the question of they interfering with plaintiffs possession & enjoyment of suit property & making attempts to dispossess their watchmen & workmen would not arise. Defendants contend that, the cause of action one alleged in the plaint is false and imaginary. On these and other grounds stated in the written statements and additional written statements, defendants pray to dismiss the suit.
5. On the basis of afore said pleadings, on 22/09/2008 the then presiding officer formulated the following:
ISSUES
1.Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2.Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference?12
OS.26958/2007
3.What decree or order?
6. On 01/03/2012, the then presiding officer has formulated the following:
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1.Whether the plaintiffs prove their title over the suit schedule property?
2.Whether the Court fee paid is proper?
7. On behalf of plaintiffs, their attorney holder was examined as PW1 & produced documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.175.
8. On behalf of defendants 2 & 3, 2 nd defendant was examined as DW1 and produced documents marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.11.
13
OS.26958/2007
9. 4Th defendant though filed written statement and additional written statement has not lead evidence.
10. During the pendency of the suit, 1 st defendant passed away. Defendants 2 & 3 filed memo stating that, they are the LRs of defendant No.1.
11. Heard the arguments on both side. Counsel on both side filed written arguments/synopsis with rulings.
12. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Negative.
Issue No.2: In the Negative.
Addl. Issue No.1: In the Negative.
Addl. Issue No.2: In the Affirmative.
Issue N.3: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
13. ISSUE NO.1 & ADDL. ISSUE NO.1: These 2 issues are in respect of title and possession over the suit property. 14
OS.26958/2007 Therefore to avoid repetition of facts and evidence and also for convenience they are taken together for consideration.
14. PW1 M.Dayasagar Reddy, the attorney holder of the plaintiffs in the examination in chief has reiterated and reaffirmed the plaint averments. He produced Ex.P.1, 2 & 85 Power of Attorneys, Ex.P.10 Sale Deed dated:05/05/2005, Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 Sale deeds dated:28/08/1996, Ex.P.12, 14 & 16 Mutation Registers, Ex.P.26 to 28 Sale Deeds dated:07/06/2002 & Ex.P.32 Sale Deed dated:18/02/2005.
15. 2nd defendant who was examined as DW1 in her examination in chief, in addition to reiterating and reaffirming the averments of the written statement, has stated that, after verification of the records, she came to know that, her grandfather executed Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds dated:28/08/1996 in favor of Srinivas Reddy, Narayan Reddy & J.Kodanda Rama Reddy. Defendants 2 & 3 though in the 15 OS.26958/2007 written statement denied the execution of the above sale deeds, in the examination chief DW1 has admitted the execution of the said sale deeds. DW1 in her evidence has not disputed execution of Ex.P.26, 27 & 28 sale deeds dated:07/06/2002 in favor of Viabhava Developers, Ex.P.32 sale deed in favor of M/s.Sowparnika Projects and Ex.P.10 sale deed in favor of plaintiff. DW1 has stated that, her grandfather Pattabhirama Reddy by executing Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds handed over the possession of land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village as per the boundaries mentioned therein. Plaintiffs by giving wrong and imaginary boundaries have filed the instant suit. There is no property as described in the plaint schedule. Therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration and injunction.
16. Thus having regard to the contention take by defendants 2 & 3 in their written statements, the facts stated by 16 OS.26958/2007 DW1 in her evidence, the tenor of cross examination to PW1 by the counsel for defendants and the points upon which the counsel on both side concentrated in the written arguments and synopsis, it is clear that, in the instant case, there is no serious dispute regarding execution of Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds by Pattabhirama Reddy in favor of Srinivasa Reddy, Narayana Reddy and Kodandarama Reddy, Ex.P.26, 27 & 28 sale deeds in favor of Vaibhav Developers, Ex.P.32 sale deed in favor of M/s.Sowparnika Projects and Ex.P.10 sale deed in favor of plaintiffs. The dispute is regarding the location of suit property in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village. Therefore effecting of mutation and katha on the basis of above sale deeds, payment of tax, etc., are not of much relevance to decide the crux of the dispute i.e., identity of suit property. What is relevant is, the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds, sketches, the sketch prepared by court commissioner which would help the Court in 17 OS.26958/2007 deciding the identity & location of suit property in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village.
17. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has strenuously contended that, DW1 in the cross examination has stated that, she do not know about the written statement filed by defendant No.3 and she did not adopt the said written statement. In view of the said statement of DW1, the Court cannot take into consideration the written statement filed by defendant No.3. Therefore he submits that, in the absence of written statement, the averments of plaint remained unchallenged. Further he submits that, in the absence of written statement, the Court cannot countenance the evidence of DW1 as it has no value in the eye of law. He submits that, defendants 1 to 3 by appointing 4 th defendant as their agent filed OS.No.3283/2008 for the relief of Injunction in respect of suit property. In addition to that, 4 th defendant as attorney 18 OS.26958/2007 holder of defendants 1 to 3 filed W.P.No.1031/2010 & MFA.No.7371/2008 and 8876/2008 in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Defendants 2 & 3 have produced the orders passed in the above W.P and MFA and they were marked at Ex.D.6 & 7. DW1 in her evidence has stated that, defendants 1 to 3 have never appointed 4th defendant as their attorney holder. From this it is clear that, DW1 has not stated true facts before the Court. She disputing the court documents. Therefore she is playing fraud on Court. Therefore her testimony cannot be relied upon. He submits that, in the Civil case, the case has to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Proving 100% case i.e., proof beyond reasonable or shadow of doubt is not required in civil case. He submits that, from the report of the Court commissioner which was not challenged by defendants, it is clear that, there is common passage on the northern side of the suit property. On the Eastern side of the suit property, the property of Lokesh situate and on the Western 19 OS.26958/2007 side KIADB Road passes. These 3 boundaries are sufficient to locate & identify the suit property in the land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village. He submits that, plaintiffs by producing registered sale deeds & sketches have proved that, the suit property as described in the plaint schedule is in existence and the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the said property since the date of purchase under Ex.P.10 sale deed. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the following judgments:
(1) 2015 (5) MH. LJ 282 PARDESHI (BHARADWAJ) AND OTHERS V/s. RAMKALI RAMBHAROSE KATIAR AND OTHERS.
"Evidence Act, S. 61 - Document - Evidentiary value - One it is held that document was duly executed and proved, contents of it have to be read as true and correct."
(2) AIR 2006 SIKKIM 37 CHEWAG DORJEE LAMA V/s.
LERAP DORJEE BHUTIA & OTHERS.
"In case of a conflict between dimension and boundaries of a given land in dispute, it is the boundary which prevails and where the boundary described is party correct and partly incorrect, the incorrect part of the 20 OS.26958/2007 description may be ignored, and if what remains after rejecting the erroneous part is sufficient to identify the thing and enable the court to ascertain with legal certainty the property to which the instrument really applies, then the instrument would be allowed to take effect."
(3) AIR 1923 SIND 42 NARAINDAS AND OTHERS V/s.
TEKCHAND AND OTHERS.
"Evidence Act, S. 95 - Latent ambiguity removable - When a description is partly correct and partly incorrect and the former part is sufficient to identify the subject matter intended while the latter part does not apply to any subject, the erroneous part will be rejected on the maxim that a false description will not hurt when it can exist with the subject itself."
(4) AIR 1979 CALCUTTA 50 M/S. ROY AND CO. AND ANOTHER V/s. SMT. NANI BALA DEY AND OTHERS.
"Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), Sec. 75 - Commissioner's report - Rejection of Grounds.
The commissioner's report should not be rejected except on clearly defined and sufficient grounds. The court should not act as an expert and overrule the Commissioner's report whose integrity and carefulness are not questioned and who did not blindly accept the assertion of either party.
Where the Pleader Commissioner's honesty has not been challenged and it is found that he did not blindly adopt the assertion of the plaintiff and in spite of several chances given to the defendant to assail the commissioner's report no objection was filed the objection against the commissioner's report could not be allowed to be raised at appellate stage."21
OS.26958/2007 (5) AIR 1940 PC 3 CHANDAN MULL INDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS V/s. CHIMAN LAL GIRDHAR DAS PAREKH AND ANOTHER.
"Civil P.C. (1908) , O. 26 Rr. 9 and 10 -
Principle to be adopted in dealing with Commissioner's report stated:
Interference with the result of a long and careful local investigation except on clearly defined and sufficient grounds is to be deprecated. It is not safe for a court to act as an expert and to overrule the elaborate report of a commissioner whose integrity and carefulness are unquestioned, whose careful and laborious execution of his task was proved by his report, and who had not blindly adopted the assertion of either party.
(6) AIR (33) 1946 NAGPUR 419 - BHABHUTMAL
NATHMAL AND OTHERS V/s. KHAN MOHAMMAD
AND OTHERS.
"Fraud cannot be directly proved but has to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties."
(7) AIR 1957 MAD 194 - THANGACHI NACHIAL AND ANOTHER V/s. AHMED HUSSAIN MALUMIAR AND OTHERS.
"In the very nature of things, fraud is secret in its origin and inception and the means adopted for its success and fraudulent motive or design cannot be proved to the very hilt and it should be inferred from the circumstances placed before the court. Each circumstance by itself may not mean much, but taking all of them together, they may reveal a fraudulent and dishonest plan."22
OS.26958/2007 (8) AIR 2003 SC 4548 - R.V.E. VENKATACHALA GOUNDER V/s. ARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI AND V.P. TEMPLE AND ANOTHER.
"An entry in the municipal record is not evidence of title. The entry shows the person who was held liable to pay the rates and taxes to the municipality. The entry may also depending on the scope of the provision contemplating such entry, constitute evidence of the person recorded being in possession of the property. Such entries spread over a number of years go to show that the person entered into the records was paying the tax relating to the property and was being acknowledged by the local authority as the person liable to pay the taxes."
(9) AIR 1971 SC 761 - JUGRAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER V/s.
JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS.
"Evidence Act (1872), Sec.85 Registration Act (1908), Sections 32, 33 - Execution and presentation of sale deed for registration - vendor in U.S.A. - First power of attorney not duly authorized - Second power of attorney duly authenticated and nothing first being defective and same being ratified - Second power validates transaction and registration even though both being earlier to second power - Such ratification relates back to date of act done and agent is put in same position as if he had authority to do it at that date - Illegally is registration is cured."
(10) AIR 1989 DELHI 144 - RAJESH WADHWA V/s. DR.
MRS. SUSHMA GOVIL "It is true that the first power of attorney was not duly authenticated by notary, hence, the same was not valid to give any authority to the attorney to act on 23 OS.26958/2007 behalf of the respondent. However, the second power of attorney produced at the stage of first appeals clearly was a valid document and the contents of the said document show that the acts of the agent in instituting the eviction petitions was duly ratified in the nosecone power of attorney; such ratification can be done is obvious from the law laid down in Jugraj Singh AIR 1971 SC 761, supra."
(11) AIR 2006 SC 1923 - MAHARASHTRA STATE MINING CORPORATION V/s. SUNIL.
"Ratification by definition means the making valid of an act already done. The principle is derived from the Latin maxim "Ratihabitio priori mandato aequiparatur"
namely 'a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act. Therefore, ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validate."
(12) AIR 1970 KER 310 - THIRUVANCHAN SANKARAN V/s. KUNJIPILLAI AMMA GOURI AMMA AND OTHERS.
"The presumption that possession goes with title is not limited to particular cases where proof of actual possession is impossible on account of the nature of land such as boundary land, forest land, or submerged land. The presumption applies to all cases where plaintiff proves his title, but not any act of possession and the defendant did not prove possession except at some interval within 12 years of suit, the presumption that possession follows title will come into play."
(13) 1983 (1) KAR. LJ. 69 - BANASHANKARI TEMPLE V/s. VISHWANATH & ANOTHER.
24
OS.26958/2007 "Where in a suit for injunction restraining defendant from interfering with its possession, it is found that plaintiff's name is shown as the khatedar in the village panchayat records; this if prima facie evidence of its title. The presumption that possession follows title applies to a case like this where neither party has been able to prove or establish possession, but the plaintiff is able to show its title."
(14) 1990 (3) KAR. LJ. (SUPP) 283 (HC) - S.K. NINGAPPA V/s. PUTTAPPA "Presumption in law is that possession goes with ownership."
(15) 1971 (1) MYS. LJ. 317 - VENKAT REDDY V/s. BUDENNA @ DODDA BUDENNA & OTHERS.
"Unless there is some material to show that the plaintiff had been dispossessed or that he voluntarily surrendered possession, the necessary inference was that the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit land."
(16) AIR 1993 SC 352 - R.N. GOSAIN V/s. YASHPAL DHIR "Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. No party can accept and reject the same instrument and that "a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage. Thus the tenant having given an undertaking in pursuance to the direction given by the high court and having availed the protection from eviction on the basis of the said undertaking, cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Art. 136 of the 25 OS.26958/2007 constitution and assail the said judgment of the High Court."
18. The learned counsel for the defendants 2 & 3 has strenuously contended that, the burden of proving the issues is on the plaintiffs. As per Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC, in a suit in respect of immovable property, plaint shall contain the description of the property, sufficient to identify it by stating the boundaries or survey number. He submits that, the boundaries of the suit property stated in the plaint schedule would not tally with the boundaries of Ex.P.10 Sale Deed. He submits that, as per Sec.92 of Evidence Act, when the terms of a contract or of a grant or of any other disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, the parties to the said document cannot lead evidence contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. He submits that, plaintiffs who are claiming rights 26 OS.26958/2007 over the suit property on the basis of Ex.P.10 sale deed, cannot claim right over some other property by changing the boundaries as per their convenience. He submits that, from the facts stated by PW1 in the cross examination at page No.52, para No.26 and page No.54, para No.27 it is clear that, the southern boundary of the property purchased by plaintiffs is land in Sy.No.112 of Kundalahalli village. But in the plaint schedule, the southern boundary of the suit property is shown private property. Plaintiffs have not stated, what is the survey number of the said private property. Further he submits that, in Ex.P.10 sale deed, the northern boundary of the property purchased by plaintiffs is shown as Sy.No.109 of Kundalahalli village. But in the plaint schedule the northern portion of the suit property is shown as common passage and private property. Thus, on evaluation of evidence on record would show that, in the instant case, plaintiffs are claiming right and possession over an immovable property by giving imaginary boundaries. He 27 OS.26958/2007 submits that, plaintiffs failed to prove that, under Ex.P.10 Sale deed, they purchased the property situate within the boundaries stated in the plaint schedule. He submits that, in view of plaintiffs failed to prove the identity and location of the property purchased by them, their contention that, they are the owners and in possession of suit property as described in the plaint schedule cannot be accepted. Further he submits that, from the material on record would show that, defendants 2 & 3 are in possession of suit property. Therefore the instant suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction without seeking the relief of possession, is not maintainable. On these and other grounds, he prays to answer Issue No.1 & Additional Issue No.1 in the Negative. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the following judgments:
(1) AIR 1972 SC 2685 - RAM SARAN & ANOTHER V/s.
SMT. GANGADEVI "Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 42 - Where the defendant is in possession of some of the suit property 28 OS.26958/2007 and the plaintiff in his suit does not seek possession of those properties, but merely claims a declaration that he is the owner of the suit property, the suit is not maintainable."
(2) ILR 1980 KAR 103 - POOJARI PUTTAIAH (BY L.R.'S) & OTHERS V/s. KEMPAIAH "Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act No.47 of 1963) - Section 34, proviso to - suit for declaration of title and injunction - plaintiff not in possession - suit for declaration without relief of delivery of possession not maintainable. Held - In a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, not only the plaintiff must prove his title, but his possession over the property on the date of suit. When the plaintiff is not in possession of the property on the date of the suit, the relief of permanent injunction is not an appropriate consequential relief. The appropriate relief consequential to declaration of ownership to be asked is only the possession of the property. The proviso to section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 also affirms the said view where the plaintiff is out of possession of the land and does not seek relief of possession, a mere suit for declaration is not maintainable."
(3) AIR 1993 SC 957 - VINAY KRISHNA V/s. KESHAV CHANDRA & ANOTHER.
"Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 42 - Applicability - Suit for declaration of share in property - plaintiff was not in exclusive possession of the property because two other person and also tenants were in occupation - failure of plaintiff to claim relief of possession - discretion of court in granting decree for declaration barred - mere prayer in plaint that such other relief be granted to plaintiff without specific plea for 29 OS.26958/2007 possession - no sufficient. Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.34"
(4) (2012) 8 SCC 148 - UNION OF INDIA V/s. IBRAHIM UDDIN & ANOTHER "Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Ss 34 & 5- Declaration - discretion of court - need to seek consequential relief in Declaratory suit - maintainability of title suit - reliefs to be claimed - suit seeking declaration of title of ownership of property without seeking possession when plaintiff not in possession, held not maintainable.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Ss. 34 & 5 - suit for declaration of title of ownership of land against Union of India - burden of proof on plaintiff - Held, on facts, High court erred in shifting burden on to Union of India
- Evidence Act, 1872 S.102."
(5) ILR 2007 KAR 339 - ARALAPPA V/s. JAGANNATH & OTHERS "Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 -
Declaration of Status or right - discretion of court - Held, in a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to prove his title to the property and also his possession over the property on the date of the suit - Further held, when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property on the date of the suit, relief of permanent injunction is not an appropriate consequential relief - the appropriate relief consequential to declaration of ownership would be recovery of possession of the property - when the plaintiff is out of possession of the property and does not seek relief for possession, a mere suit for declaration is not maintainable
- court below was justified in dismissing the suit as not maintainable - appeals are dismissed."
30
OS.26958/2007
(6) 2018 (3) KCCR 2175 - BHARATESH BALASAHEB
KUPPANATTE & ANOTHER V/s. NOORBABA SAB
PEERASO MANTOORKAR SINCE DECEASED BY L.R.'S "Specific Relief Act, 1963 - section 34 & 38 - When admitted by the defendant is in possession of the property, a suit for declaration and Mandatory injunction without seeking relief of possession is not maintainable.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - section 34 & 38 -
When there are so many discrepancies in the pleading of the plaintiff itself and the plaintiff has not come to the court with satisfactory material with regard to the identity of the property, then under such circumstances, the question of declaration and injunction does not arise at all.
Practice and procedure - pleading and proof - The plaintiff has to win or loose the case on his own, he cannot take the weakness of the defendant and make his case strong."
(7) (2004) 10 SCC 779 - KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKF V/s. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & OTHERS.
"Specific Relief Act, 1963, - S.34 - suit for declaration of ownership and title over immovable property - proof- Held- must be proved by admissible evidence and records- in a title suit of civil nature, there is no scope for historical facts and claims- reliance on border line historical facts could lead to erroneous conclusion - plaintiff filing title suit should be very clear about origin of title over the property and must specifically plead it."
(8) (2014) 2 SCC 269 - UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS V/s.
VASAVI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., & OTHERS.
31
OS.26958/2007 "Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Ss. 34 & 5 - suit for declaration of title and possession - burden of proof in case of - reiterated, burden is on Plaintiff to establish its case, irrespective of whether Defendants prove their case or not - in absence of establishment of its own title, the plaintiff must be non-suited even if title set up Defendants is found against them - weakness of case set up by defendants cannot be a ground to grant relief to Plaintiff - Evidence Act, 1872, SS.101 to 103.
Property Law - ownership and title - entries in revenue record - value of reiterated, do not confer any title Evidence Act, 1872, S.35."
(9) ILR 2005 KAR 884 - T.L. NAGENDRA BABU V/s.
MANOHAR RAO PAWAR "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."
(10) ILR 2014 KAR 1311 - SUMITRA BAI V/s. SIDDESH & ANOTHER "It is recognized principle of law, that the inference drawn by the court must be based on the admissible legal evidence available on record. Merely on conjunctures or surmises on the basis of imaginary assessment of the evidence, the court cannot draw an inference of existence or non existence of a fact in issue or relevant fact which are not proved by the Plaintiff.
The identity of the property with specific boundaries and the place where this particular site is situated itself is not satisfactorily established by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the decree ought not to have been granted by the First Appellate Court. Neither the First 32 OS.26958/2007 Appellate Court nor the Trial Court having fact meticulously gone into the fact that Plaintiff or the Defendant have not shown how the site No.56 had been divided into 56/1-A, 1-B and 1-C with specific measurements."
(11) (2011) 12 SCC 220 - RANGAMMAL V/s. KUPPUSWAMY & ANOTHER "Evidence Act, 1872 - S.101 - Burden lies on Plaintiff to prove his case on the basis of material available - he cannot rely on Weakness or absence of defence of defendant to discharge to onus - if Plaintiff claims title to property, he must prove his title - property law - ownership and title - burden of proof - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - S. 34 - Transfer of property Act, 1882, Ss. 7 & 8."
(12) ILR 2006 KAR 4048 - JONH D' SOUZA SINCE DECEASED BY L.R.'S V/s. VIJAYA BANK & OTHERS.
"Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Section 48
- A - Grant of occupancy rights - land is not an agricultural land, contention regarding - whether tenable in the absence of conversion - order - Held- the contention that the land is not agricultural land and therefore occupancy cannot be granted, is untenable- in the absence of conversion order, the claim that the land has lost its agricultural character is liable to be rejected."
19. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above cited judgments, let us examine the material on record. 33
OS.26958/2007
20. Admittedly, the land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village measuring 3 acres 32 guntas including 17 guntas of kharab land originally belonged to the joint family of Pattabhirama Reddy. Under Ex.P.86 Deed of Partition, Pattabhirama Reddy and his two brothers namely, Parthasarathy Reddy & Jayaram Reddy inter-alia partitioned the land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village. In the said partition, 38 guntas of land was fallen to the share of Parthasarathy Reddy, 1 acre of land each was fallen to the share of P.Jayaram Reddy & Pattabhirama Reddy. From the sketch prepared by the Court commissioner and other sketches produced by plaintiffs it is evident that, the boundaries of land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village is East - Land in Sy.No.109, West - Road and Land in Sy.No.123, North - Land in Sy.No.110 & South - Land in Sy.No.112 & 122. In Ex.P.86 partition deed, the above boundary of 3 acres 32 guntas of land was given to the 1 acre of land allotted to the share of 34 OS.26958/2007 Pattabhirama Reddy. Plaintiffs are claiming right over the suit property through Pattabhirama Reddy. Therefore, to identify the suit property, the location of 1 acre of land allotted to the share of Pattabhirama Reddy in Ex.P.86 Deed of Partition is to be established. In the written synopsis, plaintiffs fairly admitted that, the boundaries of 1 acre of land allotted to the share of Pattabhirama Reddy mentioned in Ex.P.86 Deed of Partition are not correct. Plaintiffs have not taken steps to examine any of the witnesses who had knowledge about Ex.P.86 Partition or seen Pattabhirama Reddy possessing and enjoying 1 acre of land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village allotted to his share. The learned counsel for defendants 2 & 3 taken into consideration the boundaries of 38 guntas of land allotted to the share of Parthasarathy Reddy, 1 acre of land allotted to the share of Jayaram Reddy, the location of 18 guntas of land acquired in Sy.No.111 for the formation of KIADB Road, the boundaries of 20 guntas of land sold by Parthasarathy Reddy 35 OS.26958/2007 under Ex.P.104 Sale Deed dated:19/09/1988, 1 acre of land sold by Jayaram Reddy under Ex.P.110 sale deed dated:18/08/1989, has made attempt to locate and identify 1 acre of land allotted to the share of Pattabhirama Reddy including 17 guntas of kharab land and 15 guntas of land which was not included while effecting partition of land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village. The location of the said 1 acre 32 guntas of land is shown in page No.4 of synopsis submitted by counsel for defendants 2 & 3 on 05/11/2020. plaintiffs have not seriously disputed the said sketch. A perusal of the said sketch would show that, the boundaries of 1 acre 32 guntas of land including 1 acre of land allotted to the share of Pattabhirama Reddy are East - Kundalahalli village road, West - KIADB road, North - Sy.No.110 & South - Sy.No.112.
21. Admittedly, under Ex.P.11 Sale Deed dated:28/08/1996 Pattabhirama Reddy sold 5½ guntas of land 36 OS.26958/2007 in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village to C.Srinivasa Reddy, 4 guntas of land to A.Narayana Reddy under Ex.P.13 Sale Deed dated:28/08/1996 and 5 guntas of land to J.Kodandarama Reddy under Ex.P.15 Sale Deed dated:28/08/1996. Having regard to the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds and the location of the said properties shown by plaintiffs in Ex.P.89 sketch it is evident that, 4 guntas of land purchased by A.Narayana Reddy under Ex.P.13 Sale deed situate in the northern portion of land in Sy.No.111, 5 guntas of land purchased by J.Kodandarama Reddy situate on the southern portion of land in Sy.No.111 and 5½ guntas of land purchased by C.Srinivasa Reddy situate in between the bits of lands purchased by A.Narayana Reddy & J.Kodandarama Reddy. In all the 3 sale deeds, the eastern boundary is shown as Land of P.Lokesh. In Ex.P.11 & 15 sale deeds, the western boundary is shown as Road. In Ex.P.13 Sale Deed, the western boundary is shown as remaining portion of land in Sy.No.111 and common 37 OS.26958/2007 passage. In Ex.P.11 sale deed made in favor of C.Srinivasa Reddy in respect of 5½ guntas of land which situate in between the lands sold to J.Kodandarama Reddy and A.Narayana Reddy, the Northern boundary is shown as the land of A.Narayana Reddy and common passage. DW1 in the cross examination at page No.19 has admitted the recitals of Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds. A perusal of Ex.P.26, 27 & 28 sale deeds would show that, Srinivasa Reddy, Narayana Reddy and Kodandarama Reddy have executed the said sale deeds in favor of Vaibhav Developers by mentioning the very same boundaries shown in Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds.
22. Plaintiffs contend that, Vaibhav Developers after purchasing the 3 bits of land under Ex.P.26, 27 & 28 sale deeds, made a compact block by consolidating the said 3 bits of land and sold the said compact block in favor of M/s.Sowparnika Projects under Ex.P.32 sale deed. In Ex.P.32 sale deed the 38 OS.26958/2007 boundaries of the compact block is shown as East - Property bearing Sy.No.112 of P.Lokesh, West - Road, portion of property in Sy.No.111 and common passage, North - Property bearing Sy.No.109 and South - Property bearing Sy.No.112. Plaintiffs contend that, they purchased the suit property from M/s.Sowparnika Projects under Ex.P.10 registered sale deed dated: 05/05/2005. In Ex.P.10 sale deed, the boundaries of the property is shown as, East - Property bearing Sy.No.112 of P.Lokesh, West - Road, North - Property bearing Sy.No.109 and South - Property bearing Sy.No.112. Thus, while executing Ex.P.10 Sale Deed, the Eastern boundary of the property is modified. By retaining road on the eastern side, a portion of property in Sy.No.111 and common passage are removed. Plaint is silent regarding alteration of Western boundary in Ex.P.10 sale deed.
23. A perusal of Ex.P.113 sale deed dated:26/08/1996 would show that, under the said sale deed Lokesh purchased 5½ 39 OS.26958/2007 guntas of land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village from Pattabhirama Reddy. Therefore the description of Eastern boundary shown in Ex.P.10 sale deed as Property bearing Sy.No.112 of P.Lokesh is wrong. PW1 has admitted the said fact in the cross examination at page No.24. PW1 has stated that, after he came to know about the mistake in mentioning the Eastern boundary of the property, steps was not taken for rectification.
24. In the above I have extracted the boundaries of a property shown in Ex.P.10 sale deed of plaintiffs. The contention of the defendants is that, plaintiffs by changing the boundaries of the property purchased by them, have filed the instant suit by giving an imaginary boundaries. To appreciate the said contention, the boundaries of Ex.P.10 sale deed and also the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule are extracted below:
40
OS.26958/2007 BOUNDARIES OF EX.P.10 BOUNDARIES SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED PLAINT SCHEDULE Property bearing Sy.No. EAST Property of Mr.P.Lokesh 112 of P.Lokesh WEST Road ITPL Road Property bearing Sy.No. NORTH Common Passage & Private Property 109 Property bearing Sy.No. SOUTH Private Property 112 Thus, on comparative reading of the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.10 sale deed and in the plaint schedule, it is clear that, the plaintiffs have changed the northern and southern boundaries of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, if the northern & southern boundaries of the property mentioned in Ex.P.10 sale deed are incorrect, they have to take steps for rectification. As I have already stated above, PW1 in the evidence has stated that, the plaintiffs after realizing the mistakes in Ex.P.10 sale deed have not taken steps to get deed of rectification. A perusal of the plaint would show that, it is not the contention of the plaintiffs that, the boundaries mentioned 41 OS.26958/2007 in Ex.P.10 sale deed are wrong. When such is the case, plaintiffs who are claiming right over the suit property on the basis of Ex.P.10 sale deed, cannot claim the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of suit property by changing the northern and southern boundary without stating any reason for the change of the boundaries.
25. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs during the course of arguments placing reliance on Commissioner's report marked at Ex.P.144 & Ex.P.89 Sketch has strenuously contended that, on the norther side of the suit property, a common passage is existing. He submits that, from the evidence on record, it is evident that, on the Eastern side of the suit property the property of Lokesh is situate, on the western ITPL (KIADB) road passes and on the Northern side, a common passage is situate. Thus plaintiffs proved the 3 boundaries of the suit property. Proof of 3 sides boundaries of property is sufficient to locate 42 OS.26958/2007 and identify the said property. He stated that, the Court commissioner in Ex.P.89 sketch has shown the location of the suit property by marking as "ABCDJIK". He submits that, the defendants have not filed objection to the commissioner report, hence the Court can safely rely upon the commissioner report to hold that, the plaintiffs proved the location of the suit property.
26. In the instant case, plaintiffs are placing reliance on Ex.P.10 sale deed to prove their title and possession. In the foregoing paras, I have extracted the boundaries of the property mentioned in Ex.P.10 sale deed. In Ex.P.10 sale deed, no where it is stated that, on the Northern side of the suit property, a common passage is existing.
27. PW1 in the cross examination at page No.71 has stated as under:
"ನ.ಪ.10 ರಲಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲಲಲ್ಲಿಲ್ಲೇಖಿತ ಸಸ್ವತತ್ತಿನ ಉತತ್ತಿರ ದಿಕಕ್ಕಿಗಲ ಸರಲಲ್ಲೇರ ನನ.111 ರ ಉಳಿಕಲ ಸಸ್ವತತತ್ತಿ ಬರತತತ್ತಿದಲ ಅನಥ ಹಲಲ್ಲೇಳಿದದ್ದಕಲಕ್ಕಿ ಸದರಿ ಸಸ್ವತತ್ತಿನ 43 OS.26958/2007 ಉತತ್ತಿರ ದಿಕಕ್ಕಿಗಲ ಸರಲಲ್ಲೇರ ನನ.111 ರಲಲ್ಲಿನ ಕಕಾಮನ್ ಪಕಾಪ್ಯಾಸಲಲ್ಲೇಜ್ ಮತತತ್ತಿ ಸರಲಲ್ಲೇರ ನನ.110 ರ ಸಸ್ವತತತ್ತಿ ಬರತತತ್ತಿದಲ. ಆದರಲ ಸದರಿ ದಕಾಖಲಲಯಲಲ್ಲಿ ಆ ಸಸ್ವತತ್ತಿನ ಉತತ್ತಿರ ದಿಕಕ್ಕಿಗಲ ಸರಲಲ್ಲೇರ ನನ.109 ರ ಸಸ್ವತತತ್ತಿ ಬರತತತ್ತಿದಲ ಅನಥ ತಪಕಾಪ್ಪಾಗಿ ಬರಲಯಲಕಾಗಿದಲ ಎನದತ ಸಕಾಕಕ್ಷಿದಕಾರರತ ಹಲಲ್ಲೇಳಳುತಕಾತ್ತಿರಲ."
28. Thus according to the plaintiffs, the Northern boundary of the property mentioned in Ex.P.10 Sale deed is incorrect. As I have already stated above, if the Northern boundary of the property mentioned in Ex.P.10 Sale deed is incorrect, the remedy available for the plaintiffs is to get a deed of rectification mentioning the correct boundary. Without getting a deed of rectification, plaintiffs who are placing reliance on Ex.P.10 sale deed to prove their title and possession, cannot lead evidence varying or contradicting the recitals of the said sale deed. Therefore the statement of PW1 that, the Northern boundary of the property shown in Ex.P.10 is incorrect 44 OS.26958/2007 and the correct boundary is common passage, cannot be countenanced in view of bar U/Sec.92 of Evidence Act.
29. In Ex.P.10 sale deed, the Southern boundary is shown as Sy.No.112. In the plaint schedule the southern boundary is shown as private property. Plaintiffs have not stated the survey number of the said private property. They have also not stated to whom, the said private property belongs. In Ex.P.114 sketch prepared by the Court commissioner, on the southern side of the property marked as ABCDJIK, the remaining portion of the land in Sy.No.111 is shown. Therefore from the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in his arguments and written synopsis, it is clear that, plaintiffs want to locate their property on the northern portion of Sy.No.111 by leaving a portion of land in Sy.No.111 on the southern side. As I have already stated above, in Ex.P.10 sale deed, the Southern boundary of the property purchased by plaintiffs is shown as 45 OS.26958/2007 Sy.No.112. PW1 in the cross examination at page no.52, para No.26 has stated as under:
"ನ.ಪ.11, 13 ಮತತತ್ತಿ 15 ನಲನಲ್ಲೇನದಕಾಯಿತ ಖರಿಲ್ಲೇದಿ ಪತತ್ರಗಳ ಪತ್ರಕಕಾರ ಅವುಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲಲಲ್ಲಿಲ್ಲೇಖಿತ 3 ಸಸ್ವತತತ್ತಿಗಳ ವಿಸತ್ತಿಲ್ಲೇರರವನತನ್ನು ಒಟತಟ್ಟುಗನಡಿಸದಕಾಗ ಸದರಿ ಒಟತಟ್ಟು ವಿಸತ್ತಿಲ್ಲೇರರದ ದಕಕ್ಷಿರ ದಿಕಕ್ಕಿನಲಲ್ಲಿ ಸರಲಲ್ಲೇರ ನನ.112 ಬರತತತ್ತಿದಲ ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಜ. ಸದರಿ 3 ಸಸ್ವತತತ್ತಿಗಳಳು ಕತ್ರಮಬದದ್ಧರಕಾಗಿ ಒನದಕಲನಕ್ಕಿನದತ ಅನಟಿಕಲನನಡತ ಇರಲ. ನಕಾನತ ಈಗ ನ.ಪ.26 ರಿನದ 28 ಇವುಗಳನತನ್ನು ನಲನಲ್ಲೇಡಿದಲನತ, ಅವುಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲಲಲ್ಲಿಲ್ಲೇಖಿತ ಒಟತಟ್ಟು ವಿಸತ್ತಿಲ್ಲೇರರದ ಸಸ್ವತತ್ತಿನ ದಕಕ್ಷಿರಕಲಕ್ಕಿ ಸರಲಲ್ಲೇರ ನನ.112 ಬರತತತ್ತಿದಲ ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಜ. ನ.ಪ.32 ರಲಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲಲಲ್ಲಿಲ್ಲೇಖಿತ ಸಸ್ವತತ್ತಿನ ದಕಕ್ಷಿರಕತಕ್ಕಿ ಕನಡ ಸರಲಲ್ಲೇರ ನನ.111 ರ ಕಲನನಲಯ ಭಕಾಗದ ಸಸ್ವತಕಾತ್ತಿಗಿದತದ್ದ ಅದರ ಸರಲಲ್ಲೇರ ನನ.112 ಕಲಕ್ಕಿ ಲಗತಕಾತ್ತಿಗಿರತತತ್ತಿದಲ. ನ.ಪ.10 ನತನ್ನು ನಕಾನತ ಈ ನಲನಲ್ಲೇಡಿದಲನತ, ಅದತ ರಕಾದಿಗಳಿಗಲ ಮಕಾಡಿಕಲನಡಲಕಾದನತಹ ನಲನಲ್ಲೇನದಕಾಯಿತ ಖರಿಲ್ಲೇದಿ ಪತತ್ರರಕಾಗಿದತದ್ದ ಅದರಲಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲಲಲ್ಲಿಲ್ಲೇಖಿತ ಸಸ್ವತತ್ತಿನ ದಕಕ್ಷಿರ ದಿಕಕ್ಕಿಗನ ಕನಡ ಸರಲಲ್ಲೇರ ನನ.112 ಬರತತತ್ತಿದಲ ಎನದತ ತಲನಲ್ಲೇರಿಸಲಕಾಗಿದಲ ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಜ."
30. PW1 in the cross examination at page No.54, para No.27 has stated as under:
46
OS.26958/2007 "ಈಗ ತಲನಲ್ಲೇರಿಸದ ನ.ಪ.113 ನತನ್ನು ನಲನಲ್ಲೇಡಿದಲನತ. ಅದರಲಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲಲಲ್ಲಿಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಲಕಾದ ಷಲಡನಪ್ಯಾಲ್ ಸಸ್ವತತ್ತಿನ ದಕಕ್ಷಿರಕಲಕ್ಕಿ ಸರಲಲ್ಲೇರ ನನ.112 ಎನದತ ನಮನದಿಸಲಕಾಗಿದಲ ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಜ."
31. The above excerpted statements of PW1 are on the basis of the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.10 & 113 sale deeds. Thus from the above statements of PW1 and the boundaries stated in Ex.P.10 sale deed, it is clear that, the Southern boundary of the property purchased by plaintiffs is Sy.No.112. Thus on careful evaluation of the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.10 sale deed and the facts stated by PW1 and the boundaries stated in the plaint schedule, it is clear that, plaintiffs by changing the boundaries of their property, claiming title and possession over the property which is not described in Ex.P.10 sale deed.
32. A perusal of Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds would show that, under the said sale deeds, a bits of agricultural land in Sy.No.111, measuring 4 guntas, 5 guntas, 5 ½ guntas were sold. 47
OS.26958/2007 If a portion of an agricultural land is sold, the survey authorities will effect phody and show that portion of land by giving sub-survey number. Plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that, after effecting partition of land in Sy.No.111 by Pattabhirama Reddy and his brothers under Ex.P.86 Deed of Partition, the said land was phoded by measuring and demarcating the portions of land allotted to them and the remaining portion of 34 guntas including 17 guntas of kharab land. Plaintiffs have also not produced any documents to show that, Srinivasa Reddy, Narayana Reddy and Kodandarama Reddy, after purchase of 4 guntas, 5 guntas & 5½ guntas of land, the survey authorities effected phody showing the location of the above bits of land in Sy.No.111. Plaintiffs contend that, Vaibhav Developers after purchasing the 3 bits of land from Srinivasa Reddy, Narayana Reddy and Kodandarama Reddy under Ex.P.26, 27 & 28 sale deeds, by consolidating the said 3 bits of land made as a compact block. After making compact 48 OS.26958/2007 block also, no attempt was made to effect the phody of the said compact block of 14½ guntas of land in Sy.No.111. If an agricultural land is partitioned by making divisions or a portion of agricultural land is alienated or transferred, the revenue authorities will effect mutation, make entry in the RTC, the survey authorities will effect phody and in survey records like Tippani, Akarbandh, the location of the said portions will be shown by drawing the sketch to the scale. The phody will be effected after measurement of the land. The boundary stones will be fixed in the boundaries. There is no evidence to show that, all the above procedures contemplated in the Land Revenue Act, Rules and Survey Manual have been followed after effecting division of the land in Sy.No.111 by making Ex.P.86 Deed of Partition or after making Ex.P.10, 11, 13, 15, 26, 27, 28 & 32 sale deeds. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submit that, in view of the property situate within the town limits of Mahadevapura and Bengaluru city, the katha was effected in 49 OS.26958/2007 the TMC of Mahadevapura and then in BBMP. The law will not permit, effecting katha of an agricultural land in TMC, CMC or BBMP without converting to the non-agricultural purpose. Therefore the Municipal and BBMP records of the suit property will not have any legal sanctity. Be it as it may, those documents will not help to locate and identify the property of plaintiff.
33. The standard unit of measurement of an agricultural land is acre and gunta. The standard unit for measuring a non-agricultural property is feet, meter, etc. Usually in a document of title pertaining to agricultural land, the measurement of the property will be not shown either in feet or meter. The survey authorities will measure the said property by using chains. In Ex.P.10, 11, 13, 15, 26, 27, 28 & 32 sale deeds, the measurement of the property from East to West & North to 50 OS.26958/2007 South is not shown. PW1 in the cross examination at page No.32 has stated as under:
"ದಕಾರಕಾ ಸಸ್ವತತ್ತಿನ ಒಟತಟ್ಟು ವಿಸತ್ತಿಲ್ಲೇರರ 15790 ಚದತರಡಿ ಆಗಿರತತತ್ತಿದಲ. ಸದರಿ ಸಸ್ವತತತ್ತಿ ಪೂವರ-ಪಶಶ್ಚಿಮರಕಾಗಿ ಮತತತ್ತಿ ಉತತ್ತಿರ-
ದಕಕ್ಷಿರರಕಾಗಿ ಅದಲಲ್ಲೇ ರಿಲ್ಲೇತ ಪೂವರ-ಉತತ್ತಿರ ಹಕಾಗನ ಪಶಶ್ಚಿಮ-ದಕಕ್ಷಿರ ದಿಕತಕ್ಕಿಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ಎಷತಟ್ಟು ನಗದಿತರಕಾಗಿ ವಿಸತ್ತಿಲ್ಲೇರರ ಬರತತತ್ತಿದಲ ಎನದತ ನನಗಲ ಹಲಲ್ಲೇಳಲತ ಸಕಾಧಪ್ಯಾವಿಲಲ್ಲಿ."
34. From the above excerpted statement of PW1, it is clear that, he is not in a position to say, what is the measurement of suit property from East to West & North to South to draw a sketch showing its topography. Therefore due to want of measurement of property from East to West & North to South or the measurement of East, West, North and South sides, a perfect sketch cannot be prepared to give a shape to the 15790 sq.ft of property as stated by PW1 or 15791 sq.ft of property shown in the plaint schedule. Therefore, there is considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants 2 & 3 that, due to not effecting phody of 51 OS.26958/2007 agricultural lands sold and purchased under Ex.P.10, 11, 13, 15, 26, 27, 28 & 32 sale deeds and due to want of material regarding the measurement of 15791 or 15790 sq.ft of land from East to West & North to South or the measurement of East, West, North, South sides it is not possible to prepare a sketch cannot be prepared to identify the property. In addition to that, the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are not the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.10 sale deed. From the facts stated by PW1 and from the boundaries shown in Ex.P.89 sketch & 144 sketch of the court commissioner would show that, the said sketches were prepared without taken into consideration the boundaries in the sale deeds. A perusal of Commissioner report would show that, the court commissioner has measured the property as per the identification made by the parties and not the basis of measurement and boundaries mentioned in sale deeds. When the commission was issued to measure a property, he being the court officer has to measure the property 52 OS.26958/2007 as per the description made in the property records and not as per the identification made by the parties. A report of a Court commissioner prepared as per the instructions and identification of property made by parties without taking into consideration the boundaries and measurement shown in sale deeds, is of no assistance to the Court to elucidate the dispute in controversy. In Ex.P.89 & 144 sketches, the location of the suit property is shown on the northern portion of the land in Sy.No.111 by leaving a portion of land in Sy.No.111 in the souther portion. But from the facts stated by PW1 and the boundaries mentioned in all the sale deeds, it is clear that, the southern boundary of the property sold under Ex.P.15, P.28, P.32 and P.10 sale deeds is Sy.No.112. Therefore Ex.P.89 & 144 sketches which are not in consonance with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds cannot be relied upon to identify the suit property. In view of my afore said findings, I hold that, plaintiffs failed to prove that, under Ex.P.10 sale deed, they 53 OS.26958/2007 purchased the suit property situate within the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule. When the plaintiffs failed to prove their title over the suit property, their contention that, they are in possession of the suit property, cannot be believed.
35. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has strenuously contended that, from the evidence on record would show that, Pattabhirama Reddy & his family members have sold all the properties fallen to their share. Therefore defendants 1 to 3, the legal heirs of Pattabhirama Reddy have no manner of any right, title, interest or possession over any portion of land in Sy.No.111. Therefore the contention of defendants that, Pattabhirama Reddy has sold only 25½ guntas of land and rest of the land is in possession and enjoyment of defendants 1 to 3 cannot be accepted.
36. In the instant case, there is no dispute that, under Ex.P.86 Deed of Partition, one acre of land was allotted to the 54 OS.26958/2007 share of Pattabhirama Reddy. He sold 2 guntas of land to Narasimha Reddy under Ex.P.112 sale deed dated:01/10/1992, 3 ½ guntas of land to Smt.H.N.Rani under Ex.P.111 sale deed dated:25/04/1994, 5½ guntas of land to P.Lokesh under Ex.P.113 sale deed dated:28/08/1996, 5½ guntas of land to C.Srinivasa Reddy under Ex.P.11 sale deed dated:28/08/1996, 4 guntas of land to Narayana Reddy under Ex.P.13 sale deed dated:28/08/1996 & 5 guntas of land to J.Kodandarama Reddy under Ex.P.15 sale deed dated:28/08/1996. Thus in total, Pattabhirama Reddy has sold 25½ guntas of land. A perusal of Ex.P.90 preliminary notification, Ex.P.91 final notification, Ex.P.92 authorization letter & Ex.P.93 voucher for payment of award would show that, 18 guntas of land acquired by Government for the formation of KIADB Road belonged to Parthasarathy Reddy. Therefore the contention of plaintiffs that, Pattabhirama Reddy during his lifetime has sold all the property fallen to his share, cannot be accepted. 55
OS.26958/2007
37. A perusal of Ex.P.104 to 109 sale deeds and Ex.P.90 & 91 preliminary and final notification for the acquisition of 18 guntas of land would show that, Parthasarathy Reddy and his son Gopala Reddy have sold 1 acre and ½ guntas of land under Ex.P.104 to 109 sale deeds and in addition to that, they received compensation in respect of 18 guntas of land acquired for the formation of KIADB Road. 18 guntas of land was acquired in the year 1976. On 18/05/1987 under Ex.P.109 sale deed H.P.Gopala Reddy, S/o.Parthasarathy Reddy has sold 3 guntas of land in favor of P.Muralidhara. On 09/09/1988 H.P.Gopala Reddy, S/o.Parthasarathy Reddy has sold 20 guntas of land by execution Ex.P.104 sale deed. After execution of Ex.P.104 & 109 sale deeds and acquisition of 18 guntas of land for formation of KIADB Road, Parthasarathy Reddy and his children would not have any land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village. Nevertheless, H.P.Gopala Reddy, S/o.Parthasarathy Reddy has 56 OS.26958/2007 executed Ex.P.105 sale deed dated:28/04/1994 in respect of 11 guntas of land in favor of P.Muralidhar, Ex.P.106 sale deed dated:05/10/1999 in respect of 2 guntas of land in favor of Raja Reddy, Ex.P.107 sale deed dated:14/08/2000 in respect of 1½ guntas of land in favor of Chandrashekar and Ex.P.108 sale deed in respect of 3.3 guntas of land in favor of K.Rama Murthy. Ex.P.106, 107 & 108 sale deeds were executed after Pattabhirama Reddy executed Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds dated:28/08/1996.
38. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submit that, in view of Parthasarathy Reddy & his sons H.P.Gopala Reddy and H.P.Ramesh sold more land than fallen to their share, defendants 1 to 3, the legal heirs of Pattabhirama Reddy have to claim right over the said excess land which Parthasarathy Reddy and his sons have alienated. He submits that, defendants 1 to 3 without taking legal steps challenging the sale 57 OS.26958/2007 deeds of excess land executed by Parthasarathy Reddy & his sons, are interfering with plaintiffs' possession & enjoyment of suit property which they purchased for valid consideration.
39. The learned counsel for the defendants 2 & 3 submits that, from Ex.P.89 sketch would show that, the excess portion of land in Sy.No.111 which Parthasarathy Reddy & his sons have sold under Ex.P.105 to Ex.P.108 & other sale deeds situate in the Southern portion of land in Sy.No.111 of Kundalahalli village. From Ex.P.10 sale deed would show that, plaintiffs purchased the land in Sy.No.111 up to the end of the southern boundary. After execution of Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds, if the persons who purchased bits of land in Sy.No.111 from H.P.Gopala Reddy, H.P.Ramesh, the sons of Parthasarathy Reddy, took possession and put up construction, the purchasers of Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds or the subsequent purchasers i.e. Vaibhav Developers, Sowparnika Projects and the 58 OS.26958/2007 plaintiffs have to take steps against the persons who are occupying the said southern portion of land in Sy.No.111.
40. In the foregoing paras I have opined that, from the material on record would show that, Pattabhirama Reddy has sold only 25½ guntas of land in Sy.No.111 and he retained the remaining 14½ guntas of land in 1 acre of land which was fallen to his share under Ex.P.86 Deed of partition. In addition to that, he was having interest in the remaining 34 guntas of land including 17 guntas of kharab land in Sy.No.111. After execution of Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds by Pattabhirama Reddy, if the survey authorities would have effected phodi, then it would be easy for the Court to say, where the said portions of land situate in Sy.No.111 and who has to take steps against the persons in whose favor H.P.Gopala Reddy & H.P.Ramesh, the sons of Parthasarathy Reddy executed sale deeds by alienating property in excess to the property fallen to the share of 59 OS.26958/2007 Parthasarathy Reddy. In view of the portions of land sold under Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deeds are not phoded and plotted and the plaintiffs also failed to prove the location of the said portions of land either prior to consolidation or after consolidation, the Court is unable to give finding regarding which portions of land in Sy.No.111 was sold by Pattabhirama Reddy under Ex.P.11, 13 & 15 sale deed and after execution of the said sale deeds, which portion of land was left to him in the said survey number. Defendants 1 to 3 contend that, they converted 18 guntas of land left behind by Pattabhirama Reddy in Sy.No.111 for non-agricultural purpose. Ex.D.1 is the Order of Conversion. Challenging the said Order of conversion, plaintiffs filed Regular Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it is pending for consideration. Therefore there is no clarity regarding which portion of land Pattabhirama Reddy has alienated in Sy.No.111 and which portion of land was retained by him. Be it as it may, in the instant case, the point for 60 OS.26958/2007 consideration is not that, who has to take steps against the persons to whom, H.P.Gopala Reddy & H.P.Ramesh, Sons of Parthasarathy Reddy executed sale deeds by alienating property in excess to the property fallen to the share of Parthasarathy Reddy. The point for consideration is, which portion of land in Sy.No.111 was purchased by plaintiffs under Ex.P.10 sale deed and their predecessors in title under Ex.P.11, 13, 15, 26, 27, 28 & 32 sale deeds. Plaintiffs failed to prove the location of the property shown in the said sale deeds. When such is the case, the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that, defendants 1 to 3 - the legal heirs of Pattabhirama Reddy have to take necessary steps against the persons who purchased the property from H.P.Gopala Reddy & H.P.Ramesh, Sons of Parthasarathy Reddy in excess to the property fallen to the share of Parthasarathy Reddy and they cannot interfere with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property, cannot be accepted in view of plaintiffs failed to prove the location 61 OS.26958/2007 and identity of the property purchased by them under Ex.P.10 sale deed and their predecessors in title under Ex.P.11, 13, 15, 26, 27, 28 & 32 sale deeds. In view of my aforesaid findings, the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs regarding possession follows title are of no assistance to plaintiffs in view of they failed to prove the location and identity of their property. In view of my finding that, the Court commissioner has not measured the property having regard to the measurement and boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds and Ex.P.144 sketch prepared by him is not in consonance with the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.10 sale deed, the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs regarding the value of the commissioner report are not applicable to the case on hand.
41. It is settled principle of law that, plaintiff who approached the court to get the relief of declaration and injunction, has to prove his case by producing cogent and 62 OS.26958/2007 convincing evidence. In other words, he has to stand on his own legs. He cannot succeed on the basis of weakness of the defendant's case.
42. A perusal of Ex.D.6 & 7, Ex.P.82 certified copy of the plaint of OS.No.3283/2008 would show that, defendant No.4 as attorney holder of defendants 1 to 3 has filed the above suit, W.P.No.1031/2010, MFA.No.7371/2008 and 8876/2008. DW1 has stated that, defendants 1 to 3 have not appointed defendant No.4 as agent/attorney and he by creating documents has filed the above W.P.No.1031/2010, MFA.No.7371/2008 & 8876/2008 and OS.3283/2008. In the instant case, whether defendants 1 to 3 have appointed defendant No.4 as their agent/attorney is not a point for consideration. Therefore there is no necessity for the Court to give finding on the said point. Therefore the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs regarding fraud 63 OS.26958/2007 are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and they are of no assistance to plaintiffs to prove their case.
43. The counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that, DW1 in the evidence has stated that, 3 rd defendant has not filed written statement in this case and she (DW1) has not adopted the said written statement, therefore the Court has to consider that, defendants 2 & 3 have not filed written statement.
44. A witness having no knowledge of Court procedure or experience in litigation, would sometime deny even his vakalath, pleadings and the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. Only on the basis of a statement of a witness that, he has not instructed the counsel to file written statement or affidavit of his examination in chief, is not sufficient to ignore the pleadings & evidence on record. The said pleadings and evidence which are very much in record has to be considered taken into consideration the totality of the material available 64 OS.26958/2007 on record. In addition to that, as I have already stated above, plaintiffs have to prove their case by leading cogent evidence. In the instant case, even if the written statement, evidence of DW1 and the documents produced by defendants are kept aside and appreciated only the oral and documentary evidence lead by plaintiffs, it will not prove that, under Ex.P.10 sale deed, plaintiffs purchased the property situated within the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule and therefore they are the owners and in possession of the said property. In view of my aforesaid findings, I hold that, the rulings cited by plaintiffs are of no assistance to them to establish their contention that, they are the owners and in possession of the suit property which is not described in Ex.P.10 sale deed or the property described in the plaint schedule, is the property purchased by them under Ex.P.10 sale deed. In view of my afore said findings, I hold that, plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit 65 OS.26958/2007 property. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 & Addl. Issue No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
45. ISSUE NO.2: In view of my finding on Issue No.1 in Negative, Issue No.2 is to be answered in Negative. Accordingly I answer Issue No.2 in the NEGATIVE.
46. ADDL. ISSUE NO.2: plaintiffs have initially filed the instant suit for the relief of injunction. By amendment, they inserted the relief of declaration. After amendment of plaint, adding the relief of declaration, plaintiffs filed revised valuation slip on 23/11/2011. A perusal of the same would show that, plaintiffs valued the suit U/Sec.24(B) of KCF & SV Act and paid Court fee of Rs.1,33,125/- by stating that, the value of the suit property is Rs.26,00,000/-. DW1 in the evidence has not stated anything regarding the market value of the suit property. In the cross examination of PW1, no attempt was made to elicit that, the market value of the suit property stated in the revised 66 OS.26958/2007 valuation slip is not correct. In the written synopsis submitted by the learned counsel for defendants 2 & 3 nothing has been stated about valuation. Therefore having regard to the valuation made by plaintiffs, the court fee paid is sufficient. In view of the above, I answer Addl. Issue No.2 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
47. ISSUE NO.3: Plaintiffs have filed the instant suit through their attorney holder. Along with the suit, the attorney holder of the plaintiffs produced Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney dated:06/10/2007 executed by plaintiffs 1 & 2 and Ex.P.2 Power of Attorney dated:08/10/2007 executed by 3 rd plaintiff. It is needless to say that, an attorney holder is having right to deal with the property of his principal in respect of which property, an authority was given to him. A perusal of Ex.P.1 & 2 would show that, plaintiffs have given authority to PW1 to file a suit in respect of property situate within the boundaries mentioned 67 OS.26958/2007 in Ex.P.10 sale deed. The power of attorney by exceeding his powers has filed the instant suit by changing the boundaries of the property. After realizing the said mistake, to cure it, PW1 has produced Ex.P.85 Power of Attorney dated:25/01/2016 executed by 3rd plaintiff. In Ex.P.85 Power of Attorney, it is stated that, the 3rd plaintiff authorized PW1 to file the suit in respect of property situate within the boundaries stated in the plaint schedule. In Ex.P.85 Power of Attorney, the acts of PW1 made on the basis of Ex.P.2 Power of Attorney were ratified. PW1 has not produced power of attorney executed by plaintiffs 1 & 2 authorizing him to file the suit in respect of a property situate within boundaries stated in the plaint schedule. In view of my afore said findings, the rulings cited by the learned counsel for plaintiffs regarding right of attorney holder and the effect of ratification are of no assistance to plaintiffs. Be it as it may, in view of my finding that, plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the property described in the 68 OS.26958/2007 plaint schedule, they are not entitled for the relief of declaration and injunction. In view of my reasons and findings on above issues, I pass the following:
ORDER Plaintiffs suit is dismissed.
No order as to Costs.
****** (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 nd day of December 2020) (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) C/C. IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 21) ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1 G.GOPAL REDDY
69
OS.26958/2007
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 & 2 Power of Attorneys dated:06.10.2007 & 8.10.2007 Ex.P.3 Property tax register dated:27.07.2005 Ex .P.4 Certificate issued by BBMP dated:12.09.2007 Ex.P.5 Property extract dated:11-09-2007 Ex.P.6 to 8 Tax paid receipts Ex.P.9 Estimate and sanction letter Ex.P.10 Sale deed dated: 5.5.2005 Ex.P.11 Sale deed dated: 28.08.1996 Ex.P. 12 Mutation register Ex.P.13 Sale deed dated:28.08.1996 Ex.P.14 Mutation register extract Ex.P.15 Sale deed dated:28.08.1996 Ex.P.16 Mutation register extract Ex.P.17 Khata extract Ex.P.18,21&24 Tax paid receipts Ex.P.19,25 Endorsements Ex.P.20,23&30 Khata extracts
Ex.P. 26to 28 3 Sale deeds dated:7.6.2002 Ex.P. 29&31 Tax paid receipts Ex.P. 32 Sale deed dated:18-02-2005 Ex.P. 33 Property tax register Ex.P. 34 Paper publication notice Ex.P. 35 Reply 70 OS.26958/2007 Ex.P. 36 Copy of the complaint Ex.P. 37 to 78 Certified copies of sale deeds Ex.P. 79 Death certificate of Pattabhirama Reddy Ex.P. 80 Complaint Ex.P. 81 Copy of complaint Ex.P. 82 Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No. 3283/2008 Ex.P. 83 Xerox copy of photo Ex.P. 84 Copy of complaint Ex.P. 85 Power of attorney executed by Mahindra reddy in favor of M. Dayasagar Reddy Ex.P. 86 Certified copy of partition deed & Typed copy of 86(a) partition deed Ex.P. 87 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P. 88 Genealogical tree Ex.P. 89 Rough sketch Ex.P. 90 Preliminary notification Ex.P. 91 Final notification Ex.P. 92 Authorisation letter Ex.P. 93 Voucher for payment of award Ex.P. 94to113 Certified copies of the sale deeds Ex.P. 114 Khata extract Ex.P. 115to 129 Pahanies Ex.P. 130 to 134 Khata register khatas Ex.P. 135to143 Khata extracts Ex.P. 144 Commissioner's report 71 OS.26958/2007 Ex.P. 145&146 Photographs 145(a) &146(a) Negatives Ex.P.147-151 Photographs 147(a)-151(a) Negatives Ex.P. 152-154 Photographs Ex.P. 155 &156 CD and certificate Ex.P. 157-162 Colour photographs 157(a)to 162(a) Negatives Ex.P. 163 Certified copy of sale deed dated:03.11.2006 Ex.P. 164 Certified copy of Misc.petition No.56/2018 in RA.No.425/2008 Ex.P. 165&166 Certified copy of plaint and written statement filed in O.S. No. 25896/2009 Ex.P. 167 to 172 Photographs and CD Ex.P. 173 Certified copy of I.A filed in O.S. No. 3283/2008 Ex.P. 174 Certified copy of order sheet Ex.P. 175 Vakalath for defendant 1 to 3 LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS DW1 SMT.KAVITHA.J LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D. 1 Conversion order
Ex.D. 2 Certified copy of RA.No.425/2008
Ex.D. 3 Certified copy of Vakalath
72
OS.26958/2007
Ex.D. 4 Certified copy of the Order sheet in RA.425/2008
Ex.D. 5 Certified copy of order passed in Bhoomapana
R.P.No.2/2008-09
Ex.D. 6 Certified copy of order in WP.No.1031/2010
Ex.D. 7 Certified copy of order passed in
MFA.No.7371/2008 C/w MFA.NO.8876/2008 Ex.D. 8 Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.D. 9 Property document Ex.D. 10 9 RTCs Ex.D. 11 Mutation register extract (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) C/C. IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 21)