Smt. Reena Hegde vs M.R. Kantharaj on 31 January, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

Smt. Reena Hegde vs M.R. Kantharaj on 31 January, 2020

C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)

TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2020.
PRESENT:
Sri MALLANAGOUDA, B.Com.,LL.M.,
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.1885/2011
clubbed with
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4605/2012
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4882/2012
ORIGINAL SUIT No.8280/2010
ORIGINAL SUIT No.5049/2013
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4607/2012, and
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4442/2012
-o-
ORIGINAL SUIT No.1885/2011
PLAINTIFF : Smt. Reena Hegde,
D/o. S.M. Hegde,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at No.13,
Chakravarthy Lay-out, I
Main, Palace Cross Road,
Bangalore - 560 020, by
her power of attorney
holder Smt. Kanthi Hegde,
wife of S.M. Hegde.
(By Sri S.M. Hegde Kadave,
Advocate)

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
-2- O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

-VERSUS-

DEFENDANTS : 1. M.R. Kantharaj,
S/o. M.R. Rajanna,
Aged about 32 years,
Resident of Madalur village,
Kanakatte hobli, Arasikere
taluk, Hassan district.
2. M/s. MARS BUILDERS
Partnership Firm,
represented by its Partner
Suresh Kumar Jain, No.53,
Ground Floor, "TILOK",
Khadhi Commission HBCS,
Vivekananda Nagar,
Kathriguppe Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(Defendant No.1 by Sri H.T.J.,
Advocate)
(Defendant No.2 by Sri K.R.C.,
Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 10-03-2011
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Declaration and Injunction.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 10-11-2016
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 31-01-2020
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 8 years,10 months, 21 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
-3- O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

ORIGINAL SUIT No.4605/2012
PLAINTIFF : Harsha Hegde,
S/o. S.M. Hegde,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.13,
Chakravarthy Lay-out, I
Main, Palace Cross Road,
Bangalore - 560 020, by
her power of attorney
holder Smt. Kanthi Hegde,
wife of S.M. Hegde.
(By Sri S.M. Hegde Kadave,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. M.R. Kantharaj,
S/o. M.R. Rajanna,
Aged about 32 years,
Resident of Madalur village,
Kanakatte hobli, Arasikere
taluk, Hassan district.
2. M/s. MARS BUILDERS
Partnership Firm,
represented by its Partner
Suresh Kumar Jain, No.53,
Ground Floor, "TILOK",
Khadhi Commission HBCS,
Vivekananda Nagar,
Kathriguppe Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(Defendant No.1 by Sri H.T.J.,
Advocate)
(Defendant No.2 by Sri K.R.C.,
Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 29-06-2012
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Declaration and Injunction.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
-4- O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

Date of the commencement : 10-11-2016
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 31-01-2020
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 7 years, 5 months, 2 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4882/2012
PLAINTIFF : Harsha Hegde,
S/o. S.M. Hegde,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.13,
Chakravarthy Lay-out, I
Main, Palace Cross Road,
Bangalore - 560 020, by
her power of attorney
holder Smt. Kanthi Hegde,
wife of S.M. Hegde.
(By Sri S.M. Hegde Kadave,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. M.R. Kantharaj,
S/o. M.R. Rajanna,
Aged about 32 years,
Resident of Madalur village,
Kanakatte hobli, Arasikere
taluk, Hassan district.
2. M/s. MARS BUILDERS
Partnership Firm,
represented by its Partner
Suresh Kumar Jain, No.53,
Ground Floor, "TILOK",
Khadhi Commission HBCS,
Vivekananda Nagar,
Kathriguppe Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(Defendant No.1 by Sri H.T.J.,
Advocate)

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
-5- O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

(Defendant No.2 by Sri K.R.C.,
Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 09-07-2012
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Injunction suit.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 10-11-2016
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 31-01-2020
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 7 years, 6 months, 22 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

ORIGINAL SUIT No.8280/2010
PLAINTIFF : Smt. Kanthi Hegde,
W/o. S.M. Hegde,
Aged about 59 years,
Residing at No.13,
Chakravarthy Lay-out, I
Main, Palace Cross Road,
Bangalore - 560 020, by
her power of attorney
holder Smt. Kanthi Hegde,
wife of S.M. Hegde.
(By Sri S.M. Hegde Kadave,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. M.R. Kantharaj,
S/o. M.R. Rajanna,
Aged about 32 years,
Resident of Madalur village,
Kanakatte hobli, Arasikere
taluk, Hassan district.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
-6- O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

2. M/s. MARS BUILDERS
Partnership Firm,
represented by its Partner
Suresh Kumar Jain, No.53,
Ground Floor, "TILOK",
Khadhi Commission HBCS,
Vivekananda Nagar,
Kathriguppe Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(Defendant No.1 by Sri H.T.J.,
Advocate)
(Defendant No.2 by Sri K.R.C.,
Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 29-11-2010
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Declaration and Injunction.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 10-11-2016
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 31-01-2020
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 9 years, 2 months, 2 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

ORIGINAL SUIT No.5049/2013
PLAINTIFF : Harsha Hegde,
S/o. S.M. Hegde,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.13,
Chakravarthy Lay-out, I
Main, Palace Cross Road,
Bangalore - 560 020, by
her power of attorney
holder Smt. Kanthi Hegde,
wife of S.M. Hegde, Aged
about 61 years, Residing at

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
-7- O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

No.13, Chakravarthy
Layout, I Main, Palace
Cross Road, Bangalore -20.
(By Sri S.M. Hegde Kadave,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. M.R. Kantharaj,
S/o. M.R. Rajanna,
Aged about 32 years,
Resident of Madalur village,
Kanakatte hobli, Arasikere
taluk, Hassan district.
2. M/s. MARS BUILDERS
Partnership Firm,
represented by its Partner
Suresh Kumar Jain, No.53,
Ground Floor, "TILOK",
Khadhi Commission HBCS,
Vivekananda Nagar,
Kathriguppe Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(Defendant No.1 by Sri H.T.J.,
Advocate)
(Defendant No.2 by Sri K.R.C.,
Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 12-07-2013
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Declaration and Injunction.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 10-11-2016
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 31-01-2020
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 6 years, 6 months, 19 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
-8- O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

ORIGINAL SUIT No.4607/2012
PLAINTIFF : Smt. Rashmi Hegde,
D/o. S.M. Hegde,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at No.13,
Chakravarthy Lay-out, I
Main, Palace Cross Road,
Bangalore - 560 020, by
her power of attorney
holder Smt. Kanthi Hegde,
wife of S.M. Hegde.
(By Sri S.M. Hegde Kadave,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. M.R. Kantharaj,
S/o. M.R. Rajanna,
Aged about 32 years,
Resident of Madalur village,
Kanakatte hobli, Arasikere
taluk, Hassan district.
2. M/s. MARS BUILDERS
Partnership Firm,
represented by its Partner
Suresh Kumar Jain, No.53,
Ground Floor, "TILOK",
Khadhi Commission HBCS,
Vivekananda Nagar,
Kathriguppe Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(Defendant No.1 by Sri H.T.J.,
Advocate)
(Defendant No.2 by Sri K.R.C.,
Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 29-06-2012
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Declaration and Injunction.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
-9- O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

Date of the commencement : 10-11-2016
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 31-01-2020
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 7 years, 7 months, 2 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4442/2012
PLAINTIFF : M.S. Srinivasa,
S/o. M.N. Seshadri,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at No.85,
Varadarajaswamy Nilaya,
th
10 Main, Kalappa Block,
Srinagar, Bangalore - 50.
(By Sri S.M. Hegde Kadave,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. M.R. Kantharaj,
S/o. M.R. Rajanna,
Aged about 32 years,
Resident of Madalur village,
Kanakatte hobli, Arasikere
taluk, Hassan district.
2. M/s. MARS BUILDERS
Partnership Firm,
represented by its Partner
Suresh Kumar Jain, No.53,
Ground Floor, "TILOK",
Khadhi Commission HBCS,
Vivekananda Nagar,
Kathriguppe Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(Defendant No.1 by Sri H.T.J.,
Advocate)
(Defendant No.2 by Sri K.R.C.,
Advocate)

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 10 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 23-06-2012
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Declaration and Injunction.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 10-11-2016
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 31-01-2020
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 7 years, 7 months, 8 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

(MALLANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
An&/- Bengaluru.

COMMON JUDGMENT

In all the these suits, suit properties are part of

the same Survey number and defendants are one and

the same. Hence, common evidence has been recorded

in O.S. No.1885/2011 in respect of all the suits and it is

decided to write common judgment in respect of all the

seven suits.

2. Suit in O.S. No.1885/2011 is filed seeking

declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 11 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

30.9.2009 executed by Smt. Lakshmidevamma is null

and void and for permanent injunction to restrain the

defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession

over the suit schedule property bearing site No.430

formed by Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative

Society Limited in the V Phase of the Vishwabharathi

Housing Complex Lay-out, Sachidananda Nagar,

Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk

measuring East-West : 40 feet and North-South : 59'.6".

3. O.S. No.8280/2010 is filed by the plaintiff viz.,

Smt. Kanthi Hegde seeking declaration to the effect that

sale deed dated 30.9.2009 executed by Smt.

Lakshmidevamma and others is null and void and for

permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from

interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit

schedule property bearing site No.431 formed by

Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society

Limited in the V Phase of Vishwabharathi Housing

Complex Lay-out, Sachidananda Nagar,

Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 12 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

measuring East-West : 40 feet and North-South : 60

feet.

4. O.S. No.4605/2012 is filed by the plaintiff viz.,

Harsha Hegde seeking permanent injunction to restrain

the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's

possession over site No.433 formed by Vishwabharathi

House Building Co-operative Society Limited in the V

Phase of Vishwabharathi Housing Complex Lay-out,

Sachidananda Nagar, Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri hobli,

Bangalore south taluk measuring East-West : 40 feet

and North-South : 60 feet.

5. O.S. No.4607/2012 is filed by the plaintiff viz.,

Rashmi Hegde seeking permanent injunction to restrain

the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's

possession over site No.432 formed by Vishwabharathi

House Building Co-operative Society Limited in the V

Phase of Vishwabharathi Housing Complex Lay-out,

Sachidananda Nagar, Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri hobli,

Bangalore south taluk measuring East-West : 29 feet

and North-South : 31 feet.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 13 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

6. O.S. No.4882/2012 is filed by the plaintiff viz.,

Harsha Hegde seeking permanent injunction to restrain

the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's

possession over site No.448 formed by Vishwabharathi

House Building Co-operative Society Limited in the V

Phase of Vishwabharathi Housing Complex Lay-out,

Sachidananda Nagar, Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri hobli,

Bangalore south taluk measuring East-West : 29 feet

and North-South : 31 feet.

7. O.S. No.4442/2012 is filed by the plaintiff viz.,

M.S. Srinivasa seeking permanent injunction to restrain

the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's

possession over site No.443 formed by Vishwabharathi

House Building Co-operative Society Limited in the V

Phase of Vishwabharathi Housing Complex Lay-out,

Sachidananda Nagar, Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri hobli,

Bangalore south taluk measuring East-West : 29 feet

and North-South : 20 feet.

8. O.S. No.5049/2013 is filed by the plaintiff viz.,

Harsha Hegde seeking declaration that sale deed dated

10.2.2006 executed by Vishwabharathi House Building

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 14 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

Co-operative Society Limited in favour of the defendant

is void and not binding on the plaintiff and

consequentially for permanent injunction to restrain

the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's

possession over site No.496B formed by

Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society

Limited in the V Phase of Vishwabharathi Housing

Complex Lay-out, Sachidananda Nagar,

Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk

measuring East-West : 50 feet and North-South : 40

feet.

9. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in O.S.

No.1885/2011 are as under -

Plaintiff is the member of Vishwabharathi House

Building Co-operative Society Limited in the V Phase of

Vishwabharathi Housing Complex Lay-out,

Sachidananda Nagar, Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri hobli,

Bangalore south taluk measuring 40 feet x 59+2/2

through sale deed dated 6.8.1994 - which is described

as 'suit property. As on the date of sale, she was put in

possession of the suit property. Vishwabharathi House

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 15 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

Building Co-operative Society Limited is a registered

Society under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.

It had formed a lay-out in Sachidananda Nagar in

Survey Nos.212, 213, 216, 231, 231/1, 231/2, 234,

235, 236, 237/1, 237/2, 238, 240, 241 and 242 of

Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore

South taluk in an extent of 6-00 acres. The said lay-out

has been approved by the erstwhile Pattanagere Grama

Panchayath. As the said land was situated within the

limits of C.D.P. notified under the provisions of the

Karnataka Municipal Councils Act, there was no

necessity of conversion of agricultural land to non-

agricultural use. When the Divisional Commissioner,

Bangalore Division, Bangalore wrote a letter to the

Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Rajarajeshwari

Nagar, Bangalore for stopping of issuing Khatas in

favour of the persons who have purchased sites from

the Society, the plaintiff could not secure the Khata.

Thereafter, the Society had filed a suit in O.S.

No.2355/2001 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore -

in which Town Municipal Council filed a detailed

written statement contending that the society has not

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 16 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

acquired lands in the name of the society as per law

and the land is not converted under the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act and it has not obtained approved lay-

out plan from the Bangalore Development Authority. In

the said suit, the Court rendered judgment in favour of

the society contending that the Town Municipal Council

had powers to sanction private lay-out plans and

society was entitled for mandatory injunction directing

the Town Municipal Council to register the Khata in the

name of the site owners. As against the said judgment

of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, the City Municipal

Council went in appeal in R.F.A. No.1121/2005, but the

said appeal is dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of

Karnataka. As against the judgment of the Hon'ble

High Court, B.B.M.P. went in appeal before the Hon'ble

Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.12532/2010 - in which

also, Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal on the

ground of delay and merits. Under these

circumstances, there is no scope whatsoever for any

Court or authority to dispute the said judgment. As

held in the said proceedings, the Society has acquired

land in Survey No.240 and other Survey numbers of

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 17 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

Halagevaderahalli village, it got the lay-out plan

approved and sold sites in favour of the members

including the plaintiff and they all are put in possession

of the respective sites. Therefore, any other person

including the original owners of th land Survey No.240

have no right whatsoever in the said land. But, the

plaintiff learnt that defendant has secured registered

sale deed dated 30.9.2009 executed by one Smt.

Lakshmidevamma and others who had no marketable

title over the land, but it will not create any right in

favour of the defendants. Though plaintiff is in

possession of the site purchased by her in view of the

dispute between the society and the B.B.M.P., she could

not get the Khata in her name. Plaintiff has put fencing

around the site purchased by her. She filed application

for issuance of Khata. The defendant is claiming to be

the purchaser of the land from Smt. Lakshmidevamma

and others. But, the original Survey No.240/7 was

belonging to Narasimhaiah. The Vishwabharathi House

Building Co-operative Society Limited has acquired

Survey No.240 along with other lands and formed

residential lay-out called 'Sachidananda Nagar' and sold

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 18 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

sites to the plaintiff and other persons. As legal

representatives of Narasimhaiah did not have any

marketable title over the land, they could not have

passed better title in favour of the defendants. In spite

of it, defendants started claiming right over the suit

property and interfering with the plaintiff's possession

over the same. Plaintiff got surveyed the land and came

to know that small portion of the suit property falls in

the land bearing Survey No.240/7. In collusion with

Smt. Lakshmidevamma and others, defendants have

created sale deed illegally. Further, in Writ Petition

No.18534/1989 and Writ Appeal No.8766/1996,

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that

defendant has nothing to do with the subject matter of

the suit. Conversion order in M.R. No.3/2008-09, M.R.

No.7/2008-09 and M.R. No.3/2009-2010 are passed by

misrepresentation and suppression of facts. Khata in

the name of the defendant in respect of Survey

No.240/7 is not only illegal, but ab initio void.

Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration and

permanent injunction.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 19 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

Though Society has not purchased the land in

question, from K. Narasimhaiah under registered sale

deed, as said K. Narasimhaiah has executed irrevocable

power of attorney dated 28.8.1985 and he had already

executed an agreement of sale in respect of the land in

question in favour of B. Krishna Bhat who was

President of the Society authorising him to form lay-

out; hence, principle of part performance is attracted.

After execution of the power of attorney, Society has

formed lay-out by putting asphalted roads, under-

ground drainage, street lights, water supply etc., to the

knowledge of K. Narasimhaiah and the Society has sold

sites to plaintiff without any obstruction or objection of

K. Narasimhaiah, Society is deemed to be ostensible

owner and now, sale of sites by the Society cannot be

disowned or challenged by the legal representatives of

K. Narasimhaiah or the persons who purchased the

land from them. Principle of estoppel is applicable to

the case on hand and the plaintiff's right, title and

interest are protected.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 20 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

10. On the other hand, first defendant has filed

written statement as under -

Suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in

law or on facts and hence, the same is liable to be

dismissed. Suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and

misconceived. Plaintiff has suppressed the material

facts. She has not approached the Court with clean

hands. In fact, vendors of the plaintiff had no right, title

or interest over the land in question and no authority

to acquire the land and handover possession of the land

to the Society. The society has not formed any lay-out.

All the documents are created by the plaintiff. Plaintiff

is not in possession of the alleged suit property. Suit

property isnot in existence and as such, declaring the

sale deed dated 30.9.2009 as null and void and for

permanent injunction, is not maintainable. Averments

of Paras 1 to 3 of the plaint are all false and denied.

Averments of Para 4 of the plaint that the Divisional

Commissioner, Bangalore Division wrote a letter to the

Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Rajarajeshwari

Nagar, Bangalore for stopping issuance of Khatas, are

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 21 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

not known to the first defendant. Averment of Para 5 of

the plaint that society had filed O.S. No.2355/2001, is

not known to the first defendant. Averments of Paras 6

to 10 of the plaint are not within the knowledge of the

first defendant and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of

the same. Averments of Para 11 of the plaint that in

the said proceedings, the Court has held that society

has acquired Survey No.240 along with other Survey

numbers of Halagevaderahalli, formed lay-out and sold

sites to its members and handed over possession of the

sites; defendant has no right whatsoever in the said

property, are all false and denied. Averments of Para

12 of the plaint that when society has acquired entire

Survey No.240 and formed lay-out, question of any

other persons including the original owners of the land

having right or interest over the same does not arise,

are all false and denied. Averments that plaintiff learnt

that defendant has acquired sale deed dated 30.9.2009

executed by Smt. Lakshmidevamma and others, are

true and correct. Averments of Para 13 of the plaint

that the said sale deed executed by Smt.

Lakshmidevamma and others is null and void; they

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 22 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

had no marketable title over the land in question, are

all false and denied. Averments of Para 14 of the plaint

that as there was some dispute between the society and

the B.B.M.P., plaintiff could not get the Khata, but she

is in possession of the suit site, are all false and denied.

Averments of Para 15 of the plaint that plaintiff has put

fencing around the suit site and she has applied for

issuance of Khata, are false and denied. Averments of

Para 16 of the plaint that defendant has no manner of

right, title or interest over the suit property, are all

denied. Averments of Para 17 of the plaint that entire

land in Survey No.240 was acquired by the society,

formed lay-out and allotted sites in favour of its

members, are all false and denied. Averments of Para

18 of the plaint are also false and denied. Averments of

Para 19 of the plaint that Smt. Lakshmidevamma and

others did not have marketable title over the said land

sold in favour of defendant No.1; they could not have

passed better title in favour of the defendant, are all

false and denied. Averments of Para 20 of the plaint

that Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative

Society Limited had filed O.S. No.2355/2001 against

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 23 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

the B.B.M.P. and others, is not known to the first

defendant. Averments that in view of the judgment in

the said suit, defendant has no manner of right, title or

interest over the suit property, are all denied.

Averments of Para 22 of the plaint that defendant

started claiming right and interfering with the plaintiff's

possession over the suit property and at that time

plaintiff got surveyed the suit property and came to

know that some portion of the suit property falls in

Survey No.240/7, are all false and denied. Averments

of Para 23 of the plaint are false and denied. Averments

of Para 24 of the plaint that when the entire land in

question was acquired by the Society and formed lay-

out, question of legal heirs of Narasimhaiah claiming to

be the owners of the said land and selling the same in

favour of the first defendant, has no legal consequence.

In spite of formation of lay-out by the Society and

distribution of sites and sale in favour of the plaintiff as

long back as 1994, in collusion with his vendors, first

defendant has created the sale deed by suppressing the

material facts, are all false and denied.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 24 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

Averments of Para 25 of the plaint that the sale

deed effected in favour of the first defendant, conversion

order and subsequent documents, are all of no

consequence and the plaintiff is in possession of the

suit property are all false and denied. Averments of

Para 26 of the plaint that orders in Writ Petition

No.18534/1989 and Writ Appeal No.8766/1996 are

nothing to do with the subject matter of the suit in

hand as far as conversion orders M.R. No.3/2008-09,

M.R. No.7/2008-2009 and M.R. No.3/2009-2010 are

concerned, they are based on false statements and

hence, the defendant cannot claim any right whatsoever

in pursuance of the sale deed impugned and other

documents, are all false and denied. Averments of Para

27 of the plaint that Pahani entries showing the names

of the vendors of the defendant are null and void and

not binding on the plaintiff and already the land was

converted and hence, the Pahani entries in respect of

the land in question are not only illegal, but also void

and they are obtained in collusion with the revenue

authorities, are all false and denied. Averments of Para

28 of the plaint that even the judgment in M.F.A.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 25 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

No.3918 connected with M.F.A. No.5160/1980 has

nothing to do with the subject matter of the suit as they

pertain to Survey Nos.212 and 213, are false and

denied. Averments of Para 29 of the plaint that as per

the judgment in O.S. No.2355/2001, Society has

formed lay-out, plaintiff has purchased the suit

property and she is in possession of the same for more

than 12 years and hence, she perfected title of adverse

possession, are all false and denied. Averments of Para

30 of the plaint that plaintiff was put in possession of

the suit property on the date of purchase and she is in

possession of the same, are all false and denied.

Averments of Para 31 of the plaint that defendant is

trying to remove the fencing put forth by the plaintiff

and interferes with the plaintiff's possession over the

suit schedule property, are all false and denied.

Averments of Para 32 of the plaint that the Municipal

Council, Pattanagere has issued Khatas for 74 site

owners; even the building plans were approved;

according to B.B.M.P. records, more than 400 Khatas

have been issued, but suddenly issuance of Khatas is

stopped, are all false and denied. Averments of Para 33

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 26 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

of the plaint that after stopping issuance of Khatas, two

site owners have approached the Hon'ble Lokayukta

and the Hon'ble Lokayuktha directed the B.B.M.P.

Commissioner to issue Khatas, are all false and denied.

Averments of Para 34 of the plaint that entire Survey

Nos.212 and 242/2 of Halagevaderahalli village have

been included in O.D.P. and C.D.P. of the Bangalore

Development Authority and hence, no conversion order

is required, are all false and denied. Averments of Para

35 of the plaint that one of the transactions effected by

original owner of the land Survey No.240 was produced

and on enquiry, it was revealed that sketch as well as

attestation issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South

Taluk was forged one, are all false and denied.

Averments of Para 36 of the plaint that 11E sketch

submitted for registration of sale deed in favour of

Naveen Kumar shows three blocks in Survey No.240,

Tahsildar has issued endorsement stating that sketch

and declaration are not genuine documents and hence

the said sale deed itself is void, are not known to the

first defendant. Averments of Para 38 of the plaint that

once decree in O.S. No.2355/2001 is upheld by the

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 27 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Supreme

Court, it is the constitutional obligation of all the

authorities, are false and denied. Averments of Para 39

of the plaint that defendant is making efforts to destroy

the lay-out by removing portion of the fence around the

suit property, are false and denied. Averments of Paras

40 and 41 of the plaint are also denied and the plaintiff

is put to strict proof of the same. Averments of Para 44

of the plaint that Narasimhaiah has executed an

irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of the

Society - on the basis of which, Society has formed lay-

out, Narasimhaiah has given up his rights by receiving

entire consideration; he did not raise any objection

while forming lay-out by the society; legal

representatives of Narasimhaiah have not inherited any

rights in the said land from Narasimhaiah; hence,

Pahanis showing the name of legal heirs of

Narasimhaiah and thereafter name of the defendant as

owner, are totally illegal and not binding on the

plaintiff, are denied as false. Averment of Para 45 of

the plaint that alleged conversion order passed by the

Deputy Commissioner dated 3.5.2010 is null and void,

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 28 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

is denied as false. Averments of Para 46 of the plaint

that registering the name of the defendant as owner of

Survey No.240/2007 and issuance of Khata certificate

is also null and void; the very conduct of legal

representatives of Narasimhaiah and the defendant is

totally fraudulent and mala fide, are false and denied.

Averments of Para 47 of the plaint that plaintiff has

recently came to know that society wanted to acquire

land through land acquisition proceedings; as the Final

Notification was not issued, Society filed Writ Petition

and Writ Appeal; in the meanwhile, Narasimhaiah

himself executed irrevocable General Power of Attorney;

society did not pursue the matter further; order of the

Assistant Commissioner is stayed and hence it is not

open to the defendant and legal heirs of Narasimhaiah

to contend that they acquired any rights over Survey

No.240, are all false and denied. Averments of Para 48

of the plaint that as per the sale deed executed in

favour of the first defendant, he has not acquired any

right or interest over the land bearing Survey No.240/3;

but now, he is claiming to be the owner of the said land

including the site belonging to the plaintiff without any

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 29 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

basis, are denied. Averments of Para 49 of the plaint

that the sketch maintained in Form No.11E was

prepared for the purpose of sale deed executed by

Lakshmidevamma in favour of Kantharaju are also null

and void, are false and denied. Averments of Para 50 of

the plaint that there is no basis for phodification of

Survey No.240; the same is created by defendant in

collusion with the revenue authorities, are false and

denied. Averments of Para 51 of the plaint that order

passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 18.9.2001

is not in operation; same is stayed by the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal, are not known to the first

defendant. Averments of Para 52 of the plaint that even

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave

Petition (Civil) No.12532/2010, the proceedings before

the Revenue authorities including phodification,

conversion and entries were raised and the Hon'ble

Apex Court dismissed the appeal both on the ground of

limitation and merit, are all false and denied.

Averments of Para 53 of the plaint are also false and

denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the

same. Averments of Para 54 of the plaint that the

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 30 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

defendant has put up his name-board on the suit site

claiming to be owner of the same threatening the

owners of the site etc., are all false and denied.

Averments of Para 55 of the plaint that even after

issuing endorsement by Tahsildar stating that the

sketch and 11-E Form submitted by Naveen Kumar was

not genuine sketch and other records which were

recorded in the computer were not removed and the

Taluk Office continued to issue certified copy of the

same, are all false and denied. Averments of Para 56 of

the plaint that certain members had approached the

Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies; the Joint

Registrar wrote a letter to the Assistant Registrar to

stop harassment and maintain status quo for one week;

members have published notice in newspaper, are not

known to the first defendant. Averments of Para 57 of

the plaint that admittedly K. Narasimhaiah was alive in

2003; he had executed power of attorney in favour of

the society; he did not raise any objection for forming

lay-out and allotment of sites; after his death, only his

legal representatives have created documents, are all

false and denied. Averments of Para 58 of the plaint

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 31 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

that subsequent conversion of the land by the Deputy

Commissioner at the instance of the defendants is null

and void, are all false and denied. Averments of Para

59 of the plaint that as the society has acquired lands

and formed lay-out, the land Survey No.240 was in

possession of the society, and with the plaintiff and

other members of the society, ownership of the said

property vested with the plaintiff, are denied as false.

The cause of action pleaded in the suit and the plaint is

false and incorrect. In fact, first defendant is a resident

of Hassan district is not able to attend to the Court

regularly and hence, he executed General Power of

Attorney in favour of Vijaya Kumar.

The land bearing Survey No.180 of

Halagevaderahalli village was belonging to one

Ranganna. He was in possession of the same. Said

Ranganna has sold the said land in favour of Lingappa

@ Thimmarayappa vide sale deed dated 13.1.1964. In

turn, said Lingappa @ Thimmarayappa has sold the

said land to Narasimhaiah. Said Narasimhaiah was in

possession of the said land and Survey number is

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 32 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

renumbered as '240'. Plaintiff's vendor i.e.,

Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society

Limited had approached the Government requesting to

acquire the lands at Halagevaderahalli for formation of

the lay-out for the benefit of members of the Society and

accordingly, Government has issued Preliminary

Notification - in which, plaintiff's vendor's name was

shown as 'Khatedar' and 'Anubhavdar' of Survey

No.240. The society has deposited the amount for

acquiring the land. But, thereafter, Government has

not passed Final Notification and as per the judgment

in Writ Petition No.18584/1989, Hon'ble High Court

has quashed the Preliminary Notification and directed

the Government to refund the amount deposited by the

Society. Even Writ Appeal No.8766/1996 filed by the

Society challenging the judgment in Writ Petition

No.18584/1989 is also dismissed. Thereafter, the

Government has refunded the amount deposited by the

Society. Therefore, possession of the land was not taken

and handed over to the Society. Society has no right to

acquire the agricultural land. The land owner

Narasimhaiah has not executed any sale deed,

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 33 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

agreement or General Power of Attorney in favour of

anybody including the society and hence, society had

no right to form lay-out or sell site in favour of the

plaintiff. Therefore, when plaintiff's vendor himself was

not in possession of the suit property, question of

putting the plaintiff in possession does not arise.

Original owner of Survey No.240/3 viz., Narasimhaiah

has passed away on 14.1.2003. After his demise, his

wife and children became the owners of the said land

and they have sold the said land in favour of the first

defendant. He had applied for conversion of the said

land. Accordingly, Government has issued Official

Memorandum dated 3.5.2010 for conversion of the

land. Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative

Society Limited has not acquired title and possession of

the said land, and defendant nor his vendors are not

the parties to O.S. No.2355/2001. Therefore, the

Society will not get any right to alienate the suit

property. Hence, alienation made by the Society is

without the authority of law. Suit is bad for non-joinder

of necessary parties for not including the executants of

the sale deed dated 30.9.2009 viz., Smt.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 34 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

Lakshmidevamma and others are not made as parties,

the suit is liable to be dismissed. Plaintiff's power of

attorney holder viz., Kanthi Hegde has filed another suit

in O.S. No.8280/2010 in CCH-7 and in the said suit,

application filed by Kanthi Hegde has been dismissed

and against the said order, Kanthi Hegde has not filed

any appeal and the same became final. Plaintiff has

suppressed the said fact of rejection of interim

application. Therefore, present suit on the same facts

is liable to be dismissed. Other purchasers who

purchased the site from Vishwabharathi House

Building Co-operative Society Limited have filed suit in

respect of Survey Nos.212 and 213 - in which, Hon'ble

High Court of Karnataka has rejected the injunction

application and directed the police to take criminal

action against the plaintiff's vendor. Accordingly, there

is a criminal case registered against the plaintiff's

vendor. Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient.

Other facts which are not admitted in the written

statement are all denied. Averments of Para 23 of the

plaint that though society had not purchased land from

K. Narasimhaiah under registered sale deed as K.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 35 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

Narasimhaiah had executed irrevocable power of

attorney dated 28.9.1995 who had already executed an

agreement, the sale in favour of B. Krishna Bhat who

was President of the Society and put the society in

possession of the property, principle of Section 53-A of

the Transfer of Property Act is applicable, are all false

and denied. Averments of Para 23(b) of the plaint that

as the Society started acting as owner of the land,

formed lay-out and sold site to plaintiff without any

obstruction or objection of K. Narasimhaiah, the

transfer made in favour of the plaintiff by the Society

shall not be voidable either by the legal representatives

of K. Narasimhaiah or other transferees, are all false

and denied. Averments of Para 23(c) of the plaint that

society had formed lay-out and sold all the sites during

lifetime of K. Narasimhaiah; said K. Narasimhaiah

never objected for the same; even after death of K.

Narasimhaiah, his legal representatives did not raise

any objection till 2009; now, legal representatives of K.

Narasimhaiah are estopped from claiming right over

sites in question, are all false and denied. The owner

of the land viz., K. Narasimhaiah has not executed any

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 36 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

sale deed much less any agreement or General Power of

Attorney in favour of anybody and hence, the Society

has no right to form lay-out and sell/allot property in

favour of the plaintiff. When vendor of the plaintiff was

not in possession of the property, the question of

delivering possession of the same to the plaintiff does

not arise. K. Narasimhaiah has died on 14.1.2003.

After his demise, name of Lakshmidevamma was

entered in the revenue records of Survey No.240/3.

After that, Lakshmidevamma and others have sold 00-

39 guntas of Survey No.240/3 in favour of defendant

No.1. First defendant had applied for conversion of the

land and order has been passed for conversion of the

said land and hence, revenue records are standing in

the name of the first defendant. Since Society had no

right to allot the land in question, plaintiff cannot have

better title than the society. Hence, suit is liable to be

dismissed.

Originally, suit was filed against the first

defendant only. But, during pendency of the suit,

defendant No.2 has been impleaded in the suit.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 37 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

11. Defendant No.2 filed written statement - which

is almost similar to the written statement of the

defendant No.1. In addition to the facts stated in the

written statement of defendant No.1, defendant No.2

has contended as under -

After death of Narasimhaiah, his legal

representatives have sold 00-39 guntas of land in

Survey No.240 in favour of the first defendant through

sale deed dated 3.9.2009. After purchasing the said

land, first defendant got it converted from agriculture to

non-agriculture purpose. He alienated the some

portions of the said land in favour of some persons with

different dimensions. He has obtained plan and licence

for construction of the residential apartment in an area

measuring 26101 square feet of the said 00-39 guntas

and thereafter alienated the said 26,101 square feet to

second defendant along with plan and licence through

sale deed dated 5.9.2011. As per the said sale, second

defendant was put in possession. He got drilled bore-

well and started construction work and already

construction work is nearing completion. Second

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 38 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

defendant has invested huge amount for purchasing the

said property and putting up construction and even he

raised loan at higher rate of interest. Plaintiff nor her

vendor has any right or interest over the land Survey

No.240/7. Plaintiff's vendor has not acquired any

portion of Survey No.240 or any other lands of

Halagevaderahalli village and hence, alleged sale deed

in favour of the plaintiff is manipulated by plaintiff only.

Suit schedule property is not in existence. Suit of the

plaintiff is false and vexatious. Suit is not maintainable

for not claiming declaration of title and not impleading

the legal heirs of Narasimhaiah as parties to the suit.

12. In the other Original Suits, plaintiffs are

claiming possession over different sites formed by

Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society

Limited contending that they purchased the respective

sites from the Society under the respective registered

sale deeds. All the facts pleaded in the plaint in all

those suits are similar to the facts narrated in the

plaint in O.S. No.1885/2011. Even the defendants also

filed their written statement in those suits reiterating

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 39 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

the facts pleaded in the written statement in O.S.

No.1885/2011. Therefore, there is no necessity of

repeating the pleadings in all the suit.

13. On the basis of the basis of the above facts,

the following Issues have been framed in all the suits -

ISSUES IN O.S. No.1885/2011

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that
she is entitled for declaration to
declare that sale deed dated
30.9.2009 executed in favour of
the defendant by Smt.
Lakshmidevamma and others is
null and void?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that
she is entitled for declaration to
declare that all further actions
taken by the defendants in
possession of sale deed dated
30.9.2009 are null and void and
not binding on the plaintiff?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that
she is in lawful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule
property as on date of the suit?

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 40 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

4. Whether the plaintiff proves that
the defendants are interfering
with the plaintiff's possession of
suit schedule property as
alleged?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for declaration and permanent
injunction as prayed?

6. What order or decree?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 10.6.2016

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that
even if M/s. Vishwabharathi
House Building Co-operative
Society Limited did not purchase
the land in question, the Society
was deemed to be an ostensible
owner under Section 41 of
Transfer of Property Act and that
the sale of the sites by the
Society in favour of its members
cannot be challenged, disowned
either by K. Narasimhaiah or by
his legal heirs?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that
the principle of part performance

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 41 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

as enshrined in Section 53-A of
the Transfer of Property Act, is
attaracted and the rights of the
plaintiff are protected under the
said principle?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that
Sri K. Narasimhaiah and after
his death his legal
representatives are stopped from
claiming any right, title or
interest over the suit schedule
site as per Section 115 of Indian
Evidence Act?

4. Whether the plaintiff proves that
the lay-out was formed by the
society in Survey No.212 to 240
of Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri
hobli, Bengaluru South taluk?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED IN 26.7.2019

1. Whether the defendants proved
that the suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary party?

2. Whether the defendants prove
that the Court fee paid by the
plaintiff is insufficient?

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 42 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

ISSUES IN O.S. No.4605/2012

1. Whether plaintiff proves that he
is in lawful and settled
possession of suit schedule
property as on the date of this
suit?

2. Whether plaintiff further proves
that the defendants are
interfering or obstructing the
peaceful possession and
enjoyment of suit schedule
property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for permanent injunction as
sought for?

4. What decree or order?

ISSUES IN O.S. No.4882/2012

1. Whether plaintiff proves that he
is in lawful and settled possession
of suit schedule property as on the
date of this suit?

2. Whether plaintiff further proves
that the defendants are interfering
or obstructing the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of suit
schedule property?

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 43 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for permanent injunction as sought
for?

4. What decree or order?

ISSUES IN O.S. No.1885/2011

1. Whether the plaintiff proves the
existence of suit property?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that
registered sale deed dated
30.9.2009 executed in favour of
Smt. Lakshmidevamma about suit
property is void?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for
the relief of permanent injunction
sought for?

4. Whether suit is not
maintainable?

5. What decree or order?

ISSUES IN O.S. No.5049/2013

1. Whether plaintiff proves that
there exists a registered sale deed
in his name executed by
Vishwabharathi House Building Co-

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 44 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

operative Society, Bengaluru and he
has been in lawful possession of the
suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that
the registered sale deed dated
14.2.2006 executed by
Vishwabharathi House Building Co-
operative Society, Bengaluru is void
and not binding on the plaintiff?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves the
alleged interference of defendant for
the enjoyment of the suit property?

4. Whether the defendant No.2
proves that the property belonging
to Nanjappa in Survey No.240 was
never acquired for the benefit of
Vishwabharathi House Building Co-
operative Society, Bengaluru and
the property in the said Survey
number belonged to Nanjappa and
after his death to his legal
representatives?

5. Whether the defendant No.2
proves that it is the bona-fide
purchaser of 11 guntas of land in
Survey No.240 under registered

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 45 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

sale deed from Mallikarjuna and
Rama and in lawful possession of
the same?

6. Whether the valuation of the suit
is improper and Court fee paid is
insufficient?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for the reliefs prayed for?

8. What order or decree?

ISSUES IN O.S. No.4607/2012

1. Whether plaintiff proves that she
is in lawful and settled possession
of suit schedule property as on the
date of this suit?

2. Whether plaintiff further proves
that the defendants are interfering
or obstructing the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of suit
schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for permanent injunction as sought
for?

4. What decree or order?

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 46 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

ISSUES IN O.S. No.4442/2012

1. Whether plaintiff proves that he
is in lawful and settled possession
of suit schedule property as on the
date of this suit?

2. Whether plaintiff further proves
that the defendants are interfering
or obstructing the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of suit
schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for permanent injunction as sought
for?

4. What decree or order?

14. In support of the cases of the plaintiffs in all

the suits, S.M. Hegde Kadave, Advocate appearing on

behalf of plaintiffs as power of attorney holder of

plaintiffs in all the suits himself is examined as P.W.1

and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.451 on

behalf of the plaintiffs in all the suits.

15. On the other hand, power of attorney holder of

defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and one

more witness is examined as D.W.2 on behalf of the

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 47 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

defendants and documents at Exs.D.1 to D.83 got

marked on behalf of defendants in all the suits, and the

Court Documents have been marked as Exs.C.1 and

C.2.

16. Heard arguments. Perused records.

17. My findings on the above Issues are as under -

O.S. No.1885/2011

ISSUE No.1 - Negative;

ISSUE No.2 - Negative;

ISSUE No.3 - Negative;

ISSUE No.4 - Negative;

ISSUE No.5 - Negative;

ADDITIONAL- Negative;
ISSUE No.1
FRAMED ON
10.6.2016

ADDITIONAL- Negative;
ISSUE No.2
FRAMED ON
10.6.2016

ADDITIONAL- Negative;
ISSUE No.3
FRAMED ON
10.6.2016

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 48 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

ADDITIONAL- Negative;
ISSUE No.4
FRAMED ON
10.6.2016

ADDITIONAL- Negative;
ISSUE No.1
FRAMED ON
26.7.2019

ADDITIONAL- Negative;
ISSUE No.2
FRAMED ON
26.7.2019

ISSUE No.6 - As per final order.

O.S. No.4605/2012

ISSUE No.1 - Negative;

ISSUE No.2 - Negative;

ISSUE No.3 - Negative;

ISSUE No.4 - As per final order.

O.S. No.4882/2012

ISSUE No.1 - Negative;

ISSUE No.2 - Negative;

ISSUE No.3 - Negative;

ISSUE No.4 - As per final order.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 49 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

O.S. No.8280/2010

ISSUE No.1 - Negative;

ISSUE No.2 - Negative;

ISSUE No.3 - Negative;

ISSUE No.4 - Affirmative;

ISSUE No.5 - As per final order.

O.S. No.5049/2013

ISSUE No.1 - Negative;

ISSUE No.2 - Negative;

ISSUE No.3 - Negative;

ISSUE No.4 - Does not survive for
consideration;
ISSUE No.5 - Does not survive for
consideration;
ISSUE No.6 - Negative;

ISSUE No.7 - Negative;

ISSUE No.8 - As per final order.

O.S. No.4607/2012

ISSUE No.1 - Negative;

ISSUE No.2 - Negative;

ISSUE No.3 - Negative;

ISSUE No.4 - As per final order.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 50 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

O.S. No.4442/2012

ISSUE No.1 - Negative;

ISSUE No.2 - Negative;

ISSUE No.3 - Negative;

ISSUE No.4 - As per final order,

for the following -

REASONS

18. ISSUE NOs.1 TO 3, ADDITIONAL ISSUE NOs.1

TO 4 FRAMED ON 10.6.2016 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE

No.1 FRAMED ON 26.7.2019 IN O.S. No.1885/2011,

ISSUE No.1 IN O.S. No.4605/2012, ISSUE No.1 IN O.S.

No.4882/2012, ISSUE NOs.1, 2 AND 4 IN O.S.

No.8280/2012, ISSUE NoS.1, 2, 4 AND 5 IN O.S.

No.5049/2013, ISSUE No.1 IN O.S. No.4607/2012 AND

ISSUE No.1 IN O.S. No.4442/2012 : Since all these

Issues are inter-related with each other, they are being

taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to

avoid repetitive discussion of facts.

19. With regard to plaintiff's possession over the

respective sites allegedly purchased by them which were

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 51 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

part and parcel of Survey No.430 of Halagevaderahalli

village is concerned, P.W.1, who is the power of attorney

holder of the plaintiff's, has deposed at length. By

looking to his evidence, it appears that execution of the

sale deeds by Vishwabharathi House Building Co-

operative Society Limited in favour of the plaintiffs in

respect of their respective suits, there is no any dispute.

However, by looking to the defence taken by the

defendants, it appears that even the defendants are also

claiming title in respect of the property in Survey

No.430 of Halagevaderahalli village. As per the

plaintiffs' claim, the land bearing Survey No.430 of

Halagevaderahalli village was belonging to one

Narasimhaiah and Nanjappa. In the year 1985,

Narasimhaiah and Nanjappa have executed powers of

attorney in favour of Vishwabharathi House Building

Co-operative Society Limited as per Exs.P.416 and 417

and on the basis of the said powers of attorney, the said

Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society

Limitedhas formed lay-out in the said Survey No.430 of

Halagevaderahalli and other adjoining lands and

allotted sites in favour of members of the society and all

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 52 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

the members who got the sites from the society are in

possession of the respective sites purchased by them.

20. On the other hand, defendants' claim is that

contention of the plaintiff about title of Narasimhaiah

and Nanjappa is true, but Narasimhaiah and Nanjappa

have not executed any power of attorney in favour of the

society; in fact Narasimhaiah was the owner of 2 acres

12 guntas of land in Survey No.240 of Halagevaderahalli

till his death; after the death of Narasimhaiah, his wife

and children became owners of the said land and in the

year 2009, they sold the said land in favour of

defendant No.1 and other persons and now, defendant

No.1 - M.R. Kantharaj has sold some portion of the land

purchased by him in favour of defendant No.2 - M/s.

MARS BUILDERS.

21. During arguments, power of attorney holder of

the plaintiff, who is also a practicing Advocate, has filed

written argument and he has submitted his oral

arguments also - in which, he has submitted his

arguments at length by reiterating all the facts and

evidence led by the parties, and he has relied upon so

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 53 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

many judgments rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of

Karnataka, Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Hon'ble

High Courts. However, as he has relied upon many

judgments on same point, I have decided not to mention

all those judgments in this common judgment.

22. The power of attorney holder of the plaintiff

has argued mainly on the following grounds -

(1) Under Section 115 of the Evidence Act - Estoppel :

It is his contention that though Narasimhaiah and

Nanjappa have executed power of attorney in the year

1985, though Society has formed lay-out in Survey

No.240 and other lands, the Society has sold different

sites in the lay-out formed in Survey No.240 and other

lands and possession is handed over to the members of

the society who purchased the sites and neither

Narasimhaiah nor his legal representatives after his

death never raised any objection about their right over

the suit schedule property and therefore, now the legal

representatives of Narasimhaiah or defendants are

estopped from questioning the plaintiffs' title over the

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 54 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

suit properties. In support of his said contention, he

has relied upon the following judgments -

(1) AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 1834 - [Provash
Chandra Dalui and another -versus-
Biswanath Banerjee and another] -

"(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.155 -
Waiver and estoppel - Distinction -
Essential element of waiver - Intentional
relinquishment of known right or such
conduct as warrants aforesaid inference -
In estoppel, intent is immaterial."

(2) AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 621 - [M/s.
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company
Limited -versus- The State of U.P. and
others] -

"(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.155 -
Promissory estoppel - Meaning of -
Whether the State is bound and if so to
what extent it is bound by the principle of
promissory estoppel."

(2) Ostensible ownership under Section 41 of the

Transfer of Property Act : With regard to this aspect,

plaintiffs' power of attorney holder has argued that

though the Society has formed lay-out and allotted sites

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 55 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

in favour of its members, Narasimhaiah nor his legal

representatives have never questioned the Society about

formation of lay-out and allotment of sites and

therefore, even if the defendants have denied title of the

plaintiffs, since plaintiffs have purchased the sites from

the society believing that the society has purchased the

land from Narasimhaiah and therefore, the society is

being ostensible owner of the property has sold it and

therefore, now the original owners of the land cannot

question the title of the plaintiffs. With regard to this

argument, he has relied upon the judgment reported in

(2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 375 [Crystal Developers -

versus- Asha Lata Ghosh (Smt.) (Dead) through Legal

Representatives and others] -

"E. Transfer of Property Act, 1982 - S.
41 - Transfer of Ostensible owner - Third
party bona fide purchaser of property for
value - Will bequeathing the property in
favour of A - Probate obtained by A without
notifying the intestate heirs - Intestate heirs
allowing A to represent to developers that he
was owner of the property - Property sold by
A to developer - Held, Developer (appellant)

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 56 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

was bona fide purchaser for value -
Succession Act, 1925, Ss. 211 and 227."

23. Further, in the written arguments, plaintiffs'

power of attorney holder has contended that plaintiffs

have produced powers of attorney as per Exs.P.416 and

P.417 executed by K. Narasimhaiah and Nanjappa in

respect of 2 acres 18 guntas and 2-00 acres of land

respectively of Survey No.240 of Halagevaderahalli

village, and on the basis of the said powers of attorney,

the Society has formed lay-out and allotted sites to

plaintiffs and hence, there is sufficient material to show

that plaintiffs have purchased their respective sites and

they are in possession of the same.

24. On the other hand, the Counsel for the

defendants has argued on the following grounds -

(1) There is no valid transfer of title from the owner of

Survey No.240 in favour of the Society . With regard to this

is concerned, defendants' Counsel has argued that even

if it is alleged that Narasimhaiah has executed power of

attorney in favour of the society, even after the date of

alleged power of attorney, the Records of Right of the

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 57 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

lands were continued in the name of K. Narasimhaiah

only; subsequently, after death of K. Narasimhaiah,

names of wife and children of Narasimhaiah are entered

in the Revenue Records - which shows that contention

of the plaintiffs about execution of the power of attorney

by Narasimhaiah is false and incorrect, and in fact, on

the basis of the sale deed executed by wife and children

of Narasimhaiah, first defendant became the owner of

the land in dispute and subsequently, he has sold some

portion to defendant No.2 and therefore, defendants

have become the owners of Survey No.240 of

Halagevaderahalli and hence, plaintiffs have failed to

prove their possession over the suit property.

25. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for

the defendants that as the power of attorney holder of

the plaintiffs - who has been examined as P.W.1 - is a

practicing Advocate, as admitted by P.W.1 himself was

representing the plaintiffs as an 'Advocate' and

subsequently, he himself got examined as P.W.1 and

hence, when once P.W.1 appeared on behalf of the

plaintiffs in his professional capacity, subsequently he

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 58 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

cannot appear before the Court as a witness to the

parties and hence, his evidence cannot be considered at

all. With regard to his said argument, he has relied

upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court

in Writ Petition No.9033/2018 dated 20.11.2019. He

has further argued that since in all the suits reliefs

claimed are for permanent injunction only, in the

absence of claim for declaration of title, suits of the

plaintiffs are not maintainable.

26. On perusal of the evidence and arguments of

both the parties, it appears that with regard to the

reliefs claimed in the suit is concerned, in all the suits,

plaintiffs have claimed the relief of permanent

injunction without claiming the relief of declaration of

title. In one or two suits, they claimed declaration to

the effect that sale deeds executed in favour of M.R.

Kantharaj and Lakshimidevamma and others are null

and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Though

plaintiffs have produced so many documents which are

regarding acquisition of title over the suit property by

them and their possession, as rightly argued by the

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 59 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

Counsel for the defendants, as held by the Hon'ble High

Court in the judgment marked at Ex.P.213, when suit is

for permanent injunction and issue of title involves

complicated or complex question of facts and law, the

Court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for

injunction and the proper course is to relegate the

plaintiff to the remedy of full fledged suit for declaration

and consequential reliefs. In the said judgment itself,

Hon'ble High Court has relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (3) KCCR 1869

[Anathulla Sudhakara -versus- P. Buchi Reddy (Dead)

by legal representatives] - wherein, it is held that, "In a

suit for permanent injunction where the suit property is

a building or an agricultural land, there is no necessity

of seeking the relief of declaration of title and there is

possibility of giving evidence about the actual

possession of the suit property. But, when the suit

property is a vacant site which is not physically

possessed, used or enjoyed, the principle of 'possession

follows title' is to be applied and when two persons

claimed to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is

able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 60 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

possession. In such a situation, where a title is clear

and simple, the court may venture decision on the issue

of title so as to decide the question of de-jure

possession. Even though the suit is for mere injunction

where the issue of title involves complicated or complex

question of fact of law, the Court should not decide the

issue of title in a suit for injunction." Therefore, here in

this suit, since none of the plaintiffs has claimed relief

of declaration of title over their respective sites and suit

is in respect of an open site and defendants are also

claiming title over the entire Survey No.240, it is not

proper to decide the title of the parties to the suit in

these suits. Therefore, even though plaintiffs' power of

attorney holder, who is a practicing Advocate, has

submitted his oral arguments at length about

acquisition of title by the plaintiffs over the suit

properties, about applicability of principle of estoppel

and ostensible ownership, since even after filing of the

written statement by the defendants challenging their

title over their respective sites, plaintiffs have not

sought for declaration of title over their respective sites,

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 61 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

it is not proper to decide the issue of title in the present

suits which are for 'mere injunction only'.

27. Further more, even if in some suits, during

pendency of the matters, plaintiffs have got amended

the prayer inserting declaration of title by way of

adverse possession, subsequently plaintiffs in those

suits have withdrawn the said prayer. Therefore, in

none of the suits filed by the plaintiffs, they have

claimed declaration of title. Therefore, it is not proper

to hold that the plaintiffs are in possession of the sites

purchased by them from Vishwabharathi House

Building Co-operative Society Limited. Hence, when the

plaintiffs have failed to claim declaration of title, though

the plaintiffs have challenged the title of defendants on

the basis of the sale deeds allegedly executed by

Lakshmidevamma and her children, in view of the

plaintiffs' failure to claim declaration of title, it is not

proper to adjudicate title of the defendants over the

lands in Survey No.240 of Halagevaderahalli in this suit.

28. With regard to another submission of the

defendants' Counsel about the Counsel who was

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 62 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

representing the plaintiffs himself examining as a

witness is concerned, in the recent judgment of the

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in Writ

Petition No.9033/2018, the Hon'ble High Court of

Karnataka has clearly held that "An Advocate who was

appearing in his professional capacity cannot identify

himself with the clients or the cause personally; an

Advocate is to assist the Court in the task of

administration of justice." Therefore, here in this case,

by looking to the records, it clearly appears that P.W.1

was previously appearing as an Advocate for the

plaintiffs and subsequently, he himself got examined as

'P.W.1'. Hence, the principles enunciated in the above

referred judgment is aptly applicable to the present case

also. Accordingly, even though P.W.1 is a close relative

of the plaintiffs, once he represented the plaintiffs as an

Advocate, subsequently he cannot act as an agent of the

plaintiffs. Accordingly, though P.W.1 has deposed at

length and submitted his arguments, it is not proper to

consider the evidence of P.W.1 in support of the

plaintiff's case.

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 63 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

29. Therefore, when evidence of P.W.1 cannot be

considered for the reason of he himself acting as an

Advocate of the plaintiffs at one stretch as an agent at

another stretch, if the evidence of P.W.1 is excluded,

then nothing remains in support of the plaintiffs' case.

Therefore, on that ground also, plaintiffs have failed to

produce the evidence regarding their possession over

their respective properties. In view of the above

reasons, plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession

over the suit schedule properties as pleaded in their

respective suits. Accordingly, above Issues are answered

as above.

30. ISSUE NOs.4 AND 5 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE

No.2 FRAMED ON 26.7.2019 IN O.S. No.1885/2011,

ISSUE NOs.2 AND 3 IN O.S. No.4605/2012, ISSUE

NOs.2 AND 3 IN O.S. No.4882/2012, ISSUE No.3 IN

O.S. No.8280/2012, ISSUE NOs.3, 6 AND 7 IN O.S.

No.5049/2013, ISSUE NOs.2 AND 3 IN O.S.

No.4607/2012 AND ISSUE NOs.2 AND 3 IN O.S.

No.4442/2012 : As already discussed above, though

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 64 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

plaintiffs have pleaded about their source of title and

possession over the suit properties and produced

voluminous evidence in support of their case, since

plaintiffs have not claimed declaratory relief in a suit for

mere injunction, it is not proper to decide the issue of

title - which is seriously disputed and when there is no

issue regarding title of the parties and the suits are

relating to open sites, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the judgment reported in 2008 (3) KCCR 1869

[Anathulla Sudhakara -versus- P. Buchi Reddy (Dead)

by legal representatives], the principle of 'possession

follows title' aptly applies in the cases like this.

Therefore, suits filed by the plaintiffs are not

maintainable. Accordingly, there is nothing to show

about the plaintiffs' possession over the suit properties

and interference of the defendants over the plaintiffs'

possession over the suit properties.

31. Further more, as P.W.1 himself was

representing as an Advocate for plaintiffs, his evidence

cannot be considered for any purpose. Accordingly,

there is nothing on record to show about the plaintiffs'

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 65 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

possession over the suit properties and interference of

the defendants. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for

the relief of permanent injunction as claimed by them.

32. With regard to the reliefs claimed in O.S.

No.1885/2011 and O.S. No.8280/2010 are concerned,

plaintiffs have claimed declaration to the effect that the

sale deeds executed by Lakshmidevamma and her

children as null and void and in O.S. No.5049/2013

plaintiff has claimed that sale deed dated 10.2.2006

executed by Vishwabharathi House Building Co-

operative Society Limited in favour of the defendant is

void and not binding on the plaintiff is concerned, since

plaintiffs themselves have not claimed relief of

declaration of their title, they claimed mere injunction

only, plaintiffs cannot question the title of the

defendants in this suit.

33. Regarding the Court fee is concerned, though

defendants have contended that the Court fee paid is

not sufficient, since except O.S. Nos.1885/2011, O.S.

No.8280/2010 and O.S. No.5049/2013, in all other

suits, the relief claimed is only for permanent injunction

Cont'd..
O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,
- 66 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012
and O.S. No.4442/2012

and even in O.S. Nos.1885/2011, O.S. No.8280/2010

and O.S. No.5049/2013 the relief for declaration of sale

deeds is claimed, plaintiffs are not the parties to the

said sale deeds, they are not liable to pay Court fee on

the basis of valuation of the properties. Therefore, the

said contention of the defendants about insufficiency of

the Court fee, is incorrect. Therefore, the above Issues

are answered as above.

34. ISSUE No.6 IN O.S. No.1885/2011, ISSUE

No.4 IN O.S. No.4605/2012, ISSUE No.4 IN O.S.

No.4882/2012, ISSUE No.5 O.S. No.8280/2012, ISSUE

No.8 IN O.S. No.5049/2013, ISSUE No.4 IN O.S. No.

4607/2012 AND ISSUE No.4 IN O.S. No.4442/2012:

For my reasons and discussion on the above said Issues

in all the suits, I proceed to pass the following -

ORDER

Suits of the plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.1885/2011, 4605/2012, 4882/2012, 8280/2010, 5049/2013, 4607/2012 and 4442/2012, are dismissed with cost.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 67 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Draw decree accordingly in all the suits.

The original of this Common Judgment is to be kept in O.S. No.1885/2011 and the copies thereof in rest of the suits.

(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 31st day of January, 2020.) (MALLANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.

ANNEXURE

1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Examined on:

P.W.1 : S.M. Hegde Kadave 10-11-2016

2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.P.1 : General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.1885/2011. Ex.P.2 : General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.8280/2010. Ex.P.3 : General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in O.S. Nos.4605/2012, 4882/2012 and 5049/2013.

Ex.P.4 : General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.4442/2012. Ex.P.5 : General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.4607/2012.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 68 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.6 : Registered sale deed dated 6.8.1994 in respect of site No.430.

Ex.P.7 : Registered sale deed dated 6.8.1994 respect of site No.431.

Ex.P.8 : Registered sale deed dated 6.8.1994 respect of site No.432.

Ex.P.9 : Registered sale deed dated 6.8.1994 respect of site No.433.

Ex.P.10 : Registered sale deed dated 20.5.1996 respect of site No.448.

Ex.P.11 : Registered sale deed dated 20.5.1996 respect of site No.457.

Ex.P.12 : Registered sale deed dated 18.2.1997 respect of site No.498(B).

Ex.P.13 : Registered sale deed dated 13.3.1998 respect of site No.443.

Ex.P.14 : Possession certificate in respect of site No.430.

Ex.P.15 : Possession certificate in respect of site No.431.

Ex.P.16 : Possession certificate in respect of site No.432.

Ex.P.17 : Possession certificate in respect of site No.433.

Ex.P.18 : Possession certificate in respect of site No.448.

Ex.P.19 : Possession certificate in respect of site No.498/B. Ex.P.20 : Possession certificate in respect of site No.457.

Ex.P.21 : Possession certificate in respect of site No.443.

Ex.P.22 : Allotment letter in respect of site No.430.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 69 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.23 : Allotment letter in respect of site No.431.

Ex.P.24 : Allotment letter in respect of site No.432.

Ex.P.25 : Allotment letter in respect of site No.433.

Ex.P.26 : Allotment letter in respect of site No.496/B. Ex.P.27 : Tax paid receipt in respect. Ex.P.28 : Khata registration certificate. Ex.P.29 : Three acknowledgements (together). Exs.P.30 : Two tax paid receipts.

and P.31
Ex.P.32    : Khata endorsement.
Ex.P.33    : Certificate issued by the Society
             dated 9.9.2003.
Ex.P.34    : Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P.35    : Certificate issued by the B.B.M.P.
Ex.P.36    : Four tax paid receipts (together).
Ex.P.37    : Office copy of complaint filed with police.
Ex.P.38    : Acknowledgement issued by police.
Ex.P.39    : Postal receipt.
Ex.P.40    : Counterfoil of postal order.
Ex.P.41    : Office copy of complaint dated 16.4.2012.
Ex.P.42    : Acknowledgement issued by police.

Exs.P.43 : Certified copies of judgment and decree in and P.44 in O.S. No.2355/2001. Ex.P.45 : Certified copy of lay-out plan. Ex.P.46 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 30.9.2009 Ex.P.47 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 5.9.2011. Ex.P.48 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.2355/2001.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 70 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.49 : Certified copy of written statement in O.S. No.2355/2001.

Ex.P.50 : Certified copy of layout plan. Ex.P.51 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 31.3.1995 Ex.P.52 : Certified copy of Khata endorsement. Ex.P.53 : Certified copy of tax paid receipt. Ex.P.54 : Certified copy of letter dated 20.10.2000. Ex.P.55 : Certified copy of letter of the Assistant Commissioner.

Ex.P.56 : Certified copy of the Appeal No.39/2001. Ex.P.57 : Certified copy of order in Appeal No.39/2001.

Ex.P.58    : Certified copies of the notices dated
and P.59     3.1.2001.
Ex.P.60    : Certified copy of acknowledgement.
Ex.P.61    : Certified copy of the order sheet in
             Appeal No.610/2001.
Ex.P.62    : Certified copy of order in W.P. No.39543-
             44/2001.
Ex.P.63    : Certified copy of order in W.P. No.43190-
             91/2001.
Ex.P.64    : Certified copy of the order granting
             temporary power supply.
Ex.P.65    : Certified copy of letter dated 1.8.2001

issued by the Municipal Corporation, Pattanagere.

Ex.P.66 : Certified copy of the circular dated 30.6.1997.

Ex.P.67 : Certified copies of judgment and decree and P.68 in O.S. No.2355/2001. Ex.P.69 : Certified copy of order sheet in O.S. No.1373/1982.

Ex.P.70 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.1373/1982.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 71 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.71 : Certified copy of written statement in O.S. No.1373/1982.

Ex.P.72 : Certified copy of order in W.P. No.7910/1986.

Ex.P.73 : Certified copy of order in W.A. 1844/1990. Ex.P.74 : Certified copy of sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor.

Ex.P.75 : Certified copy of the letter dated 27-10-2010.

Ex.P.76 : Certified copy of letter dated 27.9.2010. Ex.P.77 : Certified copy of reminder dated 27.7.2010.

Ex.P.78 : Certified copy of letter dated 22.3.2010.

Ex.P.79 : Certified copy of summons. Ex.P.80 : Certified copy of letter dated 31.1.2011. Exs.P.81 : Certified copies of letter dated 4.2.2011. and P.82 Ex.P.83 : Certified copy of the complaint filed with Police Commissioner.

Ex.P.84 : Certified copy of the endorsement. Ex.P.85 : Certified copy of Form No.11(E). Ex.P.86 : Mutation register extract. Ex.P.87 : Certified copy of written statement in O.S. No.2355/2001.

Ex.P.88 : Certified copy of statement of Jannappa in O.S. No.2355/2001.

Ex.P.89 : Certified copy of the complaint filed with Police Commissioner.

Ex.P.90 : Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.91 : Certified copy of complaint filed with police Ex.P.92 : Mutation register extract. Ex.P.93 : Certified copy of the development plan.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 72 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.94 : Certified copy of revised master plan. Ex.P.95 : Certified copy of the letter of B.D.A. Ex.P.96 : Certified copy of Gazette dated 26.6.2007. Ex.P.97 : Certified copy of Gazette dated 29.6.2007. Ex.P.98 : Certified copy of Gazette dated 6.1.1995. Ex.P.99 : Certified copy of the proceedings of the Government of Mysore dated 22.5.1972. Ex.P.100 : Certified copy of notification issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 1.3.1988. Ex.P.101 : Certified copy of notification with schedule dated 13.3.1984.

Ex.P.102 : Certified copy of notification with schedule dated 1.11.1965.

Ex.P.103 : Certified copy of letter dated 1.12.2011. Ex.P.104 : Certified copy of letter dated 31.12.2006 along with Annexures 1 and 2.

Ex.P.105 : Certified copy of letter dated 13.1.2011 along with statement.

Ex.P.106 : Certified copy of letter dated 28.2.2011 along with details of installation. Ex.P.107 : Certified copy of letter dated 27.10.2010. Ex.P.108 : Certified copy of letter dated 27.9.2010. Ex.P.109 : Certified copy of reminder dated 27.9.2010 Ex.P.110 : Certified copy of letter dated 22.3.2010. Ex.P.111 : Certified copy of summons. Ex.P.112 : Certified copy of letter dated 4.11.2010. Ex.P.113 : Certified copy of information dated 6.10.2008.

Ex.P.114 : Certified copy of information dated 30.9.2008.

Ex.P.115 : Certified copy of Lokayuktha complaint. Ex.P.116 : Certified copy of letter dated 31.1.2011.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 73 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.117 : Certified copy of letter dated 18.3.2010. Ex.P.118 : Certified copy of letter dated 2.6.2008. Ex.P.119 : Certified copy of postal cover. Ex.P.120 : Certified copy of information dated 3.11.2010.

Ex.P.121 : Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.P.122 : Certified copy of letter dated 11.4.2011. Ex.P.123 : Certified copy of letter dated 19.3.2011. Ex.P.124 : Certified copy of information dated 25.1.2010.

Ex.P.125 : Certified copy of letter dated 22.1.2010. Ex.P.126 : Certified copy of complaint dated 30.11.2009.

Ex.P.127 : Certified copy of letter dated 28.1.2009. Ex.P.128 : Certified copy of letter dated 28.8.2010. Ex.P.129 : Certified copy of endorsement. Ex.P.130 : Certified copy of Official Memorandum. Ex.P.131 : Certified copy of information furnished by the B.D.A. Ex.P.132 : Certified copy of postal cover. Ex.P.133 : Certified copy of complaint dated 1.4.2012. Ex.P.134 : Certified copy of complaint dated 24.9.2011.

Ex.P.135 : Certified copy of complaint dated 20.9.2011.

Exs.P.136 : Certified copies of letters dated 6.4.2012. and P.137 Ex.P.138 : Certified copy of letter dated 13.6.2012. Exs.P.139 : Certified copies of letters dated 6.4.2012. and P.140 Ex.P.141 : Certified copy of joint memo.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 74 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.142 : Certified copy of order in W.P. No.40781/2012.

Ex.P.143 : Certified copy of endorsement dated 24.5.2011.

Ex.P.144 : Certified copy of information dated 28.3.2011.

Ex.P.145 : Certified copy of endorsement dated 26.4.2012.

Ex.P.146 : Certified copy of endorsement dated 12.6.2012.

Ex.P.147 : Certified copy of complaint dated 2.7.2013. Ex.P.148 : Office copy of notice dated 22.4.2013. Ex.P.149 : Certified copy of postal cover. Ex.P.150 : Certified copy of letter issued by State Bank of India.

Exs.P.151 : Certified R.T.C. extracts. to P.158 Exs.P.159 : Certified copies of notices. and P.160 Ex.P.161 : Certified copy of notice dated nil issued from the office of Land Acquisition Officer. Exs.P.162 : Certified copies of judgment and decree and P.163 in O.S. No.834/1996. Ex.P.164 : Certified copy of mahazar. Ex.P.165 : Certified copy of letter dated 30.8.1993. Exs.P.166 : Certified copies of three mahazars. to P.168 Ex.P.169 : Certified copy of letter dated 20.11.2009. Ex.P.170 : Certified copy of the audit report of Vishwabharathi House Building Co- operative Society Limited.

Ex.P.171 : Certified copy of order in W.P. No.18584/1999.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 75 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.172 : Certified copy of order in W.A. No.8766/1996.

Ex.P.173 : Certified copy of order in S.L.P. No.4434-4435/2001.

Ex.P.174 : Certified copy of order dated 13.8.2001 in S.L.P. No.10901-902/2001.

Ex.P.175 : Certified copy of order dated 8.10.2001 in S.L.P. No.10901-902/2001.

Ex.P.176 : Certified copy of order dated 7.12.2001 in S.L.P. No.10901-902/2001.

Ex.P.177 : Certified copy of order dated 11.1.2002 in S.L.P. No.10901-902/2001.

Ex.P.178 : Certified copy of order dated 15.2.2002 in S.L.P. No.10901-902/2001.

Ex.P.179 : Certified copy of order dated 15.3.2002 in S.L.P. No.10901-902/2001.

Ex.P.180 : Certified copy of order dated 4.12.2006 in S.L.P. No.10901-902/2001.

Ex.P.181 : Certified copy of order passed in Civil Appeal No.2171-2172/2002.

Ex.P.182 : Certified copy of information dated 16.1.2009 issued by B.D.A. Ex.P.183 : Certified copy of information dated 25.11.2013 issued by B.D.A. Ex.P.184 : Certified copy of endorsement dated 12.11.2013.

Ex.P.185 : Certified copy of letter dated 23.12.2013. Ex.P.186 : Certified copy of scrutiny note. Ex.P.187 : Certified copy of information dated 3.1.2014 pertaining to the document. Ex.P.188 : Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.189 : Certified copy of complaint. Ex.P.190 : Certified copy of letter dated 17.1.2014.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 76 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.191 : Certified copy of notification dated 16.1.2007 along with schedule. Ex.P.192 : Certified copy of notification dated 15.7.2009 along with schedule. Ex.P.193 : Certified copy of notice issued by the Land Surveyor.

Ex.P.194 : Certified copy of Form 11-B. Ex.P.195 : Certified copy of statement. Ex.P.196 : Certified copy of Form 11-B. Ex.P.197 : Certified copy of Aakarband. Ex.P.198 : Certified copy of sketch. Ex.P.199 : Certified copy of notice. Ex.P.200 : Certified copy of approved lay-out plan. Ex.P.201 : Two tax paid receipts (together). Ex.P.202 : Certified copy of complaint filed with Additional Commissioner.

Ex.P.203 : Vijaya Karnataka Kannada newspaper. Ex.P.204 : Certified publication extract. Ex.P.205 : Certified copy of information dated 14.4.2012.

Ex.P.206 : Certified copy of complaint filed with Additional Commissioner.

Ex.P.207 : Certified copy of the estimate prepared by the Karnataka Electricity Board. Ex.P.208 : Certified copy of Karnataka Gazette dated 7.10.2005.

Ex.P.209 : Certified copy of complaint dated 9.11.2009.

Ex.P.210 : Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.211 : Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.P.212 : Certified copy of the application filed for grant of certified copies.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 77 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.213 : Certified copy of order passed in R.F.A. No.1351/2009.

Ex.P.214 : Certified copy of statement. Ex.P.215 : Certified copy of notice issued by Land Surveyor.

Ex.P.216 : Certified mutation register extracts. Ex.P.217 : Certified copy of endorsement. Ex.P.218 : Certified copy of postal cover. Ex.P.219 : Certified copy of W.P. No.35729/2010. Exs.P.220 : Certified copies of letters dated 10.7.2013. to P.223 Ex.P.224 : Office copy of Review Petition No.2012. Ex.P.225 : R.T.C. extract.

Ex.P.226 : Page No.6 of Vijaya Karnataka newspaper. Ex.P.227 : Page No.3 of Deccan Herald newspaper dated 26.12.2010.

Ex.P.228 : Sanjevani newspaper dated 25.12.2010; Ex.P.228(a): Relevant portion marked in Ex.P.228. Exs.P.229 : Two endorsements dated 6.9.2013. and P.230 Ex.P.231 : Postal cover.

Ex.P.232 : Certified copy of endorsement dated 19.8.2013.

Ex.P.233 : Postal cover.

Ex.P.234 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 10.5.2011 Ex.P.235 : Certified copy of gift deed dated 16.9.2011. Ex.P.236 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 8.7.2011. Ex.P.237 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 22.7.2011 Ex.P.238 : Form No.15 - Encumbrance certificate. Ex.P.239 : Vijaya Karnataka newspaper. Ex.P.240 : A relevant portion of advertisement in Times of India newspaper dated 8.9.2013.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 78 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.241 : A relevant portion of advertisement in Times of India newspaper dated 9.2.2011. Ex.P.242 : Times of India newspaper dated 11.11.2011.

Ex.P.243 : A relevant portion of advertisement in Deccan Herald news paper dated 22.3.2011.

Ex.P.244 : Certified copy of lay-out plan. Exs.P.245 : Nine photographs. to P.253 Ex.P.254 : C.D. said to have contained Exs.P.245 to P.253.

Ex.P.255 : Office copy of complaint dated 31.12.2012. Ex.P.256 : Certified copy of complaint dated 3.1.2013. Ex.P.257 : Certified copy of letter dated 26.2.2013.

Ex.P.258    : Postal cover.
Ex.P.259    : Form No.16 - Encumbrance certificate.
Ex.P.260    : Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P.261    : Certified copy of order in
              M.F.A. No.9518/2010.
Ex.P.262    : Certified copy of the order sheet in
              O.S. No.3893/2010.

Exs.P.263 : Certified copies of the Interlocutory and P.264 Applications in O.S. No.3893/2010. Ex.P.265 : Certified copy of order sheet in O.S. No.7231/2010.

Exs.P.266 : Certified copies of Interlocutory and P.267 Applications in O.S. No.7231/2010. Ex.P.268 : Certified copy of order in Appeal No.614/2012.

Ex.P.269 : Certified copy of order in W.P. No.60781/2012.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 79 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.270 : Certified copy of order on I.A. in O.S. No.6988/2009.

Ex.P.271 : Certified copy of order sheet in M.F.A. No.8581/2011.

Ex.P.272 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.6988/2009.

Exs.P.273 : Certified copies of written statements and and P.275 additional written statement in O.S. No.6988/2009.

Ex.P.276 : Certified copy of order passed in S.L.P. No.13701/2000.

Ex.P.277 : Certified copy of letter dated 30.8.1993. Ex.P.278 : Certified copy of the extract of the document of Electricity Department dated 25.8.1995.

Ex.P.279 : Certified copy of order in W.P. No.39543- 44/2001.

Ex.P.280 : Certified copy of endorsement dated 12.6.2012.

Ex.P.281 : Certified copy of the licence. Ex.P.282 : Certified copy of plan. Ex.P.283 : Two tax paid receipts. Ex.P.284 : Certified copy of order in M.F.A. No.8582/2011.

Ex.P.285 : Certified copy of order dated 22.6.2012 passed in M.F.A. No.8581/2011. Ex.P.286 : Certified copy of Endorsement dated 30.12.2008.

Ex.P.287 : Certified copy of complaint filed in Crime No.227/2009.

Ex.P.288 : Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.289 : Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.P.290 : Certified copy of endorsement dated 30.12.2008.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 80 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.P.291 : Certified copy of written statement of defendant No.2 in O.S. No.2355/2001. Ex.P.292 : Certified copy of the order dated 10.11.2006 in R.F.A. No.1628/2005 c/w R.F.A. No.1121/2005.

Ex.P.293 : Certified copy of the order dated 16.4.2010 in Civil Appeal No.5582-5583/2010 on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ex.P.294 : Certified copy of the Special Leave Petition filed by B.B.M.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Exs.P.295 : Photographs produced in to P.298 O.S. No.1885/2011.

Exs.P.299 : Photographs produced in to P.301 O.S. No.5049/2013.

Exs.P.302 : Photographs produced in to P.330 O.S. No.4607/2012.

Exs.P.331 : Photographs produced in to P.354 O.S. No.4882/2012.

Exs.P.355 : Photographs produced in to P.371 O.S. No.4882/2012.

Exs.P.372 : Photographs produced in to P.415 O.S. No.4605/2012.

Ex.P.416 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated 28.8.1985.

Ex.P.416(a): One more certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated 28.8.1985.

Ex.P.417 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated 12.9.1985.

Ex.P.418 : Photograph.

Ex.P.419 : Certified copy of order dated 27.2.2018 passed in Revenue Appeal No.614/2012. Ex.P.420 : Certified copy of rectification deed. Exs.P.421 : Certified copies of the documents to P.427 submitted to Sub-Registrar's office.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 81 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Exs.P.428 : Certified copies of the documents to P.432 submitted to Sub-Registrar's office. Exs.P.433 : Certified copies of the documents to P.441 submitted to Sub-Registrar's office. Ex.P.442 : Certified copy of judgment in O.S. No.536/2013.

Ex.P.443 : Certified copy of W.P. No.35729/2010. Ex.P.444 : Certified copy of the village map; Ex.P.444(a): Relevant portion marked in yellow sketch pen in Ex.P.444;

Ex.P.444(b): Relevant portion marked in red sketch pen in Ex.P.444.

Ex.P.445 : Certified copy of order on I.A. dated 15.4.2016 in O.S. No.5049/2013. Ex.P.446 : Certified copy of memo filed in Miscellaneous 530/2012.

Ex.P.447 : Certified copy of objection filed in Miscellaneous 530/2012.

Ex.P.448 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 28.7.2012 Ex.P.449 : Copies of encumbrance certificate. Ex.P.450 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 10.2.2006 Ex.P.451 : Certified copy of confirmation deed dated 19.10.2011.

3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

D.W.1 : P.B. Vijayashankar 03-07-2018 D.W.2 : Naresh Kumar H. 11-04-2019

4.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:

Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.536/2013.

Exs.D.2 to : Certified copies of written statements in D.4 O.S. No.536/2013.

Ex2.D.5 to : Certified copies of written statements D.8 in O.S. No.1459/2013.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 82 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Ex.D.9 : Certified copy of order sheet in O.S. No.8127/2012.

Ex.D.10 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.8127/2012.

Exs.D.11 : Certified copies of Interlocutory to D.14 Applications in O.S. No.8127/2012. Ex.D.15 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.788/2013.

Exs.D.16 : Certified copies of the written statements to D.18 in O.S. No.788/2013.

Ex.D.19 : Certified copy of common orders on I.A. No.II in O.S. Nos.536/2013, 788/2013 and 1459/2013.

Ex.D.20 : Certified copy of order dated 26.7.2012 in W.P. Nos.23310-23314/2012. Ex.D.21 : Certified copy of synopsis in W.P. Nos.23310-23314/2012. Ex.D.22 : Certified copy of Writ Petition in W.P. No.23310/2012.

Ex.D.23 : Certified copy of order sheet in Appeal No.774/2013.

Ex.D.24 : Certified copy of order sheet in O.S. No.6654/2011.

Ex.D.25 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.6654/2011.

Ex.D.26 : Certified copy of written statement in O.S. No.6654/2011.

Ex.D.27 : Certified copy of W.P. No.2525/2012. Ex.D.28 : Certified copy of memo dated 27.9.2013 filed in O.S. No.3893/2010.

Ex.D.29 : Special Power of Attorney dated 10.4.2018.

Ex.D.30 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 19.2.1964 Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 83 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Exs.D.31 : Certified extracts of mutation register to D.34 in respect of M.R. Nos.11/2007-08, 7/2008-09, 2/2009 and 3/2009. Ex.D.35 : Four R.T.Cs. (together). Ex.D.36 : Certified copy of preliminary notification dated 18.10.1988.

Ex.D.37 : Certified copy of memorandum dated 16.7.1998.

Ex.D.38 : Certified copy of refund of lapsed deposits. Ex.D.39 : Certified copy of voucher. Ex.D.40 : Certified copy of payment endorsement. Ex.D.41 : Certified copy of indemnity bond. Ex.D.42 : Certified copy of order dated 27.8.1998 in W.P. No.18584/1989.

Ex.D.43 : Certified copy of order in W.A. No.8766/1996.

Ex.D.44 : Certified copy of publication dated 3.3.2012.

Ex.D.45 : Certified copy of the certificate issued by B.B.M.P. Ex.D.46 : Certified extract of register of houses and vacant sites.

Ex.D.47 : Certified copy of approved plan. Ex.D.48 : Certified copy of building licence. Exs.D.49 : Certified copies of order sheet, plaint and to D.51 written statements in O.S. No.1438/2011. Exs.D.52 : Certified copies of order sheet, plaint and to D.54 written statements in O.S. No.1439/2011. Exs.D.55 : Certified copies of order sheet, plaint and to D.57 written statements in O.S. No.2635/2011. Exs.D.58 : Certified copies of order sheet, plaint and to D.60 written statements in O.S. No.6654/2011. Exs.D.61 : Certified copies of order sheet, plaint and to D.64 written statements in O.S. No.8627/2010.

Cont'd..

O.S. No.1885/2011, O.S. No.4605/2012, O.S. No.4882/2012,

- 84 - O.S. No.8280/2010, O.S. No.5049/2013, O.S. No.4607/2012 and O.S. No.4442/2012 Exs.D.65 : Certified copies of order sheet, application to D.68 and two interlocutory applications in Miscellaneous No.127/2017. Ex.D.69 : Certified copy of order dated 25.9.2012 in M.F.A. No.7579/2012.

Ex.D.70 : Certified copy of order dated 14.6.2013 in Review Petition No.235/2013.

Ex.D.71    : Certified copy of sale deed dated 28.7.2012
Ex.D.72    : Certified copy of sale deed dated 10.9.2012
Ex.D.73    : Khata certificate.
Ex.D.74    : Certified extract of houses and vacant sites
Ex.D.75    : Property tax paid receipt.
Ex.D.76    : Certified copy of Official Memorandum

dated 4.6.2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner.

Exs.D.77 : Mutation register extracts. and D.78 Exs.D.79 : R.T.C. extracts.

to D.81 Exs.D.82 : Certified copies of the plans approved by and D.83 the Joint Director of Town Planning.

5. COURT DOCUMENTS:

Ex.C.1 : Seven photographs (together). Ex.C.2 : Certified copy of order sheet in Misc. 530/2012.

(MALLANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.

Cont'd..

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bangalore District Court

Smt. Reena Hegde vs M.R. Kantharaj on 31 January, 2020