Bangalore District Court
K.Nagaraja S/O. D.Krishnamurthy vs Unknown on 2 August, 2016
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
Dated on this the 2nd day of August 2016
-: Present :-
Smt. Hemavathi, BBM, LL.B,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Judge,
Bangalore City.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 9383/2007
Plaintiff:-
K.Nagaraja S/o. D.Krishnamurthy, 36
Years, R/o.No. 108, Old No.27, 3rd
Main Road, Ramachandrapuram,
Bengaluru-21.
[By Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, Advocate]
/ Versus /
Defendants :-
1. H.Krishnappa S/o. Late Hucha
Hanumaiah, 37 Years.
2. Smt. Lakshmamma W/o. late Hucha
Hanumaiah, 60 Years.
Defendants No.1 & 2 are R/o.No.25,
8th Main Road, Shivanahalli,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-10.
3. G.S.Basavarajaiah S/o. Shivanna,
Major, R/o.No. 333, 10th A Main,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-10.
(Sri.C.H., Advocate for D-1, 2.
Sri.C.A., Advocate for D.3)
: 06.12.2007
Date of Institution of the suit
Nature of suit : Suit for permanent
injunction.
Date of commencement of : 05.12.2008
evidence
Date on which the judgment is : 28.07.2016
pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
08 07 22
***
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, agents or anybody claiming under them from interfering or dispossessing or taking forcible possession of plaintiff's lawful possession of the suit schedule property, along with costs of the suit and such other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that the he is the absolute owner of the house property measuring 30 x 40 ft bearing Site No.8, New No.39, Old Khatha No.213 situated at Laggere Village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk having acquired the same through registered Sale Deed dated 13.9.2007 from one Parvathamma. Since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as an absolute owner. One Parvathamma who was the absolute owner in possession of the suit property acquired the same through registered Sale Deed dated 28.2.1980 and she formed layout which was approved by the grama panchayath of Laggere Village and the suit schedule site is one of the site formed in the said layout. When the plaintiff after the sale in his favour filed an application for change of khatha in respect of suit property, he came to know that there have been interferences, attempted dispossession and threatened actions that were undertaken in respect of the property and suits in O.S.No.3360/1999 and 3537/1995 were pending with regard to interse disputes and O.S.No.3537/1995 filed by G.S.Basavarajaiah who is the first defendant herein, who formed layout of sites and conveyed the said sites in favour of several persons including the plaintiff's vendor and said suit was filed against one Hucha Hanumaiah, who is none other than the husband of second defendant and father of third defendant and said G.S.Basavarajaiah even after selling the entire property in its entirety, made several attempts of interference dispossessing and take forcible possession. In the Years 1989, Hucha Hanumappa filed O.S.No.3360/1999 against G.S.Basavarajaiah and several others pertaining to said sites and it was filed with unfounded allegations and those two suits were only for bare injunction and not for declaratory relief. The plaintiff's ownership and possession over the suit property is lawful and it is covered by possession of his predecessor in title and there is no semblance of truth in the statements made in order to dispossess the plaintiff by any of the documents. There is no interim order in any of the suits that are interrelated between Hucha Hanumappa and G.S.Basavarajaiah and said suits were filed only to make illegal and unlawful monetary gains and the plaintiff's possession and ownership being lawful, cannot be disputed by any one much less the defendants, which is supported by valid title. The defendants have to wait for the decision in their respective suits filed by them without dispossessing the plaintiff's possession pertaining to the schedule property. Those two suits are neither res-judicata nor barred under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. to file this suit. On 2.12.2007 defendants made an attempt to dispossess and take forceful possession of the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff by using illegal method and attempt. Plaintiff is unable to resist the illegal acts of the defendants. Hence, filed the suit.
3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that there is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. Defendants No.2 and 3 have not filed written statement.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed :
ISSUES (1) zÁªÁ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ ªÁ¢ zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨÀsªÀz° À è EzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÀÉà ?
(2) zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÁ£À¨ÀsªÀPÉÌ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ CrØ ¥Àr¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ? (3) ªÁ¢ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀAvÀÉ ±Á±ÀévÀ ¥Àæw§AzÀPs ÁeÉÝAiÀÄ rQæ ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä CºÀðgÉ?
(4) AiÀiÁªÀ rQæ CxÀªÁ DzÉñÀ ?
6. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 54 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.54. First defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.6.
7. Heard both sides.
8. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative.
Issue No.2 : In the Negative.
Issue No.3 : In the Negative.
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for
the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 :- The case of the plaintiff is that, the suit schedule property was purchased by one Parvathamma through registered Sale Deed dated 28.2.1980 and she sold the same in favour of this plaintiff on 13.9.2008. Since the date of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Khatha was not changed though he filed an application for transfer of khatha and at that time he came to know that there were two suits filed in O.S.No.3537/1995 and O.S. No.3360/1999, which were pending between Hucha Hanumaiah, who is the father of defendants No.1 and 2 and G.S.Basavarajaiah in respect of the property. The defendants except denying all these facts, have not stated or explained anything about these averments of the plaint.
10. P.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that he had purchased the property after verifying the sale deed , khatha record and tax paid receipts, which were in the name of Parvathamma and he had also verified encumbrance certificate and he further deposed that khatha was not in the name of Parvathamma and she had not paid tax and based on the letter issued by the BBMP to Parvathamma to pay the layout charges, she mentioned khatha number and site number in the schedule of the sale deed and he had produced the said letter before the Sub- Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed. He further deposed that he had not paid layout charges as the defendants have objected for it. He admitted that in the sale deed by Parvathamma, it is mentioned that the sale deed of Huchcha Hanumaiah is dated 8.11.1959, but in his sale deed it is mentioned as sale deed dated 8.11.1950. He further deposed that he does not know the survey number of his site and he further admitted that the southern boundary in his sale deed is mentioned as remaining property. He further deposed that he was not aware of the suit in O.S.No.3360/1989 pending between Huchcha Hanumaiah and Basavaraju. But, he was party to the said suit after the sale deed was executed in his favour and he does not know in respect of which survey number said suit was filed and he mentioned the southern boundary is Gowramma's property as Gowramma constructed the building in the adjacent site. He further admitted that he stated in his chief-examination in the said suit that his property comes in Sy.No. 37 and 38. He also deposed that he had described the suit property based on the documents given by the BBMP in favour of his vendor and he produced the said documents before the Sub- Registrar and he has not produced any document to show that the property of Gowramma is situated towards the southern site of suit property. He admitted that Sy.No. 37 is shown in Ex.P.5 and in Ex.P.6 is relating to the western boundary of the suit schedule property and these documents were produced in O.S.No.3360/1989 and he cannot say to which property Exs.P.8 to P.47 are related and these documents are relating to the Old Sy.No. 213 and new Sy.No.39 and also Sy.No.37/2 are belong to Hucha Hanumaiah. He further deposed that he does not know that there was a separate suit filed with respect to Sy.Nos.37/02, 37/01B and 39/2 and there was a suit in O.S.No.7104/90 and 7032/92 for partition of Sy.No.37/2 and there is also dispute between the defendants and suit in O.S.No.3537/1995 is pending with respect to Sy.No. 39/2 and these suits are pending. He further deposed that the sites were formed in these survey numbers, but he cannot say whether it is converted for non-agricultural purpose, but it was sold on the count of guntas. He denied that the suit schedule property is not situated in Sy.No.37/2, 38/1B, 39/2.
11. Plaintiff produced Ex.P.1, which is the Sale Deed dated 13.9.2007 executed by Smt. Parvathamma in favour of plaintiff in respect of khatha No.213, present No.39, bearing Site No.8 measuring 30 x 40, J.C.Nagar, 23rd A Main Road in Laggere Village, bounded on East by Sokkalingam's property, West by Ramakka's property, North by Road and South by remaining property. Ex.P.2 is the Sale Deed dated 28.5.1980 executed by Huchcha Hanumaiah in favour of Parvathamma in respect of 1.1guntas of land in Sy.No.39 of Laggere Village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli, bounded on East by Sokkalingam's property, West by Ramakka's property, North by Road and South by remaining property, where there is a recital at page No.1 that he purchased the site property on 8.1.1959 registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk in Book-1, Volume No.1171, contending pages 106 to 109 bearing document No.4988 from one Venkatamma. Ex.P.3 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining to Sy.No.39 measuring 1.1 gunta of Laggere Village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli. It is in the name of Parvathamma. Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 8.11.1950 executed in favour of Huchcha Hanumaiah S/o. Boranna by Venkatamma W/o.Muniyappa in respect of Sy.No.215, kushki land situated at Laggere Village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli measuring 2 acres 7 guntas of land bounded on East by Appanna Mestri's land, West by Ramaiah's land, North by Munikalappa Venkatappa's land and South by Government Forest land. This document reveals that this sale deed was registered in Document No.49-88/50-51, Book No.1, Volume No.1171 page 106 to 109. Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 26.11.1979 by G.S.Basavarajaiah in favour of Sokkalingam in respect of property bearing Sy.No.37 measuring 1.1 gunta of Laggere Village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli, bounded on East by remaining land, West by land sold to Nanjundappa, North-pathway and South - remaining property. Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 26.3.1980 executed by Huchcha Hanumaiah in favour of Ramakka in respect of property bearing Sy.No.39 of Laggere Village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli measuring 1.1 guntas bounded on East and West by remaining land, North by Road and South by remaining land. Ex.P.7 is the E.C. in respect of property bearing Sy.No. 39 measuring 1.1 guntas bounded on East and west by remaining land, North by Road and South by remaining land. Ex.P.8 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.3360/89 filed by Huchcha Hanumaiah S/o.Boranna against G.S.Basavarajaiah in respect of Sy.No. 37/2 and 38/13 measuring 32 guntas and 10 guntas respectively situated at Laggere Village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli bounded by East land of Motaiah, West land of Huchcha Hanumaiah, North by land of Motaiah and South by Pipeline for the relief of declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the property and also for the relief of permanent injunction to retrain the defendants in the above said case from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and in that suit the plaintiff is not a party. Ex.P.9 is the written statement filed by G.S.Basavarajaiah who is the first defendant in that suit. Ex.P.10 is the additional written statement filed by the defendant in that suit. Ex.P.11 is the certified copy of the GPA dated 1.3.1999 executed by Huchcha Hanumaiah @ Huchcha Hanumappa in favour of his son Krishnappa in respect of Sy.No. 37/2 measuring 32 guntas and 38/1 measuring 10 guntas and Sy.No.39 measuring 4 acres 2 guntas of Yeshavanthapura Hobli, Laggere Village and also Sy.No. 29/5 of Shivanahalli Village measuring 1 acre 9 guntas. Ex.P.12 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 15.9.1952 executed by Ankappa S/o.Ramegowda in favour of Huchcha Hanumappa in respect of Sy.Nos.211, 212 measuring 22 guntas of Yeshavantha-pura Hobli, Sanegoravanahalli Dakhale. Kamakshipalya bounded on East and North by Mottaiah's land, West by Huchcha Hanum,appa's land, and South by Pipeline. Ex.P.13 is the certified copy of the special power of attorney executed by Chikkamma in favour of Amarnath in relation to O.S.No.7104/1990. Ex.P.14 is the sketch pertaining to Sy.No.37/2 of Yeshavanthapura Hobli, Laggere Village. Ex.P.15 is the RTC in respect of Sy.No.37/2 measuring 32 guntas including 10 guntas kharab land in the name of Huchcha Hanumaiah S/o. Boranna. Ex.P.16 is the RTC in respect of Sy.No.38/1B measuring 10 guntas where the name of Huchcha Hanumaiah is found. Ex.P.17 is the RTC in respect of Sy.No.38/1B measuring 10 guntas in the name of Huchcha Hanumaiah. Ex.P. 18 is the RTC in respect of Sy.No. 37/2 measuring 32 guntas in the name of Huchcha Hanumaiah S/o. Boranna. Ex.P.19 is the endorsement issued by Sanegoravanahalli Village Panchayath stating that the Pahani book in respect of Sy.Nos. 1 to 102/3 of Sanegoravanahalli Village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli is only available in the Office. Ex.P.20 is the certified copy of the Order of DDL in Appeal filed by G.S.Basavarajaiah in respect of Sy.No. 37 and 38/1. Ex.P.21 is the Deed of Revocation of power of attorney on 2.3.1987 by Huchcha Hanumaiah in favour of G.S.Basavarajaiah on 8.7.1980 in respect of Sy.No. 38/1 of Laggere Village, Yeshavantha- pura Hobli. Exs.P.22 to 24 are the documents pertaining to police complaint. Exs.P.25 to 27 are the RTCs in respect of Sy.No.37/2 in the name of Huchcha Hanumaiah in respect of 32 guntas including 10 guntas kharab for the period 1993 to 1998. Exs.P.28 to P.31 are the RTCs in respect of Sy.No.38/1B measuring 10 guntas in the name of Huchcha Hanumaiah for the period 1991 to 2000. Exs.P.32 to P.34 are the certified copies of the tax paid receipts. Ex.P.35 is the certified copy of the proceedings before the DDLR in respect of Sy.No.37/2 and 38/1B filed by G.S.Basavarajaiah against Huchcha Hanumaiah. Ex.P.36 is the certified copy of the Order before the Director of survey settlement and land records in RVN032/98-99 between G.S.Basavarajaiah and Huchcha Hanumaiah in respect of Sy.Nos.36 to 38. Ex.P.37 is the certified copy of the survey notice dated 14.12.2000. Ex.P.38 is the copy of Atlas in respect of Sy.Nos.1 and 2. Ex.P.39 is the certified copy of the Tippani copy in respect of Sy.Nos.1 and 2. Ex.P.40 is the certified copy of the Mutation in MR No.37/80-81 for change of khatha in the name of G.S.Basavarajaiah from the name of G.Channaiah in respect of Sy.No.37 measuring 2 acres 23 guntas. Ex.P.41 is the certified copy of the Decree in O.S.No.9016/1980 (370/80) filed by Munishamappa S/o.Motappa against one Channaiah in respect of Sy.No.37 measuring 3 acres 23 guntas of Laggere Village for canceling of sale deed dated 27.9.1979. Ex.P.43 is the certified copy of the layout plan. Ex.P.44 is the certified copy of the Revision Settlement Copy. Ex.P.45 is the certified copy of the written statement in O.S.No.3735/95. Ex.P.46 and 48 are the certified copies of the plaint in O.S.No.7104/1990 filed by Sokkalingam and another in respect of Sy.No. 37 measuring 30 x 40 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Exs.P.45 and 49 are the certified copies of the written statements in that suit. Ex.P.50 is the certified copy of the Order Sheet in O.S.No.7104/90. Ex.P.51 is the certified copy of the Plaint in O.S.No.3225/1996 filed by Gowramma against Huchcha Hanumaiah S/o. Boranna in respect of Sy.No.39 measuring 1.1 guntas of Laggere Village for permanent injunction. Ex.P.52 is the certified copy of the written statement in that suit. Ex.P.53 is the certified copy of the written statement of defendant No.3 in that suit. Ex.P.54 is the certified copy of the Judgment in O.S.No. 3360/1989 clubbed with O.S.No.7104/90 and 7032/92 and O.S.No. 3537/95, which reveals that the suit in O.S.No.3360/1989 filed by Huchcha Hanumaiah against defendant Basavarajaiah was dismissed and other suits against Huchcha Hanumaiah were decreed in part.
12. The defendant in his cross-examination admitted that in the sale deed of Huchcha Hanumaiah dated 15.9.1952 the location of the original Sy.Nos.211 and 212 is shown as Kamakshipalya, the suit schedule property is located at Laggere Village and the total extent in the sale deed of the year 1952 is 1 acre 2 guntas in Sy.No. 37/2 and 38/1. He denied that he owned only 9 guntas in these two survey number properties and his father has sold the property to one Shivananjamma and he does not know that Shivananjamma W/o.Veerabhadrappa. He denied that they have sold the entire property to one Krishnappa through registered Sale Deed and as per the sale deed dated 18.11.1950, said property was sold to Krishnappa. He admitted that his father had filed a suit in 1959 in respect of the present suit schedule property and it was dismissed as per Exs.P.54 and 55. He denied that during his lifetime, his father had parted away from the properties and he was not in possession of any property and plaintiff purchased the suit property. He denied that Ex.D.6 are not related to suit property and they are not in possession of the suit property. They do not have title over the suit property.
13. The defendant produced Ex.D.1 which is the RTC in respect of Sy.No.37/2 measuring 22 guntas which is in the name of Huchcha Hanumaiah S/o. Boranna. Ex.D.2 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 12.10.1949 executed by Rangegowda in favour of Ankappa in respect of Sy.No. 211 and 212 of Kamakshipalya. Exs.D.3 and D.4 are the certified copies of the Sale Deed dated 15.9.1952 executed by Ankappa in respect of Huchcha Hanumaiah S/o. Boranna in respect of Sy.No.211 and 212 of Kamakshipalya measuring 22 guntas. Ex.D.5 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 8.11.1990 executed in favour of Hucha Hanumaiah by Venktamma in respect of Sy.No.213 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas. Ex.D.6 are the 33 RTCs in respect of Sy.No.37/2 measuring 22 guntas in the name of Huchcha Hanumaiah and Sy.No. 38/1B measuring 10 guntas in the name of Huchcha Hanumaiah.
14. The suit schedule property is described as property bearing No.8, New No.39, Old Khatha No.213 situated at Laggere Village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk now comes within J.C.Nagar, 23rd A Main Road, Bengaluru measuring East - West 30 ft and North - South 40 ft bounded on the East by property of Sokkalingam, West by property of Ramakka, North by Road and South by remaining property. In Ex.P.4 the very same description is shown. Ex.P.2 which is the Title Deed of vendor of plaintiff, it is stated that vendor of the plaintiff's vendor acquired property as per Sale Deed dated 8.1.1959 in Book No.1, Volume No.1171, page No.106 to 109, document No.4988. Ex.P.4 which is the sale deed of vendor of plaintiff in Ex.P.2 reveals that sale deed was registered in document No.4988, Book No.1, Volume 1171, page 106 to 109. But, it is the sale deed dated 8.11.1950 and in this sale deed the property bearing Sy.No. 213 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas was sold, but in Ex.P.2 it is shown that 1.1 gunta of Sy.No. 39 of Laggere Village is sold to vendor of plaintiff. But, there is no document on the part of the plaintiff to show that Sy.No. 213 mentioned in Ex.P.4 is assigned as Sy.No. 39 as shown in Ex.P.2. Ex.P.4 is the sale deed of one Sokkalingam whose name is found in the eastern boundary of the suit property. In that sale deed it is revealed that the western boundary is shown as Nanjundappa's land. If the eastern boundary is Sokkalingam property, the western boundary in Ex.P.5 should have been shown as either property of vendor of plaintiff or property of Huchcha Hanumaiah, who is the vendor of plaintiff's vendor. In Ex.P.6 it is the sale deed of Ramakka whose name is shown in the western boundary of suit property. In this sale deed the eastern boundary is shown as remaining property in Sy.No.39. The sale deed executed in the year 1990 and executed by Huchcha Hanumaiah where it is stated that he purchased the property through registered Sale Deed dated 18.1.1959 in document No.4988, Volume No.1171, Book No.1, page Nos. 106 to 109, it is shown in Ex.P.2. So, on going through this document, it can be said that the property purchased under Ex.P.4 by Huchcha Hanumaiah was sold to different persons. Though this sale deed as per Ex.P.2 is dated 28.5.1980 which is subsequent to sale deed in favour of plaintiff's vendor, there is no chance of mentioning the plaintiff's vendor's name in the eastern boundary of property sold in Ex.P.6. In Ex.P.6 also the northern boundary is shown as road. In O.S. No.3360/1989 Huchcha Hanumaiah has sought for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.37/2, 38/1B measuring 32 guntas and 10 guntas. When though as per Ex.P.4 he purchased the property in Sy.No. 213 of Laggere Village and in subsequent sale deed in favour of one Ramakka and also the plaintiff's vendor, it is shown as he sold the property in Sy.No.39 and there is a recital that he sold the properties purchased as per Ex.P.4. There is no document on the part of defendants to show that the property purchased under Ex.P.4 is not assigned subsequently as Sy.No.39 and these sale deeds are not challenged by Huchcha Hanumaiah or these defendants, I hold that it can be fairly come to conclusion that the property in Sy.No.39 sold by Huchcha Hanumaiah as per Ex.P.2 in favour of plaintiff's vendor and as per Ex.P.6 in favour of Ramakka is nothing but portion of property purchased by him under Ex.P.4. Ex.P.8, P.11, P.12, P.14 to P.18, P.20, P.21, P.25 to 42 are in respect of Sy.No.211 and 212 which were later assigned as Sy.No. 37/2 and 38/1B. But, these documents are not related to the property purchased by Huchcha Hanumaiah as per Ex.P.4.
15. Ex.P.43 is the certified copy of Layout Plan in Sy.No.39. as per this document, towards South site No.10 and 5, towards North - Road, East - Site No.9, West - site No.6. Boundary found in this document does not tally with boundary shown in Ex.P.1 or the suit schedule. In Ex.P.46 which is the suit filed by one Sokkalingam whose property is shown as eastern boundary to the suit schedule herein, the western boundary is shown as property of Parvathamma purchased from Huchcha Hanumaiah. So, it proves that towards the east of the suit property, property of Sokkalingam is situated and though the western boundary in Ex.P.5 which is the sale deed of Sokkalingam is shown as Nanjundappa's property, it is nothing but at present the property owned by the vendor of the plaintiff. Even in O.S.No.3360/1989 filed by Huchcha Hanumaiah which was later prosecuted by defendants herein after death of Huchcha Hanumaiah against several persons including the plaintiff herein was dismissed. The said suit was filed in respect of then Sy.No.211 and 212. At present Sy.No. 37/2 and 37/1B and even the suit filed by Sokkalaingam as per Ex.D.46 was decreed against Huchcha Hanumaiah. The documents produced by the defendants are also pertaining to Sy.No.37/2 and 38/1B which were earlier Sy.No. 211 and 212. Nowhere the defendant denied that Sy.No.213 which was purchased by his father under Ex.P.4 was assigned as Sy.No.39 and even no where stated what is the present Sy.No. in respect of Sy.No. 213 purchased under Ex.P.4 by Huchcha Hanumaiah. In the written statement except denial, he has not stated anything, but in the chief-examination at page No.4 he stated that he is in possession of Sy.No. 39/2 and he sold some sites and he constructed some house in said survey number and let out for rent, but no document is produced to that effect. But, he admitted that the sale deed as per Ex.D.3 and 4 are pertaining to Sy.No. 211 and 212. Though Huchcha Hanumaiah filed suit in O.S.No. 3660/1989 claiming declaration of title over Sy.No. 37/2 and 38/1B, either Huchcha Hanumaiah or these defendants have challenged the sale deed as per Ex.P.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff and his vendor respectively. Though in the sale deed of plaintiff's vendor as per Ex.P.2, the date is wrongly shown as 8.1.1959 which is as per Ex.P.4 dated 8.11.1950, the document No. book number and page number under which Ex.P.4 was registered tallies with the same mentioned in Ex.P.2. When the defendants or Hucha Hanumaiah has not challenged this sale deed, though this plaintiff was party in O.S.No.3360/1989 filed by Huchcha Hanumaiah which was later prosecuted by defendants herein and the plaintiff has produced the documents as per Ex.P.6, P.46 with respect to the eastern and western boundary of the suit property and in the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, there is no cross- examination with respect to the other boundaries of suit schedule property and though there is cross-examination stating that in O.S.No.3360/1989 the plaintiff deposed that towards southern side of his property Gowramma's land is situated and his property is situated in Sy.No. 37 and 38, to corroborate the same, the defendant has not produced either the alleged deposition of P.W.1, I opine that, the aforesaid cross-examination without supporting documents for appreciation of cross-examination of P.W.1 no way help the defendant to disprove the case of the defendant that he has purchased the suit schedule property and it is situated between the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property.
16. In view of these discussion, I hold that the plaintiff has proved that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
17. Issue No.2 : - It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant on 2.12.2007 made an attempt to dispossess her and take forceful possession of the suit property from the plaintiff with the assistance of local persons with an intention to knock off the suit property and even though the suit filed by them was pending, without waiting for decision of the said suit, they tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Per contra, the defendant except denial has not given any explanation to the said allegation against them.
18. In the course of cross-examination P.W.1 deposed that in the year 2007 the defendants troubled her possession over the suit schedule property and she lodged complaint to the police. Ofcourse, admittedly no such document is produced before the Court by the plaintiff and in the cross-examination D.W.1 denied that on 2.12.2007 they went near the suit schedule property and tried to demolish the compound wall and they are troubling the plaintiff to dispossess her from the possession of the suit property. But, when the suit filed by one Huchcha Hanumappa, the father defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of this suit property in O.S.No.3363/1989 for relief of permanent injunction was dismissed and none other document produced by the defendants to prove that they are in possession of the suit property and even though they have not specifically denied the case of the plaintiff, in spite of that they are denying the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property in spite of the registered sale deed is in existence in respect of the suit property since 1980, it can be presumed that, there is a threat of interference by the defendants to the plaintiff's possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff has proved that there is interference by the defendants over the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.3 : - in view of my answers to issues no.1 and 2 in the affirmative, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.4 :- In view of my discussion on Issues No.1 to 3 as supra, proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendants, their men, agents or anybody claiming under them are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 2nd day of August, 2016.) (Hemavathi) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W. 1 : K.Nagaraja.
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 : Sale Deed dated 13.9.2007. Ex.P.2 : Sale Deed dated 25.8.1980 Ex.P.3 : Encumbrance certificate. Ex.P.4 : C/c of Sale deed dated 8.11.1950. Ex.P.5 : C/c of sale deed. Ex.P.6 : C/c of sale deed of Ramakka. Ex.P.7 : C/c of Encumbrance certificate of Ramakka. Ex.P.8 : C/c of Plaint in O.S.No. 3360/89 Ex.P.9 : C/c of W.S. in O.S.No. 3360/89. Ex.P.10 : C/c of W.S. in O.S.No.3360/89.
Ex.P.11 : GPA dated 1.3.1999. executed by Huchcha Hanumaiah @ Huc Ex.P.12 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 15.9.1952.
Ex.P.13 : C/c of special power of attorney executed by Chikkamma in favour of Amarnath Ex.P.14 : Sketch pertaining to Sy.No.37/2.
Ex.P.15 : RTC in respect of Sy.No.37/2.
Ex.P.16 : RTC in respect of Sy.No.38/1B.
Ex.P.17 : RTC in respect of Sy.No.38/1B.
Ex.P.18 : RTC in respect of Sy.No. 37/2.
Ex.P.19 : Endorsement issued by Sanegoravanahalli
Village Panchayath.
Ex.P.20 : C/c of the Order of DDL in Appeal.
Ex.P.21 : Deed of Revocation of power of attorney.
Exs.P.22 to 24: Police complaint documents.
Exs.P.25 to 27: RTCs. Exs.P.28 to P.31:RTCs.
Exs.P.32 to P.34: C/c of tax paid receipts. Ex.P.35 : C/c of proceedings before the DDLR. Ex.P.36 : Order before the Director of survey settlement and land records.
Ex.P.37 : C/c of survey notice dated 14.12.2000. Ex.P.38 : Copy of Atlas in respect of Sy.Nos.1 and 2. Ex.P.39 : C/c of Tippani copy in respect of Sy.Nos.1 and 2.
Ex.P.40 : C/c of Mutation.
Ex.P.41 : C/c of Decree in O.S.No.9016/1980
(370/80).
Ex.P.43 : C/c of layout plan.
Ex.P.44 : C/c of Revision Settlement Copy.
Ex.P.45 : C/c of W.S. in O.S.No.3735/95.
Ex.P.46 & 48: C/c of plaint in O.S.No.7104/1990. Exs.P.45 & 49: C/c of W.S. in O.S.No. 7104/90 Ex.P.50 : C/c of Order Sheet in O.S.No.7104/90. Ex.P.51 : C/c of Plaint in O.S.No.3225/1996 Ex.P.52 : C/c of W.S. in O.S.No.3225/96.
Ex.P.53 : C/c of W.S. of defendant No.3 in O.S.No. 3225/96.
Ex.P.54 : C/c of Judgment in O.S.No. 3360/1989.
3. List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W. 1 : H.Krishnappa.
4. List of documents exhibited for Defendants:
Ex.D.1 : RTC Ex.D.2 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 12.10.49
Ex.D.3 & 4 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 15.9.52.
Ex.D.5 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 8.1190
Ex.D.6 : 33 RTC.
(Hemavathi)
XXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** Md/-