Karnataka High Court
Duggaiah @ Durgappa vs Smt S Sandhya on 16 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
R.F.A.No.1171/2008
C/W
R.F.A.Nos.1891/2011, 1892/2011, 919/2012, 920/2012,
921/2012, 923/2012, 924/2012, 926/2012, 927/2012.
IN RFA No.1171/2008:
BETWEEN:
DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
a) NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
b) NARSEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
c) D NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
d) KUMBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
All ARE SONS OF LATE
DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 062. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
2
AND:
SMT. S SANDHYA
W/O SRINIVASA DHANYA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT No.34, PRANAVA
1ST CROSS KSRTC LAYOUT,
CHIKKALLASANDRA
BANGALORE - 560 061. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR
C/R & IMPLEADING R-2)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF THE CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.10.08 PASSED IN
OS No.396/06 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH.No.10),
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA No.1891/2011:
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED:MAJOR, R/O CHANNASANDRA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 031.
2 . SRI NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED:MAJOR,R/O CHANNASANDRA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGLAORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 031.
3 . SRI NARASEGOWDA
S/O LATE DIGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED:MAJOR, R/O CHANNASANDRA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
3
BANGLAORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 031.
4 . SRI KAMBAIAH
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED:MAJOR, R/O CHANNASANDRA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGLAORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 031.
5 . SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED:MAJOR, R/O CHANNASANDRA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGLAORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 031.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K R RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. JYOTI SAHASRABUDHE
W/O SRI VIJAYA SAHASRABUDHE,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.4,
MOUNTAIN STREET, MADHAVAN PARK,
1ST BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M V VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:01.08.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.3097/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII-ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA No.1892/2011:
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
4
W/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED:MAJOR, R/O CHANNASANDRA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 031.
2 . SRI NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED:MAJOR, R/O CHANNASANDRA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGLAORE SOUTH TALUK- 560 031.
3 . SRI NARASEGOWDA
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED:MAJOR, R/O CHANNASANDRA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGLAORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 031.
4 . SRI KAMBAIAH
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED:MAJOR, R/O CHANNASANDRA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGLAORE SOUTH TALUK- 560 031.
5 . SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED:MAJOR, R/O CHANNASANDRA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGLAORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 031.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K R RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SHAILA SUNDAR
W/O LT. CI.D.SUNDAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.2/6,
F.M. CARIAPPA COLONY,
5
M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M V VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:01.08.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.3096/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII-ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA No.919/2012:
BETWEEN:
SMT. NUTHAN SHETTY
W/O NARESH KUMAR SHETTY
AGED 46 YEARS
C/O SMT. SABITHA SHETTY
WOODLAND WEST, KODIAL BAIL,
MANGALORE - 575 003.
REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.A.
HOLDER SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR AMIN
S/O S K AMIN, AGED 54 YEARS
R/AT FLAT No.315,
2ND FLOOR, GALLI APARTMENTS
4TH CROSS JAYANAGAR, 8TH BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560 070. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M V VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED MAJOR
2 . SRI NARSIMHAIAH
AGED 55 YEARS
6
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
3 . SRI NARASEGOWDA
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
4 . SRI KAMBAYYA
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
5 . SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
ALL ARE R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 98.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:05.03.2012 PASSED IN
O.S.No.4238/2008 ON THE FILE OF XVII-ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-16, BANGALORE
CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
IN RFA No.920/2012:
BETWEEN:
DR. K B KUMAR
S/O R K PILAI
AGED 54 YEARS,
CHIEF TECHNICAL MANAGER
INDO AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS,
17TH CROSS, 2ND 'A' MAIN,
K R ROAD, B.S.K II STAGE,
7
BANGALORE - 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SRI VSASI, S/O K VELLAPPAN
AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT No.150,
C SACHIDANANDANAGAR
DOUBLE ROAD, BEML, 5TH STAGE
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 098. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H B CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
AND:
1 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
2 . SRI NARSIMHAIAH
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
3 . SRI NARASEGOWDA
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
4 . SRI KAMBAYYA
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5 . SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
ALL ARE R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK -98. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B C SEETHRAMA RAO, ADVOCATE-THROUGH V.C)
8
THIS RFA FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W
SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 5.3.2012 PASSED IN O.S.No.6484/2007 ON THE
FILE OF THE 17 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 16), DISMISSING THE SUIT
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA No.921/2012:
BETWEEN:
SRI FRANSIS JOSEPH
S/O LATE M F JOSEPH BENDICT
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT No.30, FIRST FLOOR,
1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
MARUTHINAGAR, MADIWAL POST,
BANGALORE - 560 068. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M V VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
2 . SRI NARSIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
3 . SRI NARASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
4 . SRI KAMBAYYA
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5 . SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY
9
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
ALL ARE R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK -98.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B C SEETHRAMA RAO, ADVOCATE-THROUGH V.C)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W
SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 5.3.2012 PASSED IN O.S.No.6485/2007
ON THE FILE OF THE 17 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 16), DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA No.923/2012:
BETWEEN:
SMT. VEDAVATHI
W/O R V NARAYANMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT No. 2573, 7TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY HIS G.P.A
HOLDER SRI MANJUNATH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT No.1324, 27TH MAIN ROAD
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 070. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M V VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE)
10
AND:
1 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED MAJOR.
2 . SRI NARSIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
3 . SRI NARASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
4 . SRI KAMBAYYA
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5 . SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
ALL ARE R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B C SEETHRAMA RAO, ADVOCATE-THROUGH V.C)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W
SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 5.3.2012 PASSED IN O.S.No.6482/2007 ON THE
FILE OF THE 17 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 16), DISMISSING THE SUIT
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
11
IN RFA No.924/2012:
BETWEEN:
SRI B VISHWANATH
S/O B MUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT No.486, 6TH BLOCK,
3RD PHASE, BANASHANKARI
3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M V VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED MAJOR.
2 . SRI NARSIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
3 . SRI NARASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
4 . SRI KAMBAYYA
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5 . SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
ALL ARE R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. ...RESPONDENTS
12
(BY SRI B C SEETHRAMA RAO, ADVOCATE -THROUGH V.C)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W
SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 5.3.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.202/2005 ON THE
FILE OF THE 17 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 16), DISMISSING THE SUIT
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA No.926/2012:
BETWEEN
SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR AMIN
S/O S K AMIN
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/A FLAT No.315, 2ND FLOOR,
GALLI APARTMENTS, 47TH CROSS,
JAYANAGAR, 8TH BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 070. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M V VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED MAJOR.
2 . SRI NARSIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
3 . SRI NARASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
4 . SRI KAMBAYYA
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
13
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5 . SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
ALL ARE R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B C SEETHRAMA RAO, ADVOCATE-THROUGH V.C)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W
SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 5.3.2012 PASSED IN O.S.No.200/2005 ON
THE FILE OF THE 17 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 16), DISMISSING THE SUIT
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA No.927/2012:
BETWEEN
SRI Y RAGHUNATH
S/O LATE VENKOBRAO
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT No.15, PUTTANNA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE - 560 004. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M V VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED MAJOR.
14
2 . SRI NARSIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
3 . SRI NARASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
4 . SRI KAMBAYYA
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5 . SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE DUGGAIAH @ DURGAPPA
ALL ARE R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B C SEETHRAMA RAO, ADVOCATE-THROUGH V.C)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W
SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 5.3.2012 PASSED IN O.S.No.201/2005 ON
THE FILE OF THE 17 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 16), DISMISSING THE SUIT
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Three appeals by the defendants and seven appeals by the plaintiffs are directed against the 15 judgment and decree passed by the trial court in several original suits on different dates. The details are as under:
SL. RFA NUMBER O.S. No. /DATE OF NAME OF THE NO. DISPOSAL/RESULT COUNSEL 1 RFA O.S.No.396/2006 Sri. M. No.1171/2008 filed by plaintiff-Smt. Ramakrishna, filed by the S. Sandhya for Advocate for defendant/ permanent injunction Appellant owner-Duggaiah in respect of the Sy (Absent) @ Durgappa No.2/3B, bearing dead by his legal Katha No.52, Sri. Nagaiah heirs measuring to an advocate for extent of 30 X 40 feet C/R1 & situated at Impleading R2.
Channasandra Village, (PH)
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South
Taluk.
D.D.03.10.2008
Suit came to be
decreed granting
permanent injunction.
2 RFA O.S.No.3097/2005 Sri. K. R.
No.1891/2011 filed by plaintiff- Ramesh,
filed by the Smt.Jyoti Advocate for
defendants No.1 Sahasrabudhe for Appellants (PH)
to 4
permanent injunction
in respect of the Sy Sri. M. V.
No.69, Katha No.52, Vedachala,
Assessment No.2/3B, Advocate for
Gramatana Katha C/R (PH)
No.52, Situated at
Channasandra Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South
16
Taluk measuring 30 X
40 feet.
D.D.01.08.2011
Suit came to be
decreed granting
permanent injunction.
3 RFA O.S.No.3096/2005 Sri. K. R.
No.1892/2011 filed plaintiff- Ramesh,
filed by the Mrs.Shaila Sundar for Advocate for
defendants No.1 permanent injunction Appellants (PH)
to 4. in respect of the
property No.64, Sri. M. V.
Katha No.52, Vedachala,
Assessment No.2/3B, Advocate for
Gramatana Katha C/R (PH)
No.52 measuring to
an extent of 30 X 40
feet situated at
Channasandra Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South
Taluk.
D.D.01.08.2011
Suit came to be
decreed granting
permanent injunction.
4 RFA O.S.No.4238/2008 Sri. M. V.
No.919/2012 filed plaintiff-Smt. Vedachala,
filed by the Nuthan Shetty for Advocate for
plaintiff-Smt. permanent injunction Appellant (PH)
Nuthan Shetty in respect of the
property No.65, Sri. B. C.
Katha No.52, Seetharama
Assessment No.2/3, Rao, Advocate
measuring to an for
extent East to West Respondents
30 feet and North to (VC)
South 40 feet situated
at Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
17
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
5 RFA O.S.No.6484/2007 Sri. H. B.
No.920/2012 filed by plaintiff- Chandrashekar,
filed by the K.B.Kumar for Advocate for
plaintiff- permanent injunction Appellant (PH)
K.B.Kumar in respect of property
No.78, Katha No.52, Sri. B. C.
Assessment No.2/3, Seetharama
measuring to an Rao, Advocate
extent of East to west for
48 + 41 ½ feet and Respondents
North to South 30 (VC)
feet situated at
Channasandra Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South
Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
6 RFA O.S.No.6485/2007 Sri. M. V.
No.921/2012 filed plaintiff-Sri. Vedachala,
filed by the Fransis Joseph for Advocate for
plaintiff-Sri. permanent injunction Appellant (PH)
Francis Joseph in respect of the
property No.52, Sri. B. C.
Katha No.52, Seetharama
Assessment No.2/3, Rao, Advocate
measuring to an for
extent East to West Respondents
30 feet and North to (VC)
South 40 feet situated
at Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
18
7 RFA O.S.No.6482/2007 Sri. M. V.
No.923/2012 filed plaintiff-Smt. Vedachala,
filed by the Vadavathi for Advocate for
plaintiff-Smt. permanent injunction Appellant (PH)
Vedavathi in respect of the
property No.70, Sri. B. C.
Katha No.52, Seetharama
Assessment No.2/3, Rao, Advocate
measuring to an for
extent East to West Respondents
30 feet and North to (VC)
South 40 feet situated
at Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
8 RFA No.924/2012 O.S.No.202/2005 filed Sri. M. V.
filed by the plaintiff-Sri.B.Vishwanth Vedachala,
plaintiff-Sri. for permanent Advocate for
B.Vishwanath injunction in respect of Appellant (PH)
the property bearing
Assessment No.2/3, Sri. B. C.
measuring to an extent Seetharama Rao,
East to West 30 feet Advocate for
and North to South 40 Respondents
feet situated at (VC)
Channasandra Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
9 RFA O.S.No.200/2005 Sri. M. V.
No.926/2012 filed plaintiff-Sri. Vedachala,
filed by the Praveen Kumar Amin Advocate for
plaintiff-Praveen for permanent Appellant (PH)
Kumar Amin injunction in respect
of the property Sri. B. C.
No.52, Katha No.52, Seetharama
19
Assessment No.2/3, Rao, Advocate
measuring to an for
extent East to West Respondents
30 feet and North to (VC)
South 40 feet situated
at Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
10 RFA O.S.No.201/2005 Sri. M. V.
No.927/2012 filed plaintiff- Vedachala,
filed by the Y.Raghunath for Advocate for
plaintiff-Y. permanent injunction Appellant (PH)
Raghunath in respect of the
property No.49, Sri. B. C.
Katha No.52, Seetharama
Assessment No.2/3, Rao, Advocate
measuring to an for
extent East to West Respondents
30 feet and North to (VC)
South 40 feet situated
at Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance with their 20 respective rankings as stood by them before the trial court.
3. RFA No.1171/2008, 1891/2011 and 1892/2011 are connecting to suit in OS Nos.
396/2006, 3097/2005 and 3096/2005 respectively and the said appeals are filed by the defendants. In respect of the suit Nos.4238/2008, 6484/2007, 6485/2007, 6482/2007, 202/2003, 200/2005 and 201/2005 are concerned, they are dismissed and the appeals are preferred by the respective plaintiffs.
4. As stated in above Table, original suits were disposed of on several dates.
5. In the circumstances of the cases, considering the suit claim of the plaintiff in all the cases and the contentions of the defendants in their written statements and since all the matters are inter- connected to each other, this Court ordered for 21 disposal of the appeals together as per the order dated 5.10.2021. Thus the disposal is made through this common Judgment.
6. The substance of the plaint in all the cases could be epitomized as under:
The plaintiffs in all the cases are claiming as the purchasers of their respective suit schedule property through the registered sale deeds stated to have been executed by one Duggaiah @ Durgappa (2) Narasimhaiah son of Duggaiah @ Durgappa (3) Narasegowda son of Duggaiah @ Durgappa (4) Kempaiah son of Duggaiah @ Durgappa (5) Narasimha Murthy son of Duggaiah @ Durgappa. The sellers were represented by power of attorney holder K.S. Krishna son of K.C. Seenappa, 38 years, No.1184, 11th Cross, I stage, Banashankari, Bengaluru under the registered power of attorney bearing No.144/1992-93 dated 24th August 1992 registered as 22 No.449/9293 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk.
7. The details of the sale deeds under which plaintiffs in each of the cases are claiming to have purchased their irrespective suit schedule property are mentioned as under:
SL. RFA NUMBER O.S. NUMBER DATE OF SALE NO. AND FILED BY DATE OF DISPOSAL DEEDS AND WHOM RESULT CONSIDERATION 1 RFA O.S.No.396/2006 On 15/02/1993 No.1171/2008 filed by plaintiff-Smt. for filed by the S. Sandhya for Rs. 32,000/-
defendant/ permanent injunction owner-Duggaiah in respect of the Sy @ Durgappa No.2/3B, bearing dead by his Katha No.52, legal heirs measuring to an extent of 30 X 40 feet situated at Channasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
D.D.03.10.2008
Suit came to be
decreed granting
permanent
injunction.
2 RFA O.S.No.3097/2005 On 30/09/1992
No.1891/2011 filed by plaintiff- for
23
filed by the Smt.Jyoti Rs. 32,000/-
defendants No.1 Sahasrabudhe for
to 4 permanent injunction
in respect of the Sy
No.69, Katha No.52,
Assessment No.2/3B,
Gramatana Katha
No.52, Situated at
Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk
measuring 30 X 40
feet.
D.D.01.08.2011
Suit came to be
decreed granting
permanent
injunction.
3 RFA O.S.No.3096/2005 On 28/12/1992
No.1892/2011 filed plaintiff- for
filed by the Mrs.Shaila Sundar Rs. 32,000/-
defendants No.1 for permanent
to 4. injunction in respect
of the property
No.64, Katha No.52,
Assessment No.2/3B,
Gramatana Katha
No.52 measuring to
an extent of 30 X 40
feet situated at
Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
D.D.01.08.2011
Suit came to be
decreed granting
permanent
injunction.
4 RFA O.S.No.4238/2008 On 04/11/1992
No.919/2012 filed plaintiff-Smt. for
24
filed by the Nuthan Shetty for Rs. 36,000/-
plaintiff-Smt. permanent injunction
Nuthan Shetty in respect of the
property No.65,
Katha No.52,
Assessment No.2/3,
measuring to an
extent East to West
30 feet and North to
South 40 feet
situated at
Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
5 RFA O.S.No.6484/2007 On 27/08/1992
No.920/2012 filed by plaintiff- for
filed by the K.B.Kumar for Rs. 40,000/-
plaintiff- permanent injunction
K.B.Kumar in respect of
property No.78,
Katha No.52,
Assessment No.2/3,
measuring to an
extent of East to
west 48 + 41 ½ feet
and North to South
30 feet situated at
Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
6 RFA O.S.No.6485/2007 On 9/9/1992 for
No.921/2012 filed plaintiff-Sri. Rs. 20,000/-
filed by the Fransis Joseph for
25
plaintiff-Sri. permanent injunction
Francis Joseph in respect of the
property No.52,
Katha No.52,
Assessment No.2/3,
measuring to an
extent East to West
30 feet and North to
South 40 feet
situated at
Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
7 RFA O.S.No.6482/2007 On 31/10/1992
No.923/2012 filed plaintiff-Smt. for
filed by the Vadavathi for Rs. 36,000/-
plaintiff-Smt. permanent injunction
Vedavathi in respect of the
property No.70,
Katha No.52,
Assessment No.2/3,
measuring to an
extent East to West
30 feet and North to
South 40 feet
situated at
Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
8 RFA O.S.No.202/2005 On 17/10/1992
No.924/2012 filed plaintiff- for
filed by the Sri.B.Vishwanth for Rs. 20,000/-
plaintiff-Sri. permanent injunction
26
B.Vishwanath in respect of the
property bearing
Assessment No.2/3,
measuring to an
extent East to West
30 feet and North to
South 40 feet
situated at
Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
9 RFA O.S.No.200/2005 On 03/03/1993
No.926/2012 filed plaintiff-Sri. for
filed by the Praveen Kumar Amin Rs. 36,000/-
plaintiff-Praveen for permanent
Kumar Amin injunction in respect
of the property
No.52, Katha No.52,
Assessment No.2/3,
measuring to an
extent East to West
30 feet and North to
South 40 feet
situated at
Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
10 RFA O.S.No.201/2005 On 15/07/1992
No.927/2012 filed plaintiff- for
filed by the Y.Raghunath for Rs. 40,000/-
plaintiff-Y. permanent injunction
Raghunath in respect of the
27
property No.49,
Katha No.52,
Assessment No.2/3,
measuring to an
extent East to West
30 feet and North to
South 40 feet
situated at
Channasandra
Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk.
D.D.05.03.2012
Suit came to be
dismissed.
8. The defendants are claimed to be previous owners of entire portion of land and property in survey No.2/3B of Channasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South taluk. Each of the suit schedule property is stated to be in survey No.2/3B. The description of the schedule property is mentioned on the basis of square feet and the respective east west and north south measurement as mentioned above. The respective plaintiffs alleged interference in their respective cases by the defendants and sought for the relief of permanent injunction. 28
9. The defendants are none other than the family members/legal heirs of said late Duggaiah @ Durgappa namely, Gowramma being wife (2) Narasimhaiah, (3) Narasegowda, (4) Kempaiah, (5) Naasimha murthy being the sons of said Duggaiah @Durgappa.
10. The further claim of the plaintiffs in all the cases is that the defendants have transferred all the rights, title in entirety in favour of the plaintiffs under the registered sale deeds as stated above. The plaintiff/purchaser in each of the case was put in possession of the suit schedule property and the interference was resisted by the plaintiffs and since that was not sufficient they sought for permanent injunction.
11. The defendants have denied the suit claim of the plaintiff in all the cases and contended that the 29 plaintiffs are not the owners or in possession of the schedule property. It is the further contention of the defendants that land bearing Survey No.2/3B belonged to defendants and it is under their absolute ownership and possession. They deny either sale agreements or sale deeds or receipt of the sale consideration. They further submit that the General Power of Attorney was not executed by them conferring powers on the attorney Sri. Krishna, to execute the registered sale deeds. They have not received any consideration. No title was passed on to the plaintiffs and property is still under the possession and ownership of the defendants. Respective plaintiffs have not developed or improved the schedule property in any manner and there are no acts of possession. On the other hand, the Power of Attorney executed by the defendants was cancelled on 20-12-1997.
30
12. The relevant issues were framed by the learned trial Judge regarding existence of sites, possession and interference. However, in O.S No.396/2006 issue is also framed regarding ownership.
13. Learned trial judge was accommodated with the following oral and documentary evidence in all the cases:
"IN RFA No.1171/2008 (O.S.No.396/2006):
For Plaintiff:
PW.1 Srinivasa Dhanya
PW.2 T.S.Rajashekar
Ex.P1 General Power of Attorney
Ex.P2 Sale deed dated 10.02.1993
Ex.P3 Notice dated 16.3.1996
Ex.P4 Assessment extract
For Defendants:
DW.1 D.Narasimhaiah
Ex.D1 Certified copy of order sheet in OS
1684/2002
Ex.D2 Certified copy of IA in OS No.1684/2002
Ex.D3 Certified copy of order passed on IA in
1684/2002
31
Ex.D4 Certified copy of order sheet in OS
No.1684/2002.
Ex.D5 to 8 RTC extract
Ex.D9 Tax paid receipt."
IN RFA No.1891/2011 (OS No.3097/2005):
For Plaintiff:
PW.1 Jyoth Sahasrabudhe. Ex.P.1 Sale deed Ex.P.2 Demand register extract Ex.P.3 to 6 tax paid receipts Ex.P.7 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.8 Police complaint Ex.P.9 Police acknowledgement Ex.P.10 Copy of General Power of Attorney Ex.P.11 Copy of General Power of Attorney. For Defendants: DW.1 D.Narasimhamurthy Ex.D1 Pass book Ex.D2 Endorsement Ex.D3 RTC copies Ex.D4 Tax paid receipts Ex.D5 Photograph with negative.
IN RFA No.1892/2011 (OS No.3096/2005):
For Plaintiff:
PW.1 Shaila Sunder
PW.2 K.S.Krishna
Ex.P.1 Sale deed
32
Ex.P.2 Demand register extract
Ex.P.3 to 6 tax paid receipts
Ex.P.7 Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.P.8 Police complaint
Ex.P.9 Police acknowledgement
Ex.P.10 Copy of General Power of Attorney
Ex.P.11 Copy of General Power of Attorney.
For Defendants:
DW.1 D.Narasimhamurthy
Ex.D1 Pass book
Ex.D2 Endorsement
Ex.D3 RTC copies
Ex.D4 Tax paid receipts
Ex.D5 Photograph with negative.
IN RFA No.919/2012 (OS No.4238/2008):
For Plaintiffs:
1. Surekha Shetty
2. K.S.Krishna Ex.P.1 Sale deed 1992 Ex.P.2 Special Power of Attorney.
Defendants:
DW.1 D.Narasimhamurthy
Ex.D.1 Copy of the order sheet in O.S
No.11/2004.
Ex.D.2 Copy of the Passbook of Agriculture.
Ex.D.3 Endorsement issued by Tahasildar
Ex.D.4 to 12 Pahani
Ex.D.13 to 17 Tax receipts
Ex.D.18 Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.11/2004
33
Ex.D.19 Written statement.
IN RFA No.920/2012 (OS No.6484/2007):
For Plaintiffs:
1. Dr.K.B.Kumar
2. K.S.Krishna Ex.P.1 Sale deed 1992 Ex.P.2 to 11 Tax receipts.
Defendants:
DW.1 D.Narasimhamurthy
Ex.D.1 Copy of the order sheet in O.S
No.11/2004.
Ex.D.2 Copy of the Passbook of Agriculture.
Ex.D.3 Endorsement issued by Tahasildar
Ex.D.4 to 12 Pahani
Ex.D.13 to 17 Tax receipts
Ex.D.18 Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.11/2004
Ex.D.19 Written statement.
IN RFA No.921/2017 (OS No.6485/2007):
For Plaintiffs:
1. Francis Joseph
2. K.S.Krishna Ex.P.1 Copy of Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.2 Copy of Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.3 Mother deed of 1992 Ex.P.4 Encumbrance certificate.34
Defendants:
DW.1 D.Narasimhamurthy
Ex.D.1 Copy of the order sheet in O.S
No.11/2004.
Ex.D.2 Copy of the Passbook of Agriculture.
Ex.D.3 Endorsement issued by Tahasildar
Ex.D.4 to 12 Pahani
Ex.D.13 to 17 Tax receipts
Ex.D.18 Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.11/2004
Ex.D.19 Written statement.
IN RFA No.924/2012 (O.S No.202/2005):
For Plaintiff:
1. B.Vishwanath
2. K.S.Krishna Ex.P.1 Register sale deed Ex.P.2 to 4 Tax receipts Ex.P.5 Police acknowledgment.
Ex.P.6 Copy of Complaint.
Ex.P.7 Copy of Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.8 Copy of Encumbrance certificate Defendants:
DW.1 D.Narasimhamurthy
Ex.D.1 Copy of the order sheet in O.S
No.11/2004.
Ex.D.2 Copy of the Passbook of Agriculture.
Ex.D.3 Endorsement issued by Tahasildar
Ex.D.4 to 12 Pahani-9
Ex.D.13 to 17 Tax receipts-5
Ex.D.18 Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.11/2004
35
Ex.D.19 Written statement.
IN RFA No.926/2012 In OS No.200/2005:
For Plaintiff:
1. Praveen Kumar Ameen
2. K.S.Krishna Ex.P.1 Register sale deed Ex.P.2 to 4 Tax receipts Ex.P.5 Copy of Demand Register Ex.P.6 Police acknowledgment Ex.P.7 Complaint copy.
Defendants:
DW.1 D.Narasimhamurthy
Ex.D.1 Copy of the order sheet in O.S
No.11/2004.
Ex.D.2 Copy of the Passbook of Agriculture.
Ex.D.3 Endorsement issued by Tahasildar
Ex.D.4 to 12 Pahani-9
Ex.D.13 to 17 Tax receipts-5
Ex.D.18 Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.11/2004
Ex.D.19 Written statement
IN RFA No.927/2012 (OS No.201/2005):
For Plaintiff:
1. Y Ragunath
2. K.S.Krishna Ex.P.1 Register sale deed 1992 Ex.P.2 to 4 Tax receipts Ex.P.5 Copy of Tax register.
Ex.P.6 Police acknowledgment.
36
Ex.P.7 Receipts.
Defendants:
DW.1 D.Narasimhamurthy
Ex.D.1 Copy of the order sheet in O.S
No.11/2004.
Ex.D.2 Copy of the Passbook of Agriculture.
Ex.D.3 Endorsement issued by Tahasildar
Ex.D.4 to 12 Pahani-9
Ex.D.13 to 17 Tax receipts-5
Ex.D.18 Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.11/2004
Ex.D.19 Written statement.
14. The learned trial judge upon conclusion of the trial, decreed three suits and dismissed the rest of the suits of the plaintiff and they are challenged both by the plaintiff and defendants as mentioned above.
15. Learned counsel Sri M.V.Vedachala representing the individual purchaser/plaintiff- appellant in RFA Nos.919/2012, 920/2012, 921/2012, 923/2012, 924/2012, 926/2012 and 927/2012 would submit that the defendants have made a U turn even 37 after knowing that they have sold the schedule property to the respective plaintiff for lawful consideration under the registered sale deeds. The plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit schedule property in each of the cases and they have the required documents in their names.
16. Due to greed and with dishonest intention defendants pleaded false claim in order to deprive the plaintiff/purchaser in all the cases of their legal and legitimate right over the schedule property. He would further submit that the present case is not only the one that was contested by the defendants. Per contra, there are several cases including three original suits connecting to three regular first appeals in OS Nos.396/2006, 3097/2005 and 3096/2005 connecting to RFA Nos.1171/2008, 1891/2011 and 1892/2011 are also filed by defendants as the said suits on similar claim was decreed by the trial judge. 38
17. The defendants/respondents in the respective cases have even compromised four suits in RFA Nos. 917/2012, 918/2012, 922/2012 and 925/2012 in the capacity of appellants connecting to four original suits in OS No.54/2007, 6483/2007, 8242/2005 and 7953/2004. In the said compromise they have conceded the right, title, interest and possession of the respective purchasers and the said RFAs are disposed of.
18. Learned counsel would further submit that decreeing of the three suits stated above would acknowledge and confirm the rightlessness of the defendants. He would further submit that the trial court has discussed regarding the revenue nature of the suit which was not the scope of the suit considering the circumstances and facts pleaded by the parties.
39
19. Learned counsel Sri. K.R. Ramesh for appellants/defendants/sellers (Gowramma) in RFA Nos.1891/2011 and 1892/2011 submits that the trial court erred in decreeing the original suit Nos.3096/2005 and 3097/2005. Regard being had to the fact that the other connected cases were dismissed against the plaintiffs.
20. Learned counsel Sri. K.R. Ramesh for appellants/defendants in RFA No.1891/2011 and 1892/2011 would submit that a reading of the power of attorney reveals that the attorney was authorised only to develop the lands, form the sites along with other managerial powers and sell or lease out the schedule property, besides, raising construction over the site. But the said power of attorney has not done any developmental act nor converted the land for non- agricultural or residential purpose nor any regular 40 layout was formed as per law. Thus the power of attorney cannot be considered as a legal document authorizing Mr.Krishna to sell the suit schedule property. Learned counsel further submits that no ownership was passed on the to the purchasers, no purchases were made and revenue entries were continued to be in the name of sellers/defendants in respect of land in Survey No.2/3B. It was also submitted that deliberately Survey number of property is not mentioned in the schedule property mentioned in the plaint. It is called as gramathana property which is not the case. He would further submit that plaintiffs/purchasers have miserably failed to prove the identity of the respective schedule property with boundaries with certainty and precision.
21. Learned counsel Sri. B.C. Seetharama rao appearing for respondents/defendants in RFA Nos. 919/2012, 920/2012, 921/2012, 923/2012, 41 924/2012, 926/2012 and 927/2012 through V.C. submits that the description of the suit schedule property in each of the cases do not tally with the land and property claimed by the plaintiffs. The house list number of the property or panchayath katha have no bearing on the true state of affairs, more particularly, when the schedule property is not converted for residential purposes, the question of considering as vacant residential site does not arise. When the appellants/ plaintiffs claim regarding the survey number, but, it does not find a place in the description in the plaint schedule. There is a strong confusion and dispute regarding the existence and identity of the suit schedule vacant site as part of survey No.2/3B when the lands of the defendant Duggaiah @ Durgappa and his brothers are not ascertained specifically.
42
22. The matter has seen several rounds of litigation before the revenue authorities including Assistant Director of Land Records and Deputy Director of Land Records. There is a lot of confusion and precision in presenting the case of plaintiffs. There is an appeal pending in No.860/1999 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and at the instance of the defendants/sellers alleged that stay of the survey order is granted. Few lands in different survey numbers were allotted to Duggaiah @ Durgappa in the partition and the sale deeds claimed by the plaintiffs have no co-relation. None of the plaintiffs have satisfied the identity, existence, location with certainty in respect of the schedule property. The sale if any made in respect of the property other than land in Survey No.2/3B is not binding on the defendants. 43
23. Gowramma /1st respondent in the appeals filed by plaintiffs is dead and incidentally, she is the appellant in RFA No.1891/2011 and 1892/2011.
24. Plaintiffs/purchasers have not derived any right or title from the sale deeds as there is no precision and certainty with reference to location, identity and boundaries. The power of attorney is not a valid and authorizing document for said Mr. Krishna to claim authority to execute the registered sale deeds and to receive consideration.
25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, following points are amply clear:
The land in survey No.2/3B to the extent of 1-30 guntas was originally allotted to Duggappa @ Durgappa under the partition deed dated 27-4-1959;
The fact of said Duggappa @ Durgappa getting the schedule property under partition is not disputed either by the plaintiffs or by the defendants; 44
The sale deeds of the schedule property are claimed to have been executed by Duggappa and his family members;
The said Duggappa was dead at the time of filing of the suits and his family members/legal heirs consisting of wife and sons who incidentally are stated to be the sellers/remaining sellers under the sale deeds are the defendants as legal heirs of Duggappa and for themselves.
Among them, Gowramma- 1st defendant who is the wife of Duggaiah @ Durgappa is reported dead. However, she is 1st defendant.
26. Similarly, Gowramma as appellant in two cases i.e. in RFA No.1891/2011 and RFA No.1892/2011 and as 1st defendant in the connected original suits reported dead and the stage is for the disposal of the case. In the over all facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of the suit and presence of remaining LRs of the said 45 Gowramma being already on record, there is no embargo for proceeding with the case.
27. It is to be understood that Gowramma and the defendant Nos.1 to 5 are stated to be the legal heirs/LRs of deceased Duggaiah @ Durgappa. Durgappa died and suit was filed against his LRs. Now 1st defendant Gowramma died, it is quiet but natural, the remaining defendants Nos.2 to 5 are the LRs/legal heirs of deceased Gowramma.
28. Thus, the family of Gowramma after the death of her husband Duggaiah @ Durgappa consisted of herself and four sons. As observed by me above, defendant Nos.2 to 5 are none other than her legal heirs/representatives and there is no necessity of bringing further legal representatives, more particularly, again as observed, suits are filed for 46 permanent injunction and the death of the 1st defendant neither alters nor vitiates the proceedings.
29. The prime contention of the sellers who are the appellants in three cases and the respondents in seven cases is that the land in Sy.No.2/3B of Channasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru consisted of agricultural land to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas that fell to the share of Duggaiah @ Durgappa in the family partition. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that sites were formed over the said land and sold to them. It is stated that the registered sale deeds are morefully mentioned in the table above. The stand of the sellers were in the capacity of the appellants in three appeals and as the defendants in seven appeals is that the land that was sold was agricultural or revenue in nature and cannot be treated as a vacant site and also it does not become gramatana to be used as residential plots. Further, the 47 defendants also questioned that addressing the site number has no relevance as there is no approved lay- out formed nor the land is converted for residential purposes or competent authority has approved it. Thus, allotting of site numbers to the sites have no value or divided them as per their own will and volition of the purchasers and not to be considered. It is also stated that the Power of Attorney Holder had no right to sell the property as the sites were not formed. The Power of Attorney was cancelled by the defendants. In this connection, it is to be stated that the registered sale deeds are executed by the Power of Attorney Holder during the year 1992 and the Power of Attorney is stated to have been cancelled on 23.12.1997 and it has come during the cross examination of DW1 in OS No.396/2006 in the connected RFA No.1171/2008.
48
30. The reading of Section 204 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 makes it abundantly clear that the Power of Attorney cannot be cancelled when the authority is partly exercised. Regard being had to the fact that the authority has been fully exercised in this case, as the sale deeds have been executed. More over, the question of denying the execution of the sale deeds by the Power of Attorney Holder or giving away the authorized Power of Attorney through the said Power of Attorney cannot be considered as reliable as there is a clear and unequivocal admission on the part of DW1, in the cross examination dated 01.07.2008 which reads as follows:
"Witness recalled and duly sworn on 1-7-2008:
Cross examined by Sri.N.G.H Counsel for plaintiff:
I am cultivating the suit schedule property even now. My self and all my other brothers are the managers of our family. We have not ploughed the land in which the suit schedule property is situated during this year, as there 49 is no rain. Last year we had grown horse- gram crop last year and in the earlier year ie., during the year 2005-06 we had grow javar crop. During the year 2000 we had grow alasande and Karamani crop. During the year 2002 I had grown maize crop.
I know one K.S.Krishna who was an acquaintance of my father. I also know the said person as he used to visit our house. K.S.Krishna is not my relative but he was the friend of my father. I do not know the native place of Krishna. It is rue to suggest that myself, my father and my other family members had executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of K.S.Krishna in respect of the land in which the suit schedule property is situated. It is true to suggest that myself, my father and my family members cancelled the General power of attorney in favour of K.S.Krishna by issuing a public notice on 23-12-1997. it is true to suggest that K.S.Krishna had filed a suit against me and my father and my brothers in City civil court and we had filed written statement in that suit. I know the details of the case filed by K.S.Krishna against me and my father and brothers in Os No.11/2004. It is true to suggest that the plaintiff in this suit had filed another suit in OS No.1684/2002 against me and my family members.
I do not know whether K.S.Krishna has sold the suit schedule property in this case to the plaintiff as the power of attorney holder of myself, my father and brothers or not. I have not seen the sale deed at Ex.P2 shown to me now here before. I had given instructions to my counsel at the time of filing written 50 statement in this suit. Myself and my father had given instruction to our counsel for filing the written statement in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff. It is true to suggest that I was knowing about K.S.Krishna executing sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as the power of attorney holder of myself, my father and brothers when we filed written statement in the suit in OS No.1684/2002 filed by the plaintiff earlier.
We have not searched the relevant records to find out as to how many persons Krishna has sold sites in the land in survey No.2/3 of Channasandra village by executing sale deed. I had no impediment to verify as to whether K.S.Krishna has executed sale deeds to other or not. About 15 persons have filed cases against me and my family members claiming that they have purchased sites form us through our power of attorney K.S.Krishna in the land in Survey No.2/3 of Channasandra village and I am attending those cases in city civil court. It is false to suggest that after we executed general power of attorney in favour of K.S.Krishna. the said person formed layout in the land in survey No.2/3 of Channasandra village and sold sites to different persons inkling plaintiff and those persons are in possession of the sites. It is false to suggest that myself and my family members are not in possession of the land in Survey No.2/3 and also we are not having ay right over that land. It is false to suggest that since sites are formed in the land in Survey No.2/3 and therefore we are not cultivating that land, the crops are not shown in the RTC extracts produced by me in the suit. It is false ot suggest that we have colluded with the 51 revenue officials and have got entered the name of our father in the RTC extracts produced by me in this suit.
We have not filed any suit for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by K.S.Krishna in favour of the plaintiff and others as the power of attorney holder so far. Either myself or my family members have not filed any complaint agaisnt Krishna or taken any action against him for selling our land to others. We have not taken any action against the plaintiff and others in respect of the sale deeds executed by K.S.Krishna. It is false to suggest that myself and my father and brothers has sold the land in survey No.2/3 to K.S.Krishna during the year 1992 by receiving consideration amount and therefore we have not taken any action agaisnt K.S.Krishna or agaisnt the purchasers in respect of the sale deeds executed by K.S.Krishna. IT is false to suggest that myself and my family members are extracting money from the purchasers of sites formed in Survey No.2/3 by threatening them with legal action and therefore plaintiff and other purchasers have filed suits in court. It is false to suggest that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property since from 10-2-1993 after purchasing the suit schedule property and we are not in possession of the property."
31. The defendants in the capacity of the sellers have not initiated any proceedings regarding execution of the registered sale deeds or their claim 52 that Power of Attorney was not in existence or was it revoked at the time of execution of sale deeds. Thus, the said stand cannot be accepted.
32. During the pendency of appeals an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is filed by the appellant in RFA No.919/2012.
33. In this regard, learned counsel for respondents Mr.B.C.Seethrama Rao submitted that no copy was served and the application cannot be looked into when the matter was taken up for argument. Incidentally, it is seen that the copies of the said application was served on in the year 2016 itself.
34. DW-1 has gone on record by admitting in the cross examination as stated above, that they are having the knowledge of the execution of the registered sale deeds executed by the Power of Attorney in favour of respective purchasers. Thus, at 53 one stretch, execution of Power of Attorney and the sale deeds through the power of attorney is not disputed in substance and the sale deeds for which defendants are the vendors are in knowledge of the description of each of the schedule.
35. In this connection, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in RFA Nos.1891/2011 and 1892/2011 submitted that in the registered sale deed filed by the plaintiff, there is a mention of construction of small house but the decree does not indicate the mention of the existence of a house. It is in this connection, the legal principle is that the decree drawn by the Court is always upheld. Moreover, it is the sale deeds for which the defendants are the parties and they have not challenged it, and suits are for permanent injunction.
54
36. The defendants have sold the property under a registered sale deeds stated above to the purchasers who are all the plaintiffs in the respective cases. Incidentally, defendants have compromised in four cases namely RFA Nos.923/2012, 925/2012, 917/2012 and 918/2012 in the capacity of the respondents and consented for a decree in favour of the respective plaintiffs/purchasers.
37. In this connection, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants Mr.M.V.Vedachala that it was for additional consideration which is short of ransom of Rs.15,50,000/- in RFA No.923/2012. However, the same has been compromised and not coming up for adjudication now.
38. An application is filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of 55 CPC wherein certified copies of the compromise petition in four regular appeals along with the judgment passed in those cases in respect of suits of the respective parties. Now, it is in respect of the said application, counsel for the respondents submitted that the copies were not furnished and when the matter was taken up for argument, learned counsel for the appellant Sri.M.V.Vedachala submitted that the copies were served in the year 2016 as well and the submission of the counsel for respondents is not correct.
39. On perusal, the copies were served and more over the documents mentioned therein are regarding the legal proceedings and in the interest of justice, no prejudice will be caused, if the application is allowed and they are looked into, as such, the application is allowed and the said documents are taken on record and perused the same.
56
40. Another memo is filed by learned counsel for the appellant Sri.M.V.Vedachala in RFA No.919/2012 along with the certified copies of the compromise petitions in four cases i.e, RFA Nos.923/2012, 925/2012, 917/2012 and 918/2012 and the same is taken on record.
41. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention the approach of the defendants that the property is sold in the form of a revenue document at the first instance through registered sale deeds for valuable consideration to the respective purchasers who are the respective plaintiffs in the cases as stated above. After the execution of the registered sale deeds during the year 1992, the defendants gone one step ahead and cancelled the power of attorney for the reasons best known to them when the purpose is over, more particularly, with reference to Section 204 of the 57 Indian Contract Act, 1872 and interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the purchasers in respect of the respective sites sold by them to the plaintiffs and the learned Trial Judge in his wisdom has decreed three suits and dismissed seven suits. However, the Presiding Officers are stated to be different and the regular first appeals are filed by all the purchasers whose suits were dismissed. The defendants keep clever steps to compromise the suits and admit the title, ownership and possession of the respective purchasers - plaintiffs in the suits and the suits were decreed by virtue of the compromise.
42. It is in this connection, the contextual attitude of the defendants is that the registered Power of Attorney is executed in favour of one Krishna authorizing him to sell the sites after developing and then take objections that he has not formed the sites and sold them. It is not the specific and definite 58 contention that he was not having authority to sell. This Court is not concerned with the procedural lapse of the Power of Attorney. But, whenever the site is sold, this Court has not insisted for competency of the development authority.
43. Moreover, if GPA is cancelled during 1997, it is of no avail to the defendants. In the circumstances, at one stretch defendants denied the execution of the sale deeds and on the other, they admit the sale. Then they claim cancellation of Power of Attorney in the year 1997 which is five years later to the execution of the registered sale deeds and such cancellation even if made is nothing but a futile exercise and thereafter make interference and after they defend their right over the schedule property claiming that they are the owners in possession, contended that they have not sold. Thus, they revert to their original stand on 'U' turn. In this connection, 59 it is also necessary to mention that whenever a revenue site is sold under a registered sale deed, guilty are those who are the parties to the sale deeds but have no records and wait till the proper layout is formed. But in umpteen number of cases, it is seen that defendants sell the properties to different purchasers, register the sale deeds, receive the consideration and thereafter they raise the objections of revenues. In this case there are several negative steps which are placed by the defendants. At one stretch, they say that the boundaries are not denied but on the other, they say the property was partitioned among the deceased Duggaiah @ Durgappa and his brothers and they were allotted different survey numbers, but there is no identity of this land. It is very much improper that being bound by doctrine of documentary estoppel having executed 60 registered sale deeds which are not disputed and that such objections are made.
44. Coming back to the possession, if the site is not properly approved, if the lay-out is not formed, the land is not converted for non-agricultural purposes, it is the duty of the competent authority to take action against the construction. But, the sale deeds executed by the defendants cannot be ignored only to pave way, otherwise, it will be nothing but to say whether for the defendants to be ready for next sale of the property or to get back the ownership of the schedule property.
45. Insofar as the defendants are concerned, as the executants of the respective registered sale deeds mentioned above, they have no locus standi to interfere. Sale deeds are executed during the year 1992, literally 29 years back and the purchasers are 61 kept on hold and tender hooks from possession and enjoyment of the property because of the litigation.
46. I find the contentions of the defendants as the appellant in RFA Nos.1171/2008, 1891/2011 and 1892/2011 can not be accepted.
47. Society in several areas is apprehensive about the estate dealers and developers regarding misuse, non-use, abuse of landed properties wherein there is blatant disrespect in land dealings. Sanctity is also becoming vanishing point of reality. In this connection it is not uncommon to involve and court the litigations of this nature.
48. The plaintiffs in all the cases have established their possession over the respective schedule property, further have established interference by the defendants. The attitude of the defendants is harrasive against the purchasers. It is 62 a case where the plaintiffs have established their case to the satisfaction of the court.
49. I find the impugned Judgment and decree is perverse and there is no application of mind regarding legal principles applicable to immovable properties. I do not see appeals are filed by the defendants for good reasons. The learned trial Judge seriously erred in dismissing the suits in O.S.Nos.4238/2008, 6484/2007, 6485/2007, 6482/2007, 202/2005, 200/2005 and 201/2005.
50. Similarly Judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos.396/2006, 3096/2005 and 3097/2005 deserve to be accepted as no interference is called for. Appeals filed by the defendants are devoid of merits and they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following:
63
ORDER The Judgments passed in O.S.Nos.4238/2008, 6484/2007, 6485/2007, 6482/2007, 202/2005, 200/2005 and 201/2005 are set aside. Appeals in RFA Nos.919/2012, 920/2012, 921/2012, 923/2012, 924/2012, 926/2012 and 927/2012 filed by the respective plaintiffs are allowed and consequently suit of the plaintiffs are hereby decreed with costs throughout.
Judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos.396/2006, 3096/2005 and 3097/2005 decreeing suit of the plaintiffs stand confirmed. Accordingly RFA Nos.1171/2008, 1892/2011 and 1891/2011 filed by the defendants are dismissed with costs throughout.
Sd/-
JUDGE Hd/tsn*/GH/SBN