Bangalore District Court
T. Louis Chinnappa @ T. Chetan Pratap ... vs ) Sri C. Joseph on 19 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22)
Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
OS No.10556/1994
Dated this the 19th day of November 2021
Plaintiff/s T. Louis Chinnappa @ T. Chetan Pratap Reddy,
Dead by his L.Rs
1(a) Veerendra Bhanu Pratap S/o Late T. Louis
Chinnappa @ T. Chetan Pratap Reddy,
Aged about 58 years, Residing at No.134,
BHEL Layout, Pattanagere North,
Rajarajeshwarinagara, Bengaluru-560 098.
1(b) C. Rajat Pratap Raaya S/o late T.Louis Chinnappa
@ T.Chetan Pratap Reddy, Aged about 57 years,
Residing at No.61, 1st Main, Royal County Layout,
Parappana Agrhara, Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru-560 100.
(Rep by P1(a) by - Sri B.E. Sridhar, P1(b) D.S Lingaraj Gowda)
V/S
Defendants: 1) Sri C. Joseph, Since dead by his L.Rs
1(a) Devasagaya J S/o Late C. Joseph,
Aged about 55 years, R/at No.153,
St. James Road, Kammanahalli,
Bengaluru-560 084.
1(b) Philomena W/o Late C. Joseph,
Aged about 70 years,
2
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994
1(c) Thomas S/o Late C. Joseph,
Aged about 55 years,
1(d) Ms. Roslin D/o Late C. Joseph,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.153, St. James Road,
Kammanahalli, Bengaluru-560 084.
2) Sri T. Joseph, Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.127, St. James Road,
Kammanahalli, St. Thomas Town Post,
Bengaluru-560 084.
3) Sri T. Martin, Aged about 44 years,
No.8/107, Joseph Layout,
Lingarajapura, Bengaluru-560 084.
4) Sri. T. Stanislaus, Aged about 42 years,
No.127, St. Thomas Road,
Kammanahalli, Bengaluru-560 084.
5) Smt. Arokia Mary W/o Rayappa,
Aged about 56 years, No.127,
St. Thomas Road, Kammanahalli,
St. Thomas Town Post, Bengaluru-560 084.
6) Smt. Bernadamma W/o Late Anthony,
No.127, St. Thomas Road, Kammanahalli,
St. Thomas Town Post, Bengaluru-560 084.
7) Smt. Annamari W/o Mariyappa,
Aged about 54 years, No.127,
St. Thomas Road, Kammanahalli,
3
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994
St. Thomas Town Post, Bengaluru-560 084.
8) Smt. Catherine, Aged about 48 years,
No.127, St. Thomas Road, Kammanahalli,
St. Thomas Town Post, Bengaluru-560 084.
9) P.V.L Palani S/o Late Lokanathan,
Aged about 53 years, Flat No.8,
Rainbow Layout, Sarjapura Road,
Near Wipro, Bengaluru-560 037.
10(a) C. Gnanendra Satish S/o late T. Louis
Chinnappa @ Chetan Pratap Reddy,
Aged about 47 years, No.134,
BHEL Layout, Pattanagere North,
Rajarajeshwari Nagara, Bengaluru-560 098.
& Sun City Villa-400,Trinity enclave 5th Avenue,
Agram Village, Kadambathur,
Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu-631203.
10(b) Bibiyana Jeevan Latha D/o late T.Louis
Chinnappa @ Chetan Pratap Reddy,
Aged about 60 years, No.201,
Shwetha Priyadarshini, Ullasappa Road,
Thomas Town Post,
Kammanahalli, Bengaluru-560 084.
(D1(a) by Sri - C.G. Gopal Swamy, Advocate, D9 by - Sri GRRS, D1(b) &
(c),D10(a) - Exp, D10(b) by Sri - RVS, Advocate, D2 to 8 - dismissed)
4
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994
Date of Institution of the suit 31/07/1991
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit
for declaration and possession, suit Cancellation of Sale Deed &
``````````````````````for injunction, Possession
etc.)
Date of the commencement of
recording of the Evidence. 31/07/2004
Date on which the Judgment was
19/11/2021
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 30 03 18
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
:JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for Cancellation of Sale Deed & Possession.
2. The brief facts of plaint averments is as under:
The plaintiff submits that his father C. Thomas S/o Chinnappa was absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property mentioned below: 5
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994
:SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY:
Agricultural Wet Land Sy.No.119 measuring 1 acre 17 guntas including 6 guntas kharab situated at Chelakere village, K.R. Puram Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (now East Taluk) bounded by East: Water course, West: Sy.No.118/1, North: Water course, South: Thoti Inamthi land.
The plaintiff further submits that his father obtained suit schedule property by virtue of grant made by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, Bangalore. That his father alleged to have executed sale deed of schedule property on 10/04/1987 to the defendant for sum of Rs.35,000/- and put the defendant in possession of the said property. That his father C. Thomas was about 73 years of age at the time of executing said sale deed. That his father expired on 31/12/1987 in Bangalore after prolonged illness leaving behind him and his three brothers by name T. Joseph, aged about 46 years, T. Martin, aged about 44 years, T. 6 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 Stanislaus aged about 42 years and four sisters by name Arokia Mary, aged about 56 years, Bernandamma, aged about 54 years, Annamari, aged about 52 years, and Catherine, aged about 48 years. That all his brothers and sisters are not interested in the schedule property and have not come forward to challenge the sale deed executed by their father in favour of defendant and have relinquished their rights over the schedule property and hence he has impleaded them as defendants.
3. The plaintiff further submits that sale deed alleged to have been executed by his late father is not genuine one. Further at the time when his father had unsoundness of mind due to delirum and was suffering from severe strokes of paralysis all over the body, confined to bed and was not in position to understand the contents of the sale deed and form rational judgment of the contents upon his interests, the defendant No.1 over powered him by taking advantage of his old age, bodily infirmity and 7 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 unsoundness of his mind and exercised undue influence besides perpetrating fraud. When his father was in such precarious condition and helplessness and mentally, defendant No.1 managed to secure sale deed of schedule property in his favour. He and defendant No.2 to 8 were kept in the dark about said sale and it was only when one of his brother approached the defendant No.1 questioning him of the propriety of the sale deed, it was given to him that he had obtained the property for valuable consideration.
4. The plaintiff further submits that defendant No.1 has no right over the said property acquired by undue influence and the sale has to be set aside not only on the ground of undue influence but also on the ground of fraud committed by the defendant No.1 on his father by fraudulent misrepresentation about the nature of the document that was being executed by his father. The cause of action for the said suit arose on 28/02/1991 when one of his 8 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 brother was informed by the defendant No.1 that he was in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of a sale deed in his favour purported to have been executed by his father and which information about the sale deed was later conveyed to him by his brother and it is well within 6 months from the date of knowledge and hence is within the period of limitation under article 59 of the Limitation Act and is within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff prays for decree nullifying the sale deed dated 10/04/1987 executed his father in favour of the defendant registered on 15/04/1987 by an appropriate order for cancellation of the above sale deed and by passing decree in favour him for consequential reliefs for possession.
5. The defendant No.1 filed written statement submitting that the suit of the plaintiff filed for cancellation of the sale deed and for possession is not maintainable. The plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 8 are children of Late Thomas and they are Christians by 9 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 community and mandate by special statute. Hence the plaintiff has no right to claim any estate of his deceased father by succession. Hence suit is not maintainable. Further suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 15/04/1987 is not maintainable since the same is barred by Limitation. The defendant No.1 further submits that he already acquired the suit schedule property under the Registered Sale Deed from the father of the plaintiff. In fact the said property was originally transferred in the name of the father of the plaintiff by his mother. Thereafter half of the land out of the total extent was transferred in his name and remaining half in favour of his brother under the registered sale deed dated 31/12/1974 by father of the plaintiff nominally, but afterwards the father of the plaintiff executed sale deed of the suit schedule property in his favour on 15/04/1987 an he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property bearing old No.17 and new No.119 of 10 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 Chalakere Village was and is in his possession and enjoyment. Hence the plaintiff has no legal right in any portion of the schedule property. The allegation of the plaintiff that he has got transferred the schedule property in his name by playing fraud on the father of the plaintiff and forged the signature of the plaintiff are all false. The defendant No.1 denied the other allegations of the plaint and further submits that the suit schedule property values more than Rs.3,00,000/- as on the date of filing of the suit and hence suit for cancellation of the sale deed and possession of suit schedule property is not maintainable. The Court Fee paid is insufficient. There is no cause of action to file the suit. The defendant No.1 prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
Afterwards the defendant No.1 is reported dead and plaintiff was brought the legal heirs of defendant No.1 on record. The GPA holder of defendant No.1(a) filed his written statement. The GPA holder of defendant No.1(a) submits that plaint para No.1, 3 11 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 to 5 are correct. The averments of plaint para-2 that plaintiffs father alleged to have executed the sale deed in respect of the schedule property on 10/04/1987 is incorrect. The averments of the plaint para No.6 is not known to him. The averments of plaint para No.7 that the alleged sale deed has been executed by father of the plaintiff is not genuine as his father was unsoundness of mind and bedridden at the time of execution of the sale deed are all false and allegations of plaint para No.8 and 9 are false. The allegations of the plaintiff that sale deed executed by plaintiff father in favour of defendant No.1 is by way of fraud, same is vitiated, when the fraud is pleaded the pleading must be in accordance in accordance with order 6 Rule 4 of CPC. The alleged cause of action mentioned has taken place on 28/02/1991 when plaintiff came to know through his brother regarding the alleged sale deed obtained by defendant No.1 is false, hence the 12 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 suit is barred by limitation. The GPA holder of defendant No.1 prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with exemplary costs.
8. The defendant No.9 filed his written statement. The defendant No.9 denied plaint para No.1 that father of plaintiff C. Thomas S/o Chinnappa was absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and he obtained said property by virtue of grant made in his favour by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, Bangalore. The averments of plaint para No.2 with respect to execution of deed of sale of the said schedule property on 10/04/1987 registered on 13/04/1987 in favour of defendant No.1 for sum of Rs.35,000/- is not disputed but defendant No.1 was in continues possession of the suit schedule property even prior to execution of sale deed. The plaintiff's father C. Thomas was about 73 years of age at the time of executing sale deed is false, but he was aged about 72 years. The averments of plaint para No.4 that father of the plaintiff 13 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 expired on 31/12/1987 in Bangalore may be true but it is false to state that he died after a prolonged illness. In fact the father of the plaintiff was hale, healthy and having sound mind physically and mentally up to his death. The averments of plaint para No.5 that the plaintiff's father has left behind plaintiff and his three brothers is not within his knowledge, but he know that father of plaintiff is having some of his legal heirs. The allegations of plaint para No.6 is false. It is false all the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff above named are not interested in the schedule property and have not come forward to challenge the sale executed by their father in favour of defendant and have relinquished their rights over the schedule property, hence plaintiff has impleaded them as defendants. In fact all brothers and sisters of the plaintiff including plaintiff clearly know that suit schedule property is not their family property, hence they advised plaintiff not to indulge in illegal activity of filing false cases and complaints but the 14 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 plaintiff with malafide intention to defraud legitimate right of this defendant and other parties have filed this false suit. The allegations of plaint para No.7 is false. It is false that sale deed alleged to have been executed by his late father is not genuine one and at a time when the plaintiff's father had unsoundness of mind due to delirium and was suffering from severe strokes of paralysis all over the body, confined to bed and was not in position to understand the contents of the sale deed and from rational judgment of the contents upon his interests, the defendant No.1 overpowered him by taking advantage of his old age, bodily infirmity and unsoundness of his mind and exercised undue influence, besides perpetrating fraud. It is false that when the plaintiff's father was in such precarious condition and helplessness and was in depressed state both physically and mentally, the defendant No.1 managed to secure sale deed of suit schedule property in his favour. The allegations of plaint para 15 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 No.8 is false. It is false that plaintiff and defendant No.2 to 8 were kept in the dark about the said sale and it was only when one of brothers of plaintiff approached the defendant No.1 questioning him of the propriety of the sale deed, it was given to know that he had obtained the property for valuable consideration. In fact the plaintiff and his brothers and sisters are all having the knowledge of possession of the suit schedule property and also the execution of sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and they are all very well know that at the time of filing the above false suit the defendant No.1 was the absolute, legal owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by paying concerned land revenue to the Government and also except the defendant No.1 nobody has got any kind of right, interest, claim much less possession over the suit schedule property, until he formed the layout in suit schedule property and sold them to the prospective purchasers including this defendant. 16
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 The allegations of plaint para No.9 is false. It is false that the defendant No.1 has no right over the said property acquired by undue influence and the sale has to be set aside not only on ground of undue influence but also on the ground of fraud committed by the defendant No.1 on the plaintiff's father by fraudulent misrepresentation about the nature of the document that was being executed by the plaintiff's father. The averments of plaint para No.10 is false. It is false that the cause of action for the said suit arose on 28/02/1991 when one of the brothers of the plaintiff was informed by the defendant No.1 that he was in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of a sale deed in his favour purported to have been an acted by the plaintiff's father and which information about the sale deed was later conveyed to the plaintiff by his brother and it is well within 6 months from the date of knowledge and hence it is within the period of limitation under Article 59 of the limitation Act. In fact 17 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 there is no cause of action for the suit, the alleged cause of action is just created and concocted for the sake of filing this false suit only. The suit is barred by Limitation. The suit is not properly valued and the same is undervalued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.
9. The defendant No.9 further submits that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff has no locus standi to claim the land against him. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants No.1 to 8 are owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, but presently defendant No.9 and some other prospective purchasers are the owners in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares in the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is stranger to the suit property of defendant No.9.
18
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994
10. The defendant No.9 further submits that originally suit schedule property was ancestral property of defendant No.1 and the same was conveyed in favour of father of plaintiff in the year 1951 for their family arrangements. Even though the suit schedule property was standing in the name of father of plaintiff, the defendant No.1 and his family members were in possession and enjoyment by cultivating suit schedule property. That the defendant No.1 has lawfully acquired the right, title, interest over the suit schedule property by purchasing the same from father of plaintiff through registered absolute sale deed bearing document No.358/87-88 dated 15/04/1987 for valuable consideration. That prior to purchase of the suit schedule property the defendant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the same as owner. That after the purchase of suit schedule property by defendant No.1, he has formed the layout in suit schedule property and has sold all the sites for prospective purchasers and put them in possession of the 19 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 sites. The defendant No.1 has executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Annapoorni on 11/10/1996 with respect to site Nos.5 to 15 i.e., 11 sites bounded by East to West on the Northern Side 145' feet on the Southern side 179 feet, North to South: on the Eastern side 107 feet, on the Western side 114 feet. The defendant No.1 through his GPA holder sold site No.6 to 11 bearing H.L. Katha No.161/132 formed in Survey No.119 of Chalakere Village totally measuring 9000 square feet in his favour. Further defendant No.1 through his GPA holder sold site No.5, 12, 13, 14 & 15 bearing H.L. Katha No.161/132 formed in Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village approximately measuring 8663 square feet in his favour of under registered sale deed on 17/08/2006. The defendant No.1 has sold some other sites in the suit schedule property to other prospective purchasers and now they are the owners in possession and enjoyment of their shares in the suit schedule property and those purchasers are not made as 20 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 parties in the above suit. Hence the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. That since the date of purchase of above said sites in the suit schedule property, he is in possession and enjoyment of his sites as owner by paying land revenue to the concerned Government Authorities and he has put up the compound wall around his sites in the suit schedule property and all the revenue records with respect to the sites of this defendant No.9 are changed in the name of this defendant No.9 and he is paying taxes regularly to the government. That he is bonafide purchaser of the property and he has no knowledge about the present suit. After formation of layout in the suit schedule property the defendant No.1 has sold all the sites in favour of defendant No.9 and other purchasers. The defendant No.1 and his legal heirs, plaintiff are not owners in possession enjoyment of the suit schedule property, but he (defendant No.9) and other subsequent purchasers are absolute owners in possession and 21 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 enjoyment of their respective sites in suit schedule property. That since date of purchase of portion of the schedule property, he (defendant No.9) is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of said property and also constructed compound wall around his property and go down in his property. That plaintiff has no prima facie case and has not made out good case as admitted by his own pleadings and they have not come up with clean hands to allow this false case. The balance of convenience is in his favour, because he is owner in possession and enjoyment of his land in suit schedule property. That since the date of purchase he is in possession and enjoyment of his sites as owner thereof and has invested huge amount for developing the said land. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 with colluding together filed above suit in order to defeat and defraud his legitimate right. He is bonafide purchaser and invested his hard earned money to develop the land. Whereas the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 are the 22 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 agents of real estate agents, they are doing hectic efforts to defraud his rights. The cause of action mentioned is imaginary as plaintiff had full knowledge about sale transaction of suit schedule property, hence suit is barred by Limitation. The defendant No.9 prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
11. On 23/06/1999 six Issues were framed and then again on 03/01/2000 two Additional Issues are framed. Thereafter again on 03/11/2013 ten Issues are framed. That Issues No.1 to 3 were framed on 23/06/1999 covered the Issues framed on 03/11/2013. Further the Issues framed on 23/06/1999, in the said page is relating to Issues No.1 to 3 typed, at the upper end portion is torn condition and only half portion of Issues are in readable condition and remaining portion is torned and in not properly seen, and said Issues covered in the Issues framed on 03/11/2013, hence said Issued No.1 to 3 framed on 23/06/1999 are not typed below and only Issues No.4 to 6 are typed.
23
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 ISSUES FRAMED ON 23/06/1999 (4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and possession?
(6) What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 03/01/2000 (1) Whether the defendants prove that suit property was nominally transferred in favour of the father of the plaintiff for raising loan?
(2) Whether the defendants prove that valuation made and Court fee paid is not proper?
ISSUES FRAMED ON 23/11/2013 (1) Whether plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant have taken misuse of unsound mind and old age of plaintiff's father and thereby got executed sale deed of suit property from him on 10/04/1987?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves that no consideration is passed and no title is passed in respect of 24 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 suit property to 1st defendant under sale deed dated 10/04/1987?
(3) Whether plaintiff proves that all his brothers and sisters have relinquished their right in the suit property in favour of this plaintiff after death of his father?
(4) Whether plaintiff proves that without knowledge of plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 8 the 1st defendant has obtained and created sale deed in his name from their father?
(5) Whether plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 10/04/1987 is null and void and Court has to declare regarding its nullity?
(6) Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for decree of declaration and recovery of possession of schedule property from defendant No.1?
(7) Whether the 9th defendant proves that 1st defendant has made the several sites in suit property and sold several sites to several purchasers through his general power of attorney holder and the 9th defendant is purchaser of site No.5, 12, 13, 14 & 15?
(8) Whether 9th defendant proves that he is bonafide purchaser, for valid consideration, from lawful owner of the schedule property and he has been in possession of continuously 25 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 with the knowledge of this plaintiff regarding his sites in suit property ?
(9) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration and possession as sought in the plaint?
(10) What decree or order?
12. The plaintiff examined as PW.1 and marked ExP1 to ExP5 and plaintiff No.1(a) examined as P.W-2 and Court Commissioner examined as PW.3 and marked Ex.C1 & Ex.C1(a). The defendant No.1 examined as DW.1 and marked ExD1 to ExD25 and defendant No.9 examined as DW.2 and marked Ex.D26 to 57.
13. The plaintiff reported dead and his legal heirs plaintiff No.1 (a) to are brought on record. That inspite of opportunity given the plaintiff's counsel not argued. The defendant No.1 (a) counsel argued and filed written arguments with citations. The defendant No.9 counsel partly argued, but thereafter inspite of sufficient time granted, the defendant No.9 counsel not 26 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 completely argued, hence further argument on defendant No.9 side was taken as nil. Perused the records.
14. My findings to the above Issues and Additional Issues are as under:-
ISSUES FRAMED ON 23/06/1999 Issue No.4: In Negative Issue No.5: In Negative Issue No.6: See final order for following ADDL. ISSUES FRAMED ON 03/01/2000 Addl. Issue No.1: In Affirmative Addl. Issue No.2: In Negative ISSUES FRAMED ON 23/11/2013 Issue No.1: In Negative Issue No.3: In Negative Issue No.3: In Negative Issue No.4: In Negative 27 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 Issue No.5: In Negative Issue No.6: In Negative Issue No.7: In Affirmative Issue No.8: In Affirmative Issue No.9: In Negative Issue No.10: See final order for following:
:REASONS:
15. Issues Nos.4 & 5 framed on 23/06/1999 and Addl. Issue Nos.1 & 2 framed on 03/01/2000 and Issues No.1 to 9 framed on 23/11/2013:
The plaintiff T. Louis Chinnappa S/o Late C. Thomas filed her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as PW.1 and deposed evidence that he filed forgery case against the defendant calling upon court to cancel the sale deed which has been fraudulently executed by the defendant by forging the signature of his father into it on 15/08/1987. He know defendant since childhood. In consideration of his being related in blood to them, his father 28 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 entrusted the suit property having an area of nearly 1½ acres of agricultural land to the defendant under an oral lease agreement. But the defendant has betrayed his father's trust by concocting a forged sale deed as if to purport that his father executed a sale deed in favour of him on 15/08/1987 just 8 months before the death of his father to Lake End View Hospital, Bengaluru by taking advantage of the vulnerable position of his father due to fragile old age and paralyzed body condition including unsoundness of mind in proof of which he possess medical certificate which is at present kept in safe custody of the IV ACMM at Bengaluru in connection with criminal case in forgery. They comprising four brothers did know nothing about the sale deed which was fraudulently done until after three years from the execution of same sale deed. Immediately thereafter they approached the Panchayat with their problem, but the defendant refused to attend the panchayat meeting. Another meeting was 29 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 convened. But before that meeting took place the defendant approached his brother T. Joseph and submitted three sets of sale deeds to him. One set refers to execution of sale deed in 1987 all the suit property being annexe to Joseph (defendant) while the two other sets refer to execution of sale deeds 14 years earlier to this suit that is in 1974, then annexing to each one half of the same suit property through insufficient Court stamp paper of one rupee. At first his all brothers agreed to file civil suit jointly, but later withdraw from it stating that they had no interest in prosecuting the case. But however they executed power of attorney in his favour, thus investing all powers in him to execute the case himself thus absolving all powers in the property even in case if he win also. When his brothers refused to file as plaintiff, he impleaded them as defendants. But since they failed to respond to court's notices for their presence, they were placed exparte.30
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994
16. That PW.1 further deposed the evidence that thereafter he filed application U/o 11 Rules12 & 14 of CPC to direct the defendant to produce his sale deed for discovery. But the defendant opposed his application by dragging the case over two years, then court passed an order directing the defendant to produce the document for discovery. Even after the order also he did not produce has document for more than 8 months till he filed application U/O 26 of CPC summoning the sale deed that was laid up in the XI ACMM court in connection with forgery case, in which he was complainant and defendant was accused. Even though there was order for producing the document, the defendant filed memorandum of facts point out his non-
compliance of court order. That the object of his taking initiative to summon the defendant's sale deed was to fulfill his duty to prove the fact of forgery by way of subjection of it to the scientific examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. So he 31 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 filed an application U/o 26 Rule 10 (a) of CPC praying to issue commission to the Laboratory. But the defendant instead of lending support, he has taken contention that his sale deed has already been examined by the same Laboratory requiring there to no further examination and in support of it he filed xerox copy of finger print which is contrary to his pleading in his application. While producing the report of the Finger Print Bureau, he never furnished to him list of documents that could enable him to know the contents of the document he produced to the court, which is contrary to the Natural Justice. Thus by misleading the court he succeeded in dismissing his application. Being frustrated by unsuccessful move to prove forgery in the signature, he attempted to bring to the notice of his fraud to the court by way of filing applications U/o 13 Rules 1 & 3 of CPC on 01/01/2003, U/o 11 Rule 18 of CPC on 18/03/2003, U/o 12 Rule 4 and U/S 151 & 153 of CPC on 18/03/2003 respectively for rejection of the xerox 32 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 copy of the report produced by the defendant on 10/07/2002 on basis of irrelevancy and inadmissibility for production of same document produced on the same date for inspection, for proving that the same document is irrelevant and inadmissible and for rectifying the mistake done in the order. But those applications are pending.
17. That PW.1 further deposed evidence that since forgery is his main contention, he filed another set of application to keep the evidence moving. These applications filed U/o 26 Rule (a) of CPC meant for issue of commission to the Hand Writing Expert, namely Jayadevi and also to the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk for examination of disputed signatures. But they are not yet considered by this Court. Without the examination of signatures through those experts, he cannot prove the fact of forgery. So opportunity must be given by the court to him to prove forgery through signature and finger print experts opinion. That the 33 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 Banasawadi Police requisition letter stating that so far no examination of the signatures by the Forensic Science Laboratory taken place is here upon prayed by him to be given proper weights. If the police request for the requisition of documents is allowed, they will do the task of putting the document to test with relevant report made ready for this Court also. Even the important applications U/o 39 Rule 4 and U/O 26 Rule 9 filed by him against the defendant for his violation of the status quo order passed by this Court on 16/04/2003 may also be considered in order to punish the defendant for such violation, since his contempt of court is gross offence committed by the defendant by continuing his building operations even when the status quo order was in full force. That the way of defendant is conducting himself through his dragging on proceedings and adopting lies to support his arguments prove that he has a week case. Since he is senior citizen, he pray for speedy disposal of his case. 34
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994
18. The son of plaintiff Veerendra Bhanu Pratap S/o T. Louis Chinnappa S/o Late C. Thomas filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as PW.2 and deposed evidence that he know the defendant since childhood, the defendant is his relative and in consideration of which his grandfather C. Thoma had leased his property at Chellikere Village in Sy.No.119 for cultivation purpose to the defendant. But the defendant has played breach of trust to his grandfather by fraudulently fabricating forged sale deed by inducting into it forged signatures of his grandfather in order to knock off his grandfather's property. He along with his brother C. Arogyaswamy had similarly executed similar fraudulent sale deeds 13 years earlier to this in 1974 on one rupee stamp paper and an incorrect survey number of 27 instead of 119. These documents could not take effect due to inherent defects as outlined above. If the same documents were genuine there was no necessity for him to re-execute one again in 1987. That there was 35 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 nothing that could prevent his grandfather from revealing execution of the sale deeds if he had actually executed them. He was financially sound as could prevent him from selling his property. That at the time of execution of the sale deed of 1987 he was 24 years old major entitle for his grandfather's property. But nobody tried to get the consent of him and his brother C. Rajat Pratap Raya who was also major aged 22 years for the same transaction. All was done under extreme secrecy by the defendant and his associates. They would have procured thumb impression of his grandfather by applying force on him or during his sleep.
19. That PW.2 further deposed evidence that immediately thereafter they approached the brothers of his father including his father to discuss about the illegal sale deeds. All the brothers including his father T. Louis Chinnappa decided about launching of civil suit after confirming that the signatures in the sale deed of 1987 were nothing short of forgery as could be made out from 36 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 three sets documents produced by the defendant to his uncle T. Joseph. But his uncles T. Joseph, T. Martin and T. Stanislaus withdraw from saying they were not interest in Court and police matters. So his father had to file suit before this court. Since he was quite similar with his grandfather's style of signatures, he can even now easily identify his signatures. With that confidence he can assert that the signatures found in the sale deed of 1987 are forged and not his grandfather's. That during pendency of susit defendasnt sold Sy.No.119. That possession of property was not with the defendant after the execution of sale deed of 1974, possession actually remain with his grandfather as can be made out in a clause found in the sale deed of 1987. The defendant always shun to show his sale deed for test as he knows that such a measure would definitely expose his fraud in the signatures. He has lied in the court that signatures in the sale deed were already examined. His grandfather before his death had told them that the 37 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 three properties including his own earned property near Hennur Bande are not sold to anyone.
20. The C.V. Jayadevi, Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert examined as PW.3 and she deposed evidence that she is having expertise both in hand writing and finger print. 3 documents involved in this suit were referred to her seeking her opinion regarding signature and thumb impression. She received along with documents, Memo of instructions of one party. The documents referred to her are marked as ExD19, ExD20 and ExD21. She received the Commission warrant on 08/02/2006. She received the documents along with the Commission warrant personally from the Court. The signatures and thumb impression in the documents were also marked before the Court before they were referred to her. She had sought for clarification from the Court regarding the disputed signatures and admitted signatures and thumb impression. On her request she received the letter 38 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 from the Court dated 14/12/2006 clarifying as to the admitted and disputed signatures and thumb impression. As per the Court letter she has examined the admitted left hand thumb impression of one C. Thomas in ExD19 and for the purpose of convenience those admitted thumb impressions are marked by her as Al and A2 in ExD19. She also carefully examined the disputed thumb impression in the Sale Deeds ExD20 and ExD21. She has marked LTM in ExD20 as Q1 which is the disputed LTM. The disputed LTM ExD21 in is marked by her as Q2. She has taken the photographs of the above said thumb impression and made enlargement. She has compared the admitted thumb impression A1 and A2 in ExD19 with that of disputed LTMs in ExD20 and ExD21 i.e., Q1 and Q2. On comparison she is of the opinion that the admitted thumb impression are identical to that of the disputed thumb impression. She has stated detailed reasons in her report dated 01/03/2007. Her report with enclosures are marked 39 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 as ExC1 and ExC1(a) is her signature. She has compared the admitted signatures found in ExD19 of one C. Thomas and those signatures are marked by her as S1 to S6. She has also carefully examined the disputed signatures in ExD20 and ExD21. The signatures found in ExD20 are marked by her as D1 to D3 and in ExD21 as D4 to D8. She has taken photographs of disputed and admitted signatures and made enlargement of same. She has compared the admitted signatures interse and compared with disputed signature. On comparison she is of the opinion that disputed signatures are made by the person who made the admitted signatures. She has stated his reasons in her report. The report is already marked as ExC1. She has furnished the admitted and disputed signatures & LTM along with correspondence made with the Court.
21. The defendant C. Joseph S/o Chowrappa filed his affidavit in lieu of examination as DW.1 and deposed the 40 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 evidence that said schedule property was his ancestral property. The said property was transferred in the name of the father of the plaintiff by his mother under the ExD2 and advanced respect at ExD3. The said sale deed was nominal sale deed for loan transaction as security the same was executed thereafter from the father of plaintiff that is from C. Thomas. He obtained a sale deed dated: 30/12/1974 which is marked as ExD1 through PW.1. Earlier the survey number was 27 and it was so mentioned in the ExD1 and ExD2 subsequently it was re-numbered as 119. After assigning new survey number from Sy.No.27 to 119 in order to avoid confusion again he obtained sale deed dated: 15/04/1987. He has produced all original documents before Banasawadi Police who have secured those documents from him on the false and frivolous private complaint made by the plaintiff herein before 11th ACMM in PCR No.385/98. He has obtained the certificate copy of the said documents along with the report of 41 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 the finger print bureau. The original documents now summoned from the said Court as ExD1 to ExD3 to be marked in due course. That under registered sale deed dated: 17/10/1951 was confronted to PW.1 and marked at ExD2 in respect of entire property in old Sy.No.27. While repurchasing said property under ExD1 he obtained sale deed in respect of property measuring 1 acre 17 guntas which including 6 gunta karab remaining extent of 27 guntas in the very same survey number was re-transferred in the name of the his brother C. Arogyaswamy by C.Thomassppa father of plaintiff under registered sale deed dated: 31/12/1974. The plaintiff has not questioned the said sale deed not transferring the said extent of land by his father to his brother under said sale deed. In the said sale deed, the western side the remaining property sold in his favour has been shown. He produced the original sale deed dated: 31/12/1974. 42
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994
22. That DW.1 further deposed the evidence that right from the life time of his mother they were in possession of enjoyment of said property. After the sale deed separately obtained in respect of his share in respect of share of his brother they have been in continuous possession of enjoyment. Thereafter till today in respect of their respective property in said survey number after assigning a new survey number for the purpose of document any evidence in respect of new Sy.No.119 on the advance of the father of plaintiff once again. He obtained registered sale deed to the extent of 1 acre 17 guntas including 6 guntas karab in Sy.No.119. He obtained registered sale deed dated 10/04/1987. Thus he is in exclusive possession of property. He has producing same of the RTCs and mutation extract, tax paid receipts to establish his factual possession and enjoyment their said schedule property. The forensic analysis given their report regarding the admitted signature of father of plaintiff and disputed signature as 43 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 one and same. All the documentary statement including report of forensic finger print bureau have been already marked in the above case. The plaintiff filed above frivolous suit with malafide intention and oblige. He has no right, title and possession in respect of suit schedule property till this day the brothers and sisters of plaintiff have not questioned the said sale deed in favour nor disturbed his lawful possession at any point of time. The statement made by brothers of the plaintiff are already made before jurisdictional police on the complaint of the plaintiff already confronted to PW.1 and marked in above case which speaks out realities. The plaintiff herein not satisfying with the above case and has been stated harassing him in various modes. He has filed false frivolous complainant in PCR No.385/98. After dismissal of said compliant by accepting report by the 11 th ACMM Court at Bangalore. The plaintiff once again filed his frivolous private complaint against him and one C. Arogya 44 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 Swamy his elder brother and A. Franciss in PCR No. These PCR proceedings are pending, the plaintiff herein has decided to harass him thereby to make his yield to his illegal presence tactics. The D.W-1 prays to dismiss the suit with costs. In support of oral evidence marked Ex.D1 to D25.
23. The defendant No.9 filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as DW.2 and deposed the evidence that the suit is ill motivated, vexatious, collusive and speculative and has filed just to defeat and defraud the legitimate right of him and maintaining the suit of this nature by the plaintiff would amount to abuse of the process of law. The plaintiff has not made out any grounds to get the relief's sought in the plaint and the same are speculative, inconsistent and against to principle of natural justice and the suit deserves to be dismissed in limine. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. That plaintiff has no locus standi to claim his land. Neither the plaintiff nor the 45 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 defendants No.1 to 8 are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but presently he and some other purchaser are the owners in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties in the suit schedule property and the plaintiff herein is absolutely stranger to his land in Sy.No.119 of Challikere village. That originally the suit schedule property was the ancestral property of defendant No.1 and the same was conveyed in favour of father of plaintiff during the year 1951 and soon for their family arrangements. Even though the suit schedule property was standing in the name of father of plaintiff, the defendant No.1 and his family members were in possession and enjoyment of the same by cultivating the suit schedule property. That the defendant No.1 has lawfully acquired the right, title, interest over the suit schedule property by purchasing the same from father of the plaintiff through registered absolute sale deed dated 15/04/1987 for valuable consideration. Prior to 46 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 purchase of the suit schedule property the defendant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the same as owner, he has formed the layout in suit schedule property and has sold all the sites for other purchasers and also to him and put them in possession of the sites. The defendant No.1 has executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Annapoorni before the Sub- Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk dated 11/10/1996 with respect to site Nos.5 to 15 i.e., 11 sites bounded by East to West. The defendant No.1 through his GPA holder sold site No.6 to 11 bearing H.L. Katha No.161/132 formed in Sy.No.119 of Challikere village totally measuring 9000 square feet in favour of his through absolute sale deed dated 19/10/2000 before the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram for valuable consideration. The defendant No.1 through his GPA holder sold site No.5, 12, 13, 14 & 15 bearing H.L. Katha No.161/132 formed is Sy.No.119 of Challikere Village approximately measuring 8663 square feet 47 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 infavour of him through absolute sale deed dated 17/08/2006 before the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram for valuable consideration. He has sold some other sites in the suit schedule property to other purchasers and now they are the owners in possession and enjoyment of their shares in the suit schedule property and those purchasers are not made as parties in the above suit. Hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. That since the date of purchase of the above said sites in the suit schedule property he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of his above mentioned sites as a owner by paying land revenue to the concerned Government Authorities, he is put up the compound wall around his sites in the suit schedule property and all the revenue records with respect to his sites in the schedule property are changed in his name and he is paying taxes regularly to the Government. That this being the situation, in the last week of September 2012, as he was renovating the compound wall as it 48 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 was very old and there was water leakage, some unknown persons came near his property and objected him from renovating compound for which he resisted. Later they informed him that there is suit filed by the present plaintiff against his vendor. When he enquired the same with his previous vendor's relatives then he came to know about the present case being filed by the plaintiff. The said plaintiff knowingly fully well that he is in possession of the portion of the schedule property did not implead him in the present case as the plaintiff & present defendants only with malafide intention of depriving his legal right & ownership over the said property. That at the time of purchasing the portion of the schedule property there was no notice to him with respect to present case, hence he has no knowledge about the present case. That he was totally kept in dark all these days with the present case from any of the parties though he is in possession of the portion of the schedule property 49 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 since the date of purchase till today. He is bonafide purchaser of property and he was no knowledge about the present suit. He has taken reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith a prudent ordinary man at the time of purchasing above mentioned his sites by ascertaining revenue records at that time. After formation of layout in suit schedule property the defendant No.1 has sold the sites in favour of him and other purchasers. The defendant No.1 or his legal heirs nor the plaintiff are the owners in possession nor enjoyment of the suit schedule property, but he and other subsequent purchasers are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of their respective sites in the suit schedule property. That since date of purchase of the portion of the schedule property as stated above, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the site property mentioned above and also constructed compound wall around his property and godown in 50 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 property and he is leasing out godown from time to time to lessors. The name and father name of this defendant as stated in the cause title of the plaint i.e., PVL Palani S/o Late Lokanathan is not correct, but he is Palani L S/o Late Loganathan. The averments made in paragraph 2 of the plaint with respect to execution of deed of sale of the said schedule property on 10/04/1987 REGD 13/04/1987 to the defendant No.1 for sum of Rs.35,000/- is not disputed but defendant No.1 was in continues possession of the suit schedule property even prior to the execution of the sale deed mentioned above. The petitioner's father C. Thomas was about 73 years of age at the time of executing the above sale deed is denied as false but he was aged about 72 years at the time of execution of sale deed. The averments made in paragraph No.4 of the plaint i.e., the father of the plaintiff expired on 31/12/1987 in Bangalore may be true, but it is utterly false to state that he died after a prolonged, illness. In 51 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 fact the father of the plaintiff was hale, healthy leaving sound mind both physically and mentally up to death. The averments made in paragraph No.5 of the plaint i.e., the plaintiff's father has left behind the plaintiff, his three brothers by name T. Joseph, T. Marfin and four sisters by name Arokia mary, Bernardamma, Annamari and Catherine and a nun is not within the knowledge of this defendant but this defendant knows that the father of the plaintiff is having some of his legal heirs. The allegations made in paragraph No.6 of the plaint is false. It is utterly false that all the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff above named are not interested in the schedule property and have not come forward to challenge the sale executed by their father in favour of the defendant and have relinquished their rights over the schedule property and hence the plaintiff has impleaded them as defendants. In fact all the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff including plaintiff clearly know that the suit schedule property is 52 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 not their family property, hence they advised the plaintiff not to indulge in illegal activity of filing false cases and complaints but the plaintiff with malafide intention to defraud the legitimate right of defendant and other parties have filed false suit to illegally enrich himself, if possible. The allegations made in paragraph No.7 of the plaint are totally denied as false. It is utterly false that sale deed alleged to have been executed by his Late father is not genuine one and at a time when the plaintiff's father had unsoundness of mind due to delirium and was suffering from severe strokes of paralysis all over the body, confined to bed and was not in position to understand the contents of the sale deed and from rational judgment of the contents upon his interests, the defendant No.1 overpowered him by taking advantage of his old age, bodily infirmity and unsoundness of his mind and exercised undue influence, besides perpetrating fraud. It is false that when the plaintiff's father was 53 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 in such precarious condition and helplessness and was in depressed state both physically and mentally, the defendant No.1 managed to secure a deed of sale of the schedule property in his favour. The allegations made in para No.8 of plaint are false. It is false that the plaintiff and also defendants No.2 to 8 were kept in the dark about the said sale and it was only when one of the brothers of plaintiff approached the defendant No.1 questioning him of the propriety of the sale deed, it was given to know that he had obtained the property for valuable consideration. In fact the plaintiff and his brothers and sisters are all having the knowledge of possession of the suit schedule property and also the execution of sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and they are all very well know that at the time of filing the above false suit the defendant No.1 was the absolute, legal owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by paying concerned land revenue to the Government and also 54 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 except the defendant No.1 nobody has got any kind of right, interest, claim much less possession over the suit schedule property, until he formed the layout in suit schedule property and told them to the prospective purchasers including defendant. The allegations made in para No.9 of plaint are false. It is false that the defendant No.1 has no right over the said property acquired by undue influence and the sale has to be set aside not only on the ground of undue influence but also on the ground of fraud committed by the defendant No.1 on the plaintiff's father by fraudulent misrepresentation about the nature of the document that was being executed by the plaintiff's father. The averments made in para No.10 of the plaint are false. It is false that the cause of action for the said suit arose on 28/02/1991 when one of the brothers of the plaintiff was informed by the defendant No.1 that he was in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of a sale deed in his favour purported to have been and acted by 55 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 the plaintiff's father and which information about the sale deed was later conveyed to the plaintiff by his brother and it is well within 6 months from the date of knowledge and hence, is within the period of limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, and is within the jurisdiction of this court. In fact there is no cause of action for the suit, the alleged cause of action is just created and concocted for the sake of filing this false suit only. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit is not properly valued and the same is undervalued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The plaintiff has no prima facie case and has not made out as admitted by his own pleadings and they have not with clean hands to allow this false case. The balance of convenience is in his favour, because he is owner in possession and enjoyment of his land is suit schedule property. Since the date of purchase he is in possession and enjoyment of his sites as owner and has invested huge amount for developing the said 56 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 land. That the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 with dishonest intention colluding together has filed and maintained the above suit just in order to defeat and defraud his legitimate rights. He is the bonafide purchaser. He is innocent and invested his hard earned money to develop the land. Whereas the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 are the agents of real estate agents, they are doing hectic efforts to defeat and defraud the rights of the defendant. In the circumstances stated the facts relied upon by him, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed in limine in the interest of justice and equity. The D.W-2 prays to dismiss the suit with costs and in support of oral evidence marked Ex.D26 to 57.
24. The contention of plaintiff that his father C. Thomas S/o Chinnappa was absolute owner of the suit schedule property. His father is alleged to have executed the sale deed of suit schedule property on 15/04/1987 in favour of defendant No.1 for sum of 57 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 Rs.35,000/- and put the defendant in possession of the suit property. That his father died on 31/12/1987. At the time of executing the alleged sale deed dated 15/04/1987 his father was aged about 73 years and he was unsoundness of mind due to delirum and was suffering from severe strokes of paralysis all over the body. Hence the sale deed is not executed by his father and the defendant No.1 taking advantage of illness of father of the plaintiff obtained the sale deed of schedule property in his name. The plaintiff in the plaint prays for decreeing the suit nullifying the said sale deed dated 15/04/1987 executed by his father in favour of the defendant and cancellation of the said sale deed. That the plaintiff Louis Chinnappa examined as P.W-1 and marked the documents ExP1 to ExP5. The ExP1 is certified copy of the Will dated 13/10/1982 executed by C. Thomas S/o Chinnappa in favour of his children 1) T. Louis Chinnappa S/o Chinnappa (plaintiff), 2) Joseph (defendant No.1), 3) Martin 58 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 (defendant No.3), 4) T. Stanislaus (defendant No.4) relating to his property wherein the suit schedule property not included. The Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 10/04/1987 executed by C. Thomas S/o Chinnappa in favour of C. Joseph S/o Late Chinnappa i.e., defendant No.1 relating to the suit schedule property. The ExP3 is copy of medical certificate plaintiff father C. Joseph S/o Late Chinnappa dated 31/03/1985 issued by Lake End View Medical Center, Bangalore, wherein it is mentioned that C. Joseph is aged about 78 years died in their hospital due to Cardio Respiratory Arrest, secondary to Cardio Vascular accident. The ExP4 is certified copy of sale deed dated 30/12/1974 executed by C.Thomos in favour of C.Joseph/ defendant No.1. The ExP5 is certified copy of the order in PCR.No.388/1998 of XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru which is filed by the present plaintiff T. Louis Chinnappa against the defendant No.1 T. Joseph and others alleging the offences punishable U/s 59 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 465, 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 114, 506-B, 441 of IPC alleging about the forgery of the signature of his father on the sale deed and in the said order the Court accepted the 'B' Final Report filed by the Investigating Officer.
25. On the contrary the defendant No.1 examined as DW.1 and contended that the father of the plaintiff executed the sale deed of the suit schedule property in his favour on 15/04/1987. That earlier on 31/12/1974 father of the plaintiff executed the nominal sale deed in his favour mentioning Sy.No.27, but the said survey number was renumbered as 119 and hence after assigning new survey number from 27 to 119 in order to avoid confusion he again obtained sale deed on 15/04/1987 from father of the plaintiff. Hence he is the purchaser of the suit schedule property. Whereas the defendant No.9 examined as DW.2 and he deposed the evidence that defendant No.1 executed GPA in favour of Annapoorni on 11/10/1996 in respect of sites No.5 to 60 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 15 i.e., 11 sites bounded by East to West on the Northern side 145 feet, Southern side 179 feet, North to South on Eastern side 107 feet and on Western side 114 feet. The contention of the defendant No.9 that earlier the defendant No.1 formed sites in Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village measuring 9000 sq.ft under katha No.161/132 and 8663 sq.ft in khata No.161/132 above said sites No.5 to 15 were formed in the said land and he purchased the said sites under the sale deed from GPA holder of the defendant No.1 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendant No.9 denied the entire plaint allegations. In support of oral evidence the DW.1 marked the documents ExD1 to ExD25 and DW.2 marked ExD26 to ED57.
26. The ExD1 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 30/12/1974 executed by father of the plaintiff T. Louis S/o Chinnappa in favour of defendant No.1 C. Joseph in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.27 of Chalakere Village. The ExD2 is 61 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 certified copy of the sale deed regarding purchase of Sy.No.27 of Chalakere Village by father of the plaintiff from mother of the defendant No.1 and ExD3 is advance receipt. The ExD4 is copy of the complaint in PCR.No.388/98 of XI ACMM Court, Bangalore filed by present plaintiff against the defendant No.1 and others and ExD5 is statement of defendant No.1 recorded by the police in the said case, ExD6 is certified copy of th statement of Arogya Swamy recorded by the police in the said case, ExD7 is certified copy of the statement of A. Fransis recorded by the police in the said case, ExD8 is certified copy of the statement of Chinnappa recorded by the police in the said case, ExD9 is certified copy of the statement of C. Joseph, ExD10 is certified copy of the statement of C. Martin recorded by the police in the said case. The ExD11 is certified copy of the 'B' report filed in the said case by the Sub Inspector of Police, Banasawadi Police Station. The ExD12 is copy of the complaint in PCR.No.388/98. 62
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 Ex.D13 is the certified copy of the FIR in Cr.No.370/98 of Banasawadi Police Station. Ex.D14 is the certified copy of the 'B' final report. The ExD15 is certified copy of the order in PCR.No.388/1998 of XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru which is filed by the present plaintiff T. Louis Chinnappa against the defendant No.1 T. Joseph and others alleging the offences punishable U/s 465, 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 114, 506-B of IPC alleging about the forgery of the signature of his father on the sale deed and in the said order the Court accepted the 'B' Final Report filed by the Investigating Officer. The ExD16 is certified copy of the order sheet in PCR.No.388/98 of XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru. The ExD17 is the certified copy of the order sheet in PCR.No.658/2001. The ExD18 is certified copy of the complaint in PCR.No.658/2001.
27. The ExD19 is original will dated 13/10/1992 executed by C. Thomas S/o Chinnaiah in favour of his children plaintiff and 63 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 others relating to his family property, wherein the suit schedule property not included. The ExD20 is original sale deed dated 31/12/1974 executed by Thomas S/o Chinnaiah in favour C. Joseph relating to Sy.No.27 of Chalakere Village. The ExD21 is the original sale deed dated 10/04/1987 executed by C. Thomas S/o Chinnaiah in favour of defendant No.1 C. Joseph S/o Chowrappa relating to property bearing No.119 measuring 1A- 17Gs including 6 guntas of karab land of Chalakere Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The ExD22 is sale deed dated 31/12/1974 executed by C. Joseph S/o Chowrappa in favour of Arogyaswamy S/o Chowrappa relating to Sy.No.27 of Chalakere Village. The ExD23 is Mutation Register No.6/87-88 wherein there is entry regarding sale of Sy.No.119 measuring 1A-17Gs of Kammanahalli Village by Puttamma in favour of C. Joseph S/o Chowrappa. 64
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994
28. The ExD24 is ROR of Sy.No.119 measuring 1A-17Gs of Chalakere Village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk during 1990-91 wherein the name of C. Thomas S/o Chinnappa rounded off and name of defendant No.1 appeared vide MR.No.6/87-88. The ExD25 is ROR of Sy.No.119 measuring 1A-17Gs of Chalakere Village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk during 2004-05 wherein in column No.11 it is mentioned that 30 guntas was acquired by Government. The ExD26 is certified copy of the GPA executed by defendant No.1 C. Joseph S/o Chowrappa in favour of L. Annapoorni W/o Late Loganathan relating to the site Nos.5 to 15 formed in Sy.No.119 measuring 1A-17Gs of Chalakere Village. The ExD27 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 19/10/2000 executed by L. Annappoorni W/o Late Loganathan as General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.1 on 19/10/2000 in favour of defendant No.9 relating to Sites No.6 to 11 formed in Sy.No.119 65 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 of Chalakere Village. The ExD28 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 17/08/2006 executed by L. Annappoorni W/o Late Loganathan as General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.1 on 17/08/2006 in favour of defendant No.9 relating to the site No.5, 12, 13, 14 & 15 formed in Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village. The ExD29 is 'B' property register extract of site No.51 and 12 of katha No.161/132 standing in the name of defendant No.9 of Chalakere Village and ExD30 to ExD40 are Tax Paid Receipts relating to the said property and other sides. The ExD41 is Electricity bill and ExD42 is Telecom Bill, ExD43 is Electricity Bill.
29. The ExD44 is certified copy of the lease deed dated 28/07/2015 executed by defendant No.9 in favour of Babu S/o Padmanabha relating to the sites No.5 to 15 formed in Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village. The ExD45 is certified copy of rental agreement dasted 03/03/2018executed by defendant No.9 in 66 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 favour of M/s VMR Constructions relating to the residential house building on site No.5 to 12 formed out of Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village. The ExD46 is certified copy of the partition deed dated 06/05/2002 taken place between defendant No.1 and his wife and children relating to their family property. The ExD47 is certified copy of the rectification deed dated 21/05/2004, wherein the earlier partition deed dated 07/05/2002 was rectified, wherein it is mentioned and rectified that schedule 'D' property bearing Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village measuring 14 guntas is allotted to J. Devasagaya and J. Thomas. The ExD48 is endorsement issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bengaluru mentioning that in Sy.No.119 an extent of 1A-17Gs 30 guntas was acquired for formation of Arkavathi Layout. The ExD49 is sketch of acquired portion of the land. The ExD50 is certified copy of the photograph marked as it belong to schedule property. The ExD51 is certified copy of Deccan Herald News 67 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 Paper cutting dated 10/10/2002. The ExD52 to ExD55 are photographs and ExD56 is CD marked as they belongs to schedule property. The ExD57 is complaint given by defendant No.9 to Hennur Police Station regarding theft of construction materials kept in the plot situated in Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village.
30. The contention of the plaintiff that signature of his father was forged on the sale deed dated 15/04/1987 by the defendant No.1, as on that day his father was not in a good state of mind to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff prayer is to declare that the sale deed 10/04/1987 is null and void and not binding on him. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that as on 15/04/1987 his father's health condition was not good and he was not in a position to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff examined as P.W-1 and marked documents only 68 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 Ex.P1 to P5. Out of those documents Ex.P3 is one letter issued by Dr. M.V. Kumar of Lakeside Medical Center and Hospital, Ulsoor Lake, Bengaluru on 31/03/1995 mentioning that C. Thomas aged about 78 years expired in their Hospital on 22/12/1987 and cause of death mentioned as Cardio Respirator arrest secondary to cerebero vascular accident. But in support of the said Ex.P3 earlier to death of said C. Thomas what was the treatment given to him was not explained and prove the illness condition of the father of the plaintiff earlier to his death the plaintiff has not produced any documents of the said Hospital. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove by way of documentary evidence that, his father was suffering from ill-health as on the date of execution of the sale deed on 15/04/1987.
69
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994
31. The other allegation of the plaintiff that on the sale deed dated 15/04/1987 his father's signature was forged and said copy of the sle deed is marked as ExP2 on the plaintiff side and the original sale deed is marked by DW.1 in his evidence as ExD21. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove the allegations that his father signature on ExP2/ExD21 is forged.
32. That in the present suit plaintiff counsel filed application U/o 26 Rule 10 A R/W Sec 151 of CPC for appointment of court commissioner for comparison of disputed signatures of plaintiff's father on the sale deed and said application was allowed on 07/01/2006 and Jayadevi, finger print expert appointed as Court Commissioner and said Court Commissioner given the report and deposed the evidence as PW.3 and marked documents ExC1 to ExC7. 70
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 The PW.3/Jayadevi deposed evidence that she is having expertise both in hand writing and finger print. 3 documents involved in this suit were referred to her seeking her opinion regarding signature and thumb impression. She received along with documents, Memo of instructions of one party. The documents referred to her are marked as ExD19, ExD20 and ExD21. She received the Commission warrant on 08/02/2006. She received the documents along with the Commission warrant personally from the Court. The signatures and thumb impression in the documents were also marked before the Court before they were referred to her. She had sought for clarification from the Court regarding the disputed signatures and admitted signatures and thumb impression. On her request she received the letter from the Court dated 14/12/2006 clarifying as to the admitted and disputed signatures and thumb impression. As per the Court letter she has examined the admitted left hand thumb impression 71 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 of one C. Thomas in ExD19 and for the purpose of convenience those admitted thumb impressions are marked by her as Al and A2 in ExD19. She also carefully examined the disputed thumb impression in the Sale Deeds ExD20 and ExD21. She has marked LTM in ExD20 as Q1 which is the disputed LTM. The disputed ExD21 in is marked by her as Q2. She has taken the photographs of the above said thumb impression and made enlargement. She has compared the admitted thumb impression A1 and A2 in ExD19 with that of disputed LTMs in ExD20 and ExD21 are Q1 and Q2. On comparison she is of the opinion that the admitted thumb impression are identical to that of the disputed thumb impression. She has stated detailed reasons in her report dated 01/03/2007. Her report with enclosures are marked as ExC1 and ExC1(a) is her signature. She has compared the admitted signatures found in ExD19 of one C. Thomas and those signatures are marked by her as S1 to S6. She has also carefully 72 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 examined the disputed signatures in ExD20 and ExD21. The signatures found in ExD20 are marked by her as D1 to D3 and in ExD21 as D4 to D8. She has taken photographs of disputed and admitted signatures and made enlargement of same. She has compared the admitted signatures interse and compared with disputed signature.
33. The PW.3 is the Finger Print Expert, she deposed the evidence as discussed above and she has compared the admitted signatures on ExD19 to ExD21. Further in the examination in chief itself PW.3 deposed the evidence that "I have compared the admitted thumb impression A1 and A2 in Ex.D19 is that of disputed LTM in Ex.D20 & 21 i.e., Q1 & Q2. On comparison I am of the opinion that the admitted thumb impression are identical to that of the disputed thumb impression." The PW.3 further deposed the evidence that "I have compared the admitted signature in ExD19 of one C. 73 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 Thomas and those signatures are marked by me as S1 to 6. I have also carefully examined disputed signatures in ExD20 & 21. The signatures found in ExD20 are marked by me as ExD1 to 3 and in ExD21 as ExD4 to 8. I have taken the photographs of disputed and admitted signatures and made enlargement of the same. I have compared the admitted signature interse and compared with the disputed signature. On comparison I am of the opinion that the disputed signatures made by the person who made admitted signatures." Therefore the opinion of the Finger Print Expert PW.3 is that admitted signature of the father of the plaintiff C. Thomas on ExD19 and disputed signatures on ExD20 and ExD21 are of same person. Further the present plaintiff has filed private complaint before the XI ACMM Court Bengaluru against the present defendant No.1 Arogya Swamy S/o Chowrappa and A. Fransis S/o Arogya Swamy alleging the offence of forgery of his father signature on sale 74 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 deed dated 15/04/1987 for the offence punishable U/s 465, 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 406, 120-B, 114, 506 & 441 of IPC and said complaint copy is marked by DW.1 as per ExD4 and said Court referred the matter to the jurisdictional police station i.e., Banaswadi Police Station for enquiry and submitting the report and Investigating Officer registered FIR in Cr.No.370/1998 and copy of FIR is marked as ExD13 by DW.1 and further in the said case Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and those are also marked as ExD7 to ExD10 and also marked ExD14 the 'B' final report submitted by Investigating Officer in the said case and in the said report contended that, on enquiry it is found that, C. Joseph S/o Chinnappa executed the sale deed of the property bearing Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village in favour of Joseph S/o Chowrappa and also mentioned that 75 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 there is no forgery in executing the sale deed and then Investigating Officer also mentioned that relating to the said property case is pending in City Civil Court in OS.No.10556/1994 for enquiry and I.O has filed the 'B' final report. That the XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru passed order on the said 'B' final report and order copy is marked by the plaintiff as per ExP5 and DW.1 marked the same order copy as ExD15, wherein the XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru accepted the 'B' final report filed by the I.O. Therefore in comparison of the investigation report of the police as well as the order of the XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru as discussed above with the evidence of the Finger Print Expert PW.3 as discussed above it is crystal clear that there is no forgery of signature of father of plaintiff in the sale deed dated 15/04/1987. Therefore the plaintiff failed to prove that the 76 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 sale deed dated 15/04/1987 is created by defendant No.1 and his father is not signed on the sale deed. Hence question of cancellation of the sale deed does not arise.
34. The PW.1 marked ExP1 the certified copy of the WILL dated 13/10/1982 said to have been executed by his father on 13/10/1982, but on perusal of the said document it is noticed that suit schedule property is not included in the said Will and in the said Will the said property owned by C. Thomas were bequeathed by him to his children. On this aspect the defendant counsel cross-examined P.W2 and he deposed the evidence that "It is true that as the schedule property was already sold the schedule property not included under ExP1. That as per the defendant earlier the father of the plaintiff executed sale deed of suit schedule property in the year 1974, at that time the number of the schedule property was 27 and afterwards it was renumbered as 119." On the said fact PW.2 in his cross-examination deposed that "Earlier the survey number 77 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 of schedule property was 27 and it is a wrong survey number. Witness volunteers that the actual survey number is 119." The DW.1 marked the original sale deed as per Ex.D20 dated 30/12/1974 regarding sale of Sy.No.27 of Chalakere Village by C. Thomas S/o Chinnappa in favour of present defendant No.1 Joseph and said document is registered sale deed and this sale deed was not challenged by the plaintiff. The contention of the defendant that in ExD1 & 20 sale deed there is Sy.No.27 mentioned, which is afterwards renumbered as Sy.No.119. Hence the father of the plaintiff executed the sale deed ExD21 mentioning the new Sy.No.119. The ExD1/ExD20 sale deeds not challenged by the plaintiff which is said to have been executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. The ExD19 is original WILL and certified copy is marked at ExP1 by plaintiff. As discussed above the said ExD19 is admitted document by the plaintiff, the admitted signatures on ExD19 and disputed 78 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 signatures on ExD20 & ExD21 of father of the plaintiffs have scrutinized by PW.3 the Finger Print Expert and she given report that the signatures on all these three documents are of same person.
35. Further the defendant No.9 contending that he is purchaser of sites formed in suit schedule property from the defendant No.1 through his GPA holder. On this aspect Issues No.7 and 8 framed on 03/11/2013. The burden is in the defendant No.9 to prove the said Issues No.7 and 8. The defendant No.9 examined as DW.2 and deposed evidence as discussed above and in support of oral evidence marked the documents DW.2 marked ExD26 to ExD57. The ExD26 is certified copy of the GPA executed by defendant No.1 C. Joseph S/o Chowrappa in favour of L. Annapoorni W/o Late Loganathan relating to the site Nos.5 to 15 formed in Sy.No.119 measuring 1A-17Gs of Chalakere Village. The ExD27 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 19/10/2000 executed by 79 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 L. Annappoorni W/o Late Loganathan as General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.1 on 19/10/2000 in favour of defendant No.9 relating to Site No.6 to 11 formed in Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village. The ExD28 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 17/08/2006 executed by L. Annappoorni W/o Late Loganathan as General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.1 on 17/08/2006 in favour of defendant No.9 relating to the site No.5, 12, 13, 14 & 15 formed in Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village. The ExD29 is 'B' property register extract of site No.5 & 12 katha No.161/132 standing in the name of defendant No.9 of Chalakere Village and ExD30 to ExD40 are Tax Paid Receipts relating to the said property and other sides. The ExD41 is Electricity bill and ExD42 is Telecom Bill, ExD43 is Electricity Bill. The ExD44 is certified copy of the lease deed dated 28/07/2015 executed by defendant No.9 in favour of Babu S/o Padmanabha relating to the sites No.5 to 15 formed in Sy.No.119 80 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 of Chalakere Village. The ExD45 is certified copy of rental agreement executed by defendant No.9 in favour of M/s VMR Constructions relating to the residential house building on site No.5 to 12 formed out of Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village. The ExD46 is certified copy of the partition deed dated 06/05/2002 taken place between defendant No.1 and his wife and children relating to their family property. The ExD47 is certified copy of the rectification deed dated 21/05/2004, wherein the earlier partition deed dated 07/05/2002 was rectified, wherein it is mentioned and rectified that schedule 'D' property bearing Sy.No.119 of Chalakere Village measuring 14 guntas is allotted to J. Devasagaya and J. Thomas. The ExD48 is endorsement issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bengaluru mentioning that in Sy.No.119 an extent of 1A-17Gs 30 guntas was acquired for formation of Arkavathi Layout. 81
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994
36. As per the defendant No.9, the defendant No.1 has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of L. Annapoorni W/o Late Loganathan relating to land bearing Sy.No.119, wherein sites No.5 to 15 were formed in an extent of 1A-17Gs of Chalakere Village and defendant No.9/D.W-2 marked the said certified copy of the General Power of Attorney as Ex.D26. D.W- 2 is not cross-examined by plaintiff counsel, whereas defendant No.1(a) counsel cross-examined the D.W-2. Wherein the defendant No.1(a) counsel suggested to D.W-2 and D.W-2 deposed the evidence that, "ದದವದ ಆಸಸಯಯ 1 ನನನ ಪಪತವದದಯಯ ಪತದಪರರತ ಆಸಸ ಎಎದರನ ಸರಯಲಲ. ಅದಯ ಅವರ ಸಸಯದರರತ ಆಸಸ ಇದಯದ ನನಗನ ಮದರದಟ ಮದಡದದದರನ." Further it is suggested that, "1 ನನನ ಪಪತವದದಗನ ದದವದ ಆಸಸಯ ಮನಲನ ಸಎಪಪರರವದಗ ಹಕಯಕ ಇಲಲದ ಕದರರ ನ.ಡ-26 ಪವರರ ಆಫರಯ ಅಟದನರಯ ಮನಲನ ಯದವವದನನ ಬನಲನ ಇಲಲ ಎಎದರನ ಸರಯಲಲ." Therefore the defendant No.1(a) who is the son of defendant No.1 taken a stand that the suit schedule property is 82 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 ancestral property of his father C. Joseph. The defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit died, but earlier to his death on 15/09/2005 he deposed the evidence before the Court and in his examination-in-chief he deposed that the suit schedule property was his ancestral property. But to prove the said fact the defendant No.1 has not produced any documentary evidence and even defendant No.1(a) also not produced any document. Further in the entire examination-in-chief the D.W-1 has not denied regarding execution of power of attorney in favour of L. Annapoorni W/o Late Loganathan as per Ex.D26. Therefore the contention of the defendant No.1(a) that there is no value to the Ex.D26 the power of attorney since defendant NO.1 has not full right over the schedule property is not proper to accept. Further the said L. Annapoorni W/o Late Loganathan as a General Power of Attorney Holder of the defendant No.1 sold the sites formed in the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.9 under 83 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 the registered sale deeds as per Ex.D27 & 28. Further the said sale deeds were not denied by defendant No.1 in his written statement evidence. Therefore, the defendant No.9 proved that he is the purchaser of the sites formed in the suit schedule property from the GPA holder of the defendant No.1 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of Declaration and Possession of the suit schedule property as prayed.
37. That the defendants No.1 & 9 taken contention in their written statement that suit is barred by Limitation, as the suit is not filed within the Limitation Period relating to cancellation of the sale deed, hence suit is barred by Limitation. On this aspect Issue No.4 is framed on 23/06/1999. That as per the defendant No.1 father of the plaintiff executed sale deed of the suit schedule property on 15/04/1987. The plaintiff filed present suit for cancellation of the said sale deed on 31/07/1991. That as per 84 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 Article 59 of Limitation Act for cancellation of the sale deed limitation period is three years, "when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him." That in the present suit after completion of more than three years suit is filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed. As per the plaintiff regarding the sale deed his brother was informed by the defendant No.1 that he is in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the sale deed. Hence cause of action accrued to file the suit on 28/02/1991 which is within the Limitation Period. But to prove the said fact there are no oral and documentary evidence on the side of the plaintiff. Admittedly the suit is filed after three years from the date of execution of the sale deed dated 15/04/1987. Hence the suit is also barred by Limitation. Further the defendants No.1 & 9 taken contention that the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff for the relief claimed is 85 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 insufficient, but regarding the said aspect there is no specific oral evidence of defendants No.1 & 9 and also not clarified regarding the insufficient Court Fee. On perusal of records, for the relief claimed by the plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed and possession proper Court Fee is paid. Therefore the plaintiff failed to prove Issues No.4 & 5 framed on 23/06/1999 and Issues No.1 to 6 & 9 framed on 23/11/2013. The defendant No.1 proved additional Issue No.1 and failed to prove additional Issue No.2 framed on 03/01/2000. Further the defendant No.9 proved Issues No.7 & 8 framed on 23/11/2013. Hence I answer Issues No.4 and 5 framed on 23/06/1999 in Negative and Additional Issue No.1 in Affirmative & Additional Issue No.2 in Negative framed on 03/01/2000 and Issues No.1 to 6 & 9 in Negative and Issues No.7 & 8 framed on 23/11/2013 in the Affirmative.
38. Issue No.6 framed on 23/06/1999 & Issue No.10 framed on 23/11/2013:
86
Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 In view of above discussion I proceed to pass following:
:ORDER:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him. Corrected online in computer and taken printout, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this 19th day of November 2021).
(Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
:ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : T. Louis Chinnappa S/o Late C. Thomas PW.2 : T. Louis Chinnappa PW.3 : C.V. Jayadevi D/o P.S. Nanjappa DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF: ExP1 : Certified copy of the Will of the year 1982 87 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 ExP2 : Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 10/04/1987 ExP3 : Certified copy of Medical Certificate ExP4 : Certified copy of the sale deed of 1974 ExP5 : Certified copy of the complaint in PCR.No.388/98 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS: [ DW.1 : C.P. Joseph S/o Chowrappa DW.2 : L. Palani S/o Late Loganathan DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS: ExD1 : Certified copy of the sale deed Dt: 30/12/1974 ExD2 : Certified copy of the sale deed ExD3 : Advance Receipt ExD4 : Copy of the complaint in PCR.No.388/98 ExD5 : Statement of defendant No.1 ExD6 : Statement of Arogya Swamy ExD7 : Statement of A. Fransis ExD8 : Statement of C. Chinnappa ExD9 : Statement of C. Joseph ExD10 : Statement of C. Martin ExD11 : Certified copy of 'B' Report ExD12 : Copy of the complaint PCR.No.388/98 ExD13 : Certified copy of FIR 88 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 ExD14 : Certified copy of 'B' Final Report ExD15 : Certified copy of order in PCR.No.388/1998 ExD16 : Certified copy of order sheet in PCR.No.388/1998 ExD17 : Certified copy of order sheet PCR.No.658/2001. ExD18 : Certified copy of complaint in PCR.No.658/2001. ExD19 : Original Sale Deed Dt: 13/10/1992 ExD20 : Original Sale Deed dated 30/12/1974 ExD21 : Original Sale Deed dated 10/04/1987 ExD22 : Original Sale Deed dated 31/12/1974 ExD23 : Copy of Mutation register extract ExD24&25 : Copy of RTC ExD26 : General Power of Attorney ExD27 : Copy of Sale Deed dated 19/10/2000 ExD28 : Copy of Sale Deed dated 17/08/2006 ExD29 : Copy of Katha Extract relating to Sit No.5 & 12 ExD30to40 : Eleven Kandayam Paid receipts ExD41to43 : Three Electricity Bills ExD44&45 : Two Copy of Lease Deeds ExD46 : Copy of Partition Deed 89 Judgment O.S.No.10556/1994 ExD47 : Rectification of Partition Deed ExD48 : Endorsement issued by BDA ExD49 : Copy of sketch issued by BDA ExD50 : Certified copy of photograph ExD51 : Certified copy of Deccan Herald News Paper ExD52to55 : Photographs ExD56 : C.D ExD57 : Complaint DOCUMENTS MARKED FROM COURT COMMISSIONER: ExC1 : Court Commissioner Report ExC1(a) : Signature of PW.3 XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.