Bangalore District Court
Munichandra vs The Commissioner on 23 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XL ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH41) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2021.
PRESENT
SRI.RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI,
M.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.5536/2007
PLAINTIFF: Munichandra
S/o Late Ramaiah
Aged about 50 years, r/at
No.14, Muneswara Temple
Street, Kadirenahalli,
Banashankari II Stage,
Bangalore560 070.
(By Sri.Prakash T.Hebbar -
Advocate.)
AND:
DEFENDANTS: 1. The Commissioner
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore560 020.
2. The Commissioner
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike (BBMP)
Hudson Circle,
Bangalore560 009.
2 O.S.No.5536/2007
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Bangalore Development Authority
Kumara Park West
Bangalore560 020.
4. The Executive Engineer
No.2, Project Division,
Bangalore Development Authority
Bangalore.
5. The Assistant Executive Engineer
(South SubDivision)
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore.
6. The President/Secretary
M/s.Radhakrishna House Building
Cooperative Society,
No.692, 10th main road,
4th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore560 011.
7. Sri. L.R.Shivaramegowda
S/o Late Ramegowda
Aged about 55 years, r/at
No.2369, 19th cross,
K.R.Road, Banashankari II Stage,
Bangalore.
( By Sri.K.V.K., Advocate for D1,3 to
5
Sri.N.R.J, Advocate for D2
Sri. J.U, Advocate for D6
Sri.T.V, Advocate for D7.)
i) Date of Institution of the 17072007
suit.
3 O.S.No.5536/2007
ii) Nature of the suit. Declaration &
Injunction.
iii) Date of the commencement
of recording of evidence. 27082010
iv) Date on which the
judgment was pronounced. 23032021
v) Total Duration Year/s Month Days
/s
13 08 06
***
(RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI)
XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
****
JUDGMENT
This suit is for Declaration and Injunction.
2. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking the relief of declaration of his title and consequential relief of Permanent Injunction in respect of schedule property. "All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.71 measuring 12 ½ guntas bounded 4 O.S.No.5536/2007 on East by Kerekatte and Kodihalla, West by Land of Muni Thimmaiah in Sy.No.71, North by Sy.No.69/1 and South by Kodihalla and lands of Munithimmaiah in Sy.No.71 situated at Kathriguppe village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk" is treated as schedule property for the sake of convenience.
The plaintiff pleaded that his father Ramaiah purchased schedule property through a registered sale deed on 26/11/1956 from one Byrappa S/o Munishamappa, who had purchased 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe village from one Rao Bahadur Captain Thangavelu Modalyar S/o Manigondadeva Modaliyar through sale deed dated 13/10/1956. By virtue of sale deed dated 26/11/1956, father of plaintiff Ramaiah became owner of it. It is averred that Kathriguppe village was a Jodi Inam village governed by the provisions of 5 O.S.No.5536/2007 the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. Pursuant to notification No.R.8347.LS.6562 dated 15/09/1956, Kathriguppe village vest with government. The father of plaintiff who was in actual cultivation of schedule property filed application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of schedule property before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams. The Special Deputy commissioner by order dated 21/12/1959 granted occupancy rights. Thereafter, the name of the father of plaintiff has been mutated in the revenue records of schedule property as per MR No.59/6162. It is averred that during the lifetime, his father settled family properties among his brothers through Will Deed dated 13/11/1979. The father of plaintiff died on 10/06/1985. After the death of father, plaintiff became owner of schedule property, which was given to him through Will Deed. The khatha of the schedule property has been 6 O.S.No.5536/2007 transferred in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that he has constructed a cattle shed in the schedule property and is tethering the cattle.
The plaintiff alleged that thus being the circumstances, the defendant No.7 started claiming that land measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.71 (claiming as Sy.No.130) of Kathriguppe village and that suit schedule property formed part of total extent of 30 guntas. In this regard, he approached Joint Director of Land Records for survey of land and for fixing the boundaries. The survey officials stated that entire extent of Sy.No.71 itself was not surveyed and phoded and that based on the records available with survey authorities, the suit schedule property belongs to the family of the plaintiff as per the order dated 11/07/2000. Thereafter, defendant No.7 approached Tahsildhar, Bengaluru South Taluk. The Tahsildhar passed an order in RRT(1) 7 O.S.No.5536/2007 (DIS)34/200001 on 16/05/2003. Aggrieved by the order of Tahsildhar, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru in Appeal No.42/200304 and set aside the order of Tahsildhar dated 16/05/2003 implicitly confirming the order of Joint Director. The plaintiff averred that Assistant Commissioner observed that the schedule property was granted to the father of plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant No.6 Society without having any authority or locus standi executed a Relinquishment Deed mentioning unidentifiable property indicating that it has no objections for converting the relinquished land as a civic amenity site in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5. The boundaries in the alleged Relinquishment Deed reveals that property relinquished is situated on western side towards southern end of schedule property. Kodihalli bifurcates the schedule property 8 O.S.No.5536/2007 and land relinquished. Therefore, the Relinquishment Deed executed by defendant No.6 does not bind the plaintiff in any manner. The defendant Nos.3 to 5 on the basis of Relinquishment Deed have treated suit schedule property as civic amenity site for the purpose of park. Further, defendant Nos.3 to 5 claims to have transferred the schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 for maintenance and other administrative purpose. The plaintiff further pleaded that sale deed under which the defendant No.6 claims to have purchased portion of land in Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe village, it is clear that the property stated to have purchased by defendant No.6Society is entirely different. The documents in respect of the schedule property goes to show that plaintiff is absolute owner of it and he is in lawful possession and enjoyment by exercising right of ownership. The boundaries 9 O.S.No.5536/2007 mentioned in the sale deed are specific enough to identify schedule property from rest of land in Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe village. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No.7 claims to have purchased the property through sale deed dated 09/10/1995 from family members of Byriga S/o Gaddiga. The vendor did not have any semblance of right, title, interest and possession covering the extent of land, which is relinquished by defendant No.6society in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5. No occupancy rights has been granted in favour of Byriga S/o Gaddiga or his family members under the provisions of Inam Abolition Act. At the instance of defendant No.7, documents were created by fraudulent means in order to give an artificial life to the sale deed. The defendant No.7 did not derive any right, title and interest over the schedule property through the fraudulent document. The plaintiff further averred that when defendant No.7 started 10 O.S.No.5536/2007 denying the title to the schedule property and made attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property, he was constrained to file O.S.No.4653/2003 against defendant No.7. During the pendency of said suit, while verifying the documents, it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 to 6 have created several documents by abusing the powers to support the illegal cause of defendant No.7, who was sitting MLA and BDA Chairman. Therefore, plaintiff filed the present suit seeking declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. The claim of the defendant No.7 is based on fake, bogus and fraudulent documents. The plaintiff averred that boundaries mentioned in the Relinquishment Deed executed by defendant No.6society in favour of defendant No.1, the property covered under the said boundaries has no relativity or relevance to the schedule property. 11 O.S.No.5536/2007 However, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 are under the erroneous impression that Relinquishment Deed covers the suit schedule property and made arrangements for the purpose of implementing the construction of the park treating the same as civic amenity site. The defendant No.6 has no right to execute such a Relinquishment Deed in respect of schedule property nor defendant Nos.1 to 5 have right to enter the suit schedule property on the strength of said Relinquishment Deed. On the basis of Relinquishment Deed, defendant No.1 treated the suit schedule property as civic amenity site and recently handed it to defendant No.2Corporation for converting it into a park. The act of defendant Nos.1 to 7 are illegal and highhanded. Therefore, plaintiff constrained to file the suit seeking the reliefs. The cause of action accrues to the plaintiff on 02/02/2003 when defendant No.7 denied the title of the plaintiff over the schedule property and 12 O.S.No.5536/2007 threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from schedule property, on 08/09/2006 when plaintiff issued notice to defendant Nos.1 to 6, on 28/06/2007 when plaintiff withdrew the suit with liberty to file fresh suit, on 13/07/2007 when officials of defendant Nos.1 to 6 came near schedule property for the purpose of marking boundaries for the purpose of construction of park.
3. In pursuance of summons, all the defendants put their appearance through their counsel. The defendant Nos.1,3 to 5 filed common written statement. The defendant Nos.2,6 and 7 filed their separate written statement.
The defendant Nos.1,3 to 5 in their written statement contended that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in law or facts and it is liable to be dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the absence of issuance of the 13 O.S.No.5536/2007 statutory notice. The defendants denied the averments made out in para Nos.1 to 16 as false and called upon the plaintiff to prove the same. It is averred that defendant No.6 purchased property bearing Sy.No.71 (Sy.No.130/1) measuring 2 acres of Kathriguppe village on 27/11/1972from Narayanappa S/o Late Patel Munithimmaiah and another 3 acres of land in Sy.No.71 purchased on the same date from one Munishamappa S/o Patel Munithimmaiah for formation of sites. The defendant No.6 applied for conversion of land from agriculture to residential. The Tahsildhar, Bengaluru South granted permission for conversion of land to an extent of 4 acres 24 guntas for the purpose of formation of layout. The defendant No.6 applied for approval of private layout plan to an extent of 4 acres 26 guntas to this defendant, the same was approved. It is averred that defendant No.6society executed a Relinquishment Deed in 14 O.S.No.5536/2007 favour of this defendant on 05/10/1990 by handing over civic amenity site alongwith roads, water supply, sewage and electricity line in 3 rd stage of Radhakrishna layout, which has been formed in old Sy.No.71 (new Sy.No.130/1) of Kathriguppe village to an extent of 4 acres 26 guntas. Subsequently, these defendants decided to covert civic amenity site Nos.1,2 and 3 of Radhakrishna layout into park and handedover it to defendant No.2 for maintenance. Therefore, there is no schedule property as claimed by plaintiff is in existence. No cause of action accrues to the plaintiff to file the suit.
4. The defendant No.2 though filed separate written statement, but it is reiteration of the written statement filed by defendant Nos.1,3 and 5.
5. The defendant No.6 in the written statement contended that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in law or on facts. The suit is 15 O.S.No.5536/2007 frivolous, vexatious and misconceived. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed. The defendant pleaded that Radhakrishna House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., Kadirenahalli is the lawful owner of Sy.No.45,46,62,63 and 65 in Kadirenahalli and portion of Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe village. The society purchased these lands for formation of sites to its members. All the sites including civic amenity site and park sites belongs to the society. It is averred that Sy.No.130/1 of Kathriguppe village does not belong to society and has not formed layout in this land. The society formed layout covering 400 sites, out of which some portion of the land is in existence, which is undeveloped due to technical reasons, Topographical reasons of Hillock, uneven land scape stone rocky area, water tank bund, quick sand, loose mud area etc. The same is under the ownership of society. It is averred that there are two civic amenity sites in Radhakrishna layout converted 16 O.S.No.5536/2007 to shop bearing No.21/A and another CA site is partially encroached by land grabbers and building, roads are formed. The CA site in Sy.Nos.62 and 63 is in lawful possession of society and it is not allotted or transferred or relinquished in favour of Bengaluru Development Authority. However, Bengaluru Development Authority in resolution No.35/2007 dated 28/03/2007 illegally claims that CA site belongs to Bengaluru Development Authority. Without any right, title and possession Bengaluru Development Authority transferred this to Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike as CA park site on concocted records. The defendant further averred that in Radhakrishna layout of Kadirenahalli 2nd stage formed in Sy.Nos.45 and 46 of Kadirenahalli, two civic amenity sites measuring 7,191 sq.ft. situated in 3rd A cross road, opposite to site No.77. This site is partially encroached by land grabbers based on fake document Hakkupatra. The 17 O.S.No.5536/2007 CA site No.2 measuring 21.628 sq.ft., situated opposite to site No.102, 4th cross road, R.K.Layout 2nd stage has been totally occupied by land grabbers. There are 19 RCC buildings in existence and they are constructed in active collusion of Bengaluru Development Authority and Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike by land grabbers. The society has freely transferred two CA sites by Relinquishment Deed on 29/10/1979. Further, the Bengaluru Development Authority has to take possession of these two CA sites as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.31068/1992, but the Bengaluru Development Authority has not taken possession of these two sites till this date and have not issued notice under Section 33 of Bengaluru Development Authority Act for eviction of illegal occupants. The defendant further averred that several civic amenity sites/park sites in Padmanabhanagar Jayanagar 18 O.S.No.5536/2007 House Building Cooperative Society layout occupied by land grabbers with active support of Bengaluru Development Authority and Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, in these sites several RCC buildings are in existence and roads are formed. The Bengaluru Development Authority has allotted and leased some portion of Bengaluru Development Authority sites for commercial buildings civic sites, private hospitals, telephone office and hostel. In Jayanagar House Building Cooperative Society layout, CA site Nos.2,6,8 and 10 are in existence. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike not to form park and not to demolish temple in CA Site No.5. The Jayanagar House Building Cooperative Society encroached the land belongs to Radhakrishna society and shown in the layout plan as CA site Nos.3,4,58. The CA site No.3 has been occupied by land grabbers, which is portion of area in R.K.Layout 19 O.S.No.5536/2007 formed in Sy.Nos.62 and 63, 45 and 46 of Kadirenahalli. The Bengaluru Development Authority or Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike are not in any possession of any CA sites in Padmanabhanagar. It is averred that Bengaluru Development Authority has not acquired any land of defendant No.6society. Therefore, the Bengaluru Development Authority has no right, title and is not in possession of the sites formed by Radhakrishna layout.
It is averred that under Section 32(5) of Bengaluru Development Authority Act, the Bengaluru Development Authority collects layout changes and imposes condition and insist for preliminary agreement for formation of layout in private lands or from the private parties/society. After collecting Bengaluru Development Authority gives formal administrative and technical sanction 20 O.S.No.5536/2007 for formation of layout. Thereafter, it will acquire the land and Bengaluru Development Authority itself prepare layout plan and call tender for formation of layout including leveling of layout land, formation for road, drain, water supply pipe, electricity poles etc. The Bengaluru Development Authority issues tender work orders to various persons to complete the layout work and after completion of layout work, the concerned official will record the same in measurement book. Thereafter, the Bengaluru Development Authority collecting full layout charges prepares draft agreement to relinquish Deed to transfer freely CA sites, road, water line, sewerage line, electricity line in the layout in favour of Bengaluru Development Authority by owner or society. The Bengaluru Development Authority will not release any site in favour of owner or society for occupation and construction of building in the sites. The society simply signed the Relinquishment Deed. 21 O.S.No.5536/2007 It is averred that right from formation of layout, completion of layout and registering the relinquishment deed, the society would not have seen the survey land boundaries and site boundaries of society layout and until Bengaluru Development Authority releases the sites, it is only after release of site order and correct dimension report of the site is issued, location map issued to the society. Thereafter, the society allotted the site to its member. The defendant averred that all the work of formig the layout is done by Bengaluru Development Authority only not society. However, the society has to pay layout charges to Bengaluru Development Authority. It is further pleaded that defendant No.6 society is not owner of Sy.No.130/1 (old Sy.No.71) of Kathriguppe village. The Bengaluru Development Authority has not acquired this land in favour of defendant No.6society. Hence, Bengaluru Development Authority is not the owner of this land. 22 O.S.No.5536/2007 It is averred that defendant No.6society purchased Sy.No.45 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of Kadirenahalli through sale deed dated 29/05/1972 from one Jayamma. The Bengaluru Development Authority by collecting layout charges from the society, formed layout in Sy.No.45 and after completion of layout, sites have been released by Bengaluru Development Authority in favour of defendant No.6society. It is averred that Jayamma D/o Hanumanthappa is owner of Sy.No.130/1 (old Sy.No.71) of Kathriguppe village as per revenue records from 197475. She purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.No.71 on 29111972 from one Munishamappa. All the revenue records of this land stands in the name of Jayamma till 2012. The defendant No.6society has not purchased this land and Bengaluru Development Authority has not acquired in favour of defendant No.6society. Therefore, the existence of Radhakrishna layout 3 rd 23 O.S.No.5536/2007 stage in Sy.No. 130/1 (old Sy.No.71) of Kathriguppe is false, misleading and imaginary layout. The Bengaluru Development Authority has created illegal and concocted document and falsely contending that it is the 3rd stage layout of defendant No.6Society. The defendant further averred that society has not applied for formation of layout in Sy.No.130/1 to Bengaluru Development Authority and not submitted any layout plan to Bengaluru Development Authority for approval. The defendant further pleaded that before formation of layout by Bengaluru Development Authority, an agreement would be obtained from layout owner to give civic amenity site freely to it after formation of layout as such draft deed has to be given to society to sign and register without altering anything in the deed othwerise Bengaluru Development Authority would not release site in favour of the owner. It is averred that society layout would not have been seen by the 24 O.S.No.5536/2007 society authorities, but would blindly sign the Draft Relinquishment Deed for handing over the civic amenity sites and register the Relinquishment Deed in favour of Bengaluru Development Authority. Hence, society registered Relinquishment Deed on 05/01/1990. As per the order of Bengaluru Development Authority, the 3rd stage of R.K.Layout in Sy.No.130/1 (old Sy.No.17) of Kathriguppe village without the existence of layout, it has submitted it. The defendant averred that in the year 1976 that Bengaluru Development Authority under Section 32 of Bengaluru Development Authority Act approves the layout and as per law CA sites will remain with layout owner and has to maintain the CA sites and construct community area building such as shops, hospitals, schools, bank, community hall, kalayanamantapa, temples etc. In the Bengaluru Development Authority layout, it allots the CA sites through paper publication and lease agreement. In 25 O.S.No.5536/2007 private layout, the CA sites are allotted by layout owner. The Bengaluru Development Authority is discharging statutory duty under Section 32 of Bengaluru Development Authority Act by approving the layout. The ownership of layout site and CA site would not be obtained to Bengaluru Development Authority. Necessary transfer should be obtained accordingly to Transfer of Property Act or land and sites should be acquired as per Land Acquisition Act. The defendant averred that CA sites and park sites to private land owner for their own use by cancelling the CA sites. The Bengaluru Development Authority cannot change the nature of CA sites to park sites without notice to the society. The Bengaluru Development Authority is changing CA site to commercial complex site and allotting site in Nagarabhavi 2nd stage. The CA site of Hennur Bellary road layout, 1st stage and also park area in BSK 6th stage. It is averred that Bengaluru 26 O.S.No.5536/2007 Development Authority passed illegal resolution No.35/2007 dated 28/03/2007 without authority of law and without consent of the society for handing over 3 CA sites to Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. One CA site in Sy.No.62,63 is in possession of the society and it is not relinquished to Bengaluru Development Authority. Two CA sites in Sy.Nos.45,46 of R.K.Layout is occupied by land grabbers on fake document, which has been relinquished to Bengaluru Development Authority in 1979. One CA site in land belongs to R.K.Layout and temple is constructed and not 3rd stage layout of R.K. society in Sy.No.130/1 of Kathriguppe village. The defendant averred that plaintiff without ascertaining all these facts, filed the suit against this defendant. Hence, suit is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
27 O.S.No.5536/2007
6. The defendant No.7 in the written statement has not denied specifically the averments made out in para Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint as to father of plaintiff purchased schedule property through sale deed dated 26/11/1956. The defendant admits averments made out in para Nos.4 to 7 as correct. The defendant averred that after filing the suit, he came to know that defendant No.6society claimed to have executed the Relinquishment Deed and subsequently he has filed O.S.No.9290/2007 for declaration and other consequential reliefs against plaintiff and others and the said suit is pending. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 11 of the plaint as false. It is denied that no occupancy right under Inam Abolition Act has been granted either to Byriga S/o Gaddiga or his family members and at his instance documents are created fraudulently. It is averred that the family members of Byriga S/o Gaddiga have executed a valid legal 28 O.S.No.5536/2007 sale deed on 09/10/1995 in respect of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe and on the basis of sale deed, revenue entries are transferred in his name. The defendant averred that he is claiming only 30 guntas of Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe on the basis of the sale deed and he has not claimed in so far as schedule property claimed by the plaintiff. It is averred that property purchased by him is situated on the southern side of schedule property. The defendant admits the averments made out in para 13 of the plaint as correct. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 14 of the plaint. It is denied that defendant Nos.1 to 6 colluded with defendant No.7. the defendant admits the averments made out in para 15 of the plaint as to implementation of scheme for providing park in the schedule property However, it is contended hat defendant Nos.1 to 5 have no right to use private property for the purpose of construction of public 29 O.S.No.5536/2007 park unless it is acquired for said purpose under law. The defendant averred that he has purchased 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe through registered sale deed on 09/10/1995 from LRs of Byriga S/o Gaddiga, who acquired it as per orders of Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams. After purchase of the land, khatha has been transferred in his name. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 are claiming 30 guntas of his purchased property and also the schedule property illegally under the guise of implementing the illusory scheme for construction of park in Sy.No.71 in collusion with defendant No.6Society. On these grounds and substance, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property as alleged ?30 O.S.No.5536/2007
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendants have illegally interfered with his lawful possession over the suit property as alleged ?3. Whether the defendant Nos.1 to 5
prove that suit property is a civic amenity site formed by 6th defendant in its layout and after that it has relinquished its right in favour of 1st defendant and now it is with the 2nd defendant and reserved as park as alleged by them ?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief of declaration and Permanent Injunction against defendants as prayed
5. To what relief, if any, the parties are entitled ?
8. To prove and substantiate the respective contentions, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and three witnesses as PW2 to PW4. Plaintiff produced in all 65 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.65. The AEE of defendant No.2 examined as DW1. The defendant No.5 examined as DW2 and have got marked in all 24 documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.24. 31 O.S.No.5536/2007
9. Heard the arguments.
10. The above issues are answered for the reasons, findings given in the foregoing discussions as:
REASONS
11. ISSUE NOs.1 TO 3 : These issues are interconnected and depending on each other. Therefore, to avoid repetition of the discussions of each issue, they are taken up jointly for consideration.
It is the case of the plaintiff that one Byrappa S/o Munishamappa was the owner of 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe village, who purchased it from one Rao Bahadur Captain Thangavelu Modalyar on 13/10/1956.
Subsequently, he sold 12 ½ guntas of land through sale deed dated 26/11/1956 to father of plaintiff. Since Kathriguppe village was a Jodi Inam village 32 O.S.No.5536/2007 governed by the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, in view of notification dated 15/09/1956, Jodi Inam village of Kathriguppe vest with government. The father of plaintiff who was in possession and cultivation of 12 ½ guntas of land since the date of purchase, applied for grant of occupancy rights to Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams. The Special Deputy commissioner for Inam Abolition by its order dated 21/12/1959 granted occupancy rights. Thereafter, the revenue authorities transferred the mutation in the name of father of plaintiff and name of the father of plaintiff is reflected in the record of rights. The plaintiff further contended that during the lifetime, his father settled family properties including suit land through Will Deed dated 13/11/1979 among his children and died on 10/06/1985. As per Will Deed, schedule property fallen to the share of plaintiff. Thereafter 33 O.S.No.5536/2007 the khata has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff and also his name appearing in the RTC. It is contended that defendant No.7 claiming to be purchaser of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe contended as suit schedule property is part and parcel of purchased land. In this regard, defendant No.7 approached Joint Director of Land Records for survey of land and for fixing the boundaries. The claim of defendant No.7 came to be rejected as per the order dated 11/07/2000 by the Joint Director of Land Records.. Thereafter, defendant No.7 approached Tahsildhar challenging the order passed by Joint Director of Land Records in RRT(1)(DIS)34/200001 on 16/05/2003. The Tahsildhar allowed the claim of defendant No.7. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred in Appeal No.42/200304 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South SubDivision. The appeal came to be allowed as per order dated 34 O.S.No.5536/2007 16/05/2003 and order passed by Tahsildhar came to be set aside. It is also contended that defendant No.6Radhakrishna House Building Society without there being any right, title and interest executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of Bengaluru Development Authority in respect of unidentifiable property indicating that it has no objections for converting the relinquished land as a civic amenity site. The property so relinquished by defendant No.7Society and the schedule property are entirely different. However, Bengaluru Development Authority started to treat suit schedule property as civic amenity site. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 i.e., Bengaluru Development Authority and Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike under an erroneous impression that Relinquishment Deed executed by defendant No.6Society covers suit schedule property, have made all arrangements for purpose of construction of park. The plaintiff contended that in 35 O.S.No.5536/2007 order to support the claim of defendant No.7, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 i.e., Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru Development Authority and Radhakrishna Housing Society created Relinquishment Deed in order to grab the suit property. The plaintiff contended that since the date of purchase till this date, his father and himself continued the possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
12. It is the contention of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 that Radhakrishna House Building Society purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.No.71 (Sy.No.130/1) through sale deed dated 27/11/1972 from one Narayanappa S/o Patel Munithimmaiah and 3 acres of land in Sy.No.71 on 27/11/1972 itself from Munishamappa S/o Patel Munithimmaiah and got converted 4 acres 24 guntas and obtained layout plan. Thereafter, defendant No.6Society executed 36 O.S.No.5536/2007 Relinquishment Deed on 05/01/1990 in favour of Bengaluru Development Authority by handing over civic amenity site alongwith road, water supply, sewage and electricity line in 3rd stage of Radhakrishna Layout, which has been formed in Sy.No.71 (new Sy.No.130/1) measuring 4 acres 26 guntas of Kathriguppe village. Thereafter, Bengaluru Development Authority handedover this land to Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 28/03/2007 for its maintenance.
13. The defendant No.6 Radhakrishna House Building Society contended that it has purchased Sy.Nos.45,46,62,63,65 of Kadirenahalli and portion of Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe village for the purpose of formation of layout. Further, it is contended that Sy.No.130/1 does not belong to it and it has not formed any layout in Sy.No.130/1. Further, it is contended that Bengaluru Development Authority 37 O.S.No.5536/2007 has not acquired land for Radhakrishna House Building society. It is further contended that one Jayamma was the owner of Sy.No.130/1 (old Sy.No.71) of Kathriguppe village, who purchased it through sale deed dated 29/11/1972 from one Munishamappa. Therefore, formation of layout i.e., 3rd stage in Sy.No.130/1 (old No.71) is misleading and imaginary. The Bengaluru Development Authority created fake layout plan of Sy.No.130/1.
14. The defendant No.7 denied the claim of the plaintiff as to his father purchased 12 ½ guntas in Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe village from Byrappa S/o Munishamappa. However, he is not disputing. The father of plaintiff has retained an extent of 12 ½ guntas of land. Further, this defendant admits proceedings before the Special Deputy for Inam Abolition initiated by father of plaintiff. However, he denied the claim of plaintiff on the basis of Will Deed 38 O.S.No.5536/2007 executed by his father in respect of suit land. It is contended by defendant No.7 that he has purchased 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe village from the legal heirs of Byriga S/o Gaddiga. He is not claiming over 12 ½ guntas of land claimed by the plaintiff as schedule property.
15. To substantiate the contention, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and 3 witnesses as PWs2 to 4 and produced in all 65 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.65. The officials of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Bengaluru Development Authority examined themselves as DW1, 2 and produced in all 24 documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.24.
16. The plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the plaint averments. PWs2 and 3, who are sister and sisterinlaw of plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and have stated about the Will executed by 39 O.S.No.5536/2007 Ramaiah, the father of plaintiff on 13/11/1979 in respect of his selfacquired properties including suit land. Further, they stated that said Ramaiah bequeathed the suit land in favour of plaintiff and all the beneficiaries under the Will acted upon said Will.
17. The plaintiff produced certified copy of sale deed dated 26/11/1956 (Ex.P.1), order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition (Ex.P.2), endorsement (Ex.P.3), certified copy of MR No.59/196061 (Ex.P.4), RTC of Sy.No.71 (Ex.P.5 to 11, 35,36), Will Deed (Ex.P.13), order passed in RA(S) 42/200304 dated 04/02/2004 by the Asst.Commissioner, Bangalore South SubDivision (Ex.P.14), MR extract 3/0506 (Ex.P.15), rough sketch (Ex.P.42), certified copy of order passed by Joint Director of Land Records in Revision No.20/9899 dated 11/07/2000 (Ex.P.44), case records of Land Tribunal LRF/INA/42/5657 40 O.S.No.5536/2007 (Ex.P.45 to Ex.P.50), sale deed dated 08/09/1954, 26/11/1956, 29/11/1972 (Ex.P.51 to Ex.P.53), order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition in Case No.98 (Ex.P.54), certified copy of sale deed dated 13/10/1956, RTC (Ex.P.56 to Ex.P.64) and gazette notification (Ex.P.65).
18. In the crossexamination, PW1 states that Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition has granted suit land by passing order (Ex.P.2), issuing endorsement (Ex.P.3) in respect of Sy.No.71. He further states that his father purchased the land from Byrappa S/o Munishamappa and he acquired schedule property through Will Deed executed by him. He further states that Sy.No.71 has been given new No. Sy.No.130/1. He further states that one Narayanappa might have sold 2 acres of land and one Munishamappa S/o Munithimmaiah sold 3 acres of land in Sy.No.71 to defendant No.6Society 41 O.S.No.5536/2007 on 27/11/1972. He further states that defendant No.6Society purchased surrounding properties to form layout. He further states that defendant No.6 Society might have obtained approved layout plan. PW1 states that park area shown in the layout is the suit property. PW1 denied the suggestion that Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike is in possession of that area. PW1 denied the suggestion that himself and his brothers have divided 12 ½ guntas of land purchased by his father. Further, he denied the suggestion that as on the date of the suit, schedule property is not in existence. PW2 in her crossexamination states that her father executed Will Deed in respect of schedule property. PW2 denied the suggestion that her father had no right to execute Will Deed in respect of suit land. PW2 also denied the suggestion that Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike is in possession of the schedule property. PW3 also in the crossexamination states 42 O.S.No.5536/2007 about execution of Will Deed by her fatherinlaw in respect of family properties including schedule properties. She further denied the suggestion that no sale deed in respect of Sy.No.71 is in the name of her fatherinlaw.
19. On appreciation of the materials on record, it reveals that plaintiff claims to be the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of Will Deed dated 13/11/1979 executed by his father. The father of the plaintiff purchased suit land through sale deed dated 26/11/1956 from one Byrappa S/o Munishamappa. As the suit land is Jodi Inam land after coming into force of Inam Abolition Act, the land vest with the Government, his father applied for grant of occupancy rights to Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, who passed order dated 12/12/1956 granting occupancy rights. Accordingly, his father became 43 O.S.No.5536/2007 owner of schedule property, his name has been mutated as per MR 59/6162 entered in the RTC of suit land.
20. To substantiate this, has placed sale deed (Ex.P.1), order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner (Ex.P.2), endorsement (Ex.P.3) and also records of Land Tribunal (Ex.P.45 to Ex.P.50). On perusal of sale deed, it reveals that father of plaintiff purchased 12 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.71/4 of Kathriguppe village from one Byrappa S/o Munishamappa. Since Kathriguppe village is Jodi Inam village after coming into force of Inam Abolition Act, applied for grant occupancy rights to Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, who in turn granted occupancy rights. Accordingly, mutation has been certified and name of father of the plaintiff came to be entered in RTC. The RTC also reveals the name of father of the plaintiff. 44 O.S.No.5536/2007 Further, on perusal of Will Deed, it reveals that father of the plaintiff purchased in all 1 acre 7 guntas of land in Sy.No.71/4 including suit land measuring 12 ½ guntas. The case papers of Land Tribunal coupled with sale deed, it establishes the fact that father of plaintiff purchased 12 ½ guntas of land through sale deed (Ex.P.1) and after coming into force of Inam Abolition Act, the suit land vest with Government. Thereafter, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition regranted suit land by registering father of the plaintiff as occupant of it.
21. The property purchased by father of plaintiff through sale deed (Ex.P.1) bounded on East by Kerekatte, West by land of Munithimmaiah in Sy.No.71/4, North by land belongs to purchaser and South by halla and land of Munithimmaiah. The evidence of PW1 coupled with sale deed, order of 45 O.S.No.5536/2007 Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, RTC clearly establishes that father of plaintiff was the owner of suit land. The evidence of Pws2, 3 corroborates the contention of the plaintiff as to during lifetime Ramaiah settled the family properties including suit schedule property among his children and suit schedule property has been given to the plaintiff.
22. The plaintiff contended that defendant No.7 started claiming suit schedule property as part and parcel of 30 guntas of land purchased by him and approached Joint Director of Land Records for bifurcating and fixing the boundaries. The JDLR after considering the claim of defendant No.7, passed an order on 11/07/2000 rejecting the claim holding that Sy.No.71 itself is not surveyed and phoded and based on records available with survey authorities, the suit schedule property belongs to the father of 46 O.S.No.5536/2007 plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant No.7 approached Tahsildhar in RRT(1)(DIS)34/200001. The Tahsildhar allowed the claim of defendant No.7 by his order dated 16/05/2003. Aggrieved by this order, plaintiff approached the Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No.42/200304, who allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by Tahsildhar. In this case, the plaintiff produced order passed by Assistant Commissioner in RA(S) 42/200304 (Ex.P.14). On perusal of this order, it reveals that defendant No.7 had challenged the order of Assistant Director of Land Records in respect of land granted to father of plaintiff and the allied act of certification of mutation entry of name of plaintiff's father in RTC in respect of schedule property, before the Joint Director of Land Records. The JDLR while hearing the case of present plaintiff and defendant No.7, held that defendant No.7 claiming his right and interest in the purchase of 30 47 O.S.No.5536/2007 guntas of land from Hanumanthappa S/o Byriga and others through sale deed dated 09/10/1995 contending that father of Hanumanthappa was granted occupncy rights in respect of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.71 as per order dated 18/05/1961. However, plaintiff claims 12 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.71 as per order of Special Deputy Commissioner confirming occupancy rights of father of plaintiff as per order dated 21/12/1959. The defendant No.7 claiming his right in respect of land of plaintiff also. Further, he observed that ADLR conducted spot inspection and prepared report stating that name of the father of plaintiff appearing in the record in respect of 12 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.71 as per order No.MPR.14/8586 and ADLR/MLR/48/198586. Further, it is observed that order of JDLR dated 10/07/2000 is not challenged by defendant No.7. The order of ADLR dated 14/03/1975 is still in force, prepared the 48 O.S.No.5536/2007 sketch to identify the property of father of plaintiff. The defendant No.7 by including the land belongs to father of plaintiff by showing same is situated within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed. The order of JDLR in JDLR (Revision) 20/9899 dated 11/07/2000 became final. The defendant No.7 approached Tahsildhar for cancellation of Hissa Phodi No.130, 130/1 and 130/2 formed in old Sy.No. 71. The Tahsildhar committed an error in ordering cancellation of Hissa Phodi in resurvey Nos.130,130/1 and 130/2 in Sy.No.7. The Tahsildhar has no jurisdiction to cancel the Hissa Phodi. It is to be done by JDLR only. Further, the Assistant Commissioner held that as there is issue of title involved directing the defendant No.7 to approach Civil Court for establishing his title, in this regard, the defendant No.7 filed O.S.No.9290/2007 for declaration. In this case, the defendant No.7 except filing written statement, has not made any 49 O.S.No.5536/2007 efforts to substantiate his contention and to disprove the case of the plaintiff. The evidence of plaintiff and the documents clearly establishes that schedule property has been granted to father of the plaintiff and father of plaintiff bequeathed schedule property to plaintiff. By virtue of Will Deed executed by father of plaintiff, the plaintiff became owner of the property.
23. The plaintiff contended that defendant No.6Society without having any authority, executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5 mentioning unidentifiable property indicating that it has no objection for converting relinquished land as civic amenity site. The defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 based on the said Relinquishment Deed, treated the suit land as civic amenity site for the purpose of park and transferred in favour of defendant No.2 for maintenance. The defendant No.6 except filing 50 O.S.No.5536/2007 written statement, has not made any efforts to produce evidence to establish its case. However, in the written statement, defendant No.6 contended that society is not the owner of Sy.No.130/1 (old Sy.No.71). Bengaluru Development Authority has not acquired the land for society. Therefore, the Bengaluru Development Authority is the not the owner of Sy.No.130/1. It is further contended that Sy.No.130/1 belongs to one Jayamma D/o Hanumanthappa. She purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.No.71 from one Munishamappa through sale deed dated 29/11/1972. The defendant No.6 Society has not purchased the land belongs to Jayamma or Bengaluru Development Authority acquired it for the society. The defendant No.7 contended that Bengaluru Development Authority has created and concocted documents of Sy.No.130/1. No layout plan has been submitted to Bengaluru Development Authority for approval in 51 O.S.No.5536/2007 respect of formation of layout in Sy.No.130/1. It is the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 i.e., Bengaluru Development Authority claiming that society purchased Sy.No.71 (Sy.No.130/1) measuring 2 acres from one Narayanappa S/o Munithimmaiah and 3 acres of land in Sy.No.71 from Munishamappa S/o Patel Munithimmaiah and applied for conversion of the land. As per conversion order dated 18/03/1976 by Tahsildhar, Bengaluru, 4 acres 24 guntas of land has been converted for formation of layout and society applied for approval of private layout plan to Bengaluru Development Authority, which has been approved. The defendant No.6 executed Relinquishment Deed in favour of Bengaluru Development Authority by handing over civic amenity site alongwith roads, water supply, sewage and electricity line in the 3rd Stage of Radhakrishna layout formed in Sy.No.71 (new Sy.No.130/1) of Kathriguppe village. 52 O.S.No.5536/2007
24. On going through the evidence available on record, this Court finds that plaintiff claims his right, title and interest in respect of suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 26/11/1956 executed by Byrappa S/o Munishamappa in favour of his father Ramaiah and grant of occupancy right in respect of this land by Special Deputy Commissioner dated 21/12/1956 after coming into force of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and revenue entries in respect of occupancy rights granted in the name of father of plaintiff, lastly the Will Deed dated 13/11/1979 by his father Ramaiah and revenue records.
25. DW1 in his evidence states that the schedule property i.e., 12½ guntas in land Sy.No.71 comes within the area of 5 acres in Sy.No.71 purchased by defendant No.6Society. DW1 denied the fact that father of plaintiff was granted 12 ½ 53 O.S.No.5536/2007 guntas of land in Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe in the name of plaintiff's father. DW1 further states that defendant No.6Society formed sites in entire extent of 5 acres land in Sy.No.71 and not retained any portion of the land. DW2 in his evidence states that defendant No.6Society submitted layout plan for approval to Bengaluru Development Authority in respect of 4 acres 24 gunas in Sy.No.71. Further, he states that kodihalla shown in the sketch (Ex.P.42) comes within 4 acres 24 guntas, which comes in 5 acres of land in Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe village. He denied the suggestion that land shown towards eastern side of kodihalla is not coming in 5 acres of land in which layout formed and submitted to Bengaluru Development Authority for approval. DW 2 admits that there is no mention of submitting layout plan for approval (Ex.D.1) by Radhakrishna society to Bengaluru Development Authority. He further admits that layout plan relating to land 54 O.S.No.5536/2007 Sy.No.71 (new Sy.Nos.130 and 130/1). DW2 denied the suggestion that the area shown by yellow colour in the rough sketch (Ex.P.42) belongs to plaintiff. DW2 states that Bengaluru Development Authority has formed layout on behalf of defendant No.6 Society. He denied the suggestion that no layout has been formed in Sy.Nos.130 and 130/1.
26. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record on both the sides, this Court finds that area claimed by Bengaluru Development Authority is suit property or is property belongs to defendant No.6Society or not is not clearly established. The documentary evidence on behalf of plaintiff establishes the fact that 12 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.71 with boundaries shown in schedule belongs to plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 claims their right and interest on the basis of the handing over of civic amenity area through 55 O.S.No.5536/2007 Relinquishment Deed by defendant No.6Society. As already stated defendant No.6Society except filing written statement, has not made any efforts to substantiate its contention or support/deny the claim of defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 regarding handing over of civic amenity area. The evidence of DW1 and 2 i.e., Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Bengaluru Development Authority will not establish conclusively that defendant No.6Society handedover civic amenity site to it in the layout formed by it as per the approved plan. The defendant No.6 denied the case contending that it has not purchased land Sy.No.130/1 and it has not formed any layout of Radhakrishna 3rd Stage. Under such circumstances, in the absence of corrborative evidence, the contention of Bengaluru Development Authority and Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike cannot be considered as correct. 56 O.S.No.5536/2007 27. The contention of defendant Nos.1 to 5 that defendant No.6Society has handedover the civic amenity area in the layout formed by it cannot be accepted. The suit schedule property exclusively belongs to father of plaintiff, thereafter to plaintiff. The defendant No.6Society or vendors of land in Sy.No.71 to defendant No.6Society, have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. At the same time, the claim of defendant No.7 as to his purchase of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.71 covers suit schedule property also cannot be accepted for the reason that vendor of defendant No.7 also had no right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. Any act on the part of the defendants in respect of suit schedule property such as claiming to have belongs to them or making any attempt for development work like park etc., in the schedule property amounts to obstruction and interference in the possession and enjoyment of the property by 57 O.S.No.5536/2007 plaintiff. Therefore, for these reasons, this Court answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and Issue No.3 in the Negative.
28. ISSUE NO.4: In view of reasons, findings given in the above made discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff proved that he is absolute owner and possessor of suit land. The defendants fail to prove that suit land is part and parcel of property purchased through sale deed dated 09/10/1995 and defendant No.6Society had any valid right, title and interest to handover the suit area to Bengaluru Development Authority in the form of civic amenity area and the Bengaluru Development Authority has no right, title or interest over the suit land. The act of the defendants in claiming the schedule property belongs to defendant No.7 or his civic amenity site itself amounts to obstruction and interference in possession and 58 O.S.No.5536/2007 enjoyment of the schedule property. The plaintiff being owner and possessor of suit schedule land is entitled for the relief sought. Hence, Issue No.4 is answered in the Affirmative.
29. ISSUE NO.5: In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Suit decreed with costs.
The plaintiff is owner and possessor of suit land.
The defendants or any person on behalf of defendants are hereby restrained from causing interference or obstruction for possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her and corrected, revised, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of March, 2021.) (RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
*****
59 O.S.No.5536/2007
ANNEXURE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 - Munichandra
PW.2 - Jayamma
PW.3 - Nirmala. N
PW.4 - V.Muniyappa
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed dtd
26/11/1956
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of order passed in Case
No.42 dtd 08/11/1959 by Special
Deputy Commissioner
Ex.P.3 Copy of endorsement issued by
Tahsildhar
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of Mutation register
extract
Ex.P.4(a) Relevant extract of MR 59/6061 Ex.P.5 to RTC extracts of land bearing No.71/1 Ex.P.11 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of order dated 04/07/1987 by Deputy Commissioner in case No.ULC(14)150/8687 Ex.P.13 Original Will dated 13/11/1979 executed by Ramaiah Ex.P.14 Certified copy of order passed in RA(S) 42/200304 dated 04/02/2004 by the Asst.Commissioner, Bangalore South SubDivision Ex.P.15 Mutation register extract of MR No.3/05 06 60 O.S.No.5536/2007 Ex.P.16 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.17,18 Land revenue receipts Ex.P.19 to Electricity demand bills and receipts Ex.P.22 Ex.P.23 Certified copy of judgment in Appeal No.9/90 (ULC) dtd 17/07/1995 Ex.P.24 Endorsement dated 18/09/2006 issued by B.D.A Ex.P.25 Copy of gazette notification issued by B.D.A dtd 27/02/1997 Ex.P.26 Copy of gazette notification dtd 05/01/1989 Ex.P.27 to Photographs with CD Ex.P.34 Ex.P.35 & Two RTC extracts of Sy.No.71 Ex.P.36 Ex.P.37 Copy of legal notice dtd 08/09/2006 Ex.P.38 to Acknowledgement Ex.P.41 Ex.P.42 Rough sketch of suit property Ex.P.43 Certified copy of ordersheet of O.S.No.4653/2003 Ex.P.44 Order passed by Joint Director of Land Records in Revision No.20/9899 dated 11/07/2000 Ex.P.45 Pherist (index) Ex.P.46 Endorsement dtd 21/12/1959 Ex.P.47 Order dtd 08/11/1959 by Special Deputy Commissioner for a Abolition Inams Ex.P.48 Ordersheet of case No.42/195657 Ex.P.49 Application dtd 29/11/1956 by Ramaiah to Special Amuldhar, Bangalore Taluk Ex.P.50 Statement of Ramaiah dtd 15/10/1958 Ex.P.51 Certified copy of registered sale deed dtd 10/09/1954 61 O.S.No.5536/2007 Ex.P.52 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 26/11/1956 Ex.P.53 Certified copy of registered sale deed dtd 29/11/1972 Ex.P.54 Certified copy of order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner for abolition of Inam in Case No.98 Ex.P.55 Certified copy of sale deed dtd 13/10/1956 Ex.P.56 to RTC extracts Ex.P.64 WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 - Nagendra DW.2 - V.Raju DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 Copy of letter dtd 10/10/2012
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of sale deed dtd
27/11/1972
Ex.D.3 Copy of letter dtd 08/10/2012 by B.D.A
Ex.D.4 Copy of plan
Ex.D.5 Copy of letter dtd 15/05/2007
Ex.D.6 to Photographs
Ex.D.15
Ex.D.16 CD
Ex.D.17 Certified copy of sale deed dtd
27/11/1972
Ex.D.18 Certified copy of relinquishment dtd
62 O.S.No.5536/2007
05/01/1990
Ex.D.19 Certified copy of resolution dtd
16/09/2006
Ex.D.20 Certified copy of letter dtd 19/04/2007 Ex.D.21 Attested copy of layout plan Ex.D.22 Attested copy of resolution dtd 16/09/2006 Ex.D.23 Original relinquishment deed dtd 05/01/1990 Ex.D.24 Copy of letter dtd 15/05/2007 issued by BDA (RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.
***** 63 O.S.No.5536/2007