Bangalore District Court
Shivaramegowda L R vs The Commissioner Bda on 5 January, 2026
1
O.S. No.9290/2007
KABC010177482007
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in
Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCH-41)
::Present::
Smt. Veena N., B.A.L. L.L.B.,
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 05th day of January, 2026.
O.S. No.9290/2007
PLAINTIFFS :: Sri. L.R.Shivaramegowda, Aged about 55
years, S/o. Sri. Ramegowda, R/at:
No.2369, 19th Cross, K.R.Road,
nd
Banashankari 2 Stage, Bengaluru - 560
070.
(By Smt. Divya S.V. Advocate)
V/s.
2
O.S. No.9290/2007
DEFENDANTS :: 1. The Commissioner, Bengaluru
Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah
Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru -
560 020.
:: 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah
Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru -
560 020.
:: 3. The Executive Engineer, Bengaluru
Development Authority, No.2, Project
Division, Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
:: 4. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike, Hudson Circle,
Bengaluru - 560 002.
:: 5. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Padmanabha Nagar Range, Ward No.55,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
:: 6. The President/ Secretary,
Radhakrishna Housing Building Co-
operative Society Ltd., No.692, 10 th Main
Road, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru -
560 011.
:: 7. Sri. Munichandra, Aged about 50 years,
S/o. Late. Ramaiah, R/at: No.14,
Muneswara Temple Street, Kadirenahalli,
3
O.S. No.9290/2007
Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 560
070.
(By Sri. T.N.Shiva Reddy, Adv. for D-1 to 3)
(By Sri. N.R.Jagadeeswara, Adv. for D-4 & 5)
(By Sri. B.Rajanna, Adv. for D-6)
(By Sri. Prakash T. Hebbar, Adv. for D-7)
Date of Institution of the :: 24-10-2007
Suit
Nature of the Suit :: DECLARATION AND
INJUNCTION
Date of commencement of :: 13-07-2010
recording of evidence
Date on which the :: 05-01-2026
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration :: Year/s Month/s Day/s
18 02 12
(VEENA N.)
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
Suit is one for declaration of title and for declaration that the relinquishment deed executed by defendant No.6 in favour of B.D.A. and the Resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 passed by B.D.A. as null 4 O.S. No.9290/2007 and void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for declaration that the defendant No.7 has no right over the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction.
2. Case of the plaintiff's in brief is as hereunder:-
The plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
It is stated that the suit property was originally an inam land which belonged to inamdar of Khathriguppe village.
One Sri. Bairiga S/o. Gadige Bairanna was in possession and cultivation of the schedule property as tenant under the inamdar. After coming into force of the Inam Abolition Act, the said Bairiga S/o. Gadiga Bairanna filed an application for regrant of the schedule property in his favour. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams registered the case in No.85/56-57 5 O.S. No.9290/2007 and after conducting enquiry and recording the evidence of inamdar and the tenant, passed an order on 18.05.1961 and registered Sri. Bairiga as quasi-
permanent tenant of schedule property.
3. Pursuant to the regrant order the revenue records were effected in the name of grantee Sri. Bairiga vide M.R. No.13/61-62 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Later, he died intestate on 24.02.1967 leaving behind his legal heirs to succeed his estate. The legal heirs of Sri. Bairiga jointly sold the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration under sale deed dated 09.10.1995 and accordingly, khata and mutation is transferred to the name of plaintiff in M.R. No.15/1995-
96.
4. It is stated that the schedule property is now 6 O.S. No.9290/2007 included in the jurisdiction of B.B.M.P. Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru. The plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and he filed an application for effecting durast of schedule property, to an extent of 30 guntas in Sy. No.71 of Kathriguppe village to fix the boundaries before the ADLR, Bengaluru. The ADLR stated that the hadbast is already been done for an extent of 22 guntas of land and it is assigned Re-Sy. No.130/2 on 14.03.1975. Being aggrieved by the order passed by ADLR, the plaintiff preferred Revision Petition No.20/1998-99 before the Joint Director of Land Records of Bengaluru. The JDLR was of the opinion that the dispute regarding the boundaries comes under the jurisdiction of Tahsildar who is the competent authority to rectify the mistake under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Later, the plaintiff filed an application before Tahsildar Bengaluru South Taluk for rectification 7 O.S. No.9290/2007 of boundaries. The Tahsildar registered the same as case No.RRT(2)/DIS/34/2000-01. After conducting enquiry and spot inspection, the Tahsildar passed an order on 16.05.2003 to rectify the boundaries and to prepare the sketch of the land for an extent of 30 guntas. It is stated that the adjacent land owner i.e. defendant No.7 raised objection that the durast of schedule property made in favour of the plaintiff overlaps his land in an extent of 12½ guntas and he challenged the order passed by the Tahsildar in R.A. No.42/2003-04 before Asst. Commissioner and the Asst. Commissioner disposed the appeal on 04.03.2004 with an observation that the civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute and the aggrieved parties are at liberty to agitate the matter before the competent Court.
5. Later it has come to the knowledge of plaintiff that the defendant No.6 has executed a relinquishment deed in favour of B.D.A. purporting to release schedule 8 O.S. No.9290/2007 property by describing the same as CA site. The plaintiff also came to know that the B.D.A. has passed resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 to hand over the alleged CA site i.e. the schedule property to B.B.M.P. for the purpose of park. In pursuance of the alleged transfer of the property by B.D.A., the officials of B.B.M.P. are making hectic attempts to trespass the suit schedule property for formation of park.
6. The schedule property is the self-acquired property of the plaintiff and at no point of time it belonged to defendant No.6 society and the society had no right to transfer the schedule property to the plaintiff in favour of B.D.A. and consequently, the B.D.A. had no right to transfer the schedule property to B.B.M.P. and the alleged transfer is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued statutory notice to the defendants No.1 to 6 on 04.08.2007 calling upon them to cancel the 9 O.S. No.9290/2007 alleged transfer of the schedule property effected by way of relinquishment deed and subsequent transfer of schedule property by passing resolution and in spite of service of notice, there is no response from the defendants.
7. In the mean while, the defendant No.7 filed a suit for declaration in respect of 12½ guntas of land in Sy. No.71 against the defendants No.1 to 6 and the plaintiff herein, by alleging that the said property was purchased by his father under registered Sale Deed dated 26.11.1956 from Bairappa S/o. Munishamappa and he bequeathed the property to defendant No.7 under registered WILL dated 13.11.1979 and the defendant No.7 claimed to be the owner of 12½ guntas of land. The suit bearing O.S. No.5536/2007 filed by defendant No.7 is pending for consideration. The plaintiff being the absolute owner in possession of the schedule 10 O.S. No.9290/2007 property under registered Sale Deed dated 09.10.1995, the defendants No.1 to 7 have no manner of right, title or interest over the same and since there was interference by the defendants No.1 to 6 and also the defendant No.7 asserted his right over 12½ guntas of land in the suit schedule property, left with no option the present suit is filed seeking aforesaid reliefs.
8. In pursuance to the summons issued the defendants No.1 to 7 caused appearance and filed their written statement. The defendants No.1 to 3 are the officials of B.D.A. authorities and defendants No.4 and 5 are the officials of B.B.M.P. authorities. The defendants No.1 to 3 have not chosen to file written statement. However, the defendant No.4 has filed written statement wherein which the averments made in the plaint are categorically denied and it is contended that the suit is speculative and the plaintiff has no manner of right, title 11 O.S. No.9290/2007 or interest over the schedule property and the suit is not properly valued and Court fee paid is insufficient and the suit is barred by law of limitation. It is denied that the plaintiff is the owner, in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the schedule property being a CA site measuring 30 guntas, is handed over by B.D.A. to B.B.M.P. on 15.05.2007. The said CA sites are identified for the formation of park and was resolved to be handed over to B.B.M.P. vide resolution dated 28.03.2007 and hence, B.B.M.P. is the absolute owner of the schedule property in possession of the same. It is stated that the defendant has not received any legal notice as stated by the plaintiff. It is stated that since the plaintiff claims to in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years and therefore, he is claiming to be the owner by adverse possession. The plaintiff is not entitled to plead that he is the owner by virtue of the sale deed and also to plead that he is the 12 O.S. No.9290/2007 owner by adverse possession. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, the suit seeking declaratory reliefs without seeking possession of the schedule property is not maintainable. This defendant being in possession of suit property, the question of granting an order of injunction to restrain the owner by an order of permanent injunction does not arise. Hence, the suit is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of suit.
9. The defendant No.6 society has filed written statement wherein which it is contended that the said society is the lawful owner of Sy. Nos.45, 46, 62, 63 and 65 situated at Kadirenahalli and partly Sy. No.71 of Kathriguppe village. The above lands were purchased by the society for formation of sites and to sell the sites to members of society at the prevailing market value. All the sites including CA sites and park sites belongs to society. Sy. No.130/1 of Katriguppe village lands does not 13 O.S. No.9290/2007 belongs to the society and the society has not formed any layout in the said survey number and it is not in possession of Sy. No.130/1 of Kathriguppe village. The society has allotted approximately 400 sites to its members and there exist some portion of land within survey boundaries belonging to the society which is undeveloped due to technical reasons. There exists two CA sites in Sy. Nos.62 & 63 of Kadirenahalli village and the first CA site is converted to site No.21/A and allotted to the members and one CA site is partially encroached by land grabbers. The said CA site No.1 is in lawful possession of the society and the same is not allotted or transferred or relinquishment deed is registered in favour of B.D.A. or any authority, but the B.D.A. vide resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 is illegally claiming the CA site of B.D.A. without title and possession and has illegally transferred the site to B.B.M.P.
10. Further in Sy. Nos.45 and 46 of Kadirenahalli 14 O.S. No.9290/2007 2nd Stage two CA sites are existing and both the sites are encroached by land grabbers based on manipulated documents with active collusion of B.D.A. and B.B.M.P. The society has freely transferred two CA sites by executing relinquishment deed dated 29.10.1979 and the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.31068/1992 has directed the B.D.A. to take possession of the above two CA sites according to law, but the B.D.A. has not taken possession of the CA sites till date and also have not issued notice under Section 33 of B.D.A. Act for demolition of illegal construction. The B.B.M.P. has also not issued notice to the land grabbers for eviction of illegal construction in CA sites. Thus, several CA sites, park sites in Padmanabhanagar and Jayanagar was also been occupied by land grabbers. The B.D.A. has allotted and leased some portion of CA sites for commercial building, private schools and hospital. The Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.20078/2010 has directed B.B.M.P. not 15 O.S. No.9290/2007 to form park and also not to demolish the Venkateshwara temple at CA site No.5. The B.D.A. has not acquired any lands of defendant No.6 society and hence, B.D.A. has no right, title or interest in respect of the sites formed by the society. The defendant No.6 society is not the owner of Sy. No.130/1 old Sy. No.71 of Kathriguppe village and the B.D.A. has also not acquired the lands for the purpose of defendant No.6 society.
11. One Smt. Jayamma D/o. Hanumanthappa is the owner of Sy. No.130/1 old No.71 of Kathriguppe village as per revenue records of the year 1974-75 and the said land still stands in the name of Smt. Jayamma and she had purchased the said property from Sri. Munishamappa under sale deed dated 29.11.1972 and all the revenue records shows that the property stands in the name of Jayamma. Hence it is Smt. Jayamma who is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property and this society at no point of time 16 O.S. No.9290/2007 claimed to be the owner of Sy. No.130/1. The society has not acquired lands and formed layout in Sy. No.130/1 and the B.D.A. has also not acquired lands for the purpose of society and the B.D.A. has illegally created the documents in collusion with its officials. The society has not applied to B.D.A. for formation of layout in Sy. No.130/1. The B.D.A. has created concocted fake layout plan and map in Sy. No.130/1. Since the Sy. No.130/1 belongs to Smt. Jayamma and it is not acquired by B.D.A. or the society, the question of existence of CA site is imaginary. The B.D.A. has illegally passed Resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 without authority of law and without consent of the society for handing over three CA sites in Sy. Nos.62 and 63 and the society has not executed any relinquishment deed and the CA sites are occupied by the land grabbers. Thus, the resolution passed by the B.D.A. is invalid and unenforceable. The plaintiff without ascertaining the 17 O.S. No.9290/2007 above facts has filed the suit against this defendant and hence, the suit against this defendant is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of suit.
12. The defendant No.7 has filed written statement wherein which he has contended that the defendant No.7 is in possession of portion of schedule property measuring 12½ guntas which is lying on the northern side of Sy. No.71 and in between the plaintiff's property and the property owned by this defendant there is a water channel which virtually divides the properties in Sy. No.71. The extent of 12½ guntas of defendant No.7 can be identified easily with specific boundaries as elaborated in O.S. No.5536/2007. The property of plaintiff is situated on the southern side of the said extent of 12½ guntas belonging to this defendant. It is stated that the defendants No.1 to 5 are illegally claiming 12½ guntas of land owned and possessed by this defendant 18 O.S. No.9290/2007 and also the suit schedule property illegally under the guise of implementing the illusory scheme for construction of a park in the said Sy. No.71 in collusion with defendant No.6 society. If at all, the society needs any park or any other facilities, the same should be provided by the society out of the land purchased by the society and not in a private property. The defendant No.6 society is a bogus society within the meaning of the G.V.K. Rao Committee Report. The entire scheme has been hatched by the defendants No.1 to 5 with malafide intention to provide a park at the cost and interest of this defendant, including the land belonging to the plaintiff and also the said 12½ guntas belonging to this defendant, the entire scheme of the defendants No.1 to 5 to provide the park is illegal and it does not have the force of law. Thus, contending these facts sought for dismissal of suit.
13. Heard arguments of learned counsel for 19 O.S. No.9290/2007 defendants No.4, 5 and 7 and perused the records.
14. The aforesaid pleadings have occasioned following ;
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue or registered Sale Deed dated 09.10.1995 as alleged ?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the alleged relinquishment deed executed by defendant No.6 Radhakrishna House Building Co-
operative Society Ltd. in favour of B.D.A. in respect of suit schedule property by wrongly describing the same as CA site is illegal, and not binding on the plaintiff as alleged ?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves 20 O.S. No.9290/2007 that resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 passed by the B.D.A. to hand over the suit schedule property to B.B.M.P. for the purpose of Park is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff as alleged ?
4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant No.7 Munichandra has no right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property by virtue of the alleged registered WILL dated 13.11.1979 executed by his father Sri. Ramaiah as alleged ?
5. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants have illegally interfered with his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as alleged ?
6. Whether defendants No.4 and 5 prove that the land in Sy. No.71 (New Sy. No.130/1) private layout 21 O.S. No.9290/2007 of residential sites were formed in which the suit schedule property was reserved as CA site as approved by the B.D.A. and then the CA site was handed over to them under the resolution dated 28.03.2007 passed by the B.D.A. as alleged in Para-3 of the written statement ?
7. Whether the defendants No.4 and 5 further proves that suit for declaration without seeking possession of the suit schedule property is not maintainable as alleged ?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction sought against defendants as prayed ?
9. To what reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled ?
15. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff got 22 O.S. No.9290/2007 examined himself as P.W.1 and relied upon 41 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.41 and Ex.D.1 & Ex.D.1(a) were confronted to P.W.1 and closed the evidence.
16. On the contrary, the Asst. Executive Engineer of B.B.M.P. i.e. defendant No.5 got examined himself as D.W.1 and relied upon 5 documents marked at Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.6. The defendant No.7 got examined as D.W.2 and relied upon 35 documents marked at Ex.D.7 to Ex.D.35. The defendants No.4 and 5 have examined witness on their behalf as D.W.3 and got marked Ex.C.1.
17. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
ISSUE No.1 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.2 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.3 :: In the Negative
23
O.S. No.9290/2007
ISSUE No.4 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.5 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.6 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.7 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.8 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.9 :: As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
18. ISSUES NO.1 TO 8 :: All these issues are taken up collectively for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and also for convenience of the Court.
The instant suit is filed by the plaintiff as against the B.D.A. and B.B.M.P. authorities and the Radhakrishna House Building Co-operative Society and one Sri. Munichandra seeking relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 09.10.1995 and to 24 O.S. No.9290/2007 declare that the relinquishment deed executed by defendant No.6 in favour of B.D.A. dated 09.10.1995 by wrongly describing the suit schedule property as civic amenities sites is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff's title and right over the schedule property and the plaintiff has also sought for declaration that the resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 passed by B.D.A. to handover the schedule property to B.B.M.P. as civic amenities site for the purpose of forming park is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and to declare that the defendant No.7 has no right, title, interest or possession over the schedule property by virtue of the alleged WILL dated 13.11.1979 alleged to have been executed by his father Sri. Ramaiah and for consequential relief of permanent injunction.
19. The description of the schedule property involved in the present suit is as hereunder:
SCHEDULE 25 O.S. No.9290/2007 The Survey No.71, measuring 30 guntas situated at Kathriguppe Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk presently included in the jurisdiction of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Padmanabhanagar Range, bounded on the:
East by - Canal, West by - Property of Radhakrishna Society, North by - Property bearing Sy. No.71, 69/1 and 69/2 and South by - Property of Radhakrishna Society.
20. In the instant suit, there is dispute as to the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the plaintiff claims to be owner and possession by virtue of registered Sale Deed executed by its erstwhile owners dated 09.10.1995 and according to him there has been illegal claims made by the defendants over the schedule property. On the contrary, the B.B.M.P. authority has seriously disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property on 26 O.S. No.9290/2007 the ground that the schedule property is civic amenities site and the B.D.A. has transferred the property in favour of B.B.M.P. for formation of park and the park is already formed and the suit schedule property is not in existence and the plaintiff has created the documents to suit his own purpose.
21. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for defendants No.4 and 5 and L/c. for defendant No.7, this Court proceeds to analyse the oral and documentary evidence placed on record to adjudicate the rights of the parties. The plaintiff in order to establish his title and possession over the schedule property got examined himself as P.W.1 and has in his evidence deposed that the schedule property was originally an inam land which belonged to the inamdar of Kathriguppe village. One Sri. Bairiga, S/o. Gadige Bairanna was in possession and cultivation of the 27 O.S. No.9290/2007 schedule property as tenant under the inamdar. After coming into force of the Inam Abolition Act, the said Bairiga S/o. Gadiga Bairanna filed an application for regrant of the schedule property in his favour. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams registered the case in No.85/56-57 and after conducting enquiry and recording the evidence of inamdar and the tenant, passed an order on 18.05.1961 and registered Sri. Bairiga as quasi- permanent tenant of schedule property. In pursuance of the regrant order the revenue records were effected in the name of the grantee Sri. Bairiga, S/o. Gadige Bairanna as the khatedar and cultivator of the schedule property.
22. Later, he died intestate on 24.02.1967 leaving behind his legal heirs to succeed his estate. The legal heirs of Sri. Bairiga jointly sold the schedule 28 O.S. No.9290/2007 property in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration under sale deed dated 09.10.1995 and accordingly, khata and mutation is transferred to the name of plaintiff in M.R. No.15/1995-96.
23. In support of his evidence P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 which are the record of rights and mutation extract in respect of suit schedule property which shows as per the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in case No.85/1956-57 dated 18.05.1961 30 guntas of land in Sy. No.71 of Kathriguppe village is mutated to the name of Sri. Bairiga, S/o. Gadige Bairanna and it also shows there is an endorsement dated 27.09.1961 that mutation is accepted subject to proof. Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 are the RTCs of the suit schedule property for the period 1974-75 to 1996-97 which shows the name of Bairiga is mutated and his name finds place in the RTC for this period as 29 O.S. No.9290/2007 per M.R. No.13/1961-62 and after the demise of Bairiga, the names of his legal heirs are mutated by virtue of inheritance i.e. IHC. No.2/1994-95 and subsequently, the name of plaintiff is mutated in the revenue records as per M.R. No.15/1995-96. Ex.P.8 is the mutation extract which shows after the demise of Bairiga the name of his legal heirs is mutated as per IHC. No.2/1994-95. Ex.P.10 is the mutation extract which shows by virtue of purchase the name plaintiff is mutated as per M.R. No.15/1995-96. Ex.P.9 is the sale deed dated 09.10.1995 which shows the suit schedule property is purchased by the plaintiff from the legal heirs of Bairiga. Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 are the tax paid receipts which shows the plaintiff has paid tax to the concerned authority. Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.23 are the RTCs for the year 2000-01 and 2006-07 which shows the plaintiff name finds in the RTC. Ex.P.32 to Ex.P.35 are the Encumbrance Certificates for the period 01.01.2003 to 18.08.2008 which do not reflect any 30 O.S. No.9290/2007 subsequent sale transactions in respect of the suit schedule property.
24. P.W.1 has further deposed that he filed an application for effecting durast of the schedule property to an extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy. No.71 of Kathriguppe village to fix the boundaries before the ADLR, Bengaluru and the ADLR has dismissed the petition by holding that hadbast has already been effected to an extent of 22 guntas of land and assigned Re-survey No.130/2 on 14.03.1975. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the ADLR, the plaintiff has preferred Revision Petition No.20/1998-99 before the JDLR wherein it is opined that the dispute regarding the boundaries comes under the jurisdiction of Tahsildar. Hence, the plaintiff filed application before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk for rectification of boundaries and the Tahsildar vide order dated 16.05.2003 has rectified 31 O.S. No.9290/2007 the boundaries and has ordered to prepare the sketch of the land to an extent of 30 guntas. But to substantiate the same, though the plaintiff has not produced document in this regard the documents produced by the defendant No.7 which is marked as Ex.D.31 which is the order passed by Joint Director of Land Records dated 11.07.2000 shows the plaintiff herein had challenged the order and filed the said petition under Section 56 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act challenging the order passed by ADLR regarding the phodi durasti proceedings conducted by him in respect of Sy. No.71 by which the land was sub-phoded as new Sy. Nos.130/1 and 130/2 and JDLR vide order dated 11.07.2000 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff.
25. It is further deposed by P.W.1 that the defendant No.7 raised objection regarding durast of schedule property on the ground that his land measuring 32 O.S. No.9290/2007 12½ guntas overlaps in Sy. No.71 and he challenged the order passed by Tahsildar by filing an appeal in R.A. No.42/2003-04 before the Asst. Commissioner which was disposed on 04.03.2004 and the parties were directed to approach the civil Court for remedy. Ex.P.36 is the order passed by Tahsildar which shows the said application is filed by the plaintiff before the Tahsildar questioning the durast conducted in respect of Sy. No.71 and the said petition is allowed by the Tahsildar and it is directed to hold durast proceedings and prepare sketch in respect of 22 guntas of land in Sy. No.71.
26. As against the order, the defendant No.7 preferred appeal before the Asst. Commissioner in R.A. No.42/2003-04 and the Asst. Commissioner vide order dated 04.03.2004 has set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar as per Ex.P.36 and liberty is reserved to the aggrieved parties to agitate the matter with regard to 33 O.S. No.9290/2007 their possession and enjoyment of actual extent of land in Sy. No.71 of Kathriguppe village. But though the appeal is allowed, the observation made by the Asst. Commissioner has to be taken note of and it reads as hereunder :
The respondent No.2 had challenged the order dated 14.03.1975 of the ADLR, before the JDLR., under Section 56 of the KLR, Act 1964 after lapse of nearly 25 years. The JDLR, in his order dated 11.07.2000 while considering all material facts in the matter has specifically pointed out that though the land was hissa phoded as Sy. No.130/2 as long back as in the year 1975 itself, the respondent No.2 has failed to examine and verify the records relating to the land he has purchased in Sy.No.71 and that his contention that new Sy. No.130/2 falls within Sy. No.71 does not merit consideration. Further it is also specifically pointed out that the boundaries specified in the sale deed of 1995 under which the respondent No.2 has purchased the land do not tally with the boundaries according to the 34 O.S. No.9290/2007 sketch. As rightly pointed out by the JDLR., the respondent No.2 has not questioned the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in case No.42/56-57 under which the 'occupancy right' was conferred in favour of Shri. Ramaiah from whom the appellant has acquired the land under the registered 'WILL' dated 13.11.1979. The acquisition of the right over the land measuring 12½ guntas in Sy. No. 71 by the appellant is fortified by the specific documents and accordingly, 'hissa phodi' has also been effected as long back as in the year 1975 itself.
It was incumbent on the part of the respondent No.2 to have verified and examined the documents relating to the land 30 guntas, in Sy. No.71 before purchasing the same. The JDLR in his order, dated 11.07.2000 has specifically pointed out that the boundaries specified in the sale deed and the sketch of the disputed land do not tally. It is a decided principles of law that to identify the land, the boundaries specified in the sale deed shall prevail. At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that the dispute in the instant case is about the extent of land coupled 35 O.S. No.9290/2007 with the boundary of the land. In so far as the boundary of the land is concerned, it is clear from the order dated 11.07.2000 of the JDLR the competent authority under Section 56 of the Act against the order of the ADLR under Section 140 of the Act, that the boundaries specified in the sale deed under which the respondent No.2 has purchased the land do not tally with the sketch in respect of the disputed land. Now, the dispute is with regard to possession of the land shall remain and such issue has to be decided by the Civil Court.
27. So this observation in the order makes it clear that the boundary specified in sale deed of the plaintiff do not tally with the sketch and this raises serious doubt as to the identity and existence of the suit property as described in the plaint.
28. P.W.1 has further deposed that in the meantime, the defendant No.6 executed a relinquishment deed in favour of B.D.A. by describing the 36 O.S. No.9290/2007 schedule property as civic amenities site and soon after it came to knowledge that B.D.A. passed Resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 to handover CA site to B.B.M.P. for the purpose of park. In pursuance of the alleged transfer of property by B.D.A. to B.B.M.P., the defendants No.4 and 5 are making attempts to trespass and form park. In this regard P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.P.25 which is the letter dated 15.07.2007 issued by B.D.A. to B.B.M.P. wherein which it is mentioned that the first, second and third stage of Radhakrishna extension has been handed over to B.B.M.P. on 01.10.1998 and the CA sites in the said layout which is denoted in the sketch is handed over to B.B.M.P. for the purpose of formation of park. Ex.P.26 is the layout sketch which shows that as per the resolution passed by B.D.A. vide Resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007, the CA sites are converted as park and is handed over by B.D.A. and is taken over by B.B.M.P. and it is in respect of the layout 37 O.S. No.9290/2007 plan of Sy. No.130/1 old Sy. No.71 of Kathriguppe village and the properties acquired and layout is formed in favour of Radhakrishna House Building Co-operative Society i.e. defendant No.6 herein. Further the said layout plan also denotes the sites reserved as CA sites in the layout.
29. P.W.1 has deposed that the defendant No.6 authority at no point of time had any right over the schedule property and hence, there is no question of transferring the right in favour of B.D.A. by executing any relinquishment deed and the alleged transfer of property by way of relinquishment deed is illegal and hence, the plaintiff issued legal notice on 04.08.2007 to defendants No.1 to 6 calling upon them to cancel the relinquishment deed executed by defendant No.6 in favour of B.D.A. and the defendants have not responded to the notice issued. Ex.P.27 is the legal notice dated 04.08.2007, 38 O.S. No.9290/2007 Ex.P.28 to Ex.P.31 are the postal acknowledgments which proves the due service of notice on the defendants. Ex.P.9 is the relinquishment deed dated 09.10.1995 which shows defendant No.6 has relinquished its rights over CA sites in favour of B.D.A. which is challenged by the plaintiff.
30. P.W.1 has deposed that the defendant No.7 filed a suit for declaration claiming that the land measuring 12½ guntas in Sy. No.71 is acquired by him by virtue of WILL executed by his father on 13.11.1979 and his father had purchased the said property from its erstwhile owners under registered Sale Deed dated 26.11.1956 i.e. from Bairappa S/o. Munishamappa. The defendant No.7 claiming to be the owner of portion of schedule property is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and hence, he has no right to interfere with the possession and the alleged WILL is invalid and has 39 O.S. No.9290/2007 not conferred any right over the defendant No.7. So thus according to P.W.1 he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and since there was interference on the part of the defendants, the suit is filed.
31. P.W.1 has further relied upon Ex.P.37 which is the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams in case No.85/1956-67 which shows one Bairiga S/o. Gadige Bairanna had filed the said petition seeking occupancy rights as against the Inamdar of Kathriguppe in respect of Sy. No.71 measuring 30 guntas and it is ordered that the petitioner i.e. the Bairiga has been in possession of the land and hence, he is registered as quasi-permanent tenant under the Act and the order reads as hereunder:
The petitioner has been in possession of the land which stands in the name of the Inamdar. In this case, it is clear that the petitioner was a tenant 40 O.S. No.9290/2007 of this land in 1948, as admitted by the Inamdar- respondent. It is also clearly borne out by evidence that he has been paying gunta to the Jodidar. Guthige means rent in kind. It is therefore, clear that the status of the occupant in this case is that of a quasi-permanent tenant as defined in the Mysore (personal and Miscellaneous). Inams Abolition Act. In the instant, the petitioner is registered as quasi- permanent tenant under Section of the Act. Since the assessment paid is not equal to survey rate premium is levied in this case.
32. Ex.P.38 is the endorsement issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar for collecting requisite charges from the tenant Bairiga. Ex.P.39 is the relinquishment deed dated 05.01.1990 which shows, the defendant No.6 has executed the said document in favour of B.D.A. Ex.P.40 and Ex.P.41 are the resolution passed by the B.D.A. No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 which shows CA sites are transferred to B.B.M.P. for formation of park and the same is communicated to B.B.M.P. vide letter dated 41 O.S. No.9290/2007 19.04.2007 and CA sites No.1, 2 and 3 are handed over to B.B.M.P. for formation of park.
33. During cross-examination of P.W.1 he admits he was member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly and also Chairman of B.D.A. and he says the property was an inam land and Bairiga got the property by way of grant made by the Special Deputy Commissioner and except the grant order of Inam Special Deputy Commissioner, he has no other documents to show Kathriguppe village was inam village. P.W.1 says on looking to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner he came to know that it was inam village and the Bairiga himself was inamdar of that land and since 1954 he was cultivating the land and as such, he submitted application for regrant before the Government. He admits that he has not produced the copy of the application submitted by Bairiga seeking grant of land and also admits he has 42 O.S. No.9290/2007 not produced the register extract of inam Special Deputy Commissioner for having received application from Bairiga and initiating proceedings and also the proceedings number. He also admits he has not produced document to show who was the inamdar and who had filed application for grant of land before the authorities. He says on 18.05.1961 order was passed by inam Special Deputy Commissioner and denies that he has created the documents i.e. Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38.
34. So far as Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38 which are the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and the endorsement issued in favour of Bairiga which is discussed herein before, P.W.1 says that the Special Deputy Commissioner will issue an endorsement as per Ex.P.38 only after the grantee deposits the premium amount to the Government and admits he has not produced the documents for having paid premium 43 O.S. No.9290/2007 amount by the granteee Bairiga and denies that till 2005 the khata of the land was not made either in the name of Bairiga or in the names of his children. So these elucidation of P.W.1 makes it clear that apart from Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38 which is the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 18.05.1961 and endorsement Ex.P.38 absolutely there is no document forthcoming to show that the Bairiga was cultivating the suit schedule property since 1954 and he submitted application before the Government seeking grant of the land and there is no document to show who was the inamdar and who had filed an application for grant of land.
35. Now so far as Ex.P.2 which is the mutation extract is concerned. P.W.1 denies that there has been some over writing and interpolation in Ex.P.2 and denies that M.R. No.13/1961-62 has been subsequently inserted in Ex.P.2 and the hand writings are different. He 44 O.S. No.9290/2007 also denies the suggestion putforth that when he was the Chairman of B.D.A. by using his influence he got inserted M.R. No.13/1961-62 in between M.R. No.12/1961-62 and 14/1961-62 as shown in Ex.P.2. But it is necessary to note that though P.W.1 denies that there has been some interpolation and manipulation in Ex.P.2, the said mutation extract on the face of it shows that M.R. No.13/1961-62 is inserted in between M.R. No.12/1961-62 and 14/1961-62 and as rightly contended by the defendant counsel there is difference in the handwriting and it appears that the said entry is subsequently inserted in the mutation extract. So the denial of P.W.1 is of no relevance.
36. Further P.W.1 says he do not know if after the death of Bairiga on 1967 till 1994-95 the khata of the property was not changed. He also admits that after effecting the mutation in the name of legal heirs of 45 O.S. No.9290/2007 Bairiga in IHC. No.2/1994-95 he got the sale deed and there is an admission that Ex.P.9 sale deed was seized due to under valuation and thereafter, he paid the deficit duty. So P.W.1 has not produced any document to show since the date of death of Bairiga in the year 1967 the property was cultivated by him and it was in possession of his legal heirs and there is no document to show in between 1967 to 1994-95 the khata stood in the name of Bairiga.
37. He denies all the suggestion putforth that the property which he purchased originally belonged to defendant No.6 society and he admits society had formed layout and got it approved from B.D.A. and the layout plan of defendant No.6 society is confronted and it is admitted by P.W.1 and it is marked as Ex.D.1 and he also admits that the yellow coloured portion denoted in Ex.P.26 and Ex.D.1 is the present suit schedule property 46 O.S. No.9290/2007 which is the disputed property. He also admits that in Ex.D.1 which is the layout plan of defendant No.6 society the said disputed portion is shown as park area and hence it is marked as Ex.D.1(a) and he also admits that the said area Ex.D.1(a) has been handed over to defendant corporation by the B.D.A. and he only says it is illegally handed over by the B.D.A. He also admits that the society has executed relinquishment deed of the property shown at Ex.D.1(a) in favour of B.D.A. So this elucidation of P.W.1 makes it clear that the area denoted as Ex.D.1(a) in the layout is admitted to be a park reserved area and it is handed over to B.B.M.P. by B.D.A. and the said property originally belonged to society which in turn has executed relinquishment deed in favour of B.D.A.
38. Now so far as the resolution passed by B.D.A. is concerned P.W.1 admits that B.D.A. has passed Resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 and he 47 O.S. No.9290/2007 says it is an illegal resolution and admits that after passing of resolution, B.D.A. has passed another resolution and handed over the property to B.B.M.P. and B.D.A. has directed B.B.M.P. to reserve the property marked at Ex.D.1(a) as park area. P.W.1 denies all the suggestions putforth that the said land is a kharab land and since it was a kharab land it was not granted to Bairiga and denies that the possession is with the B.B.M.P. P.W.1 admits that in Ex.P.1 the date is shown as 18.05.1961 and denies that in the second line at Sl. No.693 of Ex.P.1 it is subsequently inserted and denies that Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2, Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38 are created on one single day. Though this fact is denied by P.W.1 a bare perusal of Ex.P.1 shows the said entry in respect of Sy. No.71 i.e. M.R. No.13/1961-62 is inserted and it is a manipulated document. So the elucidation of P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination by learned counsel for defendants No.4 and 5 makes it clear that 48 O.S. No.9290/2007 there is manipulation of record of rights, mutation entry and the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and the endorsement issued thereon i.e. Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2, Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38 and further he has not produced any document to show Bairiga was inamdar or cultivating the land and that he submitted application before the Special Deputy Commissioner seeking grant of the land and as such, he was declared as permanent tenant and the land was granted in his favour. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that Ex.P.37 which is the order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition in case No.85/1956-57 shows that the provision of the Act under which the petitioner is registered as quasi-permanent tenant is not mentioned and there is no corroborative document or the proceedings held before Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams to show the application was filed and enquiry was conducted and based on the enquiry 49 O.S. No.9290/2007 the Bairiga was declared as tenant. So all these documents creates suspicion as to the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and as discussed earlier, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 prima-facie shows the manipulation of the documents and also there is an admission by the plaintiff that the possession is with the B.B.M.P. So under such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 do not convince the Court about the flow of title in respect of suit schedule property in his favour.
39. Per contra, the defendants No.4 and 5 got examined through its Asst. Executive Engineer as D.W.1 and he has in his evidence deposed that the plaintiff or his vendors are not to the owners and they are not in possession of the suit schedule property and the property belongs to B.B.M.P. and it is a public property reserved for park i.e. CA site. D.W.1 has deposed that Kathriguppe village is not inam village and the land was 50 O.S. No.9290/2007 not granted in favour of Bairiga and he has not filed any application for regrant of the schedule property and the Special Deputy Commissioner has not registered any case No.85/1956-57 and he has not granted the schedule property in favour of Bairiga on 18.05.1961 and no endorsement was issued in favour of Bairiga and no TT penalty was paid by him and the documents produced by the plaintiff are created documents and he has not pleaded who was the inamdar/ owner of the schedule property and under whom Bairiga was a tenant.
40. So far as the procedure to be followed while regranting the order by the inam abolition Deputy Commissioner is concerned, D.W.1 has in his evidence deposed that while passing the regrant order by the inam abolition Deputy Commissioner, he has to receive the application for regrant of the property and has to maintain the file and record the evidence of the parties to 51 O.S. No.9290/2007 pass any order in the present case and no application is produced before this Court to show that Bairiga had filed an application for regrant of the property and no speaking order of the inam abolition DC, is produced and they have not produced the VIII Register which was maintained by the inam abolition DC, to show that the Bairiga has filed an application in case No.85/1956-57. In the absence of these documents the vendors of the plaintiff had no right over the suit schedule property and in turn they had no right over the property to alienate the alleged suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and Bairiga has no title deeds to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
41. He has deposed that the plaintiff has created documents in collusion with his vendors even though Bairiga had no right, title and unless and until the plaintiff produces the title of his vendor he cannot maintain the 52 O.S. No.9290/2007 present suit and he has not produced the title deeds of inamdar and has created the documents to grab the valuable property. D.W.1 has further deposed that defendant No.6 society was the original owner of the property and they have submitted a plan to the B.D.A. for approval of the layout plan and the same was approved by the B.D.A. by imposing conditions regarding relinquishment of property i.e. CA site and parks. In view of the approval of the layout plan by the B.D.A. the defendant No.6 society had relinquished the CA site and park in favour of B.D.A. under relinquishment deed dated 05.01.1990 and as per the approved layout plan the property which is claimed by the plaintiff is a CA site reserved for park and by passing resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007, the CA sites were handed over to B.B.M.P. for further development of the sites and thus B.B.M.P. is in lawful possession of the CA site. It is stated that since the property comes within the limits of 53 O.S. No.9290/2007 B.B.M.P. way back in the year 1980, the revenue authorities has no power to maintain mutation and RTC records, since it has lost the agricultural character and the property was developed by society and layout plan was approved and hence the revenue authorities has no power to maintain revenue records in respect of suit property and the documents are created by the plaintiff in collusion with the revenue officials. Thus the B.B.M.P. is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property which is the public property reserved for public purpose as a park and if any decree is passed, public will suffer great loss and also B.B.M.P. and thus sought for dismissal of suit.
42. In support of his evidence he has produced Ex.D.1 which was confronted to plaintiff during cross- examination and it is also discussed herein before which shows it is a layout plan in respect of Sy. No.130/1 old 54 O.S. No.9290/2007 Sy. No.71 situated at Kathriguppe village and the said layout is formed by the defendant No.6 society and as admitted by P.W.1 Ex.D.1(a) shows the said property is the suit schedule property which is reserved for park and it is a CA site. Ex.D.2 is the relinquishment deed dated 05.01.1990 which is discussed herein before which shows it was executed by defendant No.6 society in favour of B.D.A. in respect of the CA sites for further development of the same. Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 are the letter dated 19/25.04.2007 and resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 which shows the CA sites No.1, 2 and 3 in the layout formed by defendant No.6 society is handed over to the possession of B.B.M.P. for further development. Ex.D.5 is also the letter dated 15.05.2007 which shows that the B.D.A. has resolved to handover the CA site to the possession of B.B.M.P. for formation of park.
55
O.S. No.9290/2007
43. During cross-examination of D.W.1 he says the B.B.M.P. has got documents to show the property belongs to B.B.M.P. and the layout plan approved by B.D.A. is also produced and the document for handing over CA site for developing the park is also produced by him and he has consistently deposed that the possession of suit property is with B.B.M.P. He though admits that in Ex.D.5 there is no reference with regard to details of the suit schedule property and its details regarding survey number and only CA site number and its measurements are mentioned, the relinquishment deed placed on record establishes that the CA sites are handed over in favour of B.D.A. Consequent to which, the resolution is passed by B.D.A. to handover the possession of CA site to B.B.M.P. and just because, the details of the properties are not mentioned in the resolution that would not give a right to the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff has to establish his title on 56 O.S. No.9290/2007 the strength of his own case and cannot rely upon the weakness of the defendant to establish his title before the Court and hence, these elucidation is of no assistance to the plaintiff. D.W.1 has consistently deposed about the possession of B.B.M.P. and as to the passing of title and he has consistently deposed that the property originally belonged to society and the plan was approved by B.D.A. and CA sites were handed over to B.D.A. which inturn by passing resolution handed over possession to B.B.M.P. and he has clearly identified the park area in Ex.D.6. So that apart there is nothing worth elicited to establish that the documents are manipulated by B.D.A. in collusion with B.B.M.P. and that the plaintiff has valid title over the suit schedule property.
44. The defendants No.4 and 5 in order to corroborate their claim got examined witness as D.W.3 who was working as Tahsildar during the period 2014 57 O.S. No.9290/2007 and he has in his evidence deposed that he was working as Tahsildar since July 2014 at Bengaluru South Taluk and he was summoned to produce the original regrant order file of case No.85/1956-57 dated 18.05.1961 passed by Special Deputy Commissioner for abolition of inams and he was also summoned to produce the original application submitted by Bairiga to the Special Deputy Commissioner in case No.85/1956-57 to produce the endorsement issued under Section 10 of Inam Abolition Act 1954 and the original register VIII maintained by the office for the year 1956-57 and receipt for having paid the premium amount by Bairiga and the original mutation extracts book in respect of M.R. No.12/1961-62, 13/1961-62 and 14/1961-62 i.e. Ex.P.2 and to give evidence.
45. He has deposed that Kathriguppe village was originally inam village and after abolition of inam Special DC post, all files were transferred to Tahsildar Bengaluru 58 O.S. No.9290/2007 South Taluk. On receipt of summons, he directed the record room case worker through office memorandum dated 16.12.2014 to trace out the summoned records. After verifying the records in the record room, he has issued an endorsement stating that no such records are available in the record room and the said office memorandum dated 16.12.2014 is marked as Ex.C.1.
46. So far as the procedure i.e. required to be followed for regrant of the land under the inam abolition Act is concerned, D.W.3 has deposed that if a person seeks grant of the land in inam village, he has to file an application before the inam abolition Deputy Commissioner for regrant of the land and on receipt of such application, the same will be entered in the dairy called VIII Register which contains descriptions like serial number, case number, year of the case, party name, survey number, village and extent of land. Thereafter, the 59 O.S. No.9290/2007 inam abolition DC will initiate the proceedings by maintaining the file, followed with issuance of notice, recording evidence, hearing and passing order on merits. The DC may also pass an order imposing penalty and such order will be entered in VIII Register. Later, the order passed by the inam abolition DC will be communicated to the concerned party. On the basis of such order, mutation will be effected in the revenue records and mutation cannot be effected without there being authenticated copy of such order.
47. D.W.3 on verifying Ex.P.2 submits that there is variation in handwriting and though it seems to be issued in their office, it might be issued without there being original records and there is no application or file for having filed an application by Bairiga for regrant of the land in Sy. No.71 of Kathriguppe village in their office.
60
O.S. No.9290/2007
48. So the evidence of D.W.3 coupled with Ex.C.1 shows on receipt of summons he has issued the office memorandum on 16.12.2014 to the concerned case worker to trace out the records relating to case No.85/1956-57 and the order dated 18.05.1961 and also the mutation register as directed by the Court and in this regard, the case worker has issued an endorsement stating that he has verified the records in the record room and no such records relating to Sy. No.71 case No.85/1956-57 and form No.8 are available in the record room.
49. During cross-examination of D.W.3 he says though Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 appears to have the seal of their office he has to verify those documents in the office and has to ascertain whether the person who issued these documents was working in their office during the relevant period. He says he cannot say that Ex.P.1 to 61 O.S. No.9290/2007 Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.32 to Ex.P.39 were issued from their office. D.W.3 says since 11 years is elapsed, he do not remember whether any action is taken against the official who has issued Ex.P.2 and admits no appeal is preferred challenging the mutation effected in Ex.P.2. All the suggestions putforth that though these documents are issued by their office and all the records are available in their office, he is deposing falsely only to support defendants No.4 and 5 are all denied by D.W.3.
50. So the evidence of D.W.3 coupled with Ex.C.1 establishes that there are no records available in the office of Tahsildar to show that application was submitted by Bairiga and that he was a tenant under the inamdar and the order is passed as per Ex.P.37 by the Special Deputy Commissioner by following the procedure as stated by the D.W.3. So Ex.P.37 though shows an order is passed it is not supported by any 62 O.S. No.9290/2007 records and no records are available in the office of Tahsildar to corroborate Ex.P.37. Hence relying on the order Ex.P.37 which is not supported by the official records it cannot be held that the said order was passed by Special Deputy Commissioner for abolition of inams and a case was registered as per case No.85/1956-57 and that Bairiga was registered as quasi-permanent tenant. Further there is no supportive document to show Bairiga has paid the TT penalty amount, consequent to which, Ex.P.38 was issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner for inams.
51. So the evidence of D.W.3 totally negates the claim of plaintiff that by virtue of order Ex.P.37 Bairiga was registered as a tenant and he being the lawful owner has conveyed the property in his favour. Further the evidence of D.W.3 also establishes that there is fabrication of records as per Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and as 63 O.S. No.9290/2007 discussed by this Court earlier there is change in the handwriting and it appears that the said entry is subsequently entered and they are created documents.
52. Further the defendant No.7 got examined himself as D.W.2 and has in his evidence deposed that the land bearing Sy. No.71 measuring 12½ guntas was purchased by his father Ramaiah from Byrappa S/o. Munishamappa under sale deed dated 26.11.1956 and since the date of purchase, his father was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and he filed application before Special Deputy Commissioner seeking grant of occupancy rights which was conferred in favour of his father in case No.42/1956-57 vide order dated 21.12.1959 and an endorsement was issued to his father as Hiduvalidar of suit property. Based on the grant order khata is transferred to the name of his father and during his life time he bequeathed the property in favour of this 64 O.S. No.9290/2007 defendant No.7 under registered WILL dated 13.11.1979 and after the demise of his father on 10.06.1985 all the documents are transferred to the name of this defendant No.7 and thus he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He has deposed that Sy. No.71 is virtually divided by water channel and towards northern side of water channel 12½ guntas is situated and on the southern side, the property of the plaintiff is situated and he has deposed about the proceedings that took place between the plaintiff and this defendant No.7 before the office Tahsildar, ADLR and JDLR and as to the order passed by the authority.
53. It is necessary to note that it is an admitted fact that the defendant No.7 has filed suit bearing O.S. No.5536/2007 as against the defendants including the plaintiff herein and Ex.D.32 to Ex.D.34 are the depositions in the said suit. It is necessary to note that 65 O.S. No.9290/2007 the defendant No.7 is asserting right over 12½ guntas of land in Sy. No.71 and he has produced the title deeds and the revenue records to show his father has purchased the schedule property and has bequeathed the property in his favour under registered WILL dated 13.11.1979. As stated earlier, the defendant No.7 has exhausted his remedy by filing suit No.5536/2007 and in the present suit when the plaintiff has failed to establish his title and possession over the entire extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy. No.71 and also when there is no counter claim of defendant No.7 to establish his rights, this Court is of opinion that the right of defendant No.7 requires no adjudication in the present suit as his rights has already been adjudicated in O.S. No.5536/2007.
54. In a suit of present nature, the burden was upon the defendant to establish his title, possession over the suit schedule property. So when the plaintiff failed to 66 O.S. No.9290/2007 establish his claim there arises no question of adjudicating the right of defendant No.7 in the present suit.
55. On analysis of the evidence of plaintiff and defendants No.4, 5 and 7 placed on record, it is evident that the plaintiff is claiming right and title over suit schedule property based on the sale deed dated 09.10.1995 alleged to have executed by legal heirs of Bairiga. But the evidence placed on record clearly establishes that Kathriguppe village was an inam village as per the evidence of D.W.3 and there is no document forthcoming to show that the said Bairiga was a tenant under inamdar in respect of suit property and he filed application for regrant of schedule property and as per Ex.P.37 the land was granted and Bairiga was recognised as registered tenant in the suit schedule property. The said order Ex.P.37 is not supported by any 67 O.S. No.9290/2007 official records to show the said Bairiga has submitted representation based on which enquiry was conducted and order was passed by Special Deputy Commissioner and that the Bairiga had deposited TT penalty before the Government, Absolutely no convincing document is forthcoming except the order Ex.P.37 the passing of which seriously disputed by the defendants. As per the evidence of D.W.3 there is no records to show application was submitted by Bairiga and VIII Register was maintained in respect of case No.85/1956-57 and the VIII Register with regard to the said case is not available in the office. So this shows Ex.P.37 is the manipulated document and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 which are the records of rights and mutation extract also shows that there are interpolation and are manipulated documents. Further it is evident from the records that the property comes within the limits of B.B.M.P. and defendant No.6 being the original owner of the property 68 O.S. No.9290/2007 has submitted plan to B.D.A. for approval of layout plan and the same is approved by B.D.A. as per Ex.D.1 and the suit schedule property is reserved as park area and since these are CA sites, defendant No.6 society by executed relinquishment deed dated 05.01.1990 has relinquished its right over the CA site in favour of B.D.A. Consequent to which, the B.D.A. by passing resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 has handed over the possession of the sites to B.B.M.P. for further development of CA sites and possession is handed over and taken over by the authority and as admitted by the plaintiff himself the park is formed by B.B.M.P. and is used by general public and it is the B.B.M.P. which is in possession of the schedule property.
56. Thus the plaintiff having failed to establish his title over the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 09.10.1995, he is not entitled for the relief of 69 O.S. No.9290/2007 declaration of his title and when he has failed in establishing his title, the consequential declaratory reliefs sought by him to declare that the relinquishment deed dated 05.01.1990 executed by defendant No.6 in favour of B.D.A. and the resolution passed by the B.D.A. No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 and for declaration that the defendant No.7 has no right over the suit property under the WILL dated 13.11.1979 does not survive for consideration. Since it is established that the plaintiff is not in possession and the possession of the suit property is with defendants No.4 and 5, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought. Further, the plaintiff himself has admitted that he is not in possession and the property is in possession of defendants No.4 and 5. So under such circumstances the suit filed for declaration without seeking possession is also not maintainable. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs claimed. Thus in view of the reasons 70 O.S. No.9290/2007 assigned so far, this Court proceeds to answer aforesaid issues No.1 to 5 and 8 in the Negative and Issue No.6 and 7 in the Affirmative.
57. ISSUE NO.9 :: In view of the findings given on issues No.1 to 8 the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs claimed and accordingly, this issue is answered as per following the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Plaintiff shall bear the cost of the suit.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 05 th day of January, 2026).
(VEENA N.) XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
71
O.S. No.9290/2007 ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFF SIDE :: P.W.1 :: L.R.Shivaramegowda (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE :: D.W.1 :: Honne Gowda H. D.W.2 :: Munichandra D.W.3 :: Dr. Dayananda
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFF SIDE :
Ex.P.1 :: Certified copy of record of rights of Sy.
No.71
Ex.P.2 :: Certified copy of M.R. No.13/61-62
Ex.P.3 to :: RTC extracts of Sy. No.71
Ex.P.7
Ex.P.8 :: Certified copy of M.R. No.2/94-95
Ex.P.9 :: Certified copy of sale deed dated
09.10.1995
Ex.P.10 :: Certified copy of M.R. No.15/95-96
Ex.P.11 & :: Land revenue receipts
Ex.P.12
Ex.P.13 to :: RTC extracts of Sy. No.71 for the year
Ex.P.23 2000-01
72
O.S. No.9290/2007
Ex.P.24 :: Certified copy of the order passed in R.A.
(S) No.42/03-04 dated 04.03.2004
Ex.P.25 :: Letter dated 15.05.2007
Ex.P.26 :: Certified copy of the approved private
layout of Kathriguppe village issued by AEE, B.D.A. Ex.P.27 :: Notice dated 04.08.2007 Ex.P.28 to :: Postal acknowledgments Ex.P.31 Ex.P.32 to :: Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P.35 Ex.P.36 :: Certified copy of order passed in RRP(DISI)34/2000-01 dated 16.05.2003 Ex.P.37 & :: Certified copy of order passed in case Ex.P.38 No.85/56-57 with an endorsement issued by Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bengaluru Ex.P.39 :: Certified copy of relinquishment deed dated 05.01.1990 Ex.P.40 :: Certified copy of unofficial notes issued by the B.D.A. dated 19/25.04.2007 Ex.P.41 :: Certified copy of resolution No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
Ex.D.1 :: Certified copy of layout plan by defendant No.6 issued by the B.D.A. Ex.D.1(a) :: The portion of property is shown in Ex.D.1 as park and the relevant portion 73 O.S. No.9290/2007 Ex.D.2 :: Certified copy of relinquishment deed dated 05.01.1990 Ex.D.3 :: Attested copy of letter dated 19/25.04.2007 Ex.D.4 :: Copy of resolution dated 28.03.2007 Ex.D.5 :: Attested copy of letter dated 15.05.2007 Ex.D.6 :: True copy of layout plan Ex.D.7 :: Certified copy of sale deed dated 26.11.1956 Ex.D.8 :: Certified copy of the application given by Ramaiah to the Tahsildar Ex.D.9 :: Certified copy of the order passed by Special Tahsildar in proceedings No.42/56- 57
Ex.D.10 :: Certified copy of endorsement issued by the Tahsildar dated 21.12.1959 Ex.D.11 :: Certified copy of mutation register extract Ex.D.12 to :: Certified copies of RTC extracts of Sy. Ex.D.18 No.71 of Kathriguppe village Ex.D.19 :: Certified copy of order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner in proceedings No.14(150/86-87) Ex.D.20 :: Certified copy of order passed by the Asst.
Commissioner dated 04.03.2004 Ex.D.21 :: Certified copy of mutation register extract Ex.D.22 :: Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate Ex.D.23 :: Certified copy of tax paid receipts 74 O.S. No.9290/2007 Ex.D.24 :: Certified copy of order dated 17.07.1995 Ex.D.25 :: Certified copy of endorsement issued by the B.D.A. dated 18.09.2006 Ex.D.26 :: Certified copy of notification issued by the B.D.A. Ex.D.27 & :: Certified copy of RTC extracts Ex.D.28 Ex.D.29 :: Certified copy of legal notice dated 08.09.2006 Ex.D.30 :: Certified copy of acknowledgment dated 12.09.2006 Ex.D.31 :: Certified copy of order dated 11.07.2000 Ex.D.32 to :: Certified copies of deposition in O.S. Ex.D.34 No.5536/2007 Ex.D.35 :: Certified copy of WILL dated 13.11.1979 Ex.C.1 :: Office memorandum dated 16.12.2014 (VEENA N.) XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.