Bangalore District Court
Sri K.Chandra Mohan Reddy vs Smt. V. Padmavathi on 15 February, 2017
Form No.9
(Civil) Title
Sheet for
Judgment
in Suits
z
R.P. 91
PRESENT: SRI S.H.HOSAGOUDAR,
B.Sc.,LL.B.,[Spl]
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge
Dated this the 15th day of February 2017
PLAINTIFFS: 1. SRI K.CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY
S/o Adinarayana Reddy
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.65, Trishul, 2nd Cross,
5th Main, Anandnagar,
Bangalore-24.
2. Sri SHIVASHANKAR REDDY
S/o Bala Reddy,
Aged about 52 years,
3. SRI K. ADINARAYANA REDDY
S/o Lakshmi Reddy
Aged about 72 years,
4. SRI K.V. PRASAD REDDY
S/o Adinarayana Reddy,
Aged about 43 years,
5. SRI K. MAHEEDARA REDDY
S/o Adinarayana Reddy
Aged about 45 years,
Plaintiffs No. 2 to 5
R/at No.12/583,
3rd Cross, Sai Nagar,
Ananthpur,
Andhrapradesh
2 O.S.1544/2013
.
The plaintiffs 2 to 5 are represented By their GPA holder the plaintiff No.1, Sri Chandra Mohan Reddy.
[By Sri Nanda Kumar.B.L, Advocate] /v e r s u s/ DEFENDANTS: 1. SMT. V. PADMAVATHI W/o Sri M.V.Ashwathnarayana, Aged about 65 years.
2. MISS VASTALA, Aged 35 years,
3. MISS NALINI, Aged 34 years,
4. MISS SOUMYA, Aged 32 years,
5. MISS PREETHI, Aged 30 years,
6. MISS SANGEETHA Aged 29 years,
7. MR. MAHESH, Aged 30 years, Major
8. MR. PRASHANTH Aged 32 years, Major, Defendant No.2 to 8 are Children's of M.V.Ashwathnarayana and Defendants No. 1 to 8 are R/at No.327, CQAL Layout, Sahakaranagar, Bangalore-560 092.
9. SRI RAMANNA Son of Veeranna, Aged about 50 years, 3 O.S.1544/2013 .
10. SRI YUVARAJ Son of Ramanna, Aged about 22 years.
11. SRI H.V. NAGARAJ Son of Veranna, Aged about 45 years, Defendant No.9 to 11 are Residing at No.3678, 6th Cross, Subramanyanagar 2nd stage, Bangalore.
12. The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Represented by its Commissioner Hudson Circle, Bangalore.
13. The Revenue Office, The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Queens Road, Bangalore.
D1 to D8 - By Sri MRS, Advocate
D9 to D11 - By Sri GSD, Advocate
D12 - By Sri NS, Advocate
D13 - Exparte
Date of institution of : 23/2/2013
the suit
Nature of the suit : For declaration and
injunction
Date of commencement : 8/3/2016
of recording of the
evidence
Date on which the : 15/2/2017
Judgment was
pronounced.
4 O.S.1544/2013
.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
3 11 20
(S.H. Hosagoudar)
XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
Plaintiffs have filed this suit against defendants for the relief of declaration declaring that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and to declare that sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 8 dated 19/1/2011 as not binding on the plaintiff, to declare that Gift Deed dated 15/3/2011 executed by defendant no.9 in favour of defendants 10 and 11 is not binding on the plaintiff and declare that confirmation deed dated 1/6/2012 executed by defendant no.1 to 9 in favour of defendant no.10 and 11 is not binding on the plaintiffs and to direct defendant no.12 and 13 to cancel the katha transferred in the name of defendants 10 and 11 and to restore that the katha of the suit schedule property in the name of plaintiffs jointly and for Permanent 5 O.S.1544/2013 .
Injunction and also for declaration that Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.6777/2010 dated 16/11/2010 are null and void and same is not binding on the plaintiffs and cost of the suit.
2. In brief, the plaintiff's case is as under:
That the plaintiffs are the joint absolute owners of suit schedule property and plaintiffs have purchased suit schedule property from one Munivenkatareddy and others under registered sale deed dated 15/3/2006 and by virtue of the said registered sale deed, and thereupon plaintiffs were put in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Subsequent to purchase of the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs applied for transfer of katha and on the application, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike transferred the katha in the name of plaintiffs on 21/3/2006. That the defendants 2 to 8 are none other than the daughters and sons of defendant no.1. After purchase of the property by the plaintiffs either defendant no.1 or defendant no.2 to 8 though has no 6 O.S.1544/2013 .
any manner of right, title and interest on the suit schedule property started illegally interfering with the suit schedule property on the instigation of defendant no.1 and other defendants started to claiming right on the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was the self-acquired property of defendant no.1 who in turn has sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs vendors for valuable sale consideration and subsequently plaintiff purchased suit schedule property and thus plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. When defendant no.1 to 8 started illegally interfering with the suit schedule property, they were constrained to file suit for Permanent Injunction in O.S.No.1567/2007 before City Civil Court and after trial, the said suit came to be decreed.
It is submitted that defendant no.9, 10 and 11 attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property on 24/9/2012 at about 9 a.m and when their illegal interference questioned by the plaintiffs defendants 9 7 O.S.1544/2013 .
to 11 claimed ownership on the suit schedule property. Thereafter, plaintiffs received notice from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike stating that defendant no.10 and 11 have jointly applied for transfer of katha from the name of plaintiffs into their names by virtue of the purported to be Gift Deed executed by defendant no.9 who is none other than the father of defendants 10 and 11. Thereafter, on verification of the revenue records, the plaintiffs learnt that defendant no.10 has claimed ownership on the suit schedule property by virtue of concocted sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 10 on 19.1.2011 though defendants 1 to 8 have no manner of right, title and interest on the suit schedule property. On verification of the alleged sale deed and other records, the plaintiffs learnt that defendant no.9 joining hands with defendants 1 to 8 colluding with them have created fabricated documents purported to be an agreement of sale which is dated 15.11.2004 and thereafter filed a suit for specific performance in 8 O.S.1544/2013 .
O.S.No.6777/2010 by the defendant no.9 as against defendants 1 to 8 and obtained consent decree before Lok Adalath.
The defendants 1 to 8 with ulterior motive to make wrongful gain cheated and played fraud on the plaintiffs joining hand with defendant no.9. However, plaintiffs reserve their rights to initiate appropriate criminal action for illegal acts of defendant no.1 to 9. The alleged sale transaction entered into between defendant no.1 to 8 with defendant no.9 is not binding on the plaintiffs.
It is submitted that defendant no.1 to 8 further created another false documents in favour of defendant no.10 and 11 purporting to be confirmation deed on 1.6.2012. Defendant no.9 knowing fully well and aware that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in respect of the suit schedule property with an ulterior motive with fraudulent intention transferred the schedule property in favour of his sons i.e., defendants 10 and 11 by way of registered Gift Deed. 9 O.S.1544/2013
.
On the basis of the Gift Deed katha was transferred in the name of defendants 11 and 12 even though plaintiffs filed detailed objections and ignoring the same. Now defendants 10 and 11 with an ill-motive and defraud the legal rights of the plaintiffs on the suit schedule property are attempting to alienate the suit schedule property to the intending purchasers. The sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 8 in favour of defendant no.9 is fraudulent sale deed and same was not binding on the plaintiffs and same is null and void. The Gift Deed executed in favour of defendant no.10 and 11 in respect of suit schedule property is also null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
Further, confirmation deed executed by defendants 1 to 8 in favour of defendant no.10 and 11 and same is also null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs later on learnt that defendants 1 to 8 without making them as a parties and with the knowledge of the plaintiffs filed the suit before City Civil Court, Bangalore in O.S.2050/2006 as against 10 O.S.1544/2013 .
plaintiffs vendor and obtained decree and plaintiffs also learnt that plaintiffs vendors have challenged the same before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and defendants are no way concerned to the suit schedule property. Hence this suit.
3. In response to the summons issued by the Court, defendant no.1 to 12 appeared through their counsel and defendant no. 1 to 8 filed joint written statement and defendants 10 and 11 also filed joint written statement, whereas defendant no.9 filed memo stating that defendant no.9 also adopts the written statement filed by defendant no.10 and 11. Defendant No.12 even though appeared through his counsel but not filed any objection, whereas inspite of service of summons, defendant no.13 did not appear and contest the case of the plaintiff. Hence defendant no.13 is placed exparte.
4. In brief the contents of the written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 8 are as under: 11 O.S.1544/2013
.
Suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit schedule property was originally belonging to Smt.Muniyamma. The said Muniyamma has gifted the said property out of love and affection in favour of her daughter Smt.Padmavathi who is defendant no.1 under registered Gift Deed dated 30.3.1976 and by virtue of the said Gift Deed defendant no.1 herein has become absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the same and she has got transferred all the revenue records in her name and defendant no.1 has paid upto date tax. During the year 2004, the first defendant husband by name M.E.Aswathanarayana has started troubling to the first defendant and demanding money from the first defendant and he has started to make galata with first defendant and at that point of time, defendant no.1 has entered into oral partition with her husband and her children. Accordingly, first defendant and her husband has got 1/11th share in the suit schedule property, since 12 O.S.1544/2013 .
property was inherited by the first defendant. The first defendant husband was leased his share over the suit schedule property by taking an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, husband of defendant no.1 has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Thereafter, defendant no.1 to 8 approached defendant no.9 during the year 2004 as they were in need of money and offered to sell the suit schedule property in favour of defendant no.9. Therefore, defendant no.10 to 8 and M.A.Krupa and Master A.Sriharsha were taken advance consideration from defendant no.9 agreeing to sell suit schedule property in favour of defendant no.9. Accordingly defendant no.1 to 8 and M.A.Krupa and Sriharsha have executed agreement of sale in favour of defendant no.9. As per terms of agreement, the defendants were required to obtain katha certificate and other revenue records so as to convey valid title in respect of suit schedule A property in favour of 9th defendant and they should obtain all the documents 13 O.S.1544/2013 .
including Encumbrance Certificate and other documents and after obtaining the same, they have agreed to execute registered sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration as per terms of agreement of sale dated 15.11.2004. However, defendant no.1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha could not execute the registered sale deed since they were unable to secure the documents in time. Thereafter, defendant no.9 has not waited and approached the Civil Court by filing original suit in O.S.No.6777/2010 on the file of City Civil Court against defendants 1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha. Thereafter, the said suit ended in compromise before Lok Adalath.
Defendants submit that they have received entire sale consideration amount from defendant no.9 and there is no balance and they have handed over possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant no.9. The defendants submitted that one Ramakrishna, Munireddy, Balakrishnareddy, Shekarsheety, Lokanathareddy and Raviprakash have 14 O.S.1544/2013 .
created bogus and false sale deed by misrepresenting the first defendant stating that they are getting registered JDA and took the first defendant to the Sub Registrar Office and by playing fraud on defendant no.1 have got concocted bogus sale deed in respect of suit schedule property on 26.8.2005. Thereafter first defendant filed original suit in O.S.No.2050/2006 on the file of City Civil Court and he also filed criminal case. After trial, O.S.No.2050/2006 came to be decreed and it is declared that sale deed dated 26.8.2005 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs of the said suit. Defendant no.1 to 8 submits that after decree passed in the above said suit, first defendant herein has got registered the said decree before Sub Register on 1.6.2012 and thereafter defendant no.1 to 8, Krupa and Sriharsha have executed deed of confirmation in favour of defendants 10 and 11 along with defendant no.9 on 1.6.2012. The plaintiffs have created sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs are not at all acquired 15 O.S.1544/2013 .
any valid right or interest over the suit schedule property and they are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On these grounds, defendants 1 to 8 prays for dismissal of the suit.
5. In brief the contents of the written statement filed by defendants 9 to 11 are as under:
The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Defendant no. 9 to 11 submits that originally suit schedule property belonging to Smt.Muniyamma and Smt.Muniyamma has gifted the suit schedule property out of love and affection in favour of her daughter Smt.Padmavathi who is defendant no.1 under registered Gift Deed dated 30.3.1976 and by virtue of the said Gift Deed defendant no.1 became absolute owner and she was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On the basis of above said Gift Deed, katha was also transferred in the name of 16 O.S.1544/2013 .
defendant no.1 and she has paid tax to the concerned authority.
During the year 2004, defendants 1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha were in need of money and hence they offered to sell the suit schedule property in favour of defendant no.9 and after negotiations defendant no.9 agreed to purchase suit schedule property and accordingly defendants 1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha have executed agreement of sale in favour of defendant no.9 on 15.11.2004. As per terms of agreement defendants were required to obtain katha certificate and other revenue records so as to convey valid title in favour of defendant no.9. However, they could not execute the registered sale deed and went on gaining time and thereafter defendant no.9 filed O.S.No.6777/2010 against defendants 1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha and later said suit ended in compromise before Lok Adalath. Thereafter, defendant no.1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha have executed absolute sale deed in favour 17 O.S.1544/2013 .
of defendant no.9 on 19.1.2011 in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendant no.10 and 11 further contended that defendant no.9 after purchase of the property has bifurcated said property into two parts i.e., western portion of the property bearing no.1 formed out of sy.no.2/6, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike katha No.DA96/PR/50/2001, old no.566, new no.2/6, katha no.484/6/2, 96 division measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 120 feet and eastern portion of the property bearing no.1 formed out of sy.no.2/6 Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike katha no.DA 96/PR/50/2000-01, old no.566, new no.2/6, katha no.484/6/2, 96th division measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 120 feet situated at 3rd main road, Hebbal village, Bangalore. Thereafter, 9th defendant has gifted the item no.1 of the property through a registered Gift Deed dated 15.3.2011 in favour of defendant no.11 and another portion of the property was gifted by 18 O.S.1544/2013 .
defendant no.9 through a registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant no.10.
Defendant no.10 and 11 contended that subsequent to that, defendant no.9 to 11 came to know that Mr.Ramakrishna, Munireddy, Balakrishna Reddy, Shekar Reddy, Loknath Reddy and Raviprakash created bogus and false sale deed by misrepresenting the first defendant stating that they are getting registered JDA and took the first defendant and registered the sale deed in respect of suit schedule property on 26.8.2005. Immediately first defendant has filed original suit in O.S.No.2050/2006 on the file of City Civil Court.
After trial, the above said suit came to be decreed and it is declared that sale deed dated 26.8.2005 is null and void and not binding on the Padmavathi and defendants of the said case are restrained by order of Permanent Injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the Padmavathi. 19 O.S.1544/2013
.
After decree passed in the said suit, defendants 1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha have executed deed of confirmation in favour of defendants 10 and 11 along with defendant no.9 on 1.6.2012. Thereafter these defendants have approached Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for transfer of katha. Accordingly, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has transferred katha in their name on 3.11.2012 in respect of the schedule item no.1 and 2 of the property. Now these defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
The plaintiffs by playing fraud obtained concocted sale deed and plaintiffs are not the owners of suit schedule property and they are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. On these grounds, defendants 9 to 11 prays for dismissal of the suit.
20 O.S.1544/2013
.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my predecessor in the office has framed following issues and additional issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 19/01/2011 is null void and is not binding on the plaintiffs?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the gift deed dated 15/3/2011 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?
(4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the confirmation deed dated 01/06/2012 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants Nos. 9 to 11 are trying to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration in respect of sale deed dated 19/01/2011 and gift deed dated 15/03/2011 21 O.S.1544/2013 .
and confirmation deed dated 01/06/2012 as prayed in the plaint?
(7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed in the plaint?
(8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property as well as defendants Nos. 9 to 11 as prayed in the plaint?
(9) What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6777/10 dated 16.11.2010 passed by this court is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?
7. In order to prove their case, plaintiff no.1, is examined as PW.1, and one Munivenkatareddy is examined as PW.2 and one Bala Bhaskar Reddy is examined as PW.3 and produced in all 17 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and closed their side of evidence. On behalf of the defendants, 22 O.S.1544/2013 .
defendant no.11 is examined as DW.1 and defendant no.9 is examined as DW.2 and got marked 34 documents which are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D34 and closed their side of evidence.
8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused entire records of the case.
9. My findings on the above issues and additional issues are as under:
Issue No. 1) ............ In the negative; Issue No. 2) ............ In the negative; Issue No. 3) ............ In the negative; Issue No. 4) ............ In the negative; Issue No. 5) ............ In the negative; Issue No. 6) ............ In the negative; Issue No. 7) ............ In the negative; Issue No. 8) ............ In the negative; Issue No. 9) ............ As per final order;
for the following:
Addl.Issue No.1)........ In the negative;
10. ISSUE NO.1: It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the joint absolute owners of 23 O.S.1544/2013 .
suit schedule property and they have purchased suit schedule property from one Munivenkatareddy and others under registered sale deed dated 15.3.2006 and they are put in possession of the suit schedule property.
11. Further it is the case of the plaintiffs that subsequent to the purchase of the suit schedule property katha was changed in their names on 21.3.2006 and since from the date of purchase, they are enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owners.
12. Further it is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant no.1 to 8 have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Even though they have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property started illegal interfering in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and hence they filed suit for Permanent Injunction in O.S.No.1567/2007 before City Civil Court and obtained decree. 24 O.S.1544/2013
.
13. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.9 colluding with defendant no.1 to 8 have created agreement of sale dated 15.11.2004 and thereafter filed suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.6777/2010 and obtained a consent decree before Lok Adalat by suppressing the material facts.
14. Further it is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and sale transaction entered into between defendants 1 to 8 with defendant no.9 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Further it is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant no.1 to 8 without making them as a parties without their knowledge filed O.S.No.2050/2006 as against their vendors and obtained decree in respect of the suit schedule property and against the said decree, their vendors have filed RFA before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and matter is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
25 O.S.1544/2013
.
15. Further it is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners and lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 15.3.2006.
16. In this case, defendant no.1 to 12 appeared through their counsel and defendant no.1 to 8 filed joint written statement denying the case of plaintiffs. Further defendants 10 and 11 also filed joint written statement and defendant no.9 has adopted the written statement filed by defendants 10 and 11 by filing memo. Defendant no.1 to 8 in their written statement contended that originally suit schedule property was originally belonging to Smt.Muniyamma and she has gifted the suit schedule property out of love and affection in favour of defendant no.1 under registered sale deed dated 30.3.1976 and by virtue of the said Gift deed, the first defendant has become absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she has got transferred katha in her name.
26 O.S.1544/2013
.
17. Further defendant no.1 to 8 contended that they have executed agreement of sale in favour of defendant no.9 in respect of suit schedule property and later as they have not executed the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale defendant no.9 filed original suit in O.S.No.6777/2010 and later said suit came to be ended in compromise before Lok Adalath. Thereafter, defendant no.1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha have executed sale deed dated 19.1.2011 in favour of defendant no.9.
18. Further defendants 1 to 8 contended that the vendors of the plaintiffs by playing fraud on defendant no.1 have obtained sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property on 26.8.2005 and after knowing the illegal acts of the vendors of the plaintiff immediately first defendant has filed O.S.No.2050/06 against vendors of plaintiffs on the file of City Civil Court and also filed criminal case. Further defendants 1 to 8 contended that after trial the said suit came to be decreed and declare that sale deed 27 O.S.1544/2013 .
dated 26.8.2005 is null and void and not binding on Padmavathi and also vendors of the plaintiffs are restrained by order of Permanent Injunction.
19. Further defendants 1 to 8 contended that plaintiffs are no way concerned to the suit schedule property and they have created documents in respect of the suit schedule property and they are not the owners of suit schedule property.
20. In this case defendants 10 and 11 filed joint written statement denying the case of plaintiffs. They contended that now they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further they contended that katha of the suit schedule property standing in their name and they are paying tax pertaining to suit schedule property to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Further they contended that plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
21. In this case the plaintiffs in order to prove their case plaintiff no.1 examined himself as PW.1. He 28 O.S.1544/2013 .
filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination-in- chief. In his examination-in-chief, he reiterated the plaint averments. He produced in all 17 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. In the cross- examination, he stated that he do not know anything about O.S.No.2050/2006 filed by Padmavathi against his vendors. Further he stated that he is not aware of the declaration granted by the court in O.S.No.2050/06 in respect of suit schedule property. He admitted that his vendors acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 26.8.2005 and said sale deed was declared as null and void by the court. He further admitted that on the basis of the decree passed in O.S.No.2050/06 Smt.Padmavathi and defendants 2 to 8 have executed confirmation deed dated 1.6.2012 in favour of defendant no.10 and 11.
22. In this case, plaintiffs got examined their one of the vendor as PW.2. He filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination-in-chief. In his evidence he 29 O.S.1544/2013 .
deposed that himself and others have purchased suit schedule property from Padmavathi on 26.8.2005 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.32,33,500/- and said Padmavathi put them in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He further deposed that subsequently on 15.3.2006 they have sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs for valuable sale consideration amount of Rs.57,60,000/- and put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit schedule property.
23. In the cross-examination he stated that he is aware about the suit filed by Padmavathi in O.S.No.2050/2006. He further stated that at the time of execution of the sale deed, they have handed over the alleged possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs.
24. Plaintiff also got examined their another vendor as PW.3. He filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination-in-chief. In his evidence he deposed 30 O.S.1544/2013 .
that himself, Ramakrishna, Munivenkatareddy, Shekar Shetty, Lokanathreddy and Raviprakash jointly purchased suit schedule property from Padmavathi on 26.8.2005 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.33,33,500/- and said Padmavathi put them in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He further deposed that subsequently on 15.3.2006 they have sold the suit schedule property jointly in the name of plaintiff for valuable sale consideration amount of Rs.57,60,000/- and put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit schedule property. In the cross-examination he stated that he aware about the sale deed at Ex.P1 dated 15.3.2006. He admitted that they have challenged the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.2050/2006.
25. In this case defendant no.11 examined himself as DW.1. He filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination-in-chief. In his examination-in-chief 31 O.S.1544/2013 .
he reiterated the contention taken in the written statement. He produced in all 34 documents which are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D34. In the cross- examination he denied that plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule property. He denied that they have created documents in respect of suit schedule property. In this case, defendant no.9 examined himself as DW.2. He filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination-in-chief. In his examination-in-chief, he reiterated the contention taken in the written statement. In the cross-examination he denied that he has obtained collusive decree from defendants 1 to 8. He further denied that defendant no.1 to 8 has not at all executed any agreement of sale in his favour. He denied that sale deed dated 19.1.2011 is illegal and null and void.
26. I have perused evidence on record. Plaintiffs claiming that they are the absolute owners of suit schedule property on the basis of sale deed dated 15.3.2006. In this case, plaintiffs produced registered 32 O.S.1544/2013 .
sale deed dated 15.3.2006 which is marked as Ex.P1. On perusal of the same, it shows that plaintiffs have purchased the suit schedule property from their vendors.
27. In this case plaintiffs also produced tax paid receipts which are marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Plaintiffs also produced katha certificate and katha extract which are marked as Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Further plaintiffs also produced certificate issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike which is marked as Ex.P6. Further plaintiffs also produced another tax paid receipt which is marked as Ex.P7. In this case, plaintiffs also produced Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.1567/2007 which are marked as Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. Further, plaintiffs also produced sale deed executed by defendant no.1 to 8 and others in favour of defendant no.9. Plaintiffs also produced certified copy of the decree passed in O.S.6777/2010 which is marked as Ex.P11 and deed of confirmation dated 1.6.2012 is marked as Ex.P12 33 O.S.1544/2013 .
and notarized copy of the GPA is marked as Ex.P13. In this case, plaintiffs also produced Gift Deed dated 30.3.1976 which is marked as Ex.P14. They also produced sale deed, tax paid receipt, Encumbrance Certificate which are marked as Ex.P15 to Ex.P17.
28. In this case, defendants produced in all 34 documents which are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D34. In this case plaintiffs claiming their ownership on the basis of sale deed dated 21.3.2006 i.e., Ex.P1. The evidence on record shows that vendors of the plaintiffs purchased suit schedule property from Padmavathi and others as per sale deed dated 26.8.2005. In this case plaintiffs also produced the said sale deed which is marked as Ex.P15. It shows that vendors of the plaintiffs purchased suit schedule property from Padmavathi and her children. In this case, evidence on record clearly shows that Padmavathi had filed a suit against vendors of the plaintiffs namely Ramakrishna and others in O.S.No.2050/2006 for the relief of declaration and injunction. In the said suit, 34 O.S.1544/2013 .
the vendors of the plaintiffs appeared and filed written statement. After trial, the said suit filed by the Padmavathi came to be decreed and it is declared that sale deed dated 26.8.2005 is null and void and not binding on the Padmavathi. In this case, defendants 10 and 11 produced the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.2050/2006 which is marked as Ex.D16. Further, in this case defendants also produced certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.2050/2006 which is marked as Ex.D16. From the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.2050/2006, it is much clear that the vendors of the sale deed i.e., Ex.P15 which is said to have been executed by Padmavathi was set aside and City Civil Court declared that sale deed dated 26.8.2005 is null and void and not binding on Padmavathi and also granted injunction in favour of Padmavathi restraining the vendors of plaintiffs from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence from the evidence on record 35 O.S.1544/2013 .
it is much clear that, sale deed executed by Padmavathi in favour of vendors of the plaintiffs has been set aside. No doubt, the vendors of the plaintiffs have filed RFA before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by challenging the said Judgment and Decree and matter is still pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. However, at this stage, it is much clear that the sale deed executed by Padmavathi in favour of vendors of the plaintiffs as per Ex.P15 was set aside by the City Civil Court and also declared that the said sale deed is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
29. It is pertinent to note that, plaintiffs herein have purchased suit schedule property from their vendors under registered sale deed dated 21.3.2006 as per Ex.P1. It is also important to note that when the sale deed of the vendors of the plaintiffs has been set aside by the Civil Court in O.S.No.2050/2006, the vendors of the plaintiffs have no right to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs as per 36 O.S.1544/2013 .
Ex.P1. Hence on the basis of Ex.P1, plaintiffs does not acquire valid right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Hence on the basis of Ex.P1, it cannot be said that plaintiffs acquired right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the sale deed of the vendors of the plaintiffs has been set aside by the Civil Court and matter is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka not yet set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.2050/2006. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.P1. As already stated when the sale deed of the vendors of the plaintiffs has been set aside by the Civil Court, the vendors of the plaintiffs had no right to execute sale deed in respect of suit schedule property. Hence, plaintiffs have not acquired valid title over the suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.P1.
30. PW.1 in his cross-examination stated that he do not know anything about O.S.No.2050/2006 37 O.S.1544/2013 .
filed by Padmavathi against his vendor Ramakrishna and others and he is not aware about the declaration granted by the Court in O.S.No.2050/2006 in respect of the suit schedule property. The above evidence of PW.1 clearly shows that he pleads ignorance about suit filed by Padmavathi against his vendors. However, PW.1 in his cross-examination stated that his vendors acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 26.8.2005. He further admitted that the said sale deed was declared as null and void by the Court. Hence from the evidence of PW.1 itself it is much clear that, the sale deed dated 26.8.2005 obtained by the vendors of the plaintiffs was declared as null and void. Hence the vendors of the plaintiffs had no right to execute sale deed as per Ex.P1 in favour of plaintiffs. As already stated matter is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.2050/2006. Unless and until the said Judgment is set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of 38 O.S.1544/2013 .
Karnataka, at this stage, it cannot be said that plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.P1 since the sale deed of the vendors of the plaintiffs has been set aside by the City Civil Court in O.S.No.2050/2006. Hence Ex.P1 is a disputed document. Therefore, on the basis of this disputed document, it cannot be said that plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule property.
31. It is pertinent to note that, the sale deed of the vendors has been set aside and they have no right to execute Ex.P1 in favour of plaintiffs and hence Ex.P1 is a disputed document and on the basis of this Ex.P1, plaintiffs cannot claim ownership over the suit schedule property.
32. PW.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that on the basis of decree passed in O.S.No.2050/2006, Padmavathi and defendants 2 to 8 have executed confirmation deed dated 1.6.2012 in favour of defendants 10 and 11. Hence, evidence of PW.1 itself clearly shows that after the sale deed was 39 O.S.1544/2013 .
set aside by the City Civil Court, defendants 1 to 8 have executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.9.
33. In this case defendants produced sale deed dated 19.1.2011 executed by defendant no.1 and her children in favour of defendant no.9 which is marked as Ex.D3. Hence on the basis of this Ex.D3, defendant no.9 became owner of the suit schedule property.
34. PW.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that as per Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.6777/2010 Padmavathi and her children executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.9 in respect of the suit schedule property. Further he admitted that defendant no.9 has paid full sale consideration amount to Padmavathi and her children. Hence evidence of PW.1 clearly shows that Padmavathi and her children have executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.9 as per Ex.D3 after passing decree in O.S.No.6777/2010. It is also important to note that PW.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that defendant no.9 has paid full sale 40 O.S.1544/2013 .
consideration amount to Padmavathi and her children. Hence Ex.D3 is a valid document and on the basis of said Ex.D3, defendant no.9 became absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
35. PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that as per Ex.P1, he has not paid amount through demand draft or cheque. Further, he pleads ignorance that who has prepared Ex.P1.
36. It is pertinent to note that, even though plaintiffs have obtained sale deed as per Ex.P1 in respect of the suit schedule property, but vendors of the plaintiffs had no right to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiffs since the sale deed of the vendors of plaintiffs has been set aside by the City Civil Court in O.S.No.2050/2006. Hence Ex.P1 is not a valid document and it is a disputed document and hence plaintiffs does not acquire valid title over the suit schedule property.
37. PW.1 also in his cross-examination clearly admitted that Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are cancelled. Hence 41 O.S.1544/2013 .
evidence on record clearly shows that katha certificate and katha extract issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in favour of plaintiffs as per Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 has been set aside by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. In this case, plaintiffs have not adduced any cogent evidence to prove their possession over the suit schedule property.
38. The evidence on record shows that vendors of the plaintiffs filed suit against defendants 1 to 8 in O.S.No.1567/07 in respect of suit schedule property and obtained injunction. In this case plaintiffs produced Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.1567/07 which are marked as Ex.P8 and Ex.P9.
39. It is pertinent to note that, the vendors of the plaintiffs have filed this suit against defendants 1 to 8 on 23/2/2007. In this case, defendants produced Judgment passed in O.S.No.2050/2006 which is marked as Ex.D16. The evidence on record clearly shows that defendant no.1 Padmavathi has filed the 42 O.S.1544/2013 .
above suit on 13.3.2006, whereas the vendors of the plaintiff filed O.S.No.1567/07 on 23.2.2007. It shows that defendant no.1 herein had filed suit in O.S.No.2050/2006 much earlier to the suit filed by the vendors of the plaintiffs. The Judgment passed in O.S.No.2050/2006 clearly shows that Padmavathi was in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the said suit. As already stated Padmavathi has filed said suit on 13.3.2006, whereas vendors of the plaintiffs filed their suit on 23.2.2007. Hence from the evidence on record it is much clear that, as on 13.3.2006, Padmavathi was in possession of the suit schedule property. After trial, City Civil Court has decreed the suit of Padmavathi in O.S.No.2050/2006 and declared that sale deed dated 26.8.2005 is null and void and also restrained the vendors of the plaintiffs from interfering with Padmavathi's lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence from the evidence on record it is much clear that the vendors of the 43 O.S.1544/2013 .
plaintiffs were not at all in possession of the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the vendors of the plaintiffs have handed over the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs on 21.3.2006 at the time of execution of the alleged sale deed as per Ex.P1.
40. It is also important to note that the vendors of the plaintiffs have sold the suit schedule property as per Ex.P1 on 21.3.2006 whereas Padmavathi filed O.S.No.2050/2006 on 13.3.2006. It shows that after filing the said suit, vendors of the plaintiffs have executed Ex.P1 in favour of plaintiffs. As already stated as on the date of filing of O.S.No.2050/2006 i.e., on 13.3/2006 Padmavathi was in possession of the suit schedule property and vendors of the plaintiffs were not at all in possession of the suit schedule property. The evidence on record clearly shows that vendors of the plaintiffs have executed Ex.P1 on 21.3.2006. But as on the date of execution of alleged Ex.P1, the vendors of the plaintiffs were not 44 O.S.1544/2013 .
at all in possession of the suit schedule property and hence question of handing over possession to the plaintiff under Ex.P1 cannot be believable. Hence from the evidence on record it is much clear that, plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit.
41. In this case even though PWs. 2 and 3 supported the case of plaintiffs but their sale deed dated 26.8.2005 which is said to have been executed by defendant no.1 has been set aside. Admittedly, they have challenged the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.2050/2006. Hence, title of PWs. 2 and 3 over the suit schedule property itself is in dispute and hence they have no right to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs as per Ex.P1. Hence evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 is not helpful to prove the ownership of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. As already stated as on the date of execution of Ex.P1, vendors of the plaintiffs were not at all in possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, 45 O.S.1544/2013 .
Ex.D16 clearly shows that defendant no.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property even prior to execution of Ex.P1 in favour of plaintiffs. Thus plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove their ownership and possession over the suit schedule property.
42. In this case, defendant no.11 examined as DW.1. Defendant no.9 examined as DW.2. They have produced in all 34 documents which are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D34. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the defendants, it is much clear that during the year 2004, defendant no.1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha have executed agreement of sale in favour of defendant no.9 in respect of the suit schedule property. Further, evidence on record clearly shows that as defendants 1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha have not executed the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale, defendant no.9 herein filed O.S.No.6777/2010 on the file of City Civil Court for specific performance of contract against defendants 1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha. Further it appears that the said suit came 46 O.S.1544/2013 .
to be ended in compromise before Lok Adalath. In this case, defendants produced certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.6777/2010 and decree and compromised petition which are marked as Ex.D8 to Ex.D10. On perusal of the said documents, it is much clear that defendant no.1 to 8 herein and Krupa and Sriharsha have compromised the matter with the defendant no.9 in respect of suit schedule property in O.S.No.6777/2010 and hence by virtue of the said Judgment and Decree, defendant no.9 herein became absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
43. Further, it appears that after said suit came to be decreed as per compromise, the defendant no.1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha have executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.9 as per Ex.D3 on 19.1.2011. Hence by virtue of Ex.D3, defendant no.9 became owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further, documents produced by the defendants clearly shows that now defendants 47 O.S.1544/2013 .
10 and 11 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
44. In this case, defendant no.10 and 11 produced katha certificate and katha extract which are marked as Ex.D11 to Ex.D14. On perusal of the same, it clearly shows that now the defendants 10 and 11 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Even though in Ex.P1 it is mentioned that possession was handed over to plaintiffs, but infact plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. As already stated, evidence on record clearly shows that as on 13.3.2006 itself defendant no.1 Padmavathi was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which is clear from the Judgement passed in O.S.No.2050/2006. Hence, from the evidence on record it is much clear that, plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, defendant no.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 48 O.S.1544/2013 .
property and thereafter defendant no.1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha executed the sale deed in favour of defendant no.9 as per Ex.D3 and hence defendant no.9 was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further evidence on record clearly shows that thereafter defendant no.9 executed Gift Deed in favour of defendant no.10 and 11 and by virtue of the said Gift Deed defendant no.10 and 11 became the owners and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
45. In this case, defendants 10 and 11 produced katha certificate, katha extract which are marked as Ex.D11 to Ex.D14. Ex.D11 and Ex.D12 are standing in the name of defendant no.11 and Ex.D13 and Ex.D14 are standing in the name of defendant no.10. Hence evidence on record clearly shows that on the basis of Gift Deeds, katha has been changed in the name of defendant no.10 and 11.
46. PW.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are cancelled. Ex.P4 to 49 O.S.1544/2013 .
Ex.P6 are the katha extract and katha certificate standing in the name of plaintiffs. Admittedly, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has cancelled katha extract and katha certificate standing in the name of plaintiffs. On the other hand, the documentary evidence produced by the defendants 10 and 11 clearly shows thata katha of the suit schedule property standing in the name of defendants 10 and 11 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. As already stated Ex.P1 is not a valid document since sale deed of the vendors of the plaintiff has been set aside. Hence Ex.P1 is a disputed document and matter is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence on the basis of Ex.P1, it cannot be said that plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule property. It is pertinent to note that defendant no.1 filed suit in O.S.No.2050/2006 on 13.3.2006, whereas the vendors of the plaintiffs have executed sale deed as per Ex.P1 on 15.3.2006. It clearly shows that 50 O.S.1544/2013 .
immediately after filing the said suit by defendant no.1 the vendors of the plaintiffs hurriedly sold the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiffs as per Ex.P1. It shows that during the pendency of said suit, vendors of the plaintiffs have executed Ex.P1, hence this Ex.P1 is hit by lis pendense. The vendors of the plaintiffs after filing said suit hurriedly sold the suit schedule property. It shows that the vendors of the plaintiffs by playing fraud on the defendant no.1 had obtained sale deed and hence City Civil Court has set aside the sale deed of the vendors of the plaintiffs. Hence it appears that transaction took place between vendors of the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 in respect of the suit schedule property are not genuine transaction. Moreover, defendant no.1 filed complaint against the vendors of the plaintiffs alleging that they have obtained sale deed by playing fraud. Under such circumstances, Ex.P1 is appears to be not a genuine document. Further, evidence on record clearly shows that plaintiffs are not at all in possession of the suit 51 O.S.1544/2013 .
schedule property. Even though PWs. 1 to 3 in their evidence deposed that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property but documents produced by the defendants clearly shows that as on 15.3.2006 defendant no.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove their ownership over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, I answer issue no.1 in the negative.
47. ISSUE NO.2, 3, 4 AND 6: Now I will consider these issues together for the sake convenience and to avoid repetition.
48. In this case plaintiffs contended that sale deed dated 19.1.2011 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Further, they also contended that Gift Deed dated 15.3.2011 and confirmation deed dated 1.6.2012 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. While answering issue no.1, it is held that plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership over the suit schedule property.
52 O.S.1544/2013
.
49. In this case plaintiffs are claiming their ownership over the suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.P1. As already stated the vendors of the sale deed has been set aside by the City Civil Court in O.S.No.2050/2006. Therefore, the vendors of the plaintiffs have no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs as per Ex.P1. Admittedly the vendors of the plaintiffs have challenged the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.2050/2006 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and same is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Unless and until the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.2050/2006 is set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at this stage on the basis of Ex.P1, it cannot be said that plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule property. Plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership and possession over the suit schedule property. The evidence on record clearly shows that as per decree passed in O.S.No.6777/2010 defendants 1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha have executed sale 53 O.S.1544/2013 .
deed dated 19.1.2011 as per Ex.D3 in favour of defendant no.9. PW.1 in the cross-examination clearly admitted that as per Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.6777/2010 Padmavathi and her children executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.9 in respect of suit schedule property. Further he admitted that defendant no.9 has paid full sale consideration amount to the Padmavathi and her children.
50. It is pertinent to note that PW.1 himself in his cross-examination clearly admitted that defendant no.9 has paid full sale consideration amount to Padmavathi and her children. Hence Ex.D3 executed by defendant no.1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha is legal and valid. Therefore, by virtue of sale deed dated 19.1.2011, defendant no.9 became absolute owner of suit schedule property. The evidence on record clearly shows that defendants 1 to 8 and other children of defendant no.1 executed Ex.D3 as per decree passed in O.S.No.6777/2010. In this case there is no material on record to show that said decree is a collusive 54 O.S.1544/2013 .
decree. Hence as per said decree, defendants 1 to 8 and her children of defendant no.1 executed Ex.D3 in favour of defendant no.9 by receiving full sale consideration amount. PW.1 himself in his cross- examination clearly admitted that defendant no.9 has paid full sale consideration amount to Padmavathi and her children. Hence sale deed dated 19.1.2011 is legal and valid. The evidence on record clearly shows that defendant no.9 has executed Gift Deed in favour of defendant no.10 and 11 under registered Gift Deed dated 15.3.2011. The evidence on record clearly shows that by virtue of Ex.D3, defendant no.9 became absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he had got every right to execute Gift Deed in favour of defendant no.10 and 11. Accordingly defendant no.9 who was the owner of suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.D3 has executed registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant no.10 and 11. Further evidence on record clearly shows that on the basis of said Gift Deeds, katha has been changed in the name of 55 O.S.1544/2013 .
defendants 10 and 11 in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. It shows that the said Gift Deeds are acted upon. Hence said Gift Deeds are legal and valid.
51. In this case evidence on record clearly shows that defendant no. 1 to 9 have executed confirmation deed dated 1.6.2012 in favour of defendants 10 and 11. In this case, defendants have produced said confirmation deeds which are marked as Ex.D4 and Ex.D5. The evidence on record clearly shows that after decree passed in O.S.No.2050/2006 defendants 1 to 8 and Krupa and Sriharsha have executed registered deed of confirmation in favour of defendants 10 and 11 along with defendant no.9 to get title perfect. The evidence on record clearly shows that defendants 1 to 8 have executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.9 as per Ex.D3 in pursuance of the decree passed in O.S.No.6777/2010. Thereafter defendants 1 to 9 executed confirmation deeds as per Ex.D4 and Ex.D5 in favour of defendants 10 and 11. 56 O.S.1544/2013
.
The said confirmation deeds are also legal and valid as defendants 1 to 8 were the owners of the suit schedule property. PW.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that on the basis of decree passed in O.S.No.2050/2006, Smt. Padmavathi and defendants 2 to 8 have executed confirmation deed dated 1.6.2012 in favour of defendant no.10 and 11. PW.1 himself in his cross-examination clearly admitted the execution of confirmation deed in favour of defendants 10 and 11. It is pertinent to note that Ex.D3 is a legal and valid document. Hence subsequent transaction took place among the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property are legal and valid. In this case plaintiffs have not placed any cogent material on record to show that sale deed dated 9.1.2011, Gift Deed dated 15.3.2011 and confirmation deeds dated 1.6.2012 are illegal and null and void. On the other hand evidence on record clearly shows that above said documents are legal and valid. Plaintiffs failed to 57 O.S.1544/2013 .
prove issue no.2, 3, 4 and 6. Accordingly, I answer issues 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the negative.
52. SSUE NO.5: In this case plaintiffs contended that defendants are trying to interfere in their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. While discussing issueno.1 it is held that plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. The evidence on record clearly shows that defendant no.9 to 11 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. When plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property, it cannot be said that defendants are caused interference in their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The alleged interference as contended by the plaintiffs cannot be believable in view of the fact that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. Plaintiffs failed to 58 O.S.1544/2013 .
prove alleged interference by the defendants. Accordingly, I answer issue o.5 in the negative.
53. SSUE NO.7, 8 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1: Plaintiffs have filed this suit against defendants for the relief of declaration declaring that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and to declare that sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 8 dated 19/1/2011 as not binding on the plaintiff, to declare that Gift Deed dated 15/3/2011 executed by defendant no.9 in favour of defendants 10 and 11 is not binding on the plaintiff and declare that confirmation deed dated 1/6/2012 executed by defendant no.1 to 9 in favour of defendant no.10 and 11 is not binding on the plaintiffs and to direct defendant no.12 and 13 to cancel the katha transferred in the name of defendants 10 and 11 and to restore that the katha of the suit schedule property in the name of plaintiffs jointly and for Permanent Injunction and also for declaration that Judgment and Decree passed in 59 O.S.1544/2013 .
O.S.6777/2010 dated 16/11/2010 are null and void and same is not binding on the plaintiffs.
54. While answering issue no.1 it is held that plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership over the suit schedule property. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for in respect of the suit schedule property. In this case plaintiffs sought for the relief of declaration that sale deed dated 19/1/2011, Gift Deed dated 15/3/2011 and confirmation deed dated 1/6/2012 are illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. While answering issue no.2, 3, 4 and 6, it is held that sale deed dated 19/1/2011, Gift Deed dated 15/3/2011 and confirmation deed dated 1/6/2012 are legal and valid documents. Hence plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for in respect of the above said documents.
55. In this case, plaintiffs also sought for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful 60 O.S.1544/2013 .
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. While answering issue no.1 it is held that the plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The documents produced by the defendants clearly shows that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Defendant no.1 filed O.S.No.2050/2006 on 13.3.2006 and in the said suit, it is held that defendant no.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have purchased suit schedule property on 15.3.2006. In view of the findings recorded in the above said suit, it is much clear that plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. The evidence on record clearly shows that now defendants 9 to 11 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as sought for.
61 O.S.1544/2013
.
56. In this case plaintiffs also sought for the relief of declaration that Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.6777/2010 dated 16.11.2010 passed by this Court is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. In this case plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership over the suit schedule property. The evidence on record clearly shows that as per compromise the said suit came to be decreed in favour of defendant no.9. Further evidence on record clearly shows that defendant no.1 to 8 and other children of defendant no.1 had executed agreement of sale in favour of defendant no.9 and as they failed to execute the execute the registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.9 as per agreement of sale, the defendant no.9 filed O.S.No.6777/2010 and obtained compromised decree.
57. In this case plaintiffs have not placed any cogent material on record to show that said decree is a collusive decree and they obtained the said decree in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs over the suit 62 O.S.1544/2013 .
schedule property. It is pertinent to note that the sale deed of the plaintiffs itself set aside by the Civil Court and now matter is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Judgement and Decree passed in O.S.No.6777/2010 is a collusive decree. On the other hand, evidence on record clearly shows that as defendants 1 to 8 and children of defendant no.1 failed to execute the registered sale deed as per agreement, the defendant no.9 filed the said suit and obtained decree. No doubt it is a compromised decree. Hence the Judgment and Decree passed in the said suit are legal and valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
58. In this case evidence on record clearly shows that plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. Plaintiffs have filed this suit only for the relief of declaration of their ownership and for declaration that sale deed, Gift Deed, confirmation deed are not binding on them. But in this case plaintiffs have not 63 O.S.1544/2013 .
sought for the relief of possession. Hence in the absence of relief of possession, the suit filed by the plaintiffs only for the relief of declaration without the relief of possession is not maintainable under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. Hence plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs in this suit. Plaintiffs failed to prove issue no.7, 8 and additional issue no.1. Accordingly, I answer the above issues in the negative.
59. ISSUE NO.9: In view of my above discussions and reasoning on the above issues and additional issues, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. 64 O.S.1544/2013
.
Draw decree accordingly.
*** [Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 15th day of February 2017.] [S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 K.Chandra Mohan Reddy
PW.2 P.Munivenkata Reddy
PW.3 Bala Bhaskar Reddy
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 H.V.Nagaraj
DW.2 Ramanna
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P 1 Sale deed dated 15.3.2006
Ex.P 2
And Two tax paid receipts
Ex.P 3
Ex.P 4 Khata certificate
Ex.P 5 Khata extract
Ex.P 6 Utar copy
65 O.S.1544/2013
.
Ex.P 7 Receipt for having paid betterment
charges
Ex.P 8 Certified copy of judgment and
And decree passed in O.S.No.1567/07
Ex.P 9
Ex.P 10 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 19.1.2011 Ex.P 11 Certified copy of the decree passed in O.S.No.6777/10 Ex.P 12 Certified copy of the deed of confirmation dated 1.6.2012 Ex.P 13 Notarized copy of General Power of Attorney Ex.P 14 Gift deed dated 30.3.1976 Ex.P 15 Sale deed dated 26.8.2005 Ex.P 16 Tax paid receipt Ex.P 17 Encumbrance Certificate
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.2668/06 Ex.D2 Certified copy of the Gift deed dated 30.03.1976 Ex.D3 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 19.01.2011 Ex.D4 And Two certified copies of the deed of Ex.D5 confirmation Ex.D6 Two certified copies of the gift And deeds Ex.D7 Ex.D8 Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.6777/2010 Ex.D9 Certified copy of the decree 66 O.S.1544/2013 .
Ex.D10 Certified copy of the compromise petition Ex.D11 To Two Khata certificates and two Ex.D14 katha extracts Ex.D15 Endorsement issued by City Civil Court Ex.D16 Certified copies of the Judgment And and decree passed in Ex.D17 O.S.No.2050/2006 Ex.D18 Certified copy of the PCR No.1296/2006 Ex.D19 Order sheet Ex.D20 Certified copy of the FIR Ex.D21 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.D22 And Challans Ex.D23 Ex.D24 And Tax paid receipts Ex.D25 Ex.D26 To Photographs with CD Ex.D34 [S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.67 O.S.1544/2013
.
...Judgment pronounced in the Open Court.... (Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.70 O.S.1544/2013
.71 O.S.1544/2013
.72 O.S.1544/2013
.
fdffd