Bangalore District Court
Giriyappa Alias Giri vs Muneerappa on 15 April, 2026
KABC010165552007
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE : AT BANGALORE [CCH-42]
:PRESENT:
SMT. SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI, B.A. LL.B.
(Hons.), LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 15th day of April, 2026
O.S.No.8094/2007
PLAINTIFF : Sri.Giriyappa @ Giri,
S/o. Late Yellappa,
Aged about 36 years,
Presently residing at
Ramagondanahalli Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru-560066.
(By Sri. V.B.S., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri. Muneerappa,
Since deceased by his LRs
O.S. No.8094/2007
2
1 (a) Smt.Renuka,
D/o.late Munerappa,
Aged about 28 years
Flat No.F1, No.40,
Brothers Nivas,
Bengaluru-560037.
1(b) Sri.Ramadas,
S/o.late Munerappa,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at puttenahalli village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru-560078.
1(c) Smt.Prema,
D/o. Late Munerappa,
Aged about 41 years,
No.147, Kodathi colony,
carmelaram post,
Bengaluru East Taluk,
Bengaluru district,
Bengaluru-560035.
2. Sri.Govinda,
s/o.Munerappa,
Aged about 38 years,
3. Sri. Gangadhar,
s/o.Munerappa,
Aged about 30 years,
Defeandant Nos,2 and 3 are residents of
puttenhalli village, uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk-560078.
4. Sri.Yellappa
O.S. No.8094/2007
3
Since deceased by his LRs
his son is already on record as
plaintiff and his wife
Smt. Yellamma,
Since deceased by her Lrs
the plaintiff in the above case is
already on record.
(D.1 to 3 By Sri. B.M.H.K., Advocate)
(D.4 By Sri. SV.M., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the 11.10.2007
Suit:
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Injunction Suit
declaration & possession,
suit for injunction)
Date of commencement of 24.08.2013
recording of evidence:
Date on which the 15.04.2026
Judgment was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
18 06 04
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for the following reliefs:
O.S. No.8094/2007 4
(a) For permanent, injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, servants or any one acting under them or on behalf of them in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff.
(b) And pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case including award on costs of the proceedings;
(c) For declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, declaring that the sale deed dated 26-4-1990 registered as Document No. 438/1990-91, Book I, volume No.111 at pages 185 189, registered in the office of the Sub-
registrar Kengeri, Bangalore South taluk in so far as plaint schedule property measuring 25x30ft., East to West 25ft., North to South 30ft., as null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff by intimating the facts of its cancellation to the sub-registrar Kengeri, to enter on the copy of the instrument continued in his Books;
(d) Declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, declaring that the sale deed dated 26-4-1990 registered as document No.438/1990-91 ; Book I, Volume No.111, at pages 185 to 189, registered in the office of the sub- registrar, Kengeri, Bangalore South tq., in so far as 4th defendant sold in favour of the 1 st defendant in respect of 25x25 ft,. I.e, 2 nd schedule property as null and void and deliver the vacant possession of the 2 nd schedule property to the plaintiff.
O.S. No.8094/2007 5
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE It is the case of the plaintiff that the property bearing House List No.47, of Puttenahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli,Bangalore South, consisting of Mangalore tiled roofed House and a vacant space measuring East to West 25 ft. and North to South 30 ft,.which is more fully described in the first schedule property was the absolute property of his grand-father Muniyellappa. The Plaintiff submits that during the life time of his grand-father, Muniyellappa, he has executed a registered will registered as Document No. 9/1977-78, at pages 225 and 226, Book III of the office of the Sub-registrar, Bangalore South tq., by bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that, his grand-father Muniyellappa, died on 29/04/1979. The plaintiff submits that after the death of his grand-father, Muniyellappa, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the first suit schedule property. The suit property was initially occupied O.S. No.8094/2007 6 a tenant and now he has vacated. The first defendant is the owner of the property on the southern side of the suit property having purchased the same from the father of the plaintiff Yellappa. The defendant No.2 and 3 are the children of the first defendant. The first defendant is working as Gram Sevak of Puttanahalli Grama Panchayat. The defendants without any right, title or interest over the first schedule property have started to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that as it has become impossible for the plaintiff to resist the highhanded and illegal act of the defendants and as such the plaintiff has filed above suit for the defendants. The defendant No.1 in his written statement has taken a contention that the plaintiff and his father Y.Yellappa, have jointly executed the sale deed dated 26/4/1990 registered as document No.438/1990-91 Book I, Volume No.111, at pages 185 to 189, registered in the office of the sub-registrar, Kengeri, O.S. No.8094/2007 7 Bangalore South tq. The Plaintiff submits that after filing of the written statement the plaintiff shocked and surprised about the false averments made by the 1st defendant alleging that the plaintiff along with his father have executed the fraudulent sale deed dated 26/4/1990. The plaintiff submits that he has not executed any such sale deed much less the sale deed referred to above in favour of the 1st defendant. In fact, the father of the plaintiffs Y Yellappa, has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff submit that the so called sale deed alleged to have been obtained is fraudulent one and the same has been obtained by playing fraud on the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff respectfully submits that he never appeared before the sub-registrar nor executed the sale deed as alleged in favour of the first defendant. The said sale deed is a void document and not at all binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that as the 1st defendant is falsely claiming the O.S. No.8094/2007 8 rights over the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff on the basis of the above fraudulent sale deed. The plaintiff submits that the original of the will executed by his father has been misplaced, in spite of best efforts he could not able to trace out the same. However, the plaintiff has obtained the certified copy of the registered will executed by his grand-father Muniyellappa.
The plaintiff submits that the defendants all of a sudden on 7/10/2007 at about 9.30 a.m. have started to demolish the suit schedule property by trespassing into the same. The plaintiff immediately rushed to the suit schedule property and questioned the high handed and illegal act of the defendants but the defendants have picked up unnecessary quarrels with the plaintiff, and with the timely intervention of the well wishers and neighbours, the defendants and their henchmen, coolies went away from the suit schedule property, declaring that they will come again to see that they will oust the plaintiff from the O.S. No.8094/2007 9 possession of the suit schedule property and carry out their illegal act of demolition of the suit schedule property and erect a building on the suit schedule property . The plaintiff submits that he is a law abiding citizen but the defendants are very powerful and influential persons backed with men and money. The plaintiff who is apprehending danger to his life and also to the suit schedule property at the hands of the defendants has reported the same to the Sub- inspector of police, J.P. Nagar, Police station,but they have informed the plaintiff that the matter is of civil in nature and the plaintiff will have to approach the Civil Court for the needed relief. Hence sought to decree the suit.
3. In response to the suit summons, the defendants appeared through his counsel and filed their separate written statements by denying the plaint averments. The defendant No.1 has filed separate written statement by refuting the plaint averments and contended that, suit of O.S. No.8094/2007 10 the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on fact, hence suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands and suppressed the material fact of the execution of the sale deed dated; 26-04- 1990 by the plaintiff and his father in favour of the first defendant pertaining to the suit schedule property and the adjacent property which belongs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's father. Further the plaintiff has not disclosed the existence of the 80-90 years old temple found in the suit property which was sold to this defendant and on this score also the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
4. The first defendant has feigned ignorance of the relationship of the plaintiff with Muniyallappa. It is averred that earlier the property No. may bearing House List No.47 of Puttenhalli Village, measuring East to West; 25-0 feet and North to South; 30-0 feet in which their exists a good old 80-90 years old temple measuring 10x15 feet on the North-Western Corner side which has not been mentioned O.S. No.8094/2007 11 in the plaint. It may be a fact that said Muniyallappa bequeathed the said property in favour of the plaintiff herein as per the registered WILL dated'28-05-1977. This defendant has no knowledge of the death of the said Muniyallappa on 29-04-1979. It may be a fact that after the death of the said Muniyallappa, plaintiff herein succeeded to the same. It is avvered that the plaintiff herein is not the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and at no point of time it was tenanted by him. In fact the plaintiff herein along with his father have sold the schedule property along with another portion which belongs to the plaintiff's father which is found on the southern side of the first schedule of the plaint in favour of this defendant as under registered sale deed dated; 26-04-1990, in all both measuring East West; 25-0 feet, North to South; 50-0 feet, including the old temple portion measuring 10x15 feet. The property sold in favour of this defendant by the plaintiff and his father is O.S. No.8094/2007 12 having two roads on the northern side and the southern side and as such the plaintiff has no right to claim now over the property sold by him in favour of this defendant, From the date of the said sale deed the first defendant and his family members are in physical possession and enjoyment of the first schedule property along with another portion and as such the plaintiff has no right to file the above suit against the defendant for the property which was already sold by him. The plaintiff himself in the schedule to the suit schedule property has already shown on the southern side of the suit schedule property as the property owned by the first defendant, previously belongs to the plaintiff's father. It is further submitted that the first defendant is the owner of the southern side of the suit schedule property measuring 25 x 25 feet having purchased the same from the plaintiffs father under the aforesaid registered sale deed. In the said sale deed the plaintiff herein is also party to the said deed and sold the O.S. No.8094/2007 13 total extent measuring East to West 25-0 feet and North to South: 50-0 feet in favour of the first defendant. (The property of the plaintiff is measuring 25 x 30 feet and the property of the plaintiff's father is measuring 25 x 25 feet) It is averred that in all the property measuring 25 x 50 feet was sold in favour of the first defendant and as such the plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule property which has already been sold by him along with his father.
During the first week of October 2007 due to heavy rains in the previous months the old Mangalore Tiled house found in both the properties had collapsed and as such the defendant and his sons have removed the derbies and at that point of time the plaintiff herein came and tried to interfere with the lawful possession of this defendant and immediately the said attack was restrained by the defendant along with his son. The first defendant has retained one old A.C. Sheet roofed cattle shed which is found on the northern side of the suit schedule property O.S. No.8094/2007 14 adjacent to the old temple and even to this day the first defendant is rearing his cattle's in the said cattle shed. At no point of time after the execution of the sale deed the plaintiff was in physical possession and enjoyment of the same, in fact as can be seen in the sale deed dated: 26-04- 1990 and the plaint the address of the plaintiff has been shown as Ramagondanahalli and not even the Puttenahalli Village, which goes to show that the plaintiff is not at all the resident of the Puttenahalli Village as on the date of the sale deed and as on the date of the suit. When that being the case the plaintiff cannot claim now that he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, having sold the same long back. From the date of the said sale deed dated: 26-04-1990 the defendant along with his family members are in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and when that be the case question of dispossessing the plaintiff does not arise at all as stated in the plaint by the plaintiff. In fact the O.S. No.8094/2007 15 plaintiff herein is a very influential and powerful person having money and men to his support and not the defendants as stated in the plaint. This defendant has no knowledge about the report made to the Sub-Inspector of Police, J.P. Nagar by the plaintiff as stated in the plaint and the Sub-Inspector has not called this defendant or his sons at any point of time for enquiry. If it is a fact that the plaintiff had lodged complaint with the police he could have produced the copy of the said complaint and the acknowledgment before this Hon'ble Court, in the absence of which the statement made by the plaintiff cannot be relied on.
5. It is averred that originally the property found on the southern side of the suit schedule property measuring 25 x 25 feet as shown in the annexed rough sketch was owned by Smt. Pillamma who got the same as under registered sale deed dated: 02-11-1962 from her father Andappa.
O.S. No.8094/2007 16 Thereafter the said Pillamma and her son Mariyappa under registered sale deed dated: 03-06-1968 have sold the said extent of the site along with old Mangalore tiled roofed house in favour of Sri. Yallappa the father of the plaintiff herein. In the said sale deeds on the northern side of the boundary has been shown as the house of Muniyallappa. The said property which purchased by Yallappa measuring 25 x 25 feet was given Khatha No.42, and House List No.34/3, as found in the endorsement dated: 08-05-1985 issued by the Sarakki Group Panchayath. The northern portion of the aforesaid property which was owned by Muniyallappa has been bequeathed to plaintiff herein and the said property might have been then assigned with House List No.47, but thereafter the said property was assigned with a new House List No. 41/34/2. Both the aforesaid properties were sold by the plaintiff and his father under the registered Sale Deed dated: 26-04-1990 in favour of this defendant bearing House List Nos. 41/34/2 and O.S. No.8094/2007 17 42/34/3, situated at Puttenahalli Village, measuring East to West: 25-0 feet and North to South: 50-0 feet. Thereafter the said property has fallen within the limits of the 907 Folkharka and Bommanahalli CMC and this defendant/had paid the taxes from 2002-03 to 2007-08, which goes to show that this defendant is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with its southern portion. If it is a fact the plaintiff herein is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property the plaintiff could have produced the Khatha, tax paid receipts but in the absence of same the allegation made by the plaintiff with regard to the possession is baseless. Hence, sought to dismiss the suit with cost.The defendant no.2 and 3 have filed adoption memo to adopt the written statement of the first defendant. [
6. The defendant No.4 has filed a separate written statement by admitting the plaint averments made by the O.S. No.8094/2007 18 plaintiff in the plaint. It is submitted that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. The 1 st Defendant has created a fraudulent Sale Deed as the Defendant has never offered to sell or sold the property to the defendants as contended by the Defendants and sought to decree the suit.
7. The defendants No.1 to 3 have filed additional written statement in view of the amendment of the plaint by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff who is the son of the defendant No.4 herein have colluded with each other in order to deprive the rights of the first defendant over the suit schedule property which belongs to the first defendant. It is submitted that the plaintiff herein was not the absolute owner of the entire suit schedule property and in fact as stated in the written statement filed earlier as per the registered will dated 28/05/1997 the plaintiff herein was the owner of the property measuring east to west 25 feet O.S. No.8094/2007 19 and north to south 30 feet, which was found on the northern side of the fourth defendant's property. The fourth defendant herein was the owner of the property measuring 25x25 feet which was found on the southern side of the plaintiff's property, which were adjacent to each other. The fourth defendant herein purchased his property measuring 25x25 feet from Smt.Pillamma and her son M.Mariyappa as under registered sale deed dated 03/06/1968. There after both plaintiff and the fourth defendant herein have jointly sold the two properties under registered sale deed dated 26/04/1990 in favour of the first defendant herein for valuable sale consideration. It is further submitted that the plaintiff and the fourth defendant have signed the registered sale deed dated 26/04/1990 in Kannada and the registered sale deed dated 03/06/1968 bears the signature of the fourth defendant in Kannada language and the said signature of the fourth defendant found on the registered sale deeds dated O.S. No.8094/2007 20 03/06/1968 and 26/04/1990 are identical and one and the same. Now in collusion with the plaintiff, the fourth defendant had put his thump impression on the vakalath and the written statement in order to deprive the rights of the first defendant over the suit schedule property. So also the plaintiff herein had also changed his style of signature in the vakalath and the plaint. In fact the fourth defendant and the plaintiff while executing the sale deed dated 26/04/1990 have mentioned the entire measurements of both the properties and sold the same in favor of the first defendant and delivered the original sale deed dated 03/06/1968 and endorsement dated 08/05/1985. The plaintiff and the fourth defendant has no manner of right title and interest over the schedule property and they are not at all in physical possession of the schedule property as on the date of the suit and further the first defendant and his family members are in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of O.S. No.8094/2007 21 the sale deed dated 26/04/1990. In the registered sale deed dated 03/06/198, the northern boundary has been shown as the property of Muniyellappa, which property was later bequeathed in favor of the plaintiff herein. In the registered will dated 28/05/1997 the southern boundary has been shown as house of Y.Yellappa, who is no other than the fourth defendant and thereafter both the portions were jointly sold by the plaintiff and the fourth defendant in favor of the first defendant under registered sale deed dated 26/04/1990. The written statement filed by the fourth defendant clearly shows that the plaintiff and the fourth defendant in collusion with each other are inclined to deprive the rights of the first defendant and his family members. Hence sought to dismiss the suit.
8. On the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:
O.S. No.8094/2007 22
1. SUBSTITUTED/MODIFIED ISSUE NO.1 AS PER ORDER DATED 04.11.2025 Whether the plaintiff proves that he is lawful owner of the first plaint schedule property by virtue of the registered Will executed by his grand father Muniyellappa on 28.05.1977.
2. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the plaintiff and defendant No.4 together have sold the suit property under the registered Sale Deed dated: 26.04.1990 and since then he is the lawful owner and possessor of the suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Sale Deed dated: 26.04.1990 is a fraudulent Sale Deed and is obtained by playing fraud on the father of the plaintiff and as such it is not binding on him?
ISSUE NOs.4 AND 5 ARE MODIFIED TO THE FOLLOWING EXTENT AS PER ORDER DATED 04.11.2025
4. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference and obstruction by the defendants in respect of first plaint schedule property.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction O.S. No.8094/2007 23 in respect of first plaint schedule property.
6. To What decree or order?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 04.11.2025
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 26.04.1990 in so far as first plaint schedule property measuring 25 X 30 feet is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
2.Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the second plaint schedule property.
3.Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 26.04.1990 in so far as second plaint schedule property measuring 25 X 25 feet executed by the 4th defendant in favour of first defendant is null and void.
4.Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to hand over the vacant possession of first plaint schedule property.
Note: Additional issue No.4 dtd 4.11.2025 is modified to replace the first plaint schedule property with second plaint schedule property in the light of relief of possession claimed by O.S. No.8094/2007 24 the plaintiff in relation to the second plaint schedule property in the exercise of power under Order 14 Rule 3 and 5 R/w Section 151 of CPC. The modification of the issues would not cause any prejudice to either of the parties.
9. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and got examined one more witness by name Sri M. Raju as PW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.36 and closed his side.
On the other hand, in order to prove the defence, the defendant No.2 is examined as DW.1, two more witnesses as Dws.2 and 3 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to D.18 and closed their side.
One Mr. Parashuram Rao, Police Inspector and Finger Print Expert is examined as CW.1 and got marked Ex.C.1 to C.3 and closed his evidence.
10. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
O.S. No.8094/2007 25
11. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - In the Negative Issue No.2 - In the Affirmative Issue No.3 - In the Negative Issue No.4 - Does not survive for consideration Issue No.5 - In the Negative Addl. Issue Nos.1 to 4 - In the Negative Issue No.6 - As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
12. MODIFIED ISSUE NO.1 DATED 04.11.2025, ISSUE No.2, ISSUE No.3, MODIFIED ISSUE Nos.4 & 5, ADDL.ISSUE Nos. 1 TO 4 FRAMED ON 04.11.2025 :-
These issues are interlinked and therefore, they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
13. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the first plaint schedule property was acquired by the plaintiff by O.S. No.8094/2007 26 virtue of the registered Will executed by his grand-father Sri Muniyellappa on 28.05.1977 and on the death of Muniyellappa on 29.04.1979, he has become the absolute owner of the said property. It is his further case that he has not executed any sale deed much less the sale deed dated 26.04.1990 in favour of the first defendant as he has never appeared before the Sub-Registrar nor executed any sale deed in favour of the first defendant and as such the sale deed is avoid and not binding on the plaintiff. In this behalf he has further contended that the sale deed in respect of the 2nd plaint schedule property executed by his father in favour of the 1st defendant on 26.04.1990 is also obtained by playing fraud on his father and the said sale deed is also null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
14. Meanwhile the defendants in their written-statement have categorically contended that the plaintiff and his father namely, the defendant No.4 have jointly executed the O.S. No.8094/2007 27 sale deed in respect of the first plaint schedule and 2 nd plaint schedule properties, in all measuring 25 x 50 feet in favour of the defendant No.1 and as such they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 26.04.1990 marked at Ex.D.1. In the backdrop of the assertion of the claim of the plaintiff in relation to two plaint schedule properties it is appropriate to examine the said claims.
15. The acquisition of the first plaint schedule property by the plaintiff under the registered Will dtd 28.5.1977 executed by Muniyellappa in favour of the plaintiff at Ex.P1 and the acquisition of the second plaint schedule property by the father of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed at Ex.D8 are not in dispute.
16. The claim of the plaintiff in relation to the first plaint schedule property is premised on the fact that the plaintiff is not the executant of the registered sale deed dtd O.S. No.8094/2007 28 26.4.1990 at Ex.P20/Ex.D1 and he has not appeared before the Sub-Registrar to execute the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant. There are absolutely no material plaint averments disclosing the particulars and details of fraud, impersonation, fabrication and forgery with respect to the sale deed dated 26.04.1990 in relation to the first plaint schedule property. Similarly a vague assertion of the plaintiff that the sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1 in respect of the 2nd plaint schedule property executed by his father in favour of the 1st defendant is obtained by playing fraud on his father is not sustainable without explaining the particulars and details of fraud. Mere denial of execution of the sale deed and plea of fraud are not sufficient to indicate the real cause of action . Order 6 Rule 4 CPC provides that in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are O.S. No.8094/2007 29 exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading. In the present case it is not the case of the plaintiff that the sale deed dated 26.04.1990 in respect of the 1 st plaint schedule property is executed fradulently by impersonating the plaintiff and forging the signatures and thumb impression of the plaintiff on the aforesaid sale deed. The plaintiff has vaguely pleaded that he has never appeared before the Sub-Registrar to execute the sale deed in favour of the first defendant and he has never executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1. There is absolutely no plea to denote that the first defendant being the beneficiary of the sale deed has got the sale deed executed fraudulently in his favour through impersonation, fabrication and forgery. There is nothing in the plaint to demonstrate that the defendant No.1 is liable to answer the claim of the plaintiff in terms of mandate of Order 7 Rule 5 CPC. There is no plea that the sale deed at Ex.P20 is obtained from the O.S. No.8094/2007 30 father of the plaintiff by fraudulent misrepresentation and without free consent as the father of the plaintiff was not inclined to execute the sale deed in favour of the first defendant.
17. Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act defines fraud as 'Fraud' means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent', with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:--(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;(2)the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;(3)a promise made without any intention of performing it;(4)any other act fitted to deceive;(5)any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.(Emphasis Added). The above provision provides the foundational parameters to decide the act of O.S. No.8094/2007 31 fraud. But in the above case though the plaintiff has denied the valid execution of the sale deed however neither the plea of fraud not the details of the commission of the fraud are not pleaded in the plaint either in relation to the first plaint schedule property or the second plaint schedule property.
14. In the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and held as under:
"While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to ascertain the materials for cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the Plaintiff the right to relief against the Defendant. Every fact which is necessary for the Plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It is worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words "cause of action". A cause of action must include some act done by the Defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue."
Similarly the Karnataka High Court in CRP No. 397/2019 in the case of Pramila versus Nirmala and others has O.S. No.8094/2007 32 emphasized that suppression of material facts and failure to disclose a complete cause of action are valid grounds for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court highlighted that a, true disclosure of facts is required under Order VI Rule 2, and deliberately hiding material information to create a fake cause of action makes the plaint liable for rejection. It is also apt to refer to the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in M/s Durga Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Limited V. Sri. S Rajagopala Reddy and others ILR 2019 KAR 4739, it is held that the plaintiff is bound in law to disclose all the material facts in terms of the Order 6 Rule 2 CPC and omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and such a case plaint becomes bad. If the plaintiff has not disclosed the material facts which are necessary to fetch a relief, then it amounts to non-disclosure of cause of action as distinct from a defective cause of action. In the light of the above principles it is clearly evident that the plaintiff O.S. No.8094/2007 33 has failed to disclose the real cause of action to demonstrate that his legal right to property has been infringed by the defendant no.1 and consequently there is an incomplete disclosure of cause of action in the plaint visa-a-vis the sale deed dated 26.04.1990.
18. When the materials on record are examined it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has not denied the execution of the sale deed at Ex. P20/ D.1 in relation to the property bearing House List No. 41/34/2 and 42/34/3 situated at Puttenahalli village measuring East to West 25 feet and North to South 50 feet bounded on the East by Gangappa 's house, West by Mastappa and Dabhagullapa's property , North by Road and South by Road. It is not the pleaded case of the plaintiff that property bearing House List No. 41/34/2 and 42/34/3 situated at Puttenahalli village measuring East to West 25 feet and North to South 50 feet as referred in the sale deed is not in existence. The O.S. No.8094/2007 34 plaintiff has not taken up any specific plea contending that even though both the suit properties were independently existing and assigned with different property numbers as on the date of execution of the sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1 but the defendants have malafidely obtained a registered sale deed in respect of a non existing amalgamated property by indicating property bearing House List No. 41/34/2 and 42/34/3 in the sale deed to defeat the right of the plaintiff. Strangely the plaintiff has not indicated any property number in respect of the second plaint schedule property in the plaint. However the mere fact that the plaintiff has challenged the registered sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1 by seeking the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed is null and void indicates that the plaintiff is asserting his ownership in respect of the plaint schedule properties.
19. The description of the plaint schedule properties clearly discloses that the first schedule property and the O.S. No.8094/2007 35 second schedule property are adjacent to each other. The plaintiff has clearly acknowledged the ownership of the defendant No.1 and the previous ownership of his father Yellappa in respect of the property situated on the southern side of the first schedule of the suit property. The description of the first schedule property as provided in the plaint corresponds with the description of the property in certified copy of the Will at Ex.P1. The description of the second schedule property as provided in the plaint corresponds with the description of the property in the sale deed dtd 3.6.1968 at Ex.D8 executed by Pillamma and Mariyappa in favour of Yellappa in respect of the second plaint schedule property. But there is no material pleading to indicate that the plaint schedule properties were never assigned with property numbers as House List No. 41/34/2 and 42/34/3 and as such the defendant No.1 does not derive any title or ownership in relation to the said properties. There are no material averments in the plaint O.S. No.8094/2007 36 disputing the description of the property either in terms of property numbers assigned to the amalgamated property mentioned in the sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1 or the total extent of the amalgamated property indicated in the sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1 on the premise that the total extent of the suit schedule properties (first plaint schedule measuring 25 feet x 30 feet +second plaint schedule property measuring 25 feet x 25 feet ) is larger in extent than the measurement of the amalgamated property measuring 25 feet x 50 feet in terms of the sale deed at Ex.P20 this fact indicates that the plaintiff has conceded to the description, existence and schedule of the property. There was absolutely no impediment to the plaintiff to plead and prove that the plaint schedule properties were never assigned with property numbers as House List No. 41/34/2 and 42/34/3 and the same continued to be property bearing House List No. 47 . No documentary evidence is produced to demonstrate the independent O.S. No.8094/2007 37 existence of the suit properties as on the date of the suit and no material witnesses are examined in this behalf to substantiate the case of the plaintiff. It is mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to provide description of the property sufficient to identify it as per Order 7 rule 3 of CPC. It is well settled that the overall correct description of the property is essential for the grant of relief and description should accurately identify the correct so that effectiveness can be granted to the relief of injunction decree. It is pertinent to note that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in T.L.Nagesh Babu Vs. Manohar Rao Pawar reported in ILR 2005 KAR 884 it is held that unless the court is satisfied with regard to material details in the light of material evidence with regard to identification of the property, no relief can be granted and therefore in this background the plaintiff herein has failed to prove description of the suit properties as on the date of the suit.
O.S. No.8094/2007 38
20. At this stage it is pertinent to note that on submission of the requisition by the plaintiff to mutate his name in the revenue records maintained by the BBMP on the basis of the Will at Ex.P1 , the Assistant Revenue Officer vide endorsement dtd. 2.12.2016 issued in favour of the plaintiff has stated that the measurement of the property described in the registered Will does not correspond with the actual measurement of the property. In spite of the said endorsement the plaintiff has not taken any measures to amend the plaint and plead the essential and fundamental facts clarifying the description of the suit properties vis a vis the description of the property provided in the sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1. The omission of the plaintiff to plead the essential facts disputing the description of the property reflected in the sale deed at Ex.P1(Registered Will) clearly manifests that the property acquired by the plaintiff under Ex.P1 and the property acquired by his father at Ex.D8 (Registered Sale deed) were O.S. No.8094/2007 39 amalgamated and jointly sold to the defendant No.1 under the registered sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1 based on the actual measurement of the amalgamated property as on the date of execution of the sale deed at Ex.P20.
21. When the plaintiff in the plaint has not disputed the correctness of the description of the properties in terms of the property numbers assigned to plaint schedule properties in the sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1 the question of placing reliance of the encumbrance certificates at Ex.P.4 to P.8, P30 & 31 in relation property bearing House List No.47 does not arise. Even otherwise the plaintiff has not taken any specific or material plea contending that the House List No.47 continues to be the property number assigned to the first plaint schedule property as on the date of suit and evidence.
22. Notwithstanding the same,it is relevant to note that apart from producing the encumbrance certificates from O.S. No.8094/2007 40 Ex.P.4 to P.8, P30 & 31 in respect of the House List No.47 from the year 1970 to 2013, the plaintiff has not produced any other revenue/ public document to establish that the plaintiff continued to be the owner of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff has submitted his requisition to the revenue authorities to affect mutation in his name on the basis of the registered Will and Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.34 are the requisitions dtd 27.3.2017 and 7.1.2017 submitted to the Assistant Revenue Officer and the Joint Commissioner, Bommanahalli Division, BBMP, to mutate the name of the plaintiff in respect of the property bearing House No.47 on the basis of the registered Will executed by his grand- father Sri Muniyellappa. The fact that the plaintiff has submitted his requisition for affecting mutation in his favour of the basis of the registered Will in his favour during the pendency of the suit signifies that no measures O.S. No.8094/2007 41 were taken by the plaintiff to submit his requisition to affect mutation in his name on his attaining majority before filing the suit.
23. It is further pertinent to note that in para no.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that there was a tenant in the first suit schedule property, who has vacated recently but the plaintiff has not produced any iota of evidence to demonstrate that the first plaint schedule property was let out to a tenant and he had vacated the premises recently. The plaintiff has not made any endeavor to examine the said tenant or to produce any rental agreement in respect of the plaint schedule property. The tax paid receipts produced at Ex.P.11 to P.16 issued in the name of plaintiff in respect of the House List No.47 are all dated 06.12.2007, while the present suit was filed on 11.10.2007. It is clearly evident that much after the institution of the suit the plaintiff has paid the taxes in respect of the House List O.S. No.8094/2007 42 No.47 . The plaintiff has not produced any single document to demonstrate that he had continued to exercise his ownership rights over the plaint schedule properties after the execution of the sale deed at Ex.P20 till the date of the suit.
24. No doubt, the plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the extract of the thumb impression and signature of the plaintiff at Ex.P22 as maintained in form No. 14 by the Sub-Registrar in respect of the registration of the sale deed dtd 26.4.1990 at Ex.P20 /Ex.D1 to demonstrate that the signatures of plaintiff was affixed as Y. ಗಿರಿ when in fact he was affixing his signatures at Giri Y in terms of his signature in the SSLC Marks Card at Ex.P18(a) , Giri Y in terms of the application form submitted by the plaintiff at Ex.P24, Y. Giri in terms of his signature in the Gift deed at Ex.P25. Similarly the plaintiff has placed reliance on the opinion of scientific expert by name Sri K.N. Krishna O.S. No.8094/2007 43 Murthy at Ex.P.23, denoting that the specimen left thumb impressions of the plaintiff taken by the expert on 25.11.2015 and the thumb impression of the plaintiff found on the registered Gift deed dtd 22.11.2012 at Ex.P25 are not identical with the disputed LTM found on the sale deed at Ex.P20/D.1. In the same vein the scientific report at Ex. C2, obtained during the course of trial from Mr. Parashuram Rao (who is examined as CW1) , wherein he has opined that the specimen thumb impressions of the plaintiff do not match with the thumb impressions of the plaintiff on Ex.D1 cannot be used against the plaintiff for want of pleadings. In this backdrop, in the absence of material pleadings with regard to the denial of thumb impressions and signatures in the plaint qua the sale deed at Ex.P20/D.1 none of the documents produced at ExP18, P23, P24, 25 are admissible in evidence.
25. It is well settled law that pleadings are considered as the backbone of any legal action in a court of law. They O.S. No.8094/2007 44 entail an understanding of the mechanics of evidence adduction. The case begins and proceeds on the basis of pleadings. They can be in the form of a written statement, a claim or a defence filed and recorded in writing by either or both the parties, stating their own version of the dispute, based on which the other party shall file its counter affidavit,rejoinder, etc., explaining why the plaintiff's or defendant's contentions should not prevail. Pleadings also form the platform on which the edifice of the case is erected and the evidence presented in trials is the construction carried out on the said platform or plinth. They also assist the courts in determining the ambit of evidence which the parties should be allowed to produce at the trial. Within such range, the parties are allowed to submit evidence in favour of their contentions and within such range only, the court considers the admissibility and non-admissibility of evidence. In Kashi Nath (Dead) through L.Rs. v.Jaganath,Kashi Nath (Dead) Through Lrs v. Jagannath, O.S. No.8094/2007 45 (2003) 8 SCC 740. it was held that where the evidence is not in line with the pleadings and is at variance with it, the evidence cannot be looked into or be depended upon. Along these lines it has been held by the Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Ors, AIR 2009 SC 1103 that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not suggested in the pleadings,can be looked into to grant any relief . Hence the contentions raised by the plaintiff during the course of evidence or arguments cannot be looked into. In this context the evidence with regard to opinion rendered by the expert at Ex.P23 and Ex.C2 are not admissible for want of material pleadings. Notwithstanding the same, the plaintiff has not summoned the scientific expert Shri K.N. Krishnamurthy who is the author of the document at Ex.P23 to adduce evidence in support of his opinion at Ex.P23. The reliance on the gift deed at Ex.P25 to establish that the plaintiff has all the while been affixing his signatures as Y. Giri in English and therefore, his O.S. No.8094/2007 46 signature in the sale deed at Ex.P.20 in Kannada does not match his signature is once again not supported by any material plea in respect of the signature of the plaintiff. Even otherwise the gift deed at Ex.P.25 is dated 22.11.2012, which is subsequent to the sale deed dated 26.04.1990. Therefore, the said document cannot be relied upon to demonstrate that the signature of the plaintiff has been forged at Ex.D.1. PW1 during his cross examination has admitted that he has been signing in English and Kannada language. PW1 has refused to produce his voter ID, BPLRation card and gas connection card . He has further deposed that he might have signed in English and Kannada languages in the aforesaid documents. This conduct of the plaintiff denotes that he wants to suppress the real facts before the court and as such an adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff. PW1 during his cross examination dtd 7.10.13 has deposed that since 5 years he has been putting his O.S. No.8094/2007 47 signature in English. He has further deposed that he has not put his signatures in Kannada anywhere after he has filed the suit. These facts denote that the plaintiff has been deliberately signing in English language as an after thought in order to give an impression that the sale deed at Ex.P 20 is a fraudulent and fabricated document. PW1 has admitted that he has not produced any document for the year 1989, 1990 and 1991 which bear his signatures. The examination in chief affidavit of PW2 would not come to the aid of the plaintiff as he has vaguely denied the execution of the sale deed by the plaintiff. During his cross examination PW2 has admitted that he has not gone through the contents of his examination in chief affidavit and he has affixed his signatures on the said affidavit as per the instructions of the counsel for the plaintiff. This conduct signifies that he is not aware of the real facts of the case and he has come to the court only to assist the plaintiff. However he has incidentally admitted that the O.S. No.8094/2007 48 defendant No.1 and his children are in possession of the suit property.
26. In so far as the 2nd plaint schedule property is concerned, it is the assertion of the plaintiff that the said property was acquired by his father by virtue of the registered sale deed at Ex. D8 dtd 3.6.1968 but the defendants have fraudulently obtained the sale deed from the father of the plaintiff under the sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1. It is not the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the his father Yallappa was not affixing his signatures on any documents and therefore his signature on Ex.P20 has been forged by impersonation. As already recorded the plaintiff has failed to plead the essential facts constituting the factum of fraud in relation to the sale deed in respect of the second plaint schedule property. The defendant No.4 who is the executant of the sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1 has no doubt supported the case of the plaintiff but has failed O.S. No.8094/2007 49 to initiate any separate proceedings by instituting a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed by disputing its valid execution or file counter claim in regard to the same. No civil suit or criminal case was instituted at the instance of the defendant No.4 challenging the validity of the sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1 by the defendant No.4 until the institution of the suit by the plaintiff in relation to the second plaint schedule property. It is apparent that the defendant no.4 with out any genuine cause has supported the suit instituted by his son after the lapse of 17 years from the date of execution of the sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1 . The defendant No. 4 has not entered the witness box to prove his case. PW1 during his cross examination has feigned ignorance with regard to handing over of the original sale deed dtd 3.6.1968 executed in favour of the vendor of his father by the defendant No.4 to the defendant No. on 26.4.1990. But no explanation is offered in the plaint regarding the custody of the original O.S. No.8094/2007 50 title deed of the second plaint schedule property. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have illegally taken away the original title deeds of the second plaint schedule property. An omission to take up a plea with reference to the custody of the title deeds signifies that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts giving rise to an incomplete cause of action and adverse inference against him. Further, it is pertinent to note that the 2 nd plaint schedule was not initially the subject-matter of the suit. Initially, the present suit is filed for injunction simplicitor in respect of the first plaint schedule property only. Subsequent to filing of the written-statement by the defendants No.1 to 3, the plaintiff got amended the plaint to include the relief of declaration in respect of the first plaint schedule and declaration of possession in respect of the 2 nd plaint schedule property. The description of the first plaint schedule property annexed to the amended plaint clearly indicates the southern boundary of the first plaint O.S. No.8094/2007 51 schedule is shown as previously Yellappa's house and now the 1st defendant's house.
27. However, in the body of the plaint, the plaintiff has disputed the execution of the sale deed in respect of the 2 nd plaint schedule property by his father in favour of the 1 st defendant in the sale deed dated 27.04.1990. This fact indicates that the plaintiff has conceded to the execution of the sale deed at Ex.P20 by his father in respect of the second plaint schedule property. Except seeking the relief of declaration and possession in respect of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff has not pleaded the grounds on which the plaintiff is claiming the relief of declaration and possession in respect of the plaint 2 nd schedule property. No material suggestions are made to DW.1, who is defendant No.2 or his witness, who are the villagers, examined as DW.2 and 3 to prove the case of the plaintiff. The documents produced by the defendants at O.S. No.8094/2007 52 EX.D11 to 18 denote that the defendant No.1 has been exercising his right as the owner of the property acquired by him under the sale deed at Ex.P20/Ex.D1. The suggestions denying the valid execution of the sale deed by the plaintiff and his father made to the witnesses of the defendant are denied by the defendant No.2/DW1 and his other witnesses. The plaintiff has not examined the witnesses to the impugned sale deed at Ex.P20 to substantiate his case in respect of the reliefs sought in relation to the the suit properties. No grounds are made to hold that the plaintiff continues to be the owner of the plaint schedule properties. In the result the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that he is that he is the lawful owner of the first plaint schedule property by virtue of the registered Will executed by his grand father Muniyellappa on 28.05.1977 as on the date of the suit as the defendant No.1 has proved that the plaintiff and defendant No.4 together have sold the suit properties under the registered O.S. No.8094/2007 53 Sale Deed dated: 26.04.1990 and since then he is the lawful owner and possessor of the suit properties . Similarly the plaintiff has failed to prove that the Sale Deed dated: 26.04.1990 is a fraudulent Sale Deed and is obtained by playing fraud on the father of the plaintiff and as such it is not binding on him. In the same vein the plaintiff has gravely failed to prove that he is the owner of the second plaint schedule property and entitled to recover possession from the defendants. It is pertinent to note that even though the impugned sale deed at Ex.D1 is a registered document the plaintiff has sought to challenge the said sale deed only after the filing of the written statement by the defendants. In Janardhanam Prasad v. Ramdas (2007) 15 SCC 174, the Supreme Court relying on Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has held that a person is said to have notice' of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when but for wilful absentation from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made , or O.S. No.8094/2007 54 gross neglience, he would have known it has held that the principle of constructive notice is applicable in respect of registered instrument. There is no explanation offered in this regard by the plaintiff as to the delay caused in seeking the relief of declaration even though the sale deed dtd 26.4.1990 was a registered instrument. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he is entitled to the benefit of 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the plaintiff could not have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence. The impugned transaction is dtd 26.4.1990 while the present suit is filed on 7.10.2007 much after the lapse of 17 years from the date of execution of sale deed dtd 26.4.1990 and therefore the same is barred by limitation. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the Negative, Issue No.2 is answered in the Affirmative, Issue No.3 is answered in the Negative, Issue No.4 does not arise for consideration, Issue No.5 in the Negative, Additional Issue Nos.1 to 4 are answered in the Negative.
O.S. No.8094/2007 55
28. Issue No.6 :- In view of my findings on the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15th day of April, 2026).
(SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI) XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 - Giriyappa @ Giri. - 24.08.2013
b) Defendants' side:
DW.1 - Govindappa. - 13.03.2014 DW.2 - Rajappa N. - 16.07.2014 O.S. No.8094/2007 56
c) Commissioner side:
CW.1 - M.S. Parashuram Rao - 22.04.2024 II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P. 1 Certified copy of Will dated: 28.05.1977 Ex.P.1(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.1 Ex.P. 2 Death certificate of Muniyellappa Ex.P. 3 Genealogical tree Exs.P. 4 Encumbrance Certificates.
to P.8
Ex.P. 9 Original Sale Deed dated:02.08.1958
Ex.P. 10 Original Sale Deed dated:02.11.1962
Exs.P. 11 Tax paid receipts.
to P.16
Ex.P. 17 Certificate issued by the Head Master of
Government High School, Ramagondanahalli Ex.P. 18 Original SSLC Marks Card Ex.P.19 Original Employment ID Card Ex.P.20 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated;26.04.1990 Ex.P.21 Letter of the Sub-Register dated:
17.02.2016.
Ex.P.22 Certified copy of thumb impression issued by the Sub-Register in respect of document No.438/1990-91 Ex.P.23 Report of finger print expert O.S. No.8094/2007 57 Ex.P.24 Certified copy admission copy Ex.P.25 Original gift deed dated 22.11.2012 Ex.P.26 Receipt dated 25.05.2009 Ex.P.27 Letter dated 27.05.2017 Ex.P.28 Endorsement dated 02.12.2026 issued by BBMP Ex.P.29 Office copy of application filed under RTI Ex.P.30 Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate Form No.15 Ex.P.31 Certified copy Encumbrance Certificate Form No.16 Ex.P.32 Print out photographs Ex.P.33 Photograph Ex.P.34 Office copy of the letter dated 07.01.2017 addressed to Joint Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru Ex.P.35 Section 65B Certificate Ex.P.36 C.D.
b) Defendants' side :
Ex.D. 1 Sale Deed dated: 26.04.1990/11.05.1990 Exs.D.1(a) Signatures of the plaintiff and defendant and (b) No.4 Exs.D.1(c) Thumb impression and signature and (d) Exs.D. 2 Tax paid receipts to D.7 O.S. No.8094/2007 58 Ex.D. 8 Sale Deed dated 03.06.1968 Ex.D. 9 Khata Certificate dated: 08.05.1985 Ex.D.10 Certified copy Sale Deed dated 02.11.1962 Exs.D.11 Encumbrance Certificates and D.12 Exs.D. 13 Tax paid receipts.
to 18
c) Commissioner side :
Ex.CW.1 Covering Letter issued by Superindent of Police Finger Print Bureau dated 13.06.2019 Ex.CW.2 Letter dated 25.05.2019 which contain opinion regarding the finger print Ex.CW.2(a) Signatures Ex.CW.3 Annexture which contains the grounds of opinion at Ex.C.2 Ex.CW.3(a) Signatures (SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI) XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
********