Bangalore District Court
Shanthamma vs Kannayamma on 8 January, 2026
1
KABC010233672020
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-25) AT BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 8th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026.
PRESENT : Smt. Nisharani A.C., B.A., LL.B.,
III Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No.6356/2019
C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
PLAINTIFF IN : Smt.Shanthamma
O.S.No.6356/2019 D/o Sri.Dhanpal,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.36, Gandhinagar,
Munikullula Village,
Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk, Bengaluru - 560 087.
(By Sri.Shankare Gowda V.N.,
Advocate)
DEFENDANTS IN : 1. Smt.Kannayamma
O.S.No.6356/2019 W/o Chinnaswamy,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.34, Gandhinagar,
Munikullula Village,
Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk, Bengaluru - 560 087.
2 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
2. Smt.Sumithra.S
W/o Mani @ Subramanya,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.526, 5th Cross,
Hoodi Village, Madepura Post,
Bengaluru - 560 048.
3. Sri.Dhanpal
S/o Late Ponnuswamy,
Deleted as per the order
dated 06.01.2023.
4. Smt.Nagamma
W/o Late Vijaykumar,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.36, Old 132,
2nd Main Road,
N.Gandhinagara,
Munnekolala, Opp. To Spice
Garden, Marathalli Colony,
Bengaluru - 560 037.
(D.1 and 2 by Sri.H.M., Advocate
D.3 - dead)
V/S
PLAINTIFFS IN : Sri. Dhanpal,
O.S.No.6579/2020 S/o Late Ponnuswamy,
Since Dead Rep. by his LRs,
1. Smt.Kanniyamma
W/o Somu,
D/o Late Dhanpal,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.138, M.Gandhinagar,
3 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
Munnekolallu,
Bengaluru - 560 037.
2. Smt.Nagamma
D/o Late Dhanpal,
W/o Late Vijay Kumar,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.36, M.Gandhinagar,
Munnekolallu,
Bengaluru - 560 037.
(By Smt.Hemalatha S., Advocate)
DEFENDANTS IN : 1. Smt.Shantamma
O.S.No.6579/2020 W/o.Devaraj,
D/o.Chinnathambi,
Aged about 52 years,
C/o.Ambika,
R/at No.21, 2nd Cross,
Gandhinagar, Munnekollalu
Village, Marathalli Post,
Bengaluru -560037.
2. Sri.Manju,
Father's name not known,
Aged about 44 years,
C/o.Ambika,
R/at No.21, 2nd Cross, Gandhinagar,
Munnekollalu Village, Marathalli Post,
Bengaluru -560037.
(D.1 by Sri.V.N.S, Advocate
D.2 by M.B., Advocate)
4 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
Date of institution of Suits
1)O.S.No.6356/2019 28.08.2019
2)O.S.No.6579/2020 23.12.2020
Nature of the Suits
1)O.S.No.6356/2019 Injunction
2)O.S.No.6579/2020 Declaration and Injunction
Date of commencement
of recording of evidence in 20.01.2025
O.S.No.6579/2020
Date on which Judgment 08.01.2026
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
1. O.S.No.6356/2019 06 04 11
2. O.S.No.6579/2020 05 00 16
Digitally signed by
NISHARANI NISHARANI A C
AC Date: 2026.01.20
16:14:35 +0530
(NISHARANI A.C)
III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
COMMON JUDGMENT
Suit in O.S.No.6356/2019 is filed by the plaintiff for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
servants, agents, henchmen or supporters or any other
person or persons claiming through or under them either
5 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
individually or collectively from interfering with the plaintiff's
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property or any portion thereof and/ or dispossessing the
plaintiff from the suit schedule property in any manner
whatsoever and to grant such other reliefs.
2. Suit in O.S.No.6579/2020 is filed by the plaintiffs to
declare the Gift Deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of
defendant No.1 vide dated 04.04.2005 registered in the
office of Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru
in Book-lin Document No.BAS-1-00371/2005-06 be
declared as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs and
pass orders of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants or their agents or anybody from interfering with
plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property and to grant such other reliefs.
Suit Schedule Property:
All that piece and parcel of property bearing
No.12, Site bearing No.36, Khatha No.35/36,
Situated at Munnekolaa Village, Varthur Hobli,
6 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
Bengaluru East Taluk, now comes within the
limits of Ramagondanahalli BBMP,
Mahadevapura Zone, measuring 1460 sq.ft.
(according to Gift Deed, measuring 1800 sq.ft.
with an old AC Sheet roofed house and bounded
on:-
East by : Krishnappa property,
West by : Road,
North by : Nagamma's Property,
South by : Govindappa's Property.
3. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case in
O.S.No.6356/2019 is as under:-
Under the registered Gift deed Doc.No.371/2005-06,
the plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property. The
plaintiff in pursued her acquisition of title and possession of
the schedule property got transfer the Khatha of the suit
schedule property to her name and she is in possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and paying
tax to the concerned authority. The schedule property is
one of the site formed in land bearing Sy.No.12 of
7 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
Munekollu Village, by the Thasildar, Bengaluru South
Taluk, Bengaluru for the social backward and weaker
section people in the society. And originally the schedule
property had allotted to the father of plaintiff Sri.Dhanapal,
under Hakkupatra dated 13.05.1972 and same is
bequeathed to the plaintiff under said gift deed. The father
of the plaintiff / Sri.Dhanapal, upon the instigation of his
daughters who are the defendants herein, filed a petition
before the Hon'ble Tribunal of Maintenance and welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizen, Bengaluru North Sub-Division,
Bengaluru., in Case No.MSC/CR/52/2017-18, to cancel the
said gift, same was allowed on 21.12.2018. Thereafter the
plaintiff challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.3263/2019, the said Writ
Petition came to be allowed on 29.07.2019, and set-aside
the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner. The suit
schedule property consisting small temple place of
goddess Yellamma and small portion of residential
8 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
premises and rest of the place is vacant. The plaintiff is
residing in the schedule property by worshiping the idol of
goddess Yellamma, as priest. The plaintiff desiring to
develop the schedule property obtained the necessary plan
and permission from the concerned authority for residential
construction and she had proceeded for construction. And
when the plaintiff had been arranging to dig the foundation,
the defendants without having any manner of right over the
suit schedule property, on 25.08.2019 at about 12 O'clock
went to the spot and made an effort to prevent the plaintiff
from the enjoyment of the suit schedule property, same
was resisted by the plaintiff by calling Hoysala Police. And
the defendants left the spot by shouting that, they will never
allow the plaintiff to enjoy the schedule property, the police
officer on noticing the nature of dispute advised the plaintiff
to get necessary order from the civil court. The suit
schedule property is a residential property. The cause of
action to the suit arose on 25.08.2019, when the
9 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
defendants made on effort to interfere with the plaintiff's
peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule
property. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
4. The defendants in O.S.No.6356/2019 appeared
before this Court through their counsel and filed written
statement stating that the father of defendant No.1 is
illiterate and senior citizen. The plaintiff took father of
defendants to office of Sub-Registrar Bengaluru South on
the pretext of obtaining loan from Government for
construction of house in suit schedule property. In fact the
father of defendants does not know the contents of said
Gift Deed in respect of suit schedule property. The
contents of Gift Deed was not explained and read over to
father of defendants in respect of suit schedule property.
Hence, the said Gift Deed in respect of suit schedule
property is null and void. The same is liable to be rejected
at threshold itself. The suit is not maintainable without
impleading Government as one of the party to this suit. The
10 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
Government is necessary party to this suit. the said Gift
Deed in respect of suit schedule property has not been
acted upon by revenue department. Hence, it is false to
state that, the Khatha in respect of suit schedule property
stands in the name of plaintiffs. The documents shown as
D-2 and D-3 are false documents in respect of suit
schedule property. As of now the Khatha in respect of suit
schedule property stands in the name of father of
defendant No.1. The entire averments stated in Para No.5
of the plaint are true and admitted. The Hakkupatra in
respect of suit schedule property is in the custody of
plaintiffs. The said Gift Deed in respect of suit schedule
property is null and void u/Sec.4 of PTCL Act 1978, since
the suit schedule property is granted land u/Sec.3(1) (b) of
PTCL Act 1978. There is no cause of action in the suit.
Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected u/O VII Rule 11(a)
of CPC- 1978.
11 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
4(a). As said supra the plaintiffs made father of
defendant No.1 to execute Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005 in
respect of suit schedule property by playing fraud. The
defendants came to know about this Gift Deed when
plaintiff was making preparation to construct house in suit
schedule property in 2017. Till then the defendants and
father of defendant No.1 were not aware of Gift Deed in
respect of suit schedule property. On coming to know
about illegal and fraudulent Gift Deed and on the advice of
Assistant Commissioner of Bengaluru North the father of
defendant No.1 being senior citizen filed application under
senior citizen Act 2007. The tribunal under senior citizen
Act 2007 was pleased to set aside Gift Deed. This orders
of Tribunal was set aside on the ground of jurisdiction. As
of now the said Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005 in respect of
suit schedule property is liable to be cancelled u/Sec.4 of
PTCL Act, 1978. The Khatha in respect of suit schedule
property stands in the name of father of defendant No.1 but
12 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
not in plaintiffs' name and the averments made in para
No.8 and 10 of the plaint are denied by the defendants as
false and imaginary. The cause of action as shown in plaint
is imaginary and fictitious. The plaintiff filed this suit only
because the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
had set aside orders passed under senior citizen Act, 2007
and gave liberty to defendant's father to approach
appropriate forum. Accordingly, the father of defendant
No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.6212/2019 for cancellation of Gift
Deed in respect of suit schedule property on the ground of
fraud and in O.S.No.6212/2019 this Court passed orders
directing the plaintiff not to put up construction and issued
emergent notice. After receipt of emergent notice the
plaintiff filed this suit to prevent defendants from enjoying
suit schedule property. Hence, the cause of action shown
in the plaint is imaginary and false. The suit schedule
property is Granted Land as provided u/Sec.3(b) of
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
13 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL
ACT). This fact has been admitted by plaintiff at Para.No.5
of plaint. Hence, Gift deed dated 04.04.2005 is null and
Void as provided u/Sec.4 of PTCL ACT. The Registration
of deeds in respect of Granted lands is prohibited U/S 6 Of
PTCL ACT-1978. The Sec-11 of PTCL ACT-1978-
Provides that----"The Provisions of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained
in any other law for the time being in force or any custom,
usage or contract or any decree or order of a Court,
Tribunal or other Authority." The plaintiff is not entitled for
interim orders U/O 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for following
reasons:-
(1) The measurement of suit schedule property
according to Grant Certificate [Hakku patra| is 40+33/2 x 40
= 1460 Sq.Ft.
(2) The measurement of suit schedule property
according to Gift deed dated 04.04.2005 registered as
14 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
document No.371/2005-06 produced by plaintiff herself is
60ft x 30 ft 1800 Sq.Ft.
(3) The measurement of suit schedule property
according to Khata Extract issued by BBMP is 30 x 20 ft =
600 Sq. Feet.
(4) The Gift deed dated 04.04.2005 registered as
document No.371/2005-06 is null and void under PTCL
ACT-1978. On the other hand, there is variation in
measurement of suit schedule property as per the
documents produced by plaintiff herself.
On these grounds the suit filed by plaintiff itself is not
maintainable as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court India in Anathula Sudhakar-versus- P. Buchi
Reddy (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others AIR
2008 2033, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "Where
a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not
have possession, a suit for declaration and possession with
or without consequential injunction is a remedy". Moreover
15 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
if suit schedule property is uncertain in respect of
measurement, then also Injunction suit is not maintainable.
(5) So far as plaintiff is concerned, the suit filed by
plaintiff itself is not maintainable. Hence, the plaintiff is not
entitled for any interim orders. This law is laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme court of India Kashi Math Samasthan &
Anr Vs. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha swamy Anr 2010 (1)
SCJ 222. Therefore, the defendants have prayed to
dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
5. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.6579/2020 is
as under:-
The plaintiff belongs to schedule caste community.
The Thasildar of Bengaluru south under the scheme of
Grant of lands to oppressed and depressed classes
granted suit schedule property to plaintiff. This site now
comes within the limits of Ramagondanahalli BBMP,
Mahadevapura Zone measuring 1460 Sq.feet has been
16 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
acquired by the plaintiff through Hakku patra dated
05.01.1972. The entire transactions in respect of suit
schedule property is governed by The Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [PTCL ACT] which
came into effect on 01.01.1979, but not by Transfer of
Property Act-1881. After the grant of suit schedule property
the Khatha and Revenue records in respect of suit
schedule property was mutated in the name of the plaintiff.
The copies of original of these documents are in the name
of file of O.S.No.6212/2019 in CCH.NO.45, City Civil Court
Complex, Bengaluru. The plaintiff constructed roofed AC
sheet house for family in suit schedule property. In this
house the defendant No.3 started residing in this house
after death of her husband. The possession of defendant
No.3 in respect of suit schedule property is permissive
possession. The plaintiff is in legal possession of suit is
pertinent to mention that, one Smt.Chinnamma was
17 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
deserted by her ex-husband and she was living alone with
her Child. At that point of time, the plaintiff came into
contact with her and started living together as husband and
wife in the house constructed in suit schedule property. Out
of the wedlock of plaintiff and Smt.Chinnamma, two
daughters were born namely Smt.Kannyamma and
Smt.Nagamma [defendant No.3] in and around 1960-70's.
The daughter born to Chinnamma's ex-husband is none
other than the defendant No.1 herein. The defendant No.1
stayed with plaintiff along with his wife Smt.Chinnamma
and she was also one amongst his two daughters. The
plaintiff's wife Smt.Chinnamma passed away when his
daughter's were 10 years and 7 years old respectively.
5(a). The defendant No.1 being 12 years elder to
daughters born to plaintiff was married during lifetime of
her mother Smt.Chinnamma. The defendant No.1 deserted
her husband and stayed with plaintiff assuring plaintiff that
she will take care of him and his minor daughters. The
18 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
plaintiff also agreed as daughters were also in need of
elderly woman who can take care of his daughters' day to
day needs. The daughters born to plaintiff used to do coolie
work for their livelihood and hand over money to defendant
No.1 as she was wise enough to take care of family needs.
Everything went on smoothly for years, later the daughters
born to plaintiff attained age of marriage. They were
married and sent to matrimonial homes. The defendant
No.1 continued to stay with plaintiff. The defendant No.1
started to divert her mind for other aspects, wherein she
had an illicit relationship with a third person that
relationship ended in becoming a mother and she gave
birth to a female child. As a result, the daughters born to
plaintiff stopped coming to the plaintiff's house. Under such
circumstances, the defendant No.1 was the only solace to
plaintiff to share her feelings and the problems that she is
facing in the society. The said issue made the daughters of
the plaintiff to be away with him for years, as he is
19 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
supporting the actions of defendant No.1. The defendant
No.1 taking advantage of confidence and faith of plaintiff in
all her activities took the plaintiff to the office of Sub-
Registrar stating that his signature is required for sanction
of amount by Government for construction of house as the
house constructed by him 40 years back was in a
dilapidated condition. The plaintiff believed the words of
defendant No.1 and signed the papers by putting his thumb
impression as per the direction given by defendant No.1.
The plaintiff is an illiterate person and was not aware of the
contents of the document. The plaintiff continuously started
following it up with defendant, about the sanction amount to
be released for construction of house in vacant site of suit
schedule property. The defendant No.1 postponed the
same by giving one or the other reason. Finally, plaintiff
was sent out of sought assistance of his Grand daughter
Sumitra and started living with his residence by defendant
No.1. The plaintiff having no other alternative her for last 12
20 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
years. The plaintiff being in old age has confronted with
various diseases. The granddaughter of plaintiff is taking
care of him by doing collie work. In 2017 the plaintiff
expressed his desire to divide suit schedule property
among his daughters and defendant No.1. The defendant
No.1 rejected the proposal and she started claiming
ownership rights over suit schedule property and alleged
that the plaintiff has executed a Gift deed in her favour in
2005. The plaintiff was shocked to know about concocted
Gift deed which was obtained by misrepresentation, and
fraud. The plaintiff obtained the copy of the Gift deed and
came to know in 2017 that in 2005 itself the defendant
No.1 had obtained Gift deed in her favour by falsely stating
that for sanction of money from Government to construct
house in vacant suit schedule property he has to sign Taluk
office. The plaintiff approached the Hon'ble Tribunal of
Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens,
Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Division in Case
21 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
No.MSC/CR/52/2017-18 seeking maintenance and
cancellation of Gift deed dated 04.04.2005 executed by the
plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1. The Tribunal after
full hearing allowed the petition by granting the relief vide
orders dated 21.01.2018. Based on the orders, the
Revenue authorities mutated Khatha in respect of the suit
schedule property in favour plaintiff. In the meantime, the
defendant No.1 approached Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by way of Writ Petition in
W.P.No.3263/2019(GM-RES). The Hon'ble High Court
after hearing both sides, quashed the orders passed by the
Maintenance Tribunal opining that the provisions of the Act
is prospective in nature, the Assistant Commissioner
cannot grant relief to the plaintiff. With the aforesaid
findings, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the orders dated
28.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal by granting the liberty
to plaintiff to seek such remedy available under law. The
defendant No.1 is making all sorts of efforts to create third
22 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
part interests by bringing the defendant No.2 and his
agents to squat on the property by demolishing old house,
and trying to put-up construction suit schedule property.
The defendant No.1 having obtained the Gift deed by
means of fraud with an intention to deceive plaintiff in
respect of suit schedule property. The cause of action for
suit arose on 2017 when defendant No.1 deserted plaintiff,
claimed entire ownership rights over suit schedule property
on the basis of Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005 and plaintiff
coming to know about fraudulent Gift Deed dated
04.04.2005 in respect of suit schedule property on
29.07.2019. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.5212/2019 for
cancellation of Gift deed dated 04.04.2005 in respect of
suit schedule property on 23.08.2019. The earlier counsel
had not properly framed proper sentence so far as
limitation period for cancellation of Gift deed in respect of
suit schedule property is concerned. It is exactly for this
reason the plaint in O.S.No.6212/2019 was rejected as
23 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
barred under Sec.59 of Limitation Act-1963. Therefore,
prayed to decree the suit.
6. The defendant No.1 is filed written statement
stating that the defendant No.1 has denied the averments
made in the plaint as false and baseless. The plaintiff was
being an absolute owner of the plaint schedule property
voluntarily bequeathed the same to this defendant under
registered Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005, for love and
affection. This defendant accepted the said gift she is in
actual possession and enjoyment of the schedule property
by putting new residential construction. Sisters of this
defendant Kannyamma and Nagamma holding the plaintiff
with them fraudulently, and managed to registered the
above case with an intention to defeat the right and title of
this defendant over the suit schedule property. On these
backgrounds, the plaintiff is not in actual possession of the
suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and he did
not have any title over the suit schedule property. On
24 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
account of conspiracy of the plaintiff's daughters viz.,
Kannyamma and Nagamma, false allegations against this
defendant by touching her credibility and legitimacy had
came on the plaint, though the plaintiff not made such
allegations with his knowledge. These types of versions
itself shows the fishiness in the suit. The allegations made
in the plaint about the credibility, legitimacy and marital
relationship by averring that, this defendant is son of
Channamma's deserted husband and she has given birth
to the female child by illegal relationship etc., are all denied
by this defendant and put to the plaintiff to strict proof of the
same. The plaintiff is sound, healthy and in position of
understanding the situations and affirms. And he
knowingly, voluntarily, freely and without any undue
influence gifted the suit schedule property to this
defendant. And moreover, this defendant at any point of
time did not make influenced, undue influenced or forced
him to make gift in her favour. Accordingly, the gift of the
25 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
suit schedule property made by the plaintiff in favour of the
defendant No.1 is valid and in pursuing the same this
defendant acquired the suit schedule property and
developed the same and she is in actual possession and
enjoying the same. At the first instance the plaintiff filed an
application before the Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens and Assistant
Commissioner, Bengaluru in Case No.MSC/CR/52/2017-18
and made allegations therein that, this defendant not been
providing maintenance and sought to cancel the said gift.
However, said petition was ended and dismissed by the
order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High court
of Karnataka in W.P.No.3263/2019. In the said proceeding,
the plaintiff never said or commented about the fraud or
undue influence, but strangely all of a sudden made such
frivolous allegation in the present suit. Further, in fact said
proceeding also the product of conspiracy of the plaintiffs
other two daughter viz., Kannyamma and Nagamma. And
26 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
when they have failed in said proceeding filed the present
suit making false allegations against defendant No.1. The
plaintiff's other two daughter viz., Kannyamma and
Nagamma with an intention to knock the schedule property
making hectic effort by one or other way by using the
plaintiff as their pan. And one hand they have made an
attempt to trespass the schedule property by misusing their
muscle power and influential power, same was resisted by
this defendant and filed a suit O.S.No.6356/2019 seeking
Injunction against them, same is pending before the City
Civil Judge, (CCH-11) Bengaluru. The plaintiff filed the suit
against this defendant for declaration and consequential
relief of permanent injunction before this Court in
O.S.No.6212/2019, in the said suit the 1 st defendant filed
the application under order 7 rule 11(d) of CPC, the Court
allowed the application, consequently reject the plaint,
without challenging the said order, this plaintiff filed the
present suit, the plaint said is also filed an same prayer and
27 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
same relief, herein the said plaint same is hopelessly
barred by resjudicate and barred under order 2 rule of
CPC. The suit is hopeless barred by law of limitation. The
plaintiff herself admitted that this defendant is a possession
of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff admitted that this
defendant is possession of suit schedule property, the suit
is hopelessly barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief
Act. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.
7. The defendant No.1 has also filed her
additional written statement stating that during life time of
original plaintiff deceased Dhanpal has filed the Special
Leave Petition No.19022/2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court challenging the order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in Writ petition No.3269/2019 dated
29.07.2019, during the life time of Dhanpal never pleaded
before the Apex Court and High Court regarding fraud.
During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition the
original plaintiff Dhanpal is died. In the said appeal, the
28 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
Hon'ble Apex Court directed to the defendant to pay the
maintenance of Rs.15,000/-. After death of original plaintiff
Dhanpal the Special Leave Petition as Infructuous. Hence,
the said suit is not maintainable and dismiss the same.
8. On the above rival contentions my predecessor
in the office framed the following issues:-
ISSUES IN O.S.NO.6356/2019
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in
possession of suit schedule property as on
the date of suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
interference?
3. What Order or Decree?
ISSUES IN O.S.NO.6579/2020
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant No.1, by playing fraud on him and
due to mis-representation, taken him to the
Sub-Registrar Office, by convincing him that
she requires his signature for sanction of
amount from the Government for construction
of house, obtained his Left Thumb
Impression on the documents and
29 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
subsequently created a registered Gift Deed
dated 4-4-2005?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the gift deed
standing in the name of defendant No.1
dated 04.04.2005 is illegal and unlawful and
as such, it has to be declared as null and
void?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent
Injunction relief as sought for?
4. What Order or Decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN O.S.NO.6579/2020
FRAMED ON 28.03.2024
1. Whether the defendants proves that suit is
bad for resjudicata and Order 2 Rule 2 of
CPC?
2. Whether the suit is hopelessly barred by law
of limitation?
3. Whether suit is maintainable in view of the
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?
9. In order to prove/substantiate the case of
plaintiff, the legal representative No.1 of deceased/ plaintiff
No.1 in O.S.No.6579/2020 is examined as P.W.1 and got
marked 30 documents as Ex.P1 to P.30. During the course
30 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
of cross-examination of P.W.1, she has got marked 2
documents as Ex.D.1 and D.2.
10. Initially the defendant No.1 has filed suit against
the plaintiff in O.S.No.6579/2020 which is a suit for
declaration to declare the Gift Deed executed by the
plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 vide dated 04.04.2005
registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South
Taluk, Bengaluru in Book-lin Document No.BAS-1-
00371/2005-06 be declared as null and void and not
binding on plaintiffs and pass orders of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants or their agents or
anybody from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
and to grant such other reliefs. Later on, the plaintiff's
father in O.S.No.6579/2020 has filed suit in
O.S.No.6212/2019 for cancellation of Gift Deed dated
04.04.2005 and for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful
31 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Then, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6579/2020 have filed a Civil
Misc No.506/2024 before Hon'ble Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, under Sec.24 of CPC to
withdraw the suit in O.S.No.6356/2019 pending before
CCH-11 and to transfer the same to CCH-25 wherein
O.S.No.6579/2020 is pending, wherein Hon'ble Principal
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru pleased to
transfer O.S.No.6356/2019 from CCH-11 to this Court.
Then, learned counsel for the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.6579/2020 have filed an application for clubbing
both the matters as the parties, the suit schedule properties
are one and the same and consequent relief sought by the
plaintiffs are one and the same in both the cases. The
same is allowed and O.S.No.6356/2019 is clubbed with
O.S.No.6579/2020
11. Heard arguments of both the side.
32 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
12. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has
argued that the suit is filed by the plaintiffs to declare the
Gift Deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant
No.1 vide dated 04.04.2005 be declared as null and void
and not binding on plaintiffs and pass orders of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with
plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. Late Sri.Dhanpal/ plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The Gift
Deed dated 04.04.2005/ Ex.P.1 documents is concocted
document. Out of the wedlock of plaintiff and
Smt.Chinnamma, two daughters were born i.e. plaintiffs
No.1 and 2, attesting witness to the Gift Deed is not
examined, the beneficiary has to examine and onus on him
to prove that the Gift Deed is concocted and fraud
documents. The plaintiff is illiterate and he has not
examined the Gift Deed. P.W.1 stated that
Smt.Shanthamma is the stepdaughter and defendant No.2
33 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
is stranger. In further she also submits that this Ex.P.9,
P.17 and 18 reflects the name of Late Sri.Dhanpal. The
plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.
Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
13. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed
memo with citations on 27.10.2025 as follows:-
1. 2009 (3) KCCR 2551
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
Sri.Sannaboraiah @ Boraiah V/s. Konana Mallaiah
and another- (Relied Para No.16).
2. 2010 (3) KCCR 1638
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
B.C Ravindra and another V/s. Deviramma -(Relied
Para No.25 to 33).
3. AIR 1983 ORISSA 172
Hon'ble Orissa High Court
Brundaban Misra Appellants and Iswar Swain and
Ors - (Relied Para No.6 and 7).
4. AIR 2003 ORISSA 123
Hon'ble Orissa High Court
Smt Nishamani Singh and Nishamani Dibya and
Ors- (Relied Para No.6, 14, 16 and 18).
34 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
5. LAWS (HPH)-2011-7-264
Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Bansi Ram and Prem Singh and Ors (Relied Para
No.4 and 19).
6. AIR 2015 GAUHATI 99
Hon'ble Gauhati High Court
Golap Borah and another V/s. Korneswar Borah @
Karneswar and Ors (Relied Para No.21, 22 and 24).
7. Un-reported the judgment in between Raghu and
Govindaiah
In MFA No 5566/2024 (CPC) disposed on
10.09.2024.
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (Relied Para No.6
and 7).
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed
memo with additional citation on 19.11.2025 as follows:-
Civil Appeal No.2929/2022 DD dated 10.05.2022
in between Veena Singh V/s. The District Registrar.
15. The learned counsel for the defendants has
argued that Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005 is not in dispute,
originally stands in the name of Dhanpal is also not in
dispute. Sri.Dhanapal has filed a petition before the Hon'ble
35 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
Tribunal of Maintenance and welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizen, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru., in Case
No.MSC/CR/52/2017-18, to cancel the said gift. The same
is allowed on 21.12.2018 by Assistant Commissioner,
Bengaluru by cancelling Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005 and
ordered for maintenance of Rs.20,000/- from defendant
No.1 to plaintiff/ father/Dhanpal. The plaintiff died during
the pendency of the case. Fraud is not pleaded before
Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru. The suit is barred
under Sec.34 of Specific Relief Act. After lapse of 15 years
suit is filed. In Ex.D.1, he himself also admits that because
of the trouble given by defendant No.1 he went to his
granddaughter/ Smt.Sumithra's house long back and he
stayed with her from past 12 years. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the suit.
16. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has
filed memo with citations on 15.11.2025 as follows:-
36 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
1. 2022 (15) SCC 260 (Rajpal Singh V/s. Saroj
(deceased) through legal representatives and another.
2. 2019 (2) SCC 727 (Jamila Begum (dead) through
legal representatives V/s. Shami Mohd. (dead) through
legal representatives and another).
3. 1995 (1) SCC 198 (Ramti Devi V/s. Union of India)
4. AIR 2021 SC 4321 (Abdul Khuddus V/s.
H.M.Chandiramani (dead) by Lrs).
5. AIR 2020 SC 395 (Vurimi Pullarao S/o
Satyanarayana V/s. Vemari Vyankata Radharani
Dhankoteshwarao and another).
6. 2014 (6) SCC 424 (Coffee Board V/s. Ramesh
Exports Pvt. Ltd.)
7. 2014 (3) SCC 595 (State Bank of India V/s.
Gracure Pharmaceuticals Limited).
8. AIR 2019 SC 72 (Jamila Begum (D) thr. Lrs. V/s.
Shami Mohd. (D) Thr. Lrs and another).
9. AIR 2019 SC 1430 (Raghwendra Sharan Singh V/
s. Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by Lrs).
10. AIR 1972 SC 2685 (Ram Saran and another V/s.
Smt.Ganga Devi Respondent).
11. AIR 2024 (5) SCC 282 (Vasantha (dead) through
legal representative V/s. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (dead)
through legal representatives).
37 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
17. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
ISSUES IN O.S.NO.9356/2019
ISSUE No.1 In the Affirmative,
ISSUE No.2 In the Affirmative,
ISSUE No.3 As per final order,
ISSUES IN O.S.No.6579/2020
ISSUE No.1 In the Negative,
ISSUE No.2 In the Negative,
ISSUE No.3 In the Negative,
Addl. ISSUE No.1 In the Affirmative,
Addl. ISSUE No.2 In the Affirmative,
Addl. ISSUE No.3 In the Affirmative,
ISSUE No.4 As per final order for the
following:-
REASONS
18. ISSUES No.1 and 2 IN O.S.No.6579/2020:-
Since these issues are inter-related with each other, they
are being taken up together for discussion at a stretch in
order to avoid repetition of facts.
The common evidence lead in O.S.No.6579/2020. The
father of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.6579/2020 and
38 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
defendant No.1 in O.S.No.6356/2019 was died on
12.11.2022. After his demise, his natural daughter plaintiff
No.1/Smt.Kanniyamma examined as P.W.1 and got marked
30 documents as Ex.P1 to P.30. During the course of
cross-examination of P.W.1, she has confronted and on her
admission this Court got marked 2 documents as Ex.D.1
and D.2. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the Gift deed dated
04.04.2005. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the order in MSC
CR/52/2017-18. Ex.P.3 is the encumbrances certificate for
the year 10.01.2019. Ex.P.4 is the original Khatha
certificate issued by BBMP. Ex.P.5 is the tax paid receipts
of the year 2018-19 and 2019-20. Ex.P.6 is the 9
photographs. Ex.P.7 is the one CD. Ex.P.8 is the original
Khatha extract. Ex.P.9 is the certified copy valuation list for
the year 31.07.2004 to 13.10.2005(5 pages). Ex.P.10 is the
certified copy of the orders of Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in WP No.5290/2021. Ex.P.11 is the certified
copy of the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
39 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
WP No.3263/2019. Ex.P.12 is the encumbrance certificate
for the year 01.04.2020 to 28.06.2021. Ex.P.13 is the
certified copy of the Khatha acknowledgment filed
defendant No.1. Ex.P.14 is the copy of the BBMP
proceedings. Ex.P.15 is the certified copy of copy of
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in CRP
No.162/2021. Ex.P.16 is the certified copy of the orders in
MISC.No.506/2024. Ex.P.17 is the original copy Khatha
certificate dated 16.09.2020. Ex.P.18 is the original copy of
Khatha extract for the year 2020-21. Ex.P.19 is the certified
copy of the Uttar patra dated 09.04.2019. Ex.P.20 is the
certified copy of the summons issued to Shanthamma and
Manju (defendant No.1 and 2) in OS No.6212/2019.
Ex.P.21 is the 9 photographs. Ex.P.22 is the one CD.
Ex.P.23 is the tax paid receipts (3 in Nos). Ex.P.24 is the
track consignment of RPAD. Ex.P.25 is the death certificate
of Dhanpal. Ex.P.26 is the 13 photographs. Ex.P.27 is the
one CD. Ex.P.28 is the Acknowledgment receipt received
40 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
by Assistant Commissioner Bengaluru along with order-
sheet. Ex.P.29 is the certificate under section 65(B) of
Indian evidence Act-1872 and Ex.P.20 is the Whatsapp
status dated 05.12.2022.
19. However there is no dispute with respect that
the defendant No.1 is the foster daughter of plaintiff herein.
The original plaintiff himself also admits in many of the
occasions and recitals in the documents that defendant
No.1 is the foster daughter of him. The specific contention
taken by the original plaintiff is that he is an uneducated
and originally suit schedule property was granted to him by
the Government. The defendant No.1/ the foster daughter
has lost her husband, later on she came to her father's
house and stayed with him. By that time, the natural
daughter/Smt.Kanniyamma got married and stayed with
her husband. Initially another daughter of plaintiff/ father/
late Dhanpal, Smt.Nagamma was also one of the
defendant in O.S.No.6356/2019. Later on she transposed
41 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
herself as plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.6579/2020 as per the
orders of this Court.
20. Then, after the grant of the suit schedule
property by Government deceased Dhanpal started
residing in the suit schedule property continuously in that
way he has become the absolute owner of the suit
schedule property, he alleges that the defendant No.1 has
fraudulently obtained registered Gift Deed dated
04.04.2005 by utilizing his illiteracy. Therefore, plaintiff
specifically alleges on defendant No.1 that registered Gift
Deed executed by him is by fraud and misrepresentation.
Therefore, the document is liable to be cancelled. However,
he himself also admits that because of the trouble given by
defendant No.1 he went to his granddaughter/
Smt.Sumithra's house long back and he stayed with her
from past 12 years.
21. Then, plaintiff/father/ Sri.Dhanapal, upon the
instigation of his daughters who are the defendants herein,
42 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
filed a petition before the Hon'ble Tribunal of Maintenance
and welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen, Bengaluru North
Sub-Division, Bengaluru., in Case No.MSC/CR/52/2017-
18, to cancel the said gift. The same was allowed on
21.12.2018 by Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru by
cancelling Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005 and ordered for
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- from defendant No.1 to
plaintiff/ father/Dhanpal. Then, the said order was
challenged by defendant No.1 before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.3263/2019. The Hon'ble High
Court after hearing both sides, quashed the orders passed
by the Maintenance Tribunal opining that the provisions of
the Act is prospective in nature, the Assistant
Commissioner cannot grant relief to the plaintiff. With the
aforesaid findings, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the
orders dated 28.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal by
granting the liberty to plaintiff to seek remedy available
under law. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed this suit
43 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
seeking the relief to declare the Gift Deed executed by the
plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 vide dated 04.04.2005
registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South
Taluk, Bengaluru in Book-lin Document No.BAS-1-
00371/2005-06 be declared as null and void and not
binding on plaintiffs and pass orders of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants or their agents or
anybody from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
On the other hand, the defendant No.1 seriously objected
and she states that the plaintiff has voluntarily executed the
Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005 as she has taken his care and
looked after his welfare in his old age. Then, it is also
submitted that as it comes under Sec.59 of Limitation Act,
only on that ground the suit is barred by limitation and itself
suit is to be rejected as it is barred by law of limitation. In
further, she also submits that this suit also comes under
the ambit of under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC as earlier the
44 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
same plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.6212/2019 the
plaint of the said suit is rejected for the reasons that the
suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, looking any way, the
suit is itself rejected.
22. The original plaintiff/ Dhanpal died on
12.11.2022. Therefore, after the demise of original plaintiff/
Dhanpal his natural daughter Smt.Kanniyamma arrayed as
plaintiff No.1, wherein she has not denied the relationship
and title of her father over the suit schedule property. She
has also produced some of the documents to show that the
property stands in the name of her father which is got
marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30 in the said suit. The
defendant has also confronted the document to P.W.1 on
her admission those documents are got marked as Ex.D.1
and 2. However, the defendants are not examined
themselves and states that they have no evidence because
the documents are already produced by the plaintiffs
themselves. Therefore, the case is posted for arguments.
45 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
23. This Court has to consider the point that
whether the Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005 can be cancelled,
if so no Gift Deed can be cancelled as it is a transfer of
absolute right from donar to donee. However, on same
grounds also the gift can be cancelled. The following are
some of the grounds for revocation of the Gift Deed:-
I). Mutual agreement: This means, at the time of
execution of Gift Deed that both the parties i.e. donar and
donee shall be agree to cancel the Gift Deed, often
requiring a new registered agreement.
ii). Lack of free consent: When there is lack of free
consent from the donar then the donar can revok the Gift
Deed.
iii). Failure of Conditions: If the gift was conditional
(e.g., donee provides care), failure to meet these terms
allows revocation.
iv). Improper Execution/Registration: Means when
there is improper execution of the instrument i.e. when it is
46 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
not properly signed or not registered in accordance with
law, then also the Gift Deed can be revoked.
v). Incompetency of Donor: When the donar is of
lack of incompetency of in mental states, age, then also the
Gift Deed can be revoked.
Keeping the said grounds in mind, when the Gift Deed
in this case is meticulously examined by this Court which is
marked as exhibit, the Gift Deed will not discloses any
revocation clause. This Gift Deed as it is a registered
instrument. Then, even if the registered Gift Deed comes
under the ambit of Sec.126 of T.P.Act 1882 and Sec.9 of
Indian Contract Act 1872, then also the gift deed can be
revoked.
24. Here in this case on hand, admittedly original
plaintiff who is a donar who is died on 12.11.2022.
According to me, she was a capable person to depose that
the defendant No.1 has played fraud on him and by
misrepresentation she has got registered Gift Deed dated
47 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
04.04.2005. But, unfortunately his natural daughter
examined as P.W.1. But, even she has taken the
contention that her father say is true, but she is unable to
prove that on what specific day this fraud was played and
on what specific type the fraud was played and obtained
Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005. However, no oral evidence
are led by her to show that the fraud is played on her father
and also the case lacks of documentary evidence to show
that a fraud is played on original plaintiff. On the other
hand, in her cross-examination she admits Ex.D.1 and 2.
Ex.D.1 is the plaint in O.S.No.6212/2019 and Ex.D.2 is the
orders passed by that Court under order 7 rule 11(d) of
CPC. The said suit in O.S.No.6212/2019 filed against
defendant No.1 herein by the original plaintiff, wherein the
plaint discloses that she has obtained a Gift Deed dated
04.04.2005. Then she also admits initially her father has
challenged the same before Assistant Commissioner,
Bengaluru. In the year 2017-18 the same is quashed by
48 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in
W.P.No.3263/2019. Therefore as there are no grounds
available for revocation of the Gift Deed and donar himself
is not alive to say that defendant No.1 is played fraud
against him and the document which is produced by the
plaintiff herself. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the
Gift Deed/ Ex.P.1 dated 04.04.2005 is fraudulently
obtained by defendant No.1 herein with this observations, I
answer Issues No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.6579/2020 in the
Negative.
25. Issue No.3 in O.S.No.6579/2020 and Issues
No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.6356/2019:- Earlier the suit was
filed by the defendant in O.S.No.6356/2019 against the
defendants seeking for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their servants, agents, henchmen or
supporters or any other person or persons claiming through
or under them either individually or collectively from
interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
49 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
enjoyment of the suit schedule property or any portion
thereof and/ or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit
schedule property in any manner. Then the plaintiff/ father/
late Dhanpal filed O.S.No.6579/2020 against the
defendants to declare the Gift Deed executed by the
plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 vide dated 04.04.2005
registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South
Taluk, Bengaluru in Book-lin Document No.BAS-1-
00371/2005-06 be declared as null and void and not
binding on plaintiffs and pass orders of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants or their agents or
anybody from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
26. In registered Gift Deed Ex.P.1, the recitals
clearly shows that the possession has been handed over
by the donar/ plaintiff/ late Dhanpal to defendant No.1/
foster daughter of Dhanpal/ Shanthamma on the date of
execution of Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005. Then in para
50 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
No.9 of the plaint in O.S.No.6579/2020, the original plaintiff
late Dhanpal himself admits that because of the trouble
given by defendant No.1/ Smt.Shanthamma he went to his
granddaughter's house Sumithra and started staying with
her from past 12 years. Therefore, it is clear that the
original plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule
property. The said admission cannot be proved as per
Sec.58 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the plaintiff
himself admits that he is staying from past 12 years with
his granddaughter. It is not necessary to prove the said
fact.
27. Even in O.S.No.6212/2019 filed by original
plaintiff against defendant No.1/ Shanthamma is got
marked Ex.D.1 in O.S.No.6579/2020 the same is of the
year 2019 the plaint itself discloses a Gift Deed registered
and the same is marked as Ex.D.2 which is not challenged
till today and it holds good and reached finality. Therefore,
in view of that the original plaintiff was not in the
51 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
possession of the suit schedule property. The registered
instrument clarifies that he has handed over the
possession of the suit schedule property to defendant No.1
his foster daughter. With this, I answer Issue No.3 in
O.S.No.6579/2020 in the Negative and Issues No.1 and
2 in O.S.No.6356/2019 in the Affirmative.
28. Addl. Issue No.1 in O.S.No.6579/2020:- The
learned counsel for the defendants confronted Ex.D.2 to
the PW.1 on admission got marked as Ex.D.2, wherein in
the said order the plaintiff also got marked as Ex.D.2,
where in the plaintiff has sought for same relief as sought
in this suit i.e., O.S.6579/2020. Ex.D.2 order of rejection of
that plaint is also not challenged by the original plaintiff
which is hit by under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. Therefore, I
answer this Addl. issue in the Affirmative.
29. Additional Issue No.2 framed on 28.03.2024
in O.S.No.6579/2020:- The original plaintiff has the
52 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
knowledge of registered gift deed, alleged it is fraudulently
obtained by defendant No.1 his foster daughter/
Smt.Shanthamma. Then Ex.D.1 which is confronted to
PW.1 is the plaint in O.S.No.6212/2019 filed by original
plaintiff discloses about the gift deed dated 04.04.2005.
Therefore, this Court can come to the conclusion that he
had the knowledge of Gift Deed dated 04.04.2005 in the
year 2019. Again Ex.D.2 the order of rejection of plaint by
the competent Court is also passed and the same is not
challenged by the original plaintiff which reached finality.
Therefore, this also corroborates this issue. As per Article
59 of the Limitation Act, mandates limitation of three years
for filing of suit to cancel or set aside an instrument of
contract. Therefore, the plaintiff earlier filed for cancellation
of this deed before Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru in
the year 2017-18. The gift deed is of the year 2005.
Therefore, it is barred by limitation, with this I answer this
Addl. Issue in Affirmative.
53 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020
30. Additional Issue No.3 in O.S.No.6579/2020:-
The plaintiff is not in peaceful possession of the property in
view of observation to Issue No.3 and Issue No.1 and 2 in
O.S.No.6356/2019. Therefore, I answer this Addl. Issue
in the Affirmative.
31. ISSUE No.3 IN O.S.No.6356/2019 and ISSUE
No.4 IN O.S.No.6579/2020:- For the foregoing reasons
and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6579/2020 is hereby dismissed.
Both the parties shall bear their own costs.
The suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.6356/2019 is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendants in the said suit are hereby restrained by way of permanent 54 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W O.S.No.6579/2020 injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or any portion thereof and/ or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly.
Keep original copy of judgment in O.S.No.6579/2020 and copy thereof in O.S.No.6356/2019.
(Dictated to the Steno Gr.III, transcribed and typed by her on computer, after correction pronounced by me in open Court on this day 8th day of January, 2026).
Digitally signed by
NISHARANI NISHARANI A C
AC Date: 2026.01.20
16:15:12 +0530
(NISHARANI A.C)
III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff in O.S.No.6579/2020:
PW.1 : Smt.Kanniyamma 55 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W O.S.No.6579/2020 Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff in O.S.No.6579/2020:-
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the Gift deed dated:04.04.2005. Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the order in MSC CR/52/2017-18. Ex.P.3 Encumbrance certificate for the year 10.01.2019. Ex.P.4 Original khata certificate issued by BBMP. Ex.P.5 Tax paid receipts of the year 2018-19 and 2019-20. Ex.P.6 9 photographs.
Ex.P.7 One CD.
Ex.P.8 Original Khata extract. Ex.P.9 Certified copy of the valuation list for the year 31.07.2004 to 13.10.2005(5 pages). Ex.P.10 Certified copy of the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.5290/2021. Ex.P.11 Certified copy of the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.3263/2019. Ex.P.12 Encumbrance certificate for the year 01.04.2020 to 28.06.2021.
Ex.P.13 Certified copy of the katha acknowledgment filed Defendant No.1.
Ex.P.14 Copy of the BBMP proceedings. Ex.P.15 Certified copy of copy of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in CRP No.162/2021. Ex.P.16 Certified copy of the orders in MISC No 506/2024. Ex.P.17 Original' copy khata certificate dated:16.09.2020. Ex.P.18 Original copy of khata extract for the year 2020-21.
56 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/WO.S.No.6579/2020 Ex.P.19 Certified copy of the Uttar patra dated:09.04.2019. Ex.P.20 Certified copy of the summons issued to Shanthamma and Manju (Defendant No.1 and 2) in OS No.6212/2019.
Ex.P.21 9 Photographs.
Ex.P.22 One CD.
EX P.23 Tax paid receipts (3 in Nos). EX P.24 Track consignment of RPAD. EX P.25 Death certificate of Dhanpal. EX P.26 13 photographs.
EX P.27 One CD.
EX P.28 Acknowledgment receipt received by Assistant Commissioner Bangalore along with order-sheet. EX P.29 Certificate under section 65(B) of Indian evidence Act-1872.
Ex.P.30 Whatsapp status dated:05.12.2022.
Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant in O.S.No.6579/2020:-
Nil Documents Confronted by P.W.1 Marked in O.S.No.6579/2020:-
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.6212/2019.57 O.S.No.6356/2019 C/W
O.S.No.6579/2020 Ex.D.2 Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.6212/2019.
Digitally signed by
NISHARANI NISHARANI A C
AC Date: 2026.01.20
16:15:22 +0530
(NISHARANI A.C)
III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.