Bangalore District Court
Dodda Thayamma vs Papaiah on 18 January, 2024
ABC010066991996
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2024
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S.N o.5544/1996
Plaintiffs : 1. Smt.Doddathayamma
W/o Late Abbaiah Reddy
@ Abbaiah,
(Since dead by LR)
2. Smt.A.Pillamma @ Chinnamma
W/o Late Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 50 years,
(since dead by LRs)
2(a). Smt.Komala
W/o Late Venkataswamy Reddy,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.64 & 65, 3rd Cross,
Doddabanaswadi Village,
K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru - 560043.
2(b). Smt.Bharathi
W/o Seenappa K.,
Aged about 56 years,
2
O.S.No.5544/1996
R/at No.906, G.K.Meddos Apartment,
Maragundanahalli, Shikari Palya
Main Road, Electronic City,
Bengaluru - 5600105.
2(c). Smt.Savithri
W/o Late Shivram Reddy,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at No.3, Guru Building,
Muneshwara Layout, Near
Government School, Munnekolala,
Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-5600037.
2(d) Smt.Girija
W/o Umashankar C.R.,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.21, 3rd 'B' Cross,
Lalbahadur Nagar, Kasthurinagar,
Bengaluru - 5600043.
(Legal representatives of plaintiff No.2
brought on record as per the order dated
03.03.2021)
(By Sri.S.L.V., Advocate)
-V/S-
Defendants : 1. Sri.Papaiah
S/o Sri.Venkataramaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
2. Sri.Rudrappa
Major, S/o Late Peddanna,
(Since dead by Lrs)
2(a). Smt. Lakshmamma
W/o Late Rudrappa,
Aged about 77 years,
2(b). R.Narasimha Murthy
3
O.S.No.5544/1996
S/o Late Rudrappa,
Aged about 49 years,
2(c). R.Venugopal
S/o late Rudrappa,
Aged about 39 years,
2(d). R.Sudha
D/o Late Rudrappa,
Aged about 43 years,
2(e). R.Mynavathy
D/o Late Rudrappa,
Aged about 41 years,
2(f). Smt.R.Latha
D/o Late Rudrappa,
Aged about 29 years,
3. Sri.N.Krishnappa
Major,
S/o Late Peddanna,
(since dead by LRs)
3(a). K.Chandra
S/o Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 49 years,
3(b). K.Mohan Kumar
S/o Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 47 years,
Since 3(c) K.Narasimha Murthy
is dead and he has been deleted as
no legal heirs, as per the order dated
31.10.2022
3(d). K.Manjunath
S/o Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 41 years.
4
O.S.No.5544/1996
3(e). K.Jaya
D/o Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 53 years.
3(f). K.Hemavathy
D/o Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 51 years.
The legal representatives
defendants No.2 and 3
All are residing at No.23,
14th Main Road, 3rd Block East,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560011.
(Legal representatives of
defendants No.2 and 3 brought on record as
per the order dated 09.03.2021).
4. Sri.N.Narayana
Major,
5. Sri.N.Ramanath
Major,
6. Sri.N.Nagaraj
Major,
7. Sri.N.Giri
Major,
8. Sri.N.Anand
Major,
(Defendants No.4 to 8 are the sons of
Narasimhaiah,
S/o Peddanna,
All are residents of
Byrasandra Village,
Bengaluru - 560011.
5
O.S.No.5544/1996
9. Smt.K.S.Lalitha
W/o Abbaiah Reddy,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at Kudlu Village, Hosur Main
Road, Bengaluru.
(Defendant No.9 impleaded as per the
order dated 17.09.2022)
(D.1, 4 to 8 by Sri.H.R.S., advocate
Lrs of D.3(a) to (f) by Sri.RD/RSS, advocate
D.9 by Sri.N.R.D., advocate)
Date of institution of the suit: 09.08.1996
Nature of the suit: Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of 19.06.2019
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 18.01.2024
pronounced:
Duration: Yea Years Months Day
27 05 09
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the present suit under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, praying for the relief of declaration of their ownership right over the suit schedule property and for the relief of declaration to declare the agreement entered into between defendants No.10 to 12 with respect to suit schedule property as null and void and for the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.
6O.S.No.5544/1996
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs as averred in the suit plaint are as follows:-
One late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.79/5, measuring 1 acre situated at Byrasandra village. He has purchased the said property from one Dodda Hanumappa, S/o Kondaiah for sale consideration of Rs.80/-, sale was concluded by delivery of possession as evidenced by the delivery receipt dated 20.08.1937 and Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was put in possession of the said property. The revenue authorities have surveyed land bearing Sy.No.79/5 and conducted detail enquiry as to the right, title and interest of late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy in respect of Sy.No.79/5. On 27.08.1940, the Superintendent of Land Records Tracing the Devolution of interest of the late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and absolute right, title and interest of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy in respect of Sy.No.79/5 was confirmed and poding necessary bifurcation (poding) was effected and the property purchased by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was numbered as Sy.No.79/5B which is described as suit schedule property. Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was died on 04.08.1974. After the death of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy, the husband of plaintiff No.1 namely Abbaiah Reddy was in possession of the suit property by way of inheritance.
Abbaiah Reddy was cultivating the lands and he had not 7 O.S.No.5544/1996 giving any particular attention to the entries made from time to time in the record of rights and pahanis under the impression that his name would be entered both in the khatedars and cultivators column. However certain persons without having any right, title or interest in connivance and in collusion with the village accountant of Byrasandra seem to have got their names entered in the record of rights illegally. The plaintiffs being the legal heirs of deceased Abbaiah Reddy and successor to the title of late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy after coming to know about illegal interference, have filed petition before Deputy Tahsildar, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in RRT. No.7/1996. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru vide order dated 08.07.1996 in proceeding No.182/95-96 passed an order by holding that the schedule property namely Sy.No.79/5B measuring 1 acre of land is the absolute property of late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy.
3. The Thogur Ramaiah Reddy had executed a registered settlement deed dated 06.03.1939 in favour of his kept mistress namely Nanjamma in respect of property measuring 100 X 200 feet and equal extent to his son late Abbaiah Reddy in respect of Sy.No.79/4 of Byrasandra Village. Thogur Ramaiah Reddy had retained the property measuring 40 feet X 200 feet in Sy.No.79/4. The siut 8 O.S.No.5544/1996 bearing O.S.No.10272/1992 filed by M/s M.V.R. Enterprises i.e., defendant No.11 against Abbaiah Reddy and others was compromised and collusive compromise decree was obtained in the said suit. O.S.No.2296/1996 filed by one Papaiah and 8 others, wherein the plaintiffs have got impleaded in the said suit. The said suit is also pertaining to the suit property. O.S.No.1624/1995 filed by the defendants No.1 to 9 against the defendant No.11 is also with respect to the suit schedule property. Above suits filed by the defendants is against to the interest of 2 nd plaintiff. Any decree obtained in the said suit do not bind the interest of the plaintiffs over the suit property.
4. The defendant No.12 claiming to have a right over the suit property has entered into a Joint Development Agreement with defendant No.10 for construction of a residential apartment in the said property. License was issued in respect of Sy.No.79/4 of Byrasandra village. The defendant No.10 has tried to put up construction in the said property in violation of building bye-laws. The BBMP after obtaining the complaints from various quarters conducted a detailed enquiry and the results of the enquiry have revealed that the defendant No.10 has put up the construction on Sy.No.79/5B in the guise of putting up a construction on Sy.No.79/4. The 9 O.S.No.5544/1996 defendant No.12 is claiming that Sy.No.79/4 and 79/5B of Byrasandra village are one and the same property. The defendant No.12 has filed the suit bearing O.S.No.2273/1998 on the file of Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, seeking for a declaration that Sy.No.79/4 and 79/5B are one and the same. In the said suit an application had been filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. The said application was allowed. Plaint was rejected. The defendant No.12 has filed RFA No.147, 148 and 149/2000 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The said RFA was also came to be dismissed. The defendant No.12 has filed Spl.Appeals No.20046-48-2008 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also dismissed the Spl.L.Appeals filed by the defendant No.12. The defendant No.12 has no right to claim that Sy.No.79/4 i.e., suit schedule property and Sy.No.79/5B are one and the same. The defendants have no right over the suit schedule property and any agreements contracts or any proceedings which have taken place are not binding on the interest of the plaintiff.
5. The suit schedule property continues to be an agricultural land and the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The 10 O.S.No.5544/1996 defendant No.12 has no right to lease the suit schedule property to defendant No.10 for construction of residential apartments by the defendant No.10 and therefore the illegal and unauthorized construction put up by the defendant No.10 on the basis of building license and sanction plan for Sy.No.79/4 of Byrasandra is ordered to be demolished by a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant No.10. Hence, the plaintiffs have stated that the cause of action arose for them to file the suit and prayed to decree the suit.
6. The suit was filed initially against defendants No.1 to 13 and thereafter defendant No.14 was got impleaded. After service of the suit summons, the defendants No.1 to 9 have appeared through one counsel. The defendants No.10 to 12 and 14 have appeared through separate counsels. The defendant No.13 did not appear before the court and hence, the defendant No.13 was placed exparte. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.2 was dead the legal heirs of defendant No.2 were brought on record as defendant No.2(a) to (f). They have also appeared through their counsel. Further the defendant No.3 was dead and his legal heirs were brought on record as defendants No.3(a) to 3(f) and they have also appeared through their counsels. The defendants No.1 to 11 O.S.No.5544/1996 3, 5 to 8 have filed their common written statement. The defendant No.4, 10, 11 and 12 have also filed their independent written statement. It is to be noted here that as per order dated 17.02.2018 the defendant No.9 to 13 were deleted. The present defendant No.9 was got impleaded as per order dated 17.09.2022.
7. The defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 have filed their common written statement. They in their written statement have admitted the fact that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was in possession of suit schedule property. But they have contended that it is not on the basis of the alleged transaction referred to in the suit plaint. But it is based on other transaction by way of registered instrument. Further they have not disputed the ownership right of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy with respect to the suit schedule property and entry of his name in the revenue records of the suit schedule property. They have further admitted the averments of the suit about sub-devisionof Sy.No.79/5. They in their written statement have further admitted that in Sy.No.79/5 in the revenue proceedings as averred in the suit plaint and also admitted that Sy.No.79/5B it given to the property purchased by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. They have denied the contention of the plaintiff that in the proceedings the right of Thogur 12 O.S.No.5544/1996 Ramaiah Reddy over suit property was confirmed on the basis of registered Sale Deed Thogur Reddy acquired title to the property.
8. The defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 in the written statement have contended that under the register settlement deed dated 06.03.1939, the property was settled in favour of Abbaiah Reddy and one Nanjamma. Based upon the said settlement deed, Nanjamma and Abbaiah Reddy have jointly executed registered sale deed in favour of one Munivenkatappa under the registered sale deed dated 31.12.1957 and thereby parted with the possession of the property. Any right and interest created in favour of Abbaiah Reddy under the settlement deed dated 06.03.1939 was ceased to be in force by virtue of transfer of his interest along with Smt. Nanjamma under registered sale deed dated 31.12.1957. Said Munivenkatappa was the owner of property and after his death his wife Masiamma had executed registered sale deed in favour of Nanjamma under registered sale deed dated 07.08.1961. Nanjamma had purchased this property in her individual capacity as well as in her personal capacity and by invested her hard earnings only. Abbaiah Reddy as on the date of execution of settlement deed had taken over his shares in all movables and immovable 13 O.S.No.5544/1996 properties and left Byrasandra village and started to live at Konappana Agrahara.
9. The defendants No.1 to 3, 5 to 8 in their written statement have contended that the plaintiffs have not challenged the revenue entries made in the suit schedule property and they have slept over the matter knowing fully well that they are nothing to do with the property in question since Abbaiah Reddy has rightly and validly transferred his right and interest in favour of Munivenkatappa through registered sale deed dated 31.12.1957. The defendants No.1 to 3, 5 to 8 in their written statement have contended that they have already recognized as lawful owners in possession on the suit schedule property in all the official records maintained by the respective agencies of the government. They have denied the contention of the plaintiffs that Nanjamma was the kept mistress of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. They have denied the contention of the plaintiffs that Nanjamma was the legally wedded wife of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and she was the absolute owner of the property in question. Since Nanjamma has no male issue as well as female also, her only sister namely Mallamma was succeeded to the property of Nanjamma. The Thogur Ramaiah Reddy has no right, title and interest over the property in question.
14O.S.No.5544/1996 The defendants No.1 to 3, 5 to 8 have admitted the proceedings took place with respect to the property in question as averred in the suit plaint. The defendants No.1 to 3, 5 to 8 in their written statement have contended that the defendant No.12 has trespassed into their property by taking assistance of goondas and unlawful elements and also fabricating the official documents. A criminal case is pending against defendant No.10 and defendant No.12 in CC.No.4475/1996 on the file of learned 2nd ACMM, Bengaluru. The defendants No.1 to 3, 5 to 8 in their written statement have contended that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy has executed a settlement deed jointly in favour of late Abbaiah Reddy and Nanjamma by way of registered document dated 06.03.1939. The right and title possessed by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was ceased to be in existence in view of the settlement deed. The defendants No.1 to 3, 5 to 8 in their written statement have contended that schedule of the suit plaint is incorrect. The suit schedule property is not surrounded by any agricultural land as shown in the suit plaint. The defendants No.1 to 3, 5 to 8 are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. so far as status of these defendants is concerned, it have already been declared in P&Sc.No.147/81. The defendants No.1 to 3, 5 to 8 in their written statement have contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law 15 O.S.No.5544/1996 of limitation. They have to be declared as the owners by way of adverse possession since they have perfected eir title by enjoying the property uninterruptedly for more than 12 years as against the plaintiffs, that is within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The valuation made by the plaintiffs is not proper and the plaintiffs have not paid proper court fee on the relief of made by them. They have specifically denied all other averments and allegations made in the suit plaint. On these among other grounds, they have prayed to dismiss the suit on cost.
10. The defendant No.4 in his written statement has admitted the contention of the plaintiffs that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was the owner of Sy.No.79/4 of Byrasandra village. The defendant No.4 in his written statement has further admitted that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy had purchased the said property from Muniyappa through registered sale deed dated 08.02.1938 and the said property is now phoded as Sy.No.79/5B. The defendant No.4 in his written statement has further admitted that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was died on 04.08.1974. Nanjamma was died on 27.11.1975 leaving behind the defendants No.1 to 8 as her legal heirs. After the death of Nanjamma, the defendants No.1 to 8 along with Srinivasa, S/o late Narasimaiah have filed 16 O.S.No.5544/1996 P&SC.No.147/80 through defendant No.1 before CCH-7 for grant of certificate in respect of property bearing No.23 belonging to Nanjamma. The said petition was allowed on 15.04.1982 and succession certificate was ordered to be issued in favour of defendant No.1. The defendant No.4 in his written statement has further admitted that Abbaiah Reddy was never in possession of the suit property. The Assistant Commissioner by order passed in RRTCR No.132/95-96 was pleased to observed that Sy.No.79/5B and Sy.No.79/4 are different properties and the defendant No.4 is the Khatedar and is in possession of the property. The Special Deputy Commissioner by order dated 08.07.1996 passed in RRT.CR.132/95-96 was pleased to observe and ordered that Sy.No.79/5B and 79/4 are different properties and the defendant No.4 is the Khatedar of the property in question. The defendant No.4 in his written statement has further admitted that the Deputy Commissioner has directed to maintain the entries in the name of defendant No.4 and his grandmother Nanjamma. The writ petition filed by Mr.Shankar Reddy bearing W.P.No.22649/96 challenging the order of Special Deputy Commissioner, came to be rejected by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by order dated 03.03.1997. The defendant No.4 in his written statement has further admitted that Nanjamma was not the kept mistress of 17 O.S.No.5544/1996 Ramaiah Reddy. The defendant No.4 has admitted about the court proceedings as averred in Paragraph No.14(a) to 14(c) of the suit plaint. The defendant No.4 in his written statement has further admitted that Khatha of the property bearing corporation No.23 stands in the name of defendant No.4 and Nanjamma and defendant No.4 along with defendants No.1 to 3, 5 to 8 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The plaintiffs have intentionally mentioned the suit schedule property as agricultural lands and there is no agricultural land as Sy.No.79/5B and the said land comes within the limits of the city of Bengaluru. As such, the valuation of the suit property made by the plaintiffs is wrong and court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not sufficient. The defendants NO.1 to 8 alone are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. The defendant No.4 in his written statement has further contended that the suit is barred by law of limitation. The defendants No.1 to 8 have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. On these among other grounds, the defendant No.4 has prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
11. The defendant No.11 in his written statement has contended that here is a decree in his favour in 18 O.S.No.5544/1996 O.S.No.10272/92 which was filed by the defendant No.11 against the Abbaiah Reddy, plaintiffs and others. By virtue of provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC., a compromise decree was passed in the said suit. The present suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. In the said suit, defendant No.11 was declared as absolute owner of the suit properties. O.S.No.10272/96 was decreed on 19.03.1992 and the plaintiffs are indirectly or directly challenging the said decree. The said decree could be challenges within a period of three years from the date of the said decree and as such, it is barred by limitation. The defendant No.11 in his written statement has also taken similar contentions as taken by defendants No.1 to 3, 6 to 8 in their written statement. The defendant No.11 in his written statement has contended that whatever the transactions the defendant No.12 has entered with the defendant No.10 are not binding upon him. The defendants No.10 and 12 have nothing to do with the property in question. The plaintiffs are neither in possession of the suit property nor they have any right, title and interest to claim with respect to suit property. The plaintiffs cannot make out any grievance under Sec.79(A) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The defendant No.11 in his written statement has further contended that court fee paid by the plaintiffs is 19 O.S.No.5544/1996 insufficient. On these among other grounds, the defendant No.11 has prayed to dismiss the suit.
12. The defendant No.12 in is written statement has admitted that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was the owner of the suit schedule property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant No.12 has admitted the averments of the suit plaint regarding acquisition proceedings initiated by BDA. The defendant No.12 has admitted the proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner as averred in the suit plaint. He has also admitted the averments of the suit plaint regarding execution of settlement deed by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy in favour of Nanjamma, Abbaiah Reddy as averred in the suit plaint. He has denied the contention of the plaintiffs that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy had retained an area measuring 40 X 200 feet in Sy.No.79/4. The defendant No.12 has not disputed the institution of the proceedings as averred in para No.14 of the suit plaint. The defendant No.12 has not disptued the fact that he has entered into Joint Development Agreement with defendant No.10 for construction of residential apartment. The defendant No.12 in his written statement has further admitted that the building has been constructed by him in Sy.No.79/4 which has been assigned as 20 O.S.No.5544/1996 Sy.No.79/5B. The defendant No.12 in his written statement has further admitted that he and his family members are the absolute owners in possession of property measuring East to West 230 feet and North to South 200 feet in old Sy.No.79/4 and New Sy.No.79/5B of Byrasandra village presently bearing corporation No.23, 23/1 to 23/11. The defendant No.12 in his written statement has further admitted that he and his family members have acquired schedule property from L.Muniyappa Reddy who was died on 19.03.1978 leaving behind the defendant No.2 and others as his successors.
13. The defendant No.12 in his written statement has further admitted that the suit property was originally belongs to one Muniyappa S/o Doddamarappa and Muniswamy @ Annaiah S/o Chikkakumarappanavar Pillaiah. The said two person have sold the property in favour of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy through registered sale deed dated 27.12.1937. On 28.08.1940, the survey was conducted and the property was phoded and the property purchased by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was assigned as Sy.No.79/5B. In the year 1939, Thogur Ramaiah Reddy had borrowed some amount from Chinnappa. The said Chinnappa had filed suit for recovery of the said amount and get decreed against Thogur Ramaiah Reddy in 21 O.S.No.5544/1996 SC.2144/1939-40. Chinnappa filed Ex.P.No.111/52-53 and the land in question was brought to be public auction. In the said public auction, Chinnappa himself purchased the land in a court auction on 04.01.1956 and recovered possession of the said property through court in Misc.No.173/1955. After the death of Chinnappa, the legal heirs have sold the said property to one Gopal under Sale Deed dated 05.01.1956. In the said Sale Deed, there is recital regarding acquisition of said property by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy under Sale Deed dated 27.12.1937. Sy.No.79/4 is mentioned in the said Sale Deed instated of Sy.No.79/5B. The said Gopal has sold the property to one Doreswamy Naidu. The said Doreswamy Naidu conveyed the very same property to one Muniyappa Reddy under the Sale Deed dated 05.07.1961. In the said Sale Deed, also Sy.No.79/4 is also mentioned in the schedule by oversight instead of Sy.No.79/5B. All the aforesaid proceedings are with respect to the property originally purchased by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy under the Sale Deed dated 27.12.1937. Muniyappa Reddy during his life time executed rectification deed dated 11.10.1961. In the said rectification deed also Sy.No.79/5 is mentioned instead of Sy.No.79/5B.
14. The defendant No.12 in his written statement has further admitted that in O.S.No.427/1964 filed by 22 O.S.No.5544/1996 Muniyappa Reddy. In the said suit also by mistake, oversight and inadvertance survey number has been shown as Sy.No.79/4 instead of Sy.No.79/5B. But the property involved in the said suit is nothing but the same property, which has been owned and sold by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. The said suit was came to be decreed in favour of Muniyappareddy in view of execution of settlement deed dated 06.03.1939 in in favour of Nanjamma and Abbaiah Reddy. They have sold the property givne to them in Sy.No.79/5B measuring 200 X 230 feet in favour of Munivenkatappa under Sale Deed dated 31.12.1957. Again Nanjamma repurchased from Masiyamma under Sale Deed dated 07.08.1961. Again Nanjamma sold the said property in favour of Jaibunnisa Begum under Sale Deed dated 09.08.1961. In turn Jaibunnisa Begum sold the same property in favour of CVL Shastry under registered sale deed dated 02.10.1961. All these persons were parties to the suit in O.S.No.427/1964 and these Sale Deeds declared as null and void in the said suit and title to the property was confirmed in favour of Late Muniyappareddy. The defendant No.12 in his written statement has further contended that the property bearing Sy.No.79/5B came within the purview of Bengaluru City Corporation, in the year 1971 as per Section 3(A) of the Bengaluru City Corporation Act. During that time 23 O.S.No.5544/1996 Nanjamma kept mistress of late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy got the Khatha changed from the corporation in her name and the corporation assigned Corporation No.23 to the said property based upon the Sale Deed dated 07.08.1961. The said fact came to be knowledge of legal heirs of Muniyappareddy when they approached the corporation authorities to change the Khatha in their name in view of the death of their father in the year 1980. Pending disposal of the said application of the legal heirs of Muniyappareddy, the Assistant Revenue Officer, Bengaluru city Corporation transferred Khatha in the name of N.Narayan as per the endorsement dated 09.02.1981. Thereafter N.Narayan has stated to interfere with physicl possession of the legal heirs of Muniyappareddy. As such, O.S.No.1694/81 was filed against N.Narayan by legal heirs of Muniyappareddy for permanent injunction. The said suit is pending. N.Narayan has also filed suit bearing O.S.No.3118/82 against the legal heirs of Muniyappareddy for injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed for non- prosecution. The legal heirs of Muniyappareddy have filed an appeal before Deputy Commissioner challenging the entry and changing in the name of the legal heirs of Muniyappareddy under endorsement dated 04.08.1981 assigning corporation Nos.23, 23/2 to 23/11. N.Narayan had challenged the said endorsement before the Hon'ble 24 O.S.No.5544/1996 High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.3500/81. The said petition was dismissed with direction to approach civil court. Asa such, N.Narayan filed suit bearing O.S.No.969/82. The said suit was withdrawn by him. The said N.Narayan once again by colluding with corporation officials got entered his name along with his grandmother Nanjamma. The said endorsement was also set aside and name of legal heirs of Muniyappareddy was got reentered in the corporation records.
15. The defendant No.12 in his written statement has further admitted that the legal heirs of Muniyappareddy after obtaining necessary approved plan and license have constructed apartment buildings spending huge amounts. Since N.Narayan has attempted to interfere with the construction of apartment buildings, the defendant No.12 filed suit in O.S.No.1694/81 against Narayan for permanent injunction and obtained temporary injunction order against N.Narayan. The said suit is pending on the file of CCH-5. In the said suit, the schedule mentioned as Sy.No.79/4 only based on the previous Sale Deed under which Muniyappareddy purchased the property. Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and his family members and other legal heirs have also filed other suit on very same property described in Sy.No.79/4. The claim made by them is 25 O.S.No.5544/1996 admittedly in respect of very same property which has been purchased by late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy under Sale Deed dated 27.12.1937. In W.P.No.22649/96, dispute was raised stating that property purchased by Muniyappareddy was Sy.No.79/4 and not Sy.No.79/5B and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed the said dispute to be decided by the competent civil court. The defendant No.12 in his written statement has further contended that he and his family members are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. They have obtained building license and approved plan from Bengaluru city Corporation and invested huge amounts and constructed two blocks of residential apartments. The defendant No.12 in his written statement has further admitted that he and other co-owners of property have filed comprehension suit for declaration and injunction against the plaintiffs and others before City Civil Court, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.2273/98 and the said suit is now pending. Hence, the defendant No.12 has contended that the suit is not maintainable and plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs as prayed for by them. On these among other grounds, the defendant No.12 has prayed to dismiss the suit.
26O.S.No.5544/1996
16. The defendant No.10 in his written statement has contended that the plaintiffs have not mentioned the proper boundaries and measurements of the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property cannot be identified as no property exists in the area with the survey number as the whole area has come within the corporation limits and sites are formed and residential houses have come up. The defendant No.10 in his written statement has further contended that the suit for mere declaration without the relief of possession is not maintainable. The court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient. The father-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 having lost possession of the property in Ex.No.114/52-53 in the year 1956. The relief of possession is not sought and hence, the suit is barred by law of limitation. The father of defendant No.12 was declared to be the absolute owner of the property in O.S.No.427/64 in which the husband and the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 were the defendant No.4 and 5. The defendant No.10 in his written statement has further contended that the dispute has been conclusively decided by the competent court on merits. As such, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and they cannot re- agitate the issue which has been confirmed in the year 1956. The defendant No.10 in his written statement has further contended that the plaintiffs are trying to create confusion 27 O.S.No.5544/1996 that the property of the defendant No.12 is 79/4, whereas their property is 79/5B. One Muniyappareddy filed a suit for a declaration and possession of the property in O.S.No.427/64 on the file of Addl. Second Munsiff, Bengaluru, to declare him as the absolute owner of suit property and to declare the Sale Deed dated 07.08.1961 and 09.08.1961 are not binding upon him. The said suit was came to be decreed. In the said judgment, Sale Deeds dated 07.08.1961 and 09.08.1961 are held as not genuine documents. As such, the present suit is hit by principle of resjudicata. The defendant No.10 has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.34/74 challenging the judgment in the said suit and the said appeal is also came to be dismissed. Muniyappareddy filed Ex.P.No.82/74 and took possession of the property. After the death of Muniyappareddy his legal heirs became the absolute owners of the suit property. BBMP has issued Khatha in the names of legal heirs of Muniyappareddy. The power of attorney holder of Muniyappareddy i.e., Shankar Reddy has paid conversion charges to the corporation of the city of Bengaluru and obtained sanction plan to put up a multistoried residential complex in the suit property. The legal heirs of Muniyappareddy through defendant No.12 have entered into agreement with M/s Hoysala Building Development Company Pvt. Ltd., represented by the defendant No.10 to 28 O.S.No.5544/1996 sell the property. The defendant No.10 having paid considerable advance and consideration, started putting up constructions on the property in the year 1986 itself. The defendant No.10 in his written statement has further contended that when defendant No.10 proceeded with the construction, the corporation authorities have issued notice to stop the construction. W.P.No12421/88 was filed by the defendants No.10 and 12 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The said writ petition was allowed. The defendant No.10 has invested 1½ Crores in putting up the construction. The defendant No.10 in his written statement has further contended that the dispute arose between the defendant No.10 and purchasers of flats i.e., ITI employees in regarding payment of installments. The ITI employees filed a company petition in company petition No.24/91, 25/91 and 63/91 against the defendant No.10 for winding up of the proceedings. The said company petition was compromised creating a change over the schedule property. The Swadina patra relied upon by the plaintiffs is inadmissible in law and it is insufficiently stamped. The agreement entered into by defendant No.10 with the defendant No.12 will not hit by any of the provision of Land Reforms Act. In the various proceedings it is held that the defendants No.10 and 12 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs are not in possession of 29 O.S.No.5544/1996 the suit property and the construction of suit schedule property has come up in the year 1986 itself. Apart from aforesaid contention, the defendant No.10 has also taken similar contentions as taken by defendant No.12 in his written statement. The defendant No.10 has specifically denied the allegations made against him in the suit plaint. On these among other grounds as stated in the written statement, the defendant No.10 has prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
17. Based upon the pleading of both the parties, following 10 issues came to be framed by my learned predecessor and then the matter was posted for evidence.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owner of Suit Schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove their lawful possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove the interference of the defendants with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule property as alleged in the suit plaint?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the agreements, contracts or any partnerships created in respect of Suit Schedule property 30 O.S.No.5544/1996 as averred in the suit plaint between defendant No.10, 11 and 12 are null and void?
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant No.10 has unauthorizedly encroached upon the Suit Schedule property and constructed residential apartments by encroaching the suit property as alleged in the suit plaint?
6. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation as contended by the defendants No.1 to 4 and 11 in their written statement?
7. Whether the defendants No.1 to 3, 10 and 11 prove that the plaint is under value and the Plaintiffs have not paid proper court fee?
8. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that defendants No.1 to 8 have perfected their title over the Suit Schedule property by way of adverse possession?
9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
10. What order or decree?
18. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case have adduced the oral evidence of power of attorney holder of plaintiffs was adduced as P.W.1. Since P.W.1 was dead, plaintiff No.2(d) has adduced her oral evidence as P.W.2. The plaintiffs have produced 53 documents and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to P.53 and closed their side. Then the matter was posted for evidence of the defendants. The 31 O.S.No.5544/1996 defendant No.3(b) has adduced his oral evidence as D.W.1. The defendant No.4 has adduced his oral evidence as D.W.2. The defendants have produced 29 documents and got them marked as Ex.D.1 and D.29 and closed their side. Then the matter was posted for arguments.
19. Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Learned counsel for the defendants. The Learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Learned counsel for the defendants have filed their written arguments. Perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, written arguments submitted on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants and other materials on record.
20. Having done so, my answer to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Negative
Issue No.5 : In the Negative
Issue No.6 : In the Negative
Issue No.7 : In the Negative
Issue No.8 : In the Negative
Issue No.9 : In the Negative
Issue No.10 : As per final order,
for the following :
32
O.S.No.5544/1996
REASONS
21. ISSUES NO.1 to 5: These issues are inter related to each other and as such they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
The plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying for declaration of their ownership right over the suit schedule property and for granting of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.10 to demolish the residential apartments constructed half way and the sheds unauthorizedly encroached upon the suit schedule property by inheritance, agreements, contracts entered into between the defendants No.10, 11 and 12 or any partnerships created or reconstituted in respect of the plaint schedule property are null and void. As such, the burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and to prove their lawful possession over the suit schedule property and to prove the alleged encroachment of the suit schedule property by defendants No.1 and to prove that the agreements of contracts with respect to the suit schedule property entered into between the defendants No.10 to 12 are illegal and null and void. The plaintiffs in 33 O.S.No.5544/1996 order to discharge of proving the aforesaid facts have adduced the oral evidence of their power of attorney holder as P.W.1.
22. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief filed by way affidavit has deposed that one late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was the original Khathedar and absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.79/5 of Byrasandra village, measuring 1 acre of land. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in- chief that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy had purchased the said land from his lawful vendor namely Doddahanumappa, S/o Kondaiah for a ale consideration of Rs.80/- and the sale was concluded by the delivery of possession by executing delivery receipt dated 20.08.1937. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was put up in possession of the said property and since then he was in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the said property and his name is mentioned in the index of lands. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Abbaiah Reddy @ Abbaiah. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that Abbaiah Reddy is the only son of late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and who was passed away on 02.08.1992. Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was passed way on 04.08.1974.
34O.S.No.5544/1996
23. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination- in-chief that Department of land records had surveyed the land bearing Sy.No.79/5 and after conducting a detailed enquiry as to the right, title and interest of late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy, detailed order came to be passed on 27.08.1940 by the Superintendent Of land records tracing the devolution of the interest of late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and thereafter the necessary bifurcation (poding) was also effected thereby confirming the absolute right, title and interest of late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy in respect of Sy.No.79/5. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination- in-chief that thereafter Sy.No.79/5 was bifurcated and was numbered as 79/5B which is suit schedule property in the present suit. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination- in-chief that after the death of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy, his only son Abbaiah Reddy was in possession of the suit schedule property by inheritance. After the death of Abbaiah Reddy, plaintiff No.1 being the wife of Abbaiah Reddy and being the daughter-in-law and the plaintiff No.2 being the grand daughter of the Thogur Ramaiah Reddy have continued as the absolute owners of suit property.
24. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination- in-chief that land acquisition proceedings has been initiated by the Government of Karnataka on behalf of the Bangalore 35 O.S.No.5544/1996 Development Authority and the preliminary notification was published on 1997 and the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy is mentioned in Sl.No.94. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that Abbaiah Reddy had not given any particular attention to the entries made from time to time in the records of rights and pahanis under the impression that his name would be entered both in the khatedars and cultivators column as a matter ofcourse from time to time. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination- in-chief that certain persons without having any right, title or interest in connivance and in collusion with the village accountant of Byrasandra seem to have got their names entered in the record of rights illegally and the plaintiffs coming to know about the said fact have approached the Deputy Tahsildar, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore south Taluk and presented a petition for rectification of the pahanis in their names in RRT.No.7/1996. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District by his order dated 08.07.1996 vide No.182/95-96 after conducting detailed enquiry and upon a consideration of the orders passed by Asst. Commissioner vide R.R.T. No.132/1990-91 has held that the schedule property Sy.No.79/5B, measuring 1 acre of land is the absolute property of late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-
36O.S.No.5544/1996 chief that O.S.No.10272/1992 was filed by defendant No.11 against Sri. Abbaiya Reddy and Chinnamma, the 2 nd Plaintiff herein along with other Defendants in respect of schedule property. In the said suit the 9th Defendant Subramanya Bharathi claims to have represented late Abbaiya Reddy and 2nd Plaintiff and he has got entered into collusive compromise in the said suit and collusive compromise decree was obtained on 19.03.1992. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the plaintiffs are totally unaware about the said suit. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that O.S.No.2296/1996 was filed by one Papaiah and 8 others against the defendant No.11 and others and the plaintiffs have filed application in the said suit to implead them as parties and in O.S.No.1624/1995, 2nd plaintiff is also arrayed as 4th Defendant and the subject matter of this suit is similar to that of subject matter in the said suit. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the defendants No.1 to 8 in the said suit have represented themselves as the sons and grandsons of late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy even though they are not in any way related to late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and they have absolutely no right to claim in respect of the plaint schedule property. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in- chief that the 10th Defendant has put up the construction on 37 O.S.No.5544/1996 the schedule land bearing Sy.No.79/5B in the guise of putting up a construction on Sy.No.79/4 and necessary orders have been passed by the Commissioner of the corporation of the City of Bangalore for the demolition of the said illegal construction.
25. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination- in-chief that defendant No.12 is claiming that Sy.No. 79/4 and 79/5B of Byrasandra village are one and the same property and filed a suit in O.S.No.2273/1998 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, praying for declaration that the properties bearing Sy.No.7914 and 7915B are one and the same. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that in the said suit an application had been filed U/ Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC and it was allowed and defendant No.12 was preferred RFA No.147,148 and 149/2000 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, challenging the order under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the said RFA were also dismissed and the defendant No.12 had filed Special Leave Appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court bearing Spl.Appeals No.20046-48/2008 and the said Spl. Leave Appeals were also came to be dismissed on 22.02.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that 38 O.S.No.5544/1996 in view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the defendant No.12 is totally estopped from claiming that Sy.No.79/4 and 79/ 5B are one and the same and that he is having right over the plaint schedule property. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the suit schedule property continues to be an agricultural land and the possession of the plaintiffs continues with respect to the suit schedule property and any Agreements or partnership entered into between the defendants are all in violation of Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and they are not binding upon the plaintiffs.
26. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination- in-chief that the defendant No.12 did not have any right to lease an agricultural land for the construction of residential apartments to the 10th Defendant and the illegal and unauthorized construction put up by the Defendant No.10 on the strength of the building licence and sanctioned plan for Sy.No.79/4, Byrasandra has to be ordered to be demolish. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in- chief that the application filed by defendant No.4 before Tahsildar for transfer of mutation in his name and in the names of other defendants were also came to be rejected. The Khatha has been entered in the joint name of plaintiffs, Doddathayamma, Pillamma @ Chinammaand and 39 O.S.No.5544/1996 defendant No.4. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the document produced by Narayan and others are is in respect of Sy.No.79/4 and not in respect of Sy.No.79/5B and the plan is sanctioned for Sy.No.79/4 and all the revenue documents BBMP documents establishes that the claim of defendants is with respect to Sy.No.7914. The defendants have to establish the identity of the property mentioned in the registered documents relied upon by them. P.W.1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the plaintiffs have established their ownership right and possession over the suit property and as such, he has prayed to decree the suit.
27. It is to be noted here that since GPA holder of plaintiffs i.e. P.W.1 was expired on 05.02.2020 and since plaintiff No.2 was expired on 20.06.2020, the plaintiff No.2(d) has adduced her oral evidence as P.W.2. P.W.2 in her examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit has reiterated all the facts which are stated by P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief. As such, entire examination-in-chief of P.W.2 regarding the said facts are not reproduced herein to avoid repetition of facts. P.W.2 has also adopted the documents which are produced by P.W.1 at Ex.P.1 to P.53.
40O.S.No.5544/1996
28. Since P.W.2 has adopted the documents produced by P.W.1. Now let us examine the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs. Ex.P.1 is the power of attorney executed by plaintiffs No.1 and 2 in favour of P.W.1. Since P.W.1 is dead, the said document is not relevant in this case. Ex.P.2 is the original deed regarding handing over of possession of Sy.No.79/5, measuring 1 acre of land of Byrasandra village by Doddahanumappa S/o Pillayyanawar Kondaiah in favour of Ramaiah Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy of Tuguru village. The said document is dated 26.08.1937. Ex.P.3 is the revision settlement extract. Ex.P.4 is the endorsement issued by ADLR to advocate Narayanswamystating that the resurvey and hissa survey of lands situated at Byrasandra village were conducted in the year 1909 and 1929. Ex.P.5 is the RTC of Sy.No.79/5B for the year 1997-98. The name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy is mentioned as the owner. Ex.P.6 is the RTC of Sy.No.79/5B from the year 1997-98 to 2000- 2001. The name of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 is mentioned as the joint owners to the extent of 1 acre of land. Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of mutation bearing No.1/2000-2001. As per the said mutation, the name of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 is ordered to be entered in the revenue records of the property bearing Sy.No.79/5B, measuring 1 acre of land of Byrasandra village, after the death of Thogur Ramaiah 41 O.S.No.5544/1996 Reddy and Abbaiah Reddy. Ex.P.8 is the RTC of Sy.No.79/5B for the year 2001-2002. The name of the plaintiff No.2 is mentioned as the owner. Ex.P.9 is the endorsement issued by survey department to the plaintiff No.2 stating that her name cannot be entered into the city survey record of Sy.No.79/5B as the said property is not converted into agricultural purpose. Ex.P.10 is the encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/5B from 01.10.1996 to 07.06.1996.
29. Ex.P.11 to 15 are the different record of rights of suit schedule property. Ex.P.16 is the resurvey sketch of Sy.No.79. Ex.P.17 is preliminary notification dated 19.09.1977 published in the Karnataka Government Gazette notification dated 29.09.1977. Sy.No.79/5B is included in the said notification at Sl.No.94. The name of the owner of said property is mentioned as Ramaiah Reddy. Ex.P.18 to 21 are the photos and CD. Ex.P.22 is the notice issued by the plaintiffs u/Sec.482 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act to the Commissioner of Corporation of Bengaluru. Ex.P.23 is the certified copy of written statement filed by defendants No.6 and 7 in O.S.No.2273/1998. Ex.P.24 is the genealogy tree of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. Ex.P.25 is the certified copy of Settlement Deed dated 06.03.1939 executed by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. Ex.P.26 is 42 O.S.No.5544/1996 the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave appeal No.20046-20048/2008, dismissing the said Special Leave Petitions. Ex.P.27 is the filed book of detail maping. Ex.P.28 is the enquiry register of city survey. In Ex.P.28, it is mentioned that the plaintiff No.2 is having right over Sy.No.79/5B as per the order passed in O.S.No.2273/1998, as per the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.147, 148 and 149/2020 and as per the possession certificate dated 26.08.1937. Ex.P.29 is the P.T.Sheet. Ex.P.30 is the death certificate of plaintiff No.1 Doddathayamma. She was died on 04.12.2009. Ex.P.31 to 34 are the RTC of the Sy.No.79/5B for the year 2005-06, 2004-05, 2015-16 and 2002-03. The name of the plaintiff No.2 is mentioned as the owner of 1 acre of land. Ex.P.35 is the order passed by Assistant Commissioner, Sub-Division, Bengaluru, dismissing the appeal in view of pendency of several civil suit. The said appeal was filed regarding changing of Sy.No.79/5 as 79/5B and changing the Khatha of the said property in the name of Shanker Reddy i.e. defendant No.12. Ex.P.36 is the certified copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CCC.No.14/1998 dated 11.06.1998. Ex.P.37 is the certified copy of order of Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, passed in RRT CR No.182/1995-96 filed by defendant No.11 against defendant No.12 and defendant No.4 praying to change the Khatha of 43 O.S.No.5544/1996 Sy.No.79/5B. As per the said order, the name of original khathedar of Sy.No.79/5B, the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy is ordered to be restored. It is also ordered that the petitioner has to establish his right and possession over the said property before competent authority. Ex.P.38 is the village map of Byrasandra village. Ex.P.39 is the certified copy of petition filed in RRT CR.No.7/96-97 before Deputy Tahasildar, praying to hold enquiry and to effect necessary changes in the RTC and mutation register of Sy.No.79/5B. Ex.P.40 is the certified copy of order in RRT.CR No.7/96-97. Ex.P.41 is the encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/5B from 01.04.1938 to 14.02.1957. Ex.P.42 is the encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/5B from 15.02.1957 to 30.09.1966. Ex.P.43 is the certified copy of order on I.A.2, 3 and 4 filed u/O 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC in O.S.No.2273/1998 filed by defendant No.2 and others against the defendant No.11 and others. All the said applications were came to be allowed and plaint was rejected. Ex.P.44 is the decree in O.S.No.2273/1998. Ex.P.45 is the certified copy of order in W.P.No.22649/1996 dated 03.03.1997 filed by defendant No.12. The said writ petition was came to be dismissed. The order of DC to restore the Khatha of Sy.No.79/5B in the name of Thoguru Ramaiah Reddy was up held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka subject to the decision of civil court. Ex.P.46 is the report of commissioner submitted 44 O.S.No.5544/1996 in MFA No.3692/98. Ex.P.47 is the certified copy of of plaint in O.S.No.10272/92 filed by defendant No.11 against Abbaiah Reddy, Chinnamma and others praying for declaration of his ownership right over the Sy.No.79/5B of Byrasandra village. Ex.P.48 is the compromise petition filed in the said suit under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. Ex.P.49 is the certified copy of vakalath in O.S.No.10272/1992. Ex.P.50 is the register of firms pertaining to defendant No.11. Ex.P.51 is the certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.10272/1992. Ex.P.52 and 53 are the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 21.01.2008 in RFA No.147/2000, 148/2000 and 149/2000. The said appeals were filed by the defendant No.12 and others challenging the judgment passed in O.S.No.2273/1998. The said appeals were came to be dismissed. Ex.P.52 is the certified copy of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition No.20046/2008 to 20048/2008. The said special leave petitions were also came to be dismissed.
30. The contesting defendants have denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. On behalf of legal heirs of deceased defendant No.2 and 3, oral evidence of defendant No.3(b) was adduced before the Court as D.W.1. D.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that one Muniyappa, 45 O.S.No.5544/1996 Muniswamy and Annaiah have sold 46,000 sq.ft of land to Ramaiah Reddy in Sy.No.79/4 through the sale deed dated 08.02.1938. He has further deposed that Ramaiah Reddy through a settlement deed dated 06.03.1939 transferred to 20,000 sq.ft to Abbaiah Reddy and 20,000 sq.ft to his 2 nd wife Nanjamma. The said Nanjamma later acquired remaining portion of 600 sq.ft. He has further deposed that Abbaiah Reddy and his step-mother Nanjamma together sold 46,000 sq.ft to Munivenkatappa through registered sale deed dated 31.12.1957. After the death of Munivenkatappa, his wife Masiamma inherits the said property. He has further deposed that Masiamma had sold the said property to her vendor Nanjamma by a registered Sale Deed dated 07.08.1961. He has further deposed that hence, the Nanjamma became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Nanjamma was died without issues leaving behind her only sister Mallamma and her 3 sons namely Rudrappa, Krishnappa and Narasimha. He has further deposed that the said 3 sons were adopted by Nanjamma and her husband Thoguru Ramaiah Reddy. The said 3 persons were dead and their legal heirs have inherited the suit schedule property and they are in continuous legal and physical possession of the suit schedule property. He has further deposed that the suit schedule property by mistake was earlier identified as 46 O.S.No.5544/1996 Sy.No.79/4 and the said mistake was rectified and the said Survey number was corrected as Sy.No.79/5B. He has further deposed that Nanjamma has acquired the property by her own funds and as such she was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and hence, the plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule property.
31. DW1 apart from adducing his oral evidence, has produced certain documents Ex.D.1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 27.12.1937 executed in favour of Ramaiah Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy by Muniyappa and others with respect to Sy.No.79/4 measuring East-West 230 feet and North-South 200 feet. Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 23.12.1957 executed by Abbaiah Reddy and Nanjamma in favour of Munivenkatappa with respect to Sy.No.79/4 measuring East-West:240 feet and North-South:200 feet. Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 07.08.1961 executed by Masiamma in favour of Nanjamma with respect to Sy.No.79/4 measuring East- West:240 feet and North-South:200 feet.
32. Ex.D.4 is the certified copy of the Rectification Deed dated 16.11.1998 executed by Masiamma W/o Munivenkatappa in favour of Narayana, Nagaraj and others by correcting the Sy.No.79/4 as 79/5B. Ex.D.5 is the 47 O.S.No.5544/1996 certified copy of the Agreement of Sale dated 13.10.2003 executed by N.Narayana, Nagaraj and others in favour of Dr.A.Krishnamurthy with respect to Sy.No.79/5B measuring East-West:240 feet and North-South:200 feet. Ex.D.6 to D.13 are the certified copies of the encumbrance certificates of Sy.No.79/4 as well as Sy.No.79/5B and site No.23 in Sy.No.79/5b from 01.03.1935 to 26.08.2021. In the said encumbrance, there is reference about execution of Ex.D1 to D4 documents. Ex.D14 & 15 are the two water bills in the name of R.Krishnappa. Ex.D16 is the certified copy of the death certificate of defendant No.3 namely Krishnappa. As per the said document, he was died on 22.08.2015. Ex.D17 is the certified copy of the death certificate of defendant No.2 namely Rudrappa. As per the said document, he was died on 21.08.2015. Ex.D18 to 21 are the photos.
33. Defendant No.4 has also adduced his oral evidence by disputing the ownership and possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The defendant No.4 in his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit also deposed that the suit schedule property was the absolute property of Nanjamma and after her death, her 3 adopted sons namely Rudrappa, Krishnappa and Narasimha have inherited to her property and after the death of the said 3 48 O.S.No.5544/1996 persons, he and other legal heirs of aforesaid 3 persons have succeeded to the suit schedule property and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. DW2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed about the similar facts as stated by DW1 in his examination-in-chief. As such entire chief examination of DW2 regarding the said facts are not reproduced herein to avoid repetition of facts. Apart from the said facts, DW2 in his examination in chief has deposed that the document relied upon by the plaintiffs i.e., Sthira Swattina Swadhina Patra is unregistered document and plaintiffs have not produced any piece of evidence to show that in addition to Sy.No.79/4, Thoguru Ramaiah Reddy was having another property in Sy.No.79/4. He has further deposed that in the absence of any materials to show that Thoguru Ramaiah Reddy was having two properties one in Sy.No.79/4 and another in Sy.No.79/5B, the case set up by the plaintiffs does not even fit to be examined on merits. He has further deposed that in suit bearing O.S.No.1624/1995 before CCH-14, the plaintiffs of the present suit are defendants No.4 and 5 and the said suit was ended in compromise. He has further deposed that the subject matter in the said suit is Sy.No.79/5B having Corporation Khatha No.23, is the suit schedule property of the present suit. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have signed the compromise petition and thereby 49 O.S.No.5544/1996 they have categorically admitted that defendant No.1 to 8 of the suit are the owners and plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, DW2 has stated that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present suit.
34. DW2 apart from adducing his oral evidence has produced certain documents. Ex.D22 is the certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.1624/1995. The said suit was filed by defendant No.1, 2 and others against the M.V.R Enterprises and others. The said suit was compromised on 27.05.2008. Ex.D23 is the certified copy of the Compromise Petition filed in O.S.No.1624/1995. Ex.D24 is the certified copy of Decree passed in O.S.No.1624/1995 as per the compromise petition dated 27.05.2008. The schedule property of the said suit as per the decree is Sy.No.79/5B having Corporation Khatha No.23 of Byrasandra, measuring East-West:240 feet and North-South:200 feet. Ex.D25 is the endorsement issued by Corporation of City of Bengaluru dated 09.02.1986 with respect to property No.23. In the said document, it is stated that Khatha of the said property has been transferred to the name of N.Narayana. Ex.D26 is the Certificate issued by BBMP dated 21.07.2000 stating that the Khatha of property No.23 is standing in the name of Najamma and N.Narayan in the 50 O.S.No.5544/1996 register maintained by it. Ex.D.27 is the certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.1694/1981. Ex.D28 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.1694/1981.
35. Thus from the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff as well as from the averments of the suit plaint, it is clear that the plaintiffs are claiming their right over the suit schedule property through one Late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. The plaintiffs have furnished genealogy tree of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. According to the plaintiffs, one Pillamma is the wife of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and Pillamma have got only one son by name Abbaiah Reddy. Pillamma is the wife of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and Abbaiah Reddy is the son of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife of late Abbaiah Reddy. The plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of Abbaiah Reddy and plaintiff No.1. The defendants have not disputed the aforesaid facts. According to the plaintiffs, Thogur Ramaiah Reddy has purchased the landed property bearing Sy.No.79/5, measuring 1 acre situated at Byrasandra village from one Dodda Hanumappa, S/o Kondaiah for sale consideration amount of Rs.80/-. Further according to the plaintiffs, the sale was concluded by delivery of possession deed dated 20.08.1937. The plaintiffs have relied upon Ex.P.2 51 O.S.No.5544/1996 document to prove their contention that the possession of Sy.No.79/5 was handed over to Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. Ex.P.2 is the possession delivery deed. I have perused the recital of the said deed. The said deed was executed by Dodda Hanumappa, S/o Kondaiah with respect to Sy.No.79/5 measuring 1 acre of land. In the said deed there is recital stating that the said property was earlier orally sold by Dodda Hanumappa, S/o Kondaiah to Ramaiah Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy for sale considerable amount of Rs.80/-. It is also mentioned in the said document that entire sale consideration amount was already received by him earlier. It is also stated in the said Sale Deed that the possession of the said property was handed over by him to Thogur Ramaiah Reddy on the date of execution of the said deed. It is also mentioned in the said document that from the date of execution of Ex.P.2, Thogur Ramaiah Reddy would became the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.79/5, measuring 1 acre of land of Byrasandra village.
36. D.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.13, Para No.2 had admitted the fact that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy had purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1937. Ex.P.2 is the unregistered document. In Ex.P.2, there is reference about oral Sale Deed. The said oral Sale Deed was concluded by delivering the possession of the property 52 O.S.No.5544/1996 by executing Ex.P.2 document. The oral Sale Deed is permissible under law. As per Sec17 of Indian Registration Act, the sale of immovable property having value less than Rs.100/- can be done through unregistered document and even such sale can be done orally. As per Ex.P.2, the sale consideration amount is Rs.80/- i.e., less than Rs.100/- and earlier oral Sale Deed of the property was acknowledged in Ex.P.2 document and possession was also delivered by executing Ex.P.2 by confirming ownership of Ramaiah Reddy with respect to Sy.No.79/5 measuring 1 acre of land. Ex.P.2 is more than 30 years old document and it is produced by the plaintiffs who claims to be the legal heirs of Ramaiah Reddy. As such, presumption u/Sec.90 of Indian Evidence Act is also applicable to Ex.P.2 document regarding the fact that the said document was duly executed and attested by persons whom it purports to be executed and attested.
37. The Learned counsel for the contesting defendants has argued that Ex.P.2 document is unregistered document and the said document is created and concocted by the plaintiffs and the said document will not convey any title to Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. As it is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the contesting defendants Ex.P.2 Stira Swattina Swadin Patra is 53 O.S.No.5544/1996 unregistered document. In the said deed, there is reference about selling of Sy.No.79/5 to Thogur Ramaiah Reddy orally for sale consideration amount of Rs.80/-. Under Sec.9 of the Transfer of Property Act, a transfer of property may be made without writing in every case in which a writing is not expressly required under law.
38. Hence, under the provision of Sec.9 of Transfer of Property Act, property can be transferred orally in which writing is not expressly required by law. Under the Transfer of Property Act, the property can be transferred either by delivering of possession or by registration. In a property where the registration is not needed, it can be transferred by delivering the possession.
39. Under Sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act, the term sale is defined. The said section reads as follows:
"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. The said section also explained how the sale has to be made. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred 54 O.S.No.5544/1996 rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale:-- A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.
40. Thus from Sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act, it is clear that if the value of the tangible immovable property is less than Rs.100/-, such property can be sold either by registered instrument or by delivering of property. The registration is compulsory if the value of the property is more than Rs.100/-. In such case writing is also required. But in the present case the amount of property sold is Rs.80/-. Further the said sale deed is concluded by executing document in writing and by delivering the possession of the property by executing the said document. As such, only on the ground that Ex.P.2 is unregistered document, its genuineness cannot be doubted. The plaintiff has produced some other documents in order to prove that the property bearing Sy.No.79/5, measuring 1 acre of land was sold to Thogur Ramaiah Reddy.
55O.S.No.5544/1996
41. Ex.P.17 is the gazette notification of government of Karnataka dated 29.09.1977. The said notification was issued regarding acquisition of the property situated at Byrasandra village for the purpose of formation of layout called as "Byrasandra Tavarekere Madivala Scheme". In the said notification, there is reference of acquisition of 1 acre of land belonging to Thogur Ramaiah Reddy in Sy.No.79/5 at Sl.No.94. In the said document, there is reference about acquisition of 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.79/4 belonging to Muniyappa S/o Kumarappa at Sl.No.91. In the year 1977, the acquiring authority has recognized ownership right to Thogur Ramaiah Reddy in Sy.No.79/5 to the extent of 1 acre of land of Byrasandra village.
42. Ex.P.24 is another document which recognized the right of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy with respect to Sy.No.79/5B. Ex.P.24 is the order passed by ADLR, Bengaluru Sub-Division, bifurcating Sy.No.79/5 as Sy.No.79/5A and Sy.No.79/5B as per measurements conducted and on the basis of actual enjoyment of the said property. In the said document, the right of vendor of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy i.e. Doddahanumappa with respect to Sy.No.79/5 is recognized. It is stated in the said document that as per the record, Doddahanumappa was 56 O.S.No.5544/1996 the owner of Sy.No.79/5. On the basis of enjoyment of the property, Doddahanumappa is shown as the owner of Sy.No.79/5A and Thogur Ramaiah Reddy is shown as the owner of Sy.No.79/5B. As per MR.No.1/97-98, the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy is mentioned in the RTC of Sy.No.79/5B for the year 1997-98 as it is evident from Ex.P.5. As per Ex.P.6, the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as the owner of Sy.No.79/5B as per M.R.No.IHC.1/2020- 2021. Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of MR. IHC.1/2000-01. As per the said mutation the name of the plaintiff is mutated with respect to Sy.No.79/5B, measuring 1 acre of land and Khatha of the said property is transferred in the name of the plaintiff from the name of Ramaiah Reddy after the death of Thogur Venkata Reddy. Ex.P.16 and 16(a) are the resurvey sketch of Sy.No.79. In the said document, there is reference about Sy.No.79/5B and Sy.No.79/4 and other sub-divisions in Sy.No.79. In Ex.P.28 enquiry register of city survey, it is stated that the plaintiff No.2 is having right in Sy.No.79/5B as per order in O.S.No.2273/1998, the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA. No.147, 148 and 149/2020 and as per the possession deed dated 26.08.1937. In Ex.P.31 to P.34 RTC of Sy.No.79/5B, the name of plaintiff No.2 is mentioned as the owner.
57O.S.No.5544/1996
43. D.W.1 in the cross-examination has admitted that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy has purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1937. D.W.1 in the cross- examination has further admitted that in the year 1990 Hissa was done and suit schedule property was given separate Hissa number as Sy.No.79/5B and the said survey number is in the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and Thogur Ramaiah Reddy has been paying tax with respect to the said property. D.W.1 in the cross-examination has further admitted that the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy is shown in the gazette notification of the year 1977 as the owner. D.W.1 in the cross-examination has further admitted that from 1938 onwards all the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property are standing in the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. The aforesaid admission given by D.W.1 in the cross-examination also supports the document produced by the plaintiffs regarding the existence of property bearing Sy.No.79/5B in the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy.
44. Though defendants No.1 to 3,5 to 8, defendant No.4, 11, 12 and 10 have contested the suit by filing their written statements, only oral evidence of D.W.1 was adduced on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 3, 5 to 8 and evidence of D.W.2 was adduced on behalf of defendant 58 O.S.No.5544/1996 No.4. It is to be noted here that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have got deleted defendants No.9 to 14 from the present suit. But as per order dated 17.09.2022, the defendant No.9 was again got impleaded in the present suit. But defendant No.9 has not adduced any evidence. D.W.1 and 2 in their chief-examination have reiterated the facts stated by them in their written statement. Further the evidence of D.W.1 and 2 is already stated earlier and documents produced on their behalf is also stated earlier. The main contention of D.W.1 and 2 is that Sy.No.79/4 and Sy.No.79/5B are one and the same property. Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was not having two properties i.e. one in Sy.No.79/4 and another in Sy.No.79/5B. They have further contended that what was the property purchased by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy on 27.12.1937 is none other than the property covered under Sy.No.79/5B. According to D.W.2, Sy.No.79/4 is a small strip which is measuring only 8 guntas of which 4 guntas was notified for acquisition by BDA. But in the gazette notification of the year 1977 entire 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.79/4 is noticed for acquisition. It is further contention of the defendants No.1 to 8 that as per the rectification deed executed by Masiyamma on 16.11.1988, Sy.No.79/4 mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 07.08.1961 is corrected as Sy.No.79/5B.
59O.S.No.5544/1996
45. The learned counsel for the defendants has argued that Sy.No.79/4 and Sy.No.79/5B are one and the same properties and the contention of the plaintiffs that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was having two properties with independent right is not acceptable one. It is further argued that Ex.P.2 cannot be construed as the title deed as claimed by the plaintiffs and the said document is not proved in accordance with law by the plaintiffs.
46. The defendants have much relied upon Ex.D.1 certified copy of the sale deed dated 27.12.1937 to prove the mode of acquisition of their right over the suit property. Ex.D.1 sale deed is executed by one Muniyappa S/o Doddkumarappa and Muniswamy S/o Chikkadumarappa's Pillappa @ Abbaiah in favour of Ramaiah Reddy S/o Thogur Venkata Reddy. The property sold through the said sale deed is Sy.No.79/4, measuring East to West- 230 ft. and North to South- 200 ft. The property sold through the said Sale Deed is Sy.No.79/4 and not Sy.No.79/5. There is no recital in the said Sale Deed stating that Sy.No.79/5 is belonging to the vendor and the property sold through Ex.D.1 is part of entire extent of Sy.No.79/5. Ex.D.2 is subsequent to Ex.P.1. In Ex.P.1 there is reference about existence of property bearing Sy.No.79/3 and 79/4 towards northern side of Sy.No.79/5. In Ex.D.1, there is no mention 60 O.S.No.5544/1996 about existence of other sub-division of Sy.No.79 on any sides. But total extent of Sy.No.79/4 is also not mentioned in the said document. Both Ex.D.1 as well as Ex.D.2 documents are executed at undisputed point of time.
47. Ex.P.25 settlement deed executed by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy on 06.03.1939 is the another document which is relied upon by both the parties to the suit. Regarding the execution of said document, there is no dispute between the parties. D.W.1 in the cross- examination has admitted the execution of settlement deed in the year 1939. It seems that in the cross-examination of D.W.1 year of settlement deed is wrongly typed as 1938 instead of 1939. D.W.1 in the cross-examination has admitted that as per the settlement deed 100 x 200 ft. was given to Abbaiah Reddy. During the course of cross- examination of P.W.2, suggestions were made stating that on 06.03.1939 settlement deed was executed by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy with respect to properties belonging to him and the said settlement deed is produced at Ex.P.25. The said suggestions are admitted by P.W.2 in the cross- examination. P.W.2 has also admitted the suggestions put to him that 100 x 200 ft. in Sy.No.79/4 was given to Nangamma and 100 x 200 ft. is given to his grandfather Abbaiah Reddy and 40 x 100 was retained by Thogur 61 O.S.No.5544/1996 Ramaiah Reddy in Sy.No.79/4. Since both the parties are admitted the execution of Ex.P.25 settlement deed, I am of the opinion that the recitals of the said documents can be looked into to know the contents of the said document.
48. In the said document, the relationship between the parties is stated. It is mentioned that one Muniyappa is grandfather of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. The said Muniyappa has got two sons namely Venkappa and Nanjappa. Venkatappa is the first son and 2nd son is the Chikkannayya and 3rd son is Thippareddy. Nanjundappa son is Venkatappa. It is further stated in the said document that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy's father Venkatappa and Nanjundappa's sons Venkatappa have got partition. One Pillakka is the first wife of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and she was died leaving behind her son Abbaiah. The 2nd wife of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and her children were also died. It is further stated in the said document that since there was no cordial relationship between Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and his brothers, Thogur Ramaiah Reddy came to Bengaluru. In the said document Nanjamma is not shown as the wife of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. In the said document there is reference about the word 1st wife and 2nd wife of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. But Nanjamma is not mentioned as the wife and she is referred as Rakaudaralu 62 O.S.No.5544/1996 i.e. step mistress. Further in the said document, it is mentioned that Mallamma is the sister of Nanjamma and the said Mallamma is having three children and Mallamma was died and as such, three children of Mallamma was looked after by Nanjamma and Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. The said three sons of Mallamma are not validly adopted by Nanjamma and Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. The three children of Mallamma are not referred to as the children of Nanjamma and Thogur Ramaiah Reddy after the death of Mallamma. In Ex.P.25, there is reference about purchase of Sy.No.79/4 orally as per Ex.D.1 Sale Deed. But there is no reference about Sy.No.79/5.
49. The defendants have also relied upon Ex.D.2 document to prove their right over the suit property. The said document is executed by Abbaiah S/o Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and Nanjamma in favour of Munivenkatappa S/o Hanumanthappa on 23.12.1957. In the said document, there is reference about acquisition of property through settlement deed dated 06.03.1939 i.e. acquisition of Sy.No.79/4 measuring 240 ft. X 200 ft. with Mangaloure Tiled house. Ex.D.3 Sale Deed is also relied upon by the defendants. The said Sale Deed dated 07.08.1961 is executed in favour of Nanjamma by Masiyamma with respect to Sy.No.79/4 measuring 240 ft. X 63 O.S.No.5544/1996 200 ft. In the aforesaid three documents produced by the defendants, Sy.No.79/4 is mentioned. Neither Sy.No.79/5 nor Sy.No.79/5B is mentioned. Another main document relied upon by the defendants is the certified copy of rectification deed dated 16.11.1988 which is produced at Ex.D.4. In this document for the first time Nanjamma is shown as the wife of Ramaswamy. But in Ex.D.2 and 3 Nanjamma is not referred as wife of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. But she is shown as daughter of Munivenkatappa. Narsimhaiah, Rudrappa and Krishnappa are shown as children of Nanjamma. The defendants have not produced any document to show that Nanjamma is the legally wedded wife of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. Further they have not produced any document to show that Narsimhaiah, Rudrappa and Krishnappa are the children of Nanjamma and Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. As per the resettlement deed, the said persons are shown as children of sister of Nanjamma namely Mallamma. The defendants have failed to produce any document to show that the said three persons are validly adopted by the Nanjamma and as such, they became the adopted children of Nanjamma. There is no document to prove that aforesaid three persons are the adopted sons of Nanjamma. The death certificate of Nanjamma is produced. Though defendant No.4 has contended that Mallamma has succeeded to the property of 64 O.S.No.5544/1996 Nanjamma after the death of Nanjamma, no document is produced to show that Mallamma has succeeded to the property of Nanjamma after the death of Nanjamma.
50. The husband of Masiyamma namely Munivenkatappa has not purchased Sy.No.79/5B property. Musiyamma has not acquired any right over Sy.No.79/5B from her husband. But the property sold by Masiyamma in favour of Nanjamma is Sy.No.79/4 and not Sy.No.79/5B. D.W.1 in the cross-examination has admitted that Nanjamma has no issue. D.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that he has not produced any document to show that Nanjamma has adopted the aforesaid Narasimhaiah, Rudrappa and Krishnappa. D.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that Nanjamma was not doing any job and she is not having any income. D.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that Nanjamma has not executed any gift deed or Will Deed in favour of Mallamma or in favour of children of Mallamma. As on the date of execution of Ex.D.4 rectification deed, Nanjamma was dead. The rectification deed executed in the name of defendants No.1 to 8. The defendants No.1 to 8 are noway related to Nanjamma. They are not the class-I legal heirs of deceased Nanjamma. They are not the children of Nanjamma. No mutation was also effected in their name after the death of Nanjamma with 65 O.S.No.5544/1996 respect to Sy.No.79/4 as her legal heirs. On what basis, Ex.D.4 rectification deed was executed by Masiyamma in favour of defendants No.1 to 8 by correcting Sy.No.79/4 as Sy.No.79/5B is not properly explained by the defendants.
51. From the documents produced by the plaintiffs and defendants as stated earlier, it could be seen that there were many proceedings pertaining to Sy.No.79/4 and Sy.No.79/5. Ex.D.28 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.6144/1981. The said suit was filed by defendant No.12 against the defendant No.4 for the relief of permanent injunction. Ex.D.27 is the certified copy of order sheet in the said suit. The suit schedule property of the said suit is mentioned as Sy.No.79/4 measuring 230 ft. X 200 ft. (renumbered as site No.23). In the suit plaint, there is reference about filing of suit bearing O.S.No.424/1964 against the father of defendant No.4, Narasimhaiah and others for declaration of title and possession. The defendant No.4 has filed written statement in O.S.No.6144/1981 by contending that site No.23 and Sy.No.79/4 are different properties. Ex.D.29 is the certified copy of written statement filed by defendant No.4. In the written statement there is reference about filing of W.P.No.3500/82. There is also reference about filing of O.S.No.3118/81 for the relief of injunction by defendant 66 O.S.No.5544/1996 No.4 and his brothers in respect of site No.23. It is pleaded in the written statement by way of amendment that Sy.No.79/4 and Sy.No.79/5 are different properties. There is also pleading in the written statement by defendant No.4 about proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division u/Sec.156(3) of CPC and about the findings given in the said proceedings. The defendants of O.S.No.1964/81 is the defendant No.4 in the present suit. In the present suit, the defendant No.4 has adduced his oral evidence as D.W.2. D.W.2 in his chief-examination has not made any reference about earlier proceedings which are referred to in the pleadings of O.S.No.1694/81.
52. From the pleadings of O.S.No.1694/81, it is clear that there is a dispute regarding ownership and identity of Sy.No.79/4 and Sy.No.79/5B from 1964 itself. The defendant No.4 is also party to Ex.D.4 rectification deed. But defendant No.4 has not made any reference about the fact of execution of rectification deed in the amended pleadings filed by him in O.S.No.1694/81. Hence, it seems that Ex.D.4 rectification deed was executed after the dispute arise between the parties regarding Sy.No.79/4 and Sy.No.79/5A properties with intention to support the defence of defendant No.4 that what the properties purchased by Nanjamma in the year 1964 and what the 67 O.S.No.5544/1996 property purchased by Thogur Ramaiah Reddy is Sy.No.79/5A. Ex.P.47 is the plaint in O.S.No.10272/92. The said suit was filed by defendant No.11 against Abbaiah and his daughter and defendant No.1 to 3 and others with respect to Sy.No.79/5B. The said suit was compromised. Ex.P.48 is the compromise petition. As per the compromise petition, the rights of defendant No.11 with respect to Sy.No.79/5B is accepted by the defendants. Ex.P.51 is the certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.10272/92.
53. Ex.P.35 is the order of Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division in RRT proceedings No.132/90-91. The said petition was filed by defendant No.4 against the defendant No.12 alleging that defendant No.12 was illegally got Khatha with respect to Sy.No.79/5 and got it changed as Sy.No.79/5B even though he has not purchased the said property. In Ex.P.35 order reference is made regarding old revenue document and survey document of Sy.No.79/5. It is mentioned in the said order that Sy.No.79/4 is originally measuring 8 guntas of land. There was civil dispute between Channappa and Ramaiah Reddy in SC.No.2141/39-40, case No.114/52-53 and M.S.No.173/55. Ultimately property came to Munivenkatappa @ Dodda Abbaiah and 2nd Muniswamy. They are sold the said property to father of Gopal S/o Krishnaswamy on 68 O.S.No.5544/1996 05.01.1956. The property sold by them was Sy.No.79/4 measuring East to West-230 ft. and North to South- 200 ft. In the said order, it is also mentioned that Gopal sold the said property to Doreswamy Naidu S/o Shamappa on 24.06.1958. Doreswamy Naidu sold the said property to Muniyappa Reddy S/o Lingareddy and Papaiah on 05.07.1962. The defendant No.12 of the present suit is the son of Muniyappa Reddy. There is also reference in the said order abut execution of rectification deed by Doraiswamy Naidu to Muniyappa and Papaiah on 04.10.1961 by stating that Sy.No.79/4 has to be read as Sy.No.79/5. In the said order it is held that unless the earlier decree and order of the court are amended regarding correction of Sy.No.79/5 instead of 79/4, no correction can be done and as such it is held that rectification deed cannot be looked into. It is further mentioned that in O.S.No.427/64, Muniyappa Reddy got property as per order dated 06.02.74 and in said decree Sy.No.79/4 measuring 230 X 200 ft. is shown. Hence, in the said order it is mentioned that the defendant No.12 has no right in Sy.No.79/5B.
54. In Ex.P.35, it is stated that the old document pertaining to Sy.No.79/5 is not available. It is further observed that as per available record Sy.No.79/5 is 69 O.S.No.5544/1996 measuring 3 acre 16 guntas of land. One Doddahanumappa S/o Muniyappa @ Gullashetty was the Khathedar of said property. The said property was mortgaged to Munishamappa S/o Pillaiah on 19.02.1936 and since mortgage is not discharged, the said property came to Pillaiah S/o Kodaiah as per M.R.No.402 and 403. It is further mentioned in the said order that Muniyappa, Kumara, Munishamappa have got divided the said property on 27.10.1937. Khatha was found in the name of Pillaiah and then in the name of Ramaiah Reddy. It is further stated in the said order that as per ADLR record, M.T.No.47/37-38, RR Podi No.29/39-40, dated 15.08.1939, the property sold to Ramaiah Reddy in Sy.No.79/5 was given separate sub- division number as Sy.No.79/5B and as per enjoyment of the said survey number is measuring 1 acre of land. In the said order it is mentioned that as per survey record Sy.No.79/4 and 79/5B are different properties. Sy.No.79/4 is measuring 8 guntas and Sy.No.79/5B is measuring 1 acre of land.
55. Further in Ex.P.37 order passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner in order RTR T:CR:182/95-96, the question whether Sy.No.79/4 and Sy.No.79/5B are one and the same and whether the defendant No.4 has lost his right with respect to the said property over Sy.No.79/4 in view of 70 O.S.No.5544/1996 earlier proceedings or not is considered. The said RRT proceedings was filed by defendant No.11 against the defendant No.5. The defendant No.4 was subsequently impleaded in the said proceedings. In the said proceedings, there is mention that in O.S.No.427/1966 vide order dated 07.12.1973 it is held that Sy.No.79/4 of Byrasandra village, measuring East to West 203 ft. and North to South 200 ft. is belonging to defendants. In the said proceedings, it is decided that Sy.No.79/4 and Sy.No.79/5B are different properties on the basis of available survey document, Akarband and earlier litigation. It is further stated in the said order that Sy.No.79/4 measuring 8 guntas of land is standing in the name of Muniyappa S/o Kumarappa and Sy.No.79/5B is measuring 1 acre of land is standing in the name of Ramaiah Reddy. It is further stated in the said order that as per decree in O.S.No.10272/92 dated 11.03.1991, the defendant No.4 Narayana has lost his right in Sy.No.79/5B and the said property belongs to defendant No.11. Hence, Khatha of Sy.No.79/5B is ordered to be restored in the name of Ramaiah Reddy subject to the result of civil court order in any suit to be filed by any parties to the litigation.
56. The plaintiff has relied upon Ex.P.43 document which is the certified copy of order passed in 71 O.S.No.5544/1996 O.S.No.2273/98 dated 10.11.99 on I.A.No.2, 3 and 4. The said suit was filed by defendant No.12 and others against the present plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 to 9 and others. The said suit was filed during the pendency of the present suit. In O.S.No.2273/98, the defendant No.12 is the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs of the said suit have sought for the relief of declaration that Sy.No.79/4 measuring East to West 230 ft. North to South 200 ft. purchased by late Ramaiah Reddy through the Sale Deed dated 27.12.1937 subsequently assigned Sy.No.79/5B and now Corporation No.23 which was the subject matter of O.S.No.427/64 are one and the same and for the relief of permanent injunction order. The plaintiffs of the present suit are the defendants No.6 and 7 in the said suit. The defendant No.8 to 11 and 18, the defendants No.6 and 7 and defendant No.16 of the said suit have filed I.A.No.2, 3 and 5 respectively under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC praying for rejection of plaint. The plaintiffs of the said suit have filed objections to the said applications. The learned 27th Addl. City Civil Judge has heard the said applications on merits and dismissed all the three applications on merits by passing the considered order on 10.11.99. In the said order, the court has considered the passing of decree in O.S.No.2427/64 and also court has considered the filing of Ex.P.No.82/74 for execution of the decree in O.S.No.427/64. The subject matter of 72 O.S.No.5544/1996 O.S.No.427/64 is Sy.No.79/4 measuring East to West 230 ft. and North to South 200 ft. The reference regarding the prayer sought for in the said suit is made in para No.9 of the said order. In the said order, there is mention regarding execution of extract from Tippani register from 27.08.1940. In the said document, Sy.No.79/5 is shown as originally belongs to one Doddahanumappa. Further the said survey numbers was sub-divided in Sy.No.79/5A and Sy.No.79/5B. There is also mentioned in the said order regarding Sub devision of Sy.No.79/1 to Sy.No.79/4 and Sy.No.79/5A and Sy.No.79/5B. Hence, the court has come to the conclusion that Sy.No.79/4 and 79/5B cannot be considered as one and the same. It is also observed in the said order that Sy.No.79/5B situated towards west of Sy.No.79/5A. It is also observed that original vendors of Sy.No.79/4 and Sy.No.79/5 are different. The original vendors of Sy.No.79/4 was Muniyappaswamy and original vendors of Sy.No.79/5 was one Doddahanumappa.
57. In the said judgment it is clearly held that Sy.No.79/5 and Sy.No.79/5B of Byrasandra village are two separate and distinct properties. It is also held that litigation found in O.S.No.427/64 was in respect of Sy.No. 79/4. In the said order, it is held that the plaintiff wants to substitute Sy.No.79/5B in place of Sy.No.79/4 in the 73 O.S.No.5544/1996 judgment and decree in O.S.No.427/1964. Hence, plaint in O.S.No.2273/98 was came to be rejected.
58. The order in O.S.No.2273/98 was challenged by defendant No.12 and others before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.147/2000 C/w 148/2000 and 149/2000. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide judgment dated 21.01.2008 was pleased to dismiss the aforesaid appeals filed by defendant No.12 and others. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has upheld the order passed on I.A.No.2, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.2273/98 and upheld the order of rejection of plaint. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has also upheld the order passed in O.S.No.2273/98 that Sy.No.79/4 and 79/5B are different properties.
59. The defendant No.12 has challenged the order of the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in RFA No.147/2000, 148/2000 and 149/2000 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing sub leave petition bearing SLP.No. 20046- 20048/2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has refused to interfere with the order of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka. The Special Leave Petition filed by the defendant No.12 and others were came to be dismissed.
74O.S.No.5544/1996
60. The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the decree in O.S.No. 2273/98, the order of DC in RRT(Cr No.182/95-
96), from the Survey records and the other documents as discussed earlier are sufficient to come to the conclusion that Sy.No.79/5B and Sy.No.79/4 are two different properties and they cannot be considered as one and the same properties as contended by the defendants. The contesting defendants have failed to prove their contention that Sy.No.79/4 and 79/5B are one and the same properties and they have failed to prove that what was the propety purchased under registered sale deed dated 27.12.1937 by Ramaiah Reddy is none other than the property covered under Sy.No.79/5B. As it is stated earlier, both the parties have failed to adduce any revenue documents pertaining to Survery No.79/5 property in order to know about the original owner of the said property and actual extent of the said property. But in Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.37, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner in RRT proceedings, there is reference about the original owners of Sy.No.79/5 and there is reference about how the Khatha of the said property has been changed to different persons and there is also reference about when the sub-division in the said property has been done. As such, I am of the opinion that the said 75 O.S.No.5544/1996 orders can be looked into know who was the original owner of the Sy.No.79/5 and what was the extent of said property etc.
61. In Ex.P.35, it is stated that Sy.No.79/5 was originally measuring 3 acres, 16 guntas of land. One Doddahanumappa etc. Son of Muniyappa @ Gullashetty was the original kathedar of said property. Thereafter, the said property was mortgaged to one Muniwamappa S/o Pillaiah from Muniyappa S/o Dodd Kumarappa etc. The said mortgage was not discharged and as such, the said property was came to pillaiah S/o Kondaiah after 19.02.1996 vide RR No.402 and 403. It is further mentioned in Ex.P.35 that Pillaiah sons namely Muniyappa, Kumara and Muniswamy have partitioned the said property on 27.10.1937 and name of Kumara S/o Pillaiah is found in ML register and thereafter the name of Ramaiah Reddy S/o Thogur Venkatappa Reddy was came to be entered. It is also mentioned Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.37 that as per R.R.Podi No.29/39-40 dated 15.08.1939 in M.T.No.47/37-38 the property which was purchased by Ramaiah Reddy in Sy.No.79/5 was given separate Hissa No.79/5B as per the enjoyment and the extent of the said properties is 1 acre. There is also reference in the said order about the order dated 27.08.1940. In the said orders, it is clearly 76 O.S.No.5544/1996 mentioned that Sy.No.79/5 was sub divided into Sy.No.79/1, 79/2, Sy.No.79/4 and Sy.No.79/5 was sub divided into Sy.No.79/5A and 79/5B. The name of Ramaiah Reddy is entered as the owner of Sy.No.79/5B, measuring 1 acre of land. The extent of Sy.No.79/8 is shown as 8 Guntas of land and name of Muniyappa S/o Kumarappa is shown as the owner of the said 8 guntas of land in the Sy.No.79/4.
62. Though in the revenue records, there is no mention about on what basis the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was entered as the owner of Sy.No.79/5B to the extent of 1 acre of land, as per the contention of the plaintiffs, Thogur Ramaiah Reddy has acquired his title over the said property on the basis Ex.P.2 document. Ex.P.2 document was executed by one Doddahanumappa. The said Doddahanumappa was the original owner of Sy.No.79/5. Ex.P.2 document was executed at an undisputed point of time. Further the name of the Ramaiah Reddy was continued to be the existed in the revenue records of Sy.No.79/5 and later in revenue records of Sy.No.79/5B as the owner to the extent of 1 acre of land. The revenue authorities have also accepted the entry of name Ramaiah Reddy as the owner of the said property by continuing his name in the revenue records. The existence of Khatha in the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy with 77 O.S.No.5544/1996 respect to Sy.No.79/5 to the extent of 1 acre of land is not challenged by the earlier owners of the suit schedule property i.e. Doddahanumappa or his legal heirs. Further Pillappa or his legal heirs have also not challenged the entry of name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy with respect to Sy.No.79/5 to the extent of 1 acre of land. Further in the gazette notification regarding acquisition of Sy.No.79/5B, the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy is shown as the owner to the extent of 1 acre of land. Further the name of Muniyappa S/o Kumarappa is shown the owner of 8 guntas of land of Sy.No.79/4. The contesting defendants have also not disputed the fact that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy is having right over Sy.No.79/5B to the extent of 1 acre of land. Under these facts and circumstances, I do not find any valid grounds to disbelieve the genuineness of the said document and the said document cannot be held to be created and concocted document. The said documents has been acted upon and the name of Ramaiah Reddy was continued in the revenue records as the owner on the basis of said document. As such, I do not find any valid grounds to disbelieve the ownership right of Ramaiah Reddy with respect to Sy.No.79/5B measuring 1 acre of land. The contention the plaintiffs that Ramaiah Reddy was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e. Sy.No.79/5B measuring 1 acre of land of Byrasandra village 78 O.S.No.5544/1996 can be accepted and it can be come to the conclusion that the suit schedule property was earlier belonging to the Ramaiah Reddy.
63. Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was expired on 04.08.1974. After his death whatever the properties standing in his name are to be succeeded by his legal heirs in the manner as provided u/Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956. The plaintiffs are claiming their right over the suit schedule property as the legal heirs of deceased Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. It is an admitted fact that Abbaiah Reddy is the son of deceased Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. Further it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff No.1 Doddathayamma is the wife of Abbaiah Reddy and the plaintiff No.1 Pillamma is the daughter of deceased Abbaiah Reddy. It is also an admitted fact that both the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were dead. The legal heirs of deceased plaintiff No.2 i.e. plaintiffs No.2(a) to (d) are the great-grand-children of deceased Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. Hence, they will became class-I legal heirs of deceased Thogur Ramaiah Reddy as provided under Hindu Succession Act. As such, the burden is upon the plaintiffs No.2(a) to 2(d) to prove that the suit schedule property as described in the schedule of the plaint was standing in the name of deceased Thogur Ramaiah Reddy as on the date of filing of the suit or they have to 79 O.S.No.5544/1996 prove that Thogur Ramaiah Reddy or the deceased plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit schedule property. Admittedly Thogur Ramaiah Reddy was died intestate. As per the order of Special Deputy Commission in RRT Cr-182/95-96, the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy is ordered to be restored in the revenue records of the suit schedule property. The name of the plaintiffs was mutated with respect to the suit schedule property as per M.R.No.1/2000-2001.
64. The Khatha of suit schedule property was changed in the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy after the dispute with respect to the suit schedule property was arised. Further the Khatha of suit schedule property in the name of deceased plaintiffs No.1 and 2 was also changed during the pendency of this suit. It is the contention of the defendants No.1 to 8 that the plaintiffs have lost their right over the suit schedule property in view of the compromise decree in O.S.No.10272/92 and also in view of the compromise decree in O.S.No.1624/95. Ex.P.47 is the plaint in O.S.No.10272/92. The deleted defendant No.11 of the present suit had filed the said suit against Abbaiah and plaintiff No.2, defendant No.1 to 10 and others praying to declare it as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. The suit schedule 80 O.S.No.5544/1996 property in the said suit is the property bearing Sy.No.79/5B measuring East to West 240 ft. and North to South 200 ft. with 5 square Mangalore Tiled House. The suit property in the present suit is also Sy.No.79/5B. But the extent is different in both the suits. The suit in O.S.No.10272/92 was compromised between the parties. The joint compromise petition was filed in the said suit and decree was also passed in terms of joint compromise petition. Ex.P.48 is the joint compromise petition and compromise decree in O.S.No.10272/92. As per the joint compromise decree, Abbaiah Reddy and the plaintiff No.2 have admitted the ownership right of defendant No.11 of the present suit and they have also admitted the possession of defendant No.11 with respect to the suit schedule property.
65. PW.2 in the cross-examination has not denied the suggestion put him that O.S.No.10272/92 was filed by defendant No.11 against Abbaiah Reddy and plaintiff No.2 and he has not denied suggestion put him that in the said suit one Subramanya Bharathi i.e. defendant No.9 in the present suit has represented the said Abbaiah Reddy and plaintiff No.2 as GPA holder. But PW.2 has stated he do not know about the said fact. Neither Abbaiah Reddy nor plaintiff No.2 nor plaintiff No.1 and their legal heirs have not challenged the decree in O.S.No.10272/92. Though the 81 O.S.No.5544/1996 plaintiffs have contended that no GPA was executed by Abbaiah Reddy and plaintiff No.2 in favour of defendant No.9 to represent them in O.S.No.10272/92 and though they have contended that decree in O.S.No.10272/92 was obtained by fraud and collusion and even though they have contended that no summons was served upon them and they were not aware about the said proceeding, the plaintiffs have not challenged the decree in O.S.No.10272/92. Further in the present suit also they have not challenged the decree in O.S.No.10272/92. They have also not challenged the right of defendant No.9 to enter into compromise in the said suit on their behalf.
66. It is to be noted here that during course of cross-examination of P.W.2, it was suggested that defendants No.1 to 8 have challenged the decree in O.S.No.10272/92 by filing the suit bearing O.S.No.1624/95 against the plaintiffs. P.W.2 in the cross-examination has admitted the said fact. P.W.2 in the cross-examination has also admitted the fact that in the said suit the present plaintiffs have engaged the counsel. P.W.2 in the cross- examination has also admitted the fact that the said suit was compromised. P.W.2 in the cross-examination has further stated that he do not know whether the plaintiffs have signed the compromise petition by admitting that the 82 O.S.No.5544/1996 defendants No.1 to 8 are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants have produced the certified copy of the order in O.S.No.1624/95 at Ex.D.22. The compromise petition in O.S.No.1624/95 is produced at Ex.D.23. The decree passed in the said suit is produced at Ex.D.24.
67. I have perused the Ex.D.22 to D.24 documents produced by the defendants. O.S.No.1624/95 was filed by the defendants No.1 to 8 of the present suit against the defendant No.10 and others. The deceased plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the defendants No.4 and 5 in the said suit. The said suit was filed by the defendant No.1 to 8 praying to declare that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.102727/92 dated 19.03.1992 and 09.02.1995 in respect of suit schedule property as null and void and for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit schedule property in the said suit is property bearing Sy.No.79/5B of Byrasandra Village having Corporation Khatha No.23 measuring East to West 240 ft. and North to South 200 ft. The said suit was settled between the parties. Both the parties to the suit have filed joint compromise petition in the said suit as per Ex.D.23. As per compromise, the defendants of the said suit have agreed to give up their right, title or interest which they have been acquired and 83 O.S.No.5544/1996 they have agreed to declare the judgment and decree in O.S.No.10272/92 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs of O.S.No.10272/92 and they have also submitted no objection to grant decree of permanent injunction order as prayed for in the suit. The said compromise petition was filed on 27.08.2008 during the pendency of the present suit. The plaintiffs of the present suit who were the defendants No.4 and 5 in the said suit have also signed the compromise petition as well as order sheet by giving consent to the compromise petition. As it is stated earlier, P.W.2 in the cross-examination has admitted that the defendants No.4 and 5 were represented through counsel. In O.S.No.1624/95 decree was passed by declaring that the decree in O.S.No.10272/92 as null and void and not binding on the defendants No.1 to 8 and by granting permanent injunction order in favour of defendants No.1 to 8. In the said compromise petition the defendants No.1, 4 to 6 have also submitted no objection to delete the entry of their names in the official records of suit schedule property.
68. The plaintiffs have not challenged the decree in O.S.No.1624/95. Even though the decree in O.S.No.1624/95 was passed during the pendency of the present suit and even though the plaintiffs were aware about the decree in the said suit, they have not sought for 84 O.S.No.5544/1996 declaration to declare the decree in O.S.No.1624/95 as null and void and not binding upon them. Further they have also not got amended the suit plaint and further they have not sought for any additional prayer challenging the decree in O.S.No.1624/95. As such, the decree in O.S.No.1624/95 became final and the plaintiffs have lost their ownership right over the suit schedule property i.e., in Sy.No.79/5B to the extent mentioned in O.S.No.1624/95. Further from the said decree, it is clear that the plaintiffs were not in possession of entire one acre of land in Sy.No.79/5A. The plaintiffs have admitted the possession of defendants No.1 to 8 with respect to the suit schedule property in O.S.No.1624/95. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1624/95 have not claimed any right over the suit schedule property even though they have represented in the said suit through their counsel. They have not filed any written statement by seeking declaration of their ownership right over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, they have admitted the right of defendants No.1 to 8. They have admitted the possession of defendants No.1 to 8 over the suit schedule property by executing the joint compromise petition and by giving consent to the same. Further the plaintiffs have not adduced any sufficient evidence to prove their allegations that the decree in O.S.No.1624/95 and decree in O.S.No.10272/92 was obtained by playing fraud and by 85 O.S.No.5544/1996 misrepresentation and they were not aware about the said proceedings. P.W.2 in the cross-examination has stated that after filing of the present suit, he came to know about execution of GPA by his mother and grandfather in the name of Subramanyaswamy. P.W.2 in the cross- examination has stated that the said GPA might have been cancelled. But the plaintiffs have not produced the copy of GPA in order to know its contents. Further the plaintiffs have not produced any document to show that the said GPA has been cancelled. Further the plaintiffs have not challenged the decree in O.S.No.10272/92 by contending that Subramanyaswamy has represented them in the said suit without any valid authority and he has no authority to enter into compromise petition.
69. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that subject matter of O.S.No.1624/95 and O.S.No.10272/92 and the subject matter of the present suit are different. On the other hand, in the suit plaint in para No.14(1), the plaintiffs have clearly submitted that the subject matter of O.S.No.1624/95 is also with respect to plaint schedule property. Even though the plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants No.1 to 8 have impersonated themselves as the sons son and grand sons of late Thogur Ramaiah Reddy, the plaintiffs have not challenged the decree in O.S.No.1624/95 on the 86 O.S.No.5544/1996 said ground. Even though the plaintiffs were aware about the said contention during the pendency of O.S.No.1624/95, they have voluntarily given consent to decree compromise petition. The decree in O.S.No.1624/95 is not set aside or modified by any Appellate court or by the court which is passed the said decree. Since the plaintiffs are party to the said suit and since the plaintiffs have not challenged the said decree, the said decree is binding upon the plaintiffs. Merely on the averments made in plaint that the plaintiffs were not aware about the decree in O.S.No.1624/95 and O.S.No.10272/92, the decree in said suit cannot be considered as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.
70. The subject matter of O.S.No.1624/95 and O.S.No.10272/92 is with respect to Sy.No.79/5B of Byrasandra village, measuring east to west 240 ft. and north to south 200 ft. The subject matter of the this suit is also Sy.No.79/5B of Byrasandra village measuring 1 acre of land. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1624/95 have admitted the ownership right of the defendants No.1 to 8 to the extent of East to West 240 feet and North to South 200 feet in Sy.No.79/5B. They have also admitted the possession of defendants No.1 to 8 with respect to the said extent of land. Hence, the plaintiffs have lost their right over the said extent 87 O.S.No.5544/1996 of land in Sy.No.79/5B in view of decree in O.S.No.1624/95. The plaintiffs are also not in possession of the said extent of land in Sy.No.79/5B out of 1 acre of land. As such, the plaintiffs No.2(a) to 2(d) will not became the owner in Sy.No.79/5B to the extent of 1 acre of land.
71. Admittedly Sy.No.79/5B measuring 1 acre of land was standing in the name of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. In view of decree in O.S.No.1624/95, the original plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have lost their ownership right over the 240 ft. X 200 ft. land in Sy.No.79/5B out of 1 acre. Hence, the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff No.2 i.e. plaintiffs No.2(a) to 2(d) will not acquired any right over the said extent of land through deceased defendant No.2 or through his legal heirs. At present the plaintiffs No.2(a) to 2(d) being the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff No.2 and Thogur Ramaiah Reddy will have right over the remaining extent of land in Sy.No.79/5B out of 1 acre of land after deducting area of 240 ft. X 200 ft. But the plaintiffs No.2(a) to 2(d) are claiming their right with respect to entire 1 acre of land in Sy.No.79/5B. P.W.2 in the cross-examination has stated that she is in possession of 100X40 ft. in suit property. P.W.2 in the cross-examination dated 29.10.2021, in para No.22 has admitted that Shankar Reddy has constructed the apartment in the suit schedule property. Hence, it is 88 O.S.No.5544/1996 clear that the plaintiffs No.2(a) to 2(d) are not in possession and enjoyment of entire suit schedule property as described in the suit plaint.
72. It is to be noted here that in the present suit the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant No.10 directing him to demolish the residential apartments constructed half way and the sheds unauthorizedly encroached upon the suit schedule property. By seeking the said relief of mandatory injunction, the plaintiffs have admitted that they are not in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.79/5B. Though the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of entire extent of land in Sy.No.79/5B, the plaintiffs have not sought for the relief of possession of 240 x 200 ft. from the defendants No.1 to 8 and they have not sought for the possession of the property in which it is alleged that the defendant No.1 has illegally constructed apartment and the possession of the property in which it is alleged that sheds are illegally constructed. As such, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration of their ownership right over the suit schedule property without seeking the relief of possession from the defendants No.1 to 8 or 10 is not maintainable. It is to be noted here that the defendant No.10 was deleted from the present suit as per order dated 89 O.S.No.5544/1996 17.02.2018. Even though the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants No.10 and even though the plaintiffs are knowing about the fact of deletion of defendant No.10 from the said suit, they have not made any attempts to include the defendant No.10 as party to the present suit. Hence, I am of the opinion that the deceased plaintiff No.1 and 2 or now the plaintiffs No.2(a) to 2(d) have failed to prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as described in the suit plaint as on the date of institution of the suit. The plaintiffs have failed to prove Issues No.1 and 2. Accordingly, I answer Issues No.1 and 2 in Negative.
73. Issues No.3 to 5:- The plaintiffs have alleged in the suit plaint that the defendant No.12 has no right to lease the suit schedule property to defendant No.10 and the defendant No.10 has illegally and unauthorizedly put up construction of apartment in the suit schedule property on the strength of building license and sanction plain for Sy.No.79/4 of Byrasandra village. The plaintiffs have also alleged that the defendants are illegally trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Even though the plaintiffs have made 90 O.S.No.5544/1996 allegation of interference against the defendant No.10 to 12 with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and even though the plaintiffs have sought for the relief as against the defendants No.10 to 12, the plaintiffs have not made the defendants No.10 to 12 as party to the present suit. As it is stated earlier, the defendants No.10 to 12 were deleted from the present suit as per order dated 17.02.2018. Though the plaintiffs have made allegation of interference against the defendants No.10 to 12 and though the plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant No.10 has illegally constructed apartment in the suit schedule property and even though the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant No.10, the plaintiffs have not made any efforts to challenge the order of deletion of defendant No.10 to 12 of the present suit or they have not made any efforts to make them as party to the present suit. Without making defendants No.10 to 12 as party to the present suit, the plaintiffs cannot make any allegations of the interference of defendant No.10 to 12 with their alleged possession over the suit schedule property. Further since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership right over the entire extent of suit schedule property and since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the entire extent of suit schedule property and since Issues No.1 and 2 are held in 91 O.S.No.5544/1996 Negative, the question of interference of the defendants with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as alleged in the suit plaint does not arises. Further the plaintiffs themselves in O.S.No.1624/95 have admitted the possession of defendants No.1 to 8 and admitted the right of defendants No.1 to 8 with respect to 240 ft. X 200 ft. in Sy.No.79/5B property. Hence the question of interference of the defendants No.1 to 8 with the alleged possession of the plaintiffs over entire suit property also does not arises. Further the plaintiffs have failed to adduce any sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant No.10 has unauthorizedly encroached upon the suit schedule property and constructed residential apartment in the suit schedule property. As it is discussed earlier, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their absolute ownership right with respect to entire one acre of land in the suit schedule property. Further they have admitted the ownership right of the defendants No.1 to 8 with respect to 240 ft. X 200 ft. area in Sy.No.79/5B. The plaintiffs have failed to adduce any sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant No.10 has constructed the apartment in the area which is left with them in 1 acre of land in Sy.No.79/5B and the plaintiffs have failed to adduce any sufficient evidence to prove where exactly the defendant No.10 has constructed the apartment in Sy.No.79/5B. Further as it is 92 O.S.No.5544/1996 stated earlier, the defendant No.10 is also not made as party to the present suit. As such, the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.10 has unauthorizedly encroached upon the suit schedule property and constructed residential apartment in the suit schedule property cannot be acceptable one. Further the contention of the plaintiff that the agreement, contracts or any partnership created in respect of suit schedule property in between the defendants No.10 to 12 as alleged in the suit plaint are null and void also cannot be acceptable one. As such, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove Issues No.3 to 5. Accordingly, I answer Issues No.3 to 5 in Negative.
74. Issue No.6:- The defendants No.1 to 4 and 11 in the written statement have contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation. In the suit plaint as well as in the evidence of P.W.2, it is stated by the plaintiffs that cause of action for filing the suit arose on 10.04.1996 when the plaintiffs came to know about the illegal entries made in the index of land and records of rights of the suit schedule property and when the Special Deputy Commissioner passed order in RRT proceedings in 182/95-96. Nothing material has been elicited during the course of cross-examination of P.W.2 to prove that cause of 93 O.S.No.5544/1996 action shown in the suit plaint is not correct. Having considered the plaint averments, oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, I do not find any valid grounds to held that suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation as contended by defendants No.1 to 4 and 11. It is specific contention of the plaintiff that they were not aware about the proceedings in O.S.No.10272/92 and O.S.No.1624/95 and the compromise decree in O.S.No.10272/92 was drawn on 09.02.1995. The present suit filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1996. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs cannot be considered as time barred. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.6 in Negative.
75. Issue No.7:- The defendants No.1 to 3, 10and 11 have contended in their written statement that the plaintiffs have under value the suit claim and they have not paid proper court fee. The plaintiffs have filed present suit for the relief of declaration of their ownership right over the suit schedule property and for the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs have filed the valuation memo along with suit plaint. The plaintiffs have valued the suit property u/Sec.7(a) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act for the purpose of payment of court fee and they have paid the court fee as provided 94 O.S.No.5544/1996 under the said provision. For the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, the plaintiffs have valued the suit property u/Sec.26(c) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and they have paid the court fee accordingly. It is the contention of the defendants that the suit schedule property has lost its agricultural character and the suit property is developed and residential houses are constructed in the suit schedule property. Hence, the defendants No.1 to 3 have contended that the plaintiffs ought to have paid the court fee on market value. But the defendants No.1 to 3 have not produced any document to show that Sy.No.79/5B is converted as non-agricultural land. Further the plaintiffs have produced the RTC of Sy.No.79/5B, measuring 1 acre of land. The said land is mentioned in the revenue records as agricultural land as on the date of the institution of the suit. The defendants No.1 to 3 have failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that in the year 2006 i.e. as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit property has lost its character as agricultural property. Further they have failed to adduce any documentary evidence to prove market value of suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit. Under these facts and circumstances, the contention of the defendants No.1 to 3 that the plaintiffs have under value the suit claim and they have not paid proper court fee cannot be acceptable one.
95O.S.No.5544/1996 Hence, I am of the opinion that the defendants No.1 to 3 have failed to prove Issue No.7. Since the defendants No.10 and 11 are not party to the present suit, the question of they proving Issue No.7 does not arises. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.7 in Negative.
76. The defendant No.4 in the written statement has contended that the defendants No.1 to 8 have perfected their title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. The defendant No.4 has contended that since 1980, the defendants No.1 to 8 are the true owners of the suit schedule property and they are in possession of the suit property. When the defendant No.4 has contended that the defendants No.1 to 8 are the true owners of the suit schedule property since 1980, he cannot contended that the defendants No.1 to 8 have perfected their title over the suit property by way of adverse possession. In order to claim that the defendants No.1 to 8 have perfected their title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession, the defendants No.1 to 8 have to admit the ownership right of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit schedule property and they have to prove that they have been in continuous peaceful possession of the suit schedule property for more than 12 years prior to the date of filing of the suit continuously, openly, adverse or hostile 96 O.S.No.5544/1996 to the interest of plaintiff, without any interference and to the knowledge of the plaintiff. In the present suit, the plaintiffs are denying the absolute ownership right of the defendants No.1 to 8 over the suit schedule property. O.S.No.1624/95 was filed by the defendants No.1 to 8 and in the said suit by way of compromise, the right of defendants No.1 to 8 over the property bearing Sy.No.79/5B to the extent of 240 X 200 ft. is confirmed. When the defendants No.1 to 8 are held to be the owners of said property in the said suit, they again cannot contended that they have acquired ownership right over the suit property by way of adverse possession. The defendants No.1 to 8 are not the legal heirs of deceased Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. It is already discussed and held above that the children of Mallamma are not adopted by Nanjamma. The children of the sister of Nanjamma cannot be considered as adopted children of Nanjamma and Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. As such, the defendants No.1 to 8 will not succeeded to the suit schedule property belonging to Thogur Ramaiah Reddy as the children of Nanjamma and Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. Further it is to be noted here that the defendants No.1 to 8 have not made any counter claim in the present suit praying for declaration of their right over the suit schedule property as children of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy and Nanjamma. The property purchased by Nanjamma through Sale Deed from Mallamma dated 97 O.S.No.5544/1996 07.08.1961 which is produced at Ex.D.3 is Sy.No.79/4 measuring 240 X 200 ft. when the Nanjamma has purchased the said extent of land as per Ex.D.3, the said property will became her self acquired property as provided u/Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Admittedly Nanjamma was died intestate. Since Nanjamma died intestate whatever the property standing in the name of Nanjamma are to be distributed in accordance with Sec.15 of Hindu Succession Act. As per the Sec.15 of the Hindu Succession Act, the property of female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve first upon her sons and daughters. Admittedly Nanjamma has no sons and daughters. The plaintiffs have contended that the Nanjamma is not the legally wedded wife of deceased Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. The plaintiffs have contended that she is the kept mistress of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. Further if there are no sons, daughters and husband, the property of female Hindu shall devolve secondly upon heirs of husband and thirdly upon mother and father and fourthly of heirs of father and lastly upon heirs of the mother. There are no evidence to show that heirs of Nanjamma are alive. Admittedly, Mallamma is the sister of Nanjamma. The defendants No.1 to 8 are the legal heirs of deceased Mallamma. As such, they became the heirs of deceased father and mother of deceased Nanjamma. As such, I am of the opinion that the property of 98 O.S.No.5544/1996 deceased Nanjamma if any shall devolve upon the defendants No.1 to 8. The property which Nanjamma has purchased is in Sy.No.79/4 and as such, the defendants No.1 to 8 have right if any over the property left by Nanjamma in her life time. The defendants No.1 to 8 cannot claim their right as the legal heirs of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy. Further since the defendants No.1 to 8 are not claiming any ownership right over the suit schedule property as the legal heirs of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy by making counter claim, I am of the opinion that the question of consideration of the ownership right of the defendants No.1 to 8 over the suit schedule property as the legal heirs of deceased Thogur Ramaiah Reddy does not arises. Further the defendants No.1 to 8 have failed to prove all the essential ingredients that are necessary to hold that they have perfected their title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. There are litigations between the plaintiffs and the defendants regarding ownership right. Hence, I am of the opinion that the defendants No.1 to 8 have failed to prove Issue No.8. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.8 in Negative.
77. Issue No.9:- The plaintiffs in the present suit have sought for the relief of declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property by 99 O.S.No.5544/1996 way of inheritance. It is already discussed and held above that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their absolute ownership right over the suit schedule property. As such, the relief of declaration of ownership right of the plaintiffs over the suit property cannot granted. Further the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It is to be noted here that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their exclusive possession over suit property and their ownership right over the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit and they have failed to prove interference of the defendants over the entire extent of suit schedule property. When the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession and interference of the defendants with their possession over the suit property, the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for by the plaintiffs cannot be granted. As such, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.
78. Further the plaintiffs have also sought for mandatory injunction against the defendant No.10 to demolish the residential apartment alleged to have been constructed in the suit schedule property and for demolition 100 O.S.No.5544/1996 of sheds constructed in suit property by encroaching the suit property. It is already discussed and held above that the said relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted as the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendant No.10 has illegally constructed apartment in suit schedule property. Further it is already discussed and held above that without the presence of defendant No.10 in the present suit, the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant No.10 as prayed for in the suit plaint cannot be granted. As such, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for. Further it is already discussed and held above that the relief of declaration that any agreement, contract entered into between the defendant No.10 to 12 or any ownership in respect to suit schedule property cannot be declared as null and void. Since it is already discussed and held above that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their absolute ownership right over the suit property and since the plaintiffs have not made defendants No.10 to 12 as party to the present suit, the relief of declaration as prayed for in para No.26(b) of suit plaint cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. As such, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for by them in the present suit. As such, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.9 in Negative.
101O.S.No.5544/1996
79. Issue No.10:- For the discussions made above in issues No.1 to 9, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the suit, both the parties to the suit are hereby directed to bear their own cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of January, 2024).
Digitally signed
PRAMODA by PRAMODA B G
BG Date: 2024.01.27
17:42:41 +0530
(B.G.Pramoda)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of the witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 R.Venkataswamy Reddy P.W.2 Smt.Girija
List of the documents marked for the plaintiffs :
Ex.P.1 General Power of Attorney executed by the Plaintiff in my favor dated 28.6.1996 Ex.P.2 Possession Certificate dated 26.8.1937 Ex.P.3 ADLR dated 15.2.1996 102 O.S.No.5544/1996 Ex.P.4 Endorsement dt 14.7.1958 Ex.P.5 RTC for the year 1997-98 Ex.P.6 RTC for the year 1997-98 upto 200-01 Ex.P.7 Form No.18 issued by Tahasildar dated 16.11.2000 Ex.P.8 RTC for the year 2001-02 Ex.P.9 Endorsement dt: 4.1.2003 issued by Enquiry Officer Ex.P.10 No encumbrance Certificate for the year 1.10.1966 to 7.6.1996 Ex.P11 RTC for the year 1970, 72, 74 Ex.P.12 RTC for year 1974, 75, 78 Ex.P.13 RTC for the year 80-81, 84, 85 Ex.P.14 RTC for the year 85-86, 89-90 Ex.P.15 RTC for the year 90-91 to 94-95 Ex.P.16 Re service sketch ( perused the said document it is half toned subject to proof and relevancy) Ex.P.16(a) Sketch accompanied enclosed Ex.P.17 Certified copy of Gazette Notification Ex.P.18 to 21 4 Photographs Ex.P.18(a) to Negatives 21(a) Ex.P.22 Legal Notice dated 17.7.1996 Ex.P.23 Written statement of defendants No.6 &7 in O.S.No.2273/98 Ex.P.24 Geneology tree of Thogur Ramaiah Reddy Ex.P.25 Settlement deed dated 06.03.1939 Ex.P.26 Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in SLP.No.20046-20048/08 Ex.P.27 Field book of detail maping dated 18.06.12 Ex.P.28 Enquiry register of city survey Ex.P.29 P.T.Sheet Ex.P.30 Death certificate of plaintiff No.1 Doddathayamma Ex.P.31 to 34 RTC of the Sy.No.79/5B for the year 2005-06, 2004-
05, 2015-16 and 2002-03.
Ex.P.35 Order passed by Assistant Commissioner, Sub-
Division, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.36 Certified copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of 103 O.S.No.5544/1996 Karnataka in CCC.No.14/1998 dated 11.06.1998 Ex.P.37 Certified copy of order of Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, passed in RRT CR No.182/1995-96 Ex.P.38 Village map of Byrasandra village Ex.P.40 Certified copy of order in RRT.CR No.7/96-97 Ex.P.41 Encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/5B from 01.04.1938 to 14.02.1957 Ex.P.42 Encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/5B from 15.02.1957 to 30.09.1966 Ex.P.43 Certified copy of order on I.A.2, 3 and 4 filed u/O 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC in O.S.No.2273/1998 Ex.P.44 Decree in O.S.No.2273/1998 Ex.P.45 Certified copy of order in W.P.No.22649/1996 dated 03.03.1997 Ex.P.46 Report of commissioner submitted in MFA No.3692/98 Ex.P.47 Certified copy of of plaint in O.S.No.10272/92 Ex.P.48 Certified copy of of plaint in O.S.No.10272/92 Ex.P.49 Certified copy of vakalath in O.S.No.10272/1992 Ex.P.50 Register of firms pertaining to defendant No.11 Ex.P.51 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.10272/1992 Ex.P.52 & 53 Order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 21.01.2008 in RFA No.147/2000, 148/2000 and 149/2000 List of the witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 Mohan Kumar D.W.2 Narayana
List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 27.12.1937 Ex.D.2 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 23.12.1957 104 O.S.No.5544/1996 Ex.D.3 Sale Deed dated 07.08.1961 Ex.D.4 Rectification deed dated 16.11.1988 Ex.D.5 Certified copy of agreement of sale dated 13.10.2003 Ex.D.6 Encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/4 from 01.01.35 to 14.02.57 Ex.D.7 Encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/4 from 15.02.1957 to 02.04.1960 Ex.D.8 Encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/4 from 01.04.1960 to 30.09.1966 Ex.D.9 Encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/5B from 01.10.1966 to 31.03.2004 Ex.D.10 Encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/5B from 01.04.98 to 31.03.2004 Ex.D.11 Encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/5B from 01.04.2004 to 08.12.2017 Ex.D.12 Encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/5B from 0.04.2009 to 10.09.2019 Ex.D.13 Encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.79/5B from 09.09.2019 to 26.08.2021 Ex.D.14 & 15 Two water bill Ex.D.16 Death certificate of R.Krishnappa Ex.D.17 Death certificate of R.Rudrappa Ex.D.18 to 21 Photos Ex.D.22 Certified copy of order sheet in 105 O.S.No.5544/1996 O.S.No.1624/1995 Ex.D.23 Compromise petition in O.S.No.1624/95 Ex.D.24 Certified copy of compromise decree in O.S.No.1624/95 Ex.D.25 Certified copy of Endorsement dated 09.02.1981 Ex.D.26 Certificate dated 21.07.2000 issued by BBMP Ex.D.27 Certified copy of Order sheet in OS NO.1694/81 Ex.D.28 Certified copy of Plaint in OS No.1694/81 Ex.D.29 Certified copy of Written statement in OS No.1694/81 Digitally signed by PRAMODA PRAMODA B G BG Date: 2024.01.27 17:42:51 +0530 LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
106 O.S.No.5544/1996