Bangalore District Court
Sri.V.Suresh vs Sri.S.A. Babu Reddy on 1 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2018
Present :-
Sri.Shivanagouda, B.Com. LL.B., (Spl.)
XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S. NO.9114/2011
Plaintiff :- Sri.V.Suresh
S/o. G.N.Venkatesh
Aged about 35 years,
# 40, Garvebhavipalya,
Madivala Post,
Hosur Road,
Bangalore - 560068.
(Sri.S.R.Srinivasamurthy , Advocate)
V/s
Defendants :- 1. Sri.S.A. Babu Reddy
S/o. S.P.Annaiah Reddy,
Hindu, Major,
R/o. Suddaguntepalya
Dharmaram College Post,
Bangalore - 560029.
2. Sri.Munireddy
S/o. Late Abbaiah Reddy, Major
3. Sri.Rajappa,
S/o. Muni Reddy, Major,
2 O.S.9114/2011
4. Sri.Satish
S/o. Muni Reddy, Major,
5. Sri. Srinivasa Reddy
S/o. Muni Reddy, Major,
6. Ananda Reddy
S/o. Muni Reddy, Major
Defendants No.2 to 6 are
Residents of Kudlu Village,
Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District,
Bengaluru.
(D.1 :- Sri.G.A.Vishwanatha Reddy,
Advocate)
(D.2 to D.6 :- Dismissed)
Date of Institution of the suit : 29/12/2011
Nature of the suit : Injunction Suit
Date of commencement of : 16/01/2017
recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment : 01/06/2018
was pronounced
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Days
06 05 02
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction and for other reliefs.
3 O.S.9114/2011
2. The suit schedule properties are :-
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site Nos. 9 and 14, New VP Khatha No.322/1-15 and property No.15/68/1 Assessment No.68/1, measuring East to West :- 30 feet, North to South : 90 feet and bounded on the East by :- Site No.10 and 13 West by :- Site No.8 and 15 North by :- Road, South by :- Road, All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site No.15, VP Khatha No.218/1 Assessment No.16 (Old No.68/1), measuring East to West : 30 feet, North to South : 40 feet and bounded on the :-
East by :- Site No.14,
West by :- Site No.16,
North by :- Road,
South by :- Site No.8,
Both the properties situated at Parappana
Agrahara Village, within the BBMP limits, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore Hereinafter referred to as suit schedule properties for the sake of convenience.4 O.S.9114/2011
3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are :- Plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff got registered the suit schedule properties on 19/7/2004 and 10/11/2004 respectively. Upon acquiring requisite permission from the Grama Panchayath, plaintiff has constructed a house in one of the suit schedule property and the other property remained vacant. He has further submitted that power of attorney holders of defendants No.1 and 2 in collusion with the other defendants went on selling the vacant site formed in Sy.No.15 of Parappana Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 2 acres 14 guntas and also Sy.No.68/1, measuring 34 guntas. The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule properties from his vendor from whom the defendants No.1 and 2 have sold the suit schedule property. Along with plaintiff other persons have also purchased the vacant sites formed in the said layout made by the defendants No.1 and 2 and constructed their residential houses and some of the purchasers did not put up any structure on their respective sites.
4. Plaintiff has further submitted that defendants jointly and intend to make a wrongful gain by acquiring forcibly the 5 O.S.9114/2011 property which has been sold by defendants No.1 and 2 to the site owners by changing the structure of the layout and started ploughing the vacant land and claiming the said lands as an agricultural land and started giving pinpricks to the plaintiff and to other prospective buyers and plaintiff has resisted the illegal acts of the defendants and even lodged police complaints before jurisdictional police, which went in vain. The first and second defendants in collusion with other defendants created a sale agreement dt. 5/12/1993 and filed a suit for specific performance in respect of agricultural lands. Though the said agreement is time barred, the defendants hatched a plan and went on writing a shara in a separate sheet and filed a suit for specific performance of the contract to enforce sale agreement on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.1748/2004 and in the said suit defendant No.2 and others remained exparte. Some of the persons who had purchased the vacant sites formed by the defendants filed an impleading application and the same came to be dismissed on 1/4/2010 and against the said dismissal of impleading application, two persons Smt.Nagaveni and Sri.Ramaswamy Reddy filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the same was allowed and they contested the suit in O.S.1748/2004 and 6 O.S.9114/2011 finally got compromised the suit filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 and finally the suit was decreed.
5. Plaintiff further submitted that the defendants managed to get the suit O.S.No.1748/2004 decreed, a partial compromise is not possible in law. In order to defraud the plaintiff, started giving pinpricks to the plaintiff and they tried to dispossess the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties and forcibly attempting to enter into the vacant land of the suit schedule property and making all efforts to lay the compound by dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The defendants in the guise of decree passed in O.S.1748/2004 trying to arm twisting basing on the decree passed in the O.s.1748/2004 started to dispossess the plaintiff. Due to the skyrocketing of the prices of the vacant sites the defendants are trying to make wrongful gain. Inspite of exhibiting necessary title deeds to the defendants, they started to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Thus with no other alternative, plaintiff has filed the suit.
6. Defendant No.1 appeared before the court and filed written statement. Defendants No.2 to 6 did not appear before the 7 O.S.9114/2011 court and they were dismissed by an order dated 25/8/2012. The brief facts of the written statement are :-
7. The suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of injunction without seeking relief for declaration is not maintainable. Defendant has denied the boundaries, extent, property no. of the suit schedule property and there is no cause of action to file the suit. He has further contended that plaintiff is making attempts to lay a claim over the suit schedule properties and there cannot be sites bearing assessment number in the agricultural land and the assessment number indicates that it is a Gramathana property. Defendant has denied the contents of para No.2 and 3 of the plaint. He has contended that when there is no existence of property in the Gramathana then the question of obtaining permission and plaintiff constructing the house does not arise at all. Defendant has denied has false the averments made by the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from defendant No.1 and 2 and later on constructing of house in the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 has also denied as false regarding defendant No.1 and 2 ploughing the vacant land and giving pinpricks to the plaintiff and also to the other prospective buyers. 8 O.S.9114/2011
8. He has further contended that the agreement referred to by the plaintiff is a created document. He filed a suit for the reliefs of specific performance in respect of agreement of sale dt.5/12/1983 and the suit came to be decreed. He has further contended that the suit was decreed on contest and decree passed is legally permissible under law and the suit schedule properties are not at all part and parcel of the Sy.No.15 and 68/1 of Parappana Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and no sites are formed in the said Sy.Nos. The lands are not converted into non agricultural purposes and there is no plan approval by the BMRDA. In order to establish right over the suit schedule properties plaintiff has concocted and created story to create a ground to legalise his illegal right over the suit schedule properties. He has further contended that when defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, question of defendant No.1 dispossessing the plaintiff does not arise. The suit schedule property does not find a place in Panchayath records. The owners of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.15 and 68/1 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas and 34 guntas namely Mr.Munireddy, Mr.Rajappa, Mr.Sathish, Mr.Srinivasa Reddy, Manju, Papamma, Pillamma and Anantha Reddy have entered into 9 O.S.9114/2011 an agreement of sale with this defendant on 5/12/1993 to convey the said property in his favour for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,18,000/- and received Rs.50,000/- as advance. The aforesaid persons failed to execute the sale deed after issuing the legal notice got filed a suit O.S.748/2004 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City and the suit was decreed. The plaintiff having knowledge of above facts, suppressed the same on the strength of the created sale deed. Thus prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
9. The following issues are framed for by my predecessor.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed?
4. What order or decree?
10 O.S.9114/2011
10. Plaintiff has got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and closed his side. No evidence is led on behalf of the defendants.
11. Heard arguments.
12. My answer to the above issues are as follows :-
ISSUE NO.1 :- In the affirmative,
ISSUE NO.2 :- In the affirmative,
ISSUE NO.3 :- In the affirmative,
ISSUE NO.4 :- As per final order
For the following
REASONS
13. ISSUE NO.1 TO 3 :- As these three issues are inter- related to each other they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid overlapping or repetition of facts.
14. Plaintiff has sworn to an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and got examined as P.W.1. Plaintiff has reiterated the plaint averments. In support of his case he has produced certified copy of sale deed dt. 19/7/2004 at Ex.P.1, certified copy of sale deed dated 10/11/2004 at Ex.P.2, certified copy of the agreement of sale dated 5/12/1993 at Ex.P.3, certified 11 O.S.9114/2011 copies of 2 RTC extracts at Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5, certified copy of orders on I.A.No.4, 5, 7, 9 to 18 in O.S.1748/2004 at Ex.P.6 and certified copy of compromise petition filed in O.S. No. 1748/2004 at Ex.P.7.
15. I have perused the documents. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 19/7/2004 executed by Sri.Shanmukaiah in favour of plaintiff. It is seen that one of the suit schedule property bearing Site Nos. 9 and 14 were sold by Sri.Shanmukaiah to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.1,35,000/-. Earlier vendors Sri.A.Munireddy (deft.No.2) and Sri.Ananda Reddy (deft. No.6) sons of Sri.J.Abbaiah Reddy through the G.P.A. holder Mrs.Sujatha has sold the said properties under registered sale deed on 29/9/2003 to Sri.Shanmukaiah.
16. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 10/11/2004 executed by Sri.G.Rajesh in favour of plaintiff. It is seen that one of the suit schedule property bearing Site No.15 was sold by Sri.G.Rajesh to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.90,000/-. Earlier vendors Sri.A.Munireddy (deft.No.2) and Sri.Ananda Reddy (deft. No.6) sons of Sri.J.Abbaiah Reddy have 12 O.S.9114/2011 sold the said properties under registered sale deed on 1/2/2000 to Sri.G.Rajesh.
17. Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of agreement of sale dated 5/12/1993 executed by children of Sri.Munireddy S/o. Abbaiah Reddy, aged about 50 years Sri.Babureddy S/o. Munireddy aged about 25 years, Sri.Rajappa S/o. Munireddy aged about 20 years, Sri.Satish S/o. Munireddy, aged about 18 years, Sri.Srinivasa Reddy S/o. Munireddy aged about 15 years, Sri. Manju S/o. Munireddy, aged about 12 years and Sri.Srinivas and Sri.Manju being minor represented by Sri.Munireddy, Smt.Papamma W/o. Late Narayanareddy, aged about 60 years, Sri.Anandareddy S/o. Late Narayana Reddy, Smt.Gullamma W/o. GOvinda Reddy D/o. Late Narayana Reddy in favour of Sri.S.A.Babu Reddy (defendant No.1). Under the sale deed it is seen that the above executants have sold 2 acres 38 guntas of Parappana Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South District to the defendant No.1.
18. Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 are the certified copy of encumbrance certificates. In the said encumbrance certificates the Sy.No. and Phode No. are not properly seen. Under column No.9 names of 13 O.S.9114/2011 Sri.Narayana Reddy and Sri.Raghurama Reddy are seen. Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of orders dated 1/4/2010 passed by XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.4, 5, 7 and 9 to 18. Wherein the learned judge has dismissed the said IAs'. Ex.P.7 is the copy of the application and decree filed in O.S.1748/2004 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C. by the parties to the suit.
19. Perused the documents produced by the plaintiff thoroughly. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 it is clear that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties. Defendants though appeared before the court, only defendant No.1 has contested the suit by filing the written statement and other defendants No.2 to 6 were dismissed as per order dt. 25/8/2012. The only document which is in favour of defendant is Ex.P.3 that too it is a sale agreement executed in his favour. Defendant No.1 has not produced either the original or certified copy of the registered sale deed with respect to purchase of 2 acres 38 guntas of Parappana Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South District.
20. 14 O.S.9114/2011
21. Even though after purchase of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiff as per two sale deeds referred above, the plaintiff is required to get the mutation entered in the records from the BBMP authorities, because they are no more revenue lands after conversion of the same as non agricultural sites and were sold in favour of the plaintiff. After getting the properties registered in 2004 plaintiff ought to have filed application before concerned BBMP authorities and should have got transferred the documents into his name like khatha extract, khatha certificate etc., and he should have produced those documents. But for the best reasons known to the plaintiff, the same has not been produced. Plaintiff has also not produced the tax paid receipts for having paid tax in respect of suit schedule properties. But with regard to execution of registered sale deed, passing of possession from vendor of the plaintiff to the plaintiff has been proved by Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 i.e., sale deed in respect of suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 has not cross-examined P.W.1. He has not entered witness box and lead evidence of his side and was not being subjected for cross- examination from the plaintiff. The evidence lead by the plaintiff and documents produced by the plaintiff have remained 15 O.S.9114/2011 unchallenged without any rebuttal from the defendant No.1. Hence the plaintiff has proved that he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Naturally, the possession follows title. If at all defendants wanted to prove their case they should have contested by leading evidence and producing documents and disproving plaintiff's oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, Issue No.1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative.
22. ISSUE NO.4 :- For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
Defendants are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property in any manner.16 O.S.9114/2011
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, typed by him, revised by me and after corrections pronounced in the open court on this the 1st day of June, 2018.) (SHIVANAGOUDA) XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :-
P.W.1 :- Sri.V.Suresh
2. LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :-
Ex.P.1 :- Certified copy of sale deed dt. 19/7/2004 Ex.P.2 :- Certified copy of sale deed dt. 10/11/2004, Ex.P.3 :- Certified copy of agreement of sale Ex.P.4 :- Certified copy of RTC extract Ex.P.5 :- Certified copy of RTC extract Ex.P.6 :- Certified copy of orders on I.A.No.4, 5, 7, 9 to 18 In O.S.1748/2004 Ex.P.7 :- Certified copy of compromise petition in O.S.1748/2004
3. LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT :-
NIL 17 O.S.9114/2011
4. LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT :-
NIL (SHIVANAGOUDA) XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru.
SCHEDULE PROPERTIES All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site Nos. 9 and 14, New VP Khatha No.322/1-15 and property No.15/68/1 Assessment No.68/1, measuring East to West :- 30 feet, North to South : 90 feet and bounded on the East by :- Site No.10 and 13 West by :- Site No.8 and 15 North by :- Road, South by :- Road, All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site No.15, VP Khatha No.218/1 Assessment No.16 (Old No.68/1), measuring East to West : 30 feet, North to South : 40 feet and bounded on the :-
East by :- Site No.14,
West by :- Site No.16,
North by :- Road,
South by :- Site No.8,
18 O.S.9114/2011
Both the properties situated at Parappana
Agrahara Village, within the BBMP limits, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore (SHIVANAGOUDA) XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru.