Bangalore District Court
Smt.K.Lakshmidevi vs M.Shankarappa on 30 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH.No.19)
Dated: This the 30th Day of October, 2017
:Present:
Smt. Saraswati V. Kosandar, B.COM., LL.M.,
VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.NO.882/2004, C/W O.S.NOS.883/2004,
884/2004 & 885/2004
Parties in O.S.No.882/2004
Plaintiff:- Smt.K.lakshmidevi, W/o
Dr.H.Hanumanthappa, Aged about
46 years, R/at No.18, MIG Housing
Colony, 5th Block,17th Main,
Bangalore - 560 095.
Represented by S.P.A. Holder
Dr.H.Hanumantappa.
(Sri.Sundar Raj, Advocate, )
Vs.
Defendants:- 1. M.Shankarappa, S/o Late
Munidasappa, Ageda bout 45
years.
2. Smt.Jayamma, W/o Late
Muniswamappa, Aged about 42
years.
Both are residing at No.419,
1st Main Road, Hebbal (P.O.)
Bangalore - 560 024.
3. K.Raveendran Pillai
2
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
(K.R.Pillai), S/o Kunju Pillai,
Aged about 51 years, R/at
No.5/1, 9th Cross, Kumara
Park West, Bangalore - 560
020.
(Sri.M.R.Muniraju, Advocate for D1,
Sri.T.N.Raghupathi for D2 and D3)
Parties in O.S.No.883/2004
Plaintiff:- Smt.K.lakshmidevi, W/o
Dr.H.Hanumanthappa, Aged about
46 years, R/at No.18, MIG Housing
Colony, 5th Block,17th Main,
Bangalore - 560 095.
Represented by S.P.A. Holder
Dr.H.Hanumantappa.
(Sri.Sundar Raj, Advocate)
V/s.
Defendants:- 1. M.Shankarappa, S/o Late
Munidasappa, Ageda bout 45
years.
2. Smt.Jayamma, W/o Late
Muniswamappa, Aged about 42
years.
Both are residing at No.419,
1st Main Road, Hebbal (P.O.)
Bangalore - 560 024.
3. K.Raveendran Pillai
(K.R.Pillai), S/o Kunju Pillai,
Aged about 51 years, R/at
No.5/1, 9th Cross, Kumara
Park West, Bangalore - 560 020.
3
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
(Sri.M.R.Muniraju, Advocate for D1,
Sri.T.N.Raghupathy, for D2 & 3)
Parties in O.S.No.884/2004
Plaintiff:- Sri.H.Mithun, S/o
Dr.H.Hanumanthappa, Aged about
19 years, R/at No.18, MIG Housing
Colony, 5th Block,17th Main,
Bangalore - 560 095.
Represented by S.P.A. Holder
Dr.H.Hanumantappa.
(Sri.Sundar Raj, Advocate)
Vs.
Defendants:- 1. M.Shankarappa, S/o Late
Munidasappa, Ageda bout 45
years.
2. Smt.Jayamma, W/o Late
Muniswamappa, Aged about 42
years.
Both are residing at No.419,
1st Main Road, Hebbal (P.O.)
Bangalore - 560 024.
3. K.Raveendran Pillai
(K.R.Pillai), S/o Kunju Pillai,
Aged about 51 years, R/at
No.5/1, 9th Cross, Kumara
Park West, Bangalore - 560
020.
(Sri.M.R.Muniraju Advocate, for D1,
Sri.T.N.Raghupathi for D2 & 3)
4
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
Parties in O.S.No.885/2004
Plaintiff:- Ms.Navaneetha, D/o
Dr.H.Hanumanthappa, Aged about
21 years, R/at No.18, MIG Housing
Colony, 5th Block,17th Main,
Bangalore - 560 095.
Represented by S.P.A. Holder
Dr.H.Hanumantappa.
(Sri. Sundar Raj, Advocate)
Vs.
Defendants:- 1. M.Shankarappa, S/o Late
Munidasappa, Ageda bout 45
years.
2. Smt.Jayamma, W/o Late
Muniswamappa, Aged about 42
years.
Both are residing at No.419,
1st Main Road, Hebbal (P.O.)
Bangalore - 560 024.
3. K.Raveendran Pillai
(K.R.Pillai), S/o Kunju Pillai,
Aged about 51 years, R/at
No.5/1, 9th Cross, Kumara
Park West, Bangalore - 560
020.
(Sri.T.N.Raghupathi, Advocate
for D2 and D3, Sri.M.R.Muniraju for
D1)
Particulars in all the Suits are same
Date of institution in all the 4 04.02.2004
suits
5
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
Nature of the suit in all the 4 Suit for Declaration & Injunction
suits
Date of commencement of 18.10.2014
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment was 30.10.2017
pronounced
Total duration in all the 4 Years Months Days
suits
13 08 26
/ COMMON JUDGMENT /
All the four suits are filed by the plaintiffs
seeking the relief of declaration of ownership and for
permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from
interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of
plaint schedule property by the plaintiff and for such
other reliefs.
2. Since, the plaintiffs and defendants in all the
above cases are one and the same, they are clubbed
and tried together and common evidence is recorded.
Arguments were heard in all the cases and hence,
common judgment is being delivered.
3. In brief, the case of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.882/2004 reads as under:-
6
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
Schedule of the suit property
All that piece and parcel of the site portion in
Sy.No.58/1, khatha No.30/D2/1, situated at Hebbal
Village, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East-West
50 feet and North-South 50 feet bounded on:
East by : Road,
West by : Property No.4
North by : Road
South by : Property No.2.
That the plaintiff has purchased the above schedule
property for valuable consideration from one
M.Muniswamy, S/o Sri.Munidasappa under a
registered sale deed dated: 30.9.1992, and in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the same without
interference from anybody. The plaintiff got his name
entered in the revenue records maintained by
Byatarayanapura Municipal Corporation and paid taxes
as and when falls due. That on 27.1.2004 and
subsequently on 30.1.2004 the defendants No.1 and 2
having no right, title or interest over the schedule
7
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
property unauthorizedly tried to dig and put up
compound around the suit schedule property. When
the plaintiff questioned the defendants, they falsely
claimed ownership over the suit property, even though,
they are aware that the schedule property was
originally belonged to the husband of the 2nd defendant
and the same was sold by him to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff immediately has lodged a complaint to the
Hebbal police who failed to take any action in the
matter. Therefore, plaintiff is constrained to file the suit
seeking the relief of declaration and permanent
injunction against the defendant No.1 and 2. Hence,
the suit.
4. In brief, the case of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.883/2004 reads as under:-
Schedule of the suit property
All that piece and parcel of the site portion in
Sy.No.58/1, khatha No.30/D2/2, situated at Hebbal
Village, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East-West
50 feet and North-South 50 feet bounded on:
East by : Road,
8
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
West by : Property No.3
North by : Property No.1
South by : Road
That the plaintiff has purchased the above schedule
property for valuable consideration from one
M.Muniswamy, S/o Sri.Munidasappa under a
registered sale deed dated: 30.9.1992, and in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the same without
interference from anybody. The plaintiff got his name
entered in the revenue records maintained by
Byatarayanapura Municipal Corporation and paid taxes
as and when falls due. That on 27.1.2004 and
subsequently on 30.1.2004 the defendants No.1 and 2
having no right, title or interest over the schedule
property unauthorizedly tried to dig and put up
compound around the suit schedule property. When
the plaintiff questioned the defendants, they falsely
claimed ownership over the suit property, even though,
they are aware that the schedule property was
originally belonged to the husband of the 2nd defendant
9
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
and the same was sold by him to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff immediately has lodged a complaint to the
Hebbal police who failed to take any action in the
matter. Therefore, plaintiff is constrained to file the suit
seeking the relief of declaration and permanent
injunction against the defendant No.1 and 2. Hence,
the suit.
5. In brief, the case of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.884/2004 reads as under:-
Schedule of the suit property
All that piece and parcel of the site portion in
Sy.No.58/1, khatha No.30/D2/3, situated at Hebbal
Village, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East-West
50 feet and North-South 50 feet bounded on:
East by : Property No.2
West by : Private property
North by : Property No.4
South by : Road
That the plaintiff has purchased the above schedule
property for valuable consideration from one
M.Muniswamy, S/o Sri.Munidasappa under a
10
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
registered sale deed dated: 30.9.1992, and in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the same without
interference from anybody. The plaintiff got his name
entered in the revenue records maintained by
Byatarayanapura Municipal Corporation and paid taxes
as and when falls due. That on 27.1.2004 and
subsequently on 30.1.2004 the defendants No.1 and 2
having no right, title or interest over the schedule
property unauthorizedly tried to dig and put up
compound around the suit schedule property. When
the plaintiff questioned the defendants, they falsely
claimed ownership over the suit property, even though,
they are aware that the schedule property was
originally belonged to the husband of the 2nd defendant
and the same was sold by him to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff immediately has lodged a complaint to the
Hebbal police who failed to take any action in the
matter. Therefore, plaintiff is constrained to file the suit
seeking the relief of declaration and permanent
11
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
injunction against the defendant No.1 and 2. Hence,
the suit.
6. In brief, the case of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.885/2004 reads as under:-
Schedule of the suit property
All that piece and parcel of the site portion in
Sy.No.58/1, khatha No.30/D2/4, situated at Hebbal
Village, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East-West
50 feet and North-South 50 feet bounded on:
East by : Property No.1
West by : Private property
North by : Road
South by : Property No.3.
That the plaintiff has purchased the above schedule
property for valuable consideration from one
M.Muniswamy, S/o Sri.Munidasappa under a
registered sale deed dated: 30.9.1992, and in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the same without
interference from anybody. The plaintiff got his name
entered in the revenue records maintained by
Byatarayanapura Municipal Corporation and paid taxes
as and when falls due. That on 27.1.2004 and
12
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
subsequently on 30.1.2004 the defendants No.1 and 2
having no right, title or interest over the schedule
property unauthorizedly tried to dig and put up
compound around the suit schedule property. When
the plaintiff questioned the defendants, they falsely
claimed ownership over the suit property, even though,
they are aware that the schedule property was
originally belonged to the husband of the 2nd defendant
and the same was sold by him to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff immediately has lodged a complaint to the
Hebbal police who failed to take any action in the
matter. Therefore, plaintiff is constrained to file the suit
seeking the relief of declaration and permanent
injunction against the defendant No.1 and 2. Hence,
the suit.
7. The defendants No.1 and 2 after the receipt
of suit summons appeared through their respective
counsels and filed separate written statements.
During the pendency of all the above suits, one
13
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
Ravindran Pillai filed applications U/o 1 Rule 10 of
C.PC., seeking an order to implead him in the above
suits as defendant. This Court allowed the applications
and accordingly, he has been impleaded as defendant
No.3 in all the above suits.
8. The defendant No.1 has filed similar written
statement in all the four cases wherein he has admitted
that Muniswamy is his brother. It is stated that said
Muniswamy, defendant No.1 and one Raghukumar are
the sons of Munidasappa. Raghukumar was
unmarried and died in the year 1983. Munidasappa,
Muniswamy and defendant No.1 constituted joint family
which possessed extensive properties. During the year
1986 a division was brought about in the family
properties by the panchayatdars which was later
reduced into writing on 21.2.1986. As per said
memorandum of partition, all the properties of
Munidasappa except the suit survey No.58/1 were
equally divided amongst both defendant No.1 and
14
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
Muniswamy. As far as survey No.58/1 is concerned,
Munidasappa retained half portion in the said property
while giving the remaining half portion in favour of
Muniswamy. Muniswamy had only half undivided
interest in the suit survey number but by playing fraud
and with the help of certain concocted documents got
the mutation entry made in his name with respect to
entire survey number. Munidasappa on coming to
know of this fraud immediately gave an application to
the jurisdictional Tashildar, who after holding detail
enquiry passed orders for canceling mutation entry
made exclusively in the name of Muniswamy and
directed to enter name of both Munidasappa and
Muniswamy in respect of survey No.58/1.
9. That the total extent of land in survey
No.58/1 is 7 gunta and as per mutual arrangement
between Muniswamy and Munidasappa,
Munidasappa was in exclusive possession and
enjoyment of the Western half while Muniswamy was in
15
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Eastern
half of survey No.58/1. The present suit schedule
property which is described as property bearing
No.40/D2/1 falls in the Western half of the survey
number. The property which is the subject matter of
suit in O.S.No.883/2004 bearing No.40/D2/2 falls in the
Eastern half of the survey number in question. It is
also contended that the suit schedule property in
O.S.No.883/2004 described as property bearing
No.40/D2/3 and suit schedule property in
O.S.No.884/2004 described as property bearing
No.40/D2/4 are in the Western half portion of the
survey No.58/1, which was in exclusive possession
and enjoyment of Munidasappa.
10. It is the case of defendant No.1 that during
his life time, Munidasappa executed a registered will
bequeathing the entire Western half of the suit survey
No.58/1 measuring 3-1/2 guntas in favour of this
defendant No.1. Munidasappa is now dead and
16
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
accordingly, this defendant has become owner and in
possession of Western portion of survey No.58/1
measuring 3-1/2 guntas. Thereafter, the name of this
defendant was mutated in respect of Western half of
the survey No.58/1 measuring 3 acre ½ gunta as per
M.R.No.1/96-97. It is stated that Muniswamy
appears to have sold 10,000 sq. ft. of land in survey
No.58/1 in favour of two persons who in turn seems to
have sold the same in favour of one Ravindra Pillai.
Said Ravindra Pillai has also filed a suit against this
defendant in O.S.No.860/2004 pending on the file of
CCH No.13. It is contended that there is no cause of
action for the suit and one alleged is devoid of any
merit. Accordingly, among these and other grounds
defendant No.1 has prayed to dismiss the suit of the
plaintiffs.
11. The defendant No.2 has filed similar
written statements in all the four cases contending that
the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and liable to be
17
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
dismissed in limini. She has denied that the plaintiffs
have purchased the suit property from M.Muniswamy,
and in possession of same as claimed in their
respective suits. It is stated that the defendant No.1
has put up compound wall to the suit property and in
this behalf the actual owner of the property one
Ravindra Pillai has filed O.S.No.860/2004 on the file of
City Civil Judge, Bangalore, for the relief of permanent
injunction. Said suit is pending and an order of status-
quo is passed therein.
12. Defendant No.2 submits that her husband
Muniswamy was the owner of property bearing survey
No.58/1 now converted and bearing Municipal khatha
old No.663/A-1 and 663/B, new No.3-58-1-7 and 5-58-
1-1 situated at Hebbal village, Bangalore measuring
East West 116' and North South 100' (7 guntas). He
got the property under a panchayath paluparikath
dated: 17.2.1972 executed between himself and his
father and brother M.Shankarappa. The suit property
18
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
is part of this property. After the partition, the husband
of this defendant got the land converted for forming the
residential lay out by order dated: 3.8.1987 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. After
conversion, this defendant's husband Muniswamy sold
the Southern half portion of the property measuring
East West 116' North South 50' under a registered sale
deed dated: 6.2.1998 in favour of Sri.Varghese George
and Smt.Susan Varghese. Remaining Northern portion
measuring 7151' East West and 50' North South was
sold to Thami Reddy, T.Veena and T.Vijayalakshmi
under a registered sale deed dated: 9.2.1990. Later
on, one Ravindra Pillai purchased the property from
Varghese George and Smt.Susan Varghese, Thami
Reddy, T.Veena and T.Vijayalakshmi under two
different sale deeds dated: 16.3.1995. The present
owner of the property is Ravindra Pillai and he is in
possession and enjoyment of the entire property. The
husband of this defendant did not execute the sale
19
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
deed dated: 30.9.1992 in favour of the plaintiff as
claimed. If there is any such document, it is a forged
and concocted one. The present suit has been filed
making false allegations and at the instance of the 1st
defendant. Accordingly, among these and other
grounds she has prayed to dismiss the suit.
13. Defendant No.3 has filed written statement
in all the four cases taking similar contentions wherein
he has specifically stated that the suit schedule
property originally belonged to one Munidasappa, son
of Muniswamappa, Munidasappa had become the
absolute owner of suit schedule property along with
certain other properties under a partition deed dated:
25.10.1970 effected between his brothers and himself
Munidasappa had two sons by name M.Shankarappa -
the 1st defendant herein and one M.Muniswamy.
Under a panchayat Palu Parikath dated:12.2.1972,
two sons of Munidasappa got divided the family
properties between them. In the said division
20
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
Muniswamy got properties which included survey
No.58/1. Munidasappa and his sons reported division
of the property to the revenue authorities and the
mutation was effected changing the khatha which was
originally standing in the name of Munidasappa. The
plaintiff is not the owner of suit schedule property nor
she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
property. Ever since, the date of the panchayath palu
parikath M.Muniswamy was enjoying the properties
that fell to his share including the suit schedule
property and he was in possession of the same.
Conversion to the land was applied for by Muniswamy
and Deputy Commissioner by his order dated: 3.8.1987
granted conversion for 7 guntas of land in survey
No.58/1. M.Muniswamy had sold the Southern portion
of survey No.58/1 measuring 116' East-West and 50'
North-South to Sri.Varghese George and Smt.Susan
Varghese by registered sale deed dated: 6.2.1998. On
9.2.1990, Muniswamy executed another sale deed
21
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
selling the Northern portion of the schedule property in
favour of Thammi Reddy, T.Veena and
T.Vijayalakshmi. This portion also measures 116'
East-West and 50' North-South. On 16.3.1995 Thami
Reddy, T.Veena and T.Vijayalakshmi sold the property
purchased by them in favour of this defendant.
Thereafter, on the same day Varghese George and
Smt.Susan Varghese also sold the portion of the
property purchased by them in survey No.58/1 in
favour of this defendant. This defendant has been in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property ever since 16.3.1995.
14. Defendant No.3 contends that in all the
above four connected cases, the plaintiffs are claiming
to be the owners in possession of land measuring 50' x
50' each in survey No.58/1. That the total extent of
land in survey No.58/1 was 116' x 100' due to the
encroachment of 16' on the Western side, the entire
extent now only measures 100' x 100'. That the
22
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
partition deed dated:12.2.1972 had been acted upon
by Munidasappa and his children. After the khatha of
the suit schedule property, was changed to the name
of this defendant, the 1st defendant filed objection to
the change of khatha. Based on a spurious and vide
order dated: 5.2.1996 passed by the Tashildar,
Bangalore North Taluk, the CMC., Byatarayanapura
issued a notice to this defendant calling upon him to
show cause as to why the khatha made in his favour
should not be cancelled. This defendant gave a reply
to said notice. The CMC., by its order dated: 4.6.1999
held that the khatha in respect of half portion of the
property should be retained in the name of this
defendant and for the remaining half portion status-quo
should be maintained. Thus, the khatha in respect of
Southern portion has continued to remain in the name
of this defendant, whereas, the khatha in respect of
Northern portion has been restored to the names of
these defendants vendors ie., Thammi Reddy, T.Veena
23
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
and T.Vijayalakshmi. The suit filed by this defendant in
O.S.No.860/2004 has been decreed in his favour. The
Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient, the
boundaries given by the plaintiff are incorrect, the
frame of the suit is bad and it is misconceived.
Accordingly, among these and other grounds, the
defendant No.3 has prayed to dismiss the suit.
15. From the above pleadings of the parties, my
Learned Predecessor in office has framed the following
issues:
ISSUES IN O.S.NO.882/2004
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she
has purchased the suit schedule
property for a valuable consideration
from one M.Muniswamy under a
registered sale deed dated: 30.9.1992?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is
the lawful and absolute owner of the
suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is
in lawful possession and enjoyment of
suit schedule property as on the date of
the suit?
24
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
4. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
interference by the defendants?
5. Whether the 3rd defendant proves that
he is the absolute owner and is in
possession of the suit property since
16.3.1995?
6. Whether there is no cause of action to
file this suit?
7. Whether the suit is properly valued and
the Court fee paid is sufficient?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
relief sought for?
9. What decree or order?
ISSUES IN O.S.NO.883/2004
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she
has purchased the suit schedule
property for a valuable consideration
from one M.Muniswamy under a
registered sale deed dated: 30.9.1992?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is
the lawful and absolute owner of the
suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is
in lawful possession and enjoyment of
suit schedule property as on the date of
the suit?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
interference by the defendants?
25
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
5. Whether the 3rd defendant proves that
he is the absolute owner and is in
possession of the suit property since
16.3.1995?
6. Whether there is no cause of action to
file this suit?
7. Whether the suit is properly valued and
the Court fee paid is sufficient?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
relief sought for?
9. What decree or order?
ISSUES IN O.S.NO.884/2004
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has
purchased the suit schedule property
for a valuable consideration from one
M.Muniswamy under a registered sale
deed dated: 30.9.1992?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
the lawful and absolute owner of the
suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in
lawful possession and enjoyment of suit
schedule property as on the date of the
suit?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
interference by the defendants?
26
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
5. Whether the 3rd defendant proves that
he is the absolute owner and is in
possession of the suit property since
16.3.1995?
6. Whether there is no cause of action to
file this suit?
7. Whether the suit is properly valued and
the Court fee paid is sufficient?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
relief sought for?
9. What decree or order?
ISSUES IN O.S.NO.885/2004
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she
has purchased the suit schedule property
for a valuable consideration from one
M.Muniswamy under a registered sale
deed dated: 30.9.1992?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is
the lawful and absolute owner of the suit
schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is
in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit
schedule property as on the date of the
suit?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
interference by the defendants?
5. Whether the 3rd defendant proves that
he is the absolute owner and is in
27
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
possession of the suit property since
16.3.1995?
6. Whether there is no cause of action to
file this suit?
7. Whether the suit is properly valued and
the Court fee paid is sufficient?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
relief sought for?
9. What decree or order?
16. As noted above all the four cases are
clubbed. The Special Power of attorney holder in all
the four cases is examined himself as P.W.1 and got
marked documents produced in respective cases
which were subsequently given continuous Exhibit
numbers as Exs.P1 to P32 and closed their side of
evidence. On behalf of the defendants, the 3rd
defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked
documents as per Exs.D1 to D33 and closed his side.
Defendant No.1 and 2 have not led any evidence nor
produce documents in support of their case.
28
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
17. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
plaintiffs and defendant No.3 in all the cases and
perused the records.
18. On careful consideration of the pleadings,
the oral and documentary evidence on record and the
points urged during the course of arguments, I answer
the above issues as under:-
In O.S.No.882/2004
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 : Affirmative in part
Issue No.6 : In the affirmative
Issue No.7 : In the affirmative
Issue No.8 : In the negative
Issue No.9 : As per final order
for the following:
In O.S.No.883/2004
29
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
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 : Affirmative in part
Issue No.6 : In the affirmative
Issue No.7 : In the affirmative
Issue No.8 : In the negative
Issue No.9 : As per final order
for the following:
In O.S.No.884/2004
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 : Affirmative in part
Issue No.6 : In the affirmative
Issue No.7 : In the affirmative
Issue No.8 : In the negative
Issue No.9 : As per final order
30
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
for the following:
In O.S.No.885/2004
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 : Affirmative in part
Issue No.6 : In the affirmative
Issue No.7 : In the affirmative
Issue No.8 : In the negative
Issue No.9 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
19. Issue Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.Nos.882/04,
883/04, 884/04 & 885/04:- Since these issues are
interconnected, they are taken up together for
discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
It is relevant to note here that issue Nos.1 to 3 in all
the four cases are identical and framed casting burden
on the plaintiffs to prove that they have purchased suit
31
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
schedule property for a valuable consideration from
one Muniswamy under the registered sale deed
dated:30.9.1992 and they are absolute owners and in
lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule
property as on the date of suit.
20. It is the case of the plaintiff
Smt.Lakshmidevi in O.S. No.882/04 and 883/04 that
she has purchased the suit schedule property for a
valuable consideration from one Muniswamy under a
registered sale deed dated: 30.9.1992 and has become
lawful and absolute owner and in possession of suit
property without any interference. It is also the case
of plaintiff in O.S.No.884/04 Sri.H.Mithun and the
plaintiff in O.S.No.885/05 H.Navineetha that they have
purchased suit schedule property for a valuable
consideration from one M.Muniswamy under a
registered sale deed dted:30.9.1992 and have become
owners and in lawful possession and enjoyment of
32
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
their respective suit schedule property as on the date
of suit without any interference from any body.
21. The defendants No.1 to 3 have denied that
the plaintiffs in the above suits are owners and in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule
property as claimed. The defendant No.2 wife of
M.Muniswamy has denied that her husband
M.Muniswamy has sold property in favour of the above
plaintiffs in survey No.58/1 under the sale deeds dated:
30.9.1992 and contended that the tax demand register
extract produced by the plaintiffs entering their name in
respect of land in sy.no.58/1 is a concocted document
and will not convey any right or title on any of the
plaintiffs.
22. Defendant No.1 brother of M.Muniswamy
has contended that he is owner and in possession of
property measuring 3-1/2 guntas in Western portion of
survey No.58/1 by virtue of will executed by his father
Munidasappa. He contends that the property as
33
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
described in O.S.No.882/04 bearing khatha
No.40/D2/1, property in O.S.No.884/2004 bearing
khatha No.40/D2/3 and property in O.S.No.885/2004
bearing khatha No.40/D2/4 fall in the Western portion
of Sy.No.58/1 belonging to him, whereas the suit
property in O.S.No.883/2004 bearing katha
No.40/D2/2, falls in Eastern portion of said survey
number belonging to Muniswamy and thereby he has
denied the case of the plaintiffs.
23. As noted above the plaintiffs in above suit
filed their respective cases seeking the relief of
declaration and permanent injunction against
defendant No.1and 2 alleging denial of title by them.
However, during the pendency of the suit K. Ravindran
Pillai got impleaded himself as defendant No.3 and
filed the written statement denying the title and
possession of the suit property as claimed by the
plaintiffs. The defendant 3 contended that one
Muniswamy was the owner of property bearing survey
34
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
No.,58/1 measuring 7 guntas and after getting
conversion of said land he formed a residential lay out
and sold Southern portion of the property in favour of
one Varghese George and Smt.Susan Varghese and
Northern half portion in favour of Thammi Reddy,
T.Veena and T.Vijayalakshmi, who in turn have sold
entire land in survey No.58/1 in favour of this
defendant. This defendant is the owner and in
possession of entire property measuring East-West
100' x North-South 100' bearing survey No.58/1 and
thereby he has also denied the case of the plaintiffs
that they are owning and possessing property in survey
No.58 of Hebbal vilalge.
24. It is relevant to note here that the plaintiffs
in O.S.No.884/2004 and 885/2004 are the children of
Smt.Lakshmidevi who is plaintiff in O.S.Nos.882/2004
and 883/2004. One Dr.H.Hanumanthappa, husband
of plaintiff Lakshmidevi and father of plaintiffs in
O.S.No.884/2004 and 885/2004 is their Special power
35
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
of attorney holder and has been examined as Pw.1 in
all the four cases wherein, he has reiterated the plaint
averments of respective cases and got marked
documents produced in each case which are
numbered as Ex.P1 to 32.
25. Pw.1 specifically deposed that the plaintiffs
in above cases are absolute owners and in possession
of suit properties. He deposed that the defendants
without any interest over the suit property are denying
the title of the plaintiffs. In support of his oral evidence
Pw.1 got marked sale deed pertaining to suit property
in O.S.No.882/2004 bearing khatha No.40/D2/1
dated: 30.9.1992 as per Ex.P1, sale deed pertaining to
suit property in O.S.No.883/2004 in respect of khatha
No.40/D2/2 dated: 30.9.1992 as per Ex.P8, sale deed
pertaining to suit property in O.S.No.884/2004 in
respect of khatha No.40/D2/3 dated: 30.9.1992 as per
Ex.P16 and sale deed pertaining to suit property in
O.S.No.885/2004 in respect of khatha No.40/D2/4
36
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
dated: 30.9.1992 as per Ex.P24. He also got marked
tax demand register extract issued by Byatarayanapura
Municipal Corporation in respect of suit property in
O.S.No.882/2004 as per Ex.P2, in respect of suit
property in O.S.No.883/2004 as per Ex.P11, in respect
of suit property in O.S.No.884/2004 as per Ex.P19 and
in respect of suit property in O.S.No.885/2004 as per
Ex.P27. He also got marked particulars of, property
self assessment submitted by plaintiffs to Municipal
Corporation along with tax paid receipt pertaining to
site No.1, khatha No.40/D2/1 as per Exs.P3 and P4,
site No.2, khatha No.40/D2/2 as per Exs.P12 and P13,
site No.3, khatha No.40/D2/3 as per Exs.P20 and
21and site No.4 khatha No.40/02/4 as per Exs.P28 and
29. He also got marked encumbrance certificates
pertaining to property bearing khatha No.40/D2/1 for
the period from 1.4.1980 to 19.2.2014 as per Exs.P5 to
P7, encumbrance certificates pertaining to property
bearing khatha No.40/D2/2 for the period from
37
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
1.4.1980 to 19.2.2014 as per Exs.P9, 10 and 15,
encumbrance certificates pertaining to property bearing
khatha No.40/D2/3 for the period from 1.4.1980 to
19.2.2014 as per Exs.P17, 18, 23 and 31 and
encumbrance certificates pertaining to property bearing
khatha No.40/D2/4 for the period from 1.4.1980 to
19.2.2014 as per Exs.P25 and 26. Lastly, he has got
marked copy of the complaint filed in O.S.No.883/2004,
884/2004 and 885/2004 as per Exs.P14, 22 and 30
respectively.
26. During cross-examination Pw.1 states that
the measurement of suit properties in all the four cases
measures 50 x 50' each and they are situated adjacent
to each other in a single block. He states that at the
time of purchase of suit sites there was a common
compound to all the sites and four small houses have
been constructed therein. He states that plaintiffs have
not constructed compound to the suit property but
denied that defendant No.3 got constructed compound
38
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
wall to the suit property. He states that they have
purchased suit properties from Muniswamy son of
Rangadasappa. He denied that the father's name of
Muniswamy is Munidasappa. However, he admitted
that Munidasappa had two sons by name Shankarappa
and Muniswamy. He denied that said Muniswamy had
sold property in survey No.58/1 in favour of Varghese
couple and remaining portion of property in favour of
Thammi Reddy. However, there after he pleads
ignorance that Muniswamy has sold Southern portion
of survey No.58/1 measuring 50 x 100' in favour of
Varghese George under the registered sale deed
dated: 6.2.1998 and remaining property measuring 50
x 100' in favour of Thammi Reddy under the registered
sale deed dated:9.2.1990. He denied that
subsequently Varghese couple and Thammi Reddy
have sold their respective site in favour of defendant
No.3 - Ravindran Pillai. He admitted that in Ex.P6
encumbrance certificate detail particulars regarding
39
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
property are not mentioned. He also admitted that he
has not produced the original sale deeds pertaining to
suit properties, but denied that there are no signatures
of Muniswamy in the original sale deeds. He also
denied that during the year 1992 Muniswamy had no
right to execute sale deeds pertaining to suit
properties. He pleads ignorance that defendant No.1
Shankarappa had filed suit for injunction in
O.S.No.6667/1995 and thereafter, withdrawn the suit.
He denied that suit filed by defendant No.3 for the relief
of injunction in O.S.No.860/2004 is decreed and said
Ravindran Pillai has constructed two temporary sheds
in the suit property.
27. As noted above the defendants No.1 and 2
though specifically denied the ownership and
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property have
not entered into witness box to lead evidence and they
have also not produced any documents to substantiate
their contentions.
40
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
28. Defendant No.3 who got impleaded in the
above cases has appeared before the Court and
examined himself as Dw.1, by filing common affidavit in
respect of his defence in all the cases, Dw.1 has
reiterated his written statement contentions and
specifically deposed that the property bearing survey
No.58/1 now converted and bearing Municipal old
khatha No.663/A-1 and 663/B new khatha No.3-58-1-7
and 4.58-1-1 situated at Hebbal village measuring 100'
East-West x 110' North-South was originally belonged
to one Munidasappa son of Muniswamy. Munidasappa
became the absolute owner of the above property
under the absolute sale deed dated: 25.10.1970.
Subsequently, under a palu parikath dated: 12.2.1972
the two sons of Munidasappa viz., Muniswamy and
Shankarappa got divided the properties wherein
Muniswamy got property in survey No.58/1 along with
other properties.
41
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
29. Dw.1 specifically states that Muniswamy who
was the owner of the property in survey No.58/1 got
converted the same for residential purpose and sold
the property measuring 116' East-West and 50' North-
South in favour of Varghese couple and remaining
property measuring 116' x 50' in favour of Thammi
Reddy, T.Veena and T.Vijayalakshmi by executing
sale deed dated: 9.2.1990. Subsequently, during the
year 1995 Varghese couple and Thammi Reddy have
sold the said property in favour of this defendant and
thereby he has become owner of property bearing
survey No.58/1 measuring 116' East-West and 100'
North-South. However, there has been encroachment
of 16' on the Western side and as a result, the property
now has been reduced to 100' x 100' and he is in
possession of the said property as absolute owner and
covered the same by a compound. However, he
states that during the pendency of the suit, he has sold
the entire suit property in favour of M/s. Sundew
42
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
properties under a sale deed dated: 3.8.2013 and put
the purchaser in possession of the same. He is
contesting the suit since he was owner and in
possession of the suit property as on the date of suit
and even after the sale deed he has to indemnify title
and possession to his property. Accordingly, he has
prayed to dismiss the suit.
30. In support of his oral evidence, Dw.1 got
marked certified copy of sale deed dated: 6.2.1998,
certified copy of sale deed dated: 16.3.1995, certified
copy of sale deed dated: 9.2.1990 and certified copy of
sale deed dated: 16.3.1995 as per Exs.D1 to D4.
31. He has also deposed that there was a suit
filed by N.Munidasappa represented by his son
Shankarappa as a General Power of Attorney holder in
O.S.No.6667/1995 on the file of the City Civil Judge,
Bangalore, for permanent injunction against him.
However, finally he withdrawn the said suit on
3.2.1998. Subsequently, he filed suit in
43
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
O.S.No.860/2004 against the 1st defendant
M.Shankarappa and same was decreed in respect of
the entire property in Sy.No.58/1. In support of this,
Dw.1 got marked certified copy of order sheet and
memo in O.S.No.6667/1995 as per Exs.D5 and 6
respectively. He got marked certified copy of
recommendation of Tashildar and order passed by
Deputy Commissioner and also conversion order in
respect of land in survey No.58/1 as per Exs.D7 to D9.
He also got marked certified copy of record of rights
pertaining to survey No.58/1 as per Exs.D10 to D12.
He also got marked certified copy of judgment in
O.S.No.860/2004 as per Ex.D13, khatha certificate and
khatha extract as per Ex.D14 to D17, encumbrance
certificate as per Ex.D18. He also got marked certified
copy of sale deeds dated: 3.8.2013 executed by him in
favour of M/s.Sundew properties as per Ex.D19 and
D20, two assessment register extract as per Exs.D21
and D22. Subsequently, Dw.1 produced and got
44
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
marked certified copy of plaint, written statement in
O.S.No.860/2004 as per Exs.D23 and D24. He also
got marked the original sale deed dated: 6.2.1988
executed by Muniswamy in favour of Varghese George
and Susan Varghese as per Ex.D25, original sale
deed dated: 9.2.1990 executed by Muniswamy in
favour of T.Thammi Reddy, T.Veena and
T.Vijayalakshmi as per Ex.D26, original sale deed
dated:16.3.1995 executed by Varghese George and
Susan Varghese in favour of defendant No.3 as per
Ex.D27 and original sale deed dated: 16.3.1995
executed by T.Thammi Reddy, T.Veena and
T.Vijayalakshmi in favour of defendant No.3 as per
Ex.D28. He also got marked copy of the complaint
lodged against defendant No.1 Shankarappa as per
Ex.D29, memo of withdrawal and judgment passed in
RFA No.114/2009 as per Exs.D30 and 31 respectively.
Lastly, he got marked the atlas copy in respect of
survey No.58/1-2-3 - 4A and 4B as per Ex.D32.
45
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
32. During cross-examination, Dw.1 states that
as per said partition between Muniswamy and his
brother the property in survey No.58/1 had fallen to the
share of Muniswamy. He has seen the partition deed
entered by them and has produced the copy of said
deed in this case. He admitted that in the sale deed
executed in favour of Varghese couple towards
Southern side existence of IVRI road is shown. He
also admitted that as per said sale deed there is no
road towards Southern side of their property. He
admitted that as per Ex.D1 Varghese couple have
purchased property measuring East-West 116' and
North-South 50' from Muniswamy but he has
purchased property measuring East-West 100' North-
South 50' from them. He also admitted that in the sale
deed executed by them towards Northern side no road
is shown. He states that when Varghese couple
purchased property it was measuring 116' but when he
purchased from them it was only 100' and remaining
46
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
16' was encroached by others. However, he cannot
say in what portion property is encroached. He denied
that the property purchased by Varghese couple from
Muniswamy and property purchased by him from
Varghese are different properties. He states that he
cannot identify the suit property in the Hebbal village
map. He denied that Varghese have not sold any
property in his favour and he has created Exs.D1 and
D2 documents. He admitted that he has not
purchased any property in respect of khatha
No.40/D2/1 of Hebbal Village. But, denied that if
plaintiffs declaration in respect of suit khatha number is
declared no prejudice will cause to him. He denied that
suit schedule properties are not adjacent to IVRI and
IVC road. He admits that till filing of his chief
examination affidavit, he has not informed about sale of
property in favour of M/s Sundew properties. He also
admitted that Exs.D19 and 20 sale deeds executed by
him in favour of M/s Sundew properties he has not
47
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
shown IVRI road towards Southern side of said
property. He admits that he has purchased the
property situated towards Southern side of IVRI Road.
He has not produced any document to show that the
name of IVRI road is changed.
33. He admitted that he has purchased property
from Thammi Reddy which was purchased by him from
Muniswamy. He also admitted that in the sale deed
executed by Muniswamy in favour of T.Thammi Reddy
towards Eastern side of property Lalbagh Sastrynagar
lay out road is shown. He states that now said road is
not in existence. He admits that he has not got
executed any rectification deed pertaining to non
existence of road towards Eastern side. He denied
that the property purchased by him at Lalbagh
Sastrynagar lay out is not in existence and he is
claiming suit property as his property without having
any right or possession over the said property. He
admits that there is no mention about Lalbagh
48
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
Sastrynagar lay out road and IVRC road in the suit
schedule. But, denied that he is falsely claiming suit
property as his property.
34. The Learned Counsel for plaintiffs in all
the cases vehemently argued that the plaintiffs in all
the above cases, are owners and in possession of suit
schedule property on the basis of registered sale deed
dated: 30.9.1992. The documents produced by the
plaintiffs clearly indicate that they are the owners and
in possession of their respective properties. The sale
deeds produced by the defendant No.3 are in respect
of different properties and they are no way connected
to the suit schedule properties claimed by the plaintiffs.
It is argued that defendant No.3 illegally got created
sale deed to suit his claim over the suit property and
during the pendency of the suit has sold the property in
favour of one Sundew properties without having clear
title and possession over the suit property. Now,
defendant No.3 has lost his right and has no locus
49
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
standi to oppose the case of the plaintiffs. Defendants
No.1 and 2 have also failed to produce any documents
contrary to the documents produced by the plaintiffs.
Therefore, prayed to decree the suit.
35. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for
defendant No.3 argued that in this case, the original
source of title is not in dispute. It is admitted fact that
Muniswamy was the owner of property in survey
No.58/1, said Muniswamy has sold property in survey
No.58/1 in favour of the vendors of defendant No.3.
The sale deeds produced by the defendant No.3
executed by Muniswamy in favour of Varghese and
Thammi Reddy as well as sale deeds executed by
Varghese and Thammi Reddy in favour of defendant
No.3 clearly shows that they are earlier purchasers.
Muniswamy has not executed any sale deeds in favour
of plaintiffs as during the year 1992 he did not have
any property to alienate. Though, the defendants
have disputed the ownership of the plaintiffs over the
50
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
suit schedule property, none of the plaintiffs have
produced original sale deeds even though authority of
their vendor is seriously disputed. No declaration of
title can be granted on the basis of certified copy of
sale deed as none of the plaintiffs have complied the
requirements of Section 62 to 65 of Evidence Act. The
defendant No.3 has produced all the original sale
deeds which clearly make out that Muniswamy has
sold property in survey No.58/1 long back in favour of
vendor of defendant No.3. Hence, the documents
produced by the plaintiffs are not genuine and
therefore, prayed to dismiss all the suits.
36. In support of his arguments, the Learned
Counsel for defendant relied upon the decisions
reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1809 between
Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. M.Papaiah
and another, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2823 between
Smt.Sawarni Vs. Smt.Inder Kaur and others, AIR 1968
Punjab & Haryana 110 (V55C 31) between Hukum
51
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
Singh Nadir Singh Vs. Hakumat Rai Nihal Chand and
AIR 1967 Supreme Court 359 (V54 C69) between
V.M.Rv.Ramaswami Chettiar and another Vs.
R.Muthukrishna Aiyar and others. By relying upon the
above decisions, the Learned Counsel for defendant
No.3 submits that though defendant No.3 has already
sold his property in favour of one Sundew properties, it
is his obligation to perfect the title and hence prayed to
reject the claim of the plaintiffs.
37. I have perused the pleadings, documents
and the principles laid down in the above decisions. In
the above cited 1st decision, it is held that the revenue
record is not document of title. In the second decision
it is held that Appellate Court would not reverse the
decree merely on ground of mutation entry in favour of
defendant. In the 3rd and 4th cited decisions it is held
that the usual covenants for title given on a sale deed
of free holder by beneficial owner are (i) for right to
convey (ii) for quiet enjoyment, (iii) for freedom from
52
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
encumbrance, (iv) further assurance. Covenant that a
vendor has good right to convey means that he is
entitled to convey the interest which he has agreed to
sell. The 2nd covenant of quiet possession protects the
purchaser against acts done by the vendor or by
persons claiming under him. The 3rd covenant
assures the purchaser that the property is free from all
encumbrances claims and demands other than those
to which the conveyance is expressly made subject.
The last covenant oblizes the vendor where the title
conveyed is defective to do everything, which is right
and possible in order to perfect the title. The above 4
covenant are enforceable against the vendor and his
successors and by the vendee and his successors who
take the estate.
38. In this case on perusal of pleadings both
oral and documentary evidence and also the grounds
urged by the Learned Counsels appearing for the
parties, it is seen that originally property measuring 7
53
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
guntas in survey No.58/1 was belonging to family of
one Munidasappa. According to defendant No.1 as per
partition between Munidasappa and his sons, said 7
guntas of land was divided between Munidasappa and
his son Muniswamy equally. It is also the specific
contention of defendant No.1 that as per the
arrangement entered between Munidasappa and
Muniswamy property to the extent of 3-1/2 guntas
towards Eastern side was taken by Muniswamy and
remaining 3-1/2 guntas towards Western side was
taken by Munidasappa. He also contended that the
suit property described in O.S.No.882/2004 bearing
khatha No.40/D2/1 and properties described as
bearing khatha No.40/D2/3 and khatha No.40/D2/4 are
within the Western half of survey No.58/1 belonging to
him. It is also contended that Muniswamy who was
owning Eastern half measuring 3-1/2 gunta in survey
No.58/1 had sold the same in favour of two persons
who in turn have sold the same in favour of defendant
54
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
No.3 - Ravindra Pillai who is owner and in possession
of 3-1/2 gunta in survey No.58/1 and remaining 3-1/2
gunta belongs to him by virtue of registered will
executed by his father Munidasappa and thereby he
denied the entire claim of the plaintiffs. However,
except taking these contentions in his written
statement, defendant No.1 has not entered into witness
box nor produced any documents to show that he is
owner or in possession of 3-1/2 guntas of property in
Western portion of survey No.58/1 by virtue of will
executed by Munidasappa. Defendant No.2 who also
denied the ownership as well as possession of the
plaintiffs over the suit property has also failed to place
any oral or documentary evidence to support her
contentions.
39. It is pertinent to note here that in a suit for
declaration and injunction, where the plaintiffs title and
that of his vendor as well as the identity of the property
is disputed by the defendants, the plaintiff is not
55
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
entitled for relief of declaration and injunction if fails to
produce sufficient evidence as to existence of suit
property as described in the plaint.
40. In this case, as noted above, plaintiffs in all
the cases are claiming the relief regarding title as well
as permanent injunction in respect of land measuring in
all 100' x 100' in survey No.58/1 having khatha
No.40/02/1, 40/D2/2, 40/D2/3 and 40/D2/4 respectively
under the sale deeds dated:30.9.1992. In order to
prove their claim plaintiffs in all the four cases have
produced certified copies of sale deeds as per Exs.P1,
P8, P16 and P24 along with assessment register
extracts entered in their name as per Exs.P2, P11, P19
and P27. They have also produced the encumbrance
certificates for the period from 1.4.1980 to 31.3.2004
and 1.4.2004 to 19.2.2014 standing in the name of
their vendor and in their names.
41. On perusal of certified copies of sale deeds
marked at Exs.P1 and P8, it can be seen that plaintiff
56
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
in O.S.No.882/2004 and 883/2004 Smt.K.Lakshmidevi
has purchased a portion of property in khatha
No.40/D2/1 measuring East-West 50' x North-South
50' with one square feet roofed house and a portion of
property in khatha No.40/D2/2 measuring East-West
50' x North-South 50' with one square sheet roofed
house. According to Exs.P16 the plaintiff in
O.S.No.884/2004 H.Muthun has purchased property
bearing portion of khatha No.40/D2/3 measuring East
West 50' North South 50' with one square sheet house
and according to Exs.P24 the plaintiff in
O.S.No.885/2004 Navaneetha has purchased property
bearing portion of khatha No.40/D2/4 measuring East
West 50' North South 50' with one square sheet house.
42. As per Ex.P2 and 11 the name of plaintiff
K.Lakshmidevi is entered in the tax demand register
extract maintained by Municipal Corporation,
Byatarayanaura, Bangalore for the year 2003 - 2004
as owner in respect of property No.1 and 2 in survey
57
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
No.58/1. As per Exs.P18 and P27 the name of plaintiff
Muthun and Navaneetha are entered as a owner in the
tax demand register extract for the year 2003-2004 in
respect of property No.3 and property No.4 in survey
No.58/1 respectively.
43. Ex.P3, P4 and Exs.P12 and P13 shows
that plaintiff K.Lakshmidevi has submitted particulars
list of property self assessment for the year 2003 -
2004 and has paid tax in respect of site No.1 bearing
khatha No.40/D2/1 and site No.2 bearing khatha
No.40/D2/2. Ex.P20 and P21 and Exs.P28 and P29
also shows that plaintiffs H.Muthun and Navaneetha H
have also submitted particulars of list of property self
assessment for the year 2003 - 2004 in respect of site
Nos.3 and 4 bearing khatha No.40/02/3 and 40/02/4
and have paid tax to the Byatarayanapura City
Municipal Council. Lastly, the encumbrance
certificates got marked by Pw.1 in respect of suit
property in O.S.No.882/2004 as per Exs.P5 to P7 and
58
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
Exs.P9, 10 and 15 shows that the name of plaintiff
Lakshmidevi is entered for the property bearing khatha
No.40/D2/1 measuring 50 x 50' and property bearing
khatha No.40/D2/2 measuring 50' x 50' on the basis of
sale deed dated:30.9.1992/ 1,10.1992, Ex. P17, 18
and P23 shows that the name of plaintiff Muthun is
entered for the property bearing khatha No.40/D2/3
measuring 50 x 50' and Ex. P25, 26 and P31 shows
that the name of plaintiff Navaneetha H is entered for
the property bearing khatha No.40/D2/4 measuring 50
x 50' on the basis of sale deed dated:30.9.1992.
These encumbrance certificates shows that name of
M.Muniswamy was appearing for the above khatha
number properties from 1.4.1980 and the name of
respective plaintiffs is entered on the basis of their
respective sale deeds and continued till 2014.
However, except certified copies of sale deeds,
assessment register extract for the year 2003-2004
and encumbrance certificates, plaintiffs have not
59
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
produced any documents to show that Muniswamy had
formed layout bearing site Nos.1 to 4 in survey
No.58/1, which were given khatha No.40/02/1 to 4 and
were entered in the name of said Muniswamy.
44. As noted above, the defendant No.3 has
specifically contended that the plaintiff's vendor
Muniswamy though owning property in survey No.58/1
measuring 7 guntas, during 1992 he had no property to
alienate in favour of plaintiffs. According to defendant
No.3 said Muniswamy had acquired 7 guntas of land in
survey No.58/1 though partition deed and he got
converted said land for the purpose of forming
residential lay out and had sold the same in favour of
one Varghese couple and another portion in favour of
Thammi Reddy. As noted above he has produced the
original sale deeds dated:6.2.1988 and 9.2.1990
executed by Muniswamy in favour of Varghese and
Thammi Reddy as per Exs.D25 and D26 respectively.
60
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
45. On perusal of these two sale deeds, it can
be seen that Muniswamy has sold property measuring
116' East-West 50' North-South bearing site No.1
khatha No.663 formed in converted land in survey
No.58/1 as per conversion order dated: 3.8.1987 in
favour of Varghese George and Susan Varghese. It is
also seen that said Muniswamy has sold another
portion in favour of K.Thammi Reddy, T.Veena and
T.Vijayalakshmi through registered sale deed dated:
9.2.1990 bearing site No.2 measuring 116' x 50'
formed out of survey No.58/1 of Hebbal village in
converted land as per order of the Deputy
Commissioner dated: 3.8.1987. However, when the
Varghese couple and Thammi Reddy have sold
property in favour of defendant No.3 as per registered
sale deed marked at Ex.D27 and D28 it is seen that
they have sold property measuring 100' x 50' each
with same boundaries. As per sale deed executed by
Varghese couple and Thammi Reddy and others,
61
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
defendant No.3 has purchased property in all 100' x
100' in survey No.58/1 with boundaries towards East
Lalbhadur Sastrinagar lay out road and towards West
Anjanappa's property. He has purchased property
having boundaries towards North IVC road and South
IVRI road. It is also relevant to mention here that
while selling the property in favour of Sundew
properties as per sale deed marked at Exs.D19 and
D20, the defendant has alienated property in all 100' x
100' with different boundaries as towards East and
West private property and road towards North and
South. Though, the description of the property in the
sale deeds executed by Muniswamy, Varghese couple
and Thammi Reddy and others is shown as immovable
property being residential site in survey No.58/1
bearing Municipal khatha No.663, but there is a change
in the measurement as well as boundaries with out any
explanation to that effect.
62
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
46. As rightly argued by the Learned Counsel
for plaintiffs though there are discrepancies in the sale
deeds produced by defendant No.3 in the extent of
land and boundaries, in those sale deeds survey
No.58/1 and about conversion order passed by Deputy
Commissioner is mentioned. As pointed out by the
Learned Counsel for plaintiffs on account of change of
extent of property and boundaries without there being
any rectification deed, no ownership or title can be
conferred in favour of defendant No.3 over the
properties claimed by him. However, the arguments of
the Learned Counsel for plaintiffs that since the
defendant No.3 is not claiming any right over the
property bearing khatha No.40/D2/1 to 4, the suit of the
plaintiffs has to be decreed cannot be accepted for the
reasons that the plaintiffs have to prove their title and
possession over their respective properties by placing
satisfactory evidence.
63
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
47. It is relevant to note here the decision of
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2016
(5) KCCR 1233 between Annappa Vs. Lakshmi Devi
Devara Temple and Nulichandayya Devasthan
Committee and others, wherein it is held that in a suit
for declaration of title and permanent injunction
burden lies on the plaintiffs and weakness if any of
defendants is not a ground to grant relief. It is clearly
held that relief of declaration and permanent injunction
cannot be granted solely based on mutation and other
revenue entries as the revenue entries are relevant
only for purpose of paying land revenue and have
nothing to do with ownership.
48. It is also relevant to note here the decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in (2014) 2
Supreme Cases 269 between Union of India and
others Vs.Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society
Limited and others, wherein it is held that in a suit for
declaration of title and possession burden of proof is on
64
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
the plaintiffs to establish its case, irrespective of
whether defendants prove their case or not. In the
absence of establishment of its own title, the plaintiff
must be non suited, even if title set up by defendants is
found against them.
49. In this case, the plaintiffs are claiming
ownership as well as possession over their respective
suit properties on the basis of not only the revenue
entries but also on the basis of registered sale deeds.
As discussed above, all the plaintiffs have produced
their respective sale deeds as per Exs.P1,8, 16 and 24
respectively. But, as pointed out and argued by the
Learned Counsel for defendant No.3 the plaintiffs have
produced only certified copies of their respective sale
deeds and failed to place the original sale deeds in
spite of specific contention by the defendants. The
defendants No.1 to 3 have contended that during the
year 1992, the plaintiffs vendor Muniswamy had no
property or interest to execute sale deeds in respect of
65
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
land in survey No.58/1 and specifically contended that
the sale deed are concocted documents.
50. It is settled law that one has to produce
best evidence before the Court to support his case. In
this case, the plaintiffs are claiming declaration of title
therefore they have to produce the original title deeds
ie., primary evidence. No doubt, one can produce
certified copies of documents as provided U/s 65 of
Indian Evidence Act as secondary evidence, the
general rule is that secondary evidence is not
admissible until a non production of primary evidence
is satisfactorily proved. It is pertinent to note here that
in cases where the original document is not available
or cannot be produced before the Court then the
parties must lead secondary evidence in terms of
Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 65 of
Indian Evidence Act gives a list of situations where
secondary evidence as to existence, conditions and
contents of a document can be given. However, the
66
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
party producing the secondary evidence has to satisfy
the Court as to his inability to produce the original
document and that his case falls within Section 65 of
the Indian Evidence Act. None of the plaintiffs herein
have offered any explanation either in their pleadings
or during evidence as to why the original sale deeds
are not produced before the Court. Withholding of
necessary documents without any satisfactory
explanation or without making out grounds as provided
U/s 65 of Evidence Act is a fatal to the case of the
plaintiffs. In the decision reported in 2004 (1) KCCR
662 between K.Gopala Reddy (deceased) by L.Rs.,
Vs. Suryanarayana and others, it is held that in a
suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of
injunction, the plaintiff though in possession of sale
deed and gift deed if withheld to produce the same,
the Court can draw an adverse inference. Further, in
a decision reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 884 between
T.L.Nagendra Babu Vs. Manohar Rao Pawar it is
67
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
held that in a suit for declaration and injunction unless
the Court is satisfied with regard to material details in
the light of the material evidence with regard to the
identification of the property no declaration and
injunction can be granted. It is also held that
presumption operates in favour of the party relying on a
document, provided he must prove that the document
is duly executed and authenticated.
51. In the above cases, though the plaintiffs
claim to be owners of respective suit properties under
the registered sale deeds, have not produced the
original sale deeds. Therefore, an adverse inference
has to be drawn against them. More over, on perusal
of the certified copies of sale deeds placed by the
plaintiffs, it is seen that in none of the sale deeds
survey No.58/1 is mentioned. Only in tax demand
register extract survey No.58/1 has been entered,
which cannot be considered to declare title of the
plaintiffs in respect of land in survey No.58/1. Further,
68
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
the encumbrance certificates in the name of plaintiffs
and their vendor is entered on the basis of sale deeds
and therefore, there is no mention about survey
No.58/1 in those documents and hence, these
documents are also not helpful to the plaintiffs to prove
that they are owners and in possession of property in
survey No.58/1 as claimed by them. The plaintiffs are
denying the claim of the defendant No.3 over the suit
property on the ground that the property purchased by
him is a different property and defendant No.3 has to
identify his property, wherever he has purchased,
however, the plaintiffs must also place the documents
in order to identify their property. Except tax demand
register extract none other documents including the
certified copies of sale deeds produced by the plaintiffs
shows that the property purchased by them is in survey
No.58/1. More over, though it is not in dispute, that
Muniswamy had acquired 7 guntas of land in survey
No.58/1, both plaintiffs and defendant No.3 are
69
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
claiming ownership and possession over the property
measuring 100' x 100' ie., 10,000 sq. ft. instead of
7623 sq.ft. Absolutely, no documents are produced
either by the plaintiffs or defendants for identification
and existence of said extent of land as claimed by
them. Under these circumstances, looking to the facts
and circumstances, and the documents on record, I am
of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish
that they have purchased suit schedule property in
survey No.58/1 bearing khatha No.40/D2/1 to 4 at
Hebbal village, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 50' x
50' each and have become owner and in possession of
said properties as on the date of suit. Therefore, I
answer issues No.1 to 3 in all the cases in the
negative.
52. Issue No.5 in O.S.Nos.882/2004, 883/2004,
884/2004 & 885/2004:-
Issue No.5 in all the cases is framed casting
burden on the defendant No.3 to prove that he is the
70
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
absolute owner and in possession of the suit property
since, 16.3.1995. As discussed above, the defendant
No.3 while denying the claim of ownership and
possession of the plaintiffs over the respective suit
properties has specifically contended that he is the
absolute owner and is in possession of the suit
property since 16.3.1995. In support of his claim,
defendant No.3 has produced two sale deeds dated:
16.3.1995 executed by Varghese couple as well as
Thammi Reddy and others in his favour as per Ex.D3
and D4 and the sale deeds executed by Muniswamy in
favour of Varghese couple and Thammi Reddy as per
Exs.D1 and D2. He also got marked the original sale
deeds executed by Muniswamyin in favour of his
vendor and also the sale deeds executed by his vendor
in his favour dated:16.3.1995. However, as discussed
above, though the vendors of defendant No.3
purchased property measuring 116' x 100' under the
sale deed marked at Exs.D1 and D2 they have sold
71
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
property measuring 100' x 100' in favour of defendant
No.3 with same boundaries. Defendant No.3 though
stated that 16' of land was encroached by the others,
he has not placed any documents and unable to
explain as to which portion of property is encroached
and why there is no change in the boundaries or
rectification deed to that effect. Though the sale
deeds contain survey No.58/1 but in order to claim the
absolute ownership in respect of property in dispute,
the defendant No.3 must have produced documents to
identify the existence of property as claimed by him.
Hence, I am of the opinion that the defendant No.3 has
failed to establish that he is owner of the suit property
as claimed. It is not in dispute, that as per Exs.D23
and 24 defendant No.3 had filed suit in
O.S.No.860/2004 seeking the relief of permanent
injunction against the defendant No.1 herein and said
suit was decreed in favour of defendant No.3 as per
judgment dated:30.10.2008 marked at Ex.D13. No
72
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
doubt, the plaintiffs herein are not parties to the above
suit but in the said suit there is a clear finding that the
defendant No.3 herein is in possession of the property
in survey No.58/1 as per sale deed dated:16.3.1995.
Under these circumstances I answer issue No.5 in all
the cases affirmative in part.
53. Issue No.4 in O.S.Nos.882/2004, 883/2004,
884/2004 & 885/2004:-
Issue No.4 in all the cases is framed casting
burden on the plaintiffs to prove the alleged
interference by the defendants. As noted above, the
above suits are filed by the plaintiffs against the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 alleging that on 27.1.2004 and
subsequently on 30.1.2004 the defendants No.1 and 2
tried to interfere and put up compound around the suit
schedule property. The defendants No.1 and 2 in their
respective written statement stated that the defendant
No.1 has put up the compound wall over the suit
property but defendant No.1 claimed ownership and
73
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
possession over half portion of suit property and stated
that remaining half portion is in possession of
defendant No.3. However, they have not adduced any
evidence in support of any of their contentions. But, in
view of my detail discussion and findings on the above
issues No.1 to 3, it is held that the plaintiffs have failed
to prove that they are lawful owners and in possession
and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of suit.
Therefore, the allegation of the plaintiffs that defendant
Nos.1 and 2 claimed ownership over the suit property
and unauthorizedly tried to put up compound around
the suit schedule property cannot be accepted.
Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances and
evidence on record, I hold that the plaintiffs have failed
to prove the interference as alleged against the
defendants No.1 and 2. Therefore, I answer issue
No.4 in all the cases in the negative.
54. Issue No.6 in O.S.Nos.882/2004, 883/2004,
884/2004 & 885/2004:-
74
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
Issue No.6 in all the cases is framed with regard
to the existence of cause of action to file this suit. The
defendants No.1 to 3 in their respective written
statement have contended that there is no cause of
action to file the above suits. Except taking such a
contention in their written statement the defendants
have not placed any evidence to support their
contentions. It is relevant to note that the cause of
action has to be seen from the plaint averments. In all
the plaints at para 6 and 7 the plaintiffs have stated
that the defendants have no right, title over the plaint
schedule property and on 27.1.2004 and subsequently
on 30.1.2004 the defendants tried to put up foundation
over the plaint schedule property illegally. It is
pertinent to note here that on meaningful reading of
the plaint if there was no cause of action, the suit ought
to have been dismissed U/o 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., But,
if the Court proceeds to frame issues and also records
the evidence, it pre supposes that the Court has
75
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
accepted that there was cause of action for the suit,
irrespective of the decision on merits. Therefore, I
hold that there was a cause of action for the suit and
hence, issue No.6 in all the cases is answered in the
affirmative.
55. Issue No.7 in O.S.Nos.882/2004, 883/2004,
884/2004 & 885/2004:-
Issue No.7 in all the cases is framed to prove
that the suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is
sufficient. The defendants in their respective written
statement have specifically contended that the suit is
not valued properly and Court fee paid is insufficient.
However, except taking this contention in the written
statement none of the defendants have placed any
evidence to show that valuation made and Court fee
paid is insufficient. On perusal of the valuation slip
filed by the plaintiffs, it is seen that the plaintiffs have
valued and paid Court fee as per Section 24 B of the
Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. In the
76
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
absence of any material to show the different valuation,
I accept the valuation slip and accordingly, I answer
issue No.7 in all the cases in the affirmative.
56. Issue No.8 in O.S.Nos.882/2004, 883/2004,
884/2004 & 885/2004:-
Plaintiffs in all the cases are claiming the relief
of declaration and permanent injunction. In view of my
detail discussion and findings on issues No.1 to 3 in all
the cases, it is held that the plaintiffs have failed to
establish title as well as possession over the suit
schedule property as claimed by them. Therefore, the
plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought for. Hence,
I answer issue No.8 in all the cases in the negative.
57. Issue No.9 in O.S.Nos.882/2004, 883/2004,
884/2004 & 885/2004:-
In view of my findings on the above issues, I
proceed to pass the following:
77
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w
O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.882/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.883/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.884/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.885/2004 is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
Keep the original judgment in O.S.No.882/2004 and its copies in O.S.Nos.883/2004, 884/2004 and 885/2004.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer through computer and print out taken by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court today the day of 30th October 2017).
(Saraswati.V.Kosandar) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE.
BANGALORE CITY.
78O.S.No.882/2004, C/w O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004 /ANNEXURE/ Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s:
P.W.1 : Dr.H.hanumanthappa Witness examined on behalf of Defendants:
D.W.1 Ravindran Pillai Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of sale deed dated: 30.9.1992 Ex.P2 : Tax demand extract Ex.P3 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P4 : Self assessment Ex.P5 : Encumbrance certificate Ex.P6 : Encumbrance certificate Ex.P7 : Encumbrance certificate Ex.P8 : Form No.15 Ex.P9 : Encumbrance certificate Ex.P10 : Encumbrance certificate Ex.P11 : Tax assessment register extract Ex.P12 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P13 : Self assessment tax particulars Ex.P14 : Copy of the police complaint Ex.P15 : Encumbrance certificate in form No.15 Ex.P16 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated:30.7.1992 Exs.P17 & 18 : Encumbrance certificates Ex.P19 : Tax demand register extract Ex.P20 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P21 : Self assessment tax particulars Ex.P22 : Copy of the police complaint 79 O.S.No.882/2004, C/w O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004 Ex.P23 : Encumbrance certificate in form No.15 Ex.P24 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated:30.9.1992 Exs.P25 & 26 : Encumbrance certificates Ex.P27 : Tax demand register extract Ex.P28 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P29 : Self assessment tax particulars Ex.P30 : Copy of the police complaint Ex.P31 : Encumbrance certificate in form No.15 Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of sale deed dated:6.2.1988 Ex.D2 Certified copy of sale deed dated:
16.3.1995 Ex.D3 Certified copy of sale deed dated: 9.2.1990 Ex.D4 Certified copy of sale deed dated:
16.3.1995 Ex.D5 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.6667/95 Ex.D6 Certified copy of memo in O.S.No.6667/95 Ex.D7 Certified copy of recommendation of Tashildar Ex.D8 Order of Deputy Commissioner Ex.D9 Conversion order of D.C. Exs.D10 To D12 Certified copies of record of rights Ex.D13 Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.860/2004 Ex.D14 Certificate Ex.D15 Khatha extract Ex.D16 Certificate Ex.D17 Khatha extract Ex.D18 5 Encumbrance certificates Ex.D19 Certified copy of sale deed dated: 3.8.2013 Ex.D20 Certified copy of sale deed 80 O.S.No.882/2004, C/w O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004 Exs.D21 & 22 Certified copy of tax particulars Ex.D23 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.860/04 Ex.D24 Certified copy of written statement in O.S.No.860/04 Ex.D25 Original sale deed dated:6.2.1988 Ex.D26 Original sale deed dated:9.2.1990 Ex.D27 Original sale deed dated:16.3.1995 Ex.D28 Original sale deed dated:16.3.1995 Ex.D29 Complaint dated:29.1.2004 Ex.D30 Certified copy of memo filed in RFA No.114/09 Ex.D31 Copy of judgment in RFA No.114/09 Ex.D32 Certified copy of survey sketch VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH.No.19) BANGALORE.81
O.S.No.882/2004, C/w O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004 30.10.2017 O.S.882/04 P - S.R. D1 - M.S.B. D2 - T.M.V. D3 - D.N.R. (Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate) The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.882/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.883/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.884/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.885/2004 is dismissed.
82O.S.No.882/2004, C/w O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004 There is no order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
Keep the original judgment in O.S.No.882/2004 and its copies in O.S.Nos.883/2004, 884/2004 and 885/2004.
(Saraswati.V.Kosandar) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE.
BANGALORE CITY 83 O.S.No.882/2004, C/w O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004 30.10.2017 P - S.R. D1 -
D2 -
D3 -
(Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate) The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.882/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.883/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.884/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.885/2004 is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
Keep the original judgment in O.S.No.882/2004 and its copies in O.S.Nos.883/2004, 884/2004 and 885/2004.
(Saraswati.V.Kosandar) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE.
BANGALORE CITY 84 O.S.No.882/2004, C/w O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004 O.S.No.884/04 30.10.2017 P - S.R. D1 - M.S.V. D2 & 3 - P.N.R. (Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate) The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.882/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.883/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.884/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.885/2004 is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
Keep the original judgment in O.S.No.882/2004 and its copies in O.S.Nos.883/2004, 884/2004 and 885/2004.
(Saraswati.V.Kosandar) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE.
BANGALORE CITY 85 O.S.No.882/2004, C/w O.S.Nos.883,884 & 885/2004 O.S.No.885/04 30.10.2017 P - B.S.G. D1 - H.S.N. D2 - T.N.V. D3 - T.N.R. (Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate) The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.882/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.883/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.884/2004 is dismissed.
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.885/2004 is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
Keep the original judgment in O.S.No.882/2004 and its copies in O.S.Nos.883/2004, 884/2004 and 885/2004.
(Saraswati.V.Kosandar) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE.
BANGALORE CITY