Bangalore District Court
In 1.M/S.Luvac Engineering ... vs In 1.Smt.Muniyamma on 30 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH.NO.2)
Dated, this the 30th day of June 2016
PRESENT
Sri.Ravi M.Naik, B.Com.,LL.M.,
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
O.S. NO.8973/2006 C/w O.S.No.6873/2009
Plaintiffs in 1.M/s.Luvac Engineering Corporation,
O.S.No.8973/2006 Now known as M/s.Metal Closures Pvt
Ltd.,A Private Limited Company,
Incorporated,Under the provisions
Companies Act of 1956,
Having its registered office at
No.39/4B, 12 KM, Kanakapura Road,
Doddakallasandra Village,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 062,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr.B.Prashanth Hegde,
S/o V.Rathanakar Hegde,
Aged about 60 years.
2.C.P.Bharathi,
W/o Late C.R.Prabhakar
Aged about 49 years,
No.20, 1st Floor, Sannidi Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore.
3.C.P.Gaurav,
S/o Late C.R.Prabhakar,
Aged about 21 years,
No.20, 1st Floor, Sannidi Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore.
4. Sri.C.R.Sathyanarayana,
2 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
S/o Ramaswamy Shetty,
Aged about 56 years,
No.20, 1st Floor, Sannidi Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore.
(By Sri.Suran R.Manjeshwar - Advocate)
Plaintiffs in 1.Metal Closure Pvt Ltd.
O.S.No.6873/2009 A Private Limited Company, incorporated,
Under the Companies Act of 1956,
Registered office at No.39/4B,
12 KM, Kanakapura Road,
Doddakallasandra Village,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 062.
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr.B.Prashanth Hegde,
S/o V Rahtnakar Hegde,
Aged bout 50 years,
- V E R S U S -
DEFENDANTS in 1.Smt.Muniyamma,
O.S.No.8973/2006 W/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 54 years,
2. Smt.Nagamma,
D/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 50 years,
3.Smt.Rahtnamma,
D/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 46 years.
4.Smt.Sushilamma,
D/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 43 years,
5.Sri.Srinivasa,
S/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 40 years.
6.Sri.Venkatesha,
3 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
S/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 38 years.
7.Smt.Lakshmi,
D/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 35 years.
8.Smt.Nethravathi,
D/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 29 years.
1 to 8 are residing at Doddakalasandra
Village, Bangalore South Taluk.
9.Sri.D.M.Anjanappa,
S/o Chikkamuniswamappa,
Aged about 49 years,
Munireddy Colony,
Binniganahalli, Old Madras Road,
Bangalore-560 091.
10.Sri.M.Srinivasa,
S/o Chikkamuniswamappa,
Aged about 47 years,
6-A/7, Hegganahalli Cross,
Lakshmanagar, Peenya 2nd Stage,
Banglaore-560 091.
11.Sri.M.Ramachandra,
S/o Chikkaswamappa,
Aged about 46 years,
No.123, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore.
12.Sri.M.Lakshman,
S/o ChikKaswamappa,
Aged about 44 years,
No.330,Kaviraj Industries,
Peenya Industrial Estate, 1st Stage,
Bangalore-560 058.
4 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
13.Sri.M.Ganesh,
S/o Chikkaswamappa,
Aged about 43 years,
No.12,1st Main, Mani Vila Garden,
Kamalanagar, Banglaore.
14.Smt.Kamaskhamma,
W/o Shivalingamurthy,
Major, Behind Woodlands Hotel,
Tumkur.
15. Smt.Parvathi,
W/o Shantha Kumar,
Major,
16. Smt.Lakshmidevi,
C/o D.M.Rajappa,
Muniramareddy Compound,
Binnaganahally,
Old Madras Road,
Bangalore.
17.Sri.Suryanarayana,
Father's name not known,
Major, No.1076, NGO's Colony,
Kamalanagar, Bangalore-560 079.
18.Sri.C.R.Santhosh Kumar,
S/o C.Ramaswamy,
Aged about 40 years,
No.93, Nandi Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004.
19. Transposed as plaintiff No.1
M/s Luvac Engg/Metal Closures
20.Sri.Nagaraja Shetty,
Since dead by LRs
5 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
20(a) Smt.Sakunthalamma,
W/o Late Nagaraja Shetty,
Major, No.95, 5th Cross, Surveyor
Street,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004.
20(b) Sri.Parthaswarathy,
S/o Late Nagaraja Shetty,
Major, No.95, 5th Cross,
Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-560 004.
21.Sri.Padmaprakash,
S/o Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy.
Aged about 45 years,
No.572, 10th Cross, 7th Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore.
22. M/s Trident Automobiles Pvt.Ltd., A
private Limited Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, having office
no.1, Lower Palace Orchard, Sankey
road, Bangalore-560 003, represented
by its authorized secretary Sri.
M.Balachandran, aged about 52 years.
(D.1 & 6 by Sri. M.S.Varadarajan,
D.2,3,4,7 & 8 by Sri. V.B.Shivakumar,
D.5 by Sri.Mohan Bhat, D.9,14,15 & 16
by Prakash Hegde, D.18 by K.Shirhari,
D.19 by Kishore SHetty, D.21 by
T.R.Sainath Prabhu,D.22 by
H.S.Chandraiah - Advocates)
DEFENDANTS in 1. Smt.Muniyamma,
O.S.No.6873/2009 W/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 57 years,
2. Smt.Nagamma,
D/o Late Anjanappa,
6 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Aged about 53 years,
3.Smt.Rahtnamma,
D/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 48 years.
4.Smt.Sushilamma,
D/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 46 years,
5.Sri.Srinivasa,
S/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 43 years.
6.Sri.Venkatesha,
S/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 41 years.
7.Smt.Lakshmi,
D/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 37 years.
8.Smt.Nethravathi,
D/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 32 years,
Defendants Nos.1 to 8 are residing at
Dhodanaka Village, Kanakapura Road,
Banglaore South Taluk.
9.Sri.D.M.Anjanappa,
S/o Chikkamuniswamappa,
Aged about 49 years,
Munireddy Colony,
Binniganahalli, Old Madras Road,
Bangalore-560 091.
10.Sri.M.Srinivasa,
S/o Chikkamuniswamappa,
Aged about 47 years,
7 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
6-A/7, Hegganahalli Cross,
Lakshmanagar, Peenya 2nd Stage,
Banglaore-560 091.
11.Sri.M.Ramachandra,
S/o Chikkaswamappa,
Aged about 46 years,
No.123, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore.
12.Sri.M.Lakshman,
S/o ChikKaswamappa,
Aged about 44 years,
No.330,Kaviraj Industries,
Peenya Industrial Estate, 1st Stage,
Bangalore-560 058.
13.Sri.M.Ganesh,
S/o Chikkaswamappa,
Aged about 43 years,
No.12,1st Main, Mani Vila Garden,
Kamalanagar, Banglaore.
14.Smt.Kamaskhamma,
W/o Shilingamurthy,
Major, Behind Woodlands Hotel,
Tumkur.
15. Smt.Parvathi,
W/o Shantha Kumar,Major,
16. Smt.Lakshmidevi,
C/o D.M.Rajappa,
Muniramareddy Compound,
Binnaganahally, Old Madras Road,
Bangalore.
17.Sri.Suryanarayana,
Father's name not known,
Major, No.1076, NGO's Colony,
8 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Kamalanagar, Bangalore-560 079
18.Sri.Nagaraja Setty,
Since dead by LRs.
19.Sri.Padma Prakash,
S/o Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy,
Aged about 45 years, No.572,10th
Cross,
Seventh Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore.
20.Sri.C.R.Santhosh Kumar,
S/o Sri.Ramaswamy,
Aged about 40 years, No.93,
Nandi Road, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore.
21.C.R.Aswthanarayana Shetty,
Aged about 67 years,
S/o Late C.R.Ramaswamy Setty,
R/at No.20/1, Sannidhi Road,
Baswanagudi, Bangalore-560 004.
22.Smt.Shakunthalamma,
W/o Late Nagaraj Shetty,
Major, No,.95, 5th Cross,
Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-560 004.
23. Sri.Parthsarathi,
S/o Late Nagaraja Shetty,
Major, No.95, 5th cross, Surveyor
Street,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004.
24. M/s Trident Automobiles Pvt.Ltd., A
private Limited Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, having office
no.1, Lower Palace Orchard,
Sankeyroad, Bangalore-560 003,
9 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
represented by its authorized secretary
Sri. M.Balachandran, aged about 52
years.
Date of institution of the suit : (1) 12.102006 (2) 28.10.2009
Nature of the suit (suit on (1) Suit for declaration
pronote, suit for declaration and (2) Suit for declaration &
possession suit for injunction,etc) : injunction
Date of the commencement of 13.7.2011
recording of the evidence :
Date on which the Judgment was 30.6.2016
pronounced :
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
(1) 09 09 18
(2) 06 08 02
(RAVI M. NAIK )
I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
O.S.No.8973/2006 is filed by the plaintiffs for
declaring that the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1998
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA
No.606/1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated
4.7.1989 passed by the City Civil Court in OS
No.1318/1980 granting partition, is not binding in so far
as the plaintiffs are concerned and also to declare the
10 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over their share of
the property are not affected and for such other reliefs.
2. The Suit O.S.No.6873/2009 is filed by the first
plaintiff in O.S.No.8973/2006 against the same
defendants of O.S.No.8973/2006 seeking declaration
that the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1998 passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA
No.606/1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated
4.7.1989 passed by the City Civil Court at Bangalore in
O.S.No.1318/1980 granting partition is not binding on
the plaintiff and also for grant of perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants 1 to 8, their men from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and also to
declare that the right, title and interest of the plaintiff
over the suit schedule property is not affected and to
grant such other reliefs.
3. The case of the plaintiffs in OS No.8973/2006
in short is that the plaintiffs 2 & 3 are the legal heirs of
11 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
late C.R.Prabhakar and the plaintiff No.3 who were the
co-owner & partner of the property owned by
C.S.R.Estate. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that the
defendants 1 to 8 are the LRs of late Anjanappa -the
original plaintiff in the partition suit OS.1318/1980 on
the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore and who are the
appellants before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
RFA No.606/1989. The defendants 9 to 17 are the LRs of
Smt.Buddamma. The defendant Nos.18 to 20 are the
purchasers/co-owners of the property in dispute. The
defendant no.21 is the erstwhile co-owner of the suit
property and defendant no.22 is the subsequent
purchaser of portion of sy.no.39/4 of Doddakallasandra
village. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that the
plaintiff No.4 along with defendant No.18 and others,
formed a Partnership Firm as per the Partnership Deed
dated 26.4.1970 in the name and style of M/s Master
Products and were engaged in the activity of
manufacturing wire and wire products etc. and the said
12 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
partnership firm purchased agricultural property
measuring 1 acre 20guntas comprised in Sy.No.No.39/4,
situated in Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore, under registered sale deed dated 18.5.1970
executed by Smt.Buddamma D/o Sri.Papanna. It is
further stated by the plaintiffs that subsequently the said
partnership firm was reconstituted and finally there were
only four partners namely the 4th plaintiff, defendant
No.18, Smt.Roopa Surendranath and Sri.
C.R.Ashwathanarayana. It is further stated by the
plaintiffs that due to internal disputes and difference of
opinion, the partnership firm was dissolved as per Deed
of Dissolution dated 1.4.1987 and the accounts of the
firm were settled among the partners. It is further stated
that the immovable property which was purchased by the
partnership firm was transferred to all the partners in
equal shares. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that
one among the partners Smt.Roopa Surendranatha,
transferred her right, title and interest in respect of the
13 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
said immovable property by executing a registered
Transfer Deed dated 4.12.1991 in favour of C.R.
Prabhakar who is none other than the husband of 2nd
plaintiff and father of 3rd Plaintiff for valuable
consideration and accordingly Sri.C.R.Prabhakar became
the co-owner of the said property. It is further stated by
the plaintiffs that all the co-owners of the said immovable
property entered into an agreement dated 29.1.1991 and
named the property as C.S.R.Estate and also defined the
rights of the co-owners. It is further stated by the
plaintiffs that Sri. C.R.Prabhakar who was the co-owner
of C.S.R.Estate, expired on 17.7.1995 and after the death
of Sri. C.R.Prabhakar, the plaintiffs 2 & 3 being the legal
heirs inherited the property and as such, the plaintiffs
2 & 3 became the co-owners of the property. It is further
stated by the plaintiffs that the Co-owners of M/s
C.S.R.Estate themselves divided the said property by
metes and bounds by entering into a Memorandum of
Agreement dated 25.1.1996 and divided the entire joint
14 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
family property into four parts as A, B, C & D for
identification purpose. It is further stated by the
plaintiffs that the schedule 'B' property was allotted to
the joint share of plaintiffs 2 & 3 and 'C' schedule
property was allotted to the plaintiff No.1. The schedule
'A' property was allotted to the defendant No.18. It is
further stated by the plaintiffs that on the basis of the
partition agreement dated 25.1.1995, the said immovable
property was separated among the plaintiffs, defendant
No.18 and C.R.Ashwathanarayana and thereafter, the
owner of 'D' schedule property-Sri.Ashwathanarayana
sold his property to M/s Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd., under
a registered sale deed dated 18.1.2001 and they have put
up construction and started industrial activity. It is
further stated by the plaintiffs that the property allotted
to the plaintiffs was kept intact and they are in
possession and enjoyment as true owners and the RTC
and possession of the said property stands in the name
of the plaintiffs and the property belonging to the
15 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
plaintiffs is particularly described in the schedule and
hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property. It
is further stated by the plaintiffs that in the month of
August, 2005, the 2nd plaintiff came to know that the
entire property is under litigation and that there is a
partition suit and also a decree in favour of defendants
1 to 17 and that the property belonging to the plaintiffs
were allotted to the share of Anjanappa who is none other
than the predecessor of defendants 1 to 17. It is further
stated that on an enquiry the plaintiffs came to know
that as per the Judgment and decree passed in
RFA No.606/1989 dated 24.11.1989, the properties
above named are ordered to be partitioned and final
decree proceedings for division of the property is also
filed and pending and the said Judgment and decree
dated 24.11.1989 was further modified as per Order
dated 20.4.2001 in C.P.No.822/2001 in R.P.No.46/2000.
It is further stated by the plaintiffs that on verification,
they came to know that though they are necessary
16 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
parties and owners of certain portions of the land
involved in the partition suit, they were not made as
parties to the said suit or RFA or FDP thereon and
without whispering about necessary parties, the suit has
been decreed granting partition and in fact, the suit
schedule property belongs to the plaintiffs. It is further
stated by the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff has
purchased 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.39/4 from
C.R.Ashwathanarayana Shetty by way of a registered sale
deed dated 18.1.2001 and it has been in possession of
the suit schedule property ever since then. It is further
stated by the plaintiffs that the defendants 1 to 8 have
filed an Execution Petition in Ex.No.2353/2006 and they
were interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property by the first plaintiff and hence,
the first plaintiff filed a suit in OS 6873/2009 on the file
of this Court and an order of temporary injunction was
granted therein, which was confirmed. It is further
stated by the plaintiffs that against the said Order, MFA
17 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
8591/2009 was preferred by the defendants before the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which came to be
dismissed and the defendants preferred a Special Leave
Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
which also came to be rejected. It is further stated by the
plaintiffs that during the pendency of the said suit OS
6873/2009, the first plaintiff purchased the suit
schedule property from the plaintiffs 2 to 4 under two
registered sale deeds dated 21.7.2010 and 4.10.2010 and
at that time, the defendants 1 to 8 filed objections before
the Sub-Registrar, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore and the Sub-
Registrar refused to register the document against which
a reference was made to the District Registrar, who in
turn directed the Sub-Registrar not to register the same,
but to keep them pending. It is further stated that being
aggrieved by the said Order, the plaintiffs preferred writ
Petition in W.P.Nos.24487/2010 and 25267/2010 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore,
seeking a Writ of mandamus directing the District
18 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Registrar and Sub-Registrar to register and release the
sale deeds and by order dated 21.7.2010, the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka was pleased to issue such a
direction consequential to which, the said sale deeds
were registered and released and the first plaintiff
became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
It is further stated by the plaintiffs that they have made
several efforts to safe guard the schedule property from
the clutches of defendants 1 to 18, but however, the
defendant no.18 though is a co-owner along with the
plaintiffs, is now joining hands with other defendants
who have filed the partition suit OS 1318/1980. It is
further stated by the plaintiffs that the suit property
measuring 4 acres 14guntas includes the property
belonging to the plaintiffs and so as to overcome the
consequence of partition decree dated 24.11.1999 passed
in RFA 606/1989, the plaintiffs preferred RP
No.645/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, seeking review of the
19 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Order dated 24.11.1999 and to give an opportunity to the
plaintiffs to defend their case and the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka by its Order dated 12.7.2007 was pleased to
dismiss R.P.No.645/2005 with direction to approach the
Civil Court to workout the remedies by filing a suit or any
other proceedings whose review was sought. It is further
stated by the plaintiffs that due to the purported
partition decree, the rights of the plaintiffs are affected
prejudicially and hence, they have filed this suit. It is
further stated that the defendants 1 to 8 filed the suit for
partition claiming to be legal heir of late Hanumanthappa
and the suit schedule property as the joint family
property. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that as per
the evidence on record, the property originally belonged
to Avalahalli Hanumanthappa who sold the same to
Yediyoor Hanumanthappa under a registered sale deed
dated 12.6.1949. The said Yediyoor Hanumanthappa
and his son Chikka Muniyappa sold the said property
vide registered sale deed dated 5.10.1950 and on the
20 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
same day the purchasers once again sold the property in
favour of Muniyappa Reddy through sale deed. It is
further stated by the plaintiffs that the defendants 1 to 8
in the said partition suit claimed that in the meanwhile
Avalahalli Hanumanthappa had executed a settlement
deed dated 22.12.1949 wherein half share in the said
property is allotted to the Defendants No.1 to 8. It is
further stated by the plaintiffs that before the alleged
settlement deed, the executor had sold the property
under a registered sale deed and hence, he was not the
owner of the said property and the alleged settlement
deed could not have been executed by a person who does
not have any title to the property. It is further stated by
the plaintiffs that the City Civil Judge was pleased to
dismiss the suit as per the Judgment and decree dated
5.7.1989 in OS.no.1318/1980 and the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in RFA 606/1989 reversed the same
and as such, the Judgment and decree dated 5.7.1989 in
OS.No.1318/1989 passed by the City Civil Judge, is
21 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
merged with the Judgment and decree dated 24.11.1999
in RFA and the said decree is the continuation of the
proceedings and hence, filed this suit for declaration that
the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1999 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.606/1989
reversing the Judgment and decree passed in OS
No.1318/1980 granting partition is not binding in so far
as the plaintiffs are concerned and the share of the
plaintiffs over the suit schedule property is not affected.
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the
defendants appeared through their counsel and filed
separate written statements. Subsequently as per order
on IA nos.61 & 62, M/s Trident Automobiles Pvt.Ltd., is
impleaded as defendant no.22 in OS no.8973/2006 and
as defendant no.24 in OS no.6873/2009.
5. The defendants 1 & 6 filed their written
statement and the defendants 1 to 6 & 8 filed amended
written statement denying the contention that the
plaintiffs are the legal heirs of C.P.Prabhakar and co-
22 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
owners and partners of C.S.R.Estates. It is admitted that
the 18th defendant indicating himself as the Managing
partner of the firm M/s Master products, had purchased
1 acre 20guntas in Sy.No.39/4 under registered sale
deed dated 18.5.1970. The defendants further denied
that immovable property was transferred to all the
partners in equal shares and contended that it is only
during the pendency of the suit in which the 18th
defendant was contesting the proceedings. These
defendants further contended that certain interse
transactions are not within the knowledge of these
defendants and at any rate, they are hit by the principles
of lis-pendense as they are during the pendency of the
suit and therefore, such transactions do not in any way
confer any right, title or interest in respect of the property
in question contrary to the interest created in these
defendants in the said litigation. Denying all the other
allegations made in the plaint, these defendants further
contended that there is no independent cause of action
23 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
made out so as to entitle the plaintiffs to maintain this
suit and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed
and also contended that the valuation of the suit under
Sec.24(d) is improper and the court fee paid is not
correct.
6. The defendants 1 to 6 and 8 further contended
that the 18th defendant Santosh Kumar had purchased
the property as the partner of M/s Master Products and
after the written statement filed, he had contested the
suit throughout and intimated that the suit was
dismissed and subsequently on an appeal filed, the 18th
defendant had safeguarded the interest of entire 1 acre
20guntas in securing an observation that in the final
decree proceedings the said 1 acre 20guntas should not
be disturbed and in view of the subsequent changes
through various review petitions filed, he had again filed
R.P.No.461/2002 and C.P.No.994/2001 and the said
review petition was dismissed by an order dated
10.10.2001. It is further contended that the 18th
24 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
defendant had contested the final decree proceedings and
in view of certain observations made in RFA 606/1989
and subsequent orders, no right was recognized as per
the sale deed under which the 18th defendant had
contested the proceedings and he has diligently
prosecuted the proceedings. It is further contended that
the plaintiffs being fully aware of these proceedings and
contesting through the 18th defendant, by themselves
claiming under such transactions which are hit by the
principles of lis-pendense. It is further contended that in
the 30guntas which is the suit schedule property, huge
constructions are put up by the 19th defendant during
the pendency of appeals in RFA 692/2003, RFA
502/2003 inspite of there being interim orders directing
all the parties to maintain status quo. It is further
contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any
portions of Sy.No.39/4 at least since 2003 after which
time, the 19th defendant has been in possession having
put up huge turbines and buildings in which industry is
25 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
being run. It is further contended that the plaintiffs,
have not approached the Court with clean hands and
have deliberately suppressed the factum of delivery of
possession in favour of 19th defendant and the
construction of buildings and installation of turbines by
the 19th defendant. It is further contended that the terms
and conditions on the basis of which the possession has
been given is also not stated by the plaintiffs. It is further
contended that the exercise of the plaintiffs is to hang to
the possession of the property which is now vested with
19th defendant to the detriment of these defendants and
therefore, the effort is to ensure that the decree passed in
favour of these plaintiffs is not enjoyed by them and
therefore, exemplary costs may be imposed. The
defendants 2 to 4, 7 & 8 further contended that the suit
filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief at the hands of this
Court is not maintainable. It is further contended that
the right, title, interest, ownership and possession of the
defendants has been conclusively adjudicated in the
26 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
proceedings initiated in the suit for partition in
O.S.1318/1980 which was finally decided by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in RFA 606/1989. It is further
contended that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
while deciding the right, title and interest in the suit for
partition, granted a decree for partition declaring that the
defendants are entitled for half share in the property and
to draw a preliminary decree for partition. It is further
contended that in the original suit, Santhosh Kumar S/o
C.S.Ramaswamy was a party and the said Santhosh
kumar represented the plaintiffs in the said proceedings
and he was also a party to the proceedings in RFA
606/1989 as 5th respondent. It is further denied that
defendant No.18 formed a partnership firm under a
partnership deed dated 26.4.1970 under the name and
style of Master Products and were engaged in the activity
of wire and wire products, for the reason that the
defendant No.18 represented not only himself in the
original suit, but also represented the partnership firm of
27 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
M/s Master products. It is further contended that M/s
Metal Closures is now represented by its Managing
Director, B.Prashanth Hegde S/o V.Rathnakar Hegde and
they claimed to have purchased the property under two
registered sale deeds executed by C.R.Sathyanarayana
and C.P.Bharathi, during the pendency of the suit,
thereby the present plaintiffs have no locus standi to
maintain the present suit in the present form. It is
further contended that M/s Master Products was not a
registered partnership firm as on the date of filing the
suit and purchase of the immovable property and
therefore, the representation of Santhosh Kumar was not
appropriate in the original suit proceedings. It is further
contended that M/s Master Products was registered on
3.1.1972 and the said firm was dissolved on 1.4.1987
and therefore, the plaintiffs have misrepresented before
the Court, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is
further contended that Smt.Buddamma suffered a decree
for partition and she has executed a sale deed in exercise
28 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
of the land that was available in its totality before a
decree could be granted and she sold the entire extent of
property. It is further contended that Smt.Buddamma on
decree of partition gets half share in the entire extent of
land bearing Sy.No.39/4 measuring 4 acres 14guntas of
Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk and if Buddamma had only 2 acres 7 guntas
as her right under the decree of partition, the plaintiffs
are required to proceed against Smt.Buddamma, in the
event of any defect in the title or want of possession to
the area and in excess of 2 acres 7 guntas of land,
neither Buddamma nor her purchasers can adjudicate
their right for seeking title and possession over the
property and therefore, the suit is to be dismissed.
Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
7. The defendant No.6 filed his additional written
statement contending that M/s Metal Closures Pvt.Ltd.
has absolutely no right, title, interest, ownership and
possession in respect of any portion of the property
29 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
pursuant to the decree granted. It is further contended
that M/s Metal Closures Pvt.Ltd. was a defendant in the
present proceedings and being a defendant, it has made
an attempt to purchase the property from plaintiffs 2 to 4
under a registered sale deed executed in their favour
during the subsistence of the above suit and thereby the
claim of 1st plaintiff is hit by the principles of lis
pendense and therefore, they are disentitled for any
relief. It is further contended that M/s Luvac
Engineering Corporation was a party to RFA
No.606/1989 and they had specifically pleaded that M/s
Luvac Engineering Corporation being purchaser of
portion of the property from Smt.Buddamma and those
sale deeds were set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka, setting aside the decree of trial Court,
declaring that these defendants are entitled to half share
in the property. It is further contended that while
disposing of the RFA, the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka mentioned that in any event, the share of
30 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
plaintiffs i.e., 2 acres 20gutnas can never be held by
anybody and any sale made by any party will not bind
the plaintiffs' share i.e., half share and this fact was well
within the knowledge of the present purchaser, who is
ought to be impleaded as 1st plaintiff in the present case
and therefore, it cannot be said that they are bonafide
purchasers for value without notice. It is further
contended that out of 2 acres 7guntas, an extent of 11.5
guntas have been handed over to one Padma Prakash in
a compromise entered thereto. It is further contended
that the said extent of land is in possession of these
defendants by virtue of the conclusion of the FDP and the
matter is pending in Execution Proceedings for execution
of the orders in the FDP. It is further contended that the
1st plaintiff cannot purchase the property which is under
dispute and there was no right in any manner
whatsoever in so far as Smt.C.P.Bharathi, C.P.Gaurav
and C.R.Sathyanarayana are concerned and their rights
have also been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of
31 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Karnataka in RFA No.485/2008 and the same has been
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Therefore, when their rights had already been concluded
in all respects, the 1st plaintiff being one of the
defendants could not have sought to purchase the
property by alleged sale deed and hence, sought for
dismissal of the suit.
8. The defendant No.18 filed written statement
admitting the fact that the owners of C.S.R.Estate
themselves divided the property by meets and bounds by
entering into Memorandum of Agreement dated
25.1.1996 and that the B schedule property therein was
allotted to the joint share of plaintiffs 1 & 2 and 'C'
schedule was allotted to the plaintiff No.3 and 'A' portion
was allotted to the share of defendant No.18 and
thereafter, the owner of the 'D' portion property
Sri.Ashwathanarayana sold his share to M/s Metal
Closures Pvt.ltd., under a registered sale deed dated
18.1.2001 and they put up construction and started
32 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
industrial activity. It is further admitted that the
plaintiffs are in actual possession of the suit schedule
property. It is further contended that the defendant
No.18 has no good relationship with the plaintiffs and it
has been strained. It is denied that this defendant has
joined hands with the other defendants. Denying the
allegations made against him and contending that the
cause of action shown is not correct and the court fee
paid is also not correct, the defendant No.18 prays for
suitable orders on merits of the case in the interest of
justice.
9. The defendant No.19 filed his written statement
contending that the property in Sy.No.39/4 measuring 1
acre 30guntas was purchased by the partnership firm
M/s Master Products which was represented by four
partners and the said property was held by the
partnership firm until dissolution of the partnership firm
in the year 1987 and thereafter, the partners held the
property jointly and in the meanwhile, one of the
33 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
partners Smt.Rupa Sundernath transferred her right and
interest in favour of C.R.Prabhakar under a registered
transfer deed and thereafter, C.R.Prabhakar died in the
year 1995 and the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 succeeded to his
estate. It is admitted that the co-owners of the said
property divided the property by meets and bounds and
allotted to four co-owners equally. It is further admitted
that C.R.Ashwathanarayana sold his portion of the
property under a registered sale deed dated 18.1.2001 to
this defendant and after purchasing, he has put up an
industrial shed and running business. It is further
contended that the said property was purchased by the
partnership firm and only one partner is made as a party
and neither the partnership firm nor other partners were
made parties and hence, no opportunity was given to the
plaintiffs before an order was passed, taking away their
lands and contended that plaintiffs are entitled for the
relief and this defendant do not have any objections to
allow the suit.
34 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
10. The defendant No.21 also filed written statement
contending that the suit is liable to be dismissed as not
maintainable for want of cause of action and that the
prayer sought in the suit is not proper and it is based
upon mere assumption. The defendant No.21 further
contended that there is no relief sought against him. The
defendant No.21 denying all the allegations made in the
plaint, contended that in RFA No.606/1989, dated
24.11.1999 the property which was in dispute was
ordered to be partitioned and the final decree proceedings
pertaining to division of the property was also disposed
off in the year 2003 and the plaintiffs preferred review
petition in RP No.645/2005 which came to be dismissed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by its order
dated 12.7.2006 and it goes to show that the plaintiffs
have no manner of right, title and interest over the
property and there was no direction given by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka to approach the Civil Court. It
is further contended that on the basis of equity, the High
35 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Court felt that the interest of purchaser should be
protected, and accordingly this defendant also got the
benefit of retaining only part of the property which he has
bonafidely acquired by means of absolute purchaser.
Contending that the suit is not properly valued, sought
for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
11. The defendant No.22-M/s Trident Automobile
Pvt.Ltd.,, has filed its written statement. The sum and
substance of the said defendant in its written statement
is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on
facts. It is contended that wife of Chikkamuniswamappa
i.e., daughter of Papanna-Buddamma had no right to sell
the suit property in favour of M/s Master Products. Said
firm is not an agriculturist. No permission for purchase
of the agricultural land was obtained by M/s Master
Products from the competent authority. Hence, the sale
deed dated 18.5.1970 is void. It is further contended that
the M/s Master Products was dissolved as per the
dissolution deed dated 1.4.1987, w.e.f. 31.3.1987. The
36 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
partnership firm existed on 1.4.1984 was dissolved by a
dissolution deed dated 1.4.1987 and not the partnership
firm came into existence on 24.6.1970. It is further
contended that no division of properties had been made
among the partners of the said M/s Master Products by
metes and bounds. No instrument to that effect has been
registered. In the absence of a registered document no
immovable property can be transferred and hence,
C.S.R.Estate is not the owner of the suit schedule
property. It is further contended that Ashwathanarayana
has no right or title to sell the property in favour of M/s
Metal closures under a sale deed dated 18.1.2001.
12. In para-5 of the written statement, the
defendant no.22 M/s Trident Automobile has stated the
acquisition of the property by the predecessor of
Smt.Buddamma. In para-6 of the written statement, said
defendant has stated the filing of OS no.1318/1980 and
dismissal of the said suit and against that filing of RFA
no.606/1989 and FDP no.41/1999 and also filing of CCC
37 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
no.822/2001, RP no.46/2000, CP no.994/2001, RFA
no.692/2003. It is contended that Santosh Kumar
purchased the property as the partner of M/s Master
Products. He had contested the suit through out and
safeguarded the interest of entire 1 acre 20 guntas. He
has diligently prosecuted the proceedings. It is further
contended that the suit is hopelessly barred by
limitation. There was no land available to the share of
Smt.Buddamma. Therefore, M/s Master Products cannot
be allotted any land. It is further contended that
Santosh Kumar has filed written statement in OS
no.1318/1980. He has not claimed any individual right
over the property in question. He gave evidence in the
said suit and in his evidence he has stated that he is
representing M/s Master Products vis-a-vis the property
in question. In FDP no.41/1999, the present plaintiff
which was the 2nd defendant filed an application to
implead all the partners and the court rejected the said
application stating that Santosh Kumar is representing
38 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
the firm. Thus, the order in the FDP has attained finality.
RFA no.692/2003 came to be filed by Santosh Kumar
and in the said petition, he pleaded that in view of the
sale deed dated 18.5.1970 under which M/s Master
Products purchased certain extent of land from
Smt.Buddamma, in equity and on proportionate basis,
some land needs to be allotted to the firm also which was
not accepted by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
Thus, Santosh Kumar represented M/s Master Products
in all the proceedings and he did not set up any
independent or individual right to the property in
question.
13. It is further contended that the defendant
no.22-M/s Trident Automobiles Pvt.Ltd., is a bonafide
purchaser of 30 guntas of land out of 1 acre 36 guntas in
Sy.no.39/4A situated at Doddakallasandra village under
a registered sale deed dated 1.4.2010 from the LRs of
Anjanappa without notice and from the date of purchase,
39 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
it has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of
the same.
14. M/s Metal Closure represented by Prashanth
Hegde tried to disturb the possession of the present
defendant. As a result, the present defendant filed a suit
in OS no.25973/2011 for permanent injunction and the
same is pending for consideration. The possession of 1
acre 36 guntas of land belonged to LRs of Anjanappa i.e.,
Muniyamma and others has been confirmed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Spl.L.A.6079/2001 filed by
Santosh Kumar by the order dated 21.8.2012. It is
further contended that the plaintiff ought to have pay the
court fee u/sec.24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suit
Valuation Act on the basis of the market value of the suit
schedule property and not under sec.24(d) of Karnataka
Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act. For above all reason, the
defendant no.22 has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
15. The plaintiffs in both the suits filed a common
rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendant
40 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
no.22 in OS 8793/2006 and defendant no.24 in OS
6873/2009 denying the contentions taken by the said
defendant. The sum and substance of the averments
made in the rejoinder is that the defendant no.22/24 is
lis pendency purchaser. Therefore, the said purchase
made by the defendant no.22/24 is void and the plaintiff
is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The
plaintiff has reiterated the contentions taken in the plaint
in OS 8973/2006 and 6873/2009.
16. The case of the plaintiff in OS 6873/2009
who is the first plaintiff in OS 8973/2006 is exactly the
same as in the suit OS 8973/2006 and the contentions
taken up by the plaintiff in this suit are in line with the
contentions taken up in the suit OS 8973/2006. It is
further stated by the plaintiff that
Sri.Ashwathanarayana-defendant No.21 decided to sell
his portion of the property which is the suit schedule
property herein, which is adjacent to the immovable
property belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant
41 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
No.21 approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the suit
schedule property. It is further stated by the plaintiff that
when the plaintiff questioned about the ongoing litigation
in respect of the suit schedule property, the defendant
No.21 informed the plaintiff that he was not aware of any
litigation and no case has been filed either against him or
against the suit schedule property. It is further stated by
the plaintiff that the plaintiff took out a public notice in
Kannada Daily news paper "Prajavani" Bangalore edition
inviting objections from the general public on the
proposed sale transaction, but the plaintiff did not
receive any objections from any person and proceeded
with purchasing the suit schedule property. It is further
stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff with an intention
of perfecting the title and to avoid future litigation, made
an application to implead defendant No.21 in FDP
No.41/1999, however the defendant nos. 1 to 8 objected
to the application mainly contending that the defendant
No.21 is not a necessary party and that his interest is not
42 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
going to be affected in any manner. It is further stated
by the plaintiff that the Court by an order dated 7.2.2002
dismissed the application holding that the defendant
No.21 is not a necessary party. It is further stated by the
plaintiff that the plaintiff after adequate due diligence,
purchased the suit schedule property under a registered
sale deed for valuable consideration. It is further stated
that the defendants 1 to 8 along with court bailiff came to
the suit schedule property and attempted to take
possession of the suit schedule property claiming to have
obtained a decree over the suit schedule property and the
officials of plaintiff disputed the identification of the
property shown in the delivery warrant and consequently
the bailiff and defendants 1 to 8 returned without taking
any possession. It is further stated that the plaintiff filed
a Writ petition in W.P.No.7927/2008 challenging the
issuance of delivery warrant against the suit schedule
property and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by an
order dated 26.8.2008 set aside the delivery warrant and
43 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
remanded the matter back to the Court with a direction
to afford an opportunity of hearing the plaintiff before
any delivery warrant is issued. It is further stated by
the plaintiff that the owner of the suit schedule property
was never made a party and hence, the orders passed
does not affect or bind the owner and at the time of filing
the suit, the suit schedule property belonged to the
partnership firm M/s Master Products and all the
partners were the joint owners of the suit schedule
property and on dissolution of the partnership firm, the
suit schedule property was allotted to defendant No.21
who was the erstwhile co-owner of the suit schedule
property. It is further stated by the plaintiff that neither
the partnership firm nor the owners of the suit schedule
property were arrayed as parties in any level of litigation.
It is further stated that the defendants 1 to 8 filed the
suit for partition claiming to be legal heir of late
Hanumanthappa and the suit schedule property as the
joint family property. It is further stated by the plaintiffs
44 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
that as per the evidence on record, the property originally
belonged to Avalahalli Hanumanthappa who sold the
same to Yediyoor Hanumanthappa under a registered
sale deed dated 12.6.1949. The said Yediyoor
Hanumanthappa and his son Chikka Muniyappa vide
registered sale deed dated 5.10.1950 and on the same
day the purchasers once again sold the property in
favour of Muniyappa Reddy through sale deed. It is
further stated by the plaintiffs that the defendants 1 to 8
claimed in the said partition suit that in the meanwhile
Avalahalli Hanumanthappa had executed a settlement
deed dated 22.12.1949 wherein half share in the said
property is allotted to the Defendants No.1 to 8. It is
further stated by the plaintiffs that before the alleged
settlement deed, the executor had sold the property
under a registered sale deed and hence, he was not the
owner of the said property and the alleged settlement
deed could not have been executed by a person who does
not have any title to the property. It is further stated by
45 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
the plaintiffs that the City Civil Judge was pleased to
dismiss the suit as per the Judgment and decree dated
5.7.1989 in OS.No.1318/1980 and the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in RFA 606/1989 reversed the same
and as such, the Judgment and decree dated 5.7.1989 in
OS.No.1318/1989 passed by the City Civil Judge, is
merged with the Judgment and decree dated 24.11.1999
in RFA and the said decree is the continuation of the
proceedings. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the
plaintiff has obtained latest factory license from the Joint
Director of Companies for a period of 1.1.2008 to
31.12.2010 and has also obtained license from the
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for the period
from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 and the plaintiff has been
paying provident fund benefits to its employees. It is
further stated by the plaintiff that it has set up huge
machineries in the factory and hence, filed this suit for
declaration that the judgment and decree dated
24.11.1999 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
46 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Karnataka in RFA No.606/1989 reversing the Judgment
and decree passed in OS No.1318/1980 granting
partition is not binding in so far as the plaintiffs are
concerned and the share of the plaintiffs over the suit
schedule property is not affected and also for a
permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 8
from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
17. The defendant No.6 who is also the defendant
No.6 in OS 8973/2006 has filed his written statement
reiterating the contentions taken up in OS 8973/2006
and sought for dismissal of suit.
18. The defendant No.21 has filed written statement
admitting that the plaintiff has purchased the suit
schedule property measuring 16,899.68sq.ft. from him
under sale deed dated 18.1.2001 and therefore, this
defendant has no subsisting right, title or interest over
the suit schedule property. It is further contended that
he was not a party in any of the proceedings to the suit
47 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
or appeal and was not acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the cases, is not bound by the
Judgment and decree. It is further contended by the
defendant No.21 that the title of the defendant No.21 to
the suit schedule property or possession thereof, is not
affected in any manner in view of the fact that the benefit
to the defendant Nos.1 to 8 under the Judgment and
decree in RFA 606/1989 is subject to the direction of the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the benefit of
decree in RFA 606/1989 in favour of defendants 1 to 8 if
any, is only to an extent of 2 acres 7 guntas in the land
bearing Sy.No.39/4 out of the total extent of 4 acres
14guntas and subject to the condition that the
possession of Santhosh Kumar s/o C.S.Ramaswamy, the
20th defendant in the said suit which included the
present suit schedule property, shall not be affected to
the extent possible. It is further contended that the
defendants 1 to 8 also made no efforts to implead this
defendant as party to the litigations. It is admitted that
48 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
the plaintiff was the owner of the property abutting the
suit schedule property and this defendant agreed to
convey the same in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly
sold the same in favour of the plaintiff. It is further
contended that there is no cause of action for the above
suit and that this defendant is not a proper and
necessary party to the suit and hence, prayed to dismiss
the suit as against this defendant with exemplary costs.
19. The defendant no.24 in OS no.6873/2009-M/s
Trident Automobiles Pvt.Ltd., has filed written statement
taking similar contentions as taken in the written
statement filed in OS no.8973/2006 and prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
20. On the basis of the above pleadings, this court
has framed the following issues and additional issues:
Issues in OS 8973/2006:
1. Whether the suit is maintainable?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief
sought in the plaint?
3. What Order or decree?
49 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Addl.Issues framed on 12.8.2010:
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that Judgment and
decree dated 24.11.1998 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in RFA 606/1989
reversing the Judgment and decree dated
4.7.1989 passed by the City Civil Court in
O.S.No.1318/1980 granting partition is not
binding on the plaintiffs?
2. Whether the suit is properly valued and Court fee
paid is sufficient?
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
4. What Order or decree?
Addl.Issue dated 19.8.2010:
5. Whether the suit is barred by doctrine of res -
judicata?
Addl.Issues dated 1.8.2011
6. Whether the suit is barred by time in so far as the
transposed first plaintiff?
7. Whether the suit is hit by the principles of lis
pendense in view of O.S.No.1318/1980?
8. Whether the suit is barred by principles of waiver
and estoppels?
Issues in OS 6873/2009:
50 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
1. Whether the suit in the present form and
nature is maintainable?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that he is not bound
by the judgment and decree in
OS.No.1318/1980 and RFA 606/1989?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves the judgment and
decree in OS.No.1318/1980 and RFA
606/1989 is not binding on the plaintiff's
vendor and thereby on the plaintiff?
4. Whether suit is barred by limitation?
5. What Order or decree?
Addl.Issues dated 31.10.2015 in both
OS 8973/2006 & 6873/2009 :
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant
no.22 purchased the suit schedule property from
defendant no.1 to 8 ?
2. Whether the defendant no.22/24 proves that
the sale deed dated 18.5.1970 ?
3. Whether the defendant no.22/24 further
proves that it is a bonafide purchaser of 30
guntas of land out of 1 acre 36 guntas in
Sy.no.39/4A situated at Doddakallasandra
village ?
4. Whether the defendant no.22/24 further
proves that it is in lawful possession and
enjoyment of the property purchased ?
51 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
5. Whether the defendant no.22/24 further
proves that the plaintiffs ought to have pay the
court fee under Sec.24(b) of the Karnataka Court
Fee & Suit Valuation Act and not under
sec.24(d) ?
6. What decree or order ?
21. Common plaintiff in both the suits represented
by its Managing Director is examined as P.W.1 and
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.141 documents came to be marked on
behalf of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, 6th defendant
is examined as D.W.1 and 21st defendant is examined as
D.W.2. The authorised representative of defendant no.22
in O.S.no.8973/2006 and defendant no.24 in
O.S.No.6873/2009 is examined as D.W.3. Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.84 documents came to be marked on behalf of the
defendants.
22. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has relied on
the following decisions:
1. AIR (38) 1951 Nagapur 448-Chhotelal Ratanlal and
another Vs Rajmal Milapchand and others.
2.(2001)6 SCC 534- Howrah Daw Mangla Hat B.B.Samity
Vs. Pronab Kumar Daw.
52 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
3. ALT-1992-1-371-Vegulla Sathyanarayanamurthy Vs
Alluri Annapurnamma.
4. 1958(36) Mysore Law Journal 634-Kittamma Vs Subba
Rai.
5. AIR 2007 Karnataka- 31- C.P.Bharathi and another Vs
Anjanappa(deceased by LRs) & others.
6.AIR 2009 Supreme Court 250(1)-Vaniyankandy
Bhaskaran Vs Mooliyil Padinhjarekandy Sheela.
7.AIR 2003 Karnataka174- M.S.Khalid and another
Vs.K.R.Rangaswamy and another.
8.ILR 1991 KAR 264-M/s Paramound Industries
Vs.C.M.Malliga.
9.AIR 1998 Supreme Court 877-Sharad Vasant Kotak Vs
Ramniklal Mohanlal Chawda & another.
10.AIR 1959 Supreme Court 559-Badriprasad and others
Vs Nagrimal and others.
11.AIR 2015 S.C. 3747- Sharadamma Vs. Mohammed
Pyarejan(D) through LRs & another.
23. On the other hand the learned Counsel
appearing for defendant nos.1 to 8 has relied on the
following decisions:
1. (2006) 5 SCC 353-Prem Singh and other Vs Birbal
and others.
53 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
2.(2010)10 SCC 512- Man Kaur(dead) by LRs. Vs Hartar
Singh Sangha.
3. AIR 1992 SC 481- Sangener Dal and Flour mill Vs FCI
and others.
4. AIR 1996 Raj 229- Sohanlal Vs. Gulab Chand.
5.ILR 1994 KAR 1740-K.M.Munireddy Vs
B.K.Lakshmaiah.
6.(2003) 2 SCC 355-R.L.Sridhar and others Vs
K.M.Munireddy (dead) and others.
7.AIR 1953 SC 33-Rajalakshmi Dasi & others
Vs.Banamali Sen & others.
8.AIR 1953 SC 65-Mohanlal Goenka Vs Benoy Krishna
Mukherjee.
9.ILR 1988 KAR 3238-Hanumegowda Vs.
Sudharshanachar.
10.J.T. 2006(5) SC 311-Prem Singh and others Vs Birble
and others.
11. AIR 1925 Privy counsel 54-Ramadhin Singh & others
Vs Chandrama Kuer & others.
12.AIR 1958 Patna 270- Ganesh Jha Vs. Baidyanath
Jha & others.
13.AIR 1978 Rajasthan 206 -Maharama Vs Rambux.
14.AIR 1934 Lahore 625-Thomas beer and sons Vs.
Rulia Rao and another,
15.(2002) 3 SCC 258-Konda Lakshmana Bapuji Vs.
Govt. of A.P. and others.
54 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
16.2010(8) SCC 383-Meghamala and others
Vs.G.Narasimha Reddy and others.
17.ILR 2013 KAR 3061-Sri. M.K.Thyagaraja Gupta and
others Vs. State of Karnataka, by Secretary,
Department of Revenue and others.
18.(1996) 7 SCC 767 Mohammed Noorul Hoda Vs Bi Bi
Raifunnisa.
24. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel
appearing for the plaintiffs and defendants.
25. My findings on the above issues are as follows: -
Issues in OS no.8973/2006 :
(1) Issue nos. 1 & 2 : In the negative
(2) Addl.Issue nos.1 to 3 dated 12.8.2010 : In the negative
(3) Addl.Issue no.5 dated 19.8.2010 : In the affirmative
(4) Addl.Issue no.6 dated 1.8.2011 : In the negative
(5) Addl.Issue nos.7 & 8 dated 1.8.2011 : In the affirmative
(6) Issue No.3 & Addl.Issue no.4 : As per final order
Issues in OS no.6873/2009 :
(1) Issue nos. 1 to 4 : In the negative
(2) Issue no.5 : As per final Order
Common Additional Issues in OS no.8973/2006 &
6873/2009 dated 31.10.2015 :
(1) Addl.Issue no.1 : In the affirmative
(2) Addl.Issue no.2 : In the negative
(3) Addl.Issue no.3 to 5 : In the affirmative
(4) Addl.Issue no.6 : As per final order
REASONS
55 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
26. Issue no.1, Additional Issue no.1 dated
12.8.2010, Addl.Issue no.5 dated 19.8.2010,
Addl.Issue nos.7 & 8 dated 1.8.2011 in
O.S.no.8973/2006 & Issue nos.1 to 3 in
O.S.no.6873/2009: Since all these issues are
interlinked with each other, in order to avoid repetition, I
would like to answer them together.
27. The sum and substance of the contention of the
plaintiffs in both the suits that the judgment and decree
in RFA no.606/1989 dated 24.11.1998 i.e., Ex.P.29 that
arisen out of dismissal of O.S.no.1318/1980 dated
04.07.1989 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Further it is
contended by the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 to 8
be restrained by way of perpetual injunction not to
interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit
schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, Plaintiff
Company purchased the suit schedule property bearing
no.6901 in Sy.no.39/4 of Doddakallasandra Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring
56 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
16,899.68 Sq.ft. from the 21st defendant Aswathnarayana
Shetty. To substantiate that the plaintiffs have got
marked Ex.P.39 dated 18.01.2001. The recitals of the
said document discloses that M/s.Metal Closure Pvt.Ltd.,
represented by its Chairamn i.e., P.W.1 purchased the
suit property from the 21st defendant. The recitals of
Ex.P.18 discloses that 20th defendant in OS
no.6873/2009 i.e., Santhosh Kumar along with 9 others
formed the partnership firm by name "Master Products"
dated 26.04.1971. The recital of Ex.P.24 further discloses
that "Master Products" purchased 1 acre 20 guntas in
Sy.no.39/4 from one Buddamma under a registered sale
deed dated 18.05.1970. The learned counsel for the
defendant no.1 to 8 drew the attention of this court to the
recitals of Ex.P.25 i.e., certified copy of the plaint in
O.S.no.1318/1980, earlier no.332/1971 and argued that
the said suit came to be filed on 09.05.1971 and he
further drew the attention of this court to Ex.P.26 i.e.,
certified copy of the judgment in O.S.no.1318/1980 and
57 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
contended that the judgment in the said suit came to be
pronounced on 04.07.1989 and "Master Products"
purchased 1 acre 20 guntas of land from Buddamma
during the pendency of O.S.no.1318/1980. Hence, the
principle of lispendense is applicable and learned
counsel for the defendant no.1 to 8 further contended
that in O.S.no.1318/1980 Santhosh Kumar is the 5th
defendant in that suit. He was representing the said suit
as a partner of "Master Products". Therefore, the
plaintiffs cannot contend that the judgment and decree
in O.S.no.1318/1980 is not binding on them. On the
other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs drew
the attention of this court to the recitals of Ex.P.35 i.e.,
sale deed dated 18.05.1970 under which Buddamma
sold the property in favour of the "Master Products"
measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.no.39/4 of
Doddakallasandra village and he further contended that
by virtue of Ex.P.35 sale deed Buddamma lost the title
over 1 acre 20 guntas of land and he further contended
58 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
that in Ex.P.25 i.e., the suit in O.S.no.1318/1980
Santhosh Kumar is not made as a party as the partner of
"Master Products". But he has arrayed as a party in his
individual capacity. Hence, the provisions of Order 30
rule 2 of CPC is not complied.
28. In the instant case, the conduct of the parties
gains importance. On careful perusal of the cause title of
O.S.no.1318/1980 i.e., Ex.P.25 Santhosh Kumar is
shown as the 5th defendant. No doubt there is no mention
in the cause title that "Master Products" is represented
by Santosh Kumar.
29. P.W.1 in his cross examination at page-7 has
stated as under:
"It is true that in O.S.no.1318/1980 Luvac
Engineering Corporation was predecessors
in title of Metal Closures was a party. It is
true that in that suit Luvac Engineering
Corporation protected 1 acre 20 guntas
land purchased by one Buddamma.
During that period, I was officiating as
Managing Director of Luvac Engineering
Corporation."
59 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
30. In his cross examination at page-8 para-1,
P.W.1 has stated as under:
"After three years, Luvac Engineering
Corporation was dissolved and Metal
Closures Private Ltd., took over the assets
and liabilities of erstwhile company of
Luvac Engineering Corporation"
In his cross examination at page-8 para-3 he has stated
that:
"The suggestion that Santhosh Kumar as
partner executed the documents in respect
of the property purchased by Master
Products - the partnership is correct."
31. In his cross examination at page-11 para-6, he
has stated that:
"It is true that as seen from Ex.D.1 there
was a specific mention that the purchase
made on behalf of the Master Products
represented by Santhosh Kumar."
32. In his cross examination at page-11 para-7, he
has further stated that :
"It is true that Santhosh Kumar gave
evidence in O.S.no.1318/1980 as D.W.1."
60 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
33. In his cross examination, at page-14 para-11,
it is further stated that by P.W.1 as under:
"It is true that on 01.06.1974 as per
Ex.P.20 the partnership firm was
reconstituted. As seen from Ex.P.20
C.R.Gopalakrishna Setty, C.R.Santhosh
Kumar,C.R.Sathyanarayana, Soorammma,
Roopa Surendranath are all one family
members- brothers and sisters." It is true
that at Ex.P20 there is specific mention that
there residence as single house."
34. In his cross examination at page-15 para-11,
he has further stated that:
"It is true that they were residing under
one roof. It is true that they were carrying
on the same business. It is true that they
were doing the business over the same
property. "
35. In his cross examination at page 17 para 15,
P.W.1 has stated as under:
"It is true that Santhosh Kumar was one of
the parties in RFA no.606/1989. The take
over of Luvac Engineering Corporation by
Metal Closure was somewhere in 1980"
36. In his cross examination at page-23 para-22
P.W.1 has stated as under:
61 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
"It is true that If Luvac Engineering
Corporation had suffered a decree in
O.S.no.1318/1980 we are bound by the
decree."
37. In his cross examination at page-23 para-23,
he has further stated that:
"It is true that I also participated in the FDP
and I was the appellant in RFA 502/2003.
It is true that the said final decree in FDP
41/1999 was modified and accepted."
38. In his cross examination at page-26 para-25,
P.W.1 has stated as under:
"It is true when Metal Closures took over
Luvac Engineering Corporation in 1980,
Metal closures was well aware of
pendency of O.S.no.1318/1980."
39. In his cross examination at page-39 para-40,
P.W.1 has stated as under:
" C.P.Bharathi and C.R.Satyanarayna and
C.P.Gourav have not filed any suit against
C.R.Santhosh Kumar for having lost their
title in respect of the property."
40. In his cross examination at page-40 para-41,
P.W.1 has stated as under:
"It is true that C.R.Santhosh Kumar has
independently filed RFA 692/2003. It is
62 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
true that in RFA 692/2003 C.R.Santhosh
Kumar has urged the interest of entire 1
acre 20 guntas."
41. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs in both the
suits drew the attention of this court to the cross
examination version of DW-1 at page-13, para-10
wherein DW-1 has stated as under:-
"It is true that in the plaint O.S.No.332/71
the address of C.R.Santhos Kumar is
shown as No.17, Subramanyaswamy
Temple Road. It is true that in the plaint
O.S.No.332/1971 C.R.Santhos Kumar
was not described as partner of Master
Products."
42. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs in both the
suits drew the attention of this court to the cross
examination version of DW-1 at page-13, para-10
wherein the DW-1 has stated as under:-
"It is true that even in the certificate of
registration issued by the Registrar of
Firms i.e. Ex.P.59, the address of
C.R.Santhosh Kumar is shown as No.20,
Subramanayaswamy Temple Street
Bengaluru."
43. He further argued that there is no whisper in
the entire plaint in O.S.No.1318/1980 that Santhosh
63 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Kumar was representing the said suit as a partner of
Master Products. In support of his contention, he has
relied on a decision reported in AIR 1951 Nagapur 448-
Chotelala Rathanlala & another Vs. Rajamal Milap
Chand and others and in the light of the ratio laid down
in the said decision, he argued that it is obligatory on the
part of defendants to mention Santhosh Kumar as a
partner of Master products, as contemplated under Order
30 Rule 1 of CPC.
44. He further argued that mere mentioning the
name of Santhosh Kumar in cause title Ex.P.25 itself is
not sufficient to show that M/s Master Products was
being sued. He further drew the attention of this court to
the recitals of Ex.P.93 and argued that Santosh Kumar
without the knowledge of other partners of Master
Products entered into an understanding with defendant
no.6 to share the properties in Sy.no.39/4. That itself
shows the collusion between Santosh Kumar and other
defendants. The recitals of Ex.D.2 discloses that
64 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Santhosh Kumar represented in OS no.1318/1980 as a
partner of "Master Product" and he contested the said
suit effectively. If really he had not contested the said
suit, he could remain exparte, but he has appeared and
filed his written statement in a representative capacity
i.e., as a partner of the "Master Products". Further the
recitals of Ex.P.29 i.e., the judgment in RFA 606/1989
discloses that Santhosh Kumar is 5th respondent in the
said RFA. Thus, throughout he represented the
proceedings. Under these circumstances, the contention
raised by the plaintiff that he was arrayed as a party in
O.S.no.1318/1980 in his individual capacity, not as a
partner of "Master Products" holds no water. The said
contention taken by the plaintiff appears to be too
technical. Therefore, the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff that Santhosh Kumar
has not represented the suit in O.S.no.1318/1980 as a
partner of "Master Products" holds no water.
65 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
45. The Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended
that the M/s Metal Closures Pvt.Ltd., was not a party
before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. He drew the
attention of this court to the recitals of judgment and
decree in RFA no.606/1989 i.e., Ex.P29. It is pertinent to
note that M/s.Luvac Engineering Corporation is the 2nd
respondent in RFA no.606/1989 represented by P.W.1
Prashanth Hegde. In his cross examination at page-25
para-25, P.W.1 has stated as under:
"It is true that as seen from Ex.D.7 at
para no.3, I did make a statement that
admittedly the company has not been
made as a party in O.S.no.1318/1980
and RFA 606/1989 and RFA
no.324/1990. That portion is marked at
Ex.P.7(a)."
46. He has further stated that:
"It is true that in the affidavit as per
Ex.D.7, I continued myself in Metal
Closure Pvt.Ltd. It is true that M/s.Luvac
Engineering Corporation was a party to
the previous proceedings in
O.S.no.1318/1980. It is true that in the
affidavit as per Ex.D.7, I have not made
a statement that M/s.Luvac Engineering
Corporation was party in O.S.no.
1318/1980 and we superseded it. "
66 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
47. In his cross examination, at page-26 para-25,
he has further stated as under:
"It is true that when Metal Closure
Pvt.Ltd., took over M/s.Luvac Engineering
Corporation in the year 1980, Metal
Closure Pvt.Ltd., was well aware of
pendency of O.S.no.1318/1980."
48. The aforesaid version of the PW.1 is clear that
M/s.Luvac Engineering Corporation took over by the
Metal Closure Pvt.Ltd., way back in the year 1980. But
that aspect is silent in Ex.D.7. That is further clarified by
the P.W.1 at para-3 of Ex.D.7 i.e., at Ex.D.7(a). Ex.P.25
is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.no,1318/1980. In
that suit, M/s.Luvac Engineering Corporation has been
arrayed as a party. The present Metal Closure Pvt.Ltd.,
took over M/s.Luvac Engineering Corporation. Thus, it is
clear that the Metal Closure Pvt.Ltd., is not a stranger to
the proceedings. The chairman of both the companies
are one and the same i.e., Prashanth Hegde. Therefore,
whatever legal proceedings took place in respect of
67 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
M/s.Luvac Engineering Corporation, is also binding on
M/s.Metal Closure Pvt.Ltd.
49. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P.25, the 2nd
defendant i.e., present plaintiff no.1 in both the suits is a
party. Therefore, the present P.W.1 representing the
Luvac Engineering Corporation in Ex.P25 suit,
subsequently, he was representing the Luvac Engineering
Corporation in Ex.P28 and Ex.P29 RFAs. Therefore, the
judgment and decree in the said RFAs is binding on the
plaintiff. Now he can not seek declaratory relief.
50. On careful perusal of Ex.P.35, i.e., sale deed
dated 18.05.1970, it is clear that Santhosh Kumar
represented "Master Products" purchased the property
from Buddamma measuring to an extent of 1 acre 20
guntas in Sy.no.39/4 of Doddakallasandra village. Earlier
to Ex.P.35, Buddamma sold 1 acre 20 guntas to
Ramamurthy and another 1 acre 20 guntas to Padma
Prakash, out of 4 acres 15 guntas. The remaining land
must be 1 acre 15 guntas. But as per Ex.P.35, she sold 1
68 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
acre 20 gutnas. Thus, it is clear that she has sold
5 guntas of land which was not in her name.
51. In O.S.no.1318/1980 Santhosh Kuamr has filed
his written statement which is marked at Ex.D.1. At
para-5 of Ex.D.1, he has categorically stated that the
portion of the property purchased by him was assigned
as Sy.no.39/4(A). It is pertinent to note that Santhosh
Kumar represented the plaintiffs in O.S.no.1318/1980
and he is also a party to the proceedings in RFA
no.606/1989.
52. The Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended
that the provision of Order 30 Rule 2 of CPC is not
complied in O.S.no.1318/1980. Non-mentioning of
Santhosh Kumar as a partner of the "Master Product" in
the said suit is not fatal. More so, when Santhosh Kumar
contested the matter in the said suit and thereafter in
RFA No.606/1989 effectively.
53. On careful perusal of Ex.P.25, M/s.Luvac
Engineering Corporation is the 2nd defendant in that suit
69 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
i.e., the 1st plaintiff in O.S.no.6873/2009. Luvac
Engineering Corporation is taken over by M/s.Metal
Closure Private Limited. Both Luvac and Metal Closures
are represented by Prashanth Hegde. i.e., P.W.1, sole
witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff in both the
suit. Hence, it is deemed that the Metal Closures Pvt.Ltd.,
is a party in Ex.P.25. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in
both the suits contended that before purchasing the
property by M/s.Metal Closure Private Limited a paper
publication was given as per Ex.P.66. Thus, the
M/s.Metal Closure Private Limited took all precautions in
purchasing the suit schedule property.
54. Santosh Kumar in OS no.1318/1980 has filed
his affidavit in support of application filed under order 13
rule 1 & 2 as per Ex.D.69. On careful perusal of the said
affidavit, he has clearly stated in the said affidavit that he
is representing M/s Master Products. Added to that, the
recitals of Ex.P.35 also gains importance. In the said
document i.e., sale deed dated 18.5.1970, Santosh
70 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Kumar represented as a partner of M/s Master Products
purchased the property bearing Sy.no.39/4 of
Doddakallasandra village. That is also one of the
circumstances to come to a conclusion that Santosh
Kumar represented M/s Master Products throughout the
proceedings.
55. On careful perusal of cause title of Ex.P.88
order dated 26.8.2008 it is clear that M/s Metal closure
has taken over M/s Luvac Engineering and Santosh
Kumar is respondent no.1 in the said proceedings. The
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Ex.P.92 order, has
dismissed the appeal filed by Smt.Muniyamma and
others in RFA no.904/2010. Thereafter Smt.Muniyamma
and others filed a Spl.Leave petition before the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Spl.LA.6079/2011 and the Hon'ble Apex
Court as per Ex.D.52 has directed to maintain statusquo
regarding the possession. On careful perusal of Ex.P.97,
it discloses that C.R.Satyanarayanashetty i.e., vendor of
M/s Metal Closure sold the property to M/s Metal
71 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Closure and it further discloses that the said sale deed
came to be executed in favour of M/s Metal Closures on
18.4.2001. Ex.P.2 & P.3 sale deeds also came to be
executed by the plaintiff nos.2, 3 & 4 during the
pendency of the litigation. Hence, the present suit is hit
by law of lis pendense. It is pertinent to note that Ex.D.4
i.e., certified copy of order in RFA 692/2003 c/w
502/2003 came to be passed on 12.10.2006. M/s Luvac
Engineering is a party to the said proceedings. M/s
Metal Closure which is taken over by M/s Luvac
Engineering, purchased the property from
C.R.Ashwathnarayana shetty on 18.1.2001. But, the
purchase of the property is not intimated to the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in Ex.D.4 proceedings.
56. On careful perusal of Ex.D.6, i.e., memorandum
of contempt petition in CCC no.572/1996 filed against
Padma prakash and others and in the said proceedings,
Metal Closures represented by PW.1 is the party. Ex.D.7
i.e., objection to IA no.1 discloses that PW.1 filed
72 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
objections to IA no.1 on 4.9.1996 in the said proceedings
and in para-2 of the objections he has clearly stated that
he is the Chairman of M/s Metal Closures which came
into existence from 1.3.1980. M/s Luvac Engineering
Corporation was a party throughout whereas M/s Metal
Closures is claiming through M/s Luvac Engineering
Corporation and Mr. Prashanth Hegde is representing
M/s Metal Clousures. Therefore, an inference could be
drawn that he was aware of all the proceedings right from
the beginning.
57. Ex.D.8 is the certified copy of IA no.2/2005 in
RFA 692/2003. In the said IA, Santosh Kumar is the
appellant and C.R.Satyanarayana i.e., plaintiff no.4 in
OS no.8973/2006 is the proposed respondent no.16. In
the said IA, plaintiff no.4 filed an application to implead
him as a party. The recitals of Ex.D.9 discloses that the
plaintiff nos.2 & 3 in OS no.8973/2006 filed IA
no.1/2005 in RFA 692/2003 for impleading them as
additional respondents on 5.10.2005 i.e., prior to the
73 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
filing of this suit. That itself shows that they participated
in the proceedings. Ex.D.10 is the order of the Hon'ble
Apex Court dated 22.7.2009 in Spl.L.A.(Civil)18464/2009
filed by the plaintiff nos.2 & 3 in OS no.8973/2006
challenging the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka in RFA no.485/2008 dismissing the appeal
arising out of the order passed by the city civil court,
Bangalore in E.P.no.2253/2006. In the said proceedings,
the plaintiff nos.2 & 3 in OS no.8973/2006 have filed an
application under 21 rule 97 of CPC, as obstructers to
the execution proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
dismissed the special leave petition filed by the plaintiff
nos.2 &3 in OS no.8973/2006. That also shows that the
plaintiff nos.2 & 3 have participated in the said execution
proceedings. Ex.D.11 is the decree passed on 12.10.2006
by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA
no.692/2003 c/w RFA no.502/2003 filed by Santosh
Kumar and M/s Metal Closure Pvt.Ltd., arising out of the
order dated 10.3.2003 passed in FDP no.41/1999 and
74 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Ex.D.11(a) is the sketch drawn by the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka in the said final decree proceedings.
Ex.D.12 is the order passed by the city civil court in FDP
no.41/2006. In the said final decree proceedings, M/s
Luvac Engineering now known as M/s Metal Closure
Pvt.Ltd., had filed an IA and the city civil court after
hearing both the parties, dismissed the said IA filed
under order 1 rule 10 of CPC, for impleading
C.R.Satyanarayana & C.R.Prabhakar, as the partners of
M/s Master Products. The said order discloses that
Santosh Kumar is representing the firm. No appeal is
filed against the order passed by the city civil court by
the plaintiff in both the cases. Thus, it has become final
and it operates res-judicata. In para-6 of Ex.D.12 order,
the court has observed as under:
But the fact remains that the firm M/s
Master Products is already represented by
one of the partner by name Sri. Santosh
Kumar, the respondent no.5. It is not the
case of the other partners that Santosh
Kumar is not defending the interest of the
firm or for that matter, it is not their case
that the interest of Santosh Kumar is
75 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
conflicting the interest of these proposed
respondents."
From the above observation, it is also clear that Santosh
Kumar represented M/s Master Products effectively. On
this count also the suit is not maintainable.
58. Ex.D.13 is the certified copy of the order sheet
in RFA no.692/2003 of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka. In the said proceedings, Commissioner was
appointed to measure the property bearing Sy.no.39/4
and half of the share in favour of LRs of Anjanappa i.e.,
defendant nos.1 to 8 was allotted and in the said order,
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
"Therefore, the only point to be considered
in these appeals is that the extent of
property available for partition and to
demarcate half of the share of plaintiffs. If
the shares of the plaintiffs are divided by
metes and bounds and give to them, then
the interse disputes of the purchasers from
Smt.Buddamma are to be considered as
per the directions issued by this court in
RFA.
In the light of the above, the learned
Counsel appearing for all the parties
agreed to appoint commissioner to measure
the suit property and to demarcate half of
76 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
the share to allot the same to the plaintiffs
and then to consider the case of the
appellant herein."
59. In the said proceedings, M/s Luvac Engineering
Corporation now known as M/s Metal Closures Pvt.ltd.,
and the plaintiff nos.2 to 4 and other defendants have
participated. Ex.D.14 is the interim application filed in
FDP no.41/1999. In support of the said application, one
Adishesh representing 2nd respondent i.e., M/s Luvac
Engineering Corporation now known as M/s Metal
Closures Pvt.ltd., has filed his affidavit to implead the
present plaintiff nos.2 to 4 in OS no.8973/2006. The
recitals of Ex.D.12 disclose that said IA came to be
rejected. The recitals of Ex.D.15 disclose that Santosh
Kumar filed an IA in FDP 41/1999 for stay of further
proceedings till disposal of RP no.461/2001. Ex.D.16 is
the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
in RP no.461/2001 and CP no.994/2001 wherein
Santosh Kumar was the petitioner in the said RP. The
order passed in CP no.882/2001 and RP no.46/2000 was
77 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
challenged by Santosh Kumar and that came to be
dismissed with an observation to put forth their claims in
the final decree proceedings. While passing order on
Ex.D.16 in which Santosh Kumar is the petitioner, at
page-9 para-7, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has
observed as under:
"Anjanappa would be entitled to 50%
share working out of equities and carving
out of the parcel of lands to be allotted to
the extent of 50% is to be gone into the
final decree proceedings depending upon
the equitable facts and circumstances
placed and proved before the trial court.
Therefore, I do not find any substance in
the review petition made before this court
since it is open for the parties to put forth
their claims in the final decree proceedings
in justifying the sale in their favour and
seeking allotments of said extent of land
purchased by them by way of equity. In
that view of the matter, the petition is
dismissed."
Thus, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has
dismissed the aforesaid review petition filed by Santosh
Kumar.
60. The recitals of Ex.D.21 disclose that Santosh
Kumar filed a written statement in OS no.1318/1980. At
78 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
page-4 para-6 of his written statement, it is stated as
under:
"The first defendant for valuable
consideration received from M/s Master
Products represented by this defendant
under sale deed dated 18.5.1970."
Thus, it is clear that Santosh Kumar represented M/s
Master Products in the said proceedings. The recitals of
Ex.D.22 disclose that the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in RFA no.606/1989 has decreed OS
no.1318/1980. In the said proceedings M/s Luvac
Engineering and Santosh Kumar are parties as
respondent nos.2 & 5. At para-10 of Ex.D.22, the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka has observed the objections
raised by the 5th respondent i.e., Santosh Kumar. The
only objection raised by him is that he may be rendered
equity and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka shall
direct the final decree court to allot his 1 acre 20 guntas
out of the share of Chikkamuniswamappa so far as
possible and his possession shall not be disturbed till
such allotment is made in the final decree proceedings.
79 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
In the said Ex.D.22 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
passed a judgment and decree for partition declaring that
the plaintiff is entitled to half share. Thus, the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in Ex.D.22 judgment, has set
aside the judgment passed in OS no.1318/1980 i.e.,
Ex.P.26 and allotted half share to defendant nos.1 to 8.
61. Ex.D.23 is the order dated 19.2.2001 in RP
no.46/2000. In the said review petition, M/s Luvac
Engineering Corporation is represented by Prashanth
Hegde-the transposed plaintiff in OS no.8973/2006 and
the plaintiff in OS no.6873/2009. The said review
petition came to be dismissed on the ground that there is
inordinate delay. Ex.D.24 is the order of the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka dated 21.7.2006 passed in RFA
no.692/2003 c/w 502/2003 in which Santosh Kumar is
the appellant and Muniyamma and others are the
respondents. In the said order, the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka has appointed Asst.Director of Land records
as commissioner to measure the property bearing
80 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Sy.no.39/4 of Doddakallasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli
and to divide half of the property and to submit the
report. Ex.D.25 is the report of the commissioner.
Ex.D.25(a) is the sketch along with the mahazar. Ex.D.26
is the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in RFA no.692/2003 and 502/2003 and said
two appeals were filed by Santosh Kumar and M/s Luvac
Engineering Corporation now known as M/s Metal
Closures Pvt.Ltd., and in the said RFA, the plaintiff nos.2
to 4 in OS no.8973/2006 filed application to implead
them. Ex.D.27 is the order dated 18.4.2001 in Civil
petition no.822/2001 in RP no.46/2000 filed by M/s
Metal Closures Pvt.Ltd. In the said civil petition, the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in detail discussed
regarding the flow of title in respect of sy.no.39/4 of
Doddakallasandra village. Ex.D.29 is the review petition
no.645/2005 in RFA no.606/1989 filed by the plaintiff
nos.2 & 4 in OS no.8973/2006. Ex.D.30 is the
application filed u/sec.5 of the Limitation Act in the said
81 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
revision petition and Ex.D.31 is the application filed
under sec.151 of CPC, with the affidavit sworn by the 2nd
plaintiff in OS 8973/2006. Ex.D.32 is the order in
R.P.no.645/2005. In the said order, the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka at para-11 has observed as under:
"In the result, the review petition is
dismissed. If the petitioners are aggrieved
by the judgment and decree of the trial
court or this court, they have to work out
their remedy by filing a suit or in any other
proceedings."
62. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs
in both the suits contended that as per the said
observation, the present suit came to be filed. It is
pertinent to note that in RFA no.606/1989, M/s Master
Products represented by Santosh Kumar was a party.
Therefore, the finding in the said RFA is binding on all of
its partners. Against the finding in the said RFA, the
plaintiff nos.2 & 4 in OS no.8973/2006 preferred an
appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court under Ex.D.10 and
special leave petition also came to be dismissed. Hence,
the findings in RFA no.606/1989 has attained finality
82 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
and said findings amounts to resjudicata. Ex.D.40 is the
order dated 10.3.2003 in FDP 41/1999. The plaintiffs
are allotted 2 acres 1½ guntas in the said FDP as per the
sketch prepared by the commissioner, as per the letters
A1, B, C, D, D1, C1, G,H, H1, middle portion towards the
half share. Out of Chikkamuniswamappa's share, the
respondent no.2 who purchased 1 acre 20 guntas same
portion which is in his possession is allotted to
respondent no.2 marked in commissioner's sketch with
letters A, A1, H1 i.e., north east corner portion. Out of
the share of CHikkamuniswamappa, remaining south
west corner portion of 33 guntas marked with letters
E,F,G,C1,D is allotted to the respondent nos.4 & 6 as per
the compromise petition. Ex.D.41 discloses that the final
decree was duly registered before the jurisdictional Sub-
Registrar, Kengeri, drawn by the city civil court,
Bangalore in FDP no.41/1999. Ex.D.41(a) is the sketch
which is incorporated in the rectification deed drawn by
the city civil court, Bangalore in the said FDP. Ex.D.44 is
83 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
the final decree drawn by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in RFA no.692/2003 c/w 502/2003 duly
registered before the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri
on 22.12.2006. Ex.D.44(a) is the sketch drawn by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA no.692/2003
c/w 502/2003 duly registered before the Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Kengeri. Ex.D.45 reveals that Santosh
Kumar filed an application u/o 21 rule 97 r/w sec.151 of
CPC, in EP 2253/2006 and court in detail has discussed
the facts of the case and gave a finding that the said
Santosh Kumar cannot file any application as an objector
and said application came to be dismissed. Ex.D.46 is
the order sheet in E.P.no.2253/2006. The application
filed by the objector i.e., 5th judgment debtor and that
also came to be dismissed. Ex.D.47 is the order in
Ex.No.2253/2006 dated 3.2.2010 filed by Santosh
Kumar for staying further proceedings. Said application
also came to be dismissed by the court as per Ex.D.48.
Ex.D.48 is the order in Ex.no.2253/2006 dated 4.2.2010.
84 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
In the said execution petition, M/s Metal Closures sought
for stay of execution of the proceedings. The court has
dismissed the said application. Ex.D.49 is the order
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P.7715/2008 filed by M/s Metal Closures against
Union of India and others. In the said proceedings, the
defendant nos.1 to 8 are not parties. Said petition came
to be dismissed.
63. The learned Counsel appearing for the
defendant nos.1 to 8 contended that the plaintiff i.e., M/s
Luvac Engineering and Santosh Kumar colluded together
and filed the said writ petition before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka. But, the fact remains that said writ
petition filed by M/s Metal Closure came to be dismissed.
Ex.D.50 is the order passed in OS no.25813/2008 on the
file of 4th Addl.city civil judge, Mayohall, Bangalore on IA
nos.1 to 3. Said order discloses that M/s Metal Closure
Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against Smt.Muniyamma and others
seeking relief of permanent injunction and had obtained
85 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
an exparte order of temporary injunction in respect of the
same property but claiming portion of the said property
through somebody else. After appearance of
Smt.Muniyamma and others, the court has rejected the
plaint itself on the ground that the plaintiff suffered the
decree and suppressed the material facts. It is pertinent
to note that after the disposal of the OS 25813/2008, the
plaintiff i.e., M/s Metal Closures filed a suit in OS
no.6873/2009 seeking declaratory relief. But, earlier M/s
Metal Closure was represented by Prashanth Hegde.
Ex.D.51 is the statement of objections dated 8.6.2001
filed by Santosh Kumar in FDP no.41/1999. Ex.D.52 is
the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in SLP(civil) 6079/2011 filed by Smt.Muniyamma
and others against Santosh Kumar challenging the
judgment and order dated 27.1.2011. In the said RFA
no.904/2010 the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed to
maintain statusquo regarding possession of the
properties.
86 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
64. Ex.D.64 is the judgment in RFA 485/2008
dated 28.1.2009 filed by the plaintiff nos.2 & 4 in OS
no.8973/2006. In para-4 & 5 of the judgment, the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has narrated the
argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for
the appellant and the respondents.
65. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para-11
of the judgment has observed as under:
"In my opinion, having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case, the
executing court was not required to hold
any such enquiry in respect of the claim
made by the appellants for the following
reasons :
66. In para-12 of the judgment, it is further held as
under:
As noticed earlier, the application filed by
the appellants under order 21 rule 97 did
not disclose as to how and when the
appellants became the owners of the
portion of the property claimed by them
and as to when they were placed in
possession of the same. The application
also did not disclose as to from whom they
derived title to the property. Therefore,
prima facie, the appellants did not make
out any case for enquiry. Even as per the
87 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Copies of the documents produced by
them in the executing court, the
partnership firm M/s Master products
purchased an extent of 1 acre 30 guntqas
in Sy.no.39/4 from Smt.Buddamma
defendant no.1 in OS no.1318/1980 on
18.5.1970. One of the partners i.e.,
Santosh kumar was impleaded as
defendant no.4 to the original suit filed by
Anjanappa and he contested the suit. In
fact he filed review petition to review the
order in RFA 606/1989 and
subsequently he also filed RFA
no.692/2003 against the order passed in
the final decree proceedings. Thus,
assuming for the purpose of arguments
M/s Master products a partnership firm
become owners of land measuring 1 acre
24 guntas as one of its partners was
made a party to the suit. Such a decree
binds all the partners and their
successors. The alleged dissolution of
partnership firm and agreement of co-
ownership and the transfer deed said to
have been executed in favour of
C.R.Prabhakar by one of the partners of
the dissolved firm were are all subsequent
to the filing of the suit and during the
pendency of the suit and appeal. Thus, the
husband of the appellant claims to have
acquired some right over the property said
to have been purchased by MJ/s Master
Products, during the pendency of the
appeal in RFA no.606/1989. Therefore,
appellants have no right to invoke order
21 rule 97 of CPC as the said provision is
not applicable to the transfer effected
during the pendency of the lis. It may also
88 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
be noted here that Santosh Kumar who
contested the suit and appeal and
suffered a decree, filed an appeal in RFA
no.692/2003 against the order dated
10.3.2003 passed in final decree
proceedings no.41/1999 claiming
protection of right to the extent of 1 acre 20
guntas by seeking pro-rata allotment of
the land that is allotted to the share of
Smt.Buddamma - the first defendant. The
said appeal came to be dismissed by this
court on 12.10.2006 observing as under:
"said Santosh Kumar was found to be 3rd
purchaser in the order of purchase and the
extent of the lands that had fallen to the
share of Smt.Buddamma which was
required to be distributed amongst the
purchasers was 2 acres 7 guntas and that
could not even satisfy the 2nd purchaser
i.e., the fourth defendant in the suit who
had purchased 1 acre 8 guntas, himself
was found languishing without getting his
full extent and since the extent of 2 acres
7 guntas of land allotted to the share of
Smt.Buddamma got exhausted even
before the first and second purchasers,
said Santosh Kumar cannot get allotment
of any portion of the land allotted to the
share of Smt.Buddamma." From this
observation, it is clear that Santosh Kumar
who was 5th defendant in the case failed
to get allotment of any portion of the
property purchased under sale deed dated
18.5.1970, from out of the extent of land
allotted to the share of Smt.Buddamma.
Under these circumstances, the appellants
who claims to have derived some
semblance of right by virtue of transfer
89 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
deed dated 4.12.1991 said to have been
executed by Smt.Roopa Surendranath one
of the partners of the erstwhile firm M/s
Master Products, in favour of
C.R.Prabhakar, cannot be held to have
derived any title to any portion of the
property. Under these circumstances, the
executing court was not required to hold
any enquiry on the said application.
Therefore, the Executing court is justified
in rejecting the application even without
holding any enquiry. There is no error
committed by the Executing court in
rejecting the application. In view of the
above, there is no substance in the
contention of the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants that the
executing court ought to have held an
enquiry.
Accordingly Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has
dismissed the said appeal filed by the plaintiff no.2 & 4 in
OS no.8973/2006.
67. On careful perusal of Ex.D.10, the above said
order was confirmed. On this count also, the suit filed by
the plaintiff is hit by the principles of lispendense.
Ex.D.65 is the letter dated 13.10.2011 by BBMP to M/s
Metal Closures Pvt.Ltd., regarding pendency of two suits.
Ex.D.66 is the letter written by Sri.Kishore Shetty
advocate for M/s Metal Closures. The learned Counsel
90 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
appearing for defendant nos.1 to 8 drew the attention of
this court to the recitals of Ex.D.66 and contended that
the plaintiffs filed OS no.25818/2008 before the city civil
court, Mayohall and suppressed the material facts and
obtained order of injunction and further contended that
thereafter the plaintiffs filed a suit in OS 6873/2009
during the pendency of the above proceedings. The
learned Counsel appearing for the defendants further
contended that aggrieved by the order the plaintiff M/s
Metal Closures filed RFA before the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka. After contest by the defendant nos.1 to 8,
said RFA 951/2008 came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka under Ex.D.18. Again he has
filed another suit OS 6873/2009 and during the
pendency of the above proceedings, he has purchased 15
guntas of land from plaintiff no.2 & 3 in OS
no.8973/2006. In the suit filed by the said plaintiff, he
was the 19th defendant. After the alleged purchase, M/s
Metal Closures filed an IA for transposing it and the said
91 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
IA came to be allowed and M/s Luvac Engineering
Corporation now known as M/s Metal Closures Pvt.Ltd.,
has become the first plaintiff. The original plaintiffs have
not given any evidence. Only Mr.Prashanth Hegde
representing M/s Metal Closures has given his evidence.
Thus, the present proceedings is hit by the principles of
promissory estoppel. The learned Counsel appearing for
the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs are not parties
to any proceedings initiated by the defendant nos.1 to 8.
Therefore, the principles of waiver and estoppel is not
applicable to the facts of the case.
68. In the instant case, the defendant no.18
Santosh Kumar represented M/s Master products in all
earlier proceedings. PW.1 i.e., Prashanth Hegde earlier
representing M/s Luvac Engineering Corporation which
is taken over by M/s Metal Closure both of them have
contested the matter in all the earlier proceedings. The
plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are also parties to Ex.D.12 i.e., order
in FDP no.41/1999 and their prayer to implead them in
92 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
the said proceedings is rejected and said order has
reached finality. Therefore, the present suit is hit by the
principles of 'waiver and estoppel'.
69. Ex.D.67 is the title investigation report given by
one Smt.Malathi-advocate. Ex.D.68 is the order passed
on 21.8.2012 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Spl.L.A.no.6079/2011 and in the said Ex.D.68, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has reconfirmed the judgment and
decree in RFA no.692/2003 c/w 502/2003.
70. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended
that absolutely no authority was given to Santosh
Kumar to appear before the court and contest the same
on behalf of the partnership firm. On careful perusal of
Ex.D.2 i.e., deposition of Santosh Kumar in OS
no.1318/1980, he has categorically stated that he is the
partner of M/s Master Products. If really he was not
representing M/s Master Products in the said suit, in his
deposition he would have stated that he represented in
his individual capacity. Therefore, the conduct of Santosh
93 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Kumar in the said suit itself shows that he had appeared
as partner of M/s Master Products and not in his
individual capacity. Added to that, the other partners of
M/s Master Products are the members of the family of
Santosh Kumar. Therefore, merely because the
partnership firm has not given any authority to Santosh
Kumar itself is not a ground to hold that he had not
represented in the said suit as a partner of M/s Master
Products.
71. The learned Counsel appearing for the
defendants has relied on the decisions reported in AIR
1953 SC 33 and ILR 1988 KAR 3238. In AIR 1953 SC 33-
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is pertaining to a
land acquisition proceedings and in ILR 1988 KAR 3238
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
"There cannot be collateral attack on a
finding concluded by an earlier judgment
by the same parties unless it be the earlier
judgment was null and void. The principle
is that record of a previous judgment
estoppes parties from litigating an issue
concluded by an earlier judgment in which
there is already a finding and the same is
94 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
immune from collateral attack unless of
course, it so transpires that the earlier
decision could be treated as void for some
reason. An erroneous judgment by a
competent court cannot be meddled with
subsequently by another court nor can the
later permit itself the liberty of departing
from the findings reached in the earlier
proceedings although they may be wrong,
but on the other hand, the alleged error in
the judgment rendered earlier, will
continue to find the parties unless of
course, it is set aside or reversed on
appeal by a superior court."
In the instant case, Santosh Kumar who is partner of
M/s Master Products, is a party to OS no.1318/1980 and
said suit is decreed in RFA no.692/2003 c/w 502/2003.
Therefore, said findings operates as res judicata against
the plaintiffs in both the suits.
72. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs
contended that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Ex.P.30 has observed that the civil suit is maintainable.
In support of his contention, he has relied on the
decisions reported in 1958 MLJ 634, AIR 1923 Lahore
373 and AIR 1967 SC 436 and also relied on a decision
reported in 1994(1) SCC 1. In the light of the ratios laid
95 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
down in the aforesaid decisions, he contended that the
plaintiffs are not parties to OS no.1318/1980. Hence, the
present civil suit is maintainable seeking declaratory
relief.
73. On careful perusal of Ex.P.25 i.e., plaint in OS
no.1318/1980, it is clear that Santosh Kumar is
defendant no.5 in that suit and M/s Luvac Engineering
represented by PW.1 is defendant no.2 in that suit. In
his deposition Ex.D.2 in the said suit, Santosh Kumar
has stated that he is representing M/s Master Products.
Added to that, PW.1 Prashanth Hegde in his cross-
examination at page-7 has categorically stated that he
was officiating as managing director of M/s Luvac
Engineering Corporation. In his cross-examination at
page-8 he has further stated that Santosh Kumar as a
partner executed the documents in respect of property
purchased by M/s Master Products i.e., Ex.P.35. In his
cross-examination at page-14 para-11 he has further
stated that as seen from Ex.P.20, Gopalakrishna Shetty,
96 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Santosh Kumar, Satyanarayana, Suramma, Roopa
Surendranath are all family members, brothers and
sisters and he has further admitted that in Ex.P.20 there
is a specific mention that their residence as single house.
In his cross-examination at page-25 para-25, PW.1 has
further stated that "it is true that as seen from Ex.D.7
para-3, I did make a statement that admittedly the
company has not been made as a party in OS
no.1318/1980 and RFA 606/1989 c/w 324/1990." He
has further stated that "in the affidavit as per Ex.D.7, I
continued myself representing M/s Metal Closures. It is
true that M/s Luvac Engineering Corporation was a party
to the previous proceedings in OS 1318/1980." In page-
26 para-25, PW.1 has further stated that "it is true when
M/s Metal Closure took over M/s Luvac Engineering
Corporation in 1980, M/s Metal Closure was well aware
of pendency of OS no.1318/1980." The aforesaid
version of PW.1 and Santosh Kumar in Ex.D.2 clearly
shows that as a partner of M/s Master Products Santosh
97 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Kumar represented in OS no.1318/1980 and PW.1 was
representing as managing director of M/s Luvac
Engineering Corporation subsequently known as M/s
Metal Closure and he also very well aware about the said
suit and he represented in the said suit. Therefore, the
contention raised by the plaintiffs that the present suits
are maintainable and decree in OS no.1318/1980 was
obtained by defendant nos.1 to 8 by playing fraud, holds
no water.
74. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs
in both the suits contended that DW.1 i.e., 6th defendant
in his cross-examination has admitted that M/s Master
Products is not a party to OS no.1318/1980 and he
further contended that DW.1 further admitted that
Santosh Kumar was not described as a partner of M/s
Master Products in the cause title of Ex.P.25. He further
contended that decree in RFA no.692/2003 c/w
502/2003 was obtained against M/s Master Products
and the plaintiffs in collusion with Santosh Kumar. The
98 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
said Santosh Kumar i.e., defendant no.18 in his written
statement has admitted the formation of partnership firm
by name M/s Master Products, regarding the constitution
of the said firm and partners of the said firm etc., and
division of property among the partners of the said firm.
In his written statement at para-9, he has contended that
the suit had been filed against him only and there was no
occasion for him to inform the plaintiffs herein as their
relationship had been strained. It is pertinent to note
that in his chief examination itself i.e., in Ex.D.2, he has
stated that he represented M/s Master Products as a
partner of the firm. Nothing prevented him to depose
that Ex.P.25 had been filed against him only. Since he is
a party to the present proceedings, he could file his chief
examination and could undergo the ordeal of cross-
examination. He is not only party to Ex.P.25, but he is
also a party to RFA no.606/1989 as respondent no.5.
The original suit i.e., OS no.1318/1980 came to be filed
on 9.5.1971. The earlier number of the said suit was OS
99 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
no.332/1971. Ex.D.1 reveals that Santosh Kumar filed
his written statement on 8.6.1977. In his written
statement at para-6, he has categorically stated that
when the property was purchased from Smt.Buddamma
by M/s Master Products under Ex.P.35 on 18.5.1970, he
was representing M/s Master Products. That is also
clear from the recitals of Ex.P.35. In the first para of
Ex.P.35, it has been clearly stated that M/s Master
Products represented by Santosh Kumar. Ex.P.29
judgment came to be pronounced in RFA 606/1989 in
the month of November 1998. Almost for a period of 21
years, the defendant no.18 Santosh Kumar contested
the matter. Under these circumstances, it is hard to
believe the contention of defendant no.18 Santosh Kumar
that during the said long period of 21 years, the
pendency of litigation was not known to the other
partners of M/s Master Products. Therefore, the
contention of the plaintiffs that Ex.P.29 was obtained by
the defendant nos.1 to 8 in collusion with defendant
100 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
no.18 holds no water. More so, when the defendant
no.18 is not examined or tendered for cross-examination.
75. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs
further contended that in MFA 8591/2009 c/w MFA
756/2010, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka granted
injunction restraining the defendant nos.1 to 8 herein
from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property by setting aside
the order passed by the trial court and said order was
challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the
defendant nos.1 to 8 in SLP no.14283 to 14285/2010
and that came to be dismissed and further contended
that in the aforesaid MFA, the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka has discussed at length regarding the
maintainability and limitation. It is pertinent to note that
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the aforesaid
MFA i.e., Ex.P.89 judgment, has discussed the factual
aspects of the case in detail. In para-56 page-57 of the
judgment, it is observed as under:
101 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
"It is also made clear that the observation
made herein above in the course of this
judgment shall not in any way influence
the trial court in disposing the two suits on
merits in accordance with law."
76. In the light of the aforesaid observation, in my
opinion, since the defendant no.18 Santosh Kumar and
M/s Luvac Engineering Corporation are parties to the
Ex.P.25 suit and defendant no.18 and PW.1 have
contested the matter throughout. Therefore, the suit for
declaration filed by plaintiffs in both the suits that the
judgment and decree i.e., Ex.P.29 is not binding on them
holds no water and hence, both the suits are not
maintainable.
77. In view of my foregoing discussion, this court is
of the opinion that both the suits are not maintainable
and they are barred by the principles of res judicata,
waiver and estoppel as well as the principles of lis
pendence and the plaintiffs have failed to establish that
the judgment and decree in OS no.1318/1980 and RFA
606/1989 are not binding on them. They have also failed
102 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
to establish that the present suits are maintainable in
view of the earlier proceedings in which they are parties
in respect of the suit properties. Accordingly I answer
Issue no.1, Additional Issue no.1 dated 12.8.2010 in the
negative, Addl.Issue no.5 dated 19.8.2010, Addl.Issue
nos.7 & 8 dated 1.8.2011 in O.S.no.8973/2006 in the
affirmative & Issue nos.1 to 3 in O.S.no.6873/2009 in
the negative.
78. Addl.Issue no.2 dated 12.8.2010 in OS
no.8973/2006 & Addl.Issue no.5 in both the suits
dated 31.10.2015: The plaintiffs in both the suit
O.S.No.8973/2006 and O.S.No.6873/2009 have paid the
court fee u/s 24(d) of the court fee and suit valuation Act
and furnished the valuation slip in both the suits. The
learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in both the
suits contended that the plaintiffs filed a suit for
declaration simplicitor. Plaintiffs' title is not in question.
No shadow is cast on the title of the plaintiffs. Hence,
court fee paid u/sec.24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fee &
103 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
Suit Valuation Act is proper. The defendants have
contended that the plaintiffs ought to have paid the court
fee u/s 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suit
Valuation Act. It is pertinent to note that in both the
suits the plaintiffs have sought the declaratory relief as
well as consequential relief of injunction. The value of the
property runs crores together. When the relief of
declaration and consequential relief in respect of
immovable property is sought in both the suits, the
plaintiffs ought to have pay the court fee based on the
market value of the suit property as made out in sub
Sec.(b) of Sec.24 of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act
and the court fee paid by the plaintiffs under sub Section
(d) of Sec.24 is not proper. Hence Addl. Issue No.2 dated
12.8.2010 in OS no.8973/2006 is answered in the
negative and Addl.Issue no.5 dated 31.10.2015 in both
the suits is answered in the affirmative.
79. Addl.Issue no.1 dated 31.10.2015 in both the
suits:- According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.22/24
104 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
i.e.,Trident Automobiles Pvt.Ltd., purchased the property
under Ex.D.74 from Defendants No.1 to 8. To corroborate
that contention PW1 has deposed in his chief
examination. It is further contention of the plaintiff that
Ex.D.74-Sale Deed took place during pendency of the
suits. Hence defendant No.22/24 is a lis pendense
purchaser. But the fact remains that the defendant
No.22/24 purchased 30 Guntas of land in Sy.No.39/4A
measuring 30 Guntas situated at Doddakallasandra
village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk on
1.4.2010 by paying a sale consideration of
Rs.6,28,89,750/-. Hence I answer this Issue in the
affirmative.
80. Addl.Issue no.2 dated 31.10.2015:- According
to Defendant No.22 Smt.Buddamma has no right to sell
the property under sale deed dt.18.5.1970 ie., Ex.P.35. It
is further contended that the Master Products-a
partnership firm is not an agriculturist, no permission for
purchase of agricultural land stated in the sale deed
105 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
dt.18.5.1970-Ex.P35 was obtained. As against the said
contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs
contended that the said transaction took place in the
year 1970. Sec.79A, 79B and 79C in the Land Reforms
Act was inserted w.e.f. 1.3.1974, whereas the sale took
place in the year 1970. Therefore, the provisions of Land
Reforms Act do not apply in respect of Ex.P35. It is
pertinent to note that the defendant No.22 has not filed
any suit seeking cancellation of the said sale deed-
Ex.P.35. After more than 46 years from the date of said
purchase, the defendant No.22 cannot dispute the
genuinity of said document. As rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the plaintiffs, said sale had taken
place prior to insertion of Sec.79A, 79B and 79C of the
Land Reforms Act. The contention raised by defendant
No.22 that no permission to purchase the lands under
Ex.P.35 was obtained, holds no water and this Court is of
the opinion that the contention raised by defendant
106 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
No.22 that the sale deed is void is not tenable. Hence I
answer this Issue in the Negative.
81. Addl.Issue nos.3 & 4 in both the suits dated
31.10.2015: According to the defendant No.22/24, he
purchased the 36 Guntas in Sy.No.35/4A of
Doddakallasandra village under Ex.D.73-sale deed on
1.4.2010 and the defendant No.22/24 has been in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the said land. To
substantiate the said contention the defendant No.22/24
has got marked the said original sale deed at Ex.D.73,
conversion order at Ex.D.74, Special Notice issued by
BBMP at Ex.D.75, katha certificate at Ex.D.76, demand
Register Extract at Ex.D.77, property tax receipt for the
year 2008 to 2010 at Ex.D.78 to 80, relevant photos to
show that he is in possession of the land at Ex.D.81,
C.D. at Ex.D.82, sketch at Ex.D.83 and location of
property purchased under Ex.D.73 at Ex.D.83(a) and
notice issued by Muniamma and Venkatesha to the
Special Deputy Commissioner at Ex.D.84.
107 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
82. The plaintiff has contended that defendant
No.22/24 is not in possession and enjoyment of the
property. The defendant No.22 is not a bonafide
purchaser. He purchased the property during pendency
of the litigation. He had purchased the property when the
Execution Court in Ex.No.2253/2006 had directed to
restore possession and it is further contended that the
said defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.25973/2011against
the Metal Closure and the court had initially granted
interim order. Thereafter the injunction order was
vacated. Against that Order, appeal was preferred and
the Hon'ble High Court also dismissed the said appeal.
83. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff in both
the suits have not sought declaratory relief on the
ground that the defendant No.22/24 i.e., Trident
Pvt.Ltd.,is not a bona fide purchaser and no further relief
seeking cancellation of Ex.D.73 is sought by paying the
Court Fee. Under these circumstances without a full-
pledged enquiry on the genuinity of Ex.D.73 based on the
108 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
averments made by the plaintiffs it is not proper on the
part of this Court to come to the conclusion that
defendant No.22/24 is not a bona fide purchaser and it
is not in possession of the property purchased under
Ex.D.73.
84. The recitals of Ex.D.73 prima facie shows that
defendant No.22/24 purchased the property stated in the
sale deed for valuable consideration and in pursuance of
the said sale deed the land came to be converted into
non-agricultural land and the name of the defendant
No.22/24 is entered in the property extract and the
defendant No.22/24 paid taxes to the BBMP and it is in
possession and enjoyment of property purchased under
Ex.D.73. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
defendant No.22/24 is the bona fide purchaser in respect
of property purchased under Ex.D.73 and it is in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the said land. Hence I
answer these Addl.Issue Nos.3 and 4 dated 31.10.2015
in both the suits in the Affirmative.
109 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
85. Addl.Issue no.3 in OS no.8973/2006 dated
12.8.2010, Addl.Issue no.6 dated 1.8.2011 in OS
no.8973/2006 and Issue no.4 in 6873/2009:- The
learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 8 and 22/24
contended that the present suit is barred by limitation
and they drew the attention of this court to the version
of PW1 and argued that PW1 is the Managing Director of
M/s Luvac Engineering Corporation. Said company
transposed itself as a plaintiff in both the suits. Sri
Prashanth Hegde himself was representing both the
companies since beginning. They further drew the
attention of this court to Ex.P.25 i.e., plaint in
O.S.No.1318/1980 and drew the attention of this court
to the cross examination version of PW1 i.e., Prashanth
Hegde at page-7 para-1, wherein he has categorically
stated that he was officiating as Managing Director of
M/s Luvac Engineering Corporation and in page-8 para-1
he has further stated that after three years M/s Luvac
Engineering Corporation was dissolved and Metal
110 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
closures Pvt.Ltd., took over assets and Liabilities of
erstwhile company of Luvac Engineering Corporation and
in para-2 page- 8 he has further stated that it is true that
Metal closures Pvt.Ltd., was aware of topography of entire
extent of the land and cases of Luvac Engineering
Corporation and O.S. No.1318/1980. The contention of
the plaintiffs is that after the observation made by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Ex.P.30-oder, the
plaintiff rushed to the Court and filed the suits Hence
suits are not barred by limitation. The counsel for the
defendants further drew the attention of this court to the
recitals of Ex.D.13 i.e., oder sheet of Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka in RFA No.692/2003 dt.12.7.2006 filed by
Santhosh Kumar against Muniyamma and others and
further contended that after the said order dt.12.7.2006,
plaintiffs immediately rushed to the Court and filed suit
in O.S.No.8973/2006. It is pertinent to note that the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Ex.P.30 has observed
that the plaintiff nos.2 and 3 in O.S.8973/2006 are at
111 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
liberty to work out their remedy by filing the suit or in
any other proceedings. In the light of said oder, since
both the suit are filed by the plaintiff subsequent to that
observation, it is not just and proper to hold that the
present suits are barred by limitation. Likewise, the
contention taken by the defendant that the suit filed by
the transposed plaintiff is also barred by limitation, holds
no water. This court is of the opinion that both the suits
are not barred by limitation. Hence I answer these Issues
in the Negative.
86. Issue no.2 in OS 8973/2006 : In view of my
foregoing discussion on all the above issues, the
judgment and decree in OS 1318/1980 & RFA
no.606/1989 is binding on all the plaintiffs and their
vendor. Therefore, the plaintiffs in both the suits are not
entitled for the relief claimed in their respective suits.
Accordingly I answer Issue no.2 in the negative.
87. Issue no.3 & Addl.Issue no.4 in OS
no.8973/2006, Issue No.5 in OS 6873/2009 and
112 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w
O.S.No.6873/2009
common Addl.Issue no.6 in both the suits: In view of
my findings on all the above issues, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs in OS no.8973/2006 and the suit of the plaintiff in OS 6873/2009 are hereby dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Keep a copy of this Judgment in OS no.6873/2009.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30th day of June 2016).
(RAVI M. NAIK), I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF PW.1 B.Prashanth Hegde LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF Exs.P-1 Authorisation Letter dated 113 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w O.S.No.6873/2009 27.6.2011(authorizing PW.1 Prashanth Hegde Mg.Director of Metal Closure to give evidence) " P-2 Sale Deed dt 21-7-2010 " P-3 Sale Deed dt 21-7-2010 " P-4 to 17 Tax paid receipts " P-18 Partnership Deed dt 26.4.1970 " P-19 Release Deed dt 30-5-1974 " P-20 Partnership Deed dt 1.6.1974 " P-21 Retirement Deed dt 1.4.1980 " P-22 Partnership Deed dt 1.4.1980 " P-23 Partnership Deed dt 1.4.1980 "P-24 Sale Deed dt 18.5.1970 "P-25 Certified copy of the Plaint in O.S.No.1318/80 "P-26 Certified copy of Common Judgment in O.S.no.1318/80 "P-27 Copy of order in FDP No.41/99 "P-28 Certified copy of Judgment in RFA.No.692/2003 & 502/2003 "P-29 Certified copy of Judgment in RFA.No.606/89 "P-30 Certified copy of order in RFA.No.645/2005 "P-31 Dissolution Deed "P-32 Partnership Deed "P-33 Agreement of Co-Ownership "P-34 Deed of Transfer "P-35 Certified copy of Sale Deed "P-36 Copy of Tax Paid Receipt "P-37 Conversion Certificate "P-38 Certified copy of Exemption certificate "P-39 Certified copy of Sale Deed dt 18.1.2001 "P-40 to 58 19 Tax paid receipts "P-59 &60 Certificate of registration "P-61 to 64 Four Tax paid receipts "P-65 Certified copy of search report "P-66 Newspaper cuttings "P-67 Certified copy of Sale deed dt 21.7.2010 "P-68 Certified copy of Sale deed "P-69 & 70 Two Forms 'B' "P-71&72 Two Encumbrance certificate "P-73 Certified copy of settlement deed dt 27.12.1949 "P-74 Certified copy of Sale deed dt 14.6.1928 114 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w O.S.No.6873/2009 "P-74 (A) Typed copy of P74 "P-75 Certified copy of Sale deed dt 5.10.1950 "P-75(A) Typed copy of Ex.P.75 "P-76 Certified copy of Sale deed dt 5.10.1950 "P-76(A) Type copy of Ex.P.76 "P-77 Certified copy of Sale deed dt 22.7.1963 "P-78 Certified copy of deed of cancellation dt 26.6.1967 "P-79 Certified copy of Sale deed dt 13.6.1949 "P-80 Certified copy of Tax Paid Receipt "P-81 Certified copy of Order in RFA No.904/2010 "P-82 Certified copy of Order in WP.No.24487 & 25267/10 "P-83 Certified copy of CCC.No.572/96 "P-84 Certified copy of the Encumbrance Cerificate "P-85 Index of Lands "P-86 Certified copy of Deposition of PW in O.S.No.1318/80 "P-87 Certified copy of the objection "P-88 Copy of order in WP no.7927/2008 "P-89 Copy of Judgment in MFA.No.756/10 "P-90 & 91 Certified copy of the Orders "P-92 Certified copy of Judgment in RFA.No.904/2010 dt 27.1.01 "P-93 Agreement "P-93(A) Signature "P-94 Encumbrance certificate "P-95 Encumbrance certificate "P-96 Encumbrance certificate "P-97 Original Sale Dee dt 18.1.2001 "P-98 Certified copy of Sale Deed dt 18.5.1970 "P-99 to 100 Index of Land Records "P-101 & Two Encumbrance certificate 102 "P-103 & Tax paid receipt and acknowledgment 104 "P-105 Original Sale deed dt 21.7.10 "P-106 Original Sale deed dt 21.7.10 "P-107 Form 'B' Khatha "P-108 Tax paid receipts "P-109 to Encumbrance certificates 115 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w O.S.No.6873/2009 112 "P-113 'B' Property khatha Extracts "P-114 Tax paid receipts "P-115 Certified copy of Affidavit "P-116 Khata certificate dated 13.2.2014 "P-117 Extract of tax register "P-118 Khata certificate "P-119 Extract of property tax register "P-120 to Photographs 126 "P-127 Order passed by the commissioner "P-128 Certified copy of execution petition no.2253/2006 "P-129 Certified copy of the order on IA in Ex.no.2253/2006 "P-130 Copy of SLP no.10566/2010 "P-131 Copy of SLP no.10566/2010 "P-132 Letter dated 24.11.2011 "P-132(a) Statement of DW.1 "P-133 Copy of complaint dated 27.8.2015 "P-134 Copy of complaint dated 18.9.2015 "P-135 Cc of FIR in Cr.no.453/2008 "P-136 Certified copy of complaint dated 23.8.2008 "P-137 Certified copy of 'B' report in Cr.no.453/2008 "P-138 Certified copy of complaint dated 16.6.2011 "P-139 Certified copy of FIR in Cr.no.431/2011 "P-140 Certified copy of 'B' report in Cr.no.431/2011 "P-141 Certified copy of order sheet in Cr.no.431/2011 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS DW.1 A.Venkatesha DW.2 L.Padma Prakash DW.3 P.Shamu LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS Exs.D-1 Certified copy of written statement in OS 1318/1980 " D-2 Affidavit evidence of DW.1 in OS 116 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w O.S.No.6873/2009 1318/1980 " D-3 Order copy in R.P.No.46/2000 "D-4 Certified copy of Order in RFA No.692/2003 "D-5 Certified copy of Vakalath "D-6 Certified copy of contempt petition in OS No.1318/1980 "D-7 Certified copy of affidavit "D-8 & 9 Certified copy of IA with affidavit "D-10 Certified copy of Order in Spl.Civil.P.No.18464/2009 "D-11 Certified copy of final decree "D-12 Certified copy of Order in FDP No.41/1999 "D-13 Certified copy of Order in RFA 692/2003 "D-14 Certified copy of the Order in RFA -
692/2003 "D-15 Certified copy of the Application "D-16 Certified copy of the Application "D-17 Certified copy of Spl.Leave Petition 18464/2009 "D-18 Certified copy of the Judgment in FDP 41/99 "D-20 Certified copy of WS in O.S.No.167/76 "D-21 Certified copy of WS in O.S.No.167/76 "D-22 Certified copy of the Judgment & decree in RFA No.606/89 " D-23 Certified copy of order in R.O.No.49/00 " D-24 Certified copy of order sheet in RFA No.692/2003 " D-25 Certified copy of the Commissioner report " D-26 Certified copy of Judgment &decree in RFA No.692/03 " D-27 Certified copy of Order in C.P.No.822/01 " D-28 Certified copy of Order in 117 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w O.S.No.6873/2009 R.P.No.461/01 " D-29 Certified copy of the Revision Petition in RP.No.645/2005 " D-30 Certified copy of Interlocutory application U/s 5 of Limitation Act Ex.D.31 Certified copy of Interlocutory Application U/s 5 of Limitation Act Ex.D.32 Certified copy of order in R.P.No.645/05 Ex.D.33 Certified copy of Order sheet in FDP No.41/99 Ex.D.34 Certified copy of IA in FDP No.41/99 Ex.D.35 Certified copy of objection of 4th respondent Ex.D.36 Certified copy of objection of 5th respondent Ex.D.37 Certified copy of Commissioner's report Ex.D.38 Certified copy of IA U/o 1 Rule 10(2) CPC Ex.D.39 Certified copy of the order on IA 1 Rule 10 CPC Ex.D.40 Certified copy of the Judgment &decree in FDP No.41/99 Ex.D.41 Registered Final decree in FDP No.41/99 Ex.D.41(a) Sketch Ex.D.42 Registered rectification deed in FDP No.41/99 Ex.D.42(a) Sketch Ex.D.43 Registered final decree in FDP No.41/99 Ex.D.43(a) Sketch Ex.D.44 Registered final decree in RFA No.692/2003 Ex.D.44(a) Sketch Ex.D.45 Certified copy of order U/o 21 Rule 91 CPC Ex.D.46 Certified copy of the order on IA U/o Ex.D.47 Certified copy of the U/o 41 R5 (2) 118 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w O.S.No.6873/2009 Ex.D.48 Certified copy of the U/o 21 Rule 29 of CPC Ex.D.49 Certified copy of the WP.No7715/2008.
Ex.D.50 Certified copy of the IA U/o 39 Rule 1&2 Ex.D.51 Certified copy of objection of 5th respondent Ex.D.52 Certified copy of the appeal petition in RFA 502/03 Ex.D.53 Certified copy of the caveat petitioner No.223/03 Ex.D.54 Certified copy of the appeal dt 10.4.2003 Ex.D.55 Certified copy IA.No.2 in RFA 502/03 Ex.D.56 Certified copy of objection in RFA 502/03 Ex.D.57 Certified copy of objection to deposit of rent in RFA 502/03 Ex.D.58 Certified copy of objection to deposit of rent in RFA 502/03 Ex.D.59 Memorandum in RFA 692/03 Ex.D.60 IA for stay in RFA No.692/03 Ex.D.61 Application . U/s 151 CPC Ex.D.62 Statement of objection Ex.D.63 Application U/o 1 Rule 10 CPC Ex.D.64 Order of High Court in RFA No.485/08 Ex.D.65 Notice Ex.D.66 Original settlement letter Ex.D.67 Ex.D.68 Certified copy of the Order in Spl.Leave Appeal No.6079/11 Ex.D.69 Certified copy of IA filed in OS no.1318/1980 Ex.D.70 Certified copy of order sheet in Ex.No.2253/2006 Ex.D.71 Certified copy of commissioner's report Ex.D.72 Extract of minutes of meeting 119 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/w O.S.No.6873/2009 Ex.D.73 Original sale deed dated 1.4.2010 Ex.D.74 Conversion order dated 17.1.2009 Ex.D.75 Special notice Ex.D.76 Khata certificate Ex.D.77 Demand register extract Ex.D.78 to Properties tax receipts D.80 Ex.D.81 Colour photograph Ex.D.82 CD Ex.D.83 Attested copy of sketch Ex.D.84 Copy of letter (RAVI M. NAIK), I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
120 O.S.No.8973/2006 c/wO.S.No.6873/2009