Bangalore District Court
N.R.Raveendra vs Smt. Rani on 10 January, 2023
1
O.S.No.4468/2016
KABC010141442016
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCH-18)
::Present::
Prakash S. Helavar, B.Com., LL.M.,
XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2023.
O S No.4468/2016
PLAINTIFF :: N.R.Raveendra,
S/o. Late. N.S.Ramaiah
Reddy, Aged about 55
years, Residing at
No.97/97, III Main, III Cross,
Dodda Nekkundi Village,
Bangalore-560 037
(By Sri. K.T.N., Advocate)
2
O.S.No.4468/2016
V/s.
DEFENDANTS :: 1. Smt. Rani,
W/o. Late.
N.R.Sundararama Reddy,
Aged about 55 years,
2. Smt. Anupama, D/o.
Late. N.R.Sundararama
Reddy, W/o. Late. Suresh,
Aged about 38 years,
3. Smt. Pavithra, D/o. Late.
N.R.Sundararama Reddy,
Aged about 35 years,
D-1 to 3 are residing at
No.201/7, Door No.A6,
Mookambika Building, Lake
Road, Dodda Nekkundi,
Bangalore-560 037
4. Smt. Y. Sri Roopa @
Ruby, D/o. Late.
N.R.Yellappa Reddy, Aged
about 30 years, Residing at
14th Cross, 6th Main, Muniraj
Building, 1st Floor,
Chennakeshava Nagar,
Central Jail Road,
Singasandra Post,
Bangalore-560 100
3
O.S.No.4468/2016
5. N.R.Nagaraj (Since dead
by his LR.s)
5(a). Smt. Aruna, D/o. Late.
N.R.Nagaraj, Aged about 33
years, Residing at
No.59/13, 11 Main Road,
th
Shamanna Reddy Layout,
Viratanagar,
Bommanahalli, Bangalore-
560 068
5(b). Smt. Sarita, D/o. Late.
N.R.Nagaraj, Aged about 30
years, Residing at No.9/1,
Doddanekkundi, Bangalore-
560 037
5(c). Smt. Swetha, D/o.
Late. N.R.Nagaraj, Aged
about 28 years, Residing at
No.9/1, Doddanekkundi,
Bangalore-560 037
(Amendment Carried out as
per order dated 07-06-
2017)
6. Smt. N.R.Saraswathi,
D/o. Late. N.S.Ramaiah
Reddy, W/o. Late.
Narayanaswamy, Aged
about 70 years, Residing at
Maragondanahalli Village,
4
O.S.No.4468/2016
K.R.Puram Post, Bangalore-
560 036
7. Smt. R.Shanthamna D/o.
Late. N.S.Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged about 68 years,
Residing at No.396, 25th B
Main, H.S.R. Layout, II
Sector, Bangalore-560 102
8. Smt. N.R.Nagaveni, D/o.
Late. N.S.Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.180, 15th
Cross, Domlur Village,
Bangalore-560 071
9. Smt. N.R.Amarawathi,
D/o. Late. N.S.Ramaiah
Reddy, Aged about 58
years, Residing at
No.185/173/1,
Doddanagamangala
Village, Near Hanumantha
Reddy Stores, Electronic
City Post, Bangalore-560
100
10. Smt. N.R.Padmavathi,
D/o. Late. N.S.Ramaiah
Reddy, Aged about 56
years, Residing at No.180,
15th Cross, Domlur Village,
Bangalore-560 071
5
O.S.No.4468/2016
11. Smt. Janakamma (Since
dead her LRs D-12 to 14
are already on record)
12. N.Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.
Late. N.S.Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.356,
Lakshmi Nilaya, Nanjappa
Reddy Layout,
Koramangala Village,
Bangalore-560 093
13. Smt. N.Manjula, D/o.
Late. N.S. Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at No.600,
Nanjappa Reddy Layout,
Koramangala Village,
Bangalore-560 093
14. Smt. N.Rani, D/o.
Late.N.S.Narayana Reddy,
W/o. Muni Reddy, Aged
about 48 years, Residing at
No.601 , Nanjappa Reddy
Layout, Koramangala
Village, Bangalore-560 093
D-11 to 14 are residing at
No.356, Lakshmi Nilaya,
Nanjappa Reddy Layout,
Koramangala Village,
Bangalore-560 093
6
O.S.No.4468/2016
15. N.S.Nanjappa Reddy,
S/o. Late. N.Shamaiah
Reddy, Aged about 84
years,
16. N.S.Gopala Reddy
(Since dead by his LRs)
16(a). Smt. Ammayamma,
W/o. Late. N.S.Gopala
Reddy, Aged about 70
years,
16(b). Smt. Geetha, D/o.
Late. N.S.Gopala Reddy,
Aged about 52 years,
16(c). Venkatesh, S/o. Late.
N.S.Gopala Reddy, Aged
about 50 years,
D-16(a) to 16(c) are
residing at No.9/1, Lake
Road, Near Sri Rama
Temple, Doddanekkundi,
Bangalore-560 037
(Amendment carried out as
per order dated
23-01-2020)
17. N.S.Krishnappa Reddy,
Aged about 75 years, S/o.
Late. N.Shamaiah Reddy,
residing at No.9/1, Lake
7
O.S.No.4468/2016
Road, Near Sri Rama
Temple, Doddanekkundi,
Bangalore-560 037
18. Smt. Aruna, D/o.
N.R.Nagaraj, Aged about 48
years, Residing at No.59/3,
11th Main Road, Shamanna
Reddy Layout,
Viratanagara,
Bommanahalli, Bangalore-
560 068
19. The SOUL SPACE PVT.,
LTD., Having its Corporate
Office at 4th Floor, Soul
Space Paradigm, Outer
Ring Road, Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037,
Represented by its
Managing Director.
20. N.S.Nandeesha Reddy,
S/o. Late. N.C.Srinivasa
Reddy, Aged about 43
years, S/o. Late.
N.C.Srinivasa Reddy,
Residing at Doddanekkundi
Village, Bangalore-560 037
21. Bangalore
Development Authority,
K.P. West, Bangalore-560
020, Represented by its
8
O.S.No.4468/2016
Commissioner. (Deleted as
per order dated
28-06-2016)
(D-6(c) Absent, D-12, 15,
16 by Sri. S.S., Adv., D-5, D-
20 by Sri. P.B.R., Adv., D-
5(a) to 5(c) by Sri. V.V.R., D-
1 to 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13,
14, Ex-parte, D-10 & 11
Dead, D-17 by Sri H.S.G.P.,
Adv., D-6(a) to (c) by Sri.
S.S., Adv., D-18 by Sri.
V.V.R., Adv., D-19 by Sri.
S.G.S., Adv.,
Date of Institution of the Suit :: 20-06-2016
Nature of the Suit :: Declaration
& Injunction
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence :: 08-04-2019
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced. :: 10-01-2023
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration :: 06 06 20
(Prakash S.Helavar),
XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
9
O.S.No.4468/2016
JUDGEMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of seeking direction to the Defendants to execute the Rectification deed to the Registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000.
2. Case of the plaintiff is in nutshell as under:-
It is pleaded by the plaintiff that one Mr. N.Shamaiah Reddy is his grandfather, who died leaving behind his five sons namely N.S.Ramaiah Reddy, N.S.Narayana Reddy, N.S.Nanjappa Reddy, N.S.Gopala Reddy and N.S.Krishnappa Reddy as his legal heirs. Amongst them, N.S.Ramaiah Reddy happens to be the first son, who died leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 10 as his legal heirs, who 10 O.S.No.4468/2016 succeeded to his estate. It is further pleaded that after the death of N.Shamaiah Reddy, the properties were came to be divided by metes and bounds as per the registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000. Schedule properties were allotted to the share of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 10 jointly. Whereas, schedule 'B' properties were allotted to the share of N.S.Narayana Reddy, who died leaving behind him the defendants No.11 to 14 as his legal heirs. Schedule 'C' properties were allotted to the share of N.S.Nanjappa Reddy, who is the defendant No.15. Schedule 'D' properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.16 N.S.Gopala Reddy. Schedule 'E' properties allotted to the share of defendant No.17 N.S.Krishnappa Reddy. The said N.S.Narayana Reddy died leaving behind him his 11 O.S.No.4468/2016 wife and three children, who are defendants No.11 to 14.
3. It is further pleaded that on the date of partition, the joint family was holding several landed properties at Dodda Nekkundi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which are the subject matter of Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000. The said Partition Deed was drafted by the Document Writer on the basis of RTC extracts furnished by the parties. Land bearing Sy.No.38/3 situated at Dodda Nekkundi Village now included in Marathahalli Hobli of Bangalore East Taluk is totally measuring 03 acres 15 guntas. Out of said 03 acres 15 guntas, 38 guntas has been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for the purpose of construction of Outer Ring-Road. But the 12 O.S.No.4468/2016 Revenue Authorities mentioned in the RTC extract in respect of land said to have been acquired as 1 acre 17 guntas instead of 38 guntas.
4. It is further pleaded that Sy.No.24/5 situated at Dodda Nekkundi Village which is now included in Marathahalli Hobli of Bangalore East Taluk totally measuring 02 acres 02 guntas and out of which 28 guntas dry land and 08 guntas kharab land has been acquired by the said B.D.A. for the above said purpose. But in the RTC extract it has been wrongly entered as 20 guntas has been acquired instead of 28 guntas. The plaintiff and the family members of the defendants are not aware of the said mistake crept in the RTC extract. But without a proper scrutiny, a partition deed was drafted on 23-08-2000. The division was made in respect of 13 O.S.No.4468/2016 only 01 acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.38/3 instead of 02 acres 17 guntas and even 01 acre 22 guntas has been divided in Sy.No.24/5 instead of in 01 acre 14 guntas of land. The said Sy.No.38/3 and 24/5 have been described as schedule properties in the plaint as shown below;
Sy.No. A B C D E
A A A A A
G G G G G
38/3 00 08 00 14 00 28 ---- 00 28
24/5 00 20 00 14 ----- 00 28 -----
Total 00 28 00 28 00 28 00 28 00 28
5. It is further pleaded that except the suit schedule properties, in rest of the properties the division as been correctly effected in respect of measurements and extents and parties are also in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares recited in the partition deed. It is further pleaded that on 12-02-2015 the plaintiff filed an 14 O.S.No.4468/2016 application to the revenue authorities to survey the land bearing Sy.No.24/5 and 38/3 and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Taluka Surveyor and during the month of October-2015 the Taluka Surveyor surveyed the land. He informed to the plaintiff and other defendants, who were present that the land acquired by the B.D.A. in Sy.No.24/5 is 0.28 guntas of dry and 08 guntas of kharab land whereas, the authorities without taking note of the same extent has made revenue entries in RTC extracts only 0.30 guntas of land acquired in Sy.No.24/5.
6. It is also informed that 0.38 guntas of land only has been acquired in Sy.No.38/3. But RTC extract shows 1 acre 17 guntas has been acquired. The mistake crept in the RTC entries. 15
O.S.No.4468/2016 Therefore, in view of the above said facts, 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.38/3 is available for partition and 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.24/5 to be deducted out of the extent mentioned in the partition deed. The plaintiff was not aware of the said mistake till October-2015. The said mistake was noticed on 19-10-2015 when the Taluka Surveyor informed therefore, the rectification of the registered Partition Deed is necessary. The plaintiff requested the defendants for rectification but they did not come forward. Therefore, he sent a legal notice dated 30-04-2016 to the defendants No.11 to 17 requesting them to co- operate for execution of rectification of deed.
7. The defendants No.18 to 20 claiming that they are purchasers from defendant No.5 and 15 16 O.S.No.4468/2016 therefore, they have been made as parties. The defendants No.21 Bangalore Development Authority acquired portions of suit schedule properties so, it is made as a party. The defendants No.18 to 21 are proper parties though no relief is sought. Hence, the cause of action to the suit arose on 19-10-2015. In view of the above said pleadings, the plaintiff requested for decretal of the suit that the defendants No.1 to 17 may be directed to execute the rectification deed to the registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000.
8. The defendants No.10 & 11 died during the pendency of suit and their legal representatives brought on records. The defendants No.1 to 4, 6 to 9, 10, 13 & 14 placed ex-parte. The defendants No.12, 15, 16 entered 17 O.S.No.4468/2016 their appearance through their counsel and jointly filed written statement.
9. It is contended that the plaintiff has suppressed the various material facts deliberately therefore, the suit is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. The entire suit is based on the claim of the plaintiff that the extent of lands partitioned between the parties under Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000 to be rectified in view of the mistake crept in the RTC extract. The suit is filed only to harass these defendants to make illegal benefits. Moreover, the partition deed is dated 23-08-2000 and suit is filed beyond the period of limitation therefore, it is hit by the provisions of Indian Limitation Act. Moreover, the plaintiff has not valued the suit schedule properties as per the market value and 18 O.S.No.4468/2016 proper court fee is not paid. The plaintiff cannot seek rectification of partition deed. The said defendants have not disputed about the relationship and also in respect of partition deed dated 23-08-2000. It is also admitted that the acquisition of properties by the Bangalore Development Authority to the extent of 38 guntas in Sy.No/38/3 and there is an entry measuring 1 acre 17 guntas and also 28 guntas dry and 8 guntas kharab in Sy.No.24/5 has been acquired by the B.D.A. But there is an entry to the extent of 20 guntas in RTC extract.
10. It is contended that the defendants are not aware of the said mistakes crept in RTC extracts. The averments of plaint para No.9 & 10 are also admitted. The mistake crept in the said RTC extracts, which was come to the knowledge 19 O.S.No.4468/2016 from the Surveyor when the survey was conducted is not within the knowledge of these defendants. It is also contended that the defendants are not aware of the survey conducted by the revenue department, since these defendants not received any notice from the Survey Department. It is also denied that 19 guntas in land Sy.No.38/3 to be divided and 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.24/5 to be deducted in the partition deed. It is contended that it is not possible to divide at this stage, since each sharer have been in possession of their respective shares of land allotted to them. They are all in uninterrupted possession though it is in excess.
11. The averments of plaint para No.12 that the plaintiff was not aware of the mistake crept in the registered Partition Deed is false. The 20 O.S.No.4468/2016 plaintiff came to know from the Surveyor about the mistake crept in the said deed is not within the knowledge of these defendants. The plaintiff caused notice to the defendants and even requested for rectification of Partition Deed is utter false. It is also denied the averments of plaint para No.13 as false and there is no cause of action.
12. The suit is not properly valued and hence, the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. It is further contended that without prejudice to the earlier contentions that the shares have been allotted as mentioned below as per the Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000.
Name Survey Extent
No.
1 N.S.Ramaiah Reddy 24/5 0-20
(Plaintiff's father) 38/3 0-08
21
O.S.No.4468/2016
2 Narayana Reddy N.S. 24/5 0-14
(LR-Srinivas Reddy) 38/3 0-14
3 Nanjappa Reddy N.S. 24/5 Nil
38/3 0-28
4 Gopala Reddy N.S. 24/5 0-28
28/3 Nil
5 Krishnappa Reddy.S 24/5 Nil
38/3 0-28
13. It is further contended that the B.D.A. acquired 0.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.24/5 and 1 acre 17 guntas has been acquired in Sy.No.38/3 for construction of Outer Ring-Road and accordingly award was passed and the details are below;
Sy.No. Extent notified Extent
for acquisition notified for
under acquisition Remarks
Preliminary under Final
Notification Notification
A G A G
38/3 1 17 0 38 19 Guntas
remain
Award
amount
22
O.S.No.4468/2016
distributed
24/5 0 20 0 28 Award
passed for
0.28
Guntas (0-
20 Guntas
plus 8
guntas
Kharab
14. It is also contended that 0.28 guntas in Sy.No.24/5 has been acquired by the B.D.A. but in the RTC B.D.A. is shown to be in possession of 0.20 guntas only and the same is correct. There is no shortage extent of land in Sy.No.24/5 as alleged by the plaintiff. The allocation made as per the Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000 in the land Sy.No.24/5, which is stated below;
Name Survey Extent
No.
1 N.S.Ramaiah Reddy 24/5 0-20
(Plaintiff's father)
2 Narayana Reddy N.S. 24/5 0-14
(LR-Srinivas Reddy)
23
O.S.No.4468/2016
3 Nanjappa Reddy N.S. 24/5 Nil
4 Gopala Reddy N.S. 24/5 0-28
5 Krishnappa Reddy.S 24/5 Nil
15. 0.38 guntas in Sy.No.38/3 has been acquired by the B.D.A. and the parties have divided totally 78 guntas out of which each 28 guntas to the share of Nanjappa Reddy N.S., Krishnappa Reddy.N.S. and 14 guntas to the share of Narayana Reddy.N.S. and 8 guntas to the share of Ramaiah Reddy.N.S. It is also contended that parties are in possession to the remaining extent of 19 guntas as stated below;
Original Excess Total
Partition of land extent
Name dated in possess
23-08-2000 possess ed by
(In ion (In parties
Guntas) Guntas) in-lis (In
Guntas)
Nanjappa Reddy N.S. 0.28 Nil 0.28
Krishnappa Reddy 0.28 0.10 0.38
24
O.S.No.4468/2016
N.S.
Narayana Reddy N.S. 0.14 0.02.5 0.16.5
Ramaiah Reddy N.S. 0.08 0.03 0.11
Gopal Reddy N.S. 0.00 0.03.5 0.03.5
Total 0.19
16. It is further contended that the 15th defendant Nanjappa Reddy.N.S. entered into Joint Development Agreement with the 19th defendant and accordingly development activities are in progress. The 17Th defendant Krishnappa Reddy N.S. has sold 18 guntas in favour of 14 th defendant out of his share of 0.28 guntas. Hence, the 20th defendant is in possession of the said 0.18 guntas. Remaining 0.10 guntas is in possession of the 17th defendant and let out petty shops to the third parties. It is also contended that the 12th defendant is in possession of 16½ guntas, who has leased out the said property to 25 O.S.No.4468/2016 run the Hotel. The plaintiff is in possession of 0.11 guntas includes the land allotted to him under the Partition Deed and hence, the remaining land is not acquired by the B.D.A. The plaintiff is in excess of 0.03 guntas of land apart from 08 guntas acquired by way of Partition Deed, which has been leased out for running Bar & Restaurant.
17. It is further contended that the 16th defendant has not acquired any land as per the Partition Deed but, he is in excess of 0.3.5 guntas which is leased out to the petty shops. Hence, all parties are in possession of their respective shares. Sy.No.38/3 measuring 0.19 guntas is available for partition among the parties and therefore, actual possession of lands rectification could be made by separate deed without 26 O.S.No.4468/2016 disturbing the allocation, which is already made under Partition Deed. The plaintiff has not questioned the registered Partition Deed therefore, suit is not maintainable. In view of above said contentions, the defendants No.12, 15 & 16 sought for dismissal of suit with exemplary cost.
18. The defendant No.19 also entered his appearance and resisted the plaint averments by filing written statement denying the plaint averments as false. It is specifically contended that suit is only after thought and collusive so, suit is hit by law of limitation. The plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the fact of family partition dated 27-07-2002, which is effected between the children of late N.S.Ramaiah Reddy including the plaintiff. 0.08 guntas of land in 27 O.S.No.4468/2016 Sy.No.38/3 has been fallen to the share of plaintiff. The said 0.08 guntas of land was in fact allotted to the children of N.S.Ramaiah Reddy including the plaintiff.
19. This defendant was not concerned with the land Sy.No.24/5. This defendant is in lawful possession and enjoyment over 0.28 guntas in Sy.No.38/3, which was allotted to N.S.Nanjappa Reddy. The RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.38/3 indicating 3 acre 15 guntas from 1967-68 till 2009-2010. Only 1 acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.38/3 has been partitioned since the said property was available to the said extent. There are no records to believe the case of the plaintiff. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff. The Final Notification is issued by the B.D.A. in relation to 1 acre 37 guntas of Sy.No.38/3 hence, only 1 acre 28 O.S.No.4468/2016 38 guntas of land is left out. There is no evidence to believe that the B.D.A. denotified 0.20 guntas of land. In view of the above contentions, the 19 th defendant sought for dismissal of suit with exemplary cost.
20. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor had framed the following;
ISSUES.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that lesser extent and measurement of the suit schedule properties is mentioned in the registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000 by inadvertence ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants No.1 to 17 are liable to execute the Rectification Deed to the registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000 ?
29
O.S.No.4468/2016
3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed ?
5. What order or decree ?
21. The plaintiff has deposed as PW-1 and relied upon 25 documents, which are marked at Ex.P-1 to P-25 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the defendant No.16(c) only has deposed as DW-1. No documents are produced. Remaining defendants also not adduced the evidence.
22. I have heard the arguments and perused the records.
23. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
30
O.S.No.4468/2016 ISSUE No.1 :: In the affirmative ISSUE No.2 :: In the affirmative ISSUE No.3 :: In the negative ISSUE No.4 :: Partly in the affirmative ISSUE No.5 :: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
24. ISSUE NO.1 :: It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the very lesser extent and measurement of the suit schedule properties mentioned in the registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000 and same is occurred due to inadvertence therefore, the same is required to be rectified by way of rectification of registered Deed to the Registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000. Accordingly, in order to prove the burden upon the plaintiff he has filed his affidavit 31 O.S.No.4468/2016 evidence as PW-1 by reiterating the entire plaint averments.
25. On the other hand, the defendant No.12, 15 & 16 denied the entire case of the plaintiff and even the defendant No.19 denied the same by way of their respective written statements. The defendant No.16(c) has deposed as DW-1 by reiterating the written statement averments filed jointly by defendants No.12, 15 &
16.
26. As could be seen from the records, the parties do not dispute their relationship and also registered Partition Deed and its contents, which is marked at Ex.P-1 and it runs 24 pages. The parties do not dispute the attestation of the said document. It is also undisputed fact that some 32 O.S.No.4468/2016 portions of land in Sy.No.38/3 and 24/5 has been acquired by the B.D.A. for construction of Outer Ring-Road and accordingly, the possession of the same has been taken over by the B.D.A. But there is a controversy in respect of extent of land which is to be determined. It is also undisputed fact that the extent of lands which have been shown in Ex.P-1 registered Partition Deed 23-08-2000 have been fallen to the share of respective parties. It is also undisputed fact that the entries in RTC extracts have not been rectified by either of the parties even subsequent to the partition.
27. It is specifically stated by the PW-1 that the properties described in schedule 'A' in the Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000 have been fallen to the share of the plaintiff and defendants 33 O.S.No.4468/2016 No.1 to 10. On the other hand, this particular pleading has been clearly admitted by the defendants No.12, 15 & 16. The document at Ex.P-1 Registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000 clearly supports and substantiates the case of the plaintiff. It is also stated by the plaintiff that remaining schedule 'B' to 'E' properties have fallen to the share of respective parties, which has been narrated in registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000 at Ex.P-1. The said fact has also been admitted by the defendants No.12, 15 & 16.
28. It is stated by the plaintiff that the land Sy.No.38/3 is totally measuring 32 acres 15 34 O.S.No.4468/2016 guntas. This fact has also been clearly admitted by the defendants No.12, 15 & 16 in the written- statement at page No.3. It is also admitted in respect of acquisition being made by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to the extent of 0.38 guntas. It is also clearly stated by the plaintiff that in the RTC extracts the extent of land to Sy.No.38/3 has been shown as 1 acre 17 guntas instead of 0.38 guntas. This fact has also been admitted by the above said defendants No.12, 15 & 16. Ex.P-2 Gazette Notification in respect of acquisition of property is crystal clear at Sl.No.25 that land bearing Sy.No. 38/3 is totally measuring 3 acre 15 guntas and out of which 1 acre 37 guntas has been notified. The sketch map annexed to the Ex.P-2 clearly indicates that 0.38 guntas in Sy.No.38/3 has been acquired for 35 O.S.No.4468/2016 the Ring-Road. It is seen that this document has not been denied by the defendants and even no substantial document is produced to disbelieve the said document.
29. The PW-1 further deposed that Sy.No.24/5 is totally measuring 2 acre 02 guntas. In this regard, defendants No.12, 15 & 16 have denied the said measurement but, not produced any document. On the other hand, the plaintiff relied upon the Ex.P-1 registered Partition Deed wherein, it is seen the extent of Sy.No.24/5 is 2 acres 02 guntas. Besides, the document at Ex.P-2 Acquisition Notification at Sy.No.13 clearly goes to show that the total measurement of said land is 2 acre 02 guntas, out of which 0.28 guntas has been acquired. Besides, the sketch map annexed with the Ex.P-2 clearly goes to show that the 0.28 36 O.S.No.4468/2016 guntas has been acquired in Sy.No.24/5 for the Ring-Road. Further, it is evident from Award at Ex.P-9 & P-10 that the compensation has been received by the respective parties only for the 0.38 guntas in Sy.No.38/3 and for 0.28 guntas in Sy.No.24/5. No doubt, the defendants denied this fact but, to disprove this particular oral evidence and documentary evidence, no substantial evidence is placed.
30. It is stated by the plaintiff that the RTC extract in RS.No.38/3 appearing that B.D.A. has acquired 1 acre 17 guntas and he said entry is inadvertent. It is also stated that the RTC extract of of RS No.24/5 also indicating that the B.D.A. has acquired 0.20 guntas. In this regard, he has relied upon the Ex.P-8 & P-7. Ex.P-8 is the RTC extract of RS No.38/3 for the year 2015-16 goes 37 O.S.No.4468/2016 to show that the name of the B.D.A. has been shown to the land measurement as 1 acre 17 guntas. It means, the said entry is still continued and it ought to have been recorded as 0.38 guntas as against 1 acre 17 guntas. Ex.P-7 also goes to show that B.D.A. has acquired 0.20 guntas instead of 0.28 guntas. This fact has been denied the defendants No.12, 15 & 16. But as against the above said RTC extracts and even notification as well as award, no rebuttal is placed.
31. No doubt, the PW-1 has been subjected for cross-examination. It is extracted that land Sy.No.38/3 was 3 acre 15 guntas and out of which 1 acre 37 guntas has been acquired by the B.D.A. under final notification. But ultimately, the B.D.A. has utilized 0.38 guntas for forming the Ring- 38
O.S.No.4468/2016 Road. This very suggestion itself clearly goes to show the case of the plaintiff that the B.D.A. has acquired only 0-38 guntas. It is also extracted as an admission that the B.D.A. has awarded compensation to the land measuring 0.28 guntas. It is also extracted that 1 acre 17 guntas of land has been shown in the RTC extract at Ex.P-8. The very suggestion clearly goes to show that only 0.38 guntas has been acquired by the B.D.A. in Sy.No.38/3 and compensation has been awarded to the said extent. In the remaining part of cross- examination of PW-1 also it is crystal clear that no such worthwhile has been extracted to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff and hence, no fault can be found with the oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff.
32. It is pertinent to note that, the plaintiff 39 O.S.No.4468/2016 has produced Ex.P-11 copy of notice. The said notice goes to show that the same was sent to the defendants No.11 to 17 on 30-04-2016. In the said notice, the plaintiff has sated about the discrepancy appearing in RTC extracts pertaining to measurement in RS No.38/3 and 24/5. It is also stated that the B.D.A. has acquired only 0.38 guntas out of 3 acre 15 guntas. In Sy.No.24/5 only 0.28 guntas only has been acquired by the B.D.A. out of 2 acre 19 guntas. But when the survey was conducted it was noticed by the Surveyor that the acquisition of land to the measurement of 1 acre 17 guntas has been appearing in the RTC extract in Sy.No.38/3 as against 0.38 guntas and in Sy.No.24/5 0.20 guntas is said to have been acquired as against 0.28 guntas. Thereby, the said plaintiff requested 40 O.S.No.4468/2016 the defendants to execute rectification deed to registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000.
33. The Ex.P-12 to P-18 postal acknowledgements clearly go to show that the said notice has been served to the defendants No.11 to 17. But none of the defendants rebutted the notice contents. No doubt, the defendants No.12, 15 & 16 contended in their written statement that even the survey conducted by the Surveyor is not within their knowledge therefore, there cannot be any rectification deed. But there is no case made out by the defendants to hold that the said notice has not been served upon them. Therefore, from the contents of Ex.P-11 it is said that the plaintiff has been requesting the defendants for rectification of deed, since there is a discrepancy 41 O.S.No.4468/2016 and wrong entries in the concerned revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.38/3 and 24/5 since the date when it was informed by the Surveyor. In this regard, there is no cross-examination to the PW-1.
34. No doubt, the DW-1 has deposed to rebut the case of the plaintiff. But in his cross- examination he has clearly admitted that 0.19 guntas in Sy.No.38/3 is available for partition. But he has given evasive answer stating that he does not know that in survey report 0.28 guntas of dry land and 0.08 guntas of kharab land shown as acquired by the B.D.A. He has also given evasive answers stating that he does not know as to whether the endorsement finds place in the survey notice that he refused to sign and he does not know that the Survey Officers did not survey 42 O.S.No.4468/2016 the properties for want of rectification of Partition Deed. He admits that the sub-division of the property as per the Partition Deed is not effected and also mutation and khatha not effected for want of rectification. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff that he has successfully established and proved Issue No.1. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
35. ISSUE NO.2 :: It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants No.1 to 17 are liable to execute the rectification deed to the registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000. As I held supra, while giving findings to Issue No.1 that the plaintiff established the case that the wrong entries are still being continued in the RTC extracts of RS No.38/3 and 24/5 in respect of the 43 O.S.No.4468/2016 measurement in relation to acquisition of land by the Bangalore Development Authority. The said fact has been noticed by the plaintiff when the survey was conducted. No doubt, the defendants denied the said fact and contended that there cannot be any rectification deed to the registered Partition Deed. But in my opinion, there is no legal impediment for the rectification of registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000. Therefore, the said defendants are liable to execute the rectification deed and in this regard, the plaintiff has made out a case and accordingly, I am inclined to answer Issue No.2 in the affirmative.
36. ISSUE NO.3 :: It is the contentions of the defendants No.12, 15, 16 & 19 that the suit is barred by limitation. It is the argument of the 44 O.S.No.4468/2016 learned counsel for the defendants that the registered partition is dated 23-08-2000 whereas, the suit is filed in the year 2016 therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit after lapse of inordinate delay in view of the provisions incorporated in Limitation Act and his further submission is that the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of registered Partition Deed. It is also his argument that the Government Notification at 4 Ex.P-2 has not been denotified therefore, there cannot be rectification deed and suit is not maintainable.
37. As can be seen from the records, Ex.P-2 specifically in hand-sketch map, it is crystal clear that 0.38 guntas has been acquired by the B.D.A. in Sy.No.38/3 and 0.28 guntas has been acquired in Sy.No.24/5. It is also evident from the Ex.P-9 & 45 O.S.No.4468/2016 10 award that the compensation has been paid to the respective parties to the extent of said land, which is actually been acquired and the said documents have not been questioned. Even the said notification and award has not been reversed. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the denotification is not at all required.
38. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, no doubt, the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000. But the mistake, which is appearing in the RTC extracts were not noticed by any of the parties even the B.D.A. till the survey was conducted. In this regard, the defendants no doubt, specifically contended that the conducting of survey is not within their knowledge and no notice has been 46 O.S.No.4468/2016 issued to them. But as I stated above, the plaintiff clearly stated about the survey and information which he got from the surveyor through Ex.P-11 notice and in this regard, DW-1 given completely evasive answers. So, from the documents relied by the plaintiff, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff brought to the notice of defendants in respect of the said discrepancies appearing in RTC extract when he collected information from the surveyor. So, within three years from the date of his knowledge the plaintiff has filed the present suit and hence, I find no reasons to accept the contention of the defendants to hold that the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, in view of the above said reasons, I am inclined to answer Issue No.3 in the negative.
47
O.S.No.4468/2016
39. ISSUE NO.4 :: I have dealt with in detail while answering Issue No.1 & 2 holding that the plaintiff has established his case. Therefore, he is entitled for the decree as sought for in respect of rectification to the registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000. But no case is made out to grant relief of cost therefore, I am inclined to answer Issue No.4 partly in the affirmative.
40. ISSUE NO.5 :: In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed partly.
Therefore, the defendants No.1 to 4, LRs of defendant No.5, LRs of defendant No.6, defendants No.7 to 10, 12 to 15, LRs of defendant 48 O.S.No.4468/2016 No.16 and defendant No.17 are hereby directed to execute the rectification deed to the registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.24/5 measuring 1 acre 04 guntas and in respect of Sy.No.38/3 measuring 2 acre 13 guntas situated at Doddanekkundi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
The rectification details are shown below;
(a) In item No.3 of the 'A' schedule as 18.3 Guntas in Sy.No.38/3 as against 0.08 guntas;
(b) In item No.4 of the 'A' schedule as 11.9 Guntas in Sy.No.24/5 as against 0.20 Guntas;
(c) In item No.10 of the 'B'
schedule as 18.3 Guntas in
49
O.S.No.4468/2016
Sy.No.38/3 as against 0.14 Guntas;
(d) In item No.3 of the 'B' schedule as 11.9 Guntas in Sy.No.24/5 as against 0.14 guntas;
(e) In item No.4 of the 'C' schedule as 30.2 Guntas in Sy.No.38/3 as against 0.28 Guntas;
(f) In item No.3 of the 'D' schedule as 30.2 Guntas in Sy.No.24/5 as against 0.28 guntas;
(g) In item No.4 of the 'E' schedule as 30.2 Guntas in Sy.No.38/3 as against 0.28 Guntas.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd day of , 50 O.S.No.4468/2016 2023.) (Prakash S. Helavar), XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :
(a) PLAINTIFF'S SIDE ::
PW-1 :: N.R.Raveendra
(B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
DW-1 :: Venkatesh Reddy
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF :
(a) PLAINTIFF'S SIDE :
Ex.P-1 :: Registered Partition Deed dated 23-08-2000 Ex.P-2 :: Gazette Notification dated 20-05-1997 Ex.P-3 :: Acknowledgement Ex.P-4 :: Copy of the Notice Ex.P-5 & 6:: Two Endorsements 51 O.S.No.4468/2016 Ex.P-7 :: RTC containing 5 pages Ex.P-8 :: RTC containing 3 pages Ex.P-9 :: Copy of the Award in LAC No.170/2000 Ex.P-10 :: Copy of Award in LAC No.181/2000 Ex.P-11 :: Copy of the Notice dated 30-04-2016 Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-18 :: 7 Postal Acknowledgements Ex.P-19 :: Endorsement dated 14-05-2019 under RTI Ex.P-20 & Ex.P-21 :: Copies of the 2 sketches Ex.P-22 :: Copy of Notice Ex.P-23 to Ex.P-25 :: 3 Copies of Mahazars (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE : NIL (C) COMMISSIONER'S SIDE :
Ex.C-1 :: I.A.No.2 dated 28-06-2016 Ex.C-1(a) :: Signature of PW-1 (Prakash S.Helavar), 52 O.S.No.4468/2016 XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.