Bangalore District Court
Smt.M.Mamatha vs ) Smt.R.Yashodha on 30 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF LVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
(CCH58)
Present:
Smt. K.G.Shanthi, B.Com, LL.M.,
LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2022.
Original Suit No.25737/2016
Plaintiff: Smt.M.Mamatha,
W/o. Sri.K.R.Rajagopal,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.27, 28, 'Aabyudhayam',
2nd Cross, Lakshmipura Layout,
Devasandra, K.R.Puram,
Bangalore560 036.
(Repted. by Sri.R.R.Devendra Gowda, Adv.)
Vs
Defendants: 1) Smt.R.Yashodha,
W/o. Sri.K.Diwakar Rao,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at C/o. K.Naganna,
No.85, 'Gokulam',
2nd Main, AECS Layout,
Sanjayanagar,
Bangalore560 094.
2) Smt.R.Bharathi,
W/o. Sri.Prakash,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at Katum Nalur,
2
O.S.No.25737/2016
Old Madras Road,
Virgo Nagar Post,
Bangalore560 049.
(Repted by Sri.N.R,Murthy, Adv. for D1,
Sri.Mohamed Arshed Ahmed, Adv. for D2)
Date of Institution of the suit 02.08.2016
Nature of the suit Permanent Injunction
Date of the commencement of 01.02.2018
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment 30.03.2022
was pronounced
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration 05 07 28
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants seeking relief of Permanent Injunction.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that, she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the House property built on Site bearing No.61, measuring East to West: 33 feet (10.06 meters) and North to South: 30 feet (9.14 meters), in all measuring 990 Sq.Feet or 91.94 Sq.Meters with residential building built thereon consisting 3 O.S.No.25737/2016 of Ground Floor, Devasandra, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, now comes within the limits of BBMP. It is stated by the plaintiff that, her fatherinlaw Sri.K.B.Ramaiah had purchased the suit schedule property from its previous owner Smt.C.Rajamani under registered Sale deed dtd.14.04.1978, which registered under document No.996/197879, in BookI, Volume1306 at pages 158 and 159 in the Office of the SubRegistrar, Bangalore South Taluk, on 24.05.1978. Sri.K.B.Ramaiah has constructed a residential building consisting of Ground Floor, 1st Floor, 2nd Floor on the site. The khatha has been mutated in the name of Sri.K.R.Ramaiah, based on the Sale deed dtd.14.04.1978 and Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 01.04.1978 to 31.05.1989. It is stated by the plaintiff that, her fatherinlaw died intestate on 21.09.2001 leaving behind him, his wife Smt.Lakshmi Kanthamma (i.e., motherinlaw of plaintiff) and his only son Sri.K.R.Rajagopal as his legal heir to succeed to his estate. After the death of Sri.K.B.Ramaiah khatha was 4 O.S.No.25737/2016 transferred in the name of his wife Smt.Lakshmi Kanthamma and son Sri.K.R.Rajagopal (the husband of plaintiff). They paid municipal property taxes with respect to the property from the year 2011 to 2016. It is stated that Smt.Lakshmi Kanthamma died on 20.12.2015 leaving behind her only son Sri.K.R.Rajagopal. After the death of Smt.Lakshmi Kanthamma, the husband of the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he had executed a registered Gift deed dtd.18.03.2016 in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff become the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property and paying municipal taxes to the BBMP authority and also stated that khatha has transferred in her name.
3. It is stated by the plaintiff that, defendant No.1 and 2 are the daughters of Late K.B.Ramaiah and Smt.Lakshmi Kanthama. During the life time of Sri.K.B.Ramaiah has purchased the site bearing No.33, khatha No.102/3/25/33 situated at Basavanapura village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now Bangalore 5 O.S.No.25737/2016 East Taluk, measuring East to West : 40 feet and North to South: 30 feet, in all measuring 1200 Sq.Ft. Through registered Sale deed dtd.30.12.1991 registered as document No.6540/199192 in BookI in the office of the SubRegistrar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore, in the name of defendant No.1.
4. The plaintiff also contended that, out of his own earnings Sri.K.B.Ramaiah purchased the site No.17, House List Khatha No.257/49/1A/57, situated at Hoodi village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now Bangalore East Taluk, measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 30 feet in all measuring 1200 Sq.Ft. through registered Sale deed dtd.10.12.1997 registered as document No.9153/199798 in BookI in the Office of the SubRegistrar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore, in the name of defendant No.2.
5. Further Sri.K.B.Ramaiah performed the marriages of the defendants by spending huge amount and also provided all sorts of support to the defendants to settle 6 O.S.No.25737/2016 them in their respective marital houses. It is stated that suit schedule property of Sri.K.B.Ramaiah exclusively inherited by his own son Sri.K.R.Rajagopal and through Gift deed executed by Sri.K.R.Rajagopal, plaintiff acquired the right over the property.
6. It is stated that the defendant No.2 at the instigation of defendant No.1 came to the suit schedule property on 24.07.2016 at about 400 P.M., and disturbed peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. She abused the tenants of the suit schedule property in filthy language and given threat to them that she will dispossess them from the suit property. So, the plaintiff approached the jurisdictional Police to file a complaint against the defendant, but Police have not taken any action, but advised the plaintiff to approach the Court.
7. It is stated by the plaintiff that, the jurisdictional Police have colluded with the defendant No.2, hence plaintiff is not in a position to restrain the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of 7 O.S.No.25737/2016 the suit schedule property. Hence, she constrained to file the suit seeking relief of Permanent Injunction.
8. The cause of action to file a suit arose on 24.07.2016 when the defendant No.2 tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, plaintiff prayed for Judgment and decree restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
9. On filing the suit, summons has been issued to the defendants. They appeared through their Advocate. The 2nd defendant filed her written statement. She has admitted the relationship with the plaintiff and also admitted that her father Sri.K.B.Ramaiah acquired the suit schedule property under registered Sale deed dtd.14.04.1978 and constructed the residential building consisting of Ground Floor, 1st Floor and Second Floor. She also admitted that, her father Sri.K.B.Ramaiah died 8 O.S.No.25737/2016 intestate on 21.09.2001, but she denied that, her mother Smt.Lakshmi Kanthamma and her only son Sri.K.R.Rajagopal being legal heirs succeeded the estate of Sri.K.B.Ramaiah. It is stated by the defendant that, Sri.K.B.Ramaiah left behind these defendants also to succeed his estate. It is stated that after the death of her mother Smt.Lakshmi Kanthamma, the husband of the plaintiff colluded with the officials of the Revenue department and got transferred in his name by playing fraud & misrepresentation and without the knowledge and consent of these defendants. It is also contended by the defendant No.2 that, her brother Sri.K.R.Rajagopal only with an intention to defeat the share of these defendants colluded with his wife and got created the document in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated that after the death of Sri.K.B.Ramaiah and Smt.Lakshmi Kanthamma, Sri.K.R.Rajagopal i.e., husband of the plaintiff succeeded to their estate as ClassI legal heir. It is stated that Sri.K.R.Rajagopal has no right, title or interest for executing the document in favour of the plaintiff. It is 9 O.S.No.25737/2016 stated that the suit schedule property was selfacquired property of Sri.K.B.Ramaiah, but it is joint family property and these defendants also got right over the suit property. Further contended that the defendants also in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as the property is ancestral joint family property of defendants and their brother Sri.K.R.Rajagopal.
10. It is contended by the defendant that, she came to know about the fraud and mischief played by the plaintiff and her husband only in the month of first week of July 2016 and immediately she approached her brother demanded him to effect the division of the property into metes and bounds, at that time her brother disclosed about the execution of document in favour of plaintiff. Immediately the defendants conveyed Panchayath in the presence of elders and well wishers of the family and demanded for division of the property. But the husband of the plaintiff flatly refused to effect the division of the property. She also contended that, at no point of time this 10 O.S.No.25737/2016 defendant interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
11. She also contended that the defendants and their brother Sri.K.R.Rajagopal have equal right, title and interest over the suit property and her brother has no right to execute the document, so permanent injunction cannot be granted against the lawful owner. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly, pray for dismissal of the suit.
12. Based on the above pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the following: ISSUES
1. Does the plaintiff prove that she is the absolute owner in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit?
2. Does the plaintiff further prove the alleged interference by the Defendants as averred in the plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed?
4. What order or decree?
11
O.S.No.25737/2016
13. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and produced and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P12. The defendant herself examined as DW1 and no documents have been produced and marked.
14. Heard arguments.
15. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : In the Affirmative, Point No.3 : In the Affirmative, Point No.4 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
16. Issue No.1 : It is the case of the plaintiff that, she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Gift deed executed by her husband on 18.03.2016. PW1 in her evidence deposed that, her fatherinlaw Sri.K.B.Ramaiah acquired the suit schedule property under registered Sale 12 O.S.No.25737/2016 deed dtd.14.04.1978 and constructed the Ground Floor, 1 st Floor and 2nd Floor in the suit schedule property. She also deposed that, the khatha has been mutated in the name of Sri.K.B.Ramaiah. According to the plaintiff, Sri.K.B.Ramaiah died on 21.09.2001, which is not disputed by the defendants. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Sri.K.B.Ramaiah the khatha of the suit schedule property has been transferred in the name of her motherinlaw Smt.Lakshmi Kanthamma and her husband Sri.K.R.Rajagopal and they are paying tax to the BBMP. Smt.Lakshmi Kanthamma died on 20.12.2015 leaving behind her son K.R.Rajagopal as sole legal heir and he has succeeded to the share of his mother including his share.
17. The defendant stoutly denied that the husband of the plaintiff by name Sri.K.R.Rajagopal alone succeeded to the estate of Mr.K.B.Ramaiah and Smt.Lakshmi Kanthamma. They claimed that, they also have got right over the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, her husband succeeded to the estate and khatha has been 13 O.S.No.25737/2016 mutated in his name. Then on 18.03.2016 her husband Sri.K.R.Rajagopal executed a Gift deed in her favour, which has been accepted by her and since then she is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
18. The plaintiff in order to establish her possession and in support of her oral evidence produced the copy of the Sale deed dtd.14.04.1978 and got it marked as Ex.P.1. She also produced the registered Gift deed executed by her husband on 18.03.2016, which has been marked as Ex.P.3. In her evidence she deposed that she has produced the original documents to the Bank as surety to the loan availed by her. She had produced the document i.e., the Memorandum of deposit of title deeds, which marked as Ex.P.9. The death certificate of Sri.K.B.Ramaiah is marked as Ex.P.10 and the death certificate of Smt.Lakshmi Kanthamma is marked as Ex.P.11. Further she produced the Encumbrance Certificate marked as Ex.P.12.
19. According to the defendants, they are not aware about loan availed by the plaintiff by mortgaging the title 14 O.S.No.25737/2016 deeds. This fact is admitted by PW1 in her cross examination. On going through the documents it is very clear that, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of thhe suit schedule property, but defendants taken up a contention that the Gift deed dtd.18.03.2016 is concocted by the plaintiff and her husband in order to deprive the share of the defendants. This is a simple suit for Injunction. So, there is no need to decide the validity of the Gift deed. Further plaintiff also not made any counter claim. But the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff it clearly reflects that as on the date of filing the suit, plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Accordingly Issue No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
20. Issue No.2: Plaintiff contended that on 24.07.2016 the defendant No.2 came near the suit schedule property at the instigation of the defendant No.1 and abused the tenants of the suit schedule property and given a threat of dispossession. She also deposed that she 15 O.S.No.25737/2016 tried to lodge a complaint to the Police, but the Police instead of helping her, they asked her to approach the Court.
21. The 2nd defendant in her written statement taken up a contention that, these defendants also having equal share in the suit schedule property along with the husband of the plaintiff. Further they have taken up a contention that the plaintiff and her husband colluded each other and created a Gift deed just to deprive the legitimate share of these defendants. The very assertion of the defendant denying the right of the plaintiff and contention of the defendants that the plaintiff and her husband created the Gift deed itself caused apprehension to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
22. In this case though the defendant No.2 examined as DW1 by filing evidence by way of affidavit subsequently she has not appeared and tendered for cross examination. No material evidence placed by defendants to prove that the plaintiff and her husband played on the 16 O.S.No.25737/2016 defendants. The evidence of DW1 cannot be treated as complete evidence. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff reflects that there is a threat to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The alleged interference by the defendant is proved by the plaintiff. Hence, Issue No.2 answered in Affirmative.
23. Issue No.3: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking relief of Permanent Injunction. She proved that, she is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Gift deed executed by her husband as per Ex.P.3, which accepted by her, since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Khatha has been mutated in her name and she is paying tax to the authority. Further she proved the alleged interference by the defendants. Hence, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in Affirmative.
17
O.S.No.25737/2016
24. Issue No.4: In view of the finding on Issue No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The defendants are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or meddling with the same bearing House Property built on Site No.61, measuring East to West : 33 Feet (10.06 Meters) and North to South: 30 Feet (9.14 Meters) in all measuring 990 Sq. Ft. or 91.94 Sq.
Meters with residential building built thereon consisting of Ground Floor, 1 st Floor and 2nd Floor, situated at Rajarajeshwari Temple Road, Devasandra, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, now comes within the limits of BBMP, bounded on:
East by : Site bearing No.62,
West by : Road,
18
O.S.No.25737/2016
North by : Site bearing No.63 and
South by : Road.
by way of permanent injunction.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgmentwriter, transcribed and computerized by him and after carrying out corrections by me,print out taken by him and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30th day of March, 2022.) (Smt.K.G. Shanthi) LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff :
PW.1 : Smt.M.Mamatha List of documents marked for the plaintiff :
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Sale deed dtd.14.04.1978 Ex.P2 : Certified copy of Sale deed dtd.30.12.1991 Ex.P3 : Certified copy of Gift deed dtd.18.03.2016 Ex.P4 to 7 : 4 Photos Ex.P8 : CD., Ex.P9 : Certified copy Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dtd.06.03.2017 Ex.P10 : Death Certificate of Mr.Ramaiah Ex.P11 : Death Certificate of Smt.Laxmi Kanthamma Ex.P12 : Encumbrance Certificate 19 O.S.No.25737/2016 List of witnesses examined for the defendants:
DW1 : Smt.R.Bharathi List of documents marked for the defendants:
NIL LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. 20 O.S.No.25737/2016 Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate Judgment) ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The defendants are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or meddling with the same bearing House Property built on Site No.61, measuring East to West : 33 Feet (10.06 Meters) and North to South: 30 Feet (9.14 Meters) in all measuring 990 Sq. Ft. or 91.94 Sq. Meters with residential building built thereon consisting of Ground Floor, 1st Floor and 2nd Floor, situated at Rajarajeshwari Temple Road, Devasandra, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, now comes within the limits of BBMP, bounded on:
East by : Site bearing No.62,
West by : Road,
21
O.S.No.25737/2016
North by : Site bearing No.63 and
South by : Road.
by way of permanent injunction.
Draw decree accordingly.
LVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru.