Bangalore District Court
Sri. K.Krishnamurthy vs Umashankar on 2 February, 2023
KABC010067732012
/////////IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2023
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S.N o.4523/2012
Plaintiffs : 1. Sri. K.Krishnamurthy
Since dead by LRs:
1(a). Smt.Manjula
W/o late Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 47 years,
1(b). Sri.Bharath
S/o Late Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 25 years,
1(c). Smt.Soujanya
D/o Late Krishnamurthy
Aged about 23 years,
1(d). Smt.Smitha
D/o Late Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at No.14, Jedahalli, 2nd Cross,
5th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560010.
2 O.S.No.4523/2012
2. K.Manjunatha
Since Dead by LRs:
2(a). Smt.Sujatha
W/o Late K.Manjunatha,
Aged about 42 years,
2(b). Sri.Yogesh
S/o Late K.Manjunatha,
Aged about 22 years,
2(c). Smt.Rohini
S/o Late K.Manjunatha,
Aged about 18 years,
All are residing at No.14,
Jedahalli, 2nd Cross, 5th Block,
Rajajinagara, Bengaluru-560010.
3. K.Kumar
Aged about 40 years,
4. K.Nagaraj
Aged about 36 uears,
5. K.Prasanna
Aged about 32 years,
All are S/o Late G.Kempaiah
R/at No.14, Jedahalli,
2nd Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560010.
(By Sri.J.M.Rajanna Setty, Advocate)
-V/S-
Defendants : 1. Umashankar
S/o Late Javaraiah,
Aged about 45 years,
3 O.S.No.4523/2012
2. Smt. Kamala
W/o Umashankar,
Aged about 37 years,
Both are R/at No.12,
New No.34/1, 10th 'A' Cross Road,
Agrahara Dasarahalli, Magadi
Road, Bengaluru - 560023.
3. The Commissioner
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
N.R.Road, Bengaluru-560002.
4. The Assistant Revenue Officer,
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Srirama Mandira, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560010.
(D.1 & 2 by Sri.R.M., Advocate
D.3 & 4 by Sri.K.V.R.M., advocate)
Date of institution of the suit: 27.06.2012
Nature of the suit: Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of 06.08.2013
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 02.02.2023
pronounced:
Duration: Yea Years Months Day
10 07 06
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the present suit under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, praying for the relief of declaration to declare the Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 standing in the 4 O.S.No.4523/2012 name of defendant No.2 as null and void as they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and for the relief of mandatory injunction to demolish the building and to handover the possession of the suit property to them and other consequential reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs as averred in the suit plaint are as follows:-
Father of the plaintiffs namely G.Kempaiah was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy.No.2/75, measuring 1 acre, situated at Agrahara Dasarahalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. G.Kempaiah had purchased the said property through registered sale deed dated 15.06.1972. G.Kempaiah has formed a layout in the said survey number and sold some of the sites and retained some sites for himself and his family members. Site No.12 is one of the site retained by G.Kempaiah. G.Kempaiah was died on 21.05.1988. His wife Yellamma was died on 09.09.2002. The plaintiffs being the legal heirs of G.Kempaiah and Yellamma have succeeded to the estate of their parents. The defendant No.1 has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. After the death of father of the plaintiffs, father of the defendant No.1 has illegally got changed Khatha of the suit schedule 5 O.S.No.4523/2012 property in his name. The defendant No.1 has created some documents by forging the signature of the plaintiff's father and based upon the said created documents, he has filed application to BBMP to change the Khatha of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 has illegally put up structure by over night. The plaintiffs have issued legal notice to the defendant No.1 on 18.05.2012 to the defendant No.1 calling upon him to restore the possession of the property to the plaintiff. But the defendant No.1 has given untenable reply. The plaintiffs have applied for the Khatha extract of the suit schedule property from BBMP, they came to know that the Khatha extract of the suit property is standing in the name of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs came to know that on 19.12.2003, one Javaraiah being power of attorney holder of G.Kempaiah has sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.2 who is none other than his daughter-in-law. G.Kempaiah was died on 21.05.1988. The alleged Sale Deed came to be executed by Javaraiah in the year 2003 without having any authority to execute the Sale Deed. The defendants No.3 and 4 have effected 'B' Khatha in favour of deceased Javaraiah and in turn in favour of the defendant No.2 based upon the alleged Sale Deed. The defendant No.1 is in illegal and unauthorized possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have came to know about the same 6 O.S.No.4523/2012 during 3rd week of May 2012 and came to know that the construction of the building in the suit schedule property was made in the year 2010. Hence, the plaintiffs have stated that cause of actions arose for them to file the suit.
Hence, the plaintiff has prayed to decree the suit.
3. After service of the suit summons, the defendants No.1 and 2 have appeared through one counsel and defendants No.3 and 4 have appeared through another counsel. The defendants No.1 and 2 have filed their written statement. The defendants No.3 and 4 have not filed any written statement. The defendants No.1 and 2 in their written statement have admitted the fact that Sy.No.2/75, measuring 1 acre land of Agrahara, Dasarahalli village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru was purchased by G.Kempaiah. The defendants No.1 and 2 have disputed the relationship of plaintiffs with deceased G.Kempaiah. The defendant No.1 and 2 have denied the contention of the plaintiffs that G.Kempaiah has formed layout in the said survey number and formed sites and sold some of the sties and retained some of the sites for himself. The defendant No.1 and 2 in their written statement have contended that G.Kempaiah was not in a possession to execute the registered sale deed due to the defragmentation act, as such G.Kempaiah was in the habit 7 O.S.No.4523/2012 of executing General Power of Attorney and affidavits in favour of the prospective purchasers. Several sites were sold by the G.Kempaiah without there being any registered sale deed, but placing the prospective purchasers in possession of the sites through power of attorney. The defendants No.1 and 2 have specifically denied the contention of the plaintiffs that they are the legal heirs of deceased G.Kempaiah and Yellamma and they have succeeded to the estate of G.Kempaiah and Yellamma. The defendant No.1 and 2 in their written statement have contended that the plaintiffs have issued legal notice to them with oblique motive to harass the defendants and to grab the money from them. The defendant No.1 and 2 in their written statement have contended that they have sent suitable reply to the legal notice. The plaintiffs are very much aware of the fact that the defendants No.1 and 2 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by constructing a residential house in it since the month of January 2004. The plaintiffs are strangers to the defendants No.1 and 2 and they have no manner of right, title or interest with respect to the suit schedule property. Te defendants No.3 and 4 have rightly changed the Khatha as per the registered sale deed. The defendant No.2 is living along with her family members since for more than nine years and prior to that one Javaraiah was in 8 O.S.No.4523/2012 possession right from 1994 as per the power of attorney issued by the landlord G.Kempaiah. The defendant No.1 and 2 in their written statement have contended that at no point of time, the defendants No.1 and 2 have put up construction in the suit property during the year 2012 as alleged by the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 and 2 in their written statement have contended that the plaintiffs have filed the suit against them only with malafide intention and to extract money from them. On these among other grounds, the defendants No.1 and 2 have prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff.
4. Based upon the pleading of both the parties, following 8 issues came to be framed by my learned predecessor and then the matter was posted for evidence.
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiffs prove their title to the schedule property?
2. Do they prove that the alleged sale deed dated 19.12.2003 standing in the name of 2nd defendant is null and void?
3. Do they prove that Khatha effected by defendants 3 and 4 in favour of 2nd defendant based upon the alleged Sale Deed is highly illegal is liable to be cancelled?
4. Do they prove that site No.12 namely the schedule property has been retained by 9 O.S.No.4523/2012 Mr.G.Kempaiah and they succeed the said property as pleaded?
5. Whether 2nd defendant proves that she has purchased the property during 2003 and she has put up construction of residential house in the year 2004 after obtaining sanctioned plan?
6. Does she prove that prior to her possession right from 1974 Mr.G.Kempaiah enjoyed the site as his self acquired property?
7. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of schedule property?
8. What order and decree?
5. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case have adduced the oral evidence of plaintiff No.3 as P.W.1. The plaintiffs have examined three witnesses on their behalf as P.W.2 to P.W.4. The plaintiffs have produced 20 documents on heir behalf and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to P.20 and closed their side. Then the matter was posted for evidence of the defendants. The defendant No.1 in order to prove his defence has adduced his oral evidence as D.W.1. The defendant No.1 has produced 31 documents and got them marked as Ex.D.1 and D.31 and closed his side. Then the matter was posted for arguments.
10 O.S.No.4523/20126. Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for the plaintiff and Learned counsel for the defendants. The Learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Learned counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 have filed their written arguments. Perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, written arguments submitted on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants and other materials on record.
7. Having done so, my answer to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.5 : In the Negative
Issue No.6 : Does not survive
Issue No.7 : In the Partly Affirmative
Issue No.8 : As per final order,
for the following :
REASONS
8. ISSUES NO.1 to 6: These issues are inter
related to each other and as such they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
9. In this suit, the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of declaration of their ownership right over the suit schedule property and for the relief of possession and mandatory injunction with respect to the suit schedule 11 O.S.No.4523/2012 property and for the relief of possession and mandatory injunction with respect to the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property as described in the schedule of the suit pliant is property bearing site No.12 formed in Sy.No.2/75 of Agrahara Dasarahalli, Magadi Road, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet. In order to prove the title over the suit schedule property and to prove the illegal construction of building by the defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit schedule property, have adduced the oral evidence of P.W.1.
10. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property was earlier belonging to their father G.Kempaiah. G.Kempaiah had purchased Sy.No.2/75, measuring 1 acre situated at Agrahara, Dasarahalli village, through registered sale deed dated 15.06.1972 and formed a layout in the said survey number. Further according to the plaintiffs, G.Kempaiah had sold some of the sites and retained some of the sites including the suit schedule property. Further according to the plaintiffs, G.Kempaiah was died on 21.05.1988 and his wife Yellamma was died on 09.09.2002 and they being the legal heirs of deceased G.Kempaiah and Yellamma have succeeded to the suit schedule property.
12 O.S.No.4523/201211. In order to prove the acquisition of title over the suit schedule property and to prove illegal possession of the defendants over the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs have adduced the oral evidence of plaintiff No.3 as P.W.1. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit has deposed that his father G.Kempaiah had purchased Sy.No.2/75 measuring 1 acre of Agrahara Dasarahalli village, Yeswanthpura Hobli through registered sale deed dated 15.06.1972 and thereafter he had formed layout in the said survey number and sold some of the sites and retained some of the sites with him. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that suit site No.12 was also retained by G.Kempaiah by himself and his family members. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that G.Kempaiah was died on 21.05.1988 and his wife Yellamma was died on 09.09.2002, leaving behind the plaintiffs as their only legal heirs to succeed their estate. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of G.Kempaiah have succeeded to the estate of G.Kempaiah including suit schedule property. P.W.1 in his examination- in-chief has further deposed that father of defendant No.1 having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property has created false Khatha in his name with respect to the suit schedule property by colluding with 13 O.S.No.4523/2012 the BBMP officials. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that after the death of G.Kempaiah, the defendant No.1 has executed Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2 with respect to the suit schedule property as the power of attorney holder of G.Kempaiah on 19.12.2003 without having any authority to execute the Sale Deed. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that G.Kempaiah died in the year 1988 whereas father of the defendant No.1 has sold the suit property in the year 2003 to defendant No.2 on the basis of created power of attorney without having any authority or right over the suit schedule property. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that the defendant No.2 on the basis of false Sale Deed has got changed the Khatha of the suit schedule property in her name by colluding with defendants No.3 and 4 and also illegally put up construction of the building in the suit schedule property in the year 2010. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that the defendants No.1 and 2 have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and they are liable to demolish the illegal cosntruction put up by them over the suit schedule property and they have to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs.
14 O.S.No.4523/201212. P.W.1 apart from adducing his oral evidence has produced certain documents. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 06.06.1972 executed in favour of G.Kempaiah by one M.Thimmaiah with respect to Sy.No.2/75, measuring 1 acre. Ex.P.13 is the original Sale Deed of Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 is the genealogical tree of deceased G.Kempaiah. Ex.P.3 is the death certificate of G.Kempaiah. It shows that G.Kempaiah was died on 21.05.1988. Ex.P.4 is the Khatha extract 19.06.2012 standing in the name of defendant No.2. Ex.P.5 is the encumbrance certificate of suits property from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2004. Ex.P.6 is the encumbrance certificate of suit property from 01.04.2004 to 19.06.2012. Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 executed by Javaraiah in favour of defendant No.2 as General Power of Attorney holder of G.Kempaiah. Ex.P.8 and 9 are the photos of the house constructed over the suit schedule property. Ex.P.10 is the layout plan of the sites formed in Sy.No.2/75 of Agrahara Dasarahalli village. Ex.P.11 is the office copy of the reply notice dated 29.05.2012 issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs. Ex.P.12 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 30.04.1973 executed by G.Kempaiah in favour of Nanjamma with respect to site No.14. Ex.P.14 is the office copy of legal notice dated 18.12.2010 issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1. Ex.P.15 is the notary true 15 O.S.No.4523/2012 copy of Adhaar Card of plaintiff No.4. Ex.P.16 is the notary true copy of voter ID card of plaintiff No.4. Ex.P.17 is the notary true copy of Adhaar card of plaintiff No.3. Ex.P.18 is the notary true copy of DL of plaintiff No.3. Ex.P.19 is the notary true copy of Adhaar card of plaintiff No.5. Ex.P.20 is the notary true copy of PAN card of plaintiff No.1.
13. The Learned counsel for the plaintiffs in his oral arguments as well as in his written arguments submitted that G.Kempaiah was the owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs are his sons and after the death of G.Kempaiah, the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of G.Kempaiah will succeed to the suit schedule property. It is further argued by the Learned counsel for the plaintiffs that G.Kempaiah was died on 21.05.1988 and after his death, the General Power of Attorney executed by him has got no legal sanctity. It is further argued by the Learned counsel for the plaintiffs that there is no recital in the General Power of Attorney dated 10.03.1974 alleged to have been executed by G.Kempaiah in favour of defendant No.1 and his father about basing of consideration amount. General Power of Attorney was given to father of defendant No.1 only for supervising only on behalf of the owner and not for any other purpose. It is further argued by the Learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the Sale Deed 16 O.S.No.4523/2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is without any authority and Sale Deed is not sustainable in law. It is further argued by the Learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the defendants have not disputed the existence of the suit schedule property or the defendants are not disputed the title of the G.Kempaiah over the suit schedule property and the defendants have also not set up the defendants of adverse possession. As such, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession of the suit schedule property. It is further argued by the Learned counsel for the plaintiffs that in Ex.P.11 reply notice, the defendant No.1 has not stated anything about execution of General Power of Attorney by G.Kempaiah in favour of his father and about changing of Khatha in the name of his father etc. Hence, it is argued by the Learned counsel for the plaintiffs that General Power of Attorney and affidavits are created by defendants after filing of the present suit. Hence, the Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has prayed to decree the suit.
14. On the other hand, the Learned counsel for the defendants have argued that the plaintiffs have not taken any action against the defendants No.1 and 2 or against the Javaraiah till 2012 even though they have got knowledge of execution of power of attorney in favour of Javaraiah by 17 O.S.No.4523/2012 G.Kempaiah, even though they were aware of fact of execution of Sale Deed from defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 and construction of building by defendant No.2 in the suit schedule property in the year 2003 and hence argued that the suit is barred by law of limitation. But the said suit si bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties as the sisters of plaintiffs are not made as party in the present suit. It is further argued by the Learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of deceased G.Kempaiah and Ex.P.2 genealogical tree is created and as such, the plaintiffs will not succeeded to the property of G.Kempaiah after his death. It is further argued by the Learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs have not proved the description of the suit schedule property and correct measurement and boundaries of the suit schedule property and as such, they are not entitled for the relief of possession and declaration of their title over the suit schedule property. It is further argued by the Learned counsel for the defendants that the defendant No.2 has put up construction in the suit schedule property after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. It is further argued by the Learned counsel for the defendants that P.W.1 and witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs have given false evidence before the court and as such, they are to be tried for the offence punishable u/Sec.340 of 18 O.S.No.4523/2012 Cr.P.C. and hence, prayed to allow I.A.No.1 filed by the defendants and prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
15. In this case, the defendants o.1 and 2 have only contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendants No.3 and 4 have not contested the suit by filing their written statement. The defendants No.1 and 2 have not disputed the fact that G.Kempaiah had purchased Sy.No.2/75 measuring 1 acre of land of Agrahara Dasarahalli village through registered sale deed dated 15.06.1972 from one M.Thimmaiah. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 15.06.1972. Further Ex.P.13 is the original Sale Deed dated 15.06.1972. Ex.P.13 was admited by D.W.1 during the course of his cross-examination and the said document was marked during the course of cross- examination of P.W.1. The defendants have also not disputed the fact of formation of sites by G.Kempaiah in Sy.No.2/75. The defendants in their written statement are contended that G.Kempaiah has executed GPA in favour of father of defendant No.1 namely Javaraiah and sold the suit schedule property to Javaraiah through the said GPA. The defendants are also claiming their right over the suit schedule property from G.Kempaiah. From the contentions 19 O.S.No.4523/2012 of the plaintiffs and defendants, it is clear that G.Kempaiah was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
16. According to the defendants No.1 and 2, G.Kempaiah has executed power of attorney in favour of father of defendant No.1 namely Javaraiah and conferred all the interest over the suit schedule property in the name of Javaraiah through the said power of attorney. Further according to the defendants No.1 and 2, G.Kempaiah has also executed one affidavit by acknowledging the receipt of consideration amount from Javaraiah and by admitting the sale of suit schedule property to Javaraiah. Further according to the defendants No.1 and 2, Javaraiah on the basis of the power of attorney executed by G.Kempaiah has sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 who is his daughter-in-law through the registered sale deed. Further according to the defendants No.1 and 2, the Khatha of the suit schedule property was changed in the name of defendant No.2 on the basis of Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 executed by Javaraiah and defendant No.2 has put up construction of building in the suit schedule property in the year 2004 itself after obtaining the sanction plan. Hence, the defendants No.1 and 2 have contended that the plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property.
20 O.S.No.4523/201217. The defendants No.1 and 2 in order to prove their contentions in the written statement have adduced the oral evidence of defendant No.1 as D.W.1. D.W.1 in his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit has reiterated the aforesaid facts as pleaded in the written statement, the entire averments of the written statement reiterated in the chief-examination of D.W.1. As such, the entire examination-in-chief of D.W.1 are not reproduced herein to avoid repetition of facts. D.W.1 apart from adducing his oral evidence has produced certain documents. The important documents pertaining to the suit schedule property are Ex0.D.2 and 9. Ex.D.2 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 and Ex.D.9 is the original certified copy of Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 executed by Javaraiah in favour of defendant No.2 Kamala. Ex.D.3 to 6 are the property tax receipts of suit property. Ex.D.7 and 8 are the Khatha certificate and Khatha extract dated 30.10.2017 in the name of defendant No.2. Ex.D.10 is the uttara patra issued by BBMP on 24.12.2003. Ex.D.11 is the permission dated 22.01.2004 issued by BBMP. Ex.D.12 is the approved sanction plan given by BBMP for construction of building in suit schedule property by defendant No.2. Ex.D.13 is the certificate dated 15.12.2003 issued by BBMP showing Javaraiah as occupier of the suit property. Ex.D.14 is the Khatha registration dated 12.12.2003 changing the Khatha 21 O.S.No.4523/2012 of suit property in the name of Javaraiah. Ex.D.15 to D.17 are the tax paid receipts. Ex.D.18 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 06.06.1972 in the name of G.Kempaiah. Ex.D.19 is the certificate dated 08.01.2004 issued by BBMP showing the name of defendant No.2 as the Khathedar of suit schedule property. Ex.D.20 is the demand extract from the year 1996 to 2004. Ex.D.21 to 23 are the encumbrance certificate of the suit schedule property. Ex.D.24 is the demand extract of the suit property from 01.10.1996 to 15.12.2003.Ex.D.25 to 28 are the RTC of Sy.No.2/75. Ex.D.29 is the encumbrance certificate of suit property from 01.04.2003 to 15.04.2004. Ex.D.30 is the original GPA executed by G.Kempaiah in favour of Javaraiah.Ex.D.31 is the original affidavit executed by G.Kempaiah.
18. The documents produced by the defendants No.1 and 2 as mentioned earlier supports the contention of the defendants No.1 and 2 that father of the defendant No.1 namely Javaraiah had sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.2 on the basis of the GPA executed in his favour by G.Kempaiah. The Khatha was earlier standing in the name of Javaraiah after execution of GPA produced at Ex.D.30. Further Khatha of the suit schedule property was changed in the name of defendant No.2 on the basis of Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 executed by Javaraiah.
22 O.S.No.4523/2012Further the demand extracts of the suit schedule property was also standing in the name of Javaraiah and thereafter the name of defendant No.2 is entered. The documents pertaining to the suit schedule property from the year 1996 onwards clearly shows the fact that Javaraiah earlier in the possession of the suit schedule property and now the defendant No.2 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 claims to have acquired title over the suit schedule property on the basis of GPA and affidavit executed by G.Kempaiah in his name. Further the defendant No.2 claims to have acquired title over the suit schedule property on the basis of the Sale Deed executed by Javaraiah in her name on 19.12.2003. In the present suit, the plaintiffs have specifically contended that Javaraiah was not having any valid right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and he was not having any authority to execute the Sale Deed of suit schedule property in the name of defendant No.2. In the suit plaint, the plaintiffs have also sought for the relief of declaration to declare that the Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 executed by Javaraiah in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void. The plaintiffs are specifically disputing the title of defendant No.2 over the suit schedule property. As such, the burden is upon the defendants No.1 and 2 to prove the fact that the father of defendant No.1 had acquired valid 23 O.S.No.4523/2012 title over the suit schedule property and the defendant No.2 had acquired valid title over the suit schedule property on the basis of Sale Deed executed by Javaraiah in her name. It is to be noted here that even though the plaintiffs have specifically disputed the title of the defendants No.1 and 2 over the suit schedule property, the defendants No.1 and 2 in their written statement have not made any counter claim about the declaration of their ownership right of defendant No.2 over the suit schedule property on the basis of Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003
19. The main document issued which Javaraiah claims to have acquired title over the suit schedule property is Ex.D.30, the power of attorney dated 10.03.1974. I have perused Ex.D.30. Ex.D.30 was executed by G.Kempaiah in the name of Javaraiah with respect tot he suit schedule property. Since the said document was unregistered document, defendants No.1 and 2 have paid duty and penalty on the said document. I have perused the recital of said GPA. In the said GPA, it is mentioned that G.Kempaiah had purchased 1 acre of land in Sy.No.2/75 on Agrahara Dasarahalli village and he is obtained the suit schedule site out of the sites formed in the said survey number. It is further mentioned in the GPA that since he is not able to do all the business pertaining to the suit property, he is 24 O.S.No.4523/2012 engaging Javaraiah as the power of attorney. In the power of attorney, there is specific recital that Javaraiah has got every power to deal with the suit schedule property on behalf of G.Kempaiah. No absolute right or title over the suit schedule property was transferred in the name of Javaraiah as per the said GPA. Further in the GPA, there is no mentioned about passing of consideration amount by Javaraiah in favour of G.Kempaiah. Further in the GPA, it is mentioned that the suit schedule property was sold by G.Kempaiah to Javaraiah through said GPA. The entire recitals of GPA shows that the said power of attorney was given by G.Kempaiah authorized Javaraiah to do all the acts pertaining to the suit schedule property as mentioned in the suit property only on behalf of the G.Kempaiah. Further Ex.D.30 is unregistered power of attorney. As per Sec.5 of Transfer of Property Act, transfer of ownership in case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
20. Further u/Sec.17 of Registration Act 1908, any instruments (other than instruments of gift and wills) which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or 25 O.S.No.4523/2012 interest, whether vested or contingent, of a value less then one hundred rupees, to or in immovable property shall be substantially registered. The transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be made by a deed of conveyance (Sale Deed), in the absence of a deed of conveyance duly stamped registered was no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in Spl.P.No.13917/2009 (Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/s State of Haryana & Anr.) decided on 11.10.2011 has discussed the scope of the power of attorney. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. It is further held that the power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held that a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed 26 O.S.No.4523/2012 only by a registered deed of conveyance only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transaction of the nature of `GPA sales' or `SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Sec.53A of the TP Act. It is further held that such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records.
22. Hence, from the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is clear that Ex.D.30 cannot be considered as document of title of the suit schedule property in the name of Javaraiah. Javaraiah will not acquired any absolute right, title or interest over the suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.D.30 power of attorney or on the basis of Ex.D.31 affidavit. Further the changing of Khatha of the suit schedule property in the name of Javaraiah on the basis of Ex.D.30 and 32 documents is also not valid in the eye of law as discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj Lamp's case.
23. Merely on th basis of the fact that the defendants No.1 and 2 have paid duty and penalty on Ex.D.30 power of attorney, it cannot be come to the 27 O.S.No.4523/2012 conclusion that valid title was passed to Javaraiah with respect to the suit schedule property. As per Ex.D.30, Javaraiah has to do the acts specifically mentioned in Ex.D.30. Further the defendants No.1 and 2 have also not produced any sufficient materials to show that the consideration amount received through Ex.D.9 Sale Deed was paid by the Javaraiah. Hence, it is clear that Javaraiah has got no valid authority or power to execute the Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2.
24. The Sale Deed executed by Javaraiah in the name of defendant No.2 is produced at Ex.D.9. Ex.D.9 is dated 19.12.2003. It is to be noted here that the plaintiffs have produced the death certificate of G.Kempaiah at Ex.P.3. Ex.P.3 shows that G.Kempaiah was died on 21.05.1988. As on the date of execution of Ex.D.9, G.Kempaiah was not alive. The power of attorney executed by G.Kempaiah as per Ex.D.30 will be in force only during the life time of G.Kempaiah. It is established proposition of law that power of attorney became invalid after the death of person who is granting the power. Since power of attorney is executed in favour of Javaraiah as per Ex.D.30 was not in existence as on the date of execution of Ex.D.9, the Sale Deed executed by Javaraiah in favour of Ex.D.2 on 19.12.2003 as per Ex.D.2 is also without any authority and 28 O.S.No.4523/2012 it is unsustainable in law. Javaraiah has executed Ex.D.9 Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2 without having any valid title over the suit schedule property or without having any power of authority with respect to the suit schedule property as GPA holder of G.Kempaiah. As such, Ex.D.2 Will not acquired valid right, title or interest over the suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.D.9 power of attorney alleged to have been executed by Javaraiah in her favour. As such, Ex.D.9 Sale Deed will not confer any valid title with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2. Further on the basis of changing of Khatha of the suit schedule property in the name of defendant No.2 in the BBMP records of the suit schedule property are also not sufficient to come to the conclusion that defendant No.2 has got valid title over the suit schedule property. It is established principle of law that Khatha certificate, Khatha extract, demand extracts cannot be considered as documents of title. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the contention of the defendants that Javaraiah was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.D.30 and 31 power of attorney and affidavit cannot be acceptable one. Further the contention of the defendants No.1 and 2 that the defendant No.2 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.D.9 Sale Deed also cannot be 29 O.S.No.4523/2012 acceptable one. Further as it is discussed earlier, though the plaintiffs have specifically denied the right, title and interest of Javaraiah over the suit property and title of defendant No.2 over the suit schedule property. The defendants No.1 and 2 have not made any counter claim regarding their title over the suit schedule property. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the defendant No.2 cannot be considered as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
25. As it is discussed earlier, the defendants have admitted the fact that G.Kempaiah was the owner of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are claiming to be owners of G.Kempaiah. The defendants have disputed the relationship of the plaintiffs as the sons of G.Kempaiah. The Learned counsel for the defendants has draw the attention to the deposition of P.W.1 during the course of cross- examination of P.W.1 in his cross-examination as stated that he has got five sisters namely Hemavathi, Lakshmi, Manjula, Saroja and Dhanalakshmi. P.W.1 in his cross- examination has further stated that he has not made his sister as parties to the suit. Since his father has already given sites to them. He has stated that his sisters were given sites situated at Mudalapalya by his father and he do not know the details of the same. From the evidence of 30 O.S.No.4523/2012 P.W.1, it is clear that G.Kempaiah has got daughters. The plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that the daughters of G.Kempaiah have given up their properties of their father. As such, the plaintiffs alone cannot be considered as legal heirs of deceased G.Kempaiah. Since the suit schedule property is the absolute property of G.Kempaiah and since the plaintiffs have not pleaded anything about execution of testamentary documents by G.Kempaiah in their name with respect to the suit schedule property. I am of the opinion that all the children of G.Kempaiah have got right over the suit schedule property under Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act. But only on the ground that the daughters of G.Kempaiah are not made as parties to the present suit, the suit filed by the plaintiffs cannot be dismissed. The suit for declaration against 3 rd parties can be maintainable by any of the joint owners. As such, the sons of the G.Kempaiah can granted the suit for partition and possession without making their sisters as the parties to the present suit. It is not the case for partition for property of G.Kempaiah. As such, I do not find any merits in the contention of the Learned counsel for the defendants that the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
31 O.S.No.4523/201226. The plaintiffs in the suit plaint have averred that they are the sons of G.Kempaiah. Further P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has also deposed about the said fact. Further the defendant No.2 to 4 have also deposed in their evidence that the plaintiffs are the children of G.Kempaiah. Further the Adhar card of plaintiff No.4 is produced at Ex.P.15. The notary true copy of voter ID card of plaintiff No.4 is produced at Ex.P.16. The notary true copy of Adhaar card of plaintiff No.3 is produced at Ex.P.17. The notary true copy of DL of plaintiff No.3 is produced at Ex.P.18. The notary true copy of Adhaar card of plaintiff No.5 produced at Ex.P.19. The notary true copy of PAN card of plaintiff No.1 produced at Ex.P.20. Further genealogical tree of G.Kempaiah also produced at Ex.P.2 wherein the plaintiffs are shown as the sons of G.Kempaiah. The plaintiffs have produced these materials to show that they are the sons of G.Kempaiah. Though the defendants have denied the relationship of plaintiffs as the sons of G.Kempaiah, the defendants have not produced any documents to show that the plaintiffs are the children of some other person. Since the defendants No.1 and 2 have taken the contention that the plaintiffs are not the children of Javaraiah, the burden is upon the defendants to prove that the plaintiffs are some other person. Except the oral evidence of defendants No.1 and 2, they have not 32 O.S.No.4523/2012 produced any document to show that the plaintiffs are not the children of G.Kempaiah and Yellamma and they are children of some other persons. Under these facts and circumstances, the contention of the defendants No.1 and 2 that the plaintiffs are not the children of G.Kempaiah and Yellamma cannot be acceptable one. Since the plaintiffs have produced that they are the children of G.Kempaiah and the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to the estate of G.Kempaiah along with their sisters and they are having right to file the suit for declaration and possession with respect to the suit schedule property.
27. The Learned counsel for the defendants has contended that the plaintiffs have not proved the description of the suit schedule property and they have not proved the correct boundaries and measurements of the suit schedule property and as such, they are not entitled for the relief of declaration and possession as prayed for by them. The defendants No.1 and 2 are claims to acquire their right over the suit schedule property from G.Kempaiah. The defendants are claims right over the very suit property as described in the suit plaint. The defendants are aware about the identity of the suit schedule property. Though the plaintiffs have not produced any approved layout plan pertaining to the suit schedule property, the defendants 33 O.S.No.4523/2012 have not specifically disputed the identity and description of the suit schedule property in their written statement or in their evidence. They are very same property as claimed by plaintiffs in the present suit. Further the BBMP has also issued Khatha with respect to the suit schedule property in the name of defendant No.2 by showing the specific identification of the suit schedule property. Further the defendant No.2 has also constructed building in the suit schedule property. Photos of the suit schedule property are also produced at Ex.P.8 and P.9. The defendants are specifically contending that they have constructed the house in the suit schedule property. The physical identity of suit schedule property is clear. Further the identity of the suit schedule property is also recognized by BBMP in extract of Khatha certificate. Under these facts and circumstances, identity not found any merits in the arguments of Learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the correct identity and description of the suit schedule property and as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled in the reliefs as prayed for.
28. It is already discussed and held above that the plaintiffs have prove their title over the suit schedule property and proved that the alleged Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 executed by Javaraiah in favour of defendant 34 O.S.No.4523/2012 No.2 is null and void. Further the plaintiffs have proved that site No.12 i.e., suit schedule property has been detained by G.Kempaiah and they have succeeded to the suit schedule property after the death of G.Kempaiah. The plaintiffs have proved Issue No.1, 2 and 4. Accordingly, I answer Issues No.1, 2 and 4 in Affirmative.
29. It is already discussed and held above that the Sale Deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 with respect to the suit schedule property is unregistered in law. The defendant No.2 has contended that she has put up construction of residential house in the suit schedule property in the year 2004. The defendant No.2 ha snot entered into witness box and she has not adduced any independent oral evidence on her behalf to prove the said contention. Further on basis of Ex.D.12 approved sanction plaint, it cannot come to the conclusion that the defendant No.2 has put up construction of residential house in the year 2004. The defendant No.2 has not produced any completion certificate issued by BBMP in order to prove her contention that she has completed the construction of the building in the suit schedule property in the year 2004 itself. Further the defendant No.2 has not produced any documents issued by BESCOM or by BWSSB in order to show that she has obtained electricity connection and water 35 O.S.No.4523/2012 connection to the house constructed in the suit schedule property during the year 2004. Only on the basis of Ex.D.1 as well as Ex.D.11 and 12, it cannot be come to the conclusion that the defendant No.2 has completed the construction in the year 2004. The burden of proving Issue No.5 is upon the defendant No.2. But the defendant No.2 has failed to produce any substantial documentary evidence to prove to hat she has completed the construction of the house in suit schedule property in the year 2004. As such, I am of the opinion that the defendant No.2 has failed to prove Issue No.5. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.5 in Negative.
30. The plaintiffs have contended that the Khatha effected by defendant No.3 and 4 in favour of defendant No.2 based upon the alleged Sale Deed is highly illegal and it is liable to be cancelled. The defendants No.3 and 4 have changed the Khatha of the suit schedule property on the basis of suit schedule property. They are not supports the enquiry while changed the Khatha. Only on the ground that Ex.D.3 and 4 have changed the Khatha of the suit schedule property in the name of defendant No.2 basis on Sale Deed, this court has no power to held that the said Khatha is liable to be cancelled. This court has no jurisdiction to pass such order. If the plaintiffs have being aggrieved by 36 O.S.No.4523/2012 the order of the defendants No.3 and 4 regarding changing of Khatha, they have preferred appeal before appellate authority as prescribed under KMC Act. If the plaintiffs have declared as the owners of the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs can approached defendants No.3 and 4 to pass necessary order regarding suit schedule property. They have preferred appeal before the appellate authority. Hence, admitted that the contention of the plaintiff that changing of Khatha in the name of defendant No.2 by defendants No.3 and 4 on the basis of Sale Deed is illegal and cannot be acceptable one. The plaintiffs have failed to prove Issue No.3. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 in Negative.
31. ISSUE NO.6:- The burden of proving this issue is on the defendant No.2. As per this issue, the defendant No.2 has proved her possession right from 1974 G.Kempaiah has in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have not disputed the said fact. The plaintiffs are claiming their right over the suit schedule property through G.Kempaiah. The said issue is not relevant for adjudication of the suit. As such, I am of the opinion that it can be held that consideration of the said issue does not survive having regard to the facts and 37 O.S.No.4523/2012 circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.6 it does not survive.
32. ISSUE NO.7:- The plaintiffs in the present suit have sought for the relief of declaration to declare the alleged Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 standing in the name of defendant No.2 is null and void as they are the owners of the suit schedule property. It is already discussed and held above that the plaintiffs have proved that the suit schedule property is the property belonging to their deceased father and they have succeeded to the said property after the death of their father. It is already discussed and held above that the plaintiffs have proved that the Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 executed in favour of defendant No.2 by Javaraiah is without any authority and it is null and void. It is already discussed and held above that the plaintiffs can maintained suit for declaration as the owners of deceased G.Kempaiah as the joint owners. As such, I am of the opinion that the relief of declaration as sought for by the plaintiff can be granted. Further the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.1 and 2 to demolish the building and to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to them. It is already discussed and held above that the defendant No.2 will not acquired any valid title over the suit schedule 38 O.S.No.4523/2012 property through the Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003. As such, the construction of the building by defendant No.2 on the suit schedule property is illegal. It is an admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendants No.1 and 2 being husband and wife are in possession of the residential house constructed in the suit schedule property. It is already discussed and held above that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property along with their sisters. The defendants No.1 and 2 have not established their title over the suit schedule property. Further they are also not taken any defence about perfection of title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. The Learned counsel for the defendants have argued that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation as plaintiffs having knowledge about construction of the house by defendant No.2 in the year 2004 itself have not taken any action against the defendant No.2. It is already discussed and held above that the defendant No.2 has failed to prove her contention that the house in the suit schedule property was constructed in the year 2004. Further when the defendants have failed to prove the acquisition of title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and when the suit filed by the plaintiffs is based upon the title over the suit schedule property. The question of limitation for filing the suit against recovery of possession 39 O.S.No.4523/2012 does not arises. No limitation is prescribed for recovery of possession of suit schedule property on the basis of title over the suit schedule property. Under Sec.65 of Limitation Act, the period of limitation for recovery of suit schedule property or any interest based upon the title is shown as 12 years becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In this case, the defendants No.1 and 2 have not shown that their possession became adverse to the plaintiffs by claiming the tile by adverse possession. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the contention of the Learned counsel for the defendants that suit is barred by law of limitation cannot be acceptable one. As such, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction and possession as prayed for by them.
33. The plaintiffs have also sought for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.3 and 4 to cancel the Khatha in the name of defendant No.2 and to cancel the entries made in the revenue books, such as Khatha, tax register etc. and also previous Khathas. It is already discussed and held above that this court has not jurisdiction this issue to defendants No.3 and 4. As such, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants No.3 40 O.S.No.4523/2012 and 4 as prayed for. As such, I am of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is partly deserves to the decreed. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.7 is Partly Affirmative.
34. Issue No.8:- For the discussions made above in issues No.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. is hereby partly decreed with cost.
It is declared that the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of deceased G.Kempaiah are the owners of the suit schedule property along with other legal heirs of G.Kempaiah.
It is further declared that the Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 executed by Javaraiah in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void.
The defendants No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within the period of six months from the date of decree. If the defendants have failed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property within the time limits prescribed by this court, plaintiffs are at liberty to recover the possession of the suit schedule property from defendants No.1 and 2 through the process of court.41 O.S.No.4523/2012
Prayer for mandatory injunction as prayed for in the suit plaint against defendant No.3 and 4 is hereby rejected.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2 nd day of February, 2023).
(B.G.Pramoda) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 K.Kumar P.W.2 Ramakrishnappa P.W.3 Nagendra P.W.4 T.Narasimhaiah
List of the documents marked for the plaintiffs :
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 06.06.1972 Ex.P.2 Genealogical tree of deceased G.Kempaiah Ex.P.3 Death certificate of G.Kempaiah Ex.P.4 Khatha extract 19.06.2012 Ex.P.5 Encumbrance certificate of suits property from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2004 Ex.P.6 Encumbrance certificate of suit property from 01.04.2004 to 19.06.2012 Ex.P.7 Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 42 O.S.No.4523/2012 Ex.P.8 & 9 Photos of the house constructed over the suit schedule property Ex.P.10 Layout plan of the sites formed in Sy.No.2/75 Ex.P.11 Office copy of the reply notice dated 29.05.2012 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 30.04.1973 Ex.P.13 Original Sale Deed of Ex.P.1 Ex.P.14 Office copy of legal notice dated 18.12.2010 Ex.P.15 Notary true copy of Adhaar Card of plaintiff No.4 Ex.P.16 Notary true copy of voter ID card of plaintiff No.4 Ex.P.17 Notary true copy of Adhaar card of plaintiff No.3 Ex.P.18 Notary true copy of DL of plaintiff No.3 Ex.P.19 Notary true copy of Adhaar card of plaintiff No.5 Ex.P.20 Notary true copy of PAN card of plaintiff No.1.
List of the witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 Umashankar List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 : Letter issued by REPCO Home Finance Ltd.
Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003
Ex.D.3 to 6 : Tax paid receipts
Ex.D.7 : Khatha certificate
Ex.D.8 : Khatha extract
Ex.D.9 : Original Sale deed dated 19.12.2003
Ex.D.10 : Original Katha Endorsement dated 7.1.2004
43 O.S.No.4523/2012
Ex.D.11 : Original building license dated 22.1.2004
Ex.D.12 : Original building plan
Ex.D.13 : Katha Certificate dated 15.12.2003
Ex.D.14 : Katha Registration certificate
Ex.D.15 to 17 : Tax paid receipts
Ex.D.18 : Certified copy of Sale deed dated 6.6.72
(marked subject to production of typed copy) Ex.D.19 : Certificate issued by AR., BBMP dated 8.1.2004 Ex.D.20 Original House and land tax assessment register extract Ex.D.21 to 23 : Encumbrance certificates Ex.D.24 : Original House and land tax assessment register extract Ex.D.25 : Endorsement issued by Tahashildar Ex.D.26 to 28 : Certified copy of Record of rights Ex.D.29 Encumbrance certificate Ex.D.30 : General Power of Attorney dated 10.03.1974 Ex.D.31 : Affidavit dated 10.03.1974 LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.44 O.S.No.4523/2012
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. is hereby partly decreed with cost.
It is declared that the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of deceased G.Kempaiah are the owners of the suit schedule property along with other legal heirs of G.Kempaiah.
It is further declared that the Sale Deed dated 19.12.2003 executed by Javaraiah in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void.
The defendants No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within the period of six months from the date of decree. If the defendants have failed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property within the time limits prescribed by this court, plaintiffs are at liberty to recover the possession of the suit schedule property from defendants No.1 and 2 through the process of court.
45 O.S.No.4523/2012Prayer for mandatory injunction as prayed for in the suit plaint against defendant No.3 and 4 is hereby rejected.
Draw decree accordingly.
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.