Bangalore District Court
Chandrashekar vs Radhamma on 13 September, 2024
KABC0A0017432013
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for Judgment in suit
(R.P. 91)
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU,
(CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N
B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 13th day of September 2024
O.S.No.25766/2013
Plaintiffs:- 1. Sri. Chandrashekar,
Son of late Seetharamaiah,
Aged about 56 years,
2. Smt. Bhagawathamma,
Wife of Krishnappa,
Daughter of late Seetharamaiah,
Aged about 54 years,
3. Sri. Ramanjini,
Son of Late Seetharamaiah,
Aged about 49 years,
2 O.S.No.25766/2013
4. Sri. Mukunda,
Son of late Seetharamaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
5. Sri. Ravi Kumar,
Son of late Somasundar and
Late Janakamma,
Aged about 36 years,
6. Sri. Renuka Prasad S,
Son of late Somasundar and
Late Janakamma,
Aged about 34 years,
7. Smt. Annapurna,
Wife of Venkataraju and
Late Janakamma,
Aged about 32 years,
8. Smt. Sbhoba,
Wife of Gundappa,
Aged about 30 years,
Plaintiff No.1 to 8 are residing at
No.27/30, Govindapura,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
9. Smt. Kamalakshi,
Wife of Byataraju,
Aged about 45 years,
No.35, Sunnadagudu,
7th Cross, Ramakrishnanagar,
J.P Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 078.
[By Sri. C. Shankar Reddy - Adv]
3 O.S.No.25766/2013
V/s
Defendants:- 1. Smt. Radhamma,
Aged about 56 years,
Daughter of late Smt. Puttamma and
Guruswamy,
Wife of Siddappa,
Residing at No.9/1, 2nd Stage,
5th Cross, Chinnayyanapalya,
Hulson Garden,
Bangalore-560 030.
2. Smt. Sathyavathi,
Aged about 51 years,
Daughter of late Smt. Puttamma and
Guruswamy,
Wife of Krishna G,
Residing at No.2057, 14th Main,
7th Cross, H.A.L 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560 008.
3. Smt. Thara,
Wife of Srinivas,
Aged about 49 years,
Daughter of Late Smt. Puttamma and
Guruswamy,
Defendants 3 and 4 are residing
at No.16, 'Srinivasa Nilaya,'
13th Main Road, Lakkasandra Layout,
Bangalore-560 030.
5. Smt. A.B. Pankaja,
Wife of Late Praveen Kumar,
Aged about 45 years,
Daughter of Late Smt. Puttamma
and Guruswamy,
Residing at No.414, 13th Main,
Lakkasandra Layout, Bangalore-30.
4 O.S.No.25766/2013
6. Smt. Shantha,
Aged about 50 years,
Wife of Lakshminarayana,
Daughter of Late A. Munishamaiah,
Residing at No.104, Pravani Residency,
Puttenahalli, Yelahanka Post,
Bangalore-560 064.
7. Smt. Pramila,
Aged about 45 years,
Wife of Purushothama,
Daughter of Late A. Munishamaiah,
Residing at No.2/3, 13th Main Road,
3rd Stage, Manjunatha Nagar,
Rajadhinagar, Bangalore-560 010.
8. Sri. Ashoka,
Aged about 48 years,
Son of Late A. Muniswamaiah,
Residing at No.5/A Kanakanagara,
R.T. Nagar Post, Bangalore-560 032.
9. Sri. Muniramaiah,
Son of Late Abbaiahappa,
Aged about 74 years,
R/at 135/6, 2nd B Cross,
Freedom Fighter Ramanna Road,
Kalasipalya, Bangalore-560 002.
10. Smt. Narayanamma,
Aged about 70 years,
Wife of Late Munishamaiah,
Residing at near Puttenahalli bus stop,
Yelahanka Post,
Bangalore-560 064.
5 O.S.No.25766/2013
11. Smt. Krishnamma,
Aged about 65 years,
Daughter of Venkatappa,
@ Abbiahyappa,
Wife of P. Munramaiah,
Residing at No.484, 2nd Stage,
15th Cross, Indiranagar,
Bangalore-560 038.
12. Smt. Magamma,
Aged about 66 years,
aughter of Venkatappa,
@ Abbiahyappa,
Wife of Dasappa,
Residing near Puttenahalli
Bus Stop, Yelahanka Post,
Bangalore-560 064.
13. Smt. Thulasamma,
Aged about 65 years,
Daughter in law of late Gurramma,
Wife of late C. Thammaiah,
Residing at Govindapura,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
14. Smt. Channamma,
Wife of Guruvaiah,
Aged about 54 years,
Residing at Nidagele,
T. Bekuppa Post,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
15. Smt. Gowramma,
Aged about 55 years,
Wife of Late Ramachandramurthy,
6 O.S.No.25766/2013
16. Sri. Sunil,
Aged about 25 years,
Son of Late Sri. Ramachandramurthy,
Grandson of Late C. Thammaiah,
17. Sri. Anil,
Aged about 23 years,
Son of late Ramachandramurthy,
18. Nikhil Kumar,
Aged about 21 years,
Son of late Ramachandramurthy,
Defendants No.16 to 19 are
residing at Govindapura,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
19. Sri. T. Ragu @ Rajeev Raghuraj,
Aged abou t48 years,
Son of Late C. Thammaiah,
Residing at No.B.625,
New Housing Colony,
IISC Quarters, Bangalore-12.
20. Smt. Sumitharamma,
Wife of Bytaraya,
Daughter of Late C. Thammaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at Govindapura,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
21. T. Muralidhar,
Son of late C. Thammaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at Govindapura,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
7 O.S.No.25766/2013
22. T. Manjunatha,
Aged about 41 years,
Son of late C. Thammaiah,
Residing at No.260/6,
P.W.D Quarters,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore-64.
23. Nanjundaswamy,
Aged about 61 years,
Son of Late Karibasappa,
24. Guruswamy,
Aged about 58 years,
Son late Karibasappa,
Defendants 23 and 24 are
Residing at No.03, New No.1879,
Govindapura,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
25. Shiva,
Aged about 30 years,
Son of Late Basavaraju,
Residing at No.37, Haines Road,
Pulakeshi Nagar, (Frazer Town),
Bangalore-560 005.
26. Smt. Gangamma,
Aged about 58 years,
Wife of Late K. Nagaraj,
Daughter in law of Late Karibasappa,
Residing at No.20/14 and 20/15
Madhavachar Street,
K.R. Mohalla, Mysore-4.
(Deleted)
8 O.S.No.25766/2013
27. Valmark Group,
Abodh-Valmark,
Nagawara Juntion,
Bangalore North,
Govindapura,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
28. B. Govinda Raju,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of P. Balappa,
Residing at No.515/1,
T.C.H College Road, Nagawara,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
29. Byre Gowda,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of Late B. Ramaiah,
Residing at Govindapura,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
30. M.C. Srinivasa,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of Late Chancha Reddy,
Residing at No.432, 4th Cross,
2nd Block, H.R.B.R Layout,
Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 043.
31. V. Nanjappa,
Aged about 78 years,
Son of Late Venkatappa,
Residing at No.11/11/2-2,
Near Government Middle School,
Govindapura,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
9 O.S.No.25766/2013
32. Sri. Syed Rahamathulla,
Aged about 59 years,
Son of Late Syed Basheed,
Govindpura Main Road,
Near Bus Stop,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
33. Master Zuhzib Jannveer,
Son of Mr. Mohamed Hussain,
being minor represented by his
Natural Guardian and father
Mohammed Hussain,
Circle Inspector of Police,
Police Quarters - Vasanthanagar,
15th Main Road,
Opp. Stationery Mart,
Bangalore-560 052.
34. Smt. Sajeeda,
Aged about 45 years,
Wife of Sri. Syed Quddus,
Residinga at No.49,
4th Bilal Nagar,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
35. Sri. S. Kaleem,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of Sri. Syed Abedulla,
Residing at No.45, Bilal Nagar,
4th Cross, Arabic College Post,
Bangalore-560 045.
36. Sri. Syed Ghouse,
Aged about 45 years,
Son of Sri. Syed Asadullah,
Residing at No.1950, 1st Cross,
10 O.S.No.25766/2013
Dr. Ambedkar College Main Road,
Arabic College Post, K.G. Halli,
Bangalore-560 045.
37. Mrs. Naseema,
Aged about 40 years,
Daughter of Sri. Sabjan,
Residing at No.73, Modi Road,
D.J. Halli, Bangalore-560 045.
38. Smt. Khatoon Bee,
Wife of Syed Majid,
Aged about 56 years,
No.19, Khatoon Manzil,
8th Cross, 4th Main Road,
Agrahara Dasarahalli,
Bangalore-560 079.
39. Sri. Gulab Jan N,
Aged about 65 years,
Son of Sri. B. Nannhe Jan Sahib,
40. Smt. Gulzar Begum,
Aged about 58 years,
Wife of Sri. Gulab Jan N,
Defendants 39 and 40 are
Residing at No.161,
Govindapura Village,
Arabic College Post,
Opp. Government Fair Price Depot,
Bangalore-560 045.
[By Sri. PRJ Adv., for D.23, 24, 28 to 30,
Sri.PBR Adv., for D.27, Sri. CR Adv., for
D.33, Sri. SAH Adv., for D.39 & 40, D.1
to 12, 15 to 18, 21, 22, 32, 37 - Ex-parte]
11 O.S.No.25766/2013
Date of Institution of the suit 27.4.2013
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note,
suit for declaration and
possession, suit for Partition Suit
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of 4.4.2019
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment 13.9.2024
was pronounced.
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
11 05 24
LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is by the Plaintiffs for declaring that the they have undivided right, title and are in joint possession of the Suit Schedule Properties 'A' & 'B' to the extent of 1/3rd and to put them in separate possession of their 1/3rd share and to hold that the Sale Deed dtd: 18.10.2010 executed by the 8 th Defendant and others in favour of Defendant No.39 & 40 is not binding on the undivided shares of the Plaintiffs and for consequential reliefs.
12 O.S.No.25766/20132. The epitome of the case of the Plaintiffs is as follows:
(i) The original propositus of the Plaintiffs family was one Jeevanahalli Munishamaiah who died leaving behind his two sons namely Venkatappa @ Abbaiahappa and Seetharamaah to succeed to his estate. The said Venkatappa is also no more and he has left behind 02 sons and 04 daughters through his wife Yerramma namely Smt. Puttamma who is no more and dis daughter Radhamma, Sathyavathi, Thara, Suguna, Pankaja who have been impleaded as Defendant No.1 to 5 in the above suit. One A. Munishamaiah is the eldest son of late Venkatappa and he is also no more and through his wife Papamma he begot 02 daughters namely Smt. Shantha and Smt. Pramila and one son Ashok, who have been impleaded as Defendant No.6 to 8 in the above suit.
(ii) The 2nd son of late Venkatappa is one Muniramaiah who has been impleaded as 9th Defendant and the other three daughters of late Venkatappa i.e., Smt. Narayanamma, Smt. 13 O.S.No.25766/2013 Krishnamma and Smt. Mangamma have been impleaded as Defendant No.10 to 12 in the above suit.
(iii) It is further stated that the Plaintiff No.1 to 9 and the Defendant No.1 to 22 belongs to the Hindu Mithakshara Joint Family and being the lineal descendants of Late Jevanahalli Munishamaiah have succeeded to the estate left behind by him and the same are in joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties. During the lifetime of Jevanahalli Munishamaiah was looking after the properties and subsequent to his death his eldest son namely Venkatappa @ Abbaiahappa was acting as kartha of the joint family. The said Seetharamaiah was not worldly wise and he always use to guided by his elder brother Venkatappa for all the family transactions. After the death of Venkatappa, his daughter Smt. Puttamma took over the management of the family of both Venkatappa and Seetharamaiah.
(iv) It is further stated that, the Item No.1 of Suit Schedule 'A' Property land bearing Sy.No.35 New No.35/13 measuring 1 Acre 14 Guntas and land 14 O.S.No.25766/2013 bearing Sy.No.36 measuring 1 Acre 10 Guntas both land situated at Govindapura Village were purchased by the original propositus Jevanahalli Munishamaiah son of Ramabhovi under a registered Sale Deed dtd:
29.4.1915. The Item No.3 & 4 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property namely land bearing Sy.No.26/3 new No.26/3B was purchased by Smt. Puttamma for and on behalf of the joint family by utilizing the joint family source of income and under two registered Sale Deeds dtd: 24.4.1964 and 9.7.1959 from its previous owners.
(v) The Suit Schedule 'B' Properties are residential sites are standing in the name of Smt. Puttamma and A. Munishamaiah and the said properties are vacant even to this date and the joint family continues to own and possess them and Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 22 are in joint possession of the said items. Smt. Puttamma did not have any self-earned sources of income and she was not employed anywhere and since she was acting as a kartha of the joint family, the joint family income was invested for purchasing the properties in her name. The landed properties were yielding large 15 O.S.No.25766/2013 amount of income and apart from seasonal crops Ragi, Avare, Jola was also grown in the said properties and the income used to be kept in the custody of Late Puttamma. Late Jeevan ahalli Munishamaiah during his lifetime had raised residential construction in some of the Suit Schedule 'B' Properties and the members of the family used to reside therein. The Defendant No.8 and others have created two Sale Deeds in favour of the Defendant No.39 & 40 and the same has been done without the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and in this behalf two Sale Deeds both dtd: 18.10.2010 have been created and the same are not binding on the Plaintiffs in so far as it is relates to their undivided right, title and interest in the said properties. It is noticed that some of the RTC extracts have not been correctly entered and the names of unconnected persons are entered without any basis and further the extent shown therein are also incorrect. The Plaintiffs are contemplating to take necessary steps to get the same rectified before the jurisdiction revenue authorities. Inspite of incorrect entries being found the Plaintiffs continue to be in possession with the Defendants jointly. During the lifetime of Late Munishamaiah or Venkatappa and 16 O.S.No.25766/2013 Late Seetharamaiah or at any point of time the family properties were never been divided by metes and bounds and all the family members are enjoying the same and appropriating the income accrued there from and all the properties are available for being partitioned by metes and bounds.
(vi) It is further stated that the Defendant No.24 to 40 have been impleaded in the above suit since they have been frequently visiting the Suit Schedule Properties and secretly attempting to purchase the Suit Schedule Properties from the legal representatives of Smt. Puttamma and in order to provide them an opportunity to disclose any rights which they might have got they have been impleaded as Defendants in the above suit. Further stated that neither Smt. Puttamma nor her father Venkatappa nor Seetharamaiah nor any of the legal representatives of late Puttamma have never encumbered any of the Suit Schedule Properties in favour of any third parties including the Defendants No.23 to 40 and infact the family was financially well placed and there was no necessity to encumber to the said property in favour of third parties and even if such any documents were 17 O.S.No.25766/2013 created possession continues to be with the said joint family of the Plaintiffs and those encumbrances, if any will not bind the undivided right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule Properties and the Plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 1/3rd share in all the suit properties and the same is liable to be divided by metes and bounds and the Defendant No.1 to 22 are liable to be put in possession of their legitimate share. When the Plaintiffs demanded for partition of the Suit Schedule Properties with the Defendant No.1 to 22, they postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
3. Pursuant to summons, the Defendant No.23, 24, 28, 29 & 30, Defendant No.27, Defendant No.33, Defendant No.39 & 40 have entered appearance and filed their separate written statements. Inspite of service of summons, the other Defendants remained absent, hence, they were placed ex-parte.
(i) The Defendant No.23, 24, 28, 29 & 30 in their written statement have specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that the above suit is frivolous, misconceived, vexatious, and not 18 O.S.No.25766/2013 maintainable in the eye of law or on facts. The Plaintiffs have filed the above suit with an intention to make wrongful gain. The suit is the outcome of the steep increase in the market value of the properties in and around the schedule properties.
(ii) These Defendants have contended that, land bearing Sy.No.35/13 measures 02 Acres 35 Guntas and not 01 Acre 14 Guntas as shown in Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties. The said land was purchased by Baramanna way back on 1.4.1909 in the Civil Court auction sale proceedings and he was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. The said Burmanna had a wife by name Mallamma and a only daughter by name Basamma. The said Basamma was married to Dairy Rudrappa, who is the grandfather of Defendant No.23 & 24. After the death of Baramanna, his wife Mallamma and son-in-law Dairy Rudrappa executed registered Deed of Settlement dtd: 27.4.1936 with regard to their properties in favour of Mariswamappa and R. Karibasappa, the sons of late Dairy Rudrappa. Under the said Settlement Deed, the land in question bearing Sy.No.35/13 was fell in favour of R. Karibasappa 19 O.S.No.25766/2013 (father of Defendant No.23 & 24) and he was in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the same. During his lifetime he was paying fixed kandayam to the Superiod Holder Davidappa and later to his son Chowdappa from 1936-37 to 1949-50 and 1950 upto 1955, without any kind of interference or interruption by anybody and muchless by the alleged ancestors of the Plaintiffs.
(iii) In the aforesaid Settlement Deed dtd:
27.4.1936 the boundaries of the land in Sy.No.35/13 is as follows:
Land bearing Sy.No.35/13 of Govindpura Urf Voddarapalya, bounded:
East by : Way to Veerannapalya and garbage dumping place.
West by : Thayappa and Muniyappa's Land.
North by : Allallappa's land. South by : Way to the well.
(iv) Upon coming into force of the amendment of Land Records Act with effect from 1.3.1974 the land stood vested with the State Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961. The 20 O.S.No.25766/2013 father of the Defendant No.23 & 24 R. Karibasappa filed Form No.VII and sought for registration of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North, which came to be numbered as Case No.LRF.1281/1974-75 and the Land Tribunal by its order dtd: 9.4.1976 granted occupancy rights in favour of said R. Karibasappa. In the Demand Notice dtd: 15.3.1980 issued by the Additional Special Thasildar, Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk, he was directed to pay the occupancy price and R. Karibasappa has paid such occupancy price to the Land Tribunal including survey fees on 24.3.1980. Thereafter, the Special Thasildar, Land Tribunal has issued the Certificate of Registration in Form No.10 dtd:
24.3.1980 in favour of R. Karibasappa in respect of all his lands including Sy.No.35/10, 35/13 & 35/14 of Govindpura Village, Nagavara Dhakle, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, with a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 16 years from the date of issue of the Certificate of Registration and accordingly, R. Karibasappa continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said land in question. He was also issued with the 21 O.S.No.25766/2013 receipt patta to that effect by the Revenue Authority and during his lifetime, he was paying the Land Revenue Assessment for the said land in question.
Therefore, R. Karibasappa has became the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.35/13 the Item No.1 of Suit Schedule 'A' Properties and continued in cultivation and possession uninterrupted from 1936. R. Karibasappa died intestate on 3.6.1980 and subsequently on inheritance basis the said land was mutated in the joint names of his sons namely K. Basavaraj, K. Nagaraju, K. Nanjundaswamy (Defendant No.23) and K. Guruswamy (Defendant No.24 vide IHC No.10/1983-84 and the names of the said four sons of R. Karibasappa are entered in the revenue records such as RTC both in Column No.9 as well as Column No.12(2) recognizing them as the Khatedars, Landowners and also in possession and cultivation of the said land in question and they continued to pay the land Revenue Assessment to the Government. Consequently, the order made by the Land Tribunal conferring the occupancy rights in favour of R. Karibasappa, his name was also duly entered in the Index of Land and Record of Rights, which was being maintained, after the death of R. 22 O.S.No.25766/2013 Karibasappa, the names of his sons being the Lrs have also been mutated and entered in the Index of Lands and Record of Rights as well as in the RTC maintained by the Revenue Department and even the Karnataka Revision Settlement Aakar Bandh has also been effected by the Survey Department. The order passed by the Land Tribunal granting Occupancy Right in respect of Sy.No.35/13 in favour of R. Karibasappa had become final.
(v) It is further contended that, the land in question and such other lands was proposed for being acquired by the then CITB, Bangalore vide Notification dtd: 28.11.1974 published in the Gazette dtd:
13.2.1975 for the purpose of formation of Hennur-
Bellary Road, II Stage. Thereafter, the acquisition was dropped consequent upon filing the objections and whereas R. Karibasappa and his sons continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the lands. The land Sy.No.35 comprises of 14 Sub-Divisions from 35/1 to 35/14 and all the sub-divisions under the CITB Notification Mr. D. Chowrappa S/o Davidappa the Superior Holders name was mentioned as the khatedar. The said Notification doesn't contain the 23 O.S.No.25766/2013 name of the Plaintiffs or any of their ancestors with respect to Sy.No.35/13. These Defendants contended that the entries made in the revenue records such as Index of Lands, Record of Rights and the RTC recognizing the Defendant No.23 & 24 along with their brother and their father R. Karibasappa as khatedar and in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.35/13 was never questioned by anybody and much less either by the Plaintiffs or by their alleged ancestors. The Defendant No.23 & 24 along with other legal heirs of R. Karibasappa by registered Sale Deeds dtd: 27.8.2004 sold and delivered actual possession of land measuring an extent of 01 Acre 03 Guntas out of 02 Acres 34 Guntas and 3 Guntas karab in Sy.No.35/13 to Defendant No.28, 0-15 Guntas out 02 Acre 34 Guntas 03 Guntas karab in Sy.No.35/13 in favour of Defendant No.29 and 01 Acre 19 Guntas out of 02 Acre 34 Guntas 03 Guntas karab in Sy.No.35/13 in favour of Defendant No.30 and they have transferred valid right, title and interest and also handed over possession of Item No.1 of Schedule 'A' of the Suit Schedule Property to Defendant No.28, 29 & 30 and they have got converted the lands for non-
24 O.S.No.25766/2013agricultural/residential purpose. Therefore, the Defendant No.23 & 24 sought for dismissal of the suit.
(vi) Further it is contended that the Defendant No.13, 19 and 21 herein have filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.5875/2006 against the Defendant No.23 & 24 and other family members in respect of Item No.1 of 'A' Schedule on the file of CCH- 44 City Civil Judge, Bangalore, which is pending consideration. The pendency of the said suit is well within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs have suppressed the same before this Court, on this count alone the suit is liable to be dismissed. Further the Plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.25828/2008 was filed against these Defendants have obtained ex-parte temporary injunction in their favour and later it was vacated as per the detailed order dtd: 2.4.2009 passed by the learned XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. It is further contended that the Defendant No.28 to 30 have entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the Defendant No.27 who has invested several crores and put up a 25 O.S.No.25766/2013 multistoried apartment complex and some of the flats have been sold by the Defendant No.27 and Defendant No.28 to 30 and the bonafide purchasers are in possession of the said flats. These Defendants have further contended that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 22 have several times tried to extort money from these Defendants and Defendant No.27, since these Defendants and the Defendant No.27 did not yield to the illegal demands the Plaintiffs have filed this false suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit as far as Item No.1 of Suit Schedule 'A' Property with exemplary cost.
(vii) The Defendant No.27 in his written statement admitted the contents of written statement filed by the Defendant No.28 to 30 and denied the plaint averments made by the Plaintiffs in toto. It is contended that the Defendant No.28 to 30 have executed registered Joint Development Agreement dtd: 12.8.2008 and also General Power of Attorney dtd: 12.8.2008 in favour of M/s Valmark Builders, the Defendant No.27 herein. In pursuance of the Joint Development Agreement, the Defendant had obtained amalgamated khatha from the BBMP vide khatha 26 O.S.No.25766/2013 No.141/35/13 of Nagawara, Ward No.27, Bangalore, formed out of converted land in Sy.No.35/13 measuring 02 Acre 34 Guntas of Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The plan was also secured from the BBMP for construction of a Multistoried Apartments Building on the entire extent of 02 Acre 34 Guntas in Sy.No.35/13, comprising of residential apartments in Basement, Ground Floor and 6 Upper Floors vide JDTP/LP No.90/2009-2010 dtd: 5.2.2010. Accordingly this Defendant has put up the residential apartment building on the entire extent of 02 Acre 34 Guntas in the name and style "Abodh Valmark" by investing crores of rupees. Now the construction is completed and the Occupancy Certificate has been issued by the BBMP dtd:
22.5.2013. The Defendant No.28 to 30 have paid upto date tax to the concerned authorities. The shares of Defendant No.28 to 30 and the Defendant No.27 are identified and the parties have executed the Sharing Agreement identifying their units in terms of Joint Development Agreement and the Defendant No.27 has sold many flats of their share and the bonafide purchasers are in possession of the said flats. The purchasers are not made as parties, therefore, the 27 O.S.No.25766/2013 suit has to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The suit of the Plaintiffs is not properly valued and the insufficient court fee is paid on the plaint. The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 22 have not challenged the Sale Deeds which are executed in favour of the Defendant No.28 to 30 and the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney executed by the Defendant No.28 to 30 in favour of Defendant No.27. Hence, without seeking any further reliefs for cancellation of Sale Deeds and Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney, mere seeking for declaration is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act. Therefore, the Defendant No.27 sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. The Defendant No.33 in his written statement denied the plaint averments in toto and contended that the suit of the Plaintiffs is not maintainable both in law as well as on facts and the same is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed in limine.
Further, it is contended that the grandfather of Defendant No.33 had purchased the Site bearing No.254 admeasuring 40 Feet X 60 Feet situated at 28 O.S.No.25766/2013 Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North taluk, along with one square sheet AC roofed house under a registered Sale Deed dtd: 19.6.1998 from Smt. Puttamma through her Power of Attorney holder Amjad Basha for valuable consideration when he was minor in his name. Thereafter, the khatha of the property was mutated in the name of this Defendant and he was paying property tax to the concerned authority. The BBMP has issued property identity number (PID) in respect of the site purchased by this Defendant. The grandfather of this Defendant has renovated the house by investing huge amounts and has got power supply from BESCOM right from the beginning. The area where the said site is situated is well developed and there is no vacant area available in the locality. The local body has provided all civic amenities like, UGD, bitumen roads, street lights, garbage clearance and water supply. There is no land in Nagawara where agricultural activities are carried on in any land and there is dearth for house sites in the area. From 19.6.1998 this Defendant has been enjoying the property as of owner openly, continuously to the detriment of all. The Plaintiffs have never claimed any manner of right, title and 29 O.S.No.25766/2013 interest over the property of this Defendant at any point of time. This Defendant has been the absolute owner in actual possession of the property. Further contended that the suit of the Plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by time. The Plaintiffs have not valued the suit as per Section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Therefore, the Defendant No.33 sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The Defendant No.39 & 40 in their written statement denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. Further contended that these Defendants are the absoltue owner in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule 'B' Property Item No.2. The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 22 have filed this collusive suit in order to harass and extort some monies from these Defendants. The Defendants have specifically denied the allegations that the Suit Schedule 'B' Property Item No.2 was purchased out of the joint family fund and the same are vacant and the joint family continues to own and possess it. It is denied that Jevanahalli Munishamaiah during his lifetime had raised 30 O.S.No.25766/2013 residential construction on the Suit Schedule 'B' Property Item No.2 and the members of the family used to reside therein. Further contended that the Suit Schedule 'B' Property Item No.2 was the self-acquired property of the Defendant No.8, Chikkamma, Hemanth Kumar and Chandrashekhar and they through registered Sale Deeds dtd: 18.10.2010 sold the Suit Schedule 'B' Property Item No.2 to these Defendants and the same is not the joint family property of the Plaintiffs and Defendants and the Plaintiffs have share in it. Therefore, the Defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, my leaned predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, they and Defendant No.1 to 22 are the lineal descendants of Late. Jeevanahalli Munishamaiah, to succeed the estate left by him, as contended in para No.7 of the suit plaint?
2. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, suit schedule property are their Joint Family properties, purchased from Joint family Sources of income?31 O.S.No.25766/2013 3. Whether the Defendant Nos.23, 24, 28
to 30 and Defendant No.27 prove that, Sy. No.35/13, measuring 2 acres, 34 guntass was purchased by Baramanna on 01.04.1909 in Civil Court auction sale proceedings and the same as fallen to the share of Defendant No.23 and 24, as contended in para No.4 and para No.5 of their respective written statements?
4. Whether the Defendant Nos.23, 24, 28to 30 prove that, land bearing RS No.35/13 was vested with Govt. under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as on 01.03.1974 and the father of Defendant Nos.23 and 24 was registered as the occupant of the said land, as contended in para No.7 of the written statement?
5. Whether the Defendant Nos.23, 24, 28to 30 and the Defendant No.27 prove that, the Defendant No.28 purchased an area measuring 01-Acre 03-Guntas out of 2-Acre 34-Guntas (0-03 Guntas p.k.) from the Defendant Nos.23,24 and other legal heirs of R. Karibasappa, by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dtd.27.08.2004, as contended in para No.13 and para No.12 of their respective written statements?
6. Whether the Defendant Nos.23, 24, 28to 30 and the Defendant No.27 prove that, the Defendant No.29 purchased 32 O.S.No.25766/2013 an area measuring 0-15 Guntas out of 2-Acre 34-Guntas (0-03 Guntas p.k.) from the Defendant Nos.23,24 and other legal heirs of R. Karibasappa, by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dtd.27.08.2004, as contended in para No.14 and para No.13 of their respective written statements?
7. Whether the Defendant Nos.23, 24, 28to 30 and the Defendant No.27 prove that, the Defendant No.30 purchased an area measuring 01-Acre-19 Guntas out of 2-Acre 34-Guntas (0-03 Gupntas p.k.) from the Defendant Nos.23,24 and other legal heirs of R. Karibasappa, by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dtd.27.08.2004, as contended in para No.15 and para No.14 of their respective written statements?
8. Whether the Defendant Nos.27 proves that, M/s. Valmark Builders have constructed residential apartments on the strength of the Joint Development Agreement executed by the Defendant Nos.28 to 30 in its favour, as contended in para Nos.17 and 18 of his written statement?
9. Whether the Plaintiff has properly valued the suit plaint and has paid the Court Fee correctly, as objected by the Defendant No.27 and 33 in para No.19 33 O.S.No.25766/2013 and 29 of their respective written statements?
10. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, the Defendant No.8 and others have illegally executed Registered Sale Deed dtd.18.10.2010 infavour of the Defendant Nos. 39 and 40?
11. Whether the Defendant No.27 proves that, the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable, as contended in para No.20 of his written statement?
12. Whether the Defendant No.33 proves that, his grandfather has purchased site bearing No.254 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 19.06.1998, as contended in para No 26 of his written statement?
13. Whether the Defendant No. 33 proves that, suit of the Plaintiff is barred by Law of Limitation, as contended in para No 28 of his Written Statement?
14. Whether the Plaintiff is entitle for the relief of partition of 1/3 rd share, in the suit schedule properties as claimed in the suit plaint?
15. Whether the Plaintiff is entitle for the relief, as prayed for in prayer column-(c) of the suit plaint?
34 O.S.No.25766/201316. What order or decree?
Additional Issue dtd: 16.1.2020
1. Whether Defendant No.27 proves that suit of the Plaintiff is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties as contended in para No.18 of its written statement?
7. The Plaintiff No.3 got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and closed their side. The Defendant No.27, 29 & 33 have got examined themselves as DW.1 to DW.3 and got marked documents as per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.64 and closed their side.
8. Heard both sides.
9. On appreciation of the evidence and documents on record, my findings on the above issues is as under:
Issue No.1: In the Negative.
Issue No.2: In the Negative.
Issue No.3: In the Negative.
Issue No.4: In the Affirmative.35 O.S.No.25766/2013
Issue No.5: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.6: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.7: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.8: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.9: In the Negative.
Issue No.10: In the Negative.
Issue No.11: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.12: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.13: In the Negative.
Issue No.14: In the Negative.
Issue No.15: In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.1: In the Affirmative. Issue No.16: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1 & 2:-
Since the above issues are inter related and finding on one issue is having bearing on the other, in order to avoid repetition of facts, the above issues have been taken up together for consideration.36 O.S.No.25766/2013
11. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for the relief of declaration to declare that they have undivided right, title and in joint possession of the Suit Schedule Properties to the extent of 1/3rd share and consequently they are entitle for separate possession of their joint 1/3rd share in all the Suit Schedule Properties and also prayed the relief of declaration to declare that the alleged Sale Deeds dtd:
18.10.2010 executed by Defendant No.8 and others in favour of Defendant No.39 & 40 is not binding on their undivided shares etc.
12. The heavy burden is casted upon the Plaintiffs to establish that themselves and Defendant No.1 to 22 are the lineal descendants of Late Jeevanahalli Munishamaiah to succeed the estate left by him and the Suit Schedule Properties are their joint family properties from joint family source of income.
13. The Plaintiffs in order to prove these facts have examined Plaintiff No.3 as PW.1 and relied upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 documents. The Plaintiff No.3 has reiterated the most of the contents of the plaint in his 37 O.S.No.25766/2013 examination-in-chief. Further he has produced as many as 22 documents.
14. Let me go through the documents produced by the Plaintiffs in this case. The Plaintiffs have not produced any authenticated documents like family tree or legal heir certificate issued by the competent authority to show that themselves and Defendant No.1 to 22 are lineal descendants of Late Jeevanahalli Munishamaiah. On the other hand, they have produced one Vamshavruksha/Family Tree prepared by them without authentication of competent revenue authority. Therefore, this Court cannot say from this family tree produced by the Plaintiffs that themselves and Defendant No.1 to 22 are lineal descendants of Late Jeevanahalli Munishamaiah. Even the Plaintiffs have not explained before this Court that why they could not produce the said authenticated document to come to conclusion that they are succeeded to the estate left by Late Jeevanahalli Munishamaiah.
15. The Plaintiffs have further produced the RTC bearing Sy.No.36 of Nagawara Village measuring 01 38 O.S.No.25766/2013 Acre 09 Guntas which is for the year 2012-2013, which is standing in the name of one V. Nanjappa S/o Venkatappa R. Further, Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of RTC of Sy.No.36/1from the year 1997-1998, 2000- 2002, which is measuring 01 Acre 16 Guntas of Nagawara Village, which is also standing in the name of one Nanjappa S/o Venkatappa. Further the Plaintiffs also produced another RTC wherein the year is not mentioned, but it is pertaining to Sy.No.36 of Nagawara Village and the same is standing in the name of Nanjappa S/o Venkatappa, in Col.No.11 of this document it is mentioned that this land has been acquired by the BDA. Further the Plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.4 i.e., RTC of Sy.No.35/3 i.e., property of Item No.No.1 of Suit Schedule 'A' Properties for the year 2012-2013 and the same is standing in the name of Byregowda, M.C. Srinivasa, B. Govindaraju i.e., in the name of Defendant No.28 to 30. Further the Plaintiffs have also produced Ex.P.5 which is also the RTC of Sl.No.1 of Suit Schedule 'A' Properties which is also standing in the name of Basavaraju, Nagaraju K, Nanjundaswamy K, Guruswamy, and in Col.No.11 of this RTC it is clearly mentioned that BDA has been acquired the said land. Further the Plaintiffs have 39 O.S.No.25766/2013 produced Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 which are the Old RTCs pertaining to Item No.1 property which is standing in the name of Basavaraju, K. Nagaraju, Nanjundaswamy and K. Guruswamy. Further the Plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.8 the RTC of Sy.No.26/3B of Nagawara Village i.e., RTC pertaining to Sl.No.3 of Suit Schedule 'A' Properties, which is standing in the name of one Puttamma, M.A. Ahmed and Tulasamma. Similarly, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 are also RTCs pertaining to Sy.No.26/3 of Nagawara Village which are standing in the name of Deveerappa.
16. Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.17 are the RTCs in respect of Suit Item No.3 of Suit Schedule 'A' Properties, which were earlier standing in the name of Puttamma, Seetharamaiah, M.A. Ahmed and Tulasamma and thereafter their names have been removed and then entered in the name of one Co-Operative Society in the year 2000-2001. Ex.P.18 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd: 9.7.1959 executed by one Ramabhovi and Yellabhovi in favour of Jeevanahalli Munishamaiah on 29.4.1915 in respect of Sy.No.35/1 measuring 01 Acre 14 Guntas. According to Plaintiffs, 40 O.S.No.25766/2013 this is the Sale Deed pertaining to Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property. Similarly, the Plaintiffs have also produced Ex.P.19 i.e., the certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd: 9.7.1959 executed by one Doddaiah S/o Dodda Ventappa in favour of Jeevanahalli Munishamaiah in respect of vacant site situated at Matadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North situated in Sy.No.12/1. According to Plaintiffs, this Sale Deed pertains to Suit Schedule 'B' Property. Further the Plaintiffs have also produced Ex.P.20 i.e., certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd:
24.4.1964 executed by Puttamma D/o Abbaiahappa in favour of Annaiahappa @ Germanappa S/o Muniswamappa in respect of 01 Acre 17 Guntas land situated in Sy.No.29/3 of Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North. According to Plaintiffs, this document pertains to Item No.4 of Suit Schedule 'A' Property. Ex.P.21 is the registered Sale Deed dtd: 18.10.2010 executed by Chikkanna, Hemanth Kumar, Chandrashekhar and Ashok in favour of Gulabjan and Gulzar Begum in respect of Sites No.1 to 5, Old VP Khatha No.596 and CMC Khatha No.161 and also western portion of Site No.6, Old VP Khatha No.596 at Govindpura Village.41 O.S.No.25766/2013
Ex.P.22 is the Village Map pertaining to the Suit Schedule Properties.
17. Except the above documents, the Plaintiffs have not produced any other documents to show that Suit Schedule 'A' Property Sy.No.35 or any portion thereof belongs to Late Muniswamappa. Even in connection with Ex.P.18 & Ex.P.19 Sale Deeds no relevant revenue records have been produced by the Plaintiffs. As discussed above, the Plaintiffs have not produced the genealogy or legal heir certificates to establish that themselves and Defendant No.1 to 22 are lineal descendants of Late Jeevanahalli Muniswamaiah. Further when the Plaintiffs have not placed any materials to show that they are the lineal descendants of Jeevanahalli Muniswamaiah, the question of Late Jeevanahalli Muniswamaiah purchased the Schedule Properties from the joint family source of income also not been arisen.
18. Anyhow, let me go through the cross- examination of PW.1 with respect to proving of these issues by the Plaintiffs. PW.1 in his cross-examination itself has clearly admitted that he does not know as 42 O.S.No.25766/2013 to when Sy.No.35/13 is formed and also does not remember as to what is the total extent of Sy.No.35. Later he stated that the said Sy.No.35 has been divided into 14 parts and he does not know as to in respect of which pot hissa of Sy.No. 35, Ex.P18 Sale Deed pertains to. Even he clearly admits that in respect of Ex.P18 also he has not produced documents like property extracts, Index of Land Record of Rights, Register extract from Mysore Survey Settlement records, to show that either Sy.No.35 or any portion thereof belongs to Muniswamappa.
19. From the above admission of PW.1, it is further clear that Ex.P.18 Sale Deed has no nexus with Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property. If really, Late Muniswamappa purchased the Item No.1 of Suit Schedule 'A' Property, definitely his name had been reflected in the revenue records of Suit Schedule 'A' Properties. On the other hand, the records produced by the Defendants reveals that Sy.No.35/13 of Nagawara Village was originally granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to one Karibasappa who received the said land from one one Dairy Rudrappa. In this connection, PW.1 in his 43 O.S.No.25766/2013 further cross-examination has clearly admitted that Karibasappa might have been registered as occupant of the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in the year 1976, such being the fact the Plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the said properties.
20. Though the Plaintiffs are claiming that Late Jeevanahalli Munishamappa had two sons by name Venkatappa and Seetharamaiah who is the father of PW.1 and according to further admission of PW.1, after the death of Munishamaiah his children have not got transferred the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties in their names and even they have not changed khatha pertaining to Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties which is standing in the name of Karibasappa till the date of filing of the suit. So it further strengthen the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have no right over the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties.
21. According to Plaintiffs, the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties measuring 02 Acre 37 Guntas, but according to the admission of PW.1, the 44 O.S.No.25766/2013 Plaintiffs have shown measurement of Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties as 01 Acre 14 Guntas in the plaint. Therefore, as contended by the Defendant No.27 in its written statement the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties has no nexus with the Sy.No.35/13 of Nagawara Village which is measuring 02 Acre 37 Guntas in which Defendant No.27 is claiming right over the same.
22. It is the specific contention of the Plaintiffs that still Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties is a vacant land. However, PW.1 in his further admission clearly admitted that the Defendant No.28 to 30 have purchased the land bearing Sy.No.35/13 measuring 02 Acre 37 Guntas from the legal heirs of Karibasappa. However, he denied the suggestion that the Defendant No.27 constructed residential apartment in the said land under the name and style of Valmark Abodh. The Plaintiffs have not placed any materials to show that till today the Suit Properties are vacant lands. Later PW.1 admitted before the Court that he had visited the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties and he came to know that the Defendant No.27 had constructed residential building 45 O.S.No.25766/2013 in the said land in the year 2010 by encroaching their land. Further also clearly admitted that the address of the Defendant No.27 shown in the suit plaint is put on the basis of the address mentioned in the building construction by the Defendant No.27 in the Schedule Property. Even he has admitted that the Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 Photographs of the building constructed by the Defendant No.27 in the Suit Property.
23. So, on perusal of the above cross-
examination one thing is certain that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that there is any nexus between Ex.P.18 Sale Deed to the Suit Schedule 'A' Property by placing sufficient materials. Even as discussed above, the Plaintiffs have also failed to show that the Suit Schedule Properties are their joint family properties purchased from joint family income.
24. The Defendant No.33 is claiming right in Item No.2 & 3 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties made cross-examination to PW.1 and during the course of cross-examination he admits the suggestion that they have shown total extent of Sy.No.26/3 is 02 Acre 27 Guntas and no pot hissas have been formed in 46 O.S.No.25766/2013 Sy.No.26/3 as Sy.No.26/3B and no agricultural activities are going on in the said land. Though he denied that Property House List bearing No.254 in Sy.No.26/3B was purchased by the Defendant No.33 in the year 1998 from Puttamma and also denied that BDA has acquired the entire land bearing Sy.No.26/3A, but the RTC produced by the Plaintiffs themselves reflects that this survey number property has been acquired by the BDA. Even the Plaintiffs have not made the BDA as party to this suit. Admittedly, the documents produced by the Plaintiffs and also admission of the Plaintiffs that one Puttamma is the elder sister of PW.1 has acquired Sy.No.26/3 during her lifetime and then she sold the same through her General Power of Attorney holder. PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that Puttamma is his elder sister and she died in the year 2008 and during her lifetime the Plaintiffs have not claimed partition. Even though Plaintiffs contended that Late Puttamma had acquired the Suit Schedule Properties in her name from the income of the joint family and illegally sold the same etc., is concerned also the Plaintiffs have not placed any materials. On the other hand, as discussed above, PW.1 has not 47 O.S.No.25766/2013 placed any materials to show that Item No.2 & 3 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties are also joint family properties.
25. The Learned Counsel for the for the Defendant No.23, 24, 28 to 30 has also cross- examined PW.1 who are claiming right and possession over the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties Item No.1 property. During the course of cross-examination he stated that he has produced documents to show that Jeevanahalli Munishamaiah is his paternal grandfather. However, as aforesaid in this regard no documents produced by the Plaintiffs in this suit. Though in the further cross-examination he denied that Jeevanahalli Munishamaiah is not related to him and he is not having any right, title, interest or no way related to the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties. But in this connection no materials forthcoming from the side of the Plaintiffs. Further though he stated in the cross-examination itself that his joint family consists heirs of his father, children of his father and children of his senior uncle i.e., Munivenkatappa @ Abayappa and in this regard he has not produced documents in this case to show the 48 O.S.No.25766/2013 status of joint family etc. As discussed above, in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 he has not placed any documents in this case to show the status of joint family. Further he has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.7 RTC Extracts pertaining to Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties are standing in the name of Defendant No.23 & 24 and their brothers. Admittedly, they are not related to the Plaintiffs or Defendant No.1 to 22.
26. So, it is quite clear that the Suit Schedule Properties are not the joint family properties of Plaintiffs as claimed in this suit. On the other hand, the documents produced by the Defendant No.23, 24, 28 to 30 reveals that the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties granted in the name of Karibasappa by the Land Tribunal on 9.4.1976 and after the death of Karibasappa, said property came to be succeeded by Defendant No.23 & 24 and their brothers, thereafter they have sold the said property in favour of Defendant No.28 to 30 by virtue of Sale Deeds. Further the documents produced by the Defendants reveals that later Defendant No.28 to 30 have entered into Joint Development Agreement with 49 O.S.No.25766/2013 the Defendant No.27 with respect to Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Properties. Though the PW.1 denied all these suggestions in his cross-examination, but it is supported by the documents produced by the Defendants in this suit. As discussed above, PW.1 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that after the death of his late grandfather by name Jeevanahalli Munishamaiah his father or his uncle or sisters of his father have not filed any applications to get transferred the Suit Schedule Properties in their names. According to further admission of PW.1, even the present Plaintiffs have also not filed any application for getting transfer of khatha of the Suit Schedule Properties in their names. So looking from all the above admissions of PW.1 with the documents produced by the Plaintiffs reveals that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the Issue No.1 & 2 in their favour. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 & 2 in the Negative.
27. Issue No.12:-
The burden of proving this issue is casted upon the Defendant No.33 who claims that his grandfather has purchased Site No.254 by virtue of registered 50 O.S.No.25766/2013 Sale Deed dtd: 19.6.1998. in this connection Defendant No.33 has examined his Power of Attorney holder/his father and he has reiterated the written statement averments of Defendant No.33 in his examination-in-chief and also produced Ex.D.5 to Ex.D.40 documents. Ex.D.6 to Ex.D.30 documents produced by him are Electricity Bills, Electricity Connection documents, RTC of Sy.No.26/3B, Self-Tax Assessment Records, Water Bills, are discloses that the Defendant No.33 and his father were continuously paying BBMP taxes and also water taxes to the concerned authority.
28. Further as per Ex.P.41 it is clear that on 19.6.1998 the grandfather of the Defendant No.33 has purchased the land in Sy.No.26/3B from the General Power of Attorney holder of Puttamma in favour of Defendant No.33 who was minor at that time. In pursuance of this Sale Deed the khatha of the said property entered in the name of Defendant No.33 and from the date of purchase till today he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further Ex.D.33 to 35 the certified copies of Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.9403/2006 on 30.7.2019 51 O.S.No.25766/2013 also discloses that one Ramakrishna and Rajesh have filed suit in respect of the said property against the father of the Defendant No.33 for the relief of Permanent Injunction contending that they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property i.e., Item No.3 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property, but the Court has dismissed the said suit by holding that the father of the Defendant No.33 was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Ex.D.36 to Ex.D.40 produced by the Defendant No.33 reveals that as on today the building is existed in the said property and the said building is also standing in the name of Defendant No.33 himself. In order to disprove the Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.42 there were no materials placed by the Plaintiffs in this suit.
29. As discussed above, the General Power of Attorney holder of the Defendant No.33 who is non other than the father of Defendant No.33 has examined as DW.1 and has reiterated the written statement averments of Defendant No.33 in his examination-in-chief. Even though the counsel for the Plaintiffs has cross-examined this witnesses at length, but nothing worth brought out from his mouth 52 O.S.No.25766/2013 to disprove his examination-in-chief and contents of Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.42. Even during the course of cross- examination, this witnesses stated that after dismissal of suit filed against him by one Ramakrishna and Rajesh as per Ex.D.34, they have not preferred any appeal against this judgment. So it is clear that the said judgment has also attained finality. Even this witnesses during the course of cross-examination has categorically denied the suggestion of counsel for the Plaintiffs that Suit Schedule Properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of Plaintiffs. Further also clearly denied that the vendor of Defendant No.33 had no right to execute General Power of Attorney to alienate the suit property in favour of grandfather of the Defendant No.33.
30. Therefore, looking to all the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Defendant No.33 has proved that his grandfather had purchased Site bearing No.254 by virtue of registered Sale Deed dtd: 19.6.1998 and accordingly he became the owner and in possession of the said property. Hence, I answer this Issue in the Affirmative.
53 O.S.No.25766/201331. Issue No.3 to 7:-
These issues are inter-related, hence, they are taken up together for common discussion.
32. The Defendant No.23, 24, 27 to 30 have filed their separate written statements and in their written statements they have taken up specific defense that the originally Suit Item No.1 of Schedule Property bearing Sy.No.35/13 measuring 02 Acres 34 Guntas was purchased by one Baramanna on 1.4.1909 in the Civil Court auction sale proceedings and the said property fallen to the share of Defendant No.23 & 24 and then the said land vested with the Government under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and as on 1.3.1974 the father of the Defendant No.23 & 24 was registered as occupant of the said land and then Defendant No.28 purchased an area of 01 Acre 03 Guntas out of 02 Acres 34 Guntas and 3 Guntas karab in Sy.No.35/13 from the Defendant No.23 & 24 and other legal heirs of Karibasappa by way of registered Sale Deed dtd: 27.8.2004. Then, the Defendant No.29 purchased an area of 0-15 Guntas out 02 Acre 34 Guntas 03 Guntas karab in 54 O.S.No.25766/2013 Sy.No.35/13 from the Defendant No.23 & 24 and other legal heirs of Karibasappa by virtue of Sale Deed dtd: 27.8.2004. Thereafter, the Defendant No.30 also purchased an area measuring 01 Acre 19 Guntas out of 02 Acre 34 Guntas 03 Guntas karab in Sy.No.35/13 from the Defendant No.23 & 24 and other legal heirs of Karibasappa by virtue of Sale Deed dtd: 27.8.2004. In this connection, it is relevant to look into the evidence of DW.2 and DW.3 who are the Directors of Defendant No.27 and Defendant No.29 respectively. Admittedly, they have reiterated most of the contents of their written statements in their examination-in-chief before this Court. Out of them, DW.2 has categorically deposed before the Court that the entire Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property is purchased way back on 1.4.1909 by Burmanna in Civil Court auction sale and he was continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land and he had wife by name Namemallamma and only daughter by name Basamma. However, the said Basamma was married to Dairy Rudrappa, who is the grandfather of Defendant No.23 & 24. After the demise of Baramanna, his wife Mallamma and the son-in-law Dairy Rudrappa have executed registered 55 O.S.No.25766/2013 Deed of Settlement dtd: 27.4.1936 with regard to their properties in favour of Mariswamappa and R. Karibasappa, the sons of late Dairy Rudrappa. Under the said Settlement Deed, the land in question bearing Sy.No.35/13 i.e., Item No.1 was fell in favour of R. Karibasappa and accordingly, the father of Defendant No.23 & 24 was in possession and enjoyment of the same. In this regard, the Defendants have very much relied upon Ex.D.42 Settlement Deed.
33. Admittedly, as stated by the DW.2, the Settlement Deed had been executed by Mallamma and his son-in-law Dairy Rudrappa on 27.4.1936 with regard to Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property in favour of Mariswamappa and Karibasappa sons of Late Dairy Rudrappa. According to this Deed the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property had fallen to the share of Karibasappa who is none other than the father of Defendant No.23 &
24. Further DW.2 categorically stated that Karibasappa was in cultivation of the said land and after commencement of Land Reforms Act the said land vested with the Government, but Karibasappa had filed Form No.7 as per Ex.D.44 and accordingly 56 O.S.No.25766/2013 the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of R. Karibasappa as per Ex.D.43 in resepct of Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property and other two properties.
34. Further DW.2 specifically deposed that Karibasappa died intestate on 3.6.1980 leaving behind him his children K. Basavaraj, K. Nagaraju, K. Nanjundaswamy and accordingly mutation was effected int heir name. Subsequently, the Defendant No.28 acquired to an extent of 01 Acre 03 Guntas out of 02 Acres 34 Guntas and 3 Guntas karab in Sy.No.35/13 ie., Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property from the Defendant No.23 & 24 and other legal heirs of Karibasappa by way of registered Sale Deed dtd: 27.8.2004. Further another extent of 0-15 Guntas out 02 Acre 34 Guntas 03 Guntas karab in Sy.No.35/13 Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property was sold in favour of Defendant No.29 through registered Sale Deed dtd: 27.8.2004. Another extent of 01 Acre 19 Guntas out of 02 Acre 34 Guntas 03 Guntas karab in Sy.No.35/13 i.e., Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property was conveyed to the Defendant No.30 by virtue of Sale Deed dtd:
57 O.S.No.25766/201327.8.2004. Accordingly, the Defendant No.28 to 30 being the owners secured conversion order for non-
agricultural residential purpose. In this regard, the Defendant No.27 has relied upon Ex.D.45 to 47 copies of registered Sale Deeds, admittedly, as submitted by DW.2, the Defendant No.28 to 30 being the owners of the entire Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property by virtue of Ex.D.45 to Ex.D.47. Further he contended that these Defendants have secured conversion order of this land for non-agricultural purpose, however, in this regard, no material placed. But on perusal of Ex.D.48 to 53 i.e., Reply given by the BBMP, Commencement Certificate, Letter dtd: 4.2.2010 by the Joint Director of Town Planning, Receipt dtd:
5.2.2010, Approved License dtd: 5.2.2010 and as well as Occupancy Certificate issued by the BBMP dtd: 22.5.2013 reveals that in view of the entire suit land converted as non-agricultural purpose.
Subsequently the Defendant No.28 to 30 have executed Joint Development Agreement in favour of Defendant No.27 as per Ex.P.58. Accordingly, the Defendant No.27 has obtained Plan of action on 5.8.2010 for construction of residential apartment building over the same. Further the Completion 58 O.S.No.25766/2013 Certificate reveals that the said construction was also completed. Therefore, the oral evidence of DW.2 is duly corroborating with the documentary evidence placed by him. Further Ex.D.54 to Ex.D.56 also reveals that already the building is existed in the said property. This witnesses has also duly cross- examined by the counsel for the Plaintiffs in detail. However, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth to disprove his examination-in-chief and as well as the contents of Ex.D.42 to Ex.D.59.
35. As discussed supra, no materials placed by the Defendant No.23, 24, 27 to 30 to show that Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property had been purchased by Burmanna on 1.9.1909 in Civil Court auction sale proceedings. However, as discussed above, the documents produced by them reveals that especially Settlement Deed Ex.D.42 that after the death of Burmanna his wife Mallamma and son-in- law by name Dairy Rudrappa have executed Settlement Deed dtd: 27.4.1936 with regard to their property in favour of one Muniswamappa and Karibasappa under the said Settlement Deed the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property fallen in favour 59 O.S.No.25766/2013 of R. Karibasappa who is none other than the father of Defendant No.23 & 24. Further as discussed above, in view of Ex.D.43 and Ex.D.44 it reveals that after coming into force of Land Reforms Act with effect from 1.3.1974 the land stood vested with the Government, accordingly the father of the Defendant No.23 & 24 filed Form No.7 and accordingly occupancy right has been granted in favour of Karibasappa. So, it is crystal clear that by virtue of Ex.D.43 & Ex.D.44 Karibasappa became the absolute owner of the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property. It is not in dispute that Defendant No.23 & 24 are the sons of deceased Karibasappa and they became the owner of the said property by way of succession. Further Ex.D.45 to Ex.D.49 copies of Sale Deeds reveals that themselves and other brothers have sold 01 Acre 03 Guntas out of 2 Acre 34 Guntas to Defendant No.28, 0.15 Guntas in favour of Defendant No.29 and 01 Acre 19 Guntas in favour of Defendant No.30 by virtue of registered Sale Deeds dtd: 27.8.2004.
36. Admittedly, in order to disprove the validity or otherwise of Ex.D.45 to Ex.D.49, no materials 60 O.S.No.25766/2013 forthcoming from the side of the Plaintiffs. On the other hand, in view of the discussions made above, it is clear that the Defendant No.23, 24, 27 to 30 are able to prove the due execution of Sale Deeds Ex.D.45 to Ex.D.49 in their favour by the Defendant No.23 & 24 and other legal heirs of R. Karibasappa in their favour. As discussed above, there is no materials forthcoming from the side of the Defendant No.23, 24, 27 to 30 to show that the entire Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property purchased by deceased Burmappa on 1.4.1909 in Civil Court auction sale proceedings. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative and Issue No.4 to 7 in the Affirmative.
37. Issue No.8:-
The burden of proving this issue is also casted upon the Defendant No.27 to prove that the Valmark Builders have constructed residential apartment on the strength of Joint Development Agreement. Executed by the Defendant No.28 to 30 in its favour. In this regard, the Director of Defendant No.27 has examined himself as DW.2 and produced the Joint Development Agreement as per Ex.D.58. Further also 61 O.S.No.25766/2013 produced the Photographs of the apartment as per Ex.D.54 to Ex.D.56. Admittedly, this witnesses has been cross-examined at length by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs, however, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disprove his examination-in-chief. Even though the Counsel for the Plaintiffs denied about the existence of residential apartments on the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property in the cross- examination made to DW.2, but on perusal of Ex.D.54 to Ex.D.56 and as well as admission of PW.1 during the course of cross-examination made by the Counsel for the Defendants, it is evident that there exists residential apartments on the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property.
38. PW.1 during the course of cross-examination made by the Counsel for Defendant No.27 has categorically admitted that he had visited the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property and the Defendant No.27 has constructed the residential apartment in the said land in the year 2010 by encroaching their land. Further he also admitted that Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 Photographs pertaining to building constructed by the Defendant No.27 in the said 62 O.S.No.25766/2013 property. Such being the fact, this Court can easily say that the Defendant No.27 has proved that M/s Valmark Builders had constructed residential apartment on the strength of Joint Development Agreement executed by Defendant No.28 to 30 in its favour. Further as discussed above, the Defendant No.28 to 30 have also clearly admitted in their pleadings and during the course of cross-examination made to PW.1 that they have already entered into Joint Development Agreement with the Defendant No.27 with respect to Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property. Therefore, I answer this Issue in the Affirmative.
39. Issue No10:-
The Defendant No.39 & 40 have contended in their written statement that they are the absolute owners and in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule 'B' Property, as they have purchased the same from the Defendant No.8, Chikkamma, Hemanth Kumar and Chandrashekhar through registered Sale Deed dtd: 18.10.2010. Further they have specifically denied that this property is the joint family property of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 22.63 O.S.No.25766/2013
further they specifically denied the entire case of the Plaintiffs in their written statement. The Plaintiffs have categorically stated in their plaint and PW.1 in his examination-in-chief that the Item No.2 of the Suit Schedule 'B' Property is also joint family property of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 22 and they have illegally executed Sale Deeds in favour of Defendant No.39 & 40.
40. Initially, the Plaintiffs have failed to show that this property is joint family property of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 22. Except producing Ex.P.21 i.e., the certified copy of of the Sale Deed dtd:
18.10.2010 no other documents produced by the Plaintiffs to show that this property is also their joint family property. No doubt, the Defendant No.39 & 40 have not placed any materials before this Court to substantiate the contents of their written statement.
However, the initial burden is upon the Plaintiffs to show that this property is the joint family property of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 22. Such being the fact, this Court is of the opinion that, it cannot held that the Sale Deed executed by the Defendant No.8 and others in favour of Defendant No.39 & 40 is 64 O.S.No.25766/2013 not binding on the undivided shares of the Plaintiffs. As discussed above, the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are having undivided share in the said property. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the Negative.
41. Addl. Issue No.1 dtd: 16.1.2020:-
The burden of proving this issue is casted upon the Defendant No.27. The Defendant No.27 has taken up specific contention in the written statement that the suit of the Plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as already he had entered into Joint Development Agreement with Defendant No.28 to 30 and accordingly they have constructed residential apartment on the entire extent of 02 Acre 34 Guntas in the name of Abodh Valmark by investing crores of rupees. Now the construction has been completed and they have already sold flats to various residents and all the bonafide purchasers are in possession of the said flats. However, the said purchasers are not made as parties and as such the suit of the Plaintiffs is not maintainable for non-
joinder of necessary parties. In this regard, as 65 O.S.No.25766/2013 discussed above the Defendant No.27 has already produced Ex.D.54 to Ex.D.56 and Ex.D.58 i.e., the Photographs of the residential apartments and as well as Joint Development Agreement dtd: 12.8.2008. Further Defendant No.27 also produced Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 Photographs of the residential apartments which existed in the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property and these Photographs have been admitted by the PW.1 during the course of cross-examination. Though PW.1 stated in his cross-examination that he does not know whether the apartments found in Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 of the building is occupied by several respective purchasers and they are residing in it or not? However, in further cross-examination he clearly admitted that in the year 2010 only the Defendant No.27 has constructed the residential building in the said land by encroaching their lands. Further he clearly admitted that the Plaintiffs have not made all the occupants and purchasers of the flat in the building constructed by the Defendant No.27 in the said property. Further also admitted that he has made efforts to know as to who were along the person purchased the flats in the building constructed by the Defendant No.27 and they have not made any 66 O.S.No.25766/2013 attempts to know their name and address of the residents of the apartments. Such being the fact, this Court is of the opinion that as contended by the Defendant No.27 unless and until all the occupants of the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property are not made as party, this suit is not maintainable. Even the Plaintiffs have not made any efforts to implead all the residents of Abodh Valmark building. Hence, I answer this Issue in the Affirmative.
42. Issue No.13:-
The Defendant No.33 taken up contention in his ws that the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. However, how the suit is barred by law of limitation is not at all explained by the Defendant No.33 in his oral evidence given before the Court. Even in the evidence given before the Court also he has not whispered anything that how this suit is barred by law of limitation. In this suit, the Plaintiffs have contended that the cause of action for the suit arose on 23.4.2013 when they found that some third parties inspecting some of the suit properties and on enquiry the revealed that some of the Defendants have kept the same for sale and would proceed to 67 O.S.No.25766/2013 purchase as the offer is lucrative and when the Plaintiffs disclosed that they have undivided interest over the said properties, but the said persons threatened them to come in their way. Therefore, they demanded the partition with the Defendant No.1 to 22, but they did not agreed for the partition etc. Therefore, they filed the suit. Further the Plaintiffs have not at all challenged the Joint Development Agreement dtd: 12.8.2008 and as well as other Sale Deeds got executed on 27.8.2004 etc. Anyhow, there is no clear evidence from the Defendant No.33 to show that how this suit is barred by law of limitation. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the Defendant No.33 failed to prove that this suit is barred by law of limitation. Accordingly I answer this Issue in the Negative.
43. Issue No.9:-
The Defendant No.27 and 33 in their written statements have taken up contentions that the Plaintiffs have not properly valued the subject matter of the suit and they have not paid the proper Court Fee in the above suit. Further, Defendant No.27 taken up the contention that as on the date of this suit the 68 O.S.No.25766/2013 Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property is converted into non-agricultural purpose which comes within the BBMP limits. The Defendant No.27 put up construction of residential apartments in the said property, therefore, advelorum court fee has to be paid on the plaint on the market value of the residential apartments which are put up on the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule 'A' Property. Hence, the plaint requires to be rejected by exercising power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC etc.
44. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs have contended in their plaint that themselves and Defendant No.1 to 22 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties and accordingly the Plaintiffs are jointly entitled for 1/3rd share in all the Suit Schedule Properties. Therefore, they have valued this suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction under Section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act and paid the required court fee of Rs.200/-. Admittedly, this is a suit for partition and separate possession of the share of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule Properties. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have valued their suit under Section 35(2) of the under 69 O.S.No.25766/2013 Section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act and paid the court fee. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the suit for partition and possession on the allegation of joint possession in the plaint, as such the court fee paid under Section 35(2) of the under Section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act is correct. Hence, I answer this Issue in the Negative.
45. Issue No.11:-
The Defendant No.27 has taken up contention in his written statement that the Plaintiffs have not challenged the Sale Deeds which are in favour of Defendant No.28 to 30. Even they have not challenged the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney executed by Defendant No.28 to 30 in favour of Defendant No.27. Hence, without seeking any further reliefs for cancellation of Sale Deeds the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney, mere seeking for declaration and partition is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.70 O.S.No.25766/2013
46. Admittedly, the documents produced by the Defendants in this suit i.e., Ex.D.45 to Ex.D.49 have not been challenged b y the Plaintiffs in this suit. The Plaintiffs ought to have challenged these documents in their plaint. Therefore, without seeking for any further reliefs for cancellation of these Sale Deeds, Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney, mere seeking declaration and partition is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act as contended by the Defendant No.27. Even after producing the above documents by the Defendants also the Plaintiffs have not taken any steps for amendment of their plaint for challenging these documents. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, without challenging all these documents merely seeking declaration and partition is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
47. Issue No.14 & 15:-
In view of detailed discussions and findings given by this Court on the forgoing issues and reasons given thereunder, this Court is of the opinion 71 O.S.No.25766/2013 that the Plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs as claimed in this suit. Hence, I answer these Issues in the Negative.
48. Issue No.16:-
In view of the findings on the above issues, the suit of the Plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictation given to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, after correction, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of September 2024.) [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).72 O.S.No.25766/2013
SCHEDULE 'A'
1. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.35 measuring 1 Acre 14 Guntas now phoded as Sy.No.35/13 situated at Govindapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and the same is bounded on the;
East by : Earlier land belonging to the Aroghappa and Davidappa, Now Karibasappa, West by : Land belonging to Munihanumakka and Muddiah.
North by : Land belonging to Karibasappa, South by : Earlier Kashiga @ Munishami's land now Karibasappa,
2. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.36 measuring 1 Acre 10 Guntas, situated at Govindapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and the same is bounded on the:
East by : Earlier land Water Channel Now land belonging to Thirumalappa, West by : Earlier Kashiga @ Munishami's land now Selam Railway line, 73 O.S.No.25766/2013 North by : Suit Schedule Item No.1 and Sy.No.37/1.
South by : Earlier Kashiga @ Munishami's land now Selum Railway line.
3. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.26/3 now phoded as Sy.No.26/3B measuring 2 Acre 34 Guntas, out of total extent of 4 Acre 27 Guntas including 1 Gunta kharab, situated at Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore and the same is bounded on the;
East by : Shanbog Inam land.
West by : Land belonging to Seetharamaiah - Suit
Schedule Item No.5,
North by : Land belonging to Y. Chinnappa son of Seegehalli Yellappa.
South by : Road.
4. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.26/3 now phoded as Sy.No.26/3B measuring 2 Acres, out of total extent of 4 Acre 27 Guntas including 1 Gunta Kharab, situated at Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and the same is bounded on the:
East by : Suit Schedule Item No.4.
74 O.S.No.25766/2013
West by : Land earlier belonging to Nanjappa.
North by : Land earlier belonging to
Munihanumakka.
South by : Road.
SCHEDULE 'B'
1. All that piece and parcel of Site No.26 now present No.29 measuring East to West 40 feet North to South 30 feet, situated at Matadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, carved out of former Sy.No.12/1 of Matadahalli Village and the same is bounded on the:
East by : Road. West by : Conservancy line. North by : Site No.27. South by : Road.
2. All that piece and parcel of the property bearing site Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 old V.P. Katha No.596 thereafter CMC Katha No.161 and Western portion of site No.6, old V.P. Katha No.596, thereafter CMC Katha No.132, situated at Govindapura Village, Old CMC Ward No.27, Nagawara Dakhle, Kasaba 75 O.S.No.25766/2013 Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, New Katha No.161/132,84, Govindapura, New Ward No.23, BBMP, Bengaluru, measuring East to West : 100 feet and North to South Eastern side 79 feet, Western side 88 feet or 79+88/2 feet in all total 8350 square feet and the same is bounded on the;
East by : Road.
West by : Private Property.
North by : Property belonging to Sri. Kadu
Munivenkatappa.
South by : Property belonging to Sri. B. Ramaiah and sons.
[Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).
ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1: Sri. Ramanjini.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 to : 3 RR Extract of Sy.No.36, Nagawar Ex.P.3 Village.76 O.S.No.25766/2013
Ex.P.4 to : 4 RR Extract of Sy.No.35/13 Nagawar Ex.P.7 Village.
Ex.P.8 : RR Extract of Sy.No.26/3B, Nagawar Village.
Ex.P.9 & : 2 RR Extract of Sy.No.26/3B, Nagawar Ex.P.10 Village.
Ex.P.11 : 7 RR Extract of Sy.No.26/3, Nagawar to Village.
Ex.P.17 Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 29.4.1915 & & its typed copy.
Ex.P.18(a) Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 9.7.1959 & & its typed copy.
Ex.P.19(a) Ex.P.20 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
& 24.4.1964 & its typed copy. Ex.P.20(a)
Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
18.10.2010.
Ex.P.22 : True copy of Village Map.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW1: Sri. Mohamed Hussain.
DW2: Mahaveer Gulecha.77 O.S.No.25766/2013
DW3: Byre Gowda.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Ex.D.1 : Photographs.
to
Ex.D.4
Ex.D.5 : General Power of Attorney executed by
Defendant No.33 in favour of DW.1.
Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of Power Supply Order
issued by BESCOM.
Ex.D.7 : Certified copies of Electricity Bills. to Ex.D.11 Ex.D.12 : Certified copy of 2 Meter Purchase Bills. & Ex.D.13 Ex.D.14 : Certified copy of RTC Extract.
Ex.D.1 to : 5 Self Assessment Forms. Ex.D.19 Ex.D.20 & : KYC Details along with Property Tax Ex.D.21 Assessment ledger.
Ex.D.22 : 7 Tax Paid Receipts.
to Ex.D.28 Ex.D.29 : Demand requisition bill notice with receipt. & 78 O.S.No.25766/2013 Ex.D.29(a) Ex.D.30 : Water supply requisition with Bill. & Ex.D.30(a) Ex.D.31 : Certificate issued by BBMP.
Ex.D.32 : Property Register Extract for the year 2020-21.
Ex.D.33 : Certified copy of Court Commissioner's Report with sketch.
Ex.D.34 : Certified copy of Judgment and Decree & passed in O.S.No.9403/2006.
Ex.D.35 Ex.D.36 : 4 Positive Photographs with one CD. to Ex.D.40 Ex.D.41 : Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.D.42 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
27.4.1936.
Ex.D.43 : Certified copy of Form No.10 dtd:
24.3.1980.
Ex.D.44 : Certified copy of Order sheet in LRF No.1281/1974-75.
Ex.D.45 : Certified copies of 03 Sale Deeds dtd:
79 O.S.No.25766/2013to 27.8.2004. Ex.D.47 Ex.D.48 : BBMP Reply dtd: 5.1.2023.
Ex.D.49 : Commencement Certificate dtd: 10.8.2020.
Ex.D.50 : Letter dtd: 4.2.2010 by the Joint Director, Town Planning.
Ex.D.51 : Receipt dtd: 5.2.2010 obtained under RTI.
Ex.D.52 : Approved License dtd: 5.2.2010 obtained under RTI.
Ex.D.53 : Occupancy Certificate dtd: 22.5.2013 obtained under RTI.
Ex.D.54 : 02 Photographs with CD.
to Ex.D.56 Ex.D.57 : Studio Bill.
Ex.D.58 : Digital copy of Joint Development Agreement dtd: 12.8.2008.
Ex.D.59 : Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.D.60 : Certified copy of Sale Deeds dtd:
to 27.8.2004. Ex.D.62
Ex.D.63 : Certified copy of plaint in 80 O.S.No.25766/2013 O.S.No.5875/2006.
Ex.D.64 : Certified copy of orders on IA in OS.No.25828/2008.
[Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).