Bangalore District Court
Smt.Pola Prameelamma vs ) Sri.B.K.Ramanna on 3 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF LVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH58)
Present:
Smt. K.G.Shanthi, B.Com, LL.M.,
LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2022.
Original Suit No.17057/2004
Plaintiffs: Smt.Pola Prameelamma,
Since dead by her LRs.
1(a) Sri.Sreenivasulu Pola,
S/o. Late Basanna Setty,
Aged about 66 years.
1(b) Sri.Govindarajulu Pola,
S/o. Sri.Sreenivasulu Pola,
Aged about 44 years.
(Plaintiffs 1(a) and 1(b) are r/at
No.28, 1st Cross, New Bank Colony,
Konanakunte, Bangalore560 062.)
1(c) Smt.M.Padmashree,
W/o. Sri.M.Narasimha Rao,
D/o. Sri.Sreenivasulu Pola,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at 17/393, Upstairs,
BKM Street, Kadapa,
Andrapradesh.
2
O.S.No.17057/2004
1(d) Sri.Manjunath Pola,
S/o. Sri.Sreenivasulu Pola,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at No.28, 1st Cross,
New Bank Colony, Konanakunte,
Bangalore560 062.
(By Sri.H.V.Harish, Adv.)
V/s
Defendants: 1) Sri.B.K.Ramanna,
S/o. Late Muddiah,
Aged about 54 years,
No.56, Munimarappa Garden,
Sanjayanagar,
Bangalore.
Since dead by LRs.
1(a) Sri.R.Raghavendra,
S/o. Late Sri.B.K.Ramanna,
Aged about years,
R/at No.56,
Munimarappa Garden,
Sanjayanagar,
Bangalore.
2) Sri.M.R.Manjunatha,
S/o. M.L.Ramakrishnappa,
Aged about 48 years,
R/t No.122 F, 6th Main, 2nd Cross,
Maruthi Extension,
Srirampuram, Bangalore560 021.
3) Sri.T.R.Ranganath,
S/o. T.D.Ramachandrappa,
Since dead by LRs.
3
O.S.No.17057/2004
3(a) Smt.Tara,
W/o. Late Sri.T.R.Ranganath,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.T2, Kubera Enclave,
No.82, 2nd Cross,
Bhuvaneshwarinagar,
Dasarahalli Main Road, Hebbal,
Bangalore560 024.
3(b) Sri.T.R.Sandeep,
S/o. Late Sri.T.R.Ranganatha,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.T2, Kubera Enclave,
No.82, 2nd Cross,
Bhuvaneshwarinagar,
Dasarahalli Main Road,
Hebbal, Bengaluru560 024.
4) Smt.B.S.Srilakshmi,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at Bendagadde, P.O.Keldi,
Sagar Taluk, Shimoga District.
5) Sri.V.Raghuramprasad,
S/o. Late V.Ramakrishan Sharma,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No.789, 9th Main, 3rd Block,
3rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore560 079.
6) Sri.Suresh Narayana Joshi,
S/o. N.K.Joshi,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at Shanthika Nilaya,
No.30, Karihobanahalli,
Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore560 073.
4
O.S.No.17057/2004
7) Sri.Shantharama V.Hegdekatte,
S/o. Venkataramana S.Hegdekatte,
R/at "Bhavani" opp to 2nd HPS.,
Hospet Road, Sirsi,
Uttar Kannada581 401.
8) Dr.Lakshminarayana Bhat,
S/o. Ramachandra Bhat,
R/at Kodlamange, AT and post,
Kharwar, Honnavar Taluk,
Uttarkannada531424.
9) Sri.Srinidhi K.,
S/o. Dr.K.Gopalakrishna,
R/at Pound Garden,
Kadri Road, Mangalore.
10) Sri.Gopalakrishna Venkataramana
Bhat S/o. Venkataramana U.Bhat,
R/at Betta Koppa,
Kangod Post,
Sirsi Taluk,
Uttarkannada581401.
11) Kumari.B.S.Deeksha,
D/o. B.S.Sreelakshmi,
R/at Bandagadde,
Keladi Post,
Sagar Taluk,
Shimoga.
12) Sri.N.K.Joshi,
R/at No.203, Dhruva,
Grahalakshmi Layout,
Nagasandra Post,
Melagadaranahalli,
Bangalore560 073.
5
O.S.No.17057/2004
13) Gurudhatta N.Bhat,
S/o. Late Nagesh G.Bhat &
Smt.Gowri N.S.,
W/o.Gurudhatta N.Bhat,
R/at No.1440, 1st Main,
Nagappa Block, Sreerampuram,
Bangalore560 021.
14) Smt.Parvathi Ananthashastry,
W/o. Anantharamachandrashastry,
R/at B21, IIT Campus Patai,
Mumbai400 076.
(Sri. H.R.Sreepada, Adv. for D1,
Sri. K.S.Raghavendra, Adv. for D2, D3,
D5, D6, D9, 11, 13,
Sri.G.K.M. Associates, Adv. for D8,
Sri.S.Shivanand, Adv. for D3(a), D3(b)
D4, D7, D12 Exparte,)
Date of Institution of the suit
17.11.2004
Nature of the suit Declaration,
Possession and
Permanent
Injunction
Date of the commencement of
recording of the evidence 22.08.2016
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced 03.02.2022
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration 17 02 17
*********
6
O.S.No.17057/2004
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for declaration to declare that the sale deed dtd.05.12.2001 executed by Sri.T.Ramaiah in favour of Sri.Shantharam V.Hegdekatte and Sale deed dtd. 03.09.2003 executed by Sri.T.Ramaiah and others in favour of Sri.M.R.Manjunatha and Sale deed dtd.03.09.2003 executed by Sri.T.Ramaiah and others in favour of Sri.M.R.Manjunath, Sri.T.R.Ranganath, Smt.B.S.Deeksha, Sri.V.Raghuram Prasad, Sri.Suresh Narayan Joshi under different sale deeds dtd.03.09.2003 and registered GPA dtd.14.11.1996 in favour of Sri.B.K.Ramaiah are not binding on the plaintiffs and also pray for issue direction to the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff.
2, The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, the plaintiff Smt.Pola Pramelamma is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre 10 guntas including 2 guntas kharab land in Sy.No.41 of Chikkabettahalli village, 7 O.S.No.17057/2004 Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk described as 'A' schedule property, which has been purchased under registred sale deed dtd.28.04.1995 from one Sri.Ayub Jan, the vendor of the plaintiff was the owner of 9 acres 25 guntas in the said survey number and he sold 'A' schedule property to the plaintiff. Accordingly, khatha was mutated under M.R.No.9/9596 and her name were shown in the revenue records. She has stated that it is an agricultural land and it is not converted for nonagricultural purpose for any time. It is stated that, the defendants are strangers and they have no right, title or interest over the 'A' schedule property and the plaintiff has not executed the registered any registered or unregistered documents either in favour of the defendant or in favour of any third parties.
3. It is stated that, on 15.11.2004 all the defendants along with their supporters made any attempts to tresspass and tried to put up unauthorized construction over the same. The illegal activity of the defendants were restrained by the plaintiff and when the act of the defendants questioned by the plaintiff, the defendants claimed that they are the owners 8 O.S.No.17057/2004 of the sites bearing House list No.23, 24, 25, 28, 158, 159 & Khatha No.504/1 in Sy.Nos.41, 33/4 & 40/5 situated within the gramatana limits of Chikkabettahalli, which described as 'B' schedule property in this suit.
4. The plaintiff contended that, the defendants 2 to 6 based on the alleged sale deed have filed a suit against this plaintiff and others seeking relief of permanent injunction in O.S.No.15076/2004. It is also stated that the plaintiff apprehends great danger from the defendants and their supporters.
5. The cause of action for the suit arose on 15.11.2004 within the jurisdiction of this court and stated that this plaintiff has not filed any suit against the defendants on the same cause of action either before this court or before any other court. Accordingly, plaintiffs pray for possession of 'A' or 'B' schedule property and pray for issue direction to hand over vacant possession of the property the plaintiffs and also to declare the alleged sale deeds dta.05.12.2001, 03.09.2003 and 14.11.1996 are not 9 O.S.No.17057/2004 binding on the plaintiffs and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property by the plaintiff.
6. On filing of this suit, summons was issued to the defendants, the defendant No.1 filed his written statement taken up a contention that 'A' schedule property was sold to the plaintiff and revenue records were standing in the name of the plaintiff, but he denied that the plaintiff not executed any registered or unregistered document either in favour of the defendants or in any other defendants. Further denied that on 15.11.2004 the defendant with their supporters tried to tresspass upon 'A' schedule property in order to put up unauthorized construction. He has contended that, the defendants are the owners of the sites bearing No. 23, 24, 25, 28, 158, 159 & Khatha No.504/1 in Sy.Nos.41, 33/4 & 40/5 situated within the gramatana limits of Chikkabettahalli as described in the 'B' schedule property. It is also stated that the very 10 O.S.No.17057/2004 contention of the plaintiff establishes that she is fully ignorant of existence of property. She is not aware whether 'A' schedule or 'B' schedule property was owned by her. So, she is not entitled for any relief. He has stated that he do not know O.S.No.15076/2004 pending before this court. It is stated that there is no cause of action to file this suit arose on 15.11.2004. Further stated that court fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient. The plaint schedule property is no more an agricultural land. 'A' schedule is no more in existence. The plaintiff is not the owner of the same. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The plaintiff executed the power of attorney in the way back 1997 and Layout was formed during that time and the sites were sold out to many persons.
7. The defendant No.1 taken up a specific contention that 'A' schedule property originally owned by Sri.Ayub Jan. The plaintiff purchased the portion of the 'A' schedule property measuring 1 acre 10 guntas out of 9 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.41, under registered sale deed. The remaining portion had been purchased by one 11 O.S.No.17057/2004 Sri.C.Sathyanarayana, Sri.C.Bhanuprakash, Sri.C.Tirupala Setty, Sri.M.A.Prashanth, Sri.T.Ramaiah and Sri.H.Ramakrishnaiah formed sites jointly. It is also stated that, Sri.C.Sathyanarayana, Sri.C.Bhanuprakash, Sri.C.Tirupala Setty also with plaintiff have executed an agreement to sell, affidavitreceipt cum declaration, possession and GPA in favour of 1st defendant and in the said GPA Sri.M.A.Prashanth and Sri.T.Ramaiah, who are the witnesses. It is also contended that for the above said reason Sri.C.Sathyanarayana, Sri.C.Bhanuprakash, Sri.C.Tirupala Setty and Sri.M.A.Prashanth, Sri.H.Ramakrishnaiah and Sri.T.Ramaiah are proper and necessary party to the suit.
8. It is stated that the plaintiff along with the above 6 persons have entered into agreement with this defendant for development and formation of sites in 9 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.41 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore and power of attorney dtd.13.10.1997 authorizing this defendant to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the sites formed in the above property. It is also stated that, the said power of attorney is irrevocable in the 12 O.S.No.17057/2004 eye of law in as much as all the owners of the land in Sy.No.41 including the plaintiff herein have received the entire consideration. It is stated that this defendant formed a Layout in Sy.no.41, 33/4, 40/5, 133/1 and sold and conveyed various sites to the members of Sri.Akhila Havyaka Mahasabha (R) Bangalore and members of Havyaka community. A Public Notice was published in news papers Times of India and Prajavani dtd.06.09.2000. The plaintiff do not oppose the same at any time. The defendant No.2 to 6 have purchased the sites as described in 'B' schedule under registered sale deed dtd.03.09.2003.
9. It is stated by the defendants that, the purchasers of the 'B' schedule property are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they have approached the jurisdictional Revenue Authority and the khatha has been transferred in their name. It is also stated that the plaintiff along with other owners Sri.C.Sathyanarayana, Sri.C.Banuprakash and Sri.C.Thirupala Setty executed an affidavit in the form of 13 O.S.No.17057/2004 Receiptcumdeclaration confirming the fact that they have sold the entire property in favour of Sri.B.K.Ramanna, the defendant No.1 herein and Sri.B.M.Venugopal S/o. Sri.B.K.Mariyappa for a total consideration of Rs.42,00,000/. Further they confirmed that they have received the entire sale consideration and they have put them in vacant possession of land on 13.10.1997. It is stated that the plaintiff along with other owners viz., Sri.C.Sathyanarayana, Sri.C.Bhanuprakash and Sri.C.Thripala Setty have confirmed that the power of attorney holders are entitled to deal with the property in any manner as they deem fit.
10. It is further stated that, this defendant formed the layout and sold the sites formed therein on the basis of power of attorney. Accordingly, the plaint schedule property sold in favour of defendant No.1 to 6. All the owners of the Sy.No.41 and other parties have even formed a Partnership firm M/s. Raghavendra Estate, No.616, 1 st Main Road, Hebbal, Bangalore and tried to share the profit 14 O.S.No.17057/2004 and loss by carrying out the real estate activity in respect of schedule property and other property belonging to the persons.
Accordingly, this defendant pray for dismissal of the suit.
11. The defendant No.2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 also taken up a same contention taken by defendant No.1 and in addition to that they have stated that the 1 st defendant Sri.B.K.Ramanna formed Layout and sites in favour of members of Sri.Akhila Havyaka Mahasabha (R) Bangalore and defendants herein are the purchasers of the property. The 3rd defendant stated that he has purchased site No.25 under registered sale deed dtd.03.09.2003, 5 th defendant purchased the site bearing No.158 and 6 th defendant purchased site No.159 under registered sale deeds dtd.03.09.2003. After purchase of sites, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective property and khatha has been mutated in their names. 15
O.S.No.17057/2004
12. The defendant No.8 taken up a contention that the 'A' schedule property has changed its nature and as Layout has formed for residential purpose in the year 199899 itself. It is stated that on 15.11.1996, the plaintiff and Sri.Sathyanarayana, Sri.Bhanuprakash, Sri.T.Ramaiah, Sri. Sri.H.Ramakrishnaiah, Sri.Prakash and Sri.Tripala Setty have executed registered GPA in favour of the 1 st defendant by giving an authority to enter into the sale agreement in respect of their property in the Sy.No.41, 33/1 and 33/4. Accordingly, the 1st defendant, as GPA holder of the plaintiff and other owners were entered into agreement to sell the site bearing No.22 with this defendant for Rs.4,40,000/ and advance consideration amount of Rs.44,000/ paid by this defendant to the 1 st defendant through cheque bearing No.430280 dtd.30.12.1996. It is stated that, on 13.10.1997, the plaintiff has executed another GPA in favour of the 1st defendant and one Sri.B.N.Venugopal S/o. Late Sri.B.K.Mariyappa by giving an authority to sell her 16 O.S.No.17057/2004 property in the Sy.No.41 and Sri.Sathyanaraayana, Sri.Banuprakash, Sri.T.Ramaiah, Sri.Sri.H.Ramakrishnaiah, Sri.Prashanth and Sri.Tripala Setty have also executed the GPA in favour of the 1st defendant by by giving an authority to sell their property in Sy.No.41, 33/1 and 33/4. Accordingly, the plaintiff and Sri.Sathyanarayana, Sri.Banuprakash, Sri.T.Ramaiah, Sri.Ramakrishnaiah, Sri.Prashanth and Sri.Tripala Setty have jointly sold the site bearing number 22, khatha No.504/1 measuring into the tune of 50' x 80' feet in favour of this defendant for valid consideration of Rs.4,40,000/ through the 1 st defendant and the remaining consideration amount of Rs.3,96,000/ paid by this defendant through DD No.111079 dtd.01.09.2003, Sale deed executed by the 1 st defendant on behalf of the plaintiff and Sri.Sathyanarayana, Sri.Banuprakash, Sri.T.Ramaiah, Sri.Ramakrishnaiah, Sri.Prashanth and Sri.Tripala Setty in favour of this defendant and the same duly registered. Thereby the plaintiff and other owners transferred their right, title and 17 O.S.No.17057/2004 possession in respect of site bearing No.22 and Khatha No.504/1 to this defendant. It is further submitted that from the date of purchase the above said site from the plaintiff and others, this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment as lawful owner and katha has been changed in his name. It is stated that, that area in which the site of this defendant is merged into BBMP. He paid the tax to BBMP up to date. He denied the entire plaint averments and prays for dismissal of the suit.
13. Based on the above pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the following Issues and Addl.Issues: ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of schedule 'A' property and the same is identifiable?
2. Whether defendant No.2 proves that plaintiff along with others had entered into an agreement with defendant No.1 to form sites in larger extent of 9 acres 25 guntas?
3. Whether defendant No.2 proves that defendant No.1 as a power of attorney holder executed the 18 O.S.No.17057/2004 sale deed in favour of the members of Sri.Akhila Havyaka Mahasabha including defendant No.2?
4. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as sought for?
7. What decree or order?
Addl. Issues:
1.Whether the plaintiffs were in lawful possession of the suit schedule property on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the alleged General Power of Attorney is created/ fabricated document?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, one the basis of the alleged created General Power of Attorney, sale deeds were executed and those sale deeds are not binding upon the plaintiffs?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are entitled for possession as per the prayer column a(i) as shown in the plaint?
5. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient or not? 19
O.S.No.17057/2004
14. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff, plaintiff 1(d) himself examined as P.W.1 and produced and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P17. On the other hand, 2nd defendant examined himself as DW1 and produced and marked the documents as Exs.D.1 to Exs.D.48, 48(a) & 48(b).
15. Heard arguments.
16. My findings on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.4 : Suit is barred by limitation,
Issue No.5 : In the Negative,
Issue No.6 : In the Negative,
Addl.Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Addl.Issue No.2 : In the Negative,
Addl.Issue No.3 : In the Negative,
Addl.Issue No.4 : In the Negative,
Addl.Issue No.5 : Court Fee paid by the
plaintiff is insufficient,
Issue No.7 : As per the final order for
the following:
20
O.S.No.17057/2004
REASONS
17. Issue No.1 to 3 and Addl. Issue No.2, and 3: As these Issues are interlinked with each other and required common discussion in order to avoid the repetition. I have taken up them together for discussion.
18. According to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dtd.28.04.1995 executed by one Sri.Ayub Jan. It is the case of the plaintiff that, said Ayub Jan was the owner of the property measuring 9 Acres 25 Guntas and he sold 1 acre 10 guntans including 2 guntas of kharab land in Sy.No.41 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli. After the purchase khatha has been mutated in her name under M.R.No.9/9596.
19. According to her, on 15.11.2014 the defendants tried to tresspass the suit schedule property in order to put up illegal construction and they claim that they are the owner of the sites bearing No.23, 24, 25, 28, 158, 159 and 21 O.S.No.17057/2004 Khatha No.504/1 in Sy.No.41, 33/4 and 40/5, which described as 'B' Schedule property.
20. The defendant No.2 Sri.M.R.Manjunatha, defendant No.3 Sri.T.R.Ranganath, defendant No.5 Sri.Raghuram Prasad, defendant No.6 Sri.Suresh Narayana Joshi, defendant No.8, Sri.Lakshminarayana Bhatta, defendant No.9 Sri.Srinidhi, defendant No.10 Sri.Gopalakrishna Venkataramana Bhat, defendant No.11 Kumari.Deeksha and defendant No.13 Sri.Gurudatta N.Bhat have taken up a contention that defendant No.1 being a power of attorney holder executed the sale deed in favour of members of Akhila Havyaka Mahasabha. According to this defendant, the plaintiff and others purchased the land in different dimensions in Sy.No.41 measuring 9 acres 25 guntas. To form they entered into an agreement with Sri.B.K.Ramanna i.e., defendant No.1 for the development and to form the sites in land measuring 9 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.41 of Chikkabettahalli village. They executed a irrevocable 22 O.S.No.17057/2004 power of attorney on 13.10.1997 in favour of Sri.B.K.Ramanna. The plaintiff along with other owners Sri.C.Sathyanaraya, Sri.C.Bhanuprakash and Sri.Thirpala Setty executed an affidavit in the form of receiptcum declaration confirming the fact that they have sold the entire property in favour of B.K.Ramanna for a sale consideration of Rs.42,00,000/. Further they have confirmed the execution of power of attorney in favour of Sri.B.K.Ramanna on 13.10.1997. The defendants denied that as on the date of filing the suit the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the 'A' schedule property. Accordingly, Sri.B.K.Ramanna formed a Layout in Sy.No.41, 33/4, 40/5 and sold the sites to the members of Sri.Akhila Hawya Mahasabha (R), Bangalore. According to him, he has purchased the site No.23 and 24 under registered sale deed dtd.03.09.2003.
21. The plaintiff Smt.Pola Pamilamma died during the course of proceedings and her Lrs. are brought on record. The plaintiff taken up a contention that the alleged 23 O.S.No.17057/2004 power of attorney dtd.13.10.1997 is concocted and any sale deed alleged to have been executed based on the General Power of Attorney are not binding upon the plaintiffs.
22. The plaintiff No.1(d) filed evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the plaint averments. He had produced the sale deed dtd.28.04.1995 executed by Sri.Ayub Jan in favour of plaintiff Smt.Pola Pramilamma and got it marked as Ex.P.1. RTC Extracts are marked as Ex.P.2 to 7. It reflects that Smt.Pola Pramilamma and others purchased the property in Sy.No.41, which measures 9 acres 25 guntas situated at Chikkabettahalli. The owner of the property Sri.Ayub Jon executed a registered sale deed with respect to the property measuring 1 acre 10 guntas out of 9 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.41 of Chikkabettahalli village.
23. The plaintiff had produced the copy of the GPA and got it marked as Ex.P.14 and seriously taken up a contention that the said document is concocted and 24 O.S.No.17057/2004 fabricated. The plaintiff not stated anything about GPA in the plaint. But the defendants, who claims that the plaintiff and others executed a GPA in favour of defendant No.1 to form the Layout to the members of Sri.Akhila Havyaka Mahasabha.
24. The 2nd defendant examined as DW2 for himself and on behalf of other defendants as a power of attorney holder. He deposed that, out of 9 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.41, Smt.Pola Prameelamma, Sri.Sathyanarayana, Sri.Bhanuprakash, Sri.Tripala Setty, Sri.H.Ramakrishnaiah, Sri.M.A.Prashanth and Sri.T.Ramaiah purchased the properties and they have executed the GPA along with Smt.Pola Pramilamma in favour of defendant No.1 on 13.10.1997 to form the Layout and for sale the sites and they have received the sale consideration of Rs.42,00,000/ and confirmed the receipt of the entire sale consideration. The 1st defendant formed the Layout called Hawyaka Nagara 2nd Stage and sold the sites in favour of the members of Akhila Hawyaka Mahasabha (R)., Bangalore, which described as 'B' schedule property.
25
O.S.No.17057/2004
25. The GPA holder of the plaintiff i.e., the 1 st defendant executed the registered sale deeds. The defendant No.2 deposed that, he has purchased site No.23 and 24 under registered sale deed, defendant No.3 purchased the site No.25, defendant No.5 purchased site No.158, 6th defendant purchased the site No.159, 9 th defendant purchased site No.126, 11 th defendant purchased the site No.25, 13th defendant purchased the site No.164 under registered sale deed dtd.03.09.2003. He deposed that Smt.Pola Pramilamma tried to interfere with the possession of the defendants. Hence, he had filed a suit in O.S.No.15076/2004 seeking relief of injunction.
26. DW1 in his evidence deposed that Sri.B.K.Ramanna filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No. 17837/2005 against Sri.T.Ramaiah and others and the said suit is decreed in favour of Sri.B.K.Ramanna.
27. In support of the oral evidence, DW1 had produced the certified copy of the 8 sale deeds executed by B.K.Ramanna on 03.09.2003, which are marked as Ex.D.10 26 O.S.No.17057/2004 to Ex.D.17. On perusal of the sale deed, there is a recital that Sri.Sathyanarayana, Sri.Bhanuprakash, Sri.Tripala Setty, Sri.H.Ramakrishnaiah, Sri.M.A.Prashanth, Sri.T.Ramaiah and Smt.Pola Pramilamma executed the sale deed with respect to the sites through their GPA holder Sri.B.K.Ramanna. The defendants also produced the certified copy of the sale deeds of Sri.Sathyanarayana, Sri.Bhanuprakash, Sri.Tripala Setty, Sri.H.Ramakrishnaiah, Sri.M.A.Prashanth, Sri.T.Ramaiah and Pola Pramilamma and got it marked as Exhibits. They have also produced the certified copy of the tax paid receipts and khatha extracts with respect to their property.
28. PW1 admitted in his crossexamination that Sy.No.41 measures 9 acres 25 guntas and his mother purchased only 1 acre 10 guntas and he also admits that sale deeds of other purchasers named above.
29. It is up to the plaintiffs to establish that, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property measuring 1 acre 10 guntas out of 9 acre 25 guntas and so the 27 O.S.No.17057/2004 property of the plaintiff should be identified separately. But PW1 deposed that he do not know when phodi taken place with respect to the area purchased by his mother in Sy.No.41. He has not produced any documents to show that where exactly the property of the plaintiff is located. According to PW1, his mother not taken any steps to get phodi of her property which she purchased from Sri.Ayub Jan. He admits that his mother acquainted with the defendant No.1, but he says that he do not know whether all the owners of the property executed GPA in favour of 1 st defendant Sri.B.K.Ramanna.
30. The plaintiff taken up a contention that the alleged power of attorney dtd. 13.10.1997 is concocted one. So, it is upto the plaintiff to establish that the power of attorney Ex.P.14 is concocted one. But PW1 in his evidence deposed that he has not produced the forged/fabricated document. But he deposed that he can say which documents are forged one. But contrary to this again he 28 O.S.No.17057/2004 says that, he cannot say on what basis plaintiffs taken up a contention in the suit.
31. DW1 admits that the defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6 filed suit against his mother Smt.Pola Pramilamma in O.S.No.15076/2004. If really the power of attorney dt.13.10.1997 forged and concocted either by Sri.Ramanna or any other person, nothing prevented a plaintiff to file a complaint or to initiate legal action. PW1 admits that he has not filed any complaint before the Police contending that the GPA is forged and fabricated. Ex.D.47 is the certified copy of the Judgment in O.S.No.17837/2005 filed by Sri.B.K.Ramanna against Sri.T.Ramaiah and others seeking relief of declaration and injunction with respect to the property in Sy.No.12/3 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas, Sy.No.12/4 measuring 0.15 guntas and Sy.No.12/6 measuring 0.30 guntas and Sy.No.41 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas. The said suit is decreed in favour of Mr.B.K.Ramanna.
29
O.S.No.17057/2004
32. The defendants have produced the copy of the approved Layout Plan with respect to Sy.No.33/1, 33/4 and Sy.No.41 of Chikkabettahalli village and got marked as Ex.D.1. As per Layout Plan sites has been formed and sites were sold to different persons. The photographs of the residential buildings are marked as Ex.D.48, CD marked as Ex.D.48(a). According to PW1, once in 12 months he used to visit the item No.1 of suit property. He deposed that about 5 months back he visited the property. He denied that entire Sy.No.41 measuring 9 acre 25 guntas formed as Layout. But he admitted the Layout plan which marked as Ex.D.1 and also admitted that the said Layout formed in Sy.No.31, 40, 41, which are contrary to the case of the plaintiff. He deposed that he cannot identify 'A' schedule property on seeing the Ex.D.1 Layout plan and he also deposed that why the defendant No.2 to 5 arrayed as a party to this proceedings. According to him, his mother not executed GPA and he do not know whether other owners executed the GPA in favour of the defendant No.1. 30
O.S.No.17057/2004 Ex.P.14 is the copy of the GPA, which produced by the plaintiff himself, but he has not produced any material before this court to prove that the alleged GPA is concocted and fabricated.
33. DW1 categorically deposed that, Smt.Pola Pramilamma handed over the property to Sri.Ramanna. Much crossexamination has been done by the plaintiff to DW1 regarding GPA. But the DW1 stood well in his cross examination to DW1. In the crossexamination PW1 admits that in Ex.P.14, name of his father is described and he also deposed that he has no personal knowledge of Ex.P.14. He deposed that he cannot say when exactly he come to know that the defendant No.2, 3, 5 and 6 purchased the property.
34. It is the burden on the plaintiff to prove how fraud has been committed and how the forged document came into existence. But nothing has been pleaded by the plaintiffs and the plaintiff tried to shift of proving on the 31 O.S.No.17057/2004 defendants. In my opinion the purchaser of the property need not produce the GPA along with their sale deed. It is up to the plaintiff to prove that alleged registered GPA is concocted, but the plaintiff not made lead any material evidence to prove the alleged GPA is concocted. Other parties who are th parties to the GPA not raised the contention that they have not executed GPA, but admitted the GPA.
35. In this case, though the plaintiff contended that, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' schedule property i.e., measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.41 of Chikkabettahalli village, the documents produced by the defendants and also admission of PW1 clearly reflects that the Smt.Pola Pramilamma along with the other purchasers of the property in Sy.No.41 measuring 9 acre 25 guntas formed the Register of Firms and executed the GPA in favour of defendant No.1 Sri.B.K.Ramanna. Accordingly Sri.B.K.Ramanna the formed the Layout and sold the sites to different 32 O.S.No.17057/2004 purchasers. So the plaint 'A' schedule property not in the form of agricultural land. On the other hand, Layout has been formed and sites were sold to the purchasers.
36. The plaintiff mislead the court saying that the plaint schedule property is an agricultural land. The PW1 failed to identify the schedule property. The documents produced by the defendants, it reflects that after forming the Layout by defendant No.1, sites were formed and sold it to different purchasers and the purchasers are constructed the building and residing therein. So, I am of the opinion that plaintiff fails to prove that they are the absolute owner of suit property plaintiffs fails to identify their property. Further the defendants proved that the plaintiff along with others entered into agreement with defendant No.1 to form the Layout for residential sites in a land measuring 9 acre 25 guntas and executed the registered GPA in favour of defendant No.1 Sri.B.K.Ramanna. The plaintiff miserably fail to prove that the alleged GPA is concocted and fabricated. Hence, Issue No.1 answered in Negative, Issue 33 O.S.No.17057/2004 No.2 and 3 are answered in Affirmative, Addl. Issue No.2 and 3 answered in Negative.
37. Addl. Issue No.5: The defendants taken up a contention that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient. The plaintiff Smt.Pola Pramilamma filed a suit for declaration to declare that, she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' schedule property and also consequential relief of permanent injunction.
38. After the death of plaintiff Smt.Pola Pramilamma her Lrs. brought on record and the prayer has been amended by the LRs. of plaintiff, seeking relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed dtd.5.12.2001 and the registered sale deeds dtd.03.09.2003 executed by Sri.T.Ramaiah, Sri.T.Sathyanaraya, Sri.C.Bhanuprakash, Sri.M.A.Prashanth, Sri.Thirupal Setty, Smt.Pola Pramilamma, Sri.H.Ramakrishnaiah are not binding on the plaintiffs and also to declare that the GPA executed on 14.11.1996, which registered under document No.766 34 O.S.No.17057/2004 199697, dt.15.11.1996 in the office of Senior Sub Registrar, Yelahanka not binding on them. Further the plaintiff prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction. Apart from that, the plaintiff in the prayer column (a i) stated as 'in the event this Hon'ble Court comes to conclusion that, the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the 'A' or 'B' schedule property, then to direct the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs'. So, the plaintiffs amended the prayer column and sought for declaration to declare the sale deeds are not binding on them. Further to declare the GPA is not binding on them. Further sought for injunction and also for possession of the suit property.
39. According to the plaintiff, court fee paid by them is proper and correct and stated that they have sought for an alternative prayer for possession of the property and it is not a main relief. The learned advocate for the plaintiff argued that the Agreement itself is questioned by the 35 O.S.No.17057/2004 plaintiff and plaintiff produced the RTC Extracts of the suit property and based on the said document court fee has paid. Further it is argued that the defendants have not produced the conversion order and plaintiffs never pleaded that they are out of possession from the suit property. It is argued that in plaint para4 the plaintiff clearly stated that, they are in possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property and the defendants claiming that they are the owners of the sites i.e., the 'B' schedule property and tried to put up a construction in the 'B' schedule property.
40. On perusal of the valuation slip filed by the Lrs. of plaintiff on 05.02.2019, it reflects that the plaintiff calculated the court fee for relief of declaration and possession and under prayer (a) and (a i) which are valued U/Sec.24(a) r/w. 7(2)(a) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act and it assessed as Rs.11 x 25 times = Rs.275. It is stated Rs.275 is already paid. Regarding prayer a (a ii) to (ix) are valued U/Sec.24(d) of Karnataka 36 O.S.No.17057/2004 Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act at Rs.1,000 each and Court Fee of Rs.25 x 8 = Rs.200 paid. Regarding prayer (b) is valued at Rs.1,000/ U/Sec.26(c) of KCF & S V Act and Addl. Court fee of Rs.225/ is paid by the plaintiff. So it is clear that, the plaintiff has calculated the court fee U/sec.24(a) r/w. Sec.7(2)(a), 24(d), 26(c) of KCF & SV Act.
41. This Court find it necessary to extract the relevant provisions of KCF & S V Act -
Sec.7 Determination of market value: (1) Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market value of any property, such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.
7(2)(a) (2) The market value of land in suits falling under sections 24(a), 24(b), 26(a), 27, 28, 29, 31, 35(1), 35(2), 35(3), 36, 38, 39 or 45 shall be deemed to be,
(a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Deputy Commissioner's register as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is permanently settled twentyfive times the revenue so payable.
Sec.24 Suit for declaration In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 25 37 O.S.No.17057/2004
(a) Where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on [rupees one thousand] whichever is higher;
(b) Where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on onehalf of the market value of the property or on[rupees one thousand] whichever is higher;
(c) [x x x x x]
(d) in other cases, whether the subjectmatter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on [rupees one thousand] whichever is higher.
Sec.26 Suit for InjunctionIn a suit for injunction
(a) Where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, and
(i) Where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, or
(ii) Where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the property, fee shall be computed on onehalf of the market value of the property or on [rupees one thousand] whichever is higher;
(b) [xxx]
(c) in any other case, whether the subjectmatter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on[rupees one thousand], whichever is higher.
38
O.S.No.17057/2004
42. The plaintiffs sought for declaration of registered sale deeds dtd.5.12.2001 and sale deeds of 03.09.2003 are not binding on them. Further they pleaded in the plaint para 4 that they are in possession of the property. But again they prayed that in the event this court come to the conclusion that, the plaintiffs are in possession of the property, then direct to the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiffs.
43. The plaintiffs challenged the sale deed and sought for declaration and also consequential relief of injunction. So the plaintiffs ought to have calculate the court fee on half of the market value of the property. In this case plaintiff sought for declaration of sale deeds are not binding on them and also sought for possession of the property, they are bound to pay the court fee on the market value of the property. The 'B' schedule properties are the sites, so the plaintiffs should have pay the court fee on the market value. But the plaintiffs wrongly calculated the court fee on assessment of Rs.11/ instead of calculating the court fee on the market value of the property. So I am of the opinion the court fee calculated by 39 O.S.No.17057/2004 the plaintiff is not proper and correct and court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient.
44. Issue No.4: The defendants have taken up a contention that, the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation.
45. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of sale deeds dtd.05.12.2001 and 03.09.2003 are not binding on them and consequential relief of Permanent Injunction. They pleaded that, on 15.11.2004 the defendants along with their supporters came near the suit schedule property and tresspassed into the suit schedule property in order to put up unauthorized constructions. No where plaintiffs pleaded that, when exactly they come across about execution of the registered sale deeds. The defendants herein filed a suit on 17.01.2004 in O.S.No.15076/2004 against the plaintiffs herein seeking relief of permanent injunction. After filing of the said suit, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 15.11.2004 for declaration. Nowhere in the plaint the plaintiffs pleaded when the cause of action arose to them to 40 O.S.No.17057/2004 file a suit for declaration. PW1 in his crossexamination admitted that this suit schedule property formed as layout as per Ex.D.1. On perusal of the plan, it reflects that the property is converted U/o. OM.B.DIS.ALN.SR.177/8182, dt.09.07.1982 and OM.B.DIS.ALN.SR(N).125/9394, dt.24.06.1994, 26.07.1982 with respect to Sy.No.33/1, 33/4 and Sy.No.41 of Chikkabettahalli, Yelahanka. The names of the land owners found place in the plan and also mentioned the extent of area converted. Further the plaintiffs themselves produced the alleged registered GPA, dtd.14.11.1996 and got it marked as Ex.P.14.
46. The plaintiff Smt.Pola Pramilamma taken up a contention that the said GPA is concocted. So, the plaintiff ought to have file a suit from the date on which right to sue first accrues. In my opinion right to sue accrues on the date of GPA executed on 14.11.1996 itself. Based on the GPA from Sri.B.K.Ramanna formed a Layout and sites were sold to the purchasers. But the plaintiffs not bother to file a suit. On the other hand, she has contended that she is in possession of the property and defendants tried to tresspass into the suit 41 O.S.No.17057/2004 schedule property to put up a construction. When she has questioned the same they claimed that they are the purchasers of the sites. It is pertinent to note that the purchasers filed a suit against this plaintiff in O.S.No.15076/2004 alleging that this plaintiff causing obstruction to their possession. After filing of the said suit the plaintiff chosen to file the present suit. She contended that she is in possession of suit property and defendants tried to put up construction, then in my opinion right to sue accrues for the first time on 14.11.1996 itself. Since based on GPA Sri.B.K.Ramanna formed Layout, sites are formed and sold. When the purchasers of the sites went for construction, then plaintiff approached this court. PW1 clearly admitted that, Sy.No.31, 40 and 41 jointly formed as Layout. The Layout has been formed based on the GPA executed by the owners in favour of Sri.Ramanna. So, the plaintiffs kept silent till the entire area formed as Layout and sites were sold out. Many of the purchasers of the sites constructed the building and the residing therein. The plaintiffs sought for declaration to declare that the sale deeds 42 O.S.No.17057/2004 dtd.05.12.2001, 03.09.2003 are not binding on them. The Layout has been formed by Sri.B.K.Ramanna as a GPA holder of the owners of the land. So, the plaintiff should have file a suit within 3 years from the date when the cause of action accrues to file a suit. But she failed to file suit within the stipulated period. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
47. Issue No.5, 6 and Addl. Issue No.4: The plaintiffs sought for a relief of declaration to declare the registered sale deeds are not binding on them. Further sought for declaration to declare that they are absolute owner of the schedule property and also sought for relief of permanent injunction.
48. The plaintiffs fail to prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property. The 'A' schedule property formed as a layout and sites were sold to the purchasers. The 'A' schedule property not in the form of agricultural land as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff miserably fails to prove that the sale deeds are not binding 43 O.S.No.17057/2004 on them. Further failed to prove that GPA is created/ fabricated document. The plaintiff prays for possession of the property. When the plaintiffs fails to prove their possession over the property, they are not entitle for relief of permanent injunction. Further the 'B' schedule property has been purchased by the defendants under registered sale deed by paying valuable consideration. Since the plaintiff failed to prove that GPA is fabricated, any transaction taken based on the GPA are binding on the plaintiffs. So, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitle for relief of declaration, injunction and also for possession of the suit property. According Issue No.5, 6 and Additional Issue No.4 are answered in Negative.
49. Issue No.7: In view of the finding on Issue No.1 to 6, Addl. Issue No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.44
O.S.No.17057/2004 (Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed and computerized by him and after carrying out corrections by me, print out taken by her and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of February, 2022.) (Smt.K.G. Shanthi) LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs :
PW.1 : Pola Manjunath List of documents marked for the plaintiffs :
Ex.P1 : Registered Sale deed dtd.28.04.1995 Ex.P2 to 7: RTC Extracts Ex.P8, 9 : Tax paid receipts Ex.P10 to 12: Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P.13 : Death Certificate of Smt.P.Pramilamma Ex.P.14 : CC of GPA dtd.15.11.1996 Ex.P.15 : Copy of Written Statement of defendant No.1 in O.S.No.15076/2004 Ex.P.16 : Copy of Written Statement of defendant No.1 in O.S.No.15076/2004 Ex.P.17 : Copy of Written statement of Defendant No.7 in O.S.No.15076/2004 List of witnesses examined for the Defendants:
DW1 : M.R.Manjunatha List of documents marked for the Defendants:
Ex.D.1 : Layout Plan
Ex.D.1(a) : Marked portion of Ex.D.1
45
O.S.No.17057/2004
Ex.D.2, 3 : Copy of Affidavit of PW1 in
O.S.No.15076/2004
Ex.D.4 : Power of Attorney dtd.04.08.2013
Ex.D.5 : GPA dtd.09.11.2021
Ex.D.6 : GPA dtd.09.11.2021
Ex.D.7 : Copy of Power of Attorney dtd.12.09.2006
Ex.D.8 : Copy of Power of Attorney dtd.12.09.2006
Ex.D.9 : Copy of Power of Attorney dtd.12.09.2006
Ex.D.10 to 17: Copies of Sale deed dtd.03.09.2003 Ex.D.18 : Copy of Tax paid receipt for the year 2007 Ex.D.19 : Tax paid receipts Ex.D.20 to 23: FormB Property Register Extracts Ex.D.24 to 29: Certified copies of Sale deed dtd.28.04.1995 Ex.D.24(a) to 29(a): Typed copies of Sale deeds Ex.D.30 : CC of Sale deed dtd.19.02.1997 Ex.D.30(a) : Typed copy of Sale deed dtd.19.02.1997 Ex.D.31 to 36: Demand Register Extracts Ex.D.37 : Cc of complaint lodged by D1 Ex.D.38 : Cc of Police complaint Ex.D.39 : Cc of Mutation Register Extract Ex.D.40, 41: Copy of RTC Extracts Ex.D.42 : Time of India Paper publication Ex.D.43 : Cc of Layout Plan Ex.D.44 : Cc of Written statement in O.S.15076/2004 Ex.D.45 : Cc of Registration of Firms M/s.Raghavendra Estate Ex.D.46 : CC of deposition of Sri.Pola Manjunath O.S.15076/2004 Ex.D.47 : Cc of Judgment & decree in O.S.17837/2005 Ex.D.48 : Photos Ex.D.48(a) : CD Ex.D.48(b): Bill LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
46 O.S.No.17057/2004 Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate Judgment) ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.
LVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru.