Bangalore District Court
Hindu Seva Pratistana Trust vs Munitayamma on 17 September, 2024
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
KABC010246682014
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH 12), BENGALURU
DATED: 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024
PRESENT
SMT. JYOTHSNA D., LL.B., LL.M., D.F.A.,
XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 12),
BENGALURU
ORIGINAL SUIT No.8933/2014
PLAINTIFFS 1) HINDU SEVA PRATISTANA TRUST (R),
# 87/4, 'Padma Sadana',
Gandhi Bazaar, Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru - 04.
Represented by its Managing Trustee
Sridhar Sagar.
Represented by Smt/Sri P.D., Advocate
-- vs --
DEFENDANT/S 1) SMT. MUNITAYAMMA,
D/o. Gopala Krishna,
Aged about 72 years,
2(a) SMT. LAKSHMI G.V.,
W/o. Late Narayana C.G.,
Aged about 52 years,
1
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
2(b) SMT. C.N. HEMALATHA,
D/o. Late Narayana C.G.,
Aged about 36 years,
2(c) C.N. MOHAN,
S/o. Late Narayana C.G.,
Aged about 25 years,
3) C.G. BADRINATH,
S/o. Gopala Krishna,
Aged about 65 years,
4) C.G. CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/o. Gopala Krishna,
Aged about 61 years,
5(a) SMT. P. PADMAVATHI,
W/o. Late C.G. Manjunath,
Aged about 62 years,
5(b) Ku. C.M. SUPREETHA,
D/o. Late C.G. Manjunath,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor reptd. By her Natural
Guardian mother
Smt. Padmavathi ie., 5(a)
5(c) MASTER C.M. HARISH,
S/o. Late C.J. Manjunath,
Aged about 16 years,
Since minor Reptd by her natural
guardian mother
Smt. Padmavathi ie., 5(a)
All are R/at # 6,
3rd Main Road,
Ramakrishnaiah Street,
2
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru - 20.
Defendants 1 to 5 is represented by
Smt/Sri L.K.B., Advocate
Defendants 2(a) and (c) represented by
Smt/Sri T.V.P., Advocate
Defendatn No.2(b)
Date of Institution of Suit 19.11.2014
Nature of suit SUIT FOR POSSESSION
Date of commencement of evidence 05.09.2017
Date of Judgment 17.09.2024
Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
09 09 28
(SMT. JYOTHSNA D.,)
XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants, seeking a decree of possession, directing the defendants to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property and for further reliefs as are just in the circumstances of the case.
3
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
2. In brief, the case of the plaintiff' is as follows:- The plaintiff is a registered trust and the aims and objectives of the trust is conducting the activities as detailed in Clause No.6 of the Trust Deed. Plaintiff is represented by its Managing Trustee Sri Sridhar Sagar, who is authorized to file this suit as per Clause No.14 of the Original Trust Deed.
3. Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.6 (Old No.221 which was previously numbered as
184), Ramakrishnaiah Street, Sheshadripuram, Benglauru having acquired the right, title and interest in the same by way of registered Gift Deed executed by one late Dr. C. Venkataswamy on 23.08.1984. The said Dr.C. Venkataswamy had acquired the right, title over the suit schedule property through registered Sale Deed dated 18.05.1957 executed by his father. Thereafter, in the year 1984, the said Dr.C. Venkataswamy had gifted the suit schedule property to the plaintiff Trust on the memory of his father and his mother considering the alround social service being rendered by the plaintiff Trust.
4. The defendants being the family members of said Dr. C. Venkataswamy, instead of quitting, vacating and delivering the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the 4 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment plaintiff, have filed a suit in OS No.4903/1987 for declaration seeking adverse possession and also sought for the relief to declare the sale deed dated 18.05.1957 executed by late C. Venkataswamy in favour of Dr. C. Venkataswamy as null and void and also to declare that the gift deed dated 23.08.1984 executed by Dr. C. Venkataswamy in favour of plaintiff as not binding on them. They have also filed a suit in OS No.3206/1986 for bare injunction against the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Both the above suits have been clubbed and a common judgment and decree has been passed by this Court on 03.12.2012 by dismissing the suits filed by the defendants, as supra, and the same having not been challenged, attained finality. After passing of the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff is repeatedly persuading the defendants and made several requests to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property in order to utilize the same for plaintiff's activities. But, the defendants did not heed to the request of the plaintiff.
5. The cause of action for the suit arose on 23.08.1984 being the date of execution of Gift Deed, on 03.12.2012 being the date of dismissal of suit filed by the defendants in OS No.4903/1987 and during the month of October 2014 being the 5 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment date of approach made by the plaintiff Trust finally with a request to defendants to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and on all subsequent dates within the jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff has paid proper court fee on the plaint and hence, prayed to decree the suit.
6. In response to suit summons, the defendants entered appearance through their counsel and filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
7. The suit for relief of possession only, without the relief of declaration is not maintainable.
8. The valuation made by the plaintiff and the court fee paid is insufficient, not proper and incorrect. The suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
9. The suit is not represented properly and is contrary to the provision of CPC, since plaintiff says it is a registered Trust and there is no proper and effective representation to that effect and no authorization is produced. The suit is not maintainable under Order XXXI of CPC and also under the provisions of Indian Trust Act. The title of the plaintiff over the schedule property as 6 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment mentioned in para 4 of the plaint is denied. It is denied that late Dr. C. Venkataswamy had acquired right and title over the schedule property through registered sale deed dated 18.05.1957 executed by his father late Dr. C. Venkataswamy and the averment that the said Dr. C. Venkataswamy gifted the schedule property to the plaintiff is denied as false.
10. It is contended that the defendants being the family members of Dr. C. Venkataswamy filed a suit for various reliefs in OS No.4903/1987 and another suit OS No.3206/1986 and a common judgment and decree of dismissal of both the suits was passed on 03.12.2012. Suit in OS No.3206/1986 was for permanent injunction and the plaintiff has not filed any suit for declaration. The defendants disputed the title of the plaintiff over the schedule property. Suit in OS No.4903/1987 was filed by one Gopala Krishna, the father of defendants, for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 20.05.1957 and Gift Deed dated 23.08.1984 and to handover certain portion of the suit property ie., A schedule property and for permanent injunction.
11. It is further contended that while answering Issue No.1 in OS No.3206/1980, it has been categorically held that the present plaintiff is not in exclusive possession of the entire suit 7 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment schedule property and it is further held that since many years, the defendants and their predecessors in title are residing in some portion and further held that the present plaintiff has failed to prove the lawful possession. Ex.D.7 is the Title Deed ie., registered Gift Deed dated 23.08.1984 under which the present plaintiff is claiming title. The possession was not taken by the plaintiff as on the date of Gift Deed ie., during 1984. The judgment in OS No.3206/1986 is to the effect that the plaintiff is not in possession of the entire extent of property. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, since from the date of Gift Deed ie., 23.08.1984, the plaintiff is not in possession and possession alone is sought after a lapse of 31 years. No other mode of acquisition of title is pleaded by the plaintiff except claiming under the Gift Deed dated 23.09.1984. Further, plaintiff's plea of perfecting his title by way of adverse possession has been answered in Negative. Plaintiff was very well aware and knowledge of these defendants' possession since from many years and there being no delivery of possession under the Gift Deed dated 23.08.1984 in favour of the plaintiff and silence on the part of the plaintiff all these years from 1984 to 2015, clearly establishes that plaintiff has no manner of right or title over the property in question and plea of possession is 8 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment barred under Articles 64 and 65 of Limitation Act and since possession is not sought within 12 years of execution of the Gift Deed dated 23.08.1984. Further, the plaintiff has not sought for any declaratory relief and the findings in OS No.4903/1987 by the Addl.City Civil Court to the effect that the present defendants and their predecessors in title have failed to prove with regard to the Gift Deed and Sale Deed will not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff to assert title over the suit schedule property. Without the relief of declaration, mere suit for possession is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine.
12. Plaintiff's pleadings are contradictory and mutually destructive right from the beginning. Long back, the plaintiff had filed HRC proceedings against these defendants, wherein, it was pleaded that a portion of the present schedule property was let out to Dr. C. Venkataswamy and later a Gift Deed was executed and the same is required for the activities of plaintiff. The said petition was dismissed on 31.01.1995 and even HRRP filed before the Court, questioning the said order dismissal, was also dismissed on 24.11.1997. Very strangely, in OS No.3206/1986 filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff is in lawful possession by virtue of Gift Deed and the said suit came to be dismissed on 31.12.2012 and 9 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment in the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking possession of suit schedule property on the basis of Gift Deed dated 23.08.1984 and hence, the suit is hit by principles of estoppel.
13. Late C. Gopalakrishna, the father of defendants 2 to 5 and husband of 1st defendant and Dr. Venkataswamy are sons of late C. Venkataswamy, S/o. Late Venkatappa and the said C. Venkataswamy, being a retired Tax Inspector of Bangalore Municipality, had purchased the site measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 30 feet from one Jodi Desikachar on 4.10.1922 under a registered sale deed and had also purchased a site measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet from Bangalore City Municipality on 12.11.1925 and since both the said sites situate adjacent to each other, Late C. Venkataswamy amalgamated them together and made it a single plot and being in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same, put up construction on the front side and then on backside. The said C. Venkataswamy and his two sons Gopalakrishna and Dr. Venkataswamy mortgaged this property in favour of Smt. Alumelamma on 9.2.1942 to discharge loan from C. Gadi Guruswamy of Chickpet. From the date of construction till 1964, the said late C. Venkataswamy and his two sons and their wives and children were residing together with 10 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment common mess and after the death of wife of C. Venkataswamy in the year 1963, for convenience, there was a separate mess, but there was no partition between the family members. Very strangely on 4.11.1984, all of a sudden, about 25 RSS volunteers came to the suit schedule property holding lathies (clubs) and started removing the articles of defendants and tried to lock the premises. On lodging complaint to jurisdictional Police, it was informed to Gopalakrishna that the entire suit schedule property was gifted by late Dr. C. Venkataswamy in favour of present plaintiff under a registered Gift Deed on 23.08.1984 and it was informed to Gopalakrishna that the suit schedule property was sold by his father in favour of his brother Dr. Venkataswamy on 18.5.1957 under a registered sale deed and there was a collusion between Dr. C. Venkataswamy and the plaintiff and there was illegal occupation of certain portion of the suit schedule property and therefore, Gopalakrishna filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deeds and other reliefs in OS No.4903/1987, which came to be dismissed, but the fact remains that there was no delivery of possession of the suit schedule property under the alleged Gift Deed dated 23.08.1984 by Dr. C. Venkataswamy in favour of plaintiff and therefore, the said Gift Deed is not acted upon and the possession is continued with the defendants 11 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment uninterruptedly. Subsequently also, possession is not sought within 12 years from 1984 and thus, the defendants' possession is continuous, hostile and to the knowledge of all including the plaintiff and thus, the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession.
14. The defendants have no other house to live except the suit schedule property and if any order of delivery of possession is passed, the defendants will be put to irreparable loss and injury and they will be devoid of home and shelter and if any order of possession is not passed, the plaintiff will not be put to any inconvenience since the plaintiff is not having any title, right or possession. Hence, the defendants have prayed to dismiss the suit.
15. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:
Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff proves that they are the lawful absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
Issue No.2 : Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants occupation of the suit property is illegal and unlawful?
12
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment Issue No.3 : Whether the defendants prove that Gift Deed dated 23.08.1984 is not acted upon as possession of the property was not delivered to the plaintiff? Issue No.4 : Whether the defendants prove that they acquired title over the suit property by adverse possession? Issue No.5: Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? Issue No.6: Whether the suit for possession, without seeking the relief of declaration is maintainable? Issue No.7: Whether the suit is properly valued and requisite court fee is paid on the plaint?
Issue No.8: Whether the defendant proves that the suit is not maintainable under Order 31 of CPC and under the provision of Indian Trust Act?
Issue No.9: Whether the defendant proves that the suit is hit by rule of estoppel?
Issue No.10: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the suit?
Issue No.11: What order or decree?
16. To prove the case of the Plaintiff, its present managing trustee Sri Sridhar Sagar, S/o. Late Narayanappa entered into witness box and got examined himself by oath as PW 1 and Ex.P 1 to Ex.P 11 are got marked through him. The learned Counsel for defendants cross examined him.
13
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
17. On the other hand, to disprove the case of the plaintiffs, the 4th defendant Sri C.G. Chandrashekar, S/o. Gopala Krishna entered into witness box and examined on oath as DW 2 and Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.67 are got marked through him. The learned Counsel for plaintiff cross examined him.
18. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed his written arguments and heard the learned the counsel for the defendants, but the plaintiffs side submitted that they have no reply arguments. Perused the materials placed on record.
19. This Court answers above Issues as under;
Issue No 1 : In the negative, Issue No 2 : In the negative, Issue No 3 : In the affirmative, Issue No 4 : In the negative, Issue No 5 : In the negative, Issue No 6 : In the affirmative, Issue No 7 : Disposed off on 30.05.2017 Issue No 8 : In the affirmative, Issue No 9 : In the affirmative, Issue No 10 : In the negative, Issue No 11 : As per final Order;
14
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment for the following;
REASONS
20. Issue Nos.1 to 4 and 6:- These five issues are connected to each other, hence they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repeated discussion on facts and law.
21. Admittedly, this suit is filed with prayers for the reliefs to pass the judgment and decree of possession directing the defendants to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and for cost and such other and further reliefs as this Court deems fit as per facts and circumstances of the case.
22. To prove the above narrated case of the plaintiff, its present managing trustee entered into witness box as PW 1 and filed sworn affidavit of examination in chief under which all the plaint averments are reiterated. To substantiate the suit claim, he has produced certain documents which are marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On the other hand the defendant No.4 entered into witness box to disprove the case of the plaintiff and defend their side and got examined himself as DW 1 and filed sworn affidavit of examination in chief under which all the contentions of the 15 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment written statement are reiterated and as per verifying affidavit annexed to the written statement, the defendant No.4 affirmed by swearing on behalf of himself and other defendants. As his documentary evidence, to defend their case, he has produced documents which are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.67. Both the witnesses are cross examined by the concerned learned counsels on other side.
23. As per paragraph 11 of the plaint, it is found that this suit is the outcome of dismissal of suit filed by the father of the defendants herein in OS No.4903/1987. The plaintiff has produced the certified copy of judgment and decree in OS No. 4903/1987 which is marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. On perusal of the same, in the said judgment, it was pronounced by clubbing with another suit OS No.3206/1986. The said OS No.3206/1986 was filed the plaintiff herein against the father of the defendants herein Mr. C. Gopala Krishna seeking the relief of permanent injunction retraining him from interfering with the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property in that both cases and in this case is one and the same.
24. But, the plaintiff did not produce any other document other than the judgment and decree in OS No.4903/1987. 16
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment He has mentioned in paragraph 7 of the plaint about OS No.3206/1986 by stating that they have filed the suit for bare injunction against the defendant to restrain him from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendants have produced certified copy of the documents connected to that cases. They are;
Ex.D.10 : Certified copy of order sheet in OS No.4903/1987 Ex.D.11 : Certified copy of plaint in OS No.3206/1986 Ex.D.12 : Certified copy of written statement in OS No. 3206/1986 Ex.D.13 : Certified copy of additional written statement filed in OS No.3206/1986 Ex.D.40: Certified copy of judgment passed in OS No. 4903/1987 C/W OS No.3206/1986 which is nothing but Ex.P.1.
Ex.D 59 : Certified copy of plaint in O S No.4903/1987. Surprising point is that there was an HRC proceedings held between the plaintiff herein and father of the defendants in HRC No.2015/1986 which revealed through Ex.D 57, the certified copy of order dated 31-01-1995 in the said HRC proceedings. The said 17 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment petition was dismissed with costs. Next to that, the plaintiff herein filed appeal by challenging order in HRC No.2015/1986 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in HRRP No.105/1996. But, the said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and the certified copy of order of the same marked as Ex.D.58.
25. Now, we have to look into the above documents. As per the above said documents, during the pendency of the suit, the father of defendants herein passed away and the defendants herein ie., the wife and children of said C. Gopala Krishna were brought on record as his legal representatives. As per Ex.D.11 (plaint in OS No.3206/1986), the plaintiff herein filed the suit against defendants (though it was filed against the father of defendants, but for the sake of convenience, it is referred to as defendants here-on-wards) prior to the case filed by the defendants in OS No.4906/1987.
Importantly, The prayer in OS No.3206/1986 was, " for the judgment and decree in its favour by restraining the defendant permanently from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property No.6, Ramakrishnaiah Street, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore-20 18 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment and allow the suit with costs and consequential reliefs, in the interest of justice and equity." - Result as per Ex.P 1/Ex.D 40 suit was dismissed.
As per Ex.D.59 (certified copy of plaint in OS No.4906/1987), the prayer of the defendants here in was, to declare the sale deed dated 18-05-1957 executed by late C. Venkataswamy in favour of Dr. C. Venkataswamy and registered on 20-05-1957 under Register No 604-5-1-58 in Book No.1 Volume 1593 at pages 14-16 before the Sub- Registrar Bangalore City North as null and void and canceling the same, and consequentially declare that the Gift Deed dated 21-08-1984 executed by Dr. Venkataswamy in favour of the defendant No.13 (Hindu Seva Prathistana -plaintiff herein) and direction to the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property. In that case defendant Nos.1 to 12 were the legal heirs of Dr.V. Venkataswamy.- Result as per Ex.P.1/Ex.D.40 the suit was dismissed.
26. Further the HRC proceedings also came to be dismissed as there was no tenancy relationship between plaintiff and defendants.
19
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
27. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant Nos.2 and 5 passed away and their legal representatives came on record. As per paragraph 18 of the written statement, the said C. Gopala Krishna and Dr.C. Venkataswamy are sons of Late C. Venkataswamy. The defendants herein narrated about the background of filing of OS No.4903/1987 by C. Gopala Krishna as, during the life time of Late C. Venkataswamy, he has purchased some property and joined them together and made it a single plot; his two children Dr.C. Venkataswamy and C. Gopala Krishna along with their wife and children were residing in the suit schedule property as there was no partition of the joint family property between Dr.C. Gopalaswamy and C .Gopalakrishna; On 04-11-1984 due to interference of 25 RSS volunteers over the suit schedule property and in such situation, the said C. Gopalakrishna came to know about the alleged Gift Deed dated 23-08-1984 by Dr. C.Venkataswamy and it is also informed to him that the suit schedule property that is part of above said joint family property was sold by father C. Venkataswamy to his son Dr.V. Venkataswamy vide registered sale deed dated 18-05-1957. Therefore, C. Gopalakrishna in his life time filed OS No.4903/1987 seeking the relief of declaration and cancellation the said deeds and the said suit was dismissed. 20
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment Now on the basis of the same judgment, this suit is filed for possession over the suit schedule property.
28. There are two Issues regarding ownership and title over the suit schedule property, they are Issue No.1 and Issue No.4 framed as;
Issue No.1 :Whether the plaintiff proves that they are the lawful absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
Issue No.4 : Whether the defendants prove that they acquired title over the suit property by adverse possession?
Further there are two Issues pertaining to possession over the suit schedule property under Issue No.2 and 3 as; Issue No.2 : Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants occupation of the suit property is illegal and unlawful?
Issue No.3 : Whether the defendants prove that Gift Deed dated 23.08.1984 is not acted upon as possession of the property was not delivered to the plaintiff?
29. The learned counsel for the defendants, vehemently argued that framing of Issue No.1 does not arise as there is no prayer for declaration and ownership of title by the plaintiff and in this regard Issue No.6 was framed as;
21
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment Issue No.6: Whether the suit for possession, without seeking the relief of declaration is maintainable?
30. At this juncture, if the court looks into both the aspects of title and possession over the suit schedule property, it will become a complete judgment.
31. In the documentary evidence of the plaintiff, Ex.P.1 and 2 are the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4903/1987 clubbed with O.S.No. 3206/1986 dated 03-12-2012. In that cases, O.S.No. 4903/1987 was filed by C. Gopalakrishna against Smt.Balarajamma and others in which plaintiff herein was 13 th defendant. This suit was filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. O.S.No.3206/1986 was filed by plaintiff herein against C. Gopalakrishna seeking the relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of that suits, the said C. Gopalakrishna passed away and his legal heirs, the defendants herein came on record. The schedule property of present case and schedule property of that cases is one and the same as;
"All that piece and parcel of the residential premises bearing New No.6 old No.221 previous No. 184, situated at 3rd main road, (Ramakrishnaiah Street), Sheshadripuram Bengaluru-20, presently comes under 22 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment the jurisdiction of BBMP, measuring East to West 90 feet and North to South 30 Feet and totally measuring 2700 sq.ft., along with old Dwelling House consisting Ground Floor bounded on ;
East by : 3rd main road (Ramakrishnaiah street) West by : Conservancy North by : Anniyappa's property South by : B. Srinivasaiah's property
32. Exs.P.3 and 4 are the documents pertaining to establishment of plaintiff trust, they are the certified copy of trust deed dated 10-11-1980 and certified copy of 6th amendment of trust deed dated 26-08-2014.
33. Ex.P 5 is the certified copy of Gift Deed dated 23-08-1984 executed by C. Venkataswamy in favour of Hindu Seva Prathistana authorised by one Ajithkumar. Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 18-05-1957 executed by C. Venkataswamy S/o. C. Venkataswamy in favour of C. Venkataswamy S/o. C. Venkataswamy (Retired Municipal Tax Inspector). Here, the name of vendor and purchaser are C. Venkataswamy. The name of father of the vendor is also C. Venkataswamy. They all are grand-father-father-son in relation. 23
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment The vendor is the father of the purchaser. Ex.P.7 is the khatha certificate and Ex.P 8 is khatha extract pertaining to the suit schedule property which are computerized copies of the year 2015 and at that time, the suit schedule property was in the name of Venkataswamy C. Then question will arise, if the title over the property was passed on to the plaintiff through valid Gift Deed in the year 1984 itself, then till 2015 why the plaintiff has not taken any pain to get the khatha of the suit schedule property transferred in its name on the basis of said Gift Deed. Ex.P.9 is the tax paid receipt for the year 2014-15 paid in the name of Venkataswamy C., as its owner. Ex.P.10 is the non- encumbrance certificate in Form No.16 for the period of 01- 04-2004 to 17-12-2014 pertaining to the suit schedule property which informs that there are no encumbrances. Ex.P.11 is the non-encumbrances certificate in farm No.15 for the period of 01- 04-1984 to 31-03-2004 in respect of suit schedule property which shows the entry of Gift Deed dated 23-08-1984 executed by Dr.C. Venkataswamy in favour Hindu Seva Prathistana (plaintiff herein, Plaintiff in OS No.3206/1986 and defendant No.13 in OS No.4903/1987).
34. On the other hand, the 4th defendant entered into witness box as DW1 and Exs.D1 to Ex.D.67 are got marked 24 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment through him. Ex.D.10 and Ex.D. 59 are the certified copy of order sheet and certified copy of plaint in OS No.4903/1987. Ex.D.11 to 13, Ex.D.40 are the certified copy of plaint, certified copy of written statement, certified copy of additional written statement and certified copy of common judgment passed in OS No.4903/1987 C/W with OS No.3206/1987. Filing and disposal of these cases are admitted facts and plaintiff claims his relief in this case on the basis of judgment in OS No.4903/1987 which was dismissed which is the suit filed by the plaintiff herein against C. Gopalakrishna and his legal representatives who came on record after his death who are the defendants in this present case. That suit was filed for permanent injunction against the defendants herein, which came to be dismissed, which is mentioned supra.
35. Ex.D.57 is the certified copy of order passed in HRC No.2015/1986 and Ex.D.58 is the certified copy of order passed in HRRP No.105/1998. The above documents show that there were litigation on the suit schedule property between the same parties prior to filing of this suit. Both the petition and appeal on the order were dismissed. The said petition was made for eviction of C. Gopalakrishna from the suit schedule premises as he was tenant in the suit schedule property. It is narrated that 25 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment the suit schedule property let out by Dr.C. Venkataswamy to his brother C. Gopalaswamy on monthly rent of Rs.50/-. Later, the same was gifted by him infavour of plaintiff herein under a registered gift deed dated 23-08-1984. After the said alleged gift deed, the said Dr.Venkataswamy intimated C. Gopalakrishna to pay the rent to plaintiff herein and intimated about the said gift, but he has not paid rents to Hindu Seva Prathistana, the plaintiff herein and prevented the trust from making use of the property which it has taken possession. But, as the petition for eviction of C. Gopalakrishna from suit schedule property make it clear that the father and grand-father of defendants herein were in actual possession of suit schedule property. In Ex.D.57, there is a narration about OS No.49/1987 regarding the cancellation of sale deed executed by father C. Venkataswamy in favour of Dr. C. Venkataswamy in respect of suit schedule property filed by C. Gopalakrishna contending that the said property is joint family property. But in this case, there is no whisper about that case in the plaint. In the said HRC case, the plaintiff herein failed to prove the relationship with these defendants as landlord and tenant as the fact of common mess and common pooja room were established. Further in page No.37 of Ex.D.57, it is observed that the gift deed has not been proved as per HRC No.3140/1984 26 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment filed against one A. C. Bhattachari and the said HRC petition too came to be dismissed. Then, it is clear that on the basis of said Gift Deed, number of litigation made by same plaintiff herein, but the said gift deed remained unproved. As per these documents, it is clear that the same plaintiff herein unsuccessfully tried to vacate the defendants herein from the suit schedule property in the year 1986 itself by way of HRC proceedings as per order in Ex.D.57 and Ex.D.58. The said order in Ex.D.57 that is HRC No.2015/1986 attained finality as the appeal against this order under Ex.D.58 in HRRP No.105/1996 was dismissed. Important point to be noted here is that the plaintiff had knowledge of possession of suit schedule property by the defendants from the date of alleged Gift Deed and at that time itself, plaintiff failed to prove the validity of Gift Deed. Then the question will arise if the plaintiff bases his case on the Gift Deed, then at that time itself, why this plaintiff did not try to get possession over the property as per the Gift Deed. The sale deed executed by the father of Dr.C. Venkataswamy and C. Gopalakrishna in favour of Dr.C Gopalakrishna in respect of suit schedule property is itself in the cloud as per OS No.49/1987 which is not disclosed by the plaintiff in this case, then definitely the title of the plaintiff is in cloud. As per Ex.D.57, it is clear that 27 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment the plaintiff has knowledge about OS No.49/1987 but he suppressed the same in this case.
36. Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.6 are the tax paid receipts in the name of Venkataswamy C., and Exs.D.14 to Ex.D.34 are further tax paid receipts in the name of Venkata swamy, Exs.D.41 to Ex.D.56 are tax paid receipt upto 2014-2015 which shows that the tax was paid in the name of C. Venkataswamy. Further, Exs.D.60 to Ex.D.67 are the tax paid receipts in the name of C. Venkataswamy from 1950 to 1954 in respect of suit schedule property. All the above tax was paid prior to date of alleged Gift Deed and after the date of alleged Gift Deed, the tax paid receipts are in the name of C. Venkataswamy. If the plaintiff has valid title by way of Gift Deed, then why till the date, it has not taken any action to get the revenue records transferred in its name.
37. Next to that Ex.D.7 and Ex.D.8, Ex.D.38 and Ex.D.39 are the encumbrance certificates of different periods. Ex.D.7 is the encumbrance certificate in Form No.16 for the period of 01-04-2004 to 20-11-2013 and Ex.D.7 is the another encumbrance certificate in Form No.16 for the period of 21-11-2013 to 03-07-2014 which states that there is no 28 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment encumbrance over the suit schedule property for the said periods. Ex.D.38 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining to the suit schedule property in Form No.15 for the period of 01-04-1940 to 21-12-1945 which shows the entry about lease and rent agreement executed by C. Venkataswamy, C. Gopalaswamy and Venkataswamy jointly in favour of one Alamelamma as on the date of 08-02-1942. Then this document shows that the C. Venkataswamy, C. Gopalaswamy and Venkataswamy are the joint owners over the suit schedule property. Ex.D.39 is another encumbrance certificate in Form No.15 pertaining to the suit schedule property which shows the entry of sale deed dated 18-05-1957 executed by C. Venkataswamy in favour of C. Venkataswamy and other entries with date 20-06-1957, 13-09- 1957, 20-07-1962 and 05-11-1964 mentioning the nature of transfer by C. Venkataswamy.
38. As stated above, admittedly, this suit is for the relief of delivery of vacant possession by the defendants to quit and vacate the suit schedule property. If one person asks possession over the suit schedule property, then he has to establish his title over the suit schedule property as it is the basis for his suit claim. The same is guided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the landmark judgment in Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy 29 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 (reported in AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2033), as;
"17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under :
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jural possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding 30 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction."31
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
39. First of all, as per plaint pleadings, especially in paragraph 4, the plaintiff has stated that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered Gift Deed dated 23-08-1984 executed by one Sri. Dr. C. Venkataswamy in favour of plaintiff institution bearing No.6 (old No.221 which was previously numbered as 184), Ramakrishnaiah Street, Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru having acquired the right, title and interest over the suit schedule property by way of above mentioned Gift Deed registered as Document No.1974/84-85 and in paragraph 11 of the plaint, one of the cause of action for the purpose of filing of this suit is the date of execution of Gift deed dated 23-08-1984. As discussed supra, as per Ex.D.57, the said Gift Deed has not been proved by bringing the attested witness of the Gift Deed as witnesses to that case. But, in Ex.P 1/ Ex.D.40 the judgment and decree in OS No.4903/1987 clubbed with OS No.3206/1986, the issues regarding proof of Sale Deed dated 18-05-1957 and Gift Deed dated 23-08-1984 is answered negatively as there is no evidence of the plaintiff to prove that the Gift Deed is null and void. But, in those cases, there is no prayer for declaration of ownership of the property by plaintiff to declare its title by way of Gift Deed. Further, on perusal of materials on record, till the date in any previous cases, nowhere 32 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment it is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. As per above guidelines in Anathula Sudhakar case, when the plaintiff claims for the relief for getting vacant possession over the suit schedule property, where he is not in possession, then he shall have to prove his title over the suit schedule property. Therefore, though he has taken grounds for the relief of possession of suit schedule property on the basis of judgment under OS No.4903/1987, but nowhere in Ex.P.1/Ex.D. 40, it is declared that the plaintiff herein is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
40. In this regard this Court gone through Ex.P.1/Ex.D.40 the said judgment. Page No.20 and 21 shows the Issues were framed in OS No 4903/1987, which runs as;
1. Does the plaintiff proves that the Deed dated 18.05.1957 executed by late C.Venkataswamy in favour of Dr.C.Venkataswamy is null and void?
2. Is it proved that the Gift Deed dated 23.08.1984 by Dr.C. Venkataswamy in favour of the 13th defendant is not binding on the plaintiff?
3. Whether the suit is barred by time?
4. Is it proved by the 13th defendant that it has perfected his title by adverse possession?
33
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
5. To what relief the parties are entitled?
41. Here it is to be noted that the defendant No.13 of that case is none other than the plaintiff herein. In that case Issue No.2 and Issue No 4 were in respect of the Gift Deed dated 03-12-2012 which is the main reason for the cause of action to this suit as per paragraph 11 of the plaint.
42. In OS No.4903/1987, the above Issues were answered as under;
Issue No 1 : In the negative.
Issue No 2 : In the negative.
Issue No 3 : In the affirmative.
Issue No 4 : In the negative.
Issue No 5 : In the negative.
43. Then the plaintiff herein failed to prove his title over the suit schedule property as defendant No.13 of that case as per negative answer to Issue No.4. Important point to be noted here is that Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.6 including the alleged Gift Deed which is marked as Ex.P.5 are all produced way of certified copies. There are no single original documents produced by the plaintiff.
44. Surprising point in that case is that the plaintiff herein claimed his title by adverse possession. In that case itself, there 34 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment was knowledge about this Gift Deed. If the Gift Deed is valid one, then why he has averred about adverse possession though the defendants herein were in possession of the suit schedule property. Herein this case also, he has not prayed for declaration of title on the basis of Gift Deed. In OS No.3206/1986, the plaintiff herein failed to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property. There is no doubt that he is not in possession of suit schedule property as herein this case prayed for delivery of vacant possession by the defendants. But nowhere in the earlier suits, the title of the plaintiff herein has been declared. In OS No.3206/1986, the same plaintiff herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the father of defendants' herein in respect of same suit schedule property in this case. In that case, the plaintiff herein stated that the defendant was tenant under his donor in respect of suit schedule property wherein he has defaulted in payment of rents, but surprising point is without filing a suit for eviction, the plaintiff herein has filed suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property though the plaintiff was not in possession and that the defendant was in possession, after failure to get possession through HRC proceedings, as discusses supra. 35
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
45. Further, in this case, there is no authority given to PW1 to prosecute this case to represent the plaintiff trust. In this regard in paragraph 1 of the cross examination of PW 1 it is elicited as, "ನಾನು 1997 ರಿಂದ ವಾದಿ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮ್ಯಾ ನೇಜಿಂಗ್ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟಿ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನನ್ನ ಹಿಂದೆ 3 ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಕಾಲ ದಿನೇಶ್ ಕಾಮತ್ ಮ್ಯಾ ನೇಜಿಂಗ್ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟಿ ಎಂದು ಇದ್ದರು. ಅವರು 1993 ರಿಂದ 1997 ರ ತನಕ ಆ ರೀತಿ ಮ್ಯಾ ನೇಜಿಂಗ್ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟಿ ಆಗಿದ್ದರು. 1984 ರಲ್ಲಿ ವಾದಿ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟ್ಗಗೆ ದಾನಪತ್ರ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾದಿ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟ್ನ ಮ್ಯಾ ನೇಜಿಂಗ್ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟಿ ಎಂದು ಅಜಿತ್ಕು ಮಾರ ಇದ್ದರು. ಆತ ತೀರಿಕೊಂಡು ಈಗ್ಗೆ 20 ವರ್ಷ ಆಗಿದೆ. ಈಗ ವಾದಿ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟಗೆ 9 ಜನ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟಿ ಗಳು ಇದ್ದೇವೆ. 1984 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಎಷ್ಟು ಜನ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟಿ ಗಳು ಇದ್ದರು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರೇನು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಲು ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. 1980 ರಲ್ಲಿ ವಾದಿ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟ್ ಮೊದಲಿಗೆ ಆರಂಭವಾಯಿತು. ಆನಂತರ ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿದ ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ನಾಲ್ಕು ಸಾರಿ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟಡೀಡ್ಗೆ ತಿದ್ದು ಪಡಿಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. 1980 ರಿಂದ ಇಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೆ ಎಷ್ಟು ಸಾರಿ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟ್ ಡೀಡ್ ತಿದ್ದು ಪಡಿಯಾಗಿದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಟ್ರಸ್ಟಿ ಗಳು ಬದಲಾವಣೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ನಿಖರವಾಗಿ ನನಗೆ ಹೇಳಲು ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ." Further in this regard, this Court gone through Ex.P.3 in which its page No.8 paragraph 7 it is recited as, " the powers can be exercised by the trust as a whole or by the Managing Trustee or Secretary or by any one or more trustees, if specifically authorized to do so, by a resolution passed by the trustee. Such resolution shall be authenticated by the Managing Trustee or the Secretary duly countersigned by at least one trustee". And as per clause 14 in page No.4 which contains as "all the legal proceedings by or against the trust shall be instituted in the name of trust through its managing Trustee." In Ex.P.4 that is the deed of 36 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment 6th amendment of the trust deed did not contain anything about prosecution of case by PW 1.
46. Moreover, though PW 1 stated that the original documents of Sale Deed and Gift Deed that is Ex.P 5 and Ex.P 6 are in the office of the plaintiff, but did not take any pain to produce the same.
47.Next to that, in paragraph 3 of his cross examination, PW 1 has stated as, "ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 3206-1986 ದಾವೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಏನೇನು ಆಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂಬ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಿಮಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ತೀರ್ಪು ಆದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಗೊತ್ತು . ಸದರಿ ದಾವೆಯ ತೀರ್ಪಿನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ನಾವು ಮಾನ್ಯ ಉಚ್ಛ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಪೀಲು ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಈ ದಾವೆ ಹಾಕುವ ಮೊದಲು ನಾವು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗಳಿಗೆ ನೋಟಿಸ್ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ. ದಾನಪತ್ರದ ಆಧಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಖಾತಾ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಈಗ ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಖಾತಾ ಯಾರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಗೆ ಕಂದಾಯವನ್ನು ಯಾರು ಕಟ್ಟು ತ್ತಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂಬುದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನೀವು ದಾನಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಓದಿ ಅದರ ಷರತ್ತು ಗಳನ್ನು ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೀರ ಎಂದರೆ ಓದಿ ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾನಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಏನು ಬರೆದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ." As discussed above the plaintiff has not furnished any revenue documents to show transfer of schedule property to its name after execution of Gift Deed.
48. On the other hand in cross examination of DW 1 in paragraph 4 of page No 18 he has stated as, ಸದರಿ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ತಾತನ 3 ಮಕ್ಕಳು ಒಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಇದ್ದರು ಹಾಗೂ ನನ್ನ ಸೋದರತ್ತೆ ವೆಂಕಟಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಮ್ಮ ಮದುವೆಯಾಗುವವರೆಗೂ ಅಲ್ಲಿ 37 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment ಇದ್ದರು. ನನ್ನ ಲಿಖಿತ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗಲೀ ಅಥವಾ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗಲೀ ಎಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ವೆಂಕಟಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಮ್ಮ ಅವರು ಸದರಿ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ. ದಾವಾ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಇವರೆಲ್ಲರೂ 1984 ರ ವರೆಗೂ ಒಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ವಾಸವಿದ್ದರು. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ನಾವು ಅಂದರೆ ಗೋಪಾಲಕೃಷ್ಣ, ಅವರ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮಕ್ಕಳು ದಾವಾ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ತಾತನ ಕಾಲದಿಂದಲೂ ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಇರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ನನ್ನ ತಾತ ಸಿ.ವೆಂಕಟಸ್ವಾ ಮಿಯವರು ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಲು ಮತ್ತೆಯೂ ಸಾಲ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ನನ್ನ ತಾತ ಗಾಡಿ ಗುರುಸ್ವಾ ಮಿಯವರ ಸಾಲ ತೀರಿಸಲು ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯ ವಿದ್ಯಾ ಭ್ಯಾ ಸಕ್ಕಾ ಗಿ ಎನ್.ಜಿ. ಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀ ನರಸಿಂಹ ಅವರಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಲ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. ಸದರಿ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ತಾತನವರು ಗಾಡಿ ಗುರುಸ್ವಾ ಮಿಯವರ ಸಾಲ ತೀರಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರವಲ್ಲದೇ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯವರ ವಿವಾಹದ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕಾ ಗಿಯೂ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು. ಸದರಿ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು ಸುಮಾರು 1942 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನಾನು 1984ರ ವರೆಗೂ ಒಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಇದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರೂ ಸಹ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ 1964 ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು 1963 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂದರೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಅಜ್ಜಿ ತೀರಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ವವರೆಗೂ ಒಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಇದ್ದೆವು ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ಗೋಪಾಲಕೃಷ್ಣ ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಎಲ್ಲರ ಅನುಕೂಲಕ್ಕಾ ಗಿ ಒಂದೇ ಅಡುಗೆ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಅಡುಗೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು." The same is stated in Ex.D.57. As per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6, Ex.D.14 to Ex.D. 34, Ex.D.41 to Ex.D.56 all the tax paid receipts are in the name of C. Venkataswamy. It creates cloud that why plaintiff herein prayed for the relief of adverse possession in Ex.P.40 if his title purely stands on the Gift Deed and why he has not taken any action to transfer the revenue records on the basis of gift deed and in cross examination of DW1 it is elicited as the signature of father of defendant put in Ex.D.37 by fraud.
38
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
49. Ex.D.35 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 04-10- 1922 and Ex.D.35(a) is its typed copy through which father of C. Venkataswamy and Gopalakrishna purchased the suit schedule property. Ex.D.36 is the certified copy of mortgage deed and Ex.D.36(a) is its typed copy which was executed by C. Venkataswamy, C. Gopalakrishna and C. Venkataswamy in favour of Alamelamma pertaining to suit schedule property. The said mortgage is reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate. If the suit schedule property is self-acquired property of grandfather of defendants then, the question that arises is as to why in this mortgage deed the grandfather C. Venkataswamy, father C. Gopalakrishna and uncle C. Gopalaswamy jointly executed that mortgage deed. Ex.D.37 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 18-05-1957 and Ex.P.37(a) is its typed copy through which grand- father of defendant executed sale deed in favour of their uncle C. Venkataswamy in which the signature of their father Gopalakrishna is disputed by them. Though there is such a dispute about suit claim, then though plaintiff has paid sufficient Court fee but has not taken any pain to produce original documents of main question in controversy that are the alleged sale deed executed by grandfather of defendants and alleged gift deed executed by their uncle. Moreover in Ex.P.1, the said 39 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment sale deed and gift deeds are proved as per Section 90 of Evidence Act on the basis of age of the said documents. In such circumstances plaintiff shall establish his case beyond cloud by at least producing the original documents which are admitted to be in its custody. As in this case such a huge dispute is about the title as discussed supra, then the plaintiff ought to have prayed for declaration of title.
50. Importantly, in page No.4 of Ex.P.5 the alleged gift deed, it is recited as Donee is in possession of the schedule premises. After execution of deed, the donor is enjoying and donee can make use of the schedule property.
51. As per Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act;
"123. Transfer how effected.--For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.
For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery.
Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered."
40
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
52. Then, as per this Section, the gift of immovable property effected by registration which is attested by two witnesses. In all the previous cases pertaining to the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has not sought for declaration of its title. In OS No. 4903/1987, he has not made counter claim for declaration of his title on the basis of gift deed. He has prayed for his title by adverse possession. But OS No.3206/1986 filed by the plaintiff herein shows that plaintiff is not in possession, then if without praying for declaration of title on the basis of gift deed, why he has prayed for adverse possession. The above discussion shows that the defendants are in possession of suit schedule property from the life time of their grandfather. If the donor had valid title, then why this plaintiff filed HRC proceedings and next to that suit for injunction and in the suit of the defendants prayed for adverse possession. Moreover, if plaintiff firm has no ambiguity about the gift deed, then why he has not made any effort to get the khatha and revenue records transferred in its name till the date. Therefore, the defendants established that the gift deed dated 23-08-1984 is not acted upon as possession of property was not delivered to the plaintiff. Though regarding immovable property, the registration of gift deed is main ingredient, but as per the above discussions, there is a cloud about ownership of title by way of gift 41 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment deed. In OS No.4903/1987, it is established that the said gift deed covers under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no evidence of witnesses of the Gift Deed.
53. As the defendants are admittedly in possession of suit schedule property much prior to gift deed and the Ex.D.36 and 37 creates inference about joint ownership by the donor of the plaintiff and father of defendants and their grandfather, then as the plaintiff failed in HRC proceedings against the defendant and nowhere in Ex.P.5 the gift deed, there is mention about tenancy relationship with father of defendants and as the plaintiff has failed to prove his adverse possession in OS No.4903/1987 and failed to prove his actual possession in OS No.3206/1986, then here in this case, definitely plaintiff has burden to prove his case beyond any cloud. If the plaintiff has constructive possession, then question will arise though there is no rental agreement or recital about rent in the gift deed, then why he filed such previous suits such as eviction and suit for injunction not to interfere with his possession and relief for adverse possession in previous cases if his way is clear by gift deed. Moreover in his cross examination dated 29-06-2018 PW 1 has stated that, ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನವನ್ನು ಕೇಳಲು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯ ಮನೆಗೆ ಯಾವಾಗ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಸಿ.ವೆಂಕಟಸ್ವಾ ಮಿ ಯಾವಾಗ ತೀರಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾ ನೆ ಎಂಬುದು ನನಗೆ 42 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಸಿ.ವೆಂಕಟಸ್ವಾ ಮಿ ಮತ್ತು ಆತನ ಮಗ ಡಾ.ವೆಂಕಟಸ್ವಾ ಮಿ ನಡುವೆ ಏನು ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಆಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂಬುದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ದಾನ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಯಾರು ಮತ್ತು ಎಲ್ಲಿ ತಯಾರಿಸಲಾಯಿತು ಎಂಬುದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ದಾನ ಪತ್ರಕ್ಕೆ ನಾಗಭೂಷಣ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯಾಗಿ, ಅಜಿತ್ ಕುಮಾರ್ ಮ್ಯಾ ನೇಜಿಂಗ್ಟ್ರಸ್ಟಿ ಯಾಗಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಆ ರೀತಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ನಾನು ಹಾಜರಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಆ ದಾಖಲಾತಿ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಏನುಾ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಡಾಃವೆಂಕಟಸ್ವಾ ಮಿ ಮಕ್ಕಳು ದಾನ ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ. ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ವಾದಿ ಟ್ರಸ್ಟ್ ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಅಧಿಕಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಹಕ್ಕು ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಇವತ್ತಿಗೂ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗಳೇ ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನದಲ್ಲಿದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಒಂದು ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನ ಇದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗೆ ತೊಂದರೆ ಕೊಡಲು ಈ ಸುಳ್ಳು ದಾವೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ." Moreover, the documents say that the donor of plaintiff and defendants are using suit schedule property with common kitchen and common pooja as joint family, then there is cloud about his absolute ownership over the property. In such circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have produced original deeds as he admitted that it is in the custody of plaintiff institution. The cross examination DW1 revolves around other properties of defendants than on the documentary evidence produced by the defendant. When defendants proved that gift deed dated 23-08-1984 is not acted upon as possession of the property was not delivered to the plaintiff, then plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants occupation of the suit schedule property is illegal and unlawful as plaintiff failed to prove its lawful and absolute ownership of the suit schedule 43 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment property by producing original sale deed and original gift deed. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and as per Section 34 of Specific Relief Act;
"34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.--Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. Explanation.--A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."
54. In the further chief examination of PW 1 in page No.5, Exs.P 3 to Ex.P 5 are marked subject to objections by defendant side in the absence of originals. Then, as Section 34 of the Act is clear about the declaration of the title and when the defendants objected about the non-production of the originals then, when PW 1 admitted that originals are in the office of the plaintiff, then 44 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment he ought to have produced the originals before the court to clear the veil of cloud.
55. Moreover, the learned Counsel for plaintiff relied upon; The judgment in AIR 1971 HIMACHAL PRADESH 5 (Moti - Appellants v. Roshan and others-Respondents) in which it is held as;
"E) Hindu Law - Gift - Delivery of possession is essential to complete a gift - The defect of want of delivery of possession cannot be cured even by registration of a gift deed.
Further held as;
"Under the ordinary Hindu Law delivery of possession is essential to complete a gift, and even registration of a deed of gift has been held to be insufficient to overcome the defect of want of delivery of possession (see Vasudev v. Narain, (1883) ILR 7 Bom 131 and Lakshmimoni v. Nittyananda, (1893) ILR 20 Cal
464)."
56. Therefore, as per the above discussion, it is established that as on the date of gift deed, the registration of gift deed made without delivery of actual possession over the suit schedule property.
45
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment
57. Regarding Issue No 4 is concerned, there is no counter claim in the written statement to declare the title in favour of defendants by way of adverse possession. But Ex.D.11 shows that the possession of defendants is within the knowledge of the plaintiffs herein and in the year 1986 itself the plaintiff questioned their possession, then it gives inference that defendants have no ground to ask the relief of their adverse possession.
58. Therefore as per the facts and circumstances of the case and above discussions, the defendants proved that without seeking relief of declaration, the relief prayed is not maintainable. Hence, this Court answers Issue Nos.1, 2, 4 in the Negative and Issue Nos.3 and 6 in the Affirmative.
59. Issue No 5 : As per paragraph 11 of the plaint, the cause of action arose on 23-08-1984 as on the date of Gift Deed, on 03-12-2012 as on the date of judgment in OS No.3206/1987 and in the month of October 2014. Though there is nothing elicited by the plaintiff about prior approach to the defendants to vacate possession by the defendants, but the said gift deed is in question in every previous litigation and there is nothing elicited by the defendants about the suit being barred by 46 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment limitation, accordingly, this Court answers Issue No.5 in the Negative.
60. Issue No 7 : This issue is already disposed on 30-05- 2017 on account of payment of deficit court fee by the plaintiff.
61. Issue No 8 : As discussed above, as per Exs.P.1 and 2 and as per page No.44 of Ex.D.57 and as per paragraphs 1 and 2 of the cross examination of PW1, it is clear that the plaintiff has not complied the provision of law to prosecute this case as to the authority of plaintiff institution. There are no documents produced to show that the PW 1 Sridhar Sagar is the Managing Trustee of the plaintiff institution. While there is such a dispute about the subject matter of the case then, plaintiff has to prove his case without any single ambiguity/cloud. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to Order XXXI Rule 1 CPC.
Order XXXI Rule 1 of CPC runs as;
"1. Representation of beneficiaries in suits concerning property vested in trustees etc.-- In all suits concerning property vested in a trustee, executor or administrator, where the contention is between the persons beneficially interested in such property and a third person, the trustee, executor or Administrator shall represent the persons so interested, and it shall not ordinarily be necessary to make 47 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment them parties to the suit. But the Court may, if it thinks fit, order them or any of them to be made parties."
62. In this regard the learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon, Judgment in RFA No 31/2013(SP) ( Sri S Annadore vs Al Habeeb Education Trust (RGD) in which it is held in para 15 and 19 as;
"15. As per the above Clause, the Board of Trustees shall have power to represent the Trust through any of the Trustees 'duly authorized in that behalf by the Board. The Trust has examined in all three witnesses. Out of them P.W.1 is one of the Trustees. P.W.2 is a witness to the agreement and P.W.3 is the scribe. As recorded herein- above, P.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not produced any document to show that he was authorized to file the suit. In view of the said admitted fact coupled with the settled position of law that an action on behalf of the Trust can only be brought by all the Trustees, we answer point No. (i) in the negative and in favour of the defendant.
19. In view of the admitted facts and settled position of law recorded herein-above, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the learned Trial Judge. In 48 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment this appeal, defendant has urged a specific ground that the suit filed by the Trust not represented by all the Trustees is not maintainable. For reasons recorded herein-above, we have upheld that contention."
Judgment in MFA No 188/1985 dated 28/29-03-1985 ( Shivalingaiah vs Ananda Social & Educational Trust) in which it is held as;
"TRUSTS ACT, 1882 (Central Act No. 2 of 1882)
--- Section 48 - Suit on behalf of Trust ---- All Trustees must join ---- Not permissible for one or two Trustees to represent Trust and bring action.
Suit filed by Trust represented by its Chairman and a Trustee against 8 other Trustees and others seeking inter alia declarations, permanent injunction etc. The suit was not one by Trustees against Co- Trustees in the interest of affairs of Trust or on the ground their acts are prejudicial to the Trust. Trial Court granted temporary injunction on the conclusion prima facie case is established and that serious injury would result if injunction is not granted. In Appeal :
HELD An action on behalf of the Trust can only be brought by all the Trustees. If the action is brought in the 49 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment name of the Trust, it is not permissible for one or two of the trustees to represent the Trust. (Para-18).
The averment in the plaint, the cause of action and prayer make it abundantly clear that the suit is filed for and on behalf of the Trust. Hence, the suit as framed was not maintainable."
AIR 1984 Delhi 145 in RFA No 156/1978 (Duli Chand Appellants v. M/s. Mahabir Pershad Trilok Chand Charitable Trust, Delhi-Respondent);
"Trusts Act (2 of 1882), S.47, S.48 - Suit filed by one of the co-trustees on authorisation by resolution passed by other co-trustees - Held, not maintainable.
1972 Rajdhani LR 142 (Delhi), Not Foll.
A suit by one of the co-trustees on the basis of a resolution passed unanimously by all other co-trustees authorizing that trustee to file the suit would not be maintainable. The position of trustees is exactly the same as of any other set of co-owners who must necessarily join together to file a suit.
(Paras 16 17) A trust is not a legal entity as such. In fact, a Trust may be defined as obligation imposed on the ostensible owner of property to use the same for a particular object 50 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment for the benefit of a named beneficiary or a charity. Thus all Trustees in law are owners of the property but they are obliged to use the same in a particular manner. If a number of trustees exist, they are joint owners of the property. It is not like a Corporation which has a legal existence of its own and therefore can appoint an agent. A Trust is not in this sense a legal entity. It is the trustees who are the legal entities."
In AIR 1973 GUJARAT 113 FULL BENCH-GUJARAT HIGH COURT the Special Civil Appln. No. 762 of 1965, D/- 2 - 3
- 1972 (Atmaram Ranchhodbhai- Petitioner v.Gulamhusein Gulam Mohiyaddin and another- Respondents) held as;
"Trusts Act (2 of 1882), S.47 - Decision making by co-trustees must be joint in absence of severally in the Trust deed, though mere formal act by one is permissible.
Thus unless the instrument of trust otherwise provides, all co-trustees must join in filling a suit to recover possession of the property from the tenant (Case law discussed)."
63. Here in this case, there are no original documents pertaining to existence of trust, has been furnished. There is no 51 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment document produced pertaining to authorization of managing trustee to prosecute the case. As per Section 48 of Trust Act;
"48. Co-trustees cannot act singly.--When there are more trustees than one, all must join in the execution of the trust, except where the instrument of trust otherwise provides."
64. But, there is no document produced to establish that the PW 1 Sridhar Sagar is the managing trustee of the plaintiff institution. Further, there is no GPA produced to establish that the PW 1 is the Attorney of plaintiff institution. This plaintiff has clear knowledge of law as per judgment in HRC proceedings, wherein the Court clearly observed about non-compliance of filing necessary documents to show that Sri Seetharama Kedilaya, who appeared in that case as representative of plaintiff institution has not proved his authority to prosecute that case.
65. Therefore, as per facts and circumstances of the case and above discussions defendants established that suit is not maintainable under Order XXXI Rule 1 of CPC and Section 48 of Trust Act, hence, this Court answers Issue No.8 in the Affirmative.
66. Issue No 9 : In this case, the defendant raised the application of doctrine of estoppel against the plaintiff. In this regard Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act is reproduced here under;
"115. Estoppel.--When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or 52 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.
Illustration A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title."
67. On perusal of materials on record, for the first instance plaintiff initiated HRC proceedings contending that the defendants were his tenants on the basis of Gift Deed. But, in the Gift Deed there is no recital about tenancy. To some extent, the documentary evidence shows that suit schedule property had colour of joint family features. In OS No.3206/1986, the plaintiff prayed for injunction not to interfere with the suit schedule property on the basis of same Gift Deed in which it is established that defendants were in possession of suit schedule property when it was acquired by his grandfather as joint owners which is established under Ex.D.36, 36(a) and Ex.D.38 and 39. In 53 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment between, there is no document produced by the plaintiff as to how the father of donor got absolute right to sell the suit schedule property without consent of father of defendants. For the sake argument, even if we infer that the said sale deed Ex.P 6 is genuine as it was vendor's (C. Ventkataswamy-grand father of defendants) self-acquired property, then question will arise how without rental agreement, the father of defendants continued in possession without interference of plaintiff's donor's vendor. Though this Court has any authority to discuss on the judgment in OS No.4903/1987, but it finds that it turned as a boon to plaintiff herein on the basis of Section 90 of Evidence Act. But, here in this case, while there is such a huge dispute on the same, then question will arise as to why the plaintiff has not utilized to rectify such discrepancies if he has grounds on the said sale deed and gift deed which establishes the estoppel.
68. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon in his written argument that, in S.P. Chengalvaraya Maida V. Jagannath ((1994) SCC 1)) held that (SCC p., para 1). Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical, or temporal observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. In the said case, it was clearly stated that "the courts of law are meant for 54 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment imparting justice between the parties and one who comes to the court, must come with clean hands."
69. But, here in this case controversy about signature of father of defendant is in Ex.P.6, then plaintiff has the bounden duty to prove his case beyond ambiguity.
70. Therefore, as per the facts and circumstances of the case and above discussions and as per the documentary evidence, the defendants have established that this suit is hit by rule of estoppel. Accordingly, this Court answers Issue No.9 in the Affirmative.
71. Issue No 10 :- As per above discussion and as per answers to above issues, this suit is filed for recovery of possession on the basis of judgment in OS No.4903/1987. After appearance of the defendants, 11 issues were framed and the written statement and documentary evidence of the defendants shows that there is a clear dispute against the suit claim. The plaintiff has every knowledge about provision of law while filing of a suit on the basis of trust deed before filing of the suit as per Ex.D.44. As a rare case of recovery of possession on the basis of judgment of a Court, nowhere the original documents of trust deed and gift deed are produced by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff 55 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment has not come forward to rectify the technical ambiguities even after framing of issues which establishes inference under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. Though he admitted that the original documents are in the office, but did not take any pain to produce the same at the time of argument or even before posting the case for judgment. There is no oral argument from the side of plaintiff to assist and convince the Court in such a case which is outcome of series of cases on the same subject matter of the suit and between same parties. When the defendants established that suit is not maintainable, then accordingly the plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs as sought for in this case, hence, this Court answers Issue No.10 in the Negative.
72. Issue No 11 : For the foregoing discussion and reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and accordingly proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
56
OS No.8933/2014-Judgment (Dictated to the Sr.Sheritedar on computer, typed by him, corrected revised, signed and then pronounced in Open Court on 17.09.2024) (SMT. JYOTHSNA D.,) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH12), BENGALURU SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the residential premises bearing New No.6, Old No.221, previous No.184, situated at 3rd Main Road, (Ramakrishna- iah Street), Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru - 20, presently comes under the ju- risdiction of BBMP, measuring East to West 90 feet and North to South 30 feet, and totally measuring 2700 sq.ft., along with old dwelling house con- sisting ground floor bounded on:
East by : 3rd Main Road (Ramakrishnaiah Street) West by : Conservancy North by : Annaiyappa's property South by : B. Srinivasaiahs property ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff. PW 1 - Sridhar Sagar List of witnesses examined for the defendants DW 1 - C.G. Chandrashekar List of documents marked for the plaintiff Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Judgment and Decree in OS No.3206/1986 &2 Ex.P.3 Certified copy of Deed of Trust dated 10.11.1980 Ex.P.4 Certified copy of Deed of 6th Amendment Ex.P.5 Certified copy of the Gift Deed dated 23.08.1984 Ex.P.6 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 18.05.1957 Ex.P.7 Khatha Certificate in the name of Venkataswamy Ex.P.8 Khatha Extract in the name of Venkataswamy 57 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment Ex.P.9 One Tax paid Receipt in the name of Venkataswamy Ex.P.10 Two Encumbrance Certificates and 11 List of documents marked for the defendants. Ex.D.1 to 6 Tax paid receipts in the name of Venkataswamy C. 6 Ex.D.7 Two Encumbrance Certificates and 8 Ex.P.9 One Inland Letter dated 09.08.1959 Ex.P.10 Certified copy of Order Sheet in OS No.4903/1987 Ex.P.11 Certified copy of plaint in OS No.3206/1986 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of written statement in OS No.3206/1986 Ex.P.13 Certified copy of additional written statement filed in OS No.3206/1986 Ex.P.14 to 21 Tax Paid Receipts 34 Ex.P.35 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 04.10.1922 executged in favour Vankataramanappa Ex.P.35(a) Typed Copy of Ex.P.35 Ex.P.36 Certified copy of Mortgage Deed dated 09.02.1942 executed in favour of Smt.Alamelamma Ex.P.36(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.36 Ex.P.37 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 18.05.1957 executed in favour of Venkataswamy Ex.P.37(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.37 Ex.P.38 2 Encumbrance Certificates and 39 Ex.P.40 Certified copy of Judgment passed in OS No.4903/1987 c/w OS 3206/1986 and OS 4903/1987 Ex.P.41 to 16 Tax paid receipts in the name of C.Venkataswamy 56 Ex.P.57 Certified copy of Order dated 31.01.1995 passed in HRC No.2015/1986 58 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment Ex.P.58 Certified copy of the Order passed in HRRP No.105/1998 Ex.P.59 Certified copy of plaint in OS No.4903/1987 Ex.P.60 to 8 tax paid receipts 67 (SMT. JYOTHSNA D.,) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH12), BENGALURU 59 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment (Order pronounced in Open Court, vide separate Judgment) ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SES-
SIONS JUDGE (CCH12), BEN-
GALURU 60 OS No.8933/2014-Judgment 61