Bangalore District Court
Sri.M.S.Prakash vs C.L.Arora on 16 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE 42nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO.43).
PRESENT: Sri.BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA,
B.Sc., M.A., LL.B.(Spl),
nd
42 ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 16th day of November 2016.
O.S.No.5085/2010
Plaintiff:- Sri.M.S.Prakash,
Aged about 45 years,
S/o.S.N.Mudakavi,
Residing at No.520,
7th Main, 5th Cross,
H.M.T. Layout,
Ganganagar,
Bangalore-560 032.
(By - Sri.M.Shanmukhappa , Adv.)
v.
Defendants:- 1. C.L.Arora,
Father's name not known,
Aged about 63 years,
2. Mrs.Neelam Arora,
W/o.C.L.Arora,
Aged about 53 years,
Both are R/at No.57 & 58,
Srinidhi Layout, Vidyaranyapura,
Jarakabandekaval,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
2 O.S.No.5085/2010
Bangalore - 560 097.
3. Sri.Sheik Mehaboob,
S/o.Late Abdul Khudus,
Aged about 55 years,
4. Sri.Sheik Pyare Jan,
S/o.Late Abdul Khudus,
Aged about 56 years,
5. Sri.Wasik,
S/o.Abdul Kalaq,
Aged about 36 years,
Defs.3 to 5 are
R/at M.S.Palya,
Jarakabandekaval,
Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
6. Smt.C.Rama Devi,
W/o.K.Ramachandran,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.346/3A,
1st Main Road,
8th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 093.
(D1 to D3 By Sri.M.J.Alva, Adv.)
D4 to D6 - Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit : 23.07.2010
Nature of the suit : Declaration, Mandatory
Injunction, possession &
Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of : 29.01.2015
Recording of the evidence
3 O.S.No.5085/2010
Date on which the Judgment : 16.11.2016
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
06 03 23
(BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA)
nd
42 ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction, possession, permanent injunction and costs.
2. The brief facts as averred in the plaint are that:-
The plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property bearing site No.56, carved out of converted Sy.No.53/2B, situated at Jarakabandekaval Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore, through a Registered Sale Deed dated 11.04.2002 for valuable consideration. The katha was transferred in his name in Byatarayanapura City Municipal Council. By making of payment of taxes, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 4 O.S.No.5085/2010
The plaintiff submits that one Sri.Abdul Khudus was the original owner of entire property bearing Sy.No.53/2 measuring 11 acres 18 guntas including kharab of 5 guntas, which was his ancestral property. During his lifetime, he has sold 2 acres of the land under a Registered Sale Deed dated 11.06.1970 to one Sri.Venkataraju by retaining remaining property. After the demise of Sri.Abdul Khudus, his legal heirs succeeded the property and in the year 1989, they got converted an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.53/2B out of 4 acres 25 guntas vide Order of Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore dated 19.10.1989. In the year 1997, legal heirs of late Sri.Abdul Khudus namely his wife - Smt.Azeema Bi, her sons and grand children have executed an Agreement of Sale and GPA dated 23.10.1997 in favour of one Sri.Nanda Lal s/o.late Rajmal and G.M.Solomon Raju s/o.G.Mark in respect of above said 4 acres 25 guntas, including 2 acres of converted land in Sy.No.53/2B. Subsequently, Sri.Nanda Lal and Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju have formed a layout and sold some sites to various purchasers. Some of the sites including the suit schedule property was sold in favour of Sri.G.M.Isac by 5 O.S.No.5085/2010 executing a registered Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.2002 for a sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-. Due to paucity of funds, said Sri.G.M.Isac was unable to perform his part of contract. Under the circumstances, said Sri.Nanda Lal and Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju have sold the said sites to different purchasers for a valid sale consideration with the consent of Agreement Holder. Similarly, the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from all the legal heirs of late Sri.Abdul Khudus, duly represented by their GPA Holder - Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju for a valid sale consideration. In the year 2007, the plaintiff has applied for getting building license and sanctioned plan from the BBMP and obtained on 15.03.2007 valid upto 14.03.2009. Later due to paucity of funds he has failed to construct building, but he had put up compound wall towards road side to protect the property from the land grabbers and to avoid any type of encroachments. The plaintiff submits that the defendants are strangers, without having valid right, title or interest have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property on 21.07.2010 at 10:00 a.m. by way of digging trenches to put 6 O.S.No.5085/2010 up construction. The plaintiff has approached the jurisdictional police and lodged a complaint, but they refused to register the case. On 29.07.2010, with an intention to knock off the property the defendants have filed application before BESCOM for sanctioning of electricity service stating that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule property and in possession and put up an asbestos sheet roofed shed and obtained service on 07.08.2010 and such sanction was taken without following due procedure. The defendants have put up a shed in the western portion, measuring East to West:12 feet and North to South:30 feet and also put up a compound wall towards southern side as mentioned in A-schedule, which is part and parcel of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 also filed application before the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, for cancellation of katha standing in the name of the plaintiff. The Joint Commissioner without giving proper opportunity to the plaintiff, has passed an order by cancelling the katha in respect of the suit schedule property standing in the name of the plaintiff without giving any reasons by its Order dated 27.12.2010. All these things have happened during 7 O.S.No.5085/2010 the subsistence of the status quo order passed in this suit in respect of disputed property. They obtained such orders suppressing the true facts and to create evidence. The plaintiff came to know about the encroachment made by the defendants and put up a shed taking electricity connection etc., only after filing of the written statement by the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff came to know that some of the plaintiff's vendors namely Sri.Shiek Mehaboob, Sri.Sheik Pyare Jan, both sons of above said Sri.Abdul Khudus and Sri.Wasik, son of Abdul Kalaq, grand son of Sri.Abdul Khudus, who have executed Agreement to Sell as well as General Power of Attorney dated 23.10.1997 in favour of Sri.Nanda Lal and Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju, have executed registered Sale Deed dated 11.02.2002 in favour of Smt.C.Ramadevi in respect of site No.56 and by putting different boundaries and description to the schedule. The above said vendors are alone not having any right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property, but with a view to make wrongful gain executed Sale Deed in favour of Smt.C.Ramadevi. In turn, Smt.C.Ramadevi has sold Site No.56 by giving wrong boundaries and description 8 O.S.No.5085/2010 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 under a Registered Sale Deed dated 27.04.2004 and have created illegal transaction and deeds by colluding each other by exercise of fraud with a view to knock off the property. Left with no alternative, the plaintiff has filed the suit though initially for injunction, later on converted the suit for declaration of his ownership by setting aside the Sale Deed of Smt.C.Ramadevi dated 11.02.2002 and the Sale Deed of the defendants 1 and 2 dated 27.04.2004, to declare it as null and void and to remove the structures put up by the defendants 1 and 2 and sought for mandatory injunction, possession and injunction. Hence, this suit.
3. After service of suit summons, defendants 1 to 3 appeared before court through their advocate - Sri.M.J.Alva and defendants 4 to 6 remained exparte. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed the written statement contending that, the property described by the plaintiff in the suit schedule is not at all in existence. The suit is bad for mis-description of the property and the relief claimed in respect of non-existed property, as such un-sustainable. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. He is guilty of 9 O.S.No.5085/2010 suppression of true facts and the relief claimed is barred under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff is not at all owner and possessor of the property, in fact the defendants 1 and 2 are owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The Sale Deed dated 16.04.2002 of the plaintiff is a created document in collusion with Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju and basing on the said document, the records transferred in the name of the plaintiff have no basis, which are created by the plaintiff. The building license and approved plan obtained from BBMP dated 15.03.2007, are fabricated and fake documents. As the defendants are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, there is no question of interfering in the possession of the plaintiff as alleged by him. The defendants 1 and 2 submits that they are the absolute owners in physical possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Site No.56, CMC Katha No.238, carved out of the lands in Sy.No.53/2B3b and formed as per the Conversion Order dated 19.10.1989, measuring East to West:50 feet North to South:30 feet, measuring 1500 square feet and bounded on:
10 O.S.No.5085/2010
East by: Road,
West by: Site No.61,
North by: House of defendants in property
No.57 and 58 and
South by: Remaining portion of the land in the same survey number.
The defendants have developed the said property by putting up a compound wall and constructing the shed therein and grown fruits bearing trees and horticultural crops. Thus, they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. They also taken domestic power connection to the said shed in the property constructed by them. The vendor of the defendants 1 and 2 -
Smt.C.Ramadevi, who had purchased the property from her vendors - Sri.Sheik Mehaboob Sri.Sheik Pyare Jan and Sri.Wasik for valuable consideration through a Registered Sale Deed dated 11.02.2002 and subsequent to purchase, katha was changed in the names of the defendants 1 and 2 by the CMC and defendants paid tax to the CMC. After it was included within the limits of BBMP, they paid tax to BBMP. They have been paying electricity charges to BESCOM. As such, based on the fabricated documents the 11 O.S.No.5085/2010 plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction, as such not maintainable. There is no cause of action to file the suit.
4. After the plaintiff got amended the suit for the reliefs of declaration, possession and mandatory injunction and cancellation of title deeds of defendants 1 and 2 and their vendor, the defendants filed the additional written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff as false and baseless. The suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient. The plaintiff has included three independent reliefs in one prayer. As such, he has to value the same separately and independently. Since the relief of declaration is prayed, he has to pay court fee on the market value of the property. Amendment was allowed on 28.09.2013, as such he has to pay court fee in accordance to Section 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Similarly, for cancellation of Sale Deed he has to pay court fee under Section 38 of the Act independently and separately. Since the suit was filed for injunction on 23.07.2010 and present amendment is allowed on 28.09.2013, period prescribed under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act is 3 years. As per the amended 12 O.S.No.5085/2010 CPC, the amended prayer will be considered from the date on which the amendment was allowed and same will never go back to the original date of filing of the suit. As such, the additional reliefs sought by the plaintiff are heavily barred by limitation and the said reliefs are hit by delay and latches, as such the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs. It is also contended that suit is barred under Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC and under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. The defendants 1 and 2 have clearly taken defence that they are the owners and possessors of the property and denied the case of the plaintiff, as such there is no cause of action to file the suit and same is liable to be rejected. The Sale Deed of the plaintiff executed by the GPA Holder of the vendors is a fictitious document and GPA is also fictitious. The plaintiff has admitted the possession of the defendants 1 and 2 as on the date of filing the suit. Therefore, they are the owners and possessors having absolute right in respect of suit schedule property from 27.04.2004 and they put up construction and residing therein. Hence, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against them and also cannot seek mandatory 13 O.S.No.5085/2010 injunction to remove the structures put up by them which are in existence since 2004. The vendor of the defendants 1 and 2 - Smt.C.Ramadevi has derived lawful title and through her, property was purchased by the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of facts and not approached the court with clean hands, as such not all entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed in the suit and prayed that suit be dismissed with costs.
5. Basing on the rival pleadings the following issues are framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
4. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is owner of the suit property?
14 O.S.No.5085/2010
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to get declaration of his title and also setting aside Sale Deeds dated 11.02.2002 and 27.04.2004 as null and void?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled to get the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the structures put up by defendants 1 and 2 in A-schedule property and to hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff?
4. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 prove that the relief of declaration of title is barred by limitation?
5. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 prove that suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient?
6. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 prove that suit is barred under Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC and under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act as contended in para 4 of the written statement?
6. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and two witnesses on his behalf as PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P46 and closed his side. The defendant No.1 got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D18 and closed their side.
15 O.S.No.5085/2010
7. After the closure of the evidence, heard the arguments.
8. My answers to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1:- In the negative.
Issue No.2:- In the negative.
Issue No.3:- 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 affirmative.
Addl. Issue No.5:- In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.6:- In the affirmative.
Issue No.4:- As per final order.
for the following:-
REASONS
9. Issue Nos.1 & 2 and Addl. Issue Nos.1 to 3:-
For the sake of convenience these issues are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that, he is the owner of suit schedule property morefully described in the plaint schedule i.e., Site No.56 carved out of Sy.No.53/2B, 16 O.S.No.5085/2010 Jarakabandekaval Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore, as he has purchased the same through the GPA Holder of legal heirs of original owner - late Sri.Abdul Khudus i.e., Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju, through a Registered Sale Deed dated 11.04.2002 at Ex.P1. The said site was transferred in his name in the records maintained by BBMP and he has been in possession of the same and he has produced Ex.P2
- Declaration given under Self-Assessment Scheme before CMC, Byatarayanapura pertains to Katha No.444/3/53/2B Site No.56 as per Ex.P2. Later on, it falls within the jurisdiction of BBMP. He has produced Ex.P3 - Assessment Register Extract from BBMP for the year 2009-10, which is standing in the name of PW-1, Katha Certificate - Ex.P4 issued from BBMP, tax paid receipts under Self - Assessment Scheme at Ex.P5 to P8 dated 29.03.2006 25.03.2006, 21.04.2005, 19.02.2010 and for the subsequent years at Ex.P9 to Ex.P15. It is his case that, during 2007 he has taken approved plan from CMC, Byatarayanapura as per Ex.P19 and building license as per Ex.P20, but as he could not construct the building due to paucity of money. But when he went to the site on 17 O.S.No.5085/2010 21.07.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., he found that without having any manner of right, the defendants 1 and 2 were found digging the trenches with a view to put up construction illegally that was resisted by him. He went to Police Station and they refuse to receive the complaint.
That is the reason he has filed the suit initially for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. It is noticed from the order sheet that, this court has passed Orders on I.A.No.1 an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for issue of exparte ad-interim T.I., directed to maintain status quo and the said order was in force till 08.03.2011. It is further case of the plaintiff that, as in the written statement the defendants 1 and 2 have not only denied his title in respect of the suit schedule property and set up their own title in respect of the suit schedule property on the ground that they purchased Site No.56 from their vendor - Smt.C.Ramadevi under a Registered Sale Deed dated 27.04.2004 at Ex.P27. Their vendor - Smt.C.Ramadevi purchased a Site Nos.56 and 57 through a Registered Sale Deed dated 13.05.2003 as per Ex.P26 and they put up compound wall and also servant's house, 18 O.S.No.5085/2010 installed electricity to the same, raised fruit bearing trees and developed garden and are in possession of the suit schedule property and denied that the plaintiff is not at all in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. The plaintiff got amended the plaint by making an application at I.A.No.4 as per the Order dated 28.09.2013 and amendment was carried on 10.10.2013. It is only subsequently the defendants 1 and 2 filed additional written statement by raising the plea that the plaintiff has no cause of action and the said relief of declaration of his title and also declaring the title deeds of the defendants 1 and 2 as null and void is barred by limitation and the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs as sought in the suit. It is contended by the defendants 1 and 2 that they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property.
10. It is also deposed by DW-1 in his evidence that the Sale Deed - Ex.P1 was got executed by the plaintiff through the GPA Holder of original owner - Sri.Abdul Khudus to a non-existent property and same is null and void and the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, heavy burden is on the 19 O.S.No.5085/2010 plaintiff to prove his title in respect of the suit schedule property and also he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and it is only during the pendency of the suit, he has been dispossessed by the defendants 1 and 2 by constructing a servant's shed and compound wall around the suit schedule property.
11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that the plaintiff has produced his title deeds - Ex.P1 and his name was entered in the katha maintained by CMC, Byatarayanapura and thereafter, BBMP and he has been making payment of taxes to the BBMP as per Ex.P2 to P15- tax paid receipts. He pointed out with reference to the title deeds of vendors of the defendants 1 and 2 namely Ex.P36 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 17.05.2002, through which Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.M.Indira sold the property in favour of DW-1 and his son - Mr.Deepak Arora in respect of Site Nos.57 and 58 in Sy.No.53/2B, 50' x 60', the boundaries shown therein is not tallied with Sketch of the Layout - Ex.P37. The said vendors of DW-1 purchased Site Nos.58 and 59 by Smt.Indira from the legal heirs of Sri.Abdul Khudus through a Registered Sale Deed dated 20 O.S.No.5085/2010 11.02.2002. The boundaries mentioned therein and equally the Sale Deed dated 11.02.2002 through which Smt.C.Ramadevi purchased Site Nos.56 and 57 is also not tallied with the Sketch - Ex.P37. Therefore, Site No.56 alleged to have been purchased by the defendants 1 and 2 under a Registered Sale Deed - Ex.P27 dated 27.04.2004 from Smt.C.Ramadevi is a created document, no such property is in existence. The description, boundaries and extent shown doesn't fits in the existing state of affairs on the spot and in the evidence, DW-1 has not clarified the same. As such, he pointed out by drawing the attention of the court to Ex.P41 - Encumbrance Certificate, which shows that earlier to the Sale Deed - Ex.P1 under Registered Agreement of Sale one Sri.G.M.Isac has purchased on 21.04.2002 and the plaintiff has produced the Sale Agreement at Ex.P25, who is examined as PW-2 in this case, has supported the contention of the plaintiff and he is one of the signatory witness to the Sale Deed - Ex.P1. PW-2 has deposed that the plaintiff was in possession of the property by virtue of the Sale Deed - Ex.P1 dated 11.04.2002. Therefore, the Sale Deed of the plaintiff is the 21 O.S.No.5085/2010 earlier Sale Deed than the Sale Deed of the defendants 1 and 2 - Ex.P27, which is dated 15.05.2002. As such, on the date of execution of the said Sale Deed their vendor - Smt.C.Ramadevi was not at all in possession. Late Sri.Abdul Khudus died leaving behind 17 LRs is not disputed by DW-1. Therefore, only 3 LRs of late Sri.Abdul Khudus have no right to execute Sale Deeds of the vendors of DW.1, as such defendants' property what is covered under Ex.P27 is elsewhere and all the developments that are made, construction of servant's house, compound wall, installation of electricity, payment of electricity bills, are subsequent to the filing of the suit, while status quo order was in force. As such, the defendants 1 and 2 cannot rely on those documents to support their title and possession. However, as the defendants 1 and 2 have forcibly encroached the suit schedule property, he has sought possession from the defendants. Therefore, in this case, the crucial aspect need to appreciate is that, whether the plaintiff is justified in claiming the relief of declaration of title and possession, was he entitled to the said relief as the title of the plaintiff is denied by the defendants 1 and 2 and 22 O.S.No.5085/2010 they contend that they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and at no point of time the plaintiff is in possession. It is necessary to appreciate to find out that DW-1 had acquired any title and possession in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., Site No.56 or not. Question of identity of the property claimed by the defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.P27 is disputed by the plaintiff, it is necessary to appreciate schedules mentioned in the title deeds of the DW-1 and his vendors with that of the claim made by PW-1 under Ex.P1.
12. The schedule and boundary mentioned for the suit schedule property in the plaint and in the Registered Sale Deed of the plaintiff - Ex.P1 dated 11.04.2002 is as follows:-
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site No.56, CMC Katha No.443/3, carved out of converted Sy.No.53/2B, situated at Jarakabandekaval Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now Srinidhi Layout, Vidyaranyapura (M.S.Palya), Vidyaranyapura Post, Bangalore-560 097, measuring East to West: 50 feet and North to South: 35 feet and bounded on:23 O.S.No.5085/2010
East by: Road;
West by: Site No.61,
North by: Site No.57 and
South by: Water Drainage.
It is not in dispute that originally property bearing No.53/2, measuring 11 acres 18 guntas including kharab of 5 guntas at Jarakabandekaval Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore, was the ancestral property of Sri.Abdul Khudus and he has sold 2 acres in the said property in favour of Sri.Venaktaraju through a Registered Sale Deed dated 11.06.1970 and retaining remaining portion in his enjoyment and the said Sri.Abdul Khudus died. In the year 1989, his legal heirs got converted an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.53/2B out of 4 acres 25 guntas vide Order No.BDS/ALNSR(N) 64/1989- 90 dated 19.10.1989 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and subsequently the legal heirs Sri.Abdul Khudus namely Abdul Kalik, Sheik Mehaboob and Pyare Jan have got sanction of conversion of 2 acres in Sy.No.53/2B as per the Order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 19.10.1989. The Order copy is produced at Ex.P23. As regards the name of Sri.Venkataraju is seen in the old RTC produced at Ex.P21 24 O.S.No.5085/2010 and Ex.P22 and in the cross-examination of DW-1, he has deposed that to remove the name of Sri.Venkataraju he has taken legal steps along with owners of the property.
However, the fact that legal heirs of Sri.Abdul Khudus, who are 17 numbers, have executed GPA in the names of Sri.Nanda Lal and Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju dated 23.10.1997 in respect of Sy.No.53/2B was within the knowledge of DW.1, can be gathered from his admission and he has deposed that he has seen the said GPA. Copy of Notarized GPA is produced by the plaintiff at Ex.P24. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that, on the strength of said GPA executed by all the legal heirs of late Sri.Abdul Khudus, Site No.56 was purchased by him under Sale Deed - Ex.P1 and prior to his purchase, under Sale Agreement executed by the said GPA Holders in favour of one Sri.G.M.Isac through a Registered Agreement of Sale - Ex.P25 was found in the Encumbrance Certificate - Ex.P41. Therefore, without verifying the same, without ascertaining the title of his vendor - Smt.C.Ramadevi, DW-1 has purchased Site No.56, showing the wrong boundary, it doesn't tally with the boundaries of title deeds of his vendors. As such, learned 25 O.S.No.5085/2010 counsel for the plaintiff argued that DW-1 and his wife are not the bonafide purchasers and the title of the plaintiff is established by producing the documentary evidence as well as evidence of PWs.1 to 3. According to him the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration that the title deeds of the defendants 1 and 2 and their vendor - Smt.C.Ramadevi is null and void and as during the pendency of the suit, the defendants 1 and 2 have put up small structures what is seen in the photos - Ex.D15, Ex.D16, Ex.P28 to Ex.P31 and DW-1 admits that he has put up such structure, as such, the defendants 1 and 2 are liable to remove that structure and hand over the vacant possession of the suit site to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is necessary to appreciate that, whether the property purchased by the defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.P27 was the property covered under the suit schedule or no such property is in existence, we have to trace out from the schedule mentioned in the title deeds of DW-1 and his vendors.
13. Therefore, as Conversion Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner layout was formed in Sy.No.53/2B of Jarakabandekaval Village is not in dispute and the plaintiff 26 O.S.No.5085/2010 himself has produced the layout sketch at Ex.P37. It is not in dispute that PW-1 himself admits in his pleadings and in the evidence that the defendants 1 and 2 are owners and possessors of the 2 sites bearing Nos.57 and 58 situated to the North of Site No.56 i.e., suit schedule property. If that being so, the lie of the land in the admitted layout sketch - Ex.P37 was the basis for the claim of the plaintiff. PW-1 admits that in Site Nos.56 and 57 the defendants 1 and 2 have constructed the big building and they are residing therein. Therefore, title and possession of the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of Site Nos.57 and 58 is admitted by PW-1. His contention is confined to his claim in respect of Site No.56 which is admittedly lying to the South of Site No.57 and it has come in the evidence that, as regards Site Nos.57 and 58 common boundary is shown.
14. At this juncture, with reference to the said Sketch
- Ex.P37 if we appreciate the boundaries mentioned in the respective title deeds of the vendors of the defendants 1 and 2. Ex.P38 is the Registered Sale Deed dated 11.02.2002, through which from Sri.Sheik Mehaboob, Sri.Sheik Pyare Jan and Sri.Wasik, who are the sons and 27 O.S.No.5085/2010 grand son of original owner - late Sri.Abdul Khudus, Smt.M.Indira purchased Site Nos.58 and 59, Katha No.238 formed in Sy.No.53/2B, East to West; 50 feet and North to South: 60 feet, bounded by:
East by: Site Nos.56 & 57,
West by: Road,
North by: Site Nos.49 & 50 and
South by: Site No.61.
That means, she has purchased Site Nos.58 and 59 in the very same layout Sketch - Ex.P37, which shows that to the West, there is a road i.e., fixed boundary, to the North: Site Nos.49 and 50, that is also seen in the sketch. One more Site No.51 also comes to the North of Site No.58. But we can make out from the boundary that which property she had purchased. To the South, it is mentioned as Site No.61. But in fact it is only after Site No.60, to its South Site No.61 situates and to the East: Site Nos.56 and 57 is shown. That description is wrong. But remaining 3 sides, the boundaries tallies to make out what was the property i.e., Site Nos.58 and 59 purchased by Smt.M.Indira under Sale Deed Ex.P38.
28 O.S.No.5085/2010
15. Likewise, Smt.C.Ramadevi purchased Site Nos.56 and 57 through a Registered Sale Deed, though presented on 11.02.2002 for registration, but as stamp duty was not properly paid and after the order passed by the Registrar, on payment of stamp duty it was registered on 13.05.2003 as per the endorsement under Ex.P26. The boundary shown for Site Nos.56 and 57 together East to West: 50 feet and North to South: 60 feet as follows:-
East by: Road,
West by: Site No.58 & 59
North by: Site Nos.50 & 51 and
South by: Site No.55.
If it is verified with the layout Sketch - Ex.P37, certainly to the North of Site No.56: Site No.57 situates, to its North:
Site No.58 situates, to the East: there is Road and to the West it is mentioned as Site Nos.58 and 59. But in fact, in the Sketch it is the northern boundary and to the North, it is shown as Site Nos.50 and 51. But in fact, that is after site belonged to Smt.M.Indira, Site No.50 and 51 situates. To the South: Site No.55, but infact Site Nos.56 and 57: Site Nos.60 and 61 situates. But here, looking to lie of the land 29 O.S.No.5085/2010 while showing the boundary discrepancy is found. But one thing is clear by the admission of PW-1, he doesn't dispute the ownership of DW-1 and defendant No.2 in respect of Site Nos.57 and 58. Therefore, Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.M.Indira, who are the owners of Site Nos.57, 58 and 59, as such both Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.Indira together have executed Registered Sale Deed - Ex.P36 dated 17.05.2002 in favour of DW.1- Wg.Cdr.Chaman Lal Arora and his son - Mr.Deepak Arora in respect of Site Nos.57 and 58, East to West: 50 feet and North to South: 60 feet, showing boundaries:
East by: Road,
West by: Site Nos.59 & 60
North by: Site Nos.51 & 50,
South by: Site No.56.
If this boundary of Site Nos.57 and 58 as per Ex.P36 is verified with Sketch - Ex.P37, common boundary of both Site Nos.57 and 58 : Road to the East and to the West: Site No.59 & 60, northern boundary Site Nos.51 & 50 and to the South of Site No.57: Site No.56 is mentioned. Therefore, for Site Nos.57 and 58 their ownership and possession is 30 O.S.No.5085/2010 not disputed by the plaintiff, which is clarified by a Registered Sale Deed - Ex.P36. Therefore, even if discrepancy is found while showing boundaries in title deed of Smt.M.Indira - Ex.P38 and title deed of Smt.C.Ramadevi
- Ex.P26, but we can locate what was the property purchased by them under Ex.P38 and P26. That is the reason, as Smt.Indira being the owner of Site No.58 by virtue of Ex.P38 and Smt.C.Ramadevi being the owner of Site No.57 by virtue of Sale Deed - Ex.P26, together have executed a Registered Sale Deed under Ex.P36 dated 17.05.2002 in favour of DW.1 and his son, can very well be gathered.
16. They obtained license from CMC, Byatarayanapura and they constructed big house in Site Nos.57 & 58 and they are owners and possessors of the said sites is admitted by the plaintiff. Therefore, we can locate that, what was the property purchased by Smt.C.Ramadevi under Sale Deed - Ex.P26 in respect of Site No.56, certainly the site which is lying to the South of Site No.57. Therefore, it is pertinent note herein that though the plaintiff claims that late Sri.Abdul Khudus left behind 17 LRs 31 O.S.No.5085/2010 and hardly 2 sons of late Sri.Abdul Khudus and one son of late Abdul Kalaq i.e., Sri.Wasik, have executed Registered Sale Deeds at Ex.P26 and P38 in favour of Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.M.Indira in respect of Site Nos.56 & 57 and Site Nos.58 & 59. Therefore, as they are true owners, the arguments of plaintiff that they don't have any right to sell the property cannot be appreciated at all, because the vendors have not raised any dispute against the title and possession of the Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.Indira in respect of sites sold by them under Ex.P26 and Ex.P38. Even other legal heirs also not disputed. Here, in this suit, the plaintiff arrayed defendants 3 to 5 as party - defendants and they remained exparte. Once the plaintiff admits the title and possession of the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of Site Nos.57 and 58, which is lying to the North of Site No.56 i.e., schedule property, he cannot dispute the rights of vendors to sell the property to either Smt.C.Ramadevi or Smt.M.Indira under Ex.P26 and P38. Therefore, we can very well make out that, Smt.C.Ramadevi as she derived title in respect of Site No.56 along with Site No.57 under Ex.P26, has sold Site No.56 in favour of the defendants 1 32 O.S.No.5085/2010 and 2 under a Registered Sale Deed dated 27.04.2004 as per Ex.P27. In the said Sale Deed it is clearly mentioned that layout formed in old Sy.No.53/2B and new Sy.No.53/2B3b under Conversion Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as per Ex.P23, situated at Jarakabandekaval Village in respect of Site No.56, extent East to West: 50 feet and North to South: 30 feet, total area 1500 square feet, bounded on:
East by: Road,
West by: Site No.61,
North by: Site No.57 and
South: Remaining portion of land.
Quite obviously, if it is verified with the layout Sketch produced by the plaintiff himself at Ex.P37, we can make out that the boundaries mentioned are tallies with the schedule property. Only difference while showing southern boundary in the said Sale Deed - Ex.P27 it is mentioned as remaining portion of land, whereas in Ex.P1 it is mentioned as water drainage. As per DW-1, in the cross-examination he has stated that no such drainage exists at the spot to the South of Site No.56, according to him small drainage is 33 O.S.No.5085/2010 there is to the East, thereafter road. But question is why in Ex.P27 it is mentioned remaining portion of the land. For the simple reason as per the Sale Deed Ex.P1 East to West:50 feet and North to South: 35 feet, totally 1750 square feet was shown. Quite obviously under Ex.P27 in Site No.56 what is purchased area is 50' x 30' i.e., 1500 square feet. Therefore, 250 square feet is less than the area what is mentioned in the suit schedule under Ex.P1. Therefore, may be the remaining portion is still left 50' x 5' area at the spot in the Ex.P27 mentioned remaining portion of survey number. It doesn't mean that Site No.56 was not purchased by Smt.C.Ramadevi under a Registered Sale Deed - Ex.P26 and in turn, that is sold in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.P27. Because from the boundaries mentioned with reference to the Sketch - Ex.P37 of the layout, we can easily locate what was the property purchased by the vendors of the defendants 1 and 2 and the vendors of the defendants 1 and 2 how they derived title. Therefore, one thing is clear that even though GPA Holder of LRs of Sri.Abdul Khudus have sold Site No.56 in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.P1 - Registered Sale Deed 34 O.S.No.5085/2010 dated 11.04.2002, the plaintiff cannot claim that he has got better title than the defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.P27. Because, when there is a dispute with regard to the extent, boundary, what is contended by the plaintiff, all the previous title deeds with reference to the Layout Sketch, the court can very well locate while deciding the ownership rights of the parties. In this context, it is needless to say that legal heirs of Sri.Abdul Khudus, have sold Site Nos.56 and 57 in favour of Smt.C.Ramadevi under Registered Sale Deed - Ex.P26 and Site Nos.58 and 59 in favour of Smt.M.Indira under Registered Sale Deed - Ex.P38. Admittedly, they are dated 11.02.2002. But Ex.P26 was presented for registration by clearly stating that vendors of Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.Indira have handed over vacant possession of Site Nos.56, 57, 58 and 59 after receiving sale consideration. If for technical reasons for non payment of stamp duty as per the fixed norms it was kept for enquiry by the Registrar and subsequently that was paid and registered on 13.05.2003 as per the endorsement found in Ex.P26. But in fact, possession was delivered to Smt.C.Ramadevi under Ex.P26 can very well be gathered on 35 O.S.No.5085/2010 11.02.2002 itself. That means, from 11.02.2002 LRs of Sri.Abdul Khudus or their GPA Holders - Sri.Nanda Lal and Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju are not at all in possession of Site Nos.56, 57, 58 and 59, can very well be gathered. If that being so, the right of the legal heirs of Sri.Abdul Khudus to sell the above said sites in favour of Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.Indira, cannot be taken away by virtue of the GPA executed in favour of Sri.Nandalal and Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju. GPA Holder cannot question the right of the true owners. Therefore, it is needless to say that from Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.M.Indira it is DW-1, his son and wife purchased Site Nos.56, 57 and 58 and have become owners and possessors of the same can very well be gathered.
17. After purchase of Site No.56 under Ex.P27, Katha was transferred in the name of defendants 1 and 2 as per Ex.D2 and they paid tax under Self Assessment Scheme as per Ex.D3 to D6. The tax paid receipts upto date in respect of Site No.56 for the current year 2015-16 also as evidenced by Ex.D7 to Ex.D14. DW-1 has deposed in his evidence that during 2002 itself he had taken building 36 O.S.No.5085/2010 license and approved plan for construction building in Site Nos.57 & 58 and constructed a big house. The plaintiff also admits that DW.1 had constructed a big house in Site Nos.57 and 58 what is seen in photographs - Ex.D15 and Ex.D16.
18. At this stage, in the cross-examination of DW-1 with regards to the boundaries mentioned in the title deeds of the vendors of DW-1 is suggested and DW-1 has stated the boundaries of Site Nos.57 and 58, wherein his house situates and also the boundaries of Site No.56, which is lying to the South of Site No.57. Therefore, even if in the Encumbrance Certificate - Ex.P41, there is reference with regard to the Agreement dated 24.01.2002 in favour of Sri.G.M.Isac by the GPA Holder of the owners as per Ex.P25, it is a registered document. But it is clear that he had not developed the sites covered under Ex.P25.
19. In the evidence of Sri.G.M.Isac, who is examined as PW-2, though had stated that from Azeema Bi, Abdul Kalaq, Sheik Mehaboob and Sheik Pyare Jan etc., Sale Agreement was executed in his favour as per Ex.P25 in 37 O.S.No.5085/2010 respect of Site Nos.31, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 50 and 61, formed in Sy.No.53/2B of Jarakabandekaval Village, but he could not get the Sale Deed executed and he himself has requested his vendors to execute Sale Deeds. Though he has stated that GPA Holder - Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju has executed Registered Sale Deed in respect of Site No.56 with his consent in favour of PW-1 under Ex.P1 dated 11.04.2002, for which he is one of the witness. But question is the very vendors of the Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.Indira have executed the Agreement - Ex.P25 in his favour and they sold Site Nos.56 and 57 in favour of Smt.C.Ramadevi under Ex.P26 and Site Nos.58 and 59 in favour of Smt.M.Indira under Ex.P38 on 11.02.2002. That means, Agreement Holder was not in possession, in fact it was in possession of the owners and they delivered possession to Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.M.Indira in respect of respective sites. Smt.C.Ramadevi came to possession in respect of Site Nos.56 and 57 under Ex.P26 on 11.02.2002. In that view of the matter, as on the date of execution of Sale Deed by the GPA Holder under Ex.P1 in favour of the plaintiff dated 11.04.2002 GPA Holder was not in possession 38 O.S.No.5085/2010 of the suit schedule property, more over his vendors were not in possession and they do not have title with them. Therefore, by virtue of Ex.P1 as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 that PW-1 doesn't derive any right, title, interest, much less possession in respect of the suit schedule property.
20. At this stage, it is relevant to appreciate the cross-examination of PW-1. He has clearly admitted in page No.9 that suit property i.e., Site No.56, is in possession of defendants 1 and 2. He admits that defendant No.6 - Smt.C.Ramadevi has sold the suit schedule property to the defendants 1 and 2 under a Registered Sale Deed dated 27.04.2004 - Ex.P27. He also admits that the defendants 3 to 5 i.e., LRs of late Sri.Abdul Khudus, have sold the property i.e., Site Nos.56 and 57 in favour of vendor of DW.1 i.e., Smt.C.Ramadevi under Ex.P26 dated 11.02.2002 and the defendants 1 and 2 have constructed the shed in the suit property i.e., in Site No.56. Though in his evidence he has stated that, he has put up compound to the road side to avoid encroachment, but in the cross-examination he has admitted that it is the 39 O.S.No.5085/2010 defendants 1 and 2 have constructed compound wall. He also admits that by the South of the suit property, house of defendants 1 and 2 is in existence and towards North of the suit property, house of defendants 1 and 2 situated. The defendants 1 and 2 have constructed the house in Site Nos.57 & 58 and shed in Site No.56 after purchasing the sites. The Conversion Order is in the name of the defendants 3 to 5 and after conversion suit property was sold by the defendants 3 to 5 in favour of Smt.C.Ramadevi. He admits that it is DW-1 has put up compound wall for all the 3 sites, which is a common compound wall covering Site Nos.56, 57 and 58. In page No.11 he has given clear admission that, Site Nos.57 and 58 belongs to the defendants 1 and 2 and there is no gap between the compound wall of Site Nos.56 to 58. That means, covering all the sites i.e., Site Nos.56, 57 and 58, which are lying adjacent to each other by virtue of Ex.P27 and Ex.P36 the defendants 1 and 2 have derived title in respect of Site Nos.56, 57 and 58 and they put up common compound wall to all the 3 sites including the suit schedule property. As admitted by PW-1 the defendants 1 and 2 have put up big 40 O.S.No.5085/2010 house in Site Nos.57 and 58 and shed in Site No.56 i.e., suit property, stands proved. It is needless to say that, facts admitted by PW-1 need not be proved by the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, what is urged by the defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement that plaintiff was not all in possession of suit property i.e., Site No.56 at no point of time and he has not put up any compound wall, thus stands proved.
21. In this view of the matter, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 that, copy of GPA - Ex.P24 in favour of Sri.Nanda Lal and Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju by 17 LRs of late Sri.Abdul Khudus is an unregistered document and on the date of execution of Ex.P26 and Ex.P37 dated 11.02.2002 GPA Holder has no right at all to execute Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. More over, if we go through the GPA in page 4 clause No.6 and 7, doesn't authorize the GPA Holders to execute Sale Deed in respect of the sites prepared in the said layout formed in Sy.No.53/2B. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2, GPA should contain such recital giving power to the GPA Holder by the owner of 41 O.S.No.5085/2010 the property to execute the Sale Deed. No such recitals are found in the said GPA. Therefore, the possession of Smt.C.Ramadevi in respect of Site Nos.56 and 57 as on the date of execution of Ex.P26 on the date on which the legal heirs of Sri.Abdul Khudus have executed Registered Sale Deed dated 11.02.2002 and possession was delivered to them under Ex.P26 and till it was regularized by according permission to register the document on 13.05.2003, can very well be considered as a settled possession and owners have never disturbed such possession. Therefore, by virtue of GPA in favour of Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju and Sri.Nanda Lal, only Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju has executed Ex.P1, doesn't confer any right on the plaintiff.
22. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 has relied on a decision reported in 2004 (1) CCC 218 (SC), in the case of Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. v.
M.Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and another, wherein their lordships have ruled that:
"Person in settled possession or
effective possession without title would
entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. In the absence of 42 O.S.No.5085/2010 proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title".
Here, in this suit it is on better footing that the Smt.C.Ramadevi has derived title in respect of Site Nos.56 and 57 by virtue of Ex.P26, but only because of stamp duty was not paid, it was kept pending for some period. But intention of the vendors to sell the property receiving the consideration, followed by delivery of possession on the date of presentation i.e., 11.02.2002 itself goes to show that such possession continued and title was also conferred. Therefore, as on the date of Ex.P1, GPA Holder had no right to execute Sale Deed in respect of Site No.56 in favour of PW-1.
23. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 has relied on a decision reported in 2008(3) Kar.L.J. 296 (SC), in the case of Thimmaiah v. Shabira and others, wherein their lordships have ruled that:
"In a suit for injunction, plaintiff has to establish that he is in possession in order to be entitled to a decree of permanent injunction. The general proposition is well-settled that 43 O.S.No.5085/2010 plaintiff not in possession is not entitled to the relief without claiming recovery of possession."
Here, in this suit, all the circumstances and the cross- examination of PW-1 itself goes to show that, he was never in possession of the suit schedule property. But on the imaginary cause of action he has filed the suit that, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and obtained an order of status quo. But in the cross-examination, a clear admission in page 10 that, before he had purchased the suit property, it was already sold out. That means, he admits that Smt.C.Ramadevi has purchased from the owners under Ex.P26 Site Nos.56 & 57 and that was within the knowledge of PW-1, even then he has taken upon the risk on himself to purchase the suit schedule property from one of the GPA Holder - Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju under Ex.P1, which shows that he has not purchased the suit property, but purchased the litigation. May be the witness examined as PW.2 - Sri.G.M.Isac also join hands with this transaction. But neither Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju nor Sri.G.M.Isac have no right to question the propriety of the defendants 3 to 5 to execute the Registered Sale Deed - Ex.P26 in favour of 44 O.S.No.5085/2010 Smt.C.Ramadevi. Once he admits that prior to the purchase under Ex.P1 suit Site No.56 was already been sold out, question of he was delivered with the possession by the GPA Holder doesn't arise at all. Therefore, transferring of katha in the name of the plaintiff by erstwhile CMC, Byatarayanapura and from 2007 onwards it came within the jurisdiction of BBMP and he has been making payment of taxes and he has obtained building license and permission under Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 evidencing that, during 2007 he has obtained such license, but the time was already lapsed. He admits in the cross-examination, again he did not tried to get it renewed. That means, Herculean effort is made by PW-1 without there being in possession of the suit schedule property by getting katha in his name and building license and approved plan, payment of tax, these are all the documents, under these circumstances cannot be helpful to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit.
24. DW-1 had approached the BBMP to cancel the katha entered in the name of plaintiff. BBMP Authorities have cancelled the katha standing in his name under Ex.D1 45 O.S.No.5085/2010 dated 11.01.2011 as per the endorsement. PW-1 had challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.12596/2016 dated 28.03.2016, wherein their lordships have not interfered with the Orders passed by the BBMP, but only observed that a review petition available for the petitioner to approach the respondent - Corporation under Section 114(a) of KMC Act granting such liberty to the petitioner, petition stands disposed off. It is also observed that if such petition is filed by the petitioner, the respondent to consider the same and to pass appropriate Orders in accordance with law. It is only after, the plaintiff had approached BBMP with a petition dated 15.06.2016 with a request to restore katha in his name in respect of suit property. No order was passed for the simple reasons PW-1 has not remotely whispered the pendency of the present suit before the Civil Court in respect of very same property in the writ petition and even in Ex.P45 he has suppressed the said fact. Intention is clear, somehow he wants katha in his name in respect of Site No.56, but failed. But once a declaratory suit is filed in respect of suit property, he is expected to establish his title 46 O.S.No.5085/2010 before the court and also that he is entitled to recover possession and other reliefs.
25. Therefore, evidence of PW-2 is also not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove at least his possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Likewise, other witness examined as PW-3 - Sri.J.Nixon s/o.Sri.Jaganathan, who is the adjacent site owner of Site No.61. Because as per Ex.P37 - Sketch, to the West of Site No.56: Site No.61 situates. Though he has stated that Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju in the capacity of GPA had executed Sale Deed in favour of PW-1, but has stated that temporary shed was constructed by the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit schedule property. He has not produced any documents to show that Site No.61 belongs to him. He admits that the plaintiff called him to give evidence and it is the plaintiff himself got prepared the affidavit. Therefore, he is a person came before the court just to help the plaintiff, but even to prove the possession of the plaintiff, his evidence is not helpful.
26. In the cross-examination of DW-1, he admits that in O.S.No.3876/2011 he has filed his written statement 47 O.S.No.5085/2010 through his advocate and spoken about the facts stated therein. Certified copy is produced at Ex.P35. In the said suit, DW-1 was defendant No.5. In the said suit itself he has produced the certified copy of the Sale Deed pertains to Site Nos.57 and 58, which is produced in this suit as Ex.P36 and Sketch is produced at Ex.P37. On going through the records, though learned counsel for the plaintiff tried to elicit from his mouth that without ascertaining the clear boundaries and title he has purchased the property i.e., Site No.56 under Ex.P27. But he withstood the cross- examination. '
27. When LRs of the original owner have sold the property to Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.Indira and they were delivered with the possession as per the recitals in Ex.P26 and P38. Obviously, through his advocate he has ascertained about the title and possession of the vendors and he has stated that for 4 months negotiations was held and he has purchased the property for consideration. May be, in a suit filed against Sri.Venkataraju along with vendors and GPA Holders he might have aware of the General Power of Attorney, doesn't refrain him from purchasing the 48 O.S.No.5085/2010 property from Smt.C.Ramadevi and Smt.M.Indira. Therefore, one thing is clear that the plaintiff must prove his title and case on the basis of the pleadings for the reliefs claimed in the suit by proving his case by giving such intrinsic evidence to the satisfaction of the court and not bank upon the weakness of the case of the other side. In this case, the court has framed issues and court cannot give any decision based on the grounds outside the pleadings of the parties.
28. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 adn 2 has relied on a decision reported in 2004(1) KCCR 662 in the case of K.Gopala Reddy (deceased) by LRs. v. Suryanarayana and others, wherein the lordships have ruled that:
"Whenever a party approaches the Court for a relief, based on the pleadings and issues, he has to prove his case. A suit has to be decided based on the merits and demerits of the party who approaches the Court.
Weakness of the defendant cannot be considered as a trump card for the plaintiff". 49 O.S.No.5085/2010
29. The learned counsel for the defendants relied on a decision reported in 2011 (2) SCJ 622, in the case of Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P.Joshi, wherein their lordships have ruled that:
"As a rule, relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted - Therefore, decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties - Pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties, to narrow the area of conflict and to seek just, where the two sides differ.
It is further held that:
"Court not to decide a suit on a matter / point on which no issue has been framed".
In this case, this court has framed additional issues for consideration by exercising powers vested in the court under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, recasting the issues for the purpose of giving finding as the plaintiff has got amended the suit for the relief of declaration, comprehensive in nature, to determine the real lis between the parties.
30. Under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, the admitted facts need not be proved. Here in the cross- 50 O.S.No.5085/2010 examination of PW-1, what he has admitted the defendants 1 and 2 need not prove those aspects. On principle, the learned counsel has relied on a decision reported in 2007 (1) SCJ 856, in the case of Avtar Singh and others v. Gurdial Singh and others, wherein their lordships have ruled that:
"Under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, things admitted need not be proved".
In this case, when PW-1 himself admits in the cross- examination that before he purchased Site No.56 under Ex.P1 - Registered Sale Deed already that was sold to others and DW-1 and his family members are in possession of Site Nos.57 and 58, wherein they constructed big house immediately after they purchased the property covering all the 3 sites i.e., Site Nos.56, 57 and 58 there is a common compound wall and this was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, can very well be gathered. Therefore, his say in the evidence that on 21.07.2010 first time he came to know that the suit property is in possession of the defendants 1 and 2 cannot be appreciated at all. Knowing fully well that the defendants 1 and 2 have purchased the suit schedule 51 O.S.No.5085/2010 property under Registered Sale Deed - Ex.P27 dated 27.04.2004 and his vendor - Smt.C.Ramadevi had purchased Site Nos.56 and 57 together from the legal heirs of Sri.Abdul Khudus under Ex.P26 and possession was delivered to her and it was continued with the defendants 1 and 2 by virtue of Ex.P27, which throw light on the fact that the plaintiff has purchased the property from one of the GPA Holder - Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju, who was not at all having any right to sell the property on the date of execution of Ex.P1. Therefore, the evidence led by PW-1 supported by PWs.2 and 3 that PW-1 has purchased the property, became owner in possession and an improvement was made and request was made by DW-1 at the time of construction of the house permitting him to put up small shed to store the building materials and thereafter, he has unauthorisedly installed electricity and has been making payment of electricity bills against the status quo order, are all the evidence created by the plaintiff. When under Ex.P27 the defendants 1 and 2 have purchased the Site No.56 from Smt.C.Ramadevi, question of requesting PW.2 - Sri.G.M.Isac or the plaintiff, doesn't arise at all. Therefore, 52 O.S.No.5085/2010 the cause of action that is alleged in the plaint is an imaginary cause of action. In fact, no such incident occurred at the relevant point of time. Only for the purpose of filing the suit the plaintiff has created the said cause of action that, on 21.07.2010 at about 10:00 a.m. the defendants 1 and 2 have interfered in his possession by digging trenches with a view to put up construction illegally., cannot be believed at all. Even at a glance, evidence of PW-2 shows that DW-1 has put up a small shed to store the building material at the time of construction of his house in Site Nos.57 and 58, that was in the year 2002-
03. Therefore, such construction was made in the month of July 2010 as alleged by PW-1 has no basis at all. In this context, it can be said that knowing fully well that he doesn't derive any title under Ex.P1 and he is not in possession, the plaintiff has made effort to get his name in the records at CMC, Byatarayanapura and thereafter, in the BBMP and making payment of tax just to show that he is in possession, but in fact he is not at all in possession of the suit schedule property, can very well be gathered. Therefore, it is needless to say that the plaintiff has failed to 53 O.S.No.5085/2010 prove that he is in lawful possession as on the date of suit and the alleged interference to his possession by the defendants on 21.07.2010.
31. Here, subsequently the plaintiff got amended the relief for declaration of his title and also possession. But it is all depending on the convincing proof by way of evidence that he is entitled to claim such relief subject to the point of limitation. Much is made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that in Ex.P34 - Order passed the learned Tahsildar in RRT.6/2003-04, wherein DW-1 was applicant No.5. No doubt, the learned Tahsildar in the Order has referred the Conversion Order got obtained in Sy.No.53/2, 53/2B and 53/2B3b and there is reference with regard to Agreement executed in favour of GPA Holders - Sri.Nanda Lal and Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju and also GPA. But it was a case, where Sri.Ventakaraju and Sri.Krishanappa have claimed the property and in respect of 22 guntas which was encroached, the Tahsildar has ordered to remove entry in respect of the same. The alleged Agreement said to have been executed in favour of Sri.Nandalal and Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju is not produced. Even if such 54 O.S.No.5085/2010 Agreement is there, that cannot be considered as a title deed and it is not forth coming in the suit. Further, the alleged Power of Attorney is an unregistered document - Ex.P24 and on close perusal of the document, the legal heirs of Sri.Abdul Khudus have retained the power to execute Registered Sale Deed in favour of sites prepared in the layout formed in the land wherein Conversion Order was taken in their names and no such power to execute the Sale Deed was given.
32. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on a decision (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 656, in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director v. State of Haryanana and another, wherein their lordships have held that:
"However, the SA/GPA/will transaction can continue to be treated as existing agreements of sale. Nothing prevents the affected parties from getting registered deeds of conveyance to complete their title. The said "SA/GPA/will transactions" may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under Section 53-A of the T.P.Act. If they are entered before the present day, 55 O.S.No.5085/2010 they may be relied upon to apply for regularisation of allotments / leases by development authorities. Moreover, if the documents relating to "SA/GPA/will transactions" have been accepted / acted upon by DDA or other development authorities or by the municipal or Revenue Authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of the present decision".
Here, in detail their lordships have discussed the scope of power of attorney. No doubt, execution of power of attorney in terms of provisions of the Contract Act and also under Power of Attorney Act is valid. Under Chapter 10 of the Contract Act, it is clearly specified that power of attorney acts as an agent and he cannot exercise powers exceeding to the one granted under the power of attorney by the owner. If in the power of attorney specifically such power is granted to execute the Deed of Conveyance in exercise of powers granted under power of attorney then only he can convey the title on behalf of granter. Here. No such power is given under Ex.P24. More over, as PW-1 himself admits that before he purchase the property through GPA Holder Site No.56 was already sold out by the 56 O.S.No.5085/2010 owners, which refers to Ex.P26 the purchase made by vendor of DW-1 i.e., Smt.C.Ramadevi. Therefore, the plaintiff doesn't derive any title, much less possession under Ex.P1, can very well be gathered. Therefore, all the documents produced by the plaintiff cannot be regarded as evidence or proof to prove his title and possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Even then he has taken photographs by standing in the suit schedule property produced at Ex.P28 to P31 and CD - Ex.P32, that cannot be believed. Therefore, the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and he is guilty of suppression of facts. Knowing fully well that, he is not at all in possession of the suit schedule property and the property purchased by Smt.C.Ramadevi from the true owner under Ex.P26 and in turn, she has sold to DW-1 under Registered Sale Deed - Ex.P27 and the defendants 1 and 2 have become owners and possessors of the same and they are in lawful possession. PW-1 has ventured to file the suit for bare injunction and obtained an order of status quo on I.A.No.1, when such an order was taken without there being in possession, he cannot take advantage of the same to 57 O.S.No.5085/2010 contend that he is in possession and order was in force till 08.03.2011 when he got amended for the relief of declaration and possession.
33. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on a decision reported in 2007(3) KCCR 1824 (DB), in the case of K.Ramaiah and others v. S.Anjaneya and others, wherein the lordships have held that "Documentary Evidence prevails over Oral Evidence". There is no dispute with regard to said proposition of law. But in this case, the defendants 1 and 2 have produced number of documents along with title deeds and title deed of Smt.C.Ramadevi is earlier to Ex.P1. Therefore, he cannot claim that the GPA Holder delivered possession and he has derived title basing on Ex.P1 or at least to prove his possession.
34. The other decision relied on is ILR 1999 KAR 1524, in the case of A.V.Rangacharya and another v. Pillanjinappa and another, wherein their lordships have ruled that:
"In a suit where registered documents are produced and even courts goes to extent of 58 O.S.No.5085/2010 saying that such documents are not valid in the eye of law, which view is prima facie illegal and perverse. Till such registered document is set aside, by a course known to law, the document must be taken as a valid legal document and the purport for which it is executed must be upheld in a court of law".
Here in this case, for the detailed discussions made hereinabove the other circumstances and more particularly the title deeds of vendors of DW-1 which are registered documents which conveys title to the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of Site No.56, that can be easily determined. In that event even though Ex.P1 is a registered document, absolutely it can be said that GPA Holder - Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju had no right to convey or execute such Sale Deed in respect of Site No.56 in favour of the plaintiff and when document Ex.P1 came into existence through a person having no right, it is null and void. Because the true owners themselves have retained the right to execute Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule property and they sold the property in favour of Smt.C.Ramadevi. As such, under Ex.P1 the plaintiff cannot derive any title, can very well be gathered.
59 O.S.No.5085/2010
35. Therefore, existence of the fact with regard to the title and possession the plaintiff has to plead and prove to the satisfaction of the court. The burden lies on the plaintiff to establish his right to get the relief claimed. But for the reasons recorded it is held that he has failed to prove it.
36. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 2010(6) SCJ 184, in the case of Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. and others, wherein the lordships have held that:
"A person shall approach a Court of Equity, not only with clean hands, but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective".
Here, the very conduct of the plaintiff filing the suit for the relief of injunction only without being he was in lawful possession of property as on the date of suit and when the defendants 1 and 2 came and filed written statement produced the relevant documents of his title in respect of Site No.56 i.e., suit schedule property, by filing an application PW-1 got it amended for the relief of declaration, possession and such other reliefs. Even the evidence brought on record manifestly makes it clear that, 60 O.S.No.5085/2010 he was aware of the fact that the property was sold by the legal heirs of Sri.Abdul Khudus to Smt.C.Ramadevi and he admits that before he purchase the property it was already sold to others. That means, he has not approached the court with clean hands and clean mind. He was not having clean objective and clean heart to seek equity from the hands of the court. Therefore, it is clear that the principles laid down in the decision relied by the defendants 1 and 2 is applicable to case on hand.
37. In this case, in the cross-examination of PW-1 though he has stated that he doesn't know whether Sri.Sheik Pyare Jan - defendant No.4 died in the year 2005 itself. In the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2 specifically averred about the death of Sri.Sheik Pyare Jan - defendant No.4, even then he has not taken any pain to take steps and continued suit against the dead person, which also shows that he has not approached the court with clean hands. Therefore, it is needless to say that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and also was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and the alleged 61 O.S.No.5085/2010 interference to his enjoyment by the defendants on the date of cause of action as averred by him in the plaint. Therefore, it is held that he cannot seek the relief of declaration of title and also setting aside the Sale Deeds dated 11.02.2002 and 27.04.2004 Ex.P26 and Ex.P27 as null and void and not binding on his right. When Smt.C.Ramadevi had derived title lawfully from the true owners and legally conveyed it by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 27.04.2004 for consideration and delivered possession to the defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.P27 and the defendants 1 and 2 have become owners and possessors of the same. The DW-1 has established before the court the title of the defendants 1 and 2 as well as possession in respect of Site No.56 and it is also proved that DW-1 had constructed the small shed which he has stated it was for use of servants, for their stay and installed electricity and has been making payment of electricity charges. Therefore, even the plaintiff also cannot seek the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the said shed and structures put by the defendants 1 and 2 in the schedule property. As under Ex.P27 the defendants 1 and 2 have derived valid legal title 62 O.S.No.5085/2010 in respect of Site No.56, i.e., suit schedule property PW-1 cannot seek the relief of possession as prayed in the suit. For the detailed discussion made hereinabove the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue Nos.1 and 2 and Additional Issue Nos.1 to 3, Accordingly, I answer Issue Nos.1 and 2 and Additional Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative.
38. Addlitional ISSUE NO.4:
In this case, the plaintiff has sought declaration of title by way of amendment. Initially suit was filed for the relief of bare injunction on 23.07.2010. He has filed I.A.No.1 application and obtained an order of status quo. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed their written statement denied not only title and possession of the plaintiff, they contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property, by virtue of the Sale Deed executed by defendants 3 to 5 in favour of Smt.C.Ramadevi dated 11.02.2002 as per Ex.P26 and subsequently Smt.C.Ramadevi had executed Registered Sale Deed dated 27.04.2004 in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.P27 and they became owners and possessors of the 63 O.S.No.5085/2010 same. For the detailed discussions made while answering Issue Nos.1 and 2 and Additional Issue Nos.1 to 3 it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title as well as lawful possession as on the date of suit and he is not entitled to the relief mandatory injunction and for vacant possession from the defendants 1 and 2.
39. Here, one more legal point is raised by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 that amendment application filed was allowed by the court on 28.09.2013. Therefore, after amendment to CPC the amended prayer will be considered on the date on which amendment will be allowed and same will never go back to the original date of filing the suit. Therefore, learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 argued that the limitation prescribed to seek the declaration of title and cancellation of the Registered Sale Deeds, the title deeds of DW-1 i.e., Ex.P27 and also title of their vendor - Ex.P26, under Article 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, limitation prescribed is 3 years and the relief is hopelessly barred by limitation. In this suit, evidence manifestly makes it clear that knowing fully well that much previous to the Sale Deed of the plaintiff - Ex.P1 64 O.S.No.5085/2010 property was already sold by the true owners i.e., legal heirs of Sri.Abdul Khudus in favour of Smt.C.Ramadevi and delivered possession and in turn, she has sold Site No.56 in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 as evidenced by Ex.P26 and Ex.P27. Therefore, GPA Holder - Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju has no right or authority under alleged GPA - Ex.P24, no power was given to him by the owners to execute the Sale Deed, had executed Registered Sale Deed - Ex.P1 dated 11.04.2002 in favour of the plaintiff. That means, the very execution of the Sale Deed itself is ab-initio void and he doesn't derive any title, interest, right, much less possession over the suit schedule property. Even then, he has filed the suit on imaginary cause of action initially for the relief of injunction, obtained an order of status quo by suppressing the material facts, but it was amended as per the Order passed dated 28.09.2013.
40. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 has relied on a decision reported in 2011(3) SCJ 135 in the case of Van Vibhag K.G.N. Sahkari Sansthan, Maryadit v. Ramesh Chander and others, wherein in a suit filed for the relief of declaration of ownership, relief of 65 O.S.No.5085/2010 specific performance sought to be included by way of amendment after 11 years of filing the suit and their lordships have held that amendment alters character of the suit, amendment even if allowed, cannot relate back to date of filing the suit to cure the defect of limitation. Here in this case the plaintiff was aware of the fact that he was not at all in possession and it was already sold to Smt.C.Ramadevi by the true owners through registered Deed under Ex.P26. That means, as on the date of filing the suit itself he could have sought the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and possession what is now claimed after amendment, but same was allowed on 28.09.2013, is certainly alters the cause of action and nature of the suit and he cannot claim that status quo order was in force till that time considering his possession. When such an order was obtained without being in possession, suppressing the true facts before the court, he cannot take advantage of the said status quo order to his benefits as per his convenience. Therefore, the defect cannot be cured. The right of limitation, then the relief claimed by way of amendment is barred, was already accrued to the defendants 1 and 2 and as rightly argued by 66 O.S.No.5085/2010 the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 that after amendment to CPC, it doesn't relate back to the date of filing the original plaint in view of the bar under Section 58 and 59 of Limitation Act. By applying the principles laid down in the above cited decision, it is held that the relief of declaration of title and cancellation of Ex.P26 and Ex.P27 - title deeds of the defendants 1 and 2 and their vendor is hopelessly barred by limitation and the plaintiff cannot seek the said reliefs. This alone is sufficient to knock the case of plaintiff out of its bottom. Accordingly, I answer Additional Issue No.4 in the affirmative.
41. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.5;-
In the additional written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2 it is contended that after amendment the plaintiff has converted the suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and for possession, but value the suit for the relief of declaration only, he ought to have paid court fee for the cancellation of Sale Deeds in accordance with Section 38 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation 67 O.S.No.5085/2010 Act separately and independently for the other 2 reliefs claimed.
42. No doubt, by way of amendment the plaintiff has claimed for (1) declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property, (2) sought cancellation of Sale Deed dated 11.02.2002 executed by Sri.Sheik Mehaboob and 2 others in favour of Smt.C.Ramadevi (3) sought cancellation of Sale Deed dated 27.04.2004 executed by Smt.C.Ramadevi in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. In relief para 9(aa) the said relief is sought. The valuation slip is produced, wherein he has valued the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction at Rs.17,50,000/- and court fee paid under Section 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 through D.D. Rs.98,375/-. It is mentioned that consequently he has sought the relief of cancellation of Sale Deeds and what is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 that he ought to have paid the court fee under Section 38(1) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that since full court fee is paid on main relief, there is no need to pay separate court 68 O.S.No.5085/2010 fee on the consequential relief. Here, looking to the nature of the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint, he has contended that on the strength of power of attorney executed by all the 17 LRs of deceased Sri.Abdul Khudus under Ex.P24, one of the GPA Holder - Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju had executed Registered Sale Deed in his favour under Ex.P1 dated 11.04.2002, thereby he became owner and possessor of the property. As the defendants 1 and 2 have denied his title on the strength of Ex.P26 and Ex.P27, consequent to the said main relief of declaration of title, he has claimed that the said title deeds of the defendants 1 and 2 is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. He is not a party to Ex.P26 and P27. To declare him as a owner, consequentially he has sought the title deeds of the defendants 1 and 2 and their vendors is null and void. Therefore, as rightly argued by the plaintiff, he need not pay separate court fee on the relief to declare Ex.P26 and P27 as he has paid court fee on the main relief, which is sufficient. Therefore, the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 that the plaintiff has to value the relief separately and court fee paid 69 O.S.No.5085/2010 is insufficient, cannot be appreciated. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.5 in the negative.
43. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.6:-
In the additional written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2, it is contended that suit is barred under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC and under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. It is seen from the records that the plaintiff originally filed the suit for bare injunction on 23.07.2010 and got amended for the relief of declaration of title and declaration of the title deeds of the defendants 1 and 2 and their vendor is null and void and for possession and the said application was allowed on 28.09.2013. In the earlier written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2 on 30.10.2010 itself in para 3 of the plaint, a specific contention was taken that the plaintiff has got neither title nor possession of the so-called property claimed by him, the plaintiff has created fictitious document in his favour to make a false claim over the property belonging to these defendants. Therefore, it is contended that suit is barred 70 O.S.No.5085/2010 under Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC and under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
44. Under Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC contemplates that a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of same cause of action, may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits except the leave of the court to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Here, for the detailed discussions made while answering the main issues it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title and also possession as on the date of suit and he doesn't derive title under Ex.P1. As per his own admission in the cross-examination, much previous to the purchase under Ex.P1, property was sold to Smt.C.Ramadevi and possession was with Smt.C.Ramadevi and in turn, followed to the defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.P27. Therefore, knowing fully well that he had to seek the multiple reliefs, he omits to claim such reliefs and had not taken any leave of the court and only sought for injunctive relief at initial stage and subsequently got amended as per order dated 28.09.2103 for those reliefs, as such it bars under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act r/w. 71 O.S.No.5085/2010 Order II Rule 2(3) CPC as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2. On the score of limitation also it is held that, plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed. In addition to this, on this issue also suit and the reliefs claimed is barred and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer Additional Issue No.6 in the affirmative.
45. Issue No.3 and 4:- In view of my detailed finding on Issue Nos.1 and 2 and Additional Issue Nos.1 to 3 the plaintiff is not at all entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in this suit, as such suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 in the negative and proceeded to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed.
Under the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.72 O.S.No.5085/2010
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, typed by her, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in open Court, this the 16th day of November 2016) (BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA) ND 42 ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
PW.1 - Sri.M.S.Prakash PW.2 - Sri.G.M.Isac PW.3 - Sri.J.Nixon
(b) Defendants' side:
DW.1 - Sri.C.L.Arora II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P1 : Original Registered Sale Deed
dated 11.04.2002
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW-2
Ex.P2 : Self Assessment Register Extract
Ex.P3 Assessment Register Extract
Ex.P4 : Katha Certificate
Ex.P5 to 15 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.P16 to 18 : Encumbrance Certificate
73 O.S.No.5085/2010
Ex.P19 : Sanctioned Plan
Ex.P20 : License
Ex.P21 & 22 : RTCs
Ex.P23 : Conversion Order
Ex.P24 : Certified copy of GPA dated
23.10.1997
Ex.P25 : Certified Copy of Sale
Agreement dated 24.01.2002
Ex.P26 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed
dated 11.02.2002
Ex.P27 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed
dated 27.04.2004
Ex.P28 to 33 : 4 Photos along with 2 CDs
Ex.P34 : Order passed by the Tahsildar
Ex.P35 : Certified Copy of Written
Statement in O.S.No.3816/2004
Ex.P36 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed
dated 17.05.2002
Ex.P37 : Certified Copy of Sketch
Ex.P38 : Certified Copy of Registered Sale
Deed dated 11.02.2002
Ex.P39 : Receipt of Betterment Charges
Ex.P40 : Assessment Register Extract
Ex.P41 & 42 : Encumbrance Certificates
Ex.P43 : Endorsement issued by BBMP
Ex.P44 : Certified copy of Order in
W.P.No.12596/2016 (LB-BMP)
Ex.P45 : Letter submitted to BBMP
Ex.P46 : Tax Paid Receipt
(b) Defendants' side:
Ex.D1 : Notification issued by BBMP
Ex.D2 : Self Assessment Register Extract
Ex.D3 to 14 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.D15 & 16 : 2 Photos
Ex.D17 & 18 : Electricity Bill and Receipt
42nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU.
74 O.S.No.5085/2010