M S Vaswani Whitefield Projects P Ltd vs Rajaram K C on 3 January, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

M S Vaswani Whitefield Projects P Ltd vs Rajaram K C on 3 January, 2026

1
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

KABC010012092014

IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS

JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY: (CCH-56)

DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY 2026
PRESENT
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU, M.A., LL.M.

LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.

O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

PLAINTIFF/S
in O.S.No.9024
M/S.VASWANI WHITEFIELD PROJECTS
/2014
[P] LTD. [EARLIER KNOWN AS
VASWANI TECHNOLOGY PARK PVT.
LTD.] BEING A COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES
ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT "VASWANI VICTORIA", NO.
30, VICTORIA ROAD BANGALORE-560
047 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
- ARUN.A.ADVANI
(BY SRI.G.L.V. ADV.)

Versus

DEFENDANT/S 1. RAJARAM K C
in O.S.No.9024 MAJOR,
/2014 S/O LATE K.C. REDDY
R/A NO.183, 18TH CROSS,
2
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-70.

2:KAMAN HOLDINGS PRIVATE
LIMITED, BEING A COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES
ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.S711, SOUTH BLOCK
MANIPAL CENTRE, DICKENSON
ROAD, BANGALORE-42. BY ITS
DIRECTOR MR. K.S. SUNIL GUPTA.

3:SUNIL GUPTA K S
DIRECTOR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
PLAINTIFF, MAJOR,
KAMAN HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING OFFICE AT NO. S711,
SOUTH BLOCK, MANIPAL CENTRE
DICKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE-42

(D1 BY SRI.A.S.P. ADV.
D2 & 3 BY SRI. JSD, ADV.).

PLAINTIFFS IN M/S.KAMAN HOLDING PRIVATE
O.S.NO.2835 LIMITED, A COMPANY
/2016 INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT,
1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: S-
711, SOUTH BLOCK, 7TH FLOOR,
MANIPAL CENTRE, DICKENSON,
ROAD, BENGALURU-560042 REPD.
BY ITS DIRECTOR-SRI.K.S.SUNIL
GUPTA.
(BY SRI.J.S.D. ADV.)
DEFENDANTS IN 1. M/S VASWANI WHITEFIELD
O.S.NO.2835/2016 PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S.VASWANI
TECHNOLOGY PARK PVT. LTD., A
COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES
ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS
3
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

REGISTERED OFFICE AT VASWANI
VICTORIA, NO.30, VICTORIA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560047, REPD.BY ITS
DIRECTOR MR. ARUN ADVANI

2. SMT.KAMALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
W/O LATE H.THIPPA REDDY,

3. SRI.MURALIDHAR
S/O LATE THIPPAREDDY

4. SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O LATE H.THIPPA REDDY,

5. SRI.T.UMASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE H.THIPPA REDDY,

DEFENDANTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.22,
MAHALAKSHMI FARM,
CHINNAPPANAHALLI,
MARATHAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU-560037.

6. SRI.VENKATA KRISHNA RAO
S/O D.ANJANEYALU.
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
7. SRI.D.JANARDHAN RAO,
S/O D.VENKATARA KRISHNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

8. SRI.D.SREEMANNARAYANA,
S/O VENKATA KRISHNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO. 3-4, THURPUR
NAIDUPALEM (P.O), TANGUTUR,
PRAKASAM -523272.
4
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.281,
10TH MAIN, JAYANAGARA, 3RD
BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011.

9. SMT.GUTTA MADHAVI LATHA.
D/O D.VENKATA KRISHNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

DEFENDANTS NO.6 TO 9 ARE
RESIDING AT 10-253,
GANDHI ROAD, CHITTOOR-517001
ANDHRA PRADESH.

10. SRI.D.PURNACHANDRA RAO
S/O LATE D. ANJANEYULU,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

11. SRI.D.SATHYANARAYANA,
S/O D.PURNACHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

DEFENDANT NO. 10 & 11 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 3-4, THURPUR
NAIDUPALEM (P.O)
TANGUTUR, PRAKASAM -523272.

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.281,
10TH MAIN, JAYANAGARA, 3RD
BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011,

12. SMT.R.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
D/O D.PURNACHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT G-11,
SENATE HOMES, 12TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM,
NEAR MES COLLEGE, BENGALURU-
560003.

13. SMT.PADMAPRASUNA,
W/O LATE D.JAGANMOHAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
5
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

14. SRI.D.MALLIKARJUN RAO
S/O LATE D.JAGANMOHAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

DEFENDANT NO. 13 & 14 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 3-4, THURPUR
NAIDUPALEM (P.O)
TANGUTUR, PRAKASAM -523272

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.281,
10TH MAIN, JAYANAGARA, 3RD
BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011

15. SMT.D.YAMUNA
D/O LATE D.JAGANMOHAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1272,
WOOD BRIDGE CROSSING DRIVE,
CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI-63005

16. SMT.D.SAKKUBAYAMMA,
W/O LATE D.ANJANEYULU,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 3-4, THURPUR
NAIDUPALEM (P.O)
TANGUTUR, PRAKASAM -523 272.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.281,
10TH MAIN, JAYANAGARA, 3RD
BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011.

(D1 TO 16 BY SRI. G.L.V. ADV.)
6
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Date of Institution of the O.S.No.9024/2014 -
suit 22.11.2014

O.S.No.2835/2016 -
07.04.2016
Nature of the Suit O.S.N.9024/2018 - Suit for
permanent injunction
O.S.No.2835/2016 - Suit for
declaration, possession and
permanent injunction
Date of commencement of 30.07.2019
recording of evidence
Date on which the 03.01.2026
judgment was pronounced
Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
11 01 11

COMMON JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.9024/2014 has filed this suit
against the defendants No.1 to 3 praying to grant
permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
agents or any one claiming through them from
dismantling or removing the metal sheet, barricade /
compound enclosing the schedule property and / or from
interfering in any manner, the plaintiffs construction
work and / or possession on the schedule property.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY

All that piece and parcel of the land bearing BBMP
new Nos. 22 Old No.23, previously Sy.Nos. 132/1, 132/2,
132/3, 132/4 of Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore
East Taluk, measuring 4 acres 20 gutnas and bounded as
follows.
7
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

East by Land in Sy.No.131 & 138
West by Hotel Zuri&Land in Sy.Nos. 133, 134, 135 &
136
North by White Field Main Road, to ITPL
South by Remaining land in Sy.No.132/4
Together with metal sheet barricades by way of
compound enclosing the schedule property and materials
plus site office.

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.2835/2016 has filed this suit

against the defendants No.1 to 16 praying to declare

that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and

enjoyment of the schedule A & B properties and praying

to grant relief of recovery of possession of the schedule-

C properties directing the defendants to deliver the

vacant and peaceful possession of the schedule-C

property by dismantling illegal construction, failing which

this court may be pleased to handover C-schedule

property through the court media. The plaintiff has also

sought for the consequential relief of permanent

injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, GPA

holders or anybody acting on their behalf from in any

way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
8
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

3. The plaint A, B & C schedule properties are as

follows.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY

SCHEDULE "A" PROPERTY

All the piece and parcel of the property bearing old
Sy.No.132/4, New No.132/4A measuring 28 guntas
situated at Hoodi Village, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bengaluru
East Taluk, earlier comes under the limits of
Bangalore South taluk, presently comes within the
jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Hoodi sub-division, Bengaluru having new property
No.34-35-132/4 and bounded on :

East by - Land bearing Sy.No.138
West by - Land bearing Sy.No.136
North by - Land bearing Sy.No.132/4 (B schedule
property),
South by - Land bearing Sy.No.137.

SCHEDULE "B" PROPERTY

All the piece and parcel of the property bearing
Sy.No.132/4 and New Sy.No.132/4B measuring 10 guntas
situated at Hoodi Village, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk, earlier comes under the limits of Bangalore South
taluk, now comes under the jurisdiction of Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Hoodi sub-division,
Bengaluru, having new property No.34-35-132/4 and
bounded on.

East by - Land bearing Sy.No.138

West by - Land bearing Sy.No.136,

North by - Remaining portion of land bearing
Sy.No.132/4.
9
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

South by - Remaining portion of land bearing
Sy.No.132/4 (A-Schedule property)

SCHEDULE "C" PROPERTY

All the piece and parcel of the property bearing
Sy.No.132/4 and New Sy.No.132/4A & Sy.No.132/4B
measuring 19 1⁄2 guntas situated at Hoodi Village,
K.R.Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, earlier comes under
the limits of Bangalore South taluk, now comes under the
jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Hoodi sub-division, Bengaluru, and bounded on :

East by - Land bearing Sy.No.138

West by - Land bearing Sy.No.136

North by - Remaining portion of land bearing
Sy.No.132/4 New Sy.No.132/4B

South by - Remaining portion of land bearing
Sy.No.132/4 New Sy.No.132/4A (A-schedule
property)

4. The suit in O.S.No.2835/2016 clubbed with suit in

O.S.No.9024/2014 as per order dt.25/5/2023 and

common evidence is recorded in O.S.No.9024/2014.

Hence, for the sake of convenience, the plaintiff in

O.S.No.9024/2014 hereinafter referred to as plaintiff -

M/s Vaswani Whitefield Projects (:P) Ltd. and the plaintiff

in O.S.No.2835/2016 - M/s Kaman Holdings Private
10
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Limited is hereinafter referred to as the defendant for the

sake of convenience, unless it is mentioned specifically

as plaintiff in O.S.No.9024/2014 and defendant in

O.S.No.2835/2016. The defendant No.1 in

O.S.No.9024/2014 referred as defendant No.1 or

K.C.Rajaram.

5. The plaint averments made in O.S.No.9024/2014

and the same plaintiff who is defendants in

O.S.No.2835/2016 who filed written statement taken

similar contentions,hence, in order to avoid repetition of

pleadings, this court would mention averments made in

the plaint in detail rather than written statement

contents of both parties. With regarding to remaining

defendants in this suit, this court will narrate their

defence separately by referring their name.

6. The plaint averments in O.S.No.9024/2014 is

briefly stated as follows.

The Plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the

Companies Act 1956, having its registered office at the
11
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

address stated in the cause title. Arun.A.Advani is the

Director of the Plaintiff Company and he is competent

and authorized to institute the Suit. The Plaintiff

Company was earlier known as Vaswani Technology Park

Pvt. Ltd. The name of the Plaintiff Company was changed

and pursuant thereto a fresh Certificate of Incorporation

pursuant upon change of name was issued by the

Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs,

Registrar of Companies, Karnataka dated 13.2.2014. The

Plaintiff Company is a part of the group companies of

Vaswani Group, one of the leading Real Estate

Developers in Bangalore. They have constructed several

Residential and Commercial properties. The Plaintiff

Company being a part of the group companies of

Vaswani Group, has constructed over 6 Million square

feet of Residential and Commercial Spaces in Bangalore

and elsewhere. The total extent of land in Sy. No. 132/1,

132/2, 132/3 & 132/4 of Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bangalore East Taluk was 5 acres 18 guntas including an

extent of 14 guntas of "B" Kharab Land that was utilized

for the formation and extension /widening of Whitefield
12
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Main Road lying to North of the said Lands. Therefore the

remaining extent of Land was 5 acres 4 guntas i.e., after

excluding the road portion measuring 14 guntas. The 1st

Defendant K.C.Rajaram became the owner of the said

extent of 5 acres 4 guntas in Sy.Nos. 132/1,132/2, 132/3

&132/4 of Hoodi Village, K.R. PuramHobli, Bangalore East

Taluk under the following registered documents from its

previous owners.

Sl.No. Sy.No. Extent Documents / Date Regn. No.
1 132/1 2 acrs 11 guntas Gift Deed / 13.11.78 4979/78-79
2 132/2 1 acres Gift Deed / 13.11.78 4979/78-79
3. 132/3 28 guntas Exchange Deed / 22.11.1978 5195/78-79
4. 132/4 1 acre 5 guntas (i) Gift Deed / 13.11.78. (i) 4979/78-79
(ii) Exchange Deed / 22.11.78 (28 (ii) 5195/78-79.
Guntas. (iii) 4011/79-80
(iii) Sale deed / 24/11/79 (28 guntas)
Total 5 Acres 4 Guntas

7. The 1st Defendant K.C.Rajaram got the lands

measuring 4 acres 30 guntas [out of 5 acres 4 guntas] in

Sy. Nos. 132/1,132/2, 132/3 &132/4 of Hoodi Village, K.R.

Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, converted for

Industrial Purpose by an Order of The Deputy

Commissioner,Bangalore District bearing No. B Dis-ALN-

SR-172/78-79 dated 3.4.1979. Therefore remaining

extent of land measuring 14 guntas i.e., 5 acres 4 guntas

less 4 acres 30 guntas remained as unconverted land.
13
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

The Conversion Order dated 3.4.1979 relates to Sy.

Nos.132/1,132/2, 132/3 & 132/4 and the extent of land

covered in each individual Sy. No. that was converted for

Industrial Purpose is not mentioned therein.

8. The 1st Defendant K.C.Rajaram formed a

Partnership Firm on 1.4.1985 under the name and style

of KAYCEE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE to own and run an

Industrial Estate and construction of Industrial Sheds.

The other Partners of the Firm were [i] Tyche India Private

Limited [ii] Swede (India) Teltronics Limited and [iii] The

minor children of the 1 st Defendant viz., Sandeep

Rajaram Reddy and Sirish Rajaram Reddy. The 1st

Defendant K.C.Rajaram brought into the said Partnership

Firm the Industrially converted land measuring 4 acres

30 guntas. The said Partnership Firm was dissolved under

a registered Dissolution Deed dated 1.3.1987 [Regn. No.

1853/87-88]. At the time of dissolution an extent of

about 1008.50 Sq. Mtrs. [about 10 guntas] in Sy. No.

132/4 was allotted to Tyche India Private Limited and an

extent of 18211.50 Sq. Mtrs. [about 4 acres 20 guntas]

was allotted to the share of the other Partner Swede
14
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

[India] Teltronics Limited. The 1st Defendant K.C.Rajaram

did not retain any land at the time of dissolution. In other

words the entire extent of 4 acres 30 guntas in Sy. Nos.

132/1,132/2, 132/3 & 132/4 was allotted between 2 of

the Partners only.

9. The Company Swede [India] Teltronics Limited was

declared sick Company and referred to BIFR, who opined

that the Company cannot be revived. Consequently the

said Company was ordered to be wound-up in Company

Petition No. 68/1997 vide Order dated 21.7.2000 passed

by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

During the course of winding-up proceedings, the Official

Liquidator took charge of the Assets of the Company and

obtained Orders to sell the land to the highest bidder.

One H. Thippa Reddy was declared as the highest bidder

for an amount of Rs. 18.25 crores in OSA No. 19/2005

vide Order dated 4.8.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High

Court. The bid infavour of H. Thippa Reddy was

challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein

the said Bidder increased his offer to Rs. 22 crores. After
15
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

he was declared the successful bidder the Official

Liquidator was directed to confirm the sale in his favour.

Accordingly a registered Sale Deed dated 14.8.2006

came to be executed by Swede [India] Teletronics Limited

[Company in Liquidation] through Official Liquidator in

favour of H. Thippa Reddy to an extent of 4 acres 20

guntas in Sy. Nos. 132/1,132/2, 132/3 & 132/4 of Hoodi

Village, K.R. PuramHobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The name

of H. Thippa Reddy was entered in the records of the

Mahadevapura CMC. Later when the property came

within the Administrative Control of BBMP, Katha of the

said property has been entered in his name in the

records of BBMP and he has been paying the municipal

taxes.

10. The Sale Deed dated 14.8.2006 executed by the

Official Liquidator had certain typographical errors which

was later rectified under a registered Deed dated

6.8.2007 [Regn. No. 1981/07-08]. In this manner

aforesaid H. Thippa Reddy became the absolute owner of

4 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 132/1,132/2, 132/3
16
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

& 132/4 of Hoodi Village, K.R. PuramHobli, Bangalore

East Taluk.

11. The eastern portion of the above mentioned lands

was sold by H.Thippa Reddy to one D. Anjaneyulu under

a registered Sale Deed dated 25.1.2007 [Regn. No.

31864/06-07]. The name of the Purchaser D.Anjaneyulu

was entered in the revenue records of BBMP. The said

D.Anjaneyulu died on 22.9.2007 leaving behind his

widow Smt.Sakkubayamma, sons Venkatakrishna Rao

and others. The names of the legal heirs of Late

Anjaneyulu was entered in the revenue records of BBMP

and they obtained Katha in their joint names.

12. The western portion of the above mentioned lands

was sold by heirs of Thippa Reddy to the Plaintiff

company under a registered Sale Deed dated 30.1.2013

[Regn. No. 5811/12-13] measuring 1 Acre 10 guntas in

Sy. No.132/1 and 132/2. The name of the Plaintiff

company was entered in the revenue records of BBMP

and they obtained Katha in its name. H. Thippa Reddy

continued to retain a portion of the Property measuring 1
17
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Acre in the western portion of the above mentioned

lands.

13. The Plaintiff Company is in possession and

enjoyment [as Developer] to an extent of 3 acres 10

guntas and as Land Owner [to an extent of 1 acre 10

guntas], in all 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy. Nos. 132/1, 132/2,

132/3 & 132/4, Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bangalore East Taluk ie. Suit Schedule Property.or short.

14. The Plaintiff has come into possession of the

Schedule Property as Developer and Owner under the

following registered documents:

Sl.No. Nature of Dated Regn. No. Extent Executant
document
1 Joint 20.6.2012 1212/12/1-13 1 acre H.Thippa
Development Reddy
Agreement
2 Joint 30.7.2013 3841/13-14 2 A 10 G Legal Heirs of
Development lante
Agreement D.Anjaneyulu
3 Sale Deed 30.1.2013 5811/12-13 1 A 10 G H.Thippa
Reddy
Total 4 Acres 20
Guntas

15. The Plaintiff Company has entered into the above

mentioned Joint Development Agreements dated

20.6.2012 [with H.Thippa Reddy and Family] and dated
18
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

30.7.2013 [with Legal Heirs of Late D. Anjaneyulu] to

construct high rise Residential Apartments in the

Schedule Property. The respective Land Owners have also

executed registered GPAs,contemporaneous with the

Joint Development Agreements in the names of the

Directors of the Plaintiff Company. Prior to the execution

of the Joint Development Agreements, Plaintiff had taken

out public notice dated 8.5.2012 in Deccan Herald and

Prajavani Newspapers inviting objections. Similarly

before purchasing a portion of the Schedule Property

they had likewise taken out public notice in The Hindu

and Vijaya Karnataka News Papers. No objections were

received from any member of the public regarding the

transactions.

16. The Defendant No.2( Referred as defendant) is a

Company of which Defendant No. 3 is a Director. The

Defendant Company has purportedly purchased 28

guntas of lands in Sy. No. 132/4 from the 1st Defendant

K.C.Rajaram . Similarly it is also said to have purchased

10 guntas of land from Tyche India Private Limited and
19
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

therefore claims to be in possession of 38 guntas of lands

[28 guntas+ 10 guntas].

17. The 1st Defendant K.C.Rajaram did not own 28

guntas of Land in Sy. No. 132/4 for him to have sold such

extent to Defendant. The alleged sale is in excess of the

land holding of the 1st Defendant K.C.Rajaram .There are

no revenue documents or other materials to show

ownership and possession of the 1st Defendant

K.C.Rajaram to 28 guntas of land on the date when the

sale deed was executed in favour of Defendant. The

Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 (referred as defendant) are making

attempts to encroach on the land of the Plaintiff

unauthorizedly and illegally. Hence this Suit. The Plaintiff

submits that pursuant to the registered JDAS, GPAs and

Sale Deed, and with an intention of constructing high-rise

Apartments,it applied to BDA for change of land use from

industrial to residential purpose. The same was granted

by BDA vide Order dated 9.12.2013. Thereafter BBMP has

sanctioned plan to construct B+G+16/17 Upper Floors in

Towers [A.B.C.D] vide Plan sanction bearing No.
20
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

BBMP/ADDL.DIR/ JD/NORTH/LP/0119/14-15 dated

7.8.2014 issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning,

North. The Plaintiff Company has remitted following

amounts to BBMP as under:

[i] Plan Sanction Charges
[ii] Labour Cess
[iii] Improvement Charges.

18. The Plaintiff Company has also obtained the

clearance from Office of the Director General of Police,

Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services

Department on 28.5.2014 and consent order from the

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board dated 30.7.2014.

The Plaintiff Company has availed a construction

financial loan of Rs. 60 crores from HDFC Ltd. on

1.10.2014 and executed a Memorandum for Deposit of

Original Title Deeds with the said Bank on 11.11.2014. In

view of the matter copies of the documents are

submitted along with the Plaint since the originals have

been submitted to the Bank as security for the loan. The

Plaintiff states that it proposes to construct high rise

residential apartments in the Schedule Property

comprising B+G+16/17 Upper Floors. The name of the
21
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Project is Vaswani Exquisite. The Brochure of the project

is enclosed with the Plaint. Till date the Plaintiff has spent

about Rs. 44.57 Crores towards purchase of the land,

obtain various permissions, sanctions, clearances etc.,

and also towards security, compound wall, leveling,

excavation etc. The Schedule Property has been enclosed

by compound comprising' of sheet metal barricades.

Portions of the compound are attempted to be dislodged

by the Defendants from time to time. The Plaintiff has

lodged Police Complaint with the SHO, Mahadevapura on

26.3.2013 and 1.4.2013. However since the Defendants

are powerful and influential persons the Police have not

registered any case and instead they are stating that the

dispute is civil in nature. The photograph produced along

with the plaint would show that the metal sheet

barricade by way of compound is enclosing the Schedule

Property. The Defendants do not have any manner of

right, title or interest in the Schedule Property which has

been purchased by the Plaintiff and/or placed for Joint

Development by the Land Owner with them. The 1st

Defendant K.C.Rajaram has purported to sell lands which
22
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

are in excess of what was owned by him to Defendant.

There is no such land in existence with the boundaries as

claimed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff has spent more

than Rs. 44 crores towards purchase of the Schedule

Property and developmental costs. The repeated acts of

interference by the Defendants is seriously affecting the

property right of the Plaintiff. Most recently on

16.11.2014 certain persons proclaiming themselves to be

agents of the Defendants had come to the Schedule

Property and attempted to remove sheet and barricades.

The Workers / Contractors of the Plaintiff rushed to the

spot and objected to the highhanded actions of these

persons. Because of the Galata these persons left the

spot holding out threats of renewed interference with

larger force of people in a day or two. These

interferences by the Defendants since April, 2013 is

becoming more frequent. Now that the Plan has been

sanctioned by the BBMP, the Plaintiff is making all efforts

to commence construction. The lands have been leveled

and excavation work is to commence and the Plaintiff is

making arrangement to construct sales office and mock-
23
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

up flat on a portion of the land. Infact temporary site

cabin is already there on the property. Unless the

schedule property is properly fenced/barricaded there

will be acts of theft, vandalism of the Plaintiff's property

and materials. Hence it has become necessary for the

Plaintiff to seek the relief of permanent injunction

restraining the Defendants, their agents or anyone

claiming through them from dismantling or removing the

metal sheet barricade/ compound enclosing the Schedule

Property and / or from interfering in any manner with the

Plaintiffs construction work and/ or possession on the

Schedule Property. Hence this Suit.

19. The plaint averments in O.S.No.2835/2016 is

briefly stated as follows. (Defendants Pleadings)

20. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the

provisions of the Companies Act 1956, having its

registered office at the address stated in the cause title,

Sri.K.S.Sunil Gupta is the Director of the plaintiff

company and he is competent and authorized to institute

the suit. The plaintiff company is the owner in peaceful
24
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

possession and enjoyment of the property bearing

No.132/4A (old Sy.No.132/4,) measuring 28 guntas

situated at Hoodi Village, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East

Taluk. The property is now within the jurisdiction of the

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Hoodi sub-division,

Bengaluru and Property ID No.34-35-132/4 is allotted to

it. The said property is morefully described in the Plaint

schedule as Schedule 'A' Property.

21. The plaintiff company is also the owner of the land

bearing New Sy.No.132/4B (old Sy.No.132/4) measuring

10 guntas (1008.50 Sq. Mtrs) situated at Hoodi Village,

K.R.Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The property is now

within the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike, Hoodi sub-division, Bengaluru and

Property ID No. 34-35-132-4, which is referred to as

Schedule 'B' Property.

22. Sri.H.R.Guruva Reddy was the owner of the

property bearing Sy.No.132/1 measuring 2 acres 25

guntas, Sy.No.132/2 measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.132/4
25
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

measuring 1 acre 05 guntas situated at Hoodi Village,

K.R.Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. H R Guruva Reddy

executed a registered gift deed dated 13.11.1978 in

favour of his grandson K.C.Rajaram. The land bearing Sy

No. 132/3 measuring 28 guntas of Hoodi village, K.R.Pura

Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk was situated in between Sy.

No. 132/2 and Sy. No. 132/4 owned by HR Guruva Reddy.

The said Sy. No. 132/3 belonged to H.M.Anandram Reddy,

S/o G.Narayana Reddy and his family members. After

obtaining the property by way of gift, K C Rajaram

approached H.M.Ananda Rama Reddy and his family

members and requested them to exchange their land i.e,

Sy.No.132/3 measuring 28 guntas with Sy.No.132/4 (to an

extent of 28 guntas out of 1 acre 05 guntas) of Hoodi

village. Accordingly the said H. M. Ananda Rama reddy

and his family members have executed an exchange

deed in favor of K. C. Rajaram and exchanged their land,

i.e., Sy.No.132/3 measuring 28 guntas with Sy.No.132/4

( to an extent of 28 guntas out of 1 acre 05 guntas)

under a registered deed dated 22-11-1978. In view of

this amicable transfer between H.M Ananda Rama Reddy
26
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

and K.C Rajaram, K. C. Rajaram has now become the

owner of land bearing Sy.No.132/1 measuring 2 acres 25

guntas, Sy.No.132/2 measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.132/3

measuring 28 guntas, Sy.No.132/4 measuring 17 guntas

and H.M Ananda Reddy become the owner of 28 guntas

in Sy.No.132/4. Sri. K. C. Rajraram, thereafter filed an

application seeking for conversion of land bearing

Sy.No.132/1 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas, Sy.No.132/2

measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.132/3 measuring 28 guntas,

Sy.No.132/4 measuring 17 guntas, situated at Hoodi

Village totally measuring 4 acres 30 guntas from

agricultural to non-agricultural industrial purpose.

23. On enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore

urban district has accorded a permission to convert the

above described lands from agricultural to non-

agricultural industrial purpose vide his official

memorandum dated 03.04.1979 and conversion

certificate was issued on 12.04.1979. In Sy. No. 132/1, an

extent of 14 guntas is classified as Kharab land. Thus, in

the conversion certificate, a condition was imposed in
27
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

clause 3 that "the phut Kharab as per rules should be

reserved to government under section 67 of the KLR Act

1964".

24. Subsequently, the survey authorities prepared a

Hissa Tippani in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.132/1

to Sy.No.132/4. During these Durasthi proceedings,

Sy.No.132/4 was reclassified and renumbered as 132/4 A

and 132/4B. Agricultural land measuring 28 guntas

belonging to H.M Anandaram Reddy was assigned as

Sy.No.132/4A and the converted land i.e, an extent of 17

guntas in Sy.No.132/4 was assigned as Sy.No.132/4B. It is

submitted that Sy. No. 132/4A is in the southern side of

Sy.No. 132/4B.

25. Sri.H.M.Ananda rama reddy and his family members

sold above said 28 guntas of land in the land bearing

Sy.NO.132/4 in favor of K.C.Rajaram under the registered

sale deed dated 24.11.1979. It is pertinent to note here

that the land purchased under the sale deed dated

24.11.1979 was agricultural land and was not subject

matter of conversion under the order dated 3.4.1979.
28
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

26. Sri.K.C.Rajaram thereafter formed a partnership

firm with M/s.Tyche Private Ltd, under the name and style

of M/s. Kaycee Industrial Estate. The object of the firm

was to own and run an industrial estate and construction

of industrial sheds. K.C. Rajaram had contributed

industrial converted lands bearing Sy.No.132/1

measuring 2 acres 25 guntas, Sy.No.132/2 measuring 1

acre, Sy.No.132/3 measuring 28 guntas, Sy.No.132/4

measuring 17 guntas, totally measuring 4 acres 30

guntas towards his share of capital to the above said

partnership firm.

27. With the purpose of improving the business, the

partners of M/s.Kaycee Industrial Estate agreed to take

M/s. Swede (India) Electronics Limited, as partner to the

partnership firm. Accordingly, a re-constitution

partnership deed was executed on 5.7.1986. The

partnership firm now consisted of 3 partners viz., (1)

K.C.Rajaram, (2) M/s.Tyche Private Ltd and (3) M/s.

Swede (India) Electronics Limited. The partners

thereafter decided to dissolve the partnership firm
29
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

functioning under the name and style M/s.Kaycee

Industrial Estate. Accordingly, the partnership firm was

orally dissolved on 31.12.1986. The dissolution of the

partnership deed was reduced in writing on 01.03.1987.

The assets of the firm are setforth in Schedule-I of the

deed of dissolution. It is to be noted that the asset of the

firm consisted only of the converted lands bearing

Sy.No.132/1 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas, Sy.No.132/2

measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.132/3 measuring 28 guntas,

Sy.No.132/4 measuring 17 guntas, totally measuring 4

acres 30 guntas. The agricultural land measuring 28

guntas was not contributed to the asset of the

partnership firm. Under the deed of dissolution of

partnership, the entire industrial converted land

contributed by Sri.K.C. Rajaram has been allotted to two

partners namely M/s Tyche Private Ltd and M/s. Swede

(India) Electronics Ltd. Under the said deed, M/s Swede

(India) Electronics Ltd. has become the owner of

1,18,211.50 Sq. Mtrs with the factory building, measuring

1,896.11 Sq. Mtrs in the land bearing Sy .No.132/1,

132/2, 132/3 and Sy.No.132/4 of Hoodi village. The other
30
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

partner M/s.Tyche Private Ltd,. has become the owner of

1,008.50 sq. mtrs with factory building of 900.20 sq. mtrs

of Sy.No.132/4 of Hoodi village. The agricultural property

measuring 28 gunats belongs to K.C Rajaram was

described as southern boundary to the property allotted

to M/s.Swede (India) Electronics Ltd. M/s.Swede (India)

Electronics Ltd. was declared as sick company and

referred to Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction

Government of India, ("BIFR"). BIFR had opined that the

company cannot be reviewed and consequently, the said

company was ordered to be wound-up by order dated

21.07.2000 passed in Company Petition No.68/1997 by

the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. The

Official Liquidator took charge the assets of the company

and obtained orders to sell the land to the highest

bidders. In a public auction, the husband of the

defendant No.2, i.e., Sri. H. Thippareddy was declared as

the highest bidder and a registered sale deed was

executed in favour of Sri.H.Thippareddy on 14.08.2006 to

an extent of 4 acres 20 guntas of land i.e. land bearing

Sy.No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3 and 132/4 of Hoodi village. As
31
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

stated above, Land bearing Sy. No. 132/1 consisted of 14

guntas of land which was classified as kharab. In the

conversion certificate, it was mandated that the the phut

Kharab as per rules should be reserved to government

under section 67 of the KLR act 1964 and hence, though

4 acres 30 guntas of land was submitted for conversions,

only 4 acre 16 guntas of land was actually converted.

Thus, the husband of the 2nd defendant could not have

obtained title over 4 acres 20 guntas of land. The entire

extent of land measuring 14 guntas, which was classified

as "kharab" was used for formation of Whitefield to

Hosakote road, which passes through Sy. No. 132/1 from

the eastern side to the western side. Subsequently the

said road was widened and for widening purpose an

extent of 5 guntas, was utilized in Sy.No.132/1. Thus, the

extent of Sy.No.132/1 was therefore reduced from 2 Acre

25 guntas to only 2 Acres 6 Guntas.

28. It is submitted that, "A" & "B" schedule property

was included in the limits of Bruhath Bangalore

Mahanagara palike during the year 2006, the original
32
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

owner K.C.Rajaram reddy has approached Bruhath

Bangalore Mahanagara palike for change of katha into

his name, Accordingly, BBMP has ordered to change the

khatha in respect of the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties in

favour of K.C.Rajaram reddy and M/s Tyche Private Ltd.

Before changing the katha the said K.C.Rajarama reddy

has also paid the betterment charges to the BBMP. The

plaintiff company has acquired 'A' schedule property

under the registered sale deed dated 10.09.2007 from

Sri. K.C.Rajaram and his family members for a valuable

sale consideration amount. As on the date of sale deed,

the vendor of the plaintiff has put the plaintiff in physical

possession of the schedule 'A' property and from the

date of registered sale deed, the plaintiff company is in

actual physical possession of the schedule 'A' property.

The plaintiff company has acquired the 'B' schedule

property under the registered sale deed dated

10.09.2007 from M/s.Tyche Private Ltd, for a valuable

sale consideration amount. On the date of registered sale

deed, the vendor of the plaintiff has put the plaintiff in

physical possession of the 'B' schedule property. From
33
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

the date of the registered sale deed, the plaintiff is in

possession and enjoyment of the 'B' schedule property.

Subsequent to the registered sale deed, the plaintiff

company approached the BBMP for change of khatha in

respect of the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties into their

names. Accordingly, BBMP has ordered to change the

khatha in respect of the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties in

favour of the plaintiff company. In this regard, BBMP has

issued the khatha certificate, khatha extract in the name

of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company is paying

the property tax to the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties.

The plaintiff is exercising all the rights of the ownership

over the schedule properties which is free from all

encumbrances.

29. At the time of conversion order the Deputy

commissioner or the Thasildar concerned have not

mentioned the extent of land in each survey number, in

the conversion certificate the Thasildar Bangalore South

taluk has totally mentioned 4 acre 30 guntas out of

survey number 132/1, 132/2, 132/3 and 132/4. As
34
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

already stated above as on the date of conversion order

Mr.K.C.Rajarama reddy was not the owner of southern

edge 28 guntas land in the land bearing Sy.No.132/4, the

said land was not a subject matter of the conversion

order. Sri. H. Thippareddy, i.e, the husband of the 2nd

defendant has sold eastern portion measuring 2 acres 10

guntas land bearing Sy.No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3 and 132/4

in favor of one D. Anjaneyalu on 25-01-2007 under a

registered sale deed. Sri.D.Anjaneyalu has passed away

prior to filing of this suit and the defendants No.6 to 16

are the legal representatives of said D.Anjaneyalu. The

defendant No.1(referred as Plaintiff) is claiming to be

purchaser of 1 acre 10 guntas of land in the land bearing

Sy.No.132/1 and 132/2. The defendant No.1(referred as

Plaintiff) has also entered into a joint development

agreement with defendant No.2 to 16 for construction of

multi-storied apartment. While purchasing the land

bearing Sy.No.132/1 and other land from the official

liquidator, the husband of the 2nd defendant had not

verified the actual exact land available in the land

bearing sy.No.132/1 after formation of road. The land
35
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

measuring 19 guntas of land was utilized for formation

and widening of road. The actual land available was only

2 acre 06 guntas and the husband of the 2nd defendant

without verifying the same has purchased 2 acres 25

guntas in the land bearing Sy.No.132/1. Thus, there is a

shortage of land to an extent of 19 guntas in the land

purchased by the husband of the 2nd defendant. The

husband of the 2nd defendant with an intention to make

up for his lost land tried to usurp some land belonging to

the plaintiff.

30. It was then noticed by the plaintiff(referred as

defendant) that there was a mistake in the sale deed

dated 10.09.2007 while mentioning the boundaries to

the 'A' schedule property. The "A" schedule property

boundary was described as East by: Private land bearing

Sy.NO.131 and & Tank bund, West by: Private land and

Sy.No.133, North by : Portion of Sy.No.132/4, South by

Portion land bearing Sy.No.132/4 and private land, Hence

a deed of rectification was executed on 21.3.2016 and

the vendor of the plaintiff has executed the Deed
36
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

rectifying the schedule and making correction to the

boundaries to 'A' schedule property as stated above.

Similar mistake had also been found in the 2nd sale deed

dated 10.09.2007, while mentioning the boundaries to

the 'B' schedule property, The "B" schedule property

boundary was described as private land bearing

Sy.No.131 and & tank bund, West by: Private land and

Sy.No.132/4, North by : Portion of Sy.No.132/4, South by

Portion land bearing Sy.No.131 and tank bund. Hence, a

deed of rectification was executed on 23-03-2016 and

the vendor of the plaintiff has executed the Deed

rectifying the schedule and making correction to the

boundaries to 'B' schedule property as stated above.

31. The 2nd Defendant husband made repeated

attempts to usurp the property belonging to the plaintiff.

Finally the plaintiff has filed a suit against the husband of

the 2nd defendant before this Hon'ble court in

O.S.No.7161/2011 for the relief of permanent injunction.

During the pendency of the above suit the husband of

the 2nd defendant died, the suit filed by the plaintiff
37
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

against 2nd defendant husband is bare injunction; the

cause of action does not survive on the LRs of the

deceased defendant.

32. It is submitted that, the 1st defendant (referred as

Plaintiff) herein on the basis of the joint development

agreement executed by the defendant No.2 to 16 has

tried to encroach upon some land belonging to the

plaintiff company. The plaintiff has resisted illegal

activities of the 1st defendant(referred as Plaintiff). The

1st defendant(referred as Plaintiff) had instigated

Thasildar and Police authorities to recover the possession

on the guise of survey. After coming to know about the

same the plaintiff has challenged the communication of

Government machinery before the Hon'ble High court of

Karnataka in WP No.39376/2013, wherein the Hon'ble

High court of Karnataka appointed Deputy Director of

City survey as court commissioner to conduct the survey

of land bearing Sy.No.132 of Hoodi Village and disposed

off the writ petition by the order dated 12-08-2014.

Based on the orders of the Hon'ble High court of
38
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Karnataka the Deputy Director of land records has

conducted a survey and submitted a report to the

parties. However the deputy director has not surveyed

the land as per the survey records and he has not fixed

any boundaries to the survey No.132/1 to 132/4. The

court commissioner has prepared his report only on the

basis of title deeds of the parties. The report of the court

commissioner do not speaks about the exact land used

for formation of road in Sy.NO.132/1 and available land in

land bearing Sy.No.132/1. The report of the commissioner

is not helpful to the parties to resolve the disputes

among them. The 1st defendant(referred as Plaintiff)

herein before entering into the Joint development

agreement with the defendant No. 2 to 16 has issued a

public notice in daily newspaper calling upon the general

public for objection if any. After noticing the same the

plaintiff(referred as defendant) has filed a detailed

objection on 16-05-2012, inspite of strong objection

raised by the plaintiff, the defendant No.1(referred as

Plaintiff) colluding with the defendant NO.2 to 16 has

entered into a JDA agreement. As per the survey records
39
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

such as Hissa Survey, Tippani Prathi, Secondary Re-

clause Hissa Tippani, and Village Map of the land bearing

Sy.No.132/1 of Hoodi village, there is a road passing

within the land bearing Sy.No.132/1. On the northern side

of the road, there is a land existing in the land bearing

Sy.No.132/1 of Hoodi village. In spite of the existence of

the land above the road, the defendants have

intentionally concealed in order to knock-off the property

belonging to plaintiff and is claiming the land below the

road. After deducting the land measuring 38 guntas of

the land belonging to plaintiff(referred as defendant), the

land available in the land bearing Sy.No.132 new No.

132/1 to 132/4 is only 4 acres 01 gunta. The remaining

19 guntas of land is used for formation of road. The

defendants knowing fully about the same, and

suppressing the above stated facts, is forcibly trying to

encroach the Schedule 'A' & 'B' property belongs to

plaintiff to match up the extent.

33. When the matter stood thus the 1st

defendant(referred as Plaintiff) herein with an intention
40
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

to encroach property belonging to the plaintiff(referred

as defendant) has filed a false suit before this Hon'ble

court in O.S.No.9024/2014 for the relief of permanent

injunction. This Hon'ble court after hearing the 1st

defendant (referred as Plaintiff) and after looking into the

dispute between the parties was pleased to grant an

order ex-party injunction of status-quo. The defendants

herein colluding with each other taking advantage of the

ex- party injunction order has tried to erect metal sheet

barricades/compound in the plaintiff property, the

plaintiff has resisted the defendants from erecting the

metal sheet barricades, when the defendants failed to

complete their works the 1st defendant(referred as

Plaintiff) has filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High

court of Karnataka in W.P.No.8366- 8370/2016 wherein

the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka was pleased to pass

an interim order directing the parties to approach civil

court for appropriate remedy. The Hon'ble High Court of

Karnataka while passing an interim order has permitted

the defendant No.1(referred as Plaintiff) to go ahead with

construction by the order dated 08.03.2016. The
41
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

defendants taking advantage of the order passed in

W.P.No.8366-8370/2016 has tried to put up a

construction. The plaintiff has challenged the order

passed in W.P.No.8366-8370/2016 before the Division

Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing an

appeal in W.A.No.826-830/2016. The Hon'ble Division

Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by the

judgment dated 20.06.2016 was pleased to allow the writ

appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the order dated

08.03.2016. In the meantime the plaintiff has also filed

the above suit on 07.04.2016. Along with the suit the

plaintiff has filed an application for an order of temporary

injunction restraining the defendants from putting up

construction on the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.

Before filing the suit, the defendant No.1(referred as

Plaintiff) has filed a Caveat Petition against the

plaintiff(referred as defendant) before this Hon'ble Court.

After filing of the suit, this Hon'ble Court issued a notice

to the caveator/defendant No.1(referred as Plaintiff).

Initially this Hon'ble Court has declined to grant an

exparte injunction order in view of the caveat filed by the
42
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

defendant No.1(referred as Plaintiff). This Hon'ble Court

after hearing the plaintiff and defendants, was pleased to

allow the application filed by the plaintiff under Order

XXXIX Rule 1&2, by the order dated 20.06.2017. And

restrained the defendants from putting up any

construction in the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. As

against the orders of this Hon'ble Court, the defendant

No.1(referred as Plaintiff) has filed Misc. First Appeal

before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA

No.4903/2017 and obtained an order of stay to the order

passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 20.06.2017. During

the pendency of the present suit, the Joint Director of

Land Records, Bengaluru District acting under Section

49(f) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act read with Rule-

36(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, has issued a

direction to the Assistant Director of Land Records,

Bengaluru North Division on 23.06.2016 and sought a

report in proceedings No.JDLR/Tech(5)/PR/153/2016-17.

On receipt of the notice, the Assistant Director of Land

Records has conducted a survey on 29.09.2016 with due

notices to the plaintiff and defendants and submitted a
43
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

report to the Joint Director of Land Records. The Joint

Director of Land Records has also visited the spot and

verified the survey conducted by the ADLR. In the said

report the Assistant Director of Land Records has clearly

reported that an extent of 19 guntas of land in

Sy.No.132/1 of Hoodi Village is utilized for formation of

road. Out of 19 guntas, 14 guntas of kharab land and 05

guntas of cultivable land was utilized. After utilizing the

land for formation of road, the land available in the land

bearing Sy.No.132/1 is only 02 acres 06 guntas. The

defendants knowing fully about the same, are falsely

claiming 02 acres 25 guntas in the land bearing

Sy.No.132/1.

34. The defendants(referred as Plaintiff) taking

advantage of the non- granting of exparte injunction

order in the present suit, have illegally entered the

portion of the schedule properties and excavated the

mud in the entire 'B' schedule property to the depth of

20 feet and 9 1⁄2 guntas of land in the 'A' schedule

property day-by-day during the pendency of the suit,
44
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

totally the defendants(referred as Plaintiff) have

encroached 19 1⁄2 guntas of land in the schedule 'A' and

'B' properties. The said 19 1⁄2 guntas of land in the land

bearing Sy.No.132/4 New Sy.No.132/4A and Sy.No.132/4B

is morefully described in the schedule as the 'Schedule

'C' Property'. The defendants(referred as Plaintiff) after

the stay order granted in MFA No.4903/2017, have

illegally started to construct a multi-storied apartment

building in the 'C' schedule property. The 'C' schedule

property is the absolute property of the plaintiff(referred

as defendant). The defendants(referred as Plaintiff) do

not have any right, title or interest in the 'C' schedule

property or 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The

defendants have forcibly entered the 'A' and 'B' schedule

properties and taken possession of the 'C' schedule

property. The defendants(referred as Plaintiff) have

dispossessed the plaintiff from the 'C' schedule property

during the pendency of the present suit. Hence the

plaintiff having no other alternative is seeking the relief

of possession directing the defendants to hand over the

vacant possession of the 'C' schedule property to the
45
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

plaintiff(referred as defendant), failing which this Court

may be pleased to hand over the possession of the 'C'

schedule property through court media. The

defendants(referred as Plaintiff) herein have no manner

of right, title and interest or possession over the

schedule 'A' and 'B' properties belonging to the

plaintiff(referred as defendant). The defendants(referred

as Plaintiff) taking undue advantage of the interim order

passed in O.S.No.9024/2014, and interim order passed in

W.P.No.8366-8370/2016 are denying the

plaintiff's(referred as defendant) title over the schedule

'A' and 'B' properties. The defendant No.1(referred as

Plaintiff) knowing fully well that schedule 'A' and 'B'

property belongs to the plaintiff(referred as defendant),

taking advantage of the above orders, has come near to

the schedule property on 31.03.2016 along with security

guards, coolies and goonda elements and has tried to

put-up compound wall encroaching the schedule 'A' and

'B' properties. The plaintiff with the timely help of friends

and well-wishers has resisted the illegal activities of the

defendant(referred as Plaintiff). The defendant
46
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

No.1(referred as Plaintiff) went away from the schedule

'A' and 'B' properties proclaiming that they will come

again with huge supporters and put-up compound wall

and construction in the properties belong to the

plaintiff(referred as defendant). The only intention of the

Defendants(referred as Plaintiff) in doing so is to deprive

the right of the Plaintiff(referred as defendant) over the

schedule property and hence the plaintiff(referred as

defendant) is filed the present suit for the relief of

Declaration, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute

owner and in possession and enjoyment of the schedule

'A' and 'B' properties and also consequential relief of

permanent injunction restraining the defendants from

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the plaintiff over the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties

and for recovery of schedule "C" property Hence, this

suit.

35. Since I have already narrated the plaint averments

made in both suits, as they in their respective written

statements taken similar contentions, hence I have not
47
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

reproduced the same again in order to avoid repetition of

their pleadings.

36. The Written Statement filed by Defendant No.1

Shri.K.C.Rajaram in O.S.No.9024/2014 is breifly stated as

follows:-

37. There is no cause of action pleaded as against this

defendant. This defendant has not gone near the

properties in question since the date of sale by this

defendant to 2nd defendant due to his ill health. Just a

casual reference as 'defendants' would not give raise to

any cause of action as against this defendant. Hence, the

suit for permanent injunction against this defendant is

not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. This

defendant does not admit the title, possession and

identity of the schedule property. Hence mere suit for

injunction is not maintainable and is liable to be

dismissed. It is admitted that the total extent of Sy No.

132/1, 132/2, 132/3 and 132/4 was 5 Acres 18 Guntas

including 14 guntas of Karab. It is not admitted that

entire 14 Guntas of Karab was utilized for formation and

extension/widening of White Field Road. It is not admitted
48
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

that remaining extent was 5 Acre 04 Guntas. On the day

Sri.H. Thippa Reddy purchased property from the Official

Liquidator, in Sy.No.132/1, a small width road was

passing. Now it is broadened. Consequently, the extent

available to SriH. Thippa Reddy in Sy.No. 132/1 is less.

The plaintiff wants to show that the extent available to it

is the same, notwithstanding the road having been

widened and by usurping the property of others and

consequently has filed this suit. Sri.H.Thippa Reddy and

Sri.D.Anjeenayalu being owners of the property

described in the Schedule to the plaint to the extent

mentioned is disputed and such extent does not exist

and as they were not the owners of the extent

mentioned, plaintiff who claims under them is not

entitled to claim any rights with respect to the extent

stated. Except in the property of 2nd defendant, in no

other part of Sy.No. 132/1,132/2, 132/3 and 132/4 any

building exists. A suit for injunction with respect to

vacant land where title and identity of property is denied

is not maintainable. This defendant got 5 acre 18 Guntas

under various documents and not 5Acres 04 Guntas as
49
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

mentioned in para-5 of the Plaint. 14 guntas of Kharab

was there which also was included in the property of this

defendant. The conversion certificate clearly states that

4 acre 30 guntas is converted which includes 14 guntas

of Kharab. In addition to that 28 guntas of agricultural

land existed in Sy.No. 132/4 acquired by the 1st

defendant under sale deed dated 24/11/1979. This

purchase is subsequent to conversion order dated

12/4/1979. It is true that 4 Acres 30 Guntas was

converted but it is not out of 5 Acre 04 Guntas, it was out

of 5 Acres 18 Guntas. The remaining extent of land 04

Guntas, it was out of 5 Acres 18 Guntas. The remaining

extent of land was not 14 guntas but it was 28 guntas in

Sy No.132/4 which was purchased as per Sale deed of

24/11/1979. This 28 guntas was not converted and was

agricultural land. It is true that the first defendant did not

retain any land in 4 Acres 30 Guntas. This defendant is

not aware whether Sri.H.Thippa Reddy's name was

entered into Revenue Records. It is not known and hence

not admitted that there was any typographical error in

the Sale deed executed by the Official Liquidator in
50
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

favour of Sri.H.Thippa Reddy. This defendant is not aware

of typographical error in the Sale deed executed by the

Official Liquidator and the Rectification deed. This

defendant is not aware of Sale by Sri.H.Thippa Reddy to

Sri.D.Anjaneyalu and other statement regarding Revenue

records being made in the name of the wife and sons of

Sri.D.Anjaneyalu. This defendant is not aware of the Sale

of Western portion of the land to the plaintiff by

Sri.H.Thippa Reddy and katha being obtained by the

plaintiff. It is not admitted that Sri.H.Thippa Reddy

retained 1 Acre in the western portion. The correctness of

the sale deed executed by Sri.H. Thippa Reddy as well as

the statement made in para-11 are not admitted. It is not

admitted that plaintiff is in possession of 3 Acres 10

Guntas out of 4 Acres 20 Guntas referred to as Schedule

Property. As Schedule Property does not exists, claim of

possession can never be correct. It is true that the first

defendant has sold 28 Guntas in Sy No.132/4 to the

second defendant. This is the property which he got

under Sale deed of 24/11/1979. Before the said sale deed

there was an agreement of sale dated 02/04/1994 by the
51
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

1s defendant to M/s Tyche India Put, Ltd., it is true that

Tyche India Pt Ltd., has sold 10 Guntas to the second

defendant which was converted land got under

Dissolution Deed. It is false to state that first defendant

did not own 28 Guntas of land in Sy No. 132/4. It is false

to state that the above said Sale deeds by first defendant

are in excess of land holding of the first defendant. It is

false to state that there are no Revenue documents to

show ownership and possession of first defendant

regarding 28 guntas of land when the sale was made. It

is false to state that defendant No.2 & 3 are attempting

to encroach on the land of plaintiff unauthorizedly and

illegally. It is not admitted that the plaintiff has spent

Rs.44.57 Crores. This defendant is not aware of the

alleged police complaint lodged by plaintiff. The

boundaries stated in the plaint is substantially correct

subject to clarity that on the South the land bearing

Sy.No. 132/4 mentioned is Sy.No. 132/4 belonging to 2nd

defendant. This defendant is not aware of Joint

Development Agreement entered into by the plaintiff. It

is false to state that this defendant has sold the property
52
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

in excess of what was owned by him to the second

defendant. The property sold by this defendant to the

second defendant is in existence. It is not admitted that

the plaintiff has spent Rs.44 Crores towards purchase of

alleged Schedule property and development costs. It is

false to state that any attempts are made to interfere

with alleged schedule property which has seriously

affected the alleged rights of the plaintiff. It is false to

state that on 16/11/2014 certain persons claiming to be

the agents of this defendant had come to the schedule

property and attempted to remove the sheet barricades

on the Southern side. It is false to state that the

workers/contractors of the plaintiff rush to the spot and

objected to the high handed actions of these persons and

because of galata the persons left holding out threats

with renewed interference with large force of people in a

day or two. It is false to state that there was any

interference by this defendant since April 2013 and it is

becoming more frequent. It is not known to this

defendant whether plan is sanctioned and plaintiff is

making efforts to commence construction. It is not
53
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

admitted whether land is excavated and leveled and

attempts are being made to construct sale office and

mock up flat on a portion of the land. This defendant has

not gone near the property since the date of sale to the

second defendant and this defendant is not aware of the

present status of the property and hence the averments

made in para-22 are not admitted and plaintiff is put to

strict proof of the same. It is false to state that any

attempt to interfere was made by this defendant. The

suit filed against this defendant is liable to be dismissed.

Plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction. The

cause of action is imaginary. Hence the defendant. No.1

Sri K.C.Rajaram prays for dismissal of suit.

38. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following

issues are framed in these suits.

ISSUES FRAMED IN O.S.NO.9024/2014:

1. Whether the plaintiff company proves that it is in
lawful possession of suit schedule property as
described in the plaint schedule as on the date of
suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff company further proves the
alleged interference by the defendants?
54
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

3. What order or decree?

ISSUES dt.20/6.2017 FRAMED IN

O.S.NO.2835/2016

1. Whether the plaintiff-company proves that it is the
owner of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff-company further proves that it is
in actual possession of suit schedule 'A' and 'B'
properties as on the date of suit?

3. Whether the plaintiff-company further proves the
alleged interference by the defendants?

4. What order or decree?

ISSUES dt.17/3/2001 FRAMED IN

O.S.NO.2835/2016

1. Whether the plaintiff company proves that it has
purchased suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties totally
to the extent of 38 guntas in Sy.No.132/4, new
Sy.No.132/'A' and 'B' from sale deeds dated
10.09.2007 from M/s. Tyche Pvt. Ltd.?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the
defendants have encroached 19 ½ guntas in
Sy.No.132/4, new Sy.No.132/4A and 132/4B termed as
schedule 'C' property and plaintiff entitled for
possession of the same?

3. Whether the defendant No.1 company proves that
there is no excess of 19 guntas physically on the spot
that is alleged as schedule 'C' property by the
plaintiff?

4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that they are
absolute owner and in possession of entire 4 acre 20
guntas of land in Sy.No.132/1 to 132/4?
55
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and
possession of schedule 'C' property and consequential
relief of injunction as prayed?

6. What order or decree?

39. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff,

Sri.R.Lokesh examined as PW1 and documents Ex.P1 to

P77 are marked on the side of Plaintiff. During the

course of cross examination of PW1 documents Ex.D1 to

D7 are marked. After closure of the evidence on the side

of the plaintiff, on the side of the defendants Sri.K.S.Sunil

Gupta, Director of M/s Kaman Holdings Private Limited is

examined as DW 1. Documents Ex.D8 to D46 are marked

through DW 1. Defendant.No.1. Sri K.C.Rajaram in

O.S.No.9024/2014 and D2 to D16 in O.S.No.2835/2016

are not stepped into witness box,

40. I have heard arguments on the side of the learned

counsel Senor Counsel for plaintiff and the learned

counsel for the defendant.

41. Arguments addressed by learned Senior

Counsel for Plaintiff.
56
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

42. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff argued

that the original owner K.C Rajaram who acquired the

lands bearing no. 132/1, 132/2, 132/4 under registered

gift deed acquired these lands for which the northern

boundary is shown as Whitefield main road. The

defendant claiming his property towards south in Sy. No.

132/4 now numbered as 132/4A measuring 28 guntas

and 132/4B measuring 10 guntas. According to the

defendant, Sy. No. 132/4B is situated towards north of Sy.

No. 132/4A. He submitted that the original owner KC

Rajaram owned the property in Sy. No. 132/1 towards

south of the Whitefield main road. He submitted that the

property bearing Sy. No. 132/1 situated towards north

and 132/4 situated towards south, Sy. no. 132/1, 132/2,

132/3 and 132/4 are situated in a chronological way

from north to south. The land bearing Sy. No. 132/3

belongs to one HN Anandaram Reddy and brothers which

exchanged under exchange deed dated 22.11.1978

under Ex.P16/ Ex.D18 with KC Rajaram. They exchanged

28 guntas each. After execution of exchange deed, the

land bearing Sy.no. 132/4 reduced from 1 acre 5 guntas
57
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

to 17 guntas. Thus Sri KC Rajaram became the owner

and in possession of 4 acres 30 guntas in the lands

bearing Sy. No. 132/1 measuring 2 acres 11 guntas plus

14 guntas kharab, Sy. No. 132/2 measuring 1 acre, Sy.

No. 132/3 measuring 28 guntas, Sy. No. 132/4 measuring

17 guntas. He argued that as per order official

memorandum dated 3.04.1979, the Deputy

commissioner passed conversion order with respect to 4

acre 30 guntas of land in Sy. No. 132/1 to Sy. No. 132/4 in

the name of KC Rajaram. He submitted that HN

Anandram Reddy sold 28 guntas in Sy. No. 132/4 in

favour of KC Rajaram under Ex.P19 dated 24.11.1979. He

argued that the same schedule which is mentioned in

this sale deed is mentioned in plaint schedule. He

submitted that the defendant who claimed that he

purchased the property under Ex.D8 and 9 sale deeds

unilaterally got created the documents Ex.D32 and 33

rectification deeds. He argued that KC Rajaram, who

formed the partnership firm on 1.04.1985 brought his 4

acre 30 guntas of land into partnership firm. But the

partnership firm KAYCEE Industrial Estate which also
58
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

consisting partners, Tyche India (Pvt.) Ltd and SWEDE

India teletronics dissolved as per dissolution deed Ex.P21

on 1.03.1987. In that dissolution Schedule II, i.e., the

land bearing Sy. No. 132/4 measuring 1008 Sq.

Meters(10 Guntas) given to the Tyche India (Pvt) Ltd and

Schedule III i.e., Sy. No. 132/1 to 132/4 measuring

18,211.50 Sq meters (4 acres 20 guntas) given to SWEDE

India. He submitted that as SWEDE India went into

liquidation, Sri Tippareddy purchased this property under

public auction and accordingly official liquidator executed

Ex.P2 sale deed dated 14.08.2006. he submitted that in

Ex.P2 sale deed also the same boundary which is

mentioned in Ex.P21 dissolution deed is mentioned. He

argued that in page no. 10 of Ex.D8, false recitals are

mentioned regarding 7 guntas of land. He submitted that

in Ex.P19, the boundaries to the 28 guntas of land which

repurchased by KC Rajaram from Anandram Reddy are

mentioned. But the defendant while got executed Ex.D8,

boundaries are changed. He submitted that during the

course of cross-examination of DW1, he has admitted

that he has not produced any survey documents. He
59
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

argued that the plaintiff company produced the

documents such as sale deeds, joint development

agreement, GPA and other documents issued by various

authorities to show that plaintiff company is in

possession of 4 acres 20 guntas of land. The plaintiff

company possessing the same land measuring 4 acres

20 guntas which possessed by the previous owners.

BBMP authorities, several statutory authorities who

visited the spot and verified the documents held that

actual area which is in possession of plaintiff is 18,210.70

Sq meters. He argued that even in Ex.P 76 village map,

the Hoodi / Whitefield main road is shown towards north

of the plaintiff's property. There exists no property in Sy.

No. 132/1 towards north of the road. He argued that the

defendant is claiming right over non- existing C Schedule

Property. According to DW1, C Schedule property is

between A and B Schedule which is sandwiched. Under

such circumstances, there is no possibility to encroach

any such C Schedule property. He argued that DW1 is not

sure who was encroached which portion of the property.

DW1 after almost 10 years of Ex.D8 and D9 got prepared
60
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Ex.D32 and Ex.D33 rectification deeds. When compared

to Ex.D8, Ex.D9 with Ex.D32 and 33, three side

boundaries i.e., east, west and south are completely

changed. He argued that after filing of the suit by the

defendant in OS No.7161/2011 as per Ex.D42 plaint filed

against Thippareddy as the defendant therein as per

Ex.D43 WS in para No. 10 seriously disputed regarding

identity, location and existence of the property, by

realizing the same, the defendant got created the

documents Ex.D32 and Ex.D33 rectification deeds by

changing three sides boundaries unilaterally without

having any registered documents showing the

boundaries mentioned Ex.D32 and 33. He argued that if

the defendant shows the plaintiff is having excess land

than 4 acres 20 guntas, which also possessed by the

original owners, then only the defendant can succeed in

this suit. He argued that Ex.P14 is the first document

under which KC Rajaram acquired ownership over the

property measuring 4 acres 30 guntas. In Ex.P14 dated

13.11.1978, the northern boundary is shown as

Whitefield main road. There is no evidence to show when
61
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

actually this Whitefield main road constructed. He

submitted that the defendant has not appointed any

commissioner or any surveyor. Only on the basis of oral

evidence, defendant claims 19 guntas gone to the road.

He submitted that if we peruse the document Ex.D25

notice dated 15.09.2016 issued by tahsildar, it was

issued only against the defendant. No such notice was

issued to the plaintiff. Ex.D26 is the survey sketch

wherein signed date is mentioned as 20.09.2016. Ex.D26

prepared at the instance of the defendant. Ex.D7 is the

statement of objection. He argued that as soon as the

plaintiff came to know about the survey, he has preferred

WP No. 51470/2016 before Hon'ble High Court of

Karnataka as per Ex.P75. The Hon'ble High Court passed

stay order dated 29.09.2016. Interim order extended

until further orders as per order dated 28.10.2016. When

there is a stay, any report submitted by Tahsildar, ADLR,

DDLR, JDLR are no evidentiary value. It cannot be looked

into. The defendants have not moved any application

before Hon'ble High Court to accept this survey report.

The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition as the
62
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

present two suits are pending. He submitted that internal

arrangement made by the defendant and the survey

department cannot be looked into. He argued that incase

of any encroachment made out, the adjacent owners

should be issued with notice. The land should have got

measured to find out who is in possession to what extent.

But there is no such attempt made to issue notices to the

adjacent owners to find out whether there is

encroachment is made of not. There is no notification

made for road widening. Other than relinquishment deed

executed with respect to 5 guntas for road widening,

there is no other documents in existence to show any

notification regarding road or road widening. He argued

that the plaintiff has mentioned in his suit the same

boundaries which are mentioned in the gift deed

executed in favour of KC Rajaram, in dissolution deed

while dissolving the partnership firm, in the sale deed

executed by official liquidator in favour of the Tippareddy.

He submitted that the plaintiff has produced the

documents Ex.P45 license, Ex.P50, 54, 55, 56, 62, 63,

documents issued by various authorities to show that the
63
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

land which is in possession of the plaintiff is 4 acre 20

guntas.

43. Arguments addressed by learned Counsel for

Defendant.

44. The learned counsel for the defendant argued

that since there is a formation of a road in the land

bearing Sy.No. 132/1, there is shortage of 19 guntas of

land in possession of the plaintiff. To the partnership firm,

the industrially converted land measuring 4 acres 30

guntas including the land measuring 14 guntas kharab

was contributed as capital. Sri KC Rajaram was owner of

the land bearing Sy.No. 132/1 measuring 2 acre 25

guntas including 14 guntas of Kharab. The land bearing

Sy.No. 132/2 measures 1 acre, 132/3 measures 28

guntas, 132/4 measures 1 acre 5 guntas total land 5

acres 18 guntas. If we deduct 14 guntas of kharab, then

the remaining land would be 5 acres 4 guntas. As per

Ex.P14 gift deed including 14 guntas kharab, land

measuring 14 acre 30 guntas gifted to KC Rajaram. At

that time, KC Rajaram was not the owner of Sy.No. 132/3.

As per Ex.D18, exchange deed, exchange of land
64
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

measuring 28 guntas was taken place. The land remains

in Sy. No. 132/4 with KC Rajaram was 17 guntas. Thus the

KC Rajaram became owner of the land measuring 4 acres

30 guntas including 14 guntas kharab i.e., Sy. No 132/1

measuring 2 acres 11 guntas, Sy.No. 132/2 measuring 1

acre, Sy.No. 132/3 measuring 28 guntas, Sy.No. 132/4

measuring 17 guntas(1 Acre 5 guntas - 28 guntas). He

submitted that at the time when KC Rajaram was applied

for conversion, 28 guntas of land was not subject matter

of conversion order. Only 4 acres 16 guntas land was

converted. Which could be seen from the documents

Ex.D1 to D4. He submitted that there is clear shara in

Ex.P20 in para No. 3 that the phut kharab as per the

rules should be reserved to the government U/s 67 of

KLR Act. Thus only converted land is 4 acres 16 guntas.

Remaining 14 guntas is ordered to reserve to the

government. The KC Rajaram became owner of

purchased 28 guntas subsequently, on 2.11.1979, as per

Ex.D17, if we add this 28 guntas to 4 acre 16 guntas,

then total comes to 5 acres 4 guntas excluding 14 guntas

kharab. He argued that the 28 guntas of subsequently
65
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

purchased land by KC Rajaram not at all the asset of the

firm. He submitted that Schedule II in dissolution deed

given to Swede India, Schedule III given to Tychee. Then

actual controversy started. He submitted that the

plaintiffs in OS No. 2835/2016 admitted that 14 guntas

taken for road further 5 guntas acquired for road. Thus

totally 19 guntas went for road. He submitted that the

actual land of Swede India is only 4 .01 acres. Since

nobody surveyed the land, the same entry continued.

Even the official liquidator who executed the sale deed

also not surveyed the land. He argued that when the

public notice was issued by the plaintiff, then the

defendant filed the objection for the same. The plaintiff

fully aware that the owners got only 4.01 acres started to

develop the land out of 4 acres 20 guntas. He submitted

that defendant purchased 10 guntas of the land under

Ex.D9 from Tychee which is shown as B schedule

property. KC Rajaram and children sold 28 guntas of land

in favour of the defendant as per Ex.D8. Thus the

defendant having the title of 38 guntas which is

mentioned as A and B schedule property in plain in OS
66
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

No. 2835/2016. He argued that while mentioning the

boundaries in Ex.D8 and Ex.D9 sale deeds, mistake

crept. Hence rectification deed executed as per Ex.D32

and Ex.D33. There is no such change of boundaries as

contended by the plaintiff. The boundaries which are

mentioned in Ex.D17 and Ex.D33 are one and the same.

Likewise, the boundaries mentioned in Ex.D9 and Ex.D32

are one and the same. If we peruse the documents

Ex.D1, Ex.D2, Ex.D5 survey and tippani sketch, it would

go to show that even beyond the road towards north, the

land bearing Sy.No. 132/1 is situated. The plaintiff has

not challenged the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 and Ex.D5.

He submitted that as the land bearing Sy.No. 132/4 got

converted, hence it is re numbered as Sy.No. 132/4A and

Sy.No. 132/4B. He submitted that Ex.D27 is the technical

report, Ex.D29 is the statement of objection filed by

DDLR/Government. Ex.D26 is the sketch. If we peruse

Ex.D26, NAK indicates Non Converted Agricultural land.

He argued that as on the date of filing of the suit, the

plaintiff was not in possession of C Schedule property

which could be seen from Ex.D44 photos of vacant land.
67
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

During the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff company

encroached 19 ½ guntas of the land belongs to the

defendant which is mentioned as C Schedule. PW1 in his

cross-examination clearly admitted the suggestion that

the plaintiff not surveyed the land. He argued that as per

Ex.P77, the plaintiff themselves filed the writ petition and

thereafter themselves withdrawn the same. Interim order

passed by Hon'ble High Court on 29.09.2016. On that

day, prior to passing of interim order,survey is already

conducted. DDLR prepared sketch and submitted report.

The sketch and report of DDLR remained unchallenged.

He argued that since KC Rajaram purchased 28 guntas of

land, after conversion, this 28 guntas was not subject

matter of conversion. He submitted that 19 guntas which

is now in possession of the plaintiff wherein already flats

constructed during the pendency of the suit mentioned

in schedule C is belongs to the defendant. Hence he

prayed to decree the suit in OS No. 2835/2016 and

dismiss the suit in O.S.No.9024/2014.

45. I perused the entire records
68
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

46. My findings on the above issues are as under.

In O.S.No.9024/2014:

Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order

In O.S.No.2835/2016:

Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : As per final order

In O.S.No.2835/2016:

Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.5 : In the Negative
Issue No.6 : As per final order, for the following.

REASONS

47. ISSUES NO.1 in O.S.No.9024/2014 and ISSUES

NO. 1 to 4 dt.17/3/2021 and ISSUES NO.1 and 2

dt.20/6/2017 framed in O.S.NO.2835/2016:

48. All these issues are interconnected with each other

hence for the purpose of brevity and inorder to avoid

repetition of discussion of evidence and documents and

for the sake of convenience all these issues are taken up

together for discussion.
69
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

49. PW1 R.Lokesh in his examination in-chief affidavit

by reiterating the plaint averments in O.S.No.9024/2014

and written statement averments in O.S.No.2835/2016

has deposed that total extent of land bearing

Sy.No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4 of Hoodi Village,

K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, was 5 acres 18

guntas including an extent of 14 guntas of 'B' Kharab

land that was utilized for the formation and extension /

widening of Whitefield Main road lying on the said lands.

PW1 has deposed that, therefore the the remaining

extent of land was 5 acres 4 guntas i.e., after excluding

road portion measuring 14 guntas. He states that the 1 st

defendant K.C.Rajaram purchased the said extent of 5

acres 4 guntas in Sy.No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4 of

Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk,

under the following registered documents from its

previous owners.

50. He has deposed that the 1st defendant K.C. Rajaram

got the lands measuring 4 acres 30 guntas [out of 5

acres 4 guntas] in Sy. Nos. 132/1,132/2, 132/3 &132/4 of

Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk

converted for Industrial Purpose by an Order of The

Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District bearing No. B

Dis-ALN-SR-172/78-79 dated 3.4.1979. Therefore

remaining extent of land measuring 14 guntas i.e., 5

acres 4 guntas less 4 acres 30 guntas remained as

unconverted land. The Conversion Order dated 3.4.1979

relates to Sy. Nos. 132/1,132/2, 132/3 & 132/4(P) and the

extent of land covered in each individual Sy. No. that was

converted for Industrial Purpose is not mentioned

therein. PW1 has deposed that the 1st Defendant

K.C.Rajaram formed a Partnership Firm on 1.4.1985

under the name and style of KAYCEE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

to own and run an Industrial Estate and construction of

Industrial Sheds. The other Partners of the Firm were [i]

Tyche India Private Limited [ii] Swede [India] Teltronics

Limited and [iii] The minor children of the 1st Defendant

viz., Sandeep Rajaram Reddy and Sirish Rajaram Reddy.
71
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

The 1st Defendant K.C.Rajaram brought into the said

Partnership Firm converted land measuring 4 acres 30

guntas.

51. PW1 has deposed that Partnership Firm was

dissolved under a registered Dissolution Deed dated

01.03.1987. At the time of dissolution an extent of about

1008.50 Sq. Mtrs. [about 10 guntas] in Sy. No. 132/4 was

allotted to Tyche India Private Limited and an extent of

18211.50 Sq. Mtrs. [about 4 acres 20 guntas] was

allotted to the share of the other Partner Swede [India]

Teletronics Limited. 1st Defendant K.C.Rajaram did not

retain any land at the time of dissolution. In other words

the entire extent of 4 acres 30 guntas in Sy. Nos.

132/1,132/2, 132/3 & 132/4(P) was allotted between 2 of

the Partners only. In order to substantiate this contention

taken by PW1, he has produced and got marked Ex.P21 /

Ex.D13 dissolution of partnership firm on 01.03.1987. In

Ex.P21 the land given to Tyche India Private Limited is

mentioned in Schedule - II, wherein it is mentioned that

the land bearing Sy.No. 132/4 measuring 1008 sq.mtrs.
72
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Given to this firm. In schedule III the land given to Swede

(India) Teltronics Limited is mentioned wherein it is

mentioned total land measuring 18211.50 sq. mtrs. (4

acres 20 guntas) given to this firm in Sy.No.132/1 to

132/4.

52. PW1 has deposed that Company Swede [India]

Teltronics Limited was declared as sick Company and

referred to BIFR, who opined that the Company cannot

be revived. Consequently the said Company was ordered

to be wound-up in Company Petition No. 68/1997 vide

Order dated 21.7.2000 passed by the Hon'ble High Court

of Karnataka, Bangalore. During the course of winding-up

proceedings, the Official Liquidator took charge of the

Assets of the Company and obtained Orders to sell the

land to the highest bidder. One H. Thippa Reddy was

declared as the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.

18.25 crores in OSA No. 19/2005 vide Order dated

4.8.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court. The bid in

favour of H. Thippa Reddy was challenged before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the said Bidder
73
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

increased his offer to Rs. 22 crores. After he was declared

the successful bidder the Official Liquidator was directed

to confirm the sale in his favour. Accordingly a registered

Sale Deed dated 14.8.2006 came to be executed by

Swede [India] Teletronics Limited [Company in

Liquidation] through Official Liquidator in favour of H.

Thippa Reddy to an extent of 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy.

Nos. 132/1,132/2, 132/3 & 132/4(P) of Hoodi Village, K.R.

Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. In order to

substantiate this contention by PW1 he has produced

Ex.P73 copy of order of the Hon'ble High Court dated

04.08.2006 in OSA No.19/2005 wherein H. Thippa Reddy

declared as successful auction purchaser. He has

produced and got marked document Ex.P2 / Ex.P22, copy

of sale deed dated 14.08.2006 executed by official

liquidator in favour of H.Thippa Reddy for having

executed the sale deed in respect of 4 acres 20 guntas of

land in Sy.No.132/1,132/2,132/3,132/4.

53. PW1 has deposed that Sale Deed dated 14.8.2006

executed by the Official Liquidator had certain
74
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

typographical errors which was later rectified under a

registered Deed dated 6.8.2007. In order to substantiate

this contention the plaintiff has produced and got marked

document Ex.P3 / Ex.P23 rectification deed dated

06.08.2007 executed by official liquidator.

54. PW1 has deposed that the eastern portion of the

above mentioned lands was sold by H. Thippa Reddy to

one D. Anjaneyulu under a registered Sale Deed dated

25.1.2007 [Regn. No. 31864/06-07]. The name of the

Purchaser D. Anjaneyulu was entered in the revenue

records of BBMP. The said D. Anjaneyulu died on

22.9.2007 leaving behind his widow Smt.

Sakkubayamma, sons Venkatakrishna Rao and others.

The names of the legal heirs of Late Anjaneyulu was

entered in the revenue records of BBMP and they

obtained Katha in their joint names. PW1 has deposed

that the western portion of the above mentioned lands

was sold by H. Thippa Reddy to the Plaintiff company

under a registered Sale Deed dated 30.1.2013 measuring

1 Acre 10 guntas in Sy. No.132/1 and 132/2. The name of
75
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

the Plaintiff company was entered in the revenue records

of BBMP and Katha transferred to the name of the

plaintiff company. In order to substantiate this

contention the plaintiff has produced and got marked

documents Ex.P7, copy of sale deed and document

Ex.P26, which would go to show that on 30.01.2013 H.

Thippa Reddy sold this property bearing Sy.No.132/1 and

132/2 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in favour of the

plaintiff. PW1 has deposed that H. Thippa Reddy

continued to retain a portion of the Property measuring 1

Acre in the western portion of the above mentioned

lands.

55. PW1 has deposed that the Plaintiff Company is in

possession and enjoyment [as Developer] to an extent of

3 acres 10 guntas and as owner [to an extent of 1 acre

10 guntas], in all 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy. Nos. 132/1,

132/2, 132/3 & 132/4(P), Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bangalore East Taluk. PW1 has deposed that the plaintiff

came into possession of the schedule property as

developer and owner under the following registered
76
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

documents.

Sl.No. Nature of document Dated Regn. No. Extent Executant
1 Joint Development 20.6.2012 1212/12/1-13 1 acre H.Thippa
Agreement Reddy
2 Joint Development 30.7.2013 3841/13-14 2 A 10 G Legal Heirs of
Agreement lante
D.Anjaneyulu
3 Sale Deed 30.1.2013 5811/12-13 1 A 10 G H.Thippa
Reddy
Total 4 Acres 20
Guntas

56. In this regard the plaintiff has produced documents

Ex.P8, P27, P4, P24, Ex.P9, Ex.P28. PW 1 has deposed

that the Plaintiff Company has entered into the above

mentioned Joint Development Agreements dated

20.6.2012 [with H.Thippa Reddy and Family] and dated

30.7.2013 [with Legal Heirs of Late D. Anjaneyulu] to

construct high-rise Residential Apartments in the Plaint

Schedule Property. The respective Land Owners have also

executed registered GPAs, contemporaneous with the

Joint Development Agreements in the names of the

Directors of the Plaintiff Company. PW1 has deposed

that the Plaintiffs prior to the execution of the Joint

Development Agreements, they had taken out public

notice dated 8.5.2012 in Deccan Herald and Prajavani

Newspapers inviting objections. Similarly before
77
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

purchasing a portion of the Schedule Property they had

likewise taken out public notice in The Hindu and Vijaya

Karnataka News Papers. No objections were received

from any member of the public regarding the

transactions.

57. PW1 has deposed that the Defendant No.2(referred

as defendant) is a Company of which Defendant No. 3 is

a Director. The Defendant No. 2 Company has

purportedly purchased 28 guntas of lands in Sy. No.

132/4 from the 1st Defendant K.C.Rajaram. Similarly it is

also said to have purchased 10 guntas of land from Tyche

India Private Limited and therefore claims to be in

possession of 38 guntas of lands [28 guntas+ 10 guntas].

PW1 has deposed that the defendant No.1 K.C.Rajaram

did not own 28 guntas of Land in Sy. No. 132/4 for him to

have sold such extent to defendant Kaman Holdings

Private Limited. PW1 has deposed that that the alleged

sale is in excess of the land holding of the 1st Defendant

K.C.Rajaram. There are no revenue documents or other

materials to show ownership and Possession of the 1st
78
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Defendant K.C.Rajaram to 28 guntas of land on the date

when the sale deed was executed in favour of Defendant

Kaman Holdings Private Limited. PW 1 has deposed that

the defendants are making attempts to encroach on the

land of the Plaintiff unauthorizedly and illegally. Hence

the plaintiff has filed this suit.

58. PW1 has deposed that in pursuant to the registered

JDAs, GPAs and Sale Deed, and with an intention of

constructing high-rise Apartments, and obtained

sanctioned plan. The Plaintiff Company has also

obtained the Noc's from BWSSB, BESCOM, MOEF, Airport

Authority, BSNL, clearance from Office of the Director

General of Police, Karnataka State Fire and Emergency

Services Department on 28.5.2014 and consent order

from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board The

plaintiff have paid plan sanction plan charges of

Rs.1,63,82,000/-, Labour Cess Rs.7,56,200/-,

Improvement charges of Rs.45,42,500/-. The plaintiff

availed construction financial loan of Rs.60 crores from

HDFC Ltd. and executed executed a Memorandum for
79
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Deposit of Original Title Deeds with the said Bank on

11.11.2014. The plaintiff company constructed 4 tower A,

B, C and D schedule properties comprising B+G+16/17

Upper Floors. The name of the Project is Vaswani

Exquisite. The Plaintiff has constructed about 19 floors in

the schedule property comprising 4 Towers- A, B, C & D.

The Plaintiff has spent more than Rs. 200 Crores towards

the construction. The Plaintiff has procured Transferable

Development Rights (TDR) which has been loaded on

schedule property for constructing 4 additional floors in

each of the towers. Out of these 4 additional floors, the

Plaintiff has constructed 2 additional floors. The Plaintiff

has applied for modified sanction plan to BBMP regarding

additional floor number 17 to 21 and necessary fees of

Rs.1.45 crores has been remitted by the Plaintiff as per

the demand notice dated 21.3.19 issued by BBMP. The

Plaintiff has also paid Rs.43,38,400/- towards Labour

Cess to Government for issuing modified sanction plan.

Hence, on these grounds, the PW 1 has prayed to decree

the suit in O.S.No.9024/2014 and prays for dismissal of

the suit in O.S.No.2835/2016.
80
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

59. The plaintiff has mainly relied on the documents

Ex.P14=D39 gift deed dated 13.11.1978. Ex.P16/P40 =

Ex/D18 copy of registered Exchange Deed entered into

K.C.Rajaram and H.N.Anandaram Reddy on 22.11.1978.

Ex.P15 mutation MR No.20/1978-79, Ex.P17 MR

No.14/1978-79. Ex.P20 / Ex.P74 conversion order dated

03.04.1979 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner.

Ex.P19 P38 = D17 copy of sale deed dated 24.11.1979

executed by H.N.Aandarama Reddy in favour of

K.C.Rajaram, Ex.P21 = D13 dissolution of partnership

deed dated 01.03..1987, wherein Tyche India Pvt. Ltd.

and Swede India Pvt. Ltd. have got their properties.

Ex.P73 order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in

O.S.No.19/2005 by declaring Thippa Reddy as successful

bidder in an auction. Ex.P2 / Ex.P22 sale deed executed

in favour of Thippa Reddy by Official Liquidator. Ex.P4 /

P24 copy of sale deed dated 25.01.2007 executed by

Thippa Reddy in favour of Anjaneyalu for selling 2 acre

10 guntas of land i.e. eastern portion. Ex.P5 / P25 Joint

Development Agreement dated 20.06.2012 executed by
81
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Thippa Reddy in favour of Vaswani Group company with

respect to 1 acre of land in Sy.No.132/2, 132/3, 132/4.

Ex.P6 is General Power of Attorney executed by Thippa

Reddy. Ex.P7 / Ex.P26 sale deed dated 30.01.2013

executed by Thippa Reddy in favour of Vaswani Group

company with respect to land bearing Sy.No.132/1 and

132/2 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas. Ex.P8 / Ex.P27 Joint

Development Agreement dated 30.07.2013 executed by

Anjaneyulu in favour of Vaswani Group with respect to 2

acres 10 guntas. Ex.P9 / P28 General Power of Attorney,

Ex.P10 / P45 sanctioned plan dated 07.08.2014. Ex.P41

Development Rights certificate dated 23.12.2014 for

additional construction. Ex.P42 conveyance deed of DRC

dated 10.03.2015. Ex.P46 BBMP receipt dated

04.08.2014 of licence fees of Rs.1.64 crores. Ex.P47

BBMP receipt for payment of labour cess of Rs.7.56

lakhs. Ex.P48 BBMP receipt for payment of improvement

charges for Rs.45.52 lakhs. Ex.P49 NoC dated

13.05.2014 from BSNL. Ex.P50 NoC dated 29.05.2014

from Director General of Police and Karnataka State Fire

Force Department. Ex.P51 No C dated 28.08.2012 from
82
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

BESCOM, Ex.P52 NoC dated 30.07.2014 from Karnataka

State Pollution Control Board. Ex.P54 NoC dated

04.05.2016 from Karnataka State Level Environment

Impact Assessment Authority. Ex.P55 NoC dated

09.08.2016 from HAL (Airport Authority). Ex.P56 NoC

dated 12.08.2016 from BWSSB. Ex.P57 Revised /

Modified sanction plan dated 09.08.2021 in order to

construct additional floors. Ex.P58 to P60 are the

receipts issued by BBMP. Ex.P61 Water Consent NoC

dated 05.07.2021 issued by Karnataka State Pollution

Control Board. Ex.P62 occupancy certificate dated

14.07.2021 for 278 units. Ex.P63 occupancy certificate

dated 31.12.2021 for 302 units. Ex.P64 to P66 are the

photographs of the constructed residential apartment in

4 blocks ABCD. Ex.P68 is the endorsement dated

09.12.2013 issued by Bangalore Development Authority

regarding change of land use. Ex.P69 is the check list for

modified sanctioned plan issued by BBMP, Ex.P70 is the

Corrigendum dated 11.02.2020 issued by The State Level

Environment Impact Assessment Authority. ExP71 final

NoC dated 06.02.2020 issued by Director General of
83
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Police and Karnataka Fire Force Department. Ex.P72

modified sanctioned plan. Ex.P73 judgment of Hon'ble

High Court in O.S.No.19/2005,. Ex.P76 is the village map.

Ex.P77 is the order dated 23.10.2025 passed in

W.P.No.51470/2016. Ex.P11 and P12 are the copies of

police complaint. The plaintiff has also relied on the

revenue document such as Ex.P28 / Ex.P29 property tax

receipts, Ex.P30 Uttarapatra issued by BBMP. Ex.P31 to

34 and 36 Katha Certificates. Ex.P33, P35, P37

Assessment extracts. I would like to discuss the relevant

documents produced by the plaintiff in a later part of this

judgment.

60. Now coming to the deposition of DW1 is concerned,

in his examination-in-chief he reiterated his plaint

averments and written statement contents, has deposed

that the Defendant No.2 company is the absolute owner

in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property

bearing No.132/4A (old Sy.No.132/4,) measuring 28

guntas situated at Hoodi Village, K.R.Pura Hobli,

Bengaluru East Taluk. The said property now comes
84
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

within the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike, Hoodi Sub-Division, Bengaluru and

Property ID No.34-35- 132/4 is allotted to it which is

referred to as Schedule 'A' Property. The Defendant No.2

Company is also the owner of the land bearing New

Sy.No.132/4B (Old Sy.No.132/4) measuring 10 guntas

(1008.50 Sq. Mtrs) situated at Hoodi Village, K.R.Pura

Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The said property now

comes within the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike, Hoodi sub- division, Bengaluru and

Property ID No.34-35-132-4, which is referred to as

Schedule 'B' Property in O.S.No.2835/2016. Sri.H.R.

Guruva Reddy was the owner of the 2 acres 25 guntas,

property bearing Sy.No.132/1, Sy.No.132/2 measuring 1

acre, Sy.No.132/4 measuring 1 acre 05 guntas situated at

Hoodi Village, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

H.R.Guruva Reddy executed a registered gift deed dated

13.11.1978 in favour of his grandson K.C.Rajaram. The

land bearing Sy.No.132/3 measuring 28 guntas of Hoodi

Village, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk was situated

in between Sy. No.132/2 and Sy. No.132/4 owned by
85
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

H.R.Guruva Reddy. The said Sy.No.132/3 belonged to

H.M.Ananda rama Reddy, S/o G.Narayana Reddy and his

family members. After obtaining the property by way of

gift, K. C. Rajaram approached H.M.Ananda Rama Reddy

and his family members and requested them to

exchange their land i.e., Sy.No.132/3 measuring 28

guntas with Sy.No.132/4 (to an extent of 28 guntas out of

1 acre 05 guntas) of Hoodi Village. Accordingly the said

H.M.Ananda Rama Reddy and his family members have

executed an exchange deed in favor of K. C. Rajaram and

exchanged their land, extent of 28 guntas out of 1 acre

05 guntas) under a registered deed dated 22-11-1978. In

view of this amicable transfer between HM Ananda Rama

Reddy and K.C.Rajaram, K. C. Rajaram has now become

the owner of land bearing Sy.No.132/1 measuring 2 acres

25 guntas, Sy.No.132/2 measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.132/3

measuring 28 guntas, Sy.No.132/4 measuring 17 guntas

and H.M. Ananda Reddy has become the owner of 28

guntas in Sy.No.132/4.

61. DW1 further deposed that, Sri. K.C.Rajraram,
86
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

thereafter filed an application seeking for conversion of

land bearing Sy.No.132/1 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas,

Sy.No.132/2 measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.132/3 measuring 28

guntas, Sy.No.132/4 measuring 17 guntas, situated at

Hoodi Village totally measuring 4 acres 30 guntas from

agricultural to non- agricultural industrial purpose. On

enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban

District has accorded permission to convert the above

described lands from agricultural to agricultural industrial

purpose vide his official memorandum dated 03.04.1979

and conversion certificate was issued on 12.04.1979. In

Sy.No.132/1, an extent of 14 guntas is classified as

kharab land. Thus, in the Conversion Certificate, a

condition was imposed in clause 3 that "the phut Kharab

as per rules should be reserved to government under

section 67 of the KLR Act 1964". Subsequent to the

conversion order the survey authorities prepared a Hissa

Tippani in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.132/1 to

Sy.No.132/4. During these Durasthi proceedings,

Sy.No.132/4 was re-classified and re-numbered as

Sy.No.132/4A and Sy.No. 132/4B. Agricultural land
87
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

measuring 28 guntas belonging to H.M.Anandaram

Reddy was assigned as Sy.No.132/4A and the converted

land i.e., an extent of 17 guntas in Sy.No.132/4 was

assigned as Sy.No.132/4B. He states that Sy. No. 132/4A

is in the southern side of Sy.No.132/4B. Sri.H.M.Ananda

Rama Reddy and his family members sold above said 28

guntas of land in the land bearing Sy.No.132/4 in favor of

K.C.Rajaram under the registered sale deed dated

24.11.1979. D.W.1 has deposed that the land purchased

under the sale deed dated 24.11.1979 was agricultural

land and was not subject matter of conversion under the

order dated 03.04.1979. Sri.K.C.Rajaram thereafter

formed a Partnership Firm with other partners, under the

name and style of M/s.Kaycee Industrial Estate. The

object of the firm was to own and run an Industrial Estate

and construction of industrial sheds. K.C. Rajaram had

contributed industrial converted lands bearing

Sy.No.132/1 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas, Sy.No.132/2

measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.132/3 measuring 28 guntas,

Sy.No.132/4 measuring 17 guntas, totally measuring 4

acres 30 guntas towards his share of capital to the above
88
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

said partnership firm.

62. DW1 further deposed that, with the purpose of

improving the business, the partners of M/s.Kaycee

Industrial Estate agreed to take M/s. Swede (India)

Teltronics Limited, as partner to the partnership firm.

Accordingly, a re-constitution partnership deed was

executed on 5.7.1986. The partnership firm now consists

of 3 partners viz., (1) K.C.Rajaram, (2) M/s.Tyche Private

Ltd and (3) M/s. Swede (India) Teltronics Limited. The

partners thereafter decided to dissolve the partnership

firm functioning under the name and style M/s.Kaycee

Industrial Estate. Accordingly, the partnership firm was

orally dissolved on 31.12.1986. The dissolution of the

partnership deed was reduced in writing on 01.03.1987.

The assets of the firm are setforth in Schedule-I of the

deed of dissolution. The asset of the firm consisted only

of the converted lands bearing Sy.No.132/1 measuring 2

acres 25 guntas, Sy.No.132/2 measuring 1 acre,

Sy.No.132/3 measuring 28 guntas, Sy.No.132/4

measuring 17 guntas, totally measuring 4 acres 30
89
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

guntas. However out of 4 Acres 30 guntas an extent of

14 guntas was classified as kharab Land. The agricultural

land measuring 28 guntas was not contributed to the

asset of the partnership firm. Under the deed of

dissolution of partnership, the entire industrial converted

land contributed by Sri.K.C. Rajaram has been allotted to

two partners namely M/s Tyche Private Ltd and M/s

Swede (India) Teltronics Ltd. Under the said deed, M/s

Swede (India) Teltronics Ltd. has become the owner of

18,211.50 Sq. Mtrs with the factory building, measuring

1,896.11 Sq. Mtrs in the land bearing Sy.No.132/1, 132/2,

132/3 and Sy.No.132/4 of Hoodi village. The land allotted

to M/s. Swede (India) Teltronics Ltd., is including 14

guntas of Khara land, situated in Sy. No.132/1. The other

partner M/s.Tyche Private Ltd,. has become the owner of

1,008.50 sq. mtrs with factory building of 900.20 sq. mtrs

of Sy.No.132/4 of Hoodi village. The agricultural property

measuring 28 guntas belongs to K.C Rajaram was

described as southern boundary to the property allotted

to M/s.Swede (India) Teltronics Ltd. M/s.Swede (India)

Teltronics Ltd. was declared as sick company and
90
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

referred to Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction

Government of India, ("BIFR"). BIFR had opined that the

company cannot be reviewed and consequently, the said

company was ordered to be wound-up by order dated

21.07.2000 passed in Company Petition No.68/1997 by

the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. The

Official Liquidator took charge of the assets of the

company and obtained orders to sell the land to the

highest bidders. In a public auction, the husband of the

defendant No.2, in O.S. No.2835/2016 i.e., Sri. H.

Thippareddy was declared as the highest bidder and a

registered sale deed was executed in favour of

Sri.H.Thippareddy on 14.08.2006 to an extent of 4 acres

20 guntas of land i.e. land bearing Sy.No.132/1, 132/2,

132/3 and 132/4 of Hoodi village. Out of the said 4 Acres

20 gunats of land an extent of 14 guntas of land is

reserved as Kharab Land.

63. DW1 further deposed that, the land bearing Sy. No.

132/1 consisted of 14 guntas of land which was classified

as kharab. In the conversion certificate, it was mandated
91
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

that the phut Kharab as per rules should be reserved to

government under section 67 of the KLR Act, 1964 and

hence, though 4 acres 30 guntas of land was submitted

for conversion, only 4 acre 16 guntas of land was actually

converted. Thus, the husband of the 2nd defendant in

O.S.No.2835/2016 could not have obtained title over 4

acres 20 guntas of land. The entire extent of land

measuring 14 guntas, which was classified as "kharab"

was used for formation of Whitefield to Hosakote road,

which passes through Sy. No.132/1 from the eastern side

to the western side. Subsequently the said road was

widened and for widening purpose an extent of 5 guntas,

was utilized in Sy.No.132/1. Thus, the extent of

Sy.No.132/1 was therefore reduced from 2 Acre 25

guntas to only 2 Acres 6 Guntas.

64. DW1 further deposed that, "A" & "B" schedule

property in O.S.No.2835/2016 was included in the limits

of Bruhath Bangalore. K.C.Rajaram reddy has

approached Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara palike for

change of katha into his name, accordingly, BBMP has
92
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

ordered to change the khatha in respect of the schedule

'A' and 'B' properties in O.S.No.2835/2016 in favour of

K.C.Rajaram reddy and M/s Tyche Private Ltd. Before

changing the katha the said K.C.Rajarama Reddy has also

paid the betterment charges to the BBMP. The 2nd

Defendant Company has acquired 'A' schedule property

in O.S.No.2835/2016 under the registered sale deed

dated 10.09.2007 from 1st Defendant K.C.Rajaram and

his family members for a valuable sale consideration

amount. As on the date of sale deed, the vendor of the

Defendant No.2 has put the Defendant No.2 in physical

possession of the schedule 'A' property in

O.S.No.2835/2016 and from the date of registered sale

deed, the 2nd Defendant company is in actual physical

possession of the schedule 'A' property in

O.S.No.2835/2016. The 2nd Defendant Company has

acquired the 'B' schedule property in O.S.No.2835/2016

under the registered sale deed dated 10.09.2007 from

M/s.Tyche Private Ltd, for a valuable sale consideration

amount. On the date of registered sale deed, the vendor

of the Defendant No.2 has put the Defendant No.2 in
93
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

physical possession of the 'B' schedule property in

O.S.No.2835/2016. From the date of the registered sale

deed, the Defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment

of the 'B' schedule property in O.S.No.2835/2016.

Subsequent to the registered sale deed, the 2nd

Defendant company approached the BBMP for change of

khatha in respect of the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties in

O.S.No.2835/2016 into their names. Accordingly, BBMP

has ordered to change the khatha in respect of the

schedule 'A' and 'B' properties in O.S.No.2835/2016 in

favour of the Defendant No.2 Company. In this regard,

BBMP has issued the khatha certificate, khatha extract in

the name of the 2nd Defendant Company. The 2nd

Defendant Company is paying the property tax to the

schedule 'A' and 'B' properties in O.S.No.2835/2016. The

Defendant No.2 is exercising all the rights of the

ownership over the schedule properties mentioned in

O.S.No.2835/2016 which is free from all encumbrances.

DW1 further deposed that at the time of conversion

order the Deputy Commissioner or the Thasildar

concerned have not mentioned the extent of land in each
94
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

survey number. In the conversion certificate the

Thasildar Bangalore South Taluk has totally mentioned 4

acre 30 guntas out of survey number 132/1, 132/2, 132/3

and 132/4. As already stated above as on the date of

conversion order Mr.K.C.Rajarama Reddy was not the

owner of southern edge 28 guntas land in the land

bearing Sy.No.132/4, the said land was not a subject

matter of the conversion order. Sri. H. Thippareddy, i.e,

the husband of the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.2835/2016

has sold eastern portion measuring 2 acres 10 guntas

land bearing Sy.No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3 and 132/4 in

favor of one D. Anjaneyalu on 25-01-2007 under a

registered sale deed. Sri.D.Anjaneyalu has passed away

prior to filing of this suit and the defendants No.6 to 16 in

O.S.No.2835/2016 are the legal representatives of said

D.Anjaneyalu. The Plaintiff is claiming to be purchaser of

1 acre 10 guntas of land in the land bearing Sy.No.132/1

and 132/2. The Plaintiff has also entered into a joint

development agreement with defendant No.2 to 16 in

O.S.No.2835/2016 for construction of multistoried

apartment. While purchasing the land bearing
95
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Sy.No.132/1 and other land from the official liquidator,

the husband of the 2nd defendant O.S.No.2835/2016 had

not verified the actual exact land available in the land

bearing Sy.No.132/1 after formation of road. The land

measuring 19 guntas of land was utilized for formation

and widening of road. The actual land available was only

2 acre 06 guntas and the husband of the 2nd defendant

in O.S.No.2835/2016 without verifying the same has

purchased 2 acres 25 guntas in the land bearing

Sy.No.132/1. Thus, there is a shortage of land to an

extent of 19 guntas in the land purchased by the

husband of the 2nd defendant O.S.No.2835/2016. The

husband of the 2nd defendant O.S.No.2835/2016 with an

intention to make up for his lost land tried to usurp some

land belonging to the Defendant No.2 in

O.S.No.9024/2014. It was then noticed by the Defendant

No.2 that there was a mistake in the sale deed dated

10.09.2007 while mentioning the boundaries to the 'A'

schedule property mentioned in O.S.No.2835/ 2016. The

"A" schedule property boundary was described as East

by: Private land bearing Sy.No.131 and & Tank bund,
96
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

West by: Private land and Sy.No.133, North by : Portion of

Sy.No.132/4, South by Portion land bearing Sy.No.132/4

and private land, Hence a deed of rectification was

executed on 21.3.2016 and the vendor of the Defendant

No.2 has executed the Deed rectifying the schedule and

making correction to the boundaries to 'A' schedule

property mentioned in O.S.No.2835/2016 as stated

above. Similar mistake had also been found in the 2nd

sale deed dated 10.09.2007, while mentioning the

boundaries to the 'B' schedule property, The "B"

schedule property mentioned in O.S.No.2835/2016

boundary was described as East by: private land bearing

Sy.No.131 and & tank bund, West by: Private land and

Sy.No.132/4, North by : Portion of Sy.No.132/4, South by

Portion land bearing Sy.No.131 and tank bund. Hence, a

deed of rectification was executed on 23-03-2016 and

the vendor of the Defendant No.2 has executed the Deed

rectifying the schedule and making correction to the

boundaries to 'B' schedule property as stated above. The

husband of the 2nd Defendant in O.S.No.2835/2016

made repeated attempts to usurp the property belonging
97
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

to the Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.9024/2014. Finally the

Defendant No.2 has filed a suit against the husband of

the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.2835/2016 before this

Hon'ble court in O.S.No.7161/2011 for the relief of

permanent injunction. During the pendency of the above

suit the husband of the 2nd defendant in

O.S.No.2835/2016 died, the suit filed by the Defendant

No.2 against husband of the 2nd defendant in

O.S.No.2835/2016 is bare injunction; the cause of action

does not survive on the LRs of the deceased defendant.

The Plaintiff herein on the basis of the joint development

agreement executed by the defendant No.2 to 16 in

O.S.No.2835/2016 has tried to encroach upon some land

belonging to the Defendant No. 2 Company. The

Defendant No.2 has resisted illegal activities of the

Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had instigated Tahsildar and Police

authorities to recover the possession on the guise of

survey. After coming to know about the same the

Defendant No.2 has challenged the communication of

Government machinery before the Hon'ble High court of

Karnataka in WP No.39376/2013, wherein the Hon'ble
98
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

High -court of Karnataka appointed Deputy Director of

City survey as court commissioner to conduct the survey

of land bearing Sy.No.132 of Hoodi Village and disposed

off the writ petition by the order dated 12-08-2014.

Based on the orders of the Hon'ble High court of

Karnataka the Deputy Director of Land Records has

conducted a survey and submitted a report to the

parties. However the deputy director has not surveyed

the land as per the survey records and he has not fixed

any boundaries to the survey No.132/1 to 132/4. The

court commissioner has prepared his report only on the

basis of title deeds of the parties. The report of the court

commissioner do not speak about the exact land used for

formation of road in Sy.No.132/1 and available land in

land bearing Sy.No.132/1. The report of the commissioner

is not helpful to the parties to resolve the disputes

among them. The Plaintiff herein before entering into the

Joint development agreement with the defendant No. 2

to 16 in O.S.No.2835/2016 has issued a public notice in

daily newspaper calling upon the general public for

objection if any. After noticing the same the Defendant
99
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

No.2 has filed a detailed objection on 16.05.2012. In-

spite of strong objection raised by the Defendant No.2,

the Plaintiff colluding with the defendant No.2 to 16 in

O.S.No.2835/2016 has entered into a JDA agreement.

65. DW1 further deposed that, as per the survey

records such as Hissa Survey, Tippani Prathi, Secondary

Re-clause Hissa Tippani, and Village Map of the land

bearing Sy.No.132/1 of Hoodi village, there is a road

passing within the land bearing Sy.No.132/1. On the

northern side of the road, there is a land existing in the

land bearing Sy.No.132/1 of Hoodi village. In spite of the

existence of the land above the road, the Plaintiff has

intentionally concealed in order to knock-off the property

belonging to Defendant No.2 and is claiming the land

below the road. After deducting the land measuring 38

guntas of the land belonging to Defendant No.2, the land

available in the land bearing Sy.No.132 new No. 132/1 to

132/4 is only 4 acres 01 gunta. The remaining 19 guntas

of land is used for formation of road. The Plaintiff

knowing fully about the same, and suppressing the
100
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

above stated facts, is forcibly trying to encroach the

Schedule 'A' & 'B' property mentioned in

O.S.No.2835/2016 belongs to Defendant No.2 to match

up the an extent. When the matter stood thus the

Plaintiff herein with an intention to encroach property

belonging to the Defendant No.2 has filed false suit

before this court in O.S.No.9024/2014 for the relief of

permanent injunction. This court after hearing the

Plaintiff and after looking into the dispute between the

parties was pleased to grant an order ex-party injunction

of status-quo. The Plaintiff and other defendant No.2 to

16 in O.S.No.2835/2016 colluding with each other taking

advantage of the same has tried to erect metal sheet ,

barricades/compound in the Defendant No.2 property,

the Defendant No.2 has resisted the Plaintiff and other

defendant No. 2 to 16 in O.S.No.2835/2016 from erecting

the metal sheet barricades. When they failed to complete

their works the Plaintiff has filed a writ petition before the

Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in W.P.No.8366-

8370/2016 wherein the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka

was pleased to pass an interim order directing the
101
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

parties to approach civil court for appropriate remedy.

The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka while passing an

interim order has permitted the Plaintiff to go ahead with

construction by the order dated 08.03.2016. The Plaintiff

taking advantage of the order passed in W.P.No.8366-

8370/2016 has tried to put up a construction. The

Defendant No.2 has challenged the order passed in

W.P.No.8366-8370/2016 before the Division Bench of

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing an appeal in

W.A.No.826- 830/2016. The Hon'ble Division Bench of

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by the judgment dated

20.06.2016 was pleased to allow the writ appeal filed by

the Defendant No.2 and set aside the order dated

08.03.2016. In the meantime the Defendant No.2 has

also filed the above suit in O.S.No.2835/2016 on

07.04.2016. Along with the suit the Defendant No.2 has

filed an application for an order of temporary injunction

restraining the Plaintiff in O.S.No.9024/2014 and

defendant No.2 to 16 in O.S.No.2835/2016 from putting

up construction on the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties

mentioned in O.S.No.2835/2016. Before filing the suit,
102
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

the Plaintiff has filed a Caveat Petition against the

Defendant No.2 before this Court. After filing of the suit,

this Court issued a notice to the Plaintiff. Initially this

court has declined to grant an ex-parte injunction order

in view of the caveat filed by the Plaintiff. This Court after

hearing the defendant No.2, was pleased to allow the

application filed by the defendant No.2 under Order

XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, by the order dated 20.06.2017 and

restrained the Plaintiff herein and Defendant No. 2 to 16

in O.S.No.2835/2016 from putting up any construction in

the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties mentioned in

O.S.No.2835/2016. As against the orders of this Hon'ble

Court, the Plaintiff herein has filed Misc. First Appeal

before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA

No.4903/2017 and obtained an order of stay to the order

passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 20.06.2017. During

the pendency of the suit in O.S. No.2835/2016, the Joint

Director of Land Records, Bengaluru District acting under

Section 49(f) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act read

with Rule-36(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules,

has issued a direction to the Assistant Director of Land
103
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Records, Bengaluru North Division on 23.06.2016 and

sought a report in proceedings No.JDLR/Tech(5)/

PR/153/2016-17. On receipt of the notice, the Assistant

Director of Land Records has conducted a survey on

29.09.2016 with due notices to the Plaintiff and

defendant No.2 herein and submitted a report to the Joint

Director of Land Records. The Joint Director of Land

Records has also visited the spot and verified the survey

conducted by the ADLR. In the said report the Assistant

Director of Land Records has clearly reported that an

extent of 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.132/1 of Hoodi

Village is utilized for formation of road. Out of 19 guntas,

14 guntas of kharab land and 05 guntas of cultivable

land was utilized. After utilizing the land for formation of

road, the land available in the land bearing Sy.No.132/1

is only 02 acres 06 guntas. The Plaintiff knowing fully

about the same, is falsely claiming 02 acres 25 guntas in

the land bearing Sy.No.132/1. The Plaintiff taking

advantage of the granting of ex-parte injunction order in

the present suit, have illegally entered of portion the

schedule properties mentioned in O.S.No.2835/2016 and
104
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

excavated the mud in the entire 'B' schedule property

mentioned in O.S.No.2835/2016 to the depth of 20 feet

and 9 1/2 guntas of land in the 'A' schedule property

mentioned in O.S.No.2835/2016 day-by-day during the

pendency of the suit O.S. No.2835/2016, totally Plaintiff

herein and defendant No.2 to 16 in O.S.No.2835/2016

have encroached 19 1⁄2 guntas of land in the schedule

'A' and 'B' properties mentioned in O.S.No.2835/2016.

The said 19 1⁄2 guntas of land in the land bearing

Sy.No.132/4 New Sy.No.132/4A and Sy.No.132/4B is

described as 'C' Schedule Property in O.S.No.2835/2016.

The Plaintiff herein and defendant No.2 to 16 in

O.S.No.2835/2016 after the stay order granted in MFA

No.4903/2017, have illegally started to construct a multi-

storied apartment building in the 'C' schedule property

shown in O.S.No.2835/2016. The 'C' schedule property is

the absolute property of the Defendant No.2. The Plaintiff

herein or the defendant No. 2 to 16 in O.S.No.2835/2016

do not have any right, title or interest in the 'C' schedule

property or 'A' and 'B' schedule properties shown in

O.S.No.2835/2016. The Plaintiff herein and defendant
105
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

No.2 to 16 in O.S.No.2835/2016 have forcibly entered the

'A' and 'B' schedule properties and taken possession of

the 'C' schedule property mentioned in

O.S.No.2835/2016. The Plaintiff herein and defendant

No.2 to 16 in O.S.No.2835/2016 have dispossessed the

Defendant No.2 from the 'C' schedule property during the

pendency of the present suit. Hence the Defendant No.2

having no other alternative has sought for the relief of

possession by amending the Plaint in O.S.No.2835/2016.

66. DW1 further deposed that, the Plaintiff herein have

no manner of right, title and interest or possession over

the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties mentioned in

O.S.No.2835/2016 belonging to the Defendant No.2. The

Plaintiff herein and Defendant No.2 to 16 in

O.S.No.2835/2016 taking undue advantage of the interim

order passed in O.S.No.9024/2014, and interim order

passed in W.P.No.8366-8370/2016 are denying the

Defendant No. 2 title over the schedule 'A' and 'B'

properties mentioned in O.S.No.2835/2016. The Plaintiff

knowing fully well that schedule 'A' and 'B' property is

belongs to the Defendant No.2, taking advantage of the
106
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

above orders, has come near to the schedule property

described in O.S.No. 2835/2016 on 31.03.2016 along

with security guards, coolies and goonda elements and

has tried to put-up compound wall encroaching the

schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. The Defendant No.2 with

the timely help of friends and well-wishers has resisted

the illegal activities of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff went

away from the schedule 'A' and B properties mentioned

in O.S.No.2835/2016 proclaiming that they will come

again with huge supporters and put-up compound wall

and construction in the properties belong to the

Defendant No.2. The only intention of the Plaintiff in

doing so is to deprive the right of the Defendant No.2

over its property and hence the Defendant No.2 has filed

a Suit in in O.S.No.2835/2016. The Plaintiff herein is not

in possession and enjoyment of 4 Acres 20 Gunats of

land. Out of 4 Acres 20 guntas of land an extent of 19

guntas of land is used for formation of road. As such the

Plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property mentioned in O.S.No.9024/2014 as on

the date of filing the Suit. The Defendant No.2 has not
107
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

interfered with the alleged possession of the Plaintiff over

the suit schedule property. When there is no such extent

physically available, the question of interfering with the

possession of the Plaintiff does not arise. Hence, he

prayed for dismissal of the suit.

67. The defendants mainly relied on the documents

Ex.D8 and D9 two sale deeds dated 10.09.2007 by

contending that he has purchased 'A' schedule property

measuring 28 guntas from K.C.Rajaram and 10 guntas

from Tyche India Pvt. Ltd. Ex.D32 rectification deed

dated 23.03.2016, with regarding to rectification of the

boundaries of Ex.D9 sale deed. Ex.D33 is the rectification

deed with regarding to rectification of boundaries of sale

deed Ex.D8. Ex.D17 sale deed dated 24.11.1979, which

is also relied by the plaintiff, as per Ex.P19 and P38.

Ex.D18 exchange deed dated 22.11.1978 which is also

relied by the plaintiff as per Ex.P16 / P40. Ex.D13

dissolution deed dated 01.03.1987 of dissolution of

partnership firm KAYCEE Industrial Estate. The plaintiff

has also relied on the same document Ex.P21. Ex.D39
108
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Gift Deed dated 15.11.1978 which is also relied by the

plaintiff as per Ex.P14/Ex.P39. Ex.D1 to D4 Tippani and

Akarbandh. Ex.D5 village map of Hoodi Village. Ex.D6

order dated 20.06.2016 passed in writ appeal. Ex.D7

objection filed by the DDLR in W.P.No.51470/2016 with

regarding to survey dated 29.09.2016. All these

documents Ex.D1 to D7 are marked during the course of

cross examination of PW1. Ex.D10 Katha certificate.

Ex.D11 Assessment extract. Ex.D12 fees receipts.

Ex.D14 order dated 12.08.2014 passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in W.P.No.39376/2013. Ex.D30 and 31 sketch

prepared by DDLR. It is pertinent to note that the

defendant has not accepted the DDLR report and sketch.

In his examination in-chief itself DW 1 has deposed that

the report of Commissioner i.e. DDLR prepared in view of

order of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.39376/2013 is not

helpful to the parties to resolve the dispute. The

defendant also relied on the documents Ex.D15 Tippani,

Ex.D17 copy of resolution, Ex.D22 to 24, documents

obtained under RTI Act. Ex.D25 intimation letter, Ex.D26

sketch, Ex.D27 and 28 parawise remarks to GA in
109
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

W.P.No.51470/2016. Ex.D29 DDLR's objection to

W.P.No.51470/2016. Ex.D34 Katha certificate, Ex.D35

and Ex.D37 Assessment extracts. The defendants also

produced the documents Ex.D40 certified copy of the

order sheet in O.S.No.7161/2011. Ex.D41 memo dated

03.06.2011 for withdrawal of suit in O.S.No.7161/2011.

Ex.D42 certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.7161/2011.

Ex.D43 certified copy of written statement filed by the

defendant Thippa Reddy in O.S.No.7161/2011. I would

like to discuss the relevant documents of the defendant

in a later part of this judgment.

68. At this juncture, it is important to refer some of

the admissions made by PW1 as well as DW1 in their

cross-examination. PW1 in his cross-examination

admitted the suggestion that except in the land Sy.No.

132/1 measuring 14 guntas kharab, there are no other

kharab land in remaining phodis i.e., 132/2 to 132/4. PW1

has admitted the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 which

confronted to him. He has admitted the suggestion that

there exist road in Sy.No. 132/1 towards northern portion
110
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

in Kharab land. He has admitted the suggestion that

including kharab land and non kharab land, 19 guntas of

land in Sy.No. 132/1 used for formation of road. He has

admitted the suggestion that defendant no.1 K.C.

Rajaram contributed land bearing Sy.No. 132/1 to Sy.No.

132/4 totally measuring 4 acres 30 guntas to the

partnership firm. He has admitted the suggestion that

Kaycee Industries Estate dissolved on 1.03.1987. He has

admitted the suggestion that at the time of dissolution of

Kaycee Industries Estate, the land measuring 4 acres 30

guntas divided and 1008.5 Sq. meters given to Tyche

India and land measuring 18,211.50 Sq. Meters given to

Swede India. He has admitted the suggestion that as per

Ex.P21 Dissolution deed, towards south of Schedule II,

the remaining land of defendant no. 1 K.C. Rajaram is

shown. He has admitted the suggestion that defendant is

claiming the same land given to Swede India by

mentioning the same as Schedule B property. He has

admitted the suggestion that Ex.D7 is the copy of

objection filed by DDLR in Writ petition No. 51470/2016.

He has admitted the suggestion that out of 5 acres 18
111
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

guntas of land, 4 acres 30 guntas converted as non

agricultural land and remaining 28 guntas remained as

unconverted land. He has admitted the suggestion that

the southern boundary which is mentioned in Ex.P43 and

44 in Sy.No. 132/4P refers to Schedule A and B properties

of OS. No. 2835/2016. He has admitted the suggestion

that in Ex.P41 to 64, there is no such mention that the

plaintiff is in possession of 4 acres 20 guntas.

69. During the course of cross-examination of DW1,

he has admitted the suggestion that defendant no.1 K.C.

Rajaram started Kaycee Industrial Estate partnership

including his minor children and Tyche India and Swede

India Telectronics as partners. He has admitted the

suggestion that as Per Ex.P21 dissolution deed, the

partnership is dissolved and out of 4 acres 30 guntas,

Schedule II, in Sy.no 132/4 measuring 1008.50 sq. meters

land given to Tyche India and Schedule III land measuring

18211.50 Sq Meters in Sy.No132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4

given to Swede India Telectronics. He has admitted the

suggestion that at the time of dissolution of partnership,
112
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

first defendant K.C. Rajaram and his children were not

retained any properties out of the partnership firm

property. He has admitted the suggestion that as Swede

India Telectronics went in liquidation, the same property

Schedule II mentioned in Ex.P21 dissolution deed

purchased by Sri H Thippareddy under auction purchase

as per order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. He has

admitted the document Ex.P14 gift deed dated

13.11.1978 and its entire contents. He has admitted the

document Ex.P16 exchange deed. He has admitted the

document Ex.P19 sale deed dated 24.11.1979. He has

admitted the suggestion that after execution of Ex.P16

exchange deed, defendant no. 1 K.C. Rajaram became

the owner of 5 acres 18 guntas including 14 guntas

kharab i.e., 2 acres 25 guntas including kharab in

Sy.No.132/1, 1 Acre in Sy.No 132/2, 28 guntas in Sy.no

132/3, 17 guntas in Sy.No. 132/4. He has admitted the

suggestion that the Schedule which is mentioned in

Ex.D8 sale deed is different than Schedule which is

mentioned in Ex.D42 plaint. He has admitted the

suggestion that H Thippareddy in his WS filed in OS No.
113
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

7161/2011 as per Ex.D43 had disputed identity, location,

measurement and possession of his property. He has

admitted the suggestion that when compared to Ex.D8

sale deed with Ex.D33 rectification deed, likewise Ex.D9

sale deed with Ex.D32 rectification deed, there are

differences in the Schedule relates to east, west and

southern boundaries. He has admitted the suggestion

that Sy.No. 132/1 is the northern most property and

below that on southern side there exists Sy.No. 132/2,

thereafter towards south Sy.No. 132/3 and towards

southern side Sy.No. 132/4 are situated. He has admitted

the suggestion that the northern boundary of Sy.No.

132/1 given to K.C Rajaram under Ex.P14 is Whitefield

Main road. He has admitted the documents Ex.P20 =

Ex.P 74 conversion order passed by DC regarding

conversion of land measuring 4 acres 30 guntas as a non

agricultural land for industrial purpose. He has admitted

the suggestion that ADLR proceedings were stayed by

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 29.09.2016 in WP No.

51470/2016 and the interim order was extended till

further orders as per order dated 28.10.2016. He has
114
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

identified certified copy of order passed by Hon'ble High

Court in WP No. 51470/2016 which is marked at Ex.P75.

He has admitted the suggestion that Whitefield main

road has been existing even prior to 1978 when K.C.

Rajaram received the property by way of gift as per

Ex.P14. He has admitted the document Ex.P76 village

map of Hoodi village. He has admitted the suggestion

that in Ex.P76, the portion highlighted in orange color

refers to Sy.No 132. On south of orange portion, there

exists lake in Sy.No. 138 which is like alphabet 'U' which

exists towards eastern portion abutting Sy.No. 132 and

131. He has admitted the suggestion that on the western

side of Sy.No. 132, there is Sy.No 136 and portion of lake.

He has admitted the document Ex.P77 order passed by

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka In WP No. 51470/2016.

He has admitted the suggestion that the plaintiff in OS

no.9024/2014 put up construction of residential

apartment as shown in photographs at Ex.P64 to Ex.P66

i.e., 4 residential blocks A, B, C, D.

70. Keeping in mind all these admitted facts which
115
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

are admitted by PW1 as well as DW1, one thing is very

clear that both parties have not disputed regarding the

documents Ex.P14 gift deed dated 13.11.1978 under

which KC Rajaram got 4 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy. No.

132/1, 132/2, 132/4. Both partied have not disputed the

documents Ex.P16/ Ex.P40 and Ex.D18 exchange deed

dated 22.11.1978 entered into between K.C. Rajaram

and H.N Anandram Reddy and brothers for exchange of

28 guntas each in Sy. No. 132/3 and 132/4. Both parties

have not disputed the document Ex.P20/Ex.P74 copy of

official memorandum dated 3.04.1979 regarding

conversion of land measuring 4 acred 30 guntas in Sy

No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4. Both parties have not

disputed the documents Ex.P19/ Ex.P38 equivalent to

Ex.D17 registered sale deed dated 24.11.1979 executed

by H.M Anandram Reddy in favour of K.C. Rajaram selling

28 guntas in Sy.No. 132/4. Both parties have not disputed

formation of partnership firm called Kaycee Industrial

Estate on 1.04.1985 which consisting partners K.C.

Rajaram and his children, Tychee India Pvt. Ltd, Swede

India Telectronics. Both parties have not disputed
116
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

document Ex.P21 equivalent to Ex.D13 certified copy of

deed of dissolution of partnership firm Kaycee Industrial

Estate under which Schedule II property land Sy.No.

132/4 measuring 1008 Sq. meters (10 Guntas) given to

Tychee India Pvt Ltd and Schedule III land in Sy. No.

132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4 measuring 18211.50 Sq.

Meters (4 acres 20 guntas) allotted to Swede India

Telectronics. Both parties have not disputed the fact that

Swede India went in liquidation and as per order of

Hon'ble High Court, sale deed executed in favour of H

Thippareddy successful auction purchaser with regarding

to property given to Swede India Telectronics under

Ex.P21=Ex.D13 dissolution deed.

71. Now the main contention of the defendant is that

there was no such property measuring 4 acres 20 guntas

in existence inorder to execute the sale deed by official

liquidator in favour of H Thippareddy as 19 guntas out of

4 Acres 20 guntas already went for construction of

Whitefield road and the remaining land available was

only 4 Acres 1 guntas. It is the contention of the
117
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

defendant is that inorder to make good 19 guntas of land

gone for construction of road, the plaintiff encroached

upon the defendant's C Schedule property measuring 19

1/2 guntas. It is the contention of the defendant is that

when the Deputy Commissioner passed an conversion

order for dated 3.04.1979 converting 4 acres 30 guntas

of land, it included 14 guntas of kharab land. Thereafter

5 guntas additionally acquired for widening the road.

Thus total land measuring 19 guntas in Sy.No. 132/1

went for road. But the plaintiff instead of claiming 4 acres

1 guntas of actual existing land, started to develop land

measuring 4 acres 20 guntas including 19 1/2 guntas

belongs to the defendants which is shown as C Schedule

Property. It is the contention of the defendant is that 28

guntas in Sy.No. 132/4 which belongs to H.N Anandram

Reddy subsequently purchased by K.C. Rajaram was not

subject matter of conversion order passed by DC. As this

28 guntas in Sy.No. 132/4 subsequently purchased by

K.C. Rajaram, same remained unconverted land. This

land purchased by the defendant which is mentioned as

A Schedule. The defendant has also purchased land
118
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

measuring 10 guntas i.e., 1008 Sq. Meters converted

land from Tyche India which is mentioned as B Schedule.

By way of sale deeds as per Ex.D8 and 9= Ex.D32 and 33

rectification deeds, the defendant became the owner of

Schedule A and B properties. On the other hand, it is the

contention of the plaintiff is that in gift deed Ex.P14 land

measuring 4 acres 30 guntas, the northern boundary is

mentioned as Whitefield Main Road. After execution of

exchange deed as per Ex.P16 and after Ex.P19 sale deed,

K.C. Rajaram became owner of 5 acres 18 guntas in

Sy.No. 132/1 to 132/4 and he has given converted land of

4 acres 30 guntas to the partnership firm. In Ex.P21

dissolution of partnership, the land measuring 4 acres 20

guntas given to Swede India, The northern boundary is

shown as Whitefield Main Road. The very same property

is purchased by H Thippareddy under Ex.P2 sale deed in

auction purchase. Even in Ex.P2 also for 4 acres 20

guntas, northern boundary is shown as Whitefield Main

road. Throughout from the inception, i.e., original owner

H.R. Gurava Reddy who executed gift deed in favour of

K.C. Rajaram till the plaintiff came in possession of the
119
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

property, same boundaries and extent are mentioned. It

is the defendant who inorder to locate the property

within the boundary of the plaintiff's property changed

the 3 side boundaries i.e., east, west and south which are

mentioned in Ex.D8 and 9 by creating Ex.D32 and 33

rectification deeds. It is the contention of the plaintiff is

that the defendant has failed to show regarding identity,

location and existence of A and B Schedule properties. It

is the contention of the plaintiff is that schedule C

property is not in existence. It is also the contention of

the plaintiff is that the alleged survey report prepared by

ADLR, DDLR are having no evidentiary value as there

was a stay order passed by Hon'ble High Court in WP No.

51470/2016.

72. I have appreciated the rival contentions taken by

the parties. Since there is no documents either on the

side of the plaintiff or on the side of the defendant to

show that any of the parties by legally applying for

survey and the proper authorities by issuing notices all

the adjacent owners surveyed the lands bearing Sy.No.
120
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4 and prepared survey sketch,

this court cannot rely on the documents Ex.D30, Ex.D31,

Ex.D6. More than that there was a stay order passed by

Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 51470/2016 as on the date

of preparation of alleged sketch relied by the defendant.

There is no documents either on the side of the plaintiff

or on the side of the defendant to show prior to

execution of any title documents the survey was

conducted inorder to fix the boundaries of the property

which was in possession of the owners of the land. Since

in these suits, the question of title as well as possession

are involved, it is this civil court that has got jurisdiction

to adjudicate the dispute. Whatever the title documents

produced in this case overtakes the revenue documents.

The revenue documents cannot confer any title. This

court has to mainly rely on the title documents inorder to

adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The revenue

documents like Khatha certificate, khatha extract, tippani

sketch do not take the precedent over documents such

as sale deeds, exchange deeds, dissolution of partition

deed relied by the parties in this suit. The revenue
121
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

documents neither invest title, nor divest it. Hence

inorder to ascertain what is the actual extent and

possession of K.C. Rajaram, this court mainly looked into

the title deeds documents ,marked at Ex.P14/ Ex.P39=

Ex.D39. On perusal of this document, registered gift deed

executed by H.R. Gurava Reddy in favour of his grandson

K.C. Rajaram and his family members, he has gifted

totally 4 acres 30 guntas in their favour in land bearing

Sy.No. 132/1 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas including 14

guntas Kharab, Sy.No 132/2 measuring 1 acre, Sy. No.

132/4 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas. It is important to note

the northern boundary of these lands which are

mentioned as Whitefield Main road. The very boundary

which is mentioned as Whitefield main road which is

mentioned in Ex.P14=Ex.D39 dated 13.11.1978 would

indicates that even prior to execution of this gift deed,

there exists Whitefield main road. Thereafter, after

execution of Ex.P16 exchange deed dated 22.11.1978,

the land in Sy.No. 132/1 to 132/4 measuring 4 acres 30

guntas converted as non agricultural land as per Ex.P20.

No doubt in Ex.P20 there is no such mention how much
122
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

lands in each Sy.No. converted into non-agriculture. Since

the land upto Sy.No. 132/4 are mentioned in this

conversion order, one thing can be held that entire land

in Sy.No 132/1, 132/2, 132/3 were converted as non-

agricultural and portion of the land in Sy. No. 132/4 was

converted into non-agricultural. But fact remains that

very same land measuring 4 acres 30 guntas was given

by K.C. Rajaram to the partnership firm Kaycee Industrial

Estate. At the time of dissolving this partnership firm on

1.03.1987 as per Ex.P21 when land measuring 18211.50

Sq. Meters (4 acres 20 Guntas ) allotted to Swede India

Telectronics, the northern boundary is shown as K.R.

Puram Whitefield Main Road. Since K.C. Rajaram, his

Children, Tychee India Pvt Ltd(vendor of defendant),

Swede India Telectronics are all parties to the document

Ex.P21 dissolution deed under which property is given to

Swede India Telectronics and Tychee India Pvt Ltd, they

are estopped from disputing the boundaries and extent

which is mentioned in Ex.P21 dissolution deed. Under

such circumstances the contention of the defendant is

that the land which was given to Swede India
123
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Telectronics was not 4 acres 20 guntas, but it was 4 acres

1 guntas is no water and not acceptable. The contents of

the undisputed document Ex.P14 gift deed, Ex.P6

exchange deed, Ex.P19 sale deed, Ex.P21, partnership

dissolution deed are binding on K.C Rajaram, his children,

Tychee India Pvt Ltd, Swede India Telectronics as the

plaintiff as well as the defendant claiming their right over

these documents.

73. The learned counsel for the defendants while

addressing arguments submitted that portion of

Sy.No.132/1 also situated towards northern side of

K.R.Puram - White Field Main Road. He submitted that

on perusal of the sketch prepared by DDLR and village

map, would go to show that there exists land in

Sy.No.132/1 towards northern side of K.R.Puram - White

Field Main Road also. In perused all the documents.

Based on the village map and sketch prepared by DDLR,

it cannot be held that the portion of Sy.No.132/1 is also

situated towards northern side of K.R.Puram - White

Field Main Road. The main documents from which
124
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

K.C.Rajaram gets the property is Ex.P14 Gift Deed dated

13.11.1978. The defendant also produced certified

copies of this Gift Deed. In Ex.P14 Gift Deed the

northern boundary of the land bearing Sy.No.132/1 given

to K.C.Rajaram is mentioned as road. The plaintiff as

well as defendant cannot deny the contents of Ex.P14,

because they are claiming the right over the property

under K.C.Rajaram. Even though Thippa Reddy

purchased the property in Sy.No.132/1 to 132/4 under

public auction. Originally these lands belong to

K.C.Rajaram who contributed the property to the

partnership firm KAYCEE Industrial Estate. Even in the

document Ex.P21 dated 01.03.1987 certified copy of

dissolution of partnership firm, the northern boundary of

land bearing Sy.No.132/1 is mentioned as White Field

main road. Under such circumstances, the contention of

DW 1 as well as arguments of learned counsel for the

defendant is that there exists portion of land in

Sy.No.132/1 even towards northern side of White Field

main road is not acceptable.
125
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

74. Since the plaintiff as well as the defendants

claiming their right over the property, under K.C

Rajaram, first and foremost point to be considered in this

suit is what was the actual extent of the land got by KC

Rajaram under gift deed, exchange deed and sale deed is

to be taken into consideration. Ex.P14 is the gift deed

under which KC Rajaram got 4 acres 30 guntas of the

land. The defendant has also relied same gift deed. On

perusal of Ex.P14, K.C Rajaram by way of gift got the

land bearing Sy.No.132/1 measuring 2 acres 11 guntas

plus 14 guntas kharab which bounded towards East: Tank

bund, west: Thoti Inam land, north: Whitefield road,

South: land bearing Sy. No 132/2 belongs to Sri HR Guruv

Reddy. He got the land bearing Sy.No. 132/2 measuring 1

Acre bounded towards east: tank bund, west: Private

land, north: land bearing Sy. No. 132/1 belongs to HR

Guruv Reddy, south: land bearing Sy. No. 132/3

belonging to Anandram Reddy's family. He got land

bearing Sy.No. 132/4 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas with

boundary towards east: tank bund, west: Private land,

north: land bearing Sy. No. 132/3 belongs to Anandram
126
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Reddy, south: Thoti Inam Land. Thus in the gift deed

dated 13.11.1978, the northern boundary of Sy.No. 132/1

is mentioned as Whitefield Road. The second documents

of the title deed is Ex.P16 exchange deed dated

22.11.1978 entered between K.C. Rajaram and H.N

Anandram Reddy and brothers who exchanged 28 guntas

of each. Under this exchange deed, Sri KC Rajaram given

28 guntas in Sy. No 132/4 out of 1 acre 5 guntas to

Anandram Reddy. Inturn, Sri Anandram Reddy given 28

guntas in Sy.No132/3 to KC Rajaram. In this manner, Sri

KC Rajaram became owner of 28 guntas in Sy.No. 132/3.

His land standing reduces to 17 guntas in Sy.No. 132/4.

Next document is the document Ex.P20 official

memorandum regarding conversion of land measuring 4

acres 30 guntas in Sy.No. 132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4 as

per order of the Deputy Commissioner as non agricultural

land. No doubt in Ex.P20, it is not mentioned in which

Sy.No. how much land converted as non agriculture. But

the total extent of the land converted in Sy.No. 132/1 to

132/4 is mentioned as 4 acres 30 guntas. The next

document Ex.P19/Ex.P38 and Ex.D17 copy of sale deed
127
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

executed by Sri HN Anandram Reddy to KC Rajaram

selling 28 guntas of the land in Sy.No 132/4. wherein the

Schedule of the property is mentioned as east by tank

bund, west by wet land, north by our own land in Sy.No.

132/4 and south by service inam land. It is not in dispute

that KC Rajaram formed partnership firm by name

KAYCEE Industrial Estate along with its partners, Tyche

India Pvt Ltd and Swede India Telectronics. It is not in

dispute that partnership firm Sri KAYCEE Industrial Estate

was dissolved on 1.03.1987 under dissolution deed. The

plaintiff as well as the defendant produced the

documents which are marked at Ex.P21 and Ex.D13.

Under this dissolution deed, schedule II given to the

Tychee and Schedule III Property given to Swede India

Telectronic Ltd. In Schedule II, the property discription is

shown as Sy. No. 132/4 measuring 1,008.50 Sq Meteres

with factory building measuring 900.29 Sq. Meters

bounded towards east by Private land Sy. No. 131 and

tank bund, west by part of Sy.NO 132/4 belongs to first

party(KC Rajaram), North by land in Sy.No. 132/4

belonging to 1st party, south by private party and tank
128
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

bund. This property in Schedule II given to Tyche India

Pvt Ltd. Schedule III Property bearing Sy. No. 132/1,

132/2. 132/3 and 132/4 measuring 18211.50 Sq meters

with a factory building measuring 1896.11 Sq meters

bounded towards east by private land Sy. No. 131 and

tank bund, west by private land, north by KR Puram

Whitefield road, south by part of Sy. No 132/4 belonging

to 1st party(KC Rajaram) given to Swede India. This

document Ex.P21 is not disputed by the defendant. The

defendant claiming very same property given to Tyche

India Ltd by contending that he purchased the same

under registered sale deed Ex.D9. Since the defendant

claiming the right over schedule B property which given

to Tyche India Pvt Ltd under Ex.P21, the defendant

cannot deny this document Ex.P21. Since the defendant

has not disputed Ex.P21, defendant cannot dispute the

boundaries of schedule II and Schedule III mentioned in

Ex.P21. In Ex.P21, the northern boundary of all these

lands bearing Sy. No. 131/1, 132/2, 132/3 and 132/4

measuring 4 acres 20 guntas is shown as KR Puram-

Whitefield road.
129
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

75. The next document is Ex.P2 / Ex.P22 sale deed

dated 14.08.2016 executed by Official liquidator

appointed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka executed

in favour of Thippa Reddy who is the successful auction

purchaser of this property which is mentioned as

Schedule III of Ex.P21 given to Swede India as this

company Swede India liquidated. If we peruse the

document Ex.P2, the same boundaries and extent which

is mentioned in Ex.P.21 Schedule III ie,towards northern

side of this property, is shown as Whitefield main road.

Since there is mistake crept while mentioning Sy.No, the

typographical error is rectified by executing Ex.P3

rectification deed. Thus on perusal of the documents

produced by the plaintiff, the same boundaries which are

mentioned in mother deeds Ex.P14 gift deed dated

13.11.1978, Ex.P21 dissolution deed dated 1.03.1987 are

mentioned especially the northern boundary which is

shown as Whitefield Main Road.

76. Now coming to the documents of the defendant is
130
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

concerned, defendant purchased 28 guntas of the land in

Sy. No. 132/4A as per Ex.D8 and 10 guntas of the land in

Sy. No. 132/4B under Ex.D9 dt. 10.09.2007. Pw1 as well

as DW1 in their cross-examination admitted that they

have not surveyed the lands before the purchase of their

lands. The defendant has produced and got marked the

documents Ex.D 1 to Ex.D46. The documents Ex.D1 to

Ex.D7 are all marked during the course of cross-

examination of PW1. The defendant has mainly relied on

the documents Ex.D8 certified copy of sale deed dated

10.09.2007 to contend that they purchased 28 guntas of

land in Sy.No. 132/4A i.e., Schedule A Property and

document Ex.D9 certified copy of sale deed dated

10.09.2007 by contending that they have purchased

1008.50 Sq. Meters. i.e., Schedule B property. Ex.D32

and Ex.D33 are the rectification deeds dated 23.03.2016

and 21.03.2016 for rectifying the boundaries. It is

pertinent to note that in view of the orders passed by

Hon'ble High Court in WP. No. 39376/2013 (LB-BMP) the

court was appointed DDLR as a Commissioner inorder to

demarcate the lands in Sy.No. 132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4
131
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

and to submit report. Accordingly, DDLR surveyed the

land, prepared the sketch. But DW1 in his examination in

chief has deposed that DDLR has not surveyed the land

as per the survey records and he has not fixed and

boundaries to the survey no. 132/1 to 132/4. The court

commissioner has prepared his report only on the basis

of title deeds of the parties. The report of the court

commissioner do not speak about the exact land used for

formation of road in Sy.No. 132/1 and available land in

Sy.No. 132/1. DW1 has deposed that the report of

commissioner is not helpful to the parties to resolve the

disputes among them. DW1 in his cross-examination also

admitted the suggestion that he has not accepted the

commissioner report i.e., DDLR Report and sketch. Thus

even though DDLR as per the order of Hon'ble High Court

in WP No. 39376/2013 prepared sketch and submitted

the report, the defendant has not acceptable the same.

The defendant relied on the documents such as Ex.D7

statement of objection filed by High Court government

advocate to the report of Commissioner in WP. No

51470/2016. He has relied on the document Ex.D19
132
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

certified copy of orders dated 30.03.2017 passed in WP.

No. 8366/2016 to 8370/2016 (KLR-RES), Ex.D20 and 21

copy application filed under RTI and endorsement issued

by DDLR. Ex.D23 copy application dated 4.06.2016

issued by DDLR under RTI Act. Ex.D24 copy of letter

dated 24.04.2016 issued by DDLR under RTI Act. Ex.D25

copy of intimation letter issued by DDLR. Ex.D26 copy of

sketch issued by DDLR. Ex.D27 copy of letter dated

20.04.2016 issued by DDLR. Ex.D28 copy of letter dated

12.01.2017 issued by DDLR. Ex.D29 copy of objections in

W.P.No. 51470/2016 issued by DDLR under RTI. Ex.D30

copy of reply of court commissioner dated 8.09.2014

issued by DDLR under RTI Act. Ex.D31 copy of notice

dated 23.07.2014 issued by DDLR under RTI Act. The

learned senior counsel for the plaintiff while addressing

the arguments submitted that as per Ex.D25 notice

dated 15.09.2016, it was issued by tashildar. It was

issued only to the defendant and not to the plaintiff. He

submitted that no such notice was issued to the plaintiff

either by tashildar or by ADLR, DDLR inorder to conduct

survey and to prepare sketch. He submitted that as per
133
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Ex.D31 also it was issued only to the defendant. He

submitted that as per Ex.D26 sketch, it was signed on

20.09.2016. He submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in

WP. No. 51470/2016 granted stay order dated

29.09.2016. Interim order extended until further order as

per order dated 28.10.2016. When there is a stay by

Hon'ble High Court, any such alleged report submitted by

Tahsildar, ADLR, DDLR, JDLR have no evidentiary value, it

cannot be looked into. He submitted that the defendant

has not moved any application before Hon'ble High Court

to accept the survey reports which are produced by the

defendant in this suit. The Hon'ble High Court not

accepted any such report. There is some force in the

arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The

Hon'ble High Court in WP. No. 51470/2016 passed stay

order on 29.09.2016. According to the defendant, on the

same day survey was conducted. There is no document

to show that whether survey was conducted prior to

passing stay order by Hon'ble High Court or after passing

Stay order. But fact remains that as on the date of

survey, on 29.09.2016, the Hon'ble High Court granted
134
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

stay. It is not the contention of the defendant is that the

survey report was submitted to Hon'ble High Court in WP

No. 51470/2016 and the present defendant moved any

application before Hon'ble High Court to accept the

sketch and reports of DDLR which are all produced in the

present suit. Since there is no document on the side of

the defendant to show that DDLR report and sketch was

accepted by Hon'ble High Court in writ petition, this court

of the opinion that these documents relied by the

defendants i.e., report and sketch prepared by DDLR are

not having evidentiary value. More than that there is no

document to show that prior to conducting such survey,

the plaintiff and other adjacent owners were issued with

notice. There was also stay passed by Hon'ble High Court

in WP. No. 51470/2016 as on the date of the alleged

survey. Hence this court of the opinion that the DDLR

report and sketch relied by the defendant cannot be used

in evidence under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 of CPC. If we

exclude the DDLR report and sketch relied by the

defendant, there are no other sketch or report of any

authorities such as surveyor, ADLR, DDLR, JDLR, Tashildar
135
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

to show who are in possession of which portion of the

lands in Sy.No. 132/1. 132/2, 132/3, 132/4. The other

documents relied by the defendant is that Ex.D10

certificate issued by the BBMP, Ex.P11 extract of ledger

pertaining to houses and vacant sites, Ex.D15, copy of

Tippani, Ex.D34 and 36 Khatha Certificate, Ex.D35 and

37 assessment extracts, Ex.D38 11 tax paid receipts. All

these revenue documents cannot overtake the title

documents of the properties. In other words the title

documents prevails over the revenue documents when

dispute arose between the parties with regarding to

ownership and possession over the properties.

77. Now coming to the property of the defendant is

concerned, it is the contention of the defendant is that

he is the owner of the schedule A & B properties, as he

purchased the same under the registered sale deeds

Ex.D8 and D9 and which rectified by way of Rectification

Deeds Ex.D32 and Ex.D33. It is the specific contention

of the defendant is that the plaintiff has encroached upon

19 ½ guntas of his land out of A-schedule property as
136
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

well as B-schedule property, which is mentioned by him

as Schedule - C property. On the other had, the plaintiff

would dispute the identify, measurement, boundaries of

A & B schedule properties of the defendant. It is the

contention of the plaintiff is that schedule - C property

mentioned by the defendant in his pleadings is not at all

in existence. Hence, question of encroaching over C-

schedule property does not arise at all. Since the

plaintiff has taken specific contention that the defendant

is not the owner of the property, within the boundaries as

mentioned in A-schedule and B-schedule in his pleadings

as well as there exists no such C-schedule property.

Under such circumstances, we have to verify whether the

property A & B schedule which are mentioned by the

defendant in the pleadings can be identified or such

property is in existence as contended by the defendant.

As I already noted that both the parties have admitted

the documents Ex.P14/Ex.P39 = Ex.D39 i.e. registered

Gift Deed executed by H.R. Guruva Reddy in favour of

K.C.Rajaram. Both the parties have admitted the

document Ex.P16/Ex.P40=Ex.D18 exchange deed
137
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

entered into between K.C.Rajaram and H.N.Anandaram

Reddy. Both parties have admitted Ex.P19 / Ex.P38=

D.17 sale deed executed by H.N.Anandaram Reddy in

favour of K.C.Rajaram with respect to 28 guntas in

Sy.No.12/4. It is not in dispute that as on the date of

formation of partnership firm KAYCEE Industrial Estate,

K.C.Rajaram was the owner of 5 acres 18 guntas of land

in Sy.No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4. It is not in dispute

that the total measurement of the lands in Sy.No.

Sy.No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4 are measuring 5 acres

18 guntas including karab 14 guntas. Since the plaintiff

as well as defendants admitted all these documents

Ex.P14=D39, Ex.P16=D18, Ex.P19=Ex.D17, both the

parties cannot dispute the total extent of land in these

Sy.No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4. Since both the parties

are claiming their right over the property based on these

title deeds and also based on Ex.P21=D31, dissolution

deed of partnership firm, they cannot deny the

boundaries and extent which are mentioned in all these

documents. According to the defendant schedule - B

property i.e. measuring 1008 Sq. mtrs. (10 guntas of
138
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

land) purchased by him from Tyche India (P) Ltd. It is not

in dispute that Tyche India (P) Ltd got this property

under Ex.P21 dissolution deed. Hence, in order to

identify the property of the defendant i.e. 10 guntas of

land purchased from Tyche India (P) Ltd and A-schedule

property, we have to look into the mother deeds

Ex.P19=D17 sale deed executed by H.N.Anandaram

Reddy in favour of K.C.Rajaram and also documnt

Ex.P21=D31 dissolution of partnership under which

Tyche India (P) Ltd got the property. On perusal of the

document Ex.P19=D17 schedule of 28 guntas of land

which sold by H.N.Anandaram Reddy to K.C.Rajaram is

mentioned as part of Sy.No.132/4 in extent recently

exchanged with under the registered exchange deed for

equal extent 132/3 bounded on east by Tank-bund, west

by wet lands of Patel Guruva Reddy , North by our own

land of Sy.No.132/4 (part) and South by Inam land. The

boundary which is mentioned in Ex.P21 given to Tyche

India (P) Ltd. under Schedule - II for the land measuring

1008.50 sq.mtrs with factory building measuring 900.29

sq.mtr. which is mentioned as towards east by property
139
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

land Sy.No.131 and tank-bund, west by part of

Sy.No.132/4, belonging to the first party (refers to

K.C.Rajaram), north by land in Sy.No.132/4 belongs to

first party (refers to K.C.Rajaram), South by private land

and Tank-bund.

78. Now prior to discussing further, we have analyze

under Ex.P21 actual situation of land given to Tyche is to

be considered. According to Ex.P21 document, the land

measuring 1008.50 sq.mtrs. (10 guntas) given towards

eastern side of land in Sy.No.132/4. If we read

boundaries mentioned in Ex.P21 i.e. land given by Tyche

India (P) Ltd, towards western side of that land, there is

mention that there exist part of Sy.No.132/4 belongs to

first party (K.C.Rajaram), towards eastern side private

land Sy.No.131/1 and Tank-bund. No doubt, towards

north land in Sy.No.132/4 belongs to K.C.Rajaram and

towards south private land and tank-bund is mentioned.

Why this court is stressing on the eastern boundary and

western boundaries, because it has to be say under

Ex.P21 land which was given to Tyche India (P) Ltd was
140
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

situated towards eastern portion of the land bearing

No.132/4. That is because in Ex.P21 itself, the western

boundaries mentioned as part of Sy.No.132/4 belongs to

K.C.Rajaram.

79. Now the document Ex.D9 sale deed dated

10.09.2007 relied by the defendant can be looked into.

This sale deed executed by Director of Tyche India (P)

Ltd. in favour of the defendant with respect to land

measuring 1008.50 sq.mtrs.in Sy.No.132/4, wherein also

the eastern boundary is mentioned as private land, Sy.

No.131 and Tank-bund. When we compare boundaries

mentioned in Ex.D9 with Ex.P21 except southern

boundary, wherein survey number is mentioned and all

other sides boundaries tallies with Ex.P21. It is not in

dispute that the defendant had filed suit against Thippa

Reddy, auction purchaser of the property in Sy.No.132/1

to 132/4 of Swede India Pvt. Ltd. While filing the suit

against Thippa Reddy in O.S.No.7161/2011 present

defendant has mentioned B-schedule property therein

which measuring 1008.50 sq.mtrs. in Sy.No.132/4 which
141
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

bounded towards east by private land Sy.No.131 and

tank-bund, west by part of Sy.No.132/4, north part of

Sy.No.132/4, south by private land Sy.No.131 and tank

bund. That means the present defendant while filing the

suit against Thippa Reddy has mentioned the same

boundary as mentioned in Ex.D9. Thus, according to the

defendant as on the date of filing of the suit in

O.S.No.7161/2011 his property in Sy.No.132/4 measuring

1008.50 sq.mtrs is abutting to Sy.No.131 and tank bund,

towards eastern side and remaining portion of the same

survey in Sy.No.134/4 towards west.

80. Now coming to the rectification deed relied upon by

the defendant and boundaries mentioned in B-schedule

property, which boundary is mentioned is to be looked

into. The defendant has produced document Ex.D32

copy of rectification deed dated 23.03.2016 with respect

to the land measuring 1008.50 sq.mtrs. Wherein the

boundaries of this property is mentioned as east by land

bearing Sy.No.138, west by land bearing Sy.No.136, North

by part of Sy.No.132/4, south by remaining portion of
142
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

land bearing No.132/4. The defendant has mentioned the

very same boundary in his plaint in O.S.No.2835/2016.

During the course of cross examination of DW1 the

village map which is admitted by him marked as Ex.P76.

If we look into the village map, the land which are

surrounded to the land bearing Sy.No.132 towards north

Sy.No.126, towards east Sy.No.131 and 138. The entire

land in Sy.No.138 is lake, towards south Sy.No.137 and

Sy.No.138 lake, towards west Sy.No.134, 135, 136. If we

look into the village map as per Ex.P76, there is no such

survey numbers 131 abutting to Sy.No.132/4. Now if we

combine read the document Ex.P21, Ex.D9, Ex.D32 and

Ex.P76 we can say that the land in Sy.No.136 is situated

towards western side of land bearing Sy.No.132/1. As per

Ex.P21 dissolution deed, Tyche India (P) Ltd was not

given any land abutting Sy.No.136. As per Ex.P21

towards western side of the land given to Tyche India (P)

Ltd there exists portion of same land Sy.No.132/4 belongs

to K.C.Rajaram. Now by way of Ex.D32 rectification deed

what they made is, they stretched the land upto

Sy.No.136 towards west. If we read Ex.P21 dissolution
143
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

deed the land measuring 1008.50 sq.mtrs. given to

Tyche India (P) Ltd is abutting to the land bearing

Sy.No.131 towards east and abutting to remaining land of

K.C.Rajaram, towards west. That means the land which

was given to Tyche India (P) Ltd. as per ExP21 was

situated towards eastern portion of the land bearing

Sy.No.132/4. After withdrawal of the suit in

O.S.No.7161/2011, the Tyche India (P) Ltd and

defendants have made rectification deed as per Ex.D32

and changed boundary of the land bearing Sy.No.132/4

measuring 1008.50 sq.mtrs. and they have shown the

western boundary as land bearing Sy.No.136, which is

nothing but extending land east to west i.e. from

boundary of Sy.No.131 to boundary of 136. Any land can

be identified based on its boundary and measurement.

When the measurement of the land measuring 1008.50

sq.mtrs. which given to Tyche India (P) Ltd, was not

changed, how can that land stretched upto boundary of

Sy.No.136 towards western side is not made known in

this suit. Which indicates that the defendant trying to

locate the land which purchased from Tyche India (P) Ltd
144
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

to the different place, than its original existence. In other

words, the land which is mentioned in Ex.D32

rectification deed was not at all given to Tyche India (P)

Ltd under Ex.P21 dissolution deed. Even though there is

no dispute regarding land measuring 1008.50 sq.mtrs. in

Sy.No.132/4 was given to Tyche India (P) Ltd. under

Ex.P21 dissolution of partnership deed. But since there

after the boundaries of this land was changed especially

towards western boundary by stretching upto Sy.No.136

the entire land is not identifiable. Admittedly, the land

bearing Sy.No.132/4 totally measure 1 acres 5 guntas. It

was originally belongs to K.C.Rajaram, who got it under

Ex.P14 Gift Deed from his grand father H.R.Guruva

Reddy. No doubt, after he got this land under Gift Deed

he has exchanged 28 guntas by giving the same to

H.N.Anandaram Reddy in order to have property in

Sy.No.132/3 measuring 28 guntas. After this exchange

deed as per Ex.P16 again K.C.Rajaram purchased the

exchanged 28 guntas Iand in Sy.No.132/4 from

H.N.Anandaram under Ex.P19=ExD.17. Thus,

K.C.Rararam as on 24.11.1979 became the owner of
145
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

entire land in Sy.No.132/1 to 132/4. Since K.C.Rajaram

was the owner of the entire land in Sy./No.132/1 to 132/4

he should have known the boundaries of his entire land

measuring 5 acres 18 guntas. As I already noted in Gift

Deed, in dissolution deed, northern boundary is shown as

White Field main road. It was K.C.Rajaram who himself

along with other partners have mentioned the said

boundaries as White Field main Road as northern

boundary.

81. According to the defendant, he had purchased A-

schedule property i.e. land bearing Sy.No.132/4

measuring 28 guntas from K.C.Rajaram. First of all, this

court has to make note as to how K.C.Rajaram got this

property in Sy.No.132/4. It is undisputed fact that

K.C.Rjaram had got this property Sy.No.132/4 totally

measuring 1 acre 5 guntas under Gift Deed Ex.P14=D39

dated 13.11.1978. As per this Gift Deed , the boundaries

to the land bearing Sy.No.132/4 measuring 1 acre 5

guntas is mentioned as towards East - Tank-bund, West -

private land, North - land bearing No.132/3 belong to
146
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Anandaram Reddy South - Toti Inam land. It is admitted

fact that as K.C.Rajaram got exchanged 28 guntas out of

1 acre 5 guntas with H.M.Anandaram Reddy, at that time

his property in Sy.No.132/4 reduced to 17 guntas and

then again as he repurchased the land measuring 28

guntas from H.M.Anandaram Reddy as per sale deed

dated 24.11.1979, then K.C.Rajaram again became

owner of the entire land bearing Sy.No.132/4 as on the

date of sale deed. It is pertinent to note that

K.C.Rajaram contributed the land measuring 4 acres 30

guntas to the partnership firm, only after he purchased

28 guntas of land under Ex.P19=D17 from

H.M.Anandaram Reddy. As on the date of dissolution of

partnership firm in view of Ex.P21 dissolution deed dated

01.03.1987, K.C.Rajaram was the owner of the remaining

extent of the land in Sy.No.132/4 excluding land

contributed to the partnership firm KAYCEE Industrial

estate. One thing is to be noted here that after purchase

of land from H.M.Anandaram Reddy under Ex.P19 dated

24.11.1979 and no separate document made by the

parties showing in which survey number, how much
147
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

property was contributed to the partnership firm. In other

words, it can be said that K.C.Rajaram has contributed 4

acre 30 guntas of land to the partnership firm, without

mentioning the extent of the land in each survey number

i.e. Sy.No.132/1 to 132/4. As on the date of dissolution of

partnership firm i.e. as on the date of execution of Ex.P21

dated 01.03.1987 as K.C.Rajaram was also owner of the

remaining lands in Sy.No.132/4 he should have

mentioned what was the actual extent of land in

Sy.No.132/4 given to Swede India Ltd. No doubt there is

mention in Ex.P21 is that the land which was given to

Tyche India (P) Ltd was the land bearing Sy.No.132/4

measuring 1008.50 sq.mtrs. but it is not mentioned in

Ex.P21 what was the extent given to Swede India in

Sy.No.132/4. In Ex.P21 the total measurement of the

land given to Swede India is mentioned as 18211.50

sq.mtrs. in Sy.No.132/1 to 132/4. It is also not mentioned

whether this area of 18211.50 sq.mtrs. including kharab

land measuring 14 guntas in Sy..No.132/1 or excluding

the kharab land measuring 14 guntas. Since while giving

land to Tyche India (P) Ltd as well as Swede India Ltd.
148
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

the extent is mentioned in square meters, without stating

the karab land, we have to presume that it is all usable

land i.e. without karab land given to Swede India and

Tyche India (P) Ltd. Merely because, as per Ex.P20 there

is clause that photkarab as per rules to be reserved to

Government u/S/67 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

it does not presupposes that while giving land to Swede

India measuring 18211.50 sq.mtrs it included 14 guntas

of karab land. K.C.Rajaram is the main party to the

document Ex.P21 who was the owner of this properties

bearing Sy.No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4 which

contributed to the partnership firm. If at all under Ex.P21

while giving full extent of land measuring 18211.50

sq.mtrs. to Swede India it included 14 guntas of karab

land what prevented them to mention in Ex.P21 that this

extent of 18211.50 sq.mtrs. Includes karab land is not

explained in Ex.P21. The Deputy Commissioner while

passing conversion order as per Ex.P20 has not

mentioned the converted lands in sq.mtrs. The Deputy

Commissioner passed an order as per Ex.P20 converting

land measuring 4 acres 30 guntas( by mentioning it by
149
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

acres and guntas) out of Sy.No.132/1 to 132/4, without

making bifurcation regarding in which survey numbers,

how much lands were converted into non-agricultural

land. Even though there is no mention in Ex.P20

regarding the extent of land in square mtrs. but in

Ex.P21 dissolution deed, the land which was given to

Swede India and Tyche India (P) Ltd are mentioned in

Sq.Mtrs. As I already noted that northern boundary of

the property measuring 18211.50 sq.mtrs. given to

Swede India is mentioned as K.R.Puram - White Field

Road. K.C.Rajaram who knows about the boundary and

extent mentioned in Ex.P21 given the land measuring

18211.50 sq.mtrs. to Swede India without retaining any

land for himself as partner. The very same K.C.Rajaram

executed sale deed as per Ex.D8 in favour of the

defendant with regarding to 28 guntas of land in

Sy.No.232/4 by mentioning the boundaries as towards

East private land in Sy.No.131 and Tank bund, West

private land and Sy.No.133, North portion of Sy.No.132/4,

South portion of Sy.No.132/4 and private land. While

executing the document Ex.D8 sale deed with respect to
150
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

28 guntas of land. Eastern boundary shown as Sy.No.131

and Tank bund, West private land in Sy.No.133, North

portion of Sy.No.132/4 and South portion of Sy.No.132/4

and private land. If at all there remains portion of

Sy.No.132/4 towards southern side of this 28 guntas of

land to whom that land belongs is a question. The

defendant while filing the suit in O.S.No.7161/2011

against Thippa Reddy mentioned same boundaries and

extent as mentioned in Ex.D.8, in the plaint schedule.

After withdrawal of the suit, rectification deed got

executed as per Ex.D33 wherein the boundaries of this

28 guntas of land are mentioned as east by land bearing

Sy.No.138, west by land bearing Sy.No.136, North by land

bearing Sy.No.132/4 and South by land bearing

Sy.No.137. While executing Ex.D33 there are change of 3

side boundaries i.e. East, West and South. If at all

K.C.Rajaram who actually knows where his 28 guntas of

land was situated he should have mentioned the correct

boundaries in Ex.D8 sale deed dated 10.09.2007 itself.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff rightly submitted

that in O.S.N.7161/2011 Thippa Reddy seriously disputed
151
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

regarding boundaries and its extent and existence of

such property mentioned in plaint in O.S.No.7161/2011.

The certified copy of the written statement filed by

Thippa Reddy marked at Ex.D43, which would go to show

that Thippa Reddy seriously disputed the boundaries,

identify and possession of the plaintiff therein with

respect to A & B schedule properties mentioned in the

plaint. If at all K.C.Rajaram was in actual possession of 28

guntas of land in Sy.No.132/4, he should have mentioned

the correct boundaries of the same in Ex.D8 sale deed

itself. In Ex.D8 southern boundary mentioned as portion

of Sy.No.132/4. It means while executing the document

Ex.D8, the land 28 guntas is shown in the middle of

Sy.No.132/4. But thereafter by way of rectification deed

as per Ex.D33 by changing 3 sides boundary this

rectification deed executed. Why this court has

mentioned regarding the same, because K.C.Rajaram

while dissolving the partnership firm given the

partnership firm property measuring 4 acres 30 guntas to

Swede India and Tyche India (P) Ltd by mentioning the

boundaries of that property given to this two partners.
152
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Since K.C.Rajaram himself while executing Ex.P21

dissolution of partnership firm admitted northern

boundaries of this entire property is that of K.R.Puram -

White Field main road. Under such circumstances, now

the defendant cannot argued that the plaintiff surged

towards south in order to encroach upon the property

belongs to the defendant which purchased by

K.C.Rajaram. In other words, we can say that the

property which was given to Swede India starts from

K.R.Puram - White Field main road and ends in a portion

of the land bearing Sy.No.132/4. When we peruse the

document, Ex.P76 village map, we can see that the land

bearing Sy.No.131 is situated towards north - east side

direction. The said survey No.131 is almost towards the

eastern side of Sy.No.132/1, which is not touching to the

Sy.No.132/3 or 132/4. The defendant himself produced

document Ex.D1 to 4 Tippani sketch, settlement

document. But strangely while executing Ex.D8 by

K.C.Rajaram eastern boundary of 28 gunta is shown as

Sy.No.131 and Tank bund. On perusal of Ex.P76 map, it

would go to show that the land bearing Sy.No.133 is
153
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

situated towards top of Sy.No.132/4, which abutting to

Sy.No.132/1 towards west. But in Ex.D8 sale deed

western boundary 28 guntas is mentioned as private

land and Sy.No.133. No doubt, the vendor and the

purchaser have right to rectify any deeds, if there is any

mistake crept in, while executing such deed. But fact

remains that while filing the suit in O.S.No.7161/2011 the

present defendant who is plaintiff therein by contending

that he is in possession of the A & B schedule properties,

within same boundaries which are mentioned in Ex.D8

and D9 would contend that he was in possession of that

property as on the date of filing that suit. The plaint

averments or written statement contents made in any

suit are having evidentiary value and any admissions

made in pleading are judicial admissions. The defendant

has not stated anything about while filing the suit in

O.S.No.7161/2011 due to mistake boundaries of his

property are wrongly mentioned. The present plaintiff

has filed suit against the defendant in the year 2014

itself. As per Ex.D41 copy of Memo suit in

O.S.No.7161/2011 withdrawn on 03.06.2016 i.e. after
154
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

filing of the present suit in O.S.No.9024/2014 by the

plaintiff. All these facts indicates that K.C.Rajaram who

executed sale deed in favour of the defendant with

respect to 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.132/4 was not

aware as to where exactly that land was situated.

82. The plaintiff approached this court for the relief of

permanent injunction, specifically contending that the

plaintiff is in possession of 4 acres 20 guntas of land in

Sy.No.132/1 to 132/4 which bounded towards East by

Sy.No.131 and 138, West by Hotel Luri and land in

Sy.No.133, 134, 135, 136, North by White Field main

road, ITPL and South by remaining land in Sy.No.132/4. If

we compare the extent and boundaries mentioned by the

plaintiff in the plaint schedule with Ex.P21 dissolution of

partnership firm, boundaries as well as extent are tallies.

The same boundaries and extent are mentioned by the

official liquidator while executing the sale deed as per

Ex.P2 in favour of Thippa Reddy. When we perused the

documents produced by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has

maintained the same boundaries as well as same extent
155
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

throughout right from erstwhile owners title deeds. It is

the defendants who got changed the boundaries which

are mentioned in Ex.D8 and D9 by way of rectification

deeds Ex.D32 and Ex.D33.

83. The plaintiff's plaint schedule in O.S.No.9024/2014

not only tallies with the document Ex.P14 Gift Deed

dated 13.11.1978, Ex.P21 dissolution of partnership

dated 01.03.1987 and Ex.P2 sale deed executed by the

official liquidator, but also tallies with the subsequent

documents, after the plaintiff started to develop the land

measuring 4 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3

and 132/4. The plaintiff has produced documents

Ex.P10/Ex.P45 sanctioned plan dated 07.08.2014 for

constriction of 2B+G+17/18 UF in 4 blocks - ABCD. The

plaintiff has produced documents Ex.P50 NOC dated

29.05.2014 issued by Director General of Police and

Karnataka State Fire Force Department, wherein the sital

area is mentioned as 18210.70 sq.mtrs. equivalent to 4

acres 20 guntas and in Sl.No.10 boundaries which

mentioned are tallies with the plaint schedule
156
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

boundaries. The plaintiff has produced document Ex.P57

modified sanctioned plan dated 09.08.2021 to construct

the additional floor. The plaintiff has produced and got

marked documents Ex.P69, check-list for modified

sanctioned plan issued by BBMP wherein in Col.3 plot

area in sq.mtrs. is shown as 18210.70 sq.mtrs. In col.17

road width is mentioned. Ex.P70 is the corrigendum

dated 11.02.2020 issued by State Level Environmental

Impact Assessment Authority wherein the plot area is

shown as 18210 sq.mtrs. Ex.P71 is final NOC dated

06.02.2020 issued by the Director General of Police and

Karnataka Fire Force Department wherein in col.8 plot are

is shown as 18210.70 sq.mtrs. and the boundaries in

co.11 is mentioned towards north 30.43 mtrs. wide Hoodi

main road, south - private property (vacant land), East -

private property (vacant land), West - Zuri Hotel. Ex.P72

is the modified sanctioned plan wherein the site area is

mentioned as 18210.70 sq.mtrs and area left for road

widening is mentioned as 674.83 sq.mtrs. Thus on

perusal of the oral evidence of PW1 which is supported

by the documents Ex.P21, P2, P4, P5, P7, P8, P10, P50,
157
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

P69, P70, P71, P72 are all shows that plaintiff in

O.S.No.9024/2014 as owner, Developer, JDA holder, in

possession of the 18211.50 sq.mtrs.ie. 4 acres 20 guntas

of land abutting to K.R.Puram - White Field main road.

Even though the defendant would taken the contention

that the plaintiff has encroached 19 guntas of his land in

Sy.No.132/4, but the documents produced by the plaintiff

is shown that since from the date of dissolution of

partnership as per Ex.P21, Swede India continuously in

possession of the property measuring 18211.50 sq.mrs.

(4 acres 20 guntas) and after execution of Ex.P2 sale

deed by Official Liquidator in favour of Thippa Reddy the

same measurement of the property continued with

Thippa Reddy. The very same property is developed by

the plaintiff by constructing 4 blocks A.B.C.D of the

residential apartments.

84. The defendant has taken contention that the

plaintiff has encroached his 'C' schedule property. It is

important to note what is the boundary of 'C' schedule

property mentioned by the plaintiff in O.S.No.2835/2016

(referred as defendant) is to be taken into consideration.
158
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

The defendant in this 'C' schedule property mentioned

the measurement as 19½ guntas in Sy.No.132/4A and

132/4B bounded towards East by land bearing No.138,

West by land bearing Sy.No.136, North by remaining

portion of land bearing Sy.No.132/4, new Sy.No.132/4B,

South by remaining portion of land bearing Sy.No.132/4,

new Sy.No.132/4A (A-schedule property). Thus,

according to the defendant, towards north of schedule -C

property there exists property bearing Sy.No.132/4B and

towards South of schedule 'C' property there exist

remaining portion of the land bearing Sy.No.132/4 i.e.,

Sy.No.132/4A (A-schedule property). According to the

defendant his plaint schedule B-property is situated

towards North of plaint 'A' schedule property. But while

describing schedule - C property, the northern boundary

again shown as Sy.No.132/4B and southern boundary is

shown as 132/4A (A-schedule property).

85. DW1 during the course of his cross examination has

deposed that his schedule B-property come to the North

of schedule-A property. When the questioned was asked

him by the learned counsel for the plaintiff 'can you tell
159
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

the court that where C-schedule of plaint in

O.S.No.2835/2016 is located with reference to 'A' and 'B'

schedule properties respectively of that suit" ?. Then he

answered as 'it is between 'B' and 'A' schedule property

of O.S.No.2835/2016 with 'B' schedule property to the

north and A-schedule to the South as described in plaint

schedule. Thus, according to DW1 his C-schedule

property is situated in between Schedule - A and B

properties that means it sandwiched between A & B

schedule properties. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff

also having property in land bearing Sy.No.132/4. That

means plaintiff's property is towards northern side of the

remaining property of original owner K.C.Rajaram, which

was in Sy.No.132/4. As I already noted that in Ex.P21

while giving the property to Tyche India Pvt. Ltd. the

eastern boundary is mentioned as private land in

Sy.No.131 and Tank band and the western boundary is

mentioned as part of Sy.No.132/4 belongs to the first

party (K.C.Rajaram). According to the defendant he had

purchased the same property of Tyche India Pvt. Ltd. and

he has mentioned the same as Schedule - B property.
160
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

When the property measuring 1008.50 sq.mtrs. which is

situated towards eastern side of the property belongs to

K.C.Rajaram in Sy.No.132/4 is given to Tyche India Pvt.

Ltd. how can the defendant stretch his property

purchased from Tyche India Private Limited till Sy.No.136

towards west is not made known in this case. That itself

indicates that the boundaries mentioned to the B-

schedule property especially western boundary is not

correct one. There is no such chance to have the

property upto Sy.No.136 and to share the boundary with

respect to the property of Tyche India Pvt. Ltd. because

as per Ex.P21 dissolution deed there is no such boundary

mentioned as 136 towards western side. According to

DW 1 the schedule - C property is situated in between A

& B schedule properties. If that is so, it is not possible to

the plaintiff to encroach upon the C-schedule property of

the defendant. No doubt, DW 1 in his cross examination

has deposed that the plaintiff had encroached the entire

B-schedule property and also portion of A-schedule

property totally measuring 19 ½ guntas of land. It is

pertinent to note that DW.1 in his cross examination at
161
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

page 33 deposed that he has also filed suit against the

owners of Sy.No.136 i.e. Total Environment Development

claiming that portion of his plaint schedule A property

has been encroached by them also. DW1 has deposed

that he had field the suit against the Total Environment

Developments in order to recover the land approximately

7 ½ guntas. Thus, according to DW1 it is not only the

plaintiff who encroached his land, but also Total

Environment Developments encroached 7 ½ guntas of

land. The defendant has not produced any sketch to

show the existence of C-schedule property. As I already

noted that the identity of the very B-schedule property is

not proved by the defendant. When we compare the

boundaries mentioned in Ex.P21 with boundaries

mentioned in Ex.D9, it does not tallies with each other,

especially eastern and western boundaries. Since

K.C.Rajaram himself is a party to the document Ex.P21

dissolution deed, the defendant who claiming under the

same document Ex.P21 and also claiming that he

purchased A-schedule property measuring 28 guntas

from K.C.Rajaram now estopped from disputing the total
162
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

extent of land measuring 18211.50 sq.mtrs. given to

Swede India which is in possession of the plaintiff as

purchaser, joint development agreement holder. The

oral evidence of PW1, DW1 and the documents produced

on the side of the plaintiff, would go to show that the

predecessor in title i.e., K.C.Rajaram, Swede India,

Thippa Reddy are all in possession of the property

measuring 18211.50 sq.mtrs. excluding northern side

K.R.Puram - White Field road. Hence, there is no such

property measuring 28 guntas in Sy.No.132/4 available

with K.C.Rajaram in order to alienate the same in favour

of defendant. The boundaries and the measurement

shown in A & B schedule properties by the defendant in

his plaint in O.S.No.2835/2016 is incorrect. The plaintiff

in O.S.No.9024/2014 proved that C-schedule property is

not in existence. The oral evidence of PW 1 which is

supported by title documents, as well as revenue

documents, would go to show that the plaintiff, its

vendors and the property given to the plaintiff for

development were / are in possession of 4 acres 20

guntas of land i.e., 18211.50 sq.mtrs. of land in
163
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Sy.No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3 and 132/4 as owners. It is now

settled principle of law is that when there is dispute

arose with regarding to boundaries and extent, the

boundaries of the property prevails over its extent. This

principle can be made applicable to the present suit,

because since from the beginning i.e. from execution of

Gift Deed in favour of K.C.Rajaram, the northern bundary

of the property bearing No.132 is mentioned as White

Field main road, which indicates that White Field main

road in existence prior to execution of E.P14 Gift Deed in

favour of K.C.Rajaram. The plaintiff is claiming property

given to Swede India under Ex.P21. In view of my

finding even though it is proved that there is some

property available to K.C.Rajaram in Sy.No.132/4 and also

the property was given to Tyche India in Sy.No.132/4, but

the defendant has failed to prove the boundaries and

actual extent of land available in Sy.No.132/4. It is now

settled principle of law is that in order to decree the suit

for declaration of ownership the parties must prove the

actual extent and identity of the property. On the basis

of mathematical calculation, the civil court cannot decide
164
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

the title or possession by deducting 14 guntas for road

and then calculating remaining lands in Sy.No.132/1,

132/2, 132/3 and 132/4 and cannot hold that 19 ½

guntas of land belongs to defendant is in possession of

the plaintiff. The plaintiff has proved that its vendor and

the persons who have given property for development if

combinedly calculate it was measuring 4 acres 20 guntas

i.e. 18211.50 sq.mtrs. as on the date of filing of the suit,

also the plaintiff is possessing same extent of property

within boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. The

plaintiff has proved lawful possession over the suit

schedule property. The defendant has failed to prove

actual measurement, extent, boundaries and identity of

the property which purchased by the defendant under

Ex.D8 and D9 sale deeds and Ex.D32 and D33

rectification deeds. The learned counsel for the

defendant much argued regarding clause 3 of Ex.P20

Special DC Order while converting 4 acres 30 guntas of

land as non agricultural for industrial purpose. It is true

that in Ex.P20, Clause 3 is mentioned as the phut karab

as per rule should be reserved to government U/s 67 of
165
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964. It is pertinent to note

that as on the date of execution of Ex.P21 partnership

dissolution deed, being one of the partner KC Rajaram

was also owner of 4 acres 30 guntas which contributed to

partnership firm Kaycee Industries, also the owner of the

remaining property in Sy. No. 132/4. In Ex.P21

partnership dissolution deed, by mentioning the northern

boundary of land measuring 18211.50 Sq. Meters given

to Swede India as KR Puram Whitefield road, handed over

the possession of this extent of 18211.50 Sq. meters to

Swede India. Thus according to KC Rajaram, the land

which was given to Swede India starts from KR Puram

Whitefield Road in northern side. It is important to note

the description of Schedule property which is mentioned

in Ex.D9 with respect to 1008.50 Sq. Meters which sold

by Tyche India to the defendant. The very four lines of

the schedule reads thus " all that piece and parcel of

converted land bearing no. 132/4 of Hoody village (from

Whitefield Main road to Hoodi) KR Pura hobli, Bangalore

South Taluk admeasuring a site area of 1008.50 Sq

meters(10,851.46 Sq Feet) together with factory
166
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

buildings measuring a built up area of 900.20 Sq. Meters.

(9689.75 Sq. Feet.) situated thereon and bounded on

the". Thus on plain reading of the schedule mentioned in

Ex.D9 also, the word (from Whitefield Main road to Hoodi)

finds a place in this sale deed. Thus the defendant who

allegedly purchased the property measuring 1008.50 Sq.

meters from Tychee India admitted that the subject

matter of property starts from Whitefield main road. I

have already noted that in Ex.D9, the western boundary

of this site area measuring 1008.50 Sq. Meters is shown

as part of Sy. No. 132/4. That means, this property which

was given to Tychee India situated in eastern portion of

Sy.No. 132/4. But the defendant and his vendor by

executing Ex.D32 rectification deed located this property

in different place by stretching the western boundary

upto land bearing Sy.No. 136. As a cost of repetition, as

per Ex.D8 sale deed, the southern boundary of 28 guntas

purchased by the defendants is shown as the portion of

Sy.No. 132/4 and private land. Western boundary is

shown as private land and Sy.No 133. eastern boundary

is shown as private land in Sy. No. 131 and tank bund.
167
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

But by way of rectification deed Ex.D33, eastern

boundary is shown as Sy.No. 138, western boundary is

shown as Sy.No. 136, Southern boundary is shown as Sy.

No. 137. It indicates that Sri KC Rajaram who do not

know regarding his remaining actual extent existed in

Sy.No. 132/4 and who do not know where actually his

remaining land in Sy.No. 132/4 is situated by mentioning

some boundaries executed sale deed as per Ex.D8 in

favour of the defendant. Hence this court held that even

though KC Rajaram was having some lands in Sy. No.

132/4 but he is not having the land to the extent of 28

guntas as mentioned in Ex.D8 within the boundaries

mentioned in Ex.D8 as well as Ex.D33. The land which

was given to Tychee India as per Ex.P21 dissolution of

partnership deed was eastern portion of Sy.No. 132/4.

But now the defendant after got executed Ex.D32

claiming B Schedule Property till the boundary of Sy.No.

136 towards western side. Hence it can be held that A

and B Schedule property claimed by the defendant is not

in existence by way of actual measurement and by

actual extent and within boundaries as claimed by the
168
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

defendant. This court of the opinion that Schedule C

property claimed by the defendant is not in existence.

Since the defendant has failed to prove actual extent and

actual boundaries of A and B Schedule properties, it

cannot be held that the defendant is the owner of A and

B Schedule properties. The Property which was given to

Ms. Tychee India Pvt Ltd under Ex.P21 dissolution of

partnership deed is not tallies with the B schedule

property claimed by the defendant. Since K.C. Rajaram

himself admitted the northern boundary of Sy.No. 132/1

is of Whitefield Main road as per Ex.P14 Gift deed, as per

Ex.P21 dissolution of partnership deed,the defendant

who claiming under KC Rajaram is estopped from

disputing the northern boundary of the property which

given to Swede India which purchased by Sri Thippa

Reddy under public auction and the very same property

as a purchaser, as a developer under JDA developed by

the plaintiff. The plaintiff successfully proved that the

plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of entire

4 acres 20 guntas i.e., 18211.50 sq. meters of property in

Sy. No. 132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4. The defendant has
169
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

failed to prove the identity, extent and ownership of A

and B schedule properties mentioned in OS No.

2835/2016. The defendant has also failed to prove that

the plaintiff encroached 19 and half guntas i.e., C

Schedule Property. Hence I answered Issue No. 1 in OS

No. 9024/ 2014 in the affirmative, Issue no. 3 and 4

dated 17.03.2021 framed in OS No. 2835/2016 in the

affirmative, Issue no. 1 and 2 dated 17.03.2021 and issue

no. 1 and 2 dated 20.06.2017 framed in OS No.

2835/2016 in the negative.

86. Issue no. 5 in OS No. 2835/2016: In view of my

finding on issue no. no. 1 to 4 framed on 17.03.2021 and

issue no. 1 and 2 framed on 20.06.2017, as the

defendant company failed to prove the identity, extent of

A and B schedule properties thereby failed to prove its

ownership and possession over A and B Schedule

properties, this court of the opinion that the defendant is

not entitled for the relief of declaration of ownership over

A and B Schedule property and recovery of possession of

C Schedule property and also not entitled for the
170
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

consequential relief of injunction as prayed for. Hence I

answered Issue no. 5 in negative.

87. Issue No. 2 in OS No. 9024/2014:- The plaintiff

company has successfully proved that it is in lawful

possession of plaint schedule property as on the date of

the suit. The defendant has admitted that the plaintiff

has already constructed the multi-storied apartments.

The total extent of the land i.e., 4 acres 20 guntas in

equivalent to 18211.50 sq.meters which is in possession

of plaintiff tallies with the mother deed Ex.P21 dissolution

of partnership deed. Same property which was given to

Swede India Pvt Ltd after its winding up purchased by H

Thippa Reddy in public auction. Official liquidator

executed sale deed as per Ex.P2 in favour of Thippa

Reddy with respect to the same property of M/s. Swede

India Telectronics Ltd. The plaintiff as a purchaser of 1

acre 10 guntas of land, as a joint development

agreement holder of 1 acre of land of H Thippa Reddy

and 2 acres 10 guntas of land of legal heirs of D

Anjaneyalu constructed multi-storied apartment. The
171
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

plaintiff has proved lawful possession over the suit

schedule property as on the date of the suit. The very

contention of the defendant is that plaintiff encroached

on its property is sufficient to hold that the defendant

interfered with the plaintiff's possession over the suit

schedule property. DW1 also deposed regarding the

police complaints. There is sufficient evidence to show

the interference made by the defendants over plaintiff's

possession of the suit property. Hence I answered issue

no. 2 in OS No. 9024/2014 in the affirmative.

88. Issue No. 3 in OS No. 9024/2014 and Issue no.

4 dated 20.06.2017, Issue no. 6 dated 17.03.2021

framed in OS No. 2835/2016:- In view of my findings

on afore said issues, as the plaintiff in OS No. 9024/2014

successfully proved its lawful possession over the suit

property and threatened interference by the defendants,

the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent

injunction as prayed for. Since the defendant has failed

to prove its ownership and possession over A and B

Schedule properties and also failed to prove
172
O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016

encroachment of C Schedule Property by the plaintiff, the

defendant is not entitled for relief of declaration and

possession and relief of injunction as prayed in OS No.

2835/2016. Hence I proceed to pass the following.

ORDER

The suit of the plaintiff in OS No. 2835/2016 is hereby dismissed.

The suit of the plaintiff in OS No. 9024/2014 is hereby decreed.

The permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants, their agents or anyone claiming through them in OS No.9024/2014 from dismantling or removing the metal sheet barricade/ compound enclosing the schedule property and/or from interfering in any manner the plaintiff's construction work and/or possession of the plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property.

The parties shall bear their own cost. Draw decree, accordingly.

Office shall keep the original Judgment in O.S. No. 9024/2014 and copy of the judgment in OS No. 2835/2016.

(Dictated to SG-I, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on the 3 rd day of JANUARY 2026).

(MOHAN PRABHU), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

173

O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF/S:

PW1       Sri.R.Lokesh

LIST OF WITNESSES         EXAMINED         ON    BEHALF      OF
DEFENDANT/S:

DW1       Sri. Sunil Gupta

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF/S:

Ex.P-1 Board Resolution Dt.29-07-2019. Ex.P-2 Certified copy of sale deed dt.14-08-2006 Ex.P-3 Certified copy Rectification deed dt.06-08-2007 Ex.P-4 Certified copy of sale deed dt.25-01-2007 Ex.P-5 Certified copy of Joint Development Agreement dt.20-06-2012 Ex.P-6 Certified copy of GPA dt.20-06-2012 Ex.P-7 Certified copy of sale deed dt.30-01-2013 Ex.P-8 Certified copy of Joint Development Agreement dt.30-07-2013 Ex.P-9 Certified copy of GPA dt.30-07-2013 Ex.P-10 Sanctioned Plain Ex.P-11 Police complaint dt.05-12-2014 Ex.P-12 Police endorsement Ex.P-13 Village Map Ex.P-14 Certified copy of the gift deed dt.13-11-1978 Ex.P-15 Mutation register extract Ex.P-16 Certified copy of the exchange deed 22-11-1978 Ex.P-17 Mutation Register extract Ex.P-18 Certified copy of the sale deed dt.07-11-1979 174 O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016 Ex.P-19 Certified copy of the sale deed dt.24-11-1979 Ex.P-20 Certified copy of the official memorandum dt.03- 04-1979 Ex.P-21 Certified copy of the deed of desolution of firm dt.01-03-1987 Ex.P-22 Certified copy of the sale deed dt.14-08-2006 Ex.P-23 Certified copy of the rectification of the sale deed dt.06-08-2007 Ex.P-24 Certified copy of the sale deed dt.25-01-2007 Ex.P-25 Certified copy of the joint development agreement dt.20-06-2012 Ex.P-26 Certified copy of the sale deed dt.30-01-2013 Ex.P-27 Certified copy of the joint development agreement dt.30-07-2013 Ex.P-28 & Copy of Property Tax register 29 Ex.P-30 Uttara Pathra Ex.P-31 & Certificate issued by BBMP 32 Ex.P-33 Tax demand register extract Ex.P-34 Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.P-35 Tax demand register extract Ex.P-36 Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.P-37 Tax demand register extract Ex.P-30 Uttara Pathra Ex.P-31 & Certificate issued by BBMP 32 Ex.P-33 Tax demand register extract Ex.P-34 Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.P-35 Tax demand register extract Ex.P-36 Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.P-37 Tax demand register extract Ex.P-41 Copy of Development Right certificate dt:

175

O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016 23.12.2014 issued by B.B.M.P under R.T.I application (This document marked subject to objection of counsel for defendant) Ex.P-42 Digital Certified copy of Registered Deed of Conveyance of Development Rights dt: 10.03.2015 Ex.P-43 Digital Certified copy of Registered Agreement dt:

05.01.2018 Ex.P-44 Digital Certified copy of Registered Deed dt:

26.07.2021 regarding Mortgage and Memorandum of Entry in favour of H.D.F.C Limited.

Ex.P-45 Certified copy of License dt: 07.08.2014 Ex.P-46 1.6 Crores License fee paid receipt copy obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-47 Copy of Labour Cess of Rs.77,56,200/- paid to B.B.M.P receipt obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-48 Copy of Improvement charge of Rs.45,52,500/- paid receipt copy obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-49 Copy of N.O.C from B.S.N.L dt: 13.05.2014 which obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-50 Copy of N.O.C dt: 29.05.2014 of Karnataka State Fire and Emergency services which obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-51 Copy of N.O.C dt: 28.08.2014 issued by BESCOM which received under R.T.I Ex.P-52 Copy of NOC dt: 30.07.2014 of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board which obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-53 Copy of Receipt dt: 02.07.2014 for having paid Rs.11,00,000/- to Karnataka State Pollution Control Board which obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-54 Copy of NOC dt: 04.05.2015 from S.E.I.A.A which obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-55 Copy of NOC dt:09.08.2016 issued by Hinshustan Aeronautics Limited which obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-56 Copy of NOC dt: 12.08.2016 issued by B.W.S.S.B which obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-57 Copy of Modified License dt:09.08.2021 issued by B.B.M.P which obtained under R.T.I. 176 O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016 Ex.P-58 & Copy of two receipts issued by B.B.M.P which 59 obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-60 Copy of acknowledgment for having received the Labour Cess by Karnataka Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board which obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-61 Copy of consent for operation dt:05.07.2021 issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board which obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-62 Copy of Occupancy certificate (Partial) dt:

14.07.2021 issued by B.B.M.P which obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-63 Copy of Occupancy certificate (Partial) dt:

31.12.2021 issued by B.B.M.P which obtained under R.T.I. Ex.P-64 to Three photos of Building 66 Ex.P-67 65(B) Certificate of Ex.P64 to 66 photographs Ex.P-68 Copy of Certificate dt: 09.12.2013 issued by B.D.A for change of land use from Industrial use to residential purpose Ex.P-69 Copy of Checklist for Building Modified Plan Sanction dt:18.03.2019 issued by Assistant Director, Building License Cel, BBMP Ex.P-70 Copy of Corrigendum dt: 11.02.2020 issued by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority -

Karnataka Ex.P-71 Copy of Revised No Objection certificate dt:

06.02.2020 issued by Karnataka Fire and Emergency Services.

Ex.P-72 Copy of Modified Plan dt: 09.08.2021 Ex.P73 certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.19/2005 Ex.P74 copy of conversion order passed by the Deputy Commissioner `Ex.P75 certified copy of the order sheet in W.P.No.51470/2016 177 O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016 Ex.P76 copy of village map of Hoodi Village Ex.P77 certified copy of orders passed by the HC in W.P.No.541470/2016 dated 23.10.2025 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT/S:

Ex.D1 certified copy of Hissa Survey Tippani (marked in the cross examination of PW1) Ex.D2 certified copy of Hissa Tippani (marked in the cross examination of PW1) Ex.D3 certified copy of the Akarbandh (marked in the cross examination of PW1) Ex.D4 certified copy of Hissa Survey Tippani (marked in the cross examination of PW1) Ex.D5 certified copy of the village map of Hoodi Village (marked in the cross examination of PW1) Ex.D6 certified copy of Writ Appeal No.826/2016 and 830/2016 (marked in the cross examination of PW1) Ex.D7 certified copy of objection filed by the Government on behalf of DDLR I W.P.No.51470/2016 (marked in the cross examination of PW1) Ex.D-8 Certified copy of Sale deed dt: 10.09.2007 Ex.D-9 Certified copy of Sale deed dt: 10.09.2007 Ex.D-10 Certificate issued by B.B.M.P Ex.D-11 Extract of Ledger pertaining to Houses and Vacant Sites Ex.D-12 Receipt Ex.D-13 Certified copy of Deed of Dissolution of Partnership dt: 01.03.1987 Ex.D-14 Certified copy of orders dt: 12.08.2014 in W.P No.39376/2013 (LB-BMP) Ex.D-15 Copy of Tippan Ex.D-16 Authorization Letter Ex.D-17 Certified copy of Sale deed dt: 24.11.1979 178 O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016 Ex.D-17(a) Typed copy of Ex.D17 Ex.D-18 Certified copy of Deed of Exchange dt: 22.11.1978 Ex.D-18(a) Typed copy of Ex.D18 Ex.D-19 Certified copy of orders dt: 30.03.2017 passed in W.P No.8366/2016 to 8370/2016 (KLR-RES) Ex.D-20 & Copy of Application filed under RTI Act and 21 endorsement issued by D.D.L.R Ex.D-22 Registered RPAD Postal cover Ex.D-23 Copy of Application dt: 04.06.2016 issued by D.D.L.R under RTI Act Ex.D-24 Copy of letter dt: 24.06.2016 issued by D.D.L.R under RTI Act Ex.D-25 Copy of Intimation letter issued by D.D.L.R under RTI Act Ex.D-26 Copy of Sketch issued by D.D.L.R under RTI Act Ex.D-27 Copy of Letter dt:20.04.2016 issued by D.D.L.R under RTI Act Ex.D-28 Copy of Letter dt:12.01.2017 issued by D.D.L.R under RTI Act Ex.D-29 Copy of objections in W.P No.51470/2016 issued by D.D.L.R under RTI Act Ex.D-30 Copy of reply of Court Commissioner dt: 08.09.2014 issued by D.D.L.R under RTI Act Ex.D-31 Copy of Notice dt: 23.07.2014 issued by D.D.L.R under RTI Act Ex.D32 Amendment dated 23.03.2016 Ex.D33 Amendment dated 21.03.2016 Ex.D34 Katha certificate Ex.D35 Tax Assessment extract Ex.D36 Katha certificate Ex.D37 Tax Assessment extract Ex.D38 Tax paid receipts Ex.D39 Certified copy of Gift Deed dated 13.11.1978 179 O.S.No.9024/2014 C/W 2835/2016 Ex.D40 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.7161/2011 Ex.D41 Certified copy of memo in O.S.No.7161/2011 Ex.D42 Certified copy of written statement in O.S.No.7161/2011 Ex.D43 Certified copy of written arguments in O.S.No.7161/2011 Ex.D44 & Photographs & CD 44(a) Ex.D45, 3 photographs, CD and carbon copy of receipt.

45(a)     &
45(b)
Ex.D46        65-B Certificate

LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bangalore District Court

M S Vaswani Whitefield Projects P Ltd vs Rajaram K C on 3 January, 2026