Bangalore District Court
Hemavathi B vs Eshwara Char on 1 July, 2024
KABC010211272012
Form
No.9
(Civil)
Title
Sheet
for PRESENT: Sri. Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv,
Judgme
nt in XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
Suits
R.P. 91
Dated this the 1 st day of July, 2024
PLAINTIFFS: - 1. B.Hemavathi
W/o Harishchandra,
D/o G.H.Bangera
Since dead by her legal heirs
1(a) H.Sharath Kumar
S/o Late Harischandra,
Aged about 42 years.
1(b) H.Puneeth Kumar
S/o Late Harischandra,
Aged about 42 years.
1(c) Smt.H.Rashmi
D/o Late Harischandra,
Aged about 38 years.
1(d) H.Rajesh
S/o Late Harischandra,
Aged about 36 years.
1(e) Smt.H.Surekha
D/o Late Harischandra,
Aged about 42 years.
Plaintiff No.1(a) to (e) are
2 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc
R/at No.45, Perianna Agrahara,
Naidu Layout, Rajiv Gandhi
Road, Kanakapura Main Road,
Bengaluru-560 072.
2. B.Chandrashekar
S/o Late G.H.Bangera,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at No.12/1, 2nd Main, 9th
Cross, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru-560 018.
3. Smt.Mangala Gowri
D/o Late G.H.Bangera
W/o Raghuram,
Since dead by her legal heirs
3(a) Smt.R.Shilpa
W/o Jothish Kumar,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.302, 5th Main,
6th Cross, Chamrajpet,
Bengaluru-560 018.
4. B.Uttam Kumar
S/o Late G.H.Bangera,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.404, Bilvashreenilaya
9th Cross, 1st Main Road,
Panchasheelanagar, Mudlapalya,
Bengaluru-560 072.
5. Smt. Sujatha
D/o Late G.H.Bangera,
W/o Sri Kumar,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at C/o Tanujasrinivas,
Doddagubbi Village, Bidara
Hobli, Bagaluru Road,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
[By Sri H.Manjunath., Advocate]
3 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Eshwar Char
S/o Krishnachar,
Aged about 50 years.
2. M.Mahesh Kumar
S/o Malagachar,
Aged about 41 years
Defendants 1 & 2 are
R/at No.19/12, 4th Main,
Shrikanteshwara Nagara,
Bengaluru.
3. M.D.Ramakrishnaiah
S/o Late M.Devaiahsetty Gowda,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at No.MIG-2, 80 feet Road,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bengaluru-560 060.
4. K.R.Sathyanarayana
S/o B.R.Ramachandra,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.1648, 5th Main,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bengaluru-560 0 060.
5. S.Subramanya
Aged about 66 years,
S/o Late Sheshappa.
6. Smt.K.S.Sharada
Aged about 59 years,
W/o S.Subramanya.
Defendant No.5 & 6 are
R/at No.30, 13th Cross,
Ashok Nagar, BSK 1st Stage,
Bengaluru-560 050.
D1 to 4 - Exparte
D5 & 6 - By Sri.B.S.R., Advocate
4 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc
Date of institution of the suit :: 06/11/2012
Nature of the suit :: For Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of :: 18/03/2019
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment :: 01/07/2024
was pronounced
:: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
11 7 25
(Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv )
XVIII ACCJ: B'LURU.
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs as against the
defendants for the relief of declaration of sale deeds as
null and void etc., with respect to suit schedule
property bearing site No.57 out of Sy.No.66/1 more
specifically described in the plaint.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief as under:-
The suit property was originally belonging to the
father of plaintiffs by name G.H.Bangera. He had
purchased the said property under the registered sale
deed dated 16/04/1971. He was in possession and
enjoyment over the suit schedule property along with
5 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc
other properties. He had applied for NA with respect
to Sy.No.66/1 but he had not formed the layout. He
was suffering from various diseases and hence died
on 18/07/1997 leaving behind him, the plaintiffs as
class-1 legal heirs.
It is further case of the plaintiffs that, they have
got divided the properties left by their father by
entering into a compromise in O.S.No.5442/2009. So,
by virtue of said compromise, their names have been
entered in the RTC of the suit property including
other properties.
It is further case of the plaintiffs that on
09.04.2011, the defendants came to the suit property
and interfered the possession of the plaintiff's over the
suit schedule property stating that defendant No.3 as
a GPA holder of G.H.Bangera has sold the suit
property in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 under the
sale deed 03.11.1997. In-fact, the father of the
plaintiff's died on 18.07.1997 and he never executed
the said GPA in favour of defendant No.3 and 4. The
said sale deed dated 03.11.1997, which is subsequent
6 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc
to death of their father was created document and is
not binding upon them. The defendant No.1 and 2
with active collusion with the defendant No.3 and 4
have sold the suit property in favour of defendant
No.5 and 6 under sale deed dated 18/05/2006. The
said sale deed is also not binding upon the plaintiffs.
The cause of action arose to the plaintiffs, when the
defendants tried to interfere the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule
property on 09/04/2011 and thereafter also
continued. So, the plaintiffs prays to declare the sale
deeds dated 03/11/1997 and 18/05/2006 are null
and void and they are not binding upon them, they
also prayed to grant a decree of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering their
peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit
property.
3. On issuance of suit summons, defendant
No.1 to 4 remained exparte. Defendant No.5 & 6
though appeared, have not chosen to file written
statement.
7 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc
4. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff No.5
has got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked
Ex.P.1 to 25.
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has
filed written argument. Perused the same, plaint and
evidence on record.
6. The points that would arise for my
consideration are as under:-
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that
the sale deeds dated 03/11/1997
and 18/05/2006 with respect to
suit property are null and void
and not binding upon them?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove
that they are in possession over the
suit property and said possession
is interfered by the defendants?
(3) What order or decree ?
7. My findings on the above points are as
under:
Point No.1 :- In the Affirmative
Point No.2 :- In the Affirmative
8 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc
Point No.3 :- As per final order for
the following:
8. POINT NO.1 & 2: Both points are
interlinked with each other and in order to avoid
repetition and to appreciate the evidence, they are
taken up together for common discussion.
The burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove their
case. In order to discharge said burden, they relied
upon the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P-1 to 25. The suit
filed by the plaintiffs remained unchallenged as
defendants have not chosen to file written statement
and cross examine the PW1. Ex.P-1 is the certified
copy of the order sheet; Ex.P-2 is the joint memo;
Ex.P- 3 is the memorandum of settlement filed by the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.5442/2009. In said suit, all the
plaintiffs have got divided the Sy.No.66/1. By virtue of
the said decree, the present plaintiffs have became the
owners and possessors of Sy.No.66/1. The suit
schedule property is one site out of said survey
9 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc
number. Ex.P-7 to 11 are the mutations standing in
the name of plaintiffs with respect to Sy.No.66/1.
Ex.P-13 is the RTC of Sy.No.66/1 standing in the
name of plaintiffs to the extent of 15 guntas and odd.
Ex.P-14 is the death certificate of G.H.Bangera, which
discloses that he died on 18/07/1997. Ex.P-15 is the
death certificate of his wife-M.Indira, which discloses
that she died on 18/03/2006. Ex.P-25 is the certified
copy of sale deed dated 03/11/1997 executed by
defendant No.3 and 4 as a GPA holders of
G.H.Bangera in favour of defendant No.1 and 2. As
on the date of execution of this sale deed, the original
owner G.H.Bangera was not alive. So, even if there
was a GPA, it automatically extinguishes on the date
of death of G.H.Bangera. Since, executant of the GPA
holder died on 18/07/1997, the GPA holders i.e.,
defendant No.3 and 4 have no right to execute the sale
deed in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 and the
authority given to the defendant No.3 and 4 ends on
the date of death of G.H.Bangera. So, they have no
right to execute the sale deed dated 03/11/1997 i.e.,
10 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc
after lapse of 4 months of death of alleged executant
of said GPA. Ex.P-16 is the sale deed executed by
defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.5 and
6. But, this sale deed is also does not create any right,
title and interest over the suit property in favour of
defendant No.5 and 6. The vendors of defendant No.5
and 6 i.e., defendant No.1 and 2 themselves had no
right to sell the said property. So looking to the
materials on record, I hold that the plaintiffs have
successfully proved that the sale deed executed by
defendant No.3 and 4 in favour of defendant No.1 and
2 dated 03/11/1997 and subsequent sale deed dated
18/05/2006 are out come of fraud etc.,. Hence, said
sale deeds are not binding upon the plaintiffs. The
evidence relied by the plaintiffs remained
unchallenged. The plaintiffs have successfully proved
their ownership and possession over the suit schedule
property. The names of defendants No.1 and 2 or 5
and 6 never entered in the RTC of the suit schedule
property based on their sale deeds. So, the said sale
11 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc
deeds were never acted upon. Accordingly, I answer
Point No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
9. POINT NO.3: In view of my finding on the
above Points, I proceed to pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed
with cost.
It is declared that the sale deed dated
03/11/1997 executed by defendant No.3
and 4 in favour of defendant No.1 and 2
and subsequent sale deed dated
18/05/2006 executed by defendant No.1
and 2 in favour of defendant No.5 and 6
are null and void and they are not binding
upon the plaintiffs.
The decree of permanent injunction is
granted in favour of the plaintiffs by
restraining the defendants from interfering
the peaceful possession and enjoyment
over the suit schedule property.
Draw a decree accordingly.
***
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed her and Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 1 st day of July, 2024.] [Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
12 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 :: Sujatha
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIl
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.5442/2009; Ex.P2 Certified copy of the joint Memo dated 04/01/10;
Ex.P3 Certified copy of Memorandum of Settlement in O.S.No.5442/2009; Ex.P4 Online copy of Sale Deed dated 21.10.2014;
Ex.P5 Online copy of Gift Deed dated 14/01/2022;
Ex.P6 Online copy of Sale deed dated 03/02/2022;
Exs.P7 to 11 Certified copies of the M.R.Extracts; Exs.P12 Certified copy of the conversion order dated 25/04/1990;
Ex.P13 RTC Extract
Ex.P14 & 15 Certified copies of the Death
Certificates of G.H.Bangera and his wife-M.Indira;
Ex.P16 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 18/05/2006;
13 O.S._7861-2012_Judgment_Injunction_.doc Ex.P17 Certified copy of RTC; Ex.P18 to 22 RTC( 5 in numbers); Ex.P23 Online certified copy of Final decree in O.S.No.5442/2009;
Ex.P24 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 15/04/1971;
Ex.P24(a) Typed copy of Ex.P-24; Ex.P25 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 03.11.1997.
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Nil XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.