Bangalore District Court
Sri.Sonnappa vs Smt.N.Shantha on 31 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XL ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-41) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 31st day of March 2015.
PRESENT
SRI.JINARALAKAR. B.L.,
B.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.304/2004
PLAINTIFFS: 1. SRI.SONNAPPA,
S/o. Late Dyavappa,
Aged about 54 years,
R/o. No.325,
Kodigehalli Village,
Sree Ramamandira Road,
Sahakaranagara Post,
Bengaluru-560 092.
2. SRI.VENKATESH,
S/o. Late Dyavappa,
Aged about 43 years,
R/o. No.275/1,
Kodigehalli Village,
Sree Ramamandira Road,
Sahakaranagara Post,
Bengaluru-560 092.
(By M/s.Upasana Associates/
S.Subramanya, Advocate.)
AND:
DEFENDANTS: 1. SMT.N.SHANTHA, (DEAD)
W/o. Late K.N.Ramachandra,
Aged about 71 years,
R/o. No.7, H.P.Samaja Link Road,
2 OS.304/2004
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560 004.
2. SRI.CHANDANMAL,
S/o. Late Jawaharmal,
Aged about 54 years,
R/o. No.14, Sunder Nagar,
Gokula Post, Bengaluru-560 054.
3. TAHSILDAR,
Yelahanka, Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru-560 064.
(D1-Abated.)
(D2- By Sri.M.S.Siddaraju, Adv.)
(D3- By D.G.P.,)
*****
i) Date of Institution of the
suit. 12.01.2004
ii) Nature of the suit. Declaration, Possession
& Mandatory Injunction.
iii) Date of the
commencement of recording 04.08.2010
of evidence.
iv) Date on which the
judgment was pronounced. 31.03.2015
v) Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
11 02 19
***
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for declaration to declare they are the 3 OS.304/2004 absolute owners of the suit schedule 'B' property-All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.112, (now 112/2) of Kodigehalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, measuring; 1-acre 20-guntas and bounded on East by: Property belonging to Sri.Venkataramaiah & Kabeer Ashram, West by: Road, North by: Sy.No.114/3 and Private property and South by: Land belonging to B.E.L., the Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant conveying the schedule 'B' property as null, void and not binding on them and direct the 2nd defendant to put them into possession of the 'B' schedule property and 3rd defendant to effect revenue entries in their favour and cost, etc. .2. The averments of the plaint in brief are:
The property bearing Sy.No.112 in Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, originally measuring; 13-acres belonged to one Sri.Nanjundaiah, residing at No.16, Anjaneya Temple 4 OS.304/2004 Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. The said Nanjundaiah had sold an extent of 5-acres 15-guntas of land in the said survey number, which is described as schedule 'A' property-All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, measuring; 5-acres 15-guntas and bounded on East by: Road, West by:
Land belonging to Chikkamuniswamappa, North by: Land belonging to Doddamuniswamappa and South by: Land forming part of Kodigehalli Village to one Sri.Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa S/o. Gudibachi Krishnappa, residing at Kodigehalli Village, grandfather of the plaintiffs by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 10.08.1919 for a sale consideration of Rs.25/-. As the sale consideration passed on to Sri.Nanjundaiah was only Rs.25/-, the Sale Deed was not registered.
However, on execution of Sale Deed, Sri.Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa got
entered his name in Revenue Records and later in the 5 OS.304/2004 name of his children-Gudibachi Venkatappa and Gudibachi Dyavappa.
The said Sri.Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa had two children namely-Gudibachi Dyavappa @ Dyavappa and late Gudibachi Venkatappa. After the death of said Doddamuniswamappa, schedule 'A' property had fallen to the share of his sons-late Gudibachi Dyavappa and late Gudibachi Venkatappa. The late Gudibachi Venkatappa was unmarried and after his death, late Dyavappa had enjoyed the schedule 'A' property as its absolute owner being the sole survivor. In witness of the sale of schedule 'A' property in favour of late Doddamuniswamappa and thereafter in favour of father of the plaintiffs-late Dyavappa, the entries were made in Record of Rights, which also discloses the names of Doddamuniswamappa and later Dyavappa as absolute owners of the schedule 'A' property. The then State of Mysore had notified land to an extent of 4-acres 8- guntas for the benefit of M/s.Bharat Electronics 6 OS.304/2004 Limited, Bengaluru, by virtue of Notification bearing No.A.3L.A.R.9-53-54 dated 24.02.1954 and even in the said Notification, the notified Khatedar of the schedule property was shown as Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa.
Out of an extent of 5-acres 15-guntas of land in Sy.No.112, after the acquisition of 4-acres 8-guntas, there remained an extent of 1-acre 20-guntas including 13-guntas kharab land and the father of the plaintiff- Dyavappa continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule 'B' property. The said Dyavappa expired on 04.12.1988 and after the death of Dyavappa, his children namely-Sonnappa, Muniraju, Venkatesh and Smt.Munithayamma were in possession and enjoyment of the schedule 'B' property. In the year 1990, one of the brothers of the plaintiffs by name-D.Muniraju had filed an original suit in OS.No.3424/1990 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.14) and in the said suit, a final decree 7 OS.304/2004 came to be passed and the schedule 'B' property had fallen to the share of both 1st and 2nd plaintiffs having got an extent of 30-guntas of land in the remaining 1- acre 20-guntas in the said Sy.No.112-schedule 'B' property. In the meantime, i.e., on 04.09.1995, the 1st defendant attempted to encroach on the land and started digging in 'B' schedule property. Immediately, the plaintiffs had filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Police on 04.09.1995 and the 1st defendant claiming to be the Legal Representative of one late Sri.K.N.Ramachandra had produced the judgment and decree in OS.No.4582/1993 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, wherein the said Court had passed an exparte judgment and decree against these plaintiffs restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'B' schedule property by the 1st defendant and the persons claiming under or through her. The plaintiffs were shocked by coming to know the said judgment and decree as they were not aware of the proceedings in the said suit and 8 OS.304/2004 immediately, they had moved an application for recalling said exparte judgment and decree. The plaintiffs have filed Miscellaneous Petition No.842/1995 on the file of 1st Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, which came to be dismissed on 11.10.1999 against which, they preferred a Miscellaneous First Appeal in MFA No.4849/1999 and the same came to be dismissed on 01.10.2001. Though the Special Leave Petition in 7546/2001 (On granting the leave, the same came to be numbered as C.A.No.2542/2003) filed by the 2nd plaintiff herein came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.03.2003, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on grating leave, has specifically observed that the plaintiffs are entitled to move the appropriate Court for declaration of their title and for appropriate orders as to possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that the judgment and decree in OS.No.4582/1993 shall in no way affect the substantial rights of the parties as to ownership over the schedule 'B' property.9 OS.304/2004
After dismissal of the C.A.No.2542/2003, the plaintiffs have started collecting various documents relating to schedule property to seek for declaration of their title to the suit property and to their shock, learnt that the 1st defendant had sold the suit property in favour of 2nd defendant by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995, which is void ab initio and not binding on them. The schedule 'B' property was given Sy.No.112/2. The 1st and 2nd defendants in collusion with the 3rd defendant have also managed to conceal the records, which were available earlier and produced as documents in the earlier proceedings as could be seen from the various Endorsements. The 2nd defendant taking advantage of situation had encroached on the schedule 'B' property on 30.12.2003 and dispossessed the plaintiffs from the schedule 'B' property. The 2nd defendant is also attempting to encumber the schedule property by creating third party interest thereon and also attempting to change the 10 OS.304/2004 nature of the land by converting into non-agricultural property. The 1st defendant taking advantage of the judgment and decree in OS.4582/1993 had also applied for change of Revenue Records in her favour, which came to be allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk in RA.No.186/97-98. The 2nd defendant is also attempting to put up construction thereon. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the transfer of schedule 'B' property by the 1st defendant, who has no right over the said property in favour of the 2nd defendant and the arbitrary action of the authorities in changing the revenue entries in favour of 1st defendant, has filed the suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit.
.3. In pursuance of summons, defendants No.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsels and 3rd 11 OS.304/2004 defendant appeared through D.G.P. The defendants No.1 and 2 have filed their separate written statement.
.4. The defendant No.1 in her written statement denied the averments of the plaint regarding attempting to encroach and started digging the land in the schedule 'B' property etc. However, this defendant admitted that the property bearing Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village measuring 13-acres belonged to one Nanjundaiah. Further this defendant contended that the plaintiffs have no right or title to the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and have filed the suit with an ulterior motive to grab her valuable property. The documents produced by the plaintiffs are fabricated and concocted and same cannot be relied upon. The plaintiffs' father or grandfather or great-grandfather had no right, possession or title over the schedule property at any point of time. The entries made in Record of Rights are false and fabricated one. The Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated by the 12 OS.304/2004 Government, the name of Doddamuiswamappa @ Doddasamappa was never entered in respect of Sy.No.112 of Kodigenahalli village. During the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated by the Bharat Electronics in the year 1967, published in Mysore Gazette publication dated 27.07.1957 in respect of the land acquisition in Sy.No.112, the land measuring 1- acre 3-guntas out of total 3.33-acres falling to the share of late Sri.Ramachandra came to be acquired by BEL and said Ramachandra got collected the compensation amount.
The property bearing Sy.No.112, Kodigehalli Village, totally measuring about 12-acres belongs to late Nanjundaiah-father of K.N.Ramachandra, the husband of 1st defendant, who got his share of land measuring 3-acres 33-guntas after family Partition Deed dated 14.08.1951 registered as Document No.3399/51-52. The other two brothers of Ramachandra-K.N.Doraiswamy and Balakrishna too 13 OS.304/2004 each got 3.33-guntas of lands as their respective shares in the said family partition. The said Ramachandra has been paying taxes in respect of the land after partition from 1951. During the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated by the BEL in the year 1967 published in the Mysore Gazette Publication dated 27.07.1957 in respect of acquisition of the land in Sy.No.112, the land measuring 1-acre 3-guntas falling to the share of said Ramachandra came to be acquired and he got collected the compensation amount. The remaining extent of land belonging to the share of Ramachandra's two brothers came to be acquired in the Land Acquisition Proceedings in LAC No.186/1966- 67 as Ramachandra was the only party to contest the proceedings.
The said Ramachandra has paid the taxes in respect of the land for the years 1951-52, 56-57, 62- 63, 63-64, 83-84, 88-89, 1990-95 showing the land measuring an extent of 1-acre 20-guntas is in his 14 OS.304/2004 possession and enjoyment. Therefore, out of the total extent of the land, which came to the share of K.N.Ramachandra, 1-acre 3-guntas came to be acquired, 1-acre 10-guntas was sold to one Venkataramaiah and remaining 1-acre 20-guntas was retained by himself. After the death of said Ramachandra, on 18.11.1995 at Bengaluru, this defendant being wife and his only surviving legal heir, succeeded to his property. The husband of this defendant, during his lifetime had initiated a proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk with regard to retaining of pahani in his name and the said petition in No.RRT 265/92-93, the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 06.02.1994 has come to the conclusion that the pahani of the lands is to be retained in the name of Ramachandra. During the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North in RRT.265/92-93, the plaintiffs who were the respondents had deposed that their father-Dyavappa is 15 OS.304/2004 alleged to have executed a Sale Agreement with the father of K.N.Ramachandra-late Nanjundaiah in the year 1938 for the purchase of the said land on account of the said Sale Agreement executed by late Nanjundaiah in favour of Dyavappa, the father of the plaintiffs is alleged to have become owner of the land in Sy.No.112 to an extent of 1-acre 20-guntas, late Nanjundaiah has no transaction in respect of the schedule property whatsoever in nature with the plaintiffs' father-Dyavappa or grandfather or great- grandfather at any point of time. The LRF proceedings initiated by Venkataramaiah in the year 1974-75 in LRF 569/74-75 and 239/74-75 for grant of occupancy rights in favour of Venkataramaiah and Batchappa, Ramachandra had filed an application that the land measuring 1-acre 2-guntas in Sy.No.112 is owned and possessed by him and he was cultivating the same and his application came to be allowed by the Additional Tahsildar by an order dated 08.05.1979 wherein the Tribunal had confirmed that the land is cultivated by 16 OS.304/2004 him as owner in LRF 300/91-92, the Tribunal by its order dated 14.01.1992 came to the conclusion that there are no other tenants in the land except Ramachandra who is the cultivator of the land as the sole owner in possession. The chairman of Kodigenahalli Village, by letter dated 31.01.1983 given permission for electric connection to the shed situated in the land of Ramachandra. The Government of Karnataka vide Letter No.HUD/32/CBI/81, dated 17.07.1986 has given permission to K.N.Ramachandra to continue to cultivate the land measuring 1-acre 20- guntas of Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli village.
During the proceedings before the defendant No.3 (Tahsildar) in RRT (dis) 24/99-00, after a thorough enquiry, the defendant No.3 cancelled the mutation entry in MR No.2/94-95 in the name of plaintiffs in respect of 30-guntas each claimed by them in Sy.No.112. The appeal filed against the order passed in RRT(DIS) 24/99-2000 i.e., in Appeal 17 OS.304/2004 R.A.No.122/2001 by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed. The plaintiffs had filed a Partition suit in OS.No.3424/1990 against their brother and sister and same is compromised. In the said case, K.N.Ramachandra, the husband of this defendant was not made as party purposely. The brother of the plaintiffs-Muniraju had filed an affidavit before the Assistant Commissioner in RRT.186/97-98 disclaiming the rights of the plaintiffs in respect of the land in the said affidavit. The said Muniraju has sworn that in the said partition, suit schedule land in Sy.No.112 has been falsely included by the plaintiffs. The main basis, which the plaintiffs claimed the rights is on the basis of compromise partition decree passed in OS.No.3424/1990. The plaintiffs had no right, title over the schedule property and included the said land by fraudulent means was subsequently cancelled by the defendant No.3.
The 2nd defendant is attempting to encroach on the land and digging the schedule 'B' property is false. 18 OS.304/2004 The 2nd defendant is the owner of the schedule 'B' property having right and title, who has purchased the same from this defendant by means of an absolute registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995. The schedule property was given Sy.No.112/2. Subsequently, the mutation entry has been changed in the name of 2nd defendant and has paid taxes in respect of the said property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule 'B' property. The suit filed by Ramachandra in OS.No.4582/1993 is true, but, even though, the summons was issued and they failed to appear. The 1st defendant had every right, title to alienate the schedule 'B' property in favour of the 2nd defendant and prays to dismiss the suit with costs. .5. The defendant No.2 in his written statement denied the material averments/allegations of the plaint regarding sale transaction between Nanjundaiah and Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa, grandfather of the plaintiffs by virtue of Sale Deed dated 10.08.1919 in respect of the land measuring 5-acres 19 OS.304/2004 15-guntas, after the death of Doddamuniswamappa, the schedule 'A' property fallen to the share of late Gudibachi Dyavappa and Gudibachi Venkatappa, thereafter, Dyavappa enjoying the schedule 'A' property as absolute owner being sole survivor, Doddamuniswamappa and later, Dyavappa were the absolute owners of the schedule 'A' property, after acquisition of 4-acres 8-guntas of land out of 5-acres 15-guntas in Sy.No.112 for the benefit of M/s.Bharat Electronics Limited, the remaining extent of 1-acre 20- guntas including 13-guntas kharab land continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs' father-Dyavappa and after his death, his children-
Sonnappa, Muniraju, Venkatesh and Smt.Munithayamma, this defendant attempting to
encroach and digging the schedule 'B' property, etc. However, this defendant admitted that the property bearing Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village, originally measuring 13-acres belonged to Nanjundaiah. 20 OS.304/2004
Further, this defendant contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title to the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and have filed the suit with an ulterior motive to grab the valuable property of this defendant. The documents produced by the plaintiffs are fabricated and concocted. The plaintiffs' father or grandfather or great-grandfather had no title over the schedule property, the question of Dyavappa inheriting the property does not arise and the entries made in Record of Rights are false and fabricated. The Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated by the Government do not disclose the name of Doddamuiswamappa @ Doddasamappa as owner in respect of the land in Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village and his name was not entered in records. During the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated in the year 1967 published in the Mysore Gazette Notification dated 27.07.1957, the property bearing Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village, measuring; 13-acres belonged to late Nanjundaiah-the father of K.N.Ramachandra-the husband of the 1st 21 OS.304/2004 defendant herein, out of which 0.12-acres being kharab and the total extent of remaining 12.28-acres and the said Nanjundaiah was the owner of the land. The husband of the 1st defendant-Ramachandra got his share of the land measuring 3.33-acres under a family Partition Deed dated 14.08.1951 registered as Document No.3399/51-52 and the other two brothers of Ramachandra namely-K.N.Doraiswamy, K.N.Balakrishna also got 3.33-acres of land each as their respective share in the said family partition. Said Ramachandra has been paying taxes in respect of the land after partition during 1951 and during Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of the acquisition of the land in Sy.No.112, the land measuring 1-acre 3- guntas fallen to the share of late Ramachandra came to be acquired and he was collected compensation amount as per the award. The land belonged to the share of two brothers of Ramachandra also came to be acquired in the said Land Acquisition Proceedings. Out of the total extent of the land measuring 3-acres 33- 22 OS.304/2004 guntas, 1-acre 3-guntas came to be acquired and 1- acre 10-guntas was sold to one Venkataramaiah and remaining 1-acre 20-guntas was retained by the said Ramachandra for himself and has paid taxes in respect of the land for the years 1951-1955, 56-57, 62-63, 63- 64, 83-84,88-89, 1990-1995 showing that the land measuring 1-acre 20-guntas is in his possession and enjoyment. After the death of Ramachandra on 18.11.1995 at Bengaluru, the defendant No.1 being his wife and only surviving legal heir succeeded to his property. The husband of the 1st defendant during his lifetime, had initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North, with regard to retaining of Pahani in his name and in the said proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner vide Order dated 06.02.1994 has come to the conclusion that Pahani of land is to be retained in the name of Ramachandra. During the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in RRT.265/1992-93, the plaintiffs who were the respondents had deposed that 23 OS.304/2004 their father-late Dyavappa is alleged to have entered into an Agreement with the father of K.N.Ramachandra, late Nanjundaiah in the year 1938 for purchase of the said land and by virtue of the said Sale Agreement alleged to have been executed by late Sri.Nanjundaiah in favour of Dyavappa, the plaintiffs are alleged to have become owners of the land in Sy.No.112 to an extent of 1-acre 20-guntas. In fact, late Nanjundaiah had no transaction in respect of the schedule property with the plaintiffs' father-Dyavappa or grandfather or great-grandfather at any time. The present version of the plaintiffs that the Sale Deed was executed in the year 1919 by Nanjundaiah is utter false and contradictory to the stand taken by them earlier. During the proceedings before the defendant No.3 (Tahsildar) in RRT (DIS) 24/1999-2000 after thorough enquiry, the defendant No.3 cancelled the mutation entry in MR.No.2/1994-1995 in the name of the plaintiffs in respect of 30-guntas of land each claimed by them in Sy.No.112. The Appeal filed against the 24 OS.304/2004 order passed in RRT.(DIS) 24/1999-2000 I.E., Appeal No.RA.122/2001 by the plaintiffs also came to be dismissed and matter has attained finality.
The 2nd defendant is not aware that the plaintiffs had filed a Partition suit in OS.No.3424/1990 against their brother and sister and the suit is compromised. In the said Partition suit, neither the 1st defendant nor her husband was made as party and as such, the decree passed therein is not binding on them and also on the 2nd defendant. On verification of the records, it was also revealed that the brother of the plaintiff namely Muniraju had filed an affidavit before the Assistant Commissioner in RRT.No.886/1997-1998 disclaiming the rights of the plaintiffs in respect of the lands in the said affidavit, he had sworn that the land in Sy.No.112 was included in the Partition Decree mischievously. In fact, the said property was not included either in the plaint or written statement filed by the respective parties. The inclusion of Sy.No.112 in the Compromise Decree shrouded with mystery. The 25 OS.304/2004 plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the schedule property since they do not derive any title merely on account of the same being included in a Compromise Petition fraudulently filed in collusion with the parties. The property in Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli never stood in the name of Dyavappa as on the date of his death and the records clearly shows that the plaintiffs have no manner of right, title over the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. Apart from this, the defendant No.3 has cancelled the mutation entry in MR.No.2/1994-1995 in respect of 30-guntas of land each, which stood in the name of the plaintiffs on the ground that entry was caused on account of misrepresentation facts and also on verification of facts that the property in question never accrued to the plaintiffs at any time. Further, this defendant contended that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy.No.112/2 part of erstwhile Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village to the extent of 1-acre 16-guntas, having acquired the same 26 OS.304/2004 under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 from the 1st defendant, who was the absolute owner and in possession of the same. This defendant has verified all the documents pertaining to the title and possession of the said property before purchase and the same was subjected to legal scrutiny and having satisfied with the title of the 1st defendant to the property, he has purchased the said property for valuable consideration. This defendant is a bonafide purchaser of the said property and subsequently, phod was done in respect of the said property and new Sy.No.112/2 was assigned to the said property after conducting survey. At the time of purchase of the said property, it was an agricultural property and this defendant has applied for conversion of the property from agricultural into non- agricultural purpose. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District granted an Order converting the said land from agricultural into non-agricultural purpose by an order dated 25.01.2003 and this defendant has paid 27 OS.304/2004 conversion fees of Rs.1,67,544/- by virtue of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
Subsequent to the purchase of the property, this defendant was made known by the 1st defendant that plaintiffs were resorting to filing of certain applications for effecting mutation in their name in respect of entire Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village and also informed that suitable action was being taken by her so as to defend the title in respect of the said land. In the meantime, this defendant has received a notice in RA.No.122/2000-2001, wherein an order passed by the Tahsildar in case No.RRT(DIS) No.24/1999-2000 was sought to be challenged by the plaintiffs. The said proceedings culminated in respect of the defendants herein whereby the mutation effected in respect of the plaintiffs in MR.No.2/1994-95 was cancelled. It was also made known to this defendant by the 1st defendant that her husband had filed a suit for permanent injunction in OS.No.4532/1993 and the same came to 28 OS.304/2004 be decreed against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs challenged the decree in a Miscellaneous Petition No.842/1995 unsuccessfully and the resultant Appeals in MFA.No.4849/1999 and MFA No.650/2000 are also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. Against the order of dismissal, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to dismiss the petition while granting Leave to Appeal in Civil Appeal No.2542/2003. In the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that if at all, the plaintiffs have a title in respect of the property in question, the remedy of filing a civil suit based on title is available to them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has not granted any liberty or leave to the plaintiffs to file a civil suit disregarding the question of limitation or any other legal contentions that may taken against the plaintiffs. This defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the property bearing Sy.No.112/2 and exercising all his 29 OS.304/2004 ownership rights to the exclusion of all others and has constructed a compound wall to protect the property purchased by him. A portion of the property was also sold by him in the year 1997-98 and except this portion, this defendant is in exclusive possession of remaining portion of the property, his name is entered in RTC and has paid taxes in respect of the said property.
The 1st defendant had every right, title to alienate the 'B' schedule property in favour of this defendant. The plaintiffs even though had no right or title, have deliberately filed this suit with a malafide intention to grab the property. The suit is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Even according to the plaintiffs, their title was denied by the predecessors-in-title about 50 years back and as such, the suit for declaration and possession is hit by law of limitation. The suit is hit by the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, since the order passed by the Tahsildar in Registration or 30 OS.304/2004 cancellation of the entry in Mutation Register cannot be called in question in a suit before a civil Court in view of Sec.135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The suit is not properly valued, Court fee paid is insufficient and the Court fee should be paid on the basis of the market value of the property. The plaint is liable to be rejected under Or.VII Rule 11 CPC for want of cause of action and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
.6. On the basis of above pleadings, the following Issues framed:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of suit 'B' schedule property as alleged?
2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the 1st defendant has illegally sold 'B' schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant under the Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 and the same is null and void and not biding on them as alleged?
3. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that on 30.12.2003, 2nd defendant has illegally dispossessed them from the suit 'B' property as alleged?31 OS.304/2004
4. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the 2nd defendant is attempting to create third party interest by changing the nature of the 'B' schedule property as alleged?
5. Whether the 1st defendant proves that he is a bonafide purchaser of 1-acre 16-guntas of land in Sy.No.112/2 of Kodigehalli for valuable consideration without notice from the 1st defendant under the registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 as alleged?
6. Whether 2nd defendant further proves that he being the absolute owner of the said land got converted the same as alleged?
7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged in Para-16 of the written statement of 2nd defendant?
8. Whether the suit is not properly valued and the Court fee paid is insufficient as alleged?
9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declarations as alleged?
10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of plaint 'B' schedule property from 2nd defendant as prayed?
11. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Mandatory Injunction against 3rd defendant as prayed?
12. To what reliefs, if any the parties are entitled?32 OS.304/2004
.7. In support of the case, the plaintiff No.1 examined as PW.1, got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25 and closed the side. The defendant No.2 examined as DW.1, got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.14 and closed the side. The defendant No.3 has not adduced evidence. The defendant No.1 reported to be dead and the suit as against the defendant No.1 abated as steps not taken.
.8. Heard arguments.
.9. My answers to the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 - Negative.
Issue No.2 - Negative.
Issue No.3 - Negative.
Issue No.4 - Negative.
Issue No.5 - Affirmative.
Issue No.6 - Affirmative.
Issue No.7 - Negative.
Issue No.8 - Negative.
Issue No.9 - Negative.33 OS.304/2004
Issue No.10- Negative.
Issue No.11- Negative.
Issue No.12- As per final order for the following:
REASONS .10. ISSUE Nos.1, 2 & 5: As these Issues are connected to each other, I have taken all together for discussion for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
The plaintiffs contended that they are the absolute owners of 'B' schedule property, 1st defendant has illegally sold the same in favour of 2nd defendant under a Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995, same is null and void, not binding on them, etc. Per contra, the 2nd defendant contended that he is the absolute owner in possession of the land measuring; 1-acre 16-guntas in Sy.No.112/-2 of Kodigehalli village and he is bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration from the 1st defendant under registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995, etc. To substantiate respective 34 OS.304/2004 contentions of the parties, 1st plaintiff examined as PW.1, who in his affidavit evidence stated regarding property bearing Sy.No.112, measuring 13-acres of Kodigehalli village belonging to one Nanjundaiah; he alienating an extent of 5-acres 15-guntas out of said land i.e., 'A' schedule property in favour of his grandfather-Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa through Sale Deed dated 10.08.1919 for consideration of Rs.25/-, his grandfather got entering the name in Revenue Records; later, the entries in favour of his children-Gudibachi Venkatappa and Gudibachi Dyavappa; after the death of the grandfather, schedule 'A' property fallen to the share of said Dyavappa and Venkatappa, after the death of Venkatappa unmarried, his father-Dyavappa enjoying the schedule 'A' property as absolute owner being the sole survivor; acquisition of land to an extent of 4-acres 8-guntas for the benefit of M/s.Bharat Electronics Limited, Bengaluru, out of the said land, the remaining land measuring 1-acre 20-
guntas-B schedule property continuing to be in peaceful 35 OS.304/2004 possession and enjoyment of his father-Dyavappa, death of his father on 04.12.1988 and after his death, plaintiffs, his brother-Muniraju and sister- Munirathnamma being in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land, his brother-Muniraju filing a suit in OS.3424/1990 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.14), passing final decree in the said suit and schedule 'B' property fallen to his share and his brother-D.Venkatesh each 30-guntas of land etc., by reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 25.
Per contra, the 2nd defendant examined as DW.1, who in his affidavit evidence stated that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the 'B' schedule property having acquired under the Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995, and further stated regarding changing mutation entries in his name under Order No.22/1997-98, re-surveying and assigning new No.112/2, applying for conversion and got converting the land by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru 36 OS.304/2004 District, etc., by reiterating the averments of the written statement and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.14.
.11. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.112, measuring 13-acres of Kodigehalli Village was belonged to one Nanjundaiah. The plaintiffs claim to be the owners in possession of the schedule 'B' property on the basis of the alleged purchase of 5- acres 15-guntas out of the said land by their grandfather-Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa, and further contended that after the death of Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa, his sons- Dyavappa and Venkatappa continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same; after acquisition of 4-acres 8-guntas out of said land, their father-Dyavappa continued to be in possession and enjoyment of schedule 'B' property; after the death of Dyavappa, the plaintiffs and their sister continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same, and further 37 OS.304/2004 contended that the B-schedule property is allotted to them as per preliminary decree in OS.3424/1990, they are the absolute owners of the schedule 'B' property and they learnt that the 1st defendant has illegally sold the schedule 'B' property in favour of 2nd defendant through registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995, which is void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs, etc. The 1st defendant in her written statement contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title over the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties; the plaintiffs or their father or grandfather had no right, title and possession over the schedule properties at any point of time; the land bearing Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village was belonged to late Nanjundaiah-father of K.N.Ramachandra, husband of 1st defendant and as per the registered family Partition Deed dated 14.08.1951 between said Nanjundaiah and his sons-K.N.Ramachandra, K.N.Doraiswamy and K.N.Balakrishna, each got 3.33- acres of land, the land to an extent of 3.33-acres fallen to the share of her husband-K.N.Ramachandra, 38 OS.304/2004 out of which, 1-acre 3-guntas came to be acquired by BEL, 1-acre 10-guntas was sold to one Venkataramaiah and remaining 1-acre 20-guntas was retained by her husband and after the death of her husband on 18.11.1995, she being his only surviving legal heir succeeded his property; the 2nd defendant is the owner of the schedule 'B' property having purchased the same from her through an absolute Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same, etc. The defendant No.2 also contended that he has purchased the schedule 'B' property through registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 from the defendant No.1, as such, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the same, etc. The plaintiffs have produced Patta Book at Ex.P.1, wherein it is standing in the name of Gudibachi Venkatappa and the land bearing Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village do not find in other survey numbers mentioned therein for the year 1956-57 onwards and thereafter, the said land bearing Sy.No.112 is mentioned along with other lands 39 OS.304/2004 from the year 1964 onwards. According to the plaintiffs, their grandfather-Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa had purchased the land in Sy.No.112, but, the said Patta Book is not standing in the name of their grandfather. Further, the plaintiffs have produced RTC Extracts in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village for the years 1966 to 1971 at Ex.P.2, wherein the name of BEL is mentioned in possessors' column, BEL and Dyavappa are mentioned in the cultivators' column and it shows that the said Dyavappa was cultivating the said land. The plaintiffs have produced the Sale Deed dated 10.08.1919 at Ex.P.3 and it shows that Doddamuniswamappa had purchased the land mentioned therein from Nanjundaiah for consideration of Rs.85/-. But, the plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that the said Sale Deed is acted upon and their alleged grandfather- Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa has exercised ownership right over the said purchased land and taken the said land under his control. 40 OS.304/2004 Therefore, the said documents do not come to the aid of the plaintiffs to establish their ownership over the schedule 'B' property. The 1st defendant in her written statement admitted the alienation of the schedule 'B' property in favour of 2nd defendant, his ownership and possession over the said property. The 2nd defendant has produced registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 at Ex.D.4, which supports his contention that he has purchased the schedule 'B' property from the 1st defendant for valuable consideration. The 2nd defendant has also produced Mutation Register Extract of MR.No.22/97-98 at Ex.D.5, RTC Extract of Sy.No.112/2 of Kodigehalli Village at Ex.D.6 and these documents support his contention that the said Sale Deed was effected in Revenue Records.
.12. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs during the course of arguments submitted that the plaintiffs' grandfather- Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa had purchased the schedule 'A' property from 41 OS.304/2004 Nanjundaiah through Sale Deed dated 10.08.1919 for consideration of Rs.85/- and he was put in possession of the said property; the plaintiffs have produced the said Sale Deed at Ex.P.3, he having purchased the said property for less than Rs.100/-, the said Sale Deed need not be registered and it is valid and enforceable and completes sale transaction, as such, the plaintiffs' grandfather, father and plaintiffs have acquired title over the said property, etc., and also relied upon the following decisions reported in:
AIR 2004 Allahabad 345 in a case between Ram Chandra and others - Vs- Hari Kirtan and another, wherein their Lordships held that:
"Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Sec.54- Registration Act (16 of 1908), S.17(1)(b) - Sale Deed - Enforceability
- Tangible immoveable property of value less than one hundred rupees -
Transfer can be either by registered instrument or by delivery of property -
Possession of property delivered - Sale Deed would be valid and enforceable."42 OS.304/2004
AIR (38) 1951 Hyderabad 42 in a case between Nagayya Baliah and another - Vs- Sayanna Baliah, wherein their Lordships held that:
"Evidence Act (1872), S.91 - T.P. Act (1882), Ss.54 and 53A - Sale of property of less than Rs.100/- by delivery of possession and unregistered document.
A sale of property of less than Rupees one hundred is complete by delivery of the property in spite of there being an unregistered deed of sale."
AIR 1954 Orissa 31 in a case between Parikhit Thapa -Vs- Nidhi Thapa and others, wherein their Lordships held that:
"T.P.Act (1882), S.54 - Sale of property less than hundred rupees in value - Evidence Act (1872), S.91), AIR1928 Mad 546, Dissent.
Sale can be effected either by registered instrument or by delivery of property itself."
AIR (36) 1949 Nagpur 410, in a case between Bhuylkoo Ghoslya -Vs-
43 OS.304/2004Mr.Hiriyabai, wherein their Lordships held that:
"(a) T.P. Act (1882), S.54 - Sale of immovable property worth not more than Rs.100 by means of unregistered Sale Deed - Deed does not transfer title but admissible to prove nature and quality of vendee's possession -
Vendee can fall back upon title by delivery of property - Delivery of possession need not be contemporaneous with execution of deed - Registration Act (1908) S.49.
In the case of a sale of immovable property worth not more than Rs.100 by means of an unregistered Sale Deed, it is not necessary that delivery of possession should be contemporaneous with the execution of the Sale Deed, and the sale would be valid even if possession of property is delivered in pursuance of the Sale Deed some time after its execution. A mere existence of an unregistered instrument does not prevent the vendee from falling back 44 OS.304/2004 upon his title by the delivery of property. By mere delivery of property, the vendee acquires a complete title and there is no reason why the fact that in addition to a good title to delivery he has a bad title by an unregistered instrument should prejudice him. The Sale Deed does not transfer title to the property in suit in favour of the vendee. The deed, however, is admissible for the purpose of proving the nature and quality of possession of the vendee."
The facts and circumstances of the present case are not applicable to the above cited decisions. In the instant case, as per Ex.P.3-Sale Deed, Duddamuniswamappa S/o. Krishnappa has purchased the land mentioned therein from Nanjundaiah for consideration of Rs.85/- on 10.08.1919 with delivery of possession; and having purchased the same for less than Rs.100/-, it need not be a registered. But, the plaintiffs have not produced any satisfactory 45 OS.304/2004 documentary evidence to show that the said Doddamuniswamappa has exercised his ownership right and possession over the said purchased property. Hence, mere said Sale Deed is not come to the aid of the plaintiffs to prove their title over the said property. Further the plaintiffs contended that out of the said purchased land, an extent of 4-acres 8-guntas has been acquired for the benefit of M/s. Bharat Electronics, Bengaluru and remaining land i.e., 'B' schedule property continued to be in possession and enjoyment of their father-Dyavappa. The plaintiffs have not produced satisfactory documentary evidence to show that the names of their father or grandfather were shown as Khatedars in said acquisition proceeding and they have received compensation in respect of the acquired land. The plaintiffs have produced Certified copy of Form-J at Ex.P.4, it does not disclose the name of the plaintiffs' grandfather-Doddamuniswamappa @ Doddasamappa or their father-Dyavappa and it discloses the name of K.N.Ramachandra and 46 OS.304/2004 Doraiswamappa and it also supports the contention of the defendant No.1 that her husband K.N.Ramachandra has got share in the land bearing Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village. The Plaintiff No.1/PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that after the death of his father, they all brothers got transferred the Khata in their names of the properties belonging to his father and also admitted that as per Certified copy of MR.No.5/1988-89 at Ex.D.3, Khata of the properties made in their names. But, Ex.D.3 do not contain the land bearing Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village. If the plaintiffs' grandfather or father were owners in possession of the purchased land in Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village, they could have got transferred their name in Revenue Records after the death of their father-Dyavappa. Hence, the plaintiffs have not adduced satisfactory evidence to show that the plaintiffs' grandfather or their father were owners in possession of the 'A' schedule property and thereafter, they become owners of the schedule 'B' property. The 47 OS.304/2004 plaintiffs have produced Certified copy of Final Decree in OS.No.3424/1990 at Ex.P.8 and it goes to show that each have allotted 33-guntas of land i.e., 'B' schedule property. PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the present schedule property was not included in the said partition suit in OS.3424/1990 and they brothers got compromised the said partition suit and got included present suit schedule property when the suit was compromised. When the present schedule property was not the subject matter of the property in the said suit, the said compromise decree do not came to the aid of the plaintiffs to support their claim. Further the defendant No.2 has produced Certified copy of Statement of objections filed by the plaintiffs' brother -T.Muniraju at Ex.D.10, wherein the said Muniraju has contended that it is true that the land bearing Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli Village, measuring 1- acre 20-guntas belonged to one K.N.Ramachandra S/o.Nanjundaiah, it was came the share of K.N.Ramachandra by means of registered Partition 48 OS.304/2004 Deed dated 14.08.1951, Smt.Shantha (defendant No.1) succeeded to the said land after the death of her husband late K.N.Ramachandra on 18.11.1995 at Bengaluru and he came to know that Smt.N.Shantha has sold the said property to one J.Chadanmal S/o. Jawaharmal, who is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the said property, he has no manner of right, title whatsoever the said property, the extent of property does not become part of the joint family property of his forefathers and father. The said statement of objections supports the contention of the 1st defendant regarding schedule 'B' property acquired by her husband, later on by the 2nd defendant through a registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995. The 2nd defendant having purchased the said schedule 'B' property from the defendant No.1 through registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 for valuable consideration, the same cannot be termed as illegal and 2nd defendant is the bonafide purchaser of the said property. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence 49 OS.304/2004 adduced by both parties, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are the absolute owners of 'B' schedule property and 1st defendant has illegally sold 'B' schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant under the Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 and same is null, void and not binding on them. On the contrary, the 2nd defendant has proved that he is a bonafide purchaser of the schedule 'B' property from the 1st defendant under registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 for valuable consideration. Hence, for these reasons, I answered Issues No.1 and 2 in the negative and Issue No.5 in the affirmative.
.13. ISSUE NO.3: The plaintiffs contended that on 30.12.2003, the 2nd defendant has illegally dispossessed them from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff No.1/PW.1 in his evidence stated that 1st and 2nd defendants in collusion with the 3rd defendant have managed to conceal the records, which were available earlier and the 2nd defendant by taking undue 50 OS.304/2004 advantage of the situation had encroached the suit schedule 'B' property on 30.12.2003 and dispossessed them from the suit schedule 'B' property, etc. But, the plaintiffs have not produced any satisfactory documentary evidence to show that their father or they were in possession of the schedule 'B' property. The plaintiffs having failed to prove their possession, the alleged dispossession by the 2nd defendant is not convincing and acceptable. Hence, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that on 30.12.2003, the 2nd defendant has illegally dispossessed them from the suit 'B' schedule property, and accordingly, I answered I answered Issue No.3 in the negative..
.14. ISSUE NO.4: The plaintiffs contended that the 2nd defendant is attempting to create third party interest by changing nature of 'B' schedule property, etc. The plaintiff No.1/PW.1 in his affidavit evidence stated regarding 2nd defendant attempting to change the nature of schedule 'B' property, etc. But, the 2nd 51 OS.304/2004 defendant having purchased the schedule 'B' property through registered Sale Deed from the 1st defendant for valuable consideration, he has a right to deal with the said property. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have not adduced satisfactory evidence to show that the 2nd defendant is attempted to create third party interest by changing the nature of the 'B' schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the 2nd defendant is attempting to create third party interest by changing the nature of the 'B' schedule property, accordingly, I answered Issue No.4 in the negative. .15. ISSUE NO.6: The 2nd defendant in his written statement contended that he being the absolute owner of the schedule 'B' property got converted the said land for non-agricultural purpose as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, etc. The defendant No.2/DW.1 in his affidavit evidence also stated that he being an absolute owner of the 'B' schedule property having acquired under the registered Sale Deed dated 52 OS.304/2004 29.12.1995 got mutation entries changed in his name under Mutation Order No.22/97-98, applied for conversion of land to non-agricultural purpose; the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District granted Conversion Certificate dated 25.01.2003, etc., and also produced Conversion Order dated 25.01.2003 issued by the Deputy Commissioner at Ex.D.7, which supports his contention that he got converted the land for non- agricultural purpose. From the evidence of DW.1 coupled with documentary evidence Ex.D.7 go to show that the 2nd defendant being the owner of the 'B' schedule property got converted the same for non- agricultural purpose and has proved the same, accordingly, I answered Issue No.6 in the affirmative.
.16. ISSUE NO.7: The 2nd defendant in his written statement contended that the suit is barred by limitation, even according to the plaintiffs, their title was denied by the predecessors-in-title of the defendants about 50 years back and this suit is hit by 53 OS.304/2004 law of limitation, etc. The defendant No.2 /DW.1 in his affidavit evidence also stated that the suit is barred by limitation. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have produced Certified copy of Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2542/2003 dated 28.03.2003 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that "As the Appellant herein is still at liberty to file a suit based on his title and seek adjudication thereof, wherein the impugned exparte judgment and decree are no obstacle, we do not think that the impugned exparte judgment and decree dated 07.03.1993 cause any prejudice to the Appellant. As the remedy of filing a civil suit based on title is available to the Appellant, this appeal is dismissed." The plaintiffs have filed the present suit on 12.01.2004, after disposal of said civil appeal. On the other hand, the defendant No.2 has not adduced satisfactory evidence to show that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, the 2nd defendant has failed to prove that the suit is barred by limitation 54 OS.304/2004 and accordingly, I answered Issue No.7 in the negative.
.17. ISSUE NO.8: The 2nd defendant contended that the suit is not properly valued and Court fee paid is insufficient and plaint is liable to rejected, etc. The defendant No.2 /DW.1 in his affidavit evidence also simply stated that the suit is not properly valued and proper Court fee paid. But, the 2nd defendant has not adduced satisfactory evidence as to how the suit is not properly valued and Court fee paid is insufficient. Mere, formal contention is not sufficient without proving the same. Hence, the 2nd defendant has failed to prove that the suit is not properly valued and Court fee paid is insufficient, and accordingly, I answered Issue No.8 in the negative.
.18. ISSUES NO.9 TO 11: the plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of the 55 OS.304/2004 schedule 'B' property, the Sale Deed dated 29.12.1995 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant conveying the schedule 'B' property as null, void and not binding on them and direct the 2nd defendant to put them into possession of the 'B' schedule property and 3rd defendant to effect revenue entries in their favour and costs, etc. The plaintiffs having failed to prove that they are the absolute owners of the schedule 'B' property and their possession over the said property and alleged dispossession; they are not entitled for the relief of declaration, possession and also not entitled for Mandatory Injunction against the 3rd defendant as prayed. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration, possession and Mandatory Injunction as prayed and accordingly, I answered Issues No.9 to 11 in the negative.
56 OS.304/2004.19. ISSUE NO.12: In view of the reasons and discussions on the above Issue Nos.1 to 11, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, the transcript print is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of March 2015).
(JINARALAKAR. B.L.) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 -Sri.Sonnappa S/o. Late Sri.Dyavappa.
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS: Ex.P.1 Patta Book issued to
Gudivachivenkatappa (Senior uncle of the plaintiffs).57 OS.304/2004
Ex.P.2 RTC Extract of Sy.No.112 of Kodigehalli for the years 1966 to 1971.
Ex.P.3 Un-registered Sale Deed dated 10.08.1919 executed by Nanjundaiah in favour of Doddamuniswamappa.
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of Form - J issued by the Assistant Archivist of Karnataka State. (Gazette Notification).
Ex.P.5 Death Certificate of Dyavappa.
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of order passed in Civil Appeal No.2542/2003.
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of order passed in SLP No.7546/2002.
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of Final Decree passed in OS.No.3424/1990.
Exs.P.9 to Endorsements issued by the Tahsildar, 11 Bengaluru North Taluk.
Exs.P.12 to Land Revenue Receipts of the suit 14 schedule property.
Ex.P.15 Certified copy of MR.No.43/2008-09. Ex.P.16 Certified copy of MR No.2/94-95. Exs.P.17 & Encumbrance Certificates.
18 Exs.P.19 to RTC Extracts of the suit schedule 23 property.
Ex.P.24 Letter dated 06.10.1959 sent to the
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bengaluru by Ramachandra.
Ex.P.25 Sketch annexed to the Letter (Ex.P.24).
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 -Sri.J.Chandanmal /o. Jawaharmal. 58 OS.304/2004
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Exs.D.1 & Certified copies of Order sheet and 2 plaint in OS.No.3424/1990. Ex.D.3 Certified copy of MR No.5/88-89.
Ex.D.4 Registered Sale Deed dated
29.12.1995.
Ex.D.5 Mutation Register Extract of MR
No.22/97-98.
Ex.D.6 RTC Extract of Sy.No.112/2 of
Kodigehalli Village.
Ex.D.7 Conversion Order dated 25.01.2003
issued by the Deputy Commissioner.
Ex.D.8 Certified copy of Order dated
08.05.1979 passed by the Land
Tribunal.
Ex.D.9 Certified copy of Order dated
08.02.1994 passed by the Tahsildar,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
Ex.D.10 Certified copy of Statement of
objections filed by the plaintiffs' brother
- T.Muniraju.
Ex.D.11 Certified copy of the Order passed in WP.No.17809/2008, dated 11.08.2009.
Ex.D.12 Certified copy of Sale Agreement dated 14.04.1928.
Ex.D.13 Certified copy of registered Partition Deed dated 10.11.1941.
Ex.D.14 RTC Extract.
(JINARALAKAR. B.L.)
XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions judge,
Bengaluru.
59 OS.304/2004
ORDER
(SRI.JINARALAKAR B.L.)
XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions judge,
Bengaluru.