Bangalore District Court
) The Karnataka State Judicial vs ) Smt.Geetha Narayan Swamy on 30 October, 2021
KABC010148392010
Govt.of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for Judgment
in suits (R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
Dated this the 30th day of October 2021
PRESENT: Sri. Rama Naik, B.Com., LL.B.,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.NO.3879/2010
PLAINTIFFS 1) THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL
EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
No.7/2, 'Surya Chambers'
2nd Floor, 1st Main Road
Seshadripuram, Bengaluru -560 020.
Reptd.by its Secretary
2) THE PRESIDENT
THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL
EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
O.S.NO.3879/2010
2
No.7/2, 'Surya Chambers'
2nd Floor, 1st Main Road
Seshadripuram, Bengaluru -560 020
[By Pleader Smt.B.V.Vidyulatha]
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1) SMT.GEETHA NARAYAN SWAMY
W/o.Sri.D.Narayan Swamy
aged about 42 years
R/o No.41/2, 1st Cross
Chowdaiah Block, R.T.Nagar
Bengaluru -560 032
[By Pleader Sri.RVSR]
2) SRI.C.SHIVALINGAIAH
S/o.Sri.Channe Gowda
Aged about 70 years
R/o No.421, 12th Cross
Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru
[Since deceased deleted vide
Order dtd.21.11.2015]
Date of Institution of the suit : 07.06.2010
Nature of the Suit : Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence : 10.07.2014
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced : 30.10.2021
O.S.NO.3879/2010
3
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 11 04 23
(RAMA NAIK)
VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
Suit is filed by Plaintiffs [for brevity 'Society'] for declaring it as the absolute owner of suit schedule property and for handing over vacant possession of suit schedule property to it.
2) Further relief is for declaration that Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003 registered in the name of Defendant No.1 as Document No.BNG(U)- YLNK/6990/2003-04/1-10 at the Office of the Senior Sub-Registrar at Yelahanka, Bangalore, is null and void and same is not binding on Plaintiff, and O.S.NO.3879/2010 4 consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining Defendants No.1 and 2 from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by it.
3) Facts as stated in plaint are that Society is registered under the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959. Its incorporation is for the purpose of acquiring the land and to distribute the sites so formed by it to its members.
4) It is stated that Society formed a residential layout in the lands bearing various survey numbers of Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation villages, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and suit schedule property viz., Site bearing No.701/C, measuring East to West - 40 feet and North to South - 39 + 35/2 feet, is carved out in the said residential layout.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 5
5) It is stated that, as per the provisions of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 and Bye-laws of Society, sites carved out in the said residential layout can be allotted to its members only after collecting the costs incurred for the acquisition of the land.
6) It is stated that Defendant No.1 is not a member of the Society and she is not eligible for allotment of a site.
7) It is stated that Defendant No.1, having the knowledge that she is not eligible for allotment of site, in collusion with Defendant No.2, has got registered Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003 in respect of suit schedule property in her name. No right, title and interest passed on to Defendant No.1 over suit schedule property and title of suit schedule property remains with Society.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 6
8) It is stated that entire transaction of execution and registration of Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003 in respect of suit schedule property is vitiated by fraud.
9) It is stated that the execution and registration of Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003 are not preceded by any resolution passed by the Society and hence, the Sale Deed executed in the name of Defendant No.1 by Defendant No.2 is non-est in the eye of law.
10) It is stated that as the possession of suit schedule property remains with the Society, Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003 was never acted upon and therefore, there was no occasion for the Society to get to know about the fraudulent transaction entered into between Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 7
11) It is stated that as Defendant No.2 was the President of the Society during 1999-2005, every care has been taken by Defendants to see that the said collusive transaction of execution of Sale Deed in respect of suit schedule property is not known to the Society.
12) It is stated that the present President of the Society took over the administration of the Society on 23.04.2008.
13) It is stated that in the context of few other fraudulent transactions in respect of certain other properties belonging to Society, an inquiry was ordered by the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Bangalore, and during the month of March 2009, when papers were being checked regarding the sites owned by Society, the fraudulent transaction which took place between O.S.NO.3879/2010 8 Defendants came to the knowledge of the present President of Society.
14) It is further stated that Secretary of the Society issued legal notice dated 31.07.2009 to Defendant No.1, calling upon her to give explanation in getting Sale Deed in her favour and same was not claimed by Defendant No.1. If the Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant No.1 is not interfered with, Society will be put to great hardship and injustice. Hence, pray for decree.
15) Defendants No.1 and 2 marked appearance through their respective counsel and filed their respective written statement.
16) Defendant No.1, in her written statement, states that she approached the Society in the year 2003 and she was made as an associate member of the Society and membership number was given by the Society as '674'.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 9
17) It is stated that after collecting the sale consideration, Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003 has been executed and registered in her favour and she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the date of execution of Sale Deed as absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Society is not in possession of the suit schedule property.
18) It is stated that suit filed by the Society is barred by limitation.
19) It is further stated that suit is not properly valued and proper court-fee is not paid by the Society.
20) It is also stated that suit filed by the Society is barred by Section 70 of the Karnatka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959. Society has filed the suit suppressing the material facts and it does not O.S.NO.3879/2010 10 deserve for the reliefs. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
21) Defendant No.2, in his written statement, states that the paid Secretary/Executive Secretary and other office bearers of the Society could process the application for allotment of site and receive the amount paid towards allotment of site. After scrutinizing the application and after receipt of the sale consideration, the Secretary prepared the Sale Deed for and on behalf of the Society and same was brought before him for his signature. Only after the completion of the formalities by the office of the Society, he would put his signature on the Sale Deed to be registered in favour of intending purchasers.
22) It is stated that he neither scrutinizes the application, nor processes the allotment, nor receives the sale consideration, and same is being O.S.NO.3879/2010 11 done by the Secretary as per the bye-laws of the Society.
23) It is stated that he has not executed the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.1 in his individual capacity or personal capacity. Sale Deed has been executed by the Society itself. He has represented the Society being the President of the Society.
24) It is stated that the Society, for the reasons best known to it, has filed the present suit falsely alleging that there was no occasion for the Society to get to know about the fraudulent transaction entered into between Defendants.
25) It is stated that Society has its auditor. Society transacts through Directors and other office bearers. He cannot take any independent decision. It is only the Society can take the decision.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 12
26) It is stated that Sale Deed has been executed and got registered by the Society in favour of Defendant No.1 and therefore, it cannot claim that it had no knowledge of the execution of the Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant No.1 by the Society.
27) It is stated that Society used to get the accounts audited including the allotment of sites, execution of the Sale Deeds and receiving of the sale considerations every year, and therefore, Society cannot aver its ignorance of the Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant No.1. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
28) Issues and Additional issues that have been framed by this Court are as under :
1) Whether the Plaintiff's prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property ?
O.S.NO.3879/2010 13
2) Whether the Plaintiff's proves that the sale deed dated 23.8.2003 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant is a fraudulent, fabricated & collusive as such it is a null & void document?
3) Whether the Plaintiff's prove that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
4) Whether the Plaintiff's prove the alleged interference?
5) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
6) Whether the Plaintiff's are entitled for the relief's claimed?
7) What decree or order?
ADDL.ISSUES FRAMED ON 22.02.2014
1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the 1st Defendant is not a member of Plaintiff Society and as such 1 st defendant is not eligible for allotment of site belonging to Plaintiff society as stated in para 6 of the plaint?
2) Whether the 1st defendant proves that the suit is barred under section 70 of the Karnataka Co-
3) Whether the 1st defendant further proves that the suit is not properly O.S.NO.3879/2010 14 valued and the Court fee paid is insufficient?
4) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
Addl.Issue framed on 23.06.2014:
"Whether the Plaintiff in alternative proves that Plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants in case if the Court finds that the Plaintiff is not in possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for ? "
29) Society has examined the President of the Society as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.6 have been marked in support of its case.
Defendant No.1 has got examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D.1 to D.17 on her behalf.
30) Heard learned Counsel for the Society. Defendant No.1 did choose not to address her argument. Perused the written argument filed by the Society and the records.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 15
31) My findings on above Issues and Additional Issues are as under :
Issue No.1 : In Negative;
Issue No.2 : In Negative;
Issue No.3 : In Negative;
Issue No.4 : In Negative;
Issue No.5 : In Affirmative;
Issue No.6 : In Negative;
Additional Issue No.1 : In Negative;
Additional Issue No.2 : In Negative;
Additional Issue No.3 : In Affirmative;
Additional Issue No.4 : Does not survive;
Additional Issue : In Negative; framed on 23.6.2014 Issue No.7 : As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
32) Issues No.1 to 4 and Additional Issue No.1 framed on 22.02.2014 : These issues being interrelated are taken together for discussion.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 16 Suit is being for declaring the Society as absolute owner of suit schedule property and for directing Defendant No.1 to handover the vacant possession of suit schedule property to Society. Consequent reliefs are for declaring the registered Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003 executed by the Society in favour of Defendant No.1 as null and void and same is not binding on the Society, and for permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.1 from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the Society.
33) Ex.P.1, Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003, makes it clear that Sale Deed has been executed by Defendant No.2 representing the Society in favour of Defendant No.1 and same has been registered in the office of Senior Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore vide Document No.BNG(U)- YLNK/6990/2003-04.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 17
34) Sale Deed is sought to be declared as null and void and same is not binding on the Society. In fact, Society has executed the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.1. In the Sale Deed, Defendant No.2, who was the then President of the Society, has represented the Society. Thus, Society is a party to the Sale Deed.
35) Chapter-V of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with 'cancellation of instruments'. Section 31 reads as under :
"31. When cancellation may be ordered - (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable; and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled."
36) It is, therefore, clear that Society ought to have sought for cancellation of the Sale Deed instead of seeking declaration that the Sale Deed O.S.NO.3879/2010 18 be declared as null and void and same is not binding on Plaintiff.
37) It is to be noticed that Society seeks possession of suit schedule property from Defendant No.1 by paying court-fee under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 [KCF & SV Act]. Section 38 of KCF & SV Act deals with suits for cancellation of decrees or other document. In that view, it can be fairly said that Society seeks possession of suit schedule property after cancellation of the Sale Deed.
38) In Vikram Ravi Menezes vs. Victor Goveas, [WP No.38868/2013 (GM-CPC), dated 24-04-2015)], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in para-13, was pleased to hold thus :
"13. ... Any person against whom a written instrument is void/voidable and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable. Therefore, only a person who is a party to the O.S.NO.3879/2010 19 instrument is entitled to such relief. Any person against whom the instrument is void/voidable reasonably apprehends that such instrument if left outstanding, it may cause him serious injury, he may bring a suit to get the document annulled. That is precisely what is done by the plaintiff by filing the suit. A clever drafting would not enable the plaintiff to avoid payment of court fee. Instead of seeking possession after cancellation, the relief is sought by way of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to surrender the schedule property, failing which he would get it through process of court. In other words, after the sale deed is cancelled, the plaintiff wants delivery of possession. Therefore, he ought to have sought for cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of of the Specific Performance Act, valued the suit under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, and sought for consequential reliefs. ..."
39) In Guru Prasad and Others vs. S.A.Rudraradhya and Others, [WP
No.13120/2008 connected with WP Nos.13121 and 13123/2008 (GM-CPC)], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in para-7, was pleased to hold as under :
"7. ... However, the suits clearly indicate that the plaintiffs are seeking declaration that the sale deed executed by their alleged Powers of Attorney is not binding on them. The nomenclature or nature may be different. The effect of such declaration O.S.NO.3879/2010 20 amounts to cancellation of sale deed as against the plaintiffs are concerned. In my opinion, the relief sought for by the plaintiffs clearly falls under Section 38 of the Act, as the plaintiffs themselves want to get rid of the sale deed and Powers of Attorney....."
40) Thus, it can be conveniently said that even though Society seeks declaration that Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant No.1 be declared as null and void and same is not binding on it, in fact, it seeks cancellation of the Sale Deed as envisaged in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by paying court-fee under Section 38 of the KCF & SV Act, which deals with cancellation of decrees and other document. In that view, there is no impediment to entertain the suit filed by the Society.
41) In the present suit, there are two Plaintiffs. Both are the Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. Plaintiff O.S.NO.3879/2010 21 No.1 is represented by its Secretary, and Plaintiff No.2 is represented by its President.
42) Society's submission is that as an abundant caution President of the Society has been arrayed as Plaintiff No.2. It is further submitted that the President of the Society has got knowledge about the execution and registration of fraudulent, fabricated and collusive Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003, and he adduced his evidence on behalf of the Society as he had personal knowledge of the facts stated in plaint. It is also submitted that the inclusion of the President of the Society as Plaintiff No.2 and his giving evidence are in accordance with the powers vested in him by virtue of the provisions of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959, and as per the Board's decision.
43) Ex.P.4 is extract of Resolution dated 16.04.2010 passed by the Executive Committee O.S.NO.3879/2010 22 under the Chairmanship of the President of the Society. It goes to show that Executive Committee has taken the decision to institute a suit against 16 persons and instructed the Secretary to take further action in that regard.
44) In fact, no resolution, which specifically authorizes either the Secretary or the President to institute the suit against Defendant No.1 and to prosecute the matter on behalf of the Society, has been produced by the Society.
45) Ex.P.6, is certified copy of bye-laws of the Society. Rule-49 of the bye-laws makes it clear that "the President of the Society shall preside over all the meetings of the committee and in his absence, the Vice-President may preside over the meeting".
46) Rule-51 makes it clear that "the Secretary shall be the paid servant of the society and he may O.S.NO.3879/2010 23 be either full or part time official". His duties have been clearly mentioned in Rule-52, which states that "he shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Society". Be that as it may.
47) In the present suit, the President, who has been deposed as PW.1, has deposed that he has deposed on behalf of Society. He has been put a question that "Have you produced any authorization given by Society?" He has deposed that resolution was passed authorizing him to depose in the present suit. He has also deposed that it is true that there is no recital in Ex.P.4 that he is authorized to depose on behalf of Society. He has volunteered in his evidence that there is separate resolution to that effect.
48) In fact, no such resolution has been produced authorizing the President to represent the Society. There has been a provision in bye-laws that Society O.S.NO.3879/2010 24 to be represented by the Secretary in all litigations relating to the Society under Rule-52 of the Bye- laws. Apart from that, only Executive Committee may by resolution authorize its officials to institute the suit on its behalf and to prosecute the matter before the Court. At a time, two or more persons cannot be authorized as its representative to institute the suit on its behalf and prosecute the same before the Court. In the present case, neither the Secretary nor the President has been specifically authorized to institute the suit on behalf of Society and to prosecute the same. A plain reading of Ex.P.4 makes it clear that such authorization is conspicuously absent in Ex.P.4. Be that as it may. Bye-laws authorizes the Secretary to represent the Society in all litigations relating to the Society. Moreover, there is no dispute about the post and designation held by the Secretary and the President, who represent the Society in the instant suit. Anyway, arraying both the Secretary and the O.S.NO.3879/2010 25 President in the instant suit does not go to the root of the matter, at the most, it can be said that it may be an irregularity and same does not dis-entitle the Society to get the decision on the reliefs claimed in the suit.
49) Society has challenged the Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003 executed by it in favour of Defendant No.1 on the ground that Defendant No.1, in collusion with Defendant No.2, seems to have got registered Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003 in respect of suit schedule property. It is contended that no right, title and interest have been conveyed in favour of Defendant No.1 under the Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003.
50) It is the contention of the Society that Defendant No.1 is not a member of the Society and that execution and registration of the Sale Deed O.S.NO.3879/2010 26 dated 23.08.2003 are not preceded by any resolution passed by the Society.
51) On the contrary, Defendant No.1 contends that she is the member of the Society. Her membership number is '674'. After payment of sale consideration, Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003 was executed in her favour by Defendant No.2 representing the Society. As per Sale Deed, khatha in respect of suit schedule property was entered in her name. Up to date tax was paid. As per Sale Deed, she is the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property.
52) At this stage, it is relevant to state the contention taken by Defendant No.2 in his written statement. Defendant No.2 contends that it is the Society which executed Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.1. He was authorized to execute the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.1. He only O.S.NO.3879/2010 27 represented the Society being the President of the Society. He never executed Sale Deed in his individual or personal capacity.
53) It is contended that, as per the bye-laws of the Society, the Secretary and other office bearers process the application for allotment and receive the amount paid towards allotment of site. After scrutinizing the application received for allotment of site and after receipt of the sale consideration paid to the Secretary, they prepare Sale Deed to be executed in favour of the allottee. Only after completion of formalities by the office, document would be brought before him for signature on the Sale Deed to be executed in favour of the intending purchaser.
54) It is also contended that Society has its own auditor. All the proceedings of the Society are taken place through Directors and office bearers. He has O.S.NO.3879/2010 28 done nothing except the decision of the Society. Merely because he signed the document on behalf of the Society, he cannot be held responsible.
55) In the backdrop of the contention taken in written statement of Defendant No.2, it is necessary to have regard to the bye-laws of the Society.
56) Rule-52 of the Bye-laws at Ex.P.3 deals with duties of the Secretary. It reads as under :
"52. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY : -
He shall be the chief Executive Officer of the society and his duties shall be : To summon all the meetings of the General Body and the Board.
(b) To record proceedings of such meetings in the minutes book.
(c) To call for first meeting of the newly constituted committee.
(e) To maintain account books, registers and other records, unless otherwise decided by the committee.
(f) To produce records of the society before different authorities concerned with the working of the Society.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 29
(g) To sign all the documents for and on behalf of the Society.
(h) To receive the application for membership, for withdrawal of deposits, and shares etc., and place the same before the Board.
To place before the Board of directors all documents relating to the loan applications from members, all vouchers and receipts pertaining to the receipts and payments statements.
Subject to such rules as may be framed from time to time or any resolution in that behalf, the secretary is empowered to sign all papers to transact business on behalf of the society, to acquire, draw interest or endorse all Government and other remittances, debentures, or shares and to represent the society in all litigations relating to the society.
He shall be responsible for the safe custody of the registers and all other records of the society inclusive of cash, stock and other properties of the society. The overall responsibilities of all financial transactions lies on the secretary. "
57) Chapter-VI of the Bye-laws deals with MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. It reads as under :
"(1) Register of members. (2) Share Register (3) Nomination Register (4) Receipt book. (5) Voucher book. (6) Cash book .(7) General Ledger. (8) Site deposit O.S.NO.3879/2010 30 ledger. (9) Register of allotment of sites. (10) Property Register. (11) Investment Register. (12) Loan Register. (13) Mortgage Register (14) Register of furniture, fixtures and other equipments. (15) Register of Library. (16) Minutes book of the General Body meeting. (17) Minutes book of the Board of directors meeting. (18) Audit rectification register.
DOCUMENTS : The society shall maintain the following documents. (1) Application for members. (2) Letter of resignation of members (3) Application for transfer of shares/interest on the capital. (4) correspondence with the Registering Authority.
(5) Conveyance of property. (6) Agreement and contract deeds. (7) Application for sites with all connected activities.
(8) Approved plans of layout. (9) Copy of the registered bye-law with uptodate amendments.
(10) certificate of Registration. (11) Memberwise loan application, sanction and documentations. (12) Periodical statements (13) Audit memos and audit reports (14) Notice and agenda of committee of management.
(15) Notice and agenda of General Body meeting.
(16) Copies of the K.C.S. Act and K.C.S. Rules.
(17) File containing the circulars/directions issued by
Registrar/Director of Audit or any other authority connected with the society. "
O.S.NO.3879/2010 31
58) A plain reading of the above rules incorporated in the Bye-laws makes it clear that except presiding over the meetings of the committee, no work has been assigned to the President in the Bye-laws specifically. All that duties cast on the Secretary, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Society under the Bye-laws.
59) Even though, Defendant No.2 passed away after filing of written statement and during the trial, the contention taken in his written statement that all the affairs of the Society are being done by Secretary is supported by the rules laid down in the Bye-laws of the Society.
60) Society's contention is that Defendant No.1, in collusion with Defendant No.2 seems to have got registered Sale Deed dated 23.08.2003. Except this bare statement in plaint, no particulars as to O.S.NO.3879/2010 32 alleged fraud have been exemplified by the Society as is mandated under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC.
61) Order VI Rule 4 of CPC deals with particulars to be given where necessary. It reads thus :
"4. Particulars to be given where necessary.- In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading."
62) Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines 'fraud'. It is extracted as under :
"17. 'Fraud defined'.- 'Fraud means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance , or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into contract:
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;
O.S.NO.3879/2010 33 (4) any other act fitted to deceive; (5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent."
63) Thus, false assertion, active concealment, promise without intention of performing it, any other deceptive act, or any act declared as fraudulent would constitute 'fraud'.
64) Plaint does not give any particulars of alleged fraud and manner of committing the fraud as envisaged in Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
65) Sale Deed at Ex.P.1 goes to show that it has been executed by the Society. In the Sale Deed, Defendant No.2, being the President of the Society, represented the Society. He has not executed the Sale Deed in his personal or individual capacity.
66) It has been pleaded in the plaint that Defendant No.2 was the President of the Society O.S.NO.3879/2010 34 during the period 1999-2005. Sale Deed at Ex.P.1 was executed in favour of Defendant No.1 on 23.08.2002. Thus, it is clear that, at the time of execution of the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.1, Defendant No.2 was the President of the Society. In that eventuality, whatever the acts that were done by Defendant No.2 on behalf of the Society are binding on the Society.
67) In order to constitute fraud either Society or its agent shall have played fraud on Defendant No.1 or Defendant No.1 shall have played fraud on the Society as envisaged in Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In the present case, Society is trying to draw a line between President and the Society and to project the President as independent of the Society by contending that Defendant No.1, in collusion with Defendant No.2, has obtained Sale Deed.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 35
68) If it is hypothetically assumed that Defendant No.2 committed fraud on the Society, the commission of fraud cannot be attributable to Defendant No.1 unless the involvement of Defendant No.1 is established. In the present suit, there are no materials before the Court to say that Defendant No.1 played fraud upon the Society. Similarly, to say that Defendant No.2 committed fraud on the Society, no materials have been placed by the Society. On the contrary, PW.1 has deposed that no action has been taken by the Society against the President and Executive Committee for the acts committed by the President.
69) Evidence of PW.1, the President of the Society, who is said to have personal knowledge of the affairs of the Society as contended by the Society in its written argument, does not disclose what type of fraud has been committed by Defendant No.1 in securing the Sale Deed from the O.S.NO.3879/2010 36 Society. On the contrary, the evidence of PW.1 makes it clear that at the time of execution of the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.1, PW.1 was one of the Directors of the Society.
70) PW.1 has specifically deposed that he was elected as Director of the Society in the year 2000. It is deposed that at the time when Defendant No.2 was the President of the Society, he was the Director of the Society. It is further deposed that when Defendant No.2 was the President of the Society, he might have executed 1800 to 1900 Sale Deeds. It is also deposed that, according to him, 15 to 16 Sale Deeds out of those Sale Deeds are fraudulent Sale Deeds.
71) PW.1 has deposed that he had right to question any illegalities committed by the Society. He has deposed that execution of collusive Sale Deeds was not in the knowledge of the Directors.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 37
72) Thus, it would be clear that there are no material particulars in the pleadings regarding the alleged fraud and no oral evidence has been adduced stating the particulars and manner of committing the alleged fraud. On the contrary, evidence of PW.1 makes it clear that no action was taken against Defendant No.2 for the alleged fraud alleged to have been committed by him. More important is that out of 1800 to 1900 Sale Deeds executed by Defendants No.2, only 15 to 16 Sale Deeds have been said to be fraudulent Sale Deeds. In other words, Society has accepted the authority of the Defendant No.2 in execution of the Sale Deeds by Defendant No.2 in favour of intending purchasers.
73) In Patel Tippeswamy vs. Smt. Gangamma and Others, [2002(3) Kar.L.J.
512B], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to hold that ".... A party pleading fraud and O.S.NO.3879/2010 38 misrepresentation in respect of a transaction must give material particulars of allegations, and in absence of such particulars, his plea is to be rejected..."
74) In Ranganayakamma and Another vs K.S.Prakash (deceased) by L.Rs and Others, 2006(3) Kar.L.J. 177A (DB)], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to hold that "... General allegation without particulars are not sufficient".."
75) In Mariyappa K.S. vs. Siddalinga Shetty, 1989(1) Kar.L.J. 150 (DB)], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to hold that ".. Absence of material particulars regarding fraud and collusion, it is not possible to hold that plaint contains necessary averments as to fraud and collusion..."
O.S.NO.3879/2010 39
76) Society has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs., [AIR 1994 SC 853], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that "judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity".
77) It is true that 'fraud' vitiates all solemn transactions. However, before holding that fraud is committed, the same shall be proved by giving material particulars and by placing cogent evidence. In absence of proving the alleged fact of fraud, it cannot be said that fraud is committed. Averment in plaint that Defendant No.1, in collusion with Defendant No.2, has obtained the Sale Deed in her favour is a mere assertion, on the basis of which, no inference can be drawn that fraud has been committed in obtaining the Sale Deed by Defendant No.1 in absence of proving the said fact.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 40
78) It is the contention of the Society that Defendant No.1 is not the member of the Society and she is not eligible for allotment of the site.
79) Defendant No.1 has specifically contended in her written statement that her membership number as given by the Society is '674'.
80) Society contends that membership number '675' belongs to one Mr.K.Ram Mohan Sharma, who, after paying the necessary fees and after following the necessary formalities, has become the member of the Society.
81) Defendant No.1 has produced the original Sale Deed at Ex.D.1 executed in her favour by the Society. In Ex.D.1, it has been recited that Defendant No.1 is the member of the Society and her membership number is shown as '675'. It appears that the Society has taken the contention O.S.NO.3879/2010 41 that membership number '675' belongs to one Mr.K.Ram Mohan Sharma on the basis of Sale Deed in which the membership number of Defendant No.1 is shown as '675'.
82) It is to be noticed that Defendant No.1 has produced the receipt at Ex.D.2 for having paid the membership fees and advance amount in respect of the site to the Society. In Ex.D.2, membership number of Defendant No.1 has been mentioned as '674'. In the written statement of Defendant No.1, the same number has been stated by her. It is not at all the case of Defendant No.1 that her membership number is '675'.
83) Society has produced the Membership Register Number 5 at Ex.P.5, wherein, membership number '675/SL' has been marked as Ex.P.5(a). Ex.P.5(a) goes to show that membership number '675' stands in the name of one Mr.K.Ram Mohan O.S.NO.3879/2010 42 Sharma. However, membership number '674/SL' in Ex.P.5 goes to show that membership number '674' stands in the name of "D.Narayana Swamy, 41/2, 1st Cross, Chowdaiah Block, R.T.Nagar Post, Bangalore - 32" and Defendant No.1 is shown as nominee. Sale Deed at Ex.D.1, Receipt at Ex.D.2 and cause title of Plaint make it clear that Sri.D.Narayana Swmay is the husband of Defendant No.1 and address mentioned in Ex.P.5 relating to membership number '674/SL' belongs to Defendant No.1. Thus, it would be clear that membership number '674/SL' belongs to husband of Defendant No.1 and same has been registered in his name on 08.08.2003. Said membership number of husband of Defendant No.1 has been referred to in Ex.D.2 while giving the membership to Defendant No.1 under Ex.D.2. In Ex.D.2, Defendant No.1 has been assigned membership number '2128/SL'. Membership Register which contains the membership number '2128/SL' has not been O.S.NO.3879/2010 43 produced by the Society. In written statement, Defendant No.1 has mentioned her membership as '674' assuming that it is her membership. However, membership register at Ex.P.5 makes it clear that membership number '674' belongs to the husband of Defendant No.1. If the Society had produced the membership register which contains membership number '2128', certainly, the actual fact would have been revealed. However, the same has been withheld by the Society. On the contrary, relying on the membership number mentioned in Ex.D.1, Society has contended that Defendant No.1 is not the member of the Society and that membership number mentioned in Sale Deed belongs to one Mr.K.Ram Mohan Sharma. As it is clear from the pleadings of Defendant No.2, Sale Deed was being prepared by the office of the Society. Society did not mention the membership number of Defendant No.1 in the Sale Deed. Instead, it mentioned the membership number of one Mr.K.Ram Mohan O.S.NO.3879/2010 44 Sharma. Be that as it may. Ex.D.2 clearly shows that she has been given membership number as '2128/S'L and her husband's membership has also been referred to in Ex.D.2. That being the case, there is no substance in the contention of the Society that Defendant No.1 is not the member of the Society.
84) It is the further contention of the Society that no resolution was passed by the Board of the Society authorizing Defendant No.2 to execute the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.1 and that no sale consideration was paid by Defendant No.1.
85) It is important to note that it is the Society and Society only can say that whether resolution was actually passed or not in execution of the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.1 and other than Society, no one can say about the affairs of the Society.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 45
86) Bye-laws requires that all the books and documents shall be maintained by the Secretary, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Society as provided in Bye-laws.
87) Defendant No.1 has produced the original Sale Deed, receipt issued by the Society for receiving the membership fees and advance sale price of the site, M.A.R. No.19, khatha certificate, tax paid receipts, encumbrance certificates, photos, receipt, and CD at Exs.D.1 to D.17.
88) Sale Deed at Ex.P.1 [D.1] specifically recites that "vendee being one such member applicant, has been allotted a Site No.701/C, in all 1480 square feet, dimension at the above layout for consideration amount of Rs.90,000/- and the vendee has paid the said amount from time to time which vendor Society hereby acknowledge subject to the condition that the additional charges towards O.S.NO.3879/2010 46 establishment of amenities and other funds created....."
89) Society has not produced register of members; share register; nomination register; receipt book; voucher; cash book; general ledger; site deposit ledger; register of allotment of sites; property register; minutes of book of the General Body meetings; minutes of book of the Board of Directors meeting; and audit rectification register. These documents are required to be maintained by the Secretary as contemplated in Bye-laws.
90) Had the Society produced such documents and had they disclosed that Defendant No.1 is not the member of the Society and that she had not paid the consideration amount and that no resolution was passed to execute the Sale Deed, then it would be relevant to say that Defendant No.1 is not the member of the Society and that she O.S.NO.3879/2010 47 has not paid the consideration amount and that Sale Deed has been executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 without there being passing of resolution.
91) Society has produced Membership Register at Book No.5, which contains 'SL' series from 600 to
798. On the contrary, membership number given to Defendant No.1 is '2128/SL'. No such register is produced. Society could have produced share register, nomination register, receipt book, voucher, cash book, general ledger, site deposit ledger, register of allotment of sites, property register, minutes of book of the General Body meetings, minutes of book of the Board of Directors meeting, and audit rectification register, and on production of the said documents, if they disclose that no such membership number as mentioned in Ex.D.2 was given to Defendant No.1, then it could be said that O.S.NO.3879/2010 48 membership number '2128/SL' was not given to Defendant No.1.
92) Specific questions have been put to PW.1 in his cross examination that "Has he produced resolutions passed in 2003 before the Court? It has been answered evasively that he has produced documents pertaining to present case. Further, he has deposed that he has not produced all the resolutions passed in the year 2003 and books of accounts for the year 2003. PW.1 volunteered that resolutions passed in the year 2003 are not required.
93) It is to be noticed that Society has filed Memo along with list of names and addresses of the allottees before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.40994/2004 as per the report of its Board of Directors dated 17.06.2006 [said document has been marked as Ex.D.1 in O.S.NO.3879/2010 49 O.S.No.3880/2010 filed by the Society]. In the list of allottees, at Sl.No.247 Defendant No.1 has been shown as allottee of Site No.701/C, which is the suit schedule property.
94) That being the case, no occasion has arisen to say that Defendant No.1 is not the member of the Society and that no consideration was paid to the Society and that the Sale Deed was executed by Defendant No.2 without there being any resolution. When the Society challenges the Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant No.1 by Defendant No.2 on the ground of fraud, it is its bounden duty to produce all such documents. On the contrary, all such documents have been withheld by the Society.
95) Section 114(f) and (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 specifically state that the Court may presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases and that evidence O.S.NO.3879/2010 50 which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.
96) In absence of production of such documents, presumption would naturally arise that common course of business has been followed in the case of Defendant No.1 and in that view, it can be fairly said that if said documents were produced by the Society, the same would be unfavourable to the Society. In that view, there is no reason to accept the Society's contention that no resolution was passed by the Society for execution of the Sale Deed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 and that no consideration was paid to the Society.
97) It is to be noticed that Bye-law No.53 makes it clear that the Society shall allot sites/flats/houses only to members who are eligible as per bye-law O.S.NO.3879/2010 51 No.10. Bye-law No.10 deals with rights of members. It states that the member does not already own a site or plot or house. A plain reading of Bye-laws, it would make it clear that there is no specific bar in the Bye-laws to allot the sites to non-members. Be that as it may.
98) In Binny Mill Labour Welfare House vs. D.R.Mruthyunjaya Aradhya, [ILR 2008 Kar 2245], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to hold thus :
"36. .... In this regard it is useful to refer to a judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd. And Ors. V. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Ors. Wherein it has been held as under :
The bye-laws of a co-operative society framed in pursuance of the provisions of the Act cannot be held to be law or to have the force of law. It has no doubt been held that, if a statute gives power to a Government or other authority to make rules, the rules so framed have the force of Statute and are to be deemed to be incorporated as a part of the statute. That principle, however, does not apply to bye- law of the nature that a co-operative society is empowered by the Act to make. The bye-laws that are contemplated by the Act can be merely those which govern the O.S.NO.3879/2010 52 internal management, business or administration of a society. They are of the nature of the Articles of Association of a company incorporated under the Companies Act. They may be binding between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statute.
37. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme court the said bye-law cannot be equated to law, rules or regulations. The said bye-laws only govern the internal management, business or administration of a society.
They are in the nature of Articles of Association of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has no statutory force. Any act of the society contrary to the said bye-law ipso facto do not render the said act void and without authority. When the society enters into a contract with third parties or outsiders those outsiders are in no way bound by the said bye-law. The society is a body corporate by name having a perpetual succession and a common seal and when a contract is entered into by the office bearers of the society i.e., the President, the Secretary and the Treasurer on behalf of the society with the third parties, it is binding on the society even though it is contrary to the bye-law....."
99) Sale Deed recites that vendee acknowledges the possession of the suit schedule property. In pursuance of Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant No.1, khatha of suit schedule property O.S.NO.3879/2010 53 has been entered in the name of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.1 paid tax to BBMP.
100) After institution of the suit, plaint prayer has been substantially amended by the Society to the effect that Defendant No.1 be directed to handover the vacant possession of suit schedule property to the Society.
101) Having considered above aspects of the matter, it can be fairly said that Society is not in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. Hence, question of interference by Defendant No.1 does not arise at all; accordingly, I answer the above Issues.
102) Issue No.5 : Society's contention is that cause of action for the suit arose during March 2009, when the present President of the Society got O.S.NO.3879/2010 54 the knowledge about the execution and registration of the fraudulent, fabricated and collusive Sale Deed registered in the name of Defendant No.1.
103) Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 states as follows :
Description of suit Period of Time from which period limitation begins to run
59. To cancel or set Three Years When the facts entitling aside an instrument or the Plaintiff to have the decree or for the instrument or decree rescission of a contract cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him.
104) Society seeks the declaration of the Sale Deed as null and void on the ground of fraud. It is to be noticed that no such alleged fraud allegedly committed by Defendants has been proved by the Society in the instant suit. Hence, fact of alleged fraud as contended by the Society cannot be availed of by the Society as knowledge of execution of Sale Deed.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 55
105) Sale Deed at Ex.P.1 [Ex.D.1] makes it abundantly clear that Society has registered the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.1 through its President, Defendant No.2 and same has been got registered in the Office of Senior Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore vide Document No.BNG(U)- YLNK/6990/2003-04/1-10.
106) Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with the word "Notice". It states that "A person is said to have notice" of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it."
107) Explanation-I says that where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such O.S.NO.3879/2010 56 property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration.
108) Explanation-II says that any person acquiring any immovable property shall be deemed to have notice of the title of any person who is for the time being in its actual possession.
109) Explanation-III says that a person shall be deemed to have notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice thereof while acting on his behalf in the course of business to which that fact is material.
110) Proviso to Explanation III says that if the agent fraudulently conceals the fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice thereof as against any person who was a party to or otherwise cognizant of the fraud.
111) Section 229 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that "any notice given to or information O.S.NO.3879/2010 57 obtained by the agent, provided it be given or obtained in the course of the business transacted by him for the principal, has the same legal consequence as if it had been given to or obtained by the principal".
112) Thus, it would be clear that registration of a document is notice of all the facts stated in that document. Actual possession of the immovable property operates as constructive notice of the title to property. Notice to agent amounts to notice to principal.
113) In the present suit, Sale Deed was executed on 23.08.2003, which contains the recital that possession of suit schedule property was transferred to Defendant No.1. Society's only plea is that Sale Deed has been obtained by fraud. It has failed to prove the alleged plea of fraud. In that circumstance, execution and registration of Sale O.S.NO.3879/2010 58 Deed by Defendant No.2 being the President of the Society shall be deemed to have been within the knowledge of the Society as on the date of execution and registration of the Sale Deed.
114) In Lachhman Dass vs. Jagat Ram, [(2007) 2 SCR 980], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that "the execution of a registered deed of sale is also to be treated as a notice in terms of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882."
115) Thus, Society, being the party to the Sale Deed cannot say that it is ignorant about the Sale Deed. In that view, it ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. However, same has been filed after lapse of 7 years, and possession has been sought after lapse of 11 years by amending the plaint.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 59
116) Society's contention is that the present president came to the knowledge of the Sale Deed during the March 2009. Said contention has been falsified by list of allottees produced before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.40994/2004. It makes it clear that as per the report of the Board of Directors of the Society dated 17.01.2006, Society filed list of the names of the allottees before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Said list includes the name of Defendant No.1 also. In that view, there is no substance in the contention of the Society that it came to know about the Sale Deed in March 2009.
117) Assuming that Society did not notice the execution of Sale Deed on 23.08.2003, if the report dated 17.01.2006 of the Board of Directors of the Society is considered as date of knowledge, suit ought to have been filed on or before 17.01.2009. However, the same has been filed on 07.06.2010 O.S.NO.3879/2010 60 for declaring it as absolute owner of suit schedule property and possession has been sought for in the year 2014. In that count also, suit filed by the Society is barred by limitation; accordingly, I answer the above issue in the affirmative.
118) Additional Issue No.4 framed on 22.02.2014 : Since during the trial of the suit, Defendant No.2 has passed away, the question of considering the said issue does not arise at all.
119) Additional Issue No.2 framed on 22.02.2014 : Defendant No.1 contends that this Court has no jurisdiction as per Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959.
120) Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 deals with disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision. It states that if any dispute touching the constitution, management O.S.NO.3879/2010 61 or the business of a co-operative society arises between a member and the society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision.
121) In the instant case, the reliefs claimed by the Society are not relating to the dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of the Co-Operative Society. Relief is for declaring the Sale Deed as null and avoid and same is not binding on Plaintiff and for delivery of possession. Such declaratory relief can be granted by the Civil Court only. In that view, there is no substance in the contention of Defendant No.1 that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 70 of the the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959, accordingly, I answer the above issue in the negative.
122) Additional Issue No.3 framed on 22.02.2014: It is the contention of Defendant O.S.NO.3879/2010 62 No.1 that suit is not properly valued and proper court-fee is not paid.
123) Society valued the suit for Rs.1,50,000/- as on the date of suit for the relief of declaration under Section 24(b) read with Section 38 of the KCF & SV Act and paid court-fee of Rs.10,150/- as per Valuation Slip dated 07.06.2010. It is to be noticed that, in the year 2014, plaint prayer has been amended and possession has been sought for. Valuation Slip dated 12.02.2016 filed after amendment of the plaint prayer goes to show that no court-fee has been paid for alternative relief of declaration and possession as sought for by way of amendment in the year 2014. On the contrary, it has been mentioned that Rs.10,150/- has already been paid on 07.06.2010.
124) Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act, makes it clear that "where the prayer is for a declaration and O.S.NO.3879/2010 63 for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property".
125) Prayer for possession has been sought for in the year 2014, in that circumstance, Society ought to have paid the court-fee on the basis of the market value of the suit schedule property as on the date of amending the plaint. In that view, it can be fairly said that court-fee paid by the Society is insufficient, accordingly, I answer the above issue in the affirmative.
126) Additional Issue framed on 23.06.2014 and Issue No.6 : Society seeks alternative relief of possession if Defendant No.1 is found to have been in possession of suit schedule property. As observed above, Defendant No.1 has been in lawful possession of suit schedule property on the basis of the Sale Deed validly executed by the Society.
O.S.NO.3879/2010 64 Society has failed to prove that Sale Deed is vitiated by fraud. Moreover, suit has been filed after lapse of 7 years and possession has been claimed after lapse of 11 years as observed above and same has been barred by limitation. In that view, Society does not deserve for the relief as prayed in the plaint, accordingly, I answer the above issues in the negative.
127) Issue No.7 : For the foregoing discussion and findings on Issues No.1 to 6, Additional Issues No.1 and 2 which is framed on 22.02.2014 and Additional Issue framed on 23.06.2014, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER (1) Suit filed by Plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
(2) It is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs are liable to pay deficit court-fee on the basis of market value of suit schedule property as O.S.NO.3879/2010 65 provided in Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act, as on the date of amending the plaint prayer for alternative relief of declaration and possession. If Plaintiffs fail to pay the same, office is directed to calculate the requisite court fee and to intimate the concerned Tahsildar to recover the same from Plaintiffs, as if it were the land revenue and remit the same to the Court account.
(3) No order as to costs.
(4) Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, typed matter corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 30th day of October 2021) (RAMA NAIK) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City O.S.NO.3879/2010 66 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Sri.K.Sippegowda, dtd. 10.07.2014
(b) Defendants side :
D.W.1 - Smt.Geetha Narayanaswamy, dtd.30.11.2017 II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of registered Sale Deed dtd.23.08.2003 in favour of Defendant No.1 Ex.P.2 Office copy of Notice dtd.31.07.2009 issued by Plaintiff Ex.P.3 Returned postal cover Ex.P.3(a) Original Notice dtd.31.07.2009 Ex.P.4 Resolution dtd.16.04.2010 passed by Plaintiff Ex.P.5 Share Register bearing No.5 Ex.P.5(a) Relevant page Ex.P.5(b) Xerox copy of Relevant page Ex.P.6 Certified copy of model byelaws of House Building co-operative Societies Ex.P.6(a) Notarized copy of Ex.P.6
(b) Defendants side :
Ex.D.1 Original Sale Deed dtd. 23.08.2003 in favour of Defendant No.1 O.S.NO.3879/2010 67 Ex.D.2 Receipt dtd.16.08.2003 Ex.D.3 M.A.R No.19(Rule 57) regarding transfer of khatha in favour of Defendant No.1 Ex.D.4 Khatha Transfer Certificate dtd.13.02.2004 Ex.D.5 Tax paid receipts for the year 2002-03 and and 2003-04 Ex.D.6 Ex.D.7 Tax Register extracts for theyear 2003-
and 2004 and 2002-2003 Ex.D.8
Ex.D.9 Encumbrance Certificates for the period and from 01.04.2004 to 27.11.2017 and Ex.D.10 01.04.2004 to 23.11.2017 Ex.D.11 To Photographs - 5 Nos.
Ex.D.15 Ex.D.16 Receipt dtd.15.11.17 issued by R.K.Color Lab & Digital Studio Ex.D.17 CD VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City O.S.NO.3879/2010 68