Bangalore District Court
Sri.M.Keshavaiah Naidu vs Sri.C.Chinnappa on 21 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (CCH-21)
Dated: This, the 21st day of March 2018.
Present: Sri.Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.
B.A.,LL.B(Spl)
IV Addl.CC & SJ, Mayohall Unit,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.17287/2006
Plaintiffs: 1. Sri.M.Keshavaiah Naidu,
S/o.Late.Sri.Achaiah, aged about
36 yrs, R/at.No.4, Kavari
Layout, Oil Mill Road,
Aravindanagar, Begaluru-84.
2. Smt.Ramanamma,
W/o.Sri.P.V.Peddanna, aged
about 48 yrs,
3. Sri.P.Srinivasalu,
S/o.Sri.P.V.Peddannaa, aged
about 26 yrs,
4. Sri.P.Venkateshwaralu,
S/o.Sri.P.V.Peddanna, aged
about 30 yrs,
Plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are
R/at.No.7/8, 'Balaji Nivas',
2 O.S. No.17287/2006
Mangala Layout, Aravindanagar,
Bengaluru-560084.
(By Sri.A.P.Natesh, Advocate)
V/S
Defendants: 1. Sri.C.Chinnappa,
S/o.Late.Sri.Chinnashamappa,
aged about 40 yrs, R/at.Elumalai
Building, Basavanapura Main
Road, Bengaluru-560049.
2. Sri.C.Gopal,
S/o.Late.Sri.Doddachannappa,
aged about 55 yrs,
3. Sri.D.G.Sathish Kumar,
S/o.Sri.C.Gopal, aged about 34
yrs,
4. Sri.D.G.Harish Kumar,
S/o.Sri.C.Gopal, aged about 32
yrs,
5. Sri.D.Muniswamappa,
S/o.Late.Sri.Doddachannappa,
aged about 58 yrs,
Defendants No.2 to 5 are
R/at.Devasandra Village, K.R.
Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk, Bengaluru-560049.
(By Sri.A.G.Sridhar, Advocate for deft.No.1)
(By Sri.K.S.Guruswamy, Advocate for defts.No.2 to 4)
(By Sri.D.Arun Kumar, Advocate for deft.No.5)
3 O.S. No.17287/2006
Date of institution of the suit 24.11.2006
Nature of the suit (Suit for Pro-note, Suit for Declaration &
Suit for Declaration and Possession, Permanent Injunction.
Suit for Injunction, etc.)
Date of commencement of recording 29.10.2015
of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 21.03.2018
pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
11 03 27
JUDGMENT
Present suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC for seeking the reliefs of declaration to declare the suit in O.S. No.7425/2006 on the file of the Additional City Civil Court at Bengaluru and the compromise decree dated 04.09.2006 and any other proceedings or acts pursuant to the said decree are fraudulent, collusive, void, invalid, illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties and also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the 1st plaintiff over the suit schedule properties item No.1 to 3 and for costs.
2. The description of the suit schedule properties as shown in the schedule to the plaint, is as follows:-
4 O.S. No.17287/2006
1. All that piece and parcel of property bearing Site No.81, katha No.239, property No.50/2 situated at Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, now comes within the C.M.C Mahadevapura, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring East to West: 60 feet, and North to South: 110 + 100/2 feet in all 6300 square feet and bounded on the:
East by: 40 feet Road; West by: Site No.82; North by: 30 feet Road; and on South by: 30 feet Road.
2. All that piece and parcel of property bearing Site No.82 and portion of the Site No.83, katha No.239, property No.50/2 situated at Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, now comes within C.M.C. Mahadevapura, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring East to West: 60 feet and North to South: 100 feet in all 6000 square feet and bounded on the:
East by: Site No.81; West by: Remaining portion of site No.83; North by: 30 feet Road; and on South by: 30 feet Road.
3. All that piece and parcel of property bearing Site No.84 and portion of the site No.83, katha No.239, property No.50/2, situated at Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, now comes within C.M.C. Mahadevapura, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring East to West: 60 feet and North to South: 100 feet in all 6000 square feet and bounded on the:5 O.S. No.17287/2006
East by: Remaining portion of site No.83; West by: Site No.85; North by: 30 feet Road; and on South by: 30 feet Road.
3. Case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as below: -
The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule item No.1 property. The plaintiffs No.1 and 3 are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule item No.2 property. The plaintiffs No.1 and 4 are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule item No.3 property. The property bearing Sy.No.50/2 measuring 6.25 acres belonging to Sri.Dodda Channappa and his family. Sri.Doddachannappa was he kartha of the joint family. Sri.Dodda Channappa and his family members have appointed Sri.K.Sreeramalu, S/o.Late.Sri.K.Krishnaiah Setty as their GPA holder under registered GPA dated 09.12.1987 in respect of property bearing Sy.No.50/2, portion measuring 3.25 acres situate at Hoodi Village. As per the official memorandum dated 22.08.1992, the Special Deputy Commissioner, sanctioned the conversion of 6.25 acres of land out of Sy.No.50/2 of Hoodi 6 O.S. No.17287/2006 Village. Sri.K.Sriramalu also paid development charges to the then Hoodi Panchayath under receipt dated 6.1.1993. The said GPA holder has formed layout and the schedule sites were sold in favour of Sri.S.K.Shamshudeen, under respective registered sale deeds dated 16.07.1997 and put the purchasers in possession of the same.
The plaintiffs have purchased the schedule properties for valuable consideration from Sri.S.K.Shamshudeen under registered sale deeds dated 11.04.2002 and the plaintiffs are put in possession of the same and now the schedule properties comes within the jurisdiction of CMC, Mahadevapura and also the plaintiffs paid the tax to the concerned department regularly. Several buildings have been put up in the layout of sites formed in Sy.No.50/2. The sites purchased by the plaintiffs had a 2 square temporary structures now they have been removed and the properties are fenced. Thus the plaintiffs are the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties respectively. The defendant all of a sudden has appeared near the schedule property on 19.11.2006 with some of his supporters and attempted to enter into the schedule property and proclaimed that he will dispossess the 7 O.S. No.17287/2006 plaintiffs from the schedule properties. The plaintiffs with the support of neighbours and well wishers have able to prevent the defendant from their illegal acts. The defendant has no manner of right, title or interest in the schedule sites. The defendant in collusion with land grabbers on false and created documents attempting to interfere with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs No.2 to 4 by separate release deeds dated 02.07.2007 have relinquished their right in favour of the 1st plaintiff in respect of schedule properties item No.1 to 3 respectively. As such the 1st plaintiff has become the absolute owner in possession of all the suit schedule sites. The 1st plaintiff come to know that the defendant No.1 colluding with defendants No.2 to 4, on fraudulent false, fabricated documents, and by suppressing the fact that the land in entire Sy.No.50/2 was sold by agreement of sale and executing registered GPA, in favour of Sri.Sriramalu and he was put in possession of the property and that the defendants No.2 and 5 are parties to the said transactions. 1st Defendant has got filed a suit in O.S. No.7425/2006 against the defendants No.2 to 4 herein, on 19.08.2006 before the City Civil 8 O.S. No.17287/2006 Court, Bengaluru, on the basis of fabricated documents styled as agreement of sale, seeking the relief of specific performance in respect of property bearing Sy.No.50/2, measuring 1.33 acres of Hoodi Village. In the suit, since there was deficit court fee the notice not issued and the 1st defendant herein who was plaintiff in the said suit himself got advanced the case from 20.11.2006 to 04.09.2006 and brought the defendants No.2 to 4 to the court represented through counsel and got filed compromise petition and got a decree for specific performance. The plaintiff nor any of the purchasers of the sites bearing Sy.No.50/2 nor GPA holder of the owners are not made parties to the said suit. The way the defendants No.2 to 4 and 1st defendant got the decree in favour of the defendant clearly shows that the said proceedings are collusive proceedings and the decree is a collusive decree fraudulently obtained behind the back of the plaintiff and other purchaser of the sites. Hence, the said decree is invalid and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule properties. Hence, this suit arose.
9 O.S. No.17287/2006
4. After issuance of the suit summons and duly served upon them, the defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 4 and defendant No.5 appeared through their advocates Sri.A.G.Sridhar and Sri.K.S.Guruswamy and Sri.D.Arun Kumar respectively and defendant No.1 and 3 filed their independent WS. The defendants No.2, 4 and 5 filed memo of adoption dated 21.04.2012 by adopting the WS of defendant No.3.
5. Case of the defendant No.1, in brief, is as below:-
Defendant No.1 contended in his independent WS that suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable either on law or on facts and it is fundamentally defective. Further it is contended that the property bearing Sy.No.50/2 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas was sold by the son and grandchildren of Doddachannappa in favour of this defendant pursuant the orders passed by this court in O.S. No.7425/2006. Thereafter, this defendant has also obtained an order of permanent injunction against his vendors in O.S. No.8296/2006. As such, the plaintiffs cannot be in possession of the suit schedule properties at any point of time. This defendant is in possession of entire 1 acre 31 guntas of converted land. Further 10 O.S. No.17287/2006 it is contended that the plaintiffs have filed three suits in O.S. No.7870 to 7872/2006 against the vendors of this defendant for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule sites on the file of this court (CCCH-13). In the said suits, the vendor of this defendant has filed an affidavit stating that he has sold the Sy.No.50/2 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas in favour of this defendant on 06.10.2006. It was further stated in the said suits that the vendor of this defendant has already lost his right over Sy.No.50/2. The court after recording the affidavit of the vendor of this defendant has disposed off the suit by dated 13.11.2006. The plaintiffs have suppressed the filing of the said suit and has filed this suit by suppressing the true facts in order to obtain temporary injunction from this court. The plaintiffs have not come to court with clean hands. Further it is contended that the defendant has also learnt that the alleged layout as claimed by the plaintiffs has no sanction either from the Hoody Panchayath or from CMC, Mahadevapura. There is no cause of action for the suit. The suit is bad in law. The plaintiffs have not valued the suit properly. Since the suit is for permanent injunction and in view of the fact that the 11 O.S. No.17287/2006 plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties, the suit is hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. On the above said grounds, the defendant No.1 submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs deserved to be dismissed.
6. Case of the defendants No.2 to 5, in brief, is as below:-
Defendants No.2 to 5 contended in their joint WS that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property and also they are not the residents of the place where the suit schedule properties are located. There is no layout formed as alleged by the plaintiffs. Further it is contended that Doddachannappa had no absolute right to alienate his share in view of the fact that Sri.Doddachannappa had sold an extent of 1 acre 33 guntas in favour of the father of this defendant by name Chinnaswamappa by an agreement and power of attorney in the year 1985 itself and put him in possession of the same. Further it contended that out of 9 acre 22 guntas only 6 acre 22 guntas are converted land and the remaining land is unconverted land as averred by the said Sriramulu in O.S. No.9554/2006 and other connected cases and also he formed a layout comprising of converted and unconverted 12 O.S. No.17287/2006 revenue land and sold to various purchasers. Therefore, the said Sriramulu will not derive any title as also the purchasers claiming under the said Sriramulu. No consideration is paid by the said Sriramulu to purchase the alleged 9 acre 22 guntas of land. The documents as alleged to have been produced by the plaintiff are created for the purpose of the case. The alleged agreements of sale does not confer any right, title or interest over the lands alleged to have been purchased by Sriramulu who is not a party in the suit. Further it is contended that the defendants sold the land measuring 1 acre 33 guntas in favour of the 1st defendant under the document executed by Doddachannappa and others pursuant to the decree passed in O.S. No.7425/2006 and O.S. No.8296/2006 passed by this court. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot seek an order of temporary injunction since the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.50/2 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas of Hoodi Village. Further it is contended that there is no question of interference of the plaintiffs either on 19.11.2006 or any other date since the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property. The plaintiffs have not produced any document to show 13 O.S. No.17287/2006 that the schedule property is within the boundaries of the property belonging to this defendant. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable as the identity of the schedule property is not correctly mentioned.
The plaintiffs have no title and possession over the schedule property; as such bare suit for injunction is not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. So, also the suit is hit by Order 23 Rule 3A CPC as the plaintiffs cannot maintain a suit challenging the compromise suit by filing a separate suit. Further it is contended that there is no cause of action for the suit. The alleged vendor of the plaintiffs is not made as a party to the proceedings. Hence the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The advocate appearing for the alleged site owners of Sy.No.50/2 were represented in this suit by the present counsel. Whereas, the same counsel appeared for the alleged vendor Sri.K.Sriramulu in O.S. No.9554/2006 and other connected cases which shows that there is a collusion between the alleged vendor of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs. On the above said grounds, the defendants No.2 to 5 submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs deserved to be dismissed.
14 O.S. No.17287/2006
7. From the above said pleadings, following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.7425/2006 by Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru, on 04.09.2006 with respect of the suit schedule properties, is not binding on them?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by virtue of sale deeds dated 11.04.2002?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as sought for?
4. To what decree or order?
8. On behalf of the plaintiffs, affidavit evidence of 1st plaintiff has been filed and he has been examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.74 documents have been got marked.
9. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants also, affidavit evidence of 1st defendant, has been filed and he has been examined as DW.1 and also affidavit evidence of 3rd defendant, has been filed and he has been examined as DW.2 and Exs.D.1 to D.12 documents have been got marked.
15 O.S. No.17287/2006
10. Heard, the learned advocates for the plaintiffs and defendants and perused the records.
11. After considering the evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1: Affirmative, Issue No.2: Affirmative, Issue No.3: Affirmative, Issue No.4: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS.
12. ISSUE No.1 to 3: All these three issues are interlinked each other; hence, for avoiding repetition I have taken up all these three issues for discussion at one stretch. In order to prove the case of plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff Sri.M.Keshavaiah Naidu is got examined as a P.W.1 by submitting sworn affidavit evidence, in which he has categorically reiterated the plaint averments. The 1st plaintiff/P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the 16 O.S. No.17287/2006 suit schedule item No.1 property. The plaintiffs No.1 and 3 are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule item No.2 property. The plaintiffs No.1 and 4 are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule item No.3 property. P.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that the property bearing Sy.No.50/2 measuring 9.25 acres belonging to Sri.Dodda Channappa and his family and Chikkachannappa and his family members and also Govindappa and his family members. Sri.Doddachannappa was the kartha of the joint family. Sri.Dodda Channappa, Chikkachannappa, Govindappa and their family members have got appointed to Sri.K.Sreeramalu, S/o.Late.Sri.K.Krishnaiah Setty as their GPA holder under registered GPA dated 09.12.1987 in respect of above said property bearing Sy.No.50/2. P.W.1 it is also stated that as per the official memorandum dated 22.08.1992, the Special Deputy Commissioner, sanctioned the conversion for 6.25 acres of land out of Sy.No.50/2 of Hoodi Village. Thereafter, Sri.K.Sriramalu also paid development charges to the then Hoodi Panchayath under receipt dated 6.1.1993. The 17 O.S. No.17287/2006 said GPA holder has formed layout and the schedule sites were sold in favour of Sri.S.K.Shamshudeen, under respective registered sale deeds dated 16.07.1997 and put the purchasers in possession of the same. P.W.1 further stated in his chief- examination that the plaintiffs have purchased the schedule properties for valuable consideration from Sri.S.K.Shamshudeen under registered sale deeds dated 11.04.2002 and the plaintiffs are put into possession of the same and now the schedule properties comes within the jurisdiction of CMC, Mahadevapura and also the plaintiffs paid the tax to the concerned department regularly. Several buildings have been put up in the layout of sites formed in Sy.No.50/2. The sites purchased by the plaintiffs had a 2 square temporary structures now they have been removed and the properties are fenced. Thus the plaintiffs are the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties respectively. P.W.1 further stated that the defendant all of a sudden has appeared near the schedule property on 19.11.2006 with some of his supporters and attempted to enter into the schedule property and proclaimed that he will dispossess 18 O.S. No.17287/2006 the plaintiffs from the schedule properties. The plaintiffs with the support of neighbours and well wishers have become able to prevent the defendant from their illegal acts. The defendant has no manner of right, title or interest in the schedule sites. The defendant in collusion with land grabbers on false and created documents and attempting to interfere with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties by the plaintiff. P.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 by separate release deeds dated 02.07.2007 have relinquished their right in favour of the 1st plaintiff in respect of schedule properties item No.1 to 3 respectively. As such the 1st plaintiff has become the absolute owner in possession of all the suit schedule sites. P.W.1 further stated that the 1st plaintiff come to know that the defendant No.1 colluding with defendants No.2 to 4, on fraudulent false, fabricated documents, and by suppressing the fact that the land in entire Sy.No.50/2 was sold by agreement of sale and executing registered GPA, in favour of Sri.Sriramalu and he was put in possession of the property and that the defendants No.2 and 5 are being parties to the said transactions. 1st Defendant 19 O.S. No.17287/2006 has got filed a suit in O.S. No.7425/2006 against the defendants No.2 to 4 herein, on 19.08.2006 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, on the basis of fabricated documents styled as agreement of sale, seeking the relief of specific performance in respect of property bearing Sy.No.50/2, measuring 1.33 acres of Hoodi Village. In the said suit, since there was deficit court fee the notice not issued and the 1st defendant herein who was plaintiff in the said suit himself got advanced the case from 20.11.2006 to 04.09.2006 and brought the defendants No.2 to 4 on the record and represented through counsel and got filed compromise petition and got a decree for specific performance. The plaintiff nor any of the purchasers of the sites in the layout formed in converted land bearing Sy.No.50/2 nor GPA holder of the owners, and they are not made parties to the said suit. The way the defendants No.2 to 4 and 1st defendant got decreed in favour of the defendant clearly shows that the said proceedings are collusive proceedings and the decree is a collusive decree fraudulently obtained behind the back of the plaintiff and other purchaser of the sites. Hence, the said decree 20 O.S. No.17287/2006 is invalid and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the claim made about the suit schedule properties. P.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that on the basis of alleged decree obtained by the defendants in O.S. No.7425/2006 and 8296/2006, defendants frequently trying to interfere in the possession of the lawful owners and some of the owners have challenged the same by filing several suits and sought for cancellation of the alleged decree and the same were decreed in favour of respective owners and consequently set aside the alleged decrees and aggrieved by the judgment and decree 1st defendant preferred appeals before the Hon'ble High Court in several RFAs and the same were dismissed on 22.04.2014 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by City Civil Court in favour of the lawful owners and aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court the 1st defendant again preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the said SLPs also dismissed on 3.11.2014. P.W.1 further stated that in spite of the orders from the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, defendants are continuously interfering in respect 21 O.S. No.17287/2006 of suit schedule properties without any lawful right over the same and prays to decree the suit.
13. On the other hand, D.W.1 who is a 1st defendant by name Sri.C.Chinnappa stated in his affidavit evidence that there is no sites formed in Sy.No.50/2 and the plaintiffs have given imaginary site numbers with imaginary boundaries to suit for their convenience and the land is converted at the instance of Sri.Doddachannappa and not by Sri.Sriramulu. It is denied that the PA holder of Sri.Doddachannappa and his family members/Sri.Sriramulu formed a layout and got approval from Hoody panchayath and formed sites and sold the same in favour of one Sri.Shamshuddin under the sale deeds dated 16.07.1997 and in turn Sri.Shamshuddin sold the schedule sites in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are in possession of the same. D.W.1 further alleged in his chief-examination that all of a sudden, the defendant appeared near the suit schedule property on 19.11.2006 and tried to trespass over the suit schedule sites and the plaintiffs with great difficulty resisted the illegal acts are only created story of the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit. D.W.1 further stated 22 O.S. No.17287/2006 that the property bearing Sy.No.50/2 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas was sold by the son and grandchildren of Doddachannappa in favour of 1st defendant pursuant the compromise orders passed by this court in O.S. No.7425/2006. Thereafter, this defendant has also obtained an order of permanent injunction against his vendors in O.S. No.8296/2006. As such, the plaintiffs cannot be in possession of the suit schedule properties at any point of time. This defendant is in possession of entire 1 acre 31 guntas of converted land. D.W.1 further stated that the plaintiffs have filed three suits in O.S. No.7870 to 7872/2006 against the vendors of this defendant for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule sites on the file of this court (CCCH-13). In the said suits, the vendor of this defendant has filed an affidavit stating that he has sold the Sy.No.50/2 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas in favour of this defendant on 06.10.2006. It was further stated in the said suits that the vendor of this defendant has already lost his right over Sy.No.50/2. The court after recording the affidavit of the vendor of this defendant has disposed off the suit by dated 13.11.2006. The plaintiffs have suppressed the filing of the said 23 O.S. No.17287/2006 suit and has filed this suit by suppressing the true facts in order to obtain temporary injunction from this court. The plaintiffs have not come to court with clean hands. D.W.1 further stated that the defendant has also learnt that the alleged layout as claimed by the plaintiffs has no sanction either from the Hoody Panchayath or from CMC, Mahadevapura. There is no cause of action for the suit. The suit is bad in law. The plaintiffs have not valued the suit properly. Since the suit is for permanent injunction and in view of the fact of the suit that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties, the suit is hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and prays to dismiss the suit.
14. Further, D.W.2 who is a 3rd defendant by name Sri.D.G.Sathish Kumar stated in his affidavit evidence that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property and also they are not the residents of the place where the suit schedule properties are located. There is no layout formed as alleged by the plaintiffs. D.W.2 denied that Doddachannappa, Govindappa and Chikkachannappa agreed to sell 9 acre 25 guntas in favour of one Sri.K.Sriramulu on 20.05.1987 and received a sum of Rs.10,000/- 24 O.S. No.17287/2006 as advance. D.W.2 further stated that Doddachannappa had no absolute right to alienate his share in view of the fact that Sri.Doddachannappa had sold an extent of 1 acre 33 guntas in favour of the father of this defendant by name Chinnaswamappa by an agreement and power of attorney in the year 1985 itself and put him in possession of the same. D.W.2 further stated in his chief- examination that out of 9 acre 22 guntas only 6 acre 22 guntas are converted land and the remaining land is unconverted land as averred by the said Sriramulu in O.S. No.9554/2006 and other connected cases and also he formed a layout comprising of converted and unconverted revenue land and sold to various purchasers. Therefore, the said Sriramulu will not derive any title as also the purchasers claiming under the said Sriramulu. No consideration is paid by the said Sriramulu to purchase the alleged 9 acre 22 guntas of land. The documents as alleged to have been produced by the plaintiff are created for the purpose of the case. The alleged agreements of sale does not confer any right, title or interest over the lands alleged to have been purchased by Sriramulu who is not a party in the suit. D.W.2 further stated that the 25 O.S. No.17287/2006 defendants sold the land measuring 1 acre 33 guntas in favour of the 1st defendant under the document executed by Doddachannappa and others pursuant to the decree passed in O.S. No.7425/2006 and O.S. No.8296/2006 passed by this court. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot seek an order of injunction since the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.50/2 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas of Hoodi Village. D.W.2 further stated in his chief-examination that there is no question of interference to the plaintiffs either on 19.11.2006 or any other date since the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property. The plaintiffs have not produced any document to show that the schedule property is within the boundaries of the property belonging to this defendant. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable as the identity of the schedule property is not correctly mentioned. The plaintiffs have no title and possession over the schedule property; as such bare suit for injunction is not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. So, also the suit is hit by Order 23 Rule 3A CPC as the plaintiffs cannot maintain a suit challenging the compromise suit by filing a separate 26 O.S. No.17287/2006 suit. D.W.1 further stated that there is no cause of action for the suit. The alleged vendor of the plaintiffs is not made as a party to the proceedings. Hence the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The advocate appearing for the alleged site owners of Sy.No.50/2 were represented in this suit by the present counsel. Whereas, the same counsel appeared for the alleged vendor Sri.K.Sriramulu in O.S. No.9554/2006 and other connected cases which shows that there is a collusion between the alleged vendor of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs and in this regard the alleged vendor of the plaintiff is not made as party to the above proceedings and prays to dismiss the suit.
15. The counsel for the defendant cross-examined to the P.W.1 in which P.W.1 stated on 15.12.2015 that he knows the 1st defendant; the schedule properties mentioned in Ex.P.1 to P.3 Sale Deeds are coming in Sy.No.50/2 of Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, comes under the Mahadevapura CMC, which is consisting of site No.81 to 84, even Ex.P.4 to P.6 also it is stated that the suit property is coming in the above said Sy.No. However, in the cross-examination of the advocate for defendant he admitted that 27 O.S. No.17287/2006 all the said sites are recognized with Khatha No.239/81/82/83/84; but, not produced the khatha extract of the said property. It is specifically answered that as per the rules of the Corporation each site shall be given a separate khatha number; but, no such separate khatha number is given to the suit schedule property. Ex.P.27 to P.32 are the property tax paid receipts of the all four sites and further he stated that originally land Sy.No.50/2 measuring 9 acre 20 gunta was belonging to one Papaiah and entire the said land has a similar boundary. It is also admitted in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that according to Ex.P.33 Sriramulu had agreed to get execute a registered document in respect of above said 9 acre 25 guntas within a 11 months of the date of transaction; but, he does not know how the sale deeds he got registered; since, he is not having a said sale deed with him. It is denied that no such any sale deed executed by Sriramulu in respect of above said property and also not conveyed the same. In page No.15 of the cross- examination he stated that one Doddachannappa and others executed a registered GPA in favour of Sriramulu as per Ex.P.34 for the land measuring 3 acres 25 guntas. It is further admitted that 28 O.S. No.17287/2006 according to Ex.P.34 and P.35 a 6 acre 25 gunta was handed over to Sriramulu from Doddachannappa and others on the strength of the GPA; according to the said documents the above said 6 acre 25 gunta land was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural and remaining 3 acre land is not converted and same is remained as a agricultural land and no fencing was put upto 6 acre 25 guntas of the above said converted land. It is further answered that because of a high tension electricity connection is gone through the agricultural land. He cannot speak how long in the said land a high tension wire was fixed and in a same event he answered that the said land is approximately 3 acres. He admits that he has not produced the documents relating to boundaries of all 4 sites.
16. P.W.1 it is stated that he knows a contents of judgment and decree of O.S. No.9554/2006. It is also admitted that Sriramulu is given a evidence in the above said suit as a D.W.2. But, he denied that a layouts were formed in between above said 6 acre 25 gunta converted land and 3 acres agricultural land and all the sites were sold to the purchasers. It is denied that at the time of formation of the layout he did not obtained the consent from the 29 O.S. No.17287/2006 concerned officer. In further, it is stated that Ex.P.38 is the document of Hoodi Grampanchayath; its original is with Sriramulu and he has no any impediment to produce the certified copy of sale deed and other documents relating to the suit schedule property. Even in the enquiry he has not got any information about the same. It is also he answered that all the sites are in a open sites; he knows the boundaries of all 4 sites. It is stated that towards Southern side of the site No.82 there is a 30 ft. open space and towards Eastern side site No.81 is situated towards Northern side there is a public road and towards Western side there is site No.83. It is P.W.1 admitted that all the sites are now coming in the BBMP jurisdiction and he stated that B-khatha certificate is obtained from the BBMP, Mahadevapura Sub-Division. It is further stated that in the year 1992 all the sites were coming under the Hoodi Panchayath sites and the said Hooodi Village was under the Mahadevapura CMC. It is denied that either CMC or the plaintiff himself have no right given for conversion and who is stated that he goes to examine to the Asst. Commissioner of the BBMP Mahadevapura to identify the total area of the said Sy.number. It is also stated that in the said 30 O.S. No.17287/2006 Sy.No., there is constructed a road and also plots. Sy.No.50/2 is converted by somebody instead of owner of the property. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 at page No.19 witness stated that Sy.No.50/2 is got converted to non-agricultural by Sriramulu on behalf of the Doddachannappa. It is denied that the suit schedule property measuring 5 acre came to the Doddachannappa through the Will and it was got divided in between Doddachannappa and his children's by way of partition. It is also denied that in the said partition 1 acre 31 gunta is came to the share of 2nd defendant Gopala and the same land is sold by Gopala in favour of father of the 1st defendant. It is P.W.1 further denied in his cross- examination that later on defendants No.2 to 4 also sold their portion of land in favour of 1st defendant relating to 1 acre 31 gunta by way of agreement of sale. It is admitted by the P.W.1 that 1st defendant had filed O.S. No.7425/2006 for seeking the relief of specific performance on the strength of the agreement of sale and it was decreed in favour of 1st defendant. Even after getting the decree defendants No.2 to 4 had obstructed to the possession and enjoyment of 1st defendant over the purchased 31 O.S. No.17287/2006 property of the 1st defendant. It is further stated that he does not know because of the obstruction of the defendants No.2 to 4 to the 1st defendant possession he had filed a another O.S. No.8296/2006 in CCH-13 for seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants No.2 to 4 from making obstruction to peaceful possession and enjoyment of defendant No.1 to his purchased property. It is further stated he does not know what is the findings given by the court regarding the obstruction. It is denied that on the strength of the agreement of sale 1st defendant is in possession of his purchased property from the date of purchase till today. It is also stated that another O.S.No.7425/2006 was filed in the month of September; but, he does not know on which day and month a summons of the said suit were served upon the defendants No.2 to 4. But, it is stated that before service of the summons defendants No.2 to 4 appeared and got compromised about the 1 acre 31 gunta, which was under the specific performance suit relating Sy.No.50/2 and the said suit was ended in compromise in between defendants No.1 to 4 of this suit. It is also stated 32 O.S. No.17287/2006 that the above said all the suit schedule properties are a conversion properties of Sy.No.50/2. It is also further answered that he does not know the suit schedule property is not falling in the suit schedule of the O.S.No.7425/2006 and 8296/2006; in view of that he has not made a party to the plaintiffs in the above said suits. P.W.1 it is stated that he has purchased the suit schedule property as per Ex.P.1 to P.3 from one Shamshudeen in the year 1997, after scrutinizing the title and ownership of the Shamshudeen; but, he has stated that he has not obtained the legal opinion of the any advocate. P.W.1 stated that he does not remember whether the said Shamshudeen name was entered in the khatha or B-khatha or A-khatha of the property. He admits that Ex.D.10 and D.11 are the document of B-khatha of the suit schedule property even as on today, which is entered after purchase of the said property. It is also stated that BBMP has issued a A-khatha and he stated that he does not know for which reason B-khatha will be issued to the sites and he denied that only a properties/sites like will be formed without approval of the concerned authority only will be issued a B-khatha. P.W.1 on the 33 O.S. No.17287/2006 point of the B-khatha at the end of page No.24 of his cross- examination he stated that a layout of the land in which his site is situated approved by the Hoodi Grampanchayath in the year 1993 and he denied that the said document of the layout approval is a forged by him for the purpose of filing this suit. He admits that sites mentioned in the schedule in the Ex.P.1 to P.6 are a conversion sites purchased as per Ex.P.1 to P.3 and P.4 to P.6. In page No.25 of the cross-examination of P.W.1 after 9 lines, it is admitted that Ex.P.66 and 68 are in the name of Doddachannappa, Chikkachannappa and Govindappa, it is also stated that in which there is appearing a fee was paid by the Sriramulu on behalf of the above said 3 persons for conversion of 6 acre 25 gunta of Sy.No.50/2 of the Hoodi Village and it is also admitted that in the said fee paid receipt it is mentioned that Sriramulu has paid the fee on behalf of the Doddachannappa, Chikkachannappa and Govindappa, when the steps was taken for conversion of the above said 6 acre 25 gunta. He denied that defendant No.1 has never obstructed to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of his suit schedule properties whenever he came to his purchased land 1 acre 34 O.S. No.17287/2006 31 gunta coming in the same Sy.No. P.W.1 further stated that he has produced the Ex.P.33 to show that suit schedule property comes in a conversion land. It is also stated that on 5.8.1987 Doddachannappa, Chikkachannappa and Govindappa and their family members were executed a sale deed in favour of Sriramulu in respect of 9 acre 25 guntas of Sy.No.50/2. He admits that defendants No.3 and 4 also were being a party to the Ex.P.33 Sale Deed and a sale consideration amount of Rs.11,16,500/- was paid by cash and DD cheques etc. P.W.1 it is denied that Doddachannappa, Chikkachannappa and Govindappa were not executed a sale agreement in favour of Sriramulu. It is also denied that P.W.1 and Sriramulu had created false documents like sale deed etc., as per Ex.P.33 with an intention to grab the property belonging to the defendant. It is admitted that 10 suits were filed by the different site purchasers from the suit survey number like a plaintiff, before the CCH-6 relating to suit survey number in respect of total 11 sites O.S. No.9554/2006 were filed and all 10 suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants of this suit. In further P.W.1 stated that when question raised by 35 O.S. No.17287/2006 the defendant advocate whether according to Ex.P.38 in total 9 acre 25 gunta of the land of suit survey number is converted from agricultural to non-agricultural; for which P.W.1 stated that there is conversion order passed in respect of 6 acre 25 guntas out of 9 acre 25 guntas of Sy.No.50 of Hoodi Village. It is denied that Ex.P.38 Sanctioned Plan is converted. P.W.1 admits that this suit is not filed for claiming title of the suit schedule property. For which P.W.1 answered that already he is having a title over the suit schedule property; therefore, he has not prayed the said prayer. It is also he stated that he prayed in the suit that a judgment and decree of O.S. No.7425/2006 and 8296/2006 to be declared as null and void with a contention that which were taken place without making a party to the plaintiff as the suit schedule property of the plaintiff is also coming in the subject matter of the property of the said suits. P.W.1 admitted that above said both suits filed in respect of 1 acre 31 gunta and he denied that a compromise held between the parties in respect of the said land 1 acre 31 gunta no any hardship is caused to the plaintiff. It is further he stated that plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are a joint purchaser when he purchased his 36 O.S. No.17287/2006 property. He admits that he has produced 3 GPA in this suit; but, denied that the said GPA are concocted with an intention to grab the property of the defendants.
17. The counsel for the defendant by drawing the attention of this court regarding the above discussed cross-examination, a 3 citations (2010) 4 SCC 491 in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v/s Ram Pal Singh Bisen, Head Note-B to D and (2010) 8 SCC 423 in the case of Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. v/s Surendra Oil and Dal Mills and others relating to Head Note-B and para No.15, ILR 2010 KAR 2996 in the case of Smt.Siriyala and others v/s B.N.Ramesh. All the above said 3 citations cited by the counsel for the defendant for convincing to this court relating to layout of the Sy.No.50/2 by the Hoodi Panchayath on the point that a admission of a documents and admissibility of such documents as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. In case of wrongly exhibited the documents by the court subject to objection of the other side, the stage at which to be decided at the time of disposing the matter of admissibility of the evidence is to be scrutinized as discussed in 37 O.S. No.17287/2006 the case of Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., at para No.15; therein discussed that; the trial court should not have "marked" as a exhibits, the Xerox copies of certificate of the registration of trade mark involved in Shalimar Chemical Case like other such nature of documents, it should have declined to take them on record as a evidence and left the plaintiff to support its case by whenever means it proposed rather than leaving the issue of admissibility of those copies open and hanging, by marking them as a exhibits subject to objection of proof and admissibility had a legitimate grievance in a appeal about the way of trial proceeded. Regarding the said Xerox copy of the registration certificate produced in the Shalimar Case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court given a finding that the originals of the registration certificates were required to be taken on record as a additional evidence and the learned Single Judge may allow the respondent/defendant to lead any rebuttal evidence or make a limited remand as provided under Order 41 Rule 28. With the said findings appeal was allowed. The counsel for the defendants submitted in his argument that the very 38 O.S. No.17287/2006 Ex.P.38 itself is a unauthentic document. It is a unapproved layout by the Hoodi Panchayath. Therefore, the very existence of the suit schedule property coming in Ex.P.38 are doubtful; for which the plaintiffs claiming the right over the said property. Hence, the said Ex.P.38 is inadmissible in evidence. It is further he argued that in a some other suits relating to suit schedule property by the other City Civil Courts are marked and the certified copy of the said sanctioned plan of the layout is brought before this court and got marked as Ex.P.38. It is total argument that the original layout of the said Hoodi Panchayath is not placed before the Civil Court; therefore, the very existence of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff are doubtful and prayed to discard the Ex.P.38 on the strength of the above said citations. Further he relied on other two citations ILR 2010 KAR 2996 in the case of Smt.Siriyala and others v/s B.N.Ramesh and ILR 2005 KAR Page No.884 in the case of T.L.Nagendra Babu v/s Manohar Rao Pawar and 2004 (1) KCCR Page No.662 of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of K.Gopala Reddy v/s Suryanarayana and others. In Head Note of the ILR 2010 KAR Page No.2997 after 16 lines it is held 39 O.S. No.17287/2006 that; in the facts and circumstances of the case, the approach of the 1st Appellate Court was inconsistent with the 1st principle that ought to have been applied when title to the property in suit for bare injunction is shown to be clouded. Hence, the proper course in the case of this nature is to relegate the parties to comprehensive suit for declaration, title and consequential reliefs. In the another citation ILR 2005 KAR Page-884 in Head Note-C it is held that; unless the court is satisfied with regard to the material details in the light of material evidence with regard to the identification of property, no declaration and injunction can be granted and in a another citation 2004 (1) KCCR 662 in Head Note-B it is discussed about pleading and proof that whenever a party approaches the Court for a relief, based on the pleadings and issues, he has to prove his case, a suit has to be decided based on merits and demerits of the parties who approached to the Court, weakness of the defendant cannot be considered as a trump card for the plaintiff and in a Head Note-E of the said citation granting of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 - Suit for 40 O.S. No.17287/2006 declaration of title and injunction - Where the plaintiff has failed to prove his title and to establish the identity of the property in question, the granting of injunction in favour of the plaintiff does not arise at all. In Head Note-D of the said citation it is discussed that according to Section 114 presumption as to entry in revenue records - Mere entries in the Revenue Records cannot be ground to declare title of person in respect of any immovable property. The counsel for the defendants with the above said citations and above discussed cross-examination of the P.W.1 and above discussed discussion of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka filed by the Chinnappa challenging the decrees and judgments of the 24th Addl.City Civil Court, Bengaluru, dated 24.5.2010 in RFA No.1182/2010 (DEC/INJ) C/W R.F.A.Nos.1162/2010, 1158/2010, 1163/2010, 1160/2010, 1159/2010, 1156/2010, 1157/2010, 1183/2010, 1155/2010, 1161/2010 by confirming the judgment and decree challenged in the said appeal except the O.S. No.7887/2007 challenged in R.F.A. No.569/11 and it is further submitted in the argument of the defendant advocate that on the false document 41 O.S. No.17287/2006 Ex.P.38, if the property is in dispute or transferred in the name of plaintiff by the concerned authority and extract of the property and khatha of the property issued will not sufficient for holding the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property; because, the very sanctioned plan of Ex.P.38 is doubtful and any following documents relating to the same issued by the Hoodi Grampanchayath or BBMP will not hold the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property; even though a sale deeds taken place in respect of the suit schedule property. Supporting to the said contention of the defendant, the counsel for the defendant drawn the attention of this court towards para No.21 in page No.29 of the said judgment wherein the lordship of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka discussed that one Sridhara submits that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.6 has produced the original approved order for the formation of the layout, which is a notarized copy, it does not bear the signature of owner. Even assuming that original was lost; the certified copy of the approval order ought to have obtained and produced. The plaintiff has not taken out any witness summons to the officials of the erstwhile Hoodi 42 O.S. No.17287/2006 Panchayath; according to him a notarized copy of approval order is fake document and it is also argued by the counsel for the defendant that in the said appeal the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that the defendant No.5 is in possession to establish that he got the right in the property in question from the parties to claim under Doddachannappa. The answer is emphatic 'no'; because the defendants No.1 to 4 have not supported the case of defendant No.5. The defendants No.1 to 3 were permitted to file WS with cost; but, they did not choose to pay cost and their written statement not accepted. Even though defendants No.1 to 3 not filed a Writ about it regarding trial court refusing the accepting of statement of their non-payment of cost. The defendants No.1 to 3 have not cross-examined to the plaintiffs and they have not put into witness box, defendant No.4 is placed exparte. Under the said circumstance, the suit in dispute of O.S. No.7425/2006 and O.S. No.8296/2006 in which defendant No.6 and his father were on the other side and non-disclosure of the material information and non- joinder of the necessary parties render the hurriedly obtained the compromise decree, which is a collusive in between defendants 43 O.S. No.17287/2006 No.1 to 3 and defendant No.5. In view of that, the plaintiff of this suit cannot take the benefit of the judgment and decree of the above discussed suits, which are decreed in favour of the plaintiffs of the concerned suits. Therefore, the judgment of the above said RFA will not help to the present plaintiff of this suit regarding the suit schedule property of the plaintiff in any manner. It is very necessary to scrutinize by this court that in the above said RFA judgment in para No.3 and 7 of the order portion stated that appellants/plaintiffs are directed to implead the persons for whom they have purchased the suit schedule sites; in para No.7 it is stated that the liberties reserved to the both parties to file necessary application for appointment of Court Commissioner for holding the spot inspection calling for the surveyor's report etc., at appropriate stage in the remanded proceedings and the trial court shall remanded the matter of O.S. No.7887/2007 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the 17th Addl. (CCH-16) of the Bengaluru City Civil Court for fresh disposal. The present suit in hand also in a similar nature of O.S. No.7887/2007 in which the existence of the plaintiff property relied on Ex.P.38 is doubtful and 44 O.S. No.17287/2006 necessary to appoint a Court Commissioner to report about the existence of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff to this court, which is not done by the plaintiff. Therefore, the very suit of the plaintiff is deserved to be dismissed. With the above said argument prays to dismiss the suit. It is his argument that when the basic document Ex.P.38 is doubtful; all other documents produced by the plaintiff supporting to plaintiffs' case will not help to the plaintiff to prove the case. On the above discussed various grounds submits to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
18. The counsel for the plaintiff drawn the attention of this court towards the cross-examination of the D.W.1. He admits that purchasers of sites from Sy.No.50/2 of Hoodi Village, KR Puram, Bengaluru Urban, had filed a number of suits near about 11 suits against the defendant on the file of 24th Addl.City Civil Court, Bengaluru. It is further stated all the said suits are decreed in favour of the plaintiffs of the concerned suits. It is also stated that the land Sy.No.50/2 measuring 9 acre 25 guntas is not situated in a one place. It is separated in various parts of the land. But, it is denied that the said land is developed and also stated that the sites 45 O.S. No.17287/2006 being in the layout, which is in dispute is not approved and no sites numbers given by the concerned authority. In page No.10 of his cross-examination it is stated that RFA No.1182/2010 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in which a 10 appeals numbers were given, which is marked as Ex.P.15. When the said appeal preferred by the defendants against the order of the all City Civil Courts in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the said RFAs were dismissed except the one suit, which was remanded back for retrial. It is also admitted that the said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and all the beneficiaries of the above said Ex.P.50 they have got constructed house and residing in their own sites by getting a electricity and water connections. In page No.14 of the evidence of D.W.1 after 7 lines it is stated that he can say the boundaries of a 1 acre 13 guntas, which was sold by the Gopal and his family members. For which he stated that towards East: Hoodi Road, and towards all other 3 dimensions land of the same survey number are situated. It is further stated that he cannot say that in Ex.P.38 where the above said 1 acre 31 guntas land is shown; because, there are number of 46 O.S. No.17287/2006 sites formed as per Ex.P.38; but, denied that the said document is forged and created documents. In page No.15 after 3 lines D.W.1 stated that as per Ex.P.37 the family members of Doddachannappa and Chikkachannappa have got converted the land measuring 6 acre 25 guntas out of 9 acres 25 guntas of Hoodi Village with the help of Sriramulu and a specific conversion order is also passed. It is further admitted that the conversion order number mentioned in Ex.P.37 and P.38 are one and same. In page No.17 after 3 lines D.W.1 stated that Sy.No.50/2 entire land is having same boundaries; i.e., for the entire land of 9 acre 25 guntas. It is also he stated that towards Eastern side of the said land Hoodi Road is situated; towards Western side a land of somebody is situated; but, he does not know the name of said person; towards North Petrol Bunk and towards South a land of Munipapaiah are situated. It is also stated that in the above said 6.25 acre a houses of Doddachannappa and Chikkachannappa, Govindappa are also situated. It is further D.W.1 stated that they have formed the layout, and sold the sites to beneficiaries. To the said suggestions of the counsel for the plaintiff D.W.1 stated that the said sites are 47 O.S. No.17287/2006 got converted through the Sriramulu. It is also admitted that in a another case of one Chandramouli filed against the defendants in a City Civil Court, the plaintiff of this suit Keshava Naidu is got examined as a P.W.2. It is also admitted that the site of the Chandramouli is mentioned with site No.69 as it is coming in above said 6 acre 25 guntas of land and ultimately again he stated that who have purchased the sites in the said layout all have got constructed a houses and residing therein and further he stated that the road of Hoodi Grampanchayath is formed by the BBMP, when the said land came in its jurisdiction. D.W.1 it is also stated that Sy.No.50/1 is not belonging to Doddachannappa and his brothers; but, it is stated that the said petrol bunk situated property is belonging to Doddachannappa, Chikkachannappa and Govindappa and they have sold it. It is admitted that O.S. No.7425/2006 was filed against one Gopal and others and denied that the suit summons were not properly served upon them and the plaintiff of the said suit and Gopal and others colluded each other and got compromised about the property in dispute in the said suit, which is at Ex.P.69. It is denied that there is an electrical connection 48 O.S. No.17287/2006 taken to the suit schedule property and Ex.P.47 is a electrical bill related to the said suit schedule property.
19. He knows that when the father of the Doddachannappa executed a Will in his favour and while it was in their knowledge at the time of taking place the agreement of sale with the Gopal and the name of Doddachannappa was in the RTC. It is also stated that while entering into agreement there was a khatha changed for 1 acre 31 guntas in the name of Muniswamappa S/o.Doddachannappa and another 1 acre 31 gunta was changed in the name of Gopal. It is admitted that in R.A. No.811/2007-2008 Bengaluru North Assistant Commissioner cancelled the above said khathas while disposing the appeal. It is admitted that at the time of executing the Ex.D.1 Agreement of Sale in respect of land of Sy.No.50/2 in favour of the Gopal there was no khatha changed. It is admitted that as per Ex.D.2 on 11.1.1995 a agreement of sale was executed by the Chinnaswamappa in favour of C.Chinnappa. According to the said records, it appears Chinnaswamappa has not signed to the agreement of sale. It is also admitted that there was a condition that the property in sale mentioned in Ex.D.2 is to be 49 O.S. No.17287/2006 converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural and a possession shall be handed over to purchaser at the time of executing the sale deed. In the cross-examination of the D.W.1 dated 6.6.2017 when the colour photos Ex.P.71 was confronted. He admitted that there is appearing a one petrol bunk and it is being towards Northern side of 9 acre 25 gunta and also admitted that there is being a one road in middle portion in between the suit schedule property and petrol bunk. He does not know that one K.P.Mohan had filed O.S. No.16072/2010 against himself and other defendants and advocate was appointed for the defendants and they had filed a WS in the said suit. The said judgment and decree are marked as Ex.P.72 and P.73 and deposition of D.W.1 of the said suit is marked as Ex.P.74. But, it is admitted that the said suit is decreed in favour of the Mohan Prasad. It is also stated that a photo is produced to show that the electrical meter was fixed to the property and there being a surrounding roads to the said property. It is stated that he does not know a road appearing in the photo is disclosing a Hoodi Road and situated in front of the suit schedule property and it is admitted in Ex.D.2 there is being a 50 O.S. No.17287/2006 condition that the property in purchase shall be handed over to the purchaser at the time of executing the sale deed. Even in Ex.D.3 & D.4 dated 16.12.1997 & 10.11.2000 are also written in a same manner and it is also mentioned in the sale agreement that the person who is a vendor of the property mentioned in agreement of sale has to be got converted the property from agricultural to non- agricultural and D.W.1 admitted that no such application is filed before the Special Deputy Commissioner for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural. But, D.W.1 stated that before executing the Ex.D.4 Agreement of Sale Doddachannappa, Chikkachannappa and Govindappa and their family members executed a agreement of sale in respect of Sy.50/2 and power of attorney in favour of one Sriramulu. To the said suggestions D.W.1 stated that there was a 6 acres 25 guntas out of 9 acre 25 gunta was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural. It is admitted in the above said agreement of sale there was a names of Gopal and his children were mentioned to the 1 acre 31 gunta of the suit Sy.No.50/2. It is further admitted that there was no name of Gopal and his children and Chikkachannappa were not entered 51 O.S. No.17287/2006 to the land 1 acre 31 gunta on account of agreement of sale and power of attorney executed in favour of Sriramulu. Even in Ex.D.5 and D.6 also a conditions of Ex.D.3 to D.4 were mentioned. It is denied that Ex.D.2 to D.7 concocted sale agreements are created by him colluding with the Gopal with an intention to grab the said property. It is admitted that the persons who had purchased the sites from the said Sy.No. have got constructed a houses in their sites. It is stated that since the purchasers of the sites, he himself and Gopal have obstructed; therefore, a criminal cases were filed. It is further stated that Patheppa and Keshava Naidu have filed a criminal case; but, no such cases are pending before the criminal court. The said criminal cases are disposed off. It is D.W.1 denied that the plaintiff is being in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as its absolute owner and it is denied that the suit schedule property is not belonging to the defendants. It is admitted that in O.S. No.7425/2006 the plaintiff of the said suit has not made a party to the purchasers of sites coming in Sy.No.50/2. But, it is denied that in order to grab the suit schedule property he himself and Gopal had intentionally got compromised in the suit 52 O.S. No.17287/2006 filed before the City Civil Court and admitted that O.S. No.1672/2010 is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. In total, D.W.1 has denied the case of plaintiff on which the plaintiff is claiming as the defendants are causing a interference to the suit schedule property of the plaintiff as a absolute owner and possessor of the same and he denied the case of defendants. In cross-examination of the D.W.2 he stated that a 2nd defendant C.Gopal is his father and 4th defendant is being his brother, 5th defendant is being his elder father. It is also stated that his father was suffering from severe BP and sugar. It is stated that his father and brother had not given any authorization to depose in this case on their behalf and it is denied that purposely not examining to his father taking in mind that if examined to him a real truth will come out about the suit schedule property. In para No.11 of the cross-examination of D.W.2 it is admitted that suit Sy.No.50/2 of the Hoodi Village was originally belonging to Papaiah and he had children by name Doddachannappa, Chikkachannappa and Govindappa and it was total measuring 9 acre 25 gunta; but, it is denied that after the death of Papaiah, the khatha of the entire land 53 O.S. No.17287/2006 was transferred in the name of all his 3 sons. It is denied that a 3 acre 22 gunta was given to the share of Doddachannappa and 3 acre 3 gunta was given to the Chikkachannappa and only 3 acre was given to the Govindappa. It is further D.W.2 stated that a 5 acre land of above said Sy.No. is given by registered Will by the Papaiah in favour of Doddachannappa. He does not know whether the khatha is changed in the name of Doddachannappa to the extent of above said 5 acre land or not and he has not obtained any documents to got confirm about the same from the concerned authority. It is denied that a sons of Papaiah by name Doddachannappa, Chikkachannappa and Govindappa and their children had executed a separate 3 GPA in favour of Sriramulu for 9 acre 25 gunta and necessary sale consideration is received as per the valuation of the property and out of them, 2 GPAs are registered in Sub-Registrar Office. Further it is denied that their father Gopal had signed to all the GPA as a one of the party to the document. It is also he stated that his father had no habit of signing on the blank paper after reading the contents of document he was used to put his signature on such 54 O.S. No.17287/2006 documents and it is also stated he does not know which documents are produced by the plaintiff in this suit to claim the suit schedule property. D.W.2 also stated that a numbers of above discussed persons had filed a suit against the Gopal and others and which were decreed in favour of plaintiff of 11 suits on the file of City Civil Court, the aggrieved Chinnappa was filed a 11 RFA before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and against the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka he had filed a appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and he admits that there is being a party that he himself, his father and brother and all the respondents and very well known about the judgment and decree of the said appeals. It is admitted that in O.S. No.7425/2006, which was filed against the Chinnappa and his brother and father, it was ended in compromise before service of suit summons upon the defendants of the said suit and to them not made a party to the present suit and he denied that all the site purchasers become a owner to the extent of their respective site and got constructed their house in the said property. It is denied that he himself or D.W.1 have no any right to file any suit situated in Sy.No.50/2 of the Hoodi Village. It is 55 O.S. No.17287/2006 denied that plaintiffs being in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property from the date of purchase and it is also denied that there is a one watchman shed and a compound is constructed to the said suit schedule property. It is also denied that the defendants have not caused any obstruction to the suit schedule property. In total, the counsel for the plaintiff submitted in his argument that the whatever the defence taken by the defendants No.1 and other and given a evidence as D.W.1 and 2 and documents produced by the defendant will not rebut the case of plaintiff and even the citations cited by the defendant advocates not applicable to the case of defendants; since the plaintiffs proved the case of plaintiffs by giving a oral and documentary evidence, which given in detail and no any admissions given to the counsel for the defendants as the suit schedule property is not duly purchased by the plaintiffs from Shamshuddin and the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. In support of the above said case of the plaintiff relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka appeals filed by the Chinnappa challenging the decrees and judgments of the 24th 56 O.S. No.17287/2006 Addl.City Civil Court, Bengaluru, dated 24.5.2010 in RFA No.1182/2010 (DEC/INJ) C/W R.F.A.Nos.1162/2010, 1158/2010, 1163/2010, 1160/2010, 1159/2010, 1156/2010, 1157/2010, 1183/2010, 1155/2010, 1161/2010 by confirming the judgment and decree challenged in the said appeal except the O.S. No.7887/2007 challenged in R.F.A. No.569/11. It is further argued by the plaintiff that when the above said suits in appeal were decreed by the 24th Addl.City Civil Court, relating to layout of Sy.No.50/2 of the Hoodi Village, which is approved by the Hoodi Grampanchayath. It was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, except the one of the property, for which remanded back to appoint the Court Commissioner for ascertaining suit schedule property and fresh disposal. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka formed the number of questions and answered in detail while disposing the above said appeals. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the judgment appeal that O.S. No.7425/2006 and O.S. No.8296/2006 filed by the defendant No.5 ended up in compromise within no time of their filing collusively and defendants No.1 to 4 did not bring to the notice of the court, 57 O.S. No.17287/2006 which recorded the above said compromise decree and the said defendants No.1 to 4 neither filed a appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka nor cross objections aggrieved by the judgments and decree in question. The claim of the defendant No.5 has not received any support from the defendants No.1 to 4. The 5th defendant submission that the suit ought to have been rejected as the plaintiff has not sought any relief of declaration that he is owner of the suit schedule property is absolutely tenable. While answering to the question No.3rd the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has considered the agreements of sale dated 9.5.1986 and 10.4.1989, 30.3.1992. With regard to the said documents given a answer that the reliability and genuineness of the said documents have to be examined, all these 4 documents referred to the death of Doddachannappa, what is baffling is Doddachannappa was very much alive when these documents came into existence and the said documents were created in between 1986 to 1992; whereas Doddachannappa died long thereafter; i.e., on 8.2.2003 as he is a evident from the death certificate. No credence can be given to such documents. For the 4th questions it is discussed that, 58 O.S. No.17287/2006 the sale agreement dated 5.8.1987 executed by Doddachannappa and others in favour of the defendant No.6 states that certain documents are delivered to the defendant No.6. The payment of sale consideration by the defendant No.6 pursuant to the said agreement of sale is by way of cheques and DD. Ex.D.19 and 20 discussed in appeal contain the payment particulars; thereafter defendant No.6 got the lands converted for non-agricultural obtained the approval for the layout and sold the sites to 91 persons. One amongst them Sri.N.Manickyam he purchased his property from the defendant No.6 under the registered sale deed dated 3/4.6.1993. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from N.Manickyam by registered sale deed dated 23.1.2001. Further drawn the attention of this court towards the para No.76 of the appeal judgment, which is discussed in detail by the Hon'ble High Court that nothing turns on Ex.D.17 discussed in the appeal judgment in favour of the defendant No.5. It is an endorsement issued by the CMC, Mahadevapura, to effect that it has not accorded the approval to the formation of layout in the land at Sy.No.50/2 of the Hoodi Village; because, Hoodi 59 O.S. No.17287/2006 Grampanchayath is subsequently merged in Mahadevapura CMC. The approval for the layout might have been given by the Predecessor of Mahadevapura CMC namely Hoodi Grampanchayath. Further the counsel for the plaintiff drawn my attention towards the page No.79, 80 & 86 of the said RFA judgment wherein discussed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that the non-agricultural conversion order is passed only in the year 1992, the sale agreement held on 9.5.1986 in favour of the 5th respondent's father, which follows in Kannada sentence and which gives a meaning that obtaining a copy of the conversion order from agricultural to non-agricultural passed about the suit schedule property from the concerned office. In para No.18 of the appeal judgment it is discussed that when the land was not converted in the year 1996 the question of getting a copy of the conversion order would not arise at all in document executed in the year 1986. Therefore, such recitals in the documents relied upon by the defendant No.5 only lend support to the submission of the plaintiffs, the documents are not genuine. In para No.86 of the appellate 60 O.S. No.17287/2006 court judgment it is discussed that, the averments made in para No.5 of the plaint that the plaintiffs were surprised to notice two suits O.S No.7425/2006 and O.S. No.8296/2006 on the front wall of the schedule property on 12.9.2007 is false. However, it is true that the suit schedule property involved in the appeal is also covered under the proceedings of the above said suits.
20. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by making a detail discussion about the above said matter in appeal judgment it is also stated that the suits in appeal were not a simplicitor injunction suit, which is also for the relief of declaration that the judgment and decrees obtained by the 1st defendant in O.S. No.7425/2006 and O.S. No.8296/2006 are not binding upon the present plaintiffs as they were not parties to the suit. The appellants/plaintiffs of the suit in dispute in the appeal are the recorded owners as per the registered sale deed dated 15.3.1996. It is worthwhile to notice that the defendants have not raised any challenge to the sale deed nor filed any counter claim in the suit proceedings they have also not entered into witness box. Therefore, considering the above said points only a judgment 61 O.S. No.17287/2006 passed in O.S. No.7887/2007 of the 16th Addl. City Civil Judge, dated 3.2.2011 is set aside and remanded to trial court for fresh enquiry and other 10 suits above mentioned, which were decreed by the City Civil Court are confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In view of that, there is a binding upon this court to come to conclusion about the suit schedule property as the suit document Sanctioned Plan Ex.P.38 is not doubtful and there is necessary to consider the documentary evidence and evidence of the both parties is more essential for disposal of the case in hand. The counsel for the plaintiff also relied on total 3 citations 2014 (4) KCCR Page No.3920 in the case of Munichandra v/s BDA and others and another citation 2014 (2) KCCR Page No.1564 in the case of K.M.Chikkabadappa v/s C.Krishnappa and another and another a recent citation of the year 2017 (1) Kar.L.R Page No.45 in the case of Gurunathappa S/o.Gurusangappa Angadid v/s Subhash S/o.Gurulingappagouda Biradar. In all the above said writ petitions there is a findings given by the lordships of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka particularly discussed wherein that once where is a identity of the suit schedule property there is no need of 62 O.S. No.17287/2006 appointment of Commissioner when the plaintiff given a boundaries to the suit schedule property and also that he was in possession of the same and agreement of sale according to Section 53-A shall be registered, if not registered then they shall have no effect for the purpose of Section 53-A - The provision has been made application only for contract of sale executed on or after the commencement of the Registration Act-1908 and Other Related Laws Act-2001, which come into force on 24.9.2001. If, the said citations are studied in detail with the oral and documentary evidence of both parties it is clear that the defendants are not succeeded to prove their case. On the said contention, the advocate for plaintiffs submits to decree the suit by rejecting the case of the defendants and the citations cited by the defendants are to be answered as not applicable to the case of defendants.
21. Upon perusal of the both parties evidence; i.e., P.W.1 and D.W.1 and D.W.2 documentary evidence of defendants it is appearing in this case that plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that they have purchased the item No.1 to 3 property from their owner Shamshudeen and they become owner of the said property and they 63 O.S. No.17287/2006 were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. But, later on plaintiffs No.2 to 4 given a release deed by releasing their interest involved in the said property in favour of the 1st plaintiff. The said 1st plaintiff is the contesting person of the present suit in hand. He has detail stated that Ex.D.38 Conversion Order/Sanctioned Plan of the Hoodi Panchayath is approved and the said conversion is obtained by their GPA holder Sriramulu to whom the said responsibility was given by Doddachannappa, Chikkachannappa, Govindappa and their children's and accordingly, he got converted the said property measuring 6 acre 25 gunta by the concerned Hoodi Panchayath; thereafter formed the layout. The plaintiffs' original owner Shamshudeen is a one of the purchaser of the suit schedule property like other purchasers from Doddachannappa and his family members as per Ex.P.1 to P.3; thereafter, the said Shamshudeen executed a absolute sale deed on 11th day April 2002 in favour of the plaintiffs through the Ex.P.4 to P.6 relating to suit schedule property. Further to supporting the case of plaintiff No.1, Ex.P.7 to P.9 a registered release deed are executed by the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 in favour of 64 O.S. No.17287/2006 plaintiff No.1 of this suit by releasing their rights of the suit item No.1 to 3 properties in favour of plaintiff No.1. Accordingly, Ex.P.10 B-property Extract is issued in the name of plaintiff No.1 for 6,000 sq ft by the BBMP in respect of site No.84 and site No.82 and 83, which both are measuring another 6,000 sq ft as a open sites coming in Sy.No.50/2 of the Hoodi Village, which are the properties claiming by the plaintiff as a suit schedule property. Ex.P.12 to 32 are the tax-paid receipts of the said suit schedule property from the year 2002 to 2003 and upto 2013-2014. Ex.P.33 is a document of agreement of sale dated 5th August 1987 taken place in between Doddachannappa and others with Sriramulu along with the GPA at Ex.P.34 to 36, agreement of sale, GPA and irrevocable GPA executed by Doddachannappa and his family members in favour of Sriramulu with an order to convert the schedule land mentioned in the GPA and agreement; i.e., 9 acre 25 guntas for non-agricultural and site purpose and a receipt of amount received by the various DD given by the purchasers to them also annexed with agreement of sale Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.34 and 35 supports that land Sy.No.50/2 of Hoodi Village 9 acre 25 guntas 65 O.S. No.17287/2006 out of which 3 acres in middle portion is handed over to Sriramulu and got converted the 6 acre 25 gunta for the purpose of forming the layout. Accordingly, conversion order is passed as per Ex.P.37 as per the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, and layout is formed as per Ex.P.38 approved by the Hoodi Panchayath and Ex.P.39, 40, 41, 42 also supports the case of plaintiff and to establish the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property Ex.P.45 to P.47 are the electrical bills issued to the plaintiff to collect the electricity bill consumed by them to the suit schedule property. Supporting to the case of the plaintiff produced the judgments of O.S. No.9554/2006, which was filed by the Chandramouli against the defendants No.1 to 6; i.e., C.Gopal, D.G.Sathish Kumar, D.G.Harish, D.Muniswamappa, C.Chinnappa, and Sri.Sriramulu was decreed by the 24th City Civil Court, CCH-6 on 24th May 2010 by declaring that the judgment and decree of O.S. No.7425/2006 dated 4.9.2006 in O.S. No.8296/2006 dated 26.9.2006 declared as null and void and permanent injunction granted against the above said defendants, which the judgment of the said suit was challenged by 66 O.S. No.17287/2006 the one of the defendant No.5 by namely Chinnappa as per Ex.P.50, in which the appeals clubbed were disposed off by confirming the judgment and decrees of all the original suits except the remanded O.S. No.7887/2007. Supporting to the said documents and oral evidence a photograph at Ex.P.61 to 71 produced by confronting to the defendants witnesses and a judgment of O.S. N.1672/2010 of the CCH-3; i.e., 15th Addl. City Civil Court, Bengaluru, dated 30th November 2016, which was filed by the K.P.Mohan Prasad against Chinnappa, C.Gopal, D.G.Sathish Kumar, D.G.Harish Kumar, D.Muniswamappa, which was a injunction suit in respect of site No.87, which was also decreed by declaring the compromise decree O.S. No.7425/2006 on 4.6.2006 is not valid and not binding upon the plaintiff and permanent injunction is granted against the defendant in their favour and a depositions of Chinnappa, who has given a evidence in this case as a D.W.1 admitted that, the said suit is decreed against them and in the RFA also confirmed the judgment of the said suit. Looking these all documentary evidence and a oral evidence of P.W.1, which are fully supporting to the case of 67 O.S. No.17287/2006 plaintiff since the plaintiff is also one of the purchaser like the plaintiffs of the above said suits. The plaintiff has produced the sale deeds of their original owners, who have executed a Doddachannappa and others in favour of the plaintiffs vendor Shamshudeen and in turn Shamshudeen has executed a separate 3 sale deeds in respect of all 3 item of suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and thereafter the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 have released their interest involved in the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff No.1 who has paid the tax of the suit schedule property from the year 2003 to 2013-14 and obtained the B-khatha in respect of the suit schedule property and other documents are disclosing that the 1st plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties with the other documents, which are not rebutted by the defendants in the entire cross-examination of the P.W.1, no any admissions given as the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The P.W.1 has categorically stated about the suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs are being in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and it is also established that plaintiffs were not 68 O.S. No.17287/2006 a parties to the O.S. No.7425/2006, which was taken place in between the defendants by confirming that defendant No.1 is owner to the extent of 1 acre 31 gunta of the suit schedule property as grandchildren of the Doddachannappa and others sold the same in favour of 1st defendant, wherein the suit schedule property of the present plaintiff also situated like the other above discussed suits plaintiffs site No.86, 87 are situated and which were challenged in the court of law in the Addl.City Civil Court, Bengaluru, and which were confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above said RFA No.1182/2010 ............ dated 22.04.2014. Therefore, even in the said suits also Ex.P.37 and P.38 a conversion orders and layout sanctioned plan were challenged and the said documents were considered by the Hon'ble High Court as a valid documents. Therefore, the citations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka cited by the defendants advocates are not applicable to the present case in hand; since, the sum and substance of the said citations are different with the present fact of the suit and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka upheld the judgments of the 24th Addl.City Civil Court, 69 O.S. No.17287/2006 Bengaluru, passed in above said various suits by holding that the conversion orders and Hoodi Panchayath approved layout, which are Ex.P.37 and P.38 are the valid document and based upon the said documents, the purchasers have legally purchased the suit schedule property and got constructed the buildings and enjoying the same being in possession and enjoyment of the same like the present plaintiff of this suit; therefore, a detail evidence given by the D.W.1 and D.W.2 by denying the case of plaintiff will not hold any water to rebut the case of plaintiff. On the other hand, the citation cited by the plaintiffs and documents of the plaintiff will supports the case of P.W.1. For all the above discussed reasons, it is came to conclusion that the plaintiff has successfully proved the case of plaintiffs; in view of that, I would like to answer issue No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs as a Affirmative.
22. ISSUE No.4: In view of my findings given to above said issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs.
It is declared that the suit in O.S. No.7425/2006 on the file of the Additional City 70 O.S. No.17287/2006 Civil Court at Bengaluru and the compromise decree dated 04.09.2006 and any other proceedings or acts pursuant to the said decree are fraudulent, collusive, void, invalid, illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties.
Defendants and their representatives or any such other persons claiming through the defendants are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the 1st plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties item No.1 to 3.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictation computerized by Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 21st day of March, 2018).
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.) IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witness examined for the plaintiffs:
P.W.1 - Sri.M.Keshavaiah Naidu.71 O.S. No.17287/2006
List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 - Original registered sale deed dated
16.07.1997
Ex.P.2 - Original registered sale deed dated
16.07.1997
Ex.P.3 - Original registered sale deed dated
16.07.1997
Ex.P.4 - Original registered absolute sale deed
dated 11.04.2002
Ex.P.5 - Original registered absolute sale deed
dated 11.04.2002
Ex.P.6 - Original registered absolute sale deed
dated 11.04.2002
Ex.P.7 - Original registered release deed dated
02.07.2007 executed by
Smt.Ramanamma in favour of
Sri.M.Keshavaiah Naidu
Ex.P.8 - Original registered release deed dated
02.07.2007 executed by
Sri.P.Venkateshwaralu in favour of
Sri.M.Keshavaiah Naidu
Ex.P.9 - Original registered release deed dated
02.07.2007 executed by
Sri.P.Srinivasalu in favour of
Sri.M.Keshavaiah Naidu
Ex.P.10 & 11 - Form-B register extracts
Ex.P.10(a)&11(a) - Tax-paid receipts
Ex.P.12 to 32 - 21 Tax-paid receipts
Ex.P.33 - Agreement of sale dated 05.08.1987
Ex.P.34 - GPA dated 25.08.1988
Ex.P.35 - GPA dated 09.12.1987
Ex.P.36 - Irrevocable GPA dated 28.04.1988
Ex.P.37 - Official memorandum dated 22.8.1992
Ex.P.38 - C/C of sanctioned plan
Ex.P.39 - C/C of the order passed by Divisional
Commissioner dated 07.02.1992
72 O.S. No.17287/2006
Ex.P.40 - C/C of the proceedings in
C.R.No.323/1989-90
Ex.P.41 - RTC
Ex.P.42 - Village Account form No.11
Ex.P.43 - Adhara pathra dated 19.11.1935
Ex.P.44 - Adhara pathra dated 31.07.1935
Ex.P.45 to 47 - Electricity bills
Ex.P.45(a) to 47(a) - Electricity receipts
Ex.P.48 & 49 - C/C of judgment and decree in O.S.
No.9554/2006
Ex.P.50 - C/C of judgment in RFA No.1182/2010
Ex.P.51 - C/C of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
record of proceedings
Ex.P.52 - RTC
Ex.P.53 to 56 - C/C of order sheet, plaint, compromise
petition and compromise decree in O.S.
No.7425/2006
Ex.P.57 to 60 - C/C of order sheet, compromise
petition, compromise decree and plaint
in O.S. No.8296/2006
Ex.P.61 to 63 - 3 Colour photographs
Ex.P.64 - CD
Ex.P.65 - Receipt of patta
Ex.P.66 - Notice issued by Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru District
Ex.P.67 - Change of khatha
Ex.P.68 - Development charges paid receipt
Ex.P.69 - C/C of order sheet in O.S.
No.7425/2006
Ex.P.70 - Orders dated 25.8.2008 in
R.A.No.811/07-08
Ex.P.71 - Colour Photograph
Ex.P.72 & 73 - C/C of judgment and decree in O.S.
No.1672/2010
Ex.P.74 - C/C of deposition of D.W.1 in O.S.
No.1672/2010
73 O.S. No.17287/2006
List of witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 - Sri.C.Chinnappa
D.W.2 - Sri.D.G.Sathish Kumar
List of documents exhibited for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 - Sale agreement dated 01.04.1985
Ex.D.2 - Sale agreement dated 11.01.1995
Ex.D.3 - Sale agreement dated 16.12.1997
Ex.D.4 - Sale agreement dated 10.11.2000
Ex.D.5 - Sale agreement dated 23.06.2003
Ex.D.6 - Sale agreement dated 31.05.2005
Ex.D.7 - Registered sale agreement dated
08.06.2006
Ex.D.8 - Will dated 16.07.1971
Ex.D.8(a) - C/C of Ex.D.8 Will dated 16.07.1971
Ex.D.9 - C/C of deposition of Sriramulu.K. in
O.S. No.9554/2006
Ex.D.10 - C/C of death certificate of
Doddachannappa
Ex.D.11 - C/C of endorsement issued by
Mahadevapura CMC dated 22.12.2006
Ex.D.12 - Original unregistered partition deed
dated 05.08.1984
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.)
IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
74 O.S. No.17287/2006