Bangalore District Court
Smt.Siddalingamma vs ) Iti Employees Housing on 15 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 15th day of March 2017.
PRESENT: Smt. M.LATHA KUMARI, M.A, LLM.,
XI Addl.City Civil Judge, B'lore city.
O.S.No.2900 of 1998
(C.C.H.8)
PLAINTIFFS: Smt.Siddalingamma,
aged about 67 years,
W/O Late Shankarappa,
Residing at No.61, Nayandaahalli,
Mysore Road,
Bengaluru -39
since dead by LRs
1(a) Sri. Gowrishankar,
55 years, S/o late Shankarappa,
1(b) Sri. S.Rajanna,
47 years, S/o late Shankarappa,
1(c) Sri. S.Revanna, 41 years,
son of late Shankarappa,
1(d) Sri.S.Honnappa,
38 years, Son of late Shankarappa,
Since deceased represented by LRs
P.1(d)(1) Smt. Shivalingamma
W/O Late S.Honnappa,
aged about 34 years,
2 OS.2900/1998
P.1(d)(2) Kum.H.Priya,
D/O Late S.Honnappa,
aged about 13 years,
P.1(d)(3) Kum.H.Hema
D/O Late S.Honnappa,
aged about 13 years,
All are residing at Nayandahalli,
Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk
.
1(e) Sri. Basavaraju,
44 years, son of late Shankarappa,
LRs 1(a) to 1(e) are residing at No.61,
Nayandahalli, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk
1(f) Smt.Gangamma,
52 years, wife of Muddamallaiah
and daughter of late Shankarappa,
1(g) Smt. Honnamma,
49 years, wife of Mallikappa,
daughter of late Shankarappa,
Both the legal representatives
1(f) and 1(g) are residing at
Channavaiahanapalya, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk
(Plaintiff-Dead
P(a) to (c) (e) to (g)-SCR advocate
Plaintiff(d)(1 to 3)- MNS advocate)
: Vs :
3 OS.2900/1998
DEFENDANTS: 1) ITI Employees Housing
Co-operative Society represented by
its Secretary, near ITI factory
Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru -16
2)Sri. B.N.Madhava Rao
since dead by l.Rs
D.2(a) Sri. Madhu
S/O B.N.Madhava Rao,
aged about 48 years,
R/at No.58/99/103,
Rathnavilas Road,
Opp: D.V.G. Road, Canara Bank,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru-4
3) Sri. M.Madhu,
aged about 51 years,
S/O Muthaiah,
4) Smt. Padma Madhu,
aged about 46 years,
W/O Sri. Madhu,
Defendant No.3 and 4 are residing at
No.15, 1st Cross, U.V.Block, J.C.Nagar,
Bengaluru-06
(Sri.G.L.V advocate for D.1
D.2-Dead
D.2(a)-expt.,
D.3, 4- In person._
4 OS.2900/1998
Date of the institution of suit: 6.4.1998
Nature of the suit : Injunction Suit
Date of the commencement of 14.11.2006
recording of the evidence :
Date on which the judgment 15.3.2017
was pronounced :
Total duration: Year Months Days
18 11 09
XI Addl.City Civil Judge,
B'lore city.
JUDGMENT
This is plaintiff's suit of declaration of title and for consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.6/2 of Mallathahalli village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru measuring 7 guntas . During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed an application on I.A.No.2 seeking to amend the prayer by restricting their reliefs to the extent of 5 guntas only by bringing to the notice of this court, that 2 guntas land has been already acquired. This court by its order dated 9.2.2015 rejected this application with an observation that "This court can grant relief by moulding the relief in case parties litigating before it succeeds in this matter.
5 OS.2900/1998Against this order dated 9.2.2015, L.rs of deceased plaintiff preferred W.P.No.10156 of 2015 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by its dated 20.3.2015, disposed of said writ petition with an observation that "In case the plaintiffs succeed and suit is decreed, then the relief has to be moulded by reducing the schedule land from 0.7 guntas to 0.5 guntas.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, she was the absolute owner in possession of entire extent of land in Sy.No.6/2 of Mallathahalli measuring 2 acres in all having acquired the same under two registered sale deeds dated 24.10.1966 and 10.11.1966. 1 acre 33 guntas of land in suit Sy.No.6/2 was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the defendant society, accordingly, she is in possession of remaining 7 guntas . It is plaintiff's further case that the total extent of the land in Sy.No.6/2 was 4 acres including 2 guntas karab land. Another piece of land in Sy.No.6/2 came to be acquired for another housing society only. Thus suit property was not acquired for the defendant's society even as per final notification. There exist old houses in suit property, which later came to be collapsed. The defendant society by taking advantage of the same and acquisition of remaining extent of land in Sy.No.6/2, made attempts to trespass over suit schedule property. No agricultural activities 6 OS.2900/1998 are being carried on the suit schedule property and defendant society being powerful, making all efforts to create documents in respect of suit schedule property. When plaintiff's son tried to contact defendant's society, they openly abuse him on 18.7.1996. Accordingly, plaintiff filed O.S. No.5047/1996 against defendant society and said suit came to be dismissed on 6.9.1996 as not maintainable for non compliance of Sec.125 of Co-operative Societies Act. Against said dismissal order, plaintiff preferred RFA No.562/1996, Hon'ble High Court rejected the RFA with a liberty to file fresh suit by issuing the necessary notice. Thereafter, plaintiff issued notice dated 28.1.1998 and filed this suit for the reliefs mentioned supra.
3. Plaintiff originally filed this suit only against defendant ITI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Subsequently got arrayed defendant No.2 to D.4 as defendants in this suit. During the pendency of this suit, plaintiff died, her L.Rs accordingly, brought on record. Defendant No.2 died and his L.Rs brought on record, who later remained absent and not contested this suit. Defendant No.3 and D.4 though appeared in person, not resisted the suit of the plaintiff.
4. 1st defendant society filed its written statement through its Secretary asserted that, suit schedule property is an imaginary and nonexistence. The entire extent of land in 7 OS.2900/1998 Sy.No.6/2 was acquired in favour of various Housing societies and the plaintiff does not own any properties in Sy.No.6/2. A Gazette notification /4(1)Notification issued on 23.10.1986 and 6(1) Notification published on 22.10.1987. The Government apart from various survey number land measuring an extent of 63-14 guntas in all, also taken possession of 1-32 guntas and 2 guntas kharab land bearing Sy.No.6/2 and handed over possession of land to the defendant society . Therefore, out of 2 acres of land, 1-35 guntas acquired in favour of defendant's society and remaining extent were acquired in favour of other Housing Societies. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this suit.
This defendant also filed additional written statement asserting that, this suit is barred by time. Inspite of specific denial, the LRs of the plaintiff have not chosen to seek the relief within the prescribed time under law. LRs of plaintiff are neither the owners nor in possession of any property in Sy.No.6/2 of Mallathahalli village. The entire land in Sy.No.6/2 was acquired. This defendant after formation of sites in acquired land allotted the sites to its members and they have also put up construction. Some of the members are yet to put up construction. The L.Rs of plaintiff are trying to encroach upon the vacant sites on the basis of concocted and created documents. Defendant No.2 to D.4 are also the 8 OS.2900/1998 purchasers of the sites from the society. Suit for declaration without seeking possession is not at all maintainable, not valued the suit properly. The value of the property as on the date of the amendment application was more than Rs.600/- per sq.ft. Hence, pray for dismissal of this suit with exemplary costs.
5. 2nd defendant also resisted this suit by filing his written statement asserting that as per his knowledge and information, entire extent of lands in Sy.No.6/2 was acquired in favour of various Housing Societies and the plaintiff does not own any property in Sy.No.6/2. This defendant further contended that site No.757 over which, he is having absolute right, title and ownership is outside the so-called schedule property. In fact, the suit schedule property is not identified and demarcated. Hence, pray for dismissal of this suit.
6. Based on these pleadings, this court framed the following issues and additional issue:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves her possession over the suit property on the date of suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves interference by the defendants?
3. What order or decree?9 OS.2900/1998
Additional issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the deceased Smt. Siddalingavva was the owner of the suit schedule property?
7. Plaintiff's son got examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked as many as 26 documents Ex.P.1 to P.26. Secretary and Director of 1st defendant's society got examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 respectively and got marked as many as 9 documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9.
8 I have carefully scrutinized entire records before me. Heard arguments.
9. My answers to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 In affirmative;
Issue No.2 In affirmative;
Issue No.3: In affirmative;
Issue No.4: As per final order for the following
reasons:
10 OS.2900/1998
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 and 2 : These two issues are taken
together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and circumstances.
It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she was the absolute owner in possession of land bearing suit Sy.No.6/2 measures 2 acres of Malathahalli and 1st defendant's society acquired 1 acre 35 guntas . Accordingly, plaintiff is in possession to an extent of 5 guntas , which is the subject matter in question. On the other hand , 1st defendant society, who is the contesting defendant herein asserted that in Sy.No.6/2, 1 acre 35 guntas acquired in favour of 1st defendant's society and remaining portion in favour of other housing societies. Accordingly, plaintiff neither owner nor in possession of any portion of land in suit Sy.No.6/2.
As I have already stated during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff died and her L.Rs brought on record. One of the son of plaintiff by name Rajanna got examined himself as P.W.1. P.W.1 by reiterating the plaint averments got marked as many as 25 documents at 1st instance and another one document as per Ex.P.26 in his further chief examination. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 24.10.1966. Another vital document is sale deed of the plaintiff dated 10.11.1966. It is 11 OS.2900/1998 not in dispute that in pursuance of these two sale deeds Ex.P.1 and P.23, plaintiff purchased the land bearing Sy.No.6/2 measuring 2 acres. It is also not in dispute that remaining two acres in the same Sy.No.6/2 was purchased by one Rangappa. It is also not in dispute that, said two acres in Sy.No.6/2 purchased by Rangappa and Gangaiah was acquired for the purpose of formation of sites for the members of Mysore Paper Mills Employees Housing society. It is also not in dispute that, out of 2 acres purchased by deceased Siddalingamma under Ex.P.1 and P.23, Government acquired 1 acre 35 guntas of land on behalf of 1st defendant's society for the formation of sites to the members of 1st defendant, accordingly, handed over the said portion of the property. In this regard, 1st defendant himself has produced 4(1) and 6(1) Notifications, which is as per Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.3. With this in background, now let me scan through the version of P.W.1 elicited in his cross-examination. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that total extent of land bearing Sy.No.6/2 measures 4 acres. It is also elicited that out of said 4 acres, plaintiff has purchased 1 acre 20 guntas under Ex.P.1 and another 20 guntas in Ex.P.23. It is further elicited that in pursuance of sale deeds, plaintiff purchased 2 acres of land land in suit Sy.No.6/2. Further it is suggested that in this 2 acres of land, there exist 2 guntas karab land. Further 1st defendant himself suggested that in Ex.P.1 or Ex.P.23, there is no 12 OS.2900/1998 reference about said karab land. However, though plaintiff initially claiming his right in respect of 7 guntas of land, later confined his relief to an extent of 5 guntas stating that 1 acre 35 guntas has already been acquired to the 1st defendant society. Under such circumstances, any suggestion with regard to said 2 guntas of karab land is not much importance. It is also suggested that remaining 2 acres in said land bearing Sy.No.6/2 was purchased by Sri. Gangappa and Rangappa. At para No.19 of cross-examination of P.W.1, it is categorically suggested that 3 acres 33 guntas of land in Sy.No.6/2 came to be acquired by concerned Government, two acres in favour of M.P.M. society and said land belongs to Gangappa and Rangappa. Hence, as per this cross- examination, it is crystal clear that entire two acres land in Sy.No.6/2 belongs to Gangappa and Rangappa came to be acquired by State Government on behalf of M.P.M. Housing society . Further out of 2 acres purchased by plaintiff herein under Ex.P.1 and P.23, only 1 acre 35 guntas came to be acquired for 1st defendant's society amongst various other lands. In para No.21 of cross-examination of P.W.1, it is suggested that plaintiff has not produced 4(1) and 6(1) notifications . However, 1st defendant himself has produced the same as per Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.3. It is also suggested that in the acquisition proceedings, his deceased mother participated. Further at the time of said acquisition proceedings, concerned 13 OS.2900/1998 Land Acquisition Officer specifically surveyed the land acquired by them. It is also elicited that on 29.11.2005, remaining extent of land came to be mutated in the name of plaintiff by concerned Tahasildar. P.W.1 admits that as on the date of filing of this suit, mutation entries not effected in respect of suit schedule property and they have taken mutation subsequent to the filing of the suit. It is also suggested that, plaintiff filed an application seeking to appoint Commissioner for the purpose of fixing the boundaries and also to identify the suit schedule property. P.W.1 however denies that as on the date of suit, plaintiff was not aware of the identity of the suit schedule property in land bearing Sy.No.6/2. At page No.17, P.W.1 categorically asserted that Land Acquisition Officer after acquiring 1 acre 33 guntas of land left the remaining extent of land to the plaintiff. P.W.1 also admits that necessary application was given to Survey Department only in the year 2002-2003 i.e., during the pendency of the suit. P.W.1 further admits that order passed under Ex.P.1 was questioned by 1st defendant herein and matter is pending consideration before concerned ADLR. P.W.1 admits that O.S. No.5047/1996 filed by deceased plaintiff came to be dismissed. He further admits that against said dismissal order, plaintiff preferred RFA before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and even said appeal came to be dismissed. It is suggested that an application seeking appointment of Commissioner for 14 OS.2900/1998 identifying the suit schedule property is still pending before this court. It is also suggested that concerned Tahasildar passed an order without giving any notice to the 1st defendant herein. P.W.1 admits that 1st defendant preferred case No.98/2005-2006 before concerned Asst., Commissioner by way of Revenue Appeal and said appeal came to be dismissed on 28.5.2009. It is also suggested that prior to the revenue survey sketch Ex.P.5 and P.15, no notices were given to 1st defendant's society. Finally, it is suggested to P.W.1 that in land bearing Sy.No.6/2, entire extent of land measuring 4 acres has been acquired for the purpose of M.P.M society and also 1st defendant's society and layout has already been formed in said 4 acres of land. Hence, According to this suggestion, 1st defendant is asserting that entire extent of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.6/2 of Mallathahalli village came to be acquired by State Government on behalf of M.P.M. Housing society and also 1st defendant's society herein. Further it is not in dispute that total extent of land in suit Sy.No.6/2 is 4 acres, 2 acres belongs to one Rangappa and Gangappa and 2 acres belongs to deceased plaintiff, who purchased the same under Ex.P.1 and P.23. With these contentions of 1st defendant, now let me scan through 4(1) and 6(1) notifications produced by 1st defendant himself, which is as per Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.3. According to this notifications, Government has acquired 2 acres of land, which belongs to said Rangappa and Gangappa on behalf of M.P.M. 15 OS.2900/1998 House Building society and 1 acre 35 guntas of land out of 2 acres pertaining to deceased plaintiff came to be acquired on behalf of 1st defendant society. 1st defendant herein is not a layman. It is a responsible society having clean object and purpose of providing accommodation for its members by forming layout of residential sites. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the request made by 1st defendant to the State Government, deceased plaintiff's land in which she was carrying on agricultural activities to eke out her livelihood came to be acquired by State Government to an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas. The Secretary of the 1st defendant, who got examined himself as D.W.1 at page No.3 of his chief affidavit categorically asserted that suit schedule property is imaginary and non existence. The entire extent of land in Sy.No.6/2 was acquired in favour of various societies and plaintiff does not own any property in Sy.No.6/2. This version of 1st defendant' Secretary deposed on oath is contrary to his own document Ex.D.3, 6(1) notification issued by concerned Government. As I have already stated according to final notification, 2 acres land pertaining to Rangappa and another was acquired for M.P.M. Housing society and only, 1 acre 35 guntas of land out of 2 acres pertaining to deceased plaintiff was acquired on behalf of 1st defendant's society. Inspite of that, 1st defendant is asserting that entire land has been acquired in suit Sy.No.6/2 by State Government. This version of 1st defendant Secretary 16 OS.2900/1998 establishes that he is neither approached the court with clean hands nor with clean heart and brain. Plaintiff, who all along litigating before this court in respect of her remaining extent died during the pendency of the suit, before seeing the light of the day. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of Ex.P.1 and P.23, plaintiff acquired 2 acres of land in Sy.No.6/2. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of Ex.D.3, Government acquired 1 acre 35 guntas of land on behalf of 1st defendant's society for the formation of sites. When such being the case according to 1st defendant's own document , there exist 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.6/2. Further in Ex.D.2, towards southern side , it is shown as remaining land in Sy.No.6/2 and the extent proposed to be acquired was only 1 acre 35 guntas in pursuance of this document. Inspite of these documentary evidence, 1st defendant is asserting that entire extent of land in Sy.No.6/2 came to be acquired by State Government on behalf of various societies. Further it is not in dispute that, out of 4 acres land in Sy.No.6/2, 2 acres came to be acquired for M.P.M. Housing society and 1 acre 35 guntas was acquired for the purpose of 1st defendant's society. When such being the case, it is crystal clear that there exist remaining 5 guntas in Sy.No.6/2 pertaining to plaintiff. It is also categorically asserted before this court that prior to filing of this suit, plaintiff filed O.S. No. 5047/1996 against very 1st defendant society for relief of injunction and said suit came to be 17 OS.2900/1998 dismissed. Even RFA filed by plaintiff before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka came to be dismissed. Certified copy of orders passed in O.S. No. 5047/1996 is available in court records. This suit came to be dismissed not on merits, but on maintainability with an observations that plaintiff has not complied the provisions of Sec.125 of Co-operative Societies Act.. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka while admitting the said orders of this court, granted liberty to the plaintiff herein to file a fresh suit by prior notices to the 1st defendant's society as required under Sec. 125 of Co-operative Societies Act. Hence, it is crystal clear that though plaintiff filed suit in respect of the very same property in question, in the year 1996 itself, the matter was not adjudicated between the parties and the said suit came to be dismissed on technical grounds. 1st defendant having taken possession of 1 acre 35 guntas of land from the State Government, now cannot take shelter under the orders passed by this court in O.S. No.5047/1996. That apart, 1st defendant is a society formulated to help the General Public at large and not to grab the land from farmers and make money by himself in the land, by forming layout of residential sites. When 1st defendant society requirement was 1 acre 35 guntas in land bearing Sy.No.6/2 from the plaintiff herein and in pursuance of such requirement, Government acquired 1 acre 35 guntas of land on behalf of 1st defendant, 1st defendant is entitled for said 1 acre 35 guntas itself. It is not 18 OS.2900/1998 in dispute that subsequent to said acquisition proceedings, necessary survey came to be conducted by Land Acquisition Officer and possession to an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas was taken from the plaintiff and handed over to defendant. These averments were elicited by 1st defendant himself in the cross- examination of P.W.1. It is the further contention of 1st defendant that, there was no such house existed on suit schedule property, at the time of taking possession of the same. Whereas Ex.D.5 produced by 1st defendant himself, there is a clear recital that only property measuring 1 acre 35 guntas i.e., 1 acre 33 guntas regular land and 2 guntas karab land was taken over possession and handed over to the 1st defendant herein including malkies. The term "Malkies" referred in Ex.D.5 establishes existence of malkies in land bearing Sy.No.6/2 of plaintiff's land. Further 1st defendant asserted that though plaintiff himself filed an application seeking to demark his land in Sy.No.6/2 by appointment of Commissioner. Said application was not at all pressed by the plaintiff through out this case. Whereas plaintiff on the other hand has produced various such survey sketch prepared by concerned ADLR and Tahasildar, which is as per Ex.P.18. In this document, concerned expert i.e., surveyor has located the property of the plaintiff herein. It is further suggested in the cross of P.W.1 that, no notice has been given to 1st defendant while conducting such survey. This version of 1st defendant 19 OS.2900/1998 holds no water, since 1st defendant though taken possession of 1 acre 35 guntas of land from the Government now asserting that entire 2 acres of land has been taken possession from the plaintiff. In presence of Ex.P.18, question of again appointing the surveyor for demarcation of the land, fixing the boundaries does not arise. That apart, from the materials available on record, it is clear that out of 2 acres pertaining to plaintiff, 1 acre 35 guntas came to be acquired on behalf of 1st defendant and there exist another 5 guntas of land as claimed by the plaintiff herein in Sy.No.6/2.
The learned counsel for 1st defendant Sri.G.L.V vehemently argued that mathematically it is correct that there exist 5 guntas of land belongs to plaintiff, but where exactly said 5 guntas is in existence is not at all stated by the plaintiff. This arguments of Sri.G.L.V has been clarified by his own witness D.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.10 para No.3, wherein he pleaded his ignorance to the suggestion that suit schedule land is still a vacant land and asserted that he do not know whether suit schedule property is still a vacant land. Further D.W.1 himself deposes that one of its member has constructed house over the same and he do not remember the name of said person and also asserted that he do not know during which year, its member has constructed the said house over suit schedule property. Further at para 20 OS.2900/1998 No.4, D.W.1 deposes that he is not having any documents to show that one of its members has constructed building on suit schedule property. He also admits that suit schedule property has already been inspected and surveyed by concerned surveyor. This version of D.W.1 establishes that, 1st defendant's society is having knowledge about survey conducted by concerned Survey Department at the instance of plaintiff as per Ex.P.18 and also necessary mutation entries in favour of plaintiff so also Ex.D.2. In presence of this survey sketch, Ex.P.2, P.5 and P.18, there is absolutely no necessity for this court to again appoint the very surveyor from ADLR Department to conduct survey. That apart, the version of D.W.1 to the effect that, one of its members constructed a house over suit schedule property and he do not have any documents in this regard establishes that suit schedule property is clearly identifiable and also within the knowledge of 1st defendant's society herein. 1st defendant's society having acquired 1 acre 35 guntas from plaintiff making all hectic efforts to grab another 5 guntas and thereby to squeeze another 5 sites within its layout and allot the same to the person of its choice and thereby to make money. It is not at all the purpose of acquisition proceedings and also obviously not the intention of 1st defendant society. As I have already stated in pursuance of request of 1st defendant society, deceased plaintiff being a poor farmer, lost her land to an extent of 1 21 OS.2900/1998 acre 35 guntas and she was made to approach this court for the remaining extent of meager land of 5 guntas . During pendency of the suit, she died and thereby could not see the light of the day due to the greediness of 1st defendant society herein. P.W.1 apart from examining himself also examined another two witnesses on his behalf and further got marked all revenue records pertaining to suit schedule property including M.R standing in the name of plaintiff as per Ex.P.7 and also survey sketch. No doubt, these documents came into existence during pendency of the suit. Whereas the entries in revenue records came to be entered by concerned revenue authorities after conducing necessary survey, necessary inspection and after specific order, which was contested by very 1st defendant herein as per Ex.P.20 and again 1st defendant himself preferred appeal as per Ex.P.22 questioning orders on Ex.P.20. No doubt by virtue of Ex.P.22, the orders passed in Ex.P.20 came to be set aside and matter remanded to concerned Asst., Commissioner for reconsideration not on merits, but on technical grounds that, inspite of death of Smt.Siddalingamma, i.e., deceased plaintiff herein, her L.Rs were not come on record in accordance with law and thereby said order came to be rejected. However, D.W.1 himself admits in his cross-examination that concerned survey authorities inspected the spot and conducted necessary survey. According to him, one of its members constructed building over 22 OS.2900/1998 suit schedule property. This version establishes that there exist suit schedule property, to show that one of its member is in possession of suit schedule property, D.W.1 absolutely not produced any documents and categorically deposes that he has no documents in this regard. Under such circumstances,, the defense taken by 1st defendant society is not only vague, but also baseless. P.W.1 apart from producing his sale deed Ex.P.1 and P.23 has produced almost all revenue records including Akarband, Phodisketch, Atlas sketch orders of revenue authorities, mutation copy as per Ex.P.2 to P.22. All these documents clearly establishes the existence of suit schedule property and also plaintiff's right over the same and also his ownership. Accordingly, I have answered Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
11. Issue No.2: The very contention taken by 1st defendant society that entire extent of land Sy.No.6/2 came to be acquired by State Government on behalf of various societies establishes the alleged interference. That apart, inspite of producing final notification as per Ex.D.3, D.W.1 is asserting that State Government acquired entire extent of land pertaining to plaintiff. Whereas as per this document, only 1 acre 35 guntas out of 2 acres pertaining to plaintiff came to be acquired by State Government . As per Ex.D.5, possession of 1 acre 35 guntas taken over on behalf of 1st defendant society.
23 OS.2900/1998Further P.W.1 and 2 oral testimony available on record establishes that they are making all efforts to knock of this extent of 5 guntas . They have not at all produced original approved plan and only produced modified plan as per Ex.D.9. P.W.2 categorically deposes that he cannot give the details of land acquired on behalf of this society in Sy.No.6/2 without giving through the documents. Whereas in his chief examination at para No.2, D.W.2 categorically asserts that, the suit schedule property is imaginary and non existence. The entire extent of land in Sy.No.6/2 was acquired in favour of various societies and the plaintiff does not own a property in Sy.No.6/2. Whereas plaintiff already established his ownership and possession in respect of suit schedule property to an extent of 5 guntas . The revenue records accordingly, mutated in the name of plaintiff. Concerned survey authorities already inspected the spot conducted necessary survey and demarcated the land of plaintiff. Inspite of these revenue records and survey records available on record and also knowing fully well only 1 acre 35 guntas out of 2 acres pertaining to plaintiff acquired by State Government on behalf of 1st defendant society, it is asserted that entire extent has been acquired. The version of D.W.1 and 2 is contrary to their own documents Ex.D.2 to D.5. This version of D.W.1 and 2 establishes the interference caused by them towards plaintiff. Accordingly, I have answered this issue also in the affirmative.
24 OS.2900/199810. Issue No.3: Since plaintiff has established her possession over suit schedule property and also interference by the defendants, she is entitled for the relief as sought for. Accordingly, I have answered this Issue No.3 in the affirmative.
11. Issue No.4:: In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 3, and also relying upon the observation made by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in writ petition No. 10156 of 2015, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit decreed with costs.
LRs of deceased plaintiff Smt.Siddalingamma are hereby declared as the owner in possession of 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.6/2 of Mallathahalli village Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
Defendants are restrained permanently from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of this 5 guntas of land in Sy.No. 6/2.25 OS.2900/1998
Draw decree accordingly.
{Dictated to the Judgment writer , transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this 15th day of March 2017.} (M.LATHA KUMARI)) XI Addl.City Civil Judge Bangalore city.
ANNEXUERE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:-
P.W.1 Sri.S.Rajanna P.W.2: Sri. Rangaswamy P.W.3: Sri.Hombanna
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed dated
24.10.1966
Ex.P.2: Atlas map
Ex.P.3: Akarbund Map
Ex.p.4: Pakka book
Ex.P.5: Phodi letter
Ex.P.6: Order of Tahasildar dated 29.11.2005
Ex.P.7: Certified copy of Mutation Register
26 OS.2900/1998
Ex.P.8 to 12: Tax paid receipts
Ex.P.13 to17: Pahani
Ex.P.18 List of hissa prepared by Tahasildar,
Bengaluru South Taluk
Ex.P.19 Hissa Mojni letter prepared by Tahasildar,
Ex.P. 20: Copy of order of ADLR
Ex.P.21: Copy of Mutation register
Ex.P.22: Order of Joint director of ADLR
Ex.P.23: Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.P.24: Legal notice
Ex.P.24(a)(b) Acknowledgments
Ex.P.25: Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P.26: Copy of order in Case No.98/2006
List of witnesses examined for defendant:
D.W.1 Srri.M.R.Jagadeesh
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:-
Ex.D.1 Permission letter Ex.D.2: Notification Copy Ex.D.2(a): Relevant entry 27 OS.2900/1998 Ex.D.3: Certified copy of final notification Ex.D. 3(a) Relevant entry Ex.D.4: Certified copy of 16(1) notification Ex.D.5: Possession certificate Ex.D.6: Certified copy of award Ex.D.7: Certified copy of order sheet in RP No.199/09-10 Ex.D.8: Authorization letter Ex.D.9: Layout plan XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY 28 OS.2900/1998 29 OS.2900/1998 30 OS.2900/1998