Bangalore District Court
Santhosh Kumar V vs Anu Suya A on 15 April, 2026
KABC010052682025
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-45)
Dated this the 15th day of April, 2026
:PRESENT:
SRI. DODDEGOWDA.K, B.A.,L.L.B.,
XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.1462/2025
PLAINTIFF : Sri.V.Santhosh Kumar,
S/o Venkatesh,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.323,
Near Vishweshwaraiah Circle,
Horamavu Agrahara,
Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bengaluru-560043.
[By Sri.M.K.- Advocate]
Vs
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt.A.Anusuya,
W/o A.Muniswamy,
Aged about 51 years,
2 O.S.No.1462/2023
2. Sri.Uma Shankar M.D.,
S/o A.Muniswamy,
Aged about 32 years,
Defendants No.1 & 2 are
R/at No.E-652, East Second Lane,
ITI Town Ship, Dooravani Nagar,
Bengaluru-560016.
3. Smt.Sajida,
W/o A.M.Meeran,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.63, 4th Main, Hoysala
Nagara, Ramamurthy Nagar,
Duravani Nagara Post,
Bengaluru-560016.
[D1 & 2: By Sri.R.P. - Advocate
D3: Sri.N.R. - Advocate]
Date of Institution of the suit : 27-02-2025
Nature of the suit : Suit for partition,
separate possession
and Declaration
Date of commencement of : 20-09-2025
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 15-04-2026
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
01 01 16
(DODDEGOWDA.K)
XLIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City
3 O.S.No.1462/2023
:: JUDGMENT ::
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants No.1 to 3 seeking declaration that he is entitled to 9/10th share in the suit schedule "A" property and for separate possession of his alleged legitimate share therein. The plaintiff has also sought consequential declaration that the registered sale deed dated 15.09.1995, the sale deed dated 25.03.2003, the two sale deeds dated 28.04.2012 standing in the names of defendants No.1 to 3 and the rectification deed dated 09.10.2014 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, are not binding on the share of the plaintiff over the suit schedule "A" property. The plaintiff has further sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule "A" property.
2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that one late Hutchappa S/o Bajjappa was the absolute owner of immovable property bearing old Sy.No.60, renumbered as Sy.No.60/1, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, situated at 4 O.S.No.1462/2023 Horamavu Agara Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. According to the plaintiff, the said Hutchappa acquired the property under registered sale deed dated 10.10.1950 and after the said purchase, the revenue records were changed in his name and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same along with his family members. It is further pleaded that the said Hutchappa had two wives, namely Chikkamuniyamma and Muniyakkayamma. Through his first wife Chikkamuniyamma, he had five children and through his second wife Muniyakkayamma, he had four children. The names and details of the children are stated in paragraph No.4 of the plaint. According to the plaintiff, late Hutchappa died intestate on 07.06.1984 leaving behind his two wives and nine children as his legal heirs.
3. It is further pleaded that after the death of Hutchappa, khatha was changed in the names of both his wives under mutation order bearing No.IHR-3/1985-86. The plaintiff has produced RTC extracts and genealogical tree of the family of late Hutchappa. The plaintiff further contends that after the death of Hutchappa, his family members were 5 O.S.No.1462/2023 jointly enjoying the aforesaid property and they sold certain portions of the land for their legal necessities and retained the remaining portion. It is the further case of the plaintiff that while the property was being enjoyed jointly, the five children of the first wife Chikkamuniyamma and their family members released their rights and interest in favour of one legal heir, namely Sri Ramanna, through registered release deed dated 26.09.2016. On the same day, the other four children through the second wife Muniyakkayamma and their legal heirs released their rights and interest in favour of another legal heir, namely Sri Muniyappa, through another registered release deed dated 26.09.2016. According to the plaintiff, by virtue of the above said release deeds, Ramanna and Muniyappa became entitled to deal with the remaining property. Thereafter, the said Ramanna and Muniyappa sold vacant site bearing No.8 formed in Sy.No.60/1, khatha No.145/4, situated at Horamavu Agara Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, now coming within the limits of BBMP Ward No.25, measuring 3,900 sq.ft., which is more fully described in the plaint schedule as schedule "A" property, in favour of G. Anil 6 O.S.No.1462/2023 Kumar and A. Chandrasekhar Reddy under registered sale deed dated 09.08.2024. It is further pleaded that thereafter A. Chandrasekhar Reddy sold his 50% undivided right, title and interest in the schedule "A" property in favour of Smt. Pokuri Sujatha, wife of Maruti Varaprasad, under registered sale deed dated 05.09.2024. Thereafter, the said G. Anil Kumar and Pokuri Sujatha jointly sold the entire schedule "A" property in favour of the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 25.09.2024.According to the plaintiff, by virtue of the said sale deed, he was put in possession of the schedule "A" property. It is further pleaded that the original sale deed is deposited with the financier for availing loan and therefore the plaintiff has produced certified copies of the sale deeds. The plaintiff further contends that he has applied for change of e-khatha in respect of schedule "A" property and the same is under process.
4. It is also pleaded that soon after purchase by his vendors, they dug a borewell in the schedule "A" property for the purpose of putting up construction, as the property was a vacant site. The plaintiff further contends that defendants 7 O.S.No.1462/2023 No.1 and 2, by creating a false police complaint dated 30.09.2024, filed O.S.No.7628/2024 before this Court for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and another and obtained an interim order of temporary injunction against the plaintiff in respect of a portion of the schedule "A" property measuring 2,400 sq.ft., which is described as schedule "B" property in the plaint. The plaintiff alleges that taking undue advantage of the interim order dated 30.10.2024 passed in O.S.No.7628/2024, defendants No.1 and 2 trespassed into the schedule "B" property in the month of January 2025 and hurriedly started construction. The plaintiff contends that only after receipt of summons in O.S.No.7628/2024, he came to know about the said interim order and the claim made by defendants No.1 and 2. According to the plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 are claiming right over schedule "B" property on the basis of registered sale deed dated 28.04.2012 executed by Smt.Vinobai. It is pleaded that the said Vinobai allegedly purchased schedule "A" property under registered sale deed dated 25.03.2003 from one Sri. Dhani.C.Vattachary, who in turn is said to have purchased the property under registered 8 O.S.No.1462/2023 sale deed dated 15.09.1995 executed by one Michael Zachariah, who is alleged to be the General Power of Attorney holder of Chikkamuniyamma and Muniyakkayamma, the two wives of late Hutchappa.
5. The plaintiff specifically contends that nothing is whispered about the alleged GPA or the particulars thereof in the sale deeds of the defendants or their vendors. The plaintiff further contends that during enquiry and on verification of records, he came to know that defendant No.3 is also claiming right over the remaining portion of schedule "A" property measuring 1,500 sq.ft., described as schedule "C" property, under another registered sale deed dated 28.04.2012 executed by the said Smt. Vinobai. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the two wives of late Hutchappa, namely Chikkamuniyamma and Muniyakkayamma, died on 28.09.2019 and 12.05.2023 respectively. It is his case that the plaintiff is claiming through the children of late Hutchappa, who had 9/10th share in schedule "A" property. On the other hand, defendants No.1 to 3 are claiming through the two wives of late Hutchappa, who, according to 9 O.S.No.1462/2023 the plaintiff, together had only 1/10th share in the property. It is further pleaded that both schedule "B" and schedule "C" properties are portions of schedule "A" property. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the present suit is one for general partition between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 in respect of schedule "A" property. On these grounds, the plaintiff has prayed to decree the suit.
6. After service of suit summons, defendants No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed their written statement. They have denied the plaint averments, except those which are specifically admitted. Defendants No.1 and 2 admit that the property originally belonged to late Hutchappa. They also admit that late Hutchappa had two wives, namely Chikkamuniyamma and Muniyakkayamma. However, they deny the plaintiff's claim that the children of Hutchappa had subsisting right over schedule "A" property and that the plaintiff has acquired any valid right, title or possession over schedule "A" property. The specific case of defendants No.1 and 2 is that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of schedule "B" property, which is part of site No.8 10 O.S.No.1462/2023 measuring 2,400 sq.ft. According to them, after the death of Hutchappa, his two wives Chikkamuniyamma and Muniyakkayamma inherited the property and through their General Power of Attorney holder Michael Zachariah sold an extent of 3,900 sq.ft. in site No.8 in favour of Sri Dhani C. Wattachary under registered sale deed dated 15.09.1995. It is further pleaded that the said Dhani C.Wattachary sold the entire extent of 3,900 sq.ft. in favour of Smt.Vinobai under registered sale deed dated 25.03.2003. Thereafter, Smt. Vinobai sold the southern portion measuring 2,400 sq.ft. in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 under registered sale deed dated 28.04.2012. They contend that from the date of purchase, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule "B" property.
7. Defendants No.1 and 2 further contend that their names were entered in the khatha and property register records from the year 2012 and they have been paying taxes to the concerned authority. They contend that for security purpose, they constructed a compound wall and also a small shed inside the property. They also contend that they dug a 11 O.S.No.1462/2023 borewell in the year 2013-14 and have obtained electricity and water connections. It is further pleaded that during the last week of August 2024, the plaintiff and others illegally trespassed into the schedule "B" property and tried to dismantle the borewell and break down the compound wall. Therefore, defendants No.1 and 2 approached the jurisdictional police and lodged a complaint. It is further pleaded that on 30.09.2024 they again lodged complaint, which resulted in registration of FIR in Crime No.481/2024.
8. Defendants No.1 and 2 further contend that the plaintiff, though fully aware of their ownership and possession, clandestinely obtained registered sale deed dated 25.09.2024 from his vendors and thereafter tried to interfere with the possession of defendants No.1 and 2. Therefore, defendants No.1 and 2 filed O.S.No.7628/2024 for permanent injunction and this Court granted an order of injunction on 30.10.2024, which is still in force.It is their further contention that they have invested their hard-earned money and have constructed a house in the schedule "B" property. According to them, the plaintiff has no right to 12 O.S.No.1462/2023 interfere with their possession by using political or muscle power. Defendants No.1 and 2 have also taken a specific contention that the suit is not maintainable in the present form. According to them, the plaintiff is seeking 9/10th share only in site No.8 measuring 3,900 sq.ft., but he has not included the entire extent of 2 acres 20 guntas owned by late Hutchappa. Therefore, the suit is bad for partial partition. They further contend that the children and other legal heirs of late Hutchappa are not made parties to the suit and hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the sale deed under which defendants No.1 and 2 claim title is much prior to the sale deed of the plaintiff. According to them, when the suit schedule property had already been sold in the year 1995 and thereafter in the year 2003 and 2012, the plaintiff's vendors had no subsisting right to sell the property in the year 2024. Hence, they have prayed to dismiss the suit.
9. Defendant No.3 has also filed separate written statement denying the plaint averments. His case is that he is the absolute owner in possession of schedule "C" property 13 O.S.No.1462/2023 measuring 1,500 sq.ft., which is part of site No.8. According to defendant No.3, the property originally belonged to late Hutchappa and after his death, his wives Chikkamuniyamma and Muniyakkayamma, through their GPA holder Michael Zachariah, sold site No.8 measuring 3,900 sq.ft. in favour of Dhani C.Wattachary under sale deed dated 15.09.1995. The said Dhani C.Wattachary sold the same in favour of Smt. Vinobai under registered sale deed dated 25.03.2003. Thereafter, Smt.Vinobai sold schedule "C" property in favour of defendant No.3 under registered sale deed dated 28.04.2012. Defendant No.3 contends that his name has been entered in the property records and he has been paying taxes. He further contends that the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or possession over schedule "C" property. He also contends that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and necessary properties. According to him, the suit for partial partition in respect of only one site, without including the entire extent of 2 acres 20 guntas and without impleading all purchasers and legal heirs, is not 14 O.S.No.1462/2023 maintainable. On these grounds, defendant No.3 has prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues and additional issues have been framed:
:: ISSUES::
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to 9/10th share in the suit schedule "A" property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the registered sale deeds dated 15.09.1995, 25.03.2003, two sale deeds dated 28.04.2012 in the names of defendants No.1 to 3 and rectification deed dated 09.10.2014 are not binding on the share of the plaintiff over schedule "A" property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as sought for?
4. What order or decree?
Additional Issues framed on 28.07.2025
1. Whether the suit is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether the suit is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary properties?
Additional Issues framed on 06.01.2026
1. Whether defendant No.3 proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule "C" property having acquired the same by virtue of sale deed dated 28.04.2012?
15 O.S.No.1462/2023
2. Whether defendants No.1 and 2 prove that they are the absolute owners in possession of schedule "B" property totally measuring 2,400 sq.ft. having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 28.04.2012?
11. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination reiterating the averments of the plaint. He has produced documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. On behalf of defendants No.1 and 2, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1 and documents were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D33. On behalf of defendant No.3, his Special Power of Attorney holder was examined as DW.2 and documents were marked as Ex.D34 to Ex.D48.
12. The learned counsel for plaintiff has placed reliance on the following rulings;
1. (2012) 8 SCC 706 (Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Reptd. By his chairman Vs Ponniaman Educational Trust Reptd. By its Chairperson/Managing Trustee)
2. Special Leave Petition© No.11868/2024 (Tharammel Peethambaran & Another Vs T.Ushakrishnan & Another) 16 O.S.No.1462/2023
13. The learned counsel for defendant No.1 & 2 has placed reliance on the following rulings;
1. ILR 2013 KAR 1711 ( Sri.Vishwaraj and Another Vs Sri.B.M.Byrappa & Others)
2. AIR 1966 SC 470 (M.V.S.Manikayala Rao Vs M.Narasimhaswami and Others)
3. RSA No.466/2009 (Elizabeth Vs Mariyamma and Others)
4. 1994 (4) SCC 294(Kenchegowda Vs Siddegowda)
5. AIR 1973 Mysore 276 (Azeezulla Sheriff and Others Vs Bhabhutimu)
6. AIR Kar R 344(Mahesh Centre and another Vs Charity fund by its trustees)
7. AIR 1981 Kar.40 (Parameshwari Bai Vs Muthojirao Scindia)
14. Heard the arguments of both sides. The learned counsel for defendants No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for defendant No.3 have also filed written arguments. Perused the entire records.
15. For the reasons stated below, my findings on the above issues are as follows:
17 O.S.No.1462/2023
Issue No.1 In the Negative
Issue No.2 In the Negative
Issue No.3 In the Negative
Additional Issue No.1
In the Affirmative
dated 28.07.2025
Additional Issue No.2
In the Affirmative
dated 28.07.2025
Additional Issue No.1
In the Affirmative
dated 06.01.2026
Additional Issue No.2
In the Affirmative
dated 06.01.2026
Issue No.4 As per final order
REASONS
16. Issue No.1, Issue No.2 and Additional Issues dated 28.07.2025: These issues are interconnected. Therefore, they are taken up together for common discussion.
It is the specific case of the plaintiff in brief that the suit schedule property being a part of Sy.No.60/1 of Horamavu village totally measuring 2 acres 20 guntas originally belonged to one Huchappa who has got two wives and 9 children. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the wives of Huchappa had no independent right to execute GPA and alienate the property and therefore, the sale deed dated 18 O.S.No.1462/2023 15.09.1995 and subsequent sale deeds including the sale deeds in favor of the defendants No.1 to 3 cannot be said to be valid sale deeds. Hence, the present suit for declaration and partition.
17. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination reiterating the averments of the plaint. He has produced documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. On behalf of defendants No.1 and 2, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1 and documents were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D33. Ex.P1 is the digitally signed certified copy of the sale deed dated 25.09.2024 executed by G. Anil Kumar and Pokuri Sujatha in favour of the plaintiff in respect of site No.8 measuring 3,900 sq.ft. Ex.P2 is the cash bill dated 27.08.2024 issued by Karthikeyan Borewells. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 15.09.1995. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 25.03.2003 executed by Dhani C. Vattachary in favour of Smt. Vinobai. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 28.04.2012 executed by Smt. Vinobai in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of 19 O.S.No.1462/2023 schedule "B" property. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of rectification deed dated 09.10.2014. Ex.P7 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 28.04.2012 executed by Smt. Vinobai in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of schedule "C" property. Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are RTC extracts. Ex.P10 is the attested family tree of late Uchappa. Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 are the registered release deeds dated 26.09.2016. Ex.P13 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 09.08.2024 executed by Ramanna and Muniyappa in favour of G. Anil Kumar and A. Chandrasekhar Reddy. Ex.P14 is the sale deed dated 05.09.2024 executed by A. Chandrasekhar Reddy in favour of Pokuri Sujatha. Ex.P15 is the order sheet in O.S.No.7628/2024. Ex.P17 to Ex.P22 are photographs and Ex.P23 is CD. Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 are the plaint and written statement in O.S.No.7628/2024. Ex.P27 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.7814/2024.
18. Ex.D2 is the original sale deed dated 15.09.1995 executed by Chikkamuniyamma and Muniyakkayamma represented by their GPA holder Michael Zachariah in favour of Dhani.C.Wattachary. Ex.D6 is the original sale deed dated 20 O.S.No.1462/2023 25.03.2003 executed by Dhani.C.Wattachary in favour of Smt. Vinobai. Ex.D7 is the original sale deed dated 28.04.2012 executed by Smt.Vinobai in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Ex.D8 is the rectification deed. Ex.D9 is the Form-B property register extract in the names of defendants No.1 and 2. Ex.D10 is the borewell bill. Ex.D11 are tax paid receipts. Ex.D13 is FIR in Crime No.481/2024. Ex.D14 are electricity bills. Ex.D16 is BWSSB acknowledgment. Ex.D17 is house warming invitation card. Ex.D18 to Ex.D25 are photographs showing construction. Ex.D27 is the order passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.7628/2024. Ex.D28 is the order passed in MFA No.3446/2025.
19. Ex.D34 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 28.04.2012 in favour of defendant No.3. Ex.D35 is rectification deed. Ex.D36 is Form-B property register extract in the name of defendant No.3. Ex.D37 to Ex.D40 are tax paid receipts. Ex.D41 is encumbrance certificate. Ex.D46 is the Special Power of Attorney in favour of DW.2. Ex.D47 is e- khatha standing in the name of defendant No.3. Ex.D48 is the order sheet in O.S.No.7814/2024.
21 O.S.No.1462/2023
20. The plaintiff has filed this suit claiming 9/10 th share in the suit schedule "A" property. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the plaintiff is not a member of the family of late Hutchappa. He is claiming as a purchaser under Ex.P1 sale deed dated 25.09.2024. Therefore, the plaintiff must first establish that his vendors had valid and subsisting title over the schedule "A" property as on the date of execution of Ex.P1. The plaintiff's case is that after the death of Hutchappa, his two widows and nine children inherited the property. According to the plaintiff, the two widows together took one share and the nine children took one share each. On that basis, the plaintiff contends that the children had 9/10th share and the two wives together had only 1/10th share. The plaintiff further contends that the children of Hutchappa executed release deeds in favour of Ramanna and Muniyappa and subsequently Ramanna and Muniyappa sold the property to the vendors of the plaintiff.
21. The above case of the plaintiff is dependent upon several facts. The plaintiff must prove the genealogy of late Hutchappa. He must prove that all legal heirs of late 22 O.S.No.1462/2023 Hutchappa were properly represented in the release deeds. He must prove that the executants of the release deeds had subsisting right in the property as on 26.09.2016. He must also prove that Ramanna and Muniyappa had authority to convey the schedule property to G.AnilKumar and A.Chandrasekhar Reddy in the year 2024. He must further prove that his vendors had acquired valid title under the sale deeds of 2024. In the present case, the plaintiff has not impleaded the all children of late Hutchappa or their legal heirs. The persons who executed Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 release deeds are not parties to this suit. Ramanna and Muniyappa, in whose favour the release deeds were allegedly executed, are also not parties. The immediate vendors of the plaintiff, namely G. Anil Kumar and Pokuri Sujatha, are also not parties. The earlier vendor A. Chandrasekhar Reddy is also not a party.
22. In the cross examination dated 04.12.2025, PW.1 categorically admits that Huchappa had owned and possessed two acres 20 guntas of land he pleaded ignorance as to the prior partition among the family members 23 O.S.No.1462/2023 of Huchappa. The said oral evidence of PW.1 is as follows:
"it is true to suggest that Huchappa had owned and possessed two acres twenty guntas of land. I do not know whether the said Huchappa had any other property other than two acres twenty guntas. I do not know whether there is any partition among the family members of said Huchappa."
Q: You have filed this suit for partition even without including the entire property measuring 2 acres 20 guntas belonging to Huchappa and his family and even not arraigning the said Huchappa and his family members as parties to the suit and therefore, the suit is bad in law, what do you say ?
A: Huchappa and his family members have executed Sale deed in my favor in respect of the property measuring 3900 square feet.
As rightly contended by the counsel for the defendants, three sale transactions are taken place within a span of 1½ month and huge amount of Rs.1,66,00,000/- is said to have been paid by the plaintiff in cash to purchase the property. The payment of sale consideration in cash is doubtful. Even the plaintiff has not produced document to substantiate the source of income and payment of the sale consideration 24 O.S.No.1462/2023 amount in cash.
23. In a suit where the plaintiff seeks declaration of share on the basis of derivative title, the presence of his vendors and the persons from whom the vendors derived title would be necessary for complete and effective adjudication. Without their presence, this Court cannot decide the validity, binding nature and legal effect of the release deeds and subsequent sale deeds. If this Court declares that the plaintiff has 9/10th share, such declaration would directly affect the alleged legal heirs of Hutchappa and the executants of the release deeds, though they are not before the Court. Such a decree cannot be passed behind their back. Therefore, the objection raised by the defendants that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties has considerable force.
24. Apart from the above defect, the suit is also bad for non-joinder of necessary properties. It is an admitted fact that late Hutchappa owned land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.60/1. The plaintiff himself pleads that after the death of Hutchappa, the family members sold certain portions for legal necessities and retained the remaining 25 O.S.No.1462/2023 portion. However, the present suit is filed only in respect of site No.8 measuring 3,900 sq.ft. If the plaintiff's case is that the property of late Hutchappa remained joint and that he has stepped into the shoes of some of the co-sharers, then the entire estate of late Hutchappa or at least all the available properties and the details of alienated portions ought to have been included in the suit. The plaintiff cannot select only one site out of a larger extent and seek partition only in respect of that site. Such a suit is in the nature of partial partition. A suit for partial partition cannot be maintained as a matter of course. The rule is that all joint family properties or joint properties available for partition must be included, so that there can be complete and final adjudication between all persons interested in the estate. No acceptable reason is shown by the plaintiff as to why the entire extent of 2 acres 20 guntas or other available properties are not included in the present suit. The plaintiff has also not furnished full particulars of the portions allegedly sold by the family members. Therefore, the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary properties also.
26 O.S.No.1462/2023
25. The plaintiff has argued that the suit is only between rival purchasers and therefore the legal heirs of Hutchappa are not necessary parties. This argument cannot be accepted. If the suit is only between rival purchasers, the proper relief should have been one for declaration of title and possession on the strength of plaintiff's sale deed and not a suit for partition claiming 9/10th share. When the plaintiff himself pleads inheritance by the heirs of Hutchappa and claims share through some of them, the said heirs or their legal representatives are necessary parties. The plaintiff cannot take inconsistent stands. For the purpose of claiming share, he relies upon the rights of the heirs of Hutchappa. But for the purpose of parties, he says that the heirs of Hutchappa are not necessary. This approach is not legally acceptable.
26. Now, coming to the title documents, the defendants have produced Ex.D2 original registered sale deed dated 15.09.1995. Under this document, Chikkamuniyamma and Muniyakkayamma, represented by 27 O.S.No.1462/2023 their GPA holder Michael Zachariah, sold site No.8 measuring 3,900 sq.ft. in favour of Sri Dhani.C.Wattachary. Thereafter, under Ex.D6 sale deed dated 25.03.2003, Dhani C.Wattachary sold the said property in favour of Smt. Vinobai. Subsequently, under Ex.D7 sale deed dated 28.04.2012, Smt. Vinobai sold schedule "B" property measuring 2,400 sq.ft. in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Similarly, under Ex.D34 sale deed dated 28.04.2012, she sold schedule "C" property measuring 1,500 sq.ft. in favour of defendant No.3. Thus, the defendants have produced registered documents beginning from the year 1995. On the other hand, the plaintiff's sale deed is of the year 2024. The plaintiff's sale deed is subsequent to the sale deeds relied upon by the defendants. Therefore, unless the plaintiff establishes that the sale deed dated 15.09.1995 and subsequent sale deeds are void and non est in the eye of law, the plaintiff cannot claim a better right on the strength of his subsequent sale deed. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that Ex.D2 sale deed dated 15.09.1995 is invalid because the alleged GPA is not produced and 28 O.S.No.1462/2023 because the children of Hutchappa were not parties to the said sale deed. It is also argued that the two wives of Hutchappa had no absolute right to sell the entire property. These contentions may raise some question regarding the extent of right conveyed under Ex.D2. But the point is whether such question can be decided in this suit in the absence of necessary parties and without a proper comprehensive prayer.
27. The alleged executants of the sale deed dated 15.09.1995 are not alive. Their legal heirs are not parties. The purchaser under the sale deed dated 15.09.1995 is not a party. The subsequent purchaser under the sale deed dated 25.03.2003 is not a party. The plaintiff's own vendors are not parties. Therefore, this Court cannot conveniently and finally decide the validity of the sale deed dated 15.09.1995 and the subsequent sale deeds in this defective suit. It is also important to note that the plaintiff has not sought cancellation of the sale deeds. He has only sought declaration that the sale deeds are not binding on his share. But before such declaration can be granted, the plaintiff must establish his 29 O.S.No.1462/2023 own share. Since the plaintiff has failed to establish that his vendors had subsisting title or share in the suit schedule property as on the date of Ex.P1, the question of declaring the earlier sale deeds as not binding on him does not arise.
28. The plaintiff has relied on Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 release deeds dated 26.09.2016. But those release deeds are much subsequent to Ex.D2 sale deed dated 15.09.1995. If the suit schedule property had already been conveyed under registered sale deed dated 15.09.1995 and thereafter again conveyed under the sale deed dated 25.03.2003 and then under the sale deeds dated 28.04.2012, the plaintiff must prove that the executants of Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 still had subsisting right in the property in the year 2016. No such satisfactory evidence is produced. A person can convey only such right which he has. If the executants of the release deeds had already lost their right or if the property had already passed into the hands of third parties under prior registered sale deeds, the release deeds of 2016 and the subsequent sale deed of 2024 cannot defeat the earlier registered documents.
30 O.S.No.1462/2023
29. The defendants have rightly relied upon the principle in Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act which reads as under:
48. Priority of rights created by transfer.--
Where a person purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the same immoveable property, and such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created right shall, in the absence of a special contract or reservation binding the earlier transferees, be subject to the rights previously created.
When there are successive transfers of the same immovable property, the earlier transfer will prevail over the later transfer, if both cannot stand together. In the present case, defendants' chain of title commences from 1995, whereas plaintiff's chain of title commences effectively from 2016 and culminates in 2024. Therefore, the plaintiff's subsequent purchase cannot override the prior registered sale deeds of the defendants.
30. The plaintiff has also contended that there is no mention of GPA particulars in the defendants' documents 31 O.S.No.1462/2023 and therefore the transaction of 1995 is suspicious. It is true that the GPA itself is not produced. But the sale deed of 1995 is a registered document. It has stood for nearly three decades. The subsequent transactions of 2003 and 2012 have also taken place on the basis of the said document. Revenue records, tax receipts, encumbrance certificates and other documents have come into existence thereafter. In such circumstances, the plaintiff, who is a purchaser in the year 2024, cannot succeed merely by pointing out non- production of GPA, especially when all necessary parties to the said transaction are not before the Court.
31. The counsel for the plaintiff has been relied upon the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706 in the case of Chruch of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society V/s Ponniamman Educational Trust, to contend that immovable property cannot be sold through the general power of attorney. He has also relied upon the decision rendered in SLP (c) No.11868/2024 dated 06.02.2026 in the case of THARAMAL PEETHAMBARAN & ANOTHER V/S T.USHAKRISHNAN & ANOTHER.
32 O.S.No.1462/2023
32. In the instant case, the first sale deed itself is of the year 1995, the sale deed of the defendants is of the year 2012. The revenue records coupled with the photographs and oral admission of PW.1 makes it clear that the defendants No.1 to 3 are in possession of their respective sites purchased under the sale deeds.
33. It is well settled that the plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendants' case. Even if there is some defect in the defendants' title, the plaintiff cannot get a decree unless he proves that he has acquired valid title or share in the property. Admittedly, the defendants No.1 to 3 have purchased only a bit of land totally measuring 3900sqft out of two acres twenty guntas which was earlier owned and possessed by late Huchappa. The relationship between deceased Huchappa and his two wives is not in dispute. Whatever the property sold by the wives of Huchappa can be considered as their share and the plaintiffs, if at all entitled to any share, they can claim their rights in the remaining property if the law permits to do so. In the present case, the 33 O.S.No.1462/2023 plaintiff has failed to discharge that burden. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled to 9/10th share in schedule "A" property. He has also failed to prove that the sale deeds dated 15.09.1995, 25.03.2003, two sale deeds dated 28.04.2012 and rectification deed dated 09.10.2014 are not binding on him. Accordingly, Issue No.1 and Issue No.2 are answered in the 'Negative'. Additional Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.2 framed on 28.07.2025 are answered in the 'Affirmative'.
34. Additional Issue No.2 dated 06.01.2026:
Defendants No.1 and 2 claim title and possession over schedule "B" property under registered sale deed dated 28.04.2012. They have produced Ex.D7 original registered sale deed. The said sale deed is supported by previous title deeds Ex.D2 and Ex.D6. Ex.D2 is the original sale deed dated 15.09.1995. Ex.D6 is the sale deed dated 25.03.2003.
Ex.D7 is the sale deed in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Ex.D8 is the rectification deed. Ex.D9 is the Form-B property register extract. Ex.D11 are tax paid receipts. Ex.D14 are 34 O.S.No.1462/2023 electricity bills. Ex.D16 is BWSSB acknowledgment. Ex.D17 is house warming invitation card. Ex.D18 to Ex.D25 are photographs showing construction. Ex.D27 and Ex.D28 are certified copies of judicial orders passed in O.S.No.7628/2024 and MFA No.3446/2025.The above documents clearly show that defendants No.1 and 2 are claiming under a registered sale deed of the year 2012 and that they have acted upon the said sale deed by getting their names entered in records, paying taxes, obtaining facilities and putting up construction. The plaintiff has disputed their title and possession. However, the plaintiff's sale deed is of the year 2024. The plaintiff has not produced any better or earlier title document. The plaintiff has relied upon Ex.P2 borewell bill and photographs. But a borewell bill and photographs cannot prevail over registered sale deed, khatha extract, tax paid receipts, electricity bills, BWSSB records and other documents produced by defendants No.1 and 2.
35. It is also relevant that defendants No.1 and 2 filed O.S.No.7628/2024 and obtained an interim order of injunction. The certified copies of the order passed in the 35 O.S.No.1462/2023 said suit and in MFA proceedings show that their possession was considered in the interlocutory proceedings. Though such orders are not conclusive proof of title, they are relevant to show the nature of possession and the dispute between the parties.The plaintiff has argued that the construction was put up by defendants No.1 and 2 only after the High Court order. Even if that contention is accepted for the sake of argument, the fact remains that defendants No.1 and 2 have produced documents showing their purchase in the year 2012 and their possession records prior to the plaintiff's purchase. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in lawful possession of schedule "B" property before the defendants. Hence, defendants No.1 and 2 have established that they are the owners in possession of schedule "B" property under registered sale deed dated 28.04.2012. Accordingly, Additional Issue No.2 dated 06.01.2026 is answered in the 'Affirmative'.
36. Additional Issue No.1 dated 06.01.2026:
Defendant No.3 claims title over schedule "C" property measuring 1,500 sq.ft. under registered sale deed dated 36 O.S.No.1462/2023 28.04.2012. In support of his case, defendant No.3 has produced Ex.D34 sale deed, Ex.D35 rectification deed, Ex.D36 Form-B property register extract, Ex.D37 to Ex.D40 tax paid receipts, Ex.D41 encumbrance certificate and Ex.D47 e-khatha. The plaintiff has attacked the evidence of DW.2 on the ground that DW.2 is only a Special Power of Attorney holder and has pleaded ignorance to some facts. In the present case, defendant No.3's case mainly rests on registered sale deed and public records. Those documents speak for themselves. The plaintiff has not produced any convincing evidence to show that Ex.D34 is a sham or invalid document. The plaintiff's sale deed is much subsequent to Ex.D34. The plaintiff has not proved that his vendors had any title to convey schedule "C" property in his favour. When defendant No.3 has produced registered sale deed of 2012, property register extract, tax paid receipts and e-khatha, his possession and title are more probable than the plaintiff's claim based on a sale deed of 2024. Therefore, defendant No.3 has proved his ownership and possession over schedule "C" property. Accordingly, Additional Issue No.1 37 O.S.No.1462/2023 dated 06.01.2026 is answered in the 'Affirmative.'
37. Issue No.3: The plaintiff has sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule "A" property. In order to obtain permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove that he is in lawful possession of the property as on the date of suit and that the defendants are interfering with such possession. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to prove his title or share in schedule "A" property. He has also failed to prove lawful possession over the entire schedule "A" property. Schedule "A" property consists of 3,900 sq.ft. Schedule "B" property measuring 2,400 sq.ft. is claimed by defendants No.1 and 2. Schedule "C" property measuring 1,500 sq.ft. is claimed by defendant No.3. Thus, schedule "B" and schedule "C" together constitute the entire schedule "A" property. The defendants have produced documents to show their title and possession over their respective portions. Defendants No.1 and 2 have produced sale deed, khatha extract, tax paid receipts, electricity bills, BWSSB records, and photographs of construction . 38 O.S.No.1462/2023 Defendant No.3 has produced sale deed, property register extract, tax paid receipts and e-khatha. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has mainly produced a recent sale deed of 2024, borewell bill and photographs. These documents are not sufficient to prove settled possession of the plaintiff over schedule "A" property. The plaintiff has also admitted that defendants No.1 and 2 have filed O.S.No.7628/2024 and that there are proceedings between the parties. The existence of FIR and criminal case also shows that there is a serious dispute regarding possession. It is also seen that defendants No.1 and 2 have placed documents to show construction over schedule "B" property. Defendant No.3 has placed documents to show khatha and tax payment in respect of schedule "C" property. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was in lawful and peaceful possession of schedule "A" property as on the date of suit. When the plaintiff has failed to prove title, share and possession, the discretionary relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted in his favour. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in the 'Negative.' 39 O.S.No.1462/2023
38. Before parting with the matter, it is necessary to observe that the plaintiff has attempted to convert a dispute between rival purchasers into a suit for partition. The plaintiff is not a co-sharer by birth or succession. He is a purchaser under a sale deed of 2024. If the plaintiff was of the view that his vendors had better title and that the defendants' documents are invalid, the plaintiff ought to have filed a properly framed comprehensive suit for declaration of title and possession by impleading all necessary parties. Instead, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition claiming 9/10th share. But for such a relief, the alleged co-sharers or their legal representatives are not before the Court. The entire property of late Hutchappa is also not before the Court. The plaintiff has also not produced convincing evidence to show that the executants of release deeds had subsisting right in the suit schedule property in the year 2016. The defendants' documents are much earlier in point of time. Their claim is supported by registered sale deeds of 1995, 2003 and 2012. The plaintiff's sale deed is of the year 2024. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim priority over the 40 O.S.No.1462/2023 defendants' earlier registered documents. The plaintiff has also failed to prove possession. The photographs and borewell bill relied upon by him do not establish possession over the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the defendants have produced better documentary evidence showing possession and enjoyment of their respective portions. For all these reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed.
39. Issue No.4: In view of the above findings on Issue Nos.1 to 3 and additional issues, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is proper to direct the parties to bear their own costs.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
41 O.S.No.1462/2023
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 15th day of April, 2026.) (DODDEGOWDA.K) XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side :
PW.1 V.Santhosh Kumar
(b) Defendant's side :
DW.1 Uma shankar
DW.2 Aneez.M.
II. List of documents marked on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Digitally signed and certified copy of the
Sale deed dated 25.09.2024
Ex.P.2 Original cash/credit bill issued by Karthiga
Borewells
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the Sale deed dated
15.09.1995
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of the Sale deed dated
25.03.2003
Ex.P.5 Digitally signed and certified copy of the
Sale deed dated 28.04.2012
Ex.P.6 Digitally signed and certified copy of the
42 O.S.No.1462/2023
rectification deed dated 09.10.2014
Ex.P.7 Digitally signed and certified copy of the
Sale deed dated 28.04.2012 executed by
Mrs. S.Vinobai in favor of defendant No.3 Ex.P.8 & 9 RTC forms in respect of Sy. No.60/1 Ex.P.10 Computerized attestation of family tree dated 17.05.2022 Ex.P.11 Digitally signed and Certified copy of the Release deed dated 26.09.2016 Ex.P.12 Digitally signed and Certified copy of the Release deed dated 26.09.2016 executed by one Smt. Rajamma and 9 others in favor of Sri.Ramanna Ex.P.13 Digitally signed and certified copy of the Sale deed dated 09.08.2024 Ex.P.14 Digitally signed and certified copy of the Sale deed dated 05.09.2024 Ex.P.15 Certified copy of the Order Sheet in O.S.7628/2024 Ex.P.16 Certificate u/Sec. 63(4) of Bharathiya Sakshadiniyam, 2023 Ex.P.17 to 22 6 photographs Ex.P.23 CD pertaining to photographs Ex.P24 & 25 Certified copy of the plaint and written statement in O.S.No.7628/2024 Ex.P26 Photographs Ex.P27 Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.7814/2024 Defendants' side :
Ex.D1 Copy of complaint to BBMP
Ex.D.2 The original registered Sale deed dated 15.09.1995
Ex.D.3 to 5 Three Encumbrance certificates
Ex.D.6 Original registered Sale deed dated 25.03.2003
Ex.D.7 Original registered Sale deed dated 28.04.2012
Ex.D.8 Original registered Rectification deed dated
09.10.2014
43 O.S.No.1462/2023
Ex.D.9 Form 'B' property register extract
Ex.D.10 Bill dated 25.12.2013 issued by Sri. Amruth
Borewells
Ex.D.11 14 Tax paid receipts collectively marked
Ex.D.12 Acknowledgment dated 04.09.2025 issued by
Hennur police
Ex.D.13 Certified copy of the FIR in Cr.481/2024
Ex.D.14 8 Electricity bills
Ex.D.15 E-Khatha dated 02.03.2025 (2 pages)
Ex.D.16 Payment acknowledgment issued by BWSSB
Ex.D.17 House warming invitation card
Ex.D.18 to 8 photographs
25
Ex.D.26 Pen drive pertaining to photographs
Ex.D.27 Certified copy of the Orders dated 28.03.2025
passed on I.A. No.1 and 2 in O.S.7628/2024 Ex.D.28 Certified copy of the Orders dated 02.07.2025 passed in MFA No.3446/2025 (CPC) Ex.D.29 Certificate u/Sec. 63 of Bharathiya Sakshiadiniyam Ex.D.30 Certified copy of the Order Sheet in C.C.64793/2025 Ex.D.31 Certified copy of the Charge sheet in C.C.64793/2025 (Cr.481/2024) along with enclosures from page No.10 to 135 is collectively marked.
Ex.D.32 Form No.15 of Encumbrance certificate Ex.D.33 Bank statement for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013 Ex.D.34 Digitally signed and certified copy of the Sale deed dated 28.04.2012 Ex.D.35 Certified copy of the rectification deed dated 09.10.2014 Ex.D.36 Certified copy of the Form 'B' property register extract Ex.D.37 to 4 Certified copies of the tax paid receipts 40 Ex.D.41 Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate (3 sheets) Ex.D.42 Certified copy of the photographs (3 sheets) 44 O.S.No.1462/2023 collectively marked Ex.D.43 Certified copy of the acknowledgment dated 04.09.2024 Ex.D.44 Certified copy of the complaint Ex.D.45 Certified copy of the FIR in Cr.481/2024 Ex.D.46 Certified copy of the SPA dated 28.10.2024 executed by defendant No.3 in favor of the witness Ex.D.47 E-Khatha Ex.D.48 Certified copy of the Order Sheet in O.S.7814/2024 XLIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.