Bangalore District Court
Naveena Kumari K vs Mruthyunjaya Gouda on 19 January, 2026
1
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
KABC010179542020
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCH-18)
::Present::
Smt. Gomati Raghavendra, LL.M., DIPR, DCL.,
XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2026.
O.S.No.7337/2017 C/w. O S No.4957/2020
PLAINTIFF :: Smt. Naveena Kumari.K,
W/o. M. Narayanaswamy, Aged
about 47 years, Resident of
Lakshmipura Village,
Yashwanthapura Hobli,
Chikkabanavara Post, Bangalore
North Taluk, Bangalore 560 097
(By Sri. K.H.L., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS :: 1. Mruthyunjaya Gouda,
S/o. G. Kumara Gouda, Aged about
43 years, No.53/A, 9th Main, 9th
2
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
Cross, Adityanagar, Vidyaranyapura
Post, Bangalore 560 097
Also at :
No.6, Lakshmipura Village,
Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk, Bangalore.
2. G.V. Prasad, S/o. Muniyappa.G,
Aged about 55 years, Residing at
No.213, Sai Sadan, Rama Farm
Compound, Lakshmipuram,
Vidyaranyapura Post, Bangalore 560
097
(By Sri. B.R.P., Advocate for D-1, D-2
Ex-parte)
Date of Institution of the Suit :: 13-10-2020
Nature of the Suit :: Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence :: 06-09-2021
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced. :: 19-01-2026
:: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration 05 03 06
O.S.NO.7337/2017
PLAINTIFF :: Mrutyunjaya Gouda S/o. G. Kumara
Gouda, Aged about 43 years,
3
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
No.53/A, 9th Main, 9th Cross,
Adityanagar, Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bangalore 560 097
Also at :
No.6, Lakshmipura Village,
Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk, Bangalore.
(By Sri. S.R.P., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS :: 1. Smt. Naveena Kumari.K,
W/o. M. Narayanaswamy, Aged
about 44 years, Lakshmipura
Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli,
Chikkabanavara Post, Bangalore
North Taluk, Bangalore 560 097
2. G.V. Prasad, S/o. Muniyappa.G,
Aged about 52 years, Residing at
No.213, Sai Sadan, Rama Farm
Compound, Lakshmipuram,
Vidyaranyapura Post, Bangalore 560
097
(By Sri. R.S., Advocate for D-1, Sri.
H.V.V., Adv., for D-2)
Date of Institution of the Suit :: 31-10-2017
Nature of the Suit :: Injunction
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence :: 29-05-2019
4
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced. :: 19-01-2026
:: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration 08 02 18
(Smt. Gomati Raghavendra),
XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
COMMON JUDGEMENT
Plaintiff has filed O.S.No.4957/2020 suit seeking the
relief of setting aside the registered Sale Deed dated
14-07-2011 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of
defendant No.1 conveying suit schedule-II property, to evict
defendant No.1 from the said property and also for injunction.
2. Plaintiff in O.S.No.7337/2017 has filed the suit for
the relief of permanent injunction.
3. By virtue of the Order dated 27-05-2022
O.S.No.7337/2017 is clubbed with O.S.No.4957/2020.
5
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
4. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4957/2020 in brief
is as under:-
Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property measuring
0.07 guntas in Sy.No.8 carved out of land measuring 3 acres
22 guntas on its southern side adjacent to the Government
Primary School situated at Lakshmipura Village,
Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru, which is suit schedule-I
property having purchased it from Sri Anjaneya and Sri
Manjunatha for agreed sale consideration in terms of Sale
Agreement dated 06-01-1993 produced in O.S.No.1816/1995
and Court Sale Deed dated 12-04-2017 executed and got
registered on 04-08-2017 by XI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Court in Execution Petition No.1589/2010 in
O.S.No.1816/1995, pursuant to the judgment and decree of
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 05-08-2008 in
R.F.A. No.72/2005. Pursuant to the Sale Deed, plaintiff got
her name entered in MR No.41/2019-20 and in RTC on
22-08-2019 and 23-08-2019 respectively by paying
6
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
prescribed charges, taxes etc., with respect to the suit
schedule-I property.
5. Defendant No.1 purchased the property measuring
East to West 43.0+46.0/2 and North to South 30 feet totally
measuring 1335 Sq.Ft. said to be new Re-Sy.No.8/3 in
original Sy.No.8 situated at Lakshmipura Village,
Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore,
which is described in the 1st defendant's the Suit Schedule-II
property from defendant No.2 in terms of registered Sale
Deed dated 14-07-2011 which comes in western side of the
plaintiff's property Schedule-I during pendency of Execution
Petition No.1589/2010 filed by the plaintiff against the
Judgment Debtors/vendors before the XI Additional City Civil
and Sessions Court, Bangalore (CCH-8) in respect of her
property which tantamount to lis-pendency. Now defendant
No.1 also illegally got building constructed, who did not
produce any evidence by way of surveyor's identification
7
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
sketch indicating that his alleged property comes within the
second defendant's property measuring 30 guntas between
northern side of the plaintiff's property and on southern side
of Smt. Akkayamma's property in O.S.No.6674/2017.
6. Plaintiff has stated that 1 st defendant's property
squarely comes within the plaintiff's property referred to in
Schedule-I on the western side, hence the 1 st defendant did
not derive any title on Schedule-II property from his vendor
defendant No.2 on the ground that defendant No.2 was not
the owner of Schedule-I property and is not having title and
right to sell the property at Schedule-II to the suit in favour of
defendant No.1. The registered Sale Deed dated 14-07-2011
executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1
conveying Schedule-II property becomes void ab-initio which
suffice to hold that the 1st defendant illegally trespassed /
encroached the plaintiff's Schedule-I property during
pendency of the suit. On the contrary, defendant No.1 filed
8
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
O.S.No.7337/2017 against plaintiff for bare injunction in City
Civil Court, Bengaluru, which is pending consideration.
7. It is further stated that Sy.No.8 consisted total land
measuring 3 acres 22 guntas situated at Lakshmipura
Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk owned
by Sri Anjaneya and Sri Manjunatha free from
encumbrances, who at the first instance released 5 guntas of
land in said Sy.No.8 on southern side by way of gift in favour
of Government Primary School of Lakshmipura Village, which
has been functioning. Immediately thereafter, said Anjaneya
and Manjunatha sold property measuring 0.07 guntas in
favour of the plaintiff as per Schedule-I for the agreed sale
consideration in said Sy.No.8 adjacent to northern side of the
said Government Primary School in terms of Sale Agreement
dated 06-01-1993 and put the plaintiff in possession after
having received agreed sale consideration in full by
undertaking to get the sale deed registered in accordance
9
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
with law before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar in the near
future on the ground that they would be out of station for a
few days. In fact, plaintiff before taking physical possession
of the property got rough sketch by private surveyor prepared
indicating 0.07 guntas commencing from northern side of the
Government Primary School of Lakshmipura. Thereafter, the
plaintiff also got authenticated survey sketch prepared by the
concerned Taluka Surveyor indicating the extent and
boundary of the property measuring 0.07 guntas in the
original Sy.No.8 purchased and occupied by her in terms of
the sale agreement dated 06-01-1993 which confirms the
above said private surveyor's rough sketch in respect of the
plaintiff's property. The transaction between plaintiff and her
vendors tantamount to part performance under Section 53A
of the T.P. Act.
8. It is further pleaded that defendant No.2 purchased
30 guntas of land in Sy.No.8 on the northern side of plaintiff's
property at Suit Schedule on 27-01-1993 from said Anjaneya
10
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
and Manjunatha. Subsequently, Smt. Akkayamma purchased
30 guntas of land in Sy.No.8 from the said Anjaneya and
Manjunatha on northern side of 2 nd defendant's property on
06-02-1993. Whereas, the remaining property in Sy.No.8
was purchased by Sri Byanna S/o. Hanumanthappa in terms
of registered Sale Deed dated 24-02-1999 on northern side
adjacent to Smt. Akkayamma's property by showing southern
boundary of his property so purchased as Smt. Akkayamma's
property in his registered Sale Deed through compromise /
negotiations between his vendors Sri Anjaneya and Sri
Manjunatha and himself and not in pursuance of any
judgment and decree of the competent Court of law. Plaintiff
has shown northern side of her property at Schedule-I in the
Sale Agreement as well as in the Court Sale Deed as
defendant No.2 purchased property / G.V.Prasad's property
on the information obtained from the second defendant's
father Sri Muniyappa, who signed as second witness to the
plaintiff's Sale Agreement dated 06-01-1993.
11
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
9. The plaintiff was given to understand that defendant
No.2 has shown his southern boundary as Government
Primary School with respect to his property measuring 30
guntas and northern boundary as Smt. Akkayamma's
property by taking undue advantage of the pendency of
registration of the sale deed in respect of plaintiff's suit
schedule-I property with an intention of grabbing plaintiff's
property since the matter was before the Court of law. Hence
plaintiff caused legal notice dated 04-02-2010 to defendant
No.2 asking him to take necessary steps to get southern
boundary of his property corrected in Sy.No.8 as plaintiff's
property, but not Government School as erroneously shown
in the Sale Deed. Thereafter defendant No.2 caused reply
dated 18-02-2010 issued to the legal notice of the plaintiff
taking irrelevant contentions. Nonetheless, the 2 nd defendant
had been informed that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
by its Judgment and Decree dated 05-08-2008 allowed the
R.F.A. No.72/2005 filed by the plaintiff challenging the
12
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
judgment and decree dated 25-09-2004 partly allowing the
suit No.1816/1995 and defendant No.2 informed that plaintiff
had taken up steps to get the sale deed executed and
registration in respect of plaintiff's suit schedule-I property in
accordance with law in Execution Petition No.1589/2010,
which becomes relevant that the interim order of status quo
dated 24-06-1995 continued to be in force till disposal of
R.F.A.
10. Defendant No.2 on receipt of legal notice dated
04-02-2010 issued by plaintiff, started his illegal activities in
herculean speed with malafide motive of grabbing plaintiff's
property at schedule-I. The illegal activities resorted by
defendant No.2 namely, at the first instance he got his
property 0-23 guntas out of 0-30 guntas along with Smt.
Akkayamma's property measuring 0-30 guntas including 0-01
gunta A-Kharab got converted from agricultural purposes to
residential purposes in terms of the Official Memorandum
13
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
dated 07-05-2011 issued by the concerned D.C., Bangalore
City on swearing false affidavit, furnishing wrong southern
boundary by showing some survey number, whether it is in
existence or not is not known to the plaintiff. Beyond the said
Government Primary School by getting assigned sub-
Sy.No.8/3 wrongly in collusion with the concerned revenue
officials and thereafter making small plots therein inclusive of
plaintiff's property referred at Schedule-I and sold to some
others on misrepresentation by suppressing relevant facts
behind the back of the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff did not
know such illegal activities of the 2nd defendant till the 1st
defendant filed bare injunction suit No.7337/2017 on
14-10-2017. Defendant No.2 on coming to know that the
Execution Court set down for execution and registration of
Sale Deed in accordance with law conveying the schedule
property at Schedule-I in favour of plaintiff encouraged and
supported some persons / parties who purchased the plots
coming within the plaintiff's property to get building
14
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
constructed with an illegal motive of harassing the plaintiff
and grab the plaintiff's property. At that time, defendant No.2
filed two applications under Order XXI Rule 58 and Rules 97
to 103 R/w. Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure as the
objector in Execution Petition No.1589/2010. Said
applications came to be rejected by the XI Additional City
Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore after hearing the parties
by its order dated 31-03-2017. Plaintiff pursuant to registered
sale deed dated 04-08-2017 took steps to get her name
entered in the Mutation Register and thereafter in RTC by
paying prescribed taxes, charges to the concerned Taluk
Revenue Officials and obtained the Mutation Register extract
and RTC and made an application to the survey authorities
requesting them to make Durasth / phode fixing boundaries
in respect of her schedule-I property as per law. The Survey
Authorities are in the process of taking steps in this regard.
Defendant No.2 not yet got his property measuring 0-30
guntas Durasth / Phode made in said Sy.No.8 between
15
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
plaintiff's Schedule-I property and Smt. Akkayamma's
property in accordance with law from competent survey
authorities. Notwithstanding, the plaintiff required to do so
and get the southern boundary of his 30 guntas of land
corrected by showing the plaintiff's Schedule-I property.
Plaintiff has now filed original suit against the 2 nd defendant.
11. Meanwhile, defendant No.2 got the sub-survey
No.8/3 wrongly assigned in collusion with the concerned
revenue Officials (the original Sy.No.8) in respect of land
measuring 1 acre 14 guntas inclusive of 0-01 gunta A-Kharab
which consists of 0.30 guntas of Smt. Akkayamma and his
0.23 guntas and got the conversion order from the concerned
authorities in terms of Official Memorandum dated
07-05-2011 converting agricultural property for residential
purpose by furnishing wrong boundary on the southern side
of original Sy.No.8 beyond the Government Primary School.
Whereas, the concerned authority issued Official
16
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
Memorandum dated 07-05-2011 converting agricultural land
to residential use subject to several conditions. Defendants
No.1 and 2 have not complied with condition No.1, 3, 4, 5 &
10 in respect of first defendant's suit schedule-II property.
That being so, by legal fiction, on reading of condition No.12
of the conversion order / Official Memorandum, conversion of
property deemed to have been cancelled and building of
defendant No.1 in suit schedule-II property being illegal
required to be demolished. Moreover, 1 st defendant's suit
schedule-II property illegally comes on the north-west of the
plaintiff's suit schedule-I property not owned by his vendor
i.e., defendant No.2. Consequently, the sale deed executed
by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 conveying the
suit schedule-II property is void ab-initio. Entire transaction
between defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 in respect of
suit schedule-II property becomes nullity in the eye of law as
the 1st defendant does not possess title, right and interest in
it. That being so, defendant No.1 has to get the building
17
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
standing in the suit schedule-II property demolished at his
own cost and deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff. The
suit schedule properties are within the territorial land
pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
12. The cause of action for eviction in the suit arose on
04-08-2017 being the date of registration of Court Sale Deed
conveying suit schedule-I property in favour of plaintiff, in a
suit for setting aside the sale deed registered on 14-07-2012
executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant
conveying the suit schedule-II property in favour of 1 st
defendant, on service of court notice on the plaintiff in
O.S.No.7337/2017 filed by defendant No.1 in November,
2017 against plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule-II
property as the plaintiff was not aware of the registration of
the sale deed, since she was not a party thereto and same is
continuing one. Hence present suit.
18
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
13. Inter-alia, defendant No.2 despite service of suit
summons failed to appear before the Court and placed ex-
parte. Defendant No.1 has contested the suit through his
counsel by filing written statement stating that the suit is not
maintainable as plaintiff has not sought for declaration. The
suit for possession without seeking declaration is not
maintainable, as the plaintiff is not at all in possession as
admitted by her. The Court fee paid on the value of the sale
deed is not correct and the sale deed challenged is of the
year 2012 and now the value of the property is increased and
the revised guidelines have been issued more than four
times. Plaintiff has paid deficit court fee and now the
property value is more than 25 Lakhs and court fee is to be
paid on the present market value of the property as she is
seeking possession. On this ground also the suit of the
plaintiff has to be dismissed.
14. The suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by
limitation as it is filed after lapse of 27 years from the date of
19
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
Agreement of sale dated 06-01-1993. In the said Agreement
of Sale dated 06-01-1993 its schedule towards Northern side
it was clearly mentioned that the property has been sold to
G.V.Prasad S/o. Muniyappa. Plaintiff herself clearly and
categorically admitted in her pleading as well as sale
agreement that towards northern boundary, 2 nd defendant's
property is situated. Admittedly, defendant No.2 purchased
the land measuring 0-30 guntas from Anjaneya and
Manjunatha on 28-01-1993. This being the fact, plaintiff
conveniently pleaded false facts to bring the suit within the
limitation. After lapse 8 years plaintiff is challenging the first
defendant's sale deed. The vendor of defendant No.1
purchased the land on 28-01-1993 which was very much in
her knowledge and it is clearly mentioned in her agreement
of sale dated 06-01-1993. In spite of it, she by-passed and
challenging only this defendant's sale deed and her sole
intention is to evict the defendant No.1. The alleged 0.07
guntas of land is not at all available and at no point of time
20
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
she is in possession of alleged 0.07 guntas of land. Even
though there is recital with respect to handing over physical
possession of alleged 0.07 guntas of land, she is not at all in
possession at any point of time. The defendant No.2
subsequently defendant No.1 are in possession all along.
The suit of the plaintiff is to be dismissed for non joinder of
necessary parties. Plaintiff is least bother to make all parties
involved in the property. One Sri M.Maheshwarappa is the
consenting witness to the sale deed of this defendant and
consideration has been passed in his favour. Moreover, he is
the developer of the sites, who carried out development work
in the locality. Plaintiff intentionally not made him as party.
15. Plaintiff has obtained collusive judgment and decree
of specific performance in O.S.No.1816/1995 and
intentionally has not made this defendant's vendor
G.V.Prasad as party to the proceedings, even though he has
purchased the property on 28-01-1993 i.e., prior to filing of
21
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
this suit. Plaintiff's alleged agreement of sale is relating to
the possession of alleged 0.07 guntas of land has been
delivered to the plaintiff and entire sale consideration has
been paid to her vendors. If the entire sale consideration is
passed and possession has been delivered as per the
recitals of alleged sale agreement dated 06-01-1993, said
document is to be impounded and duty and penalty is to be
collected. By suppressing these facts and by misleading the
court, plaintiff obtained judgment and decree of specific
performance of contract.
16. It is false allegation that defendant No.1 purchased
property during pendency of Execution Petition
No.1589/2010 filed by plaintiff against Judgment Debtors /
vendors. The law of lis-pendence will not arise and this
defendant was not the party to the Original Suit or to the
Execution Petition and plaintiff's right was not at all
determined when this defendant's vendor purchased the total
22
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
extent of land measuring 0.30 guntas out of 3 acres 22
guntas in Sy.No.8. Defendant No.1 purchased the property
measuring East to West 43+46/2 feet and North to South 30
feet, totally measuring 1335 Sq.Ft. from defendant No.2 on
14-07-2011 in Sy.No.8/3 situated at Lakshmipura Village.
The property is converted long back on 07-05-2011 itself
which is well within the knowledge of plaintiff, who in spite of
it, is least bothered to challenge the conversion order and
sale deed of G.V.Prasad and sale deed of this defendant.
17. It is false that 1st defendant's property squarely
comes within the plaintiff's property referred to in Schedule-I.
Plaintiff was not in possession of the alleged land and there
is no land available as alleged. Hence she has prepared the
alleged sketch by the private surveyor. The survey sketch
itself is wrong and no notice is issued to the concerned
parties and even the vendor of this defendant and survey
sketch cannot be looked into. The plaintiff cannot claim
23
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
possession through unregistered agreement of sale and it will
not convey any right or title in favour of plaintiff.
18. It may be true that 2nd defendant purchased 30
guntas of land in the said Sy.No.8, but not true that it is on
the northern side of plaintiff's property. It may be true that
subsequently Smt. Akkayamma purchased 0.30 guntas of
land in Sy.No.8 from said Anjaneya and Manjunatha on
northern side of 2nd defendant's property on 06-02-1993 and
remaining property in Sy.No.8 was purchased by Byanna in
terms of Sale Deed dated 24-02-1999 on northern side
adjacent to Smt. Akkayamma's property by showing southern
boundary of his property so purchased as Smt. Akkayamma's
property in his registered sale deed through compromise /
negotiations between his vendors Anjaneya and Manjunath
and himself, but not pursuant to any judgment and decree of
the court of law and these aspects are not within the
knowledge of this defendant. After lapse of 27 years plaintiff
24
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
is laying her claim falsely. This defendant disputes the
identity of the property of the plaintiff, who got the sale deed
executed through court by suppressing this fact. Thus second
defendant has legally and openly done all the development of
land and got conversion order openly. Till now the plaintiff has
not challenged the revenue entries stood in the name of
defendant No.2. The concerned authority issued official
memorandum dated 07-05-2011 converting agricultural land
to residential use subject to several conditions contained
therein which is noway concerned to the plaintiff, who cannot
question the violation of terms and conditions of conversion
order. There is no cause of action for eviction in the suit.
19. This defendant has specifically pleaded that he is
the absolute owner of property bearing No.4 situated in the
layout by name Lakshmi Enclave and formed in converted
old Sy.No.8, its New Re-survey No.8/3, situated at
Lakshmipura Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru vide
25
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
conversion Order bearing No. ALN(NY)SR.96/2010-11 dated
07-05-2011 issued by Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore District, measuring East to West 43+46/2 feet and
North to South 30 feet, totally measuring 1335 Sq.Ft. and this
defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit
Schedule-II property since the date of purchase and paying
taxes regularly to the concerned authority.
20. It is pleaded that this defendant purchased the
same suit Schedule-II property from one G.V.Prasad, who is
defendant No.2 under Sale Deed dated 14-07-2011
registered before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Peenya,
Bengaluru. Subsequently, all revenue entries got mutated in
his name. E-Khatha of the property transferred to defendant's
name who is paying taxes regularly, he is in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
since the date of purchase along with his family. Plaintiff who
is stranger, nothing to do with the suit schedule property is
26
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
making false claim after lapse of time. This defendant
perfected his title by way of adverse possession also as he is
openly, continuously and without any interference from
anyone and with the knowledge of plaintiff and it is the
plaintiff who is attempting to interfere with the possession of
this defendant. Hence this defendant has sought for
dismissal of the suit.
O.S.No.7337/2017
Plaintiff has filed present suit seeking the relief of
permanent injunction.
21. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under;
Plaintiff is the absolute owner of property bearing No.6,
formed out of old Survey No.8, Converted New Survey
No.8/3, an extent of 23 guntas, situated at Lakshmipura
Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk
measuring East to West 43+46/2 feet and North to South 30
feet, totally measuring 1335 Sq.Ft., converted vide
27
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
Conversion Order bearing No.ALN(NY)SR.96/10-11 dated
07-05-2011 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru District, which is suit schedule property which was
purchased by plaintiff under registered Sale Deed dated
14-07-2011 from one Sri G.V.Prasad registered before the
Sub-Registrar, Peenya, Bengaluru and subsequent to
purchase, all the revenue entries got mutated in the name of
plaintiff.
22. Defendant No.1 who is stranger and defendant
No.2 is none other than the vendor of plaintiff are nothing to
do with the suit schedule property. The 2 nd defendant who is
none other than the vendor of the plaintiff and after sale of
the schedule property to the plaintiff he is ventured upon the
plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.1 knowing well that the
land value is increased considerably. Defendants are the
local people having money and muscle power threatening the
plaintiff. Defendants are interfering with the possession of
28
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
plaintiff on 28-10-2017 claiming imaginary right over the suit
schedule property. Plaintiff was in the house and resisted the
said illegal acts of the defendant with the help of neighbours.
The act of defendants is causing lot of inconvenience and
sufferance to the innocent plaintiff.
23. Plaintiff is out sider and not the local person, taking
advantage of the same, the defendants are doing these acts
illegally. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property. Defendants have absolutely no
manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule
property. Plaintiff is put in possession on 14-07-2011 i.e.,
from the date of purchase and enjoying the property all along.
Defendants are very influential persons in the locality having
both men and muscle power and if they are not restrained,
they will interfere illegally. The cause of action for the suit
arose on 28-10-2017 when defendants attempted to interfere
with the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property
and on subsequent dates when defendants threatened
29
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
plaintiff illegally and highhandedly and within the jurisdiction
of this court. Hence present suit seeking the relief of
permanent injunction against defendants with respect to suit
schedule property all that piece and parcel of site property
bearing No.6 formed out of old Survey No.8, Converted New
Survey No.8/3, an extent of 0.23 guntas situated at
Lakshmipura Village, Yashwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk measuring East to West 43+46/2 feet and North to
South 30 feet, totally measuring 1335 Sq.Ft. converted vide
Conversion Order bearing No.ALN(NY) SR.96/10-11 dated
07-05-2011 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore District.
24. Inter-alia, both defendants have appeared through
their counsel and contested the suit by filing separate written
statements.
Defendant No.1 has stated that this suit is not
maintainable either in law or on facts against this defendant
30
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
and that the plaintiff does not derive legal title to the suit
schedule property purchased from second defendant since
the schedule property does not come within second
defendant's property measuring 0.30 guntas in Sy.No.8 on
northern side of the first defendant's property described in the
suit schedule. Suit schedule property comes in 1 st
defendant's property. One Anjaneya and Manjunatha who
succeeded to the agricultural land totally measuring 3 acres
22 guntas situated at Lakshmipura Village, Yashwanthpura
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk by inheritance from their mother
Smt. Anantha Lakshmamma, who died on 06-04-1983 free
from encumbrances, released 5 guntas of land on southern
side by way of Gift in favour of Government School which is
now functioning therein. Defendant No.1 is the first
purchaser of the property measuring 7 guntas from her
vendors Sri Anjaneya and Manjunatha free from
encumbrances out of agricultural land totally measuring 3
acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.8, who paid entire agreed sale
31
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
consideration to her vendors, receipt of which acknowledged
by the vendors and the vendors put this defendant in physical
possession and enjoyment of the property measuring 0.07
guntas on the date of sale agreement itself on 06-01-1993 in
part performance of contract. This defendant took the
possession of her purchased property as identified in rough
sketch prepared by the private surveyor and obtained
authenticated survey sketch indicating her purchased
property by the survey sketch dated 20-03-1996 prepared by
the concerned Taluka Surveyor indicating the locations of this
defendant's property. In fact, the survey sketch indicates the
second purchaser, 2nd defendant's property measuring 30
guntas and third purchaser Smt. Akkayamma's property
measuring 0.30 guntas in Sy.No.8 purchased from said
vendors on 27-01-1993 on 06-02-1993 respectively. On
northern side of this defendant's property, obviously it is the
1st defendant, first purchaser, who had purchased the
property and took physical possession and enjoyment in part
32
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
performance of the contract measuring 0.07 guntas earlier
than the 2nd defendant and others. Accordingly, this
defendant has been in legal possession and enjoyment of the
property measuring 0.07 guntas in the schedule of his written
statement. The fourth and last purchaser Sri Byranna S/o.
Hanumanthappa who purchased the remaining property in
Sy.No.8 from the said vendors in terms of sale deed dated
24-02-1999 on northern side of the property of Smt.
Akkayamma by showing southern boundary of the property
so purchased as Akkayamma's property in his registered sale
deed through compromise/negotiations between his vendors
and himself but not in pursuance of any judgment and decree
of the court of law. In fact, this defendant has shown
northern side of her property purchased in Sy.No.8 as 2 nd
defendant's purchased property on the information obtained
from the father of the 2nd defendant Sri Muniyappa who
signed as the second witness to the sale agreement dated
06-01-1993. Whereas. Defendant No.2 erroneously showing
33
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
southern boundary of his property measuring 30 guntas
purchased as Government School in his sale deed behind
the back of 1st defendant cannot and shall not get right under
the law to grab the 1 st defendant's property but his ownership
is limited to 30 guntas between northern side of the 1 st
defendant's property and southern side of Smt. Akkayamma's
property.
25. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by its
judgment and decree dated 05-08-2008 allowed RFA
No.72/2005 filed by defendant No.1 challenging the judgment
and decree dated 25-09-2004 of the City Civil Court in
O.S.No.1816/1995, caused legal notice dated 04-02-2010
issued to defendant No.1 requiring the 2 nd defendant to take
steps to correct southern boundary of his property in Sy.No.8
as 1st defendant's property, but not Government School as
erroneously shown in his sale deed, receipt of which has
been acknowledged by the 2nd defendant. Thereafter, 2nd
34
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
defendant caused reply dated 18-02-2010 to the said legal
notice of defendant No.1 taking irrelevant contentions.
26. The vendors of defendant No.1 had not come
forward to get the sale deed registered as agreed. Defendant
No.1 filed O.S.No.1816/1995 before XI Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge for specific performance and other
consequential reliefs. The suit came to be disposed off by
allowing it partially by the judgment and decree dated
25-09-2004. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree
defendant No.1 filed RFA No.72/2005 against her vendors.
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by its order dated
05-08-2008 allowed the RFA and interim order of status-quo
dated 24-06-1995 until further order in respect of 1 st
defendant's property granted in O.S.No.1816/1995 continued
to be in force in RFA No.72/2005.
27. Pursuant to the judgment and decree dated
05-08-2008 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, 1 st
35
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
defendant filed Execution Petition No.1589/2010 before the
XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore
against judgment and decree seeking execution / registration
of the sale deed in accordance with law in respect of the 1 st
defendant's property in the original suit. The City Civil and
Sessions Judge after completing the preliminary legal
process pursuant to the judgment and decree dated
05-08-2008 in RFA No.72/2005 set down for execution /
registration of the sale deed. At that time, defendant No.2
filed two applications under Order XXI Rule 58 and Rules 97
to 103 R/w. Section 151 CPC as the objector in the execution
proceedings. The said Court rejected both applications filed
by defendant No.2 as an objector after hearing parties on
31-03-2017 and thereafter, the execution court got the sale
deed executed and registered on 01-04-2017 in accordance
with law. Defendant No.2 instigated the plaintiff to file this
suit with the motive of diverting plaintiff's targeting defendant
No.2, but to cause hardship to defendant No.1. Plaintiff has
36
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
neither stated nor produced any evidence in his pleading that
he had got suit property identified as to whether it is
comprised in 2nd defendant's property measuring 0.30 guntas
between northern side of the 1 st defendant's property and
southern side of Smt. Akkayamma's property by survey
sketch prepared by the competent Survey Authority before
purchasing the suit schedule property in terms of sale deed
of 2012 from defendant No.2. In fact, suit property comes in
1st defendant's property as per the registered Court Sale
Deed dated 01-04-2017. Plaintiff did not derive legal right to
the suit property in terms of sale deed dated 11-04-2012
purchased from 2nd defendant, who had no legal title to the
suit schedule property under law. Defendant No.2 also filed
RFA No.700/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka against defendant No.1 challenging the order
dated 31-03-2017 in Execution Petition No.1589/2010 for
rejecting I.A.No.2 under Order XXI Rule 97 to 103 in which
Hon'ble High Court ordered for issuing of notice to
37
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
respondents therein but the High Court's notice has not yet
been served on 1st respondent and there is no interim order
in RFA. Thus defendant No.1 mentioned schedule of his
property bearing No.8, measuring 7 guntas situated at
Lakshmipura Village, Yashwanthpura Hobli, bounded East-by
Sri Purukalappa, West by - Sri Munianjanappa's land, North
by Sri G.V.Prasad's property and South by-Government
Primary School of Lakshmipura Village.
28. Defendant No.2 has filed his written statement
stating that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on
facts against defendant No.2. The plaintiff is the absolute
owner of property bearing No.6, formed in old Sy.No.8,
converted New re-Sy.No.8/3 an extent of 0.23 guntas
situated at Lakshmipura Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk as per Conversion Order dated 07-05-
2011 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
District measuring East to West 43+46/2 feet and North to
38
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
South 30 feet, totally measuring 1335 Sq.Ft. is true and
correct. Further, whatever stated in para-4 of the plaint that
plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property under Sale
Deed dated 14-07-2011 from one G.V.Prasad defendant No.2
registered before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Peenya,
Bangalore is correct. In fact, this defendant No.2 has not
interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit
property. Hence question of filing suit against this defendant
does not arise. This defendant has denied the allegations
made in the plaint against him.
29. It is specifically pleaded by this defendant No.2 that
he had purchased the property bearing Sy.No.8, measuring
30 guntas out of 3 acres 22 guntas of land situated at
Lakshmipura Village, Yashwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk as per the absolute Sale Deed dated 27-01-1993
registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North
Taluk from Sri Anjaneya and Manjunatha with consenting
39
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
signatures of three daughters of one Giriyappa for valuable
consideration. On the same day, vendors of defendant No.2
put him in possession and enjoyment of the said property and
revenue records are changed to his name who is paying
taxes to the concerned authorities and said property along
with other property purchased was in possession and
enjoyment of this defendant from the date of purchase.
30. Defendant No.2 got said property converted from
agriculture to non agriculture from the office of Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru District vide order dated
07-05-2011 in No.ALN(NY)SR.97/2011-12. Thereafter he
formed a layout and sold 9 sites in favour of others. In fact,
the Samadhi of his grandmother Smt. Narasamma is also
situated in the said property. The respective purchasers have
also taken khatha of respective sites in their name and have
been paying taxes to the concerned authorities who have
availed loan through various banks and have put up
40
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
residential houses and are staying with their respective
families. As such this defendant has sold suit schedule
property to the plaintiff for valuable consideration and it is
also a fact that he is in possession and enjoyment of the
same by constructing house therein. By suppressing all
these aspects, defendant No.1 had filed suit in
O.S.No.1816/1995 with respect to 0.07 guntas of property in
Sy.No.8 of Laskhmipura Village against only defendants
Anjaneya and Manjunatha the erstwhile owner who sold the
property in favour of defendant No.2 on 27-01-1993. The
defendants in the said suit have lost their rights way back in
the year 1993 at the time of said Sale Deed, but defendant
No.1 had not chosen to implead defendant No.2 herein as
party to the said suit and suppressed the material facts
before this Court and before the Hon'ble High Court.
31. Defendant No.1 herein had filed O.S.No.1816/1995
in collusion with defendants therein for the relief of specific
performance of agreement by creating the agreement.
41
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
However, the relief of specific performance was negatived by
the Court by its judgment and decree dated 25-09-1994. The
plaintiff therein / defendant No.1 herein had preferred RFA
No.72/2005 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by its
order dated 05-08-2008 has decreed the suit of the plaintiff
with certain observations regarding encumbrance of suit
property. Taking advantage of the judgment and decree
passed in said suit, defendant No.1 filed Execution Petition
No.1589/2010 in City Civil Court against Judgment Debtors.
In fact, defendant No.2 had filed objector application which
came to be dismissed by its order dated 31-03-2017.
Defendant No.2 herein filed RFA No.700/2017 challenging
the said order, which is pending for consideration before the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In fact, the land in Sy.No.8
of Lakshmipura Village was totally measuring 3 acres 21
guntas of land. There is a judgment and decree passed by
the Civil Court with respect to 2 acres 01 gunta of land in
O.S.No.1167/1993 and pursuant to the same, the
42
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
defendants/judgment debtors therein have executed sale
deed dated 24-02-1999 in favour of Byranna. 5 guntas of
land is allegedly gifted to Government School. 0.30 guntas is
sold to Sri G.V. Prasad/defendant No.2 herein vide Sale
Deed dated 27-01-1993. 0.30 guntas of land is sold to Smt.
Akkayamma vide Sale Deed dated 08-02-1993. The entire
land is converted from agriculture to residential purpose.
Hence total 3 acres 26 guntas is already alienated by
vendors of the defendant. Hence there is no land measuring
0.07 guntas belong to defendant No.1 as alleged by her.
Such being the facts and circumstances, question of
defendant No.2 colluding with defendant No.1 and interfering
with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property by the plaintiff does not arise. There is no cause of
action to file the suit against this defendant and alleged one
is false and created for the purpose of this case. Thus
denying the rest of the averments, these defendants have
sought for dismissal of the suit.
43
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
32. Based on the rival pleadings and materials on
records, following issues have been framed in
O.S.No.4957/2020;
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the
absolute owner for the suit schedule-1 property as
being alleged ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1
has illegally committed an encroachment in suit
schedule -1 property as being alleged ?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Sale Deed
dated 14-07-2011 pertaining to suit schedule No.1
is void abinitio as being alleged ?
4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit
is barred by Law of Limitation ?
5. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that one
Mr. M.Maheshwarappa is necessary party to the
suit as being contended ?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as
being sought for ?
44
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
7. What order or decree ?
ISSUES IN O.S.NO.7337/2017
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants
are interfering with suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as
prayed?
4. What order or decree?
33. In O.S.No.4957/2020, in support of plaint
averments, the plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and got marked
documents at Ex.P-1 to P-13.
34. Defendant No.1 is examined as DW-1 and got
marked documents at Ex.D-1 to D-5.
35. Both parties have adopted the evidence of
O.S.No.4957/2020 in O.S.No.7337/2017.
45
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
36. Heard both learned counsel. Perused the
pleadings, evidence and materials on records.
37. For the reasons assigned below, I answer aforesaid
issues as under:
In O.S.No.4957/2020 ::
ISSUE No.1 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.2 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.3 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.4 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.5 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.6 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.7 :: As per final order for the
following;
In O.S.No.7337/2017 ::
ISSUE No.1 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.2 :: Partly in the Affirmative
ISSUE No.3 :: Partly in the Affirmative
46
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
ISSUE No.4 :: As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
38. As per order dated 27-05-2022 O.S.No.7337/2017
is clubbed with O.S.No.4957/2020.
39. ISSUE NO.4 in O.S.No.4957/2020 :: This issue
relates to law of limitation. According to defendant No.1, the
suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation, filed after
lapse of 27 years from the date of Agreement of Sale dated
06-01-1993. It is pleaded and deposed in his evidence by
defendant No.1 that the alleged Sale Agreement dated
06-01-1993 in its schedule towards northern side, it is clearly
mentioned that the property has been sold to G.V.Prasad S/o.
G.Muniyappa defendant No.2 and that plaintiff has clearly
admitted in her pleading about the property of defendant
No.2 in the northern boundary of her Sale Agreement and
that defendant No.2 has purchased the land measuring 0.30
guntas from Anjaneya and Manjunatha on 28-01-1993, but
47
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
plaintiff has conveniently pleaded false facts to bring the suit
within the limitation.
40. Upon perusal of the Sale Agreement marked at
Ex.P-1 which is in dispute relied upon by the plaintiff, it is an
unregistered document titled as 'ಶು ದ್ಧ ಕ್ರ ಯಪತ್ರ' as per which one
Sri Anjaneya and Sri Manjunatha have executed this
document in favour of plaintiff herein, sold the land
measuring 0.07 guntas in favour of plaintiff specified in suit
schedule-I, put the plaintiff in possession after having
received the agreed sale consideration in full undertaking to
get the sale deed registered in accordance with law.
Admittedly, Ex.P-1 is not the Sale Deed. The description of
the subject matter of Ex.P-1 is stated as 0.07 guntas of land
in Sy.No.8 out of 3 acres 22 guntas situated at Lakshmipura
Village, Yashwanthapura Holbi, bounded on East - land of
Purukalappa, West - Land of Munianjinappa, North - Land of
G.V. Prasad S/o. G. Muniyappa and South - the Government
48
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
School. It means to say that plaintiff knew very well that on
the northern side of her alleged 0.07 guntas of landed
property, the property of defendant No.2 was situated.
41. Plaintiff herself has pleaded and deposed in
evidence admitting the purchase of 30 guntas of land by
defendant No.2 in Sy.No.8 under Sale Deed dated
27-01-1993 from one Anjaneya and Manjunath which is
marked at Ex.P-10. Upon perusal of this document, at the
southern side of the said 0.30 guntas of land it is mentioned
as Government School. If at all it is specific grievance of the
plaintiff that her property was situated at the southern side of
2nd defendant's property, the Sale Deed of defendant No.2
should have mentioned the property of the plaintiff at the
southern side of said 0.30 guntas. But quite contrary to this,
sale deed of defendant No.2 at Ex.P-10 reveals the
Government School property at its southern side. Plaintiff as
PW-1 has been categorically cross-examined in this regard
49
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
by the counsel for defendant No.1, wherein she has stated
that she came to know during the year 1994 that G.V. Prasad
the defendant No.2 had purchased property of 0.30 guntas
on 27-01-1993. She has further categorically admitted in her
cross-examination at para No.25 as under;
"I came to know during the pendency of
O.S.1865/1995 that my property measuring 0.07
guntas is included in the property of 0.30 guntas
purchased by G.V. Prasad. I do not have any
memory to state that exactly in which year I came
to know about the said fact. It is true to suggest
that there was no impediment for me to implead
said G.V.Prasad in the suit."
Further, PW-1 in her cross-examination at para
No.26 has deposed as under;
"I came to know in the year 2010 that G.V.Prasad
had got Phodi as Sy.No.8/3."
Further, PW-1 has deposed in paragraph No.29
of her cross-examination as under;
50
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
"On the date of execution of Ex.P-1 itself, I came to
know that G. Muniyappa got mentioned the
property towards Northern side as the property of
G.V. Prasad. I did not take any action either on the
date of Ex.P-1 or on subsequent dates against
G.Muniyappa or against Manjunatha and Anjaneya."
42. The material question that arises before the Court
is that when the plaintiff came to know about her alleged land
of 0.07 guntas being included in the property of 0.30 guntas
of defendant No.2 during the pendency of O.S.No.1816/1995,
what prevented the plaintiff from impleading defendant No.2
in the said suit. There would have been clarity with respect to
her sale agreement and the said suit would have got
disposed on merits in the presence of defendant No.2, who
should have been the contesting party. But the plaintiff had
filed the said suit against her vendors Anjaneya and
Manjunatha with respect to her alleged 0.07 guntas of land
based on alleged unregistered Sale Agreement, who did not
51
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
contest the said suit. O.S.No.1816/1995 came to be ended
in the absence of defendant No.2 herein and Execution
Petition No.1589/2010 came to be filed by the plaintiff as
Decree Holder against her Vendors without making
defendant No.2 as a party to the petition.
43. It is material to note that plaintiff caused legal
notice to defendant No.2 as per Ex.P-8 on 04-02-2010 asking
him to take necessary steps to get the southern boundary of
his property corrected as plaintiff's property, but not
Government / School property as erroneously shown in the
Sale Deed of defendant No.2, against which defendant No.2
has given his reply as per Ex.P-9 on 18-02-2010 stating that
defendant No.2 is not required to take steps to get his
southern property corrected in revenue records, but it is other
way round and there is no property of plaintiff situated
towards southern side of 2nd defendant's property and his
property extends up to Government School in Sy.No.8.
52
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
44. When defendant No.2 has given his reply in such a
manner as referred supra countering the contents of legal
notice of plaintiff, at least at that stage plaintiff should have
taken steps to implead defendant No.2 as party in the
Execution Proceedings, but she has not bothered to take any
such necessary steps that were required to be taken by her,
but she kept quiet and without bringing these necessary facts
before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA
No.72/2005 she got order with respect to execution of Sale
Deed with respect to the alleged 0.07 guntas of land. The
alleged vendors of defendant No.2 have not contested the
suit in O.S.No.1816/1995.
45. The limitation period to set aside the Sale Deed as
per Article 58 - 59 of Limitation Act, 1963 is three years
starting from when plaintiff first gains knowledge of the fact
entitling him or her to cancel the deed.
53
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
46. In the case on hand, plaintiff knowing fully well
about her alleged inclusion of 0.07 guntas in the Sale Deed
of defendant No.2 which was executed and registered way
back in the year 1993, plaintiff has not taken any steps in
impleading defendant No.2 in O.S.No.1816/1995. Even
thereafter, when she caused legal notice to the defendant
No.2 on 04-02-2010 as per Ex.P-8 and reply notice given by
defendant No.2 on 18-02-2010 as per Ex.P-9, at least at that
stage plaintiff should have suitably taken steps against
defendant No.2 by impleading him in Execution Petition or by
filing separate suit against him. But she has not taken such
steps and now she is estopped from proceeding against
defendant No.1 herein, who is none other than the purchaser
of schedule-II property from his vendor defendant No.2
herein by virtue of Sale Deed dated 14-07-2011 as per
Ex.P-13. It is further significant to note here itself that the
Sale Deed of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 is of the
year 2012 itself. Ex.P-13 which is also marked as Ex.D-1 on
54
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
behalf of defendant No.1 is dated 14-70-2011. Present suit is
of the year 2020 filed by the plaintiff as stated supra. The
limitation period to set aside the Sale Deed or for declaration
of the deed as void is three years.
47. Plaintiff herself as PW-1 in her cross-examination
has admitted that she came to know about the development
of 0.30 guntas of land when she caused notice to defendant
No.2 in the year 2010 and she did not file any case for
preventing the development process in 0.30 guntas of land.
It means to say that knowing fully well about the development
of the property in 0.30 guntas of land of defendant No.2, in
which the property of defendant No.1 is alleged to be situated
which is schedule-II property, plaintiff kept quiet for these
many years and at the fag end i.e., after full development of
the property in 0.30 guntas of land of defendant No.2
including 1st defendant's property at schedule-II, she filed
present suit in the year 2020, which is hopelessly barred by
55
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
limitation. No reasonable grounds have been stated by the
plaintiff to show before the Court that her suit is well within
the period of limitation.
48. Even otherwise, the present suit filed by the plaintiff
is one for setting aside of the alleged Sale Deed of defendant
No.1 and evicting defendant No.1 from schedule-II property,
since the said sale deed is void ab-initio, but admittedly
plaintiff has not prayed for the relief of declaration of her
ownership.
49. In the decision reported in Anathula Sudhakar Vs.
Buchi Reddy, decided in (2008) 4 SCC 594, wherein it was
held that where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he
does not have possession, a suit for declaration and
possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the
remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a
cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for
possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is
56
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or
threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction
simpliciter.
50. In the instant case, defendant No.1 has
categorically denied the alleged ownership of plaintiff over
the suit schedule property. Moreover, G.V. Prasad who is
defendant No.2 in both these clubbed cases has also
categorically denied the alleged title of the plaintiff Naveena
Kumari over the suit schedule property. Under these
circumstances, the suitable remedy left open to the plaintiff
was to amend the prayer for the relief of declaration of title
and mere setting aside of the Sale Deed of defendant No.1 is
not sufficient. Plaintiff should have sought for the relief of
declaration of her title over the suit schedule property
particularly, the property in schedule-II, which she has not
done.
57
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
51. Defendant No.1 has also categorically pleaded and
deposed as DW-1 in his evidence that the Court fee paid by
the plaintiff is insufficient. As stated above, plaintiff has
sought for the relief of setting aside of sale deed of defendant
No.1, for his eviction and for the relief of injunction. Plaintiff
has paid Court fee of Rs.75/- with respect to Schedule-II
property, which is site/house property, totally measuring 1335
Sq.Ft. Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the 0.30 guntas
of land of defendant No.2 has been developed which include
schedule-II property according to the plaintiff. Under these
circumstances, plaintiff should have paid the Court fee based
on the market value of the property in dispute. But she has
not paid. She has calculated and assessed the Court fee of
landed property which according to the plaintiff herself is
converted from agriculture to non agricultural use. But she
has not paid the Court fee based on market value of the suit
property in question. The suit is also barred by limitation as
stated supra. Taking into account of the aforesaid aspects, it
58
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
has to be held that the suit filed by the plaintiff in
O.S.No.4957/2020 is barred by law of limitation. Hence,
Issue No.4 is answered in the Affirmative.
52. ISSUE NO.1 & 3 in O.S.No.4957/2020 :: As these
issues are interconnected to each other, same have been
taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition
of facts and evidence.
The burden of proving this issue is on the plaintiff that
she is the absolute owner of suit Schedule-II property as
alleged.
53. In order to substantiate these aspects, plaintiff
entered into the witness box, led evidence as PW-1, who in
her affidavit evidence has reiterated similar to plaint
averments. In addition to oral evidence, PW-1 has placed
reliance of documentary evidence at Exs.P-1 to P-13.
59
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
54. On the other hand, defendant No.1 in this case,
who is plaintiff in O.S.No.7337/2017 has categorically
pleaded that by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 14-07-2011
executed by his vendor defendant No.2 G.V.Prasad, he has
been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property as a lawful owner and that defendants
including Naveena Kumari who is plaintiff in this suit has
been interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment
over the suit schedule property. To prove these aspects,
defendant No.1 Mrutyunjaya Gouda is examined as DW-1
and got marked documents at Exs.D-1 to D-5.
55. The unregistered Agreement of Sale dated
06-01-1993 is marked at Ex.P-1 said to have been executed
by one Anjaneya and Manjunatha in favour of plaintiff with
respect to 0.07 guntas of land which is Schedule-I property.
She has also produced survey sketch at Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 is the
Court Sale Deed executed on 12-04-2017 registered on
60
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
04-08-2017 in Execution Petition No.1589/2010 (in
O.S.No.1816/1995), pursuant to the judgment and decree of
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.72/2005 dated
05-08-2008. While answering previous issue, this Court has
reached to the conclusion that defendant No.2 G.V. Prasad
was not made as a party in O.S.No.1816/1995 and so also in
RFA No.72/2005 hence, the said verdict does not bind on
defendant No.2 herein, who is vendor of defendant No.1 with
respect to suit Schedule-II property in this case and suit
schedule property in O.S.No.7337/2017.
56. It is the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4957/2020
that by virtue of Court Sale Deed as per Ex.P-3, the
concerned authority has mutated her name into suit schedule
property in question and her name is standing in the RTC as
per Ex.P-4 and P-5 respectively and that she has been
paying tax. Quite contrary to these aspects, defendant No.1
Mrutyunjaya Gouda who is plaintiff in O.S.No.7337/2017 has
61
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
also produced his Sale Deed dated 14-07-2011 executed by
his vendor as per Ex.D-1, pursuant to the said Sale Deed his
name is entered in E-khatha as per Ex.D-2, tax paid receipts
at Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 showing payment of tax by defendant
No.1, Encumbrance Certificate at Ex.D-5 reflecting the name
of defendant No.1 by virtue of Sale Deed as per Ex.D-1.
57. In Execution Petition No.1589/2010 defendant
No.2 G.V. Prasad filed two applications as an objector, that
came to be rejected on 31-03-2017. Said order has been
challenged by defendant No.2 in RFA 700/2017 which is
pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. But
admittedly, there is no land of 0.07 guntas as alleged in the
suit schedule-I property in the spot as the land is fully
developed as admitted by the plaintiff herself.
58. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the sale of
Schedule-I property by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant
No.1 is void ab-initio, since it was executed during pendency
62
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
of Execution Petition and as such defendant No.2 had no title
nor ownership over schedule-I property and he is not having
title and right to sell schedule-II property in favour of
defendant No.1 and that defendant No.1 illegally trespassed /
encroached the plaintiff's schedule-I property during lis-
pendency. These contentions taken up by the plaintiff do not
hold any water, since the defendant No.2 was not made as a
party either in O.S.No.1816/1995 or in Execution Petition
No.1589/2010. Even the documentary evidence relied upon
by plaintiff such as Sale Deed of one Smt. Akkayamma
marked at Ex.P-11 dated 08-02-1993 discloses the existence
of 2nd defendant's property measuring 0.30 guntas on the
southern portion of her property. It means to say that Smt.
Akkayamma purchased 30 guntas of land from the same
vendor Anjaneya and Manjunatha on northern side of 2 nd
defendant's property way back on 06-02-1993.
59. It is specifically pleaded by defendant No.2 that out
of the land measuring 3 acres 21 guntas in Sy.No.8 the
63
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
Judgment and Decree was passed by the City Civil Court in
O.S.No.1167/1993, pursuant to which, defendants /
Judgment Debtors executed Sale Deed on 24-02-1999 in
favour of Byanna. The land measuring 0.05 guntas was gifted
by Anjaneya and Manjunatha in favour of Government School
which is also stated by the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that
defendant No.2 had purchased 0.30 guntas of land from said
vendors under Sale Deed dated 27-01-1993 as per Ex.P-10
and that 0.30 guntas of land was purchased by Smt.
Akkayamma from the same vendors under Sale Deed dated
08-02-1993 as per Ex.P-11. When such being the case,
where is the property left out for the plaintiff to claim alleged
0.07 guntas of land said to have been sold to her by way of
Sale Agreement by the same vendors Anjaneya and
Manjunatha as per Ex.P-1 is not explained by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff herself has admitted categorically in her cross-
examination that the property belong to defendant No.2
measuring 0.30 guntas has been developed when she
64
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
caused notice to him in the year 2010 itself. When such is
the case, how the plaintiff can have legal claim over suit
schedule-II property after having purchased the site from
defendant No.2 is not proved by the plaintiff. Simply because,
the objector application filed by defendant No.2 in E.P.
No.1589/2010 got rejected is not the ground to decree the
suit of the plaintiff for the relief sought in her plaint. The said
objector who is defendant No.2 if was made as a party in
O.S.No.1816/1995, the things would have been different and
there could have been justification on the part of the plaintiff
to make her claim legal, since her sale agreement was
previous one. But the sale deed of defendant No.2 which has
taken place in the same month January-1993 occupies more
legal value than mere sale agreement, which is unregistered
in nature at the time of its execution.
60. Admittedly, so far, no suit is filed by the plaintiff
against defendant No.2 seeking setting aside of the said sale
deed of defendant No.2 which is root cause for legal
65
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
complications. More significantly the Court Sale Deed in
E.P.No.1589/2010 came to be executed by the Court Order in
view of orders passed in RFA 72/2005 in which admittedly
defendant No.2 is not the party. Moreover, when defendant
No.2 has done all development of his land measuring 0.30
guntas including Schedule-II of suit property, the new entries
standing in his name have not been challenged by the
plaintiff herein.
61. Plaintiff had made her vendors Anjaneya and
Manjunatha as defendants in O.S.No.1816/1995, who had
already lost their rights by executing different sale deeds in
favour of different persons including defendant No.2 in the
year 1993. As referred supra, plaintiff has not filed the suit
for declaration of title. Directly she has filed the suit for
setting aside the sale deed of defendant No.1 without
seeking cancellation of the sale deed of defendant No.2,
which is not in accordance with law. On this ground also the
66
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
suit of the plaintiff seeking to set aside the sale deed of the
defendant No.1 will not sustain legally. Hence, Issue No.1
and 3 are answered in the Negative.
62. ISSUE NO.2 IN O.S.NO.4952/2020 AND ISSUE
NO.1 IN O.S.NO.6675/2017 :: As these issues are
interconnected to each other, they have been taken up
together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts
and evidence.
Again the burden of proving this issue is on the plaintiff.
While answering previous issues this Court has observed
and found that plaintiff has failed to prove her alleged title
over the suit schedule-I property and so also that the Sale
Deed of defendant No.1 dated 18-10-2012 with respect to
Schedule-II property as void ab-initio. No authenticated proof
is produced by the plaintiff to prove the contents taken in the
plaint. It is made clear above that, by virtue of the Sale Deed
as per Ex.P-10, defendant No.2 has sold portion of his 0.30
67
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
guntas of land i.e., schedule-II property in favour of defendant
No.1 herein under Sale Deed dated 14-07-2011 as per
Ex.P-13 and defendant No.1 has been in possession and
enjoyment of the same by getting khatha mutated into his
name asper Ex.D-2. He has also produced tax paid receipts
as evident in Ex.D-3 and D-4 and Encumbrance Certificate at
Ex.D-5 reveals the name of defendant No.2 in suit schedule-
II property by virtue of Sale Deed dated 14-07-2011. No
contra materials have been produced by the plaintiff to
overcome these documentary evidence relied upon by
defendant No.1 as DW-1. Hence plaintiff has failed to prove
Issue No.2. Accordingly, Issue No.2 in OS No.4957/2020 is
answered in the Negative and Issue No.1 in
O.S.No.7337/2017 is answered in the Affirmative.
63. ISSUE NO.5 IN O.S.NO.4957/2020 :: Defendant
No.1 has specifically pleaded and deposed as DW-1 that one
M.Maheshwarappa is necessary party to the suit. According
68
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
to defendant No.1. One Sri M.Maheshwarappa is the
consenting witness to the sale deed of this defendant and
consideration has been passed in his favour, moreover, he is
the developer of the sites, who carried out development work
in the locality, but plaintiff intentionally not made him as party.
Though plaintiff has taken up such contention, but failed to
produce corroborate material in this regard. Moreover in the
absence of said Maheshwarappa these suits can be
adjudicated on merits. Hence this issue is answered in the
Negative.
64. ISSUE NO.2 IN O.S.NO.7337/2017 :: The plaintiff
has specifically pleaded that both defendants being local
people having money and muscle power are threatening him
and that defendant No.1 who is the stranger and defendant
No.2 who is vendor are nothing to do with the suit schedule
property, but they are attempting to interfere with his
possession in collusion. In his written statement filed in
69
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
O.S.No.7337/2017, defendant No.2 has categorically
admitted the right, title and interest of plaintiff therein i.e.,
Mrutyunjaya Gouda over the suit property by virtue of sale
deed executed by him. But it is his specific defence that he
has not interfered with the plaintiff's suit property. No piece of
material is produced by the plaintiff to show the alleged
interference of defendant No.2 over the suit property in
question. However, the very conduct of defendant No.1
Naveena Kumari, who is plaintiff in O.S.No.4957/2020 in
contesting the suit of the plaintiff Mrutyunjaya discloses her
interference over the suit schedule property. Hence this
issue is answered partly in the Affirmative holding that there
is an interference by defendant No.1 and no interference by
defendant No.2.
65. ISSUE NO.6 IN O.S.NO.4957/2020 AND ISSUE NO.3 IN
O.S.NO.7337/2017 :: While answering previous issues this
Court has reached to the conclusion that plaintiff in
O.S.No.4957/2020 has failed to prove the contents taken in
70
O.S.No.7337/2017
C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020
the plaint and as such she is not entitled for the relief sought.
Similarly, it has been observed and found that the plaintiff in
O.S.No.7337/2017 by relying upon the evidence stated
above has established his peaceful possession and
enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the alleged
interference by defendant No.1 over the same. He has failed
to prove the alleged interference by defendant No.2 over suit
schedule property. Under these circumstances, Issue No.6 in
O.S.NO.49572/2020 is answered in the Negative and Issue
No.3 in O.S.No.7337/2017 is answered partly in the
Affirmative.
66. ISSUE NO.7 IN O.S.NO.4957/2020 AND ISSUE
NO.4 IN O.S.NO.7337/2017 :: In the light of foregoing
discussion, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.4957/2020 is dismissed.
71O.S.No.7337/2017 C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020 The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.7337/2017 is decreed in part.
Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.7337/2017, her agents, servants, heirs or anybody claiming through her are hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
The suit against defendant No.2 in O.S.No.7337/2017 is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
Keep the Original Judgment in O.S.No.4957/2020 and true copy in O.S.No.7337/2017.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of January, 2026.) (Smt. Gomati Raghavendra), XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-18) 72 O.S.No.7337/2017 C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020 ANNEXURE IN O.S.NO.4952/2020 I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :
(A) PLAINTIFF'S SIDE ::
PW.1 :: Smt. Naveena Kumari (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
DW.1 :: Mruthyunjaya Gouda II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFF'S SIDE :
Ex.P-1 :: Notarised copy of the Agreement of Sale dated 06-01-1993 Ex.P-2 :: Notarised copy of Survey Sketch Ex.P-3 :: Copy of Sale Deed dated 12-04-2017 Ex.P-4 :: Mutation Register Extract Ex.P-5 :: RTC Extract Ex.P-6 :: Notarised copy of Order of the Land Conversion Ex.P-7 :: Copy of the Police Complaint Ex.P-8 :: Copy of the notice dated 04-02-2010 Ex.P-9 :: Copy of reply notice dated 18-02-2010 Ex.P-10 :: Notarised copy of the Sale Deed dated 27-01-1993 73 O.S.No.7337/2017 C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020 Ex.P-11 :: Notarised copy of the Sale Deed dated 08-02-1993 Ex.P-12 :: Notarised copy of the Sale Deed dated 24-02-1999 Ex.P-13 :: Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 14-07-2011 (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE :
Ex.D-1 :: Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 14-07-2011 Ex.D-2 :: Certified copy of E-Khatha along with Tax Assessment List from page No.13 to 15 Ex.D-3 & 4 :: Certified copies of Tax paid receipts Ex.D-5 :: Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate IN O.S.NO.7337/2017 I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF : (A) PLAINTIFF'S SIDE ::
PW.1 :: Mrutyunjaya Gouda (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
DW.1 :: Smt. Naveena Kumari II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF: (A) PLAINTIFF'S SIDE :74
O.S.No.7337/2017 C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020 Ex.P-1 :: Original Sale Deed dated 14-07-2011 Ex.P-2 & 3 :: Two Tax paid receipts Ex.P-4 :: Tax assessment extract Ex.P-5 :: Demand Register Extract Ex.P-6 :: One tax paid receipt Ex.P-7 :: Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P-8 & 9 :: Two Photographs Ex.P-10 :: One CD Ex.P-11 :: Official Memorandum dated 07-05-2011 (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE : (SAME DOCUMENTS AS IN O.S.NO.4957/2020) (Smt. Gomati Raghavendra), XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-18) 75 O.S.No.7337/2017 C/w. O.S.No.4957/2020