Bangalore District Court
Narayanappa G P vs Siddagangamma on 3 April, 2024
1
O.S.No.1887/2018
KABC010071842018
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::
Prakash S. Helavar, B.Com., LL.M.,
XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024.
O.S. No.1887/2018
PLAINTIFFS :: Sri. G.P. Narayanappa (Since
deceased by his LRs.)
1(a) Smt. Lakshmamma B.N.,
W/o. Late. G.P. Narayanappa,
Aged about 62 years, Residing
at Gaddadanagenahalli Village,
Madibilli Post, Vijayapura Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru
Rural District.
2
O.S.No.1887/2018
1(b) Smt. Prabhavathi, D/o.
Late. G.P. Narayanappa, W/o.
Munegowda, Aged about 48
years, Residing at Yanagunte
Village, Kammasandra Post,
Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
1(c) Smt. Nirmala G.N., D/o.
Late G.P. Narayanappa, W/o.
Somashekar, Aged about 45
years, Residing at
Gaddadanagenahalli Village,
Madibilli Post, Vijayapura Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru
Rural District.
1(d) Smt. Lalitha G.N., D/o.
Late. G.P. Narayanappa, W/o.
Srinivas, Aged about 42 years,
Residing at Bettakote Village
and Post, Channarayapatna
Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
1(e) Sri. Gopinath G.N., S/o.
Late. G.P. Narayanappa, Aged
about 40 years, Residing at
Gaddadanagenahalli Village,
Madibilli Post, Vijayapura Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru
Rural District.
3
O.S.No.1887/2018
1(f) Sri Seenappa G.N., S/o.
Late. G.P. Narayanappa, Aged
about 37 years, Residing at
Gaddadanagenahalli Village,
Madibilli Post, Vijayapura Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru
Rural District.
(By Sri. N.V. Manjunatha, Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS :: 1. Smt. Siddagangamma,
W/o. C. Gangaraju, Aged about
46 years,
2. Sri. C. Gangaraju,
S/o. Chikkarangaiah, Aged
about 58 years,
Both are residing at D.No.181,
4th 'B' Cross Road, Defence
Colony, Nagasandra Post,
Bagalagunte, Bangalore 560
073
(By Sri. S.G.C., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the Suit :: 09-03-2018
Nature of the Suit :: Declaration & Injunction
4
O.S.No.1887/2018
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence :: 28-05-2019
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced. :: 03-04-2024
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration :: 06 -- 27
(Prakash S. Helavar),
XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
JUDGEMENT
The present suit was basically filed by the plaintiff Sri. G.P.Narayanappa for the relief of Declaration of title and Permanent Injunction. During the pendency of suit, the said plaintiff died thus, his legal heirs, who are plaintiff No.1(a) to 1(f) prosecuted the suit and the facts in nutshell as under;
5
O.S.No.1887/2018
2. It is asserted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner for the below mentioned suit schedule property having been acquired by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 14-10-1981 from the Bagalagunte House Building Co-operative Society Limited )Hereinafter referred as Society). The said Society issued Hakku patra in favour of the plaintiff on 23-01-1982. So, the plaintiff was entered into possession and enjoyed the same on the basis of title.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site No.32, House List No.232, measuring to an extent of East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet situated at Bagalukunte Bengaluru North Taluk, now at Ward No.14, M.S. Ramaiah Badavane, Havanuru Defence Colony, Bagalagunte, Bengaluru and bounded on East by
- Road, West by - Site No.33, House List No.233, 6 O.S.No.1887/2018 North by - Site No.31, House List No.231 and South by - Others property.
3. The name of the plaintiff was entered into khatha by virtue of Sale Deed and Hakku Patra. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property from the date of acquisition. Originally, the suit schedule property was developed by Bagalagunte House Building Co-operative Society Limited and same was purchased by the plaintiff for sale consideration amount of Rs.2,000/- under registered Sale Deed dated 14-10-1981 and the Bagalagunte House Building Co-operative Society issued Hakku Patra in favour of plaintiff on 23-01-1982 and thus, the plaintiff was put in possession. The plaintiff after having obtained the Sale Deed and Hakku Patra enjoying the schedule property ad applied for khatha before the 7 O.S.No.1887/2018 Revenue Authorities. But the concerned Revenue Authorities failed to issue the same. The plaintiff is innocent having no worldly knowledge being the permanent resident of Gaddadanagenahalli Village, Madibilli Post, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District as an agriculturist. The plaintiff for the several years has been suffering from head injury and also suffering from Parkinson and Sindopa disease. Thus, his wife's brother was looking after the property. So, he could not get transfer the khatha into his name.
4. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has made representation to the revenue Inspector / Assistant Revenue Officer, Dasarahalli, BBMP., Bangalore on 23-10-2017 requesting to transfer the khatha for the purpose of remitting the tax. Accordingly, the said Revenue Officer issued an endorsement in favour of the 8 O.S.No.1887/2018 plaintiff. The concerned Revenue Officials issued endorsement stating that the defendants have given objections on 06-02-2018 to not to transfer the khatha in the name of plaintiff, since the defendants are remitting the taxes to the concerned authorities in respect of the suit schedule property. But the defendants are strangers and nowhere related to the family of the plaintiff or to the suit schedule property. It is further alleged that the plaintiff never executed any kind of deed or conveyance in favour of any person. Despite, the defendants by paying taxes to the concerned authorities attempting to claim right over the schedule property.
5. It is further alleged that the defendants though having no right, title or interest over the property, but by colluding with A.R.O. and B.B.M.P. Authorities managed to pay the taxes to the suit schedule property. The defendants are strangers and the title of records is stood 9 O.S.No.1887/2018 still in the name of plaintiff. The plaintiff after having received an endorsement from the concerned authorities on 08-02-2018, issued reply to the said endorsement given by the defendants. The said reply is still under consideration. The defendants have submitted some fabricated and forged documents therefore, the plaintiff immediately obtained the said records and shocked to know that the defendants created General Power of Attorney and Affidavit dated 24-03-1990 stating that the plaintiff executed the same in favour of their person and Sale Deed dated 20-11-2017 reflects that the said Sale Deed has been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. But the plaintiff never executed any General Power of Attorney or any Deed of Conveyance in favour of any person. But the defendants created the documents with an intention to knock off the valuable property of the plaintiff.
10
O.S.No.1887/2018
6. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has obtained an information under RTI Application in respect of the said documents. The plaintiff after coming to know the said fabricated records, approached the jurisdictional police and the said police registered the case against the defendants in NCR No.192/2018 dated 05-03-2018 and later, the same has been disposed off on 07-03-2018. But till today, the police have not taken any suitable action against the defendants. On the other hand, the police have given support to the defendants for their illegal acts. The defendants are powerful persons in the locality and they are attempting to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property. The said defendants have been trying to interfere to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property therefore, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit. In view of the above said 11 O.S.No.1887/2018 assertions and allegations, the plaintiff requested for decreeing the suit.
7. In response to the summons, both defendants entered their appearance through their counsel and resisted the plaint averments by filing written statement. Brief facts of the written statement contentions are as under;
The defendants have denied the plaint averments as false and contended that the suit is not maintainable either on law or on facts. Because, the plaintiff suppressed many real and material facts. The suit is filed just to harass the defendants because, the plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. On the other hand, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It is further contended that one Mr. Muddaiah 12 O.S.No.1887/2018 S/o. Late Hanumanthaiah was the sole and absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property having been acquired by virtue of General Power of Attorney and Affidavit dated 23-04-1990 from one Sri. G.P.Narayanappa S/o. Late. Pillappa (plaintiff). Therefore, since from the date of said purchase, the said Muddaiah was in possession and enjoyment over the schedule property as owner. Due to enforcement of Fragmentation Act, the registered Sale Deed could not be obtained by the said Muddaiah. The said Muddaiah acquired the title over the property by virtue of allotment letter and possession certificate issued by the Society. The said Society also executed the registered Sale Deed in favour of Sri Muddaiah.
8. It is further contended that the said Muddaiah exercised his right of ownership over the schedule property and sold the same in favour of Smt. 13 O.S.No.1887/2018 Sharadamma for valuable sale consideration on 07-04-1997. The said Smt. Sharadamma exercised her right as owner and later she has executed the registered Sale Deed dated 08-04-2002 along with her family members in favour of defendant No.1. The said Smt. Sharadamma delivered the physical possession of the schedule property in favour of defendant No.1. So, the defendant No.1 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The name of defendant No.1 has been recorded in the revenue records by virtue of registered Sale Deed. The said defendant No.1 has put up ACC roof building in the schedule property and thus he has been enjoying the property as a owner having exclusive possession.
9. It is further contended that the said defendant No.1 alienated a portion of schedule property measuring 40 x 15 feet in favour of defendant No.2 by virtue of 14 O.S.No.1887/2018 registered Sale Deed dated 20-11-2017. The said defendant No.2 got entered his name to the khatha extract by virtue of Sale Deed dated 20-11-2017 and he has been remitting the tax regularly. Therefore, the plaintiff is not at all in possession over the schedule property and on the other hand, the defendants are in possession over the property in dispute. The plaintiff is aware that he is not the owner in possession over the schedule property, but the suit is filed just to harass the defendants.
10. It is further contended that there is no cause of action to the suit and the suit has not been properly valued. The plaintiff has not paid adequate Court fees therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above said contentions, the defendants requested for dismissal of suit with exemplary cost. 15
O.S.No.1887/2018
11. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor had framed the following ;
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?
3. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed ?
5. What order or decree ?
12. The Special Power of Attorney older of plaintiff, who is the son of plaintiff and he is plaintiff No.1(f) has deposed as PW-1 and relied upon 17 documents marked at Ex.P-1 to P-17. One Mr. 16 O.S.No.1887/2018 Kempanna, who is the brother of plaintiff has also deposed as PW-2, but he has not produced any documents. One Mr. B.K.Govindaraju, who is the relative of plaintiff also deposed as PW-3, but he has not produced any documents. The plaintiffs closed the evidence.
13. On the other hand, the defendant No.2 has deposed as DW-1 and relied upon 66 documents marked at Ex.D-1 to D-66 and closed the evidence.
14. The respective learned counsel for the parties filed their written arguments. I have perused the records.
15. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon the following decisions;
1. (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 656 in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) Through Director Vs. State of Haryana and Another. 17
O.S.No.1887/2018
2. Regular Second Appeal No.193/2011 (DEC) in the case of Channegowda and Others Vs. N.S.Vishwanath and Others
16. The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon the following decisions;
1. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479 in the case of Ghanshyam Vs. Yogendra Rathi.
2. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8694 in the case of Vimla Devi Vs. Pushpa Devi and Another.
17. I propose to answer to the above said issues are as follows:
ISSUE No.1 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.2 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.3 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.4 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.5 :: As per final order for the
following;
18
O.S.No.1887/2018
REASONS
18. ISSUE NO.1 :: It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he is the owner and in possession of suit schedule property having been purchased by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 23-01-1982 from the Society. The said Society issued Hakku patra on 23-01-1982 in favour of plaintiff so, the plaintiff has exercised his ownership over the schedule property and enjoying the same. It is alleged that the defendants being strangers and nowhere related to the suit schedule property. Because, the plaintiff never executed any kind of deed or conveyance in favour of any person. But the defendants by paying taxes to the concerned authorities, trying to claim right over the schedule property and made objections to the concerned authorities. Therefore, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit after having secured the concerned records from the 19 O.S.No.1887/2018 RTI Act and noticed that the defendants created some fabricated and forged documents in respect of the suit schedule property.
19. On the other hand, the defendants specifically contended that the plaintiff filed the present suit by suppressing the material facts, since the plaintiff had executed General Power of Attorney and Affidavit dated 23-04-1990 and sold the property in favour of sri Muddaiah S/o. Hanumanthaiah. The said Muddaiah being the lawful owner exercised his right of ownership and transferred the same on 07-04-1997 towards northern side of schedule property measuring East to west 40 feet and North to South 15 feet in favour of Smt. Sharadamma. The said Sharadamma along with her family members transferred the right over the property towards northern side measuring East to west 20 O.S.No.1887/2018 40 feet and North to South 15 feet in favour of defendant No.1 therefore, they are in possession of schedule property on the strength of Sale Deed dated dated 08-04-2002. The defendant No.1 put up ACC roofed house and later, she has sold the southern portion by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 20-11-2017 in favour of 2nd defendant therefore, the defendants are enjoying the right over the schedule property.
20. As per their respective allegations and contentions, the parties have adduced their oral evidence. The plaintiff Sri. G.P.Narayanappa died during the pendency of suit and his legal heirs are prosecuted the suit and plaintiff No.1(f) being the Special Power of Attorney holder has deposed as PW-1. His oral evidence is nothing but reproduction of plaint averments. In support of oral evidence, he has relied 21 O.S.No.1887/2018 upon 17 documents and also two more witnesses deposed as PW-2 and 3, who are close relatives of plaintiffs wherein, they stated that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of schedule property. The defendants are totally strangers and nowhere concerned to the plaintiffs and property, but they attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant No.2 has also deposed as DW-1 by relying upon 66 documents and his evidence is also reproduction of written statement contentions.
21. As could be seen from the records, it is not in dispute that vacant site measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet bearing site No.32, House List No.232, located in ward No.14, M.S.Ramaiah Extension, Havanuru Defence Colony, Bagalagunte was allotted by the Society in favour of late 22 O.S.No.1887/2018 G.P.Narayyannappa. Later, the said Society executed registered Sale Deed in favour of said G.P.Narayanappa on 14-10-1981. It is also not in dispute that the said Society issued Hakku patra on 23-01-1982 in favour of said G.P.Narayanappa. But the plaintiff specifically claims that he never executed any kind of deed or conveyance in favour of any party, but the defendants created some fabricated documents like General Power of Attorney and Affidavit. Moreover, the defendants filed objections before the Revenue Authorities to the application filed by the plaintiff for effecting khatha in his name therefore, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit.
22. The PW-1 has produced Ex.P-1 Special Power of Attorney being the Special Power of Attorney holder of his father, on 16-03-2019. The defendants do not much dispute about this document hence, much 23 O.S.No.1887/2018 reliance cannot be placed in this regard. The said PW-1 has relied upon Ex.P-2 certified copy of registered Sale Deed dated 14-10-1981 executed by the Society in favour of late. G.P.Narayanappa. The said PW-1 has produced Ex.P-3 certified copy of Hakku Patra issued by the said Society in favour of late G.P.Narayanappa. It means, both Ex.P-2 and P-3 are secondary evidence. But there is no explanation by either of the plaintiffs in respect of existence and whereabouts of the original registered Sale Deed and Hakku patra.
23. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the said original registered Sale Deed and Haku Patra either misplaced or stolen. But on the other hand, the DW-1, who is the defendant No.2 has produced original Hakku Patra and registered Sale Deed marked at Ex.D-1 and D-2. The plaintiffs never questioned the custody of said 24 O.S.No.1887/2018 documents how the defendants secured he said documents. So, this evidence presupposes that late G.P.Narayanappa had delivered the said original Hakku Patra and Sale Deed in favour of his Power of Attorney Holder Muddaiah S/o. Hanumanthaiah and said Muddaiah in turn delivered the same in favour of his purchaser. There is no single suggestion to the DW-1 in respect of custody of these original Hakku Patara and registered Sale Deed.
24. The PW-1 relied upon Ex.P-6 application dated 23-10-2017 addressed to the Revenue Inspector, Bagalagunte BBMP Office, Bangalore. The said document goes to show that the G.P.Narayanappa requested to enter his name to the khatha of the schedule property, since he acquired the schedule property by virtue of Hakku Patra and Sale Deed from 25 O.S.No.1887/2018 the Society. In this regard, there is no proper reasons and explanation made by the plaintiff that what prevented him in not filing the application for effecting khatha till 23-10-2017. So, in my opinion, the said Ex.P- 6 dated 2310-2017 appears that it is only an after thought of the late plaintiff.
25. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is still vacant site. But to prove the said fact, no single substantial piece of document is produced. On the other hand, the photographs produced by the defendants marked at Ex.D-58 to D-60 establish that the house property has been constructed in the schedule property. In this connection, absolutely no rebuttal by the plaintiffs and even no single suggestion made out to the DW-1 to disprove the said documents to believe that the said house property is not constructed in 26 O.S.No.1887/2018 the disputed property. The document produced by the defendants at Ex.D-38 to D-51 clearly go to show that the defendants have taken electricity connection to the house property. Moreover, the documents at Ex.D-52 and D-53 clearly indicate for having obtained the water supply connection to the said house constructed in the schedule property. Ex.D-54 to D-57 copy of Election Identity Card and Unique Identity Card of the defendant No.1 and 2 establish the fact that the defendant No.1 & 2 are residing in the schedule property. On the contrary, as against these documents, absolutely no rebuttal is placed and the said documents have not been denied by the plaintiffs. So, it is evident from these documents that the defendants are in possession over the schedule property having been constructed residential house.
26. Moreover, the documents produced by the defendants at Ex.D-5 to D-31 are clear to believe that 27 O.S.No.1887/2018 the defendants having been making payment of tax to the BBMP for enjoyment of the schedule property. On the other hand, these documents have not been challenged and disputed by the plaintiffs either by way of cross-examination or by way of producing any rebuttal document. So, the said documents clearly support the case of the defendants that they are in possession of the schedule property having been acquired from their previous vendor.
27. The document at Ex.D-32 Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 01-04-2002 to 31-03-2004 clearly establishes the fact that the name of the defendant No.1 has been reflecting as a holder of the schedule property having been acquired by virtue of Sale Deed. Further, the Ex.D-35 Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 01-04-2004 to 01-12-2017 clearly goes to show that the name of the defendant 28 O.S.No.1887/2018 No.2 has been appearing for all these years having been acquired the schedule property by virtue of Sale Deed, since the defendant No.1 transferred the said property in favour of defendant No.2.Besides, the Ex.D- 36 Encumbrance Certificate establishes the fact that from 01-04-2017 to 10-06-2019 name of the defendant No.2 has been reflecting as a holder of property. Ex.P-37 also goes to establish that the name of the defendant No.2 is appearing as holder of the property for the period from 01-04-2017 to 18-03-2021. So, these documents at Ex.D-32, D-35 to D-37 clearly go to show that the defendant No.1 acquired the schedule property and later, she has transferred in favour of the defendant No.2. But there is no evidence placed by the plaintiffs for having rebutted these documents.
28. From these documents, it can be presumed that late plaintiff and the present plaintiffs were and are 29 O.S.No.1887/2018 having complete knowledge about the transfer of right over the schedule property. Besides, the documents at Ex.D-38 to D-51 demonstrate that the defendants have been enjoying the property with exclusive possession having been obtained electricity connection to the suit schedule property. As against these documents, absolutely no substantial piece of documents were produced by the plaintiffs to prove their exclusive possession over the said property.
29. In the course of cross-examination, the PW-1 denied to the suggestion that his father has not constructed any house in the schedule property. It means that, his father had constructed the house in the schedule property. But in this connection, there is no evidence placed by the plaintiffs to prove the construction of the house. Hence, the said denial is crystal clear that the plaintiffs suppressed the fact of 30 O.S.No.1887/2018 construction of house by the defendants. It is also admitted by the PW-1 that they have not given any application for effecting khatha. In this connection, there is no explanation that what prevented them in not requesting the concerned authorities to effect khatha in the name of the plaintiffs.
30. The PW-1 further denied that the defendant No.1 is in possession of the schedule property and also obtained khatha. But to accept this particular testimony, there is no piece of document is produced to believe that the plaintiffs are in possession of the schedule property. Moreover, the PW-1 denied to the suggestion that the defendant No.1 is paying property tax and also defendant No.1 is paying electricity bills. If at all the said testimony is to be accepted as true on behalf of plaintiffs, then there must have been some documents. But no piece of document is produced. On the other 31 O.S.No.1887/2018 hand, as I stated supra that the defendants produced voluminous documents to prove their possession by producing property tax receipts and electricity bills. Further, the said PW-1 states in his cross-examination that before 2017 the property was vacant site and subsequently, a building was constructed in the schedule property. If at all the said evidence is to be accepted as true, then there must have been documents on behalf of the plaintiffs for having constructed the residential house. But in this connection, there is absolutely no piece of document is produced. On the other hand, the photographs produced by the defendants clearly go to show the construction being made by the defendants.
31. The said PW-1 pleads ignorance in respect of existence of building as on the date of filing the suit stating that he does not know as to whether the building 32 O.S.No.1887/2018 was in existence as on the date of suit. The said PW-1 whispered in the course of cross-examination that original Sale Deed of the schedule property is with the plaintiff. But no evidence is placed for what reason the said document has not been still produced. On the other hand, as I stated supra, the original Sale Deed along with Hakku patra has been produced by the defendants, which clearly establish the fact that late plaintiff has delivered the said original documents in favour of his Power of Attorney Holder as on the date of execution of Power of Attorney along with Affidavit. The said affidavit is having coupled with interest, which are documents at Ex.D-61 and D-62.
32. No doubt, the plaintiffs have examined their relatives as PW-2 and 3 to prove their ownership and possession over the said property. But their cross- examination statements clearly to go show that they 33 O.S.No.1887/2018 have not seen the schedule property at all. Further, they said that they do not know the boundaries of the schedule property and moreover, their own statement go to show that they saw the schedule property around five years back. So, this testimony itself falsifies the case of the plaintiffs. Because, they are totally unaware about the facts of the case and about construction of building. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the said evidence of PW-2 and 3 will have no assistance to the case of plaintiffs.
33. In the course of cross-examination to the DW-1 there is a suggestion that the DW-1 along with his wife residing in the schedule property. The said suggestion totally falsifies the case of the plaintiffs and from this suggestion, it can be safely opined that the defendants are in possession of the schedule property, but not the plaintiffs. No doubt, the DW1 states during 34 O.S.No.1887/2018 his cross-examination that on Ex.D-61 the signatures, which are appearing are not belonging to the late plaintiff and also the stamp papers Ex.D-65 and D-66 are totally different. As could be understood from the entire cross-examination of DW-2, in my opinion, the said admissions are totally stray admissions and the said admissions do not cut the root of the case of the defendants.
34. I am of the opinion from the available materials that late G.P.Narayanappa transferred his right over the schedule property in favour of Muddaiah by virtue of Power of Attorney and Affidavit and later, the said Muddaiah transferred the right over the property in favour of Smt. Sharadamma and the said Smt. Sharadamma transferred the same in favour of present defendant No.1 and the present defendant No.1 35 O.S.No.1887/2018 transferred the right in favour of present defendant No.2. These transactions clearly go to show that the right, title and interest of the schedule property has been transferred from hand to hand. But the late plaintiff having greedy, filed the application at Ex.P-6 for the first time on 23-10-2017 before the Revenue Inspector, Bagalagunte. Therefore, the said G.P.Narayanappa completely lost his rights over the schedule property by virtue of transactions. But still for wrongful gain he filed the present suit.
35. No doubt, the General Power of Attorney and Affidavit at Ex.D-61 & D-62 and D-64 & D-65 cannot be termed as valid transfer. But the defendants paid the stamp duty and penalty over the said documents and thus, the documents have been looked into for collateral purpose. The said documents make crystal clear in respect of transfer of property. Therefore, in my opinion, 36 O.S.No.1887/2018 the conduct of the late plaintiff and the present plaintiffs clearly go to show that having been sold the property, but by suppressing the material facts filed the suit for wrongful gain. In my opinion, the Judgments relied by the counsel for the plaintiffs reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 656 in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) Through Director Vs. State of Haryana and Another and in Regular Second Appeal No.193/2011 (DEC) in the case of Channegowda and Others Vs. N.S.Vishwanath and Others will no assistance to the case of the plaintiffs. So, in view of the above said detailed reasons, I am inclined to answer Issue No.1 in the Negative.
36. ISSUE NO.2 :: The plaintiff specifically alleged that the defendants are interfering to his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. But as can be seen from the records, the 37 O.S.No.1887/2018 plaintiff has not produced any substantial piece of evidence to believe his possession over the schedule property and on the other hand, the defendants produced voluminous documents to believe that they are in possession of the schedule property. Under such circumstances, the question of interference of the said defendants as alleged by the plaintiff does not remain for consideration. So, in view of the above said detailed reasons mentioned in Issue No.1, I am inclined to answer Issue No.2 in the Negative.
37. ISSUE NO.3 :: The defendants have taken up a contention that the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient. As can be seen from the records, the plaintiffs have paid the Court Fee as per Section 24(d) and 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and paid only Rs.50/-. But the plaintiff ought to have paid the Court Fees on the market value 38 O.S.No.1887/2018 of the schedule property as per Section 24(b) of K.C.F. and S.V. Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs are liable to pay the Court Fee as per the market value of the schedule property and thus, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative.
38. ISSUE NO.4 :: In view of detailed reasons mentioned in Issue No.1 & 2, it is crystal clear that the plaintiffs utterly failed to prove the title and possession over the suit schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff is not at all entitled for any of the reliefs. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.4 in the Negative.
39. ISSUE NO.5 :: In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.
The plaintiffs are required to pay the Court Fee on the market value of 39 O.S.No.1887/2018 the Suit Schedule property and in this regard, office to collect the Court Fee as observed in the body of the Judgment.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of April, 2024.) (Prakash S. Helavar), XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :
(A) PLAINTIFFS SIDE ::
PW.1 :: Seenappa G.N.
PW.2 :: Kempanna
PW.3 :: B.K. Govindaraju
(B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
DW.1 :: C. Gangaraju
40
O.S.No.1887/2018
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF :
(A) PLAINTIFFS SIDE :
Ex.P-1 :: Special Power of Attorney dated 16-03-2019 Ex.P-2 :: Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 14-10-1981 Ex.P-3 :: Copy of the Hakku Patra (Grant Certificate) Ex.P-4 :: Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P-5 :: Nil Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P-6 :: Copy of the complaint Ex.P-7 :: Copy of the Letter Ex.P-8 :: Endorsement Ex.P-9 :: Copy of the Letter dated 24-02-2018 Ex.P-10 :: Application under Right to Information Act Ex.P-11 :: Receipt Ex.P-12 :: Copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 23-04-1990 Ex.P-13 :: Copy of Affidavit Ex.P-14 :: Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 08-04-2002 Ex.P-15 :: Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 20-11-2017 41 O.S.No.1887/2018 Ex.P-16 :: Copy of the complaint Ex.P-17 :: Acknowledgment (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE :
Ex.D-1 :: Grant Certificate Ex.D-2 :: Sale Deed dated 14-10-1981 Ex.D-3 :: Sale Deed dated 08-04-2002 Ex.D-4 :: Sale Deed dated 20-12-2017 Ex.D-5 to 8:: Property Tax List Ex.D-9 to Ex.D-12 :: Receipts Ex.D-13 :: Tax Self Assessment Form Ex.D-14 :: Receipt Ex.D-15 to Ex.D-31 :: 17 Tax Paid Receipts Ex.D-32 :: Encumbrance Certificate Ex.D-33 &
Ex.D-34 :: Nil Encumbrance Certificate Ex.D-35 to Ex.D-37 :: Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D-38 to Ex.D-49 :: 12 Electricity Bills and Receipts Ex.D-50 & Ex.D-51 :: Test Certificates 42 O.S.No.1887/2018 Ex.D-52 :: The application for water supply Ex.D-53 :: Bank Challan Ex.D-54 to Ex.D-57 :: Notarized copy of Identity Card Ex.D-58 to Ex.D-60 :: 3 Photographs Ex.D-61 & Ex.D-62 :: General Power of Attorney dated 23-04-1990 Ex.D-63 & Ex.D-64 :: General Power of Attorney dated 07-04-1997 Ex.D-65 & Ex.D-66 :: General Power of Attorney dated 07-04-1997 (Prakash S.Helavar), XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.