Bangalore District Court
Rashmita Samantarai vs Ganesh on 4 June, 2025
KABC0A0020052014
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 XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29) MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2025.
PRESENT:
Sri BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU, B.Sc., LL.B.,
XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.25733/2014
PLAINTIFF : Mrs. Rashmita Samantarai
W/o. Nehru Samantarai,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.23, 13th Cross,
Kaggadasapura, C.V. Raman
Nagar Post, Bengaluru-560 093.
Presently at:
9037 SONOMA POINTE DR
COLUMBUS, GA-31909,
USA.
Represented by her GPA Holder,
Mr. Choudhury Sanjib Kumar Das,
S/o.Manindra Kumar Das.
(By Sri M.G.S. Kamal, Advocate)
Cont'd..
2 O.S.No.25733/2014
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Ganesh
S/o. Sriramappa,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at No.19, Manjunatha Nilaya,
16th Cross, Kaggadasapura,
C.V.Raman Nagar Post,
Bengaluru - 560 093.
2. Rudraswamy
S/o. Late Hucheeraiah,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at Kanchugal
Bandeputt Post, Magadi Taluk-562 120.
3. M/s. Adarsh Developers
No.10, Vittal Mallya Road,
Bengaluru
Represented by its Director.
(D.1 by Sri Manjunath Reddy, Advocate)
(D.2 by Sri K.S. Venaktaramana, Advocate)
(D.3 by Sri Chandrahasa, Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 30.04.2014
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Declaration & Injunction Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 21.12.2023
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 04.06.2025
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 11years, 01month, 04days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
3 O.S.No.25733/2014
JUDGMENT
This suit is instituted by the Plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of declaration to declare, plaintiff is absolute owner of suit schedule property. The plaintiff has further sought for declaration to declare, sale deed dated 22.02.2010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on plaintiff to the extent of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has further sought for vacant physical possession of suit property from defendants. The plaintiff has also sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further sought for damages and cost of suit by defendants.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:
That, plaintiff purchased suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 23.06.2004 from defendant No.1. After purchase, plaintiff got khatha of suit property in her name from BBMP and she is paying 4 O.S.No.25733/2014 tax pertaining to suit property to concerned authority. Plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit property, which forms part of land bearing Sy.No.98, measuring 1 acre 29½ guntas of Doddakanahalli Village. Originally said property belonged to Muniswamy Reddy, thereafter it was allotted to share of his son K.M. Narayana Reddy. Said K.M. Narayana Reddy sold entire 1 acre 29 ½ guntas together with 4½ guntas kharab in Sy.No.98 of Doddakanahalli Village in favour of defendant No.1 under sale deed dated 07.01.2004. Defendant No.1 after mutating his name to purchased property, formed layout consisting of 48 of sites of different dimensions. Plaintiff has purchased plaint schedule property from defendant No.1 and he is in exclusive possession of sale. In the month of May 2013, when plaintiff visited suit property after returning from United States of America, she noticed certain activities on suit property. On enquiry, plaintiff learnt that, defendant No.1 without having any right or interest has illegally executed sale deed dated 22.02.2010 in favour of defendant No.2 by conveying entire 1 acre 27 guntas and 5 guntas of attached 5 O.S.No.25733/2014 kharab land in Sy.No.98 to defendant No.2. Sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on plaintiff. Defendant No.2 and 3 with their ulterior motive have trespassed into suit schedule property and constructing compound wall. On these pleadings, the plaintiff has prayed to decree the suit as prayed in plaint.
3. In response to the service of suit summons, defendant No.1 to 3 have tendered their appearance before the court through their respective counsels. The defendants have filed their written statement and contest their case.
4. The contents of written statement of defendant No.1 in brief are as under :-
That, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is denied that, plaintiff purchased suit property from defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 23.06.2004 and he is in possession and enjoyment of same having entered his name in revenue records of suit property. It is not disputed that, suit property originally belonged to 6 O.S.No.25733/2014 family of Muniswamy Reddy. It is also not disputed, after demise of Muniswamy Reddy suit property allotted to his son K.M. Narayana Reddy as his share in family properties. It is further admitted, K.M. Narayana Reddy sold entire 1 acre 29½ guntas together with 4½ guntas kharab in Sy.No.98 in favour defendant No.1 under sale deed dated 07.01.2004. It is denied that, after purchase of property from K.M. Narayana Reddy, defendant No.1 formed a private layout consisting of 48 sites of different dimensions. As defendant No.1 has not formed any layout, alleged suit property forming part and parcel of Sy.No.98 of Doddakanahalli does not arise. There is no existence of alleged suit property and same is imaginary with imaginary measurements and boundaries. It is admitted that, defendant No.1 sold 1 acre 29 ½ guntas in Sy.No.98 in favour of defendant No.2, under sale deed dated 22.02.2010. In turn defendant No.2 entered agreement with defendant No.3 for development of said land. The defendant No.3 being Developer is putting up construction on said land. Defendant No.2 is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of Sy.No.98 measuring 1 acre 29 ½ guntas. There is no cause of 7 O.S.No.25733/2014 action for plaintiff to file present suit. On these grounds, it is requested to dismiss suit filed by plaintiff with exemplary costs.
5. The contents of written statement of defendant No.2 in brief are as under:-
That, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is denied that, plaintiff is absolute owner of suit property which are all piece and parcel of residential sites bearing No.7 and 8 in Sy.No.98 to and extent of 1 acre 29½ guntas of Doddakanahalli Village. It is denied that, plaintiff purchased suit property from defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 23.06.2004. Defendant No.2 is bonafide purchaser of property from defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 22.02.2010. Suit schedule property is not in existence and plaintiff filed this suit in respect of non-existing property based on created and invalid documents. Plaintiff has no right to claim declaration over alleged suit property. This defendant after purchase of property from defendant No.1 applied for conversion of land into non- 8 O.S.No.25733/2014 agricultural industrial Hi-tech purpose and obtained conversion order dated 27.08.2011 issued by competent authority. Hence, question of existence of suit sites as contended by plaintiff in alleged private layout does not arise. This defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of land purchased from defendant No.1. The plaintiff has approached court with malafide intention to harass defendant No.2 and to extract money. Defendant No.2 has invested huge amount by borrowing loan from Financial Institutions at high rate of interest. On these grounds, it is requested to dismiss the suit filed by plaintiff with exemplary costs.
6. The contents of written statement of defendant No.3 in brief are as under :-
That, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Alleged power of attorney dated
07.04.2014 is created and concocted one and same do not authorises person, who verified and signed plaint to prosecute case. Plaintiff filed suit in respect of non- existing property and no such house list khata wasin existence in the name of defendant No.1. Sale deed 9 O.S.No.25733/2014 relied by plaintiff dated 23.06.2004 is fictitious and defendant No.1 was not holding alleged house list in respect of alleged property. Hence, lawful title or possession of property not been conveyed to plaintiff. Plaintiff not in possession and enjoyment of suit property based on alleged sale deed. It is not disputed, Muniswamy Reddy was owner of land measuring 1 acre 29½ guntas in Sy.No.98 of Doddakanahalli Village and his son K.M. Narayana Reddy sold same in favour of defendant No.1 under sale deed dated 07.01.2004. Defendant No.1 never formed private layout consisting of 48 sites of different dimensions out of land measuring 1 acre 29½ guntas in Sy.No.98/1A of Doddakanahalli Village. It is highly unimaginable to form 48 sites in 1 acres 29 guntas. Private layout plan produced plaintiff is created and concocted for the purpose of present case. Plaintiff never in possession of suit property by virtue of alleged sale deed dated 23.06.2004. Defendant No.2 being absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.98/1A measuring 1 acre 29½ guntas lawfully authorised defendant No.3 to develop the same. Hence, act of defendant No.2 and 3 in putting compound Wall and to 10 O.S.No.25733/2014 do any other development work of their choice is nothing to do with plaintiff. Plaintiff has no right to question correctness of title deeds of defendant No.2 and to prevent him from using land at his choice. Suit property and land purchased by defendant No.2 under sale deeds dated 22.02.2010 are totally different and distinct. Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in plaint. On these grounds, it is requested to dismiss the suit filed by plaintiff.
7. On the basis of above pleadings of both parties, this court has framed the following:
RECASTED ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is absolute owner of suit property?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that sale deed dated 22.02.2010 executed by D1 in favour of D2 not binding on the plaintiff?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that the allegation regarding interference?
4. Whether defendant No.1 proves that suit is not properly valued and court fee paid sufficient?11 O.S.No.25733/2014
5. Whether defendant No.2 proves that he is bonafide purchaser for value?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
7. Whether plaintiff is entitled for delivery vacant possession of as prayed for?
8.Whether plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for?
9. Whether plaintiff entitled for damages as prayed for?
10. What order or decree?
8. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, power of attorney holder of plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and produced in all 13 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P.13. On the other hand, the Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.2 and partner of defendant No.3 has examined himself as D.W.1 and produced 4 document as Exs.D.1 to D.4.
9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for defendants and I have perused the case records.
10. My answers to the above issues are as under- 12 O.S.No.25733/2014
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 affirmative;
ISSUE No.6 - In the negative;
ISSUE No.7 - In the negative;
ISSUE No.8 - In the negative;
ISSUE No.9 - In the negative;
ISSUE No.10 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
11. ISSUE No.1 :- As per case made out by plaintiff, she is claiming to be absolute owner of suit schedule property, based on sale deed dated 23.06.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in her favour. The defendant No.1 who filed his written statement has specifically denied execution of sale deed dated 23.06.2004 in favour of plaintiff, which is produced by plaintiff as per Ex.P.2. It is the defendants No.1 has specifically denied that, he formed private layout in Sy.No.98 of Doddakanahalli Village measuring 1 acre 13 O.S.No.25733/2014 29½ guntas and sold suit site to plaintiff under Ex.P.2. Defendants No.2 in his written statement has specifically contended, there is no existence of suit property in land bearing Sy.No.98/1A, measuring to an extent of 1 acre 29½ guntas of Doddakannali Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. It is further contended by defendants that, plaintiff has filed suit on non-existing property based on created and invalid documents.
12. On going through pleadings and evidence of parties on record, it is no more in dispute that, old land bearing Sy.No.98 of Doddakanahalli Village belonged to Muniswamy Reddy and in partition it was allotted to his son K.M. Narayana Reddy. It is also not in dispute between parties to suit that, K.M. Narayana Reddy, sold 1 acre 29 ½ guntas together with kharab land in Sy.No.98 of Doddakanahalli Village in favour of defendant No.1. In this regard, certified copy of sale deed dated 07.01.2004 executed by K.M. Narayana Reddy in favour of defendant No.1 herein in respect of 1 acre 29 ½ guntas including 4½ guntas of kharab land in Sy.No.98 of Doddakanahalli Village has been 14 O.S.No.25733/2014 produced as per Ex.P.5. The power of attorney holder of defendant No.2 and partner of defendant No.3 who examined as D.W.1 in his cross-examination has deposed original Sy.No.98 of Doddakanahalli Village, measuring 3 acres 28 guntas originally belonged to Muniswamy and after his death, his children effected partition, in said partition property to an extent of 1 acre 29½ guntas and kharab 4 ½ guntas fallen to the share of K.M. Narayana Reddy. Fact to be noted here that, these suggestions have been made by learned counsel for plaintiff to D.W.1. It is also clearly admitted by D.W.1 that, K.M. Narayana Reddy sold 1 acre 29½ guntas to defendant No.1 under sale deed dated 07.01.2004 as per Ex.P.5.
13. It is worth to note here that, on perusal of recital of Ex.P.5 which is sale deed dated 07.01.2004 wherein K.M. Narayana Reddy and other persons shown as confirming parties together have sold 1 acre 29½ guntas and 4½ guntas of kharab land out of total extent of Sy.No.98 of Doddakanahalli Village in favour of defendant No.1. It means by executing Ex.P.5, K.M. 15 O.S.No.25733/2014 Narayana Reddy who acquired property from Muniswamy under family partition and sold it to defendant No.1.
14. As already discussed, plaintiff is claiming to be absolute owner of suit schedule property which are residential sites bearing No.7 and 8, old property No.98, House List Khata No.120/1/98/7 and No.120/1/98/8 forming part of land in Sy.No.98, situated at Doddakannalli Village based on sale deed dated 23.06.2004. As per recital of Ex.P.2 - sale deed dated 23.06.2004, defendant No.1 sold suit property to plaintiff.
15. The power of attorney holder of plaintiff, who examined as P.W.1 in his evidence before court has deposed, at the time of purchase of suit property, khata of suit property were standing in the name of defendant No.1. Admittedly, plaintiff has not produced document to show, at the time of execution Ex.P.2 sale deed, khata of suit property were standing in the name of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has produced khata extract of suit property as per Ex.P.3. On perusal of said 16 O.S.No.25733/2014 document, name of plaintiff has been shown as owner and possession of suit property. Further it is mentioned total extent of suit property measuring to an extent of 40X20 feet, which is vacant land. Absolutely there is no material, such as khata to show earlier to Ex.P.3 khata which is entered in the name of plaintiff, name of defendant No.1 entered in relevant khata maintained by competent authority.
16. On careful perusal of schedule property mentioned as per Ex.P.2, it is mentioned suit sites No.7 and 8 in old property No.98. Even on careful perusal of recital of Ex.P.2 nowhere it is mentioned Sy.No.98/1A old Sy.No.98 of Doddakannalli Village was converted into non-agricultural purpose by competent authority and layout said to have been formed in said survey number was approved by competent authority.
17. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has deposed, land bearing Sy.No.98 of Doddakannalli Village converted into non-agricultural purpose. It is say of P.W.1 in his cross-examination that, he will try to produce said conversion order pertaining to Sy.No.98 17 O.S.No.25733/2014 before court. Admittedly, on careful perusal of documents produced by plaintiff, he has not produced conversion order passed by competent authority in respect of land bearing Sy.No.98 of Doddakannalli Village which was owned by defendant No.1. Further, absolutely there is no material placed by plaintiff to show based on private layout alleged to have been formed by defendant No.1 in Sy.No.98, name of defendant No.1 entered to house list khata No.120/1/98/7 and 120/1/98/8 of Doddakanahalli Village.
18. It is fact that, as per Ex.P.5 dated 07.01.2004 defendant No.1 having purchased property from K.M. Narayana Reddy sold 1 acre 27 guntas and 5 kharab land in total extent of Sy.No.98/1A in favour of defendant No.2 as per Ex.P.7. It is the case of plaintiff that, after purchase of property from K.M. Narayana Reddy, defendant No.1 formed sites in 1 acre, 29½ guntas and sold suit sites in favour of plaintiff as per Ex.P.2.
18 O.S.No.25733/2014
19. As already discussed, absolutely there is no material placed by plaintiff to show, defendant No.1 had converted Sy.No.98 to an extent of 1 acre 29½ guntas for non-agricultural purpose and formed layout in which suit property of plaintiff are existed. It is significant to note here that, an attempt was made by plaintiff to produce proposed layout map in Sy.No.98 before court and same is produced as per Ex.P.6. It is fact that, said layout has been admittedly not approved by competent authority. It is true, suit sites No.7 and 8 have been mentioned in layout plan, but there are in total 48 sites of different dimensions have been shown in layout map. Further, in respect of area of layout it is mentioned total sites area is 1,47,000 square feet. Even total extent of area as shown in said layout map, definitely exceeds total area of 1 acre 29 ½ guntas in Sy.No.98/1A.
20. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has pleaded, ignorance about total site area of 1,47,000 square feet mentioned in layout plan. It is also gathered from said record that, it is highly impossible to form 48 19 O.S.No.25733/2014 sites of different dimensions as mentioned in said layout map in area measuring 1 acre 29½ guntas of Sy.No.98. Under these circumstance, when layout map produced by plaintiff in support of his case which does not bear seal and signature of competent authority and same is not approved by local authority or competent authority, said document cannot be taken into consideration to accept contention of plaintiff that, defendant No.1 formed suit sites in Sy.No.98 and thereby sold it in favour of plaintiff as per Ex.P.2. In addition, there is no revenue documents or khata extract of suit properties in the name of defendant No.1 at relevant point of time, when she had executed sale deed as per Ex.P.2 in favour of plaintiff.
21. It is significant to note here that, when plaintiff failed to establish by documentary evidence that, defendant No.1 had formed layout in which suit sites are existed, sale deed as per Ex.P.2 executed by mentioning suit sites existed in Sy.No.98 of Doddakannalli Village has no legal sanctity. As and when there is no approved layout plan issued by 20 O.S.No.25733/2014 competent authority in respect of suit sites, very identification of suit sites with specific boundaries and measurement out of total extent of Sy.No.98 is highly impossible.
22. It is not case of plaintiff that, out of total extent of 1 acre 29½ guntas of agricultural land, an extent of suit property with boundaries sold by defendant No.1 in his favour. When plaintiff is claiming defendant No.1 had sold sites bearing khata number, it is incumbent upon plaintiff to establish with sanction of local authority or competent authority layout in Sy.No.98 to an extent of 1 acre 29½ guntas formed by defendant No.1 and thereafter by entering his name to those sites in concerned records he has sold suit property in her favour.
23. It is well settled law that, when identification of suit property is not possible and same is in dispute, plaintiff cannot be declared as absolute owner based on recital and schedule of property as mentioned in Ex.P.2. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the negative. 21 O.S.No.25733/2014
24. ISSUE NO.2 :- It is significant to note here that, it is contention of plaintiff and same is deposed by P.W.1 that, sale deeds dated 22.02.2010 are not binding on plaintiff to extent of suit property. On the other hand, defendants No.2 and 3 have contended as per Ex.P.7, sale deed dated 22.02.2010, defendant No.1 sold 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.98/1A in favour of defendant No.2. As already discussed, as per Ex.P.7, defendant No.1 sold 1 acre 27 guntas and 5 guntas kharab land in Sy.No.98/1A in favour of defendant No.2.
25. It is the case of plaintiff that, as defendant No.1 already sold suit sites in her favour under Ex.P.2 which is prior to execution of Ex.P.7, as such defendant No.1 has no right, title to sell property to an extent of 1 acre 29 gunta in Sy.No.98/1A in favour of defendant No.2. It is true, Ex.P.2 in favour of plaintiff is much prior to Ex.P.7 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, herein the case, as already discussed, there is no prima facie material placed on record to show, defendant No.1 has converted Sy.No.98 to an extent of 1 acre 29½ guntas into non-agricultural 22 O.S.No.25733/2014 purpose and alleged layout was formed in which suit sites existed and said layout has been approved by competent authority. Under these circumstance, plaintiff has to establish, she acquired title over suit property which is part and parcel of total extent of Sy.No.98/1A, as such defendant No.1 has no right to sell 1 acre 29½ guntas in Sy.No.98/1A in favour of defendant No.2. Further, there is no material placed on record by plaintiff to substantiate, based on conversion of land into non-agricultural purpose by defendant No.1, his name entered into suit sites in concerned records maintained by local authority. As such, plaintiff is not permitted to contend, sale deed as per Ex.P.7 dated 22.02.2010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on her to the extent of suit property in total extent of Sy.No.98/1A. Hence, I answer issue No.2 in the negative.
26. ISSUE NO.3 :- It is to be noted here, it is pleaded in plaint and same is deposed by P.W.1 that, during month May 2013 plaintiff visited suit property and noticed certain activities on suit schedule property. 23 O.S.No.25733/2014 In Ex.P.2 it is mentioned possession of suit sites handed over to plaintiff by defendant No.1. As already discussed, absolutely there is no material, except Ex.P.6, which is not approved or issued by competent authority that, suit site which existed in layout and their possession handed over to plaintiff by defendant No.1.
27. It is significant to note here that, plaintiff has sought for vacant and physical possession of suit site from defendants. That itself sufficient to say, plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of suit sites. When plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of suit sites, question of alleged interference by defendants in possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit property does not arise.
28. It is contention of plaintiff that, defendants are not in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property. It is worth to note here that, after purchase of property, defendant No.2 got converted 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.98/1A2 into non-agricultural purpose. These facts or evident from Ex.D.4 conversion order issued by competent authority. The P.W.1 in his cross- 24 O.S.No.25733/2014 examination has pleaded, his ignorance as to in which survey number exactly suit properties are existed. It is fact that, as per Ex.D.2, defendant No.2 has purchased 1 acre 27 guntas 5 guntas of kharab land in Sy.No.98/1A from defendant No.1 and thereafter converted 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No98/1A2 into non- agricultural purpose as per Ex.D.4.
29. It is pleaded in the plaint and same is deposed by P.W.1 that, plaintiff having come from USA during month of May 2013 visited suit property and noticed certain activities on land comprising of plaint schedule property have been taken up by defendants No.2 and 3. Further, it is deposed by P.W.1 that, on enquiry, plaintiff learnt that, entire land in Sy.No.98 measuring 1 acre 29 ½ guntas has been purchased by defendant No.2 from defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 entered into certain arrangement with the defendant No.3 for development of said land.
30. As already discussed, by virtue of Ex.D.2, defendant No.2 purchased 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.98 from defendant No.1 and as per Ex.D.4 said land is 25 O.S.No.25733/2014 converted into non-agricultural purpose. Under these circumstance, possession of defendants over said extent of property cannot be termed as their unlawful possession and enjoyment over suit property. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the negative.
31. ISSUE NO.4 :- It is to be noted here, this issue has been treated by court as preliminary issue before recasting of issues and court by its order dated 04.09.2018 has answered said issue in the affirmative and plaintiff was directed to pay necessary court fees and same was complied by plaintiff. Hence, I answer issue No.4 in the affirmative.
32. ISSUE NO.5 :- It is contention of defendant No.2 that, he is bonafide purchaser of property from defendant No.1. As already discussed, under Ex.D.2 sale deed, defendant No.2 has purchased property from defendant No.1. Plaintiff has not produced any material on record to show at the time of execution of Ex.P.2 or Ex.D.2, Sy.No.98 to an extent of 1 acre 29 ½ guntas which was held by defendant No.1 already converted into non-agricultural purpose and private layout was 26 O.S.No.25733/2014 formed, which was approved by local authority or competent authority. In Ex.D.2 it is clearly mentione, all piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing No.98/1A. As there is no material placed on record to show already by the time Ex.D.2 was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 said land was converted into non-agricultural purpose, inference can be drawn defendant No.2 might have verified all records pertaining to property in the name of defendant No.1 at the time of purchase of property as prudent man would have done under given circumstances. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 in the affirmative.
33. ISSUES NO.6 TO 9 :- As these issues are inter-related to each other and involves common appreciation of facts and evidence on record, findings on one issue are bearing on other issue, in order to avoid repetition of facts and for convenience sake, both issues are taken together for common discussion.
34. As already discussed, plaintiff has failed to establish his title and possession over suit property based on Ex.P.2. Absolutely there is no material on 27 O.S.No.25733/2014 record to show, land bearing Sy.No.98 or new No.98/1A to an extent of 1 acre 29½ guntas was converted into non-agricultural purpose and layout formed in which suit property existed and said layout in which suit property existed was approved by competent authority. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has sold property in favour of defendant No.2 as per Ex.D.2. The defendant No.2 as per order of competent authority converted said property into non-agricultural purpose. It is defendant No.2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of total extent of 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.98/1A. Plaintiff has failed to establish, defendants are in unlawful possession and enjoyment of suit property. Hence, plaintiff is not entitle for any reliefs as prayed in plaint. Hence, I answer Issues No.6 to 9 in the negative.
35. ISSUES No.10 :- In view of the above said findings on Issue Nos. 1 to 9, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.28 O.S.No.25733/2014
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed & computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 4th day of June, 2025).
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru. ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Examined on:
P.W.1 :Choudhury Sanjib Kumar Das 21.12.2023
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P.1 : GPA.
Ex.P.2 : Original Sale deed dated 26.04.2004.
Ex.P.3 : Original Khatha certificate.
Ex.P.4 : Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
07.01.2004.
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of private layout plan.
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of private layout plan.
Exs.P.8 : Confirmation deed dated 11.12.2012.
and P.9 Ex.P.10 : Cancellation deed dated 06.12.2012. Exs.P.11 : Cancellation deeds dated 10.12.2012 to P13 and 06.12.2012.
3.LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Examined on:
D.W.1 :B.M.Karunesh 09.09.2024 29 O.S.No.25733/2014
4.LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of GPA dated 26.05.2005. Ex.D2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 22.02.2010.
Ex.D3 : Certified copy of mutation order. Ex.D4 : Certified copy of conversion order.
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
30 O.S.No.25733/2014