Bangalore District Court
Elangovan C E vs Syed Nuserath on 20 December, 2024
1
KABC010273352015
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2024
PRESENT
Sri.Gangappa Irappa Patil, B.A., LL.B. (Spl.).,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S.No.9779/2015
C.E. ELANGOVAN
S/o D.C. Elumalai,
Aged about 62 years,
residing at Flat No.34,
3rd Main, 6th Cross, Lal PLAINTIFF No.01
Bahadur Shastry Nagar,
Vimana Pura Post,
BANGALORE-560 017.
2
OS.No. 9779.2015
Judgment
SULOCHANA DEVI PLAINTIFF NO.2
ELANGOVAN
w/O Sri Elangovan,
Aged about 60 years,
residing at Flat No.34, 3rd
Main,
6th Cross, Lal Bahadur
Shastry Nagar, Vimana Pura
Post, BANGALORE-560 017.
represented by her Husband,
Sri Elangovan, the Plaintiff
No.01 herein as her General
Power of Attorey Holder.
(By Sri.Kothwal R. Advocate for the plaintiffs)
A N D:
Sri SYED NUSERATH
S/o late Syed Gaffor,
Aged about 55 years, DEFENDANT
residing at No.5, Nuserath No.01
Building, 5th Cross, Gaffor
Road,
L.B. Shastry Nagar, H.A.L.,
BANGALORE-560 017.
3
OS.No. 9779.2015
Judgment
Sri SYED ANWAR DEFENDANT
S/o late Syed Gaffor, No.02
Aged about 77 years,
residing at No.52, 8th Cross,
R.K. Hegde Nagar,
BANGALORE-560 077
Smt. ASHRAF
W/o late Syed Mehaboob, DEFENDANT
Aged about 52 years, No.03
residing at No.5, Mehaboob
Building, 5th Cross, Gaffor
Road, L.B. Sastry Nagar. Hal,
BANGALORE- 560 017
Sri SYED NAYAZ
S/o late Syed Mehaboob, DEFENDANT
Aged about 31 years, No.04
residing at No.5, Mehaboob
Building, 5th Cross, Gaffor
Road, L.B. Sastry Nagar. Hal,
BANGALORE- 560 017
Sri SYED ANSAR
S/o late Syed Gaffor, DEFENDANT
Aged about 57 years, No.05
residing at Old Basha
Compound, adjacent to Ex -
Counselor House, Islampura
4
OS.No. 9779.2015
Judgment
Annasandra Palya, H.A.L
BANGALORE-560 017.
Sri SYED RIYAZ,
S/o late Syed Gaffoor, DEFENDANT
Aged about 50 years, No.06
residing at No.585, 2nd Main
Road, 8th Cross, K.G Halli,
BANGALORE-560 045
Smt. BALKEES BHANU
W/o late Syed Yousuff, DEFENDANT
Aged about 33 years, No.07
residing at No.542/1,
Dr.Ambedkar Medical College
Cross, S.R. Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
BANGALORE-560 045.
Sri SYED HUSSAIN
S/o late Syed Yousuff,
Aged about 27 years, DEFENDANT
residing at No.542/1, No.08
Dr.Ambedkar Medical College
Cross,
S.R. Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
BANGALORE-560 045.
5
OS.No. 9779.2015
Judgment
Sri SYED AHAMED DEFENDANT
S/o late Syed Yousuff, No.09
Aged about 27 years,
residing at No.542/1,
Dr. Ambedkar Medical College
Cross,
S.R. Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
BANGALORE-560 045.
(By Sri JS for D1
Sri LY for D2 to D4 and D6
Sri VP for D7 (a)(b), 8, 9)
Date of Institution of the suit 01.12.2015
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pro-note,
suit for declaration and possession,
Suit for declaration.
suit for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
27.3.2019
recording of the Evidence.
20.12.2024
Date of pronouncement of Judgment
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
09 00 19
6
OS.No. 9779.2015
Judgment
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 1 R/w Sec.26 of CPC, praying to pass judgment and decree against the defendants.
a. The plaintiffs prays to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having all manner of right, title and interest over it.
b. To declare that the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2015 obtained by the defendants in collusion with one another in OS No. 4216/2013 by playing fraud not binding on the plaintiffs in so far as it relates to the suit schedule property.
c. To declare that the Deed of Release dated 17.06.2015 executed by the defendants No. 2,3,4,5,6 in favor of defendant No.1 in collusion with one 7 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment another registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Krishnarajapuram, Bengaluru as Document No. KRI- 1-02053-2015-16 of Book-I and stored in C.D. at No. KRID558, dated 17.06.2015 does not effect and is not binding on the plaintiffs in so far as it relates to the suit schedule property.
d. To restrain the defendants, their Agents, PA Holders, servants henchmen or any other person or persons claiming any right or rights in any manner whatsoever through or under them from alienating transferring or encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner either by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, creating lien or change, etc either by themselves or through their servants, henchmen, agents, power of attorney holders or any other person or persons claiming any right or rights in any manner whatsoever in favor of any person/s by granting permanent injunction.
e. To restrain the defendants either from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful, lawful, 8 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment physical, actual and exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property or meddling with or dispossessing the plaintiffs of suit schedule property or otherwise disturbing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property either by the defendants themselves or through their workers, henchmen, authorized agents, GPA, servants or any person or persons claiming any right or rights in any manner whatsoever under through the defendants by granting permanent injunction.
f. To direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit.
2. The Plaintiffs averred in the plaint that the Defendants are the Brothers Sisters and cousins. They have conveniently mislead this Court and 9 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment obtained a Decree by filing suits one after another against themselves by fraudulent means and by suppressing the material facts with an intention to scoff, grab and to swallow the suit schedule property.
3. It is further averred by the Plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners in joint peaceful, physical, actual and in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the residential property bearing No. 34, HASB Khatha No.564/3 measuring East to West = 30' feet and North to South = 52' feet situated at Lal Bahadhur Shastri Nagar, Vibhuthipura Dhakale, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk now comes under the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore. The description of the above property bearing No.34 is more fully described in the Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Schedule Property" for brevity.
4. It is further respectfully averred by the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was the part of land in Survey Number 147/1 measuring 1 Acre 0- 10 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment 20 guntas situated at Vibhuthipura Village, Bangalore South Taluk, which earlier was belonging to Sri Syed Gaffoor Sab who had acquired the said property through registered Instrument, dated:
31.10.1946 registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Bangalore Taluk, Bangalore as Document No.2782 of Book- I of Volume No.866 recorded in between pages 17 and 20. During his life-time he was in peaceful possession and in enjoyment of the said property without any let or hindrance in any manner whatsoever over the same of any part thereof.
5. It is further averred that the said Sri Syed Gaffoor Sab in order to meet his legal requirements and to discharge the legal debt, sold the said property in favour of Sri Syed Hussain Sale Deed, dated: 17.06.1953 registered in the Office of Sub -
Registrar, Bangalore Taluk as Document No.2127/1953-54 of Book - I of Volume 1338 recorded in between Pages 193 and 194, dated:
29.06.1953.11
OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment
6. It is further pleaded by the plaintiffs that the said Syed Hussain had three sons, namely: Syed Yousuf, Syed Noorulla and Syed Kaleel. During the life-time of Syed Hussain he was in peaceful possession and in enjoyment of the aforesaid property. After his death, his three sons, described above have continued to be in possession of the same. Thereafter, Sriyuths: Syed Yousuf, Syed Noorulla and Syed Kaleel, the sons of Syed Hussain have formed a lay out of residential sites in the said land and thereafter they have equally divided the aforesaid property and under such division, Sriyuths:
Syed Yousuf, Syed Noorulla and Syed Kaleel each has got an extent of 0-20 guntas.
7. It is further pleaded by the plaintiffs that during the life-time of Syed Yousuf he was in peaceful possession and in enjoyment of his part of property inclusive of suit schedule property. The said Syed Yousuf had three sons, namely: Syed Zahid, Syed Hussain and Syed Ahamed. After the death of Syed Yousuf, his wife and three sons, namely:
12OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment Balqese Begum and Syed Zahid, Syed Hussain and Syed Ahamed have succeeded to his estate including the suit schedule property. All the revenue records in respect of the property of Syed Yousuf had been transferred in the name of his wife, Smt. Balqese Begum. Thereafter, Smt. Balqese Begum along with her three sons, have sold the suit schedule property in favour of Plaintiffs herein through Sale Deed, dated: 15.12.2000 registered in the Office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Krishnarajapura, Bangalore as Documents No.9069/2000-01 of Book No.I of Volume 1831 and recorded in between pages 104 and 108, dated: 15.12.2000.
8. Further, the plaintiffs pleaded that the sale transaction in between Balqese Begum and her sons and the plaintiffs had been reflected in the Register of Encumbrance and a copy of whereof issued for the period from 01.04.2000 to 27.07.2001. Thereafter, upon receipt of the said amount, all the revenue records in respect of suit schedule property, consequent on acquisition, had been effected in the 13 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment names of plaintiffs herein in all the relevant records of jurisdictional Office of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore. Khatha had also been effected in the name of plaintiffs herein in the jurisdictional office of BBMP then, Krishnarajapura City Council, Bangalore.
9. The plaintiffs have raised residential building over the suit schedule property after obtaining the License from the jurisdictional Office and have been residing therein. Plaintiffs have also obtained Water and Electricity connection from BESCOM and BWSSB and they have been regularly paying taxes to the BESCOM and BWSSB. Their names have also been taken on record and recorded in the Electoral Roll by the Election Commission of India and also Unique Identification Authority of India.
10. As aforesaid, the defendants are brothers, sisters and cousins. They have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property has been legally and lawfully 14 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment conveyed and the rights, title and interest thereof which stood in the name of original owner, had been transferred in favour of plaintiffs and their possession is longstanding and more so is presumed and deemed to have been relates to the possession of true original owner as the rights, title and interest in respect of suit schedule property had been transferred from the original owner and they filed a suit in O.S.No.27422/2012 without making the plaintiffs as one of the parties. In the said suit the court has directed to value the suit under Sec. 24(a) of KCF & SV Act and directed to pay the necessary court fee on the market value of the suit by filing the fresh valuation slip within 15 days, failing which the suit stands dismissed in view of non payment of necessary court fee.
11. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that instead of complying the orders passed by this court, the defendants have filed WP No. 9551 of 2013. The same is still pending for consideration before the Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka , On the same set 15 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment of facts as in OS No. 27422/2012 and WP No. 9551/2013, the defendants have again filed another suit in OS No. 4216/2013 on the file of CCH 45 and they purposely not made the plaintiffs herein as one of the parties.
12. Simultaneously they appears to have filed RA No. 270/2012-13, the defendants have completely suppressed the material facts in OS No. 4216/2013. They have not disclosed about the suit in OS NO. 27422/2012 and WP No. 9551/2013 and the said suit was decreed in part .
13. The defendants obtained decree fraudulantly, they have filed a Memo in a case filed by them in Revision Petition No. RP 303/2012-13 against the Deputy Commission, Bangalore District against the order dated 02.01.2013 passed in RA No. 270/2012-13 and got them allowed. Thereafter the defendant No. 2 to 6 have executed a Deed of Release in favor of the defendant No.1 herein registered in the office of Sub Registrar, K.R.Puram 16 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment as document No. KRI-1-02053-2015-16 of Book I and stored in CD at No. KRID558, dated 17.06.2015.
14. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of an entry made in the revenue records by the Revenue Officer. In the present case admittedly, the revenue entries have been made in all the revenue records, in favor of the vendor of the plaintiffs herein as mandated in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
15. The plaintiff further averred that it become clear that the defendants by playing fraud upon the court and upon plaintiffs have filed collusive suits one after another and got a decree suppressing the material facts. Hence the judgment and decree obtained by the defendants in OS No. 4216/2013 is so far as it relates to the case of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property is to be held and declared as `Null and Void Ab Initio and Non-Est in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiffs.
17OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment
16. The plaintiffs further averred that the plaintiffs have not alienated the suit schedule property either in favor of the defendants or in favor of any of their family members or in favor of any person. When such being the fact on 01.11.2015 the defendants have illegally interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The cause of action arose to file suit on 24.01.2015.
17. On summons being served, the defendants have appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement. The defendant No.1 has filed the separate written statement and pleaded that the Defendant's father Late Syed Gaffor purchased property bearing Sy.No.147/1, measuring 3 acre 18 guntas situated at Vibuthipura Village, Bangalore South Taluk on 31.10.1946 from Angadi Chinnamma as well as her son Muniswamappa for a sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- under registered sale deed registered as document No.2782, Book-I, 18 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment volume 866, pages 17 to 20, in the office of Sub- registrar, Bangalore. During 1953 Syed Gaffoor Sab was in urgent need of funds for the purchase of a Lorry and in this regard half portion of the land was mortgaged in favour of his younger brother Syed Hussain and realized Rs.1,000/- and this deed was registered before the Sub-registrar as document No.2127/1953-54 dated 17.06.1953 instead of executing a mortgage deed a nominal sale deed was executed. Within span of 5 months Late.Syed Gaffoor discharged the mortgage loan and obtained a convenience Deed/Sale Deed from Late Syed Hussain and this deed was registered before the Sub-registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, vide document No.5584/53- 54, dated 17.11.1953. Subsequently that on 30.11.1953 Syed Gaffor borrowed a sum of Rs.200/- from Sri.Dhanraj Jain and in this regard a nominal sale deed was executed in favour of the Banker Sri.Dhanraj Jain, and this deed was registered as document No.380/1953-54.
19OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment
18. This defendant further contended that during 1968 defendant's father Late Syed Gaffoor Sab was seriously affected by Psoriasis and his condition became very vicarious. In fact his eldest brother Syed Basha who was residing adjacent to the resident of Syed Gafoor was looking after Syed Gafoor as well as his family members, even managing the land possessed by Syed Gaffoor, he entrusted his brother to release the document pledged with Dhanraj Jain and according paid a sum of Rs.500/- towards interest and principal. Accordingly, his eldest brother Syed Basha approached Dhanraj Jain and got conveyance deed in his name instead of getting the same in the name of Syed Gaffoor. Defendant states further that shortly after the release of the documents Syed Basha proceeded to Mecca Medina in attending Haj and the conveyance deed so obtained on 31.01.1969 kept in his custody. Even after return from Haj, Syed Basha continued to look after the affairs of the family of Late Syed Gafoor and also providing adequate treatment to Late Syed Gafoor. It was on 29.08.1979 Syed Gaffoor passed 20 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment away after a prolonged illness. The death of Syed Gafoor caused considerable worry and anxiety in the mind of Syed Basha who was also undergoing ill aged sickness and his condition also deteriorated day be day. It was 11.10.1979 after attending Chilam that is the 40th day ceremony of deceased Syed Gafoor, executed a HIBA in the name of eldest son of Syed Gaffoor with regard to half portion of the property in Sy.No.147/1 of Vibhuthipura Village, which was released from Dhanraj Jain making provision to other male children of Syed Gaffoor and accordingly the HIBA was accepted by Syed Anwar.
19. The defendant No.1 further contended that the land bearing Sy.No.147/1 measuring in all 3 acres 18 guntas stood in the name of Syed Gaffoor right from the date of purchase from Angadi Chinnamma on 31.10.1946. The encumbrance certificate right from the year 1931 to 10.05.2011 consisting of 5 extracts shows that the property continues to be standing in the name of Late Syed Gaffoor. Defendant No.1 states further that 21 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment consequent to the purchase made by Syed Gaffoor Sab vide sale deed dated 31.10.1946 mutation was affected in the name of Syed Gaffoor vide MR.10/1946-47 which continued in the name of Syed Gaffoor till 1983. It was for the year 1982-83 and 1983-84 fraudulent entries were made in the name of Syed Yousuff along with his brother i.e., plaintiffs herein along with the names of the children of Late Syed Gaffoor. It is necessary to state at this juncture that Syed Hussain passed away in the year 1956 and he was not possessing any land in Sy.No.147/1 presently 147/4 of Vibhuthipura Village, however clandestine entries were made in entering name of the family members of Syed Hussain without having any title or possession with regard to Sy.No.147/1 presently 147/4 of Vibhuthipura Village. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs could able to get their names entered in the Revenue Records Vide IHC No.7/1983-84, needless to mention that their names have been incorporated in the Mutation Register on the basis of inheritance and not on the basis of the alleged 22 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment purported partition deed as such the very act of the plaintiffs and Syed Yousuff fortifies that stand of this defendant that Syed Gaffoor was the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule 'A' property. Furthermore it is known proposition of law that inheritance Khata can be effected only upon the legal heirs of the deceased, in the instant case neither the plaintiffs nor Syed Yousuff were the legal heirs of Late Syed Gaffoor to have got their names mutated in the Revenue Records. In any event the plaintiff have not got mutated their names on the basis of the partition as could be reflected from the revenue records. Fraud and stratagem played by the plaintiffs as well as Syed Yousuff in getting their names incorporated in the mutation on the basis of inheritance Khata and the same will not confer any right title or interest in favour of the plaintiff's or Late Syed Yousuff. The RTC extracts for the year 1983-84 to 1987-88, 1988-89 to 1993-94, 1994-95 to 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2004-05 and 2011-12 discloses that the plaintiffs as well as Late Yousuff entered their name as legal heirs of Late Syed Gaffoor and not based on any other registered 23 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment deeds of conveyance and as such the defendant No.1 to 6 have approached the Tahasildar in set-aside the order in IHC.7/1983-84 in deleting the names of plaintiffs and Late Syed Yousuff for which an endorsement was issued with regard to the non availability and also declined to consider the demand made by defendant No.1. Thereafter defendant No.1 and others opted to prefer an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in RA.270/2012-13 which came to be rejected vide order dated 02.01.2013 against which the defendant No.1 and other preferred Revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore in Revision Petition No.303/2012-13 in which the plaintiffs also entered appearance and the Deputy Commissioner was pleased to allow the Revision Petition and directed the Special Tahsildar to make necessary entries in the Revenue records. After remand the Tahsildar was pleased to conduct an enquiry and passed requisite orders in deleting the name of the plaintiffs and others and ordered to enter the name of 1st defendant in the revenue records vide 24 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment MR.No.H5/2014-15 and accordingly the mutation and revenue records entered in the name of 1st defendant and others. The plaintiffs as well as Late Syed Yousuff did not have any iota of right title or interest over the plaint schedule property and no documents of title or interest over the plaint schedule property and no documents of title produced by them in any of the proceedings. Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner in respect of the plaintiff schedule property and the larger extent of land having acquired the same by virtue of the execution of the HIBA dated 16.01.2012 as well as in furtherance of Registered Deed of Release dated 17.06.2015 executed by defendant No.2 to 6 vide registered document No.KRI-1-02053/2015-16 before the Sub- registrar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore. Consequently thereafter H.A.Sanitary Board has issued a Khata certificate in the name of this defendant subsequently thereafter the BBMP has issued Khata in the name of this defendant and defendant has been paying the taxes periodically. All these documents makes it manifestly clear that this 25 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff have no manner of right title or interest over the same. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
19(a). On perusal of the records it is forthcoming that the defendant No.7 is reported to be dead, but inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the plaintiff the Lrs of defendant No.7 have not been brought on record.
20. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, following Issues are framed by my learned Predecessor-in-office.
ISSUES
1.Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property ?
2.Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?
3.Whether the plaintiffs further prove the interference of the defendants with their 26 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property ?
4.Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendants have obtained judgment and decree in O.S.No.4216/2013 dated 24.1.2015 by colluding with each other and it is not binding upon them with respect to the suit schedule property ?
5.Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the release deed dated 17.6.2015 executed by defendant No.2 to 6 in favour of defendant No.1 is collusive and it is not binding upon them so far as suit property is concerned?
6.Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the plaintiffs have not properly valued the suit plaint and they have not paid proper court fee?
7.Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit is barred under Karnataka Land Revenue Act as stated in para No.31 of the written statement?
8.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declarations as prayed for in the suit plaint?
27OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment
9.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunctions as prayed for?
10.What order or decree?
21. After framing of the Issues, the case was posted for recording of evidence. Plaintiff No.1 on his individual capacity and on the capacity of GPA holder of plaintiff No.2 has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has been examined as PW.1 and he has got marked Ex.P. 1 to 41. On the other hand the defendant No.1 is examined as DW.1 and he has got marked Ex.D.1 to 32.
22. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsel for the defendants. Perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and other materials available on record. Both the counsels for plaintiff and defendants have filed their written argument.
28OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment
23. Having done so, this court answers to the aforesaid Issues as follows:
Issue No.1,2,3,4,5,8 & In the Negative 9 :
Issue No.6 In the Negative
Issue No.7 In the negative
Issue No. 10 As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
24. ISSUE NO.1, PW. 1 deposes that Sri.
Syed Gaffoor Sab in order to meet his legal
requirements and to discharge the legal debt, sold the said property in favour of Sri Syed Hussain vide Sale Deed, dated: 17.06.1953 registered in the Office of Sub - Registrar, Bangalore Taluk as Document No.2127/1953-54 of Book-I of Volume 1338 recorded in between Pages 193 and 194, dated: 29.06.1953.
25. It is further deposed by PW.1 that the said Syed Hussain had three sons, namely: Syed Yousuf, Syed Noorulla and Syed Kaleel. During the life-time 29 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment of Syed Hussain he was in peaceful possession and in enjoyment of the aforesaid property. After his death, his three sons, described above have continued to be in possession of the same.
Thereafter, Sriyuths: Syed Yousuf, Syed Noorulla and Syed Kaleel, the sons of Syed Hussain have formed a lay out of residential sites in the said land and thereafter they have equally divided the aforesaid property and under such division, Sriyuths: Syed Yousuf, Syed Noorulla and Syed Kaleel each has got an extent of 0-20 guntas.
26. It is further deposed by the PW.1 that during the life-time of Syed Yousuf he was in peaceful possession and in enjoyment of his part of property inclusive of suit schedule property. The said Syed Yousuf had three sons, namely: Syed Zahid, Syed Hussain and Syed Ahamed. After the death of Syed Yousuf, his wife and three sons, namely:
Balqese Begum and Syed Zahid, Syed Hussain and Syed Ahamed have succeeded to his estate including the suit schedule property. All the revenue records in 30 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment respect of the property of Syed Yousuf had been transferred in the name of his wife, Smt. Balqese Begum. Thereafter, Smt. Balqese Begum along with her three sons, have sold the suit schedule property in favour of Plaintiffs herein through Sale Deed, dated: 15.12.2000 as per Ex.P.5. and got marked Ex.P. 1 to 41.
27. On the contrary the defendant No.1 is examined as DW.1 and he has deposed that defendant's father Late Syed Gaffoor purchased a property bearing Sy.No.147/1, measuring 3 acre 18 guntas situated at Vibuthipura Village, Bangalore South Taluk on 31.10.1946 from Angadi Chinnamma as well as her son Muniswamappa for a sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- under registered sale deed registered as document No.2782, Book-I, volume 866, pages 17 to 20, in the office of Sub- registrar, Bangalore. During 1953 Syed Gaffor Sab was in urgent need of funds for the purchase of a Lorry and in this regard half portion of the land was mortgaged in favour of his younger brother Syed 31 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment Hussian and realized Rs.1,000/- and this deed was registered before the Sub-registrar as document No.2127/1953-54 dated 17.06.1953 instead of executing a mortgage deed a nominal sale deed was executed. Within span of 5 months Late.Syed Gaffor discharged the mortgage loan and obtained a convenience Deed/Sale Deed from Late Syed Hussain and this deed was registered before the Sub-registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, vide document No.5584/53-54, dated 17.11.1953. Subsequently that on 30.11.1953 Syed Gaffor borrowed a sum of Rs.200/- from Sri.Dhanraj Jain and in this regard a nominal sale deed was executed in favour of the Banker Sri.Dhanraj Jain, and this deed was registered as document No.380/1953-54.
28. DW.1 deposed that during the year 1968 defendant's father Late Syed Gaffoor Sab was seriously affected by Psoriasis and his condition became very vicarious. In fact his eldest brother Syed Basha who was residing adjacent to the resident of Syed Gafoor was looking after Syed Gafoor as well as 32 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment his family members, even managing the land possessed by Syed Gaffoor, he entrusted his brother to release the document pledged with Dhanraj Jain and according paid a sum of Rs.500/- towards interest and principal. Accordingly, his eldest brother Syed Basha approached Dhanraj Jain and got conveyance deed in his name instead of getting the same in the name of Syed Gaffoor. Defendant states further that shortly after the release of the documents Syed Basha proceeded to Mecca Medina in attending Haj and the conveyance deed so obtained on 31.01.1969 kept in his custody. Even after return from Haj, Syed Basha continued to look after the affairs of the family of Late Syed Gafoor and also providing adequate treatment to Late Syed Gafoor. It was on 29.08.1979 Syed Gaffoor passed away after a prolonged illness. The death of Syed Gafoor caused considerable worry and anxiety in the mind of Syed Basha who was also undergoing ill aged sickness and his condition also deteriorated day be day. It was 11.10.1979 after attending Chilam that is the 40th day ceremony of deceased Syed Gafoor, 33 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment executed a HIBA in the name of eldest son of Syed Gaffoor with regard to half portion of the property in Sy.No.147/1 of Vibhuthipura Village, which was released from Dhanraj Jain making provision to other male children of Syed Gaffoor and accordingly the HIBA was accepted by Syed Anwar.
29. DW.1 further deposed that the land bearing Sy.No.147/1 measuring in all 3 acres 18 guntas stood in the name of Syed Gaffoor right from the date of purchase from Angadi Chinnamma on 31.10.1946. The encumbrance certificate right from the year 1931 to 10.05.2011 consisting of 5 extracts shows that the property continues to be standing in the name of Late Syed Gaffoor. Defendant No.1 states further that consequent to the purchase made by Syed Gaffoor Sab vide sale deed dated 31.10.1946 mutation was affected in the name of Syed Gaffoor vide MR.10/1946-47 which continued in the name of Syed Gaffoor till 1983. It was for the year 1982-83 and 1983-84 fraudulent entries were made in the name of Syed Yousuff along with his brother i.e., 34 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment plaintiffs herein along with the names of the children of Late Syed Gaffoor. It is necessary to state at this juncture that Syed Hussain passed away in the year 1956 and he was not possessing any land in Sy.No.147/1 presently 147/4 of Vibhuthipura Village, however clandestine entries were made in entering name of the family members of Syed Hussain without having any title or possession with regard to Sy.No.147/1 presently 147/4 of Vibhuthipura Village. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs could able to get their names entered in the Revenue Records Vide IHC No.7/1983-84, needless to mention that their names have been incorporated in the Mutation Register on the basis of inheritance and not on the basis of the alleged purported partition deed as such the very act of the plaintiffs and Syed Yousuff fortifies that stand of the defendant that Syed Gaffoor was the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule 'A' property. Furthermore it is known proposition of law that inheritance Khata can be effected only upon the legal heirs of the deceased, in the instant case neither the plaintiffs nor Syed 35 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment Yousuff were the legal heirs of Late Syed Gaffoor to have got their names mutated in the Revenue Records. In any event the plaintiff have not got mutated their names on the basis of the partition as could be reflected from the revenue records. Fraud and stratagem played by the plaintiffs as well as Syed Yousuff in getting their names incorporated in the mutation on the basis of inheritance Khata and the same will not confer any right title or interest in favour of the plaintiff's or Late Syed Yousuff. The RTC extracts for the year 1983-84 to 1987-88, 1988-89 to 1993-94, 1994-95 to 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2004-05 and 2011-12 discloses that the plaintiffs as well as Late Yousuff entered their name as legal heirs of Late Syed Gaffoor and not based on any other registered deeds of conveyance and as such the defendant No.1 to 6 have approached the Tahasildar in set-aside the order in IHC.7/1983-84 in deleting the names of plaintiffs and Late Syed Yousuff for which an endorsement was issued with regard to the non availability and also declined to consider the demand made by defendant No.1. Thereafter defendant No.1 36 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment and others opted to prefer an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in RA.270/2012-13 which came to be rejected vide order dated 02.01.2013 against which the defendant No.1 and other preferred Revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore in Revision Petition No.303/2012-13 in which the plaintiffs also entered appearance and the Deputy Commissioner was pleased to allow the Revision Petition and directed the Special Tahsildar to make necessary entries in the Revenue records. After remand the Tahsildar was pleased to conduct an enquiry and passed requisite orders in deleting the name of the plaintiffs and others and ordered to enter the name of 1st defendant in the revenue records vide MR.No.H5/2014-15 and accordingly the mutation and revenue records entered in the name of 1st defendant and others. The plaintiffs as well as Late Syed Yousuff did not have any iota of right title or interest over the plaint schedule property and no documents of title or interest over the plaint schedule property and no documents of title produced by them 37 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment in any of the proceedings. Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner in respect of the plaintiff schedule property and the larger extent of land having acquired the same by virtue of the execution of the HIBA dated 16.01.2012 as well as in furtherance of Registered Deed of Release dated 17.06.2015 executed by defendant No.2 to 6 vide registered document No.KRI-1-02053/2015-16 before the Sub- registrar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore. Consequently thereafter H.A.Sanitary Board has issued a Khata certificate in the name of this defendants subsequently thereafter the BBMP has issued Khata in the name of this defendant and defendant has been paying the taxes periodically. All these documents makes it manifestly clear that this defendant absolute owner over the suit schedule property and the plaintiff have no manner of right title or interest over the same.
30. To substantiate his case the defendant No.1 got marked Ex.D.1 to D.32.
38OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment
31. Ex.D.1 is the Certified copy of sale deed and it's typed copy dated 13.10.1946 which evidences that late Syed Gafoor had purchased 3 acres 18 guntas of land in Sy. No. 147/4 in his individual capacity.
32. Ex.D. 2 is the Certified copy of mutation No.10/46-47 which discloses that the property solely in the name of Syed Gafoor. The name of Syed Hussain is not forthcoming. The learned counsel for the defendants argued , the concept of joint family property is alien to Mohammadan Law. Hence, the question of jointness of the property between Syed Gafoor and Syed Hussain does not arise.
33. Ex.D. 3 is Certified copy of sale deed dated 17.06.1953., as per this Sale Deed one acre 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 147/1 (presently sy.No. 147/4) was alienated by Gaffoor Sab in favor of Syed Hussain. Thereafter Syed Hussain reconveyed the said property in favor of his brother Syed Gaffoor as per Ex.D.4 Sale Deed dated 17.11.1953. In view of 39 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment the execution of the Sale Deed in favor of Gaffoor Sab, hence the ownership of the aforesaid land remains with Syed Gaffoor himself.
33. On 30.11.1953 late Syed Gaffoor had alienated the land as per Ex.D.5 Sale Deed to one Dhanraj Jain. Thereafter, said Dhanraj Jain had sold the aforesaid property in favor of late Syed Basha who is the brother of late Syed Gaffoor as per Ex.D.
6.
34. Further late Syed Basha executed Hiba in favor of Syed Anwar son of late Syed Gaffoor as per Ex.D.7. Syed Anwar thereafter executed Hiba in favor of defendant No. 1 by gifting one acre 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 147/1 (presently Sy.No. 147/4) as per Ex.D. 8 dated 16.01.2012.
35. Syed Anwar as well as other sons of late Syed Gaffoor jointly releases their right over 1 acre 20 guntas of land in favor of defendant No.1 as per 40 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment Ex.D.9, Certified copy of release deed dated 17.06.2015.
36. Ex.D.10 is the Certified copy of order in R.P.No.303/2012-13 wherein the Deputy ommission in the said petition remanded the case to the Tahsildar to dispose off the same by setting aside the inheritance khatha vide IHC7/1983-84. The names of Syed Yousuff , Syed Noorulla and Syed Khaleel have all participated in the said revision petition and the revision petition order is unchallenged . Hence it has attained the finality.
37. ExD.11 is the RTC of Sy.No.147/4 (old Sy.No. 147/1) from 1982-83 to 1987-88 which disclose the name of late Syed Gaffoor was rounded vide IHC No. 7/1983-84. The children of late Syed Hussain i.e. Syed Yousuff, Syed Nooralla and Syed Khaleel could get their names entered vide IHC No. 7/1983-84 upon the basis of demise of Syed Gaffoor. But said Syed Yousuff, Syed Noorulla and Syed Khaleel are not legal heirs of late Gaffoor. Hence, they 41 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment could not have get their names entered vide inheritance khatha.
38. Ex.D.12 and 13 are the RTC of Sy.No.147/4 for the year pertaining to 1988-99 to 1993-94 and RTC of Sy.No.147/4 from 1994-96. which shows the joint names of children of late Syed Hussain, i.e. Syed Yousuff, Syed Noorulla and Syed Khaleel and children of late Syed Gaffoor.
39. Ex.D. 14 is the RTC of Sy.No.147/4 from 2012-13 which shows that RTC was rectified and the names of children of late Syed Hussain i.e. Syed Yousuff, Syed Noorulla and Syed Khaleel was rounded off by the Revenue Authorities, the same was not challenged. The same has attained the finality.
40. Ex.D.15 is the Certified copy of Mutation No. H5/14-15 which shows that the name of defendant No.1 Syed Nusrath was entered in the Mutation Register.
42OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment
41. Ex.D. 19 is the Certified copy of order sheet in OS 5452/2016 which was filed by one of the alleged site owners namely Parthasarathy who has purchased the site from Syed Noorulla . The said suit was filed against defendant No.1.The said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff as not pressed without seeking liberty to file fresh suit. Ex.D 20 is the Certified copy of memo of withdrawal dated 08.08.2019.
42. Ex.D 21 Certified copy of evidence of PW.1 in O.S.5452/2016 which discloses about the possession of the disputed site by defendant No.1 in the suit schedule property.
43. Ex.D. 22 is the Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.1088/2016 which was filed for permanent injunction filed by one of the purchaser Sri Agnish Norman who had purchased the site from Syed Noorulla, The suit was filed against defendant No.1, the same was also dismissed for non prosecution.
43OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment
44. Ex.D. 24 is the Certified copy of order on IA.No.1 in O.S. 6423/2015 which discloses that the vendor of the plaintiff herein had filed a suit against the defendant No.1 Syed Nusrath and had sought for an temporary injunction against this defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment, which was rejected. Para 12 of the order would clearly establish the theory of the children of late Hussain that late Hussain and late Syed Gaffoor are joint owners of the property is farce since the alelged division of oral partition even according to them was not evidenced in any deed much less a registered instrument.
45. Ex.D. 25 is the Certified copy of IA.No.2 inO.S.6423/2015 which shows that the vendor of the plaintiff herein had filed a suit against the defendant No.1 and had sought for temporary injunction directing the first defendant herein from alienating encumbering or creating any charge over the property, which interim application was rejected. It reveals that the vendor of the plaintiff themselves 44 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment had suffered an order in the hands of the defendant No.l.
46. Ex.D.26 is the Certified copy of orders on IA.2 in O.S.6423/2015 which discloses that the IA filed by the plaintiff was rejected.
47. Ex.D.32 is the Certified copy of partition deed dated 09.09.1980. Since the plaintiffs as well as their vendors had claimed that 1 acre 20 guntas of land was joint family property, the defendant`s had produced the copy of the Partition Deed between the children of late Nanu Sab father of late Gaffoor Sab. Late Syed Hussain and late Basha Sab wherein the property bearing No. 147/4 (old Sy. No.147/1) is not the subject matter of partition, which makes it clear that it is not joint family property. In any event concept of joint family property is alien to the Mohammadan Law.
48. On perusal of Ex.P. 6, 8, 10, 31 Encumbrance Certificates discloses that those are not obtained for Sy.No.147/4 or for Sy.No. 147/1, 45 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment especially when there was no sanctioned layout plan or conversion order. The plaintiff in his evidence asserted that the plaintiff No.2 has not taken any legal opinion to purchase the schedule property. He further assert that plaintiff No.2 is unaware what documents she has scrutinized prior to purchase of the suit schedule property. Further, the plaintiff has not produced any layout plan or conversion order with respect to the suit schedule property to show the exact location of the suit schedule property.
49. In view of the aforesaid documents and the evidence adduced by both the parties, it is forthcoming that plaintiffs vendors were not having right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. When the plaintiff`s vendors have no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, he cannot transfer the same , hence under such circumstances what ever the contentions raised by the plaintiff with regard to the purchase of the suit schedule property from its vendor do not holds water. As the said property was not exclusively belongs to 46 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment the plaintiff`s vendor. Hence, on the basis of the documents produced by the plaintiff the ownership of the suit schedule property cannot be conferred upon plaintiff. Further , on perusal of the schedule of the plaint, it is forthcoming that the plaintiff has not mentioned about of which survey number the schedule property is carved out and the same is not properly descripted and even it is not been described in the Sale Deed relied by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.5. Hence, under such circumstances, if the property is not property described no relief could be granted. Hence, in view of the aforesaid reasons this court answered Issue No. 1 in the Negative.
50. ISSUE NO. 2,3, 8 AND 9; Since these Issues are inter linked to each other, they are taken up together for discussion so as to avoid repetition of facts.
51. The defendant submits that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their right over the schedule property as their predecessor in title had sold the largest extent of land i.e. 1 acre 20 guntas of land in 47 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment favor of Syed Gafoor, thereby the plaintiff predecessor in title did not have any iota of right, title or interest over the larger extent of land much less on the schedule property to have alienated the same in favor of the plaintiff.
52. The plaintiffs have categorically contended that the suit schedule property was sold by the children of late Hussain and as per the plaint averments they have relied on a Partition purported to have been executed between the sons of late Hussain I.e Syed Noorulla , Syed Yousuff and Syed Khaleel. The said partition deed has not seen the daylight and there is no reflection of the said Partition in the encumbering certificate. It is further case of the plaintiff that the respective brothers i.e. Syed Noorulla, Syed Yousuff and Syed Khaleel had formed layouts in their respective partitioned land; the plaintiffs have failed to produce a single document to establish the existence of the layout; No layout plan has been produced to substantiate the existence of the layout. It is pertinent to mention that 48 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment except Khatha Certificate purported to have been issued by the HAL Sanitary Board no documents have been produced to establish the identity of the Site in question. It is pertinent to mention that the documents relied on by the plaintiff would not establish the identity of the land in question; hence the injunction is sought on a land which identity cannot be proved.
53. The plaintiff himself is not clear who came and interfered with the property; the details of the alleged cause of action is not substantiated by PW. 1 in the cross examination . Infact, she has never deposed that defendant No.1 was present at the time of alleged interference. No complaint was lodged by the plaintiff; the cause of action mentioned in the suit is only imaginary for the purpose of filing of the present suit.
54. The counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration since the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his 49 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment ownership over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has categorically claimed that Syed Hussain had acquired right, title and interest over the property from Syed Gafoor in terms of the Sale Deed dated 17.6.1953 and that the property so acquired was divided among the sons of late Syed Hussain who in turn had formed layout and sold the same in favor of the plaintiff. It is worthwhile to mention that, the property so purchased by Syed Hussain was reconveyed in favor of Syed Gafoor the father of the 1st defendant in terms of the Sale Deed dated 17.11.1953, which is marked as Ex.D.4. In view of the Ex.D.4 late Syed Gaffoor became the exclusive owner of Sy. No. 147/1 and after his demise his successors i.e. defendant No.1 to 6 succeeded to the property. Hence, on perusal of the aforesaid documents, it clearly discloses that at no point of time plaintiff`s vendors become the owner of the property bearing Sy. No.147/1. When the vendors of the plaintiff are not the exclusive owners , then they cannot have any right to sell the suit schedule property as alleged to be carved out in Sy.
50OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment No. 147/1. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be declared as owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of the alleged Sale Deed Ex.P.5 produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed in OS NO. 4216/2013. In the said suit the court has passed the judgment in favor of the defendant No.1 herein and the court has directed the vendors of the plaintiffs for not to disturb with the peaceful possession of defendant No.1 who was plaintiff in OS No. 4216/2013.
55. When the plaintiff fails to prove the relief of declaration as to the ownership of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction against the owner of the suit schedule property. This cardinal principle has been discussed by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Padhiyar Prahladi Chenaji vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai 2022 SCC 258. Hence the plaintiff cannot now canvas that the plaintiff is in 51 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment lawful possession over the same since the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration of ownership.
56. In view of the reasons assigned while answering Issue No.1 and in view of the aforesaid reasons, these Issue No.2,3,8 and 9 are answered in the Negative.
57. ISSUE NO.4; It is argued by the defendant No.1 that since the entry in IHC7/1983-84 did not pertain to the plaintiff herein, there was no occasion to plaintiff to array as party to the above proceedings.
58. It is further argued that the defendant had sought for declaration that the Mutation Entry made in the name of Syed Yousuff in IHC 7/1983-84 is fictitious and fraudulent entry and the same is liable to be cancelled. The RTC for the year 1983 onwards did not reflect the names of the plaintiff and IHC No. 7.1983-84 did not reflect the name of the plaintiff as such arraying the plaintiff as party to the above proceedings is uncalled for. Since the defendant No.1 52 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment grievance was only as with regard to the entry, the defendant had proceeded to only question the same against Syed Yousuff. The name of the plaintiff is not reflected in either the RTC or the Mutation, as such the question of arraying the plaintiff as party to the above proceedings is not justifiable.
59. In the said suit bearing OS No. 4216/2013 the court has given the judgment in favor of the defendant No.1 herein and the court has directed the vendors of the plaintiff for not to disturb with the peaceful possession of defendant No.1 who was plaintiff in OS NO. 4216/2013.
60. While answering Issue No.1,2,3, 8 and 9 , this court has already discussed about the ownership of Sy. No. 147/1 which was exclusively belongs to late Syed Gaffoor. Defendant No.1 to 6 are the successors of late Syed Gaffoor. Either late Syed Hussain or his successors i.e. the defendant No. 7 to 9 are not having any right or interest in Sy. No. 147/1. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff regarding 53 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment ownership of suit schedule property which is alleged to be carved out in Sy. No. 147/1, on the basis of the Ex.P.5 Sale Deed alleged to be executed by the successor of Syed Hussain I.e defendant No.7 to 9 herein, is not tenable in the eye of law. If the plaintiff is having any claim, that should be against the successors of late Syed Hussain i.e. against defendant No. 7 to 9 and not against the successors of late Syed Gaffoor i.e. defendant No. 1 to 6. Hence, the allegation of fraud made by the plaintiff against the defendant No.1 to 6 are not tenable in the eye of law.
61. If the fraud is pleaded by the plaintiff, under such circumstances the particulars of fraud has to be proved by leading cogent evidence. Mere pleading of fraud without its particulars , the same cannot be tenable in the eye of law. This cardinal principle has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Placido Francisco Pinto (D) by Lrs. and Another Vs. Jose Francisco Pinto and Another reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 842 has 54 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment held that; "In terms of order VI Rule 4 of CPC in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, or undue influence shall state in the pleadings the particulars with dates and items in the pleadings."
62. In the case on hand before this court, the plaintiffs who alleges fraud have not proved the allegations of fraud by leading cogent evidence before this court. Hence, under such circumstances the contentions of the plaintiffs with respect to the obtaining of the judgment and decree in OS No. 4216/2013 dated 24.1.2015 by defendants by colluding with each other is not tenable in the eye of law.
63. In view of the reasons assigned while answering Issue No.1,2,3,8 and 9, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the judgment passed in OS No. 4216/2013. Hence in view of the aforesaid reasons this court answers Issue No.4 in the Negative.
55OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment
64. ISSUE NO. 5; In view of the reasons assigned in the aforesaid Issues, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek declaration as the Release Deed dated 17.06.1953 executed by defendant No. 2 to 6 in favor of defendant No.1 is collusive and not binding on the plaintiff with respect suit schedule property is concerned. On perusal of the records produced before this court, it is forthcoming that the plaintiff`s predecessor late Syed Hussain had lost the right over the schedule property way back on 17.11.1953 and cannot seek for declaration. Hence, in view of the above said discussion Issue No. 5 is answered in the Negative.
65. ISSUE NO.6; On perusal of the records, it is forthcoming that the office has raised objection regarding deficit court fee. Thereafter the learned counsel for the plaintiff has paid proper court fee on the plaint and filed the Memo on 04.12.2015 complying the office objection. Hence consideration of 56 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment present Issue No.6 does not arise. Hence Issue No.6 is answered in the Negative.
66. ISSUE NO.7; The defendant has taken the contention that the suit is barred under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. But on perusal of the plaint averments and the documents produced before this court, it is revealing that the present suit is of civil in nature and permissible and is not barred under any provisions of law and there is no bar u/sec. 9 of CPC to entertain the present nature of the suit. Hence, Issue No.7 is answered in the Negative.
67. ISSUE NO.10; In view of the reasons discussed above, this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
57OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Sr.Shr/SGI, script thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of December, 2024).
GANGAPPA I Digitally signed by GANGAPPA I PATIL PATIL Date: 2025.01.10 11:12:36 +0530 (Gangappa Irappa Patil) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 Elangovan List of the documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : General Power of Attorney Ex.P.2 : RTC Extract Ex.P.3 : Mutation register extract Ex.P.4 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P.5 : Registered sale deed dated 15.12.2000 executed by 2nd Plaintiff Ex.P.6 : E.C. from 1.4.86 to 31.5.89 Ex.P.7 : E.C. from 1.6.89 to 16.12.2000 Ex.P.8 : E.C. from 01.04.2000 to 27.07.01 Ex.P.9 : Holders khatha issued by the Corporation Ex.P.10 : E.C. from 01.06.01 to 31.3.04 58 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment Ex.P.11&12 : Receipts Ex.P.13 : Khatha certificate Ex.P.14 : Original extract of register of houses and vacant sites Ex.P.15 : Receipt for having paid betterment charges Ex.P.16 : Khatha endorsement Ex.P.17 : Plans sanction order Ex.P.18 : Acknowledgment issued by Tax Inspector BBMP Ex.P.19-25 : Tax paid receipts from 2008-09 to 2010- 11
Ex.P.26 : Acknowledgment Ex.P.27 : Property tax receipt with acknowledgment Ex.P.28- : Property tax receipt with acknowledgment 30 Ex.P.31 : E.C. from 01.04.04 to 10.11.15 Ex.P.32- : BWSSB receipts 40 Ex.P.-41 : BWSSB bill
List of the witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 Syed Nusrath List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of sale deed and it's typed copy dated 13.10.1946.59
OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment Ex.D.2 Certified copy of mutation No.10/46-47 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of sale deed dated 17.06.1953. Ex.D.4 Certified copy of sale deed and it's typed copy dated 17.11.1953.
Ex.D.5 Certified copy of sale deed dated 30.11.1953. Ex.D.6 Certified copy of sale deed and it's typed copy dated 30.01.1969.
Ex.D.7 Certified copy of Original Hiba dated 11.10.1979.
Ex.D.8 Original Hiba dated 16.01.2012. Ex.D.9 Certified copy of release deed dated 17.06.2015.
Ex.D.10 Certified copy of order in R.P.NO.303/2012-
13. Ex.D.11 RTC of Sy.NO.147/4 from 1982-83 to 1987-
88. Ex.D.12 RTC of Sy.NO.147/4 from 1988-99 to 1993-
94. Ex.D.13 RTC of Sy.NO.147/4 from 1994-96. Ex.D.14 RTC of Sy.NO.147/4 from 2012-13.. Ex.D.15 Certified copy of mutation no. H5/14-15. Ex.D.16 Family tree affidavit.
Ex.D.17 Certified copy of death certificate of Syed Gaffer Sab.
Ex.D.18 Certified copy of death certificate of Syed Bhasha Sab.
Ex.D.19 Certified copy of order sheet 5452/2016.
60OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment Ex.D.20 Certified copy of memo of withdrawal dated 08.08.2019.
Ex.D.21 Certified copy of evidence of PW.1 in O.S.5452/2016 Ex.D.22 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.1088/2016.
Ex.D.23 Certified copy of IA.No.1 filed in O.S.6423/2015.
Ex.D.24 Certified copy of orders on IA.No.1 in O.S. 6423/2015.
Ex.D.25 Certified copy of IA.No.2 in O.S.6423/2015. Ex.D.26 Certified copy of orders on IA.2 in O.S.6423/2015.
Ex.D.27 Original conformation deed dated 07.10.2021. Ex.D.28 Certified copy of EC from 01.04.1934 to 14.02.1957.
Ex.D.29 Certified copy of EC from 15.12.1957 to 31.05.1989.
Ex.D.30 Certified copy of EC from 01.06.1989 to 31.04.2004.
Ex.D.31 Certified copy of EC from 01.04.2004 to 04.08.2022.
Ex.D.32 Certified copy of partition deed dated 09.09.1980.
Digitally signed by GANGAPPA I PATILGANGAPPA I PATIL Date: 2025.01.10 11:12:50 +0530 (Gangappa Irappa Patil) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
61 OS.No. 9779.2015 Judgment