Bangalore District Court
Eramma vs Chinnappa By Lrs on 29 April, 2025
1 OS.No.2367/84
KABC010000061984
Presented on : 10-07-1984
Registered on : 10-07-1984
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in
Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 29th day of APRIL, 2025.
PRESENT: SRI. GANGADHARA.K.N., B.A.,LLM.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU.
O.S.No.2367/1984
PLAINTIFF : 1. SMT. ERAMMA
W/o.LateS.Muniswamappa
R/AT. No.2/6, Byrasandra I Block
East Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560011.
Since dead LR's plaintiff 2
already on record.
2. Sri. Muniyappa @ Ramappa
Son of S.Muniswamappa
Residing at No.14, 1st cross,
Byrasandra, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560011.
Since dead represented by LR's
plaintiff 2(a)
2 OS.No.2367/84
2(a) R. Muniswamy @ Pappanna
S/o. Late Muniyappa @ Ramappa (2 nd
plaintiff)
R/at. No.196/47, 1st cross,
8th main road, Byrasandra,
Jayanagar, 1st block east,
Bangalore-560011.
Since dead represented by his L.Rs.
2(a)(I) Smt. Lakshmi Narayanamma
W/o. Late R.Muniswamy @ Papanna
Age 64 years.
2(a)(II) Sri. Harish M
S/o. Late R.Muniswamy @ Papanna
Age 44 years.
2(a)(III) Dhruva Narayana M
S/o. Late R.Muniswamy @ Papanna
Age 42 years.
2(a)(IV) Smt. Gayathri.M
D/o. Late R. Muniswamy @ Papanna
Age 40 years.
2(a)(V) Manjunath M
S/o. Late R.Muniswamy @ Papanna
Age 38 years.
Plaintiffs 2(a) (I) to 2(a) (V) are
R/a No.196/47, 1st cross,
8th main road
1st Block East, Jayanagar, Byrasandra
Bangalore-560011.
(By Sri.CFK, Advocate for
L.Rs of plaintiff)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1.SRI. CHINNAPPA
S/o. Muniyappa
Since deceased represented by his Lrs.
3 OS.No.2367/84
(a) Sri. Sidappa
S/o. Late Chinnappa
R/at. 2nd cross, 4th main,
1st block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-11.
Since deceased represented by
his L.Rs D1(a)(1)
D1(a)(i) Smt. Chandramma,
W/o. Late Sidappa, S/o. Late Chinappa
Aged about 60 years
R/at. 2nd cross, 4th main, 1st block
Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560011.
D(1)(a)(2) Late Girija
2nd wife of Siddappa
Since dead, represented by her LR's.
D(1) (a) (2) ( i ) Smt. Manjula
D/o. Late Siddappa
Since dead rep by her Lrs.
D(1) (a) (2) ( i ) (A) Venkatappa.P,
H/o. Late Manjula,
Aged about 54 years.
D(1) (a) (2) ( i ) ( B ) Harshasree V,
D/o. Late Manjula
Aged about 26 years.
D( 1 ) (a) (2) ( i ) ( C ) Vinod V,
S/o. Late Manjula,
Aged about 24 years.
All are R/at. No.25/1, Kulume Palya
Anjanapura, Bangalore 560062.
D (1) (a) (2) (ii) Smt. Veena
D/o. Late Siddappa
Aged about 38 years.
4 OS.No.2367/84
D (1) (a) (2) (iii) Sri. Karthik
S/o. Late Siddappa
Aged about 34 years.
D (1) (a) (2) (i) TO D(1)(a) (2) (iii)
R/at. No.4, Pashwanathanagar
Kanniakana Agrahara Village,
Anjanapura, Bengaluru 560062.
D (1) ( b ) Late Muniraju
S/o. Late Chinnappa
Since dead, represented by his LR's.
D (1) (b) (i) Smt. Ashwathamma
W/o late Muniraju
Aged about 58 years.
D (1) ( b ) ( ii ) Sri Kiran Kumar
S/o. Late Muniraju
Aged about 30 years.
D (1) ( b ) ( iii ) Sri Mohan Kumar
S/o. Late Muniraju
Aged about 28 years.
D (1) ( b ) ( i ) TO D(1) (b) (iii)
R/at. No.45, Near Champakadhama
Temple, Bannerghatta, Anekal,
Bengaluru-560083.
D (1) (c) Sri. Gopala,
S/o. Late Chinnappa,
Aged about 25 years,
residing at No.12, II cross,
Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1st block
East, Bangalore-560011.
D(1) (d) Smt. Varalakshmi
D/o. Chinnappa
Aged about 80 years
R/at. No.4, Pashwanathanagar
Kanniakana Agrahara village,
5 OS.No.2367/84
Anjanapura
Bengaluru-560062.
2) Sri. Venkatappa,
S/o. Muniyappa
Since deceased represented by his LR's.
2(a) Smt. Venkatamma
widow of Venkatappa
Aged about 85 years.
2(b) V. Nagaraj,
S/o. Late Venkatappa,
Since deceased by his L.Rs.
2 b (1) Smt. Puttamma,
W/o. Late V. Nagaraj,
major.
2 b (2) Lakshmi,
D/o. Late V. Nagaraj,
Aged about 37 years.
2 b (3 ) Kavitha,
D/o. Late V. Nagaraj,
Aged about 35 years.
2 b (4 ) Tulasi,
D/o. Late V. Nagaraj,
Aged about 33 years.
2 b (5) Master Uday,
S/o. Late V. Nagaraj,
Aged about 31 years.
Defendants 2(a), 2(b)(1) to 2b(5) are
residing at Byrasandra, 1st block
East, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-11.
6 OS.No.2367/84
2(c) Sri. Ramachandra
S/o. Late Venkatappa
Aged about 65 years.
2(d) Smt. Lalitha
D/o. Late Venkatappa
Aged bout 60 years.
2(e) Smt. Suguna
D/o. Late Venkatappa
Aged bout 55 years.
2(f) Sri. Bhaskar
D/o. Late Venkatappa
Aged bout 45 years.
2(c) to 2(f) are residing at
No.11, 2nd cross, 8th main road
Byrasandra, Bengaluru-560011.
3) Venkatesh,
S/o. Muniyappa
since dead, represented by his L.Rs.
3 ( a ) Smt. Chandramma,
W/o. Late Venkatesh
Aged about 75 years.
3 ( b ) Sri. Kumara,
S/o. Late Venkatesh
Aged about 55 years.
3 ( c ) Smt. Shobha,
W/o. Late Venkatesh
Aged about 52 years.
3 ( a ) to ( c ) are residing at
No.12, 2nd cross, 8th main road
Byrasandra,
Bengaluru-560011.
7 OS.No.2367/84
4 ) Smt. Kannamma,
Grand daughter of Kodandarama
Mudaliyar, Aged major
Residing at Lodalya,
No.54, Sarbandepalya,
Banashankari Layout,
Bangalore-560016.
(By Advocates Sri.KNS for D1(a1,2,3)
D1 a2(i to iii) - Absent
D1 (a) 2(i) - (A) - Sri. KNS
D1 (b) (i) - Sri.SP
D1 (b) (ii) - Absent
D1 (d) Exparte
D2 (a) - Exparte
D2 (b1 to 3) - Absent
D2 (c & e) - Absent
D2 (d, f, b4 & b5) - JMR.
Date of Institution of the : 10-07-1984
suit
Nature of the suit : DECLARATION &
POSSESSION
Date of commencement of : 31-10-1997
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 29-04-2025
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
40 09 19
(GANGADHARA.K.N.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
8 OS.No.2367/84
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs suit for declaration to declare them as absolute owners of suit schedule property and sought the delivery of the vacant possession of the same.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as follows:-
The plaintiff No.1 and 2 are mother and son respectively. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of late Muniyappa alias Chikkanniah. Said Muniyappa alias Chikkanniah is none other than the brother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and paternal uncle to the plaintiff No.2. The 4th defendant is the grand daughter of one Kodandarama Mudaliar. Who by purchasing the property bearing no. 2/6 and 4/A1 formed the revenue layout, and sold the sites.
Plaintiff's contention is that, it is the plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, as in some of the revenue records of Sy.No.2/6 and 4/A1 was also entered as owner, thus even the plaintiff No.2 also 9 OS.No.2367/84 joined to this proceedings as party.
3. The plaintiff No.1 contended that she was the absolute owner of land bearing survey number 4/A1 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas and Sy.no. 2/6 land 1 acre 38 guntas in survey of Byrasandra village of Bangalore. Among Muniyappa alias Chikkaanniah, Dasappa and between their other brothers there was a partition in a proceeding at OS.No.505/45-46, but Dasappa died issue- less, thereafter it is Muniyappa @ Chikkaanniah have filed suit for partition against the share of their brother Dasappa.
4. One Mr. Muniyappa married two wives, from his first wife he got a son named Muniswamy, said Muniswamy married to Smt. Muniyamma. And the first plaintiff is the second wife of above said Muniyappa, with their marriage plaintiff No.2 was born. The plaintiff No.1's steps son Muniyappa and her brother-in-law Muniyappa alias Chikkaanniah filed O.S.No.505/1945- 46 against her by seeking relief for possession and 10 OS.No.2367/84 injunction in respect of land bearing survey No. 2/ 6 and 4/A1, the said suit ended in compromise under which the Muniyappa alias Chikkaanniah agreed to purchase 6 guntas of land, situated on northern side of land bearing survey No.4/A1 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas to use it as harvesting fieild. Under the said compromise decree, the said Muniyappa alias Chikkaanniah has agreed to pay Rs.150/- as a sale consideration to the said 06 Guntas, in the suit he paid Rs.100/-, agreed get the registered sale deed by paying balance sale consideration of Rs.50/- in due course, but same was not done.
5. The plaintiffs contended that their relationship got strained. They were in a need of money. Thus, they have sought the loan from V.K.Kodandaram Mudaliar, who had insisted the sale deed of land bearing survey number 2/6 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas and land bearing survey No.4/A1 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas as security, accordingly, they have executed the same but the said sale deed is a sham and nominal document. 11 OS.No.2367/84
6. The plaintiffs contended that in the meantime the CITB had issued a notification on 1st September 1948 in ROL 2090 nil 28-48-41 to acquire 1 acre 30 guntas in survey number 2/6 and 2 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No.4/A1 same has been confirmed in LAC 11/55/56. The plaintiffs contended that, in all 27 Guntas of land has been left out from the acquisition in favour of the plaintiffs by the CITB. But they claims to have not objected for the acquisition notification and also disbursing of award amount in favour of Mudaliar, as that was against to discharge their loan liability.
7. The plaintiff contended that the sale transaction in favor of the said Kodandarama Mudaliar is subsequent to the acquisition. Thus, preliminary notification in respect of above said land was published in the name of the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs have contended that they are the absolute owners of un- acquired land in survey number 2/6 and 4/A1 and also 6 guntas of reserved land.
12 OS.No.2367/84
8. The plaintiffs contended that Plaintiff No. 2 filed OS 3410/S2, on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City against the BDA from restraining them to interfering with their land measuring 27 Guntas comprised in both the Survey No.2/6 and 4/A1 of the Byrasandra village, 1 Block East Jayanagar, Bangalore which was left out from the acquisition, said suit got decreed on 15th January 1986, BDA by identifying 27 guntas of land issued the map and collected the betterment charges, issued no objection in favor of the plaintiffs to get the Katha of the said property, accordingly even khatha has been mutated in favor of the plaintiff no.1. The plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property is the portion of land measuring 27 Guntas left out by the CITB from the acquisition, on which the defendants do not have whatsoever right, title and interest. Plaintiffs have contended that suit schedule property is the vacant site measuring 120ft x 100 feet, which is situated in survey No. 4/ A1 of Byrasandra, Ist 13 OS.No.2367/84 Block East, Jayanagar, Bangalore bounded on the East by road, West by vacant land belongs to the plaintiff marked as 'F' in the rough sketch, North by road and South by defendants No.1 to 3 landed 'C' in the sketch.
9. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed their common written statement by contending that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time. The plaintiffs are out of possession for more than 12 years. Even their suit is hit by principles of the Resjudicata under Section 11 of CPC and also under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. They contended that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have filed false and frivolous suit which is an outcome of their earlier suit in O.S.NO.866/1973 on the file of the IInd Additional First Munsif, Bangalore filed by these defendants elder brother deceased Kaverappa.
10. They alleged that the plaintiffs have sold entire land in survey number 2/6 and 4/A1 on 2-10-1947 in 14 OS.No.2367/84 favor of Kodandarama Mudaliar and have not retained any portion land in above said survey numbers. Their brother Kaverappa got purchased site No.10 in survey No.4/1A from Mr. Kodandarama Mudaliar under a registered sale deed dated 22nd April 1948 and put him into the possession. The first plaintiff had purchased two sites from abovesaid Kodanadrama Modaliyar, is living therein, in the house constructed. Later, CITB acquired the lands from Kodandarama Mudaliar and other purchasers and compensation has been paid to him and other purchasers. No compensation has been paid to the plaintiffs as they have sold the entire land in the above survey numbers of land. It is Kaverappa and the defendants were in possession of the suit schedule land continuously in the knowledge of the plaintiffs, their possession is adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs. Even in the sale deed of V.K.Kodandarama Mudaliar, there is a reference showing that the first plaintiff had left out six guntas of land in favor of Chikkaanniah alias 15 OS.No.2367/84 Muniyappa who is the brother of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein which has been earmarked as 'G' in the sketch. There was no cause of action to file the preent, thus the plaintiffs are not entitle for any relief, much less than for the relief of declaration and possession. The plaintiffs have not valued their suit properly and paid the court fee.
11. The defendant Nos.1 to 3, the LRs of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the additional written statement contending that the plaintiffs have lost their right over the suit schedule property as early as 23rd February 1951 itself. As they have divested their right title interest over the suit schedule property in favor of M. Kaverappa, son of Muniyappa and suit schedule property is never been in possession of Eramma and her son Muniyappa from at least 26-07-1951.
12. During the pendency of the suit itself, the plaintiff No.1 passed away and during the pendency of an 16 OS.No.2367/84 appeal, even plaintiff No.2 passed away. Thus, after remand on the board of this court, the LRs of the plaintiff No.2 came on record as plaintiff No.2A, even he passed away, thus his Lrs were brought on record as plaintiff no. 2(a)(I) to (v). Lrs of the defendant no.1 were brought on record as defendant No.1(a), even he passed away, his lrs were brought on record as defendant No.1(a) to (d). Defendant No.1(a) was passed away his lrs were brought on record as defendant no.1(a)(1) and (2). Even the defendant No.1(a)2 was also passed away, her lrs were brought on record as defendant no. 1(a)(2)(i) to (iii). Even she passed away, her Lrs were brought on record as Defendant no.1(a)(2)(i)(a) to (c). Defendant no. 1(b) was also passed away. His Lrs were brought on record as Defendant no.(1)(b)(i) to (iii). The defendant no.2 passed away, his Lrs were brought on record as defendant No.2(a) to (f). The defendant no.2(b) passed away, his lrs were brought on record as defendant no. 2(b)(1) to (5). 17 OS.No.2367/84
13. The defendant no. 3 was passed away, his Lrs were brought on record as defendant no.3(a) to (c) The defendant No.1(a) 2(i) to (iii) have filed their Addl. Written statements, wherein they contended that it the plaintiffs have divested the entire land in survey number 4/A1 and 2/6 in favour of Kodandarama Mudaliar. In turn said Kodandarama Mudaliar, pursuant to the court order in O.S.No. 505/45-46 of II Munsiff's Court, Bangalore left site No.10, 11 and 12 of which under the deed of 23-02-1951 above sold site No.10 and portion of property left for road on the north and south side road and other houses of Venkatappa measuring East to West 110 feet, North to South 50 feet and thus, the plaintiffs had never been in possession of suit schedule property.
14. They further contended that plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.7310/2003 against Kaverappa by claiming suit for injunction. In the fag end of the said suit, same 18 OS.No.2367/84 has been withdrawn by the plaintiffs. The pleadings in the said suit and the pleadings of the present suit are very similar. They have also filed another suit in OS 8848/2006 by making false and frivolous allegation, though the plaintiffs are neither a owner nor was in possession of said property. Initially, sought suit for injunction and by way of an amendment got the declaration against the son of Kaverappa namely K.Balaraj by mentioning the boundaries of the present suit, by contending that he is the owner of land bearing survey No.4/A1 of Byrasandra village, which is a vacant land and belongs to him. The above said defendants have categorically contended that the suit schedule property is not the vacant land neither they are in possession nor they were in possession. In fact, in the suit schedule property there are buildings, the suit schedule property is surrounded with the constructed building against which number of suits have been filed, either by the plaintiff or the persons claiming through him. Thus, the 19 OS.No.2367/84 plaintiffs have not approached this court with clean hands, but the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to remand this matter purely on technical ground. It is the plaintiff who approached this court shall prove their case in accordance with law. They contended that it is Smt.Eramma has sold the entire land in survey No.2/1, 2/6 and 4/A1 in favour of Kodandarama Mudaliar. Thereafter, it is BDA acquired the said land. Even in the land left out by the BDA also, said Kodandarama Mudaliar had formed the sites. And even site No.10, 11 and 12 have been sold pursuant to the decree in O.S.No.505/1945-46. Out of them, it is the site No.11 and 12 have been sold by Smt.Eramma and Muniyappa in favor of Kaverappa by virtue of registered sale deed dated 26th February 1951. And subsequently, for the said property, corporation assigned the Katha No. as 13 and 13/1, which is situated at division No.57 of Byrasandra, 1st block, Jayanagar East. But the plaintiff falsely claiming that even now the said land is vacant land 20 OS.No.2367/84 without assigning any number by the corporation.
15. And further contended that the plaintiff cunningly claiming that the suit schedule property is the portion of land left out by CITB from acquisition which is false and frivolous, there is no property left out by the BDA as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also filed another suit of charges against the plaintiff. Suit in O.S.No.25557/2021 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Mayohall unit against Shanthamma and others who are the LRs of Kaverappa in which they have sought comprehensive relief wherein the LRs of the Kaverappa have filed an application for rejection of plaint.
16. By considering the pleadings of the parties, this Court was pleased to frame the following:-
ISSUES.
1. Whether plaintiffs have acquired title to the suit site by non-performance of the condition of the decree?21 OS.No.2367/84
2. Whether the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have acquired title by adverse possession?
3. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by Section 11 under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC?
4. Whether the suit property is properly valued for the court fee?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title sought for?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession prayed for?
7. For what relief the parties are entitled?
Issue number 4 has been treated as
preliminary issue and same has been
disposed of, holding as affirmative.
17. Original defendants and even their LRs by filing an additional written statement have categorically contended that, firstly, the suit of the plaintiff is hit by principles of resjudicata and it is barred by time. To that effect, no issues have been framed. Thus, this court felt 22 OS.No.2367/84 by acting under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC as the above said contention in respect of question of law, if the said issues are framed that meets the ends of justice.
18. Addl. Issues, framed while writing judgment.
(i) Does the defendants have proves that the suit of the plaintiffs is hit by principles of resjudicata?
(ii) Does the defendants have proved that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by time?
As the above said issues are pertaining to the question of law and moreover it's the defendants who have pleaded the said facts, shall obligated to prove the said facts. In this regard, the defendants have led their evidence, which are sufficient to adjudicate the said issues.
19. Though Issue No.4 was treated as preliminary issue on court fee and same was answered in the affirmative. But in the issues form, instead of Issue no. 4 23 OS.No.2367/84 issue no. 5 is shown as preliminary issue, which is purely typographical error.
In this case, initially the plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW1. Exhibit P1 to 31 are got marked. On the defendant side, One Gopal was examined as DW1 and Exhibit D1 to D8 are got marked and this court, vide its order dated 25-03-2003 dismissed the suit. But, said judgment and decree has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court in RFA No. 956/2003, remanded this matter with direction to dispose of the same. In fresh by giving opportunity to the parties to lead their fresh evidence.
And, allowed the application of the plaintiffs filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC, by appointing the court commissioner to measure and identifying the suit property.
20. During the pendency of the suit itself, the plaintiff No.1 passed away and during the pendency of an appeal, even plaintiff No.2 passed away. Thus, after remanding the suit on the board of this court, the Legal 24 OS.No.2367/84 heirs of plaintiff No.2 had been brought on record as plaintiff No.2A. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 were also passed away their L.Rs have been brought on record.
21. Among the Lrs only defendant No.1(a)(i) to (iii), defendant no.1(b)(i) to (iii), the defendant Nos.2(d),(f). Defendant no.2(b)(4) and (5) were present and remaining lrs were remained absent, thus they are placed exparte.
Plaintiff no.2(a) was examined as PW.No.2 and he produced the documents at Ex.P32 to 75, 75(a) & 76 are got marked. It's the defendant no.1(a)(i) to (iii) cross examined the PW.No.2 and no other defendants have chosen to cross examine the PW.No.2 and defendant Nos.1(a) to (iii) was examined as DW.No.2. He produced no further documents.
22. Heard the arguments of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1(a) to (iii). As remaining defendants have remained absent, thus their arguments was taken as nil. Both the counsels have filed the list of citations. In fact, 25 OS.No.2367/84 the plaintiffs have filed their written synopsis.
23. My findings on the above said issues and addl. Issues as follows:
ISSUE NO.1:- In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.2:- In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.3:- In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.4:-By treating the said issue as preliminary issue, answered in Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.5:- In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.6:- In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.7:- As per final Order.
Addl. Issues framed while writing judgment:
Addl. Issue NO.I: In the Negative;
Addl. Issue No.2:- In the Negative.
REASONS
24. ISSUES NO. 1, 5 AND 6:
Since these issues are interconnected, thus this court felt if they are taken up for common discussion, in any that causes hardship, in fact that would helps this 26 OS.No.2367/84 court to express its opinion effectively.
Plaintiffs have contended that they are the absolute owners of vacant site measuring East to West 120 feet, North to South 100 ft situated in survey number 4/A1 of Byrasandra, 1st block East, Jayanagar, Bangalore-11 which is bounded on East by: road, West by: vacant land belonging to the plaintiff marked as 'F' in the hand made sketch attached with the plaint, North by road and south by property of the defendant Nos.1 to 3, which is earmarked as 'C' in the sketch.
25. The question before this court is does the suit schedule property is the portion of property measuring 27 Guntas left out by CITB from acquisition? And second question posed itself by the court is that When the plaintiffs themselves admit that they have sold 2 acres 38 guntas in survey number 4/A1 and 1 acre 38 guntas in Sy.no.2/6, in which the purchasers allegedly carved the sites, how would they can retain any portion of land in the said lands? For all these questions this court requires to 27 OS.No.2367/84 find an answer. After reading of pleadings and evidence, the following facts are undisputed.
(i) It is not in dispute that Smt.Eramma, the plaintiff no.1 is the second wife of late S. Muniswamappa. And plaintiff No.2 is born with their marriage. S.Muniswamappa from his first marriage has son named Muniyappa, said Muniyappa married to Muniyamma. First wife's son Muniyappa's branch of family is not party to the proceedings.
(ii) It is not in dispute that land bearing survey number 2/6 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas and land bearing survey No.4/A1 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas of Byrasandra village are the absolute properties of plaintiff No.1, as they are her self acquired properties, who got purchased under a sale deed dated 28.09.1931 from her husband, before her marriage. The said sale deed is produced herein as per Ex.P1 and said sale can be found in Exhibit P2 encumbrance certificate.
(iii) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff No. 1 sold the above said lands in favour of one Shri Kodandarama Mudaliar under a registered sale 28 OS.No.2367/84 deed dated 02-10-1947 which is as per exhibit P-
34 and Exhibit P-76, in which 06 guntas of land out of 2 acre 38 guntas in Sy.no. 4/A1 had been left out as it was agreed to be given to Muniyappa @ Chikkanniah, said portion of land situated on the southern side of the said land and same can be found in Ex.P6 sale deed. Said Kodandarama Mudaliar had formed the revenue layout by forming the revenue sites and sold them in favor of various purchasers. The plaintiff in her suit contended that the said sale deed was a nominal sale, it was executed against the receipt of loan from said Kodandarama Mudaliar, to that effect there was an oral understanding. The plaintiff by paying back his money, shall get the sale deed canceled.
(iv) It is not in dispute that in the year 1948 the CITB had acquired the land bearing survey number 4/A1 measuring 2 acre 18 Guntas and left out 19 Guntas from acquisition. And acquired 1 acre 30 Guntas, left out 8 Guntas in survey no. 2/6 of Byrasandra village.
(v) It is not in dispute that said acquisition was in the name of the plaintiff no.1 and even 19 guntas 29 OS.No.2367/84 in survey 4/A1 and 8 guntas in survey number 2/6 have been left out in the name of Smt.Eramma, in all 27 Guntas of land has been left out in compositely from survey number 4/A1 and 2/6. Same can be seen from the Ex.P5 acquisition notification dated 09-09-1948 under which in survey number 4/ A1, 2 acre 18 guntas out of 2 acre 38 guntas and 1 acre 30 guntas out of 1 acre 38 guntas in survey number 2/6 have been acquired and left out in all 27 Guntas of land.
26. The plaintiffs have contended that after acquisition, they have agreed that the compensation awarded by CITB shall be given to Mr. Kodandarama Mudaliar against to satisfaction of the loan availed from him, as security they have executed the sale deed of the above said land. Accordingly, they have allowed Mr. Kodandarama Mudaliar to receive the same and also he in turn allowed the plaintiff to retain 27 guntas of land which was left out from acquisition. The BDA by issuing the Form No.5 dated 3rd September 1981 stated that in 30 OS.No.2367/84 survey number 2/6 land measuring 0-08 guntas and in survey number 4/A1 land measuring 0-19 guntas of land has been left out in favor of Smt.Eramma, the plaintiff No.1, thus they have no objection to mutate the katha of the said property in her favor and exhibit P15 is the sketch prepared by the CITB showing the area where the 19 Guntas of land in survey number 4/A1 and 8 Guntas land in survey number 2/6 have been left out. In fact, said 27 Gunta land not a single or two plot, they were scattered here and there. And in the said layout plan there is a categorical reference in whose favour the portion of land in survey number 4/A1 and 2/6 are left out. According to which the said lands have been left out in favor of the plaintiff and defendants herein.
27. In fact, the BDA has got the developmental charges from Smt.Eramma, which is as per Exhibit P17, under which the Plaintiff No.1 paid Rs.16,398.16/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Eight and Sixteen Paise). Even under Exhibit P18 dated 31 OS.No.2367/84 06-08-1986, the BDA categorically reiterated the fact that 27 Guntas of land has been left out in favor of the plaintiff No.1 herein, accordingly the plaintiffs claim to have got the Khatha of the said land as per Ex.P19, 20 and 21 from the office of the BBMP/Corporation.
28. It is not in dispute that Smt. Eramma the plaintiff No.1 herself had got purchased site Nos.11 and 12 from Sri.Kodandarama Mudaliar and later the said sites have been sold in favor of Kaverappa, the brother of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 under a sale deed dated.26.2.1951.
29. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein, by claiming that their brother Kaverappa had bequeathed the site number 10, 11, 12 and 6 guntas of land in survey number 4/ A1 in their favor under a registered Will dated 31-10-1969, have sought the mandatory injunction against the Bangalore City corporation by filing suit in OS.No.858/1989 but said suit came to be dismissed. 32 OS.No.2367/84 Wherein the defendants herein have sought the directions to the Bangalore City corporation to mutate the katha of above said site properties and also khatha of the above said 6 guntas of land which is having municipal No.13/1 They have also maintained another suit in OS.No.2521/1989 against the plaintiffs herein, by seeking a permanent injunction but which came to be dismissed for default, which is as per Exhibit P-27.
30. In the acquired area of land in survey No.4/A1 and 2/6, there were sites and approximately some 63 site owners have approached the CITB by seeking to disburse the compensation against the acquisition, to that effect an award being passed in favor of the site owners which is as per exhibit P55, in which Mr. M. Kaverappa got an award notice against to the acquiring of his site number 10, 11, 12 and also 6 Guntas of land which has been earmarked by the plaintiffs herein to sell the same originally in favour of Muniyappa alias Chikkannaiaha as agreed under O.S.No.505/1945-46. In fact, said 33 OS.No.2367/84 Kaverappa also gave a representation to the SLO- CITB by requesting to disburse the compensation against the acquisition of his properties in survey number 2/6 and 4/A1, which is as per Exhibit P57.
31. Ex. P58 is another final notice issued by the CITB to acquire some portion of land belongs to Kaverappa in survey no. 4. In the said notice also there is reference on the acquisition of site number 10, 11, 12 and also 6 Guntas of land, and awarding of compensation of rupees 1047.14.9 has been mentioned which is in consonance with the award notice as per exhibit P56.
32. Firstly, Mr. Kaverappa acquired site number 10, 11 and 12 under a registered sale deed, against which he is entitled for compensation as the said sites have been acquired by CITB. Except these properties, Kaverappa had not at all owned any property in Sy.No.2/6 and 4/A1. Further, under exhibit P56, in fact, 34 OS.No.2367/84 an award being passed against acquisition of 06 guntas of land in survey number 4/A1. In fact, said 06 guntas of land had been earmarked for his father in OS.No.505/1945-46 under which the plaintiff had given said property to the father of the Kaverappa with a condition that he shall pay Rs. 150/- as consideration, under which he paid Rs.100/- pursuant to which the father of said Kaverappa ought to have taken the sale deed, but no such sale deed had been taken by him or any of his legal heirs. In fact in the said compromise decree Muniyappa @ Chikkannaiah paid only 100 rupees, who was obligated to get the sale deed by paying balance sale consideration of Rs.50/-. Admittedly, no such sale deed has been got either by Muniyappa @ Chikkannaiah or Mr. Kaverappa or his brothers the defendants herein.
33. When the defendants are not owned any property in the land bearing survey number 4/A1 and 2/6, there is no clarity as to how and what basis the 35 OS.No.2367/84 defendants are claiming the possession and right over the suit schedule property. In fact, it is not their case that the suit schedule property either comes within the six guntas and site number 10, 11, 12 or it is a separate property within the 27 guntas of land left out in favor of Smt.Eramma. In the absence of the clarity, the contention of the defendants that they are in possession of the suit schedule land cannot be accepted.
34. If the contention of the plaintiffs is considered, firstly the sale deed in favor of Mr.Kodandarama Mudaliar was a nominal sale deed. It was executed against the receipt of loan amount and after acquisition of property by the CITB, they allegedly allowed Mr. Kodandarama Mudaliar to receive the award amount, against who has allowed the plaintiffs to retain 27 guntas of land left from the acquisition. But he had no occasion to receive the said amount for the reason that the purchaser of the sites themselves have made an 36 OS.No.2367/84 application before the SLAO by requesting to settle the compensation amount accordingly award being passed. In fact, it is Kodandarama Mudaliar himself hold the said sites in favor of the purchaser. He might have received the consideration. But with regard to the acquisition of land by the CITB disbursing of compensation in favor of the purchasers of the site are not in dispute. Even same has not been disputed by Mr.Kodandarama Mudaliar or by his legal heir the defendant No.4. And secondly though after acquisition, notification being passed and award being published against the acquisition of sites carved in survey numbers 2/6 and 4/A1 and the said Kodandarama Mudaliar had not made any application or not even laid his claimed over the 27 Guntas left out in survey No.4/A1 and 2/6. But in the notification 19 Guntas in survey No.4/A1 and 8 Guntas in survey number 2/6 has been left out in favour of Smt.Eramma who gave a representation by requesting to issue NOC, same has been considered and issued. Based on which it 37 OS.No.2367/84 is Smt.Eramma and her son the plaintiff No.2 herein have got the katha and in fact the plaintiff No.2 had filed a suit against the BDA in respect of 27 guntas where it appears that the BDA allegedly caused an interference, the court in an injunction suit filed by the plaintiff no.2 against the BDA in O.S.NO.3410/1982 was pleased to hold that in view of 27 guntas ofland in the above said survey number has been left out infavor of the plaintiffs, thus its they are in possession, on which the BDA has no right. In the said suit, the competent civil court was pleased to hold that it is the plaintiffs are in possession of said 27 guntas of land on which they have a right, title and interest.
35. The important question which arose at this juncture is that whether the suit schedule property is the portion of 27 guntas of land left out in favor of Smt. Eramma. To the extent in this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff in his arguments vehemently 38 OS.No.2367/84 contended that BDA has prepared the layout plan to form the layout in the acquired land, the said layout plan is produced before this court is as per exhibit P15, the property which is ear marked as BHEDC is being shown as property of the plaintiff No.2 who is the son of Smt.Eramma which is measuring 10. He also drawn the attention of the court that, The court commissioner appointed by this court has prepared the sketch and filed his report by identifying the suit schedule property which is very much tallying with the property earmarked as BHEDC in Exhibit P15. This court after comparing the both the Ex.P15 and sketch prepared by the Court commissioner, which are unequivocally shows that both the properties are one and the same, which is the suit property. Thus, firstly Identification and existence of suit schedule property are not in dispute.
36. The SLAO attached to the BDA had issued an endorsement as per Ex.P66 dated 19.6.1998, in favor of one Iqbal Pasha on 19-6-1998 stating that in survey 39 OS.No.2367/84 No.4/A1 land measuring 0- 19 guntas and in survey number 2/6, 8 guntas of land in all, 27 guntas of land has not been acquired and they have been released in favor of Smt. Eramma, the plaintiff No.1 herein. A similar endorsement was issued on 29th April 2019 as per Exhibit P64 in favor of one Syed. Under an Exhibit P63 letter, the SLAO addressed letter to the plaintiff No.1 showing that in survey No.4/A1 and 2/6 in all 27 Guntas has been left out from acquisition, since there are built up areas and which is an adjacent land to the Gramathana property.
37. To issue NOC, an Engineer attached to the BDA had issued an intimation in favor of Smt.Eramma to pay the development charges of Rs.16,398.16/- paise which is as per Exhibit P-65. It is not in dispute that suit schedule property is a portion of property in survey No.4/A1 as it is the defendant themselves have suggested to the witness that the said suggestion is extracted herein below. "It is true to suggest that suit site is 40 OS.No.2367/84 carved out of survey No. 4/ A1. It appears that on the northern side of suit schedule property there was a property of the plaintiff No.1, the reason for saying so is that the defendants have themselves have suggested to the PW1 that on the northern side of suit schedule property there is also a property of Smt.Eramma. The said suggestion is extracted herein below for better clarification. "It is true to suggest that the property situated on the northern boundary of the suit schedule property also belongs to my grandmother Smt.Eramma, the original plaintiff"
38. Muniyappa @ Chikkannaia, the brother-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 and step son, and his have filed O.S.NO.505/1945-46 by seeking partition in the suit schedule properties involved therein but which was ended in compromise by filing compromise petition as per exhibit P12 under which the plaintiff No.1 had agreed to sell 06 guntas of land for a consideration of Rupees 150 in favor of Mr. Muniyappa Alias Chikkannaiah who 41 OS.No.2367/84 paid Rs.100/- under the said compromise and who was obligated to get the registered sale deed of 06 Guntas in survey No.4/A1 by paying balance sale consideration of 50 rupees. But Mr. Muniyappa alias Chikkannaiah in his lifetime did not got the sale deed, which is an admitted fact. In fact, in the sale deed of Mr. Kodandarama Mudaliar as per Exhibit P6 also, there is a reference that on the southern side of survey number 4/A1 land measuring 06 guntas reserved had been agreed to sell in favour of Mr. Muniyappa alias Chikkannaiah had been left.
39. Sri Kaverappa got purchased the site No.10, measuring 16ft x 40 feet, carved in survey No.4/A1, under a registered Sale deed dated 22-04-1948, which is as per exhibit P35. The plaintiffs herein have also sold site number 11 and 12 in favor of said Kaverappa which was measuring east to west 110ft and north to south 50 feet under the registered sale deed dated 26 th February 1951 which is as per exhibit P41.
42 OS.No.2367/84
40. In survey No.4/A1, Kaverappa got acquired site number 11 and 12 measuring east to west 110 feet and north to south 50 feet under sale deed as per Exhibit P41. He also got acquired site No.10 under exhibit P35 sale deed measuring East to West 60 feet, north to south 40 feet and he also claiming that the plaintiff No.1 had left out 6 guntas of land under the compromise entered in O.S.NO.505/1945-46 as per Exhibit P9 and even leaving of said 06 Guntas of land can be seen in exhibit P6 executed in favor of Kodandarama Mudaliar.
41. During the cross-examination of PW1, a suggestion being made to him that, as per the terms agreed in a compromise entered in O.S.No.505/1945-46 by paying Rs. 50 balance sale considerations to Smt.Eramma, her brother in law Mr. Chikkannaiah alias Muniyappa had got the sale deed of 6 guntas of land, but no such document is being placed before this court. In fact, it is the defendants who during their arguments 43 OS.No.2367/84 categorically admitted that there is no document to show it is neither Kaverappa nor his father Chikkannaiah alias Muniyappa has got the sale deed of said 06 guntas of land. And moreover, there is no document to show that the suit schedule property is either part of site Nos. 10, 11, 12 or 06 guntas. In fact, further suggestion being made that in the year 1951, Smt. Eramma by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs. 50 from Kavarappa had executed the registered sale deed pertaining to 06 Guntas, admittedly, no such document is being produced in support of the defendant's case.
42. Interestingly, if the cross-examination of PW2 done by the defendants is considered, they have categorically admitted that Mr. Kaverappa, paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.50, has got the sale deed of site no. 11 and 12. The said portion is herein extracted for the better clarification. It is true to suggest that Mr. Kaverappa, son of Chikkannaiah, had got purchased site no. 11 and 12 carved in survey number 4/A1 from my 44 OS.No.2367/84 grand mother by showing that they are paying balance of Rs. 50/- agreed in the compromise entered in OS.No.505/1945 which is as per Exhibit P41.
43. Even a suggestion being made that, the CITB against the acquisition of site numbers 10, 11, 12 and 06 Guntas of land, has passed an award in favor of Mr. Kaverappa. But the suggestion that he has not received the said compensation has been denied by the DW2. The DW2 admits that as per Exhibit P55, the CITB passed an award to issue compensation to Mr. Kaverappa against the acquisition of his site Nos. 10, 11 and 12 and 06 guntas of land. He also admits that the CITB passed an award to pay compensation even to 06 guntas of land in favor of Mr. Kaverappa under Exhibit P56 the award notice. And he admits that the Kaverappa gave a representation to the CITB by requesting to release the compensation to him against the acquisition of land in survey Nos. 2/6 and 4/ A1, in particularly above said 3 sites and 6 guntas of land. If at all Mr. Kaverappa had 45 OS.No.2367/84 not all received any compensation, it's the defendants shall prove the same. But, once the land at site no. 10, 11, 12 and 6 guntas has been allegedly acquired by the CITB, then neither the plaintiff nor the defendants cannot say that despite acquisition, the said land shall remained with them. If at all the defendants would wants to claim right over the said property, then shall initiate separate proceedings by making the CITB as party, shall seek relief of the declaration, and not against the plaintiffs herein. Learned counsel for the defendants in his arguments by relying on the Ex D1 order in WP No. 578/1989 dated. 25.3.1994, contended the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above said order made an observation that by taking the advantage of leaving of 0- 27 guntas of land from acquisition, trying lay her hands over the land exceeding the said limit. 0-27 guntas left out in their favor is undisputed.
44. The said dispute with regard to site No. 196, 197, 225, 226 and 252. The observation of the Hon'ble 46 OS.No.2367/84 High Court in Para no. 4.... "And, curiously the extents of the plots held, sold and attempted to be sold by respondent no. 4 and 5 together far exceeds 27 guntas". The above said observation itself depicts the facts that 0-27 guntas which was left out was in possession, which has been appreciated by the court. Ex.D1: PIL Judgment dated WP 578/1989 is pertaining to the site no. 196, 197, 225, 226 and 252. Firstly, they are not part of 0-27 guntas of land left from the acquisition, same has been reiterated. Secondly, suit schedule property was not the subject matter of said dispute. Wherein Ex.P15 Layout plan, would clearly discloses the facts that, the suit schedule property is the part of the 0-27 guntas, which was left out from the acquisition. And, property demarcated as BCDEH and suit property identified by the court commissioner filed in his report are the one and the same. Thus, firstly the suit schedule property is the part of 0-27 guntas, and which is identified, on which no defendants are having whatsoever right, title and 47 OS.No.2367/84 interest.
45. In fact learned Counsel for the contesting defendant submits that, presently no defendant who is on record are not in possession. According to them it's the Lrs of the Kaverappa are in possession. If at all the defendants are having any interest in the suit, they ought to have show some material how did they related to the suit property.
46. Moreover, its not in dispute that the suit property is not the site no. 10, 11 and 12 and not even 0- 06 guntas of land. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended that, it's the Lrs of the Kaverappa by showing the suit property as site no. 10,11, and 12 and 06 guntas of land, by showing it has the Municipal khatha no. 13/1 got partitioned, even in that regard the plaintiffs have initiated the proceedings as per Ex.D18, relief sought in the said suit is totally different.
48 OS.No.2367/84
47. For supra reason, firstly the plaintiffs have proved that, suit schedule property is the part of 27 Guntas land in Sy.No.4/A1 and 2/6, in particularly which comes with in the land bearing Sy.No. 4/A1, which has been delineated as per Ex.P15 layout plan of the BDA, which has been corroborated by the report of the court commissioner. Thus, the suit property is the property of the plaintiff, they are the absolute owners, and thought the most part of the suit land is fell vacant, they are entitled for the vacant possession of the suit property. As the suit land is not the subject matter of 6 guntas involved in OS NO. 505/45-46 as per Ex.P9, thus the Issue no. 1 is answered in Negative and Issue no. 5 and 6 are answered in Affirmative.
48. ISSUE NO.2:- The Defendants in their written statement have categorically contended that they are in possession of the suit schedule property since from 1958, according to them, it was open, continuous, and uninterrupted, said facts was in the knowledge of the 49 OS.No.2367/84 plaintiffs, who made no efforts to recover the same at the earliest. Thus, they perfected the title of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
But except pleading so, they have not adduced any evidence to prove the facts before the court that, firstly prove the adverse possession, they shall accept the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. Secondly, they must plead and prove that their possession over the suit property was adverse to the interest of real owner. But, in the case of the defendants there is no clarity, as they in one stretch they contended that the suit schedule property is part of site No.10, 11, 12 and 06 guntas of land which belongs to their brother Late. Kaverappa who bequeathed the same under a Will. If that is the case they are claiming right over the suit schedule property on their independent title, then question of setting up of adverse possession do not arise. On that ground itself, their contention that they have perfected the title over the suit schedule property by way 50 OS.No.2367/84 of adverse possession deserves to be dismissed.
49. In fact, during the arguments the learned counsel for the defendants contended that the defendants are not in possession of the suit schedule property, it is the plaintiff who filed the suit against the wrong persons, it is the L.Rs of Kaverappa who are in possession. Thus, the suit is not maintainable, again which is contrary to their claim / pleadings. Thus, this court is of the opinion firstly the defendants fails to prove the fact that they are in possession of the suit schedule property since 1958 or any amount of period, which was sufficient to hold their possession as adverse to the real owner. Further, further they fails to acknowledge the ownership of the plaintiff and even they fails to prove that, they are in possession of the suit schedule property, which was open, continuous and uninterrupted and in the absence of proof said facts, the question of declaring the defendants as a owner by way of adverse possession do not arise. Thus, I answer Issue No.2 in the 51 OS.No.2367/84 Negative.
50. Issue No.3 and Addl. Issue No.1:-
The defendants contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is hit by principles of the Resjudicata under Section 11 of CPC and even under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. Even on the said issue the defendants have failed to place any material before this court, whether the plaintiff prior to filing of this suit, did they have filed a any suit against them, by seeking any right over the suit property, whether the subject matter of issues were subject matter of any of the prior suit. Whether there was prior cause of action to file the suit in the similar nature, but on which they fails to include the suit schedule property, thus they are barred from instituting the separate suit. In fact, the plaintiffs have filed the many suit against various persons but they are not pertaining to the suit schedule property and no court has adjudicated the dispute for the very same relief and against the very same defendants, in 52 OS.No.2367/84 the absence of proof of said fact, the question of suit of the plaintiff is hit by principles of the Resjudicata under Section 11 of CPC cannot be accepted. In fact, the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property has been uphold by this court in a decree in O.S.NO.3410/1982 which was decreed on 15-01-1986 as per Ex.P8. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the defendants have failed to prove their case to show how the suit of the plaintiff is barred either under principles of the Resjudicata under Section 11 of CPC or under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. Thus, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative and Additional Issue No.1 in the Negative.
51. ADDL. ISSUE NO.2:-
The Defendants have contended that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time. In fact, they have contended that they have perfected the title by way of adverse possession. Firstly, the defendants have fails to prove 53 OS.No.2367/84 their claim of adverse possession and even except pleading the fact that the plaintiff's suit is barred by time, they have not elicited any material to show as to how the suit of the plaintiff's is barred by time. As they have failed to elicit the fact that, their possession of the suit schedule property was open, continuous and uninterrupted but despite their possession of the suit schedule property which was hostile to the interest of the plaintiff, they failed to take proper steps at the earliest to recover the possession. In the absence of placing any material to show there was a prior cause of action to file the present suit, but same was not filed, by same filed after delayed period. To prove the said facts, absolutely there is no material, Thus, this court would not want to discuss much on the said issue. Thus, I proceed to answer Additional Issue No.2 as Negative.
52. ISSUE NO.7:-
In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 to 6 and Additional Issue Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the 54 OS.No.2367/84 following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is allowed, with costs.
The plaintiffs are declared as absolute owners of the suit schedule property and they are entitled for the delivery of vacant possession of the same.
The office is to draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 29th day of APRIL, 2025 ) (GANGADHARA.K.N.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1: Sri.R.Muniswamy
P.W.2: Sri. Dhruvanarayana.M
(b) Defendants' side :
DW.1: C.Gopal
DW.2:- Karthik.
55 OS.No.2367/84
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.P.2 Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P.3,4 RTC extracts
Ex.P.5 Gazette Notification
Ex.P.6 Agreement dated 24-01-1948
Ex.P.6(a) Bikolam - Shara by RW1 - 6-02-2002
Ex.P.6(b) Signature of Kodandaram Mudaliar
identified by RW.1
Signature of Kodandaram Mudaliar
Ex.P.6(c)
identified by RW.1
Ex.P.7 Khatha Extract
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of Judgment and decree
in O.S.NO.3410/1982
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of plaint in
O.S.505/45-46
Ex.P.10 Certified copy of written statement in
O.S.NO.505/45-46
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of order sheet in
O.S.NO.505/45-46.
Ex.P.12 Certified copy of compromise petition
56 OS.No.2367/84
Ex.P.13 Certified copy of order of Compromise deed in O.S.NO.505/45-46.
Ex.P.14 Sketch Ex.P.15 Certified copy of plan Ex.P.16 Certified copy of BDA ltr dated 03-09-1987 Ex.P.17 Certified copy of BDA receipt challan No.114 Ex.P.18 Endorsement letter dated 06-08-1986 Ex.P.19 Assessment extract dated 14-03-1989 Ex.P.20 Certificate issued by BBMP dated 15-03-1989 Ex.P.21 Tax paid receipts Ex.P.22 Tax paid receipts Ex.P.23 Certified copy of Issues in O.S.858/89 Ex.P.24 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.NO.2367/84 Ex.P.25 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.NO.2367/84 Ex.P.26 Certified copy of written statement in O.S.NO.2367/84 Ex.P.27 Certified copy of order sheet in 57 OS.No.2367/84 O.S.NO.2521/89 Ex.P.28 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.2521/89 Ex.P.29 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.NO.2521/1989 Ex.P.30 Spl. Power of Attorney dated 29-10-1997 Ex.P.31 Certified copy of Writ Appeals No.1237/94 and 1803 to 1807/94 Ex.P.32 SPA dt 31.10.2023 Ex.P.33 Certified copy notification dt 01.09.1948 consisting of 4 pgs.
Ex.P.34 Certified copy of typed copy of sale deed dt 02.10.1947 Ex.P.35 Certified copy of the typed copy of sale deed dt 22.04.1948 Ex.P.36 Reply of SLAO, BDA on the RTI query. Ex.P.37 Notice dt 29.12.2021 issued by SLAO, BDA.
Ex.P.38 CD Ex.P.39 Purchaser list of layout formed by Neharu Union issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.40 The Layout plan of Neharu Union 58 OS.No.2367/84 issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.41 Certified copy of sale deed dt and 41(a) 26.02.1951 and Typed copy of sale deed dt 26.02.1951 Ex.P.42 The copy of the sale deed dt 24.10.1948 issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.43 Copy of the sale deed dt 28.02.1949 issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.44 Copy of the sale deed dt 30.06.1949 issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.45 Copy of the sale deed dt 10.05.1948 issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.46 Copy of the sale deed dt 04.03.1949 issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.47 Copy of the sale deed dt 10.05.1948 issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.48 Copy of the sale deed dt 21.07.1949 issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.49 Copy of the sale deed dt 05.08.1949 issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.50 Copy of the sale deed dt 10.05.1948 issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.51 Copy of the sale deed dt 08.04.1949 issued by BDA under RTI application.
Ex.P.52 Copy of the sale deed dt 18.05.1949 issued by BDA under RTI application.
59 OS.No.2367/84Ex.P.53 Letter of Sri Neharu union dt 30.12.1953 given to the SlAO, CITB issued by the BDA under RTI.
Ex.P.54 List of owners of sites carved in Sy.No. 2/6 and 4/1 of Byrasandra Village in the layout called Neharu Union issued by the BDA under RTI consisting of 3 pgs.
Ex.P.55 The copy of the award passed by SLAO in respect of the sites acquired in Neharu Union layout issued by the BDA under RTI consisting of 2 pgs.
Ex.P.56 Copy of the Award notice issued by the SLAO in favour of M.Kaverappa consisting of 2 pgs.
Ex.P.57 The copy of the letter Sri.M.Kavereppa submitted to SLAO, issued by the BDA under RTI.
Ex.P.58 The copy of the final notice dt 23.04.1958 issued by the BDA under RTI.
Ex.P.59 The copy of Notification dt 01.09.1955 issued by the BDA under RTI Ex.P.60 Certified copy of endorsement issued by SLAO and deposit of award amount.
Ex.P.61 Certified copy of the register of lands notified for acquisition by BDA.
Ex.P.62 Certified copy of the list under which the possessions of the lands mentioned there have been handed over to Surveyor of the CITB consisting of 9 pgs.
60 OS.No.2367/84Ex.P.63 Certified copy of the Endorsement issued by the SLAO in favour of Eramma dt 17.05.1973 Ex.P.64 Certified copy of the endorsement dt 17.06.1987 issued by the ARO, Corporation Ex.P.65 Certified copy of the intimation dt 03.09.1987 issued by the BDA.
Ex.P.66 Certified copy of the endorsement dt 19.06.1998 issued by SLAO, BDA.
Ex.P.67 Certified copy of the partition deed dt
13.08.2003
Ex.P.68 Certified copy of rectification deed dt
16.07.2017
Ex.P.69 Judgment in RFA 956/03
Ex.P.70 The reply of ARO on the RTI query.
Ex.P.71 Certified copy of the plaint in O.S
2222/80
Ex.P.72 Certified copy of the reply to the
Written Statement of the D.1 filed by
the plaintiffs.
Ex.P.73 Certified copy of the Written Statement
in O.S 2696/77
Ex.P.74 Certified copy of the Judgment in O.S
2222/80
Ex.P.75 Certified copy of the Will dt 31.10.1969
& and typed copy of the Will dt
Ex.P.75(a) 31.10.1969
Ex.P.76 Certified copy of sale deed dt
02.06.1947
61 OS.No.2367/84
(b) Defendant's side :
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of
Writ Petition No.578 of 1989
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of Judgment in
O.S.NO.3555/80 Dt. 06-07-1984
Ex.D.3 Certified copy of plaintiff's memo dated
02-06-1984
Ex.D.4 Agreement dated 03-05-1948
Ex.D.5 Agreement dated 08-12-1950
Ex.D.6 Death certificate of M.Kaverappa dated
26-04-1984
Ex.D.7 Khatha extract
Ex.D.8 Tax paid receipt
Ex.D.9 Certified copy of gift deed dated
10-06-2002
Ex.D.10 Certified copy of absolute sale deed
dated 28-08-2019 executed by
Sri.R.Muniswamy @ Papanna in favour
of Smt. Shama Sultana.
Ex.D.11 Certified copy of absolute sale deed
dated 28-08-2019 executed by
Sri.R.Muniswamy @ Papanna in favour
of Smt. Waheeda Begum.
Ex.D.12 Charge sheet report dated 31-07-2023
(76 pages)
62 OS.No.2367/84
Ex.D.13 Certified copy of suit in
O.S.NO.25557/21
Ex.D.14 Certified copy of suit in
O.S.NO.7310/03.
Ex.D.15 Certified copy of plaint in
O.S.NO.7310/03
Ex.D.16 Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.NO.8848/06 XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signed by
GANGADHARA GANGADHARA K N
KN Date: 2025.05.05
16:26:16 +0530
63 OS.No.2367/84
64 OS.No.2367/84