Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Sri.K.Chetan on 26 August, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH No.25).
Dated: This the 26th day of August, 2021.
Present: Smt. ISHRATH JAHAN ARA, B.A.L., LL.B.,
III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No. 1479/2016
Plaintif Sri. Rohit. C.,
S/o. Sri. K.M.Chandrashekar,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.170, 2nd Cross,
M.S.Ramaiah North Street,
Tanisandra Main Road,
Bengaluru -77.
Reptd. By GPA Holder
Sri.K.M.Chandrashekar,
S/o. Late K.K.Mariyappa,
Aged about 72 years.
By Sri. R.P.Somashekharaiah, Advocate.
vs.
Defendant Sri.K.Chetan,
S/o. Late K.Padmanabha,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.73/74, 1st Floor,
19th Cross Road, 20th B Main Road,
Cauvery Road, S.M.S. Layout,
5th Phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru-78.
By Sri. D.Mallikarjuna Swamy, Advocate.
2
O.S.No.1479/2016
Date of Institution 19-02-2016
Nature of Suit Declaration
Date of commencement of 29-04-2016
Evidence
Date of pronouncement of 26-08-2021
Judgment
Total Duration: Years Months Days
05 06 07
JUDGMENT
The Plaintif has filed this Suit seeking Declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and to declare the sale deed dated 18-7-2014 executed by Sri.Mallaiah and Smt.Gurushanthamma in favour of the Defendant in respect of suit schedule property as null and void and to cancel the sale deed.
Suit schedule property is Site No.81, Khatha No.233/81, formed out of Sy.No.107/1A1, measuring East to West 40 feet, North to South 30 feet, including 2 sq. sheet building with electricity and water, situated at Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now within the limits of BBMP.
2) The case of the Plaintif as stated in the Plaint is that his vendor has purchased the suit property under a GPA dated 19-6-1991 for valuable 3 O.S.No.1479/2016 sale consideration of Rs.44,000/-, under sale deed dated 16-5-1991, Khatha was standing in his name, all the panchayat records were standing in his name, he was paying the taxes payable to the suit property and the betterment charges were paid to the suit property. The Plaintif purchased the suit schedule property with the constructed house under a registered sale deed dated 19-4-2003 from his vendor for the valuable sale consideration amount and became its absolute owner in possession and enjoyment and the Khatha is mutated in his name and all the CMC records relating to the suit property are standing in his name and after the suit property came within the limits of BBMP, BBMP has issued the Khatha in his name on 20-5-2011 and after obtaining plan and licence from the Corporation, he put up the construction in the suit property and has taken the electricity connection and rented the house property to one P.Shankar for a sum of Rs.500/- p.m. and advance of Rs.1,500/-. The Defendant, on the basis of sale deed dated 13-5-2009 executed by Radhamma and Gurushanthamma w/o.H.Gangappa, tried to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he has lodged a complaint before the Jnanabharathi Police Station and the police directed him to approach the civil court.
4O.S.No.1479/2016 The Plaintif further averred that earlier an extent of 25 acres of land in old Sy.No.42 (New Sy.No.107/1, now Sy.No.107/1A1) of Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, was granted to one Mylarappa on 12-4-1955 and he sold 10 acres of land under a registered sale deed dated 2-11-1956 in favour of one Venkatappa and subsequently, Mylarappa died on 15-5-1962 and after his death, his adopted son, H.Gangappa, after coming into force of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands, 1976, along with his wife Smt.Gurushanthamma, filed application before the Assistant Commissioner u/S. 4 of the said Act and the Assistant Commissioner, by an Order dated 31-12-1983, declared the sale deed dated 2-11-1956 in favour of Venkatappa is null and void and initiated proceedings to restore the possession of the land in favour of said Gangappa. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the LRs. of Venkatappa filed appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, who by his Order dated 20-7-1985 remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru, for fresh disposal and the Assistant Commissioner, again by his order dated 29-1-1988 held that the sale is null and void and thereafter, the land restored in favour of H.Gangappa 5 O.S.No.1479/2016 and thereafter, he executed a registered GPA in favour of one Kishore Babu and sold the land measuring 10 acres under registered document dated 7-5-1990, and said Kishore Babu has formed a layout in Sy.No. 107/1A1 and formed 249 sites and sold it to 249 persons by executing sale deed and also by executing GPA from the year 1991 onwards. After the sale of sites, since the value of the land has been raised in Bengaluru City and in view of some of the neighbouring lands have been acquired for formation of Vishweshwaraiah Layout, H.Gangappa's brothers i.e., Mallaiah, Gurushanthamma w/o.H.Gangappa and Radamma w/o.Lingappa had filed a suit in O.S.No. 967/2003 against one Ashwathanarayan and others seeking declaration and Permanent Injunction and in the said suit, the Defendants of the said suit made appearance and filed their Written Statement by stating that Kishore Babu, after purchase of 10 acres of land from H.Gangappa, formed a layout under the name of Annapoorneshwari Layout, consisting of 249 sites and sold it to various persons and the purchasers of the sites are in possession of the said properties. The Court, after hearing, has given finding that Mallaiah, Gurushanthamma or Radhamma are not in possession of the property and observed that all 249 6 O.S.No.1479/2016 site holders are in possession of the property and dismissed the IA No.1 filed u/O.39 R.1 and 2 of CPC as per order dated 9-6-2003. The vendors of the Defendants have filed M.F.A. No.4177/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court and even the said Appeal was came to be dismissed as per order dated 8-7-2003 directing the site holders to file application before the BDA for dropping the proceedings. The Plaintif and other site holders requested the BDA to drop the proceedings and accordingly, the BDA authorities, after holding an enquiry in LAC No.282/2003-2004, dropped the proceedings, as per the Notification dated 8-7-2003. In the meanwhile, the vendors of the Defendant started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of site properties purchased from Gangappa through his GPA Holder Kishore Babu and in this regard, the site holders, including this Plaintif, paid a sum of Rs.2-lakhs each and subsequently, the vendors of the Defendant have executed declaration in favour of this Plaintif, by stating that they have received a sum of Rs.20,000/- each and accordingly, the sale deed executed by H.Gangappa through his GPA Holder is binding on them and it is a valid and correct. Subsequently, the vendors of the Defendant, by filing a Memo before the Court in O.S.No. 976/2003, 7 O.S.No.1479/2016 got the suit dismissed as withdrawn, as it is settled out of Court on 19-1-2005. The Plaintif and other site owners, who have purchased the sites, have already put up construction in their respective purchased properties and they are residing in their purchased properties. The Defendant and their vendors tried to interfere with Plaintif possession and enjoyment of schedule property and the Plaintif filed Caveat Petition before this Court on 6-9-2014 with regard to the schedule property. He has filed suit O.S.No. 8902/2014 seeking relief of Permanent Injunction against the Defendants, their agents, etc and said suit came to be decreed on 6-1-2016. When the Plaintif applied to the Sub-Registrar for removing the name of the Defendant from the Encumbrance Certificate on 20-1-2016, he was informed that unless the sale deed is cancelled, they have no right to remove the entries pertaining to the Defendant's sale deed. Hence, without any alternative, the Plaintif approached this Court and filed this suit.
3) After service of summons, the Defendant appeared and filed his Written Statement denying all the averments made in the plaint as false and submitted that the suit is not maintainable either in 8 O.S.No.1479/2016 law or on facts and the alleged date of cause of action is frivolous, concocted and created. The Plaintif has not made proper party in this suit and hence the suit is not maintainable in view of non-joinder of parties. The present market value is more than Rs.40-lakhs and the Plaintif has valued only Rs.18,55,000/- and hence suit is under valued and computation of value is not proper and court fee is insufficient. Hence suit is liable to be rejected in limine. The alleged Sy.No.42, then 107/1 now 107/1A1 of Mallathahalli, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk is granted land and no sale permission is taken by any party, hence any transaction taken by any party, is null and void. According to the claim of the Plaintif, during pendency of Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, said alleged transaction comes under lis pendency hence, suit is liable to be dismissed in limine and as per the Plaintif's claim, said property is purchased by one Gangappa through GPA Holder Kishore Babu and said survey number belongs to Mylarappa, hence he has acquired by inheritance. Gangappa lived with wife, 2 sons and 3 daughters and constituted a Hindu Joint Family and hence without the consent of family members he had no right to execute any deed in favour of third party and Plaintif has no exclusive 9 O.S.No.1479/2016 right over said property. During the lifetime of Gangappa, he has taken over the possession by Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North and said Gangappa died in the year 1997 and after his death, possession is handed over to the vendor of the Defendant by the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2003-2003 hence the question of executing any document is infructuous. The suit schedule description is diferent from Defendant's property. He admitted partly the averments made in plaint para 11, except that the land restored in favour of H.Gangappa and possession was handed over to H.Gangappa and he formed 249 sites and sold to 249 persons through sale deed and other document from the year 1991 onwards and it is true that after dispose of appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, the L.Rs. of Venkatappa filed appeal/ writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court vide Writ Petition No.4743/1989 which was disposed on 23-9-1993. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the suit.
4) Based on the above pleadings, this Court has framed the following Issues:
10O.S.No.1479/2016
1. Whether the Plaintif proves his title to the suit property?
2. Whether the Plaintif proves that sale deed dated 18-7-2014 executed in favour of Defendant is null and void?
3. Whether the Defendant proves that court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient?
4. Whether the Plaintif is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
5. What Order or Decree?
5) The Power of Attorney Holder of the Plaintif, who is none other than the father of Plaintif, got himself examined as P.W.1 and from his side Exs.P1 to P71 documents were marked and closed his side of evidence.
After closure of the Plaintif's side evidence, Power of Attorney Holder of the Defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and from his side 26 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D26 and closed his side of evidence.
6) Heard Arguments of both learned counsels. Learned Counsel for the Defendant also filed his Written Arguments.
11O.S.No.1479/2016
7) The answers to the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.3 - In the Negative, Issue No.4 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.5 - As per Final Order, for the following:
REASONS
8) Issues No.1 and 2 : As these 2 Issues are interconnected, they are taken together for consideration.
9) The entire burden is on this Plaintif to prove his case and also to prove Issues No.1 and 2. The Plaintif, in order to prove his case got examined his father, based on the Power of Attorney, as PW1. PW1 stepped into the witness box and filed his Affidavit in lieu of oral evidence wherein he reiterated the plaint averments and deposed that the Plaintif is his son and he executed the GPA in his favour to prosecute this case and based on the GPA, he filed this suit and also deposing before this Court. He got produced the GPA executed by plaintif in his favour, marked as Ex.P1.12
O.S.No.1479/2016 He deposed that the Plaintif has purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 19-4-2003 from his vendor for the valuable sale consideration amount and became the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and based on the registered sale deed and possession over the suit property, the Khatha of the suit property mutated in the name of this Plaintif and all the CMC records relating to the suit property are standing in the name of this Plaintif. He deposed that the vendor of the Plaintif purchased the suit property through a GPA dated 19-6-1991 bearing Site No.81 measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet for the valuable sale consideration, under sale deed dated 16-5-1991. He deposed that before the vendor of the Plaintif sold the suit property in favour of the Plaintif, the Khatha of the suit property was standing in the name of the vendor of the Plaintif and all the panchayat records relating to the suit property were standing in his name and he was paying the taxes payable to the suit property and even the betterment charges were paid to the suit property. He deposed that subsequently the suit property was came within the limits of BBMP and thereafter the Plaintif filed an 13 O.S.No.1479/2016 application for change of Khatha in the BBMP records and accordingly, the BBMP has issued the Khatha in the name of this Plaintif on 20-5-2011 and accordingly, the suit property is standing in the name of the Plaintif. He deposed that the Plaintif has also obtained licence from the Corporation for making construction in the suit property after paying necessary fee and accordingly, based on the sanctioned plan and licence, he put up the construction in the suit property. He further deposed that since from the date of purchase of the suit property, the Plaintif is regularly paying taxes payable to the suit property and even the Plaintif has taken the electricity connection to the suit property from the BESCOM authorities and after construction of the suit property, he leased out the suit property in favour of one P.Shankar on a monthly rent. He deposed that the Defendant, based on created and concocted sale deed dated 18-7-2014 executed by Radhamma and Gurushanthamma, has started interfering with the Plaintif's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and in this regard, the Plaintif has lodged a complaint before the Jnanabharathi Police Station. But, however, the police has failed to take any legal action against the 14 O.S.No.1479/2016 Defendant and directed the Plaintif to approach the civil court and accordingly, the Plaintif approached the civil court and filed a suit for the relief of Permanent Injunction in respect of the suit property. He deposed that originally the land bearing Old Sy.No.42 (New Sy.No.107/1, now Sy.No.107/1A1) of Mallathahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring to an extent of 25 guntas was granted in favour of one Mylarappa on 12-4-1955 and out of the said land, Mylarappa sold 10 acres of land under a registered sale deed dated 2-11-1956 in favour of one Venkatappa and subsequently, Mylarappa was died on 15-5-1962. He deposed that after his death, his adopted son, H.Gangappa, after coming into force of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands, 1976 (PTCL Act), along with Smt.Gurushanthamma, filed application before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4 of the said Act and the Assistant Commissioner, by an Order dated 31-12-1983, declared that the sale deed dated 2-11-1956 in favour of Venkatappa is null and void and initiated proceedings to restore the possession of the land in favour of said Gangappa. He deposed that aggrieved by the said Order, the LRs. of Venkatappa preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy 15 O.S.No.1479/2016 Commissioner, wherein the case was remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru, for fresh disposal and accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru, passed an order on 29-1-1988 and held that the sale deed is null and void and accordingly, restored the possession of the alienated property in favour of H.Gangappa. He deposed that said H.Gangappa executed a registered GPA in favour of one Kishore Babu and sold the property under registered document dated 7-5-1990, measuring 10 acres of land. He deposed that the said Kishore Babu has formed a layout in Sy.No.107/1A1 and formed 249 sites and sold the entire 249 sites in favour of purchasers, by executing sale deed and also by executing GPA from the year 1991 onwards. He deposed that after the sale of sites, since the value of the land has been raised in Bengaluru City and in view of some of the neighbouring lands have been acquired for formation of Vishweshwaraiah Layout, the brother of H.Gangappa, i.e., Mallaiah, Gurushanthamma and Radamma had filed a suit in O.S.No.967/2003 against one Ashwathanarayan and also against some of the owners of the sites for seeking declaration and Permanent Injunction and in the said suit, the Defendants of the said suit made appearance and filed 16 O.S.No.1479/2016 their Written Statement by stating that one Kishore Babu, after purchase of 10 acres of land from H.Gangappa, formed a layout under the name of Annapoorneshwari Layout, consisting of 249 sites and sold it to various persons and the purchasers of the sites are in possession of the said properties. He deposed that the suit filed in O.S.No.967/2003, the Court, after hearing arguments of both the sides, dismissed the IA No.1 filed u/O.39 R.1 and 2 of CPC, against which the vendors of the Defendant have also preferred a M.F.A. No.4177/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court and even the said Appeal was came to be dismissed. He deposed that in the meanwhile, the BDA has acquired some of the properties for the formation of Vishweshwaraiah Layout and to this, the Plaintif and other site holders filed objections and requested the BDA to drop the proceedings and accordingly, the BDA authorities, after holding an enquiry in LAC No.282/2003-2004, dropped the proceedings, as per the Notification dated 8-7-2003. He deposed that in the meanwhile, the vendors of the Defendant started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of site properties purchased from Gangappa through his GPA Holder Kishore Babu and in this regard, the site holders, 17 O.S.No.1479/2016 including this Plaintif, paid a sum of Rs.2-lakhs each and subsequently, the vendors of the Defendant have executed declaration in favour of this Plaintif, by sating that they have received a sum of Rs.20,000/- and accordingly, the sale deed executed by H.Gangappa through his GPA Holder is binding on them and it is a valid and correct sale deed. He deposed that subsequently, the vendors of the Defendant, by filing a Memo before the Court in O.S.No. 976/2003, got the suit dismissed as withdrawn, as it is settled out of Court on 19-1-2005. He deposed that the Plaintif and other site owners, who have purchased the sites, have already put up construction in their respective purchased properties and they are residing in their purchased properties. He deposed that the vendors of the Defendant, having no any right, title or authority, much less, after they executed the declarations in favour of this Plaintif and other site owners have executed a frivolous sale deed in favour of this Defendant on 18-7-2014,which is illegal and void document and the same is not binding upon this Plaintif. He deposed that since from the date of purchase of the suit property, the Plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as the absolute owner and except the Plaintif, no other 18 O.S.No.1479/2016 person has got any kind of right, title or interest, much less, possession over the suit property. He deposed that based on the created sale deed, the Defendant has illegally obtained the Khatha of the suit property into his name and immediately after the knowledge of the same, the Plaintif applied before the Sub- Registrar for removal of the name of the Defendant in the Encumbrance Certificate, but however, it was informed that unless the sale deed was cancelled and removed, the entries cannot be taken out from the records. Hence, without any alternative, the Plaintif approached this Court and filed this suit.
10) P.W.1, in order to corroborate his testimony, got produced the Sale Agreement executed by M.Srinivas, S/o. M.Muniswamy, on 6-5-1991, in favour of Smt.S.B.Leela, with respect to Site Nos.81 and 94, formed in Old Sy.No.42 and New No.107/1, measuring to an extent of 40 ft. x 30 ft., marked as per Ex.P2. He got produced the GPA executed by M.S.Kishore Babu, S/o. Meda Srinivas in favour of Smt.S.B.Leela, with respect to the very same site properties on 19-6-1991, wherein he executed these documents after receipt of sale consideration amount and stated that under the GPA he has delivered the 19 O.S.No.1479/2016 vacant possession of the site properties in favour of Smt.S.B.Leela, with an authority to deal with the said properties, marked as per Ex.P3. The Plaintif also got produced the Affidavit executed by M.S.Kishore Babu S/o.Meda Srinivas, wherein he deposed that he has executed the GPA in favour of Smt.S.B.Leela, after receipt of sale consideration amount of Rs.44,000/- to deal with the site Nos.81 and 94 and he has sworn the said Affidavit before the Notary Public, marked as per Ex.P4. P.W.1 got produced the original sale deed executed by Smt.Leela being a GPA Holder of Kishore Babu S/o.Srinivas, in favour of Plaintif on 19-4-2003, with respect to the suit schedule properties, marked as per Ex.P5. He got produced the certified copy of sale deed of Defendant executed by one Smt.Radhamma W/o.late Lingappa on 18-7-2014 with respect to site No.18, marked as per Ex.P6. He got produced Encumbrance Certificates of the suit property standing in the name of Smt.Leela and subsequently in the name of this Plaintif, based on the registered sale deed, marked as per Exs.P7 to P9, respectively. He got produced Khatha Transfer Certificate of the suit property mutated in the name of this Plaintif based on the sale deed along with Assessment Register Extract of this Plaintif, with respect to the suit 20 O.S.No.1479/2016 property and also the Certificate issued by the BBMP standing in the name of this Plaintif, marked as per Exs.P10 to P12, respectively. He got produced Tax Paid Receipts for having paid the taxes payable to the suit property by Smt.Leela before execution of Ex.P2 and subsequently paid by the Plaintif after he purchased the suit property, marked as per Exs.P13 to P27, respectively. He got produced BBMP Approved Plan and Licence, taken by this Plaintif for construction of house in the suit property to prove that the Plaintif, after obtaining sanctioned plan from the concerned authorities, constructed the building in the suit property, marked as per Exs.P28 and P29, respectively. He got produced the copies of the cheques for having paid the amount to the BBMP, marked as per Ex.P30. He got produced the Certificate issued by the BESCOM for having given the electricity connection to the suit property in the name of this Plaintif along with electricity bills, marked as per Exs.P31 to P33, respectively. He got produced the Rent Agreement executed by P.W.1 herein in favour of the tenant- P.Shankar, in respect to the suit property, wherein he leased out the house property constructed in the suit property in favour of the tenant on a monthly rent, marked as per Ex.P34. He got produced receipts 21 O.S.No.1479/2016 issued by the BDA in favour of this Plaintif marked as per Exs.P35 and P36, respectively. P.W.1 also got produced the Deed of Declaration executed by Mallaiah and his family members, including Smt.Gurushanthamma w/o.late Lingappa, who are none other than the vendors of the Defendant, on 11- 3-2005, wherein they have declared that the Plaintif is the owner in possession of the suit property based on the registered sale deed dated 19-4-2003, marked as per Ex.P37. He got produced the copy of endorsement issued by the BBMP in favour of this Plaintif wherein they have sated that they have issued the Plan and Licence to this Plaintif for construction of building in the suit property, marked as per Ex.P38. He got produced the receipt for having paid the water cess to BWSSB, marked as per Ex.P39. He got produced the notice issued by the BDA Authorities marked as per Ex.P40. P.W.1 also got produced the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.2917/2006 filed by one Gangaraju S/o.Bylappa and others in favour of one Mallaiah S/o.H.Hanumaiah, marked as per Exs.P41 and P42, respectively. He got produced the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.8334/2011 filed by one Smt.Susheela G.Hiremath against P.Shivappa and others, marked as 22 O.S.No.1479/2016 per Exs.P43 and P43(a), respectively. He got produced certified copy of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.1674/2012 filed by one KL.Channarayappa against N.Venkateshwara Raju, marked as per Exs.P44 and P44(a), respectively. He got produced certified copy of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.8802/2006 filed by one B.R.Rajeev against L.Kumar and others, marked as per Exs.P45 and P46, respectively. He got produced the Mutation Register Extract, marked as per Ex.P47. He got produced the Orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru, in a case filed by H.Gangappa against Smt.Narasamma and others, marked as per Ex.P48. He got produced the Gazette Paper Publication, marked as per Ex.P49. He got produced the certified copy of the registered G.P.A. executed by H.Gangappa s/o. Late Hanumaiah in favour of Kishore Babu M.S. in respect of entire land bearing Sy.No. 107/1 (Old Sy.No.42) for the development of the land, marked as per Ex.P50. He got produced the certified copy of the Plaint filed in O.S.No.967/2003 filed by H.Mallaiah and others against Aswathanarayana and others, along with certified copy fo the Written Statement filed in the said suit and also certified copy of the Order Sheet of the said case, along with certified copy of the 23 O.S.No.1479/2016 Orders passed in the said suit on the Interim Application filed in said suit, marked as per Exs.P51 to P54, respectively. He got produced the certified copy of the Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in M.F.A.No.4177/2003 filed by the vendors of the Defendant, marked as per Ex.P55. He got produced the Assessment Register Extract of the suit property standing in the name of Smt.S.B.Leela in respect of present suit properties and subsequently in the name of Plaintif, marked as per Exs.P56 and P57, respectively. He got produced Certificates issued by the BBMP in favour of this Plaintif along with receipt for having collected the amount, marked as per Exs.P58 and P59, respectively. He got produced the Tax Paid Receipts, marked as per Exs.P60, P63, P64 to P71, respectively. He got produced the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 8902/2014 filed by the present Plaintif against the Defendant herein with respect to the very same property, marked as per Exs.P61 and P62, respectively.
24O.S.No.1479/2016
11) The Defendant has denied the entire case of the Plaintif and denied the very right, title and interest of the Plaintif over the suit property and also denied the very fact that based on Ex.P5 - sale deed, the Plaintif is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Learned counsel for the Defendant extensively cross-examined the P.W.1. However, the Defendant has admitted the fact that previously the entire land bearing Old Sy.No.42 then 107/1 now 107/1A1 of Mallathahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, was belonging to Mylarappa and the said property was granted in favour of Mylarappa measuring to an extent of 25 acres. It is also admitted fact that Mylarappa during his lifetime, sold 10 acres of land out of 25 acres granted to him in favour of Venkatappa by executing a sale deed dated 2-11-1956. It is also an admitted fact that Mylarappa died issueless. The Defendant even admitted the fact that the adopted son of Mylarappa is Sri.H.Gangappa, after coming into force of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands, 1976, has filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner u/S.4 of the said Act and the Assistant Commissioner, by an Order dated 31-12-1983 restored the possession of the alienated property in 25 O.S.No.1479/2016 favour of H.Gangappa from Venkatappa by holding the sale deed dated 2-11-1956 is null and void. The Defendant even admitted the fact that the legal heirs of Venkatappa challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner and the said Deputy Commissioner remanded back the case before the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal and accordingly, once again, the Assistant Commissioner, by passing an order dated 29-1-1988 held that the sale in favour of Venkatappa is null and void and restored the possession in favour of H.Gangappa.
On the contrary, the Defendant has denied the execution of Exs.P2 to P5 documents in favour of Smt.Leela and subsequently in favour of this Plaintif by Smt.Leela in respect of suit properties. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination even though admitted the suggestion that Smt.Leela is none other than his own wife, however, he has categorically denied the suggestion that his son is engaged in the real estate business and he is purchasing lands and converting the same into non-agricultural purpose and selling the sites by doing real estate business. Even though the learned counsel for the Defendant extensively cross- examine the P.W.1, however, he did not chosen to deny 26 O.S.No.1479/2016 the execution of Ex.P50 by H.Gangaiah in favour of Kishore Babu M.S. on 4-5-1990. The recitals of Ex.P50 document clearly proves that H.Gangaiah s/o. Late Hanumaiah executed the GPA in favour of Kishore Babu M.S., by declaring that he is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.107/1 Old No.42 of Mallathahalli Village and stated that he got the said property through Order of the Assistant Commissioner in LND.SC/ST/10/83-84 dated 29-1-1988 through the Tahsildar Order No.PTCL.29/87-88 and the Khatha is standing in his name and he has given the said property for development and also to form sites and do all the necessary acts in respect of the entire 10 acres of land.
The recitals of Ex.P2 document discloses that M/Srinivas S/o. Muniswamappa, who is none other than the father of Kishore Babu M.S., executed the sale agreement in favour of Smt.Leela on 6-5-1991 in respect of site No.81 and 94 by agreeing to sell the said property for the sale consideration amount of Rs.44,000/- and subsequently M.S.Kishore Babu s/o.M.Srinivas executed the GPA in favour of Smt.S.B.Leela in respect of the very same suit properties on 19-6-1991.
27O.S.No.1479/2016 The recitals of Ex.P4 document clearly proves that said Kishore Babu, by swearing an affidavit before the Notary Public has declared that he had already executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Smt.Leela towards the sale consideration amount of Rs.44,000/- and he, after receipt of the entire sale consideration amount, put the purchaser Smt.S.B.Leela in possession of the alienated property and also executed the GPA in her favour to deal with site Nos.81 and 94 being his Power of Attorney Holder and do all the acts on his behalf.
Even though much has been put to P.W.1 during his cross-examination by denying execution of Ex.P5 document and suggested that Smt.S.B.Leela has no any right or authority to alienate the suit property in favour of her son- Plaintif. On the contrary, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination denied the entire suggestion made to him and stated that Smt.B.S.Leela being a Power of Attorney Holder and having absolute right to deal with the suit property based on Exs.P3 and P4, sold suit property in favour of this Plaintif for valuable sale consideration amount and delivered the vacant possession of the suit property in favour of this Plaintif. The P.W.1, in order to prove that based on 28 O.S.No.1479/2016 Ex.P5, the Plaintif was put in possession of the suit property and in his name the Khatha of the suit property was lawfully mutated, got produced the Khatha Certificate issued by C.M.C.Rajarajeshwari Nagar, wherein it has been clearly stated that the Khatha of the suit property was mutated in the name of Plaintif based on the sale deed and he is in possession of the said property.
P.W.1 also got produced Ex.P11 document before this Court to prove that subsequently the suit property came to the limits of BBMP even the BBMP has recognized the Plaintif as Khathedar of the suit property and collected taxes from this Plaintif and he got produced the Assessment Register Extract standing in the name of this Plaintif along with Khatha Certificate, marked as per Exs.P11 and P12, respectively. Exs.P13 to P27 documents clearly prove that initially Smt.Leela was paying taxes payable to the suit property and subsequently after the Plaintif purchased the suit property, he is paying the taxes payable to the suit property before the concerned authorities and he paid up to date taxes. Apart from these documents, P.W.1 also got produced Exs.P28 and P29 documents to prove that the Plaintif has taken 29 O.S.No.1479/2016 plan and licence from the concerned authorities to put up construction in the suit property and he, based on the approved plan and licence, constructed the house construction in the suit property and subsequently he has let out the suit house property in favour a tenant on a monthly rent, by executing Ex.P34 document. These documents clearly prove that the Plaintif, after purchase of the suit property under Ex.P5, khatha was mutated in his name and he was paying the taxes and subsequently he has taken the approved plan and licence from the proper authorities for putting up construction of the house in the suit property and he has constructed the house and let out the house property in favour of tenant.
The Defendant has not even chosen to deny the testimony of P.W.1 when he categorically deposed that the vendor of the Defendant, H.Mallaiah and others, including Smt.Rathamma and Smt.Gurushanthamma have filed a suit in O.S.No.967/2013 against the purchasers of the site properties formed in Sy.No.107/1A/1 (Old Sy.No.42) for seeking relief of declaration of their title over the entire land measuring to an extent of 10 acres and while the said suit was pending adjudication before the civil court, 30 O.S.No.1479/2016 both Smt.Rathamma and Smt.Gurushanthamma have executed Deed of Declaration in favour of purchasers of the site properties, including in favour of this Plaintif, after receiving consideration amount and he got produced the Deed of Declaration executed by H.Mallaiah, Smt.Gurushanthamma and Smt.Radhamma in favour of this Plaintif, marked as per Ex.P37, wherein they have clearly declared that they, after receipt of a sum of Rs.20,000/- from this Plaintif, released all their rights and even they have clearly admitted and accepted the title of the Plaintif over the suit property and declared that the sale deed standing in the name of this Plaintif dated 19-4-2003 is a proper and correct document and based on the said document, the Plaintif herein is the owner in possession of the suit properties bearing site Nos.81 and 94 and on the said property they have no any kind of right, title or interest.
Apart from these documents, the Plaintif also got produced the certified copy of the Plaint, Written Statement, Order Sheet as well as the Orders passed on the Interim Application filed in the suit O.S.No.967/2003 by H.Mallaiah and others, marked as per Exs.P51 to P54, respectively. Ex.P53-Order Sheet 31 O.S.No.1479/2016 clearly proves that after the Plaintifs of the said suit executed Ex.P37 document in favour of the Plaintif and other site purchasers, got withdrawn the suit filed by them by stating that they have amicably settled the suit out of Court and as such they are not interested to prosecute the case and based on the Memo filed by them, the suit filed by the Plaintifs was came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 19-1-2005 itself.
Learned counsel for the Defendant, even though extensively cross-examined P.W.1, however, he did not chosen to deny the testimony of P.W.1 with respect to filing of suit by his vendors in O.S.No.967/2003 and nor he has denied the testimony of P.W.1 with respect to withdrawal of the said suit by filing a memo before the Court on 19-1-2005. These evidence clearly prove that the vendor of Defendant, who are none other than Smt.Gurushanthamma w/o.Gangappa and Smt. Radhamma w/o.Ningappa, after executing Ex.P37 document in favour of Plaintif by admitting and acknowledging the sale deeds standing in the name of this Plaintif with respect to suit property, got withdrawn the suit filed by them by stating that they have no right over the suit properties bearing site Nos.81 and 94 formed in Sy.No.107/1A1.
32O.S.No.1479/2016 Apart from these documents, the Plaintif also got produced the certified copies of the Judgment and Decrees passed in other civil suits filed by the other site owners of Sy.No.107/1A1 against Mallaiah and others, wherein Smt.Gurushanthamma and Smt.Radhamma were also parties to the said suits and in all the suits the Court, after holding full fledged trial, declared that the site owners have lawfully purchased the sites from the rightful owners and they were exercising their right, title and interest as well as possession over their respective purchased property, which is clearly evident in the Judgments produced before this Court by P.W.1.
Apart from these documents, P.W.1 also got produced the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.8902/2014 filed by the present Plaintif against the Defendant herein with respect to the very same suit property, marked as Exs.D61 and D62, wherein the Civil Court, after holding a full fledged trial, granted an order of Temporary Injunction in favour of the Plaintif by holding that the Plaintif, after purchase of the suit property from Smt.Leela under Ex.P5-sale deed on 19-4-2003, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of 33 O.S.No.1479/2016 the suit property and he has got every right to protect his suit property from unlawful interference from this Defendant. The Defendant has not chosen to produce any documents before the Court to prove that he has challenged the said Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.8902/2014 before the Appellate Court and accordingly, the Appeal is pending against the said Judgment and Decree. Admittedly, no such evidence was placed before the Court from the side of Defendant.
12) On the contrary, the Defendant, in order to prove that he purchased site No.81 from his vendors Smt.Gurushanthamma and Smt.Radhamma, got examined himself as D.W.1. D.W.1 filed the Affidavit in lieu of oral evidence wherein he has denied the entire case of the Plaintif and inter alia, deposed that he is the absolute owner in possession of the property bearing site No.81 of Annapoorneshwarinagar, formed in old Sy.No.42, new Sy.No.107/1A of Mallathahalli Village, measuring to an extent of 40 ft. x 30 ft. wherein he constructed one square A.C.Sheet roofed house after he purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 8-7-2014 and since from the date of purchase of the property he is in 34 O.S.No.1479/2016 possession and enjoyment of the purchased property as an absolute owner. He deposed that based on the sale deed, the Khatha of the said property was allotted in his name and he is regularly paying taxes payable to the said property and he is exercising his possessory and proprietory rights over the said purchased property.
D.W.1 got produced the Orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 29-1-1968 in favour of H.Gangappa, marked as Ex.D1. He got produced the original registered sale deed dated 18-7-2014, marked as Ex.D2. Encumbrance Certificate is marked as Ex.D3. He got produced the Tax Paid Receipts marked as Exs.D4 to D16, respectively. He got produced the Certificate issued by the BBMP, along with Khatha Extract, marked as Exs.D17 and D18, respectively. He got produced Tax Paid Receipt marked as Ex.D19. He got produced the certified copies of the Orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, marked as Exs.D20 and D21, respectively. He got produced certified copies of application filed before the Assistant Commissioner along with order sheet and orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, marked as Exs.D22 to D26 respectively.
35O.S.No.1479/2016
13) D.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly and categorically admitted that after a re-grant order was passed in favour of Mylarappa, he sold 10 acres of land in favour of Venkatappa and restored the possession of 10 acres of land in favour of Gangappa. He admitted the suggestion that as per Ex.D1, 10 acres of land was restored in favour of H.Gangappa. D.W.1 has clearly and categorically admitted the suggestion that in the said 10 acres of land 249 sites have been formed. He admitted the suggestion that subsequently after the suit was filed and after this P.W.1 was lead evidence before this Court on 23-9-2010 he paid the taxes and collected Exs.D12 to D16, Tax Paid Receipts and produced the same before this Court. He admitted the suggestion that all these documents are related to 23-9-2020, after P.W.1 has lead evidence before this Court. Even though he denied the suggestion that he, only with an intention to make a false claim over the suit property, created and concocted the documents marked as Exs.D2 to D18 and produced the same before the Court and making false claim over the suit property. Admittedly, even according to D.W.1, he is claiming his right over the property based on Ex.D2- sale deed said to have been executed by Smt.Gurushanthamma 36 O.S.No.1479/2016 w/o.Gangappa and Smt.Radhamma w/o.Ningappa, on 18-7-2014. By the time Smt.Gurushanthamma and Smt.Radhamma executed Ex.D2 document, they have already executed Ex.D37 document in favour of this Plaintif, wherein both the vendors of the Defendant have clearly and categorically admitted the title and possession over the suit property and admitted the execution of registered sale deed dated 19-4-2003 in favour of this Plaintif by Smt.B.S.Leela. In such being the case, the claim made by D.W.1 that Ex.D37 document is not executed by his vendor and this document is a created and concocted document by this Plaintif, only with an intention to claim a right over the suit property, on the contrary, both Radhamma and Gurushanthamma, being absolute owners of suit site No.81, sold property in his favour by executing Ex.D2 document and the said document is legal and lawfully binding on all the parties, including all the legal heirs of late Gangappa, cannot be accepted and it holds no merit. As I have discussed supra, based on Ex.P5 - sale deed, the Khatha of the suit property was lawfully mutated in the name of this Plaintif in the year 2006 itself and since from the date of purchase of the suit property, all the CMC Records with respect to the suit property are 37 O.S.No.1479/2016 standing in the name of this Plaintif and subsequently, after the suit comes within the limits of BBMP, Khatha of the suit property was entered in the name of this Plaintif, which is clearly evident in Exs.P11 and P12, documents. However, the documents produced by D.W.1 before this Court to prove that he is continuously paying taxes payable to site No.81, as per Exs.D4 to D16 and even the Khatha of site No.81 is standing in the name of this Defendant, which is evident in Exs.D17 and D18 documents and by considering all these facts on record, the suit of the Plaintif has to be dismissed, is not convinced this Court. As I have discussed supra, D.W.1 paid the taxes after the Plaintif has filed this suit and subsequently after the P.W.1 has lead his evidence before this Court. Exs.D4 to D16 documents are relating to 22-9-2020 and all these receipts are of the same date. In such being the case, the testimony of D.W.1 that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property based on Ex.D3 - sale deed, cannot be acceptable and it holds no merit.
38O.S.No.1479/2016
14) On the contrary, the Plaintif, by adducing oral and documentary evidence before this Court has proved that he has lawfully purchased the suit property from the rightful owner for valuable sale consideration amount and since from the date of purchase of the suit property he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as the absolute owner. The arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Plaintif that the Plaintif, by adducing oral and documentary evidence before this Court has proved his title and possession over the suit property based on Ex.P5-sale deed and even he has proved that the original owner of the property, after the Assistant Commissioner of Bengaluru Sub-Division passed Order as per Ex.P48, Sri.Gangappa has executed registered G.P.A. in favour of Kishore Babu by executing Ex.P50 - registered G.P.A. and based on the said G.P.A., said Kishore Babu formed a layout in the 10 acres of land and subsequently he executed a GPA as well as the sale agreement in favour of Smt.Leela and this Plaintif, under Ex.P5-sale deed, lawfully purchased the suit property from the rightful owner for the valuable sale consideration amount and based on his sale deed, the Khatha of the suit property was mutated in his name and he is regularly paying taxes 39 O.S.No.1479/2016 payable to the suit property and he has also taken the plan and licence for the construction of house property in the vacant site and accordingly he has lawfully constructed a house in the suit property and later thereon he let out the suit property in favour of tenant by executing a rent agreement and all these facts and evidence adduced by the Plaintif before the Court clearly prove his title and possession over the suit property, is fully convinced this Court and therefore, it is accepted.
15) However, the Written Arguments filed by the learned counsel for the Defendant that the Plaintif, based on created and concocted documents, approached this Court and filed this suit even though Smt.Leela had no absolute right to execute Ex.P5 document and this Plaintif, being the son of Smt.Leela, colluding with his family members, created and concocted the documents behind the back of the original owner Gangappa and all the documents produced before the Court by Plaintif are created documents, is not convinced this Court and it cannot be acceptable. Likewise, his arguments that the vendor of the Defendants have not executed Ex.P37 - document and the said document is a created and 40 O.S.No.1479/2016 concocted by the Plaintif only with an intention to knock of the valuable property of this Defendant and more over, the Plaintif has not proved the execution of Ex.P37 - document by the executants of the said document as per law and when the document has not been proved, Ex.P37 has no evidentiary value and it cannot be looked into, is not convinced this Court and it cannot be accepted. Likewise, his arguments that Ex.P37 is not a registered document as per Section 17 of the Registration Act and as such, the document has no evidentiary value, more over, the said document is insufficiently stamped document, is also not convinced this Court and it cannot be acceptable. Admittedly, under Ex.P37 document, the vendor of the Defendant are not conveying the title over the property in favour of the Plaintif, however, the recitals of Ex.P37 clearly discloses that the vendors of the Defendant, by admitting and accepting the sale deed standing in the name of this Plaintif, executed by Smt.Leela and also by admitting that the Plaintif is the lawful owner of the suit property, executed the said document and in such being the case, the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Defendant that Ex.P37 document has no evidentiary value, as it is not a registered document, cannot be acceptable and it 41 O.S.No.1479/2016 holds no merit. Likewise, his arguments that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, as the Plaintif has not impleaded the vendors of the Defendant in this suit and as such, the suit has to be dismissed as it is not maintainable, is also not convinced this Court. Likewise, his arguments that the Plaintif, without there being any party to the proceedings with respect to Exs.P51 to P54 document, filed the said documents before this Court and as such the said documents have no evidentiary value and it cannot be looked into, is also not convinced this Court. The Plaintif has produced those documents to prove that the other site owners who have purchased the sites from Kishore Babu, have also filed similar types of suits with respect to their purchased site properties and the Civil Court, by admitting and accepting their title and possession over their respective purchased property based on the sale deeds, decreed the suit in favour of those site owners. In such being the case, the arguments canvassed by the Defendant cannot be acceptable and it holds no merit.
Likewise, the Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Defendant in support of his arguments :
42O.S.No.1479/2016
1) 2010 AIR SCW 6198 in Man Kaur (deceased by LRs. vs. Hartar Singh Sangha,
2) AIR 2019 SC 5374 and AIR Online 2019 SC 1191 in Shiv Kumar and another vs. Union of India and Ors.,
3) 2018(1) KAR LR 176 SC in Vivek M.Hinduja and others Vs. M.Ashwath and others,
4) 2018(1) KAR LR 1 SC in Chhedi Lal Yadav and others vs. Hari Kishore Yadav,
5) 2018(1) KAR LR 5 SC in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another,
6) Narayanaswamy vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1992 Knt. 28(DB),
7) P.G.I. of M.E. and Research vs. Raj Kumar (2001 AIR SCW 77),
8) Gangadhar vs. State of Orissa (AIR 2002 SC 3633),
9) Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2003 SC 511),
10) Gangadhar Behera vs. State of Orissa (AIR 2002 SC 3633),
11) Union of India vs. Amrit Lal Manchanda (AIR 2004 SC 1625),
12) Ashwin Kumar Singh vs. U.P.Public Service Commission (AIR 2003 SC 2661),
13) (2019) 10 SCC 259 Prahlad Pradhan & Ors. vs. Sonu Kumhar & Ors.,
14) Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and another Special Leave Petition (C) No.13917 of 2009, 43 O.S.No.1479/2016 are in no way helpful to the defence taken by the Defendant and more over, they are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand.
The Written Arguments filed by the learned counsel for the Defendant is not convinced this Court and it cannot be acceptable. However, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintif before this Court are fully corroborating with each other and convinced this Court about the case of the Plaintif. Hence, by taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, I have answered Issues No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
16) Issue No. 3 : The Defendant has taken up the defence that the Plaintif has not properly valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and even the court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient and inadequate and even on this ground the suit of the Plaintif has to be dismissed. However, the Plaintif, along with the plaint, has furnished the valuation slip by valuing the suit for the purpose of court fee as well as for jurisdiction. The Plaintif, by taking into consideration of the market value of the suit property, as on the date of filing of the suit amounting to Rs.18,55,000/- valued the suit u/S.24(b) of the K.C.F. & 44 O.S.No.1479/2016 S.V. Act and accordingly paid the court fee of Rs.1,03,200/-. The sale deed produced by the Plaintif before the Court discloses that he purchased the suit property for sale consideration amount of Rs.1,12,000/- on 19-4-2003 under Ex.P5 document. On the contrary, the Defendant has not produced any document before this Court to prove that the market value shown by the Plaintif in the valuation slip is incorrect or he has intentionally shown the lesser amount. Admittedly no document is produced by the Defendant before the Court to prove the exact market value of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. Moreover, the Defendant, except taking this defence in his Written Statement, during the stage of trial has not chosen to prove this Issue by adducing convincing evidence before the Court. There is no evidence from the side of this Defendant with respect to this Issue. On the contrary, the valuation made by the Plaintif for the purpose of court fee is fully convinced this Court and therefore it is accepted. The court fee paid by the Plaintif for the relief sought by him is sufficient and adequate. Therefore, I answer this Issue in the Negative.
45
O.S.No.1479/2016
17) Issue No. 4 : The Plaintif, while
answering Issues No.1 and 2 has proved that he is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit based on Ex.P5 document and he purchased the suit property from the rightful owner for valuable sale consideration amount and since from the date of purchase of the suit property from the year 2003, he is exercising his possessory and proprietory right over the suit property. Likewise, the Plaintif, while answering Issues No.1 and 2 has proved that the vendors of the Defendant, after the Plaintif has purchased the suit property in the year 2003 itself, having no right, title or interest, much less possession over the site No.81, sold the very same property in favour of the Defendant on 18-7-2014 by executing a registered sale deed and the said sale deed is null and void and the same is not binding upon him. This Court has already answered Issues No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative in favour of this Plaintif. In such being the case, the Plaintif is entitled for the relief as sought by him in the plaint. Hence, I answer this Issue in the Affirmative.
46O.S.No.1479/2016
18) Issue No.5 : For the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintif is Decreed with cost, by declaring that the Plaintif is the absolute owner of the suit property.
Further, it is ordered and declared that the sale deed executed by Sri.Mallaiah, Smt.Gurushanthamma and Smt.Radhamma in favour of this Defendant on 18-7-2014 in respect of suit site No.81, is null and void and accordingly, it is cancelled. Send the copy of this Judgment to the concerned Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru, to cancel the sale deed dated 18-7-2014 and to make an entry in the concerned Register.
Office to draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 26th day of August, 2021.) (ISHRATH JAHAN ARA) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.47
O.S.No.1479/2016 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Plaintif :
P.W.1 - K.M.Chandrashekar List of witnesses examined for the Defendant:
D.W.1 - M.Rajan List of documents exhibited for the Plaintif :
Ex.P1 - GPA executed by plaintif in favour of P.W.1. Ex.P2 - Agreement of sale Ex.P3 - GPA Ex.P4 - Affidavit Ex.P5 - Registered Sale Deed Ex.P6 - Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.7.2014 Exs.P7 to P9 - Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P10 - Endorsement given by the Corporation, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Ex.P11 - Khatha Extract Ex.P12 - Khatha Certificate Exs.P13 to P16 - Tax Paid Receipts Exs.P17 to P27 - Self Assessment Tax Paid Challans and BBMP Tax Paid Receipts Ex.P28 - Approved Plan Ex.P29 - BBMP Receipt Ex.P30 - copies of Demand Draft collectively Ex.P30 to P33 - BESCOM Memo, BESCOM Bills Ex.P34 - Rent Agreement Exs.P35 & P36 - Acknowledgments issued by BDA Ex.P37 - Deed of Declaration Ex.P38 - BBMP Letter 48 O.S.No.1479/2016 Ex.P39 - BWSSB Acknowledgment Ex.P40 - Letter of BDA Exs.P41 & P42 - Certified Copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.2917/2006 Exs.P43 & P43(a)- Certified Copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.8334/2011 Exs.P44 & P44(a) - Certified Copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1674/2012 Exs.P44 & P46 - Certified Copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.8801/2006 Ex.P47 - Mutation Register Extract Ex.P48 - Certified Copy of Order of Assistant Commissioner Ex.P49 - Copy of Karnataka Government Gazette dated 10.9.2003 Ex.P50 - Certified Copy of GPA Exs.P51 to P54 - certified copies of Plaint, Written Statement, Order Sheet and Orders on IA in O.S.No.967/2003 Ex.P55 - Certified Copy of Order of Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.4177/2003 Ex.P56 - House List Extract of Pattanagere Exs.P57 & P58 -BBMP Khatha Extract and BBMP Khatha Certificate Ex.P59 - Betterment charges paid receipt Ex.P60 - BBMP tax paid receipt Exs.P61 & P62 - Certified Copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.8902/2014 Ex.P63 - BBMP Tax Paid Challan Ex.P64 - Tax Paid Receipt Exs.P65 to P69 - BESCOM Bills and Bengaluru-I Receipt Exs.P70 & P71 - Payment Vouchers of small shop 49 O.S.No.1479/2016 List of documents exhibited for the Defendant:
Ex.D1 - Certified copy of Order of Assistant Commissioner dated 29.1.1968 Ex.D2 - Original Registered Sale Deed dated 18.7.2014 Ex.D3 - Encumbrance certificate Exs.D4 to D16 -13 Tax Paid Receipts Ex.D17 - Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.D18 - Certified Copy of BBMP Khatha Extract Ex.D19 - Receipt issued by Revenue Department Exs.D20 & D21 - certified copies of Orders issued by The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North, in KSC & ST Petition No.07/2020 and Order Sheet Ex.D22 - Certified copy of KSC & ST Petition No.19/2019-20 Ex.D23 - Certified copy of KSC & ST Petition No.21/2019-20 Exs.D24 & D25 - certified copy of Order Sheet of PTCL/BNT/21/2019 AND PTCL/BNT/18/2019 Ex.D26 -Certified copy of KSC & SC Petition No.18/2019-2020 (ISHRATH JAHAN ARA) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.