Bangalore District Court
Sri.Balachandra vs Smt.Rajeshwari on 19 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.44), AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI.SHUBHAVEER B. B.Com. LL.B.,
XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
O.S.No.2863/2005
Plaintiff- Sri.Balachandra,
s/o. Late Venkateshappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at.Babusapalya,
Kalyananagara post,
Bengaluru - 560043.
(By Sri.V.Nagareddy-
advocate)
-VS-
Defendants- 1. Smt.Rajeshwari,
w/o. Late Narasimhamurthy,
aged about 43 years,
r/at. No.64, "Pooja",
1 st cross, 3 rd stage,
HAL Indirangar,
Bengaluru -560036.
2. Smt.G.Anusuyamma,
w/o. Late V.Gangadhara,
2 O.S.No.2863/2005
aged about 62 years,
r/at.No.274/128, Ashraya,
13 th Main, HAL 2 nd stage,
Bengaluru-38.
3. Smt.G.Shanthamma,
(Since dead by her L.R)
3(a)Sri.G.Basavaraj,
s/o. Late Tirukappa,
aged about 65 years,
residing at # 19,
Sadananda Nilaya,
1 st main, 1 st cross, 3 rd stage,
5 th phase, Banashankari
Bengaluru -85.
4. Smt.T.N.Bhagya,
w/o. T.C.Nagaraj,
d/o. Smt.G.Anasuyamma,
aged about 53 years,
R/at.No.274/128,
'Ashraya', 13 th main,
HAL 2 nd Stage,
Bengaluru -560008.
5. Sri.P.Jayaraj,
s/o. Late Poojappa,
aged about 57 years,
R/at.No.107-108,
Gopi Nivas, 1 st cross,
Nanjappa Garden,Babusapalya,
Kalyan Nagar post,
Bengaluru -560043.
3 O.S.No.2863/2005
6. Sri.R.Srinivasan,
s/o. Late G.V.Rangarao,
aged about 50 years,
R/at.No.15, 19 th cross,
Near Kashi Mutt,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru -55.
7. Smt.Meera Chandran,
w/o. Chandra,
aged about 40 years,
No.4 Babusapalya,
K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
(D1,D2,D3(a),D34 and D5- by
Sri.K.Seenappa - advocate,
D6 & D7- Absent)
Date of Institution of the suit : 11.04.2005
Nature of the suit : Declaration &
injunction
Date of commencement of
recording of the evidence : 11.02.2010
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced : 19.10.2020
Total Duration Years Months Days
: 15 06 08
(SHUBHAVEER B.)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge ,
Bengaluru
4 O.S.No.2863/2005
J U D G M E N T
The above suit is filed, initially, against the 1 st defendant only, for declaration and permanent injunction.
2. Defendants 2 to 5 got themselves impleaded in this suit.
3. The plaintiff got impleaded defendant No.s 6 and 7.
4. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that one late Ramaswamy @ Ramaswamy Reddy had 3 sons, namely- (1) Ramakrishna Reddy, who is alive; (2) Hemanjana Reddy, who died issueless and whose wife is Hanumakka and (3) Anjana Reddy, who died and whose wife was Lakshmamma, who also died and their son, namely-Ramaswamy Reddy. They constituted a joint Hindu family. The said joint Hindu family owned agricultural land, measuring 6 acres 13 guntas, in suit Sy.No.58, situating at Chelkere village, among other 5 O.S.No.2863/2005 items. Since Ramakrishna Reddy was the eldest male member of the joint family, he was managing the affairs of the joint family properties and accordingly, his name was entered into in the revenue records. All the said members of the joint family had equal rights and shares in the co-parcenary properties.
5. It is further alleged that the said Hanumakka filed O.S.No.956/1988, for partition, against the said Ramakrishna Reddy, Lakshmamma and her son- Ramaswamy Reddy. In the said partition suit, a compromise petition was filed and later a compromise decree was passed. As per the compromise petition, an extent of 3 acres 15 guntas of land in suit Sy.No.58, out of total extent of 6 acres 13 guntas, was allotted to the share of Hanumakka. The said Hanumakka leased out the said 3 acres 15 guntas of land in the suit Sy.No.58, in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy, who filed declaration for 6 O.S.No.2863/2005 granting occupancy right in respect of the said 3 acres 15 guntas and the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy patta in favour of said Kamalanabha Reddy in respect of 3 acres 15 guntas, in the suit Sy.No.58, on 17.12.1993.
6. It is further alleged that as per the said compromise petition, an extent of 2 acres 8 guntas of land, in the said suit Sy.No.58, out of total extent of 6 acres 13 guntas, was allotted to the share of Ramakrishna Reddy and an extent of 30 guntas in the said Sy.No.58, out of total extent of 6 acres 13 guntas, was jointly allotted in favour of Lakshmamma and her son- Ramaswamy Reddy.
7. It is further alleged that the said Ramaswamy Reddy and his mother-Lakshmamma obtained mutation and Khatha in their names in respect of the said 30 guntas of land. The said Ramaswamy Reddy and his mother were put in possession of said 30 guntas of suit 7 O.S.No.2863/2005 Sy.No.58, which fell to their absolute exclusive share as per compromise decree.
8. It is further alleged that the said Ramaswamy Reddy and his mother/Lakshmamma jointly executed an agreement for sale, in respect of one acre of land, in suit Sy.No.58, in favour of plaintiff herein. The plaintiff herein, filed O.S.No.2639/1994, claiming the relief of specific performance of the said agreement for sale, against the said Ramaswamy Reddy. A compromise was entered into in the said O.S.No.2639/1994 and accordingly, a compromise decree was passed on 09.05.1994. Thereafter, the said Ramaswamy Reddy and his mother/Lakshmamma sold the suit schedule property, i.e., 30 guntas of agricultural land, in suit Sy.No.58, in favour of the plaintiff, as per registered sale deed, dated 21.09.2000 and possession of the same was also delivered to the plaintiff. The said Ramakrishna Reddy has also 8 O.S.No.2863/2005 signed the said registered sale deed, dated 21.09.2000, as a consenting witness. Afterwards, the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit schedule property, exercising absolute ownership.
9. After the said purchase, the plaintiff approached the revenue department for obtaining mutation, or Khatha, in respect of the suit schedule property, in his name. The 1 st defendant opposed the same and the revenue department(Tahasildar, A.C. and D.C.) rejected the said application, filed by the plaintiff illegally. In the said revenue proceedings, the 1 st defendant raised a cloud and started questioning the title of the plaintiff over the suit property.
10. It is further alleged that the plaintiff filed necessary application before the court for obtaining copy of the final decree, in pursuance of the compromise decree, passed in O.S.No.956/1988. The said final decree 9 O.S.No.2863/2005 proceedings are stalled and no progress has been made. Of late, the 1 st defendant for no reason, since 8 th and 9 th of April, 2005, is attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, by questioning the plaintiff's title, in an illegal and high handed manner.
11. It is further alleged that the cause of action for suit arose when the plaintiff's request for mutation was rejected by the Special Tahasildar, in the light of objections raised by defendants and when the Spl.D.C. rejected the revision petition, by passing an order, on 11.02.2004 and on 8 th and 9 th April, 2005 when the 1 st defendant persisted in her illegal, high handed attempts in interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence the plaintiff prays for a Judgment & decree against the defendant (1st defendant) for the following reliefs- 10 O.S.No.2863/2005
a) to declare that the plaintiff is the sole, absolute, exclusive owner of the suit schedule property, namely-30 guntas of land, in Sy.No.58 of Chelekere village.
b) to grant permanent injunction, restraining the defendant (1 st defendant), claiming through, or under her, her agents and workmen and henchmen from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by putting up construction and structures over the same, thereby restraining the defendant (1 st defendant) from interfering with the suit schedule property, in any other manner, whatsoever.
12. The defendants No.1,4 and 5 in their separate written statements, except admitting the relationship among Ramakrishna Reddy, Hanumakka, Lakshmamma and her son-Ramaswamy Reddy; extent of 6 acres 13 guntas of land, in suit schedule survey No.58 belonging 11 O.S.No.2863/2005 to the family of Ramakrishna Reddy; filing of O.S.No.856/1988, which was ended in compromise; grant of occupancy patta, in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy by Land Tribunal, on 17.12.1993 as well as the vendors of the plaintiff filing application for drawing final decree, in O.S.No.956/1988; denied all other allegations made in the plaint, except the boundaries of the suit schedule property.
13. They contend that the plaintiff has not acquired any right, nor interest, whatsoever, over the suit schedule property, nor his alleged vendors had any right to alienate the suit schedule property, in favour of the plaintiff. What was owned and possessed by Hanumakka, Lakshmamma and her son-Ramaswamy Reddy; in suit schedule survey No.58, through whom the plaintiff is claiming, they conceded the tenancy in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy, who was a tenant under them. 12 O.S.No.2863/2005 What was granted in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy was not exclusively belonged to the share of Hanumakka in suit schedule survey No.58, measuring 2 acres 38 guntas and not 2 acres 8 guntas, as alleged by the plaintiff. What was alleged to have been allotted in the compromise petition is not acted upon and what was allotted in favour of Hanumakka and Lakshmamma was in possession of the tenant/Kamalanabha Reddy, which was leased out to him by Lakshmamma and Hanumakka. The remaining 2 acres 38 guntas was and is in possession of Ramakrishna Reddy and his name was mutated in revenue records, vide M.R.No.8 & 9/1993-94 and the said mutation was not challenged by anybody. Under the said mutation proceedings, the entire extent of land was mutated in the name of Kamalanabha Reddy and Ramakrishna Reddy. When such being the case, the transfer of Khatha, in favour of Lakshmamma and her 13 O.S.No.2863/2005 son-Ramaswamy Reddy in M.R.No.11/1997-98 to an extent of 30 guntas, in suit schedule survey No.58, does not hold any water.
14. It is further contended when the plaintiff's vendor's had no right, nor derived any right, or possession of any extent in suit schedule survey No.58, they could not have alienated, or delivered any portion of land, in Sy.No.58, in favour of the plaintiff. The revenue authorities rightly rejected the application for mutation, filed by the plaintiff, since the Hon'ble High Court also dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the plaintiff, on the ground that Ramaswamy Reddy had not derived any right, based on the compromise entered before the Civil Court.
15. They further contend that the vendors of the plaintiff-Lakshmamma and Hanumakka, categorically gave statement before the Land Tribunal that they leased to an 14 O.S.No.2863/2005 extent of 3 acres 15 guntas of land, in suit schedule survey No.58, in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy and remaining 2 acres 38 guntas of land, in suit schedule survey No.58, was and is in exclusively possession of Ramakrishna Reddy and they had no objection to grant occupancy rights in respect of land owned by them, in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy and they had no right whatsoever over 2 acres 38 guntas, in suit schedule survey No.58, which was in possession of Ramakrishna Reddy. Based on the said statements, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right to an extent of 3 acres 15 guntas, in suit Sy.No.58, which was owned and possessed by Lakshmamma and Hanumakka, in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy and remaining 2 acres 38 guntas was in possession of Ramakrishna Reddy. The order of Land tribunal was subsequent to the compromise entered into on the file of City Civil Court and all the family members 15 O.S.No.2863/2005 were parties to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Pursuant to the compromise entered into in O.S.No.856/1988, a final decree proceedings was not drawn. However, pursuant to the order of Land Tribunal, the Khatha was also transferred in the name of Kamalanabha Reddy, to an extent of 3 acres 15 guntas of land, in suit schedule survey No.58 and the remaining extent of 2 acres 38 guntas, in the said survey number, in the name of Ramakrishna Reddy. The said mutation proceedings have not been challenged. Pursuant to the order of Land Tribunal, Ramakrishna Reddy has got absolute right to an extent of 2 acres 38 guntas, in Sy.No.58 and the remaining land to an extent of 3 acres 15 guntas, exclusively belongs to Kamalanabha Reddy.
16. It is further contended that the said Ramakrishna Reddy, along with his family members, executed agreement, dated 23.05.1994, to an extent of 30 16 O.S.No.2863/2005 guntas, now claimed by the plaintiff, in favour of Janardhan and to the said agreement the vendors of the plaintiff, namely-Lakshmamma and her son-Ramaswamy Reddy, were also the parties.
17. It is further contended that pursuant to the said agreement for sale, dated 23.05.1994, they also executed an affidavit, coupled with GPA, in favour of Janardhan, for which Lakshmamma and her son- Ramaswamy Reddy, were the consenting witnesses. Based the said documents, Janardhan formed a layout in respect of 30 guntas of land in suit schedule survey No.58, in the form of revenue sites, though Khatha was standing in the name of Ramakrishna Reddy. Taking advantage of this situation, based on the compromise entered into in Civil court on 20.08.1993, Lakshmamma, fraudulently, got transferred the Khatha to an extent of 30 guntas, in respect of suit schedule property, created the sale deed, 17 O.S.No.2863/2005 in favour of the plaintiff. Based on the said sale deed, the plaintiff filed application for transfer of Khatha and the revenue authorities rightly rejected the same.
18. They further contend that the said Janardhan, as power of attorney holder, has sold 10 sites, formed in suit schedule survey No.58, in favour of 3 rd parties. Site No.1 was sold in favour of Smt.Anusuyamma/defendant No.2, as per registered sale deed, dated 19.08.1994. Site No.2 was sold in favour of Dr.Krishnamurthy. Site No.3 was sold in favour of Srinivasan/defendant No.6. Site No.4 was sold in favour of Smt.Meera Chandran/defendant No.7. Site Nos.5 and 6 were sold in favour of Smt.Shantamma/defendant No.3. The vendors of the plaintiffs were the consenting witnesses in respect of the said sale deeds.
19. It is further contended that Ramakrishna Reddy and his family members, with the consent of Ramaswamy 18 O.S.No.2863/2005 Reddy and Lakshmamma, executed a registered GPA, and affidavit, dated 25.03.1994, to one Srinivasa Kudupi to alienate site Nos.7 and 8, formed in suit schedule survey No.58. The said two sites were formed in the suit schedule property.
20. It is further contended that Srinivasa Kudupi, as power of attorney holder coupled with the affidavit, sold site Nos.8,9 and 10, in favour of the husband of the 1 st defendant/Krishnamurthy, as per registered sale deeds, dated 20.05.1994 and 25.03.1994. Pursuant to the said sale deeds, the husband of the 1 st defendant and after his death, the 1 st defendant and her children were/are in possession of the same.
21. In the suit filed by Lakshmamma, in O.S.No.6795/1996, the said Lakshammma admitted that she had no right whatsoever, in suit schedule survey No.58 and what was owned by her, she gave up her 19 O.S.No.2863/2005 right, in favour of tenant-Kamalanabha Reddy and suit schedule property was exclusively belonging to Ramakrishna Reddy. The 1 st defendant is in possession of the portion of suit schedule property by putting up compound. Without seeking possession, the suit for declaration is not maintainable. The suit schedule property has lost its agricultural character long back. The suit schedule property was proposed for acquisition by BDA, in the year 2002 and the 1 st defendant and other purchasers, on their own right, filed detailed objections to BDA and BDA dropped the said acquisition proceedings. The court fee paid is not sufficient. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
22. The defendant No.2 has not filed written statement.
23. The defendant No.3 in her written statement, adopted the written statement of defendant No.1(as 20 O.S.No.2863/2005 contended in para-2 of written statement) without denying the boundaries of suit schedule property and she has contended the very same contentions taken by defendant No.1 in her written statement and prays for dismissal of the suit.
24. Defendant No.3(a), in his written statement, adopted the written statement filed by the defendants No.1,3,4 and 5. It is further contended that the mother of defendant No.3(a), executed a registered will, dated 11.09.2006, in favour of defendant No.3(a). After the death of mother of defendant No.3(a), the defendant No.3(a), was and is in possession of site Nos.5 to 7 and Khatha in respect of the same has been transferred in his name. Defendant No.3(a) executed a registered gift deed, in favour of his son on 03.09.2010, in respect of site No.5. Pursuant to the said gift deed, the son of the defendant No.3(a) was/is in possession of said site. 21 O.S.No.2863/2005 The defendant No.3(a) is in possession of portion of suit schedule property by putting up compound. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
25. From the pleadings the following issues and addl. issues are framed-
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of suit property as an absolute owner?
2. Whether plaintiff proves the defendant is illegally interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
3. Whether defendant proves that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
4. Struck-off
5. Whether the court fee paid is not proper?
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
7. What order, or decree?
Addl. Issues framed on 17.6.2013 (1) Struck-off (2) Struck-off 22 O.S.No.2863/2005 Addl.issue framed on 05.03.2015 (1) Struck- off
26. On behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1, who deposes in accordance with the allegations made in the plaint. Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 are marked. Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 are marked in the evidence of P.W.1.
27. The power of attorney holder of defendant No.1/Chethan is examined as D.W.1, who deposes in accordance with the contentions taken by the defendant No.1 in her written statement. Ex.D27 to Ex.D37 are marked.
28. The defendant No.3(a)/Basavaraj is examined as D.W.2, who deposes in accordance with the contentions taken by defendant Nos.3 and 3(a) in their written statements.
23 O.S.No.2863/2005
29. Defendant No.5 is examined as D.W.3, who deposes in accordance with the contentions taken by him, in his written statement. Ex.D16 to Ex.D26 are marked.
30. The husband/power of attorney holder of defendant No.4/T.C.Nagaraj is examined as D.W.4, who deposes in accordance with the contentions taken by the defendant No.4, in her written statement. Ex.D37(a) to Ex.D53 are marked. Arguments heard.
31. The answers to the above issues are-
Issue No.1 In the positive
Issue No.2 In the positive
Issue No.3 In the Negative
Issue No.4 Struck-off
Issue No.5 In the negative
Issue No.6 & 7 As per the final order, for the
following-
REASONS
32. Issue No.1 - From the cause title and written
statements, it is clear that the defendants are not the 24 O.S.No.2863/2005 persons under disability. Defendants 1 to 5 in their written statements, have not denied the boundaries of the suit schedule property specifically. Hence as per O 8 R 5 of CPC, the defendants have admitted the boundaries of the suit schedule property. Admitted facts need not be proved, as per Sec.58 of Evidence Act.
33. Further, as discussed below, some of the witnesses of the defendants have admitted the boundaries of the suit schedule property, in their cross-examination.
34. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 has deposed in accordance with the allegations made in the plaint. P.W.1, in his cross-examination, in page-24, para-78, even though has admitted that except the sale deed, Ex.P3, he has no other documents to show that he has been in possession of suit schedule property, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to discard his evidence.
25 O.S.No.2863/2005
35. To corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, he has produced Ex.P1- certified copy of the plaint, in O.S.No.956/1988, which was filed by Hanumakka, against Ramakrishna Reddy, Lakshmamma and her son - Ramaswamy Reddy; for partition, including the property, bearing suit schedule survey No.58, measuring 6 acres 13 guntas.
36. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the compromise petition, dated 20.08.1993, filed in O.S.No.956/1988, wherein, in para-3 it is clearly averred-
" that the parties hereby declare that the land shown in item Nos.2 and 3 of schedule-A to this petition are tenanted having been leased by the plaintiff/Hanumakka and the 2 nd defendant/Lakshmamma, in favour of one Kamalanabha Reddy, while tenancy claim is still pending before the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk, in L.R.F.No.684/2842 and 2845/75-76. The plaintiff/ Hanumakka 26 O.S.No.2863/2005 herein will be entitled to claim compensation in respect of the aid tenanted lands ."
37. It is further averred in para-4-
" The parties hereto are put in possession of their respective shares of the properties specified in schedule-'A', 'B' and 'C', except the above said tenanted lands. They are entitled to hold and enjoy their respective shares of the properties in any manner, beneficial to them and to get their names registered as khatedars in the revenue records/records of village panchayath ."
38. In page-3 it is also averred-
" Wherefore, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 pray that the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to record the terms of the settlement as stated supra and decree the suit accordingly and draw a final decree, in terms of the above compromise petition ."
39. Further, in page-4 (para-2), with regard to share of Hanumakka, it is averred-
27 O.S.No.2863/2005
" An extent of 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy.No.58 of Chelkere village, out of the total extent of 6 acres 13 guntas, is allotted to the share of Hanumakka which is bounded on the East by- Ramakrishna Reddy's portion of land in the same Survey number, West by- land bearing Sy.No.59, claimed by Nagareddy family and road and North by- Dodda Veerappa's land and South by- 30ft. wide road and thereafter, portion of Sy.No.58, fallen to the share of Ramaswamy Reddy and Lakshmamma ."
40. In page-4, schedule-B, with regard to share of Ramakrishna Reddy, it is shown-
" An extent of 2 acres 8 guntas, in Sy.No.58 of Chelkere village, out of the total extent of 6 acres 13 guntas is allotted to the share of Ramakrishna Reddy; which is bounded on the East by - Srinivasa Reddy's property and Mallappa Reddy's property, West by - Hanumakka's share of 3 acres 15 guntas 28 O.S.No.2863/2005 in the above Sy.No., 30 feet wide road leading from village road and thereafter, Lakshmamma's share of 30 guntas in the above Survey number; North - by Doddaveerappa's property and South by- Maistry Venkateshappa's land ."
41. Further, in page-6 in schedule-'C' (1), with regard to joint share of Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy, it is averred-
" an extent of 30 guntas in Sy.No.58, Chelkere village, out of the total extent of 6 acres 13 guntas allotted to the share of Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy and the said extent is bounded on the East - by portion of land allotted to the share of Ramakrishna Reddy; West - by road; and well; North by 30 feet wide road left for the common use of all the parties and South by Channel , (i.e., suit schedule property).29 O.S.No.2863/2005
42. Ex.P9, certified copy of the order sheet, dated 21.08.1993, in O.S.No.956/1988, shows-
" The plaintiff and the defendants have filed compromise petition, u/O 23 R 3 of CPC and
-------(illegible) in the presence of their advocates. The same is accepted. The suit is decreed in terms of the compromise petition. Final decree shall be drawn up in terms of the compromise petition . Refund half of the court fee ."
43. To corroborate Ex.P2 and Ex.P9, Ex.P2(a), the sketch annexed to Ex.P2/compromise petition was filed in O.S.No.956/1988. In this case, final decree has not been engrossed on stamp paper and on behalf of the defendants, AIR 1995 SC 1211, (Shankar Balwant Lokhande (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande and another), is relied. The parties in O.S.No.956/1988 are not the parties in the present suit. 30 O.S.No.2863/2005 Further, admittedly, the suit schedule survey No.58, along with other properties, were owned by the joint family of Ramakrishna Reddy, Hanumakka, Lakshmamma and her son-Ramaswamy Reddy. In that event, the predecessors- in-title of the plaintiff, namely- Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy, had already undivided right over the suit Sy.No.58 and as per Ex.P2 Ex.P2(a) and Ex.P9, suit schedule survey No.58 was partitioned and possession, with specific boundaries, were delivered, to (1) Ramakrishna Reddy, (2) Hanumakka, (3) Lakshmamma and her son-Ramaswamy Reddy. Hence with due respect to the said ruling, the same is not applicable to the present set of facts, even though final decree is not engrossed on the stamp paper.
44. Further, Ex.P3, original registered sale deed, dated 21.09.2000, shows that Lakshmamma, Ramaswamy Reddy and his children; sold the suit schedule property, 31 O.S.No.2863/2005 in favour of the plaintiff and even possession of the same was delivered to the plaintiff.
45. Ex.P6, P7 and P8 are a single RTC based on mutation register/Ex.P.4. Ex.P4, M.R.No.11/97-98, shows mutation was effected in respect of 30 guntas of land in suit schedule survey No.58, in the names of Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy, as per decree passed in O.S.No.956/1988 also and as per the order passed, in L.R.F.No.684/2842/2845/75-76, by the Land Tribunal. However, as per the order, passed by Land Tribunal, in L.R.F.No.684/2842/2845/75-76, dated 17.12.1993, even though some facts are discussed with regard to leasing out of portion of suit schedule survey No.58, measuring 4 acres 13 guntas by Lakshmamma and Hanumakka, in 1966-67, as per lease agreement; in Ex.D38, certified copy of the lease deed, dated 17.06.1967, executed by Lakshmamma and Hanumakka, in 32 O.S.No.2863/2005 favour of Kamalanabha Reddy; no portion of suit schedule survey No.58 was leased out by Lakshmamma and Hanumakka, in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy. Further, the operative portion of the said Ex.P10/Order of Land Tribunal, it is only ordered that occupancy patta, in respect of 3 acres 15 guntas in suit schedule survey No.58 and another property in another Survey number, was granted in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy. The said operative portion in the said order of Land Tribunal does not say, or show, grant of occupancy patta, in respect of other portion of suit schedule survey No.58 to either Ramakrishna Reddy, or Hanumakka, or, Lakshmamma and her son-Ramaswamy Reddy.
46. Even though, on behalf of the defendants, Ex.D39, deposition given by Ramakrishna Reddy; Ex.D40, deposition of Hanumakka and Ex.D41, deposition of Lakshmamma in the said L.R.F before the Land Tribunal, 33 O.S.No.2863/2005 all dated 05.11.1993, to the effect that 2 acres 38 guntas in suit schedule survey No.58 is in possession of Ramakrishna Reddy, the same cannot be considered as admission given by Ramaswamy Reddy, or Hanumakka; because, all the said 3 depositions are dated 05.11.1993. The entries earlier to the said date, as per Ex.P2, dated 20.08.1993, certified copy of compromise petition, filed in O.S.No.956/1988 and Ex.P9, certified copy of the order sheet, in O.S.No.956/1988, dated 21.08.1993; clearly show that possession of the suit schedule property, measuring 30 guntas in suit schedule survey No.58, was allotted to the share of Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy jointly and only 2 acres 8 guntas in the suit schedule survey No.58 was allotted to Ramakrishna Reddy and parties to the said O.S.No.956/1988, were put in possession of their respective shares in the said suit schedule survey No.58 also, on 20.08.1993, based on the order sheet, dated 34 O.S.No.2863/2005 21.08.1993. Hence the depositions- Ex.D39, D40 and D41; given before the Land Tribunal are inconsistent, or cannot be accepted. Further, based on the said depositions, possession of any portion in suit schedule survey No.58, by Ramakrishna Reddy, or Hanumakka, or Lakshmamma and her sons Ramaswamy Reddy; cannot be accepted, or considered.
47. Even though, Ex.P5-Mutation Register, Ex.P6,P7 and P8, which are one RTC, show, or do not show, the name of the vendors of the plaintiff, namely- Lakshmamma, or Ramaswamy Reddy, as per the principles of the rulings reported in AIR 2019 SC 719 (Smt.Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) by L.R Vs. Arthur Import & Export Company and Otrs.), wherein it is clearly held " Mutation in revenue records-does not create, or extinguish title, nor it has presumptive value on title- It 35 O.S.No.2863/2005 only enables person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay land revenue in question ."
48. Ex.P11- certified copy of order, passed by Tahasildar; Ex.P12- certified copy of order, passed by A.C. and Ex.D4- order passed by D.C; with regard to transfer of mutation, need not be considered in this case, because the revenue authorities are not competent to decide the title of the properties involved.
49. The plaintiff has further relied on Ex.P13, certified copy of compromise petition, filed in O.S.No.2639/1994, filed by the plaintiff herein, against Ramakrishna Reddy, Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy directing the defendants to execute sale deed, in respect of present suit schedule property, in favour of the plaintiff herein/therein and Ex.P15, certified copy of entire order sheet, in the said O.S.No.2639/1994, admitting the compromise petition/Ex.P13 and drawing 36 O.S.No.2863/2005 decree in terms of Ex.P13/ compromise petition as well as Ex.P16, certified copy of the decree passed in the said O.S.No.2639/1994; showing passing of decree in terms of compromise petition/Ex.P13.
50. Ex.P14/Ex.D3, certified copies of Judgment & decree passed in O.S.No.2845/1995, are in respect of the suit filed by Govinda Reddy (not a party in the present suit), against Ramaswamy Reddy, Janardhan and Balachandra/ plaintiff herein; for the relief of permanent injunction, which was dismissed.
51. Even though the plaintiff has produced Ex.P18 and P19, certified copies of Judgment & decree passed in O.S.No.1468/2013, as admitted by P.W.1, in his cross- examination on 22.11.2018, the defendants herein (even the plaintiff herein) are not parties, but the plaintiff herein/Balachandra is the husband of plaintiff therein and examined therein as P.W.1 and the said suit was for 37 O.S.No.2863/2005 declaration, injunction and possession, which was decreed.
52. Even though D.W.1/power of attorney of defendant No.1, has deposed in accordance with the contentions taken by the 1 st defendant in her written statement; he, in his cross-examination, has admitted " in this case, till 06.12.2018, my mother was looking after this case. With difficulty, my mother can adduce evidence in this case---- I do not know filing of O.S.No.956/1988 by Hanumakka, wife of Hanumanjaneyappa Reddy. I am not aware of the partition held among the family members of Ramakrishna Reddy, Hanumanjaneyappa Reddy and Anjanappa Reddy. ----I am not aware of the comprise as well as partition held in O.S.No.956/1988, in 1993. -----It is true to suggest that towards east of suit schedule property, property allotted to Ramakrishna Reddy in suit schedule survey No.58 is there; West- 38 O.S.No.2863/2005 road; North-30 ft. road formed in suit schedule survey No.58 for common use of all the parties and southern, there is a channel.------- I do not know the boundaries of 2 acres 38 guntas in suit schedule survey No.58 which was allotted to Ramakrishna Reddy, as stated by me.----- Ramakrishna Reddy did not convert suit schedule survey No.58 for non-agricultural purpose. Ramakrishna Reddy formed 10 sites in suit schedule survey No.58, village panchayath has granted plan in respect of said 10 sites.---- I do not know whether my father verified the required documents before purchasing site Nos.8,9 and
10. ----I do not know exactly in which particular portion of suit schedule survey No.58, site Nos.8,9 and 10 are situating. --- My mother instructed to prepare my examination-in-chief in this case.-----I do not know the details of O.S.No.956/1988, referred in para No.5 as well as land reforms cases referred in para No.4 in my 39 O.S.No.2863/2005 examination-in-chief. ---As per the order passed by Land Reforms, 2 acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.58 was acquired by Ramakrishna Reddy. I have not seen the related order of Land Tribunal.----- It is true to suggest that 3 acres 15 guntas of in Sy.No.58 was granted to Kamalanabhareddy by the land tribunal. For suggesting that the said 3 acre 15 guntas was allotted to Hanumakka in O.S.No.956/1988, the witness answers that he does not know.------ I do not know the contents of Ex.P.1/certified copy of the plaint. I know about Ex.P.1 from the date of filing of my examination-in-chief. I have not gone through the compromise papers filed in O.S.No.956/1988 referred in para No.5 of my examination-in-chief.---- I do not know the contents of Ex.P.2(a)/sketch.---- For suggesting that the boundaries of the property allotted to Ramakrishna Reddy was towards east - Srinivasa Reddy and Mallappa Reddy's property; towards west - 40 O.S.No.2863/2005 Hanumakka's property, 30 ft., road and Lakshmamma's share of 30 guntas; towards north - Doddaveerappa's property and towards south - Mestri Venkateshappa's property, the witness answers that he does not know.---- In 30 guntas, Ramakrishna Reddy had formed sites. I cannot say in which portion of 6 acres 13 guntas, the 30 guntas is situating. The boundaries of 30 guntas of land are towards east - Ramakrishna Reddy's property, towards west - road; towards north - road and towards south - canal. The witness volunteers that the said 30 guntas was belonging to Ramakrishna Reddy. Land Tribunal order shows that the said 30 guntas was held by Ramakrishna Reddy. I do not know whether there is any survey sketch showing the same. The approved plan in respect of said 30 guntas of land was handed over by me to my lawyer.( since the same is not produced, adverse inference has to be drawn .) ------I do not know whether 41 O.S.No.2863/2005 there is any land revenue records, Ramakrishna Reddy was owning and possessing 2 acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.58.----- I do not have the document such as General power of attorney and registered agreement of sale executed in favour of Srinivasa Kudupi by Ramakrishna Reddy and his family members. For suggesting that Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy were not parties to the said documents, the witness answers that they were not the owners.----- For questioning that have you got document to show that Ramakrishna Reddy formed 10 sites in 30 guntas of land, the witness answers that he is not aware. ------For suggesting that in 2004- 2005, suit property was a survey number property, the witness answers that he does not know. For suggesting that at no point of time, Horamavu Agara village panchayath office has maintained any document, in respect of Sy.No.58 property, the witness answers that he 42 O.S.No.2863/2005 does not know. " But in his examination-in-chief, in para-4, contrary to Ex.D17, Ex.D38, registered lease deed, executed by Lakshmamma and Hanumakka, in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy, he has deposed " Hanumakka, Lakshmamma had leased their property in suit schedule survey No.58 of Chelkere, measuring 3 acres 15 guntas in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy. After enquiry, the Land Tribunal has granted the said land in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy in case L.R.F.No.684/2842/2845/75-76. In the said proceedings, Smt.Lakshmamma and Hanumakka had admitted that they had leased out the said land and further she has deposed that the remaining extent of 2 acres 38 guntas in same Survey Number was in exclusive possession and belongs to Ramakrishna Reddy. " Further in Ex.P2(a), sketch annexed to compromise petition/Ex.2; the boundaries of suit schedule property, which was allotted to 43 O.S.No.2863/2005 Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy jointly, it is shown that towards south-Canal.
53. As admitted by D.W.1, the suit schedule survey No.58, has not been converted for non-agricultural purpose and he does not exactly know in which particular portion of suit schedule survey No.58, site Nos.8,9 and 10 are situated. If the mother D.W.1 was looking after the present case and the mother of D.W.1 instructed to prepare his/D.W.1's examination-in-chief, as admitted by him in page-13, as per the principles of ruling reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4435 (Basheer and another Vs. State of Karnataka, represented by its Chief Secretary and others) wherein it is held " the term "acts" would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney has rendered some "acts" in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for the Principal in respect of 44 O.S.No.2863/2005 such acts, but he cannot depose for the Principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the Principal in respect of the matter of which only principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which, the principal is entitled to be cross-examined. " To show that D.W.1 has rendered some acts in pursuance of the power of attorney/Ex.D37, executed in his favour, by defendant No.1, no material is there. Hence the evidence of D.W.1 and documents marked through him, cannot be accepted.
54. Even though D.W.2/defendant No.3(a) has deposed in accordance with the contentions taken by defendant No.3 and 3(a), in their separate written statements, in his cross-examination, he has admitted "for suggesting that, Hanumakka filed O.S.No.956/1988, seeking partition, in respect of suit Sy. No.58 also, the witness answers that he does not know.------ It is true 45 O.S.No.2863/2005 to suggest that in O.S.No.956/1988, the matter was compromised as per Ex.P.2. It is true to suggest that in the said compromise, 3 acres 15 guntas in suit Sy. No.58 was allotted to Hanumakka. In the Land Tribunal, the said portion of 3 acre 15 guntas was granted to Kamalanabha Reddy.------ In the said compromise 2 acres 8 guntas in said Sy. No.58 was given to Ramakrishna Reddy's share. It is true to suggest that in the said compromise petition, 30 guntas in suit Sy. No.58 was allotted to Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy. It is true to suggest that the present suit schedule property is shown as 30 guntas allotted to Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy in Ex.P.2/Compromise petition. It is true to suggest that after the said compromise, the khatha in respect of said 30 guntas was transferred in the names of Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy, as per Ex.P.4. ----- For suggesting that the said 30 guntas of 46 O.S.No.2863/2005 land was sold by Lakshmamma, Ramaswamy and their family members is as per Ex.P.3/sale deed, the witness answers that he does not know. Till this date, I do not know about Ex.P.3/sale deed.-----Site Nos.5, 6 and 7 are coming within 30 guntas of suit Sy. No.58.----- For questioning whether Ramakrishna Reddy formed sites in 2 acres 8 guntas which was allotted to him in suit Sy.No.58, the witness answers that the sites were formed in the said 30 guntas of land, which was allotted to Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy, in the compromise petition. The said three sites belonging to me were formed within the boundaries of the property allotted to Ramakrishna Reddy, measuring 2 acre 8 guntas in the compromise petition.-----for forming the said 3 sites Ramakrishna Reddy did not get his land converted. Layout plan is there. I have produced the said layout plan. ( since the same is not produced adverse inference 47 O.S.No.2863/2005 has to be drawn.) -----Ramakrishnareddy formed 10 sites in the land measuring 2 acres 38 guntas belonging to him. I had got document to show Ramakrishna Reddy had got 2 acres 38 guntas in Sy. No. 58. The said 2 acres 38 guntas came to Ramakrishnareddy as his ancestral property.-----I do not know whether Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy executed any document in favor of Ramakrishnareddy in respect of Sy. No.58 measuring 30 gun0tas. --- The sale deed executed by Ramakrishnareddy in favor of my mother only shows how Ramakrishnareddy had 2 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy. No. 58. I am deposing that Ramakrishnareddy has got absolute right to an extent of 2 acres 38 guntas in para 7 of my Examination-in-chief since it was his ancestral property.----- In Ex. D6, General Power of Attorney, 30 guntas of land belonging to Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy reddy was not sold to you, the witness 48 O.S.No.2863/2005 answers that he does not know.-----It is true to suggest that only on the basis of general power of attorney/Ex D6 my mother purchased Site No. 7.------ I do not know that in the said suit it was decreed to the effect that Ramaswamy and Lakshmamma should execute a sale deed in respect of 30 guntas in Suit schedule Sy. No. 58. For suggesting that accordingly Ramaswamy and Lakshmamma executed a sale deed on 21-09-2000 in respect of said 30 guntas of land in favor of the plaintiff herein, the witness answers that he does not know. ----It is true to suggest that the property belonging to Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy in Sy. No. 58 I have no relationship what-so-ever.---here is no relationship between me and the property purchased by the plaintiff herein."
55. For most of suggestions and questions put on behalf of the plaintiff, in the cross-examination, this 49 O.S.No.2863/2005 witness has admitted as discussed above, or answered that he does not know.
56. The defendant No.5/D.W.3, has even though deposed in accordance with the contentions taken by defendant No.5, in his written statement, in his cross- examination, he has admitted " For suggesting that Kamalanabha Reddy filed declaration to the property measuring 3 acre 15 guntas out of the above said 6 acre 13 guntas, the witness answers that he does not know.---- I do not remember whether I have instructed my counsel to prepare, as shown in paragraph No.4 of my examination-in-chief.---- I do not know whether Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights, in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy.--- I do not know filing of O.S.No.956/1988 by Hanumakka and the result of the same. I do not know what was the extent in suit 50 O.S.No.2863/2005 Sy.No.58 was allotted to Hanumakka as her share.----For suggesting that 3 acre 15 guntas in suit Sy.No.58 was allotted to Hanumakka in O.S.No.956/1988, as per compromise, the witness answers that he does not know.---- It is true to suggest that I noticed in the said said suit, 2 acre 8 guntas was allotted to Ramakrishna Reddy.-----For suggesting that the boundaries of the property measuring 2 acre 8 guntas, allotted to Ramakrishna Reddy are towards east - properties of Srinivasa Reddy and Mallappa Reddy; towards west - Hanumakka and Lakshmamma's property as well as road; towards north - property of Doddaveerappa and towards south - property of Mestri Venkateshappa, the witness answers that he does not know. ---For suggesting that in O.S.No.956/1988, Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy were allotted 30 guntas of land in suit Sy.No.58, the witness 51 O.S.No.2863/2005 answers that he does not know. --- I do not know in respect of which portion of suit Sy.No.58, measuring 3 acre 15 guntas, occupancy rights was conferred.---- For suggesting that in the Land Tribunal, Hanumakka compromised the matter and permitted to grant occupancy right in respect of 3 acre 15 guntas which was allotted to Hanumakka in O.S.No.956/1988, the witness answers that he does not know. ----I do not know whether I have deposed in my examination-in-chief with regard to extent of occupancy right granted in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy. According to me, Ramakrishna Reddy had got 2 acre 8 guntas in suit Sy.No.58, out of which he formed sites in a portion measuring 30 guntas.----- Considering the boundaries of the site formed in 30 guntas, I am saying the above boundaries. The said 30 guntas was not converted. ----- I do not know 52 O.S.No.2863/2005 measurements of the said 30 guntas of land i.e., east - west, or north - south.----- It is true to suggest that the General power of attorney as well as agreement for sale were executed by Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children.----- For suggesting that neither Lakshmamma nor Ramaswamy executed any General power of attorney, or agreement for sale, in favour of Janardhan, the witness answers that he does not know. ----I am claiming the right in respect of my site only out of 30 guntas in 2 acre 8 guntas.----- For suggesting that you have no claim over the properties of Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy, the witness answers that he does not know. For suggesting that khatha in respect of the properties allotted to Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy were changed, the witness answers that he does not know.-----Towards west of suit schedule property, Government road and well are situated; towards north - 30 ft., road formed in 53 O.S.No.2863/2005 the very same survey number. Towards south - land belonging to plaintiff and Doddaiah. I do not know whether towards east of the same, remaining land in Sy.No.58 belonging to Ramakrishna Reddy is situating.----- I have got documents to show that the suit schedule property was belonging to Ramakrishna Reddy. I have not seen the survey sketch regarding the same. My brother had verified that my site was situating within 2 acres 8 guntas of land belonging to Ramakrishna Reddy.---- For suggesting that the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Lakshmamma and her son Ramaswamy in O.S.No.956/1988, the witness answers that he does not know.-------For suggesting that Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy along with their family members sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession of the same, the witness answers 54 O.S.No.2863/2005 that he does not know. Neither Ramakrishna Reddy, nor myself, had/have got any right, title, or interest, over the suit schedule property.-----It is true to suggest that suit Sy.No.58 did/does not come within the jurisdiction of village panchayath." He has specifically admitted that only 2 acres 8 guntas was alloted to Ramakrishna Reddy in suit schedule survey No.58 and he does not know in respect of of which portion of suit schedule survey No.58, measuring 3 acres 15 guntas, occupancy right was conferred to Kamalanabha Reddy. Even he admits that the said sites formed in suit schedule survey No.58 were not approved by any authority concerned. He has specifically admitted that he is not claiming the right in respect of his site owned, out of 30 guntas in 2 acres 8 guntas (which was alloted to Ramakrishna Reddy). He does not know whether he has any claim over the properties of Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy. He 55 O.S.No.2863/2005 has specifically admitted that neither Ramakrishna Reddy, nor himself have/had any right, title, or interest, over the suit schedule property. He also admits that he is claiming right in respect of his site only out of 30 guntas in 2 according 8 guntas.
57. Even though the husband of defendant No.4/D.W.4 deposes in accordance with the contentions taken by defendant No.4, in her written statement, he, in his cross-examination, has admitted " It is true to suggest that after the death of Anjana Reddy and Hanumanjana Reddy, Smt. Hanumakka, W/o.Hanumanjana Reddy filed O.S.No.956/1988, for partition wherein Ramakrishna Reddy was the defendant No.1 therein and Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy, who are the wife and son of Anjana Reddy were the parties. It is true to suggest that the said suit was ended in compromise on 20.08.1993, as per Ex.P.2. It is true to suggest that as 56 O.S.No.2863/2005 per the said compromise, suit survey number was divided into three among 1. Hanumakka, 2. Ramakrishna Reddy and 3. Lakshmamma and her son. Till November 1993, the persons to whom the shares were allotted in Sy.No.58 as per Ex.P.2 were in possession of their respective shares.------ I cannot say the boundaries of 3 acre 15 guntas in suit Sy.No.58, in respect of which occupancy right was conferred by land tribunal in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy.---- I have seen the said property measuring 3 acre 15 guntas.-------For suggesting that the boundaries of said 3 acre 15 guntas of land are towards east - remaining land in Sy.No.58 allotted to Ramakrishna Reddy; west - Sy.No.59; north - land of Doddaveerappa and south - 30 ft. road formed in Sy.No.58; the witness answers that he does not know. (which are as per Ex.P3(a)/sketch) ----- I cannot say the boundaries of the remaining land in suit Sy.No.58, 57 O.S.No.2863/2005 measuring 2 acre 38 guntas. --- For suggesting that the said 2 acre 38 guntas was consisting of 30 guntas in one portion ( suit schedule property) and 2 acre 8 guntas in another portion, the witness answers that it may be. ---- do not know the boundaries of 2 acre 8 guntas situated in Sy.No.58 which was allotted to Ramakrishna Reddy. -- It is false to suggest that I know the correct boundaries of the said 2 acre 8 guntas belonging to Ramakrishna Reddy. It is true to suggest that as per Ex.P.2/compromise decree, 30 guntas of land was allotted to Lakshmamma and her son, Ramaswamy Reddy.--- It is true to suggest that the boundaries of said 30 guntas of land was towards east - remaining portion in Sy.No.58 allotted to the share of Ramakrishna Reddy; west - road and well; north - 30 ft. road formed in Sy.No.58 and south - channel/Rajakaluve.------According to me, the suit schedule property was allotted to Ramakrishna Reddy as 58 O.S.No.2863/2005 per Ex.P.2/compromise decree. ----It is false to suggest that as on the date of execution of sale deed in favour of Anasuyamma/in 1994, the suit schedule property was an agricultural land. The witness volunteers that the same was the gramatana land. The said 30 guntas was not converted.------ At any point of time, the suit schedule property was within the village boundary limit. There was resolution by the village panchayath to show that the suit schedule property was situating within gramatana village. At any point of time, the suit schedule property was not within the limits of gramatana, or within the jurisdiction of village panchayath. Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy had not executed any registered document in respect of suit schedule property in favour of Ramakrishna Reddy. It is false to suggest that Ramakrishna Reddy was never the owner of suit schedule property. It is true to suggest that there is no document 59 O.S.No.2863/2005 showing how Ramakrishna Reddy acquire right over suit schedule property. It is true to suggest that Ex.D.45/POA was not executed by Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy, but they were the consenting witnesses to the said documents. It is true to suggest that in Ex.D.45/POA, it is not shown that Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy signed the said as consenting witnesses in respect of suit schedule property.----There is no relationship between the suit schedule property and defendant No.4.-----For suggesting that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in Sy.No.58, purchased by him, the witness answers that he may be.---- There is no relationship in respect of the property purchased by the plaintiff and the defendants. ----It is true to suggest that as per the schedule shown in Ex.D.53, suit Sy.No.58 is not mentioned therein ."
60 O.S.No.2863/2005
58. Even D.W.4 is unable to say boundaries of 3 acres 15 guntas in suit schedule survey No.58, in respect of which occupancy right was transferred in favour of Kamalanabha Reddy and he does not deny the boundaries of said 3 acres 15 guntas of land of Kamalanabha Reddy as shown in Ex.P2(a). Even he admits the boundaries of the suit schedule property. Even he contends that there was resolution by the village panchayath to show that the suit schedule property was situated with the Gramatana, he admits that suit schedule survey No.58 was not within the limits, or within the jurisdiction of the Village panchayath. He specifically admits that there is no relationship between the suit schedule property and defendant No.4. For suggesting that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in suit schedule survey No.58, purchased by him, D.W.4, answers that there may be. He also admits 61 O.S.No.2863/2005 that there is no relationship in respect of property purchased by the plaintiff and the defendants.
59. It is the specific contention and evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4 and in particular, since the evidence of D.W.1 cannot be accepted, or considered; D.Ws.2 to 4, that after considering the statements/Ex.D39, D40 and D41, the admissions and evidence produced by the parties, Land Tribunal has passed order, dated 17.12.1993 and when such being the case, the comprise entered on the file of the Civil Court, has become infructuous by subsequent Land Tribunal order, dated 17.12.1993 and it was not acted upon and they have not derived any title in any portion of suit schedule survey No.58 as admittedly under the said compromise and pursuant to the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, wherein the vendors of the plaintiff are also parties, Ramakrishna Reddy has got absolute right to an extent of 2 acres 38 62 O.S.No.2863/2005 guntas in suit schedule survey No.58 and Kamalanabha Reddy has got 3 acres 15 guntas, which was exclusively belonging to Kamalanabha Reddy.
60. As discussed above, in para -45, the Land Tribunal has neither ordered with regard to the extent of land, particularly, 2 acres 38 guntas in suit schedule survey No.58, that Ramakrishna Reddy was in possession, nor the Land Tribunal is empowered to decide the same, since Ramakrishna Reddy was not a tenant in respect of the said Survey number. Hence the contention of the defendants that 2 acres 38 guntas in suit schedule survey No.58 was in possession of Ramakrishna Reddy, cannot be accepted, because, at the cost of repetition, earlier to the said order passed by the Land Tribunal, as per Ex.P2, compromise petition, Ex.P2(a), sketch and Ex.P9- order sheet of O.S.No.956/1988; it was admitted that Ramakrishna 63 O.S.No.2863/2005 Reddy was in possession of only 2 acres 8 guntas and not 2 acres 38 guntas in suit schedule survey No.58. Now the defendants in the present suit cannot contend contrary.
61. Even though it is contended by the defendants that for the document executed by Ramakrishna Reddy, either registered, or not, Lakshmamma and her son-Ramaswamy Reddy, were the consenting witnesses and the same are found in Ex.D5, registered sale deed, dated 25.03.1994, executed by Ramakrishna Reddy and his children, in favour of defendant No.3-Shanthamma; Ex.D27, certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 25.03.1994, executed by Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children, in favour of P.Narasimha Murthy/husband of defendant No.1- Rajeshwari; Ex.D44, certified copy of the registered sale agreement, dated 25.03.1994, wherein Lakshmamma is 64 O.S.No.2863/2005 shown to be signed as a witness and Ex.D45, registered GPA, 25.03.1994, wherein Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy were shown as consenting witness es; a witness, or a consenting witness, cannot be considered as parties to the said document.
62. Further, even though initially the vendors of the plaintiff, executed agreement for sale, in respect of 1 acre of land in suit schedule survey No.58, later, the vendors of the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed, in respect of 30 guntas of land in suit schedule survey No.58, based on the former agreement, as per provisions of Indian Contract Act, the said agreement merges with the subsequent registered sale deed. Hence even though there is discrepencies between the averments of agreement and the sale deed, the same cannot be considered.
63. The defendants rely on Ex.D1, certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.2639/1994, filed by the plaintiff herein, 65 O.S.No.2863/2005 against his vendors and Ramakrishna Reddy, for the relief of specific performance of the contract, in respect of 1 acre of land, in suit schedule survey No.58; Ex.D2, certified copy of objection to I.A.I, in O.S.No.2639/1994; Ex.D3/Ex.P14, certified copies of Judgment & decree, passed in O.S.No.2639/1994; as discussed above, the same are merged with the registered sale deed, executed by Lakshmamma and her son-Ramaswamy Reddy, in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the suit schedule property, as per Ex.P3, registered sale deed, dated 21.09.2000.
64. Even though, Ex.D5- registered sale deed, dated 25.03.1994, shows that Ramakrishna Reddy and his children executed sale deed, in respect of site Nos.5 and 6, in Khatha No.177/219/1, formed in Sy.No.58 and it is recited therein that the sellers therein, inherited, or acquired, the property through Land Tribunal order, in L.R.F.No.684/2842/2845/75-76, dated 17.12.1993; at the 66 O.S.No.2863/2005 cost of repetition, as discussed above, as per Ex.P10, the Land Tribunal has not granted occupancy patta of any land, to the vendors of the said sale deed, Ex.D5. In the said Ex.D5, nothing is recited with regard to conversion, or forming of layout plan. In the schedule of Ex.D5, suit schedule survey No.58 is not shown.
65. Even though, D.W.2, relies ExD9, registered GPA, dated 25.03.1994, executed by Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children in favour of Srinivasa Kudupi, showing the L.R.F.No.684/2842/2845/75-76, as discussed above, the said aspect can not be considered. In the said GPA, the GPA holder was authorised to sell site Nos.7 and 8, in Khatha No.174/216/1, in suit schedule survey No.58. Ex.D7, affidavit, cannot be considered since the same is not sworn, even though it is dated 29.03.1994, which was alleged to be sworn by Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children, in respect of the property as 67 O.S.No.2863/2005 shown in Ex.D6/GPA, even the said GPA, it is not shown that the property was sold and possession was delivered to Srinivasa Kudupi.
66. D.W.2 also relies on Ex.D8, registered sale deed, dated 20.05.1994, executed by Srinivasa Kudupi, as power of attorney holder of Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children; as per Ex.D6 and Ex.D7, in favour of defendant No.3/Shanthamma. Eventhough in the said sale deed, it is recited that the vendors acquired property through Land Tribunal order, L.R.F.No.684/2842/2845/75- 76, the same cannot be accepted, as discussed above. In the said sale deed suit schedule survey No.58 is not shown, but only shown as site No.7, Khatha No.174/216/1.
67. D.W.2 further relies on registered will/Ex.D9, dated 11.09.2006, executed by defendant No.3/Shanthamma in favour of her son-
68 O.S.No.2863/2005
G.Basavaraj/defendnat No.3(a). The same cannot be
accepted, because none of the attesting witnesses is
examined. Hence it is not proved.
68. Ex.D10 and Ex.D11, assessment extract, show defendant No.3/Shanthamma was the holder of site Nos.5 and 6, in 2006-07, i.e., after filing of the suit. Ex.D12 to Ex.D14, relied by D.W.2, are the Khatha extracts, in respect of site Nos.5,6 and 7, standing in the name of Basavaraj/defendant No.3(a). Ex.D15- 5 tax paid receipts, show that tax was paid by defendant No.3(a)/Basavaraj in respect of site Nos.6 and 7.
69. Ex.D16, certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 14.12.1994, executed by Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children, through power of attorney holder- Janaradhan, selling house site No.2, Khatha No.176/218/2, situating at Babausapalya, (Horamaavu, Agara Panchayath), in favour of Dr.Krishna Murthy. In 69 O.S.No.2863/2005 the said document, suit schedule survey No.58 is not mentioned.
70. Ex.D17- affidavit, is dated 12.10.2012, which is prepared subsequent to the filing of the present suit by defendant No.5/P.Jayaram, which cannot be considered, since the same is not sworn. With regard to Ex.D18, endorsement, issued by police, no related document is produced.
71. Ex.D19, registered gift deed, dated 08.10.2012, shows that Dr.Krishna Murthy executed the said gift deed, in favour of defendant No.5/P.Jayaram, in respect of the property, shown in Ex.D16/sale deed.
72. Ex.D20, encumbrance certificate, shows Ramakrishna Reddy and his family members executed registered sale deed, in respect of site No.2, in favour of Krishna Murthy. Ex.D21 and Ex.D22, encumbrance certificates, show Nil encumbrance; Ex.D23, encumbrance 70 O.S.No.2863/2005 certificate, shows execution of gift deed, as per Ex.D19, in favour of defendant No.5/P.Jayaram. Ex.D24, Khatha extract, shows site No.2 was standing in the name of Dr.Krishna Murthy; Ex.D25, Khatha extract, shows site No.2 was standing in the name of P.Jayaram/defendant No.5. Ex.D26, 16 tax paid receipts, show Dr.Krishna Murhty and Jayaram paid taxes in respect of site No.2.
73. Ex.D27, certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 25.03.1994, executed by Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children, in favour of P.Narasimha Murthy/ husband of defendant No.1/Rajeshwari, even though in the body of the said document, survey No.58 is shown, in the schedule of the said document, suit schedule survey No.58 is not shown. Further, the said document is with regard to house site Nos.9 and 10, in Khatha number, situating at Babusapalya.
71 O.S.No.2863/2005
74. Ex.D28, certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 20.05.1994, executed by Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children, through GPA/Srinivasa Kudupi, in favour of Narasimha Murthy/ husband of defendant No.1- Rajeshwari, in respect of site No.8, Khatha No.174/216/1, situating at Babusapalya. However, the said document does not show, in the schedule, with regard suit schedule site No.58.
75. Ex.D29 and D30, assessment extracts in respect of site No.9, standing in the name of the 1 st defendant- Rajeshwari and site No.10, standing in the name of her husband. In the said documents also, suit schedule survey No.58 is not shown.
76. Ex.D31, Khatha extract of site Nos.8,9 and 10, standing in the name of 1 st defendant/Rajeshwari and in the said document also, suit schedule survey No.58 is not shown.
72 O.S.No.2863/2005
77. Ex.D32, 14 tax pad receipts of site Nos.8,9 and 10, for the years from 2011-12 to 2017-18 and the taxes were paid on 28.12.2018.
78. Ex.D33, encumbrance certificate, in respect of site No.9, shows Nil encumbrance.
79. Ex.D34, encumbrance certificate, in respect of site Nos.9 and 10 shows Nil encumbrance.
80. Ex.D35 and D36, electricity bills and receipts are related to 2019.
81. Ex.D37, Special power of attorney, executed on 06.12.2018, by defendant No.1-Rajashwari to her son/N.Chethan, D.W.1, to give evidence in the present suit and as discussed above, his evidence cannot be considered, or accepted.
82. Ex.D37(A), Spl. Power of attorney, executed on 22.01.2019, by T.N.Bhagya/defendnat No.4, in favour of her husband/T.C.Nagaraj, to give evidence. 73 O.S.No.2863/2005
83. Ex.D42, mutation extract, shows based on the order, passed by Land Tribunal in L.R.F.No.684/2842/2845/75-76, the remaining 2 acres 38 guntas in suit schedule survey No.58, was ordered to be mutated in the name of Ramakrishna Reddy. At the cost of repetition, as per Ex.P10/order passed by the Land Tribunal, as discussed above in para Nos.45 and 60, the same cannot be accepted. So, the said mutation was illegal, or wrongly effected. Based on the said mutation/M.R.No.9/93-94, some of subsequent RTCs, shown in Ex.D43, are prepared. So, the entires in some of the RTCs, based on the above said M.R.No.9/93-94 also, cannot be considered.
84. Ex.D44, certified copy of registered agreement, dated 25.03.1994, bearing the seal of office of the Sub- Registrar, Shivajinagara and Ex.D47, encumbrance certificate, showing the execution of Ex.D44, by 74 O.S.No.2863/2005 Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children, in favour of K.Janardhan, reciting therein also as per the order of Land Tribunal, in L.R.F.No.684/2842/2845/75-76, (the order of Land Tribunal, Ex.P10, does not show the same as discussed above in para No.45 and 60 in respect of 30 guntas of land, in suit schedule survey No.58 and showing the very same boundaries of suit schedule property. However, earlier to the same, on 20.08.1993 and 21.08.1993, as per Ex.P2- compromise petition, Ex.P2(a)-sketch and Ex.P9, order to draw final decree, dated 20.08.1993 and 21.08.1993 respectively, the said suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Lakshmamma and Ramaswamy Reddy/vendor of the plaintiff and possession of the same was also delivered to them. In that event, subsequent to 20.08.1993, or 21.08.1993; on 25.03.1994, Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children, had no right, title, or interest, whatsoever, 75 O.S.No.2863/2005 over the suit schedule property, either to execute agreement, or GPA, in respect of suit schedule survey No.58, measuring 30 guntas of land/suit schedule property. Because, as per Sec.7 of T.P.Act, which states-
Sec.7 of T.P.Act, "every person
competent to contract and entitled to
transferable property, or authorised to dispose of transferable property not his own, is competent to transfer such property either wholly, or in part, and either absolutely, or conditionally, in the circumstances, to the extent and in the manner, allowed and prescribed by any law for the time being in force."
Sec.8 of T.P.Act, states- Unless a different intention is expressed, or necessarily implied, a transfer of property passes forthwith to the 76 O.S.No.2863/2005 transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property and in the legal incidents thereof."
Hence based on the said agreement/Ex.D44, Janardhan did not get any right, title, or interest, over the suit schedule property.
85. Even Ex.D45, registered power of attorney, dated 25.03.1994, bearing official seal of Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram, which was executed by Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children, in respect of suit schedule property, in favour of Janardhan, showing the said Land Tribunal order numbers in respect of site Nos.1 and 2, but the suit schedule survey No.58 is not shown in the schedule of the said document. Even in the body of the said document, suit schedule survey No.58 was not shown.
77 O.S.No.2863/2005
86. Ex.D46, affidavit, sworn on 29.03.1994, by Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children, swearing that they sold site Nos.1 and 2, formed in suit schedule survey No.58 to Janardhan and possession of the same was also delivered.
87. Ex.D48, registered sale deed, dated 19.08.1994, executed by Ramakrishna Reddy, his wife and children, through power of attorney-Janardhan, in favour of defendant No.2/Anusuyamma, stating, the sellers inherited the same as per order of Land Tribunal, (as discussed above, which cannot be accepted.), showing the schedule in the said document as site number-1, Khatha No.176/218/2 of Babusapalya. But suit schedule survey No.58 is not shown in the schedule of the said document.
88. Ex.D49, registered gift deed, dated 09.06.2011, executed by defendant No.2/Anusuyamma, in favour of her sister/Bhagya/defendnat No.4, in respect of 78 O.S.No.2863/2005 site No.1 and in the said document also, the suit schedule survey No.58 is not shown, in the schedule.
89. Ex.D50, demand register, shows that said site No.1 was standing in the name of defendant No.2/Anusuyamma. Ex.D51, khatha extract shows, site no. 1 was standing in the name of Bhagya/defendnat No.4.
90. Ex.D52, 10 tax paid receipts, show Anusuyamma/defendant No.2 and Bhagya/defendnat No.4, paid taxes in respect of site No.1.
91. Ex.D53, certified copy of the plaint, filed on 25.09.1996, in O.S.No.6765/1996; even though in the said plaint it is alleged that the plaintiffs thought, negotiated, entrusted the work of layout plan approved, in favour of Janardhan, no document was shown to be executed by the vendors of the plaintiff therein in that regard, in favour of said Janardhan.
79 O.S.No.2863/2005
92. Further, the property numbers relied/shown in the sale deeds of the defendants are shown by site numbers, or Khatha numbers. Ex.P17, the endorsement, issued by Horamavu Agara Grama Panchayath, show that the site numbers bearing Khatha Nos.177/219/1, 174/216/1, no approved layout plan was issued by the said panchayath.
93. Further, even now, some of the RTCs marked Ex.D43, do not show forming of any sites, or conversion in respect of any portion of suit Sy.No.58. At the cost of repetition, since the suit schdule property has been remaining as agricultural property and since the defendants have not produced any material to show that they are agriculturists, as on the date of filing of the suit, since there was a bar for transfer of agricultural land, to non-agriculturist, as per Sec.79(a) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the defendants cannot be considered as 80 O.S.No.2863/2005 owner in possession of any portion of suit schedule property measuring 30 guntas of land. Hence for all these reasons, it appears, the defendants have failed to establish their contentions and it appears that the plaintiff has established his ownership and possession of the suit schedule property. Hence this issue is answered positively.
94. Issue No.3 - Even though the 1 st defendant has contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, subsequently, defendants No.2 to 7 were impleaded. Even at the time of advancing arguments, on behalf of defendants, it was not brought to the knowledge of the court, who else were/are to be impleaded. Hence it appears to the court that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
95. Issue No.2- It is alleged in the plaint and deposed by P.W.1 that the 1 st defendant interfereed with the possession of the suit schedule property by the 81 O.S.No.2863/2005 plaintiff. The very contention of the defendants that the suit schedule property was owned by Ramakrishna Reddy, who formed sites in the suit schedule property and sold the sites to different persons and the defendants are also the purchasers of the said sites alleged to be formed in the suit schdule property itself shows that the defendants have interfered with the possession of the suit schedule property. However, even after impleading defendants 2 to 7, plaint is not amended with regard to alleged interference by defendants 2 to 7. Hence it appears that 1 st defendant, illegally interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Hence this issue is answered positively.
96. Issue No.5 - Even though the 1 st defendant has contended that the suit is not properly valued and court fee is not paid, the reliefs sought are declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property, 82 O.S.No.2863/2005 bearing Sy.No.58, measuring 30 guntas and for permanent injunction.
97. In the valuation slip, the suit is valued at Rs.3,75,000/- and court fee of Rs.12750/- were shown and paid. The RTCs, marked as Ex.P43, show the assessment in column No.4 and nothing is entered in the other columns of the RTCs, with regard to conversion of any portion of suit survey number 58, totally measuring 6 acres 13 guntas. Since it is an agricultural land, as per Sec.24(b) and Sec.7(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the valuation is to be made on the basis of assessment. The assessment is Rs.10.30. If it is multiplied by 25 times, it comes to Rs.257.50. In that event, as per Sec.24(b) of the Act, the suit is to be valued at Rs.1000/-. Therefore, the court fee paid by the plaintiff is to be considered as sufficient. Hence this issue is answered accordingly.
83 O.S.No.2863/2005
98. Issue Nos.6 & 7 - Since these two issues are interlinked, the same are taken together. It is argued on behalf of the defendants that since the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration and permanent injunction only and the defendants are in possession of the sites formed in the suit schedule property, the court has to consider that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit and relied rulings reported in ILR 2002 KAR 339, 2012(8) SCC 148 and AIR 2009 SC 2966 and contends that since the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has not sought for the consequential relief of possession, the suit is not maintainable and accordingly, the suit is to be dismissed. With due respect to the said rulings, the same are not applicable to the present facts of the case. Because, as discussed in issue No.1, it is already discussed and held 84 O.S.No.2863/2005 that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, based on Ex.P2, Ex.P2(a) and Ex.P9, even though the present RTC, in respect of the same is not standing in the name of the plaintiff. Hence it appears that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit. In view of the answers to issue Nos.1,2,3 and 5, the following-
ORDER The suit is partly decreed, with full costs. It is declared that plaintiff is the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the below shown suit schedule property.
The first defendant, her person claiming through, or under her, her agents and workmen and henchmen etc., are hereby restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the below shown suit schedule 85 O.S.No.2863/2005 property, by the plaintiff, either putting up construction, or structures, over the suit schedule property, or in any other manner.
SUIT SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of an
agricultural land, measuring 30 guntas in
Sy.No.58 of Chelkere village, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk,(Bengaluru South Taluk), Bengaluru District, bounded on-
East by : Remaining land in the same
Sy.No.58, belonging to
Ramakrishna Reddy
West by : Government road and well;
North by : 30 feet road, formed out in
the same survey number
property and remaining
land in Sy.No.58, belonging
to Kamalanabha Reddy.
South by : Land belonging to plaintiff
and Doddaiah's property.
Draw decree accordingly.
86 O.S.No.2863/2005
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 19 th day of October, 2020.) (SHUBHAVEER B.) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff-
P.W.1 - Sri.V.Balachandra II. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants-
D.W.1 - Sri.N.Chethan
D.W.2 - Sri.G.Basavaraj
D.W.3 - Sri.P.Jayarm
D.W.4 - Sri.T.C.Nagaraja
III. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff-
Ex.P1 Certified copy of plaint in
O.S.No.956/1988.
Ex.P2 Certified copy of compromise
petition
Ex.P2(a) certified copy of sketch
87 O.S.No.2863/2005
Ex.P3 Original sale deed, dated
21.09.2000
Ex.P4 Certified copy of mutation
register
Ex.P5-Ex.P8 RTC extracts
Ex.P9 Certified copy of order sheet in
O.S.No.956/1988
Ex.P10 Certified copy of order passed in
LRF.No.684,2842,2845/1975-76
Ex.P11 Certified copy of order passed in
RRT.35/2000-01
Ex.P12 Certified copy of order passed in
RA.No.71/2001-02, by A.C.
Ex.P13 Certified copy of compromise
petition in O.S.No.2639/1994
Ex.P14 Certified copy of Judgment and
decree passed in
O.S.No.2845/1995
Ex.P15 Certified copy of entire order
sheet, in O.S.No.2639/1994
Ex.P16 Certified copy of decree in
O.S.No.2639/1994
Ex.P17 Endorsement issued by
Horamaavu Grama Panchayath
Ex.P18& P19 Certified copy of Judgment &
decree passed in
O.S.No.1468/2013
IV. List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants-
Ex.D1 Certified copy of plaint in
O.S.No.2639/1994
88 O.S.No.2863/2005
Ex.D2 Certified copy of objection to
I.A.I, filed in O.S.No.2639/1994
Ex.D3 Certified copy of decree passed
in O.S.No.2639/1994
Ex.D4 Certified copy of order passed in
Revision(P) 60/2002-03, by D.C
Ex.D5 Registered sale deed, dated
25.03.1994
Ex.D6 Registered GPA
Ex.D7 Affidavit
Ex.D8 Registered sale deed, dated
20.05.1994
Ex.D9 Registered will, dated 11.09.2006
Ex.D10 &D11 Assessment extracts
Ex.D12-D14 Khatha extracts
Ex.D15 Five tax paid receipts
Ex.D16 Certified copy of registered sale
deed, dated 14.12.1994
Ex.D17 Affidavit
Ex.D18 Endorsement issued by police
Ex.D19 Registered gift deed
Ex.D20-D23 Encumbrance certificates
89 O.S.No.2863/2005
Ex.D24&D25 Khatha extracts
Ex.D26 16 tax paid receipts
Ex.D27 Certified copy of sale deed,
dated 25.03.1994
Ex.D28 Certified copy of registered sale
deed, dated 20.05.1994
Ex.D29 &D30 Assessment extracts
Ex.D31 Khatha extract
Ex.D32 14 tax paid receipts
Ex.D33&D34 Encumbrance certificates
Ex.D35 Electricity bill
Ex.D36 Electricity receipt
Ex.D37 Power of attorney
Ex.P37(a) Special power of attorney, dated
22.01.2019
Ex.D38 Certified copy of registered lease
deed, dated 17.06.1967
Ex.D39 -D41 Certified copies of statement
given before Land Tribunal
Ex.D42 Mutation extract
Ex.D43 RTCs from 1971-72 to 2017-18
Ex.D44 Certified copy of registered
agreement, dated 25.03.1994
90 O.S.No.2863/2005
Ex.D45 Registered GPA
Ex.D46 Affidavit
Ex.D47 Encumbrance certificate
Ex.D48 Registered sale deed, dated
19.08.1994
Ex.D49 Registered gift deed, dated
09.06.2011
Ex.D50 Demand register
Ex.D51 Khatha extract
Ex.D52 10 tax paid receipts
Ex.D53 Certified copy of plaint in
O.S.No.6765/1996.
(SHUBHAVEER.B)
XLIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 91 O.S.No.2863/2005 In this case, the defendants have taken many contentions. Ultimately, they have prayed for dismissal of the suit. No relief of counter claim, or set-off, is claimed by the defendants. There is no re-joinder, denying the contentions taken by the defendants in their written statements. Issues arise when the material facts are asserted by one party and denied by other party. Since there is no denial of the contentions taken by the defendants, by the plaintiff, it appears to the court that issue No.4, addl. issues No.1 and 2, framed on 17.06.2013 and another addl. Issue framed on 05.03.2015, are wrongly framed, or introduced. Hence issue No.4, addl. issues No.1 and 2, framed on 17.06.2013 and another addl. Issue framed on 05.03.2015 are struck off.
92 O.S.No.2863/2005
(Judgment pronounced in open court) ORDER The suit is partly decreed, with full costs.
It is declared that plaintiff is the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the below shown suit schedule property.
The first defendant, her person claiming through, or under her, her
agents, workmen and henchmen etc., are hereby restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the below shown suit schedule property, by the plaintiff, either putting up construction, or structures over the suit schedule property, or in any other manner.
SUIT SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of an agricultural land measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.58 of Chelkere village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk,(Bengaluru 93 O.S.No.2863/2005 South Taluk), Bengaluru District, bounded on-
East by : Remaining land in the
same Sy.No.58, belonging
to Ramakrishna Reddy;
West by : Government road and
well;
North by : 30 feet road, formed out
in the same survey
number property and
remaining land in
Sy.No.58, belonging to
Kamalanabha Reddy;
South by : Land belonging to
plaintiff and Doddaiah's
property.
Draw decree accordingly.