Bangalore District Court
S.Krishna Murthy @ Shekar S/O. Late vs Unknown on 14 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
(CCH-40), BANGALORE CITY
Dated on this the 14th day of October, 2019.
-: PRESENT :-
Sri.Khadarsab, B.A., LL.M.,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 4679/2008
Plaintiff:-
1. S.Krishna Murthy @ Shekar S/o. Late
M.D.Sadashivam, 53 Years.
2. S.Karuna S/o. Late M.D.Sadashivam,
51Y.
3. S.Nithya S/o. Late M.D.Sadashivam, 49
Years.
4. S.Prakash S/o. Late M.D.Sadashivam,
47 Years.
5. S.Babu S/o. Late M. D. Sadashivam,
45 Years.
6. S.Bhaskar S/o. Late M.D.Sadashivam,
43 Years.
All are R/o.No.41, Krishna Nilaya, 8th
Cross, Magadi Road,
Bengaluru-560 023.
[By Sri. Nagendra Shetty, Advocate]
/2/ O.S.No.4679/2008
/ VERSUS /
Defendant :-
G.S.Sudhir S/o. Late Shivananjappa,
40 Years, No.97, Mysore Road,
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru - 560 018.
(By Sri.K.M.L., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 15.07.2008
Nature of suit : Suit for permanent
injunction
Date of commencement of : 09.12.2009
evidence
Date on which the judgment is : 14.10.2019
pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
11 02 30
***
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his legal heirs, agents, servants or his authority, etc., from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
/3/ O.S.No.4679/2008
2. It is the case of plaintiffs that, plaintiffs are the sons of one M.D.Sadashivam who was one of the established businessman during his lifetime and now he is no more. The said Sadashivam had acquired number of immovable properties in Bengaluru City with the hard earned money of joint family consisting of himself and his six sons i.e., plaintiffs. The suit schedule property is one of such property. The Late M.D.Sadashivam acquired the suit schedule property under an exchange deed dated 5.10.1967 and sale deed dated 26.5.1971. The old survey numbers of the suit schedule property are 258 and 259 of erstwhile Jodikempapura Agrahara Village, Bangalore North Taluk measuring 200 x 100 Ft and 200 + 150 Ft x 150 + 40 Feet as mentioned in the Mutation Register. The plaintiffs' father purchased these two properties from one Balakrishna and B.Sriramulu under two separate deeds which are duly registered. The said Balakrishna sold his ¼th share in the /4/ O.S.No.4679/2008 said suit schedule property to M.D.Sadashivam and in exchange, he took 5 cents of wet land in Sy.No.594/3 of Dharapadvedu, North Arcot District, Tamil Nadu belonging to plaintiffs' father. In the same way said B.Shriramulu sold his 1/4th share in the said property. As per above said exchange deed and sale deeds the father of the plaintiffs became the absolute owner of ½ share in Sy.No.258 and 259 of Jodi Kempapura Village. The possession of the schedule property was given to the plaintiffs' father on the date of registration itself. Since then M.D.Sadashivam was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After his death, the present plaintiffs became the owners by inheritance and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same without disturbance from anybody till this date.
3. The plaintiffs further contended that the defendant's father G.V.Shivananjappa during his lifetime had filed O.S.No.1773/1966 and after the establishment of /5/ O.S.No.4679/2008 Bengaluru City Civil Courts it was renumbered as O.S.No.4588/1986. The said Shivananjappa filed the above said suit for the relief of declaration of title and mandatory injunction against the plaintiffs' father's vendors, viz., Balakrishna and B.Sriramulu and other two joint purchasers i.e., B.S.Rangaswamy and M.Muttappa. After the long contest, the said suit came to be dismissed on 26.2.2004 for non-prosecution. The defendant who was on record in the said suit deliberately got it dismissed knowing fully well that he had no right, title, interest or possession over the suit properties. The plaintiffs were also substituted as defendants in the said suit for Balakrishna and V.Sriramulu to defend the suit and they contested the matter by filing written statement. The suit properties Sy.No.258 and 259 were purchased by the plaintiffs' father's vendors Balakrishna and three others and two of them sold their half share in the said Sy.No.258 and 259 to the plaintiffs' father and delivered /6/ O.S.No.4679/2008 the possession of said properties to the plaintiffs' father on the date of registration itself. The plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 1967. Initially the father of the plaintiffs was cultivating the said land. After the death of plaintiffs' father, plaintiffs are cultivating the land. Presently the workers of the plaintiffs are staying in the suit schedule property by constructing small sheds.
4. The defendants without any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property often and often came near the suit schedule property and put threats to the plaintiffs' workers to vacate the sheds erected on suit property otherwise to face dire consequences. On 2.4.2008 at about 1.30 p.m. the defendant trespassed upon the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintiffs' workers to vacate the land immediately otherwise, they will be removed from there by using force. Immediately the plaintiffs went there and /7/ O.S.No.4679/2008 having seen them, the defendant whisked away from the scene saying that he would come again with more men and dispossess the plaintiffs and their men from the suit schedule property. Subsequently plaintiffs lodged a police complaint against the defendant before the Magadi Police, but the police have not initiated any action against the defendant. The act of the defendant is high handed and unauthorised.
5. The plaintiffs further contended that the defendant's father Shivananjappa had fought against the plaintiffs' vendor Balakrishna and others in O.S.No.4588/1986 only for Sy.No.269 which according to him was regranted by the then Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, but the suit schedule properties are Sy.No.258 and 259 of Jodi Kempapura. The subject matter of the present suit and O.S.No.4588/1986 are different. Hence, the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Even then he is obstructing the peaceful possession and /8/ O.S.No.4679/2008 enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Hence, he prays for decreeing the suit.
6. After institution of the suit, suit summons were issued to the defendant, defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement. The defendant denied the plaint averments and contended that the description of the suit schedule property is far from reality. The survey numbers mentioned in the schedule are misleading and the reality is otherwise rather than the one described in the schedule. The measurement and boundaries mentioned in the schedule are not based as it exists or on any document, it is purely imaginary, created version in disguise to hoodwink, if possible in the bargain falsely claiming the property belonging to the defendant, as if alleged belonged to the plaintiffs knowingly, intentionally with bad intention and ulterior motives. The plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands, but with tainted /9/ O.S.No.4679/2008 hands the plaintiffs have full of suppression of facts and documents relied upon are totally contrary and falsifies the claims of the plaintiffs. That, the plaintiffs have suppressed the existing earlier Vrishabvathi river, now a huge open drain running East to West stretched across Magadi Road and Rajajinagara 6th Block and further the said drain runs across and bifurcating Sy.No.258 and 259. The Sy.No.258 lines to the North of the open drainage and Sy.No.259 lines to the South of the open drainage. So, the suppression of the above facts derail the evil plan and exposes the hidden and false claim of the plaintiffs. There is no cause of action in filing the above suit. The defendant admitted the earlier suit i.e., O.S.No.4588/1986 filed by his father and also admitted the dismissal of said suit.
7. The defendant further contended that his grand- father G.N.Bullappa had purchased 28 acres 14 guntas of land under three registered sale deeds. The said landed / 10 / O.S.No.4679/2008 properties starts from 80 Feet Road Rajajinagar, 6th Block and comprising the entire Bopanna Layout and spreading over including the tile factory "THE BANGLORE FIRE BRICKS AND TILES FACTORY" till present Magadi Road. Now the defendant is totally aware about the legal right he has or his ancestors had over the entire 28 acres 14 guntas of land and now he shall demonstrate and establish how his grand-father acquired 28 acres 14 guntas of land and the documents relied upon shall speak by itself about his ownership over the same and dislodge the false claims of the plaintiffs. The documents relied by the plaintiffs are subsequent documents and do not pertains to the defendant's property. The defendant further contended that, the plaintiffs are no way concerned with the defendant's property and the Sy.No.258 and 259 are not at all in existence and question of obstructing the possession of the plaintiffs does not arise at all. The defendant denied the alleged obstruction. The / 11 / O.S.No.4679/2008 defendant further contended that plaintiffs filed the present suit on imaginary cause of action. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the suit.
8. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the written statement. In the rejoinder the plaintiffs have denied the defendant's claim over the properties and further contended that, property bearing Sy.No.269 is not at all in existence. The defendant is claiming rights over the said Sy.No. 269 on imaginary ground. The defendant is not at all in possession of the said survey number. Hence, prayed for decreeing the suit.
9. On the basis of the pleadings and documents of the parties, the following issues were framed by my predecessor in office on 16.3.2009 :
1. zÁªÁ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨÀsªÀzÀ°è EzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉà ?
/ 12 / O.S.No.4679/2008
2. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÁ£À¨ÀsªÀPÉÌ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ CrØ DvÀAPÀ ¥Àr¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
3. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀAvÉ ±Á±ÀévÀ ¥Àæw§AzÀsPÁYÕÉAiÀÄ rQæ ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä CºÀðgÉÃ?
4. AiÀiÁªÀ rQæ CxÀªÁ DzÉñÀ ?
10. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 themselves examined as P.W.1 and 2 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 and P.31 and examined two more witnesses as P.Ws.3 and 4. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked documents as Exs.D.1 to D.28.
11. Heard the arguments.
12. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the negative.
Issue No.2 : In the negative.
Issue No.3 : In the negative.
/ 13 / O.S.No.4679/2008
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the
following :-
REASONS
13. Issue No.1 :- This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
14. It is the case of plaintiffs that, plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the property bearing Sy.No.258 and 259 of Jodikempapura Agrahara Village consisting of two plots North Plot measuring 200 Ft x 100 Ft and South Plot measuring 200 + 150 x 150 + 40 Ft. The father of the plaintiffs acquired the above said properties from one B.Sriramulu and Balakrishna Naidu on 5.10.1967 and 26.5.1971 respectively. Since 1961 the father of plaintiffs and after his death, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The / 14 / O.S.No.4679/2008 defendant is no way concerned with the suit schedule properties, is obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Hence, they prayed for decreeing the suit.
15. In order to establish the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and adduced evidence of two more witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 3 and 4. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their examination-in-chief reiterated the plaint averments and have produced the documents Exs.P.1 to P.31. P.Ws.3 and 4 deposed that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
16. The entire case of the plaintiffs is based upon Ex.P.1 - Exchange Deed dated 5.10.1967 and Ex.P.2 - Sale Deed dated 26.5.1971. Exs.P.3 to 5 are the earlier sale deeds in respect of Sy.No.258 and 259. Exs.P.6 to P.8 are / 15 / O.S.No.4679/2008 the Encumbrance Certificates standing in respect of Sy.No.258 and 259. Ex.P.6 and 8 are standing in the name of B.H.Doddaiah, Ex.P.7 standing in the name of Honnappa.
17. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father had acquired 1/4th share in Sy.No.258 and 259 through a Exchange Deed - Ex.P.1 from one Balakrishna on 5.10.1967 and another 1/4th share in Sy.No.258 and 259 through Ex.P.2
- Sale Deed dated 26.5.1971 from Sriramulu. The father of the plaintiffs acquired totally ½ share in Sy.No.258 and 259. Since then the father of the plaintiffs and after his death, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
18. Though the plaintiffs contended that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Sy.No.258 and 259 of Jodikempapura Agrahara Village, but P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief at para No.5 deposed that, "On / 16 / O.S.No.4679/2008 2.1.2008 at about 1.30 p.m. the defendant trespassed upon the suit schedule land and threatened his workers to vacate the land immediately, otherwise they would be removed forcibly." Whereas, in their plaint at paras No.4 and 7 they pleaded that on 2.4.2008 at about 1.30 p.m. defendant tried to interfere with their possession. The evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to his own pleadings. Besides, the P.W.1 himself is not sure about the alleged interference made by the defendant.
19. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief at page No.2 he deposed that, "Remaining plaintiffs have authorised me to give evidence on their behalf also." But, in his cross- examination at page No.15 he deposed that, "My brothers have authorised me to conduct the case on my behalf. Witness volunteers that my brothers have not authorised me to give evidence in this case on their behalf." P.W.1 at one hand he deposed that remaining plaintiffs have authorised / 17 / O.S.No.4679/2008 him to give evidence at the same time he deposed that the remaining plaintiffs have not authorised him to give evidence on their behalf.
20. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, their father acquired 1/4th share in Sy.No.258 and 259 as per Ex.P.1 - Exchange Deed. In lieu of 1/4th share in Sy.No.258 and 259 the father of the plaintiffs had given his property situated at Tamil Nadu to Balakrishna, who was the owner of 1/4th share in Sy.No.258 and 259. In the evidence of P.W.1 also at page No.16 he deposed that, "We have ancestral agricultural property in Tamil Nadu, its Sy.No.458 and extent is 12 acres, except this land we have no other property in Tamil Nadu ....... Tamil Nadu property had fallen to my share. The documents pertaining to this property is with me. No transaction was taken place with respect to Tamil Nadu property and other family properties." The evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to his plaint pleadings. The plaintiffs in / 18 / O.S.No.4679/2008 their plaint contended that in lieu of exchange of property situated at Tamil Nadu, the father of the plaintiffs had secured 1/4th share in Sy.No.258 and 259. Whereas, P.W.1 clearly deposed that no transaction was taken place with respect to Tamil Nadu property and other family properties. The evidence of P.W.1 falsifies the case of the plaintiffs.
21. The plaintiffs in their plaint contended that their father has acquired 1/4th share by way of exchange of property as per Ex.P.1 and 1/4th share has been purchased as per Ex.P.2. Whereas, P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.16 deposed that, "my father had purchased the properties from Sriramulu and Balakrishna". P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.17 deposed that, "I do not know the total extent of Sy.No.258 and 259". The plaintiffs claim that they are in possession of the entire suit schedule properties, but P.W.1 himself deposed that he do not know the total extent of Sy.No.258 and 259. If at all they are in / 19 / O.S.No.4679/2008 possession of the suit schedule properties, definitely he should be aware about the measurement of the property.
22. P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.17 deposed that, "I have taken RTC extract pertaining Sy.No.258 and 259 and produced the same before the Court. I have not produced the RTC extract." P.W.1 at one stretch deposed that he has obtained the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule properties and have been produced in this case, and at the same time he deposed that he has not produced the RTC extracts in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is well settled law that, no one should be permitted to "approbate and reprobate". Though the plaintiffs have contended that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties, but in order to establish the same, the plaintiffs have failed to produce R.T.C. or any revenue records standing in their names as on the date of suit.
/ 20 / O.S.No.4679/2008
23. The plaintiffs relied upon one more document i.e., Ex.P.3 - Sale Deed dated 26.11.1960 in respect of Sy.No.258 and 259 in which it is mentioned that sketch has been annexed along with the sale deed. But, the plaintiffs have not produced the alleged sketch annexed with Ex.P.3. P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.17 clearly admitted that, "There is a recital in Ex.P.3 that separate sketch and plan are annexed to the document" and at page No.18 P.W.1 deposed that, "I have obtained certified copy of the sale deed Ex.P.3 with annexures". Though there is a recital in Ex.P.3, the plaintiffs have not produced the said sketch annexed with the sale deed - Ex.P.3. At page No.19 P.W.1 deposed that, "I have revenue records with respect to the suit schedule property". P.W.2 also in his cross- examination at page No.13 clearly deposed that, "£À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÁ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæzÀ 2£Éà ¥ÀÅlzÀ ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸Á°£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÀºÀ ªÀÄÄmÉõÀ£ï jf¸ÀÖgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉPÁqïð C¥sï gÉÊmïì jf¸ÀÖgï £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ"
/ 21 / O.S.No.4679/2008 which clearly goes to show that there are revenue documents in respect of suit schedule property, even then the plaintiffs have withhold the said documents. Hence, the plaintiffs' have intentionally withhold the documents. Therefore, as per Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, an adverse inference is drawn against the plaintiffs for withholding the material evidence.
24. P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.19 clearly admitted that, "Except sale deed and Encumbrance Certificates I have not produced any document to prove my possession over the suit schedule property." P.W.1 further deposed that, "After sale deed I have not made an application to transfer mutation in my name", which clearly goes to show that if at all the father of the plaintiffs had acquired the title over the suit schedule properties, definitely he will file an application for entering his name in the revenue records, but there is no documents to show that the / 22 / O.S.No.4679/2008 father of the plaintiffs had filed an application for entering his name in the revenue records. Besides, as per plaint averments if at all the father of the plaintiffs had acquired the suit schedule property as per Exs.P.1 and P.2, definitely the name of the father of the plaintiffs would be entered in the revenue records. But, there is no document to show that the suit schedule properties are standing in the name of father of the plaintiffs or in the name of plaintiffs as on the date of suit.
25. P.W.1 clearly admitted in his cross-examination at page No.20 that, "I have not seen description of the schedule property mentioned in the plaint", which clearly goes to show that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. If they are in possession of the suit schedule property, definitely they are aware of the description of the property. P.W.1 further deposed in his cross-examination at page No.20 that, "I have not given instructions to my / 23 / O.S.No.4679/2008 advocate to prepare the plaint schedule." The evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to his own plaint pleadings.
26. P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.20 further deposed that, "In Ex.P.3 two plots are mentioned. Plot No.1 is pertaining to suit schedule property, the extent of plot No.1 is 200 x 100 + 200 x 150 + 40" and at page No.21 deposed that, "Plot No.1 is bounded on East - Muninanjappa's property; West - by Road, North - By drainage, South - by Shivananjappa's property." Whereas, in Ex.P.3 the boundaries to the plot No.1 is towards East - Janakamma and Muniswamappa's property; West by Kodihalla; North by Kodihalla and properties of Ankappa and Chennigappa and South by remaining property of Sy.No.258 and 259. The evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to his own document - Ex.P.3. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.3 will not tally with the evidence of P.W.1. If at all the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties, definitely / 24 / O.S.No.4679/2008 P.W.1 would have deposed about the boundaries of suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiffs are not at all in possession of the suit schedule properties.
27. It is admitted fact that, earlier there were two suits i.e., O.S.No.4589/1986 [old No.1774/1966] and O.S.No.4588/1986 [Old No.1773/1966] between the present plaintiffs and defendant. The said suit i.e.,O.S.No.1774/1966 was ended in compromise. P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.22 clearly deposed that, "The property in O.S.No.1774/1966 and present suit schedule property are one and the same." Both the parties have admitted Ex.D.1 - Compromise petition filed in O.S.No.4589/1986 on the file of City Civil Judge Court, Bengaluru. A sketch has been annexed to the said compromise petition i.e., Ex.D.1. In the said sketch annexed to the compromise petition, the drainage has been shown towards the south of suit schedule property. P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.23 / 25 / O.S.No.4679/2008 admitted that, "The drainage is in existence towards the southern side of Sy.No.258 and 259." Though P.W.1 deposed that, the drainage has been situated towards the southern side of suit schedule property, but in the plaint schedule it has been shown that towards South of suit schedule property Shivananjappa's land. The plaint pleadings and evidence of P.W.1 are contrary to each other.
28. P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.24 deposed that, "In the said suit he had claimed right in Sy.No.258 and 259..... In the above said suit we entered into compromise. In the said compromise petition we took Sy.No.257, though we had claimed right in Sy.No.258 and 259 we took Sy.No.257". P.W.2 also in his cross-examination at page No.16 clearly admitted that, "¤r-2 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¢B5.10.1965 gÀ°è «¤ªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ (exchange) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Rjâ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢B26.5.1971gÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj «¤ªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ RÃj¢¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è / 26 / O.S.No.4679/2008 £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ C¸À®Ä zÁªÉ £ÀA.4589-1986gÀÀ gÁf C£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÉèêÀiï ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj" which clearly goes to show that the plaintiffs have relinquished their rights over the Sy.No.258 and 259 in the said O.S.No.4589/1986 and have taken Sy.No.257. As per compromise entered in the said suit i.e., as per Ex.D.1, the plaintiffs have taken Sy.No.257 and subsequently they have alienated the said Sy.No.257 in favour of Mizpah Ministers by its Managing Trustee Babu Prasad i.e., P.W.4 as per Ex.D.2. P.W.1 in his cross- examination at page No.24 unequivocally admitted that, "In the said compromise Sy.No.257 has been given to me". Though the plaintiffs have relinquished their rights over suit schedule property, and have taken Sy.No.257 and subsequently have alienated their property i.e., Sy.No.257 as per Ex.D.2 - Sale Deed, once again they are claiming rights over Sy.No.258 and 259, which is not permissible under law.
/ 27 / O.S.No.4679/2008
29. P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.24 clearly deposed that, "In the said compromise petition Sy.No.257 has been allotted to the plaintiffs". But he further deposed that, "I cannot say for what reason Sy.No.257 was given to me in O.S.No.1774/1966." The conduct of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that in order to claim the rights over the suit schedule property he is deposing falsely.
30. P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.25 deposed that, "Still I am in possession of the property which was given to me in compromise petition." P.W.1 himself admits that they have alienated Sy.No.257 in favour of P.W.4 as per Ex.D.2, even then he falsely deposed that he is in possession of the said property. Per contra, P.W.4 who is the purchaser of Sy.No.257 clearly deposed that, he purchased the property as per Ex.D.2 and he is in possession of Sy.No.257. The evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.4.
/ 28 / O.S.No.4679/2008
31. Plaintiff No.2 examined himself as P.W.2. He
deposed in his examination-in-chief that, they are in possession of the suit schedule property. P.W.2 in his examination-in-chief deposed that his father had acquired the title over Sy.No.258 and 259 as per Exs.P.1 and P.2. But, in his cross-examination at page No.9 he deposed that, "zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.258 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 259 gÀ°è CzÀsð ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ 200 x 100 ft and 200 x 150+40 ft ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀU¼À À£ÀÄß Rjâ¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ." The evidence of P.W.2 is contrary to his plaint pleadings and Exs.P.1 and P.2. Though the plaintiffs contended that their father has acquired the property from Balakrishna and Sriramulu, but P.W.2 in his cross-examination deposed that, "¨Á®PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ºÉÃUÉ §AvÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¨Á®PÀȵÀgÚ ÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ºÉÃUÉ §AvÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½zÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀߪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è." If at all father of the plaintiffs has acquired the rights over / 29 / O.S.No.4679/2008 the suit schedule property as per Exs.P.1 and P.2, then the plaintiffs will be aware regarding the earlier owners of the property. P.W.2 in his cross-examination at page No.11 clearly admitted that, he was one of the signatory to Ex.D.1
- compromise petition. Though P.W.2 is signatory to the Ex.D.1 - compromise petition, even then he is making claim which is not permissible under law.
32. P.W.2 in his cross-examination at page No.14 clearly admitted that, "1964 jAzÀ E°èAiÀÄ ªÀgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÃÉ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÀnÖgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj", which clearly goes to show that if the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties, definitely they will pay tax to the Government in respect of the suit schedule properties.
33. In support of plaintiffs' claim, the plaintiffs have examined one G.R.Nagaraj as P.W.3. P.W.3 deposed that plaintiffs are in possession of Sy.No.258 and 259. Though / 30 / O.S.No.4679/2008 P.W.3 deposed in his examination-in-chief that the plaintiffs are in possession of Sy.No.258 and 259, but in his cross- examination he deposed that, "I do not know the survey number in which my site has been carved". P.W.3 deposed about the Sy.No.258 and 259, but he failed to depose about in which survey number his site has been carved. P.W.3 clearly admitted in his cross-examination at page No.5 that he and plaintiffs are close friends and at the request of plaintiffs he is deposing. P.W.3 in his cross-examination at page No.6 further deposed that, "I have not seen any document regarding Sy.No.258 and 259." On consideration of entire evidence of P.W.3 it clearly goes to show that the P.W.3 is a tutored witness.
34. Plaintiffs in order to establish their possession over the suit schedule properties, examined one more witness i.e., P.W.4 - N.Babu Prasad. He also deposed that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of Sy.No.258 and 259 / 31 / O.S.No.4679/2008 and he has purchased Sy.No.257 from plaintiffs and he further deposed that Sy.No.257 is situated adjacent to Sy.Nos.258 and 259 of Jodikempapura Agrahara Village. Though P.W.3 deposed that plaintiffs are in possession of Sy.No.258 and 259, but in his cross-examination at page No.3 he clearly deposed that, "I have not seen any documents in respect of Sy.No.258 and 259." On considering the entire evidence of P.W.4 it clearly goes to show that he deposed only with an intention to help the plaintiffs.
35. Plaintiffs further contended that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and in the suit schedule properties the workers of plaintiffs are residing. In order to prove the same, the plaintiffs have utterly failed to examine the said workers who are allegedly residing in the suit schedule properties.
36. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs are not at all in possession of suit schedule properties. The / 32 / O.S.No.4679/2008 Sy.No.258 and 259 are not at all in existence, without any rights, the plaintiffs are claiming the relief. Hence, he prays for dismissal of suit. In order to establish his defence, defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and produced the documents - Exs.D.1 to D.28. The counsel for the plaintiffs has cross-examined D.W.1 in full length. Nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.1. The entire cross- examination is in respect of O.S.No.1773/1966 and 1774/1996 and much cross-examined upon the violation of Order passed by this Court on 1.10.2008. The counsel for the plaintiffs made a specific suggestion during the course of cross-examination of D.W.1 that Sy.No.258 and 259 belongs to the plaintiffs, but the witness denied the same.
37. In order to ascertain the situation of the properties, the DDLR of Bengaluru has been appointed as the Court Commissioner. He visited the spot and submitted the detailed report. Both the parties have filed their objections / 33 / O.S.No.4679/2008 to the said Commissioner's Report. In the report submitted by said DDLR in which he clearly mentioned that, " zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢AiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄw¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄw߸À¯ÁV, ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¸À¼Ü ÀzÀ°è PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄÆ® ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§j£À UÀrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¸À®Ä ¸ÁzÀsåªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ªÀÄÆ® ¸ÀªÉð £ÀPÀÉë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀiÁ¥À£À ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§j£À UÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆAzÁtôPÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀAvÉ DzÁågÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¹ÜwAiÀÄAvÉ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ zÁªÀ D¹ÛAiÉÄAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À¯ÁzÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÆ® ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï. 258, 259 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 269 gÀ ªÀÄzÀsåzÀ°è£À £Á¯Á ¨sÁUÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¹ÜwAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj D¹ÛAiÀÄ ªÁAiÀÄĪÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GvÀÛgÀ ¨sÁUÀÀzÀ°è £Á¯Á ºÀjAiÀÄÄwÛzÉ." The Commissioner's report is not clear regarding the boundaries of the suit schedule properties and the Court Commissioner also shown his inability to ascertain the boundaries of the suit schedule properties. The Commissioner Report is incomplete one and hence, it is not acceptable one.
/ 34 / O.S.No.4679/2008
38. That, the counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the father of the plaintiffs has acquired the suit schedule properties as per Exs.P.1 and P.2. Since then the father of the plaintiffs and after his death the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, the defendant without any right, title or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule property is obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The defendant is claiming the rights over the suit schedule properties, but has failed to produce any document to show that suit schedule properties belong to him. Hence, prays for decreeing the suit and also relied upon following decisions : -
(1) (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 254 - Surya Kumari and another Vs. D. Chandramouli and others.
(2) AIR 2004 Alahabad 131 - Santoo and others Vs. Jagannath and others.
/ 35 / O.S.No.4679/2008
(3) AIR 1968 Mysore 32 - Ramappa
Ramalingappa Padeyappanavar Vs.
Thayavva and another.
(4) AIR 1988 Madhya Pradesh 264 - Rama
Swaroop Tripati Vs. City Administrator,
Gwalior Office of Municipal Corporation.
(5) AIR 2003 Punjab and Hariyana 245 -
Parkasho Devi and others Vs., Tarsemlal and another.
(6) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1666 - Prataprai N.Kotari Vs., John Braganza.
(8) AIR 1996 KAR 296 - H.Hanumantharao Vs. Corporation of the City of Bengaluru.
(9) (1996) 2 KLJ 627 - N.Nagappa Vs. Sanna Ningegowda.
(10) AIR 1996 KAR 11 - Chinnamma and others Vs., N.Nagaraj and others.
(12) ILR 1992 KAR 1649 - Rajasab Husainsab Mulla Vs. Inayathulla Khan.
(13) AIR 1984 Orissa 132 - State of Orisaa and another Vs. Puri Municipality and others.
39. Per contra, the counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiffs are not at all in possession of the suit schedule properties and in order to prove their possession, the plaintiffs have not produced any documents or even the RTC in respect of suit schedule properties standing in their names. The plaintiffs are claiming Sy.No.269 as Sy.No.258 and 259. In fact, Sy.No.269 is the property of defendant. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the suit.
40. That, the counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon the following decisions :
/ 37 / O.S.No.4679/2008 (1) (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 254, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - S.38 - Alleged encroachment by appellant-defendant of respondent-plaintiff's property - suit schedule property found to be in exclusive possession of respondent-plaintiff and clearly identifiable and not falling within the area claimed by the defendants - Hence, held :
Possession being sine qua non for grant of permanent injunction, impunged Judgment restoring Judgment of trial Court granting injunction as prayed for by plaintiff calls for no interference.
(2) AIR 2004 ALLAHABAD 131 - Santoo and others Vs. Jagannath and other respondents: (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.38 - Suit for permanent injunction
- Plea of plaintiff that he was owner in possession of property by virtue of sale deed
- Executant of sale deed admitted in his evidence that he had delivered possession to / 38 / O.S.No.4679/2008 plaintiff - Defendant neither proved his title nor possession over dispute property -
Plaintiff entitled for decree on basis of possessory title against defendant.
(3) AIR 1968 Mysore 32, in which the Hon'ble High Court of Mysore held that, "Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.37 - Suit for permanent injunction - 'D' executing two agreement of sale in respect of same property, first in favour of 'T' and second in favour of 'P' - Possession of property given to 'P' and sale deed of property executed in 'T's favour - Suit by 'P' for permanent injunction restraining 'D' and 'T' from disturbing his possession - Even if 'T' has superior right to possession on basis of sale deed 'T' must obtain possession only through machinery of law - Earlier agreement of sale in 'T's favour does not preclude 'P' from suing for permanent injunction."
/ 39 / O.S.No.4679/2008 (4) AIR 1988 Madhya Pradesh 264 - in which the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that, "Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction - Defendant Municipal Corporation seeking to demolish Chabutara
- Possession of Chabutara by plaintiff for 7/8 years duly established and proved -
Defendant claiming land occupied by Chabutara as its property, but failed to prove its claim - Held, even though plaintiff failed to prove his title relief permanent injunction could not have been refused."
(5) AIR 2003 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 245 -
Parkasho Devi and others Vs. Tarsem Lal and another. : Specific Relief Act (47of 1963), S. 38 - Suit for permanent injunction against defendant restraining them from interfering with possession of plaintiffs - Entries in revenue record - Later entries coming into existence without any notice to previous occupier-plaintiff and without following instructions issued by financial / 40 / O.S.No.4679/2008 Commissioner - Cannot be made basis for holding defendant to be in possession of suit property - More so, when oral evidence did not prove defendant's possession - Suit entitled to be decreed.
(6) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1666 - Prataprai N.Kothari Vs. John Braganza : (C) Specific Relief Act (47of 1963), S. 38 - Suit for permanent injunction against dispossession
- Suit claim based on plea of long and exclusive possession - Not on title -
Defendant also not raising plea that he had title to suit property - Dismissal of suit on ground that defendant has proved his title and on doctrine that possession follows title
- Improper.
(7) 2017 (5) KCCR 395 - Raghava Reddy and Associates, Bangalore Vs. People Charity Fund, Bangalore and Another : Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 38 - Two types of possession immediate or direct possession and mediate on indirect possession -
/ 41 / O.S.No.4679/2008 Mediate possession merges with immediate possession so far as third party is concerned
- If dispute arises between mediate possessor and immediate possessor of party
- Actual possession over the property has to be taken in consideration - Party being in actual/physical possession - Have right to file suit for injunction - Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 - Section 2.
(8) AIR 1996 KARNATAKA 296 - N.Hanumantha Rao Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore : (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 38 - Perpetual injunction - Suit for - Oral and documentary evidence produced by plaintiff showing his 'lawful possession' over suit property - Issue framed by Court to decide whether plaintiff was in lawful possession of suit property - Suit decreed - Adverse finding that plaintiff is not lawful owner of suit property - Illegal. Words and Phrases - 'Lawful possession' - Meaning of .
/ 42 / O.S.No.4679/2008 (9) AIR 1996 KAR 11 - Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O.39 Rule 1, O.39 Rule 2 -
Temporary injunction - Grant of - Necessary in case of agricultural and HUF properties where there is likelihood of certain changes in character of immovable property during interim period.
(10) AIR 1979 Madras 56 - Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O.39 Rule 1, O.39 Rule 2 -
Suit for infringement of copyright - grant of Interim injunction - Consideration for grant of injunction or substituted relief -
Alternative safeguards to be thought of for preserve right of parties.
(11) AIR 1984 Orissa 132 - in which the Hon'ble Orissa Hight Court held that, "Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) - S.38 - Suit for permanent injunction - Locus standi - Land on which Gandhi memorial was to be put up by municipality, not transferred by State Government to municipality not steps taken by municipality to acquire it - Construction / 43 / O.S.No.4679/2008 by State Government of Inspection Bungalow on part of land, in progress - Suit for injunction to restrain Government to proceed with construction - Maintainability." That, it is the suit for permanent injunction. Plaintiffs have to establish their lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. But, in this case the plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, the above said decisions will not come to the aid of the plaintiffs' case.
(12) ILR 1992 KAR 1649 - "Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act No.12 of 1964) - Section 61 and 62 - Section 61(1) Excludes jurisdiction of Civil Court and 61(e) relates to claims against Government, not suit between private parties - Section 61(2) proviso Clause (a) and (b) exceptions relating to claims congnisable by Civil Court
- Section 62, in effect, proviso to Section 61
- U/s.62(b) jurisdiction of Civil Court to / 44 / O.S.No.4679/2008 entertain suit for declaration of title and possession of immovable property though on averment that concerned revenue records illegal or invalid or incorrect." The decisions (1996) 2 KLJ 627 and ILR 1992 KAR 1649 pertain to the suit for declaration of title. But, the present suit is for bare injunction. Hence, the facts of the above said decision is different from facts of the case in hand. Hence, the said decisions are not applicable.
41. As discussed supra, it is the suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have to prove their case on their own, they cannot take the advantages/weakness of the defendant. In a decision reported in LAWS (KAR) 2017 494 (Sathyamma Vs. Kempamma), in which it is clearly held that: "The weakness or lapses on the part of the defendant cannot be taken as filling up of the blanks or lapses, lacunas in the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove his case / 45 / O.S.No.4679/2008 on his own". The said decision is aptly applicable to the case in hand.
42. In this case the defendant has denied the very title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. When the title and possession of the plaintiffs is denied, the plaintiffs ought to have sought the relief of declaration and possession of suit schedule properties. Without seeking the relief of declaration and possession, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. In a decision reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033 (Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "When the title and possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property is denied, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable." The said decision is aptly applicable to the case in hand.
43. That, the plaintiffs have made assertion in their plaint that their father had acquired the suit schedule / 46 / O.S.No.4679/2008 properties under the Ex.P.1 - Exchange Deed dated 5.10.1967 and Ex.P.2 - Sale Deed dated 26.5.1971, but, there was no positive assertion that the plaintiffs continued to remain in possession of the property bearing Sy.No.258 and 259 thereafter also. Even the plaintiffs have utterly failed to produce the RTC standing in their names as on the date of suit. The claim of the plaintiffs is denied by the defendant and the defendant took specific contention that the plaintiffs are never in possession of the properties. In a suit for bare injunction what is essential for the plaintiffs are to prove that they are in actual durable possession of the suit properties when the relief is for permanent injunction in respect of immoveable properties.
44. A mere fact that the plaintiffs might have good title to the properties that by itself automatically does not establish their possession of the properties unless such / 47 / O.S.No.4679/2008 possession is actually pleaded and proved by positive evidence.
45. The plaintiffs though in fact pleaded that they are the owners in possession of Sy.No.258 and 259, in their pleadings they claim that their father has acquired the properties as per Exs.P.1 and P.2 from Balakrishna and Sriramulu, and the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, but, the defendant having categorically denied the right of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were seeking to support their possession of the properties with reference to the title, it is necessary for them to have sought declaration and possession of the suit schedule properties. The suit in law is not maintainable as unless declaration and possession are sought by the plaintiffs. The continued possession of the plaintiffs aptly in the light of denial of the defendant cannot be recognized in law. More so, when the defendant has also claimed his possession over the / 48 / O.S.No.4679/2008 properties and has denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs. As stated supra, whenever the title and possession are disputed, the remedy is to file suit for declaration, possession and injunction, otherwise the suit is not maintainable.
46. Here in the instant case also, the defendant has denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs. The mode of acquiring the title by the defendant is valid or not is a different aspect, the same cannot be adjudicated as this is a suit for bare injunction. When the title and possession are seriously disputed, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to seek declaration, possession and injunction thereby captioned Judgment referred i.e., AIR 2008 SC 2033 squarely applicable to the facts of the case and as discussed above, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule properties. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the negative.
/ 49 / O.S.No.4679/2008
47. Issue No.2 : - The plaintiffs have failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing the suit. Hence, the question of interference by the defendant does not arise. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in the negative.
48. Issue No.3 : - As the plaintiffs have failed to prove their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit properties and the alleged interference by the defendant over their possession, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any reliefs sought. Hence, I answer issue No.3 in the negative.
49. Issue No.4 :- For the foregoing reasons I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
/ 50 / O.S.No.4679/2008 Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed directly on computer, script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14th day of October, 2019.) (KHADARSAB) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs :
P.W.1 : S.Krishnamurthy @ S.Shekar
P.W.2 : S.Karuna
P.W.3 : G.R.Nagaraj
P.W.4 : N.Babu Prasad.
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs :
Ex.P1 Sale deed dt 5/10/1967
Ex.P2 C/c of Sale deed dt 26/5/1971
Ex.P3 C/c of Sale deed dt 8/11/1960
Ex.P4 C/c of Sale deed dt 13/1/1961
Ex.P5 C/c of Sale deed dt28/11/1960
/ 51 / O.S.No.4679/2008
Ex.P6 to 8 Encumbrance certificates
Ex.P9 C/c of plaint in O.S.4588/1986
Ex.P10 C/c of plaint in O.S.1773/1966
Ex.P11 C/c of written statement in O.S.1773/1966
Ex.P12 C/c of the additional written statement
Ex.P13 C/c of application U/o 22 R 10 CPC filed in
O.S.1773/96
Ex.P14 C/c of endorsement dated 22/6/2009 by
Magadi Police Station
Ex.P15 C/c of complaint dated 27/6/2009
Ex.P16 C/c of complaint dated 26/6/2009
Ex.P17 C/c of police notice dt8/7/2009
Ex.P18 C/c of the photo
Ex.P19 C/c of NCR issued by Magadi PS
Ex.P20 C/c of complaint dt23/7/2011
Ex.P21 C/c of police dated 29/7/2009
Ex.P22 C/c of summons plaint in O.S.8024/2009
Ex.P23 C/c of summons plaint in O.S.8024/2009
Ex.P24 C/c of NCR issued by Magadi PS
Ex.P25 C/c of endorsement dated 31/12/10 issued by
Magadi PS
Ex.P26 C/c of complaint dated 9/8/2009
Ex.P27 C/c of order in Misc.42/2011
Ex.P28 Office copy of the letter written to the Police
Commissioner, Bangalore dated 31/12/2010 Ex.P28 (a) Signature on Ex.P28 / 52 / O.S.No.4679/2008 Ex.P29 C/c of Order on IA-7 passed in O.S.No.8024/2009 Ex.P30 Notice issued by Police inspector Magadi PS Bangalore dated 18/8/2011 Ex.P31 Reply to the notice dated 18/8/2011 given by Plaintiff on 21/8/2011
3. List of witnesses examined for the defendants :
D.W.1 : G.S.Sudhir
4. List of documents exhibited by the defendant : -
Ex.D.1 C/c of compromise petition in
O.S.No.1774/1966.
Ex.D.2 C/c of Sale Deed dated 31.10.2012
Ex.D.3 C/c of sale deed dated 24-02-1917
Ex.D.3(a) C/c of typed copy of the sale deed dated
24-02-1917
Ex.D.4 C/c of sale deed 25-02-1970
Ex.D4(a) C/c of typed copy of sale deed 25.2.1970
Ex.D.5 C/c of sale deed 25-02-1970
Ex.D.5(a) C/c of typed copy of the sale deed
25.02.1970
Ex.D.6 C/c of Partnership deed dated 21.4.1946
Ex.D.7 C/c of Release deed dated 09-05-1961
Ex.D.8 Original Palu patti dated 01-08-1973
along with the sketch
Ex.D.9 C/c of Partition deed dated 10-08-2004
Ex.D.10 C/c of Ex.P.12 in O.S.No.8024/2009
/ 53 / O.S.No.4679/2008
(Statement of Sudheer) dated 09-08-
2009
Ex.D.11 C/c of letter issued by Police Inspector, Magadi Police Station, Bangalore dated 09-08-2009 to the D.C. of Police.
Ex.D.12 Endorsement issued by Police Inspector, Magadi Police Station, Bangalore dated 09-08-2009 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police Ex.D.13 Khatha Certificate in respect of IPD No. 25-53-226/1 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.14 Khatha Extract in respect of IPD No. 25- 53-226/1 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.15 Khatha Certificate in respect of IPD No. 25-53-226/5 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.16 Khatha Extract in respect of IPD No. 25- 53-226/5 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.17 Khatha Certificate in respect of IPD No. 25-53-226/3 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.18 Khatha Extract in respect of IPD No. 25- 53-226/3 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.19 Khatha Certificate in respect of IPD No. 25-53-226/4 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.20 Khatha Extract in respect of IPD No. 25- 53-226/4 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.21 Khatha Certificate in respect of IPD No. 25-53-226/8 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.22 Khatha Extract in respect of IPD No. 25- 53-226/8 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.23 Khatha Certificate in respect of IPD No. / 54 / O.S.No.4679/2008 25-53-226/11 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.24 Khatha Extract in respect of IPD No. 25- 53-226/11 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.25 Khatha Certificate in respect of IPD No. 25-53-226/12 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.26 Khatha Extract in respect of IPD No. 25- 53-226/12 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.27 Khatha Certificate in respect of IPD No. 25-53-79 dated 17-11-2018 Ex.D.28 Khatha Extract in respect of IPD No. 25- 53-79 dated 17-11-2018 (KHADARSAB), XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
***
/ 55 / O.S.No.4679/2008
14/10/2019
P : N.S
D : KML
For Judgment :
Judgment pronounced in the open Court
(Vide separate Judgment):-
ORDER
Suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby
dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XXXIX Additional City Civil
& Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.