Bangalore District Court
Smt.S.Vanaja Rao vs Sri.Kenchappa on 25 July, 2022
KABC0A0029022013
IN THE COURT OF LXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH.74)
PRESENT:
Sri.K.S.Gangannavar, B.Com., LL.B., (Spl.,)
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2022.
O.S. No.26290/2013
Plaintiffs: 1. Smt.S.Vanaja Rao,
W/o.Late.Sri.J.Sundar Rao,
aged about 44 yrs,
2. S.Padmavathi Rao,
D/o.Late.Sri.J.Sundar Rao,
aged about 20 yrs,
3. Sri.S.Parameshwar Rao,
S/o.Late.Sri.J.Sundar Rao,
aged about 17 yrs,
But, now having attained majority,
aged about 19 yrs,
All are R/at.Flat No.7, Block No.8,
Air India Staff Housing Colony,
Meenambakam, Chennai-600027.
2
O.S. No.26290/2013
(By Sri.M.V.Naveen Reddy - Adv.)
V/S
Defendants: 1. Sri.Kenchappa,
S/o.Late.Sri.Annaiahappa,
Major,
R/at.Devasandra Village,
K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru-560036.
2. Sri.M.Mune Gowda,
S/o.Sri.Venkataramanappa,
aged about 58 yrs,
R/at.Kadahalli Village,
Ammanallur Post, Vemagal Hobli,
Kolar Taluk & District.
3. Sri.M.B.Patil,
S/o.Sri.Basavana Gowda,
aged about 37 yrs,
R/at.3rd Main, 6th Cross,
Jakkasandra, Bengaluru-34.
4. Sri.C.Manjunath,
S/o.Late.Sri.Channappa,
aged about 52 yrs,
Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Store,
Kumbara Street, K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru-560036.
5. Smt.Jyothi Lakshmi,
W/o.Sri.C.Venkataswamy,
aged about 47 yrs,
R/at.4th Cross,
Basavanapura Main Road,
3
O.S. No.26290/2013
Opp. Police Quarters, K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru-560036.
6. Sri.K.V.Vijay,
S/o.Sri.Venkataramanappa,
Major,
R/at.No.68, 2nd Cross,
Vijaya Bank Colony,
K.R.Puram, Bengaluru-36.
(By Sri.Dayananda - Adv. for
deft.No.4)
(By Sri.S.R.Sreeprasad - Adv. for
deft.No.5)
(Defts.No.1, 2, 3 & 6-Exparte)
Date of Institution of the
16.08.2013
suit
Nature of the (Suit or pro-
note, suit for declaration
DECLARATION
and possession, suit for
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement
11.12.2015
of recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment
25.07.2022
was pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 08 11 09
(K.S.Gangannavar)
73 Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
rd
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)
4
O.S. No.26290/2013
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff is seeking the decree of declaration of title in respect of property bearing No.12, ITI notified area khatha No.532/1/26/12, situated at K.R.Puram Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, in BBMP Ward No.52, measuring East to West: 30 feet, North to South: 40 feet, consequential declaration that sale deed dated 22.08.2011 and its rectification deed dated 04.10.2021 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 and the sale deed dated 07.10.2011 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4, sale deed dated 21.10.2011 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 be null and void, further liable to be canceled.
2. According to the plaintiffs, Late.Sundar Rao was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of suit property. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the daughter and son of J.Sundar Rao. The title to the property was acquired by virtue of registered sale deed 5 O.S. No.26290/2013 dated 21.07.1991 before Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South. Sale deed was executed by one Narayanamma on the strength of General Power of Attorney dated 19.11.1987. Earlier to the said execution, defendant No.1 being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, in the year 1987 had sold the property in favour of Narayanamma, daughter of Channarayappa by executing General Power of Attorney dated 19.11.1987 along with affidavit by receiving full sale consideration and put her in possession and enjoyment of schedule property. Subsequent to the execution of sale deed, khatha in respect of suit property is transferred and taxes are also being paid. J.Sundar Rao died intestate on 7.4.2004 leaving behind plaintiffs as legal representatives to succeed to the estate. Plaintiffs being the heirs succeeded to the property. They are in possession and enjoyment of the same. They have put up the compound wall by removing old ACC sheet roofed building which was in dilapidated condition. 6
O.S. No.26290/2013
3. On 15.10.2011 defendant No.4 without having valid right, title, interest over the suit property tried to interfere with plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment by digging bore-well. Immediately plaintiff No.1 had approached jurisdictional police and filed a suit O.S. No.7669/2011. In the said suit exparte order was passed to maintain the status quo. Defendant No.4 appeared in the said suit, filed the written statement. On going through the written statement plaintiff came to know about fraudulent transfer of title. As such plaintiff withdrew the suit to file comprehensive suit for declaration. Accordingly, on 30.08.2012 suit was withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh suit. Plaintiff then came to know that defendant No.2 has executed sale deed dated 22.08.2011 in favour of defendant No.3 claiming to be the power of attorney holder of defendant No.1. On 04.10.2011 defendant No.2 executed the rectification deed. Defendant No.3 has executed the sale deed on 07.10.2011 in favour of 7 O.S. No.26290/2013 defendant No.4. Defendant No.1 had put the signature to the said sale deed as a consenting witness. Subsequently, defendant No.4 executed the sale deed on 21.10.2011 in favour of defendant No.5 by obtaining signature of defendant No.6 as a consenting witness to the document. Defendants by colluding with each other to knock off the suit schedule property have created the above stated fraudulent documents by putting some khatha number without any valid right, title or interest. Above said documents are outcome of fraud played by defendants and not binding on plaintiff. Hence, sought to decree the suit.
4. On issuing service of summons, defendants No.1 to 3 and 6 were placed exparte. Defendants No.4 and 5 appeared through their counsel. Defendant No.5 has only filed the written statement, wherein defendant No.5 has categorically denied plaint averments including J.Sundar Rao acquiring title to the property through the sale deed dated 21.07.1991 and subsequent succession of the 8 O.S. No.26290/2013 plaintiffs to the suit property. It is further contended by the defendants that plaintiffs are not the owners in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is further contended that plaintiffs had created the documents for the purpose of this suit. Further allegation that defendant No.1 executing the power of attorney and executing the affidavit conferring the interest over the property on 19.11.1987 in favour of Narayanamma are all denied. Further said Narayanamma executing the sale deed is also denied. Further allegation that on 15.10.2011 defendant No.4 trying to interfere with the plaintiffs possession of suit property by digging bore-well is denied. Under the circumstances, plaintiff filing the suit O.S. No.7669/2011 is concocted to suit the convenience. Further said suit being withdrawn to file a comprehensive suit for declaration is also denied. The cause of action stated for filing suit is all invented and false. It is specifically contended that defendant is the true and lawful owner in 9 O.S. No.26290/2013 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing site No.12, in Ward No.52, measuring East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 40 feet having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 21.10.2011. Prior to the defendant No.5 purchasing the property from defendant No.4, defendant No.4 had sucked a bore-well in the suit property. Subsequent to the sale deed revenue authorities have effected the khatha in the name of defendants. Defendant No.5 has constructed a dwelling house in the said site and amenities to occupy the house are also secured. According to defendant No.5, on 7.3.1981 defendant No.1 executed a GPA in favour of defendant No.2 by receiving entire sale consideration and also sworn to an affidavit for the sale of site. Thereafter, defendant No.2 executed the sale deed dated 22.8.2011 in favour of defendant No.3 as a GPA holder of defendant No.1 and put him in possession of the property. Defendant No.3 sold the said site to defendant No.4 under the sale 10 O.S. No.26290/2013 deed dated 7.10.2011. Defendant No.4 executed the sale deed in favour of 5th defendant. The defendant No.5 claimed to be the absolute owner to the suit property.
5. In consideration of above pleadings, following issues are framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, they are the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as legal representative of deceased J.Sundar Rao to succeed his estate?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, they entitle for possession of the suit property from the defendant No.5?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, sale deed dated 22.08.2011 and rectification deed dated 04.10.2011, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 claiming to be the GPA holder of the defendant No.1 are liable to be declared null and void and canceled?11
O.S. No.26290/2013
4. Whether plaintiff proves that, sale deed dated 07.10.2011 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 is liable to be declared as null and void and canceled?
5. Whether plaintiff proves that sale deed dated 21.10.2011 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 is liable to be declared as null and void and canceled?
6. Whether plaintiff proves that, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought in the plaint?
7. What order or decree?
6. Plaintiff No.1 in support of the issues under consideration has examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.43. On the other hand, defendant No.5 has examined herself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 to D.5.
7. Heard the counsel. Perused the material.
8. Above issues are answered as follows:- 12
O.S. No.26290/2013 Issue No.1: In the Affirmative, Issue No.2: In the Affirmative, Issue No.3: In the Affirmative, Issue No.4: In the Affirmative, Issue No.5: In the Affirmative, Issue No.6: In the Affirmative, Issue No.7: As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
9. ISSUE No.1: Before examining materials on this issue, it is necessary to note that subject matter of the suit is specific immovable property. The issue involved is the title relating to specific immovable property. There are definite material documents to establish the title of the suit property. The documentary evidence, going by the rules of Evidence Act, excludes the oral evidence. Therefore, while examining the title to the property preference should be given to documentary evidence. At the same time, it is 13 O.S. No.26290/2013 noticed that oral evidence has no significance in examining the corroborative value of the documentary evidence relating to title in this suit. It is also noticed in this proceedings that both the parties have led in the documentary evidence. Hence, for the just determination of the issues in question, it is only documentary evidence that are essential to the issues.
10. The relevant documents to be considered for the plaintiff for this issue are Ex.P.1 to P.3, P.14 and P.15. Ex.P.1 is the power of attorney executed by defendant No.1 in favour of one Narayanamma, Daughter of Channarayappa. Ex.P.2 is the affidavit of defendant No.1 re-enforcing Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney. Ex.P.3 is the sale deed executed by the power of attorney holder of defendant No.1 in favour of J.Sundar Rao, under whom plaintiffs herein are claiming title to the suit property. These documents are original. Originality of the document carry its own corroboration. These documents have to be 14 O.S. No.26290/2013 appreciated for its content. Defendants challenging the claim of the plaintiffs have denied the contents of these documents. No doubt, denial of the defendants call upon the plaintiff to corroborate the facts. When the original documents are produced, they have to be accepted for its contents. The necessity of the corroboration depends upon the nature of denial also. The documents produced are found valid both in its contents and the procedures of its execution.
11. The power of attorney marked at Ex.P.1 is notarized, which is a statutory requirement for power of attorney. This power of attorney is not assailed on any of the valid grounds. There are no reasons to discard the document on one hand and its contents on the other. Executant of the power of attorney is defendant No.1, who, in the absence of denial of its content, is bound by the documents. Defendant has not filed the written statement nor entered the witness box nor the contesting defendant 15 O.S. No.26290/2013 has produced any relevant materials to appreciate the invalidity of the power of attorney. Therefore, Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney cannot be discarded without sufficient materials. This power of attorney does not confer the title. However, the power of attorney empowers the attorney holder to exercise all such rights and powers, which are so specifically mentioned in the power of attorney. Affidavit marked at Ex.P.2 has re-enforced the contents of power of attorney. To impeach the credibility of power of attorney, it is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that, part of Ex.P.1 document is subjected to correction where the survey number of the property is mentioned. Therefore, certain amount ambiguity is attempted to be raised in the appreciation of evidence. Ex.P.2 Affidavit, which is prima facie contemporaneous to Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney has clearly disclosed the survey number very clearly. Thereby the ambiguity intended to be created on Ex.P.1 is clarified by Ex.P.2 Affidavit. Therefore, there are no reason to 16 O.S. No.26290/2013 discard Ex.P.1 and P.2. Plaintiff relying upon these documents has produced the original documents. These documents are properly stamped, sealed and found to have been executed before competent authority. There are no reasons to disbelieve either the execution of the document or its content.
12. Ex.P.3 is the sale deed executed in favour of J.Sundar Rao, husband of plaintiff No.1, the power of attorney holder of defendant No.1. Ex.P.3 Sale Deed clearly describes the suit property and the intention to convey the title. This document is registered with jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, which is valid execution of the document. Thereby the transfer of title relating to the suit property is recorded. Thereby husband of plaintiff No.1 J.Sundar Rao had acquired the title to the suit property.
13. Based on said sale deed plaintiffs relying upon Ex.P.4 to P.13 have stated for getting the name of Sundar Rao being entered to the khatha extract and assessment 17 O.S. No.26290/2013 extract for the local bodies. Thereby it is contended that Sundar Rao, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Ex.P.14 is the death certificate of Sundar Rao and Ex.P.15 is the legalheirship certificate, wherein the name of the plaintiffs as the wife and daughter and son of Late.Sundar Rao is certified by the Tahsildar of Tambaram Taluk Office. From these documents, plaintiffs not only claimed the title to the suit property and also asserted the flow of title from defendant No.1 through Narayanamma.
14. Defendants disputing the title and possession of the plaintiffs to the suit property have relied upon certain documents marked at Ex.P.24 to P.27. These are the sale deeds executed by defendants No.2, 3 and 4 in favour of defendants No.3, 4 and 5 respectively. They are dated 22.08.2011, 07.10.2011 and 21.10.2011. The sale deed dated 22.08.2011 is executed by defendant No.2 in favour 18 O.S. No.26290/2013 of defendant No.3 claiming to be the GPA holder of defendant No.1. Before examining other aspects, it is to be noticed that defendants are relying upon the sale deeds produced by the plaintiffs on one hand. Though defendant No.5 alone was examined for the defendants, herself has not produced the original document of title. It is only the certified copy of Ex.P.26 marked at Ex.D.1. Other sale deeds or the documents of title are not produced. It appears defendants are relying upon the presumption of registered documents. Such presumption by itself is not complete and absolute.
15. Though defendant No.5 in her evidence has marked the certified copy of rectification deed, but has not stated anything for not producing document of title. The certified copy of the sale deed produced by the plaintiff discloses the sale being registered between a vendor and a purchaser. Said registration is the presumption for execution of the sale deed. However, said registration by 19 O.S. No.26290/2013 itself conveying the title cannot be accepted without the production of document of title on one hand and the title of the vendor being established. It is contended by the defendants No.2 to 6 that defendant No.1 had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 07.03.1981. Said sale deed is not produced. The reason for non production of said sale deed is not coming out. Plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 22.08.2011 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 as a GPA holder of defendant No.1 is marked at Ex.P.24. Even said sale deed does not specifically disclose the manner of defendant No.2 acquiring the title to the property through defendant No.1 nor defendant No.1 is brought to be examined by the defendants. It is also stated that, to the sale deed dated 07.10.2011 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4, defendant No.1 is the consenting party. Thereby it is contended that defendant No.1 being consenting party to the sale in favour 20 O.S. No.26290/2013 of defendant No.4, is a direct party to the sale in favour of defendant No.4. Thereby it is contended that sale deed in favour of J.Sundar Rao cannot be looked into. As observed above, the sale deed marked at Ex.P.3 is corroborated by Ex.P.1 and P.2 the power of attorney and the affidavit, which are prior in time and found in proper mode of its existence continue to hold the field. Hence, Ex.P.1 to P.3 acquire the lawful significance.
16. Even if defendant No.1 entering the witness box denying the execution of Ex.P.1 and P.2 cannot wipe out the evidentiary value unless based upon recognized legal grounds, such as fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, coercion. Anyone of these grounds being established in connection with execution of Ex.P.1 and P.2 is not coming out nor they are legally terminated. These documents and its contents cannot be discarded. Therefore, defendant No.1 or other defendants No.2 to 6 claiming the title through defendant No.1 have heavy 21 O.S. No.26290/2013 burden of disproving Ex.P.1 and P.2. Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney is not invalidated in any manner known to the law until the execution of Ex.P.3. Even if, Ex.P.1 is terminated after execution of Ex.P.3 same cannot invalidate Ex.P.3. Because, revocation of the power of attorney has to be appreciated from the date of its revocation. Therefore, the principal empowering the attorney holder has an obligation of ratifying all such acts of attorney holder, which are legally valid and permissible under such power of attorney. Therefore, there are no reasons to discard the flow of title from Kenchappa, S/o.Annaiah to Sunder Rao and the plaintiffs through Narayanamma. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
17. ISSUE No.2: Plaintiffs have claimed the possession of the suit property under the title acquired through Ex.P.1 to P.3. To substantiate the possession Ex.P.4 to P.17 and Ex.P.28 to P.40 are relied upon. Most of these documents are tax-paid receipts and the khatha 22 O.S. No.26290/2013 extract. These documents coupled with documents of title established the possession following valid title. These materials are eclipsed by the facts disclosed in Ex.P.16 and P.18 to P.20 coupled with claim of the defendants canvassed in written statement. Accordingly, it is definite case of the plaintiff that defendant No.4 has trespassed and sunk a bore-well. This fact is canvassed even with the police authorities on 19.10.2011, perhaps much prior to the date of filing suit No.7669/11 wherein it is stated for defendant No.4 sinking a bore-well. This fact of drilling a bore-well is an effective act of dispossession or encroachment. Defendant No.5, contesting the claim of plaintiff, has stated about, defendant No.4 venturing with bore-well in the suit property. To substantiate said claim defendant relies upon Ex.D.5 Bore-well Bill. It is in the name of defendant No.5. However, it is clear that said bore-well being installed by plaintiff is not coming out. Now, defendants claiming the counter title as observed in 23 O.S. No.26290/2013 issue No.1, have failed to establish the same. However, their act connected with the suit property have substantially affected the title and possession of the plaintiff. Any legal character to the said possession cannot be identified with the defendants. Therefore, defendants are only the trespassers liable to restore the property to the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property.
18. Advocate for the plaintiff in this regard has relied upon judgment reported in 2017 (2) AKR 47 (B) between KSRTC, Bengaluru v/s B.T.Krishnamurthy, wherein the lordship dealing with the document issued by the competent authority in the course of official duty has held to be genuine unless and until proved to be forged. Thereby it is contended that Ex.P.15 is issued by executive Magistrate about the surviving family members. Thereby plaintiffs had claimed the right to succeed to the suit property. Even otherwise, plaintiffs are governed by Hindu 24 O.S. No.26290/2013 Succession Act, wherein plaintiffs herein being the class-I heir enjoy the right of succession to the estate of J.Sundar, who died intestate. Hence, issue No.2 is answered in Affirmative.
19. ISSUE Nos.3, 4 & 5: Issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 are based on validity of the sale transactions effected between defendants No.2 to 3, 3 to 4 and defendants No.4 to 5 on different dates. Acquisition of title by plaintiff in respect of suit property is contested by the defendants. The document of title and marketable title of the vendor are the vital facts to be considered. Origin of the title of suit property from Kenchappa, S/o.Annaiah is not in dispute. However, plaintiffs claim the flow of title through the power of attorney dated 19.11.1987 where as defendant No.2 claim the flow of title based on the document dated 07.03.1981. Going by the pleadings defendant No.2 acquired the title prior in time. This pleading of defendant No.2 is not supported by valid evidence. Such contention 25 O.S. No.26290/2013 of defendant No.2 cannot be accepted for the flow of title. Neither defendant No.1 nor the document of title of defendants No.2 to 5 are produced. Defendants No.1 to 4 being parties to the alleged alienations have withheld themselves from the proceedings for dubious reasons. Non production of documents of title of the defendants appears to have been intended to avoid legal consequences. In this regard counsel for the plaintiff relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1994 (1) SCC 1 between S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v/s Jagannath. Further ILR 2016 KAR 2529 and thereby observed that, fraud occurs by not disclosing relevant and material documents with a view to obtain advantage amounts to fraud.
20. Though defendants have categorically stated in their pleadings about transfer of title on different dates. Respective defendants have not produced original documents nor, brought in any cogent evidence to substantiate transferable title of the vendors under these 26 O.S. No.26290/2013 sale deeds. Thereby these documents deserves to be nullified.
21. Among the defendants, defendant No.1 having executed the power of attorney and allowing to operate it for good length of time and later on being a consenting party to the registered transfer to the defendants has made out the fraudulent intention. This deserves appropriate penal action against defendant Nos.1 to 6. Hence copy of these findings shall be sent to Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, for initiating enquiry by appropriate agency of the State. Because, state recognizes the title and the court concerned shall be informed about the investigation once in 3 months till completing the investigation.
22. Existence of sale deeds dated 22.08.2011, 07.10.2011 and 21.10.2011, rectification deed dated 04.10.2011 marked at Ex.P.24 to P.27 are found without any valid title to the property under transfer. These documents by virtue of being registered carry the 27 O.S. No.26290/2013 presumption of title. The factum of absence of intrinsic value of the document has to be recorded for effective nullity of these documents. In addition proper enquiry about the conduct of these defendants is essential to avoid any of other fraudulent transfers of the properties. Especially when defendant No.1 has stated in Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney and Ex.P.2 Affidavit about developing the layout and selling them to the other persons. In this context, at this stage, it is sufficient to serve the cause of justice that the sale deed dated 22.08.2011, rectification deed dated 04.10.2011 and sale deed dated 07.10.2011 and 21.10.2011 being declared as void and canceled, and an enquiry be conducted as observed above. Consequently, observations of these judgments shall be sent to jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and his official superiors to invalidate these documents as per the procedures of Registration Acts and Rules. 28
O.S. No.26290/2013
23. Advocate for the defendants has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1165 (B) between Nair Service Society Ltd. v/s K.C.Alexander and others, wherein it is observed that presumption of title from possession can arise only where facts disclose no title in any party. This judgment is not helpful as both the parties are agitating for the title and plaintiff has produced better document of title than the defendant. Therefore, no benefit can be derived to the defendant under the judgment in question. Accordingly, issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 are answered in Affirmative.
24. ISSUE No.6: In view of the reasons recorded plaintiff is entitled to the decree as sought for. Title of specific immovable property is the recognized by the State. Any fraudulent transfer or documents coming into force are affecting the credibility of the title recognized by the State. Hence, effective mechanism to restrict such fraudulent transfers are the matter of necessity for which a 29 O.S. No.26290/2013 detailed investigation is found necessary. Hence, the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs throughout.
It is hereby declared that, plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property. Defendants No.5 and 6 shall hand over the vacant possession of the suit property by demolishing the structure within a period of 20 days.
The sale deeds dated 22.08.2011, rectification deed dated 04.10.2011, sale deed dated 07.10.2011, 21.10.2011 re declared as null and void. An intimation to that effect shall be sent to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar 30 O.S. No.26290/2013 and his official superior for effecting necessary corrections for the nullity of these documents in accordance with the Registration Acts and Rules.
Office shall issue an intimation to Commissioner of Police about the fraudulent transfer observed in this suit and to enquire about such transactions by these defendants by invoking their personal unique identification principles; i.e., aadhaar and to initiate appropriate legal action to avoid such fraudulent transfers by defendants No.1 to 6 or anybody claiming through them.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, computerized by her, after online correction by me, printout taken by her and then 31 O.S. No.26290/2013 pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of July, 2022).
(K.S.Gangannavar) 73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bangaluru. (CCH-74) ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs' side:
P.W.1 - Smt.S.Vanaja Rao P.W.2 - Sri.M.Siddappa
List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs' side:
Ex.P.1 - General Power of Attorney Ex.P.2 - Affidavit dated 19.11.1987 Ex.P.3 - Sale deed Ex.P.4 - Holder khatha Ex.P.5 - Receipt Ex.P.6 - Tax-paid receipt
Ex.P.7 & 8 - Copy of tax payers amount filling challan for SAS, Municipal Council, Krishnarajapura Ex.P.9 - Property tax-paid receipt Ex.P.10 - Tax-paid receipt Ex.P.11 to 13 - Property tax-paid receipts Ex.P.14 - Death certificate Ex.P.15 - Legalheirship certificate Ex.P.16 - Police complaint dated 19.10.2011 Ex.P.17 - Acknowledgment Ex.P.18 to 21 - Photos Ex.P.22 - CD 32 O.S. No.26290/2013 Ex.P.23 - Police acknowledgment Ex.P.24 - Certified copy of absolute sale deed Ex.P.25 - Certified copy of absolute sale deed Ex.P.26 - Rectification of sale deed Ex.P.27 - Certified copy of absolute sale deed Ex.P.28 & 29 - EC Ex.P.30 - Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.7669/11 Ex.P.31 - Certified copy of WS in O.S. No.7669/11 Ex.P.32 - Certified copy of application u/O XXIII Rule 1 r/w Sec.151 of CPC Ex.P.33 - Certified copy of order sheet in O.S. No.7669/11 Ex.P.34 - Endorsement Ex.P.35 - Letter dated 25.04.1995 Ex.P.36 - Computerized tax-paid receipt for the year 2017-18 Ex.P.37 - Computerized tax-paid receipt for the year 2016-17 Ex.P.38 - Computerized tax-paid receipt for the year 2013-14 Ex.P.39 - Computerized tax-paid receipt for the year 2014-15 Ex.P.40 - Computerized tax-paid receipt for the year 2015-16 Ex.P.41 - Certified copy of deposition in Misc.
No.25149/2016
Ex.P.42 - Certified copy of sale deed dated
09.02.1978
Ex.P.42(a) - Typed copy of Ex.P.42
Ex.P.43 - Certified copy of RTC
Ex.P.43(a) - Typed copy of Ex.P.43
List of witness examined for the defendants' side:33
O.S. No.26290/2013 D.W.1 - Smt.Jyothi Lakshmi List of documents exhibited for the defendants' side:
Ex.D.1 - Certified copy of rectification of sale deed dated 04.10.2011 Ex.D.2 - Original Form B property register extract for the year 2016-17 Ex.D.3, 3(a) to (h) - 9 Tax-paid receipts Ex.D.4, 4(a) to (e) - 6 Electricity bills Ex.D.5 - Borewell bill dated 15.10.2011 (K.S.Gangannavar) 73 Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, rd Bengaluru. (CCH-74) 34 O.S. No.26290/2013