Bangalore District Court
Shri.T.R.Somashekar vs Smt.K.V.Suvarna on 22 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XL ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-41) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2020.
PRESENT
SRI.RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI,
M.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.4492/2001
Plaintiff. Shri.T.R.Somashekar,
S/o. Sri.N.Rangappa,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation: Civil Contractor,
R/o. No.1250, 9th Main Road,
Prakash Nagar, Bengaluru-560 021.
(By Sri.R.S.Hegde, Adv.)
AND:
Defendants: 1. Smt.K.V.Suvarna,
W/o. Srinivas, major,
R/o. No.782, 7th Cross Road,
M.C. Layout, Vijaya Nagar, Bengaluru-
560 040.
2. Shri.K.Venugopal,
S/o. Kuppaswamy Mudaliar,
Major, R/o. No.12/8, New Kalappa
Block, Sriramapuram,
Bengaluru-560 021.
3. Binny Mill Labour
Association House Building Co-
operative Society, Limited,
No.14, M.M. Road, Jolly Mohalla,
2 O.S.No.4492/2001
Bengaluru-560 053.
Represented by its Secretary.
4. Survey Settlement and Land
Records Department
Employees House Building Co-
operative Society Ltd., K.R.
Circle, Bengaluru-560 001.
Represented by its Secretary.
5. The Bengaluru Development
Authority,
T.Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bengaluru-560 020,
represented by its Commissioner.
6. Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike,
N.R. Square,
Bengaluru-560 001,
Represented by its Commissioner.
7. Registrar of Co-operative
Societies in Karnataka,
No.1, Ali Askar Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
8. Smt.B.V.Sambharama,
W/o. H.Kumaraswamy,
Aged about 40 years,
No.442, 1st 'B' Cross,
7th Block, Koramangala,
Bengaluru-560 045.
(D1 : By Sri.Omkaresh, Adv.)
(D2 & D4 - Exparte.)
(D3-By Sri.G.Papi Reddy,
(D5-By Sri.Srinivas Bhat, Adv.)
(D6-By Sri.N.R.Jagadeeswar,
3 O.S.No.4492/2001
Adv.)
(D7-By 1st ADGP)
(D-8 : By Sri.M.Narayan. Adv.)
i) Date of Institution of the 20-06-2001
suit.
ii) Nature of the suit. Declaration &
Injunction
iii) Date of the 14-07-2017
commencement of
recording of evidence.
iv) Date on which the
judgment was pronounced. 22-09-2020
v) Total Duration Years Months Days
19 03 02
(RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI)
XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions judge,
Bengaluru.
****
JUDGMENT
This suit is for Declaration and Injunction.
2. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking the relief of declaration as he is the absolute owner and 4 O.S.No.4492/2001 in possession of schedule property by holding that sale deed dated 18/11/1991 executed in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2. sale deed dated 04/04/1991 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2, sale deed dated 07/01/1974 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of K.V.Shobha, the mother of defendant No.8 did not confer right, title and interest over the suit property on defendant Nos.1,2 and 8, as such, they are illegal, inoperative, null and void. Further, sought for Mandatory Injunction directing defendant Nos.5 and 6 to assess tax and issue khatha certificate in respect of schedule property in the name of plaintiff and sought for permanent injunction from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. "All that piece and parcel of residential site No.92 formed out of Sy.No.467/1 in Kempapura Agrahara village, Magadi road, Bangalore North Taluk, now 5 O.S.No.4492/2001 called as 1st stage of Binny Mills Labour Association HBCS Layout in Kempapura Agrahara, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to Suth 50 feet in all measuring an area of 1500 sq.ft., bounded on the East by Site No.91, West by Site No.93, North by Site No.88 and South by road" is treated as suit property.
3. It is pleaded that plaintiff is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of schedule property. The schedule property belongs to Survey Settlement and Land Records department Employees House Building Co-operative Society (defendant No.4). The defendant No.4-society sold schedule property through registered sale deed on 18/08/1980 in favour of B.Puttappa. Subsequent to purchase of suit site, B.Puttappa sold it to plaintiff through sale deed dated 12/06/1981. By virtue of sale deed, plaintiff acquired absolute right, title and 6 O.S.No.4492/2001 interest over the schedule property. It is averred that Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative Society (defendant No.3) purchased various lands in Kempapura Agrahara and sought permission to form private layout and obtained sanction plan for formation of layout called 1 st Stage of Binny Mills Labour Association, HBCS Layout. The plaintiff averred that by that time Survey Settlement and Land Records department Employees House Building Co-operative Society had purchased 9 sites (Site Nos.90 to 95 in Sy.No.467/1, site Nos.96 and 97 in Sy.No.467/5 and Site No.131 in Sy.No.445/2) under the two registered sale deeds dated 19/06/1969 and 18/07/1969 from its owner L.S.Ramalingaiah. It is averred that Binny Mils Society tried to deny the right, title and interest in respect of the sites purchased by defendant No.4-society and tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment, 7 O.S.No.4492/2001 as such defendant No.4-society filed O.S.122/1974 against defendant No.3-society and others for the relief of declaration and injunction. The suit came to be decreed on 31/03/1980. It is averred that after terminations of the proceedings, defendant No.4 sold sites to its members. The plaintiff purchased schedule property from a member of defendant No.4-society, who purchased it. It is averred that after purchase of schedule site, plaintiff approached defendant No.5 in 1996 for issuance of khatha and assessing schedule property for payment of tax and to accept the tax. As defendant No.5 did not respond and take any action in this regard, plaintiff filed Writ Petition No.24098/2000. In the said writ petition, defendant No.5 filed objections contending that khatha of the schedule property has been made in the name of the 1st defendant as she purchased the site from defendant No.2 to whom defendant No.3-society 8 O.S.No.4492/2001 allotted and executed the sale deed. In view of the objections, the writ petition came to be disposed on 15/11/2000 reserving the liberty to plaintiff to approach Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. The plaintiff pleaded that after obtaining the necessary documents in respect of the schedule property, it is noticed that defendant No.1 on the basis of invalid title and khatha is trying to deny the title of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule property and also interfere with possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The defendant No.3-society without having any authority, illegally created title in favour of defendant No.2 and on the basis of this, defendant No.2 sold it in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No.8 illegally claiming to have right, title and interest over the schedule property on the ground that defendant No.3-society executed sale deed on 07/01/1974 in favour of her mother K.V.Shobha and 9 O.S.No.4492/2001 K.V.Shobha executed a Will on 10/03/1991 bequeathing the schedule property to defendant No.8. The defendant No.8 filed O.S.No.6271/1994 against defendant No.1 in respect of schedule property, which came to be dismissed on 03/11/2008. The defendant No.8 preferred RFA No.32/2005 against judgment and decree dated 03/11/2008. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed RFA and set aside the judgment and decree and remitted the matter back to the Court for fresh disposal. Thereafter, defendant No.8 got impleaded herself in this suit claiming her right, title and interest in the schedule property. It is pleaded that sale deed dated 07/01/1974 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of K.V.Shobha and Will dated 10/03/1991 executed by her bequeathing schedule property to defendant No.8 do not confirm any right, title, interest and possession over the schedule property in favour of defendant No.8. The 10 O.S.No.4492/2001 plaintiff averred that defendant No.3 obtained sanction for formation of layout i.e., I Stage, Binny Mills Association, HBCS Layout and included schedule property in the layout which belonged to defendant No.4-society, which has been conclusively held in O.S.No.122/1974. The plaintiff further averred that defendant No.4-society is absolute owner and possessor of schedule property, as such defendant No.3-society has no valid right, title and interest to alienate and create title in respect of it. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not derive any right, title and interest in respect of schedule property under the sale deeds. It is averred that plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since the date of purchase. During last week of November, 2000, after disposal of writ petition filed by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 came near schedule property and tried to deny the right, title and 11 O.S.No.4492/2001 interest of plaintiff and tried to interfere with possession and enjoyment of schedule property. Again defendant No.1 came near schedule property in the last week of June,2001 and made an attempt to deny the title and also tried to interfere with possession and enjoyment. Therefore, plaintiff is constrained to file the suit seeking the reliefs.
4. In pursuance of the summons, defendant Nos.2 and 4 fails to appear, as such they are placed exparte. After appearance, defendant Nos.1,3, 5,6 and 8 submitted the written statements. The defendant No.7 fails to submit written statement. The defendant No.1 in the written statement contended that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable due to defective identity of the property. It is averred that the description of the property purchased by the defendant No.1 and property claimed by the plaintiff differs. The defendant denied the 12 O.S.No.4492/2001 averments made out in para 3 of the plaint as false. It is averred that defendant No.1 is absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and khatha of the schedule property stands in her name. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 4 of the plaint. It is averred that O.S.No.122/1974 is in respect of Sy.No.467/1, 467/5 and 445/2 of Kempapura Agrahara, but not in respect of Sy.No.186, 189, 190 and 209 of Kempapura Agrahara. Further, defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 was party to the said suit. Further, plaintiff is also not party to the said suit. Therefore, by taking shelter under the O.S.No.122/1974 cannot claim any right, title and interest over the property carved out of different Sy.Nos. to that of plaint schedule property. The defendant averred that khatha of schedule property was validly and legally made by defendant No.6 in the name of the defendant No.1. 13 O.S.No.4492/2001 The averments made out in para 5 of the plaint are unconnected to the property and is totally misleading. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 6 of the plaint as false. It is averred that plaintiff purchased the property on 12/06/1981, but khatha was not changed in his name even after lapse of more than one decade. This itself clearly goes to show that plaintiff is never in possession of the schedule property. The property claimed by the plaintiff and this defendant is entirely different. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 7 of the plaint as false. The defendant averred that since the identity of the property claimed by the plaintiff and property of the defendant No.1 is not correct, the plaintiff has nothing to do with the property of the 1st defendant. Under such circumstances, question of interfering with possession and enjoyment of the property by the defendant does not arise. The 14 O.S.No.4492/2001 defendant denied the averments made out in para 9 to 13 of the plaint as false. No cause of action accrues to the plaintiff to file the suit. The court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient.
5. The defendant No.3 in the written statement averred that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff has not complied with statutory requirement of provision under section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Non- compliance of the mandatory requirement is a fatal to the suit. Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant averred that plaintiff sought for declaration of sale deeds dated 18/11/1991 and 04/04/191 are illegal, inoperative, null and void. These sale deeds are registered documents. Registration itself is a deemed notice to the plaintiff. The declaratory relief challenging the sale deeds is barred by limitation. The defendant averred that plaintiff is not the owner in possession 15 O.S.No.4492/2001 of the schedule property. The plaintiff is falsely laying claim over the schedule property based on spurious document. It is averred that defendant No.3 formed a residential layout in land Sy.No.467/1, Kempapura Agrahara village with prior approval of Bengaluru Development Authority. The schedule site was a part of approved layout. The defendant No.3 legally transferred the site in favour of defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 04/04/1991. It is averred that defendant No.2 was member of defendant No.3- society. The schedule property was allotted and sold to defendant No.2 under the valid document. As such, defendant No.2 acquired lawful ownership and possession of the site. The defendant denied the plaint averments that schedule property belongs to defendant No.4 and defendant No.4- society sold the suit site to one B.Puttappa on 18/08/1980 through sale deed and in turn 16 O.S.No.4492/2001 B.Puttappa sold schedule property on 12/06/1981 to plaintiff. The defendant averred that layout has been formed in Sy.Nos.86, 189, 190 and 209 of Kempapura Agrahara and Sy.No.209 is renumbered as Sy.No.467/1. The defendant No.4-society had no right, interest in the schedule property. The defendant No.4 had neither succeeded nor acquired any of the property belongs to defendant No.3 society. The defendant denied averments as to defendant No.4-society purchased 9 sites formed in Sy.No.467/1, 467/5 and 445/2 through sale deeds dated 19/06/1969 and 18/07/1969. It is averred that defendant No.2 has been registered as khatedhar of schedule property based on the valid sale deed and possession certificate, no objection certificate and actual possession. The plaintiff is not entitled for registration of khatha in respect of schedule property as he has not acquired any right, title and interest or possession over schedule 17 O.S.No.4492/2001 property. The defendant denied the averments as to defendant No.3 has illegally created title in respect of schedule property in favour of vendor of defendant No.1. Based on it, the defendant No.1 made attempts to claim the schedule property. No cause of action accrues to plaintiff to file the suit. The suit is not properly valued. On these grounds and substances, prayed for dismissing the suit.
6. The defendant No.5 in the written statement contended that suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts, as such it is liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.5 denied the averments made out in para 3 of the plaint as false. It is averred that plaintiff is not in possession of the schedule property. the defendant admits averments made out in para 4 of the plaint as to defendant No.3 sought permission for forming private layout and Bengaluru Development 18 O.S.No.4492/2001 Authority accorded approval and sanction plan for formation of private layout called I stage of Binny Mill Labour Association HBCS Layout. It is further stated that permission for forming the entire layout has been given by defendant No.4 and khatha has been issued to the members of defendant No.3- society. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 5,6 and 10 of the plaint as false. The defendant No.3 has obtained approval of layout. It is denied that plaintiff is in possession of schedule site as absolute owner. Further, it is denied that 4th defendant-society had any right to allot suit site in favour of plaintiff. It is contended that defendant has every right to enter khatha in favour of members of layout, which has been given approval by Bengaluru Development Authority. The defendant No.4 is not proper or necessary party. The dispute is between plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiff arrayed this defendant as 19 O.S.No.4492/2001 party only to harass. The Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper. No cause of action accrues to the plaintiff.
7. The defendant No.6 in the written statement contended that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in law or on facts. As such, it is liable to be dismissed. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. The suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is not correct. The plaintiff cannot seek Mandatory Injunction against defendant No.5 for collecting tax from plaintiff and to issue khatha certificate in his favour. It is contended that khatha is already been issued in respect of schedule site to defendant No.1. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 3 of the plaint as false. The defendant averred that plaintiff claims to be purchased on 12/06/1981, but has not exercised 20 O.S.No.4492/2001 right of ownership till 1996. The plaintiff is not diligent even if he has got any right over the schedule property. The defendant averred that on the basis of the sale deed, the defendant No.1 approached for issuance of khatha certificate in respect of schedule property. The khatha certificate has been ordered in the name of the defendant No.2. The khatha certificate is not a document of title and it enables this defendant to collect the tax. It is averred that if the plaintiff succeeded n this suit, this defendant will comply the decree. The presence of this defendant is not required for disposal of the suit. On these grounds and substances, prayed for dismissing the suit.
8. The defendant No.8 in the written statement contended that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in law or on facts, as such it is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 21 O.S.No.4492/2001 No.3 of the plaint as false. It is denied that plaintiff is owner and possessor of schedule property formed in Sy.No.467/1. It is contended that defendant No.8 is absolute owner and possessor of the property. The plaintiff is illegally claiming the right, title and interest over the schedule property on concocted documents. The defendant averred that since 1974 her mother Smt.K.V.Shobha was in possession and enjoyment of the property and has purchased it from defendant No.3-society. The defendant No.3 by issuing possession certificate put her in possession of the suit site. The defendant contended that her mother K.V.Shobha till her death continued possession and enjoyment of the property. It is averred that during the lifetime of K.V.Shobha executed a Will on 10/03/1991 bequeathing schedule property to defendant No.8 and she died on 11/04/1881. After the death of K.V.Shobha, defendant No.8 became owner and 22 O.S.No.4492/2001 possessor of the schedule property. The plaintiff nor defendant Nos.1 to 4 have no right, title or interest over the schedule property. The defendant pleaded that defendant No.3, Binny Mills Society purchased various lands in Kempapura Agrahara village and with permission of CITB formed private layout called I Stage, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society. Further, defendant No.3-society sold the site to its member including her mother K.V.Shobha. That being so, the claim of plaintiff as to he is the owner and possessor of the property is false. The defendant denied the averments made out in the plaint as to defendant No.4 had purchased 9 sites bearing Nos.90 to 95 in Sy.No.467/1, site Nos.96 and 97 in Sy.No.467/5 and site No.131 in Sy.No.445/2 of Kempapura Agrahara village under the sale deeds on 19/06/1969 and 18/07/1967 from L.S.Ramalingaiah. The defendant contended that 23 O.S.No.4492/2001 defendant No.3-Binny Mills society had purchased land in Kempapura Agrahara village even prior to purchase by defendant No.4-society. The defendant averred that O.S.No.122/1974 filed by defendant No.4 is in respect of land in Sy.No.467/1, 467/5 and 445/2 of Kempapura Agrahara village, but not in respect of Sy.Nos.186,189, 190 and 209 of Kempapura Agrahara village. Further, neither K.V.Shobha, the mother of defendant No.8 nor plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2 were parties to the said suit. It is averred that by taking undue advantage and shelter under the guise of judgment and decree in O.S.No.122/1974, plaintiff is claiming his right, title and interest in respect of the schedule property. It is averred that mother of defendant No.8 purchased suit site on 07/01/1974 from defendant No.3-Binny Mill Society prior to filing of O.S.No.122/1974. As on the date of filing of the said suit by defendant No.4-society, the 24 O.S.No.4492/2001 defendant No.3-Binny Mill society had already lost its right over the property. Therefore, filing of O.S.No.122.1974 by defendant No.4-society in respect of sites including schedule property is mischievous and unwarranted because as on the date of the suit, Binny Mills society was not the owner of the property. The defendant pleaded that Binny Mill society having sold all the sites to its members including mother of defendant No.8, has not contested O.S.No.122/1974 except filing the written statement. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 societies colluded with each other to making wrongful gain as schedule property exclusively belongs to mother of defendant No.8. It is averred that defendant Nos.1 to 3 had no right, title and interest over the schedule property since it was sold to mother of defendant No.8 way back in the year 1974. Therefore, Binny Mills society had no right to cancel the registered sale deed executed in 25 O.S.No.4492/2001 the name of the mother of defendant No.8 dated 07/01/974 by Cancellation Deed on 29/05/1981. The defendant No.3-society never resumed possession of the property. The mother of defendant No.8 was not party to the Cancellation Deed. The defendant alleged that apart from this, defendant No.3 had fraudulently sold property in question to defendant No.2 on 04/04/1991, who in turn sold it to defendant No.1 on 18/11/1991, which is void, ab-initio in the eye of law. The defendant No.1 or 2 did not derive valid right, title and interest by virtue of sale deeds. Therefore, the Cancellation Deed dated 29/05/1981 and sale deeds dated 04/04/1991 and 18/11/1991 are not binding on defendant No.8.
9. Further, the defendant averred that plaintiff cropped up claiming right over the property in question from his vendor B.Puttappa alongwith exparte decree in O.S.No.122/1974 and 26 O.S.No.4492/2001 sale deeds dated 18/08/1980 and 12/06/1981. The judgment in O.S.No.122/1974 and sale deeds are not binding on this defendant. It is averred that neither defendant No.8 nor her mother K.V.Shobha had never lost their right over the schedule property since 1974 till this date, but is in actual possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption or hindrance from anybody despite putting up of shed by defendant No.1 illegally. The defendant pleaded that she had filed O.S.No.6271/1994 against the present defendant Nos.1 and 5 seeking the relief of permanent injunction and obtained interim order restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the property. Inspite of interim order, defendant No.1 has illegally put up a shed in the schedule property. The suit filed by this defendant came to be dismissed on 27/07/2004 and preferred RFA No.32/2005 challenging the 27 O.S.No.4492/2001 judgment and decree before the Hon'ble High Court. During the pendency of RFA No.32/2005, this defendant came to know about filing of this suit. As such, the Hon'ble High Court having heard the mother, passed an order on 03/11/2008 holding that Binny Mills society had no right to cancel the registered sale deed dated 07/01/1974 without due process of law and further directed to implead the society as defendant in O.S.No.6271/1994 without notice and remanded the matter by setting aside judgment and decree. Further, the Hon'ble High Court observed that O.S.No.6271/1994 shall be tried together with this suit by affording opportunity to the parties. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 5 of the plaint as false. It is averred that plaintiff in order to knock off the property belongs to defendant No.8, filed the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against Bengaluru Development 28 O.S.No.4492/2001 Authority. However, writ petition came to be disposed on 15/11/2000 reserving liberty to plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 6 of the plaint as false. It is averred that plaintiff or defendant Nos.1 to 4 have any right, title and interest over the property in question at any point of time. The defendant denied averments made out in para 8 of the plaint as false. The defendant averred that defendant No.3-society was absolute owner of the schedule property and had sold it to mother of defendant No.8 in 1974 and on the basis of the Will, executed by mother of defendant No.8, defendant No.8 became owner and continued possession of the same. Therefore, the defendant No.3-society had no right over the property in question nor defendant Nos.1 and 2 cannot derive any title to the property. It is further contended that defendant No.4-society has no right over the 29 O.S.No.4492/2001 schedule property. In view of the fact that said property was not at all in possession of Binny Mills society either at the time of filing of O.S.No.122/1974 or at the time of its disposal in 1980. Further, schedule property was already in possession of mother of this defendant prior to filing of the said suit. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 colluded with each other and defendant No.3 did not contest the proceedings for extraneous reasons, as such no valid right, title and interest over the schedule property can be derived from uncontested exparte judgment passed in O.S.No.122/1974. The plaintiff knowing this fact colluded with other defendant by creating concocted documents to make a ground to file this suit in order to knock off valued property belongs to defendant No.8. The defendant denied the averments made out in para Nos.9 and 10 of the plaint as false. It is averred that defendant No.8 is 30 O.S.No.4492/2001 in actual possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Therefore, the question of causing interference to plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 does not arise. The defendant pleaded that Bengaluru Development Authority had issued khatha of the schedule property in the name of her mother. Subsequently Bengaluru Development Authority took original khatha and other documents on 22/01/1993, but did not return the same inspite of requests and reminders, which clearly goes to show that plaintiff and other defendants are in active connivance with each other to knock off the valued property. The defendant further averred that in collusion with defendant No.3-society, Bengaluru Development Authority issued khatha in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of bogus sale deeds, which is void ab-initio. The defendant denied the averments made out in para Nos.11 and 12 of the plaint as false. The market value of the 31 O.S.No.4492/2001 schedule property is more than Rs.50,00,000/-. The plaintiff has not valued the property properly and has not paid proper court fee. Further, defendant No.8 and her mother continued ownership and possession over the schedule property since 36 years i.e., from the date of purchase in 1974. Therefore, the present suit filed is barred by limitation. On these grounds and substances, prayed for dismissing the suit.
10. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner in lawful possession and exclusion enjoyment of the suit schedule property with a given boundaries and measurement as on the date of the filing of the suit ?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants without having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property attempted to dispossess him forcibly thus causing interference ?32 O.S.No.4492/2001
3. If so, whether plaintiff is entitled to have a relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to assess the tax and issue khatha certificate ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have a relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant as prayed ?
5. To what order and decree ?
Additional Issues dated 14/01/2011 :
1. Whether the plaintiff further proves that 1st defendant did not derive any right, title and interest over the suit property n the strength of sale deed dated 18/11/1991 executed by 2nd defendant and the alleged sale deed dated 04/04/1991 executed by 3rd defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and the said sale deeds are illegal, in operative and null and void as alleged ?
2. Whether the 1st defendant proves that she is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property under the circumstances pleaded in para No.1 of the written statement ?
3. Whether the 8th defendant proves that her mother Smt.K.V.Shobha being absolute owner of the suit property has executed a will on 10/03/1991 and on her death plaintiff became the owner and in possession of the suit property 33 O.S.No.4492/2001 as alleged in para No.5 of the written statement ?
4. Whether the suit is not properly valued and C.F paid is insufficient as alleged by defendant Nos.1 and 8 ?
5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged in para No.20 of the written statement of defendant No.8 ?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration sought for ?
Additional Issues dated 09/01/2017 :
1. Whether the defendant No.8 proves that the defendant No.1 has illegally put up new watchman shed of asbestos sheet next to the existing old watchman shed in the suit schedule property during the month of May, 2016 by dispossessing as alleged ?
11. To prove and substantiate the respective contentions, power of attorney holder of plaintiff examined as PW-1 and got marked in all 42 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.42. The defendant No.1 examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.24. The Vice-President of Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society 34 O.S.No.4492/2001 examined as DW-2 and got marked Ex.D.25 to Ex.D.29. The defendant No.8 examined as DW-3 and got marked Ex.D.30 to Ex.D.46.
12. Heard the arguments.
13. The above issues are answered for the reasons, findings given in the foregoing discussions as:
REASONS
14. ISSUE NOs.1 & ADDL.ISSUE NOs.1 TO 3 : These issues are inter-connected and to avoid repetition of discussion, they are taken up jointly for consideration and discussion.
The plaintiff is claiming his right, title and interest through his vendor B.Puttappa and vendor's vendor, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society (D4). The defendant No.1 is claiming her right, title and interest through her vendor 35 O.S.No.4492/2001 K.Venugopal and vendor's vendor Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society. The defendant No.8 also claims her right, title and interest over the schedule property through the sale deed executed by her mother K.V.Shobha and Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society(D3).
15. The plaintiff contended that Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society was the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property. The Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society filed O.S.No.122/1974 against Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society seeking the relief of declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit site and other sites. The suit came to be decreed on 31/03/1980 against defendant No.3. The decree passed in 36 O.S.No.4492/2001 O.S.No.122/1974 has become final and conclusive. Thereafter Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society being the absolute owner, sold the suit site to one B.Puttappa through registered sale deed on 18/08/1980. After purchase of site, B.Puttappa sold it in his favour on 12/06/1981 through a registered sale deed. By virtue of sale deed, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property.
16. The defendant No.1 contended that mother of defendant No.8 K.V.Shobha was not owner, possessor of the suit site. The mother of defendant No.8 was not the member of defendant No.3 society. After realizing the mistake, defendant No.3 passed the resolution to cancel the sale deeds executed by then secretary in the name of non- members of the society including the mother of defendant No.8. Accordingly, by registered 37 O.S.No.4492/2001 cancellation deed, the sale deed dated 16/01/1974 executed in the name of mother of defendant NO.8 has been cancelled. Further, the society allotted the suit site to its member K.Venugopal and executed a registered sale deed on 04/04/1991 and also issued possession certificate by putting him in possession of the property. Subsequently, K.Venugopal sold the site through registered sale deed on 08/11/1991 to her and put her in possession of the property. By virtue of sale deed, she is absolute owner and possessor of the property.
17. It is the case of the defendant No.8 that her mother K.V.Shobha was allotted schedule site from defendant No.3-society and defendant No.3 society executed a registered sale deed on 07/01/1974 and issued possession certificate on 22/01/1976 and put mother of defendant No.8 in possession of the schedule site. It is further the 38 O.S.No.4492/2001 case of the defendant No.8 that during the lifetime, her mother K.V.Shobha executed a Will on 10/03/1991 bequeathing schedule property in her name and died on 11/04/1991. After the death of mother, defendant No.8 became absolute owner and possessor of schedule property.
18. To substantiate the contentions, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.42. The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 8 examined as DW-1 to DW-3. and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.55.
19. PW-1 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the plaint averments. In the cross-examination, PW-1 states that plaintiff is his son. Before purchase of schedule property himself and plaintiff verified the concerned records. He further states that they do not know who is the owner of Sy.No.461/1 of Kempapura Agrahara 39 O.S.No.4492/2001 village. PW-1 denied the suggestion that schedule site is not part and parcel of Sy.No.461/1. PW-1 states that defendant No.4, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co- operative Society has not purchased the land, but purchased sites in Sy.No.467/1, 467/5 and 445/2. PW-1 states that he do not know whether defendant No.3-Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society formed layout in Sy.Nos.186,189,190 and 209. PW-1 states that suit site will not come within the area of Sy.No.186, 189, 190 and 209. PW-1 denied the suggestion that defendant No.3-Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society put defendant No.2 in possession of the schedule property, as such, plaintiff is not in possession of it. PW-1 admits that khatha of the schedule property stands in the name of defendant No.1. During the course of cross-examination by defendant No.8, PW-1 states 40 O.S.No.4492/2001 that suit site is carved out of Sy.No.467/1 (old Sy.No.209). PW-1 states that Sy.No.467/1 originally belongs to defendant No.4-Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co- operative Society. PW-1 admits the suggestion that layout has been formed in Sy.No.467/1 by defendant No.3-Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society. The Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society converted agricultural land into non-agricultural land and formed layout. PW-1 states that Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society (D4) purchased 9 sites in the layout formed by defendant No.3-Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society from one Ramalingaiah. Further, he states that he do not know whether sites purchased by Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House 41 O.S.No.4492/2001 Building Co-operative Society comes within the layout formed in Sy.No.467/1 or not. PW-1 denied the suggestion that 9 sites belongs to Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society only, but not Ramalingaiah. PW-1 further states that he do not know whether defendant No.3-Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society sold suit schedule site to mother of defendant No.8, K.V.Shobha on 07/01/1974 through registered sale deed and issued possession certificate or not. PW-1 denied the suggestion that till 1991 mother of defendant No.8 was in possession of the suit site, but asserts that plaintiff is in possession since 1981. PW-1 states that he do not know whether on the date of filing O.S.No.122/1974 i.e., 07/03/1974, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society had sold suit site to mother of defendant No.8 on 07/01/1974. PW-1 admits the suggestion 42 O.S.No.4492/2001 that in O.S.No.122/1974 filed by Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co- operative Society (D4), mother of defendant No.8 was not made party. PW-1 states that khatha of the suit site is not made in the name of the plaintiff so far. Further, he states that application filed for effecting khatha by plaintiff has been rejected by the concerned authority.
20. The plaintiff produced certified copy of sale deed dated 18/08/1980 (Ex.P.2) executed by defendant No.4, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society in the name of B.Puttappa, original sale deed dated 12/06/1981 (Ex.P.3) executed by B.Puttappa in favour of plaintiff, Encumbrance Certificates(Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6), certified copy of sale deed dated 04/04/1991 (Ex.P.7) executed by defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society in favour of 43 O.S.No.4492/2001 defendant No.2, certified copy of sale deed dated 08/11/1991 (Ex.P.8) executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, ordersheet, judgment, decree and other connected papers of O.S.No.122/1974 (Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.28), certified copy of ordersheet in O.S.2408/2000 (Ex.P.29), letter correspondence between defendant Nos.3 and 4 societies (Ex.P.34 to Ex.P.42).
21. The defendant No.1 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the contents of her written statement. In the cross-examination by plaintiff, DW-1 states that prior to purchase of suit site, she verified the sale deed and possession certificate dated 04/04/1991 standing in the name of defendant No.2. DW-1 states that she do not know anything about suit filed by defendant No.4- society in 1974. DW-1 denied the suggestion that defendant No.3-society fraudulently sold suit site to defendant No.2. DW-1 denied the suggestion that 44 O.S.No.4492/2001 at the time of execution of sale deed by Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society in favour of K.Venugopal, possession of the site was with B.Puttappa. DW-1 denied the suggestion that B.Puttappa by executing sale deed, has put her in possession of the property. DW-1 produced original sale deed (Ex.D.1) dated 04/04/191 executed by defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society in favour of defendant No.2, K.Venugopal, possession certificate (Ex.D.2), tax demand letters and copies of Challans for having paid taxes (Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.7), original sale deed dated 08/11/1991 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1(Ex.D.11), khatha patra (Ex.D.12), challans for having paid taxes (Ex.D.13 to Ex.D.22), sanction plan (Ex.D.23 & Ex.D.24).
22. DW-2 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the contention taken in 45 O.S.No.4492/2001 the written statement and produced order passed in W.P.No.24193/1981 (Ex.D.25), relinquishment deed (Ex.D.26), order passed in W.P.No.19449/1976 (Ex.D.27), modified layout plan (Ex.D.28). DW-2 in the cross-examination states that he is working as Vice-President of defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society since 1999. He further states that he do not know about the suit filed by defendant No.4- society against defendant No.3-society. Further, he states that he is aware of O.S.No.122/1974. He further states that judgment reached finality. DW-2 denied the suggestion that without having any right, title and interest, defendant No.3-society executed sale deed (Ex.P.7).
23. DW-1 and 2 are not cross-examined by defendant No.8.
46 O.S.No.4492/2001
24. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff, defendant Nos.1,3 and 8, it can be seen that plaintiff mainly relied on sale deed dated 18/08/1980 (Ex.P.2) executed by Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society (defendant No.4), sale deed dated 12/06/1981 (Ex.P.3) executed by B.Puttappa, judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.122/1974 and other connected papers of the case (Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.28). The defendant No.1 relied on sale deed dated 04/04/1991 executed by defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society in favour of defendant No.2, K.Venugopal, possession certificate dated 04/04/1991, sale deed dated 08/11/1991 (Ex.D.11) executed by defendant No.2, K.Venugopal in her favour. The defendant No.8 relied on sale deed dated 07/01/1974 (Ex.D.31) executed by Binny 47 O.S.No.4492/2001 Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society (defendant No.3) in favour of her mother K.V.Shobha, possession certificate (Ex.D.32), Will Deed (Ex.D.33) executed by K.V.Shobha on 10/03/1991 in favour of defendant No.8, judgment passed in RFA No.184/1987 (Ex.D.41).
25. On going through the plaint and written statement of O.S.No.122/1974, it reveals that one L.S.Ramalingaiah has sold 32 guntas and 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.467/1 of Kempapura Agrahara village on 04/06/1969 and 17/06/1969 in favour of defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society. Further, same L.S.Ramalingaiah sold 9 sites formed in Sy.No.467/1 (site Nos.90 to 95), Sy.No.467/5 (site Nos.96,97), Sy.No.445/2 (site No.131) of Kempapura Agrahara village through two sale deeds dated 19/06/1969 and 18/07/1969 in favour of defendant No.4, 48 O.S.No.4492/2001 Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society. The Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society after purchase of the land formed layout and sold schedule site No.92 on 07/01/1974 to one K.V.Shobha and put her in possession of the site. On considering the date of purchase of land by defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society and defendant No.4, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society, it can be seen that the sale deed in the name of defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society is earlier one. As per sale deeds of defendant No.4, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society, the society purchased sites. It is the not the case of defendant No.4, Survey Settlement and Land Records 49 O.S.No.4492/2001 Employees House Building Co-operative Society that it has purchased the land and formed the sites. PW-1 admits in his evidence that after purchase of land by defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society, it has formed layout. There is no material to show that sites were formed by the vendor of property to defendant No.4-society. At the same time, it can be said that vendor of the property to Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society and Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society is one and the same person i.e., L.S.Ramalingaiah. The sale deed of Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society is earlier one and the vendor sold the land in guntas. The defendant No.4, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co- operative Society purchased subsequent to the 50 O.S.No.4492/2001 sale deed of Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society and property has been shown as sites.
26. On perusal of records of O.S.No.122/1974 produced in this case including judgment, it reveals that defendant No.4, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society filed the suit against defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society seeking relief of declaration of title to property purchased through sale deeds dated 19/06/1969 an 18/07/1969 and permanent injunction. The suit came to be filed on 07/03/1974. The Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society, vendor of the property though appeared and filed written statement, but have not contested the case. Finally the suit came to be decreed on 31/03/1980 in favour of Survey Settlement and Land Records 51 O.S.No.4492/2001 Employees House Building Co-operative Society. Thereafter, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society executed sale deed on 18/08/1980 (Ex.P.2 in favour of B.Puttappa, the vendor of the plaintiff, who in turn sold it to plaintiff through sale deed (Ex.P.3) on 12/06/1981.
27. The point that to be considered is whether judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.122/1974 binds mother of defendant No.8, K.V.Shobha in whose favour Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society executed sale deed on 07/01/1974 or not. The claim of defendant Nos.1 and 2 is to be considered at later stage. Admittedly defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society purchased land in Sy.No.467/1 on 04/06/1969 and 17/06/1969 and formed layout. Further, the Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- 52 O.S.No.4492/2001 operative society executed a registered sale deed on 07/01/1974 in the name of K.V.Shobha, the mother of defendant No.8 and put her in possession. The defendant No.4, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society purchased 9 sites on 19/06/1969 and 18/07/1969 including schedule site and sold suit schedule site to the vendor of plaintiff i.e., B.Puttappa on 18/08/1980, who in turn sold it to plaintiff on 12/06/1981. After execution of the sale deed on 07/01/1974 by defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society in favour of mother of defendant No.8, K.V.Shobha, the society ceases to be the owner. The right, title and interest in the site sold in favour of K.V.Shobha has been extinguished and through the registered sale deed, right, title and interest in the schedule site has been created in favour of mother of defendant No.8, K.V.Shobha. 53 O.S.No.4492/2001 As on the date of filing O.S.No.122/1974 i.e., on 07/03/1974, it is the mother of defendant No.8, K.V.Shobha, who was the owner and possessor of the suit site, not defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society. The defendant No.4, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society claim the right, title and interest in the sites purchased by it in O.S.No.122/1974. The Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society ought to have impleaded mother of defendant No.8 as one of the party to the said suit. The Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society though appeared and filed the written statement, has not contested the claim. If the mother of defendant No.8, K.V.Shobha was impleaded in the said suit, being purchaser of the said suit, she would have contested the claim of Survey 54 O.S.No.4492/2001 Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society. The O.S.No.122/1974 has been decided in the absence of mother of defendant No.8, who was owner and possessor of the suit site by virtue of sale deed executed by Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society. The judgment and decree of O.S.No.122/1974 is not contested and it is an exparte decree, the judgment and decree will not bind or affect the right, title and interest in the schedule property as far as mother of defendant No.8, K.V.Shobha is concerned.
28. The defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society purchased land in Sy.No.467 of Kempapura Agrahara on 04/06/1969 and 17/06/1969 and formed layout. Further, the site No.92 has been sold by the society through sale deed on 07/01/1974 in favour of K.V.Shobha, mother of 55 O.S.No.4492/2001 defendant No.8. In view of execution of sale deed in respect of suit site No.92, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society ceases to be the owner of it. The defendant No.4, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society purchased sites including suit site on 19/06/1969 and 18/07/1969. Both the Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society and Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society purchased property through Ramalingaiah. After execution of sale deed by Ramalingaiah in favour of Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society, Ramalingaiah ceases to be the owner of sold property and purchaser, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society became the owner. Ramalingaiah had no right to execute another sale deed in respect of 56 O.S.No.4492/2001 property already sold. The Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co- operative Society do not get any right, title and interest in respect of suit site through sale deeds dated 19/06/1969 and 18/07/1969. Thus being the circumstances, B.Puttappa, the vendor of the plaintiff, to whom Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society sold the suit site and executed sale deed on 18/08/1980, who in turn sold it to plaintiff on 12/06/1981 do not get any right, title and interest in the property.
29. As earlier mentioned, plaintiff claims his right, title and interest in the schedule property through his vendr and Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society. The defendant Nos.1,2 and 8 are claiming their right, title and interest in the schedule property through Binny Mills Labour Association 57 O.S.No.4492/2001 House Building Co-operative society. It is contended by defendant Nos.1 and 3 that Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society after purchase of land in Sy.No.467/1 of Kempapura Agrahara village, formed layout. After realizing the mistake, the society cancelled the sale deed and sold the said site to defendant No.2, K.Venugopal through sale deed dated 04/04/1991, who in turn sold it to defendant No.1 through sale deed dated 08/11/1991. By virtue of sale deed, the defendant No.1 is owner and possessor of schedule property. At the same time, the defendant No.8 contended that Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society sold schedule property through a registered sale deed on 07/01/1974 in favour of her mother K.V.Shobha and also put her in possession. After execution of sale deed, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society 58 O.S.No.4492/2001 ceases to be owner of the suit site. The society without having any right or authority cancelled the sale deed dated 07/01/1974 unilaterally and executed the sale deed in respect of the said property in the name of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 sold it to defendant No.1. As Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society has no right over the schedule property, the act of cancellation of sale deed and execution of another sale deed will not create any right, title and interest in the schedule property in the name of defendant No.1 or defendant No.2. The defendant No.8 produced judgment passed in RFA No.184/1987 (Ex.D.41). On going through the judgment passed in RFA No.184/1987, it reveals that the facts and circumstances of the case decided and present case in hand as far as cancellation of sale deed by Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society is 59 O.S.No.4492/2001 similar. The subject matter of RFA is site No.101/1 and present case is site No.92 situated at Kempapura Agrahara, Bengaluru belongs to defendant No.3-society.
30. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka formulated points such as whether sale deed executed by the society in favour of non-member is void or voidable, whether sale deed executed by the society represented by its office bearers contrary to bye-law No.36 is valid or void, whether the sale deed executed by the society in favour of its member in respect of the sites for which the society had already executed sale deed in favour of non-member is void or voidable, whether cancellation deed executed unilaterally by the society is void or voidable. As far as the execution of sale deed by society in favour of non-members is concerned, the Hon'ble High Court observed that Board of Directors of society in the meeting held on 60 O.S.No.4492/2001 09/12/1973 authorized the President, Secretary and Treasurer to execute the sale deed in favour of outsiders, who may be admitted as nominal members in terms of Section 18 of Mysore Co- operative Societies Act, 1959. In pursuance of the said authorization, President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society have executed sale deed in favour of non-members. A registered society under the Co-operative Societies Registration Act is a corporation or a quasi corporation capable of entering into contracts. The registration confers on it a legal personality and any contract entered into by it would be legally enforceable unless it is vitiated by an illegality or is shown to be void for any other reason. In the entire bye-laws of the society, there is no express prohibition prohibiting the society from selling the sites belonging to the society in favour of non-member. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that in so far as non- 61 O.S.No.4492/2001 members who are purchasing the property are concerned, they were dealing with the society represented by its President, Secretary and Treasurer. All the three of them have executed the sale deeds in their favour. The sale was for valid consideration. There is no prohibition in the bye- laws to sell the sites in favour of non-members. Therefore, the sale deed executed by the Society in favour of non-member cannot be said to be void. Therefore, the said agreement is lawful and not void. Further, the Hon'ble High Court observed that when the owner of a property sells/conveys the property to the purchaser under a written document and get the same registered, the title to the said property is transferred from the owner to the purchaser on registration of the said documents. After such registration, the owner of the property ceases to have any interest and all his rights in the property extinguishes. He would not 62 O.S.No.4492/2001 have any right to meddle with the property thereafter. If such a person want to execute one more sale deed and get it registered in respect of the said property, the said sale deed has no value in the eye of law. Therefore, the purchaser would not get title to the property as the vendor could convey only that title which he has in the property on the date of execution of registration of the sale deed. Unilaterally he cannot execute a deed of cancellation. In the case of sale deed, the owner completely looses his right over the property and the purchaser becomes absolute owner. The sale deed cannot be nullified by executing a deed of cancellation because by execution and registration of such a deed the properties are being vested in the purchaser and the title cannot be divested by mere execution of a deed of cancellation. Even by agreement between the purchaser and the vendor, the said sale deed cannot be annulled. If the 63 O.S.No.4492/2001 purchaser wants to give back the property, it has to be by another deed of reconveyance. It is only the Court which can cancel the deed duly executed under the circumstances mentioned in Section 31 of Specific Relief Act. The power to cancel the deed vests with the Court and it cannot be exercised by vendor of the property. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that it is by the act of registration, the title in the property passes to the transferor from the date of execution of deed of transfer. Once said sale takes place, transfer is complete, the vendor of the property ceases to be the owner of the property. Thereafter, if he executes one more sale deed in respect of same property or cancellation in respect of property already sold, in law it has no value and it in no way affects the sale deed already executed. It is invalid, void and non- est. 64 O.S.No.4492/2001
31. As earlier stated facts of the present case and facts of case decided in RFA No.184/1987 as far as cancellation of sale deed is similar. Admittedly in the present case, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society(defendant No.3) executed sale deed on 07/01/1974 in the name of K.V.Shobha in respect of the schedule site as per Ex.D.31. Further, on 22/01/1976, possession certificate has been issued to her. Since the date of execution of sale deed and possession certificate, mother of the plaintiff was in possession of the schedule site. The defendant No.3-society in its meeting held on 09/12/1973 decided to sell the sites formed by it to the outsider who may be admitted as nominal member in the terms of Section 18 of Mysore Co-operative Societies Act and it has been unanimously approved in the Special General Body Meeting of the society held on 25/12/1973. Therefore, the sale 65 O.S.No.4492/2001 deed executed by defendant No.3-society in the name of K.V.Shobha is valid, legal and binding on the society. By executing the registered sale deed, society ceases to be the owner of the property. The purchaser i.e., mother of the defendant No.8 became absolute owner of it. Thus being the circumstances, defendant No.3-society had unilaterally cancelled the sale deed executed in the name of K.V.Shobha by Cancellation Deed dated 29/05/1981. Thereafter, it has executed sale deed in respect of suit site in the name of the defendant No.2, who in turn sold it to defendant No.1 through registered sale deed on 18/11/1991. The defendant No.3-society after executing sale deed on 07/01/1974 in the name of mother of defendant No.8 ceases to be a owner. After ceasing to be the owner of the schedule property, society executed Cancellation Deed on 29/05/1981 cancelling the sale deed dated 07/01/1974. The society has no 66 O.S.No.4492/2001 right to cancel the sale deed through Cancellation Deed. As earlier mentioned, the registered sale deed is to be cancelled by a decree of Court as per Section 31 of Specific Relief Act. Further, execution of sale deed by defendant No.3-society in the name of vendor of defendant No.1 through sale deed dated 04/04/1991 and execution of sale deed dated 18/04/1991 by the vendor in the name of the defendant No.1 on 18/11/1991, subsequent to execution of sale deed on 07/01/1974 in the name of K.V.Shobha are void documents and they do not convey any title to the purchaser. The Deed of Cancellation dated 29/05/1981 in respect of sale deed dated 07/01/1974 executed by defendant No.3-society will not affect right, title and interest created in the name of K.V.Shobha by virtue of sale deed dated 07/01/1974 because defendant No.3- society has no right to cancel a valid and legal document executed by it.
67 O.S.No.4492/2001
32. The defendant No.8 contended that by virtue of sale deed dated 07/01/1974 executed by defendant No.3-society in the name of her mother K.V.Shobha, she became absolute owner and possessor of schedule property. On 10/03/1991, she executed a Will Deed bequeathing the schedule property in her name. K.V.Shobha died on 11/04/1991. After the death of K.V.Shobha, she became the owner and possessor of schedule property by virtue of Will Deed dated 11/04/1991.
33. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 have no right to question the Will Deed executed by K.V.Shobha for the simple reason that the defendant No.8 is claiming the schedule property on the basis of the Will Deed executed by her mother. Unless the defendant No.3-society prove that sale deed dated 07/01/1974 executed in the name of K.V.Shobha by it has been validly cancelled, the defendant No.3- society cannot dispute the Will Deed. The 68 O.S.No.4492/2001 defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 are claiming to be the purchasers of schedule property subsequent to sale deed dated 07/01/1974.
34. As earlier discussed by virtue of sale deed dated 07/01/1974, mother of defendant No.8, K.V.Shobha become the absolute owner of the schedule site. The defendant No.3-society ceases to be the owner of schedule property after execution of the sale deed in the name of K.V.Shobha in respect of schedule property. Thus being the circumstances, the defendant No.3- society has no right to execute sale deed in respect of schedule site in the name of defendant No.2 i.e., K.Venugopal. Since defendant No.3-society has no right, title and interest over the schedule property, the Cancellation Deed dated 29/05/1981 is illegal document. Further, the execution of sale deed dated 04/04/1991 in favour of K.Venugopal do not confer any right, title and interest to the vendor of 69 O.S.No.4492/2001 defendant No.1. When defendant No.3-society itself has no valid right, title and interest over the schedule property after execution of sale deed on 07/01/1974 in the name of K.V.Shobha subsequent documents such as Cancellation Deed, sale deed executed by defendant No.3 on 04/04/1991 and sale deed dated 08/11/1991 executed in the name of defendant No.1 by K.Venugopal will not create any right, title and interest over the schedule property. Therefore, this Court answers Issue Nos.1, Additional Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative and Additional Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
35. ISSUE NO.2 & ADDITIONAL DATED 09/01/2017 : It is the case of the plaintiff that Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society, defendant No.4 was the owner of suit site and sold it to one B.Puttappa through registered sale deed dated 18/08/1980. Said B.Puttappa sold the site to him 70 O.S.No.4492/2001 through registered sale deed dated 12/06/1981. After purchase of site, he approached Bengaluru Development Authority (defendant No.5) for making khatha in his name. The defendant No.5 has not taken any action for effecting khatha. Subsequent to this, he came to know that khatha of schedule property has been made in the name of defendant No.1 on the basis of sale deed executed by defendant No.2, K.Venugopal, to whom defendant No.3-society sold it through sale deed dated 04/04/1991. On the basis of invalid title deed and khatha in respect of schedule property, defendant No.1 is trying to deny title of plaintiff and also tried to dispossess him from the suit property. It is also contended by the plaintiff that defendant No.8 also claiming right, title and interest over the schedule property on the basis of sale deed dated 07/01/1974 and possession certificate dated 22/01/1976 executed in the name 71 O.S.No.4492/2001 of her mother K.V.Shobha by defendant No.3- society and Will Deed dated 10/03/1991 executed by K.V.Shobha in her favour. It is contended that defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society illegally and unauthorisedly executed sale deed in the name of K.V.Shobha. By virtue of sale deed, neither K.V.Shobha nor on the basis of Will Deed, defendant No.8 will not derive any right, title and interest over the schedule property. On the otherhand, it is pleaded and contended by defendant No.1 that mother of defendant No.8, K.V.Shobha was not a member of Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society. However, she got registered sale deed in respect of suit site. After realizing this, the society passed a resolution for canceling the allotment and sale deed executed in the name of non-members of the society. Accordingly, the society cancelled the sale 72 O.S.No.4492/2001 deed through Cancellation deed dated 29/05/1981. Thereafter, society allotted suit site to its member K.Venugopal through registered sale deed dated 04/04/1991 and possession certificate has been issued putting him in possession of the property. Subsequent to purchase of site, K.Venugopal sold it through registered sale deed on 08/11/1991 in her name. After purchase of site, she got changed khatha in her name and applied for sanction plan and licence by putting up construction. The Bengaluru Development Authority sanctioned the plan and granted the licence. Thereafter, she has undertaken construction work by constructing the watchman shed. On cancellation of sale deed by Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society, K.V.Shobha has not initiated any action during her lifetime. The mother of defendant No.8 was not at all in possession of the schedule property. The defendant No.8 at no point 73 O.S.No.4492/2001 of time was in possession and has not conveyed any title over the schedule property. After cancellation of sale deed by society, mother of defendant No.8 has lost all her right, title and interest. By virtue of Will Deed executed by K.V.Shobha, defendant No.8 will not get any right, title and interest over the schedule property.
36. It is the case of defendant No.8 that Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society allotted suit site and executed registered sale deed on 07/01/1974 in favour of her mother K.V.Shobha. Since the date of purchase, her mother was enjoying the schedule property by exercising right of ownership. During the lifetime, she executed a Will Deed on 10/03/1991 bequeathing suit schedule property to her. The mother of defendant No.8 died on 11/04/1991. After the death of mother, defendant No.8 became owner and possessor of schedule property by virtue 74 O.S.No.4492/2001 of sale deed. Thus being the circumstances, defendant No.1 without having any right, title, interest and possession over the schedule property tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Therefore, she is constrained to file the suit for injunction and obtain interim order of injunction. The defendant No.1 despite interim order was in force, put up a watchman shed in the vacant site. On 05/06/2016 when defendant No.8 visited the site, she came to know for the first time that a new shed has been constructed next to existing old watchman shed unauthorisedly during May, 2016.
37. To substantiate the contention, power of attorney holder of plaintiff examined as PW-1. The defendant No.1 though led evidence initially, but fails to proceed with case after remand of case. The defendant No.8 examined as DW-3 and produced copy of complaint and endorsement (Ex.D.34, 35, 75 O.S.No.4492/2001 38 to 40). On going through the evidence on record, it reveals that except producing sale deed and oral evidence, there is no other acceptable material on record to show that plaintiff by virtue of sale deed came in possession of schedule property and continued the same as on the date of suit. The evidence of DW-3 reveals that defendant No.8 has narrated about putting up of shed by defendant No.1 in the schedule property during the pendency of the suit filed by her. The photographs, complaint copy produced in this case also discloses that defendant No.8 filed complaint in the light of interference made by defendant No.1 for her possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and the photographs reveals about construction of shed in the schedule property. Apart from this, in view of earlier discussion, this Court finds that Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society executed a registered sale deed 76 O.S.No.4492/2001 on 07/01/1974 in the name of K.V.Shobha, mother of defendant No.8 and put her in possession of the property. After execution of sale deed, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society ceases to be the owner of suit site. Therefore, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society without having any right cancelled the registered sale deed dated 07/01/1974 executed in the name of K.V.Shobha. The cancellation deed in respect of sale deed dated 07/01/1974 is illegal. The Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society ought to have approach Civil Court for cancellation of the sale deed executed in the name of K.V.Shobha on the ground of void/voidable/void ab- initio documents. But Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society has not approached the Court for seeking the cancellation of the deed. Therefore, the 77 O.S.No.4492/2001 Cancellation Deed executed by Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society will not affect right, title and interest of K.V.Shobha over the schedule property. Further, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society without having any right, title and interest over the schedule property after execution of sale deed in favour of mother of defendant No.8, executed another sale deed in respect of same property in the name of defendant No.2, who in turn sold it to defendant No.1. When Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society itself had lost right, title and interest over the schedule property, through subsequent sale deeds neither plaintiff nor defendant Nos.1,2 will get any right, title and interest over the suit property. Further Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society by issuing possession certificate, put mother of defendant 78 O.S.No.4492/2001 No.8 in possession of the suit property in the year 1974 itself. Absolutely there is no evidence on the part of defendant No.1 or Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society (defendant No.3) to show that possession given to mother of defendant No.8 has been taken back legally. The evidence of DW-3, photographs and other materials clearly establishes the fact that defendant No.1 without there being any valid right, title and interest over the schedule property, put up a watchman shed illegally during pendency of the suit. The plaintiff has not shown that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property on the basis of sale deed. The defendant No.8 being owner and possessor of the schedule property is entitled to get encroached area by demolishing the structure put up by defendant No.1 on the schedule property. Therefore, for these 79 O.S.No.4492/2001 reasons, this Court answers Issue No.2 in the Negative and Additional Issue in the Affirmative.
38. ISSUE NO.4 :- It is the contention of the defendants that plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title holding that defendant No.1 did not derive any right, title and interest on the strength of sale deed dated 18/11/1991 executed by defendant No.2 and sale deed dated 04/04/1991 executed in the name of defendant No.2 and sale deed dated 07/01/1974 executed in the name of mother of defendant No.8 by defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society are illegal, in- operative, null and void. Further, Will Deed dated 10/03/1991 executed by mother of defendant No.8 did not derive any right, title and interest in the schedule property in the names of defendant Nos.1,2 and 8. The plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and paid proper court fee. On going through the plaint, it reveals that initially plaintiff 80 O.S.No.4492/2001 filed the suit for declaration of title to schedule property holding that sale deed dated 04/04/1991 and 18/11/1991 do not create any right, title and interest in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Mandatory Injunction directing defendant No.5,6 to assess tax and issue khatha certificate in respect of schedule property and valued the subject matter under Section 24(b) and 26(c) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act and paid Court fee of Rs.1,150/-. Subsequent to filing the suit, plaintiff got amended pleadings and sought declaration as to sale deed dated 07/01/1974 executed in the name of mother of defendant No.8 by defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society are illegal, in-operative, null and void. Further, Will Deed dated 10/03/1991 executed by mother of defendant No.8 did not derive any right, title and interest in the schedule property in the names of defendant No.8. The 81 O.S.No.4492/2001 plaintiff after amending the plaint and inserting new prayer in respect of claim of defendant No.8, has not paid additional Court fee. The defendants though contended about insufficient Court fee and improper valuation of the subject matter, but have not placed any material to show how the valuation and Court fee arrived and paid by plaintiff is incorrect. In the absence of this also, it is the duty of the plaintiff to pay Court fee by valuing the subject matter subsequent to amendment. The Court fee by plaintiff for the relief sought initially is proper and correct. However, plaintiff has not paid the Court fee on subsequent prayer regarding the claim of defendant No.8 in respect of schedule property. The plaintiff has to value the subject matter as far as defendant No.8 is concerned and pay requisite Court fee. Therefore, issue No.4 is answered partly in Affirmative.
82 O.S.No.4492/2001
39. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.5 : It is the contention of defendant No.8 that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. It is contended that filing of present suit and earlier writ petition by plaintiff are engineered for the purpose of this suit in collusion with other defendants for the sole reason that defendant No.8 and her mother have been exercising ownership and possession in respect of schedule property since 1974 till this date. The alleged cause of action is an imaginary in order to bring instant suit in time. On going through the available material on record, it reveals that plaintiff filed the suit initially against defendant Nos.1 to 7 showing cause of action on 15/11/2000, the date of disposal of writ petition filed by him and when defendant No.1 denied right, title and interest over schedule property on the strength of alleged sale deed dated 04/04/1991 and 18/11/1991. The defendant No.8 has been 83 O.S.No.4492/2001 impleaded subsequent to filing the suit i.e., in the year 2010. The plaintiff has not impleaded defendant No.8, but it is defendant No.8, who filed impleading application in the suit and came on record. Apart from this, except taking contention that suit is barred by limitation, defendant No.8 has not explained how the suit is barred by limitation. In the absence of cogent and acceptable evidence, this Court finds that suit filed by the plaintiff is within the limitation and hence, issue No.5 is answered in the Negative.
40. ISSUE NOs.3,4 & ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.6 DATED 14/04/2011 : In view of reasons, findings given in the above made discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society acquired 32 guntas and 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.467/1 on 04/06/1969 and 17/06/1969 from one Ramalingaiah through 84 O.S.No.4492/2001 registered sale deed. Further, defendant No.3- society formed a layout in the purchased land. The suit schedule site being one of the site formed in layout by defendant No.3 sold it to mother of defendant No.8, K.V.Shobha through registered sale deed on 07/01/1974 and put her in possession of the site by issuing possession certificate. The defendant No.8 by producing the sale deed of her mother K.V.Shobha, proved that by virtue of sale deed dated 07/01/1974, her mother K.V.Shobha became absolute owner and possessor of the property. During the lifetime, K.V.Shobha executed a Will on 10/03/1991 in the name of defendant No.8 bequeathing the schedule property. After the death of K.V.Shobha on 11/04/1991, defendant No.8 became owner of the schedule property. The defendant No.8 by producing Will Deed and examining herself and one witness proved that her mother bequeathed the schedule property to her 85 O.S.No.4492/2001 through the Will Deed. The defendant No.3-society subsequent to execution of sale deed in respect of suit site in the name of K.V.Shobha, cancelled by Cancellation Deed dated 16/01/1974. The defendant No.3-society after execution of sale deed in respect of suit site lost all its right, title and interest in respect of suit site. Such being the circumstances, the act of canceling the sale deed dated 07/01/1974 by Cancellation Deed dated 16/01/1974 is illegal and without any authority. The defendant No.8 proved the fact that defendant No.3-society without having any subsisting right, title and interest in the schedule property, executed the Cancellation Deed on 29/05/1981 and executed sale deed on 04/04/1991 in the name of defendant No.2, K.Venugopal, who in turn executed registered sale deed on 08/11/1991 in favour of defendant No.1. The defendant No.8 proved that when defendant No.3-society has no right, title and 86 O.S.No.4492/2001 interest of whatsoever nature in the schedule property, it has no right to cancel the sale deed dated 07/01/1974 and executed another sale deed on 04/04/1991 in favour of K.Venugopal. By virtue of sale deed dated 04/04/1991 and 08/11/1991 defendant Nos.1,2 will not get any right, title and interest in the schedule property.
41. Further, defendant No.8 proved judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.122/1974 is not binding on her. The defendant No.8 has shown that as on the date of filing O.S.No.122/1974, schedule property was sold to K.V.Shobha by defendant No.3-society, as such defendant No.3-society had no right, title and interest in the schedule property. The mother of the defendant No.8 was not been impleaded in O.S.No.122/1974 by plaintiff therein. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed in the said suit is not binding on the defendant No.8. The defendant No.8 also proved that prior to purchase 87 O.S.No.4492/2001 of sites including suit site by Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co- operative Society, the land has been purchased by defendant No.3, Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society. Therefore, the Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society has no right in the schedule site and executed sale deed on 18/08/1980 in favour of its member B.Puttappa. The plaintiff, who purchases suit site through sale deed dated 12/06/1981 from B.Puttappa also do not get any right, title and interest in the schedule property. The defendant No.8 proved during the pendency of suit, the defendant No.1 encroached into the schedule property and put up a shed. By virtue of sale deed dated 18/11/1991, defendant No.1 will not get any right, title and interest in respect of schedule site, as such the watchman shed put up in the schedule 88 O.S.No.4492/2001 property is illegal and it is liable to be demolished. The plaintiff fails to prove that he is absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule site by virtue of sale deed dated 12/06/1981 executed by his vendor B.Puttappa, to whom the defendant No.4, Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society executed sale deed on 18/08/1980. Prior to purchase of suit site by Survey Settlement and Land Records Employees House Building Co-operative Society, the land wherein suit site is formed has been purchased by Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co- operative society. The Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative society by forming the sites in the land purchased, sold suit site to mother of defendant No.8, K.V.Shobha. The sale deed in the name of plaintiff did not confer any right, title and interest in respect of schedule property, as such plaintiff is not entitled for change 89 O.S.No.4492/2001 of khatha in his name and also entitled for declaration, Mandatory Injunction against defendants. Therefore, Issue Nos.3,4 and Additional Issue No.6 are answered in the Negative.
42. ISSUE NO.5 : In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Suit is dismissed. No costs. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her and corrected, revised, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of September, 2020.) (RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
****
ANNEXURE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 - N.Rangappa
90 O.S.No.4492/2001
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 General Power of Attorney
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of sale deed dated
18/08/1980
Ex.P.3 Original sale deed dated 12/06/1991
Ex.P.4 to Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P.6 Ex.P.7 Certified copy of sale deed dated 04/04/1991 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of sale deed dated 04/11/1991 Ex.P.9 Khatha certificate given by Bengaluru Development Authority Ex.P.10 to Three copies of statutory notice issued Ex.P.12 to defendant Nos.5 to 7 Ex.P.13 to Acknowledgements Ex.P.15 Ex.P.16, Certified copy of ordersheet, plaint in 17 O.S.No.122/1974 Ex.P.18 to Certified copies of three written Ex.P.20 statements Ex.P.15 CD Ex.P.16 Receipt issued by photographer Ex.P.17 Copy of complaint with Vijayanagara police Ex.P.18 to Certified copies of three written Ex.P.20 statements in O.S.No.122/1974 Ex.P.21 Certified copy of deposition of PW1 in O.S.No.122/1974 Ex.P.22 Certified copy of Yuvo note dated 01/01/1980 Ex.P.23 Memo filed by B.D.A in O.S.No.122/1974 Ex.P.24 & Certified copies of two resolutions 91 O.S.No.4492/2001 Ex.P.25 Ex.P.26 Certified copy of layout plan Ex.P.27 & Certified copies of judgment and Ex.P.28 decree in O.S.No.122/174 Ex.P.29 Certified copy of writ petition order Ex.P.30 Endorsement Ex.P.31 Postal cover Ex.P.32 & Two Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P.33 Ex.P.34 to Nine certified copies of Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.42 Ex.P.11 in O.S.No.122/1974 WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 - K.V.Suvarna DW.2 - R.Manoji Rao DW.3 - B.V.Sambhrama DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :
Ex.D.1 Registered sale deed dated
04/04/1991
Ex.D.2 Possession certificate dated
04/04/1991
Ex.D.3 No objection certificate
Ex.D.4 & Two intimations issued by D5 Ex.D.5 Ex.D.6 to Three Challans for having received tax Ex.D.8 Ex.D.9 & Two receipts Ex.D.10 92 O.S.No.4492/2001 Ex.D.11 Registered sale deed dated 08/11/1991 Ex.D.12 Khatha certificate Ex.D.13 Intimation dated 05/08/1994 Ex.D.14 to Three Challans for having collected tax Ex.D.16 Ex.D.17 Khatha certificate Ex.D.18 Demand register extract Ex.D.19 to Four tax paid receipts Ex.D.22 Ex.D.23 Sanctioned plan by D.5 Ex.D.24 Sanctioned plan by D.6 Ex.D.25 Certified copy of order passed in W.P.No.24193/1981 dated 17/08/1989 Ex.D.26 Ex.D.27 Certified copy of order passed in W.P.No.10449/1976 dated 11/01/1978 Ex.D.28 Plan Ex.D.29 General Power of Attorney Ex.D.30 Certified copy of receipt Ex.D.31 Certified copy of sale deed dated 07/01/1974 Ex.D.32 Certified copy of possession certificate Ex.D.33 Certified copy of Will Deed dated 10/03/1991 Ex.D.34 & Certified copy of complaint dated Ex.D.35 22/10/1994 and endorsement Ex.D.36 Certified copy of acknowledgement by B.D.A Ex.D.37 Certified copy of letter Ex.D.38 & Certified copy of complaint with Ex.D.39 endorsement Ex.D.40 Certified copy of complaint dated 05/06/2016 93 O.S.No.4492/2001 Ex.D.41 Certified copy of judgment passed in RFA No.184/1978 Ex.D.42 Certified copy of survival certificate Ex.D.43 Certified copy of death certificate Ex.D.44 Certified copy of ration card Ex.D.45 & Certified copy of PAN card and Aadhar Ex.D.46 card Ex.D.47 to 7 photographs with CD and receipt Ex.D.55 (RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.
***** 94 O.S.No.4492/2001