Bangalore District Court
Chinnamma vs Pushpa on 3 December, 2025
1
O.S. No.5098/2005
KABC010152392005
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCH-41)
::Present::
Smt. Veena N., B.A.L. L.L.B.,
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 03rd day of December, 2025.
O.S. No.5098/2005
PLAINTIFFS :: 1. Smt. Chinnamma, Aged about 66 years,
W/o. Late. Sri. Ramaswamy Raju,
:: 2. Sri. R.Venkatesh Raju, Aged about 36
years, S/o. Late. Sri. Ramaswamy Raju,
:: 3. Sri. R.Rajendran, Aged about 42 years,
S/o. Late. Sri. Ramaswamy Raju,
:: 4. Sri. R.Vijayakumar, Aged about 34
years, S/o. Late. Sri. Ramaswamy Raju,
2
O.S. No.5098/2005
All are R/at: No.55, Raju's Colony, Yamalur
Post, Bengaluru - 560 037.
(By Sri. B.N.Jayadeva, Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS :: 1. Smt. Pushpa, Major, W/o. Sri. M.Thippa
Reddy, R/o. Kundalahalli, Krishnarajapura
Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
:: 2. The Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk,
K.R.Puram, Bengaluru.
:: 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru
North Sub-Division, Bengaluru.
:: 4. Smt. Shanthamma, Aged about 40
years, W/o. Sri. U.H.Nagaraja, R/at:
No.113, Nellurahalli, Whitefield Post,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East,
Bengaluru - 560 066.
(By Sri. C.Shankar Reddy, Adv. for D-1)
(By Sri. M.S.Venkatarama Reddy, for D-4)
(D-2 & 3 - Exparte)
Date of Institution of the :: 08-07-2005
Suit
Nature of the Suit :: DECLARATION & INJUNCTION
3
O.S. No.5098/2005
Date of commencement of :: 13-03-2008
recording of evidence
Date on which the :: 03-12-2025
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration :: Year/s Month/s Day/s
20 04 25
(VEENA N.)
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
Suit is one for declaration of title and to declare that the order dated 24.06.2005 passed by defendant No.1 is void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of permanent injunction.
2. Case of the plaintiffs in brief is as hereunder:-
The suit schedule property bearing Sy. No.12 measuring 4 acres 15 guntas and 2 guntas of kharab land situated at Hoody Village, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru 4 O.S. No.5098/2005 was allotted to the share of one Sri. H.M.Shamanna Reddy S/o. Sri. Chikkamuniswamy under registered Partition Deed dated 02.11.1955. The said Sri. H.M.Shamanna Reddy was also known as Sri. Shama Reddy and he sold the said land under registered Sale Deed dated 16.09.1966 in favour of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of the other plaintiffs. After purchase, all the revenue records were transferred to the name of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju and he was in possession and enjoyment of the land and all the revenue documents i.e. Record of rights, index of land and RTC' s stood in the name of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju. Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka issued notification for acquisition of 15 guntas of land out of total extent of 4 acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.12. After issuance of final notification, the Government issued notice under Section 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act to Sri. Ramaswamy 5 O.S. No.5098/2005 Raju directing him to claim compensation. Though notice was issued in the name of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju, while passing the award, in view of the claim made by Sri. H.M.Shama Reddy, the award was passed in the name of both Sri. Ramaswamy Raju and Sri. Shama Reddy and amount was deposited before the Civil Court under Section 12 of the Act. It is stated that only on the year of sale, the name of Sri. Shama Reddy and Sri. Ramaswamy Raju was shown in column No.9 and in all subsequent years in column No.9, the name of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju was shown and he was personally cultivating the land and hence, his name is shown in column No.12 of the RTC. Later, the said Sri. Ramaswamy Raju received notice issued by the defendant No.3 and it was found that an appeal had been filed before defendant No.3, after 3 decades by the defendant No.1 against Sri. Ramaswamy Raju challenging the validity of the mutation entry made in his 6 O.S. No.5098/2005 name in respect of suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff No.4 went to the office of defendant No.3 and filed an intimation on 02.02.2005 that Sri. Ramaswamy Raju died on 01.09.2003.
Thereafter, the plaintiff did not receive any notice. However, on 27.06.2005 the plaintiffs came to know that order has been passed by defendant No.3 on 24.06.2005 in R.A. No.217/2004-05 wherein the mutation entry made in the name of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju is set aside. On going through the order, it was learnt that the defendant No.1 had produced Encumbrance Certificate for the period 01.04.1955 to 14.02.1957 in respect of the land in question showing that the property has fallen to the share of Sri. Shama Reddy. The defendant No.1 has deliberately suppressed the fact of execution of sale deed by Sri. Shama Reddy in favour of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju. The defendant No.3 has set aside the mutation entry without issuing notice to 7 O.S. No.5098/2005 the plaintiffs who are the legal representatives of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju and hence, the order passed by the defendant No.3 against dead person should be dismissed. The defendant No.3 has passed the order without issuing notice and without following procedure prescribed under Rule 65 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and the defendant No.2 has hastily changed the revenue records in the name of defendant No.1. It is further stated that Sri. Ramaswamy Raju during his life time, had sold 2 acres 22 guntas of land out of the total extent of suit schedule property in favour of one Sri. Riyaz Ahmed and as such, the plaintiffs are only in possession of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No.12. Since the plaintiffs are obliged to ensure clear title to the purchaser of that particular portion and also since the defendant No.1 has secured the mutation entry in her name, in respect of entire extent of 4 acres 15 guntas, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in respect of the entire 8 O.S. No.5098/2005 extent of the land. It is stated that the defendant No.1 taking advantage of the order passed by defendant No.3 is trying to put up construction and is trying to take forcible possession of the schedule property and hence, left with no choice the present suit is filed.
3. In pursuance to the summons issued the defendant No.1 caused appearance and filed her written statement. Despite of service of summons the defendants No.2 and 3 remained absent and hence are placed exparte. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.4 was impleaded as party to the suit and she has also not chosen to contest the suit by filing written statement. Thus, it is only the defendant No.1 who is contesting the suit. The defendant No.1 has in her written statement contended that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the defendant No.2 9 O.S. No.5098/2005 and 3 are the Government authorities and statutory notice as required under Sec.80 of C.P.C. is not issued and hence, the suit is patently bad in law and is required to be dismissed for non-compliance of the statutory requirement under Sec.80 of C.P.C. It is admitted that Sri. H.M.Shamanna Reddy had acquired the entire extent of suit schedule property under registered partition deed. But denies that he sold the land under sale deed dated 16.06.1966 in favour of Ramaswamy Raju. It is contended that the alleged sale deed is sham and bogus document obtained by practicing fraud in as much as the said H.M.Shamanna Reddy did not execute any such sale deed. This defendant has denied the signature of Shamanna Reddy in the sale deed and it is contended that signature has been forged on the said document and he never signs as Patel H.M.Shamanna Reddy and he subscribes his signatures only as H.M.Shamanna Reddy and not in any other form. Therefore, the 10 O.S. No.5098/2005 signatures appearing in the sale deed dated 16.06.1966 are forged and the alleged execution is obtained by impersonation. Thus no right, title or interest is transferred to the said Ramaswamy Raju and no rights are inherited by the plaintiffs. It is contended that there is a cloud on the claim of husband of plaintiff No.1 and hence, the husband of the plaintiff No.1 could not lay his hands in the compensation amount. It is contended that there is a statutory bar under Sec.63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act to institute a civil suit against the State Government or the Revenue Officers and hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is further contended that the plaintiffs admit that they have sold an extent of 2 acres 22 guntas and an extent of 15 guntas has been acquired and hence, the claim of the plaintiffs to the total extent of 4 acres 15 guntas including 2 guntas of kharab land is patently not sustainable under law. The plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment 11 O.S. No.5098/2005 of 4 acres 15 guntas or any extent of the suit schedule property and they are strangers and have no right over the said property. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the declaratory reliefs claimed. Since the husband of plaintiff No.1 did not derive any right, title or interest, he was legally not competent to convey or transfer any interest in the schedule property in favour of Mr. Riyaz Ahmed to an extent of 2 acres 22 guntas and hence, the said sale is not binding on this defendant. It is contended that this defendant is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, claiming through Smt. Muniyamma W/o. Late. H.M.Shamanna Reddy and hence, the question of this defendant either causing interference or allegedly dispossessing the plaintiffs does not arise and there is no cause of action to file the suit. Further, since there is statutory remedy of revision as against the order passed by defendant No.3, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant 12 O.S. No.5098/2005 the relief. Further, the suit is not properly valued and the Court fee paid is insufficient. Since the alleged sale deed is obtained by practicing fraud, the said document is sham and bogus document and the element of fraud has been explained and elaborated by this defendant. Further, since the plaintiffs have not made Mr. Riyaz Ahmed as party to the suit, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. Hence, the suit is not maintainable and contending these facts sought for dismissal of suit.
4. The aforesaid pleadings have occasioned following:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of suit A schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession and 13 O.S. No.5098/2005 enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction against defendant No.1 in respect of suit A schedule property ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that order dated 24.06.2005, passed by defendant No.3 is illegal and void and not binding on plaintiffs ?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaratory reliefs as sought by them ?
6. Whether Court fee paid is sufficient ?
7. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties ?
8. Whether suit is barred by limitation ?
9. What decree or order ?14
O.S. No.5098/2005
5. The plaintiff No.3 in order to establish his claim got examined himself as P.W.1 and he has relied upon 30 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30. In support his the plaintiff examined one witness as P.W.2 and closed the evidence.
6. Per contra, the defendant No.1 got examined herself as D.W.1 and relied upon 15 documents marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.15 and closed the evidence. The Handwriting Expert is examined as C.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.4.
7. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant. Perused records.
8. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
ISSUE No.1 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.2 :: In the Affirmative
15
O.S. No.5098/2005
ISSUE No.3 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.4 :: Partly in the Affirmative
ISSUE No.5 :: Partly in the Affirmative
ISSUE No.6 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.7 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.8 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.9 :: As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
9. ISSUES NO.1 AND 2 :: Both issues are taken up collectively for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and also for convenience of the Court.
The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs as against the defendants seeking declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners, in possession of the suit schedule property and for declaration that the order passed by defendant No.3 dated 24.06.2005 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of 16 O.S. No.5098/2005 permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 or anyone claiming under her from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The description of the suit schedule property involved in the present suit is as hereunder :-
SCHEDULE LAND The immovable property bearing agricultural land measuring 4 acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.12, of Hoody Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk and bounded on the East by - Land of Sri. Thigaluru Kakappa, West by - Kundarahalli Kodidhi Raghurama's land, North by - Remaining land of Sri. Shamanna Reddy and South by - Land of Sri. Thigalara Doddabaiah and Sri. A.K.N.Pasha S/o. Lalamma.
SCHEDULE "A" LAND Immovable property bearing agricultural land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas including 2 guntas of kharab out of 4 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No.12 of Hoody Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk and bounded on the East by -17
O.S. No.5098/2005 Property of Mr. Riyaz Ahmed, West by - Land of M/S. Fletcher (RMC Reddy Mix), North by - KEB Colony and South by - Private property.
10. The plaintiffs in order to establish their title and possession over the suit schedule property got examined the plaintiff No.3 as P.W.1 and he has in his evidence deposed that the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No.12 measuring 4 acres 15 guntas and 2 guntas of kharab land situated at Hoody Village, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru was allotted to the share of one Sri. H.M.Shamanna Reddy S/o. Sri. Chikkamuniswamy under registered Partition Deed dated 02.11.1955. The said Sri. H.M.Shamanna Reddy who was also known as Sri. Shama Reddy sold the said land under registered Sale Deed dated 16.09.1966 in favour of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of the other plaintiffs. After purchase, all the revenue records were transferred to the name of Sri. 18 O.S. No.5098/2005 Ramaswamy Raju and he was in possession and enjoyment of the land and all the revenue documents i.e. Record of rights, index of land and RTC' s stood in the name of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju. Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka issued notification for acquisition of 15 guntas of land out of total extent of 4 acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.12. After issuance of final notification, the Government issued notice under Section 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act to Sri. Ramaswamy Raju directing him to claim compensation. Though notice was issued in the name of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju, while passing the award, in view of the claim made by Sri. H.M.Shama Reddy, the award was passed in the name of both Sri. Ramaswamy Raju and Sri. Shama Reddy and amount was deposited before the Civil Court under Section 12 of the Act. It is stated that only on the year of sale, the name of Sri. Shama Reddy and Sri. Ramaswamy Raju was shown in column No.9 and in all 19 O.S. No.5098/2005 subsequent years in column No.9, the name of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju was shown and he was personally cultivating the land and hence, his name is shown in column No.12 of the RTC. Later, the said Sri. Ramaswamy Raju received notice issued by the defendant No.3 and it was found that an appeal had been filed before defendant No.3, after 3 decades by the defendant No.1 against Sri. Ramaswamy Raju challenging the validity of the mutation entry made in his name in respect of suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff No.4 went to the office of defendant No.3 and filed an intimation on 02.02.2005 that Sri. Ramaswamy Raju died on 01.09.2003. Thereafter, the plaintiff did not receive any notice. However, on 27.06.2005 the plaintiffs came to know that order has been passed by defendant No.3 on 24.06.2005 in R.A. No.217/2004-05 wherein the mutation entry made in the name of Sri. Ramaswamy 20 O.S. No.5098/2005 Raju is set aside. On going through the order, it was learnt that the defendant No.1 had produced Encumbrance Certificate for the period 01.04.1955 to 14.02.1957 in respect of the land in question showing that the property has fallen to the share of Sri. Shama Reddy. The defendant No.1 has deliberately suppressed the fact of execution of sale deed by Sri. Shama Reddy in favour of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju. The defendant No.3 has set aside the mutation entry without issuing notice to the plaintiffs who are the legal representatives of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju and hence, the order passed by the defendant No.3 against dead person should be dismissed. The defendant No.3 has passed the order without issuing notice and without following procedure prescribed under Rule 65 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and the defendant No.2 has hastily changed the revenue records in the name of defendant No.1. It is further stated that Sri. Ramaswamy Raju 21 O.S. No.5098/2005 during his life time, had sold 2 acres 22 guntas of land out of the total extent of suit schedule property in favour of one Sri. Riyaz Ahmed and as such, the plaintiffs are only in possession of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No.12. Since the plaintiffs are obliged to ensure clear title to the purchaser of that particular portion and also since the defendant No.1 has secured the mutation entry in her name, in respect of entire extent of 4 acres 15 guntas, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in respect of the entire extent of the land. It is stated that the defendant No.1 taking advantage of the order passed by defendant No.3 is trying to put up construction and is trying to take forcible possession of the schedule property and hence, left with no choice the present suit is filed.
11. In support of his evidence P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.P.1 which is the registered Sale Deed dated 16.09.1966 which shows the suit schedule property is 22 O.S. No.5098/2005 purchased by Sri. Ramaswamy Raju from H.M.Shamanna Reddy and the signatures of the vendor H.M.Shamanna Reddy is marked as Ex.P.1(a) to Ex.P.1(d) and it shows the said vendor has subscribed his signatures as Patel H.M.Shamanna Reddy and the signatures of the attesting witnesses are marked as Ex.P.1(e) and Ex.P.1(f) respectively. On going through the recitals of the sale deed, it makes it clear that, the said property was allotted to the share of H.M.Shamanna Reddy under partition deed dated 02.11.1955 and it also shows that the said H.M.Shamanna Reddy had no male issues and he had only one daughter and she was given in adoption to his elder brother Guruva Reddy and since he is aged person, for the purpose of legal and family necessity, has sold the entire extent of the suit schedule property in favour of Ramaswamy Raju. Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 are the record or rights and index of lands for the year 1970 which shows, pursuant to the sale deed 23 O.S. No.5098/2005 mutation is effected to the name of Ramaswamy Raju as per MR. No.37/1969-70 and index of lands also shows the sale transaction that took place between Ramaswamy Raju and H.M.Shamanna Reddy and the name of purchaser Ramaswamy Raju is mutated in the revenue documents. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.13 are the RTCs of suit schedule land for the period 1966-67 upto 1988-89 which shows only for the year 1966-67 i.e. the year on which the property was sold RTC stood in the name of H.M.Shamanna Reddy and subsequent to execution of the sale deed, since 1967 upto 1989 the entire extent of the suit schedule property stood in the name of Ramaswamy Raju and his name finds place both in the owner and in cultivators column i.e, in column No.9 and 12 of RTC and it shows the said entry is made by virtue of sale deed dated 16.09.1966. Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.16 are the RTCs for the period 1992-93 to 2001-02 which reveals that out of total extent of 4 acres 17 guntas 24 O.S. No.5098/2005 including 2 guntas of kharab land, the said Ramaswamy Raju has sold 2 acres 22 guntas in favour of one Mr. Riyaz Ahmed and 15 guntas is acquired vide Gazette notification dated 27.11.1998 and Ramaswamy Raju is shown to be in possession of remaining 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy. No.12. Ex.P.17 is the Patta book which stands in the name of Ramaswamy Raju. Ex.P.18 is the notice issued by the Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division, Bengaluru regarding acquisition of land for improvement to road passing through Doddanekundi Industrial Area which shows the required land in Sy. No.12 of Hoody village is taken possession on 21.02.1972 with the consent of Ramaswamy Raju for improvement of the existing road passing through Doddanekundi Industrial Area and it is informed to Ramaswamy Raju that the claims will be settled in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act to the legal title holder. Ex.P.19 is the notice issued by the SLAO to the Ramaswamy Raju 25 O.S. No.5098/2005 which shows 15 guntas of land in Sy. No.12 of Hoody village is proposed to be acquired and Ex.P.20 is the Award Notice issued under Section 12(2) of Act, 1984 which shows the said award notice is issued both to Sri. H.M.Shamanna Reddy and Sri. Ramaswamy Raju. Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.23 are the Encumbrance Certificates for the period 01.04.1965 to 16.07.2005 which reveals that the sale transaction that took place between H.M.Shamanna Reddy and Ramaswamy Raju on 16.09.1966 and it also shows the said Ramaswamy Raju has sold 2 acres 22 guntas of land in favour of Riyaz Ahmed under sale deed dated 30.05.1990. Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.26 are the tax paid receipts from 1970 to 1988 which shows Ramaswamy Raju has paid tax to the authority periodically.
12. Further in order to prove the interference caused, P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.28 which is the copy 26 O.S. No.5098/2005 of the complaint filed before the jurisdictional police alleging interference caused by one Mr. Tippa Reddy. Ex.P.29 is the endorsement issued by the jurisdictional police. Ex.P.30 is the order passed by defendant No.3 which is challenged in the present suit and this document shows that the defendant No.1 herein had filed the said appeal before the Tahsildar in R.A. No.217/2004-05 challenging the mutation effected to the name of Ramaswamy Raju in respect of 4 acres 15 guntas of land of Sy. No.12. The said order makes it clear that soon after filing the said petition, notice is issued to Ramaswamy Raju and since he was reported to be dead, his legal representatives were brought on record and they have also filed objection before defendant No.3 and the Tahsildar in his order has observed that Sy. No.12 measuring 4 acres 15 guntas stands in the name of H.M.Shamanna Reddy in column No.9 for the period 1966-67 to 1970-71 and also has taken note that it was 27 O.S. No.5098/2005 allotted to H.M.Shamanna Reddy under partition deed dated 02.11.1955 and has considered the Encumbrance Certificate for the period of 12 years from 20.09.1966 to 31.03.1989 and has observed that there are no transaction that has taken place in respect of the said property and has also observed that 2 acres 22 guntas is sold in favour of Riyaz Ahmed by Ramaswamy Raju and relying on the WILL produced by the defendant No.1 herein dated 06.10.1986, alleged to have been executed by Smt. Muniyamma W/o. Late. H.M.Shamanna Reddy has set aside the mutation entry and the RTC which stood in the name of Ramaswamy Raju is cancelled and has directed to effect khata in the name of defendant No.1 based on the alleged WILL. So this shows, the Tahsildar has only taken note of the RTC for the period 1966 to 1971 i.e. the period during which the sale deed was executed in favour of Ramaswamy Raju on 16.09.1966 and the Encumbrance Certificate is given 28 O.S. No.5098/2005 only for the period 15.02.1957 to 19.05.1966 and from 20.09.1966 to 31.03.1989 and the Encumbrance Certificate for the period during which the sale deed was executed i.e. 16.09.1966 is not brought to the notice of Tahsildar and this shows there is suppression of the alleged sale deed executed in favour of Ramaswamy Raju by H.M.Shamanna Reddy. So the defendant No.1 has suppressed the sale transaction and cleverly not produced the Encumbrance Certificate for the period, during which the sale deed took place and relying on the said WILL the order is passed and this shows that prima- facie the order passed by defendant No.3 suffers from serious infirmities and material irregularities.
13. So in the instant suit, the plaintiff is claiming title over the suit schedule 'A' land which is part and parcel of the schedule property which measures 1 acre 20 guntas including 2 guntas of kharab land out of total 29 O.S. No.5098/2005 extent of 4 acres 17 guntas of Sy. No.12 situated Hoody Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. As stated earlier, the documents relied upon by the plaintiff clearly establishes that the entire extent of the schedule property was purchased by his father Ramaswamy Raju under Ex.P.1 sale deed dated 16.09.1966 and only for the period during which the sale was made the revenue records stood in the name of H.M.Shamanna Reddy and subsequently, since the year 1971 all the revenue records stood in the name of Ramaswamy Raju and it also shows that 2 acres 22 guntas is sold in favour of Riyaz Ahmed and 15 guntas was acquired by the B.D.A. and remaining 1 acre 20 guntas i.e. 'A' schedule property now stands in the name of Ramaswamy Raju.
14. During cross-examination of P.W.1, he pleads ignorance as to how H.M.Shamanna Reddy acquired title over the suit property and he do not know the 30 O.S. No.5098/2005 relationship of defendant No.1 and Shamanna Reddy and pleads ignorance about the WILL executed by the wife of H.M.Shamanna Reddy by name Smt. Muniyamma in favour of defendant No.1 and that the name of defendant No.1 is entered in the revenue records on the strength of sale deed. But it is necessary to take note that, though P.W.1 pleads ignorance to all these suggestions, the documentary evidence placed on record overweighs the oral testimony of P.W.1, for the reason that the documents clearly establishes the mode of acquisition of title by H.M.Shamanna Reddy and it is conveyed in favour of Ramaswamy Raju and all the revenue records stood in the name of Ramaswamy Raju and hence, these suggestions are of no assistance to defendant No.1.
15. There is a clear admission by P.W.1 that, in the year 1978, 15 guntas of land is acquired by 31 O.S. No.5098/2005 Government and 2 acres 22 guntas is sold in favour of Riyaz Ahmed and he pleads ignorance as to whether H.M.Shamanna Reddy has received compensation or not. He denies that H.M.Shamanna Reddy has received compensation and the plaintiffs never raised objection for payment of compensation to H.M.Shamanna Reddy. P.W.1 says since he was minor in the year 1966, he had knowledge of the sale deed Ex.P.1 and his father is now not alive and do not know who gave instructions to prepare the sale deed Ex.P.1. During cross-examination of P.W.1, all the suggestions putforth to elicit that the signatures of H.M.Shamanna Reddy is forged and he never signs as Patel H.M.Shamanna Reddy and in collusion with witnesses and scribe and by impersonating H.M.Shamanna Reddy, Ex.P.1 is created are all categorically denied by the P.W.1. Further the other suggestions putforth that there is difference in the ink used for writing the document and signing are also 32 O.S. No.5098/2005 denied by P.W.1. So this shows all the efforts made to elicit that Ex.P.1 is a forged document turned futile and P.W.1 has denied all these suggestions.
16. So far as, Ex.P.30 is concerned the suggestions putforth that, since the order is passed in accordance with law, he has not challenged the order are all denied. So all the efforts made to elicit that the documents produced by plaintiffs are created only for the purpose of this suit and the defendant No.1 is owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property based on WILL are all denied by P.W.1 and there is an admission that the defendant No.1 never claimed her title and possession over the suit property and that the defendant No.1 was not present at the time of filing the suit and so far as, filing the suit against the defendant No.1 is concerned, he says since her name was entered in the revenue records, he filed the suit against her. 33
O.S. No.5098/2005
17. The plaintiffs in order to corroborate their claim have examined P.W.2 who according to them is a witness who was present at the time of execution of the sale deed Ex.P.1 and he has in his evidence deposed that the deceased Ramaswamy Raju is his elder brother and in the month of September 1966, his brother negotiated to purchase 4 acres 15 guntas of land together with 2 guntas of kharab land in Sy. No.12 of Hoody village and accordingly, he purchased the same on 16.09.1966. He has deposed that he had accompanied his brother during registration process and he was present when the document was drafted by Sri. Krishna Murthy who is the deed writer at Taluk office and he was present when the document was registered. He has deposed that the said sale deed was signed by Shamanna Reddy who was also called as Patel H.M.Shama Reddy and also Shama Reddy and he has executed the deed of sale in favour of Late. Ramaswamy 34 O.S. No.5098/2005 Raju and having seen the execution of document, he can identify the signatures and he has further deposed that one Sri. Narayana Raju who is the brother of Sri. H.M.Shamanna Reddy and Smt. Janaki who is the daughter of Sri. Patel H.M.Shamanna Reddy have signed the sale deed as attesting witnesses. P.W.2 has identified the signatures of H.M.Shamanna Reddy and the signature of the daughter of H.M.Shamanna Reddy by name Smt. Janaki and the signatures of the brother of H.M.Shamanna Reddy and Narayana Raju as Ex.P.1(a) to Ex.P.1(f) respectively and he has deposed that the daughter and brother of H.M.Shamanna Reddy who are attesting witnesses as per Ex.P.1 are nomore and in his presence, the said persons signed the document and thus, Ramaswamy Raju was the purchaser of the property as per Ex.P.1.
18. During his cross-examination, he admits he has not seen any other signatures of H.M.Shamanna 35 O.S. No.5098/2005 Reddy and he has deposed that since H.M.Shamanna Reddy was intending to sell the property and his brother was intending to purchase the same, the sale deed was executed and he do not remember the date and month on which the sale deed came to be executed.
19. Admittedly, P.W.2 is not a signatory to Ex.P.1 and this fact is also admitted by P.W.2 in his cross- examination and in this regard he gives explanation that since elderly persons were present, they did not insist him to sign the sale deed. He admits prior to execution of sale deed H.M.Shamanna Reddy was not known to them and Ex.P.1 was prepared in the premises of Sub- Registrar office at Bengaluru and one Mr. Murthy had drafted the sale deed and do not remember who brought the stamp papers. It is worth to note that, the document is of the year 1966 and hence, the witness cannot be expected to know the person who purchased the stamp 36 O.S. No.5098/2005 paper. On the other hand, his evidence is consistent as to the execution of document in his presence and as to the signatures subscribed by the vendor H.M.Shamanna Reddy and his brother Narayana Reddy and the daughter of vendor Smt. Janakamma and he has also consistently spoken, that this witness and his brother Ramaswamy Raju were present at the time of executing sale deed. The suggestion putforth that there is difference in the ink used in Ex.P.1 and signatures at Ex.P.1(a) is denied and on the other hand, he has deposed that in his presence H.M.Shamanna Reddy affixed signature as per Ex.P.1(b) and Ex.P.1(c) and suggestion putforth that H.M.Shamanna Reddy had not been to the office of Sub-Registrar and he has not signed the document and the signatures are forged and the daughter of H.M.Shamanna Reddy by name Janakamma has also not signed the document and it is a concocted document are all denied by P.W.2. 37
O.S. No.5098/2005
20. On analysis of the evidence of P.W.2, it is evident that he has consistently spoken about his presence at the time execution of sale deed and that he has seen the vendor H.M.Shamanna Reddy signing on each page of the sale deed and has identified his signature and he has also deposed about the presence of the brother and daughter of the vendor and as to they signing the document. So the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.P.1 placed on record establishes that the suit schedule property was sold in favour of Ramaswamy Raju and since then, he has been possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have consistently deposed about the mode of acquisition of title over the suit property by H.M.Shamanna Reddy and as to the sale executed in favour of Ramaswamy Raju and that possession was delivered and the documents makes it clear that all the revenue documents were transferred and stood in the 38 O.S. No.5098/2005 name of Ramaswamy Raju until the order was passed by defendant No.3 as per Ex.P.30. The efforts made by the learned counsel for defendant No.1 to elicit that Ex.P.1 is a created and concocted document and the signatures of H.M.Shamanna Reddy and the attesting witnesses are forged turned futile and nothing worth could be elicited so as to discredit the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 about due execution of Ex.P.1.
21. On the contrary, the defendant No.1 got examined herself as D.W.1 and she has in her evidence deposed that the sale deed dated 16.06.1966 is a fraudulent document obtained by practicing fraud as H.M.Shamanna Reddy did not execute the alleged sale deed and the signatures in the said sale deed do not belong to H.M.Shamanna Reddy and his signatures are forged as he never signs as Patel H.M.Shamanna Reddy and he subscribes his signature only as H.M.Shamanna 39 O.S. No.5098/2005 Reddy and thus the signatures are concocted and forged signatures and it is obtained by impersonating H.M.Shamanna Reddy and hence, no right, title or possession ever transferred to Sri. Ramaswamy Raju or to the plaintiffs. D.W.1 has denied the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and it is contended that H.M.Shamanna Reddy has claimed compensation regarding acquisition of the portion of the land and hence, Ramaswamy Raju could not lay his hands on the compensation amount. Further, the case of the plaintiff seeking title over entire extent of 4 acres 15 guntas and 2 guntas of kharab land is not sustainable in law for the reason that the plaintiffs themselves admit sale of 2 acres 22 guntas in favour of one Riyaz Ahmed and 15 guntas is acquired by the Government and hence, the suit itself is not maintainable. On the other hand, it is contended that this defendant No.1 is absolute owner in lawful possession 40 O.S. No.5098/2005 and enjoyment of the suit schedule property claiming through Smt. Muniyamma W/o. Late. H.M.Shamanna Reddy and when she is the owner in possession there is no question of interference or dispossession of the plaintiffs from the schedule property and thus, the plaintiffs have no right over the schedule property. Hence, the alleged sale deed obtained by practicing fraud and by causing impersonation of Sri. H.M.Shamanna Reddy is not binding on the defendant No.1 and sought for dismissal of suit.
22. At this point of time, it is necessary to note that though defendant No.1 is asserting right and title over the suit schedule property through Smt. Muniyamma W/o. H.M.Shamanna Reddy, she has in her evidence or in her written statement nowhere stated as to how she is related to Smt. Muniyamma W/o. H.M.Shamanna Reddy and as to how she acquired right 41 O.S. No.5098/2005 over the suit schedule property. Apart from contending that she is the owner in possession of the schedule property, she has not elaborated as to the mode of acquisition of title over the suit property.
23. D.W.1 has relied upon Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 which are the medical certificates to show she was suffering from ill-health at the time of recording the evidence. Ex.D.5 to Ex.D.13 are the revenue documents relied upon by the defendant No.1 to establish her title and possession. Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.6 are the mutation order which shows pursuant to the order passed by defendant No.3 in R.A. No.217/2004-05 the name of defendant No.1 is mutated in the revenue records of suit schedule property and accordingly, RTCs i.e. Ex.D.6 to Ex.D.13 stands in the name of defendant No.1. So these are the revenue documents relied upon by D.W.1 to establish her title.
42
O.S. No.5098/2005
24. It is necessary to note that the order passed by the Tahsildar as per Ex.P.30 shows that the defendant No.1 has relied upon the WILL alleged to have been executed by Smt. Muniyamma on 06.10.1986. But this document finds no reference either in the written statement of defendant No.1 or in her chief examination and she has not produced the alleged WILL dated 06.10.1986. Added to this, as discussed earlier, the defendant No.1 has managed to suppress the Encumbrance Certificate for the period during which Ex.P.1 was executed in favour of Ramaswamy Raju and now in the present suit she has again cleverly suppressed the WILL alleged to have been executed by Smt. Muniyamma in her favour. When the defendant No.1 is asserting title over the suit schedule property and when she is claiming the property through Smt. Muniyamma, it is obligatory duty upon her to explain as to how she is related to Smt. Muniyamma W/o. 43
O.S. No.5098/2005 H.M.Shamanna Reddy and as to how she has acquired title over the schedule property by virtue of any title deed executed by Smt. Muniyamma or by virtue of inheritance. But none of the documents produced by her shows the manner in which she has acquired title over the schedule property. As stated earlier, the order passed by the Tahsildar suffers from serious infirmities and he has not taken note of the revenue documents subsequent to the year 1977 and has not taken note of the title deed of Ramaswamy Raju. So the revenue records which are mutated in the name of defendant No.1 pursuant to the impugned order passed by defendant No.3 holds no significance. So these documents relied upon by defendant No.1 nowhere corroborates her claim over the suit schedule property.
25. During cross-examination of D.W.1 she says she do not remember how H.M.Shamanna Reddy 44 O.S. No.5098/2005 acquired the suit schedule property and she says she is a relative of H.M.Shamanna Reddy and says she has produced documents to show their relationship. But D.W.1 has not produced any document to show her relationship with H.M.Shamanna Reddy and she has not produced the WILL to show that the suit schedule property was bequeathed in her favour by Smt. Muniyamma. D.W.1 says H.M.Shamanna Reddy died in her house and she performed the death rituals and she says all the documents were kept in a trunk and when she opened the trunk she came to know about the property of H.M.Shamanna Reddy which was bequeathed in her favour. Another important aspect to be taken note of is that, D.W.1 says she was married to Thippa Reddy and she says she do not know whether her husband owns property measuring 13 acres 10 guntas in Sy. No.10 of Hoodi Village and she knew H.M.Shamanna Reddy since her childhood and he died 45 O.S. No.5098/2005 when she was aged 17 to 18 years. Further she says she got the property under a WILL and do not know when she obtained the WILL and do not know when she has filed application seeking transfer of khata to her name and she do not remember the documents furnished before the office of Tahsildar and that she has not seen the sale deed executed by H.M.Shamanna Reddy in favour of Ramaswamy Raju and when Ex.P.1 sale deed was confronted, D.W.1 says it was not executed by H.M.Shamanna Reddy and denies the thumb impression and signature of H.M.Shamanna Reddy in Ex.P.1. But there is a clear admission that she has no document to show Shamanna Reddy and his wife resided with her and she performed the death rituals of H.M.Shamanna Reddy and denies the execution of sale deed in favour of Ramaswamy Raju.
26. So except the revenue documents which is mutated based on the order passed by the Tahsildar as 46 O.S. No.5098/2005 per Ex.P.30, no document is forthcoming to show that she has inherited the property through Smt. Muniyamma. The evidence of D.W.1 nowhere establishes her relationship with Shamanna Reddy. It is evident from Ex.P.1 which is the sale deed, that H.M.Shamanna Reddy had no sons and he had only daughter who was given in adoption to his elder brother and Ex.P.1 bears the signatures of his only daughter Janaki. So the question that arises is as to how defendant No.1 is related to H.M.Shamanna Reddy and it has remained unexplained by the defendant No.1. Added to this, though she has relied upon the WILL alleged to have been executed by Smt. Munithayamma the said document is not placed on record and by this an adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendant No.1, that the said document, if produced would be adverse to her interest.
47
O.S. No.5098/2005
27. At this point of time, it is necessary to take note of the fact that since there is serious dispute as to the signatures of H.M.Shamanna Reddy and his thumb impression over Ex.P.1, this Court vide its order on I.A. No.1/2012 filed under Order 16 Rule 6 R/w. Sec.151 of C.P.C. dated 09.12.2014 has directed the Senior Sub- Registrar, Bommanahalli to produce original thumb impression register, maintained while registering the sale deed dated 29.05.1965 executed by Sri. Nijaguna Shivayogi in favour of H.M.Shamanna Reddy which contains the original signature and thumb impression of H.M.Shamanna Reddy and also the original thumb impression register maintained while registering sale deed dated 26.06.1967 executed by Sri. H.M.Shamanna Reddy and others in favour of Sri. H.Thippa Reddy which contains the original signature and thumb impression of Sri. H.M.Shamanna Reddy. Accordingly, the said 48 O.S. No.5098/2005 documents were produced before the Court and are marked as Ex.D.14 and Ex.D.15.
28. D.W.1 has in her evidence identified the thumb impression and signature of H.M.Shamanna Reddy which are marked as Ex.D.14(a) and Ex.D.14(b) respectively. Likewise, the thumb impression and signature of H.M.Shamanna Reddy in Ex.D.15 are marked as Ex.D.15(a) and Ex.D.15(b). During her cross- examination the suggestion putforth that H.M.Shamanna Reddy used to sign as H.M.Shamanna Reddy and also Patel H.M.Shamanna Reddy is denied by D.W.1. So relying upon Ex.D.14 and Ex.D.15 the defendant No.1 has seriously disputed the signature and thumb impression of H.M.Shamanna Reddy on Ex.P.1.
29. The records available before the Court establishes that the defendant No.1 had filed I.A. 49 O.S. No.5098/2005 No.3/2015 under Order 26 Rule 10(a) R/w. Sec.151 of C.P.C. to refer the documents to the opinion of handwriting expert to examine the admitted and disputed signatures and thumb impressions of H.M.Shamanna Reddy appearing in Ex.P.1, Ex.D.14 and Ex.D.15. The Finger Print Expert at TRUTH Labs Bengaluru, was appointed as Court Commissioner and he has submitted report before the Court stating that he has received the documents for examination i.e. Ex.P.1, Ex.D.14 and Ex.D.15 and the thumb impressions are denoted by letters 'D'A1 and 'D'A2 respectively and has compared the thumb impression and he has examined the thumb impressions with the help of conventional scientific aids like handheld lenses and linen tester and has opined that: The thumb impression marked as 'D' [Ex.P.1(a)] against the name 'H.M.Shyamanna Reddy' is identical with the left thumb impressions marked as 'A1' [Ex-14(a)] and 'A2' [Ex- 15(a)] against the name 'H.M.Shyamanna 50 O.S. No.5098/2005 Reddy' and the reasons quoted by the handwriting expert is as hereunder:
The ridge characteristics that are found in the thumb impression marked as 'D' are found in their relative positions in the left thumb impressions marked as 'A1' and 'A2'.
30. I have marked eight identical ridge characteristics in red lines as 1 to 8 on the photo enlargements of the thumb impressions marked as 'D', 'A1' and 'A2' and are enumerated below:-
Point No.1 is a ridge bifurcation towards left.
Point No.2 is a ridge bifurcation towards left below and left of Point No.1 with one ridge intervening.
Point No.3 is a ridge termination towards right above and left of Point No.2 with two ridges intervening.
Point No.4 is a ridge termination towards right above and left of Point No.3 with no ridges intervening.51
O.S. No.5098/2005 Point No.5 is a ridge termination towards right below and left of Point No.4 with seven ridges intervening.
Point No.6 is a ridge termination towards left above and left of point No.5 with one ridge intervening.
Point No.7 is a ridge termination towards right above and left of point No.6 with three ridges intervening.
Point No.8 is a ridge termination towards left below and left of point No.7 with one ridge intervening.
31. So in view of the above reasoning he has opined that the thumb impressions marked as 'D', 'A1' and 'A2' are identical with each other and are made by one and the same finger of the same person.
32. Since the report of Court Commissioner was disputed, he was examined as C.W.1 through Court Commissioner and he has in his evidence deposed that the thumb impression marked by letter 'D' in Ex.P.1(a) 52 O.S. No.5098/2005 against the name H.M.Shamanna Reddy is identical with the left thumb impressions marked as A1 (E-14 (a)) and A2 (Ex.15 (a)) against the name H.M.Shyamanna Reddy. He has concluded that the thumb impressions marked as D, A1 and A2 are identical with each other and are made by one and the same finger of the same person.
33. During his cross-examination he admits that he has no other degree in respect of Forensic Science and he has studied upto PUC. But C.W.1 says he joined the service and he was provided with one year training and he was worked as a finger print searcher at Vellore. He has also categorically deposed about the various books studied by him relating to finger print examinations. No doubt, C.W.1 pleads ignorance about the National Academic Science and about the guide lines and standard format issued by SWGFAST and C.W.1 volunteers that there are no standard guidelines to 53 O.S. No.5098/2005 ascertain the thumb impression and he has followed scientific procedure for comparing the admitted and disputed thumb impressions. Now so far as Ex.P.1 is concerned, the suggestion putforth that without removing the lamination, the thumb impression scan was taken from Ex.P.1 and he denies that from the laminated documents the photo enlargements of finger prints will not be clear for examination and comparison. He denies that the ridges found in Ex.P.1 are not properly visible in Ex.C.2. So far as, the question regarding identification of core and delta is concerned. C.W.1 says the same is not necessary for identification and for classification and he says Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.4 which are reports was scanned by one Mr. Surya Bharathi in his presence. The other suggestion putforth that the photo enlargement is not clear and visible for examination and the numbers found in Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.4 are different with each other. So thus all the suggestions putforth that he has not followed the 54 O.S. No.5098/2005 guidelines issued by the authority and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court for preparing the report and there is possibility of erosion of ink after a long gap, to compare the thumb impression and the thumb impression found in the old documents is not possible to compare due to blurring of ink are all categorically denied by C.W.1. So the evidence of C.W.1 shows he has with stood the test of cross-examination and has consistently spoken about the procedure adopted by him for examination of the disputed and admitted thumb impression and his evidence coupled with Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 which shows that he has compared the disputed and admitted thumb impressions and has given opinion that they are identical and are made by one and same person. Hence, this Court finds no reason to discard the evidence of C.W.1. So the evidence of C.W.1 establishes that the signatures appearing in Ex.P.1, Ex.D.14 and Ex.D.15 belong to 55 O.S. No.5098/2005 H.M.Shamanna Reddy. So under such circumstances, the defense raised by defendant No.1 that Ex.P.1 was not executed by H.M.Shamanna Reddy and his signatures are forged and H.M.Shamanna Reddy is impersonated and it is a fictitious document holds no significance. Thus, the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of suit 'A' schedule property which measures 1 acre 20 guntas including 2 guntas of kharab out of total extent of 4 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No.12. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 has failed to establish her relationship with H.M.Shamanna Reddy and as to how she acquired right over the suit schedule property and relying on the revenue documents her title over the suit schedule property cannot be considered. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to answer the aforesaid issues No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
56
O.S. No.5098/2005
34. ISSUE NO.4 :: In the instant suit, the plaintiff is seeking for declaration that the order dated 24.06.2005 passed by Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. As stated supra, it is the contention of the plaintiff that after three decades of the entry of the name of Ramaswamy Raju in the mutation, the defendant No.1 has challenged the validity of mutation made in respect of the suit schedule property and the defendant No.3 has passed an order on 24.06.2005 in R.A. No.217/2004-05 allowing the appeal filed by defendant No.1 and setting aside the mutation entry made in the name of Sri. Ramaswamy Raju. It is necessary to note that as discussed supra, the defendant No.3 has erroneously passed an order of setting aside the mutation entry in the name of Ramaswamy Raju and has erroneously directed to effect khata to the name of defendant No.1 and the 57 O.S. No.5098/2005 order perse shows it suffers from serious infirmities and material irregularities.
35. Now the question that needs to be considered as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to declare that the order passed by the revenue authority i.e. defendant No.3 is null and void. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 relying upon Sec.63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act has submitted that there is statutory bar under the said provision to institute a civil suit against the State Government or the Revenue Officers and hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant such relief. On the contrary, learned counsel for plaintiff relying upon Sec.135 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act submits that as per the proviso to Sec.135, the suit is maintainable before the Court and the plaintiff has right to seek declaratory reliefs and the suit is maintainable. 58
O.S. No.5098/2005
36. Hence, at this point of time, it is considered worth to refer to Sec.63 and 135 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 which reads thus :-
Sec. 63. Plaintiff to exhaust his right of appeal before instituting a suit or other proceeding against Government.--No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer, unless the plaintiff first proves that previously to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force as, within the period of limitation allowed for bringing such suit or proceeding, it was possible to present.
Sec.135. Bar of suits.--No suit shall lie against the State Government or any officer of the State Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record or register that is maintained under this 59 O.S. No.5098/2005 Chapter or to have any such entry omitted or amended:
Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in any record or register maintained under this Chapter, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877; and the entry in the record or register shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.
37. A bare reading of Sec.63 of the Act makes it clear that a party who is aggrieved by the order passed by the State Government or any Revenue Officer has to exhaust his right of appeal before instituting a suit or other proceeding against Government and the civil Court is precluded from entertaining any suit or proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or 60 O.S. No.5098/2005 omission by any revenue officer, unless the plaintiff proves that prior to institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented appeals before the appellant authority prescribed under the Act within period of limitation. But in the instant suit, though the plaintiff has challenged the order passed by defendant No.3, there is nothing forthcoming on record to show he has exhausted his right of appeal before the appellate authority established under the Act. Further, as per Sec.135 of the Act, no suit can be instituted against the State Government or any officer in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record or register i.e. maintained by the revenue authority. But the proviso to the said Section makes it clear that if any person is aggrieved by entry made in any record or register maintained by the revenue authority, he can institute a suit against a person, who has denied his title to such right and for declaration of his right under the provision of 61 O.S. No.5098/2005 Specific Relief Act, 1977 and in such event, the entry in the record or register shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. So a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that there is a clear bar of suit and the civil Courts are debarred from entertaining any suit seeking declaratory relief against the order passed by the revenue authority and the remedy available to the plaintiff is only under the provision of Sec.136 of the Act which provides right of appeal to the plaintiff. So it makes it clear that the plaintiff has not exhausted his remedy available under the Act and has filed the present suit against defendant No.3 who is the revenue officer challenging the order passed by him. So in view of the aforesaid provisions the jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted and the plaintiff is debarred from seeking declaration that the order passed by the revenue officer is illegal and not binding upon him and the remedy available to him is only under the 62 O.S. No.5098/2005 provision Sec.136 of the Act. But it is necessary take note of the fact that, proviso to 135 makes it clear that, an entry in the record can be amended, where a declaration is obtained by the plaintiff in respect of his right over the property. So since the plaintiff has established his title and possession over the suit schedule property and the entry made in the revenue records are erroneous, as per the proviso to Sec.135 of the Act, the plaintiff has every right to get the entry in the record amended as per the order passed by this Court. Hence, this Court proceeds to answer issue No.4 in the Partly in the Affirmative.
38. ISSUE NO.6 :: The present suit is one for declaration of title and to declare that the order dated 24.06.2005 passed by defendant No.1 is void illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The description of the suit 63 O.S. No.5098/2005 schedule property mentioned in the plaint and also the revenue documents placed on record establishes that the suit 'A' schedule land is an agricultural land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No.12 of Hoodi village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The valuation slip annexed with the plaint shows that the suit is valued under Sec.24 (2) of KCF & SV Act for the relief of declaration at Rs.1,000/- and Court fee of Rs.25/- is paid and for the relief of permanent injunction the suit is valued under Sec.26(c) and Court fee of Rs.25/- is paid. It is seen from the records that, at the inception of the suit office has raised objection as to the valuation of the suit and it is stated that the suit has to be valued as per the present market value of the schedule property and Court fee has to be paid under Sec.24(b) R/w. Sec.38 of KCF & SV Act. Though such an objection is raised at the inception of the suit, the said issue is not adjudicated at the initial stage. Now it is contention of the defendant 64 O.S. No.5098/2005 that the plaintiffs have not precisely described as to whether the suit has been valued either under Sec.24(a) or under Sec.24(b) and therefore, the Court fee has to be determined and the suit is liable to be dismissed for non- payment of sufficient Court fee and on the ground that the suit is improperly valued.
39. On the contrary it is the contention of the plaintiff that since the suit property is agricultural land, the suit is properly valued and court fee paid is sufficient. In this regard, learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported in 2006 (6) AIR KAR R 476 in case of R.Ananda Vs. Nanjundaswamy wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as hereunder :
Karnataka Court - fees and Suits Valuation Act (16 of 1958) S.24(b), S.7(2)
- Court -fee - Property whether urban or agricultural - property situated within 65 O.S. No.5098/2005 limits of Corporation of City of Bengaluru - RTC extracts show that it is agricultural land and property is not assessed to Corporation taxes - As on date of suit land has not been converted from agricultural into non - agricultural - Mere filing of application by plaintiff for conversion on date of institution of suit - Does not mean that property has lost its agricultural character and cannot be valued as agricultural property - Date of conversion would be prospective and would come into effect only from date of issuance of official memorandum of conversion from agricultural into non- agricultural - petitioner cannot be directed to pay Court - fee on market value of property treating same as urban property and not agricultural land.
40. At this point of time it is considered worth to refer to the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2022 KAR 529 in case of Mrs. Elfreeda Winnifred 66 O.S. No.5098/2005 D'Souza Vs. Mr. Robin D'Souza and Others wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that :
Karnataka Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 -Section 7 - Determination of market value of the property - Two conflicting decisions of two Learned Single Judges in relation to valuation of suit and payment of Court Fee when the agricultural land is situate within the limits of City Corporation - Reference - One Learned Single Judge in "Smt. Vijayalakshmi Vs. Smt. Ugama Bai
- (2015) 4 KCCR 3947" has held that if the agricultural land in a declaration suit is situate within the city corporation limits, its valuation has to be done on ad valorem basis under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. This provision speaks of market value of the property. - The other Learned Single Judge in "R.Ananda Vs. Nanjundaswamy - 2006 SCC Online KAR 557" has per contra held that merely 67 O.S. No.5098/2005 because the land comes within the city corporation limits, it does not ipso facto lose its agricultural character and therefore, suit has to be valued under Section 7(2)(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. - Both the Learned Judges in support of their views banked upon the very same Division Bench decision namely, "J.Narayana & Others Vs. Corporation of City of Bengaluru - ILR 2005 KAR 60." HELD, The legal position as to the valuation of the land and payment of Court Fee in a suit for declaration of title, as delineated by the Division Bench decision of High Court in J.Narayana's case reflects the correct position of law and that its precedential value is not affected by the striking down a part of Section 7(2)(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.
FURTHER HELD, 68 O.S. No.5098/2005
(a) The legal position in regard to suit valuation and payment of Court fee as stated in the decision of the Learned Single Judge in Smt. Vijayalakshmi's case accords with that in J.Narayana's case and therefore, is correct.
(b) The decision of the other Leaned Single Judge in R.Ananda's case being repugnant to the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in J.Narayana's case, does not reflect the correct position of law and therefore, lacks precedential value.
(c) The Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 provides for the valuation of subject matter of suits and payment of Court Fees. Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 provides for the determination of market value of the property involved, where the Court Fee payable depends on such value. Sub-Section (1) specifically states that the market value of the property shall be determined as on the date of the 69 O.S. No.5098/2005 'presentation of the plaint'. The plaint was presented on 27.07.2010. However, the Mangalore City Corporation limits admittedly were extended subsequent to the institution of suit and therefore, this pendente lite development is irrelevant for the purpose of market valuation of the suit land. In other words, the suit land has to be valued as on 27.07.2010.
41. So the judgment relied upon by L/c. for plaintiff cannot be made applicable and as per the judgment of our Hon'ble High court reported in ILR 2022 Kar 529, the present suit being one for declaration and for consequential relief of permanent injunction and the suit property being situated within the limits of Corporation, the plaintiff has to value the suit on ad valorem basis under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and fee shall be computed on one- half of the market value of the 70 O.S. No.5098/2005 property as on the date of filing the suit. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to answer said issue No.6 in the Negative.
42. ISSUE NO.7 :: The defendant No.1 has raised a contention that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it is her contention that the plaintiff has not made the purchaser Mr. Riyaz Ahmed as party to the suit and hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. It is evident from the records that, the suit was initially filed in respect of the entire extent of Sy. No.12 which measures 4 acres 15 guntas and 2 guntas of kharab land and the plaintiff has clearly stated in his evidence that the total extent of the suit property purchased by Ramaswamy Raju as per Ex.P.1 is 4 acres 15 guntas and 2 guntas of kharab land in Sy. No.12. However, it is an admitted fact that, during life time of Ramaswamy Raju he sold 2 acres 22 guntas 71 O.S. No.5098/2005 of land in favour of one Mr. Riyaz Ahmed under sale deed dated 30.05.1990 and the Government has acquired 15 guntas of land in Sy. No.12 of Hoodi Village and in view of the same, the plaintiffs are in possession of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No.12. However, in order to ensure clear title to the purchaser of that particular portion and also since the defendant No.1 has secured mutation entry in her name in respect of entire extent of 4 acres 15 guntas, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in respect of the entire extent being the suit schedule land.
43. But it is necessary to note that, subsequent to amendment schedule 'A' is bifurcated from the original schedule land and schedule 'A' land shows that the plaintiffs are asserting title and interest only in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas of land including 2 guntas of kharab land out of 4 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No.12. So this shows though the suit was initially filed for the entire extent of 4 72 O.S. No.5098/2005 acres 15 guntas, by way of amendment the plaintiffs are only asserting their title and right over schedule 'A' property. So under such circumstances, the presence of the purchaser Mr. Riyaz Ahmed who owns 2 acres 22 guntas of land in Sy. No.12 is not a necessary party and his presence is not necessary for adjudication of the plaintiffs right over schedule 'A' land. Hence, this Court proceeds to answered issue No.7 is answered in the Negative.
44. ISSUE NO.8 :: Learned counsel for defendant No.1 in his arguments submits that the suit is barred by law of limitation and the plaintiffs are asserting right over the suit property on the basis of the sale deed which is of the year 1966 and the suit is filed in the year 2005 and hence, the suit is barred by law of limitation.
45. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court reported in 73 O.S. No.5098/2005 ILR 2005 KAR 884 in case of T.Lnagendra Babu Vs. Manohar Rao Pawar wherein Hon'ble High Court has held as hereunder:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - ORDER 6 RULE 15 - Verification of pleadings under -
HELD - Pleadings should be verified by the party who is acquainted with the facts of the case - A party must also specify the number of paragraphs and his knowledge, information and belief with regard to the paragraphs - Verification must be signed by the concerned party by mentioning the date and place.
(B) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 85 -
PRESUMPTION AS TO POWERS OF ATTORNEY UNDER - HELD - Presumption operates in favour of the party relying on a document, provided he must prove that the document is duly executed and authenticated.
(C) SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND
INJUNCTION - REQUIREMENT OF
74
O.S. No.5098/2005
EVIDENCE - DUTY OF THE COURT -
HELD - Unless the Court is satisfied with regard to material details in the light of the material evidence with regard to the identification of the property, no declaration and injunction can be granted.
46. As stated earlier, the suit is one for declaration of title and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. At this point of time, it is considered worth to refer to Article 58 of the Limitation Act which provides that, to obtain any other declaratory reliefs the period of limitation is 3 years and the period of limitation commences when the right to sue first accrues. It is evident from the records that, by virtue of Ex.P.1 which is the sale deed dated 16.09.1966, the Ramaswamy Raju had purchased the suit schedule property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner thereof. The defendant No.1 75 O.S. No.5098/2005 has challenged the mutation entry made in the name of Ramaswamy Raju after three decades before the defendant No.3 and plaintiffs received notice and the defendant No.3 has passed the order on 24.06.2005. Soon after the passing of the order, the plaintiffs applied for certified copy of the order which was obtained on 29.06.2005 and filed the present suit on 08.07.2005. So the cause of action to file the suit arose to the plaintiffs when the impugned order was passed by the defendant No.3. So it can be held that the right to sue accrued to the plaintiffs on the date when the order was passed by defendant No.3 i.e. 24.06.2005 and hence, the suit filed is well within the period of limitation as contemplated under Article 58 of the Limitation Act and hence, the contention raised by defendant No.1 that the suit is barred by law of limitation is not sustainable. Hence, this Court proceeds to answer issue No.8 in the Negative. 76
O.S. No.5098/2005
47. ISSUES NO.3 AND 5 :: As per the findings of this court on the aforesaid issues, the plaintiffs have successfully established their title and possession over suit 'A' schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 has failed to establish her right over the suit schedule property. So when the plaintiffs have established their title by placing convincing evidence on record, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and injunction and the arguments putforth by defendant counsel that the suit property is not identified and the plaintiffs have not established their clear title over the suit schedule property is not tenable. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit 'A' schedule property as sought. However, as per the findings on issue No.4, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the declaratory reliefs seeking nullification of the order passed by defendant No.3 and they are only entitled to 77 O.S. No.5098/2005 seek amendment of the revenue records in accordance with declaratory relief granted by this Court. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in Affirmative and issue No.5 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
48. ISSUE NO.9 :: In view of findings on issues, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in part.
It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit 'A' schedule property.
Consequently, the defendant No.1 is hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit 'A' schedule property.
Suit of the plaintiffs for declaration that the order dated 24.06.2005 passed 78 O.S. No.5098/2005 by defendant No.3 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs is dismissed.
However, the plaintiffs are at liberty to get the revenue records amended as per proviso to Sec.135 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Further the plaintiffs are hereby directed to pay court fee, on ad valorem basis under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and fee shall be computed on one- half of the market value of the property, as on the date of filing the suit.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 03 rd day of December, 2025).
(VEENA N.) XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
79
O.S. No.5098/2005 ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFFS SIDE :: P.W.1 :: R.Rajendran P.W.2 :: Krishna Raju (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE :: D.W.1 :: Smt. Pushpa (C) COMMISSIONER'S SIDE :: C.W.1 :: K.S.Teekaraman
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFFS SIDE :
Ex.P.1 :: Original sale deed dated 16.09.1966 Ex.P.1(a) to :: Signatures and thumb impression Ex.P.1(g) Ex.P.2 :: Revenue records Ex.P.3 :: Index of lands Ex.P.4 to :: RTC extracts Ex.P.16 Ex.P.17 :: Receipt of Patta book Ex.P.18 :: Notice issued by LAO Ex.P.19 :: Another notice issued by LAO Ex.P.20 :: Copy of award passed by LAO 80 O.S. No.5098/2005 Ex.P.21 to :: Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P.23 Ex.P.24 to :: 4 tax paid receipts Ex.P.27 Ex.P.28 :: Copy of complaint Ex.P.29 :: Acknowledgment Ex.P.30 :: Certified copy of the order passed by Asst.
Commissioner II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF:
(B) DEFENDANTS SIDED ::
Ex.D.1 to :: Medical certificates
Ex.D.4
Ex.D.5 :: Mutation extract
Ex.D.6 :: RTC
Ex.D.7 :: Mutation extract
Ex.D.8 to :: RTCs
Ex.D.13
Ex.D.14 :: Thumb impression register
Ex.D.14(a) & :: Thumb impression and signature of
Ex.D.14(b) H.M.Shamanna Reddy
Ex.D.15 :: Thumb impression register
Ex.D.15(a) & :: Thumb impression and signature of
Ex.D.15(b) H.M.Shamanna Reddy
81
O.S. No.5098/2005
III. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF:
(C) COMMISSIONER'S SIDE ::
Ex.C.1 :: TRUTH Labs report
Ex.C.2 to :: Photo-enlargement of the thumb
Ex.C.4 impression marked as 'D' & 'A1'
(VEENA N.)
XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.