Bangalore District Court
Rathnamma vs Hanumanthaiah Chikkanna on 12 September, 2025
1 O.S.5452/2005
KABC010155922005
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE ( CCH-02 ) AT BENGALURU
Present : Sri. B.P. DEVAMANE, LL.M.,
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 12th day of September 2025
O.S.5452 / 2005
PLAINTIFF : Smt. Rathnamma,
W/o H. Gurumurthy,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.75/5,
Gururathna Bricks Factory,
Near Srinidhi layout,
Dodda Kallasandra Post,
BENGLALURU.
Represented by GPA holder
Sri. Gurumurthy,
Aged about 62 years,
H/o plaintiff.
( By Sri. L.S. Venkata Krishna, Adv. )
- VS -
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri. Hanumanthaiah @ Chikkanna,
S/o Dodda Lakshmana,
Aged about 60 years,
2 O.S.5452/2005
2. Narayanappa,
S/o Dodda Lakshmana,
Aged about 58 years,
3. Doddanna @ Hanumanthaiah,
S/o Dodda Lakshmana,
Aged about 51 years,
4. Kumar,
S/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 28 years,
5. Beeranna,
S/o Dodda Lakshmana,
Aged about 44 years,
6. Vajramma,
W/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 43 years,
7. Manja @ Manjunatha,
S/o Hanumanthappa @ Doddanna,
Aged about 30 years,
8. Master. Beeresh,
S/o Hanumanthappa @ Doddanna,
Aged about 16 years,
9. Master. Devaraj,
S/o Hanumanthappa @ Doddanna,
Aged about 14 years,
10. Lakshmana,
S/o Hanumanthappa @ Doddanna,
Aged about 16 years,
D8 to D10 are Minors, Rep. by their next
friend & Guardian father Hanumanthappa
@ Doddanna.
11. Chandramma,
W/o Raju,
Aged about 32 years,
3 O.S.5452/2005
12. M. Raju,
S/o Muddanna,
Aged about 53 years,
D1 to D12 are r/o Supraja Nagara,
Konanakunte Post,
Chunchaghatta Main Road,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
13. Vijay Kumar,
S/o M. Gundappa,
R/o A.K. Colony,
Konanakunte Post,
Anjanapura Main Road,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
14. P. Murali,
R/o # 145, 1st Cross,
Doctors' Colony,
Konanakunte Post,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
15. Ramesh,
S/o J.T. Thirumale Gowda,
Aged about 36 years,
R/o # 278/2,
14th Cross, 2nd Block,
Tyagaraja Nagara,
BENGALURU.
( D1, D2, D4 to D6, D8, D9 & D11 by
Sri. R.N.S.;
D3 by Sri. C.R.L.;
D13 by Sri. K.T.D., Advocates,
D7, D10, D12, D14 & D15 Ex parte. )
4 O.S.5452/2005
Date of Institution of the suit 21.07.2005
Nature of the Suit (suit for pronote, Declaration & Injunction
Suit for declaration & possession,
Suit for injunction, etc.):
Date of the commencement of 25.10.2008
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 12.09.2025
pronounced:
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration:
20 01 21
( B.P. DEVAMANE )
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
*****
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff filed this suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed dated 31.10.2003, cancellation of compromise decree dated 10.05.1997 in O.S.927/1997 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, on 23.04.1998 and for permanent injunction against defendants.
2. Case of the plaintiff in brief is that she is the absolute owner and in exclusive possession & enjoyment of the suit property bearing Khaneshumari No.4, measuring east-west 120 feet and north-south 43 feet, situated at Konanakunte, 5 O.S.5452/2005 Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, bounded on east by property bearing No.49, west by property bearing No.54, north by property belonging to others & south by 30 feet road. Plaintiff purchased suit property under registered sale deed dated 23.08.1982 from her vendor Anjanappa, son of Dodda Anjanappa, for valuable consideration and plaintiff was put in possession & enjoyment of the suit property. Plaintiff constructed eight residential tenements in the suit property with all civic amenities. Khatha of suit property transferred in the name of plaintiff. Suit property comprised of four sites bearing Nos.50, 51, 52 & 53 as per the approved layout plan issued by Anjanapura Gram Panchayath, Konanakunte Village.
2(a). Vendor of plaintiff Anjanappa, son of Dodda Anjanappa had brother by name Dodda Lakshmana. Both Dodda Anjanappa & Dodda Lakshmana are the sons of Smt. Dodda Mariyakka. Dodda Mariyakka and her sister Chikka Mariyakka had entered into registered partition deed dated 22.07.1948. As per the said partition, property bearing Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas of Konanakunte Village was allotted to the share of Dodda Mariyakka. Sons of Dodda Mariyakka viz., Dodda Anjanappa & Dodda Lakshmana acquired said property as being successors in interest and representatives in title of Dodda Mariyakka. Dodda Anjanappa had three sons: (1) Anjanappa, (2) Krishnappa & (3) Ramanna. Dodda Lakshmana had three sons: (1) Narayanappa, (2) Hanumanthaiah @ Chikkanna & (3) Doddanna @ Hanumanthaiah. All of them executed registered power-of-
6 O.S.5452/2005attorney dated 12.07.1982 in favour of their eldest brother Anjanappa for dealing with property bearing Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas.
2(b). On the strength of GPA dated 12.07.1982 registered on 15.07.1982 said Anjanappa, son of Dodda Anjanappa, formed revenue layout in Sy.No.31/1 of Konanakunte Village, measuring 2 acres 5 guntas and demarcated as many as 58 sites of different dimensions in two rows and formed road between said row of sites on east-west direction consisting of site Nos.1 to 33 on southern side and site Nos.34 to 58 on northern side. Anjanapura Gram Panchayath approved the revenue layout plan. Out of said sites, site Nos.50, 51, 52 & 53 totally measuring east-west 120 feet & north-south 43 feet, Anjanappa obtained Khaneshumari No.4 and sold the same in favour of plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 23.08.1982. After purchase, plaintiff put up compound surrounding the said four sites measuring east-west 120 feet & north-south 43 feet. In the area of 60 feet X 43 feet plaintiff constructed eight residential tenements and also put up shed on its eastern side, which is suit schedule property. Said Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa on the strength of GPA dated 12.07.1982 sold several sites formed in Sy.No.31/1 of Konanakunte in favour of following persons thus:
7 O.S.5452/2005 Site Khaneshumari Date of
Name of the Purchaser
No. No. Sale Deed
1. Smt. Prabhamani 06 18 11.02.1985
2. Smt. Jayalakshmi 09 23.12.1982
3. Smt. Leelavathi 10 23.12.1982
4. Smt. Rajalakshmi 03 23.08.1982
5. Sri. Hanumantha 15 09.05.1983
6. Sri. Krishnoji Rao 23 23.12.1982
7. Sri. G. Subbarayappa 26 09.06.1988
8. Sri. Y. Lingaraju 13 07.04.1983
9. Sri. R. Suresh Babu 45 23.12.1987
10. Dr. Ramamurthy Shahirani 46 23.12.1987
11. Sri. Dhoti Hanumanthaiah 10 22.06.1985
12. Sri. Krishnamurthy 50 49 17.01.1985
2(c). Defendant No.1 with a view to complicate the
matter and crest cloud on the title of plaintiff over the suit property, created fundamental documents in favour of defendant Nos.14 & 15 in the form of GPA by impersonating himself as Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa. On the strength of said GPA, defendant Nos.14 & 15, having large followers of antisocial elements tried to dispossess plaintiff from the suit property. Plaintiff filed criminal complaint before jurisdictional Magistrate in C.C. No.7255/2003 against defendant Nos.1, 14, 15 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 415 & 420 IPC.
2(d). Plaintiff filed suit against defendant Nos.14 & 15 in O.S. No.6751/2002 on the file of City Civil Court (CCH-16) seeking permanent injunction. Defendant No.1 instigated 8 O.S.5452/2005 defendant Nos.14 & 15 with a view to further complicate the matter and created fictitious sale deed dated 31.10.2003 in favour of defendant No.13. Defendant No.1 impersonated himself as Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa and executed said alleged sale deed which is void, ab initio as defendant No.1 could not have conveyed any title in favour of defendant No.13 under said sale deed.
2(e). Recently, plaintiff came to know that O.S.927/1997 came to be filed for partition before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, by present defendant Nos.4, 11, 12 & 16 against Anjanappa, son of Dodda Anjanappa and others wherein compromise decree has been obtained from the Court. Said compromise decree is product of fraudulent intention of defendant No.1 to deprive the right & title of plaintiff over suit property. In the said compromise decree, present suit schedule property has been included and allotted in favour of defendant Nos.8 & 9 viz., Master. Beeresh & Master. Devaraj by suppressing material facts regarding execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff with respect to suit property. Hence, plaintiff filed this suit for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and for cancellation of sale deed dated 31.10.2003 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.13 by impersonating himself as Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa with respect to suit property and also for cancellation of compromise decree in O.S.927/1997 and for injunction.
9 O.S.5452/20053. After service of suit summons, defendant Nos.2 to 4 & 6 appeared through their counsels and filed common Written Statement contending that plaintiff has no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit property. Name of defendant No.1 is not Hanumanthaiah @ Chikkanna, but his name is Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa. Defendant Nos.13 to 15 are not the family members of these defendants. They are third parties and they are not necessary parties. The description of suit property as Khaneshumari No.04 in Sy.No.31/1 of Konanakunte Village is not correct. It is denied that plaintiff purchased suit property under registered sale deed dated 23.08.1982 from Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa for valuable sale consideration. It is denied that plaintiff constructed eight residential tenements in the suit property with all civic amenities. In fact, defendants viz., Narayanappa, Hanumanthappa, Kumar, Vajramma, Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa are the members of same family, built residential houses and plaintiff is in no way concerned to portion of Sy.No.31/1 of Konanakunte Village. It is denied that site Nos.50 to 53 were consisting in approved layout plan issued by Anjanapura Village Panchayath. Sy.No.31/1 of Konanakunte Village is not converted land as per the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Sy.No.31/1 of Konanakunte Village show the names of defendants viz., Narayanappa, Vajramma, Kumar, Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa, Beeresh, Devaraj etc. As such, question of site Nos.50 to 53 do not arise. The Chairman of Anjanapura Village Panchayath is not statutory competent authority to approve the layout plan.
10 O.S.5452/20053(a). It is denied that Dodda Anjanappa & Dodda Lakshmana continued as members of joint family and Dodda Anjanappa and his three sons along with Dodda Lakshmana and his three sons were together executed registered GPA dated 12.07.1982 in favour of eldest brother Anjanappa, son of Dodda Anjanappa for dealing with land bearing Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas of Konanakunte Village. It is denied that Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa, based on said GPA, executed registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff on 23.08.1982 in respect of the suit property. It is denied that defendants instigated by defendant Nos.14 & 15 and in order to complicate the matter created fictitious sale deed in favour of defendant No.13 Vijay Kumar on 31.10.2003. It is contended that defendant No.13 purchased the property under valid sale deed dated 31.10.2003.
3(b). It is further contended that Sy.No.31/1 of Konanakunte Village totally measuring 2 acres 17 guntas is the ancestral property of Dodda Hanumanthappa, who had two wives viz., Dodda Mariyakka & Chikka Mariyakka. Children of Dodda Mariyakka are Dodda Anjanappa & Dodda Lakshmana. Chikka Mariyakka had four children viz., (1) Anjanappa, (2) Chikka Sampanna, (3) Dodda Sampanna & (4) Smt. Akkayyamma. Half of said land on western side fell to the share of Dodda Lakshmana and Dodda Anjanappa measuring 1 acre 8 guntas. At no point of time they sold property in favour of plaintiff. Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa whom the plaintiff wrongly stated as Hanumanthaiah @ Chikkanna, defendant 11 O.S.5452/2005 No.2 Narayanappa & defendant No.3 Hanumanthappa are the children of Dodda Lakshmana. Defendant No.4 Kumar is the son of defendant No.2 Narayanappa. Defendant No.5 is the son of late Dodda Lakshmana. Defendant No.6 is wife of defendant No.2 Narayanappa. Defendant No.7 Manja @ Manjunatha is the son of defendant No.3. Defendant Nos.8 & 9 are the sons of Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa. Defendant No.10 is the son of defendant No.4 Hanumanthappa. Defendant No.11 is the daughter of defendant No.2. Defendant No.12 is the husband of defendant No.11.
3(c). Till 1997 the children of Dodda Lakshmana continued in joint possession. But, there arose difference among womenfolk. Hence, suit for partition & declaration in O.S.927/1997 was filed and ultimately suit was ended by way of compromise. Decree was passed and it is registered. Different portions of land in Sy.No.31/1 of Konanakunte Village measuring 1 acre 9 guntas become independent & exclusive property of defendant Nos.2 to 11 and also Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa, who is referred as defendant No.1 with wrong description as Hanumanthaiah @ Chikkanna. At no point of time, any of the family members of defendants sold suit property in favour of plaintiff. Schedule 'A' of the Written Statement property is shown as land bearing Sy.No.31/1 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas out of which the property fallen to the share of defendant No.8 Beeresh, son of Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa, is shown as suit schedule 'B' property. It is well settled that until particular revenue land is converted for any purpose and until the 12 O.S.5452/2005 agricultural land is acquired by the local bodies including BDA etc., the assessment & Survey Number continues and thereby said alleged Khaneshumari No.04 as described by plaintiff is in no way related to Written Statement schedule property. Alleged Khaneshumari No.04 property is not in existence. Written Statement schedule 'A' & 'B' properties altogether different. The sketch along with final decree in O.S.927/1997 is clearly marking the properties allotted to the parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
3(d). Written Statement schedule 'A' property is shown as property belonging to defendant Nos.2 to 11 and Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa as stated in final decree in O.S.927/1997 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.31/1 of Konanakunte Village i.e., half portion of land measuring 2 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.31/1 bounded on east by remaining portion of same land in Sy.No.31/1, fallen to the share of Dodda Anjanappa and his children, west by land of Muniyamma @ Pete Muniyamma, now belonging to Smt. Siddaramakka, mother of Beeranna, north by land of Muniveerappa & south by land of Chikka Hanumanthappa. Written Statement schedule 'B' property is the land fallen to the share of Master. Beeresha (D8) bearing Sy.No.31/1 of Konanakunte Village measuring east-west 60 feet & north-south 43 feet, bounded on east same Sy.No.31/1 fallen to the share of Devaraj, son of Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa, west by remaining share allotted to Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa, purchased by Cheluvaraju, who built house thereon, north by property of Muniveerappa @ Ulsoor Narayanappa and 13 O.S.5452/2005 south by 30 feet road formed in Sy.No.31/1 of Konanakunte Village.
4. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 & 6 filed additional Written Statement after amending paragraph No.8 of plaint regarding names of different persons to whom the properties are sold by mentioning different Khaneshumari numbers. Para wise contents of amended plaint are denied and prayed to dismiss the suit. Further, in additional Written Statement dated 04.01.2022 also amended portion of plaint is denied.
5. Defendant No.13 filed his separate Written Statement contending that he is bona fide purchaser of land bearing khatha No.31/1 property No.31/1 of Konanakunte Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring east-west 60 feet & north-south 40 feet. The suit is barred by limitation. Plaintiff not valued the suit properly. The suit schedule property is not in existence. Anjanapura Village Panchayath had no power to issue any layout plan. Plaintiff created documents for the purpose of filing of this suit. Registered GPA cannot be termed as document of title and plaintiff cannot rely said document to prove her title to the suit property. Defendant No.13 adopted Written Statement of defendant Nos.2 to 4 & 6. Amendment allowed by the Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.290/2009 is contrary to the original plaint. It is denied that Anjanappa got Khaneshumari No.04 and sold the same in favour of plaintiff on 23.08.1982 in Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas. It is denied that plaintiff purchased 14 O.S.5452/2005 said property and put up construction of eight residential tenements in the land measuring 60 feet X 43 feet on western side. Plaintiff filed O.S.5451/2005 against Yella Reddy regarding same property. As such, the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Defendant No.13 is owner of Written Statement schedule property filed O.S.16589/2004 against Yella Reddy which came to be dismissed after contest. The right, title & interest of defendant No.13 was confirmed by said judgment. Defendant No.13 purchased Written Statement schedule property after verifying the documents and possession of the vendor since 1948. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5(a). Defendant No.13 filed Written Statement on 17.01.2017 in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court contending the same things as contended in his earlier Written Statement. Defendant No.13 contended that plaintiff is put to strict proof of the alleged sale as contended in paragraph No.8(a) of plaint. It is further contended that all the transactions stated in paragraph No.8(a) of the plaint are unwarranted and not concerned to the relief sought for by plaintiff. Plaintiff pleaded these pleadings to confuse the Court.
6. Plaintiff filed objections to the Written Statement filed by defendant No.13 contending that defendant No.13 not followed the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court as he is permitted to file Written Statement with regard to paragraph No.8(a) of plaint only. Writ Petition filed by defendant No.13 is dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court holding that defendant 15 O.S.5452/2005 No.13 can file Written Statement only with respect to paragraph No.8(a) of amended plaint. Despite, defendant No.13 filed Written Statement by violating the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Defendant No.13 has to answer only paragraph No.8(a) of the amended plaint. As such, Written Statement filed by defendant No.13 is liable to be rejected.
7. Defendant No.13 filed objections to the objections filed by plaintiff contending that plaintiff cannot dictate defendant No.13 to file Written Statement as per his convenience. Defendant No.13 filed additional Written Statement on 04.01.2022 contending that plaintiff has to prove her right, title, interest & possession over the amended schedule property with proper title deeds and prayed to dismiss the suit.
8. Based on the pleadings, the Court has framed the following issues : -
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has purchased the suit schedule property from her vendor Angarappa s/o Dodda Anjanappa as per registered sale deed dated: 23/8/1982 ?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that she had constructed eight residential tenements in the suit schedule property as alleged ?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that she is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?16 O.S.5452/2005
4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant No.1 without any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, has executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.14 & 15 in the form of General Power of Attorney and other family members as shown in para No.8 of the plaint ?
5. Whether the plaintiff further proves that subsequently, again defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.13 dated: 31/10/2003 ?
6. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.13 dated: 31/10/2003 is not binding on her ?
7. Whether the plaintiff further proves that similarly judgment & decree passed in 0.S.927/1997 dated:
10/5/1997 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, and duly registered on 23/4/1998 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff ?
8. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants are unnecessarily trying to interfere with her possession ?
9. Whether defendant Nos.2 to 6, 8, 9 & 11 prove that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and as such, defendant No.1 has no right to alienate the same in his individual capacity ?
10. Whether the defendants prove that that the suit schedule property is not at all converted to non-
agricultural use and therefore, the suit schedule property shown in the plaint is not at all existed as a residential site ?
17 O.S.5452/200511. Whether the defendants prove that the valuation made and court-fee paid is not proper & correct ?
12. Whether the defendants further prove that defendant Nos.13 to 15 are strangers to the suit schedule property and hence, suit is misconceived from mis- joinder of necessary parties ?
13. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of ownership as prayed for ?
14. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration that sale deed dated: 31/10/2003 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.13 is null & void and not binding on the plaintiff ?
15. Whether the plaintiff further entitled to the declaration that the compromise final decree passed in
0.S.927/1997 dated: 10/5/1997 is liable to be canceled ?
16. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction ?
17. What decree or order ?
Additional Issues dated 06.01.2021 :
1. Whether plaintiff proves the existence of suit schedule properties as described in the amended plaint ?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that Khaneshumari numbers referred in para No.8(a) pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No.31/1 and site Nos.50 to 53 and suit schedule properties are the part & parcel of said Sy.No.31/1 ?18 O.S.5452/2005
3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation ?
9. On 07.02.2009 this suit was dismissed after contest which was challenged before The Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.290/2009. The Hon'ble High Court allowed said RFA and permitted plaintiff to amend the plaint and produce additional evidence and directed this Court to dispose the matter afresh.
Accordingly, plaintiff carried out amendment to her plaint by inserting paragraph No.8(a). She also produced additional documents and led additional evidence.
10. In order to prove the case, plaintiff examined her GPA holder as PW1 and three other witnesses as PWs 2 to 4 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P106. On the other hand, defendant Nos.2 & 13 are examined as DWs 1 & 2 respectively and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D33.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused the entire material on record.
12. My findings on the above issues are as under : -
Issue Nos.1 to 8, : In the Affirmative
Issue Nos.13 to 16 &
Addl. Issue Nos.1 & 2
Issue Nos.9 to 12 & : In the Negative
Addl. Issue No.3
Issue No.17 : As per the final order,
for the following : -
19 O.S.5452/2005
REASONS
13. ISSUE Nos.1 to 10 & 13 to 16 and Addl. Issue Nos.1 & 2 : As all these issues are inter-connected with each other, they are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
As per the case of plaintiff, she traces title of the suit property stating that Smt. Dodda Mariyakka and her sister Smt. Chikka Mariyakka had entered into registered partition deed dated 22.07.1948, according to which Dodda Mariyakka was allotted Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas of Konanakunte Village. Sons of Dodda Mariyakka viz., Dodda Anjanappa & Dodda Lakshmana acquired said property as successors of Dodda Mariyakka. Dodda Anjanappa was having three sons viz., (1) Anjanappa, (2) Krishnappa & (3) Ramanna. Dodda Lakshmana was having three sons: (1) Narayanappa, (2) Hanumanthaiah @ Chikkanna & (3) Doddanna @ Hanumanthaiah. All the sons of Dodda Anjanappa and Dodda Lakshmana have executed registered GPA dated 12.07.1982 in favour of their eldest brother Anjanappa, son of Dodda Anjanappa, for dealing with property bearing Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas of Konanakunte Village. Ex.P3 is certified copy of registered GPA dated 12.07.1982 executed by Ramanna & Krishnappa, both sons of Dodda Anjanappa & Hanumanthaiah @ Chikkanna, Narayanappa & Doddanna, sons of Dodda Lakshmana, in favour of Anjanappa, son of Dodda Anjanappa. On perusal of schedule of said GPA, it is Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas. The power conferred under this 20 O.S.5452/2005 GPA is to sell the said property and receive money in favour of executants of GPA and other duties. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the sons of Dodda Lakshmana, who have executed said GPA in favour of Anjanappa, son of Dodda Anjanappa. Ex.P3 is the registered document of the year 1982, when the parties were not in dispute. Hence, the Court has no reason to doubt or disbelieve GPA Ex.P3.
14. Ex.P2 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 23.08.1982 executed by Anjanappa, son of Dodda Anjanappa, based on GPA in favour of plaintiff, for sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-. Ex.P65 is original sale deed dated 23.08.1982. On perusal of schedule of Ex.P65 it is shown as Khaneshumari No.04 consisting of house bounded on east site No.49, west property No.54, north property belonging to others and south 30 feet width road and between these boundaries area measuring east-west 120 feet & north-south 43 feet. There is Mangaluru tile roof house constructed in the year 1973-74 situated in the said property, which is having electricity & water connection. It is away from the bus stop. It is the corner property and market value of said property is Rs.15,000/-. This is the description of the suit schedule property in the said sale deed.
15. Defendant No.2 Narayanappa, son of Dodda Lakshmana, filed affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief as DW1 stating that defendant Nos.3 & 5 are his brothers. Property bearing Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas is his ancestral 21 O.S.5452/2005 property, out of which western side 1 acre 9 guntas fallen to the share of his father Dodda Lakshmana and eastern side half portion measuring 1 acre 8 guntas was fallen to the share of Dodda Anjanappa. DW1 further deposed that till 1997 they were continued in joint possession & enjoyment of land measuring 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.31/1. Thereafter, in the year 1997, his brother Beeranna filed suit for partition in O.S.927/1997 wherein compromise taken place. Ex.D1 to D13 are RTC extracts of Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas of Konanakunte Village for the different years. Ex.P3 is certified copy of registered GPA dated 12.07.1982. Contents of evidence affidavit of DW1 corroborates the contents of Ex.P3 referring two brothers Dodda Anjanappa & Dodda Lakshmana, and their sons viz., Anjanappa, Ramanna, Krishnappa, Hanumanthaiah @ Chikkaiah, Narayanappa & Doddanna @ Hanumanthaiah. DW1 has not stated anything regarding Ex.P3 registered GPA executed by himself and his brothers in favour of Anjanappa, son of Dodda Anjanappa.
16. Advocate for plaintiff argued that land bearing Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas was belonged to the family of Dodda Anjanappa and his brother Dodda Lakshmana. Though in RTC said land was shown as revenue land, but in fact at the spot several houses were constructed. In those days Khaneshumari numbers were used to be given to the property. As per the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff, it is clearly mentioned that there is Mangaluru tile roof house and it was having electricity & water connection. Due to such condition, the 22 O.S.5452/2005 property sold to plaintiff was given Khaneshumari No.04, which was situated in Sy.No.31/1. Sale deed was executed by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa as GPA holder of his brothers and sons of his uncle Dodda Lakshmana. Thereafter, plaintiff constructed eight tenements in the said property measuring east-west 120 feet & north-south 43 feet, which was given Khaneshumari No.04 as per the sale deed and said building is popularly known as 'Kothanuru Rathnamma Building'. On perusal of photographs Ex.P45 to P48 it can be seen that there is a writing on big complex as 'Kothanuru Rathnamma Building'. Now, defendants by taking undue advantage of RTC, which is showing extent of land as revenue land, colluding among themselves, have created compromise decree and also executed sale deed in the name of defendant No.13, which is not binding on the property of plaintiff. It is not only sale deed of plaintiff, but sale deeds of other persons who have purchased sites surrounding suit property at the relevant point of time, which are marked as per Ex.P95 to 105, have also been executed by same vendor of plaintiff by mentioning different Khaneshumari numbers. Hence, prayed to decree the suit. Advocate for plaintiff relied upon the ruling of The Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2015 KAR 5767 ( Mahadevappa, Dead by L.Rs., v. Uday Kumar).
17. Per contra, advocate for defendant Nos.2 to 4 & 6 argued that plaintiff has not produced any conversion order or there are no documents to show that Khaneshumari No.04 was belonging to vendor of plaintiff. The description of suit property 23 O.S.5452/2005 do not tally with the property sold by vendor. As such, plaintiff failed to prove the existence of suit property and her possession over the same. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 & 6 have got their joint family properties partitioned by way of compromise decree in O.S.927/1997. Plaintiff failed to prove her title & possession over the suit property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. Advocate for defendant Nos.2 to 4 & 6 relied upon following rulings :
i. ILR 2017 KAR 1319 (The Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri. Bhagavandas Patel); and, ii. (2024) 5 SCC 282 (Vasantha, Dead by L.Rs., v. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam, Dead by L.Rs.)
18. Advocate for defendant No.13 argued that defendant No.13 is bona fide purchaser of portion of suit property under registered sale deed and prayed to dismiss the suit. Advocate for defendant No.13 relied upon following decisions :
i. (2019) 6 SCC 82 (Jagdish Prasad Patel, Dead by L.Rs., & Anr., v. Shivnath & Ors.);
i. (2014) 2 SCC 269 (Union of India & Ors., v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors.); iii. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 999 (P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar);
iv. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 802 (Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) by L.Rs., & Ors.); v. 2023 SCC Online SC 9 (Smriti Debbarma, Dead by L.Rs., v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma & Ors.); vi. Civil Appeal No.1142/2003 before The Hon'ble Apex Court (Gian Kaur v. Raghubir Singh);24 O.S.5452/2005
vii. Civil Appeal No.726/1968 before The Hon'ble Apex Court (Ram Saran & Anr., v. Smt. Ganga Devi); viii. Civil Appeal No.7605/2004 before The Hon'ble Apex Court (Venkataraja & Ors., v. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal, Dead by L.Rs., & Ors.); ix. Civil Appeal No.3654/1983 before The Hon'ble Apex Court (Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra & Anr.); and, x. R.F.A. No.40/1989 before The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (Aralappa & Ors., v. Jagannath & Ors.) I have gone through the said rulings.
19. GPA holder of plaintiff, who is none other than husband of plaintiff, filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief as PW1 reiterating the plaint averments. PW2 Sri. Muddanna, PW3 Smt. Girijamma & PW4 Smt. Shantha are tenants of plaintiff who are residing in the suit property i.e., Kothanuru Rathnamma Building as tenants. They have deposed supporting the case of plaintiff that suit property consisting of eight portions of houses and in the suit property, two sites are vacant. All the houses including vacant space are covered by compound. PWs 2 to 4 in their cross-examination have stated that they are doing different occupations. Since they are residing as tenants in the property belongs to plaintiff, they came to the Court to give evidence to that effect. PWs 2 to 4 denied that they are not residing as tenants of plaintiff in the suit property.
20. Ex.P80 is 'B' khatha extract issued by BBMP in the name of plaintiff showing extent of suit property as east-west 120 25 O.S.5452/2005 feet & north-south 43 feet. Ex.P82 & P83 are tax paid receipts with respect to suit property which show name of plaintiff as owner of suit property. Ex.P84 is certified copy of registered confirmation deed executed by Ramanna son of Dodda Anjanappa, Krishnappa son of Dodda Anjanappa, Doddanna @ Hanumanthaiah (D3) son of Dodda Lakshmana and Beeranna (D5) son of Dodda Lakshmana stating that plaintiff is the absolute owner of properties in Sy.No.31/1 formed in the layout bearing Khaneshumari No.04 of Konanakunte Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring east-west 120 feet & north-south 43 feet which was registered before the Sub- Registrar, Kengeri, Bengaluru, vide registration document No.3351/1989-90, book No.1, Volume No.76, at pages 182 to 184, dated 23.08.1982. Ex.P106 is rectification-cum- confirmation deed executed by Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa son of Dodda Lakshmana and Devaraj son of Anjnappa @ Muni Anjanappa in favour of plaintiff confirming that plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of immovable residential property bearing Khaneshumari No.04, BBMP khatha No.31/1-4, situated at Konanakunte Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring east-west 120 feet & north-south 43 feet together with eight houses with RCC roof & jungle wood doors having basic facilities, which is described as schedule property of this document. In Ex.P106 it is mentioned that property is ancestral property. Myself and my relatives had executed registered GPA dated 12.07.1982 vide document bearing No.170/1982 at page No.53 in Book IV, Volume No.14, filled in additional register book No.31 at pages 167 to 170, in the office 26 O.S.5452/2005 of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk, in favour of Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa in respect of above said property bearing No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas situated at Konanakunte Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. On going through Ex.P84 & P106 majority of family members of defendants have executed confirmation deed confirming the original sale deed dated 23.08.1982 and registered GPA dated 12.07.1982 authorizing Anjanappa to sell the suit property and other properties and plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property.
21. Ex.P85 is encumbrance certificate from 01.06.1989 to 31.03.2004 wherein the name of plaintiff is appearing as purchaser and name of Anjanappa as vendor of Khaneshumari No.04 measuring east-west 120 feet & north-south 43 feet. Ex.P89 is certified copy of rectification-cum-confirmation deed executed by (1) Smt. Kallamma wife of Anjanappa, (2) Nagaraj son of Anjanappa, (3) Ramanna son of Dodda Anjanappa, (4) Smt. Shivamma wife of Ramanna & (5) Manjunath son of Ramanna, in favour of R. Usharani wife of A. Ramachandran, who is purchaser of another property adjacent to suit property at the relevant point of time. In the said rectification deed Ex.P89 it is stated that Anjanappa to meet his immediate family requirements & necessities has sold the schedule property in favour of Ramamurthy & Shashirani in terms of the sale deed dated 23.12.1982 bearing registered document No.5450/1982- 83 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk. This shows that it is not only the plaintiff but other purchasers 27 O.S.5452/2005 have also got the rectification-cum-confirmation deeds in respect of their properties which were purchased from Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa.
22. Ex.P95 is certified copy of sale deed executed by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa. Ex.P96 is certified copy of sale deed executed by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa on 14.02.1985 in favour of Smt. Prabhamani wherein also the number of property is shown as Khaneshumari No.18, site No.6, situated at Konanakunte gramatana, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Ex.P97 is certified copy of sale deed executed by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa in respect of property bearing Khaneshumari No.09 on 23.12.1982. Ex.P98 is certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa on 23.12.1982 in favour of Smt. Lalitha in respect of Khaneshumari No.10 situated within the limits of Anjanapura Group Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Ex.P99 is certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa on 23.08.1982 in favour of Smt. Rangalakshmi in respect of Khaneshumari No.03 situated within the limits of Konanakunte Gramatana, Anjanapura Group Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Ex.P100 is certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa on 09.05.1983 in favour of Sri. Hanumantha in respect of Khaneshumari No.15 situated within the limits of Konanakunte Gramatana, Anjanapura Group Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Ex.P101 is certified copy of registered sale deed executed by 28 O.S.5452/2005 Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa on 23.12.1982 in favour of Sri. Krishnoji Rao in respect of Khaneshumari No.23 situated within the limits of Konanakunte Gramatana, Anjanapura Group Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Ex.P102 is certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa on 07.04.1983 in favour of Sri. Lingaraju in respect of Khaneshumari No.13 situated within the limits of Konanakunte Gramatana, Anjanapura Group Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Ex.P104 is certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa on 23.12.1987 in favour of Sri. Suresh Babu in respect of the house constructed on the land bearing Khaneshumari No.45 situated within the limits of Konanakunte Gramatana, Anjanapura Group Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Ex.P105 is certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa on 23.12.1987 in favour of Sri. Ramamurthy & Smt. Shashirani in respect of Khaneshumari No.46 situated within the limits of Konanakunte Gramatana, Anjanapura Group Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Thus, on perusal of Ex.P95 to 105 sale deeds, it is not only the plaintiff, who got the sale deed in respect of Khaneshumari number property, but several others persons have also purchased the properties mentioning Khaneshumari number from Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa, situated within the limits of Konanakunte Gramatana, Anjanapura Group Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, i.e., the property / sites situated in Sy.No.31/1 which belongs to vendor of plaintiff.
29 O.S.5452/200523. In the previous days, when the property was situated within Gramatana limits and consisting of house, generally it was given Khaneshumari number. In this case, though RTC of Sy.No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas is standing in the name of family members of defendant Nos.2 to 6, but it was already having buildings and said buildings were given Khaneshumari numbers and the sites formed in the said property were also given Khaneshumari numbers. This Court do not find any good grounds for not believing sale deed Ex.P65 which is the registered document of the year 1982 based on the registered GPA executed by all the brothers of Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa, and children of Dodda Lakshmana, who was the brother of father of Anjanappa. On going through the above documents and evidence led by plaintiff, it is crystal clear that based on the registered GPA Ex.P3 executed in the name of Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa, has executed several sale deeds including sale deed of plaintiff, as discussed above. Ex.P2 and original of it at Ex.P65 is the document executed by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa based on the registered GPA executed by all his brothers and sons of brother of his father as per Ex.P3. Based on the said sale deed Ex.P2 = Ex.P65, plaintiff was put in possession & enjoyment of the suit property. Plaintiff put up construction of 8 tenements and she has rented said property in favour of tenants out of which PWs 2 to 4 have deposed before the Court supporting the case of plaintiff. As such, this Court do not find any good grounds to disbelieve the oral & documentary evidence produced by plaintiff 30 O.S.5452/2005 regarding her title & possession over the suit property. As discussed above, suit property has been sold to plaintiff in the year 1982. Thereafter, in the year 1997 i.e., 15 years after execution of sale deed with respect to suit property in favour of plaintiff, defendants taking undue advantage of revenue RTCs continued in their names, have got the suit filed among themselves in O.S.927/1997 and got collusive compromise decree in respect of the suit property, which is already alienated to plaintiff in the year 1982. As such, said compromise decree in O.S.927/1997 cannot bind property of plaintiff and it is liable to be canceled in respect of the suit property.
24. Defendant No.13, who is examined as DW2, is claiming his title to Written Statement property i.e., site measuring east-west 60 feet & north-south 40 feet in Sy.No.31/1, Khatha No.31/1 as per sale deed dated 31.10.2003 allegedly executed by Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa, representing his son Devaraj. When plaintiff proved her title & possession over the suit property from the year 1982, subsequent sale deed created in the year 2003 do not affect the right, title & interest of plaintiff over the suit property. DW2 deposed that he has purchased the property from Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa representing his son Devaraj, which he got under the compromise decree in O.S.927/1997. As already held, compromise decree in O.S.927/1997 is among family members of defendant Nos.2 to 6 & others, is collusive decree and it cannot affect the suit property and based on such collusive decree defendant No.13 will not get any right, title & interest regarding the property allegedly 31 O.S.5452/2005 purchased by him. As discussed above, Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff and several others on the strength of registered GPA executed in the year 1982. When the property has been alienated in the year 1982 validly by Anjanappa son of Dodda Anjanappa on the strength of registered GPA executed by their family members, again they cannot get the said property without adding present plaintiff as party to O.S.927/1997. Compromise decree Ex.D14 is obtained behind the back of plaintiff by including the suit property, which is purchased by plaintiff. As such, Ex.D14 will not affect the right of plaintiff over the suit property. Further, based on such decree defendant No.13 will not get any right, title & interest over the property allegedly purchased by him. Accordingly, I answer issue Nos.1 to 8, 13 to 16 & Addl. Issue Nos.1 & 2 in the Affirmative and Issue Nos.9 & 10 in the Negative.
25. ISSUE Nos.11 & 12 and ADDL. ISSUE NO.3 : As all these issues are inter-connected with each other, they are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
After taking contention of non-payment of proper court-fee by plaintiff, plaintiff has filed fresh valuation slip and she has paid the court-fee. Defendants have not addressed arguments regarding issue No.12 about mis-joinder of parties. Though plaintiff purchased the suit property in the year 1982, but she filed the suit in the year 2005 when defendants tried to disturb 32 O.S.5452/2005 her peaceful possession & enjoyment over the suit property by creating document as per Ex.D14 i.e., compromise decree, based on which sale deed came to be executed in the name of defendant No.13 in the year 2003. When defendants questioned title of plaintiff over the suit property, she filed this suit for declaration & injunction. Thus, the suit is within time. Accordingly, I answer Issue Nos.11 & 12 and Addl. Issue No.3 in the Negative.
26. ISSUE NO.17 : In view of aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following : -
ORDER The suit is decreed with costs.
It is declared that plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession & enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
It is declared that sale deed dated 31.10.2003 executed by defendant No.1 impersonating himself as Anjanappa @ Muni Anjanappa in favour of defendant No.13 is unlawful, null & void and not binding on the suit schedule property of plaintiff.
Compromise decree dated 10.05.1997 passed in O.S.927/1997 which came to be registered on 23.04.1998 is not binding on the 33 O.S.5452/2005 suit schedule property of plaintiff and to that extent it is liable to be canceled.
Defendants or any persons acting on their behalf are permanently restrained from causing interference & obstruction to peaceful possession & enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly.
Dictated to Senior Sheristedar (now under instructions to continue the work as Stenographer Grade I) directly on computer, computerized by him, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 12th day of September 2025.
( B.P. DEVAMANE ) I Addl. City Civil And Sessions Judge (CCH-02), Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :
PW1 : Sri. H. Gurumurthy
PW2 : Sri. Muddanna
PW3 : Smt. Girijamma
PW4 : Smt. Shantha
34 O.S.5452/2005
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :
Ex.P1 : GPA
Ex.P2 : Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.P3 : Certified copy of GPA
Ex.P4 : Certified copy of partition deed
Ex.P5 : Approved plan
Ex.P6 : Gazette Notification
Ex.P7 : Copy of Notification
Ex.P8 : Letter to Tahsildar
Ex.P9 : Voters' list
Ex.P10 : Letter to BWSSB
Ex.P11 : Reply issued by BWSSB
Ex.P12 : Xerox Gazette Notification
Ex.P13 : Reply issued by KEB
Ex.P14 to 22 : Electricity bills
Ex.P23 : Lease agreement
Ex.P24 : Original rent agreement
Ex.P25 : Original lease deed
Ex.P26, 27 : Lease agreements
Ex.P28 : Certified copy of telephone bill
Ex.P29 : Xerox of final decree in O.S.927/1997
Ex.P30 : RTC extract
Ex.P31 : Sketch
Ex.P32 to 34 : Certified copies of sale deeds Ex.P35 : Certified copy of deposition of PW1 in O.S.6268/2001 Ex.P36 : Certified copy of electricity bills Ex.P37 : Certified copy of 3 photographs Ex.P38 : Certified copy of bills issued by photographer Ex.P39,40,43 : Xerox of Gazette Notifications 35 O.S.5452/2005 Ex.P41,42,44 : Xerox of Circulars of BBMP Ex.P45 to 48 : Photographs (4) Ex.P49 : Certified copy of order passed in PCR No.13701/2003 Ex.P50 : Certified copy of sale deed Ex.P51 : Certified copy of ordersheet in O.S.927/1997 Ex.P52 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S.927/1997 Ex.P53 : Certified copy of demand register extract Ex.P54 : Certified copy of order in PCR No.13710/2003 Ex.P55, 56 : Certified copies of ordersheet in CC No.7255/2005 Ex.P57 : Certified copies of 3 photographs Ex.P58 : Certified copy of negatives of photographs Ex.P59 : Certified copy of demand notice issued by BBMP Ex.P60 : Certified copy of bank challan Ex.P61, 62 : Tax paid receipts Ex.P63 : Certified copy of endorsement Ex.P64 : Certified copy of 4 photographs Ex.P65 : Original sale deed Ex.P66 : Original confirmation deed Ex.P67 : Water connection from SAJALA Ex.P68 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P69 : Aadhaar of PW3 Ex.P70 : Document issued by Indane gas agency Ex.P71 : Cancellation deed Ex.P72 : GPA Ex.P73 : Affidavit Ex.P74 : Original sale deed Ex.P75 : Ordersheet in O.S.5151/2005 Ex.P76 : Plaint in O.S.5451/2005 36 O.S.5452/2005 Ex.P77 : Ordersheet in O.S.6751/2002 Ex.P78 : Plaint, memo & valuation slip in O.S.6751/2002 Ex.P79 : Counter-claim filed in O.S.6751/2002 Ex.P80 : Khatha extract Ex.P81, 83 : Tax paid receipts Ex.P82 : Acknowledgment Ex.P84, 87 : Certified copy of confirmation deeds Ex.P85, 86, : Encumbrance certificates 88, 90 Ex.P89 : Certified copy of rectification deed Ex.P91 to 94 : Certified copies of sale deeds Ex.P95 : Certified copy of lease deed Ex.P96 to : Certified copies of sale deeds 105 Ex.P106 : Rectification deed WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :
DW1 : Narayanappa DW2 : G. Vija Kumar
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :
Ex.D1 to D13 : RTC extracts
Ex.D14 : Certified copy of final decree in
O.S.927/1997
Ex.D14(a) : Certified copy of sketch
Ex.D15 : Certified copy of mutation register extract
Ex.D16 : Certified copy of tax paid receipt
Ex.D17 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
Ex.D18 : Certified copy of FDP in O.S.927/1997
37 O.S.5452/2005
Ex.D19 : Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.D20 : Encumbrance certificate
Ex.D21 : Mutation register extract
Ex.D22 to 24 : Form 3 (3 numbers)
Ex.D25 to 31 : Tax paid receipts
Ex.D32 & 33 : Certified copy of judgment & decree in
O.S.16589/2004
( B.P. DEVAMANE )
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.