Bangalore District Court
Srinivasa B M vs Rajan B S on 28 April, 2025
KABC010089002016
KABC010122212016
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY (CCH-60)
Present :
Sri. SOMASHEKARA. A., B.A.L., LL.M.,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S. No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S. No.3845/2016
Dated this the 28th day of April, 2025
OS.No.2954/2016
PLAINTIFF: Sri. B.M.Srinivasa,
S/o. Late Mulabagalaiah,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at.No.116, 5th Main, (West),
ITI Layout, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru -560 085.
(By Sri.G.B., Advocate)
V/s.
2 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
DEFENDANTS: 1. Sri. B.S.Rajan,
Aged about Major,
R/at. No.2786,
16th Cross, 6th Main,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 070.
2. M/s. Shree Construction,
Office at No.2786,
16th Cross, 6th Main,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 070.
Represented by its Partners and
Managing Partner Sri.B.S.Rajan.
(D.1 & 2 by Sri. HVS, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit : 30.05.2016
Nature of the suit : Suit for Declaration and
Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of : 22.09.2017
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 28.04.2025
was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
09 10 28
Digitally signed by
Somashekara Somashekara A
A Date: 2025.05.03
06:43:27 +0530
(Somashekara A.)
LIX ACC & SJ : Bengaluru.
3 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
O.S.No.3845/2016:
PLAINTIFF: Sri. B.M.Srinivasa,
S/o. Late Mulabagalaiah,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at.No.116, 5th Main, (West),
ITI Layout, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru -560 085.
(By Sri.G.B., Advocate)
- V/s -
DEFENDANTS: 1. Sri. B.S.Rajan,
Aged about Major,
R/at. No.2786,
16th Cross, 6th Main,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 070.
2. M/s. Shree Construction,
Office at No.2786,
16th Cross, 6th Main,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 070.
Represented by its Partners
-and Managing Partner
Sri.B.S.Rajan.
3. Smt. Kamalamma,
W/o. Sri.N.Subramani,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at.No. 1485, 27th Cross,
24th Main Road,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
4. Sri. N.Subramani,
S/o. Changaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
4 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
R/at. No.1485, 27th Cross,
24th Main Road,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
5. The Commissioner,
Bengaluru Development
-Authority
Bengaluru - 560 003.
(D.1 & 2 by Sri. HVS, Advocate)
(D.3 & 4 by Sri. GVVP, Advocate)
(D.5 by Sri. GSP, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit : 30.05.2016
Nature of the suit : Suit for Declaration and
Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of : 22.09.2017
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 28.04.2025
was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
09 10 28
Digitally signed by
Somashekara Somashekara A
A Date: 2025.05.03
06:43:37 +0530
(Somashekara. A.)
LIX ACC & SJ : Bengaluru.
5 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
O.S. NO.2954/2016 CLUBBED WITH O.S NO.3845/2016
Initially, the plaintiff Sri.B.M.Srinivas has filed O.S No.2954/2016
against defendant No.1 and 2 seeking the relief of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants are is agents, servants or
anybody claiming who them from interfering in to the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit property i.e.,
Property bearing old No.43, subsequent site No.18/2, PID No.56-124-
18/2, situated at 4th Main, 17th Cross, BSK 2nd Stage, BBMP Ward
No.165, Bangalore. Old Katha No.43, Yediyur, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 80 feet and North to
South 50 feet in all 4000 square feet, along with sheet house existing
thereon, and presently under BBMP Bangalore.
East by : 4th Main Road.
West by : Property No.3944-E.
North by : Property No.18/1.
South by : Property No.3944-M.
The defendants have enter their appearance and filed the
written statement, produced certain documents. During the pendency
of the suit this suit, on 07.04.2016 the 1 st defendant came to the suit
6 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
property and try to interfere with the suit property and on 28.04.2016
the defendants have illegally and forcefully entered in the property
along with goonda elements and taken the possession of the suit
property. This compelled the plaintiff to file comprehensive suit i.e,.
OS No.3845/2016 against defendant No.1 to 5 seeking the relief of
declaration:
To declare that the deed of re convey dated 21.03.2015
executed by BDA in favour of 3 rd defendant and possession
certificate dated 27.01.2015 in respect of property bearing
site No.3944-H is null and void and not binding on him.
Further to declare that the deed of re convey dated
21.03.2015 executed by BDA in favour of 4 th defendant and
possession certificate dated 27.01.2015 in respect of
property bearing site No.3944-I is null and void and not
binding on him and consequently declare the sale deed
dated: 11.03.2016 executed by 4 th defendant in favour of
defendant No.1 and 2 in respect of site No.3944-H and site
No.3944-I to be declared as null and void.
Further to declare the gift deed dated 05.03.2016 executed
by 3rd defendant in favour of 4th defendant is not binding on
him and same is to be declared as null and void.
Direct the defendant No.1 and 2 to remove the illegal
construction made by the defendant No.1 and 2 (by taking
forceful possession from the plaintiff) and direct the
7 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
defendant No.1 and 2 to handover the possession of the
suit schedule property.
Issue Permanent injunction restraining the defendants and
his agents, servants, henchmen, agents or anybody
claiming through or under them from putting up the further
construction over suit schedule property.
Issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants and
his agents, servants, henchmen, agents or anybody
claiming through or under them from interfering with the
peaceful possession enjoyment of the suit schedule
property.
2. The pleadings of the plaint in OS NO.2945/2016 and OS
No.3845/2016 are summarized as under:-
It is averred in the plaint the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
suit schedule property. Originally the property bearing Sy. No.43 was
situated at Yediyur village, Uttarhalli hobli, Bengaluru south taluk
measuring 1 acre 26 guntas originally belonging in to Sri.L
Narasimhaiah who had sold the said property in favour of Rangappa
through register sale deed dated 03.06.1960 in accordingly the name
as been mutated at in revenue records and thereby he was in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Such being the case
8 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
CITB as preliminary has issued preliminary notification in respect of
said Sy. No.43 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas belonging in to one
Mr.Ramaiah mothers Mrs Thirumalamma. Since there is larger extent
Sy.No.43 and as such Rangappa's property has not been acquired by
CITB, final notification is not been issued and as such he was a
possession and enjoyment of the said property, either CITC or BDA
not taken possession in respect of sy no.45 measuring 1 acre 26
guntas and no layout as been formed in the said property. the said
property and also not compensation paid. Therefore the remaining
property in respect of Sy.No.43 layout as been formed. On
15.11.1995 the said Rangappa died leaving behind his wife
Smt.B.N.Lakshmi and children Madhusudan R, Mrs B.R Anuradha,
Mrs. Asha or Mrs. Veena B.R as his legal heirs to succeed to the
estate of deceased of late Rangappa.
2(a). Subsequent to the death of said Rangappa, his wife
Smt.B.N.Lakshmi has gifted the portion of the property i.e., the
schedule property herein by executing a register gift deed dated
27.02.2006 in favour his son Sri. R.Madhusudhan, by virtue of the gift
9 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
deed the name of R.Madhusudhan got entered in the revenue
records. Subsequently on 09.11.2012 the said Madhusudhan sold the
suit schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff herein. On the basis of
said sale deed the name of the plaintiff is entered in the BBMP
records with PID No.56-124-18/2 the katha as also issued in the
name of plaintiff, theater he has paid up to day tax.. And he has
constructed said in the suit property and also taken electricity supply
to the said property. By virtue of sale deed the plaintiff claiming his
absolute owner ship right and possession of the said property.
2(b). Such being the case, in the year 2015 the vendor of the
plaintiff Madhusudhan tried to interfere suit schedule property and as
such he has filed O.S.No.8373/2015 before the City Civil Court and
wherein he has granted permanent injunction against the said R.
Madhusudhan restraining him from interfering in to his possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2(c) The defendants have no right, title or interest in the
schedule property but then the defendants.1 to 4 claiming their right
over the schedule property and thereby obstructing the possession.
10 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
Further, the plaintiff has contended that on 07.04.2016 the
defendants entered in the schedule property unlawful and taken the
possession illegally. Now the defendant No.1 and 2 are making
construction over the schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the
suit for declaration of ownership, mandatory injunction for demolition
of construction made by the defendants No.1 and 2, for possession of
encroached land.
2(d) The defendant No.1 and 2 are allegedly claiming that the
suit schedule property as the defendant No.1 and 2 have purchased
the same through defendant No.3 i.e., Smt. Kamalamma by virtue of
the alleged deed of sale of Re-convey deed executed by Bangalore
Development Authority dated 23.01.2015 in favour of defendant No.3,
registered as document No.3848/2014-15 and subsequent alleged
rectification deed dated 03.02.2015, executed by BDA, in favour of
Smt. Kamalamma, registered as document No.4040/2014-15 and
possession certificate issued by BDA Bangalore another deed of sale
of Re-convey executed by Bangalore Development Authority dated
23.01.2015 in favour of 4th defendant, registered as document No.
11 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
3847/2014-15 possession certificate issued by BDA, Bangalore dated
27.01.2015.
2(e) The defendant No.4 has allegedly executed sale deed in
favour of defendant No.1 and 2 in respect of site No.3944-H and
3944-I as per alleged sale deed dated 11.03.2016, registered as
document No.4. Even through the defendant No.4 has no absolute
right execute the alleged sale deed. The defendants illegally claiming
property bearing Municipal No.3944-H/3944-I, PID No.56-125-3944-
H/3944-I, measuring East to West on the Northern side 90 feet and
on the southern side 96 feet and north to south on Eastern side 54
feet and on the Western side 49.5 feet totally measuring 4812.75
square feet situated at 17th E Cross, Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bangalore.
2(f) It has been averred that the cause of action for the plaintiff
to file the suit in O.S.No.2954/2018 is that on 07.04.2016 at about
4:30 P.M., when the defendants No.1 & 2 and the henchmen
suddenly came to the Suit property claiming that they have got right
over the schedule property and they have illegally and unlawfully tried
12 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, which compel the
plaintiff to file a suit for relief of permanent injunction, (which is
clubbed along with this present suit). Further during the pendency of
the above suit since the defendants 1 & 2 claiming that they have
purchased the very same property bearing different site number
under reconveyance deed executed by the BDA in favour of the
defendant No.3& 4, trespassed over the plaintiff property and forcibly
having taken possession and put up some contraction over the same
which has compelled the plaintiff to institute the present suit (O.S
No.3845/2016).
3. The defendants having entered appearance thorough their
respective counsels, wherein defendant No.1 & 2 have filed their
written statement, defendant No.3 & 4 have filed a separate written
statement, defendant No.5 BDA has filed independent return
statement. The defendant No.1 & 2 have contended that the plaintiff
Suit schedule property is completely different from written statement
schedule property as both of the sites have no nexus to each other.
As such the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further contented by the
13 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
defendant No.1 & 2 that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff
has not sought for declaratory relief. It is also contended that the suit
is the present suit that is O.S.No.3845/2016 is barred as per Order 2
Rule 2 of CPC as the plaintiff herein had previously filed a suit for
bear injunction in O.S.No.2854/2018, (which is clubbed along with
this suit). It is also contented that court fee has been insufficiently
paid and the valuation is improper, they have also contended that the
statutory notice under section 64 of the BDA act having not been
issued the present suit is not maintainable.
3(a) The defendant No.1 & 2 claim title over the written statement
schedule property by virtue of Judgment and decree passed by this
court in O.S.No.2499/2009, wherein their vendors i.e., defendant
No.3 & 4 were declared as the owner of the schedule property and
the sad Judgment passed having not been challenged by the plaintiff
herein, the plaintiff cannot maintain this suit. These being the primary
contentions. The defendant tries to trace their title to Narasimhaiah
who sold portion of the same survey land, to Munithirumalamma
under a sale deed dated.12.10.1958 it is contented that after
14 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
Munithirumalamma's death in 1972, her son Ramaiah inherited the
property. After Ramaiah's death, his sons (Govindaraju, Tukaram,
Lakshminarayana, and Prakash) written statement property to
defendants. It is contented that the ten CITB acquired the entire land
and formed a layout called B.S.K 2 nd Stage was formed and the sites
were allotted. It is further contented that the defendant No.3 & 4
hearing having instituted a suit against their vendors and as against
the BDA in O.S.No.2499/2009 acquired title over the suit property.
Hence the plaintive claim with regarding to possession and title needs
to be negatived.
3(b) The defendants 3 & 4 have also filed their independent
Written statement, denying the plaint averments and further have
taken up a similar stance of Defendant No.1 & 2 herein who are their
purchasers. It is also stated that the plaintiff herein has fled a relief of
declaration and has not paid proper court fees as such the suit being
undervalued needs to be rejected. It is also contented that Ramaiah
had filed a suit in O.S.No. 5171/1980 against BDA seeking for
reconveyance. The said Suit was decreed on 20.11.1991. The BDA'S
15 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
appeal in R.F.A No. 206 in 1992 was unsuccessful as the same was
dismissed vide Judgment 3.11.1999, as such the fact of re-
conveyance in favour of the vendors of defendant No.3 & 4 was
approved. Nut further they have stated that since the vendors of
defendant No.3 & 4 had misrepresented them and had conveyed a
property which was not part of the reconveyance scheme, they were
compelled to institute another suit in O.S.No.2499/2009 against their
vendors seeking for a relief of adverse possession. Later on the BDA
being the 5th defendant was also impleaded in the said suit as the 7 th
defendant and the suit was finally decreed vide Judgment and degree
dated 22.03.2013, which decree has attained finality and not been
challenged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot set up his independent
title. BDA having entered appearance have filed their independent
Written statement, denying all the content made in the plaint and
further have stated that the suit is bad for non-issuance of statutory
notice under Section 64 and have also further contended that several
persons having purchased the property under independent owners
have approached the authority for recurrence and the property
16 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
belonging to Rangappa was never acquired and have further sought
for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the above said pleadings, my
predecessor in office was to please to frame following issues in
O.S.No.2954/2016 and O.S. No.3845/2016 respectively reads as
under:-
Issues in O.S No.2954/2016
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his possession over the
schedule property including the identity of the property?
2. Whether plaintiff proves the obstruction of the defendants?
3. Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent
injunction?
Issues in OS No.3845/2016
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he acquired title over the
schedule property legally through registered sale deed
dated 09.11.2012?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the property described in
the schedule in part and parcel of survey No.43 purchased
by Rangappa measuring 1 Acre 26 guntas?
17 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves his lawful possession
over the schedule property as on the date of suit?
4. Does he prove the alleged obstruction made by the
defendant?
5. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 and 2
illegally made construction over the schedule property?
6. Whether plaintiff further proves that the re-conveyance
deed dated 23.01.2015, rectification deed dated
03.02.2015, possession certificate dated 27.01.2015 and
gift deed dated 05.03.2016 are null, void and not binding
upon him?
7. Whether the defendant No.1 and 2 prove that the Court
fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper?
8. Whether the suit is bad for non compliance of section 64
of Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration?
10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction
and permanent injunction?
5. Since both the suits have in clubbed by this court vide
order dated 06.10.2016 and as such common evidence was
recorded.
18 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
6. The plaintiff in support of his case has led in evidence as
PW1 and has marked documents 52 documents in support of his
case. The defendant No.2 has examined himself as DW1 and in
support of his case as marked 47 documents, the 5 th defendant BDA
has examined one Mr.T.Murthy working as an FDA R&R section
Bangalore Development Authority as DW2 in support of their defence
and closed their respective sides.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants
at length. In support of their arguments the learned counsel for
plaintiff placed reliance on the following decisions and judgment :
1. Orders passed in writ petition No.49130/2016 Sri.B.S.
Rajan V/s The Tahasildar and Taluk executive magistrate
and others.
2. Judgment in RFA No.791/2017 Sri. Sheshmal M Jain V/s
B.M Srinivas.
3. Original suit No.8962/2013 Seshmal Jain V/s Bangalore
Development Authority.
4. Original Suit 1741/2014 Smt. Rambha Bai V/s Bangalore
Development Authority.
5. Writ petition No.24245-246/2011 Chikkasiddappa V/s The
State of Karnataka.
19 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
6. ILR 1987 Kar 790 Writ petition No.11628/1983 Sri. B.N.
Sathyanarayana Rao V/s Stage of Karnataka.
8. On the other hand Advocate for defendant No.3 and 4 in
support of his arguments placed reliance on the following decisions :-
1. AIR 2023 S.C P 379.
2. AIR 1941 NAGPUR P 357.
3. 2023 (2) A.K.R P 731.
4. AIR 2003 MAD P 374.
5. AIR 2001 GAVATTI P 181.
6. 2007 (3) AIR KAR R 553.
7. AIR 1934 MAD P 293.
8. 2010 AIR SCW P 4222.
9. For having heard the arguments and on perusal of oral
and documentary evidence coupled with the principles of law laid on
decisions relied by the parties. My answer to the above issues of O.S
No. 2954/2016
Issue No.1:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.3:- In the Negative
Issue No.4:- In the Affirmative
20 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
And In O.S No.3845/2016
Issue No.1:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.3:- In the Negative
Issue No.4:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.5:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.6:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.7:- In the Negative
Issue No.8:- In the Negative
Issue No.9:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.10:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.11:- As per the final order for the following
R E A S O N S:-
10. Issue No.7 in O.S.No.3845/2016 :- The defendants in
their written statement have specifically contended that plaintiff has
deliberately undervalued his suit and has not paid proper court fees
and as such the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.
The plain perusal of the valuation slip goes to show that the
plaintiff has paid court fee of ₹.3,68,050/- on the plaint. It is the griev-
ance of the defendants that the plaintiff having sought for cancellation
of various registered deeds and has not valued each and every relief
21 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
seeking for cancellation properly, as such on this Ground alone, the
plaint is liable to be rejected the plaintiff while addressing arguments
has specifically pointed out to provisions of Section 6 of the KCFSVA
which is hereby culled out for ready reference:
Section 6. Multifarious suits.- (1) In any suit in which
separate and distinct reliefs based on the same cause of
action are sought, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee
on the aggregate value of the reliefs: Provided that, if a
relief is sought only as ancillary to the main relief, the plaint
shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief. (2)
Where more reliefs than one based on the same cause of
action are sought in the alternative in any suit, the plaint
shall be chargeable with the highest of the fees leviable on
the reliefs. (3) Where a suit embraces two or more distinct
and different causes of action and separate reliefs are
sought based on them, either alternatively or cumulatively,
the plaint shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of
the fees with which plaints would be chargeable under this
Act if separate suits were instituted in respect of the several
causes of action: Provided that, where the causes of action
in respect of reliefs claimed alternatively against the same
person arise out of the same transaction, the plaint shall be
chargeable only with the highest of the fees chargeable on
them.
22 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
11. Reading of the said section clearly shows that once a
comprehensive relief has been valued and the court fee has been
paid, all other the consequential relief need not be valued separately
as the plaint shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief .
As such Issue No.7 with respect to court fee has been is answered in
Negative.
12. Issue No.8 in OS NO.3845/2016:- with regarding to
maintainability of the suit for non-compliance of section 64 of BDA
act. The plaintiff while instituting, the present suit has filed an
application seeking dispensation of notice under Section 64(2) of the
BDA act and since no interim relief was sought against the BDA and
considering the reasons therein and being satisfied by my
predecessor have allowed the application. Hence question of non-
compliance of issue of statutory notice, under section 64 of the BDA
act does not arise for consideration. Hence this issue is also
answered in Negative.
23 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
13. Issue No.1 and 2 in O.S No.3845/2016:- The plaintiff
claimed his absolute title over the suit property by virtue of a
registered sale deed dated 9.11.2012 and the said property is part
and parcel of survey No.43 purchased by Ranagappa out of 1 acre
26 guntas. It is also his specific case that, in pursuance of the said
sale deed, he has inducted his vendor into possession over the suit
schedule property. However, the defendants specifically and strongly
denied the ownership right of the plaintiff. It is crucial to note here
that, though, the measurement of the suit property is disputed, but,
the boundaries shown in the schedule was not at all denied by the
defendant either in pleadings or in the evidence and there upon
irrespective of the dispute regarding measurement, the existence of
the suit property within the boundary mentioned in the schedule is an
admitted fact. In these facts and circumstances, the equal burden is
casted upon both side to substantiate their title by virtue of their
respective title deeds. In the light of these facts and circumstances,
revealing from the pleadings, I have to evaluate the evidences of both
sides. In such of the circumstances, as per the settled principles of
24 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
Indian Evidence Act, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the
execution of the sale deed dated 09.11.2012. In order to prove his
case, no doubt, the plaintiff initially entered into the witness box and
filed his affidavit in the form of chief-examination as required under
Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC.
14. In support of his oral evidence he has also produced and
marked the documentary evidence such as Ex. P1 & P2: Certified
copies of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.2963/2016 dated
10.04.2017. Ex.P.3: Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 03.06.1960.
Ex.P4: Certified copy of Gift Deed dated 27.02.2006. Ex.P5: Certified
copy of Sale Deed dated 09.11.2012. Ex.P6 & P7: Certified copies of
Katha Certificate and Extract dated 25/03/2015. Ex.P.8 to P14:
Certified copies of Tax Paid Receipts from 2008-09 to 2014-15.
Ex.P15 to P19: Certified copies of Encumbrance Certificates (EC) for
various periods concerning Site No.18/1, 18/2 and Sy.No.43. P20:
Certified copy of Order Sheet in WP. No.2996/2003. P21 to P23:
Copies of Written Statement and Evidence Affidavits in
25 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
O.S.No.8962/2013. P24, P24A, P25, P26: Copies of BDA
Proceedings and Allotment Orders dated 23/02/2001. P27: Certified
copy of Order in Review Petition No.79/2008 with CRP.No.2996/2003
dated 13.03.2009. P28 to P31: Various letters dated between
25.08.2014 and 03.01.2015. P32: Copy of Order in RFA-206/1992
dated 03/11/1999. P33: Proceedings of BDA dated 17.02.2009. P34
to P36: Copies of pleadings in CRP No.2996/2003. P37: Certified
copy of Order passed by Joint Director of Land Records dated
27.10.2016. P38: Certified copy of BDA Endorsement dated
18.06.2013. P39 to P43: Certified copies of various Sale Deeds, Gift
Deeds, and Rectification Deeds between 2015 and 2016. P44: Copy
of EC for Site No.3944 from 01.04.2004 to 23.04.2016. P45 to P46:
Copies of Gift Deed and GPA. P47: Copy of Order Sheet in CRP
No.2996/2003. P48 to P52: Copies of Judgments and Decrees in
O.S.No.8373/2015, O.S.No.8962/2013, O.S.No.1741/2014, and
Order in WP No.49130/2016.
15. on the other hand the defendant No.1 has examined
himself as DW1 and his evidence is nothing but a replica of his
26 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
written statement and in support of his contentions he has marked the
following documents:
D1: Endorsement by BDA dated 18.06.2013.
D2 to D4: Certified copies of Sale Deeds and Rectification Deed
from 1958 and 1960.
D5 to D7: Certified copies of Judgment and Decree in
O.S.No.5171/1980 and RFA No.206/1992.
D8 to D11: Certified copies of Sale Deeds dated 16.03.1992 and
30.03.2005.
D12 to D13: Certified copies of Judgment and Decree in
O.S.No.2499/2009.
D14 to D18: Certified copies of Sale Deeds, Possession Certificates,
and Rectification Deed related to 2015.
D19 to D22: Copies of Khata Extracts dated 04.05.2015.
D23: Copy of notice issued by BBMP dated 15.05.2015.
D24: Copy of Gift Deed dated 05.03.2016.
D25: Approved layout map.
D26 to D29: Copies of newspaper clippings.
D30 to D31: Khata Certificate and Extract dated 31.03.2016.
D32: Tax Paid Receipt for 2016-17.
D33: Copy of Building Plan.
D34: Certificate issued by BESCOM dated 26.03.2016.
D35: Authorization letter dated 09.10.2019.
D36 to D38: Certified copies of notifications and vouchers from
1964.
27 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
D39: Copy of statement issued by SLAO.
D40: Certified copy of notification dated 17.01.1968.
D41: Copy of proceedings dated 05/07/2014.
D42 to D43: Certified copies of Allotment Letters dated 27.01.2015.
D44: Certified copy of notification dated 21/02/1963.
D45: Copy of modified layout plan of Banashankari 2nd Stage.
D46: Photographs.
16. Before going to the merits of the case, it is pertinent to
note here that, as per the case of the plaintiff and defendants, it goes
to show that, both are claiming title over the same property and the
title deed of the plaintiff is earlier deed and the title deed relied by the
defendant is subsequent deed. In the light of these facts and
circumstances, revealing from the pleadings, I have to evaluate the
evidences of both sides.
17. Ex.P1 is the copy of the Judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.2963 2016, which suit was filed by BM Srinivas (plaintiff
herein) against Shesh Mahal M Jain for a relief of injunction. The said
suit was decreed on 10/04/2017, where in the plaintiff possession
over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit was held in
28 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
affirmative and the suit was decreed holding that the plaintiff is in
possession of the property and his possession was interfered by the
defendant. The court while decreeing the suit has also taken into
account 38 document which were filed in support of the case and has
given a finding with regarding to title of the plaintiff over the suit
property. The said Judgment and decree was assailed by Mr Shesh
Mal Jain before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.
791/2017, which came to be dismissed vide Judgment and decree
dated 13th July 2023, while dismissing the suit the High Court of
Karnataka has carefully scrutinize the records had framed issue with
regarding to whether the plaintiff has proved the existence of plaint
schedule property and his possession as on the date of the suit. The
Hon'ble high court having dwelled into the title of the plaintiff to
ascertain the existence of the site, has categorically given a finding
that the property of the plaintiff does exist and the plaintiff is in
peaceful possession over the same.
18. Ex.P4 is the registered gift deed executed by
B.N.Lakshmi in favour of Mr.Madhusudhan (the vendor of the
29 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
plaintiff). Exhibit P5 is the sale deed executed by Mr.Madhusudhan
and his siblings in favour of the plaintiff herein, Exhibit P3 is the Khata
certificate issued in favour of the plaintiff on 25/03/2015, Exhibit P7 Is
the Katta extract standing in the name of the plaintiff and Exhibit P8
to Exhibit P 14 are the tax paid receipts, Exhibit P 15 and 16 are the
encumbered certificate, these documents evidences Plaintiff
ownership over the suit schedule property. Exhibit P 48 is the
judgement passed in an injunction suit filed by plaintiff herein against
his vendor, Mr Madhusudhan, which also was decreed. Exhibit P 50
is a Writ Petition filed by defendant No.1 against the plaintiff, in which
writ petition the complaint lodged by the plaintiff herein was later
registered as crime number was sought to be quashed, the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka having heard the matter was pleased to
dismiss the said petition on merits. Exhibit P 52 is the Judgment and
decree passed in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed
by Smt. Rambha Bai, who is the vendor of defendant No.3 herein
who had filed a suit against BDA seeking for a relief of alternative
allotment of site. The said suit after contest has been dismissed,
30 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
wherein the issue with regarding to adverse possession claimed by
Smt. Rambha Bai has been categorically negatived by this court.
19. The plaintiff (PW1) was cross examined on 27.10.2017
wherein he has categorically stated that the property belonging to the
plaintiff and the property one claimed in Written statement schedule
are distinct to each other. He further states that when he approached
BDA with abundant caution seeking reconveyance of site number
18/2, the BDA vide endorsement dated 18.06.2013 have stated that
the property so conveyed in favour of the plaintive does not fall within
the territorial limits of conveyance scheme. He has further stated in
his cross-examination that GPA executed by Madhusudhan has not
been produced by him. The witness was further cross examined on
27/01/2018, wherein he feigns ignorance about the owners of site No.
3944/H, 3944/J, 3944/K & 3944/L and he categorically state that the
entire survey number in 43 was not acquired by the BDA, witness
was further cross examine on 27.01.2018. He further states that he
did not have knowledge about the suit in O.S.No.2499/1999
O.S.No.5171/1980 and RFA. No.206/1992, till filling of the Suit.
31 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
20. Ex.P.5 is with respect to Survey No. 43 and he denies the
suggestion that the Lakshmi who is none other than wife of
Rangappa did not retain any property, post-acquisition by the CITB.
Witness was further cross examined on 2/4/2018 and he further
affirms the fact that on 7/4/2016, the defendant along with 100 Men
came near his property and demolish the existing structure. To
suggestion made by the defendant that the he was never in position
of the property, the plaintiff has denied it and he has stated that he
was in possession till the same was forcibly taken away from him on
7/4/2016. It was further suggested to the plaintiff that on 26/7/2018
that the Rangappa had purchased 1 acre 26 guntas in survey number
43, which has been admitted by the plaintiff. He further stated that in
order to show that Rangappa was the owner of the property, he has
produced the revenue records for the period 1962-2012.
21. Ex.D1 is a document confronted to the PW1 during the
cross-examination wherein the plaintiffs request for seeking
reconveyance of his property bearing 18/1 and 18/2 was negatived
on the reason that the properties belonging to the plaintive does not
32 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
come within the ambit of reconveyance scheme. Exhibit D2 is the
sale deed executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.2,
where in property bearing 3944H/3944I totally measuring about 4812
ft.² has been conveyed in favour of the defendant No.2. Exhibit D5 is
a Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5171/80 where in
declaration his sought against the BDA by Ramaiah and his children
with respect to a property in survey number 43 measuring is to West,
172 feet and not to South 129 feet. The suit appears to have been
decreed, but since there is no specific identity of the property which
directed to be conveyed alternative land in J.P Nagar was conveyed
as per deposition of DW2. Exhibit D 10 is the sale deed executed by
Ramesh son of Lalchand in favour of defendant No.4, the ownership
to the said sale deed is traced to Munitirumalamma and later on after
her death in favour of Ramaiah, it is pertinent to note here that the LR
of Ramaiah who had filed a suit in OS No. 5171/1980, the decree
appears to have not been completely executed or satisfied rather an
alternative land in J.P.Nagar is claimed to have been given. As per
the said, Ex.D 10 the property appears to have been sold in favour of
33 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
the vendor of the 4th defendant who in turn has sold the property in
favour of the 2nd defendant, with respect to Exhibit D 12 that is the
Judgment and decree in O.S.No.2499/2009, on which the entire title
of the defendants is based. I am of the opinion as follows. wherein
the defendant 3 and 4 here in have filed a suit for a relief of adverse
position against their vendors initially and later, it appears that the
BDA has been impleaded in the said suit as defendant No.7. It is
difficult to comprehend that the said suit was decreed and decree of
adverse possession was passed against the vendors under whom the
defendants purportedly acquired the title. Further any degree which is
passed with regarding declaration of title, the same being Judgment
in persona as per Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, which reads
as follows:
Section 35. Effect of declaration.-- A declaration made under this
Chapter is binding only on the parties to the suit, persons claiming
through them respectively, and, where any of the parties are
trustees, on the persons for whom, if in existence at the date of
declaration, such parties would be trustees.
Hence the reading of the section clearly states that the relief of
declaration, if granted by this court would be binding only to the
34 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
parties to the said suit and shall not have any binding president over
the plaintiff herein, as such the contention that the plaintiff has not
challenged the decree obtained by defendant No. 3 & 4 is hollow.
22. The plaintiff has successfully proved his acquisition of title
through the registered sale deed dated 09/11/2012. The facts show
that the suit property was originally part of a larger extent in Survey
No.43 belonging to Sri.N.Narasimhaiah, who conveyed 1 acre 26
guntas to Sri.Rangappa under a registered sale deed dated
03.06.1960. After Rangappa's death, his wife Smt. B.N. Lakshmi
inherited the land and later gifted it to her son R. Madhusudan
through a registered gift deed dated 27.02.2006. Subsequently, R.
Madhusudan and his siblings sold the property to the plaintiff under
the sale deed dated 09/11/2012. This chain of title has been
corroborated by several supporting documents, including Khata
certificates, tax paid receipts, and Encumbrance Certificates (ECs).
Thus, the plaintiff has demonstrated a lawful and continuous chain of
title culminating in his purchase.
35 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
23. The plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to establish
that the suit schedule property forms part of the land originally
purchased by Rangappa under the sale deed dated 03.06.1960. The
records, including the revenue documents and registered deeds,
affirm that the property was never acquired by the CITB (later BDA)
and remained in peaceful possession under private ownership. No
final notification of acquisition or payment of compensation was
issued, thus confirming the property's independence from the
government acquisition process. The chain of title from Narasimhaiah
to Rangappa and thereafter to the plaintiff's vendor has been well
established. With these reasons I answer Issue No.1 and 2 in the
Affirmative.
24. Issue No.6 in OS No.3845/2016:- The plaintiff has sought
for a relief of declaration with respect to the reconveyance deed
dated 23.01.2015, rectification deed dated 3.02.2015, possession
certificate dated 27.01.2015 and gift deed dated 5.3.2016, which
goes to the root of the title of the defendants and validity of the
documents conferring title upon them.
36 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
It is specifically contended by the plaintiff is that the defendant
No.4 has allegedly executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.1
and 2 in respect of Site No.3944-H and 3944-I as per alleged sale
deed dated 11.03.2016, registered as document No.3714/2015-16,
allegedly to have been executed by defendant No.4. Even though the
defendant No.4 has no absolute right execute the alleged sale deed.
The defendants illegally claiming property bearing Municipal
No.3944-H/3944-I, PID No.56-125-3944-H/3944-I, measuring East to
West on the Northern side 90 feet and on the Southern side 96 feet
and North to South on Eastern side 54 feet and on the Western side
49.5 feet totally measuring 4812.75 square feet situated at 17th E
Cross, Banashankari 2nd stage, Bangalore (which has more filly de-
scribed as written statement schedule property).
25. The defendants having based their entire title which they
aver having acquired subsequent to the decree pass in OS No.
2499/2009 wherein the defendant No.3 & 4 have been declared as
owners in possession by way of adverse possession as against their
37 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
own vendors is in comprehendible for the reason, to seek for a relief
of declaration based on adverse possession, the person approaching
the court has to first plead that he is an unauthorized or illegal
occupant against the interest of the true owner who would should be
arrayed as the defendant therein. The defendants in O.S
No.2499/2009, is the vendors in title of defendants 3 & 4.
26. Further it is well settled law to claim in adverse
possession over a property belonging to the state or any government
body, the person who claims adverse possession should first Prima-
facie prove that he has been in illegal occupation against the interest
of the original owner (state) for an uninterrupted period of 30 years.
That being the case the Defendant No.3 & 4 having purchased the
property in the year 1992, from the legal heirs of Ramaiah could not
have maintained a Suit for adverse possession in the year 2009.
Leave that as it may be without commenting much on the Judgment
and decree passed by this court in O.S.No.2499/2009, I refrain
myself from considering the same for the purpose of adjudication of
lis between the parties in the present suit, as the Judgment decree
38 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
passed by a coordinate court is not a binding president on this court
as per Article 141 of the constitution.
27. On careful reading and appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record, it prima-facie revels that Originally
the Sy.No.43 measuring 6 acre 30 guntas, situated at Yediyur village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, (hereinafter referred to
as the larger property) was owned and possessed by one
N.Narasimhaiah who acquired the same vide a registered Partition
Deed dated 02/09/1948. The said N.Narasimhaiah sold a portion of
the larger property, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas to one Smt. Mu-
nithirumalamma W/o Late Channappa, vide a registered Sale deed
dated 12/10/1958 read with registered Rectification deed dated
03/03/1960. In the Rectification deed dated 03/03/1960, the said land
measuring 1 acre 20 guntas sold under the said Sale deed dated
12.10.1958, was rectified as two pieces of land, one measuring 1
Acre 3 guntas and another measuring 17 gutnas of Yediyur Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
39 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
28. In the year of 1963 the land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas
has been acquired by CITB and Mrs. Munithirumalamma has submit-
ted representation to CITB for reconveying the said land. The said
Mrs. Munithirumalamma died on 06.04.1972;Subsequent to BDA has
formed BSK 2nd Stage, accordingly Ramaiah made application for al-
lotment of site measuring East to West 172 feet and North to South
129 feet, accordingly the BDA has refused to re-convey the said land
as per endorsement dated 05.11.1976. Subsequent to that the said
Ramaiah has filed O.S.No.5171/1980, before the City Civil Court,
Bangalore, the said suit came to be decreed by directing the BDA to
allot the site in the layout formed by the BDA. The operative portion of
the order reads thus;
"The suit is decreed and it is declared that the LR's of plaintiff
are entitled to get site allotted from the defendant/BDA and to
get possession of the same in the circumstances, I make no
order as to cause".
"In para No.16 of the Judgment this court hold that-the suit
schedule property in O.S. No.5171/1980 ie., measuring South
by: 126 feet; North by : 129 feet and East to West 172 feet in
Sy.No.43 of Yediyur Village i.e., suit schedule property in which
40 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
the plaintiffs are not in possession therefore they are entitled for
sites from BDA, thereby court hold that they are not entitled to
get the property mentioned in the suit schedule
O.S.No.5171/1980.
29. It is clear from the records that, Ramaiah died intestate on
15.03.1985 leaving behind M.R.Govindaraj, Thukaram, Lakshmi-
narayan and R.Prakash as his legal heirs for succeed the estate. Ac-
cordingly the said suit came to be decreed to get allotted the site in
the sites formed by BDA in any other layout the same has been chal-
lenged by BDA by filing RFA No.206/1992, the said appeal came to
be dismissed holding that the legal heirs of Ramaiah are entitled to
allot the site in the layout formed by BDA. Thereby, the above deci-
sion clearly establishes that either Ramaiah or their children are not
in possession of any portion of the property in Sy.No.43. and after
death of Ramaiah his LRs Govindaraj and his brothers sold a portion
numbered as Site No.3, in the erstwhile Sy.No.43 of Yediyur Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, measuring East to West on Northern side 92 feet,
on the Southern side 96 feet and North to South on Eastern side 36
41 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
feet on Western side 33 feet to one Mr. Ramesh S/o. Lalchand
through registered Sale deed dated 16.03.1992.
30. It is worth to note here that Mr. Govindaraj and his broth-
ers have sold another portion in Site No.2 in the same survey number
i.e., Site No.2 to Mr.Sheshammal Jain under Sale Deed dated
16.03.1992. The said Mr. Ramesh sold the property to Mr. Subra-
mani S/o. Late. Changaiah through registered Sale Deed dated
30.03.2005. Similarly, Ramba Bai W/o. Sheshamal Jain sold the
property to Mrs.Kamala Bai through registered Sale Deed dated
30.03.2005. Accordingly, the Subramani and Kamala Bai applied re-
convey of the said property and BDA has executed reconveyance
deed which is challenged in the suit and subsequent to that the said
Subramani and Kamala Bai have sold in favour of defendant No.1
and 2 in respect of the written statement property. However, this court
in O.S. No.5171/1980 and RFA No.206/1992 and in RFA
No.791/2017 clearly hold that in Sy.No.43 there is no any property
which is in possession of Ramaiah or his legal heirs.
42 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
31. In sofaras, the above issue is concerned the defendant is
claiming title of the written statement property through LRs of
Ramaiah ie., M.R. Govindaraj, Thukaram, Lakshminarayan and R.
Prakash by virtue of decree passed in O.S. No.5171/1980. In the said
decree this Hon'ble Court was directed to allot the site from the BDA
and get possession of the same, the decree has not been granted in
respect of the suit schedule property as per Exhibit - D5.
32. The BDA has filed appeal in RFA No.206/1992 against
LRs of Ramaiah ie., M.R. Govindaraj, Thukaram, Lakshminarayan
and R. Prakash before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In the
said RFA the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed to allot the
site in favour of the M.R. Govindaraj, Thukaram, Lakshminarayan and
R. Prakash not the suit schedule property. Therefore, the M.R.
Govindaraj, Thukaram, Lakshminarayan and R. Prakash have lost their
right in respect of the Sy.No.43 of Yediyur village as per Exhibit - P32.
33. Thereafter, Mr. Govindaraj and others have filed
execution petition in R.P.No.79/2008 and thereafter filed CRP
43 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
No.2996/2003 as per Ex.P20. In the said petition, Mr. Sheshamal
Jain has filed application for impleading as per Ex.P37 along with
Affidavit. On the said application the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
has passed order as per Ex.P47, Page 17 reads thu s;
"While the basis for seeking impleadment is in terms of sale
deeds executed by the petitioners herein in favour of the
applicants way back in the year 1992, the petitioners are
disputing the very execution of such sale deeds, that the sale
deeds are more a fraud played against the petitioners, that the
applicants in whose favour the power of attorney had been
executed having been found to have misused the power of
attorney, the authorization was revoked subsequently and as a
retaliatory measure, such persons have filed application to
come on record and therefore the application deserves to be
dismissed etc.". As per the above said order the court hold that
the sale deed got registered by the vendors of the defendant
No.1 and 2 and vendors of the Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 are created
and concocted, the said order has not been challenged."
Under similar circumstances pertaining to the other portion of
the property ie., property bearing Site No.18/1 which is adjacent to
the present suit schedule property in O.S.No.2963/2016 as per
Ex.P1, the said suit came to be decreed. Para 18 and 19 reads thus;
44 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
The defendant has produced the certified copy of the
judgment in O.S. No.5171/1980 at Ex.D2, Judgment and decree in
RFA No.206/92 at Ex.D4 and D5. The plaintiff has produced the
records relating to CRP No.2996/2003 at Ex.P14 and copy of the
Order passed in the said Civil Revision Petition at Ex.P27 and
other related records at Ex.D.35 to D37.
Ex.D2 the judgment shows that the LRs of Ramaiah ie.,
Govindaraju, R. Thukaram, R. Lakshminarayana, Prakash who are
the vendors of the defendant filed O.S. No.5171/1980 against the
BDA for allotment of site. In that suit, the vendors of the present
defendant have pleased that their mother Mrs. Muni
Thirumalamma purchased 1 acre 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.43
(through sale deed at Ex.D6) and part of land in Sy.No.43 was
acquired by CITB in the year 1967 and remaining part of Sy.No.43
was acquired by CITB in the year 1976. It has been pleaded in that
suit that vendors of the present defendant were in the possession
of site measuring East to West 126 feet and North to South 129
feet. They have pleaded that they were in possession of such site
before acquisition and therefore, because of the acquisition they
are entitled for a site from BDA. The suit came to be decreed
partly. In the judgment at Ex.D2 court has observed that already
the property which was in possession of the vendors of present
defendant was acquired, the vendors are not entitled for the
particular site from the BDA. With this observation the court has
held that the plaintiffs therein who are the vendors of the defendant
are entitled for alternative site from the BDA. Accordingly the court
has directed the BDA to allot alternative sites to the plaintiffs
therein. That judgment and decree was challenged by the BDA in
45 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
RFA No.206/1992. The Hon'ble High Court through judgment and
decree dated 03.09.1999 dismissed the appeal by confirming the
judgment and decree in O.S. No.5171/1980. Even the Hon'ble
High Court has given direction to the BDA to allot the sites to the
plaintiffs therein within three months". Para 20 and 21 also
relevant.
As against the said order as per Ex.P1, RFA No.791/2017
came to be filed and decided wherein Para 30 of the judgment reads
thus;
"The defendant has produced a certified copy of the judgment in
O.S. No.5171/1980 and got it marked at Ex.D2 and a copy of the
judgment and decree in RFA No.206/1992 and got it marked at
Ex.D4 and D5. The plaintiff also has got produced the records
relating to Civil Revision Petition No.2996/2003 at Ex.P14 and a
copy of the order passed in said Civil Revision Petition
No.2996/2003 at Ex.P27 and other three related documents from
Ex.P35 to P37."
34. The Judgment at Ex.D2 shows that legal representatives
of deceased Sri. Ramaiah I.e., Sri. M.R. Govindaraju, Sri.
M.R.Tukaram, Sri. R. Lakshminarayana and Sri.R.Prakash, who are
the vendors to the defendant, had filed a suit in O.S. No.5171/1980
against the BDA for the allotment of site. In the said suit, those
46 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
vendors to the defendant have pleaded that their mother Smt.
Munithirumalamma purchased 1 acre 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.43
(through registered Sale Deed at Ex.D6), and a part of land in
Sy.No.43 was acquired by CITB in the year 1967 and the remaining
part of Sy.No.43 was acquired by CITB in the year of 1976. It was
pleaded in that suit that vendors of the present defendant were in
possession of the site measuring East to West 126 feet, and North to
South 129 feet. They further pleaded that they were in possession of
such site before the acquisition. Therefore, due to the acquisition,
they are entitled for an alternate site from the BDA" .
Para 31 last sentence in RFA No.791/2017 reads thus ;
"Accordingly, the court directed the BDA to allot an alternate site to
the plaintiffs herein in the said suit O.S. No.5171/1980".
The plaintiff also produced Ex.P51 in O.S. No.2962/2013 filed
by Mr. Sheshamal Jain against BDA and Ex.P52 in O.S.
No.1741/2014 filed by Ramba Bai against BDA.
Para 36 in RFA No.791/2017 reads thus;
47 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
Apart from the defendant, his wife Mrs. Ramba Bai also claims to
have purchased a portion of the property in the Western side in the
same Sy.No.43. She also filed a suit in O.S. No.1741/2014 claiming
her right in the part of Sy.No.43 as could be seen in Ex.D28 which
is the copy of the plaint in O.S. No.1741/2014. Like her husband,
who is the present defendant, who had filed O.S. No.8962/2013,
she too had claimed her ownership over a portion of Sy.No.43
under Sale Deed at Ex.D.29. A perusal of the said documents
would go to show that the said Sale Deed was also executed during
the pendency of RFA No.206/1992".
Para 38, Page No.37, sub-para 2, in RFA No.791/2017 reads thus;
"The above analysis would clearly go to show that the property
claimed by the defendant has been acquired by CITB and the
possession of the same was taken over by it in the year 1963 and
1967. The vendors to the defendant fought rightly for allotment of
alternative site. During the pendency of such proceedings, the
vendors to the defendant, without any right, executed Sale Deed in
favour of the defendant on 16.03.1992. Therefore, no right has
been transferred in favour of the defendant under the said Sale
Deed". In present suit also the sale deed which is claimed by the
defendants are sale deed dated 16.03.1992 executed by Mr.
Govindraj and others in favour of the vendors of the vendor of
defendant No.1 and 2.
Para 39 in RFA No.791/2017 reads thus;
48 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
"In addition to the above, the evidence of PW-1, DW-1 coupled
with Ex.P-38 and Ex.D-45, would also go to show that the
plaintiff had filed a Revision Petition No.2/2016 before the Joint
Director of Land Records, City Survey, Bengaluru (as per
Ex.P37 in this suit), for Survey of Site No.18/1 and site No.18/2
in Sy.No.43, including the land measuring 1 acre 26 guntas. The
Joint Director of Land Records though ordered canceling CTS
Nos.37/37, 37/38 and 37/29, which were given to the properties
of the defendant, his wife etc., directed for further enquiry. Such
order was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1687-
1688/2017 on 08.02.2017 as could be seen from Ex.D-45".
35. Apart form which, defendant No.1 (DW1) has been cross-
examine by the plaintiff on 4/1/2019, the witness, pleads ignorance
about the order passed in OS No.5171/1980 to which BDA was a
party, and he further says that he does not know the contents of the
contentions of the BDA taken in the said suit and RFA No 206/1992
and he further admits that he has not produced the legal opinion
obtained by him at the time of purchase, and he further says that he
has not enquired about the alternative sites allotted to Govinda Raju
and others, who are the LR of Ramaiya. He further pleads ignorance
with regarding to relationship between Ramesh and Shesh Mahal
49 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
Jain. He also he also further submits that he doesn't know with
regarding to boundaries of the properties claimed by him and he
admits of non-production of any revenue records to substantiate his
claim. DW1 was further cross examined on 23/02/2019, wherein
again, he pleaded ignorance with respect to the boundaries of the
Written statement schedule property and also says that he doesn't
know the contents of the Exhibit D 14 and 16. He further admits the
relationship between Rambha Bhai and Shesh Mahal Jain. He further
admits that property shown in exhibit D8 & D9 part of survey number
43. And further admits no sites were allotted to Govinda Raju and his
family members by the BDA. He further admits that he has not
challenged the revenue records mutated in the name of the plaintiff
nor has raised any complaint with regarding to the same and he
feigns ignorance with regarding to the documents produced by the
plaintiff in the suit. Witness was further cross examined on 2/4/2019,
in which he states that he is ignorant about the fact that site numbers
assigned to the property in favour of his vendors was set aside in a
revision petition and he doesn't remember the measurements of the
50 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
properties in exhibit P 39 and 40 and also admit to the fact that there
was no Khata standing in his vendors name prior to his purchase and
he further denies that the statement made by the plaintiff that during
the pendency of OS No. 2954/2016, they have taken possession
forcibly.
36. Further, 5th defendant BDA official who has been
examined as DW2 during his cross examination has admitted that the
site which you were supposed to be allotted in O.S No. 5171/1980,
we are not available as such alternative site was allotted in favour of
Govinda Raju and others and the sale deed in favour of defendant
no.4 is not eligible for reconveyance as the same is purchased
independently and the witness DW2 categorically states that under
reconveyance scheme the site under Exhibit D.14 was not allotted.
The witness feigns ignorance about the proceedings in
O.S.No.1741/2019. Further admits the validity of the documents filed
by the plaintiff with respect to Khata he further states that the so-
called deeds executed in favour of defendant No.3 & 4 were not in
consonance with the orders passed by this court in OS No.
51 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
5771/1980, which was subsequently confirmed in RFA.No.206/1992
and CRP No.2996/2003.
37. It is further admitted by the witness (DW.2) that since
there were no property available in survey number 43 for
reconveyance. The children of Ramaiya, where accommodated in a
layout formed as J.P Nagar and to the effect, the affidavit was also
filed. The witness admits that similar suits in O.S No.8962/2013 and
O.S No.1741/2014 filed by Rambha Bai and Shesh Mahal have
already been dismissed. The witness during cross examination
conducted on 1.10.2021 categorically admit that Rangappa is the
vendor of defendant No.4 and was allotted as site in survey number
42 and not in survey number 43. The witness further during the
course of cross-examination on 19/11/2022, as categorically stated
that sites which were allotted to Ramaiah pursuant to the order of the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, where cancelled and it was further
admitted by the witness that the sale deeds in favour of defendant
No.3 & 4 where executed by Rambha Bai and Rabba Bai suit in O.S
No. 1741/2014 is dismissed and he further admit that during the
52 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
pendency of the suit in O.S.No.1741/2014 and O.S. 8962/2013, he
has executed exhibit P 39 and P 41 reconveyance deed against BDA
norms. And further admits that is no court order to register site
mentioned in exhibit P 39 and 41 reconveyance deeds. During the
cross examination dated 10.03.2023, the witness has admitted that
he has no documents to substantiate that defendant 3 & 4, where in
possession of the Written statement schedule property as there is no
mention of cross and Main Road in exhibit P 39 and 41 and further
pleads his ignorance with regarding to the location where written
statement properties are situated. The BDA had categorically stated
through its endorsement dated 18.06.2013 that the property
belonging to the plaintiff does not fall under the reconveyance
scheme. The reconveyance deeds, possession certificates, and gift
deeds relied upon by the defendants were thus executed in violation
of the legal framework. Further, the decree in O.S No.2499/2009 on
which the defendants rely does not bind the plaintiff, as a declaration
binds only parties to the suit (Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act).
Consequently, the deeds executed under such questionable
53 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
circumstances are null, void, and not binding upon the plaintiff's
property. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.6 in answered in the
Affirmative,
38. Issue No.3, 4, 5 and 10 in O.S No. 3845/2016 and Issue
No.1, 2 and 4 in O.S.No. 2954/2016:- these issues are being with
respect to physical possession of the suit schedule property are taken
up together.
The plaintiff earlier was before this court in O.S No. 2963/2016,
for a relief of bare injunction and the said suit being decreed after
contest was taken in an appeal by the defendant therein in RFA
No.791/2017. Thought the relief in suit for restricted for an injunction
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka while passing Judgment on
13/07/2023 has discussed with regarding to the plaintiff's title in detail
and have categorically arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has
successfully traced his title in order to succeed for a relief of
injunction.
54 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
39. The suit of the plaintiff which was decreed was confirmed
in the RFA. The relevancy of the said suit to the present suit is that
Mr. Sheesh Mahal Jain, who was the defendant therein also claimed
title under the very same umbrella as the defendants 3 & 4 are
claiming before this court. I have carefully analysed with respect to
tracing of the defendants wherein they have traced the title to
Narasimhaiah who sold portion of the same survey land, to
Munithirumalamma under a sale deed dated 12.10.1958, it is
contented that after Munithirumalamma's death in 1972, her son
Ramaiah inherited the property. After Ramaiah's death, his sons
(Govindaraju, Tukaram, Lakshminarayana, and Prakash) conveyed
written statement property to defendants. The very same facts and
the very same source of title was pleaded by Mr. Sheesh Mahal Jain,
who is the defendant in the previous Suit in O.S No. 2963/ 2016,
hence I find it relevant to take into consideration the judgement
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, where Mr. Sheesh
Mahal Jain title and possession was negatived.
55 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
40. The plaintiff also traces his title primarily under Sri
N.Narasimhaiah, (whose title has not been disputed by the
defendants also) who in turn sold 1 acre 26 guntas sold to Sri
Rangappa through a registered sale deed dated 03.06.1960. After
Rangappa' s death in 1985, his wife Smt.B.N. Lakshmi inherited the
land and gifted the portion containing the suit property to her son
R.Madhusudan by a gift deed dated 27.02.2006. R.Madhusudan and
his siblings (daughters of B.N. Lakshmi) sold the suit property to the
plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 09.11.2012, Katha has
been affected in the name of the plaintiff taxes have been paid
regularly, encumbered certificate also reflect all the above transaction
and substantiate the plaintiff contentions with regarding to his title.
41. The defendant having consistently contented in the
written statement and evidence that the plaint schedule property and
defendant schedule property is completely different and is located in
distinct locations against each other and these two properties does
not have any nexus with each other and defendant also having not
claimed any further counterclaim with respect to the Written
56 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
Statement schedule property, the plaintiff version with regarding to
the flow of title needs to be believed. Moreover, being also backed by
the well-reasoned Judgment passed in RFA No.971/2017 by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
42. Although the plaintiff was originally in possession of the
suit property, as evidenced by the pleadings in the earlier suit in O.S
No.2954/2016, it is found that by the time the suit in O.S
No.3845/2016 was instituted, the plaintiff had already been
dispossessed. The evidence shows that on 07/04/2016, defendants
No.1 and 2 along with their men trespassed onto the property,
demolished the existing structure, and forcibly took possession.
Consequently, although the plaintiff had a valid title, his actual
possession over the property on the date of the suit was disrupted by
the illegal acts of the defendants. The plaintiff has established that on
07/04/2016, the defendants unlawfully entered the suit property with
the assistance of henchmen, demolished the structures, and
obstructed his peaceful enjoyment of the property. This act of illegal
57 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
dispossession is documented and supported by the plaintiff's
evidence, including his cross-examination and documents filed before
the court.
43. After forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff on 07/04/2016,
defendants No.1 and 2 proceeded to make illegal constructions on
the suit property. The plaintiff's evidence, including witness testimony
and documentary records, proves that such construction activities
were carried out without any lawful right, title, or permission. The
unauthorized construction further strengthens the plaintiff's claim for
relief of restoration of possession. Given the finding that the plaintiff
was illegally dispossessed and that the defendants made
unauthorized constructions, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
possession directing defendants No.1 and 2 to remove the illegal
constructions and restore possession to the plaintiff. Accordingly I
answer Issue No.3 in O.S.No.3845/2016 in the Negative, Issue
No.4,5 and 10 in O.S.No.3845/2016 in the Affirmative, O.S
No.3845/2016 and Issue No.1, 2 and 4 in OS No.2954/2016 are in
the Affirmative.
58 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
44. Issue No.9 in O.S No.3845/2016:- which has been framed
by my predecessor despite absence of a formal relief for declaration,
having gone through the rival pleadings of both the parties and
having understood the intent of the plaintiff before the court probably
has moulded the reliefs while framing of issues under Order VII Rule
7 of CPC and has further having noted that the plaintiff has paid ad
valorem court fees on the comprehensive reliefs and mere absence
of a formal relief for declaration would not hamper the very
maintainability of the suit, has framed issue No.9 with regarding to
plaintiff entitlement of declaration of his title. Further, since Issue No.9
has already been framed and has not been challenged by either of
the defendants, I am bound to answer the said issue.
45. The plaintiff has successfully established his title through
documentary and oral evidence and demonstrated that the deeds
executed by the defendants are illegal and not binding on him.
Despite technical objections regarding the absence of a specific
formal prayer for declaration, the court, applying Order VII Rule 7 of
CPC, moulded the reliefs in favour of the plaintiff considering the
59 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
intent and the evidence on record. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to a
declaration that the impugned deeds are null and void and that he is
the rightful owner of the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the
defendants have failed to produce even a shred of evidence to
substantiate their claim that the property conveyed in favour of
Rangappa was ever the subject of acquisition proceedings by the City
Improvement Trust Board (CITB). Despite having ample opportunity,
they have not placed on record any acquisition notification,
preliminary or final, nor have they produced any award passed
specifically in the name of Rangappa in relation to the said property.
This glaring omission on the part of the defendants not only weakens
their defence but also lends strong credence to the plaintiff's case. It
reinforces the position that the property in question, having been
lawfully conveyed to Rangappa, remained unaffected by any
acquisition process and was never legally vested with the CITB. The
absence of documentary evidence from the defendants thus
significantly fortifies the plaintiff's contention and tilts the balance of
probabilities in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, I deem it
60 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
appropriate to mould the relief by considering an additional prayer
pertaining to the declaration of the plaintiff's title. Thus the plaintiff is
entitled for the relief of declaration of his title over the suit schedule
property and accordingly I answer Issue No.9 in the Affirmative.
46. ISSUE No.3 in O.S No.2954/2016:- The defendants in
their written statement have contended that the suit is not
maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of
necessary parties. But they have not stated who are the necessary
parties and who are the mis-joinder of parties to the suit.
It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has filed
O.S.No.2954/2016 against the defendant No.1 and 2 seeking the
relief of permanent injunction on the ground that on 07.04.2016. The
first defendant came to the suit schedule property tried to interfere
and subsequently the defendants are forcibly evicted the plaintiff in
the suit schedule property and as such he has filed comprehensive
suit in O.S.No.3845/2016 against defendant No.4 and thereby the
plaintiff has made all the parties to the suit and thus the suit is
maintainable. The defendant have not specifically averred that who
61 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
are necessary parties to the suit. Apart from this nothing has been
elicited in the evidence from the mouth of PW1 that some of the
parties have not joined in the suit and some of them have mis-joinder
in the suit. Under the circumstances that is my considered opinion
that the suit is well maintainable and all the parties are made as it is
in this suit and thus I answer Issue No.3 in O.S.No.2954/2016 is in
the Negative.
47. Issue No.11 in O.S.No.3845/2016:- Having regard to the
entire discussion on all the issue No.1 to 5, I am of the considered
opinion that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the
suit schedule property and not the defendant. Hence, I am of the
opinion that, the plaintiff being a woman comes with clean hands to
this court seeking discretionary relief. To safe guard her title and
possession over the suit property, it is necessary to extend the
discretionary power in favour of the plaintiff rather than the defendant.
48. The plaintiff and defendants in support of their arguments
have referred to several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court and
62 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
High courts. After carefully considering each of those decisions and
reflecting on the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the
facts in those cases are quite different from the facts before me. The
legal principals established in those decisions, while valuable and
well respected, seems to be more general in nature and do not
directly address the specific issues that need to be decided in this
case, with due respect to the Hon'ble courts whose judgments have
been cited, I find those are not applicable to the present matter and
therefore, they cannot be guide the resolution of the issues at hand.
By considering the facts and circumstances emerged, In my
opinion, if this court is not interfere, then the vested right of the
plaintiff over suit property will be frustrated. Accordingly, in the ends
of justice, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
as sought for, With these reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER:-
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S No.3845/2016 is hereby decreed with cost.
63 Judgment in O.S.No.2954/2016 C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016 It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 09.11.2012.
Consequently, Re-conveyance deed dated 23.01.2015 executed by BDA in favour of 3 rd defendant registered as document No.3848/2014-15 and rectification deed dated 03.02.2015, registered as document No.4040/2014-15 and possession certificate dated 27.01.2015 in respect property Site No.3944-H declared as null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.
Re-conveyance deed dated 23.01.2015 executed by BDA in favour of 4th defendant registered as document No.3847/2014-15 and possession certificate dated 27.01.2015 in respect of property site No. 3944-I declared as null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff and also in respect of the suit schedule property.
Further the Sale deed dated 11.06.2016, executed by 4th defendant in favour of Defendant No.1 and 2 in respect of site No.3944-H and site No.3944-I declared as null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.
The Gift Deed dated 05.03.2016 executed by 3 rd defendant in favour of defendant No.4 is declared as null and void.
64 Judgment in O.S.No.2954/2016 C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016 The defendant No.1 and 2 is directed to remove the construction made by them in the suit schedule property site No.18/2 and also directed the defendant No.1 and 2 handover the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 60 days form the today, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit schedule property through due process of law.
Suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.2954/2016 is hereby decreed with cost.
Consequently, the defendants are permanently restrained from causing any sort of interference in to suit schedule property.
Draw Decree Accordingly.
The original of this Judgment shall be kept in O.S.No.3845/2016 and copy of the same shall be kept in O.S.No.2954/2016.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II. directly on the computer, typed by him, print out taken, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2025].
Digitally signed
Somashekara by Somashekara A
A Date: 2025.05.03
06:44:05 +0530
(SOMASHEKARA.A )
LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
65 Judgment in O.S.No.2954/2016 C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016 ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff:
PW.1 - B.M.Srinivasa
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendants:
DW.1 - B.S.Rajan
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 C/copy of Judgment in OS 2963/2016 Ex.P.2 C/copy of Decree in OS 2963/2016 Ex.P.3 C/copy of the sale deed dated:03.06.1960 Ex.P.4 Original Gift Deed dated 27.02.2006 Ex.P.5 Original Sale Deed dated 09.11.2012 Ex.P.6 Khatha Certificate Ex.P.7 Khatha Extract Ex.P.8 to 147 Tax paid receipts Ex.P.15 to 19 5 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.20 C/c of order in WP.No.2996/2003 Ex.P.21 Copy of written statement in OS.8962/2013 Ex.P.22 Copy of evidence of G.P.Jayshree Ex.P.23 Copy of evidence of Tajpal S Ex.P.24 Copy of proceedings of BDA Ex.P.24(a) & (b) Relevant portion of the office note Ex.P.25 & 26 Copy of two allotment order dated 23.02.2001 Ex.P.27 C/c of order in Rev.Pet.79/2008 Ex.P.28 Copy of letter dated 25.08.2014 Ex.P.29 Copy of letter dated 09.12.2014 Ex.P.30 Copy of no objection certificate dated 28.10.2014 Ex.P.31 Copy of letter dated 03.01.2015 Ex.P.32 Copy of order in RFA No.206/1992 Ex.P.33 Copy of proceedings of BDA Ex.P.34 Copy of objection in CRP 2996/2023 Ex.P.35 & 36 Copy of petition and IA in CRP.2996/2003 Ex.P.37 C/c of order dated 27.10.206 passed by Joint
-Director Land Records 66 Judgment in O.S.No.2954/2016 C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016 Ex.P.38 Acknowledgment of BDA dated 18.06.2013 Ex.P.39 C/c of Sale Deed dated 23.01.2015 Ex.P.40 C/c of amended letter dated 03.02.2015 Ex.P.41 & 42 C/c of Sale Deed dated 23.01.2015 & 11.03.2016 Ex.P.43 Copy of Gift Deed dated 05.03.2016 Ex.P.44 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.45 Original Gift Deed dated 27.02.2006 Ex.P.46 Original GPA dated 25.10.2012 Ex.P.47 Copy of order sheet in CRP.2996/2003 Ex.P.48 & 49 Copy of Judgment and Decree in OS.8373/2015 Ex.P.50 Copy of order in W.P.49130/2016 Ex.P.51 Copy of Judgment in O.S.No.8962/2013 Ex.P.52 Copy of Judgment in O.S.1741/2014
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the Defendants:-
Ex.D.1 Acknowledgment of BDA
Ex.D.2 Original Sale Deed dated 11.03.2016
Ex.D.3 C/c of Sale Deed dated 12.10.1958
Ex.D.4 Rectification Deed dated 03.10.1960
Ex.D.5 & 6 C/c of Judgment and Decree in OS.5171/1980
Ex.D.7 C/c of Judgment in RFA No.206/1992
Ex.D.8 & 9 C/c of Two Sale Deeds dated 16.03.1992
Ex.D.10 & 11 C/c of Two Sale Deeds dated 30.03.2005
Ex.D.12 & 13 Copy of Judgment ad Decree in OS 2499/2009
Ex.D.14 & 16 3 Original Re-conveyance Deed dated 23.01.205
Ex.D.15 & 17 Possession Certificate dated 27.01.2015
Ex.D.18 Rectification Deed dated 03.02.2015
Ex.D.19 to 22 4 Khatha Extracts
Ex.D.23 Notice issued by BBMP
Ex.D.24 Original Gift Deed dated 05.03.2016
Ex.D.25 Approved map
Ex.D.26 to 29 4 copies of Newspaper
Ex.D.30 Khatha Certificate
Ex.D.31 Khatha Extract
Ex.D.32 Tax paid receipt
Ex.D.33 & 34 Building plan and certificate issued by BESCOM
Ex.D.35 Authorization letter
Ex.D.36 C/c of notification dated 10..10.1964
67 Judgment in
O.S.No.2954/2016
C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016
Ex.D.37 & 38 C/c of two vouchers Ex.D.39 C/c of statement issued by SLAO Ex.D.40 C/c of notification dated 17.01.1968 Ex.D.41 Proceedings dated 05.07.2014 Ex.D.42 & 43 C/c of two letter of allotments Ex.D.44 Notification dated 21.02.1963 Ex.D.45 Modified Layout plan Ex.D.46 8 photographs Ex.D.47 CD Digitally signed Somashekara by Somashekara A A Date: 2025.05.03 06:44:13 +0530 (Somashekara A.) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
68 Judgment in O.S.No.2954/2016 C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, VIDE SEPARATE JUDGMENT The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S No.3845/2016 is hereby decreed with cost.
It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 09.11.2012.
Consequently, Re-conveyance deed dated 23.01.2015 executed by BDA in favour of 3 rd defendant registered as document No.3848/2014-15 and rectification deed dated 03.02.2015, registered as document No.4040/2014-15 and possession certificate dated 27.01.2015 in respect property Site No.3944-H declared as null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.
Re-conveyance deed dated 23.01.2015 executed by BDA in favour of 4th defendant registered as document No.3847/2014-15 and possession certificate dated 27.01.2015 in respect of property site No. 3944-I declared as null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff and also in respect of the suit schedule property:
Further the Sale deed dated 11.06.2016, executed by 4th defendant in favour of Defendant No.1 and 2 69 Judgment in O.S.No.2954/2016 C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016 in respect of site No.3944-H and site No.3944-I declared as null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.
The Gift Deed dated 05.03.2016 executed by 3 rd defendant in favour of defendant No.4 is declared as null and void.
The defendant No.1 and 2 is directed to remove the construction made by them in the suit schedule property site No.18/2 and also directed the defendant No.1 and 2 handover the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 60 days form the today, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit schedule property through due process of law.
Suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.2954/2016 is hereby decreed with cost.
Consequently, the defendants are permanently restrained from causing any sort of interference in to suit schedule property.
Draw Decree Accordingly.
The original of this Judgment shall be kept in O.S.No.3845/2016 and copy of the same shall be kept in O.S.No.2954/2016.
12.5 70 Judgment in O.S.No.2954/2016 C/w.
O.S.No.3845/2016 (Somashekara A.) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge Bengaluru.