Bangalore District Court
Sri.Govinda vs Smt.Priya Dorai Raj on 30 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH-13)
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2018
PRESENT
Smt.Nagaveni, B.A.,LL.B.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE
O.S.NO.3615/2012
PLAINTIFFS: 1. Sri.Govinda
S/o late Kariyappa
Aged about 41 years,
2. Rajappa @ Lokesh
S/o late Kariyappa
Aged about 37 years,
3. K.Prakash
S/o late Kariyappa
Aged about 35 years,
All are residing at
Jakkasandra,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore-560 034.
(By Sri.A.V.Amarnathan, Advocate)
/VS/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Smt.Priya Dorai Raj
D/o Joseph Dorai Raj
Aged about 36 years,
2. Sri.Mohan D.Raj
S/o Sri.S.Joseph Dorai Raj
Aged about 31 years,
Both are residing at
2 O.S.No.3615/2012
Ramona, # 23,
Serpentine road,
Facing Leonard lane,
Richmond town,
Bangalore-560 025.
(By Sri.N.D., Advocate for D1,2
Sri.G.T, Advocate for p/D)
Date of Institution of the 24-05-2012
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on Declaration & Injunction
pronote, : suit for declaration
and possession ,suit for
injunction, etc.)
Date of Commencement of 01-04-2014
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 29-06-2018
Pronounced
Duration Years Months Days
06 01 05
( NAGAVENI )
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE
*****
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration relief to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and permanent injunction praying to restrain the defendants or their henchmen or anybody on their behalf not to interfere with the 3 O.S.No.3615/2012 plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and such other reliefs.
.2. The brief facts of the plaint averments are as under:
The land bearing Sy.No.1/2 and 3/3 of Jakkasandra, Begur Hobli, now called as
Koramangala, Bangalore was originally owned by one Dodda Katappa and his brother Chikka Katappa. Dodda Katappa had 5 sons namely Dodda Abbaiah, Chikka Abbaiah, Sonnappa, Kariyappa and K.Muniyappa. After the death of Dodda Katappa, there was an oral partition. The plaintiff's grand father Chikka Katappa executed a chitta of properties on 30/12/1979. At that point of time the plaintiff No.1 was aged 8 years, plaintiff No.2 was aged about 4 years and plaintiff No.3 was aged 2 years. All the three plaintiffs were minor under the care and protection by the natural guardian Smt.Venkatamma. The land bearing Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra, Begur Hobli, now 4 O.S.No.3615/2012 known as Koramangala, Bangalore came to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff name has been mutated in the mutation registry extract and also RTC extract. The defendants have filed suit for bar injunction against the plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.7112/2008 and O.S.No.7113/2008 respectively before the City Civil Court at Bangalore and obtained an order of temporary injunction on 03/11/2008. After contest, the temporary injunction was rejected on 03/10/2009. This suit is also dismissed for non-prosecution by an order dated 26/05/2010. Thereafter, the defendant had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and the same came to be dismissed. After dismissal of appeal, the defendants have filed miscellaneous petition before this Court in Misc.P.No.997/2010 and 998/2010 and the same are pending. As the matter stood thus, this defendant again filed another suit for bare injunction 5 O.S.No.3615/2012 before the vacation bench in O.S.No.3277/2012 and O.S.No.3278/2012. The said suit is adjourned on 11/06/2012 and 08/06/2012 respectively. The defendants had pleaded before the City Civil Court at Bangalore that by a settlement deed dated 05/08/2004, his father had given the respective schedule property to them. As per the settlement deed, they claim that they became the owners of the respective properties, which falls in the plaintiff properties. The Court has rejected the plea of the defendants. Nobody could execute any deeds in respect of the properties fallen to the share of the plaintiffs without the intervention of the orders of the Court. Further, plaintiffs have not executed any deeds to anyone in respect of the schedule property fallen to their share. The plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties fallen to the share of the plaintiff right from 30/12/1979. Under the guise of the settlement deed is unnecessarily interfering with 6 O.S.No.3615/2012 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs properties which they are in possession from the day of partition dated 30/12/1979. The cause of action for the suit arose on 08/05/2012 when the defendant tried to interfere with the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Hence, constrained to file the suit.
3. Inspite of service of summons, defendants have appeared through their counsel and filed written statement as under:
The entire plaint averments denied as false except the admitted facts. The plaintiffs have got neither the ownership or any semblance of right nor possession over the suit schedule properties and as such, they cannot maintain the suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff's claim of declaration over the suit schedule property after lapse of 31 years. The plaintiffs have no title over Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in an earlier suit filed by them against 7 O.S.No.3615/2012 one Sri.Rev.F.R.Joseph the Kekkara, S/o Keekarot loloo Vergheese in O.S.No.7798/1996 filed these plaintiffs against him in respect of a portion of the land in Sy.No.1/2. In the said suit, the Court has held in unequivocal terms that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the Sy.No.1/2 of the said village and the same comes in the way of the plaintiffs to prosecute the said suit and virtually they are debarred to approach this Court with a different story seeking for declaration of their alleged right, title and interest over the land in Sy.No.1/2 of the said village. In O.S.No.7798/1996, the plaintiff No.1 is not a party. The 1st plaintiff who had the title to Sy.No.1/2 of the said village as it was her father's property and she has already dealt with the same by forming a layout. On that count also, the present suit has to be rejected as she has already dealt with the land in Sy.No.1/2 and as such, the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the same. It is the routine habit of the plaintiffs to file 8 O.S.No.3615/2012 multifarious suits against different persons on different allegations with an object to achieve their illegal object and so far they are not able to achieve any break through. The present suit also one of such strategies adopted by the plaintiffs. There is a requirement of claiming an issue regarding maintainability. Further contends that the personal knowledge of these defendants, the Sy.No.1/2 was initially belongs to the father of Smt.Venkatamma who is the mother of the plaintiffs and she is alive. The alleged document dated 30/12/1979 called Chitta of properties allegedly executed by the grandfather of the plaintiffs by name Chikka Katappa is seriously disputed as to its genuineness and the same has no legal sanctity. The said document neither a partition deed or a settlement deed and at the same time, the same is not registered document. The said documents offends the provision of Karnataka Stamp Act and as well as the Indian Registration Act. The alleged revenue documents are 9 O.S.No.3615/2012 the created documents by the plaintiffs and the same cannot confer title to the plaintiffs. Moreover, the revenue documents are not the title deeds. That apart the land in Sy.No.1/2 of the said village has already merged into Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike limits and thereby the revenue authorities have lost their jurisdiction to maintain any revenue documents as contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In the light of the development took place, these defendants are constrained to file two independent suits for injunction against the plaintiffs as there was subsequent cause of action for the same. The plaintiffs cannot speak ill of the same. Filing of those suits clearly establish the notorious acts of the plaintiff in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendants of their properties. The description of the plaint schedule property are all together different from the description of the written statement schedule property. It seems that the 10 O.S.No.3615/2012 plaintiffs are illegally making a false claim on the properties of these defendants for no justified cause or reason. The plaintiffs have no right whatsoever over the land in Sy.No.1/2 at any point of time. There is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged one is created and concocted for the purpose of filing this frivolous suit. The suit is not valued properly and court fee paid by the plaintiff is highly insufficient. The plaintiffs are not supposed to value the suit schedule property as an agricultural land. It has lost the agricultural character long back and it is an urban property coming within the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. The description and boundaries of the suit schedule properties are totally incorrect and there is no existence of the alleged suit schedule property in the area. These defendants are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property as absolute owners having acquired the same under a settlement 11 O.S.No.3615/2012 deed dated 05/08/2004 executed by their father who is the General Power of Attorney. The said settlement deed has undergone a rectification through a registered rectification deed dated 12/04/2012 on account of inadvertent mistake while drafting the northern and southern boundaries of the same and also in the mentioning the year. The father of the defendants had paid betterment charges to the written statement schedule property to the BMP on 09/06/1998. That the father of the defendant had put up an industrial shed over the written statement schedule property after obtaining general licence from the Jakkasandra Group Panchayat, Bangalore South Taluk on 07/10/1986. Thereafter obtain necessary approval of plan from BMP on 15/04/1993 for proposed garage portion 60ft x 33.9 ft. The father of these defendants has put up an industrial shed over the written statement schedule property in pursuant to sanctioned plan and thereafterwards obtained 12 O.S.No.3615/2012 necessary electricity and power supply from BESCOM.
The father of these defendants filed a suit against one K.Venugopal and K.Mohan in
O.S.No.16084/2003 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Mayohall (CCH-20) seeking for relief of ejectment and damages of the suit schedule property. The same came to be decreed in favour of father of these defendants. The father of these defendants had stood as surety to a third party to avail loan from Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd., on 02/11/1988. Since the borrower committed a default in payment of the borrowed amount, the said Corporation made attempts to proceed against the father of these defendants being a guarantor. At that point of time, the father of defendants and these defendants have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.7911/2005(GM-KSSIDC). The said Writ Petition came to be disposed off. Due to non- 13 O.S.No.3615/2012 maintenance of Industrial shed and also on account of damage caused to it, the same fell down. Now the debris has been removed and a room in the area of industrial shed is retained. In that room a tenant by name Raghu s/o Mani is inducted and he is taking care of the written statement schedule property on behalf of these defendants. The plaintiffs being localities and powerful in the area are making hectic efforts to see that these defendants are dispossessed by hook or crook. So in order to protect their possession they are constrained to take all legal steps by approaching the courts of law and the same cannot be misinterpreted by the plaintiffs. These defendants are doctors by profession and they will be preoccupied in their professional duties always and as such they are unable to take care of the written statement schedule properties and also to resist the above suit and thereby they have given a General Power of 14 O.S.No.3615/2012 Attorney to their father. The description of the written statement schedule property is as under :
WRITTEN STATEMENT SCHEDULE PROPERTY
1) All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Khaneshumari No.180, Khatha No.260, new Municipal No.77, PID No.68-92-77, measuring East to West 45 ft and North to South 64 ft situated at Jakkasandra, 1st B main, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk comng within Ward No.68 of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore-34 and bounded on :
East by : Yellamma's property West by : Road North by : Site No.77/1 South by : Site No.76
2) All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Khaneshumari No.181, Khatha No.262, new Municipal No.77/1, PID No.68-92-77/1, measuring East to West 45 ft and North to South 64 ft situated at Jakkasandra, 1st B main, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk comng within Ward No.68 of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore-34 consisting of a room having RCC roofing and 15 O.S.No.3615/2012 remaining area vacant space together with electricity and bounded on :
East by : Yellamma's property West by : Road North by : Site No.78 South by : Site No.77
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed :
1) Whether the plaintiffs to prove the description of the suit property is correct and the property is existing as mentioned in the schedule ?
2) Whether the plaintiffs to prove that they are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property ?
3) Whether the plaintiffs to prove the interference made by the defendants on the suit schedule property ?
4) Whether the court fee paid is sufficient ?
5) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs are hopelessly barred by law of limitation ?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief claimed in the suit ?
7) What order or decree ?
16 O.S.No.3615/2012
5. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff No.1 himself got examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P83 and closed his side. The General Power of Attorney holder of the defendants herself examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D94 and closed her side.
6. Heard arguments on both the sides and filed written arguments.
.7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1: In the Negative Issue No. 2: In the Negative Issue No. 3: In the Negative Issue No. 4: In the Affirmative as per the order dated 17/01/2014.
Issue No. 5: In the Negative Issue No. 6: In the Negative Issue No. 7: As per final order for the following:17 O.S.No.3615/2012
REASONS .8. Issue Nos.1 to 3: These issues are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
According to plaintiffs, the land bearing Sy.No.1/2 and 13/3 situated at Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli now called as Koramangala, Bengaluru was originally owned by one Dodda Katappa and his brother Chikka Katappa. Dodda Katappa had 5 sons namely Dodda Abbaiah, Chikka Abbaiah, Sonnappa, Kariyappa and K.Muniyappa. The plaintiff's grand father Chikka Katappa executed a Chitta of properties on 30/12/1979. At that point of time, the plaintiff No.1 was aged 8 years, plaintiff No.2 was aged 4 years, the plaintiff No.3 was aged 2 years. All the three plaintiffs were minor under the care and protection by the natural guardian Smt.Venkatamma. The plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants have filed a suit in 18 O.S.No.3615/2012 O.S.No.7112/2008 and O.S.No.7113/2008. Ultimately the said suits were dismissed for non-prosecution on 26/05/2010. Thereafter, the defendants have filed Misc.Petition 997/2010 and 998/2010 and the same are pending. Again the defendants have filed another suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.3277/2012 and O.S.No.3278/2012. The Court has rejected the plea of the defendant in the suit filed by them earlier. Nobody could execute any deeds in respect of the properties fallen to the share of their share without intervention of the orders of the Court. Further contends that nobody have any right or title over the properties of the plaintiff. The defendants under the guise of settlement deed is unnecessarily interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. To support their contention, plaintiff No.1 examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P83. On perusal of documents, it reveals that Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.P2 to 34 are the 19 O.S.No.3615/2012 RTCs, Ex.P35 and Ex.P36 are the certified copy of the ordersheet in O.S.No.7112 and 7113/08, Ex.P37 to Ex.P39 are the photos, Ex.P40 is the CD, Ex.P41 is village map, Ex.P42 is the extract of patta, Ex.P43 is the certified copy of the khatha extract, Ex.P44 is the tax paid receipt, Ex.P45 is the endorsement , Ex.P46 is the certified copy of the judgment in RFA No.584/2001, Ex.P47 is the certified copy of the Chitta, Ex.P48 is the certified copy of the village map, Ex.P49 is the certified copy of the settlement copy of Aakarband, Ex.P50 is the certified copy of the Tippani, Ex.P51 to Ex.P55 are RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No.1/2. Ex.P56 is the original copy of the registered partition deed dated 04/01/2017, Ex.P57 is the original copy of the registered rectification partition deed dated 12/04/2017, Ex.P58 is the Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.P59 is the death certificate of father of plaintiff, Ex.P60 is the notarized copy of the ration card, Ex.P61 and Ex.P62 are two photos, Ex.P63 is 20 O.S.No.3615/2012 CD, Ex.P64 is the property register extract, Ex.P65 is the receipt, Ex.P66 is the property register extract, Ex.P67 is the receipt, Ex.P68 is the computerized copy of Genealogical tree, Ex.P69 to Ex.P82 are the computerized copy of tax paid receipt issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Ex.P83 is the deposition of PW-1 by name Joseph Dorai Raj in O.S.No.3277/2012.
9. Per contra, it is the case of specific case of the defendant that the alleged suit schedule properties mentioned in the plaint are of wrong description. The alleged suit schedule property is belonging to defendant Nos.1 and 2. The proper description of the property is mentioned in the written statement. The plaintiffs have nothing to do with the alleged suit schedule properties and written statement properties as they never acquired any right or semblance of right upon the same. The plaintiffs have no physical possession or any lawful possession upon the suit 21 O.S.No.3615/2012 schedule property and so also the written statement schedule property. The defendants are the absolute owners in possession having right, title over the written statement schedule property. In O.S.No.7798/1996 filed by the plaintiffs against Sri.Rev.F.R.Joseph Kekkara S/o Kekkaraot laloo verghese that they do not have nay right, title or interest in respect of the Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said judgment is binding on the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff mother Smt.Venkatamma had title to Sy.No.1/2 of the said village as she has succeeded to the same to her father who was the owner of the same. He has formed the layout in the said survey number and dealt with the same in favour of many individuals. The plaintiffs nor his family members through their father never derived any right, interest or share over Sy.No.1/2. The alleged document dated 30/12/1979 allegedly called as Chitta of properties allegedly executed by the 22 O.S.No.3615/2012 grandfather of the plaintiffs by name Chikka Katappa is seriously disputed as to its genuineness. The said document has no legal sanctity as it is neither partition deed or settlement deed and moreover, it is not a registered documents. The documents produced by the plaintiffs are created documents. Sy.No.1/2 is already merged into the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike limits. There is no agricultural land as alleged by the plaintiffs. The defendants are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property and for having acquired the same under the settlement deed dated 05/08/2004 executed by the father of the defendants.
The said settlement deed is rectified through a registered rectification deed dated 12/04/2012. The father of defendants have paid the betterment charges to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in respect of the written statement schedule property on 09/06/1998. The father of the defendants had 23 O.S.No.3615/2012 obtained necessary approval of plan from BMP on 15/04/1993 for the construction of garage portion 69ft x 33ft and also put up an industrial shed over the written statement schedule property in pursuant to sanctioned plan and thereafterwards obtained necessary electricity and power supply from BESCOM. The BESCOM has provided 40HP power supply. The father of the defendants had filed suit against K.Venugopal and K.Mohan in O.S.No.16084/2003 and the same came to be decreed. The father of these defendants had stood as a surety to a third party to avail loan from Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd., on 02/11/1988. since the borrower committed a default in payment of the borrowed amount, the said Corporation made attempts to proceed against the father of these defendants being a guarantor. At that point of time, the father of these defendants and these defendants have filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court 24 O.S.No.3615/2012 in WP No.7911/2005. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed off. Due to non maintenance of industrial shed and also on account of the damage caused to it, the same fell down. Now the room is let out in favour of Raghu S/o Mani. To support the said contention, General Power of Attorney of the defendants herself examined as DW-1. DW-1 in her affidavit evidence has reiterated the written statement averments. To support her affidavit evidence, she has produced Ex.D1 to Ex.D94. On perusal of documents, it reveals that Ex.D1 is a General Power of Attorney, Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 23/01/1981, Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 29/05/1981, Ex.D4 is the certified copy of the settlement deed dated 05/08/2004, Ex.D5 is the certified copy of the rectification deed dated 12/04/2012, Ex.D6 is the receipt, Ex.D7 and Ex.D8 are the tax paid receipts, Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 are the khatha extract and khatha 25 O.S.No.3615/2012 certificate respectively, Ex.D11 is approved plan, Ex.D12 to Ex.D15 are the electricity bills, Ex.D16 and Ex.D17 are two photos, Ex.D18 to Ex.D22 are the tax paid receipts five in numbers, Ex.D23 is the certified copy of the tax assessment register, Ex.D24 is the special notice copy, Ex.D25 ad Ex.D26 are the KEB bills two in numbers, Ex.D26 to Ex.D33 are the photos and CD, Ex.D34 and Ex.D35 are the negative copies, Ex.D36 and Ex.D37 are the electricity bills, Ex.D38 to Ex.D40 are Encumbrance Certificates, Ex.D41 and Ex.D42 are the power sanction letters and Ex.D43 is the receipt, Ex.D44 is the judgment and decree in O.S.No.7798/1996, Ex.D45 is the certified copy of the judgment in RFA No.1079/2009, Ex.D46 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12/01/1981, Ex.D47 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16/05/1981, Ex.D48 is the settlement deed dated 05/08/2004, Ex.D49 is the rectification deed dated 12/04/2012, Ex.D50 is the receipt with respect to 26 O.S.No.3615/2012 betterment charges, Ex.D51 to Ex.D53 are the tax paid receipts, Ex.D54 and Ex.D55 are the khatha certificate and khatha extract, Ex.D56 is the approved plan, Ex.D57 to Ex.D59 are the KEB bills, Ex.D60 to Ex.D63 are the photos, Ex.D64, Ex.D65 and Ex.D66 are the tax paid receipts, Ex.D67 is the certified copy of the special notice, Ex.D68 and Ex.D69 are the certified copies of the Encumbrance Certificates, Ex.D70 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.16084/2008, Ex.D71 to Ex.D75 are photos, Ex.D76 is the CD of the photos, Ex.D77 is the certified copy of the khatha certificate, Ex.D78 is the certified copy of the photos, Ex.D79 is the certified copy of the deposition of PW-1 in O.S.No.7798/1996, Ex.D80 is the certified copy of the ordersheet in DRT, IR NO.2117/2012, Ex.D81 to Ex.D83 are the general licence copy, Ex.D84 to Ex.D87 are the photos, Ex.D88 is the cash bill pertaining to photos, Ex.D89 to Ex.D91 are the three electricity bills, 27 O.S.No.3615/2012 Ex.D92 and 93 are the electricity receipts, Ex.D94 is the official memorandum issued by BESCOM.
10. The description of the plaint A and B schedule mentioned as A schedule "all that piece and parcel of khaneshurmari No.180, khatha No.260, New Municipal No.77, which is situated at Jakkasandra, 1st B main, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, Bangalore Mahanagar Palike Ward No.68, Bangalore- 560 034, measuring East to West 45 feet, North to South 60 feet and bounded on East by Yellamma's property, West by Road, North by Site No.77/1 and South by Site No.76" and B schedule as "all that piece and parcel of khaneshurmari No.181, khatha No.262, New Municipal No.77/1, which is situated at Jakkasandra, 1st B main, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, Bangalore Mahanagar Palike Ward No.68, Bangalore-560 034, measuring East to West 45 feet, North to South 60 feet and bounded on East by Yellamma's property, West by Road, North by Site 28 O.S.No.3615/2012 No.77 and South by Site No.78. At para No.2 of the plaint mentioned that grand father of the plaintiff Chikka Katappa executed a Chitta of properties on 30/12/1979. At that time plaintiffs were minors and they were under care and custody of natural guardian, their mother Smt.Venkatamma. Further, it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that property belongs to them as per Chitta executed by Chikka Katappa. But plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra, Begur Hobli formed the layout. But plaintiffs have described the schedule property as sites. But they have not claimed the land bearing Sy.No.1/2. Further, the plaintiffs have not mentioned the measurement of Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra, Begur Hobli either in the plaint nor in the description of the schedule property. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that whether during the lifetime of Chikka katappa, the Sy.No.1/2 was converted into non- 29 O.S.No.3615/2012 agricultural land. But the plaintiffs nowhere stated in the plaint averments with respect to the Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra village converted to non-agricultural land and what is the measurement of Sy.No.1/2 and which area of measurement having possession by the Chikka Katappa while executing the Chitta as on 30/12/1979. PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that they were minors at the time of Ex.P47, mother is alive and his mother Venkatamma is living with him. Further admitted that plaintiffs and their mother have filed the suit in O.S.No.7798/96 against Joseph Kekkare in respect of Sy.No.1/2. Further admitted that suit went against them. They have not given application to the panchayath to make khatha in their name in respect of the suit properties. Further admitted in his cross- examination of PW-1 held on 09/03/2015 that he had filed O.S.No.7798/96 against father Joseph in respect of the Sy.No.1/2. Further admitted that they have filed the said suit based on Ex.P47. Further admitted that 30 O.S.No.3615/2012 said suit was dismissed. Further admitted that RFA No.1079/09 was also dismissed. Father of Venkatamma is Govindappa. Further admitted that his mother has sold two sites formed in Sy.No.1/2. Again he voluntarily says that village accountant and others have fraudulently got the two sale deeds from his mother. Further admitted that his mother had sold a site formed in Sy.No.1/2 to Janadradhan Reddy. Again he says that his mother is cheated in getting the sale deed. Further admitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed suit against them in O.S.No.7112/2008 and 7113/2008. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P47 is chitta. According to plaintiff, Chikka Katappa had executed Chitta. Chitta means partition. But except Chikka Katappa, nobody signed in the said document. Moreover, the said document is unregistered one. On the basis of the Chitta, the plaintiffs have claimed the suit schedule properties. According to plaintiff, as per Chitta, Sy.No.1/2 is allotted to the share of Chikka 31 O.S.No.3615/2012 Katappa. The said Chitta it cannot be said as partition deed because except Chikka Katappa nobody executed the said chitta. Further, none of the other shareholders have not signed the said document. There is no legal sanctity of the said document because if the parties were entered in the partition deed, definitely all parties who were entered partition put their signatures in partition deed and except the Chikka Katappa, nobody signed in the said chitta. Hence, the said chitta cannot be called as partition deed and there is no validity of the document. Nobody sworn in the Ex.P47 except Chikka Katappa. Hence, the said document is not looked into eye of law. Ex.P56 is the registered partition deed dated 04/01/2017. It is pertinent to note that above suit is filed in the year 2012. Ex.P50 is the subsequent document. Hence, subsequent document cannot be looked into eye of law. Hence, Ex.P47, Ex.P56, Ex.P58 are not supporting the case of the plaintiff. Looking on other 32 O.S.No.3615/2012 documents, Ex.P1 is also not supporting the case of the plaintiff, Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificate. In Ex.P1 mentioned as in Sy.no.1/2, 24 guntas, khatha have been changed to name of the plaintiffs and their mother. But the plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that said land owned by Chikka Katappa while executing the Chitta. Hence, the said document is also not supporting the case of the plaintiff. Ex.P2 to Ex.P34 are RTC extracts. The said documents are also not supporting the case of the plaintiff because plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that on that period, the Sy.No.1/2 stands as agricultural land. Ex.P35 and Ex.P36 are the certified copy of the ordersheet in O.S.No.7112 and 7113/2008. In both the suits, Priya Dorairaj and Mohan Dorairaj have filed suits against the present plaintiff seeking the relief of injunction. The said suits were dismissed for non-prosecution. Ex.P37 to Ex.P39 are the photos, it 33 O.S.No.3615/2012 shows the vacant sites. The said documents are also not supporting the case of the plaintiff. On the basis of the photos, it cannot say that plaintiffs are the owners and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Ex.P40 is the CD, Ex.P41 is the village map, but plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that while filing the suit, the nature of Sy.No.1/2 is agricultural land, moreover, the plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants with respect to the sites as described in the suit schedule property. Hence, Ex.P41 is also not supporting the case of the plaintiff. Ex.P42 is the patta. In the said patta mentioned is Sy.No.1/2, but the plaintiffs have not mentioned the Sy.No.1/2 in the description of the property. Hence, the said document is also not supporting the case of the plaintiff. Ex.P43 is the certified copy of the khatha extract/mutation extract. On the basis of chitta, the khatha has been changed in the name of the plaintiff, but the chitta 34 O.S.No.3615/2012 cannot be treated as partition deed. Hence, the said document is also not supporting the case of the plaintiff. Ex.P44 is the tax paid receipt for the year 2010-11. The said document is also not supporting the case of the plaintiff. Ex.P45 is the endorsement issued by the survey department. The said document is also not supporting the case of the plaintiff because as per the endorsement the documents are destroyed and not available in the said office. The said endorsement issued on 18/09/2014. Ex.P45 is the subsequent document, hence the said document cannot be looked into eye of law. If the Sy.Nos.1/2 is to be converted to non-agricultural land, then the documents are available at office of Deputy Commissioner, not before Tahsildhar or survey department. Ex.P46 is the certified copy of the order in RFANo.584/2001 dated 26/11/2009. In the said appeal either plaintiff nor defendant have not made party. With respect of Ex.P47, i.e., chitta already 35 O.S.No.3615/2012 discussed, the said documents are not supporting the case of the plaintiff. Ex.P48 is the certified copy of the village map, Ex.P49 is the certified copy of the settlement copy of aakarband, Ex.P50 is the certified copy of the Tippani. The said documents are also not supporting the case of the plaintiff because plaintiffs have failed to prove that said Chikka katappa having right over the Sy.No.1/2. Moroever, the plaintiffs have not claimed the Sy.No.1/2 in the plaint prayer column and they have sought sites as mentioned in the schedule property. Ex.P51 to Ex.P55 are the RTC extracts. In the said document, nature of the property mentioned as a building. But the plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that they have constructed the buildings in Sy.No.1/2 as on 2012. The said document reveals that already Sy.No.1/2 converted into non-agricultural land. If Sy.No.1/2 still stands as agricultural land, why the plaintiffs have claimed the property as sites as mentioned in the 36 O.S.No.3615/2012 schedule property. Ex.P56 is the partition deed. The said documents already discussed and it is subsequent document, it cannot be looked into eye of law. Ex.P57 is the rectification partition deed dated 12/04/2017, the said document is also not supporting the case of the plaintiff, Ex.P59 is the death certificate of Kariyappa. It reveals that on 29/01/978, the said kariyappa was died. Ex.P60 is the ration card belongs to Govindappa family. Ex.P61 and 62 are the photos. Ex.P63 is the CD. On the basis of the photos, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property. Ex.P64 is the khatha extract. In the said document name of the owner mentioned as Sandhya R. But no sale deed produced by the plaintiffs to support the ownership of Sandhya.R in respect of the site measuring 30x45 in Sy.No.1/2. Ex.P65 is the receipt issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Ex.P66 is the property register extract mentioned as site No.187, name of the owner 37 O.S.No.3615/2012 mentioned Govindappa measuring 30x45. On the basis of the said document, it cannot be said that said Govindappa is the owner of the said property. Without supporting the title deed, it cannot say that said Gsovindappa.K is the owner of the said property. Ex.P68 is the genealogicial tree belongs to Govindappa. Ex.P69 to Ex.P82 are the tax paid receipts issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. It reveals that Sandhya and govindappa have paid tax since 2009 -2010 to 2015-16. But the said documents reveals that they paid taxes on 12/10/2017 and 07/11/2017. The said documents are subsequent documents. For paying tax to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, it cannot be said that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property. Ex.P83 is the deposition of PW-1 by Joseph Dorairaj in O.S.No.3277/2012. The said deposition is not supporting the case of the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show 38 O.S.No.3615/2012 that in Sy.No.1/2, layout formed and suit schedule property fallen to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff counsel relied on the decision reported in ILR 2007 Kar 5357 in the case of Mallikarjuna V/s Mareppa and others. The said decision is not supporting the case of the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs have failed to prove that chitta is the partition deed. When there is no materials to show that Sy.No.1/2 fallen to the share of the plaintiff in partition deed, the question of selling the immoveable property of minor by the natural guardian without previous permission of the Court does not arise at all.
11. On perusal of the documents produced by the defendant to prove their case, it reveals that Ex.D1 is the General Power of Attorney in favour of their mother, Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 23/01/1981, Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 29/05/1981, Ex.D4 is the certified copy of the settlement deed dated 39 O.S.No.3615/2012 05/08/2004, Ex.D5 is the certified copy of the rectification deed dated 12/04/2012, Ex.D6 is the receipt, Ex.D7 and Ex.D8 are the tax paid receipts, it reveals that defendants have paid the taxes to the written statement schedule property. Further, Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 are the khatha extract and khatha certificate respectively, it reveals that khatha has been changed, Ex.D11 is approved plan by panchayath, Ex.D12 to Ex.D15 are the electricity bills. It is the specific contention of the defendant that after purchasing the written statement schedule property, they constructed the sheds and obtained electricity supply. Ex.D18 to Ex.D22 are certified copy of the tax paid receipts five in numbers. The said documents also support the case of the defendants. Ex.D23 is the certified copy of the tax assessment register, Ex.D24 is the special notice copy issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 31/03/2000 in the name of Joseph Dorairaj. In the said notice stated that to 40 O.S.No.3615/2012 deposit the tax in respect of the written statement schedule property. Further in the said notice, fixed the value of Rs.2,700/- per year towards vacant site and also fixed the value of the construction building per year Rs.15,000/-. Ex.D25 and Ex.D26 are the KEB bills. But in the said bills, not mentioned the name of the owner. Ex.D27 to Ex.D32, 34,35 are certified copy of the photos. Ex.D33 is the certified copy of the of CD. It reveals that in written statement schedule property security sheds were constructed. Ex.D36 is the KEB bill issued in the name of Joseph Dorairaj reading date mentioned 22/06/2005, Ex.D37 is also KEB bill reading date mentioned as 22/02/2002 issued in the name of S.Joseph Dorairaj. Ex.D38 is the form No.15, it reveals that Joseph Dorairaj executed the rectification deed in favour of Mohan D.Raj dated 12/04/2012, Ex.D39 is the Encumbrance Certificate issued in the name of MohanD.Raj. In the said document description of the written statement 41 O.S.No.3615/2012 schedule property mentioned in the said document. Ex.D40 is also Encumbrance Certificate issued in the name of Joseph Dorariah in respect of the written statement schedule property for the year 1985-98. Ex.D41 and Ex.D42 are power sanction letter dated 10/10/1986 issued in the name of Joseph Dorairaj. Ex.D43 is the certified copy of the KEB bill, Ex.D44 is the judgment and decree in O.S.No.7798/1996 dated 21/08/1996 passed by the 12th Addl.CC & SJ, Bangalore. It is pertinent to note that PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that they filed the suit against one Rev.F.R.Joseph for injunction and declaration. On perusal of the judgment and decree, it reveals that present plaintiff had claimed the relief for permanent injunction and declaration and also mandatory injunction in respect of the site NO.1 in Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. After contest, the said suit was dismissed. Further, PW-1 in his cross-examination 42 O.S.No.3615/2012 admitted that RFA was also dismissed. In the said RFA No.1079/2009, present plaintiff and their mother have challenged the said judgment and decree in O.S.No.7798/96 before the Hon'ble High Court. The said appeal was dismissed on 31/01/2014. Ex.D45 is the certified copy of the judgment in RFA No.1079/2009, Ex.D46 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12/01/1981, Ex.D47 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16/05/1981, Ex.D48 is the settlement deed dated 05/08/2004, Ex.D49 is the rectification deed dated 12/04/2012. The said document reveals that S.Joseph Dorairaj had executed the settlement deed in favour of the defendant No.1. Further, the recital of the settlement deeds reveals that as the owner of the written statement schedule property, the father of defendant No.1 had transferred the written statement schedule property in the name of defendant No.1 as love and affection. Ex.D50 is the receipt with respect to betterment charges. In the said 43 O.S.No.3615/2012 document, fee collected from S.Joseph Dorairaj on 08/06/1998 in respect of the khatha No.180, khaneshumari No.260 of Jakkasandra village, Ex.D51 to Ex.D53 are the tax paid receipts. It shows that for the year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 tax paid to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in the name of Joseph Dorairaj. Ex.D54 is the khatha certificate issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in respect of the property new No.77 of Jakkasandra village, mentioned the name of the owner as Joseph Dorairaj, Ex.D55 is khatha extract, the name of the owner mentioned as Joseph Dorairaj. The said Joseph Dorairaj is none other than the father of the defendants. Ex.D56 is the approved plan, Ex.D57, 58 are the certified copy of the KEB bills, but the owner name is not visible. Ex.D59 is the also KEB bill issued in the name of the father of the defendants. Ex.D60 to Ex.D63 are the certified copy of the photos, Ex.D64, Ex.D65 and Ex.D66 are the tax paid receipts, the 44 O.S.No.3615/2012 owners' name mentioned as father of defendants. Ex.D67 is the certified copy of the special notice issued in the name of Joseph Dorairaj. It reveals that Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike had issued the notice to the father of the defendants to pay the taxes with respect to the written statement schedule property. Ex.D68 is form No.15, it reveals that on 12/04/2012 khatha has been mutated in the name of defendant No.1 as per settlement deed in respect of the written statement schedule property and Ex.D69 is the certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificates, Ex.D70 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.16084/2008, it reveals that defendants and their parents have filed suit against Venugopal and K.Mohan seeking suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages, the said suit is decreed, Ex.D71 to Ex.D75 are photos, Ex.D76 is the CD of the photos. According to defendants, photos shows written statement schedule property. Ex.D77 is the certified 45 O.S.No.3615/2012 copy of the khatha certificate issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in respect of the written statement schedule property, Ex.D78 is the certified copy of the photos, Ex.D79 is the certified copy of the deposition of PW-1 in O.S.No.7798/1996. It is admitted fact that PW-1 in this case deposed that he had filed suit against one Rev.F.R.Joseph Kekkara seeking declaration and injunction relief, but PW-1 in O.S.No.7798/96 taken different version stating that the suit property in Sy.No.1/2 originally belongs to his ancestors, the total extent of land 24 guntas, after death of grand father, the property was mutated in the name of his mother, Venkatamma, his grandfather Chikka Katappa has given property to his mother Venkatamma in the year 1979. Accordingly, the chitta of the property is prepared and executed. Further deposed that his grandfather chikka Katappa sold one acre of land by way of chitta, but in this case, the plaintiff has not taken specific contention and also not 46 O.S.No.3615/2012 mentioned total measurement in Sy.No.1/2. but in this case, plaintiffs have claimed two sites only. Ex.D80 is the certified copy of the ordersheet in DRT, it reveals that present plaintiffs have filed petitions against Karnataka State financial Corporation and present defendants. The said petition withdrawn by the present plaintiff. Ex.D81 to Ex.D83 are the general licence issued in the name of Joseph Dorairaj for the year 1986-87. Ex.D84 to Ex.D87 are the photos. The said photos shows that building constructed. Ex.D88 is the cash bill, Ex.D89 to 93 are Bescom bills. Ex.D94 is the official memorandum issued by Bescom. The said documents produced by defendants reveals that they are in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property. The present plaintiffs have taken different version in this case and O.S.No.7798/96 in their pleadings. In this case, the plaintiffs have not sated that Chikka Katappa had sold 1 acre of land in Sy.No.1/2. But the said contention 47 O.S.No.3615/2012 admitted by the present PW-1 in O.S.No.7798/96. Further in O.S.No.7798/96, the present PW-1 had taken specific version that his grandfather Chikka Katappa had given property in his mother's name in the year 1979. But in this case nowhere stated that property had fallen to their mother by name Venkatamma. Further in O.S.No.7798/1996, the present plaintiff have taken contention that they have retained the site No.1 and sold rest of the sites. In this case plaintiffs have not stated in respect of other sites. Further, the plaintiffs have nowhere stated as to how many sites have been formed in the entire layout. Further, there is no evidence as to what was the extent of the said sites and to whom they were sold. Further, the present plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that which type the suit schedule properties are fallen to their share. In plaint schedule property, the site number not mentioned, but only mentioned as khaneshumari Nos.180 and 181, khatha Nos.260 and 48 O.S.No.3615/2012 262, Municipal khatha No.77and 77/1. At para 2 of the plaint averments also nowhere stated that what is the measurement of Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli. According to plaintiff, land bearing Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli came to the share of the plaintiff. But without description of measurement in Sy.No.1/2, the plaintiff has simply stated that the Sy.No.1/2 came to the share of the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiffs have not mentioned the Sy.No.1/2 in schedule A and B properties, only mentioned the khaneshumari No.180 and 181. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that layout was formed in Sy.No.1/2. If the Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra village fallen to the share of the plaintiffs, why they have not claimed the land in Sy.No.1/2 in the suit. If the schedule A and B properties shown as sites, but nowhere stated that when the layout was formed. The documents produced by the defendants reveals that father of the defendants 49 O.S.No.3615/2012 have transferred the written statement schedule property in the name of the defendants. The other documents reveals that they constructed the shed in the written statement schedule property. The present PW-1 in O.S.No.7798/1996 deposed that his grand father Chikka katappa had given property in favour of his mother Venkatamma in the year 1979. But in this case, the plaintiff has nowhere stated in this regard. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that A and B schedule property were fallen to the share of the plaintiff. But no materials produced by the plaintiff to show that before filing of the suit, the suit schedule property had fallen to their share. But documents produced by the defendants clearly discloses that written statement schedule property given specific number by the Corporation and they have paid the taxes to the Corporation and also obtained the licence to construct the building in the written statement schedule property in the year 1986. Further, present 50 O.S.No.3615/2012 PW-1 in O.S.No.7798/1996 admitted that some sites were sold to other persons, but in this case they have not taken said contention in their plaint averments. Ex.P56 is the registered partition deed dated 04/01/2017 in between plaintiffs' mother and plaintiffs. The said partition deed is not supporting the case of the plaintiffs because the said document is a subsequent document. After filing of the suit, in the year 2017 they have entered into the partition, but no materials produced by the plaintiffs to show that as per the partition deed, they are having possession in respect of the properties as mentioned in the partition deed. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show the existence of A and B schedule properties. Ex.P47 is not a partition deed and in the said affidavit signed by Chikka katappa only and none of other shareholders have signed. The materials produced by the defendant clearly discloses that in the written statement schedule property, shed already in 51 O.S.No.3615/2012 existence. The plaintiffs have not produced any title deeds to establish their alleged ownership over the suit schedule properties. The alleged chitta as per Ex.P47 is not supporting the case of the plaintiffs. The revenue documents produced by the plaintiffs are not related to the written statement schedule properties. It is admitted fact that written statement schedule property coming under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra village is also coming under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Hence, revenue documents are not supporting the case of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule properties. Moreover, in Ex.D79 i.e., deposition of present PW-1 in O.S.No.7798/1996 deposed that they have formed 25 sites in 1 acre of land. His mother sold 22 sites to various purchasers. But in this case nowhere stated that his mother alienated the sites formed in Sy.No.1/2 of Jakkasandra village. The plaintiffs have not produced any title deeds to 52 O.S.No.3615/2012 substantiate their properties. The documents produced by the defendants reveals that written statement schedule property come within the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. The documents produced by the defendants reveals that they are in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property. Ex.D11 document shows that industrial shed put up in the written statement schedule property. Further, documents produced by the defendants reveals that plaintiffs have approached the DRT, Bangalore challenging the legal proceedings initiated by the Corporation against the father of the defendant in respect of the written statement schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have failed to pay the required court fee and withdrawn the application. The present plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.7798/96 examined as PW-1 and in his deposition he has admitted that property belongs to their mother Smt.Venkatamma and she had formed 28 53 O.S.No.3615/2012 sites and said sites have been sold by his mother except site No.1. The materials produced by the defendant clearly reveals that father of the defendant had purchased the written statement schedule property from Rama Reddy and Jayaram Reddy. The said Rama Reddy and Jayaram Reddy have purchased the written statement schedule property from Venkatamma, who is the owner of the written statement schedule property. Further documents reveals that after purchasing the written statement schedule property, the father of the defendant had constructed the shed building and leased to one K.Venugopal and K.Mohan. Further Ex.D7, the judgment in O.S.No.16084/2008 reveals that father of the defendants and defendants have filed eviction suit against Venugopal and Mohan and same has been decreed in favour of the defendants. The said documents reveals that since purchase of written statement schedule property, the defendants have 54 O.S.No.3615/2012 been in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property. Further, the materials reveals that at the time of purchasing the written statement schedule property, the said property was coming under Jakkasandra village panchayath and thereafter coming within Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. The tax paid receipts reveals that defendants have paid upto date taxes to the concerned authority and obtained electricity connection to factory i.e., 40HP and paid betterment charges. Further, materials reveals that Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike had given PID No. and transferred the khatha in the name of the defendants. According to defendants, their father and defendants are guarantors for obtaining loan, thereafter the financial Corporation had attached the written statement schedule properties by filing the case before the DRT seeking recovery of loan amount and has taken symbolic possession of the property. The plaintiffs have not 55 O.S.No.3615/2012 produced any materials to show the existence of the properties. It is pertinent to note that description of the property have already comes under the limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and there is no existence of agricultural land, but the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike had not given PID No. in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and their mother have filed suit against the Joseph Kekkare seeking the relief of declaration relief in O.S.No.7798/96 in respect of the Sy.No.1/2 measuring 1 acre of Jakkasandra village. After contest, the said suit was dismissed and thereafter plaintiffs and their mother have preferred appeal in RFA No.1079/09 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the same was also dismissed. Hence, defendants have proved that they are in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property and now the financial Corporation had taken symbolic possession of the said property. 56 O.S.No.3615/2012 Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that description of the property mentioned in the suit A and B schedule properties are correct and the property is in existence as mentioned in the schedule. Further, the plaintiffs have fails to produce the title deeds to show their ownership in respect of the suit schedule properties. When plaintiffs have failed to prove the existence of the suit schedule properties, the question of interference by the defendants does not arise at all. On the other hand, the defendants have proved that they are in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property. Accordingly, I answer issue Nos.1 to 3 in the Negative.
12. Issue No.4: According to the defendants, the court fee paid by the plaintiffs are insufficient. The plaintiffs have filed the suit under Sec.24(b) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. This Court has already given findings on 17/01/2014 in the Affirmative.
57 O.S.No.3615/2012
13. Issue No.5: It is the specific contention of the defendant that suit of the plaintiffs are hopelessly barred by law of limitation. But defendants have not produced any materials to show that whether the plaintiffs have seeking the relief in respect of the suit schedule properties in other cases. The plaintiffs have nowhere stated in the plaint averments when suit schedule properties came to their share. Further, the defendants have also not produced any materials to prove the limitation barred. In the absence of the materials, it cannot be said that suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, I answer issue No.5 in the Negative.
14. Issue No.6: In view of my findings given on issue Nos.1 to 5, plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership in respect of the suit schedule properties and also possession over the suit schedule properties. Hence, plaintiffs are not entitled for the suit reliefs as 58 O.S.No.3615/2012 claimed. Accordingly, I answer issue No.6 in the Negative.
15. Issue No.7 : In view of my answers to issue Nos.1 to 6, I pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of June, 2018).
( NAGAVENI ) V ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE.
**** ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff :
P.W.1 Govinda List of witnesses examined for the defendant :
D.W.1 Vijaya Dorai Raj 59 O.S.No.3615/2012 List of documents marked for the plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.2 to 34 RTCs Exp.35, 36 Certified copy of the ordersheet in O.S.No.7112/08 and 7113/08 Ex.P.37 to 39 Photos Ex.P.40 CD Ex.P.41 Village map Ex.P.42 Extract of patta Ex.P.43 Certified copy of the khatha extract Ex.P.44 Tax paid receipt Ex.P.45 Endorsement Ex.P.46 Certified copy of the judgment in RFA No.584/2001 Ex.P.47 Certified copy of the chitta Ex.P.48 Certified copy of the village map Ex.P.49 Certified copy of the settlement copy of aakarband Ex.P.50 Certified copy of the Tippani Ex.P.51 to 55 RTCs pertaining to Sy.No.1/2 Ex.P56 Property register extract Ex.P.57 Original copy of registered rectification partition deed Ex.P.58 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.59 Death certificate of father of plaintiff Ex.P.60 Notarized copy of the ration card Ex.P.61,62 Two photos Ex.P.63 CD Ex.P.64 Property register extract Ex.P.65 Receipt Ex.P.66 Property register extract Ex.P.67 Receipt Ex.P.68 Computerized copy of genealogical tree Ex.P.69 to 82 Computerized copy of the tax paid receipt Ex.P.83 Deposition of PW-1 in O.S.No.3277/2012 List of documents marked for the defendants :
Ex.D.1 General Power of Attorney
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated
29/05/1981
Ex.D.3 Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated
60 O.S.No.3615/2012
29/05/1981
Ex.D.4 Certified copy of the settlement deed dated
05/08/2004
Ex.D.5 Certified copy of the rectification deed dated
12/04/2012
Ex.D.6 Receipt
Ex.D.7, 8 Tax paid receipts
Ex.D.9,10 Khatha extract and khatha certificate
Ex.D.11 Approved plan
Ex.D.12 to 15 Electricity bills
Ex.D.16, 17 Two photos
Ex.D.18 to 22 Tax paid receipts five in numbers Ex.D.23 Certified copy of the tax assessment register Ex.D.24 Special notice copy Ex.D.25,26 KEB bills two in numbers Ex.D.27 to 33 Photos Ex.D.34, 35 Negative copies Ex.D.36, 37 Electricity bills Ex.D.38 to 40 Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D.41,42 Power sanction letters Ex.D.43 Receipt Ex.D.44 Judgment and decree in O.S.No.7798/96 Ex.D.45 Certified copy of the judgment in RFA No.1079/09 Ex.D.46 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 12/01/1981 Ex.D.47 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 16/05/1981 Ex.D.48 Settlement deed dated 05/08/2004 Ex.D.49 Rectification deed dated 12/04/2012 Ex.D.50 Receipt of betterment charges Ex.D.51 to 53 Tax paid receipts Ex.D.54, 55 Khatha certificate and khatha extract Ex.D.56 Approved plan Ex.D.57 to 59 KEB bills Ex.D.60 to 63 Photos Ex.D.64 to 66 Tax paid receipts Ex.D.67 Certified copy of the special notice Ex.D.68, 69 Certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D.70 Certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.16084/2008 Ex.D.71 to 75 Photos Ex.D.76 CD Ex.D.77 Certified copy of the khatha certificate Ex.D.78 Certified copy of the photos Ex.D.79 Certified copy of the deposition of PW-1 in O.S.No.7798/96 61 O.S.No.3615/2012 Ex.D.80 Certified copy of the ordersheet in DRT No.2117/2012 Ex.D.81 to 83 General licence copies Ex.D.84 to 87 Photos Ex.D.88 Cash bill Ex.D.89 to 91 Three electricity bills Ex.D.92, 93 Electricity receipts Ex.D.94 Official memorandum issued by BESCOM ( NAGAVENI ) V ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE **** 62 O.S.No.3615/2012