Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

defendant has produced Exhibit D-13 endorsement issued by Mysore City Corporation wherein it is stated that corporation have not issued holder khatha to any persons in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.167/1; evidence placed on record are contrary to pleadings of the plaintiffs and as such it creates doubt in respect of identity of the suit schedule property; 2nd Defendant had acquired title to Sy.No.167/1 to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas under

Settlement Deed Exhibit D-19; revenue records are in the name of both the defendants; plaintiffs have failed to prove the existence of suit schedule sites with the help of the documents produced by them; defendants have no where admitted that they have sold suit schedule properties to plaintiffs; sale deeds produced by plaintiffs would not establish that it relates to suit schedule properties; plaintiffs have failed to discharge their burden in establishing the nexus to the schedule shown in the sale deeds with that of the schedule described in the plaint; corporation officials are not examined to establish that new numbers and boundaries were assigned as disclosed in the plaint schedule; there is a serious dispute with regard to identity of the property; plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule property and as such the alleged interference by the defendants cannot be believed. On these grounds as discussed by the trial court in its judgment, suits filed by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed.

2. Whether the impugned Judgment calls for interference?

3. what order?

The lower appellate court on re-appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary held:

FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT:

11. Gift Deed came to be executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant conveying the suit schedule property in his favour subsequent to filing of the suits and as such much importance cannot be given to the entries found in the RTCs - Exhibits D-2 -D-7 wherein the name of second defendant has been entered; admission of DW-1 amply demonstrate that said land in Sy.No.167/1 is not under cultivation; no suggestion has been made to PW- 33 who is an official from Mysore City Corporation that Sy.No.167/1 do not comprise of Basaveshwara Nagara Extension in respect of which he had conducted inspection, had measured the sites and also the buildings in existence and prepared a sketch and also there is no serious cross examination of this witness; PW-34 admits that 65 applications were received for grant of holders khatha in respect of Sy.No.167/1; Exhibit D-13 does not indicate holders khatha issued to plaintiffs have been cancelled;

second defendant has not examined the author of Exhibit D-

13. DW-1 has admitted 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.167/1 was given to first defendant by way of settlement deed and she was the absolute owner thereof; Exhibit D-12 application submitted by DW-1 seeking cancellation of holders khatha issued in favour of the plaintiffs was submitted to Mysore City Corporation during the pendency of the suits; evidence of DW-1 would indicate that PW-33 and PW-34 had infact inspected the spot for the purposes of issuing holders khatha; DW-1 pleads his ignorance about his mother having executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs; at the time of defendants filing the suit O.S.30/2003 in respect of Sy.No.167/1, plaintiffs had already lodged complaints before the jurisdictional police alleging interference by the defendants, yet defendants choose not to array the plaintiffs as parties to the suit O.S.30/2003 and as such the Judgment and decree passed thereon as per Exhibit D-14 would not bind the plaintiffs since plaintiffs are not parties to said suit; after inspecting the land in Sy.No.167/1 the officials of corporation prepared the sketch and as such description given in the plaint schedule by the plaintiffs cannot be brushed aside; out of 4 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.167/1 2 acres 08 guntas belonging to DW-1's uncle Sri.Shivalingaiah had been acquired by Mysore Development Authority and remaining land could not be acquired owing to existence of revenue sites even according to the admission of DW-1 in his cross examination; proposal to acquire the land by MUDA was dropped owing to existence of houses in the revenue sites formed therein; defendants have failed to demonstrate that testimony of PW-1 to PW-35 warranted discarding the same; first defendant namely mother of second defendant has not entered the witness box and second defendant has not chosen to assail the sale transactions entered into by the first defendant and as such there was no occasion for the plaintiff to prove execution of the sale deed as per section 59 of the Registration Act; till date second defendant has not challenged the deeds executed by first defendant and no steps have been taken by the second defendant; evidence on record would indicate plaintiffs are in possession of suit properties and in view of evidence of PW-33 who is an official of corporation, it cannot be said that suit properties are not identifiable; sale deeds produced by the plaintiffs being unregistered can be considered for collateral purposes; DW-2's admission that he has not gone near the lands for three years before the date of his examination would indicate that his evidence of having cultivated the land in question cannot be accepted; plaintiffs are in settled possession and even a true owner cannot dispossess them from the suit schedule property; merely on the ground that first defendant had no absolute right to alienate the property, second defendant cannot interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs but have to take recourse under due process of law; unregistered sale deeds were ordered to be impounded and sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore for collecting necessary duty and penalty. On these grounds the appellate court allowed the appeals, set aside the decrees passed by trial court and restrained the defendants by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of suit properties in any manner. CONTENTIONS RAISED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS):

(iv) Holder khatha issued by Municipal corporation would not confer any title in favour of the plaintiffs;

On these grounds he prays for answering the substantial questions of law formulated herein above in favour of the appellants and for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court and affirming the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court by allowing the appeals. In support of his submissions he has relied upon the following judgments.