Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This is a suit for Declaration, Possession and consequential relief of Permanent Injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners of the property bearing Sy.No.47/2 situated at Laggere village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 2 Acre 12 Guntas. The plaintiffs are said to have inherited the said property from their father. One Muniyappa is said to be the grandfather of all the plaintiffs who is said to have two sons namely Narasimhaiah and Chennigappa. Joint family properties of said Muniyappa is said to have been divided into two parts equally among his sons namely Narasimhaiah and Chennigappa. Subsequent to the partition, the properties are said to have fallen to the share of Chennigappa and continued in his possession and his three sons i.e., plaintiffs jointly. The land in Sy.No.47/2 measuring 2.12 Acres is said to be the one such property fallen to the share of Chennigappa and to have continued in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and their father Chennigappa. Subsequent to the partition, Susheelamma i.e., daughter-in-law of Narasimhaiah is said to have filed a suit for partition before the Munsiff Court in Bangalore in O.S.No.726/1968. On the death of husband Muniyappa, it is said to have continued against the husband's brothers Channappa and his sister Ningamma. In the said suit Susheelamma is said to have claimed her share in the properties fallen to her father-in-law Narasimhaiah. The said suit was said to be decreed in favour of Susheelamma wherein the existence of the plaintiffs' land towards the north of Susheelamma is said to be mentioned. Subsequent to the partition, the plaintiffs are said to have been cultivating the land in Sy.No.47/2 and the revenue officials are said to have entered the name of Puttaiah in the RTC records. The revenue department is said to have effected inheritance katha of the land in Sy.No.47/2 of Laggere village, Yeshwanthapura hobli, wherein the suit schedule property situated by accepting mutation in favour of the plaintiffs vide IHC.No.1/2000-2001. The revenue department is said to have assessed the plaintiff's property for assessment and collected the tax up to 2001. The village accountant of Peenya revenue circle, Bangalore North Taluk is said to have issued endorsement stating that the plaintiffs to have paid the tax up to date. The revenue department is said to have entered the RTC of the suit schedule property for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 in the name of the plaintiffs. The Bangalore Development Authority is said to have proposed to form outer ring road through and on the plaintiffs land in Sy.No.47/2. During the acquisition proceedings, the BDA is said to have issued award notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in the name of the plaintiffs who are said to be the owners of the land calling upon them to produce title document and to hand over the possession of the land enabling the authority for apportionment of the compensation in LAC No.4/1999-2000 dtd:24/03/2001. In response to the said award notice, the plaintiffs are said to have filed documents of their title claiming compensation with the BDA and the said case is said to be pending for adjudication before the City Civil Court, Bangalore. Defendant No.3 is said to have been forged the signatures of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and created, fabricated GPA dtd:12/03/1982 as if the parties to have appointed the defendant No.3 as their lawful attorney to do the acts, deed and things mentioned therein. Defendant No.3 is said to have pretended as GPA and is said to be registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. The 3rd' defendant society is said to be knows for work of fraud, forgery and cheating in Bangalore. It is said to have indulged in such cases of creation of fake documents, fabrication of documents and forgery of the documents relating to third parties and to sell the said land for some body as if it is the owner of that land. This is said to be inspite that, it is said to have not acquired any valid title. Defendant No.3 is said to have indulged in creating antedated documents also. The plaintiffs were said to be capable to secure the copy of the GPA defendant:12/03/1982 forged by the 3rd defendant. Thereafter the plaintiffs are said to have started hunting to find out the forgery and fraud of the 3rd defendant, in regard to the existence of the registered GPA. In this regard Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, is said to have issued endorsement stating that no such document to be registered in their office.