Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

3(b). The defendant No.8 in her written statement has taken contention as stated in written statement of defendant No.1 and further contended that Sri.L.Nagesh Rao has obtained possession and Holder Khatha No.DA/W2PR564/03-04 dated 09.09.2003 and Holder Khatha Certificate No.BMP/REV/2009-10/KC/427488 dated 08.09.2009 respectively issued by ARO, BMP, Bengaluru and paid betterment charges and taxes. Sri.L.Nagesh Rao who is the GPA holder and Khatha Holder of the suit schedule property has executed absolute Sale Deed dated 31.08.2009 in favour of defendant No.8. The defendant No.8 has approached the Revenue Authorities, BBMP, and obtained transfer of Khatha into her name and the BBMP authorities vide letter No.124/09-10 dated 31.12.2009 transferring the Khatha into her name and she has paid up-to-date taxes to the BBMP authorities in respect of suit schedule property. She has also obtained the Encumbrance Certificate for the period of 01.04.2004 to 26.08.2009, 01.04.1992 to 31.03.2004 and 01.04.2009 to 22.12.2009. Since from the date of purchase, the defendant No.8 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and exercising absolute rights of ownership by getting the revenue records transferred into her name. The plaintiffs are not the (co- parceners) of the family of the other defendants and the plaintiffs are not in joint possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have not disclosed anything about the land of 7.33 acres and with an intention to grab the suit schedule property have intentionally has filed this suit to harass the defendant No.8 with ulterior motives. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the title deed of the plaintiffs is marked as Ex.P.2 and typed copy as Ex.P.2(a) which is a Sale Deed dated 18.02.1932. It is not a Sale Deed because no consideration shown in Ex.P.2, it is a gift by father for discharging his duty. Consideration is need not be money their property taken away and handed over his property to Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah. A property of a individual can it be putting to common hotspoch it is a joint family orally or by transaction by joint family. The property exclusively property of Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah. Jointly, they partitioned properties some to Sri.Doddaramaiah and sons and Sri.Chikkaramaiah S/o Ramanjinappa at that time Sri.Chikkaramaiah died. Sri.Hanumaiah, Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah. The plaintiffs are the son and grandson of Sri.Doddaramaiah properties divided among Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah measuring 2 acres 14 guntas each respectively. Rest of the properties are disposed off. Sri.Doddaramaiah has got three children Sri.Ramegowda (plaintiff No.1), Sri.D.Sadappa (defendant No.1) and Sri.D.Hanume Gowda (defendant No.5). All the three entered into partition deed. The suit schedule properties site No.6 and 9 is not the portion that is disposed off. The defendants No.8 and 9 are interfered with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1/ Sri.Sadappa brother of the plaintiff No.1 has filed the written statement in para No.8(a) of the amended plaint. The defendant No.8 taken plea GPA executed on 02.11.1988 in favour of defendant No.9 he executed a Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.8 his wife on 31.08.2009. To challenge that General Power of Attorney document and Sale Deed are not binding 8(a) and (b). The defendant No.1 in his written statement para No.11 stated that on 18.02.193, 1972, 1981, 1982 total 7 acres 33 guntas remaining 4 acre 33 guntas are equally divided 2 acre 16.5 guntas each on 12.05.1986. Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah living separately. The defendant No.1 in his written statement at para No.14 stated that on 27.04.1998, again there was a partition between the defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.5, being and treated joined as joint family property. The defendant No.1 in his written statement at para No.16 stated that 1988 in favour of defendant No.8 on 02.11.1988. The plaintiffs are not parties to General Power of Attorney. The property sold on 02.11.1988. Registered document/ Sale Deed. The defendant No.8 since possession delivered it is vacant site possession goes with a title. The defendant No.1 written statement para No.14 of defendant No.8 written statement on 02.11.1988 plaintiffs added defendant No.8. The defendant No.1 in his written statement para No.15 stated that betterment charges paid. The defendant No.9/ Sri.L.Nagesh Rao who is the GPA holder and Khatha Holder of the suit schedule property has executed absolute Sale Deed dated 31.08.2009 in favour of defendant No.8. Para No.22, the defendant No.9 is in the possession. The defendant No.8 in his written statement at para No.25 has stated that on 18.02.1932 one site alone filed all other properties are sold, because this is the only property which is in dispute. Page No.2 of cross of P.W.1, subsequently it is a joint family property not deposed by the P.W.1 in his cross examination. D.W.1 in his chief affidavit, para No.10 stated that right from the beginning joint family and General Power of Attorney not contains the signature of the plaintiff No.1. In the year 1996, Sri.Doddaramaiah died, therefore, in the year 2000 property was partitioned. Ex.D.1 joint family partition deed, the plaintiff name is not there as a executant. At the time of execution of Ex.P.5, Sri.Doddaramaiah was not alive. Ex.P.1 is the death certificate. Ex.D.6 shows that 62 years and in Ex.P.5 it shown reflected as 72 years. Sri.Ramegowda not given GPA wherein is valid as plaintiff not executed Sale Deed in his favour on 31.08.2009. Sri.Doddaramaiah died at the age of 72 years. Para No.2 in Ex.P.5 misleading that vendor No.1 is not alive. Then to whom the defendants No.8 and 9 paid the consideration amount as per the General Power of Attorney. The learned counsel further argued that the Sale Deed can be executed only contemplated as u/Sec.54 of T.P.Act under a registered document/ instrument. After the death of Principal that is defendant General Power of Attorney will be not in existence. Then that General Power of Attorney is irrevocable GPA. Even though either by documents or by the conduct, it is a joint family property. All the properties are divided only this property is in dispute. Therefore, prays to decree the suit.