Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. It is further submitted that, as the Purchaser's name has been written as R.Venkatasubramanian instead of R.Kothandapani, the Central Excise House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., has rectified the Purchaser's name in the above Sale Deed by virtue of a Registered Rectification Deed dated 21-01-1992 which document has been registered as Document No.7619/92-93, Volume 4830 in Book-I, Pages 76-78 dated 25-01-1993 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru. By virtue of the above said Rectification Deed, Sri. R. Kothandapani has become the full and absolute owner of the Site bearing No.58 in Rajamahal Vilas II Stage (Boopasandra Village), Bengaluru. It is further contended that, in pursuance of the said Sale Deed and the Rectification Deed, the said R. Kothandapani was put in possession of the Site bearing No.58 by the Central Excise House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. The khatha in respect of the above property also has been transferred in the name of the said R.Kothandapani as per the Khatha Certificate issued by the Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru vide its Ref. No.BDA/RO/N/CE/58/93/-94 dated 30-07-1993.

63. The further plaintiff's counsel submitted that, written statements filed by defendant No.8, 9 and 10, when read as a whole, do not disclose any independent or legally sustainable title, but merely parrot and trace their alleged rights solely through defendant No.6, whose title itself has already been demonstrated to be defective, illegal and non- existent. The said defendants do not plead or produce any original grant, lawful conveyance, or revenue title in their favour, but rely entirely on derogative Sale Deeds, rectification deeds, khata, entries, tax benefits, mortgages, and bank transactions, all of which cannot confirm or cure title in the absence of a valid root of ownership. Their reliance on alleged BDA de-notification, rectification deeds and RTC extract is only means conceived, as none of the said documents confer ownership nor do they override the final and binding judgment and decree dated 17.01.2003 passed in OS No.16005/2000 followed by Court executed Registered Sale Deed dated 23.08.2005 in favour of the plaintiff.

68. Plaintiff further submitted that once the plaintiff's lawful title is declared, the doctrine that possession follows the title, squarely applies. Where a person establishes a better and lawful title, the law presumes possession to be with the true owner.

69. Plaintiff's counsel further submitted that the alleged chain of title set up by defendant No.2, 8 and 9 is wholly illegal void ab initio being founded upon on impermissible misuse of rectification deeds to effectuate substantive conveyances. The Sale Deed dated 25.05.1992 relied upon by the defendants admittedly stands registered in the name of defendant No.2 as the purchaser. Thereafter instead of executing a lawful conveyance, the rectification deed dated 21.01.1993 was executed purporting to substitute the purchaser's name from defendant No.2 to defendant No.8. It is settled law that rectification deed can be utilized only to correct the clerical or typographical errors and cannot be employed to substitute or change the very identity of the purchaser, which goes to the root of the transaction. Such substitution amounts to a fresh transfer of ownership, which can be effected only by a duly stamped and Registered Sale Deed. Consequently, the rectification deed dated 21.01.1993 is void ab initio.

70. The plaintiff counsel further submitted that the defendants have executed another rectification deed dated 05.01.2012 purportedly to rectify the measurements of the alleged site. This subsequent rectification deed effected merely two decades after the original Sale Deed which clearly exposes a systematic attempt to manipulate and improve a defective title by altering material particulars of the property which again is impermissible in law.

71. The plaintiff's counsel further submitted that in view of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record and the settled principles of law, the plaintiff has conclusively established his lawful, perfected and indefeasible title to the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff was in lawful and settled possession since from 1995 onwards and the defendant illegally interfered with and dispossessed the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The defendant's case is vitiated by suppression of material facts, self contradictory pleadings, deliberate inaction despite if knowledge of the decree and impermissible collateral attacks on settled rights amounting to a clear abuse of the process of the court.