Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The defendant No. 3 has taken contention that the suit schedule property originally belongs to Papaiah S/o Balappa. Papaiah was sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant no. 1 and 2 by executing agreement of sale and also registered GPA vide document no.1247/96-97, book No. IV, volume no.189, page no.164-166 and also vide document no.1262/1996-97, book No. IV volume no.190 and page no.16-18 dated 25.9.1996 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar at Rajajinagar, Bangalore by receiving the entire sale consideration from the defendant No. 1 and 2. It is contended that by virtue of the sale agreement and also registered power of attorney the defendant no.1 and 2 were in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In turn the defendant No. 1 and 2 were sold suit schedule property in favour of the 3 rd defendant through registered sale deed dated 20.9.2001 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore. After purchasing the suit property the 3 rd defendant is in lawful physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the khatha also stood in the name of 3 rd defendant. He is paying the tax regularly. He is the absolute owner of the suit property. The 3 rd defendant belongs to schedule caste. The state government has allotted the grant for construction of residential house in the suit schedule property in the year 2010 by inspecting the spot and verified the documents. Accordingly the 3 rd defendant has constructed dwelling house in the schedule property in the year 2010 and also obtained electricity connection from the concerned authority. The loan was sanctioned by the BBMP for the construction of dwelling house. The 3 rd defendant is the absolute owner and lawful physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Neither the plaintiffs nor anybody have any manner of right, title, interest, possession over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was originally gramatana property of Vibuthipura village, vide khatha No. 163/93 ABC for the assessment year 1988-89. The schedule property is the self acquired property of Sri.Papaiah. Neither the plaintiffs nor anybody having right, title, interest over the suit property. The plaintiffs have created the alleged Hakkupatra in order to knock down the property from the hands of this defendant. The alleged Hakkupatra is bogus, concocted and manipulated document. The plaintiff's are not resident of Vibuthipura village. They are the permanent resident of Kalkere village. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by period of limitation. The court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. Hence on these grounds the defendant No. 3 prayed for dismissal of the suit.

16. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 she has deposed that she do not know the suit schedule property number. She has admitted the suggestion that in the revenue records pertaining to gramatana land the suit schedule property was mentioned. She has admitted the suggestion that in that revenue records there was mention regarding gramatana Khatha No. 163-93-ABC which was standing in the name of Papaiah from the year 1988. She has admitted the suggestion that during the life time of Papaiah he was in possession of the said property situated in gramatana and also was paying property tax to the government. She has admitted the suggestion that the suit property which was standing in the name of Papaiah was his self acquired property. PW1 has admitted the suggestion that during the life time of Papaiah he executed General Power of Attorney and affidavit in favour of defendant No. 1 and 2 in respect of said gramatana property. She has admitted the suggestion that in view of the documents executed by Papaiah the defendant No. 1 and 2 came in possession of the gramatana property. When question asked her that defendant No. 1 and 2 have executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 3 she answered that the said sale deed was made fraudulently. She states that Papaiah executed General Power of Attorney and agreement in the year 1981-82. She has deposed that during the life time of Papaiah he was not challenged the General Power of Attorney and agreement in any court. PW1 has deposed that Papaiah died at Kalkere. She has denied the suggestion that at no point of time they were not residing at Vibuthipura. She has denied the suggestion that at no point of time the government was granted the suit property in favour of Papaiah on 2.11.1992 under Ashraya scheme. She has admitted the suggestion that defendant No. 3 had constructed the house in the suit schedule property in the year 2010. She has admitted photo and CD confronted to her with respect to the house of the 3 rd defendant which is marked at Ex.D1. She has admitted the suggestion that 3 rd defendant belongs to Scheduled Caste. She has denied the suggestion that in order to create the document she was recently paid the property tax. She has admitted the suggestion that they have already sold site No. 68 to some 3 rd parties. She has denied the suggestion that the document Ex.P4 death certificate is not belongs to her husband Papaiah. She has denied the suggestion that the document Ex.P4 is belongs to some other person by name Papaiah of Kalkere village. She has denied the suggestion that the defendant No. 3 had constructed the house in the suit schedule property in the year 2008-09. She has admitted the suggestion that the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of Papaiah. She has denied all other suggestions made to her.

27. The plaintiffs have taken contention that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of Papaiah under the Ashraya scheme and accordingly Hakku Patra was issued on 2.11.1992. The defendant No. 3 has taken contention that the suit schedule property was not a granted land and no Hakku Patra was issued in favour of Papaiah. It is the contention of the defendant No. 3 is that the suit schedule property was standing in the name of Papaiah in the year 1988-89 itself and it was the self acquired property of Papaiah. In order to substantiate the contention taken by the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of Papaiah under the Ashraya scheme and accordingly Hakku Patra was issued in the name of Papaiah on 2.11.1992, the plaintiffs have not produced and got marked the Hakku Patra or copy of Hakku Patra. Even though PW1 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that original Hakku Patra had been collected by defendant No. 1 and 2 fraudulently the plaintiffs have not made any efforts to give secondary evidence and produced the copy of concerned register maintained by the authorities. If at all the suit schedule property was granted in favour of Papaiah under Hakku Patra dated 2.11.1992 the plaintiffs should have made an effort to collect the secondary evidence, i.e., to obtain certified copy of concerned register maintained by the issuing authority. But in this suit no efforts were made by the plaintiffs to lead the secondary evidence. Defendant No. 3 who has taken contention that the suit schedule property was originally gramatana property of Vibuthipura village vide Khatha No. 163/93 ABC for the assessment year 1988-89 standing in the name of Papaiah has produced the document Ex.D13 property extract of the year 1988-89 which was standing in the name of Papaiah S/o Chikka Balappa. The defendant No. 3 has also produced the document Ex.D15, sixteen kandayam paid receipts of the year 1995, 1981, 1987, 2000, 2010 and subsequent years which would go to show that the suit schedule property even prior to 1992 was standing in the name of Papaiah S/o Chikka Balappa. PW1 during the course of her cross-examination admitted the suggestion that in the revenue records pertaining to gramatana land the suit schedule property was mentioned. She has also admitted the suggestion that in the revenue records there was mention regarding gramatana Khatha No. 163-93-ABC which was standing in the name of Papaiah from the year 1988. PW1 has also admitted the suggestion that during the life time of Papaiah he was in possession of the said property situated in gramatana and was also paying property tax to the government. PW1 has admitted the suggestion that the suit schedule property which was standing in the name of Papaiah was his self acquired property. Thus the very admission given by PW1 would go to show that the suit schedule property which was in the gramatana area was standing in the name of Papaiah in the year 1988 also. Under such circumstances the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was granted to Papaiah under the Ashraya scheme and accordingly Hakku Patra had been issued on 2.11.1992 is not believable. More than that the plaintiffs have not produced the Hakku Patra or not lead any secondary evidence to show that such Hakku Patra was issued by the government on 2.11.1992. Hence this court of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of Papaiah under the Ashraya scheme and Hakku Patra dated 2.11.1992. Even though the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit schedule property was granted land under Ashraya scheme and Hakku Patra had been issued to Papaiah but fact remains that the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of Papaiah.

28. PW1 in her cross-examination clearly admitted the suggestion that the suit schedule property which was standing in the name of Papaiah was his self acquired property. It is the contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No. 1 and 2 who are no way concerned to the plaintiffs or Papaiah without the knowledge of Papaiah by violating the conditions of grant fraudulently obtained the General Power of Attorney by the 1 st defendant on 27.9.1996 and by the 2 nd defendant on 25.9.1996 in respect of the suit schedule property. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs is that after obtaining General Power of Attorney by the defendant No. 1 and 2 they have kept quite for five years and thereafter after the death of Papaiah the defendant No. 1 and 2 have executed the sale deed dated 20.9.2001 in favour of the 3 rd defendant. This court has already given finding that Papaiah died on purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 20.9.2001 from the defendant No.1 and 2 who were representing as General Power of Attorney holder of Papaiah. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs is that since Papaiah died on 23.6.2000 the sale deed which has been executed by defendant No. 1 and 2 as a General Power of Attorney holder in favour of defendant No. 3 has become null and void as alleged General Power of Attorney was ceased on death of Papaiah. The plaintiffs have taken contention that the defendant No. 1 and 2 taking undue advantage of Papaiah was drunkyard without the knowledge of Papaiah fraudulently obtained General Power of Attorney in their favour. In this suit the plaintiffs have not examined any independent witness to show that the document Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 General Power of Attorney dated 25.9.1996 was got executed by defendant No. 1 and 2 by playing fraud upon Papaiah. Merely because the document Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 were registered in the Sub-Registrar Office of Rajaji Nagar that cannot be the ground to suspect these documents. There is no hard and fast rule to register the General Power of Attorney in particular Sub-Registrar office. Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 General Power of Attorney dated 25.9.1996 are registered documents. Hence it can be said that the General Power of Attorney executed by Papaiah duly registered by the competent Sub-Registrar of Rajaji Nagar. It is not the contention of the plaintiffs is that the signature of Papaiah found in Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 are not that of Papaiah husband of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs have taken contention that Papaiah was doing coolie work and he had the habit of drinking alcohol, hence by taking advantage of the same the defendant No. 1 and 2 have obtained fraudulent General Power of Attorney. Since the plaintiffs have not taken any such contention that the signature found in Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 is not that of Papaiah, under such circumstances it cannot be held that the document Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 were created fraudulently by defendant No. 1 and 2. PW1 during the course of her cross-examination admitted the suggestion that during the life time of Papaiah he executed General Power of Attorney and affidavit in favour of defendant No. 1 and 2 in respect of gramatana property. PW1 has also admitted the suggestion that in view of the documents executed by Papaiah the defendant No. 1 and 2 were came in possession of gramatana property. PW1 has deposed that Papaiah was executed General Power of Attorney and agreement in the year 1981-82. In the cross- examination of PW1 she may deposed the year of execution of General Power of Attorney wrongly but fact remains that PW1 has clearly admitted the suggestion that during the life time of Papaiah he executed General Power of Attorney and agreement in favour of defendant No. 1 and 2 and delivered the possession of the gramatana property to them. The plaintiffs who have taken specific contention that during the life time of Papaiah the defendant No. 1 and 2 fraudulently got executed the General Power of Attorney have failed to prove the same. There is no cogent evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to show that the documents Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 were obtained by defendant No. 1 and 2 by playing fraud on Papaiah. Hence the document Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 General Power of Attorney dated 25.9.1996 cannot be suspected.