Bangalore District Court
Smt.M.N.Radha vs S.Vittal Rao Thitte on 16 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH.NO.2)
Dated, this the 16th day of September 2016.
PRESENT
Sri.Ravi M. Naik,B.Com,LL.M.,
I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
O.S.NO.5134/2009
PLAINTIFF Smt.M.N.Radha,
D/o K.Nagarajaiah,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.37/10, 30th Cross,
Bagalagunte Main road,
Nagasandra Post,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. M.T.A., Advocate)
- V E R S U S -
DEFENDANTS 1. S.Vittal Rao Thitte,
S/o Late Shankar Rao,
Aged about 75 years,
R/at No.146, 3rd 'B' cross,
Near Flour Mill,
Gedeyara Balaga,
Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore - 560 086.
2. Smt.Shamalamma,
W/o Late B.V.Rajanna @ Lakshminarayana,
Aged about 73 years,
3. B.L.Venkatesh,
S/o Late B.V.Rajanna @ Lakshminarayana,
Aged about 48 years,
2 O.S.No.5134/2009
4. B.V.Girish,
S/o B.L.Venkatesh,
Aged about 20 years,
5. B.L.Srinivasa Sundaram,
S/o Late B.V.Rajanna @ Lakshminarayana,
Aged about 45 years,
6. Smt.Vasanthamma,
W/o Late B.V.Pandurangaiah,
Aged about 53 years,
7. B.P.Sunil,
S/o Late B.V. Pandurangaiah,
Aged about 20 years,
All are R/at Chikkabanawara,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
8. Dr.Reshma Talwar,
D/o Chandrahas Talwar,
Aged about 39 years,
Carrying on business at
Shifali Poly Clinic,
No.10, 13th Cross,
Bagalagunte, Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore - 560 073.
(By Sri.N.J.P., Adv. For D1, Sri.R.N.,
Adv.for D2 to 7., Sri.M.S., Adv. For D8)
Date of institution of the suit : 04.08.2009
Nature of the suit (suit on Suit for Declaration & Injunction
pronote, suit for declaration and
possession suit for injunction,etc) :
Date of the commencement of 02.12.2015
recording of the evidence :
Date on which the Judgment was 16.9.2016
pronounced :
3 O.S.No.5134/2009
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
07 01 12
(Ravi M. Naik)
I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff has field the suit against the defendants with a prayer to pass judgment and decree canceling the sale deed dtd. 19.3.1998 and also consequential relief permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant his men agents, representatives or any persons acting under him, from alienating, encumbering or creating any charge on meddling with the property and also to declare that the judgment and decree in OS.No.6870/2006 dtd. 8.10.2009 is not binding on the plaintiff and cost of the suit and such other reliefs.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ie., village panchayath katha No.37/10 situated at Bagalagunte village, Dasarahalli CMC division No.7 4 O.S.No.5134/2009 now coming under the Bangalore Bruhat Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore, measuring east-west 30 feet and north-south 40 feet and boundaries stated in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff purchased the same under registered sale deed dtd.12.10.2007 from defendant No.2 to 7. Pursuant to the sale deed plaintiff gave application to CMC Dasarahalli seeking for katha which is pending for consideration the CMC has collected taxes in respect of the suit schedule property. It is further stated that the suit schedule property was a tenanted property and occupied by 8th defendant who was running a clinic in the name and style of Shifali Poly Clinic and she was paying rents. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the building she did not vacate. The plaintiff filed O.S.no.7682/2008 and the same came to be decreed. The plaintiff filed execution petition and in Ex.No.417/2009 the plaintiff has taken possession of the suit schedule property.
5 O.S.No.5134/2009
3. The defendant claims that he is the owner of the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dtd. 19.3.1998 executed by his wife Sumithra Bai stating that she is the power of attorney holder of Smt.Lakshmi Bai. Said Lakshmi Bai is nothing to do with the suit schedule property and has no legal right in respect of suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 colluded with his wife fabricated the general power of attorney and got executed registered sale deed dtd.19.3.1998. It is further contended that the 1st defendant filed a suit in OS.No.6870/2006 against the 8th defendant for ejectment and in the said suit the 8th defendant filed objection and contended that the 1st defendant is not the owner of the suit schedule property. The 8th defendant has not paid any rent accepting the 1st defendant as owner. And the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed the 8th defendant to deposit the rent before the court pending disposal of the disputes. The 8th defendant deposited the rents in respect of the said property in OS.No.6870/2006 6 O.S.No.5134/2009 and said suit is pending consideration before the court. And suit is also disposed off on 8.10.2009 decreeing the suit. The plaintiff is not a party to the said suit. The plaintiff filed an application to implead her, said application came to be rejected on the ground that it is only a suit for ejectment and observed that if at all the plaintiff has got right she can file the suit claiming title in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has already got initiated the proceeding against the 8th defendant for recovery of possession and said suit came to be decreed. Thus the plaintiff pleaded that the 1st defendant has not right, title over the suit schedule property. Hence the plaintiff has prayed to decree the suit as prayed.
4. In pursuance of the suit summons the defendants have appeared through their respective counsel. The first, defendant no.2 to 7 and 8 have filed their separate written statement.
7 O.S.No.5134/2009
5. The sum and substance of the contention of the defendant no.1 in his written statement is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiff had earlier filed an application to implead her as proposed defendant in O.S.No.6870/2006. The plaintiff has concocted the alleged sale deed in respect of the property no.10 situated at Bagalagunte village. It is further contended that only to harass the first defendant who is aged person the present suit is filed. The main house portion of the schedule property was leased to 8th defendant. Same was used for commercial purpose. It is further contended that the suit is not properly valued. The court fee paid is not proper. It is further contended that the 8th defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.17365/2004 against the first defendant for bare injunction. Said suit came to be dismissed for non prosecution. Thereafter the first defendant instigated one Shanthamma and Hanumanthappa and they filed a suit in O.S.No.9752/2007. That suit was also dismissed. It is 8 O.S.No.5134/2009 further contended that the first defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He is residing along with his family members in the said property. The defendant nos.2 to 7 had no subsisting right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. In O.S.No.7682/2008 a collusive compromise decree has been obtained by the 8th defendant and the plaintiff. The first defendant has denied the averments made in para 4 to 10 of the plaint. It is contended that there is no cause of action for filing the suit. The description of the suit schedule property as 37/10 is non existent and fictitious number. For above all reasons the first defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary cost.
6.The sum & substance of defendant no.2 to 7 in the written statement that the defendant no.1 is a total stranger to the suit property. Mrs. Lakshmi Bai had also nothing to do with the said property. On the basis of the created document the first defendant is laying a false 9 O.S.No.5134/2009 claim on the said property. Hence prays to pass Judgment and Decree.
7. The sum and substance of contention of the defendant no.8 in the written statement that the 8th defendant was a tenant in respect of the suit schedule property. The first defendant had come near the suit schedule property and posed himself as an owner of the property and also stated that he has obtained sale deed in respect of the same and requested the 8th defendant to execute the rent agreement. Accordingly at his request the rent agreement came to be executed but no rent what so ever was to be paid to the first defendant. And it is further contended that after coming to know about the obtaining of the rent agreement from 8th defendant by the first defendant Panduranga Rao had lodged complaint to police thereafter again 8th defendant started paying rents to Panduranga Rao. Thereafter the plaintiff and her father requested the 8th defendant to pay the rent. 10 O.S.No.5134/2009 Accordingly the 8th defendant has paid the rent to the plaintiff.
8. It is further contended that the plaintiff had filed a suit against the 8th defendant for ejectment in O.S.No.7682/2008 and said suit came to be decreed and Execution Petition came to be filed and the possession of the suit schedule property was handed over to the plaintiff. Hence, the 8th defendant has no interest in the present proceedings. It is further contended that first defendant had also filed O.S.No.6872/2006 for Ejectment and filed an application for payment of rents by virtue of the interim order passed in the said suit the rent has been deposited in the court and said deposit has been made without the prejudice to the tenancy right to the 8th defendant. The 8th defendant is not in arrears of any rent and 8th defendant has prayed to dismissal of the suit.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings this court has famed the following Issues:
1. Whether plaintiff proves her title over the suit schedule property ?11 O.S.No.5134/2009
2. Whether plaintiff proves that she is not bound by the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.6870/2006?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that she is not bound by the sale deed dated 19.3.1996 executed in favour of defendant no.1?
4. Whether the defendant no.1 further proves that O.S.No.6870/2006 is a collusive suit between the plaintiff of this suit and defendant of this suit ? (Deleted & recasted)
5. Whether the valuation of this suit is correct and court fee paid is proper?
6. Whether there is any cause of action to the suit?
7. What decree or order?
10. On careful perusal of pleadings set forth by both the parties i.e., plaintiffs, defendant no.1to 8, it is clear that OS no.6870/2006 came to be filed by the defendant no.1 against the defendant no.8. But, while framing the issue no.4, due to oversight it is wrongly stated that the said suit is filed by the plaintiff against the 8th defendant. In the relief column i.e., para- 13(c) of the plaint, it is 12 O.S.No.5134/2009 clearly stated that the plaintiff is not bound by the outcome of OS no.6870/2006. Under these circumstances, the burden of establishing that OS no.6870/2006 is a collusive suit between the first defendant and the 8th defendant is on the plaintiff. But, issue no.4 is erroneously framed casting burden on the defendant no.1. Therefore, by invoking order 14 rule 5 of CPC, Issue no.4 is strike off and recasted as under:
"Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit in OS no.6870/2006 is not binding on her ?"
11. The plaintiff in order to prove her case got examine her Special Power of Attorney Holder Nagarajaiah as Pw1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.77 documents. On the other hand in spite of giving sufficient opportunities none of the defendants have cross examined the Pw1 nor did they lead any evidence on their behalf.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The defendants have not canvassed their arguments. 13 O.S.No.5134/2009
13. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue nos.1 to 3 : In the affirmative Recasted Issue no.4 : In the affirmative Issue no.5 : In the affirmative Issue no.6 : In the affirmative Issue no.7 : As per final order For the following:
REASONS
14. ISSUE NO.1: According to the plaintiff she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. She has further stated that she has purchased the suit property from defendant nos.2 to 7 under a registered sale deed dated 12.10.2007 i.e. Ex.P.26. On careful perusal of said document it discloses that on 12.10.2007 the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property i.e. Bagalagunte village panchayath Khatha no.37/10. Now situated within the Dasarahalli Town Municipal counsel division no.7 for a sale consideration of Rs.10,70,000/-. The first defendant in his written statement contended that he is the owner of the suit property. Except his bare contention in the written statement he has not produced any iota of document to establish his contention. The 14 O.S.No.5134/2009 recitals of Ex.P.2 discloses that the learned assistant commissioner Bangalore Sub division Bangalore has re- granted the Inam lands including the Sy.No.37 measuring 17 guntas situated at Bagalagunte village that is clear from the recitals of page 3 of Ex.P.2. The recitals of Ex.P.8 further discloses that the revenue entries were made in the name of the vendors of the plaintiff in respect of the above said land and the version of Pw1 further discloses that the said land was in possession of one B.V.Rajanna @ Lakshmi Narayanana B.V.Pandurangaiah. The recitals of Ex.P.4 disclose that B.V.Lakshminarayana died on 23.7.1991 and B.V.Pandurangaiah died on 21.10.2005. The recitals of Ex.P.26 disclose that the vendors of the plaintiff are none other than the wife and children of B.V.Lakshminarayan and B.V.Pandurangaiah.
15. The version of Pw1 coupled with the averments made in the written statement of the defendant No.8 it discloses that the suit schedule property was a tenanted 15 O.S.No.5134/2009 property and was in occupation of the 8th defendant. Ex.P.66 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.7682/2008. The recitals of the Ex.P.67 disclose that the present plaintiff filed a suit against the 8th defendant for Ejectment in respect of suit schedule property. No doubt Ex.P.68 discloses that one Sumithra Bai GPA holder of Smt.Lakshmi Bai executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the first defendant. The first defendant has failed to establish before this court how his vendor Lakshmi Bai is related to the suit property. One of the tenants of the suit schedule property 8th defendant in her written statement has categorically stated that she recognized the plaintiff as her land lord. The first defendant has not produced any material before this court how the alleged vendor Lakshmi Bai derived title to the suit property. The recitals of Ex.P.38 i.e. discloses that the present plaintiff filed a suit against the first defendant for permanent injunction in O.S.No.3936/2008 and the said suit came 16 O.S.No.5134/2009 to be decreed on the ground that the present plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The first defendant has not made any attempt before this court to establish his ownership over the suit property.
16. Ex.P28 is the B property register extract. On careful perusal of the col.No.4 of the said document it discloses that the plaintiff is the owner and in occupation of the suit schedule property. Ex.P29 consisting 18 tax paid receipts. The recitals of the said tax paid receipts disclose that the plaintiff is paying taxes in respect of the suit schedule property regularly. Ex.P30 is the suvarna katha. That document also discloses that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Ex.P34 consisting of 25 telephone bills, Ex.P37 consisting of 15 electricity bills and receipts. Ex.P55 is the gas connection letter, Ex.P57 & 58 are the water supply bills. The said documents also disclose that the plaintiff is in occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Thus the plaintiff has established that she is the owner of the suit 17 O.S.No.5134/2009 schedule property. Hence I answer this issue in the affirmative.
17.Issue No.2: According to the plaintiff the judgment and decree in OS.No.6870/2006 is not binding on her. To substantiate her contention the PW1 i.e., Spl.PA Holder of the plaintiff / her father on oath has stated that the plaintiff is not bound by the said decree. The contention of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant filed a suit against defendant No.8 for ejectment stating that the 8th defendant was his tenant and thereafter the said suit came to be decreed and Execution Petition No.128/2010 came to be filed without making the plaintiff as a party and he drew the attention of this court to the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA.No.577/2014 i.e., Ex.P76. Wherein the present plaintiff is the appellant. The said RFA is filed against Ex.P.No.128/2010. At page 5 para 3 of the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed as under:
18 O.S.No.5134/2009
' It would be appropriate that appellant should approach the court below where her suit is pending to seek extension of the order of status quo granted earlier till such time, Respondent No.1 herein shall not dispossess the appellant on the strength of the decree.
Thus it is clear that the Hon'ble High Court in the said RFA has continued status quo order granted earlier and further directed not to dispossess the plaintiff herein on the strength of the judgment and decree in OS.NO.6870/2006. The heavy burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the suit in OS.NO.6870/2006 is a collusive suit between the defendant No.1 and other defendants.
18. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that on the strength of the decree in OS.No:6870/2006 the first defendant filed a execution petition No:128/2010 and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property by suppressing the fact that the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he drew the attention of this court to the certified copy of the judgment and decree in 19 O.S.No.5134/2009 O.S.No:3936/2008 i.e. Ex.P.38 and P.39. On careful perusal of the judgment i.e.,Ex.P.38 it discloses that that suit came to be filed by the present plaintiff against the first defendant seeking the relief of permanent injunction and Hon'ble 8th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court has held that the plaintiff herein is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Ex.39 is the decree in that suit. The recitals of Ex.P38 is clear that the present plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The first defendant has not produced any material to show that he preferred an appeal against Ex.P.38 judgment. When that being the case the findings in Ex.P.38 judgment has attained its finality. Ex.P.59 is the certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.no.17365/2004 filed by the 8th defendant against the first defendant seeking the relief of permanent injunction not to dispossess the 8th defendant otherwise than due process of law. Said suit came to be dismissed as steps not taken.
20 O.S.No.5134/2009
19. The plaintiff has sought the relief that the judgment in O.S.No:6870/2006 is not binding on her on the ground that she is not a party to the said proceeding. The first defendant except filing the written statement contending that he has filed a suit in OS 6870/2006 and taking the contention that the said suit is pending, the first defendant has not produced the copy of the plaint or written statement in that suit to show that the plaintiff herein is a party to the said suit. Para-4 of the averments made in the written statement by the first defendant, it discloses that OS no.6870/2006 came to be filed by the first defendant against the 8th defendant herein for ejectment and in the same para, it is contended that the plaintiff herein has created a concocted sale deed and falsely claiming right over the suit schedule property. Said averment itself is clear that said suit came to be filed seeking the relief of ejectment by the first defendant against the 8th defendant herein. When the cloud is cast on the title of the first defendant, when the plaintiff 21 O.S.No.5134/2009 herein is also claiming right over the suit schedule property, the first defendant herein ought to have arrayed the present plaintiff as a party to the said OS no.6870/2006. When the plaintiff herself is not a party to the said suit, the judgment and decree in the said suit is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, I answer Issue no.2 in the affirmative.
20. Issue no.3 : According to the plaintiff, the alleged sale deed dated 19.3.1998 i.e., Ex.P.68 executed by one Smt.Sumitrabai-the GPA holder of Smt.Lakshmibai had no right to execute the said Ex.P.68 in favour of the first defendant. Smt.Lakshmibai herself had no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property to execute GPA in favour of Smt.Sumitrabai and in turn Smt.Sumitrabai had no right, title or interest to execute sale deed in favour of the first defendant. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff herein purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.P.26 sale deed on 12.10.2007 from the legal heirs of B.V.Rajanna @ 22 O.S.No.5134/2009 Lakshminarayana. In para-2 of Ex.P.26 it is stated as under:
"¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, AiÀıÀªA À vÀ¥ÀÄgÀ ºÉÆç½, ¨ÁUÀ®UÀÄAmÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ 37£Éà ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¦vÁæðfðvÀªÁV §AzÀÄ, CAzÀgÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ 1£Éà ²æêÀÄw ±ÁªÀÄ®ªÀÄä DzÀ £À£Àß ¥Àw ²æà ©.«.gÁdtÚ GgÀÄ¥sï ®QëöäãÁgÁAiÀÄtgÀªj À UÉ «¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §AzÀÄ, £ÀAvÀgÀ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ªÉÄîÌAqÀ 1£Éà ²æêÀÄw ±ÁªÀÄ®ªÀÄä DzÀ £À£Àß ¥Àw ²æà ©.«.gÁdtÚ GgÀÄ¥sï ®QëöäãÁgÁAiÀÄt ºÁUÀÆ 5£Éà ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸A À vÀªÀÄä DzÀ £À£Àß ¥Àw ²æà ©.«.¥ÁAqÀÄgÀAUÀAiÀÄå gÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ dĨÁ£É «¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §A¢gÀĪÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛU¼ À ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¦vÁæfðvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVzÀÄÝ, ¸Àzj À ¸ÀévÀÄÛU¼À À°è £ÁªÀÅ ¤ªÉñÀ£U À ¼ À £ À ÁßV gÀa¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, PÉ®ªÀÅ ¤ªÉñÀ£U À ¼À £À ÀÄß F »AzÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ, G½PÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£U À ½À UÉ £ÁªÉà ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀgÀÆ, ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÆ, ¸Áé¢Ãü £ÀUÁgÀgÁV, F PɼU À É C£ÀĸÀÆaAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£z À °À è ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, £ÁªÉà ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ºÀQÌ£ÉÆqÀ£É C£ÀĨs«À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖ."
21. Ex.P.2 is the order of the learned Asst.Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-division dated 17.11.1925. The recitals of the said document discloses that the suit schedule property i.e., sy.no.37 measuring 17 guntas was regranted to B.V.Rajanna @ Lakshminarayana and his family as inam land. Ex.P.3 is the sketch. Ex.P.8 is the mutation entry. That is further clear by Exs.P.10 to P.22 record of rights. The first 23 O.S.No.5134/2009 defendant who claims that he purchased the said property bearing sy.no.37 except the recitals of sale deed i.e., Ex.P.68, there is no any other material to show that his vendor Smt.Lakshmibai had title over the suit schedule property to alienate the same in favour of the first defendant. Under these circumstances, the material placed before this court reveals that the plaintiff herein has purchased the suit schedule property from the genuine owners of the said land. No doubt, the sale deed of the first defendant is earlier to the sale deed of the plaintiff. But, the first defendant has not produced any material to establish that his vendor had right, title and interest over the suit schedule property to alienate the same in favour of the first defendant. Under these circumstances, Ex.P.68 sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, I answer Issue no.3 in the affirmative.
22. Issue no.4: Undisputedly the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from the real title holders of the suit land. On the contrary, the first defendant has 24 O.S.No.5134/2009 failed to establish that his vendor had valid title in respect of the suit property. Undisputedly the suit in OS no.6870/2006 is a suit for ejectment filed by the first defendant against the 8th defendant. The title of the suit property was not in question in the said suit. In the present comprehensive suit wherein the plaintiff has denied the title of the first defendant, the first defendant has failed to establish that his vendor had a valid title over the suit property. The bare suit for ejectment filed in OS no.6870/2006 in which the title of the suit property is not disputed, obviously said suit between the first defendant and the 8th defendant is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, I answer Issue no.4 in the affirmative.
23. Issue no.5 : According to the first defendant, the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of court fee under Sec.38(b) & 26(c) r/w 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act and paid the court fee under the aforesaid provisions. Undisputedly 25 O.S.No.5134/2009 the plaintiff purchased the property under the sale deed dated 12.10.2007 and based on the title she has sought for declaration and consequential relief of injunction and the court fee is paid on the sale consideration mentioned in Ex.P.68 i.e., sale deed dated 19.3.1998 executed in favour of the first defendant, with a prayer to cancel the said sale deed dated 19.3.1998 and also paid the court fee on the relief of declaration as well as consequential relief of injunction. Under these circumstances, the contention raised by the first defendant that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper, holds no water. Accordingly I answer Issue no.5 in the negative.
24.Issue no.6 : The first defendant has contended that there is no cause of action for filing the present suit since the plaintiff had already filed a suit in OS no.3936/2008. On careful perusal of Ex.P.38 i.e., judgment in OS no.3936/2008, it is clear that the said suit came to be filed by the plaintiff for the sole relief of permanent injunction against the first defendant. 26 O.S.No.5134/2009 Whereas, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.P.26 registered sale deed. Therefore, the present suit is a comprehensive suit for declaration and consequential injunction based on the title i.e., sale deed dated 12.10.2007. Hence, the contention raised by the defendant no.1 that there was no cause of action to file the suit holds no water. Accordingly I answer Issue no.6 in the negative holding that there is cause of action to file the present suit.
25. Issue no.7 : In the result of the foregoing discussion on all the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is also declared that the sale deed dated 19.3.1998 is not binding on the plaintiff. It is also declared that the judgment and decree passed in OS 27 O.S.No.5134/2009 no.6870/2006 dated 8.10.2008 is not binding on the plaintiff.
Consequently, the first defendant, his agents or legal representatives or any persons claiming under him are hereby restrained from alienating, encumbering or creating any charge or in any way meddling with the suit schedule property.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16th day of September 2016).
(Ravi M. Naik), I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF PW.1 K.Nagarajaiah 28 O.S.No.5134/2009 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF Exs.P.1 CC of special power of attorney " P.2 CC of order 17.11.1975 " P.3 Resurvey Tippani " P.4 & 5 CC of death certificates of BV.Lakshminarayana & B.V.Pandurangaiah " P.6 & 7 CC of Mutation register extract " P.8 Certified copy of MR.No.4/1991 " P.9 to 22 CC of 14 RTCs.
" P.23 to 25 Encumbrance certificates " P.26 Original sale deed " P.27 Rectification deed " P.28 B Katha register " P.29 18 Tax paid receipts " P.30 Suvarna Katha " P.31 Certificate " P.32 Ration card " P.33 CC revised market value register " P.34 25 telephone bills " P.35 Official memorandum of BESCOM " P.36 Official memorandum dtd.17.12.2011 " P.37 44 Electricity Bills & receipts " P.38 CC of judgment in OS.No.3936/2000 " P.39 CC of decree in OS.No.3936/2000 " P.40 to 42 Copies of complaints " P.43 to 47 Endorsements " P.48 Certified copies of spot mahazar, possession receipt, memo, warrant, report in Ex.No.417/2009 & 128/2010.
" P.49 Cc of endorsement of BBMP dtd.13.5.2009
" P.50 Letter issued by BBMP
" P.51 Cc of endorsement
" P.52 & 53 Gas connection letters
" P.54 RTI application
" P.55 Letter issued by Sub-registrar, Peenya
" P.56 RTI Application
" P.57 & 58 Water supply letter
" P.59 Certified copy of order sheet in
OS.NO.17365/2004
" P.60 Certified copy of order sheet in
29 O.S.No.5134/2009
RFA.No.577/2014(RES)
" P.61 Two photographs
" P.62 Rent agreement
" P.63 Lease deed
" P.64 45 rent receipts
" P.65 Rent agreement
" P.66 Domicile certificate
" P.67 Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.7682/2009
" P.68 Certified copy of sale deed dtd. 19.3.1998
" P.69 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.21.11.2005
" P.70 Copy of letter issued by BWSSB dtd.1.12.2014
" P.71 Copy of application form for water & sanitary
connection dtd.10.12.2014
" P.72 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.5.5.2003
" P.73 & 74 Electricity receipt and bill " P.75 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.14.12.1992 " P.76 Certified copy of judgment in RFA.No.577/2014 dtd.29.6.2015 " P.77 Certified copy of katha endorsement dtd.26.8.2010.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS
- NIL -
(Ravi M. Naik), I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.