Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. On perusal of the materials and the evidence on record, the findings of this Court on the above issues are as under:

      Issue No.1 :    In the affirmative

      Issue No.2 :    In the affirmative



      Issue No.3 :    In the negative

      Issue No.4 :    In the affirmative

      Issue No.5 :    As per final order, for the following:

                          -: REASONS :-

9. Issue No.1:- The original deceased plaintiff has claimed his absolute ownership and possession of the suit schedule 'A' property. It is his case that this property originally belonged to his mother Smt.Muniakkayamma to whom the said property inclusive of a house property was allotted by the Govt. by its Order dated 07.11.1995 as the land was reserved for allotment to the site-less persons belonging to the Harijan Community. It is further stated that the Govt. accordingly issued directions to the concerned Corporation authorities to prepare a sketch of the schedule property and accordingly a holder khatha was initially issued in the name of his mother Muniakkayamma and after her death the said khatha was issued in favour of the plaintiff being her son. It is his further claim that while issuing the holder khatha in his name, the property was given new identification number as IPD 112/23 and the BBMP fixed the assessment to the said property by fixing the tax. The plaintiff had further referred to a suit filed by him in O.S.No.395/2011 against the original defendant and the decree passed in that suit restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession over the schedule property.

15. DW1 has also produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.12.1974 standing in the name of one Muninarasaiah under which the present D.W.1 and his mother Smt.Kenchamma had sold property bearing khanushumari No.11 measuring 47x24 feets. As regards Ex.D.6, it is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.07.1989 under which the children of D.W.1 i.e., the present defendant No.2 (c) through their minor guardian D.W1 have purchased the said site No.11 from Muninarasaiah. As regards Ex.D.7 & 8, they are the certified copies of encumbrance certificates pertaining to the said property. D.W.1 has also produced a notice issued by the BBMP as per Ex.D.9 in his name with regard to khatha registration. As regards Ex.D.10 & 11, they are the two holder khatha extracts standing in his name with respect to the said site No.11 which was said to have been assigned IPD No.1-74-10. Again Ex.D.12 is the holder khatha certificate with respect to this property standing in his name. To prove that he had paid tax pertaining to this property, D.W.1 has produced various tax paid receipts marked from Ex.D.13 to 18. He has also produced few photographs showing the situation of the said property from Ex.D.19 to 24 along with CD at Ex.D.25.

which is once again standing in the name of his mother Muniakkayamma thereby issuing the sketch pertaining to the schedule property and this document was also issued during the lifetime of his mother. Ex.P.4 is the notice issued by the BBMP with regard to khatha transfer in the name of P.W.1 after the death of his mother which is once again dated 27.09.2005.

22. All the above material documents produced by PW1 clearly indicate that the concerned authority had issued all these documents certifying the title and possession of P.W.1 and the earlier title of his mother Muniakkayamma over the suit schedule property with the specific measurement as 15x28 feets. It is material to note that all these documents came into existence at an undisputed point of time thereby affirming the right of the present plaintiff after the death of his mother and even thereafter confirmed the said right in his favour. Moreover the subsequent khatha holder certificate as per Ex.P.5 once again indicates that P.W.1 has been in possession of the schedule property with a changed PID No.1-72-73. As against this khatha certificate admittedly we have no contra material from the defendants to assert their right over the suit schedule property.

27. Therefore, when as per the defence of D.W.1 he acquired the said site No.11 lastly as per Ex.D.6 in the year 1989, the burden is on him to establish as to how this Khaneshumari No.11 is the very same site claimed by him allegedly formed in Sy.No.46, because if we peruse the schedule site No.11 shown in Ex.D.6, except referring to khaneshumari No.11, there is no reference about any survey number. Even in Ex.D.7 & 8 encumbrance certificates pertaining to this site No.11, there is no mention about any survey number, much less Sy.No.46 claimed by him. Even in Ex.D.9 notice issued by the BBMP with regard to khatha registration, there is no reference of anysurvey number except the old property No.100. It is further relevant to note that even in Ex.D.10 and Ex.D.11 holder khatha extract and holder khatha certificate standing in the name of D.W.1 there is no mention about site No.11 except referring to old No.100 and new No.10.