Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

operative Society and on 19.01.2018, Sale Deed has been executed in favour of the 2 nd defendant conveying absolute right over the written statement schedule property. It is submitted by the 2 nd defendant that as per Sale Deed dated 19.01.2018, he filed an application to enter his name into the revenue records and same is in process.

b. The defendant submits plaintiffs in this case so also his siblings have filed O.S.No.1930/2018 and O.S.No.1932/2018 against the defendants and their father B.S.Prabhakar who was working as a Revenue Inspector in the offi ce of the Girinagar Sub-Division, BBMP in whose revenue jurisdiction the written statement schedule property is situated. The defendant No.2 submits that B.S.Prabhakar along with Narayanappa and Ramanna have hatched a conspiracy to grab the valuable written statement schedule property and site No.1450 which is owned by 1 st defendant herein have created false revenue documents in the name of Ramanna and Narayanappa by fabricating the documents. It is submitted bu defendant that a false document stating that Holder Khatha in the name of Narayanappa for site No.1450 which belonged to 1 st defendant and Holder Khatha in favour of Ramanna in respect of site No.1449 belonging to 2 nd defendant has been created. The defendant No.2 submits that on the basis of fabricated documents, Narayanappa and Ramanna who had no right of whatsoever over the property Nos.1450 and 1449 by bifurcated the said sites into 3 pieces have fraudulently registered in the name of Smt.Ashwini, P.Ganesh and Smt.Archana-plaintiff herein. It is submitted by the defendant No.1 that site No.1449 belonging to 2 nd defendant is shown as 1600 Sq.Ft. and what is conveyed by said Ramanna in favour of plaintiff and Ashwini is only 1200 Sq.Ft. and what happened to the balance 400 square feet is unknown. It is submitted by the defendant No.2 that reading of boundary mentioned in the Sale Deed of plaintiff and Ashwini executed by Ramanna shows that the said Ramanna has not retained any land belonging to him, any side of the said property. When the defendants applied for details of orders so passed by BBMP making khatha in respect of sites No.1449 and 1450, BBMP has issued endorsement that the said file is not available. The defendant contended that plaintiff and others have colluded with each other and have created written statement schedule property and as such, the 2 nd defendant had lodged a complaint against the plaintiff and others, Narayanappa, Ramanna and Prabhakar on 02.09.2018 with Girinagar police and upon receipt of first information report, registered a case in Crime No.242/2018 under Section 468, 465, 420, 419 and 471 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC. The defendant No.2 contended that during the investigation, police have collected information from the Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society regarding allotment of site to the defendants and Sale Deed executed in favour of defendants and in respect of their possession. The defendant submits that entire area including site Nos.1449 and 1450 which is part and parcel of the residential layout formed by Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society, the surrounding sites which also within the area allotted to Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society to its members. It is submitted by the defendant No.2 that plaintiff or their vendor were members of the Vishwabharathi House Building Co- operative Society at any point of time and as such, the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant No.2 contended that plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the schedule property and as such, suit for relief of perpetual injunction is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs.

9. That, I have perused documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff in detail. The plaintiff has produced Sale Deed which is marked as Ex.P1. On perusal of Ex.P1, Sale Deed dated 13.08.2012, it is mentioned that Ramanna has sold Corporation property bearing No.1449, situated at 1 st 'I' main, Girinagar 2 nd phase, Ward No.54, new Ward No.162, measuring East to West: 20 feet and North to South: 40 feet to the plaintiff herein. It is mentioned in the Sale Deed that the vendor is the registered khatha holder of the property. It is mentioned in the sale deed that on 13.08.2012, revenue authorities have issued khatha in favour of the vendor-Ramanna. The defendants have disputed that Ramanna had right over the suit property and claimed that Vishwabharathi House Building Co- operative Society has sold site No.1450 to Smt.Veena measuring, 30x40 feet, 2 nd phase, Girinagar. The Sale Deed of the defendants are produced by the plaintiff himself at Ex.P6. Ex.P6 shows that site No.1450 has been sold in favour of Smt.Veena/ defendant No.1 herein. The recitals makes it clear that the property is situated in Sy.No.7 to 16, 18, 19,26, 28, 29,30 and 32 of Avalahalli village and Sy.No.88, 99, 100 and 102 of Hosakerehalli village, Uttarahalli. This document shows that Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society has formed residential layout in the above said Survey Number and one of the plot bearing No.1450 has been allotted to 1 st defendant Smt.Veena. Whereas, possession was given to 1 st defendant on 25.03.1994 itself when property was allotted to her. Likewise, Ex.P7 the Sale Deed shows that the property bearing site No.1449 has been sold in favour of 2 nd defendant herein which is formed in the same layout abutting to the site of 1 st defendant. So, it is clear that defendants 1 and 2 are the purchasers of site No.1450 and 1449 formed by Vishwabharathi House Building Co- operative Society. Whereas, the plaintiff claims that property bearing No.1450 was belonging to his vendor and he has purchased the property as per Ex.P1- Sale Deed. To establish that property was belonging to his vendor- Ramanna, plaintiff has not produced any document which shows that his vendor Ramanna had right over the suit property. However, the defendant got marked Ex.D1 by way confrontation in cross examination of PW-1 which shows that R.Narayanappa was the holder of the Municipal Property No.1449. Except this document, no other documents are produced to show that Ramanna had acquired right over the suit property. It is stated that property has been granted to Ramanna, but no documents are produced in this regard. It has come out in evidence of PW-1 that father of the plaintiff is a Revenue Offi cer working in the same vicinity. Ramesh under the Sale Deed, had sold two square RCC building with red oxide flooring, cement and bricks are used for construction of wall building also, but no documents are produced to show that when the building was constructed, what is the exact measurement of the house etc.,

IV, List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:

Ex.D1: Holder Khatha extract (BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN) XLIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru