Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The captioned appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2011 passed in O.S.No.448/2001 by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Court below.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The subject-matter of the suit is property bearing No.22/9 situated at Oorgaum road. In the said site, the dispute is in respect of portion measuring 10 ft. North-South, 98 ft. East-West, which is described under the Schedule 'B' and is shown as BCDE portion in the plaint sketch. One Mrs.Rose Mary D'Souza was the absolute owner of the property bearing Old No. 31 corresponding New No.22 which is situated at Grant Road, Bengaluru. After purchase, the original owner Mrs. Rose Mary D'souza, who is none other than the mother of the original defendant No.1 secured a layout plan from the competent authority which was approved by the Bengaluru City Corporation by order dated 31.01.1962 for formation of building sites which included the residential site No. 22/9, which is the subject matter of the suit. Later, she conveyed the above said residential site to her son and her daughter-in-law namely Anthony Alexis D'souza and Dorothy Sabina D'Souza, under a registered sale deed dated 15.10.1964. Subsequently, the above said vendees sold the site bearing No.22/9 to the plaintiffs who were minors at that time under registered sale deed dated 27.05.1975 and possession was also delivered.

The plaintiffs' contention is that the vendors had sold site No.22/9 measuring 87 ft. North to South and 98 ft. East to West and Survey No.22/9 is bounded on the North by 20 ft road, on the South by site No.22/8 on the East by Road and on the West by Site No.22/10. It is contended that both the roads mentioned above as boundaries for the site No.22/9 are private roads provided for benefit and convenience of all occupants of the sites. At Para 10 of the plaint, it is specifically stated that 20 ft. width road is an internal approach road leading into site No.22/10 and at the same time, it also forms the Northern boundary for the suit schedule site bearing No.22/9. The plaintiffs have specifically contended that while purchasing the property from Anthony Alexis and his wife, however a mistake had crept in, wherein the Northern boundary for site No.22/9 purchased by the plaintiffs is described as "neighbouring plot" instead of describing it as 20 ft road. However, in their vendor's sale deed executed by the erstwhile owner namely Mrs. Rose Mary D'souza, the northern boundary is correctly described as a 20 feet road.

4. Learned Senior counsel Sri. D.L.N.Rao, would vehemently contend before us that the original owner Mrs.Rose Mary D'souza purchased the premises known as Oragaum House bearing No.22(Old No.31)and in 1962, she obtained a sanction from the BCC for formation of layout comprising of 12 residential sites and having secured a layout plan,she sold the sites to various purchasers including her own family members. The subject matter of the present suit which is site No.22/9 was sold by Rose Mary D'souza in favour of her son and daughter in law vide registered sale deed 15.10.1964 and in the said sale deed the site is shown to be bounded by a private road on the northern side. Learned counsel relying on Ex.P2 which is a sanctioned plan would contend before us that the layout clearly establishes the existence of 20 ft road on the northern side. He would also submit that there is a reference to sanctioned plan in all the sale deeds and there is absolutely no dispute in regard to the sanctioned plan as per Ex.P2. Learned Senior counsel would further submit to this Court that there is a difference in extent and boundary in the sale deed executed by the original owner Rose Mary D'souza in favour of her son and daughter in law as per Ex.P3. In this background, the vendors of the plaintiffs while executing the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs as per Ex.P4 have stated that these measurements are "little more or less". Relying on this recital, the learned senior counsel would submit that the actual extent of site bearing No.22/9 being not clear, the recitals as to boundaries should prevail. To buttress his arguments, he would also rely on Ex.P6 which is P.T. sheet prepared by the city survey authorities in July 1974 and submits that the authorities on surveying the abutting sites have assigned city Survey No.327 to site No.22/9 and the total area is shown as 790 sq meters. and the said measurement is in consonance with the boundaries on the northern side of Site No.22/9. He would also submit that the road existing on the northern side of site No. 22/9 is assigned No.328 and the measurement is shown as 6.10 meters and if converted into feet, the same comes to 20 feet. What was sold by the plaintiffs' vendor was the entire site bearing No.22/9, and since there is a recital that the measurements may be either little more or less, the entire property was agreed to be sold and the plaintiffs have acquired valid right and title and their title would stretch till 87 feet on the northern side and not 77 ft. as stated in the sale deed. He would also submit that the site was fenced by a barbed wire and when there was a threat, the plaintiffs have rightly constructed a compound wall.

7.Whether the plaintiffs and defendants 1(a-e) have made out a case to take the additional evidence on record?
8. Whether the Court below erred in holding that defendants have failed to prove that suit is barred by limitation?"

15. REGARDING POINT Nos.1 AND 2:

Before we proceed with the case on hand, we need to allude some admitted facts. It is not in dispute that one Mrs.Rose Mary D'Souza, purchased the premises known as Oragum house bearing Old No.31 and new no.22 under registered sale deed dated 28.8.1952. Having acquired right and title over the property, the said Rose Mary D'Souza obtained sanction from the then Bengaluru City Corporation for formation of a private layout comprising of 12 residential sites. It is not in dispute that sanction was obtained on 31.1.1962 The copy of the said sanctioned layout is produced by the plaintiffs as per Ex.P2. It also emerges from the records that in all 12 residential sites were formed in the layout and the same were numbered as Site Nos.22/1 to 22/12. The controversy is in respect of site No.22/9. It is also not in dispute that Mrs. Rose Mary D'Souza sold all the sites. However out of 12 sites, two sites were sold by Mrs. Rose Mary D'Souza in favour of her sons and daughter-in-law, The original owner Mrs. Rose Mary D'Souza sold site No.22/9 under the registered sale deed dated 15.10.1964 vide Ex.P3 in favour of her son Anthony Alexis D'Souza and his wife Dorothy Sabina D'Souza. It is also relevant to take judicial note of the fact that site No.22/9 is bounded by a private road on the Northern side. Similarly, Mrs.Rose Mary D'Souza sold site No.22/10 in favour of her second son i.e. first defendant under the registered sale deed dated 29.3.1966.