Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This is a suit for Declaration, Mandatory Injunction and for Possession.

2. The suit property is site No.8, measuring East- West 30 feet and North-South 40 feet formed in Sy.No.110/3, situated at Laggere, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and bounded by:

East -Road, West - Site No.5, North - Site No.9, South - Site No.7.

3. In short, the contents of the plaint are that, 3 acres 25 guntas of dry land in Sy.No.110 was purchased by one B.C.Narasimaiah under registered sale deed dated 28-2-1973 and he is none other than the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3. That, the said B.C.Narasimhaiah also possessed 26 guntas of kharab land and it was assigned with Sy.No.110/3. Thus in all he possessed 4 acres 11 guntas of land in Laggere and on his death in 1987 it was succeeded by the plaintiffs. That, in the year 1993 these plaintiffs formed revenue layout in the portion of that land by carving 75 sites by retaining remaining portion of it. Out of those sites site No.8, which is more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, is owned and possessed by these plaintiffs. That being the case, the defendants having no manner of right, title or interest in it, on the alleged GPA dated 23-7-1989, said to have been executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, created a sale deed dated 1-8-2006 in the name of defendant No.1. On the basis of such created documents defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.6052/2007 seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and in that case after entering appearance, the plaintiffs came to know about the said documents. That the said documents are fraudulent documents and they do not confer any valid title to the plaintiffs. Unfortunately, junior counsel of the advocate of these plaintiffs on record in that case, did not keep track of that case, as a result, it was disposed off exparte. That, the defendant No.1 illegally trespassed into the schedule property in the first week of July 2007 and has put up unauthorised construction there, therefore the plaintiffs pray for the relief of declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of the schedule property; to further declare that the impugned GPA dated 23-7-1989 as well as the sale deed dated 1-8-2006, are null and void and are not binding on the plaintiffs; to direct the defendant No.1 to demolish the unauthorized construction put up in the schedule property and for recovery of possession.

4. The summary of the written statement of defendant No.1 is that, the plaintiff No.1 executed a GPA on 23-7-1989 in favour of defendant No.2 and alienated the suit land to him and based on that GPA, the said defendant No.2 executed a registered sale deed on 1-8-2006 in favour of this defendant for lawful consideration and put him in possession. Pursuant to that deed, this defendant No.1 got changed Khatha in his name and he is paying property taxes to the BBMP regularly. That, this defendant No.1 has constructed a residential building in the suit property and he is residing there with his family. That, the plaintiff No.2 is a vagabond and a drunkard and he is addicted to bad vices, due to steep increase in the property prices in and around Bengaluru, has instigated the other plaintiffs to file this vexatious suit. That, when the plaintiffs 1 and 2 interfered in the possession of this defendant No.1, he filed suit at O.S.No.6052/2007 and after trial it ended in decree. It is stoutly denied that the GPA executed in favour of defendant No.2 is a created or forged document and no such document is in existence. If at all the plaintiffs felt that the said GPA is a fraudulent document, they could have initiated criminal proceedings against defendant No.2. In fact, plaintiffs demanded huge sum from this defendant to regularize the sale deed and when it was not conceded, this vexatious suit is filed. That, purchase of 3 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.110 by said B.C.Narasimhaiah under registered sale deed is a matter of record and it is true that these plaintiffs are heirs of the said person. But in addition to these plaintiffs there are two more daughters and they are not made as parties to the suit. That, market value of the schedule property was more than Rs.15-lakhs as on the date of suit, therefore payment of court fee on the plaint is insufficient. Suit is also barred by time and there is no cause of action to maintain it. So, on these grounds and other grounds, defendant No.1 prays to dismiss the suit with cost.

15. During his arguments, Sri.KVN, advocate, contended that Issue No.1 is not properly framed and when it is not the case of plaintiffs that the said GPA is a fraudulent document, use of that word in that Issue is not proper, therefore it requires to be re-framed or re-casted. In view of the said contention, I have read the plaint again and again. It is seen that in para 5 and 6 of the plaint, the plaintiffs contended that on the basis of impugned GPA, the defendant No.2 has created documents and again stating that the said created documents will not confer title to the defendant No.1, in para 6 at about 5th line it is averred that on the strength of "fraudulent document" and taking advantage of the facts that the plaintiffs are residing far away from the schedule property, without obtaining prior licence and permission, building is constructed by defendant No.1 illegally and unauthorizedly. Therefore, when the plaintiffs allege that Exs.D20 and D21 are fraudulent documents, including the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1, produced at Ex.D3, as required under Sections 101 to 103 of Evidence Act it is their primary duty to discharge the burden thrown on them and in the event if they discharge their burden, then onus would shift on the shoulders of the defendant No.1.

18. One more Judgment in O.S.No.4942/2010 produced at Ex.D19 shows that these plaintiffs had filed similar suit against one Smt.Lakshmi and Hanuma Naik and after trial it was dismissed on 7-6-2016. So what can be gathered from these documents is that, the plaintiffs were rather interested in squeezing the different occupants of the said layout instead of asserting their title and to recover possession of their said property.

19. The defendant No.1 also produced certified copy of the deposition of plaintiff No.1 recorded in O.S.No.5830/2007. In that case this plaintiff No.1, who was defendant No.1 and she was examined through Court Commissioner and in her cross- examination dated 6-2-2014 she conceded that after forming layout in Sy.No.110/3, she alienated some sites by way of executing GPAs. and likewise her children also executed GPAs. and sold some of those sites. This admission all together rules out the allegation of the plaintiffs that Ex.D20 is a got up document or a fraudulent document and based on that document the sale deed was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1.