Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for declaration, to declare that she is the absolute owner of suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 25.02.1999, to declare that judgment and decree dated 15.04.2016 in O.S.No.336/1997 and final decree dated 28.03.2014 in FDP.No.76/2006 passed by the City Civil Court is not binding on her, to direct the defendants No.1 and 2 to hand over the possession of suit schedule property to her, to set aside of illegal khata made by the concerned authority and to direct the defendants to pay the damages.

inter­connected with each other, they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.

8. In a case where defendants are exparte, heavy burden is on the plaintiff to prove her case beyond preponderance of probabilities. The plaintiff has reiterated the averments of plaint in her affidavit evidence and she has produced the documents Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.12 in support of her case. Ex.P.1 is certified copy of sale deed dated 25.02.1999 said to have been executed by one Sri. R.Nagendra in favour of plaintiff's husband Sri. Ashok Babu Rao Gumaste in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.P.2 and P.3 are the certified copies of khata certificate dated 18.12.2014 and khata extract dated 17.12.2014 standing in the name of Sri. Ashok Babu Rao Gumaste. Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of tax paid receipt for the year 2008­2009 standing in the name of Sri. Ashok Babu Rao Gumaste. Exs.P.5 and P.6 are certified copies of electricity bill and water bill. Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.211/2015 dated 10.02.2016. Ex.P.8 is the certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.336/1997 dated 15.04.2006. Exs.P.9 and P.10 are proceedings in FDP.No.76/2006. Ex.P.11 is the certified copy of order sheet in FDP.No.76/2006 and Ex.P.12 is the death certificate of Sri. Ashok Babu Rao Gumaste.

10. It appears that during the pendency of the said suit the defendant No.2 herein has alienated the suit property in favour of the husband of plaintiff under Ex.P.1. It also appears that the husband of plaintiff did not make proper enquiry before purchasing suit schedule property as required in law. Moreover, PW.1 has not produced the original sale deed and khata certificate/khata extract standing in the name of her husband. It can be seen from Ex.P.11 the certified copy of order sheet in FDP.No.76/2006 that the defendant No.1 has taken possession of the property in question on 24.03.2014. As stated by PW.1 now the khata of suit property is standing in the name of defendant No.1. Thereafter, on 05.01.2015 the plaintiff herein had filed the suit in O.S.No.211/2015 against the defendant No.1 herein for bare injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and the said suit came to be decreed exparte on 10.02.2016. It shows that at the time of filing suit O.S.No.211/2015 on 05.01.2015 the PW.1 had knowledge about the defendant No.1 taken possession of schedule property on 24.03.2014 in FDP.No.76/2006 in pursuance of judgment and decree dated 15.04.2006 passed by this Court in O.S.No.336/1997. Even then PW.1 did not seek any declaratory relief in O.S.No.211/2015 for the reasons best known to her. As such the suit is barred by limitation under Article 59 of Limitation Act as it is filed beyond three years and also in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1996 (7) SCC 767 (Mohammed Noorul Hoda Vs. Bibi Raifunnisa). Moreover, khata of suit property is not transfered in the name of PW.1, after the demise of her husband and no other documents are standing in the name of PW.1 to show that she had been in possession of suit property as stated in her evidence. Except her self serving statement, no other independent evidence is available on record in this regard. So, the case of PW.1 that she had been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as absolute owner by virtue of sale deed dated 25.02.1999 and the defendants No.1 and 2 took possession of suit property illegally on 16.10.2019 has not been established by cogent and corroborate evidence. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has not proved her case and consequently, she is not entitle for the reliefs as sought for in the plaint. Therefore, I answer Points No.1 to 5 in the negative.

(D. PUTTASWAMY) XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side: 
           P.W.1        :      Smt. Suman

      b)   Defendants' side:        NIL.
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 25.02.1999 Exs.P.2 & 3 Certified copies of khatha certificate and khatha extract Ex.P.4 6 tax paid receipts Exs.P.5 & 6 Certified copies of Electricity bill and Water bill Ex.P.7 Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.211/2015 dated 10.02.2016 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.336/1997 dated 15.04.2006 Ex.P.9 Certified copy of FDP.No.76/2006 Ex.P.10 Certified copy of objections filed in FDP.No.76/2006 Ex.P.11 Certified copy of order sheet in FDP.No.76/2006 Ex.P.12 Death certificate of Sri. Ashok Babu Rao Gumaste