Phodi Durasti made in respect of Sy.
No.5/1. The DDLR in Appeal No. 67/2006-07 held that in the
matter ... plaintiff as Sy.No. 5/3 and 5/4 before the DDLR in Appeal No.
44/07-08. The DDLR without verifing the documents filed
RTCs and 11E
sketches before the Deputy Director of Land Records
(DDLR) attached to office of Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru in Appeal No.33/2010 ... against defendants
No.1 to 3, who contested the said appeal and DDLR
10 OS.591/2016
ultimately came to conclusion that defendants
M S Vaswani Whitefield Projects P Ltd vs Rajaram K C on 3 January, 2026
M S Kaman Holding Private Limited vs Ms Vaswani Whitefiled Projects Pvt Ltd on 3
further contended that Ex.P16 is the order
passed by the DDLR in Appeal No. 4/1989-90, Ex.P17
is the certified copy ... along
with Ex.P16 dated 30.9.1998, i.e., the order of DDLR
would show that the authorities in Ex.P16 order hold
that
preferred Appeal No.67/2006-07 on
the phodding report before the DDLR. Witness voluntarily
says that, the said appeal has been remanded back ... order of Tahasildhar, plaintiff No.1
Society preferred an Appeal before the DDLR in No.44/2007-
08. He denied the suggestion that
1247/2019
C/W.O.S.No.26448/2020
DDLR to identify the suit property in the suit-1 and
to submit his report ... that the DDLR delegated
his power to the CW.1. The learned Advocate for
the plaintiff in the suit-2 has argued stating that
this
Special Deputy Commissioner, observed that the technical
assistant and ex-officio DDLR has to survey the lands and fix the
boundaries according the possession ... 2009 is confirmed. Ex.P.22
is the Order passed by DDLR on 12-11-2010 wherein, at page No.3,
he mentioned that
belongs to the 3 rd
defendant. While inspecting the property by DDLR,
himself and his advocate were present. The mahazar
prepared at that time, then ... whether he has
challenged the order of the Tahsildar East before the
DDLR in connection with the internal podi
know about the phodi, the plaintiffs
have preferred an appeal before DDLR, Bengaluru, in Appeal
No.59/2012-13 challenging the phodi order. The defendants ... have contested the matter. After hearing both sides, the DDLR
allowed the appeal and canceled the phodi by order dated
08.01.2014. The plaintiffs further contend
