Govt.

Of Karnataka
C.R.P.67] TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS

Form No.9(Civil) AT MAYOHALL UNIT, (CCH-29) BANGALORE.

Title sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)

Present: Smt. B.S. Bharathi, B.Sc, LL.B.

Dated: This the 16th day of November 2019

Original suit No.26480/2014

Plaintiff:- Smt. D. Pushpa,

W/o Sri. K. Prabhakar,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at No.2, 4th Cross,
Ashoknagar,
Bangalore-560 050.

(By Pleader : M/s C.M. Dhananjaya Associates)

V/s

Defendants:- 1. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,

N.R. Square, Bangalore-560 002,
By its Commissioner,

2. The Assistant Revenue Officer,

Basavanagudi Range,
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
T.R. Nagar, Bangalore-560 028.

(Ex-Parte)
 2

Date of Institution of the suit 27.10.2014

Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for

declaration and possession, suit for Declaration and
injunction, etc.) Injunction

Date of the commencement of recording of 26.3.2018

the Evidence

Date on which the Judgment was 16.11.2019

pronounced

Year/s Month/s Days

Total duration 05 00 19

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to declare that the Plaintiff is

the absolute owner in possession of the Suit Schedule Property in

pursuance of registered Sale Deed dtd: 24.3.2006 and in

consequences permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and

anybody claiming under them from interfering with the Plaintiff’s

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property and

to pass decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to

transfer the khatha of the schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff

and for other reliefs which deems fit.

 3

2. The Plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit

property. The Plaintiff purchased the suit property through registered

Sale Deed dtd: 24.3.2006 and same has been registered in the office

of the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, vide document

No.BSG-1-00676-2006-2007 and stored in CD No. BSGD 75 of Book

No.1 dtd: 11.5.2006. Since, then the Plaintiff is the absolute owner in

possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Plaintiff purchased

the schedule property from Sri. P. Surendran, who purchased the

same schedule property from his Vendor Smt. C.H. Mahadevi Latha

W/o C.H. Mohan, resident of 1st Block, Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore.

The said Sale Deed was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,

Basavanagudi, Bangalore. The Vendor’s Vendor Smt. C.H. Mahadevi

Latha W/o C.H. Mohan who got the property through Will executed by

one Late Anniyappa Pillai on 10.8.1986 wherein Smt. C.H. Mahadevi

Latha got 6 guntas of land out of Sy.No.40, Yediyur, Nagasandra

Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said Will dtd:

10.8.1986 executed by Anniyappa Pillai who was the father of mother-

in-law of Smt. C.H. Mahadevi Latha. The property came to the

jurisdiction of the Bangalore City Corporation and assigned No.2, 4th

Cross, Ashoknagar, Bangalore. The said property was ancestral

 4

property of Anniyappa Pillai, whereas out of 6 guntas of land Smt. C.H.

Mahadevi Latha, Plaintiff’s Vendor’s Vendor sold the schedule property

to Plaintiff’s Vendor and thereafter the Plaintiff purchased the same.

The Plaintiff’s Vendor’s Vendor Smt. C.H. Mahadevi Latha was regular

in payment of property tax to the Corporation and all the records of

the schedule property stands in the name of the Plaintiff’s Vendor’s

Vendor Smt. C.H. Mahadevi Latha. The property extract issued by the

Corporation of Bangalore City and Notice issued under Section 143 of

fixing the taxes by the Corporation dtd: 8.4.1988 and Khatha

Certificate issued by the Corporation dtd: 15.4.1988 are produced. The

Plaintiff’s Vendor’s Vendor Smt. C.H. Mahadevi Latha intended to

construct the residential building in the schedule property and got

permission from the Corporation i.e., from the Defendants on

4.12.1989 and issued the approved plan to carry out the construction

of the residential building vide LP No.282/89-90 dtd: 4.12.1989.

3. The Plaintiff’s Vendor’s Vendor Smt. C.H. Mahadevi Latha was

also regular in payment of property tax. Some of the tax paid receipts

for the year 1982-83, 1988-89, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12

and 2012-13 issued by the Corporation after receipt of the payment.

The Plaintiff is residing in the schedule property with all civic amenities
 5

and she is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property.

The Plaintiff made representation to the BBMP to issue an

endorsement stating that it does not belongs to the BBMP. The

Plaintiff made representation to the Corporation for transfer of Khatha

in her name along with all the documents. However, the Corporation

authorities for the reasons best known to them have issued an

endorsement dtd: 27.11.2010 stating that the said property is the

property of the corporation and further demanded documents inspite

of furnishing the same. The Corporation are very much aware of that

the Plaintiff was regular in payment of tax even her Vendor and

Vendor’s Vendor in respect of the schedule property and failed to

transfer the Khatha in the name of the Plaintiff for the reasons best

known to them and started to harass the Plaintiff for one or the other

reasons and simply demanding unconnected documents even though

proper documents have been produced by the Plaintiff. The

Defendant/Respondents Corporation namely 2nd Defendant who issued

the endorsement alleging that the schedule property is a corporation

property and further demanded to produce the documents from CITB,

whereas the corporation authority who is collecting the tax regularly

and even khatha is standing in the name of the Plaintiff’s vendor’s

 6

Vendor for the last so many decades the corporation collecting the

property tax without transferring the khatha, the Defendants

corporation mainly 2nd Defendant for the reasons best known to him

failed to effect the khatha of the schedule property in favour of the

Plaintiff and on the other hand unnecessary threatening the Plaintiff

that the schedule property is the corporation property. When the

Plaintiff requested the said authority to furnish the documents showing

the schedule property is corporation property, whereas the Defendants

have failed to furnish the same, on the other hand unnecessarily

harassing the Plaintiff. Hence, having no alternative the Plaintiff has

approached this Court. The Defendants corporation have no right, title

over the property of the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff is in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the schedule property for the last more

than 8 years. The cause of action arose on 27.11.2010, 11.7.2014,

15.9.2014 and on subsequent days within the jurisdiction of this Court.

The Plaintiff being the absolute owner and possession of the suit

property and having purchased the same for valuable consideration

amount of Rs.16,50,000/- and the court fee has been paid as per

Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Hence, prays for

decreeing the suit on several other grounds.

 7

4. The Defendants have not appeared before the Court inspite

of service of summons and hence placed ex-parte.

5. To prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Power of Attorney

holder of the Plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked

documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28 and the side of the Plaintiff was

closed.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the written

arguments filed by the Plaintiff is taken into consideration.

7. Basing of the facts of the case, the points that arise for my

consideration are:

1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that she is the

absolute owner of the schedule property in
pursuance of the registered Sale Deed
dtd:24.3.2006?

2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for mandatory

injunction directing the Defendants to transfer
the khatha of the schedule property in favour
of the Plaintiff?

3) What order or decree?

 8

8. My answer to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1 : In the Negative

Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per the final order
for the following :-

REASONS

9. Points Nos.1 and 2:- The Power of Attorney holder of the

Plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 has reiterated all the facts

stated in the plaint.

10. When the case was posted for Judgment my predecessor in

office passed an order directing the Plaintiff to produce RTC in respect

of the Sy.No.40 from the year 1970 up to date and also directed

produce the documents to show that Sri. Anniyappa Pillai was the

owner of Sy.No.40 measuring 06 guntas and Plaintiff was directed to

prove the Will as per the provisions of Evidence Act. The Plaintiff was

directed to produce the documents to show that the Plaint Schedule

Property described in Ex.P.3 comes within Sy.No.40. The Plaintiff shall

produce the khatha extracts of the Plaint Schedule Property in the

name of Smt. C.H. Madhavi Lalitha and Sri. P. Sundaresan. Inspite of

 9

order of this Court by my Predecessor in office on 25.2.2019 the

Plaintiff has not produced any documents as sought by this Court.

11. The Power of Attorney holder of the Plaintiff who was

examined as PW.1 says that he has obtained the registered Sale Deed

dtd: 24.3.2006 and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Suit Schedule Property after purchase of the schedule property.

According to PW.1, his wife who authorized to give evidence on behalf

of Plaintiff, Plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the Suit

Schedule Property. He has produced the General Power of Attorney at

Ex.P.1. He has also produced the registered Sale Deed dtd: 24.3.2006

at Ex.P.2. As per Ex.P.2 the Plaintiff has purchased the property from

P. Surendran. According to the Plaintiff her Vendor P. Surendran has

purchased the schedule property from Smt. C.H. Madhavi Lalitha as

per the registered Sale Deed dtd: 16.6.2001 and she has produced the

said registered Sale Deed at Ex.P.3. As per Ex.P.3 it is not mentioned

that how the Vendor of the Plaintiff got the suit property. On the other

hand, the Plaintiff has produced the copy of the Will said to have been

executed by Anniyappa Pillai bequeathing 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.40

in favour of the Plaintiff’s Vendor’s Vendor Smt. C.H. Madhavi Lalitha.

The Plaintiff has produced sanctioned plan at Ex.P.6 and tax paid
 10

receipts as per Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.13. The Plaintiff has produced

encumbrance certificate at Ex.P.20 which is standing in the name of

Smt. C.H. Madhavi Lalitha and another encumbrance at Ex.P.21

wherein the property is standing in the name of this Plaintiff. The

Plaintiff has produced the endorsement given by the BBMP at Ex.P.22

to Ex.P.24. In the documents produced by the Plaintiff it is stated that

property belongs to BBMP and hence Plaintiff has asked to produced

documents from CITB (BDA). In the said endorsement given by BBMP

it is stated by BBMP to produce all the documents for change of

khatha. The Plaintiff has produced the photographs of the house

constructed in the suit property at Ex.P.26 to Ex.P.28. However, as per

the above said order of this Court, this Court has directed the Plaintiff

to produce the above said documents in order to consider the relief

sought by the Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff has not produced any of the

documents sought by this Court. Therefore, it is clear that Plaintiff has

not produced any documents to show that the suit properties earlier

belonged to his vendors. Therefore, in the absence to prove the title of

Vendors of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff will not get right, title and interest

over the suit property as per the Sale Deed. Therefore, I feel that
 11

Plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. Hence, I answer Point

No.1 and 2 in the Negative.

12. Point No.3:- In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.

Draw up decree accordingly.

[Dictated to the Stenographer on 16.11.2019 thereafterwards, the same

was transcribed and typed by the Stenographer and thereafterwards correct, signed
and pronounced by me on 16th day of November 2019].

[ B.S. Bharathi ],
XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall, Bangalore.

SCHEDULE

All that part and parcel of the property bearing Municipal

Corporation No.2, 4th Cross, Ashok Nagar, Bangalore – 560 050,

measuring East to West 37 feet and North to South 59 feet along

 12

with constructed building measuring 2300 sq.ft., consisting of

basement, ground, first floors, bounded on:

East by: Corporation Drain.

West by: Private Property.

North by: Road and

South by: Private Property.

ANNEXURE

1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff :-

P.W.1 : Sri. K. Prabhakar.

2. List of documents marked for the plaintiff :-

Ex.P.1 : General Power of Attorney executed by Plaintiff in favour

of K. Prabhakar.

Ex.P.2 : Sale Deed dtd: 24.3.2006 entered into between Sri. P.

Surendran and Smt. D. Pushpa.

Ex.P.3 : Sale Deed dtd: 16.6.2001 entered into between Smt.

C.M. Mahadevi Latha and Sri. P. Surendran.

Ex.P.4 : Will executed by Anniyappa Pillai.

Ex.P.5 : Approved plan.

Ex.P.6 : Sketch.

Ex.P.7 : Tax paid receipts.

to
Ex.P.13
 13

Ex.P.14 : Receipt for deposit made in favour of BWSSB.

Ex.P.15 : Water Bill and receipt.

&
Ex.P.16

Ex.P.17 : Two Electricity Bills.

Ex.P.18 : Phone Bills.

&
Ex.P.19

Ex.P.20 : Encumbrance Certificates.

&
Ex.P.21

Ex.P.22 : Three Endorsements issued by BBMP.

to
Ex.P.24

Ex.P.25 : Intimation letter.

Ex.P.26 : Three photographs.

to
Ex.P.28

3. List of witnesses examined by the defendants:

None.

4. List of documents marked by the defendants:

Nil.

(B.S. Bharathi),
XXVIII ACC & SJ, B’luru.
 14

Judgment pronounced in open Court

as under :- (vide order separately)

ORDER

The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed

with costs.

Draw up decree accordingly.

(B.S. Bharathi),
XXVIII ACC & SJ, B’luru.