IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE,

AT DEVANAHALLI
O.S.NO. 771 /2014
BETWEEN

M/s Cosmos Realty and Leisure

Private limited,
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, having
registered office at;No.1
and 18, Shankar House,
Mekhri Circle, RMV Extension,
Bengaluru- 560 080.
Rept by its Authorized
Representative
Sri. V S Kamath …PLAINTIFF

AND

1. Sri. H. R. Shivanna,
S/o Late H.N. Ramaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
Huttanahalli, Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru District..

2. Smt. Rajamma
W/o late. Jayanna
Aged about 62 years,

3. Sri Pattabhirama J
S/o late. Jayanna,
Aged about 40 years,

4. Smt. Bharathi
W/o Pattabhirama.j
Aged about 32 years,

5. Sri. Janardhan
S/o late. Jayanna,
Aged about 37 years,

6. Smt. Manjula,
W/o Janardhan,
Aged about 30 years,

All are residing at

Kammanahalli Village
 Kundana Hobli,
Bengaluru Rural District. …DEFENDANTS

AMENDED PLAINT UNDER SECTION 26 ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff above named states as follows:

1. The address of the plaintiff for the purposes of service of summons,

notices etc., in this proceeding is as stated in the cause title and also
that of its counsel Anuparna Bordoloi, No.5, Jeevan Building, Kumara
Park East, Bengaluru-560 001.

The address of the defendants for the purposes of service of summons,

notices etc., in this proceeding is as stated in the cause title.

2. The plaintiff is the company incorporated under the Companies

Act, having its registered office as stated in the cause title.

3. The plaintiff submits that originally the land bearing Sy. No.65 of
Kamenahalli Village, measuring 6 acres 26 guntas plus 16 guntas
Kharab land was granted in favour of Chikkaramaiah by the Special
Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bangalore, by his Order dated
6/1/1961 and the katha and mutation was transferred in the name of
Chikkaramaiah. He was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
entire land having right and ownership of property. During his lifetime he
had sold 1 acre in Sy. No. 65 in favour of CR Sathish in the year 1973.
After the death of the Chikkaramaiah the heirs of the Chikkaramaiah
namely Shamanna, Jayanna, Nanjudappa and Chandrappa have
succeeded the property intestate. The said property was partitioned and
each of them have got definite share in the properties. Accordingly the
mutation was effected in MR. 11/97-98. And their names are shown as
Khathedars and cultivators in the RTC. All of them have paid property
tax to the concerned authorities. And thus exercising absolute right,
possession, interest over the property.
4. The plaintiff submits that the above named persons who are having
right, title, interest and possession over the property; they have made an
application to the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division,
Bangalore Rural District on 17/3/2005 seeking conversion of their
respective properties from agriculture to non-agricultural for residential
purpose. And thereafter the conversion fees has been paid to the Deputy
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner passed an order converting the
property from agricultural to non-agricultural vide Order 1) No. ALN SR
(D)241:04-05, 2) No. ALN:SR (D)242:04- 05, 3) No. ALN:SR (D)243:04-05,
4) No. ALN:SR (D)244:04-05 dated 8/4/2005.

5. The plaintiff submits that out of the property of 5 acres 25 Guntas,

the share of Sri. Jayanna as per the partition in their family ie., 1 acre 16
Guntas; Sri. Jayanna has also applied for conversion of the land from
agriculture to non-agriculture for residential purpose. The said
conversion order No. ALN SR (D)244:04-05 dated 8/4/2005 is herewith
produced.

6. The plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff company has

purchased the above converted immovable properties bearing Sy. No.65,
measuring 5 Acres 25 Guntas plus 16 Guntas Kharab land situated at
Kammanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore
Rural District by way of registered sale deed dated 23/4/2005 executed
by the Shamanna, Jayanna, Nanjudappa and Chandrappa, before the
Sub-Registrar at Devanahalli, Vide Regn. No. DNH-1-522/05-06, stored
in CD No. DNHD47 Copy of the Sale Deed dated 23/4/2005 is herewith
produced.

7. The plaintiff further submits that since from the date of purchase
of the said property the plaintiff is enjoying the possession over the
property having right, title and interest over the property. The plaintiff
name has been shown in the register maintained by Jalige Gram
Panchayath, Devanahalli Taluk. And the plaintiff has paid the taxes to
the government since from the date of purchase till this date. The copies
of the said documents are herewith produced for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court.
8. The plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff came to know
recently when the plaintiff has applied for encumbrance certificate from
Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli; it is an utter shock and surprise that though
Sri. Jayanna and other family members have executed sale deed in
favour of plaintiff company on 23/4/2005 after obtaining the conversion
order No. ALN SR (D)244:04-05 dated 8/4/2005 is made in respect of
property bearing Sy. No.65 subsequently it has been made as 65/2.
measuring 1 acre 16 guntas situated at Kamenahanalli Village, Kundana
Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, and it is noticed that the said Sri. Jayanna has
fraudulently represented to the concerned Village Accountant of
Kamenahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk seeking
mutating his name in the mutation register on 3/4/2009, the same was
rejected and thereafter once again he has made one more application to
the said authority on 12/11/2009 along with survey sketch has been
submitted, the same was approved. The mutation entry was effected in
his name vide MR No.20/2009-10 dated 12/11/2009. The copy of said
documents are herewith produced.

9. The plaintiff submits that based on those alleged fabricated /

created documents in collusion with the revenue authorities the said Sri.
Jayanna in order to cheat this plaintiff company the said converted
property vide order No. ALN:SR(D)244:04-05 dated 8/4/2005 (Morefully
described hereunder as Schedule Property) has been fraudulently sold
to Defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dated 13/11/2013 vide
Regn. No. 6230/2013-14 in the office of Sub-registrar, Devanahalli. The
copy of the alleged sale deed dated 13/11/2013 is herewith produced.

9 (a) The said sale deed has been executed with phodied survey No 65/2
and the vendor therein fraudulently concealed title flow of Sy. No 65 in
the alleged sale deed. Further said Sri. Jayanna hand-in-glow with the
Defendant No.1 herein got executed and registered the aforesaid sale
deed. It is reliably learnt that the said sale deed has been executed only
to defraud the plaintiff herein and the plaintiff doubts the passing of sale
consideration under the said sale deed. The entire sale consideration is
said to be paid by the Purchaser in cash and no payment in cheque or
DD has made. The sale deed do not bear the PAN numbers of the parties
involved, which castes a cloud on the authentication of the said sale
deed.

9 (b) The said transaction could not have happened but for the
involvement of the Defendant No.1 in joining the hands with the plaintiff
to defraud him and to drag the plaintiff to an illegal bargain and hence
the said sale deed, being executed and registered with such malafide
intentions of the parties involved therein, requires to be set aside in
limine.

9 (c): It is submitted that the said phodi of the land which has been done
by said Sri. Jayanna is also not binding upon the plaintiff. The phodi of
the land has been done after the sale of entire available land in Sy. No.
65 to this plaintiff and hence the said phodi is void ab initio and requires
to be set aside. It is reiterated that the neither the phodi of land nor the
aforesaid sale deed would have any impact on the title of the land held by
the plaintiff.

10. The plaintiff further submits that when the said Sri. Jayanna has
alienated the property in favor of plaintiff by way of registered sale deed
in the year 2005 relinquishing all his rights, title, interest and possession
over the schedule property, when matter is stood like this the said Sri.
Jayanna has no locus standi nor having any possession, right, title,
interest over the property has been mortgaged in favour of HDFC Bank,
Sadahalli, Devanahalli Taluk. Further the alleged sale transaction is
respect of Sy. No 65/2 sold in favour of Defendant No.1 is also been
shown in the encumbrance certificate. The said entries are reflecting in
the encumbrance certificate is herewith produced

11. The plaintiff submits that plaintiff is in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the converted land in Sy. No.65 measuring 5 acres 25
guntas includes the 1 acre 16 guntas of alleged sale deed executed in
favour of Defendant No.1 by the said Sri. Jayanna. This plaintiff came to
know of the fraudulent act done by the said Sri. Jayanna, the plaintiff
has made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural
District stating that the said Sri. Jayanna has illegally and fraudulently
approached to the Survey Department and Podi has been made and
mutated the entry, illegally and fraudulently obtained the loan by
mortgaging the property in favour of HDFC Bank on 4/2/2012 and
thereafter allegedly and illegally entered sale transaction in favour of
Defendant No.1. Hence, the plaintiff requested to concerned police
authorities to take action against the Defendant No.1 and the said Sri.
Jayanna. The police authorities have registered the complaint and FIR
was made. The copy of the complaint alongwith FIR are herewith
produced.

12. The plaintiff submits that the Defendant No.1 is trying to interfere
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property of
plaintiff, by virtue of the alleged sale deed executed by the said Sri.
Jayanna in favour of Defendant No.1. The plaintiff has purchased the
property in the year 2005 by the said Sri. Jayanna, since then the
plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the said property. The said Sri.
Jayanna has relinquished all his rights, title interest and possession over
the property when the said Sri. Jayanna himself is not having locus
standi or any right, title, interest and possession over the property, the
question of transferring/ alienating of the said Schedule property in
favour of Defendant No.1 is Void-ab-intio and null and void Any alleged
transaction entered with any person in respect of the schedule property
is not binding on this plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has got all the rights,
title, interest and possession over the schedule property.

13. The plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in
peaceful possession and quiet enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property
having acquired the same by virtue of the Deed of Sale dated 23/4/2005.
None else much less the Defendant No.1 have any right, title or interest
in the Schedule Property or any portion of it. The plaintiff is in settled
possession of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase
without any interference by any one. The prima facie and balance of
convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff. The Defendant No.1 is trying to
interfere with the settled possession and quite enjoyment of the property
held by the plaintiff. The action of the Defendant No.1 is high handed
and illegal only on the recent entry made in EC and fraudulent sale And
the Defendant No.1 is trying to alienate the property in favour of third
parties. In order to avoid further multiplicity of the proceedings this
plaintiff is approaching this Hon'ble Court for seeking appropriate relief
of permanent injunction against the Defendant No.1.

14. At any rate the plaintiff is the absolute owner in respect of the suit
schedule property. The Defendant No.1 cannot interfere with the peaceful
possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. The plaintiff
submits that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having purchased same
through registered sale deed dated 23/4/2005. The Defendant No.1 has
no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property or
any part or portion thereof. The Defendant No.1 cannot interfere with the
plaintiff's right to peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. The plaintiff has no other alternative except to approach this
Hon'ble Court for relief. Hence, the plaintiff prays for injunction against
the defendants as prayed for.

15. The cause of action for the suit arose on 23/4/2005 when the
plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of
the absolute sale deed; when the said Sri. Jayanna executed alleged sale
deed infavour of Defendant No.1, when the plaintiff applied for EC dated
18/11/2013; when the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the
jurisdictional Police and the Police have registered complaint and made
FIR. The cause of action is subsisting even to this date. The suit is filed
in this Hon'ble Court as the entire cause of action for the suit arose
within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and as the suit schedule
property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

16. The suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction is valued at
Rs 1,000/- and a fixed Court fee of Rs.25/- is paid on the plaint as per
separate valuation slip.
17. The plaintiff has not filed any other suit arising out of the same
cause of action. There is no pendency of any legal proceedings or
litigations in any Court within the knowledge of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, therefore, prays for judgment and decree against the
defendant

(i) in the nature of a permanent injunction restraining the

defendants, his agents, servants, power of attorney holders or
any person claiming under or through the defendants from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property by the plaintiff, and

(i) (a) to declare that the sale deed dated 13.11.2013 vide
Document No 6230/2013- 14, Book No I, CD No DNHD354,
registered at Pages 01-09, at the office of Sub- registrar
Devanahalli executed in favour of Defendant No. 01 by the
deceased Jayanna and his LRs i.e defendant No 02 to 06 in
respect of Schedule property is not binding upon the plaintiff.

(ii) for costs of and incidental to the suit;

(iii) for any other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit to grant in the circumstances of the case;

SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Sy. No.65,
conversion Order No. ALN:SR(D)244:04-05 dated 8/4/2005, situated at
Kammanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore
Rural District measuring 1 acre 16 guntas subsequently alleged podi
made as Sy. No.65/2 which bounded as per conversion and alleged sale
deed dated 13/11/2013 are as follows;
Boundaries As per the As per alleged sale
Conversion Order deed dated
dated 8/4/2005 13/11/2013
East by Padmavathama Nanjudappas land
West by Najundappa Shamanna's land
North by Kempanna Dongara
South by Pulekeshi Pulikeshi and
Kempanna's Land

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF

VERIFICATION

I, V S Kamath, the authorized representative of the plaintiff company

above named do hereby declare that what is stated in the paragraphs
above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Verified at Bengaluru on this the _____ day of August 2023.

Devanahalli

Date: PLAINTIFF
 IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE,
AT DEVANAHALLI
O.S. No 771 /2014

Between:

M/s Cosmos Realty and Liesure

Private Ltd, …Plaintiff

And:

Sri.HR Shivanna …Defendant

AFFIDAVIT

I, V. S. Kamath S/o Late. Srinivas Kamath, aged about 66 years,

Authorised Signatory, M/s. Cosmos Realty and Leisure Pvt Ltd., having
its registered office at, 372, Nilay, R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru-560 032, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. I am the authorized representative of the plaintiff in the above suit

and am well acquainted with the facts of the case.

2. What is stated in paragraphs in the accompanying amended plaint

are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

I, do hereby declare that what is stated above are true to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.

Identified by me:

Advocate. DEPONENT

Devanahalli

Dated: