IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL.

CITY CIVIL JUDGE,

MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22)

Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,

XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU

OS.No.26916/2009
Dated this 21st day of December 2020
Plaintiff/s:- 1. Smt. Surekha W/o N. Manjunath,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at Kittaganur Village,
K.R Puram Post, Bangalore-36

(Rep by Shivashankar Advocate)

V/S

Defendant/s:- 1. Sri. Raju S/o Doddanarasimhaiah

@ papaiah, Aged about 45 years,

2. Sri. Chennakeshava S/o Doddanarasimhaiah,

@ Papaiah, Aged about 34 years,

3. Sri. Manjunath S/o Doddanarasimhaiah

@ papaiah, Aged about 27 years,

4. Smt. Saroja D/o Doddanarasimhaiah

@ papaiah, Aged about 39 years,

5. Smt. Kalavati D/o Doddanarasimhaiah,

@ papaiah, Aged about 32 years,

6. Smt. Sumithra D/o Doddanarasimhaiah

@ papaiah,
 2
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
7. Smt. Sarasamma W/o Raju
Aged about 42 years,
8. Sri. Avalappa S/o N. Muniyappa,
Aged about 55 years,

All the defendants are residing at

Tank Road, 3rd Cross,
K.R Puram, Bangalore.
[

(Rep by defendants No.2 to 7

V. Nagareddy Advocate, Def No.1-Exparte)
(Suit against defendant No.8 dismissed as per
dt.19/12/2020)
[[

[[

Date of Institution of the suit 14/09/2009

Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for
declaration and possession, suit for Permanent Injunction
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording
of the Evidence.
04/08/2014

Date on which the Judgment was

21/12/2020
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 11 03 07

XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru
.
 3
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009

:JUDGMENT:

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for

permanent injunction.

2. The Brief facts of plaint averments is as under:

The plaintiff submits that she is absolute owner of

suit schedule property as mentioned below:-

:SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY:

All that piece and parcel of property bearing

No.52, Old Khatha No.23, present bearing khata
No.172, measuring East to West 30 feet and
North to South 90 feet situated at
Krishnarajapuram Village, K.R Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk and bounded by East:
property of Subbaiah Shetty, West: Property of
Narasimhaiah, North:Raja Beedhi, South: House
of Sabu Sab.

The plaintiff further submits that she acquired title to the

suit schedule property under Gift Deed dated 20/11/2001

 4
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
executed by her mother Rajamma. Her mother acquired suit

property by inheritance. In other words her mother acquired

the suit schedule property subsequent to the death of her

father (plaintiff's father). That her father was acquired the

suit property from K.C. Rudrappa under sale deed dated

26/10/1965. The said K.C Rudrappa acquired the same from

N. Muniyappa under the sale deed dated 15/01/1965. The

said N. Muniyappa acquired the same under sale deed dated

17/11/1962. The plaintiff submits that she is in possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of

gift. That prior to gift the suit schedule property was in the

possession and enjoyment of its donor.

3. The plaintiff further submits that on 29/08/2009 at

about 10 a.m. when she was near the suit schedule property,

the defendants were trying to interference with the

possession of the suit schedule property, She being lady

along with other neighbors with great difficulty resisted

 5
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
their illegal act and the defendants, the defendant gone by

giving warning that they will come again and take

possession of the property. Then she approached the

jurisdictional police station to lodge complainant, but the

police have declined interference in the matter as dispute

happens to be civil in nature and directed the plaintiff to

approach civil court. The plaintiff further submits that the

defendants No.1 to 6 are brothers and sisters. The defendant

No.7 is the wife of the defendant No.1 and the defendant

No.8 is the uncle of the defendants No.1 to 6. The plaintiff

further submits that the defendants have no manner of right,

title or interest over the suit schedule property, but they are

tried to interfere with the suit schedule property. Hence she

constrained to file this suit for Permanent Injunction

restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

 6
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
4. The plaintiff further submits that the cause of action to

file the suit arose on 10/09/2009 when the defendants made

attempted to encroach upon the suit schedule property and

tried to interfere with suit schedule property and

subsequently she filed the present suit for permanent

injunction against defendants. The plaintiff prays to decree

the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants,

their agents, servants or anybody acting on their behalf from

in any way from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The

plaintiff prays to award costs of the suit.

5. That suit summons to defendant No.1 issued through

RPAD is returned with shara not claimed, hence service held

sufficient on 09/10/2009, defendant No.1 not appeared and

placed exparte. The defendants No.2 to 7 counsel filed

memo on 09/10/2009 that defendant No.8 died. Thereafter

plaintiff counsel taken time to take steps. In the order sheet

 7
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
dt.18/08/2009 it is ordered “steps to D8-dead”, but

afterwards plaintiff not taken steps, latter on matter was

proceeded and trial was completed and after arguments

when was posted for judgment, it was noticed that steps to

defendant No.8 was not taken by plaintiff counsel and court

was proceeded without considering defendant No.8 and

same was noted in order sheet dt.14/12/2020 and directed

the plaintiff counsel to clarify the same. Then on 19/12/2020

the plaintiff counsel filed memo for dismissing suit against

the defendant No.8. Hence suit against defendant No.8 was

dismissed on 19/12/2020.

6. The defendants No.2 to 7 have filed written statement

submitting that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable

either in law or on facts. The suit schedule property itself is

not in existence and the boundaries given to the suit

schedule property shows that the same is not identical or

shows an existence of any property in the vicinity at which

 8
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
these defendants are residing. The suit filed by the plaintiff

by setting her evil eye over portion of the property in

possession and ownership of the defendants. The plaintiff,

her parents were/are not possessing any property in and

around the property of the defendants. The father of plaintiff

Anjinappa had filed suit against father of the defendants

No.2 to 6 in O.S No.2544/88 by stating that he is the owner

of the property towards the Eastern side of the defendants

property and the said suit was dismissed for non-

prosecution, and at present i.e. after one decade from the

date of dismissal, the plaintiff being party to the aforesaid

suit, by suppressing the same has come up with this false

suit. That there is inconsistency in respect of boundaries

shown in each and every document produced by the plaintiff

in support of her alleged possession in respect of the suit

schedule property. That the plaintiff with an intention to

knock away the property purchased by their ancestors under

registered sale deed dated 01/05/1957, on the basis of the

 9
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
subsequent sale deeds dated 17/11/1962, 15/01/1965 and

26/10/1965 are all in fact hit by section 48 of T.P Act and

she has made this attempt in filing the present suit for the

alleged relief on the basis of the fictitious cause of action.

7. The defendants No.2 to 7 are denied the ownership of

the plaintiff mentioned in the schedule at para No.3 of the

plaint. They denied that para No.4 of the plaint about the

Gift Deed dated 20/11/2001. The said gift deed was

executed by mother of plaintiff Rajamma and same is

registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Krishnarajpura,

Bangalore is false. In fact the plaintiff and his people would

have created any documents in respect of non-existing

property and in further the property one mentioned in those

documents are not identical or possessed by the parties of

those executants of the alleged documents as on the date of

the alleged execution.

 10
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
8. The defendants No.2 to 7 are further denied the plaint

averments regarding the para No.5 of the plaint that the

mother of the plaintiff acquired the property by inheritance

in other words the mother of the plaintiff acquired the suit

schedule property subsequent to the death of father of

plaintiff, the father of plaintiff acquired the same from K.C.

Rudrappa under sale deed dated 26/10/1965 the said K.C

Rudrappa in turn acquired the same from N. Muniyappa

under the sale deed dated 15/01/1965 the said N. Muniyappa

acquired the same under sale deed dated 17/11/1962 are all

false. Those documents are not related to the property for

which the plaintiff filed the present suit and in other words

the same might be referring to a different property other

than the suit schedule property and further the property

referred under those aforesaid documents are not possessed

by the said executants as on the alleged date of execution.

They are further denied the para No.6 of the plaint that the

plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit

 11
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
schedule property from the date of gift, that prior to gift, the

suit schedule property was in the possession and enjoyment

of its donor. In fact the alleged khatha extracts are created

documents in collusion with concerned revenue officials and

further neither the plaintiff nor her mother i.e. her alleged

donor under the gift deed dated 20/11/2001 never possessed

the suit schedule property or any property situated in and

around the defendants property.

9. The defendants No.2 to 7 denied the plaint averments

regarding the para No.7 that the plaintiff is in lawful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property are

all false and the documents are created for the purpose of

filing this false suit and in further the same is not depicting

the possession, title and rights of the plaintiff, concerned to

the alleged suit schedule property.

10. The defendants No.2 to 7 are further denied that the

averments made in para No.8 of the plaint that on

 12
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
29/08/2009 at about 10 a.m. when the plaintiff was near the

suit schedule property, the defendants were trying to

interfere with the possession of the suit schedule property,

the plaintiff being lady along with other neighbors with

great difficulty resisted their illegal act and the defendants

left the place with a warning that they will come again and

take possession of the property, then plaintiff approached the

jurisdictional police with a complaint but the police have

declined interference in the matter as dispute happens to be

civil in nature and directed the plaintiff to approach civil

court are all denied by these defendants as false and the

same is a concocted story and for raising false cause of

action. In fact the plaintiff was/is not in possession of the

alleged suit schedule property and the question of alleged

interference and filing of police complaint in this regard

does not arise.

 13
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
11. The defendants No.2 to 7 are denied the para No.9

of the plaint that the defendants No.1 to 6 are brothers and

sisters. The plaintiff state that defendant No.7 is the wife of

the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.8 is uncle of the

defendants No.1 to 6 are incorrect, in respect of the

defendant No.1 Raju S/o Doddanarasimhaiah and showing

the defendants No.7 as the wife of the said alleged Raju. In

fact one Narayanaswamy is the first son of Doddaramaiah

and the defendant No.7 is the wife of said Narayanaswamy.

Further, the defendant No.8 Avalappa is nowhere concerned

to these defendants, in fact said Avalappa possessed portion

of residential property belonging to the defendants on rental

basis, from past 2 years to the date of his death i.e. on

13/07/2009.

12. The defendants No.2 to 7 further denied regarding

the para No.10 of the plaint that the defendants have no

manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule

 14
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
property, the defendants are tried to interfere with the suit

schedule property, hence plaintiff has approached this court

with the suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the

defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property, if not it would

result in great loss and injury to the plaintiff are all

untenable and the defendants are denied these all as false.

13. The defendants No.2 to 7 are further denies that the

plaintiff has no cause of action to file any suit as against

these defendants and the alleged cause of action one set out

in the plaint, in paragraph 11 is a fictitious one, created for

the purpose of filing this false suit. The defendants No.2 to 7

are further submits that the plaintiff's have not right to file

any suit for any relief much less the relief prayed under this

suit on the basis of the alleged cause of action and the

fraudulent averments. That in fact the plaintiff herein has

tried to depict a portion of Eastern side property, belonging

 15
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
to these defendants, inherited from the great grand-father of

the defendants No.2 to 6, the defendants are ancestors have

acquired the property under registered sale deed of the year

1940. That these defendants are in possession and

enjoyment of the property purchased under registered sale

deed dated 01/05/1957 to this day and the said property is

situated on the Eastern side of the existing house which was

possessed by the ancestors of these defendants earlier to the

date of the above said sale deed. That many years back,

these defendants father had fenced the property with barbed

wire by leaving single entrance on the Northern side and the

entire area covered under the fencing is in possession and

enjoyment of these defendants. In the said property, the

defendants have raised manure pit, cowsheds on the

Southern side, open type lavatory covered with stone slabs

and have put cow fodder heaps in the said property. In

addition to that the defendants are tethering their cattle in

the said property, to depict the said developmental activities

 16
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
carried out in their hands. Thus they are in possession and

enjoyment of the property in their own right and title. The

plaintiff nor her donor or donor's alleged predecessor in the

title as set forth in the plaint were never in possession of the

suit schedule property, then the question of alleged

possession is with the plaintiff is sort of imagination. That

the entire property in possessed by the defendants comes

within the boundaries bounded on East by property of

Pathrala Abbaiah at present possessed by his son A.K.

Reddy and Annaiah, West by property of Ajith Sab, North

by Road and South by Sabu Sabi's house. That the property

shown under the suit schedule property of this suit referred

to be an Eastern side portion of the aforesaid entire property

possess by the defendants as from the date as stated supra.

That after demise of the said defendants father namely

Narasimhaiah, the katha concerned to the property in

possession of the defendants has been affected in the name

of Lakshmamma, who is wife of said Narasimhaiah. That at

 17
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
present the katha concerned to the property in possession of

the defendants is stood in the name of the said

Lakshmamma the mother of the said defendants. That the

defendants and the said Lakshmamma being the members of

the joint family are in joint possession and are paying the

tax in the name of the said Lakshmamma.

14. The defendants No.2 to 7 are further submits that in

fact the plaintiff herein has filed police complaint with the

K.R Puram, Police and the said police, very much

influenced in the hands of the plaintiff on the basis of the

registered release deed dated 03/05/2003 said to be executed

in favour of the plaintiff by her mother, sister and her

brothers, has tried to dispossess these defendants by using

their police power. There the mother of defendants No.2 to 6

namely Laxmamma has brought to the notice of the police

commissioner in this concern vide written complaint on

09/09/2009. From there onwards the said police have not

 18
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
taken further steps in this concern and in fact they have

maintained silence. That after the said attempt the plaintiff

has come to court with the alleged cause of action, by

mischievously contending that she is in possession of the

suit schedule property.

15. The defendants No.2 to 7 further submit that the

plaintiff herein has filed suit for the relief of permanent

injunction in OS.No.2544/1988 on the file of the City Civil

Judge, Bangalore City and in the said suit the father of the

said defendants has filed their written statement and the said

suit was dismissed for default. In fact father of the plaintiff

died during the pendency of the said suit and the plaintiff

herein has come on record as legal heir of the deceased.

That what the father not able to achieved under the afore

said suit the plaintiff being daughter has try to achieved her

alleged attempts in having decree as against the defendants

herein in respect of the property not possessed by the

 19
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
plaintiff or in respect of portion in portion of property in

their possession. The defendants No.2 to 7 further submits

that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. The

plaintiff is not in possession of any property as described

under suit schedule property. The present market value of

the property described under suit schedule is of

Rs.25,00,000/- and the paid court of Rs.25/- is insufficient

and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this count itself. The

defendants No.2 to 7 prays to dismiss the suit with

exemplary costs.

16. On the basis of above pleadings following Issues are

framed:-

:ISSUES:

(1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that she

was in lawful possession of the suit
schedule property as on the date of the
suit?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the

defendants are illegally causing
 20
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
interference in her possession of the suit
schedule property?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

decree of Permanent Injunction as
sought for in the plaint?

(4) Whether defendants prove that in view

of dismissal of OS.No.2544/1988 the
present suit is not maintainable?

(5) What decree or order?

17. The plaintiff examined as PW.1 and marked

documents at ExP1 to ExP8(a) and closed her side of

evidence. The defendant No.3 examined himself as DW.1

and marked documents ExD1 to ExD22.

18. The plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 7 counsel

argued. Perused the records.

19. My findings to the above Issues are as under.

Issue No.1) In Negative

Issue No.2) In Negative

Issue No.3) In Negative

 21
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
Issue No.4) In Negative

Issue No.5) See final order for following:

:REASONS:

20. Issues No.1 to 4:

The plaintiff Surekha W/o N. Manjunath filed her

affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as PW.1 and

deposed evidence that she is absolute owner of the suit

schedule property and she has acquired title to the suit

schedule property under Gift deed dated 20/11/2001

executed by her mother Rajamma. That her mother had

acquired said property subsequent to the death of the

plaintiff's father. That her father acquired the suit property

from K.C. Rudrappa under sale deed dated 26/10/1965. The

said K.C Rudrappa in turn acquired the same from N.

Muniyappa under the sale deed dated 15/01/1965. The said

N. Muniyappa acquired the same under sale deed dated

 22
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
17/11/1962. That she has been in possession and enjoyment

of the suit schedule property from the date of gift, prior to

gift the suit schedule property was in her possession and

enjoyment of her mother. Hence she is in lawful possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants

No.1 to 6 are the brothers and sisters and the defendants

No.7 is the wife of defendant No.1. That on 29/08/2009 at

10 a.m. she was near the suit schedule property, then

defendants were trying to interference with the possession of

the suit schedule property, she being lady along with other

neighbors with great difficulty resisted their illegal act and

the defendants left the place with a warning that they will

come again and take possession of the property. She

approached the jurisdictional police with a complainant but

the police have declined interference in the matter as dispute

happens to be civil in nature and directed the plaintiff to

approach civil court. Hence she filed the present suit. The

defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the

 23
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
suit schedule property, but they are trying to interfere with

the suit schedule property. The PW.1 prays to decree the

suit. In support of oral evidence PW.1 marked the

documents ExP1 to ExP8(a).

21. The defendant No.3 Manjunath S/o Late Dodda

Narasimaiah has filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of

examination in chief as DW.1 and deposed evidence that the

suit schedule property is not in the existence and the

boundaries given to the suit schedule property shows that

the same is not identical or shows on existence of any

property in the vicinity at which he and other defendants are

residing. In further the very suit filed by the plaintiff by

setting her evil over a portion of their property in possession

and ownership. The plaintiff and her parents were/are not

possession any property in and around their property. The

father of plaintiff Anjinappa has filed suit against his father

in OS.No.2544/88 by stating that he is the owner of the

 24
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
property towards the Eastern side of his property and the

said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, and at present

i.e. after one decade from the date of dismissal, the plaintiff

being a party to the aforesaid suit, by suppressing the same

has come up with this false suit. There is inconsistency in

respect of boundaries shown in each and every document

produced by the plaintiff in support of her alleged

possession in respect of the suit schedule property. That the

plaintiff with an intention to knock away the property one

purchased by their ancestors under registered sale deed

dated 01/05/1962. The plaintiff want to claim her rights on

the basis of the subsequent sale deeds dated 17/11/1962,

15/01/1965 and 26/10/1965 are all in fact subsequent to

their sale deed.

22. The DW.1 further deposed that the plaintiff is not

owned or possessed property bearing katha No.172

measuring East to West 30 feet, and North to South 90 feet

 25
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
situated at Krishnarajapuram Village, Krishnarajapuram

Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, the plaintiff and his people in

collusion have created gift deed dated 20/11/2001 in respect

property not existing property and in further the property

one mentioned in those documents are not identical or

possessed by the parties of those executants of the alleged

documents as on the date of the alleged execution.

23. The DW.1 further deposed that the mother of the

plaintiff has not acquired any property under inheritance

subsequent to the death of the plaintiff's father, the father of

the plaintiff not acquired the same from K.C. Rudrappa

under the registered sale deed dated 26/10/1965, the said

K.C Rudrappa in turn acquired the same from N.

Muniyappa under the sale deed dated 15/01/1965 the said N.

Muniyappa acquired the same under sale deed dated

17/11/1962 are all false and baseless and unfounded and

those documents are nowhere related to the property for

 26
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
which the plaintiff filed the present suit and in other words

the same might be referring to a different property other

than the suit schedule property and further the property

referred under those aforesaid documents are not possessed

by the said executants as on the alleged date of execution.

The DW.1 further deposed that the plaintiff and her alleged

donor under gift deed are not in possession and enjoyment

of the suit schedule property at any point of time, the alleged

katha extracts and tax paid receipts are created documents in

collusion with concerned revenue officials. The DW.1

further deposed that there is no cause of action for this suit,

the alleged cause of action as such on 29/08/2009 when the

plaintiff was near the suit schedule property, the defendants

were trying to interfere with the possession of the suit

schedule property, the plaintiff being lady along with other

neighbors with great difficulty resisted their illegal act and

the defendants left the place with warning that they will

come again and take possession of the property, that plaintiff

 27
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
approached the jurisdictional police with complaint but the

police had declined to interfere in the matter as dispute

happened to be civil in nature and directed the plaintiff to

approach civil court are all denied by these defendants as

false and the same is a concocted story created by this

plaintiff for the purpose of filing this false suit and for

raising false cause of action, In fact the plaintiff was/is not

in possession of the alleged suit schedule property and the

question of alleged interference and filing of police

complaint in this regard does not arise. The plaintiff has

stated incorrect relationship between the defendants No.1 to

6, in fact showing the defendant No.7 is the wife of the said

alleged the defendant No.1 Raju. In fact one

Narayanaswamy is the first son of Doddaramaiah and the

defendant No.7 is wife of said Narayanaswamy. Further the

defendant No.8 Avalappa is nowhere concerned to these

defendants, in fact said Avalappa possessed a portion of

residential property belonging to the defendants on rental

 28
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
basis from past 2 years to the date of his death i.e on

13/07/2009.

24. The DW.1 further deposed that the defendants are

ancestors have acquired the property under registered sale

deed of the year 1940. He and other defendants are in

possession and enjoyment of the property purchased under

registered sale deed dated 01/05/1957 to this day and the

said property is situated on the Eastern side of the existing

house which was possessed by the ancestors of these

defendants earlier to the date of the above said sale deed.

That many years back, his father had fenced the property

with barbed wire by leaving single entrance on the Northern

side and the entire area covered under the fencing is in

possession and enjoyment of the defendants. In the said

property, the defendants are in the said property, they put up

residential units, he and his family members have raised

manure pit, cowsheds on the Southern side, open type

 29
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
lavatory covered with stone slabs and have put cow fodder

heaps in the said property in addition to that the defendants

are tethering cattle in the said property, to depict the said

developmental activities carried out in the hands of the

defendants herewith producing the photographs. Thus the

defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the property.

The plaintiff nor her donor of donor's alleged predecessor in

the tile as set forth in the plaint were never in possession of

the suit schedule property, then the question of alleged

possession is with the plaintiff is a sort of imagination. That

the entire property in possessed by him and other defendants

comes within the boundaries bounded on East by property

of Pathrala Abbaiah at present possessed by his son A.K.

Reddy and Annaiah, West by property of Ajith Sab, North

by Road and South by Sabu Sabi's house. That the property

shown under the suit schedule property of this suit referred

to be an Eastern side portion of the aforesaid entire property

possess by his and the other defendants as from the date of

 30
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
purchase. That after demise of the said defendant's father

namely Narasimhaiah, the katha concerned to the property

in his possession has been affected in the name of

Lakshmamma, who is the wife of said Narasimhaiah. That

he and other defendants and the said Lakshmamma being

the members of the joint family are in joint possession and

are paying the tax in the name of the said Lakshmamma. In

fact the plaintiff herein has filed a police complaint with the

K.R Puram, Police and the said police have been influenced

in the hands of the plaintiff on the basis of the registered

release deed dated 03/05/2003 said to have been executed in

favour of the plaintiff by her mother, sister and her brothers,

has tried to dispossess these defendants by using their police

power. The over acts of the police have been brought to the

notice of the police commissioner under written complaint

on 09/09/2009. From there onwards the said police have not

taken further steps in this concern and in fact they have

maintained silence. That after the said attempt, the plaintiff

 31
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
has come to court, with the alleged cause of action, by

mischievously contending that she is in possession of the

suit schedule property. Thus the plaintiff has not come to

court with clean hand, clean heart and clean mind. On this

count itself, she is disentitled to have equitable relief of bare

injunction.

25. The DW.1 further deposed that the plaintiff herein

has filed suit for the relief of permanent injunction in

O.S.No.2544/1988 on the file of the City Civil Judge,

Bangalore City and in the said suit was dismissed for

default. In fact the father of the plaintiff died during the

pendency of the said suit and the plaintiff herein has come

on record as a legal heir of the deceased. That what the

father was not able to achieved under the afore said suit the

plaintiff being daughter has try to achieved under the

aforesaid suit the plaintiff being a daughter has try to

achieved her alleged attempts in having decree as against

 32
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
the defendants herein in respect of the property not

possessed by the plaintiff or in respect of portion of the

property in possession of the defendants. The DW.1 prays to

dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. In support of oral

evidence the DW.1 marked ExD1 to ExD22.

26. The DW.2 R. Vijay Kumar S/o A. Krishnappa @

Krishna Reddy filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of

examination in chief as DW.2 and deposed his evidence that

the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the residential property bearing present katha No.173 of

Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore

bounded by East: Property owned and possessed by his

family, West: property of Afsis Sab, North by Road, South:

house of Sabu Sabi. That the said property is fenced with the

barbed wire by keeping single entrance on the northern road,

the defendants are residing in the old residential unit

constructed in the above said property and in addition to the

 33
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
resident unit there is cowshed, manure pit, newly

constructed residential unit and cow fodder heap in the said

property. The DW.2 further deposed that the he is the

permanent resident of the house situated towards the Eastern

boundary of the defendants house property, the plaintiff does

not possess any property in and around the property bearing

present Katha No.173 belongs to the defendants and he is

not witnessed the possession of any property by the plaintiff

in and around the property of the defendants.

27. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that she is the

absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

suit schedule property as on the date of suit and defendants

are causing obstruction to her possession and enjoyment

over the suit schedule property. The contention of the

plaintiff is that suit schedule property originally belongs to

one N. Muniyappa and said N. Muniyappa purchased the

suit property under sale deed dated 17/11/1962 and

 34
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
thereafter he sold the said property to K.C. Rudrappa on

15/01/1965. The said K.C. Rudrappa sold the suit property

to the father of the plaintiff and after the death of his father

and the plaintiff, her mother Rajamma acquired the property

by inheritance and she had made gift deed in favour of

plaintiff on 20/11/2001. Hence the plaintiff become owner

of the suit schedule property and in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the said property. In support of oral evidence

the PW.1 marked documents ExP1 to ExP8(a). The ExP1 is

gift deed dated 20/11/2001 executed by Rajamma W/o

Anjinappa infavour of Surekha W/o Manjunath and D/o

Anjinappa and Rajamma in respect of the suit schedule

property. The ExP2 is registered sale deed dated 20/10/1966

regarding purchase of property bearing site No.52, New

No.23 measuring East-West: 30 feet and North-South: 90

feet by K.C. Rudrappa S/o Channabasappa in favour of

Anjinappa S/o Kempanna, situated at Krishnarajapura

village bounded by East: Property of R. Subbaiah, West:

 35
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
House of Narasimhaiah and house of Muniyappa, North

ajabeedi, South: House of Sabusabi. The ExP3 is katha

extract of the property bearing S.No.172, measuring 30 x 90

feet of Krishnarajapura wherein name of Anjinappa S/o

Kempanna is rounded off and name of Rajamma W/o late

Anjinappa is entered. The ExP4 is khatha extract of the

property bearing Sl.No.172 of K.R. Puram wherein name of

Anjinappa S/o Kempanna and Rajamma W/o late Anjinappa

is rounded off and name of A. Sureka W/o A.N. Manjunatha

is entered. The ExP5 and ExP6 are self paid tax challans by

the plaintiff. The ExP7 is certified copy of release deed

dated 17/11/1972 and ExP7 (a) is its typed copy. As per

ExP7 N. Muniyappa S/o Narasimhaiah relinquished his

right over the property bearing khaneshumari No.52 and

new house list No.23 of Krishnarajapura, bengaluru South

taluk, bounded by East: House of Pathrala Abbaiah and

Annaiah, West: his joint family house, North: Rajabeedi,

South property of Sabusabi measuring East west: 14 gaja

 36
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
and north-South: 23 gaja infavour of Narasimhaiah S/o

Narasappa. The ExP8 is certified copy of Sale deed and

ExP8(a) is typed copy, as per it on 17/11/1962 N.

Muniyappa S/o Narasimhaiah relinquished his right over the

property bearing khaneshumari No.52, house list No.23 of

Krishnaraja puram Bengaluru south taluk bounded by East:

part of some property sold to Subbaiah shetty, West: house

belonging to him and Narasimhaiah, North: Rajabeedi,

South: house of Sabusabi in favour of K. Rudrappa S/o late

Channabasappa.

28. On the contrary the defendant No.3 examined as

DW.1 denied the ownership of the plaintiff's father in the

suit property as well as inheritance of said property by

mother of plaintiff and afterwards gift of said property by

mother of plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant

No.3 contention that the plaintiff is not the owner in

possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.3

 37
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
contention that his ancestors are acquired the property under

registered sale deed in the year 1940, he and other

defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the property

purchased under registered sale deed dated 01/05/1957.

That earlier plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction

in O.S.No.2544/98 on the file of City Civil Court Bengaluru

and in the said suit father of defendant No.3 filed written

statement and said suit was dismissed for default. In the said

suit father of the plaintiff died during the pendency of the

said suit and plaintiff was brought on record. The father of

the plaintiff was not able to achieve under the said suit and

now the plaintiff is trying to achieve her attempts to have

the decree in respect of property of defendants which is not

possessed by the plaintiff. In support of oral evidence DW.1

marked the documents ExD1 to ExD22. The ExD1 is

original sale deed dated 01/05/1957 executed by H.

Narayana S/o Hanumanthappa in favour of Nanjappa S/o

Narasimhaiah in respect of property bearing khaneshumari

 38
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
No. 52 and present house list No.23 measuring East to West:

14 Gaja and North to South: 23 Gaja situated at

Krishnarajapura, Bengaluru South taluk bounded by East:

house of Pathral Abbaiah and Annaiah, West: Nimma Mane,

North: Rajabeedi, South: Property of Sabusabi. The ExD2

is certified copy of registered settlement deed dated

29/07/1940, as per it the settlement taken place relating to

the properties mentioned in the said document between

Doddanarasappa with his wife and children. The ExD3 to

ExD8 are tax paid receipts, the ExD9 to ExD11 are certified

copies of tax paid receipts. The ExD12 is assessment list of

property open site measuring 31' X 27' in Sl.No.174 in the

name of Narasimhaiah S/o Muniyappa. The ExD13 and

ExD14 are certified copies of notice issued by ITI Notified

Area Committee to Narasimhaiah S/o Muniyappa relating to

Assessment No.174 open site measuring 31 X 27 feet of

Krishnarajauram. The ExD15 and ExD16 are certified

copies of notice issued by Nagarasaba Karyalaya, K.R.

 39
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
puram, Bengaluru to Narasimhaiah S/o Muniyappa

mentioning that the Kandayam is reassessed and if there is

any objections may be filed. The ExD17 encumbrance

certificate for the period from 15/02/1057 to 31/05/1989

relating to property No.52 house list No.23 measuring

14x23 gaja of Krishnarajapura village, Bengaluru South

Taluk, wherein there is entry regarding sale of said property

by H. Narayanappa to Narasimhaiah. The ExD18 is

encumbrance certificate for the period from 01/06/1989 to

31/03/2004 and ExD19 is encumbrance certificate for the

period from 01/04/2004 to 29/07/2013 relating to the

property bearing Khaneshumari No.52 house list No.23

measuring 14x23 gaja on K.R. Puram, Bengaluru South

Taluk in the name of H. Narayanappa. The ExD20 is

Certified copy of encumbrance certificate for the period

from 01/07/1924 to 14/02/1967, wherein there is entry that

on 20/07/1934 sale of Khaneshumari No.52 measuring

14/23 gaja of Krishnaraja pura, Bengaluru South Taluk by

 40
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
K. Subbaiah in favour of H. Narayanappa. The ExD21

certified copy of property tax return and ExD22 is

endorsement issued by K.R. Puram police station to

Lakshmamma W/o Narasimhaiah intimating that the

complaint filed by Lakshmamma is verified and the

opponent is called to the station and warned relating to

property, case is pending before CCH-22 and follow the

order of the court.

29. The documents produced by the plaintiff ExP2

discloses that the Khaneshumari No.52, house list No.23 of

Krishnarajapura, Bengaluru South Taluk was purchased by

the father of the plaintiff Anjinappa S/o Kempanna from

K.C. Rudrappa S/o Basappa. Further the ExP8 discloses that

the said K. Rudrappa obtained the property Khaneshumari

No.52, house list No.23 of Krishnarajapura, Bengaluru

South Taluk from N. Muniyappa S/o Narasimhaiah, as such

Muniyappa relinquished the property in favour of K.C.

 41
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
Rudrappa. Further as per ExP3 property register extract

name of Anjinappa S/o Kempanna rounded off and name of

Rajamma W/o late Anjinappa is appeared, wherein the

Sl.No.172 is mentioned to the open site measuring 30 X 90

feet, but the Khaneshumari No.52 and house list No.23 is

not mentioned in the said ExP3 and even in ExP4 name of

Anjinappa S/o Kempanna rounded off and Rajamma W/o

Anjinappa is rounded off name of plaintiff is appeared but in

ExP4 also serial number mentioned as 172 and later house

number mentioned as 172 measuring 30 x 90 feet. But the

plaintiff has not produced any document to show that the

khaneshumari No.52 is changed as 172 because in the ExP1

gift deed in the schedule it is mentioned Khaneshumari

No.52, but it is found that 2 words are deleted by ink

wherein in one word is khaneshumari that word is deleted,

but regarding correction made in the schedule there is no

attestation of the signature, earlier No.52 katha No.23

present municipal khatha No.172 is mentioned but relating

 42
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
to change of new katha No.172 there is no document issued

by the concerned municipal authority. Further the ExP1 gift

deed is unregistered document. Further as per ExP1 gift

deed executed by Rajamma in favour of plaintiff on

20/11/2001, but the plaintiff has not produced document

regarding the change of katha of suit property in her name in

the concerned revenue records. The plaintiff filed suit in the

year 2009, when she filed the said suit at that time she has

not produced the katha extract and katha certificate in

respect of suit property standing in her name in the

concerned municipal authority or BBMP. Further the DW.1

deposed the evidence that earlier father of plaintiff was filed

suit in OS.No.2544/1998 on the file of City Civil Court,

Bengaluru and in the said suit the father of DW.3 filed

written statement and during pendency of the suit father of

the plaintiff died and plaintiff was brought on record as legal

heir but thereafter the said suit was dismissed for default.

On this aspect the defendant counsel cross-examined PW.1

 43
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
and PW.1 deposed the evidence that it is true to suggest that

“It is true to suggest that my father during his life time filed suit

in OS.No.2544/1988 against Dodanarasimaiah, Byemma and

Others. It is true to suggest that after the death of Anjanappa his

legal heirs were came on record in the said suit. I am the 7 th

plaintiff in said suit. It is true to suggest that in the said suit

Doodanarasimaiah had filed written statement but, I do not know

that in the written statement Doodanarasimaiah had taken

contention that my father Anjinappa had no right over the

property in question in the said suit. It is true to suggest that the

said suit was dismissed for default”. But the plaintiff has not

clarified why she has not appeared in OS.No.2544/1988

which was filed by her father against the father of the

defendants No.1 to 6 because that suit was also filed by the

father of the plaintiff against the father of the defendant

No.1 to 6 for permanent injunction relating to the same suit

schedule property. That the plaintiff in this suit shown cause

of action arose on 10/09/2009 that on that day defendants

again interfered with her possession and enjoyment of suit

 44
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
property, hence she constrained file suit for permanent

injunction. Hence the suit for permanent injunction is

maintainable, but plaintiff has to prove her lawful possission

and enjoyment over the suit scheudule property as on date of

suit.

30. The plaintiff's counsel cross examined DW.1 in length

and suggested that Muniyappa S/o Doddanarasimhaiah sold

eastern portion of house list No.23 Khaneshumari No.52 in

favour of Subbaiah shetty and said Subbaiah Shetty sold 30

x 90 feet area in favour of Rudrappa and also handed over

the possession in the year 1965 and said Rudrappa sold the

property to father of the plaintiff. DW.1 denied the said

suggestion of the plaintiff's counsel. Further in the cross

examination of DW.1 the plaintiff's counsel suggested DW.1

and DW.1 deposed the evidence that “ನಮಮ ತತತ ಮಮನಯಪಪನವರಮ

ಹಹಸಸ‍ಲಸಸಟಸ‍ನನನ 23 ದ ಖತನನನಶಮಮತರ ನನನ 52 ಮತರತಟ ಮತಡದ ನನತರ ಸದರ

ಆಸಸ ಅಸನಸನಮನಟಸ‍ನನನ 172 ಅನತ ಆಗದನ ಎನದರನ ಸರಯಲಲ. ಈಗ ಸದರನ ಅಸನಸನಮನಟಸ‍

 45
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
ನನನ 172 ಕನಕ ಮತಲನಕರದತದರನ ಎನದರನ ಸರಯಲಲ .” Therefore burden is on

the plaintiff to prove that the said house list No.23

khaneshumari No.52 was made as assessment No.172 by the

concerned revenue authority, but to prove said fact the

plaintiff has not produced any documents and in ExP3 and

ExP4 there is entry about Sl.No.172, but there is no entry

about khaneshumari No.52 and house list No.23 as

contended by plaintiff. Further the plaintiff has not produced

any documents to show that after the death of her father her

mother has got mutated her name to the khaneshumari

No.52 house list No.23 and afterwards as per gift deed by

mother of the plaintiff Rajamma to the plaintiff, she has got

mutated her name to the said house No.52 and house list

No.23. There is no connection regarding property Number

mentioned in ExP2 in corporation that ExP3 and ExP4 as

discussed above. Therefore plaintiff has prima facie failed to

prove that she is the owner and in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of suit schedule property as on date of suit.

 46
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
Hence question of interference by the defendants does not

arise. Therefore the plaintiff failed to prove Issue No.1 to 3

and defendants No.2 to 7 failed to Issue No.4. Therefore I

answer Issues No.1 to 4 in Negative.

31. Issue No.5:-

In view of above discussion I proceed to pass

following:

:ORDER:

The suit of the plaintiff is hereby

dismissed. No order as to costs.

Draw decree accordingly.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her. Then corrected
on line in computer, then taken print copy, corrected, signed and
pronounced by me in the open court on this 21st day of December 2020).

(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE

:ANNEXURE:
 47
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 Smt. Surekha W/o. N. Manjunath
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
ExP1: Gift deed dated 20.11.2001
ExP2: Sale deed
ExP3: Property tax Register extract
ExP4: Property tax Register extract
ExP5: Tax paid Receipt
ExP6: Copy of self assessment
ExP7: Certified copy of released deed dated 17/11/1962
ExP7(a): Typed copy release deed dated17/11/1962
ExP8: Certified copy of sale deed dated 15/01/1965
ExP8(a): Typed copy of sale deed dated 15/01/1965
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S:
DW.1Manjunath S/o late Dodda Narasimaiah
DW.2 R. Vijay Kumar S/o A. Krishnappa @ Krishna Reddy
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S:

ExD1: Sale deed

ExD2: Certified copy of settlement deed
ExD3: Tax paid receipt
ExD4: Tax paid receipt
ExD5: Tax paid receipt
ExD6: Tax paid receipt
 48
Judgment OS.No.26916/2009
ExD7: Tax paid receipt
ExD8: Tax paid receipt
ExD9: Certified copy paid receipt
ExD10: Certified copy paid receipt
ExD11: Certified copy paid receipt
ExD12: Assessment list
ExD13: Copy of notice issued by ITI notified area company
ExD13: Copy of notice issued by ITI notified area company
ExD15: Copy of notice issued by Nagarasabha, KR Puram
ExD16: Copy of notice issued by Nagarasabha, KR Puram
ExD17: Encumbrance certificate
ExD18: Encumbrance certificate
ExD19: Encumbrance certificate
ExD20: Encumbrance certificate
ExD21: Copy of property tax return
ExD22: Endorsement issued by KR Puram P.S.

XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE

MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.