IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER ztjmj-.P:P BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.i55'~QP 2603 " c/w REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.891 or [PAR] IN RFA No.'755/2003: BETWEEN: Smt.Nirmala Rajanna, W/0 Rajanna, Majorj' No.30, Old A Vasanthanetgara BANGALORE -V5.3.i_ [By Slfiv.' _Adv_; ) AND: E' ' ' ' ' 1.
Sri.A.S.SéirRi1ga}§ani’,._ S
S/0 Late Sing-ararn, Major,
– /. R/Q’.NQ’.,,18?,..A A
” A “Ber1″s0ri’ ‘I’0wn._, Biddarahalli,
006.
. L» 2.
S /o,_I.,at_e~ Ssifigaram,
Since plead; by his
‘ ~ ‘~ . “Legal representatives
A “:E:é;1}.V_ H”‘AYadav Kumari @ Karuna,
A’ “B0 Years.
‘ W/0 late Seshachalam.
. . APPELLANT.
Ex)
I3) Magendra, 40 Years,
S/o Iate Seshachalam.
R–2[a} & [b] are
C/0 Kodanciaram,
Proprietor,
A.M.Cy<:le Shop, I
Langford Road Cross, . '
Shanthinagar, _ C , "
BANGALORE — 27. % =,..’REs1_>cm)£1vT§s ”
[By Sri.M.S.PurushothéimVa _
Rao, Adv. for R- ” _
Sr1′.G.V.Dayan”ar1d, to
for L.Rs., of Re?) * ht
=i£=;»=!’=~;~*lVi<fi=i%"_C".
This Appeal' 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, __a_gai'1ost' 71.;ij:_if1e and Decree dated
19.03.2008ipassetifirl..Q'.«S.N.o'L".?i434'/1997 by the V Additional
City Civil Judge, ' dismissing the suit for
permanent and xnianvdatory-.inj':inction and declaration.
mi Noiiséi/2~oo3:
a SriA.A. S. Saraiigapani,
— S/o La:te.Singaram, Major,
No.30, Western Portion,
‘v.:t»}.1F1’*i1\/.AI’ain, Vasant Nagar,
_ – 560 052.
-.._”A’:SriiA.S.SeshachaIarn.
~ W’ 8/0 Late Singaram,
“‘””1
Since dead, by his
Legal representatives
a) Yadav Kumari @ Karunavathi,
58 Years,
W/0 late Seshachalam.
b) Tilak Kumar S, 39 Years,
S/0 late A.S.Seshacha1am.¥__
C) Suclhir Kumar S, 36 Years,
S/0 late A.S.SeshachalarI1:
E
E
5
R–2[a) to (C) are _
R/0 No.30, Western P«,3rtiQ1i,~«
1 11″ Main, Vasarit ‘Na8a,1?f* .2 ll -.
BANGALORE — 560’ 0.52, i_ “‘~~–‘.i,.;-APPELLANIS.
[By sri.r¢i’.’S,.VP’uru.shpuiarm; av
1. Smt.Bihushafiam.__@l ”
Guna l3hu4shana:fin,
W/0 Sri§N.’l’.Kri&::hi1a Ra} t
Aged ab0ut..73 Y¢E:rs*;._
.« «. _ Sri§%l\:l’;’lT»,..E;{r’i.shna”Raj,” ‘V
3 V S/Q Srilffiruvenkatam.
“‘B_O’thM «afe al_v£f.a_{Q.r’é., No. 5,
Sharithi.Nagar, 10:11 Street,
. Adainba_kkan1 New Extension,
QCHENNAE – 600 088.
7 _ ‘~ f ‘Smt’.”N1’rmala,
” _’ W/o”Rajanr1a, Major,
No.30 (New),
l .4 -350.25 [Old],
Eastern Portion,
1 1″‘ Main.
Vasanthanagar.
BANGALORE –~ 560 052. .. _
(By Sri.P.H.Ramalingam,
Adv. for R-3,
Sri.G.V.Dayar1and, Adv.
for R-1 and R-2)
:2 W :4: _ 2:” =k _ =i=”__”‘:kV
This Appeal is filed under secuéjii §6._of tneilovde of Civil
Procedure, against the ,Decree dated
19.03.2003 passed, in _o.s.;:\Io.-;r_0.322i;./1905 by the V
Additional City Ci’/i1’J;i.i’dge:;–. Bahngaltore.”.dis–missing the suit for
permanent and declaration.
These:,:iApp’ea1?s-.Vaife.–con9i’in_g .011 Arguments this day, the
Court delivefedt the
L=f”gpDGMENT
Tiap_peals arise out of the common Judgment
and i@9.’VC)3.2OO3 passed in O.S.N0s.10324/1995
2434/”””0n the V Additional City Civil Judge.
t.,.,…:-bf
6
Whether piaintiffs prove that they are in
lawful possession of the plaint B schedule,L”-.._p’~..v
property as on the date of the suit?
Whether plaintiffs proVe__tjh_at 4′
deed in favour of the 35″ defeindoaht
respect of the suit property–.is*..hit the
principles of lispenderis?’
Whether plaintiff’-3 they are
entitled to boththe: periiianent
and mandatory for’?
that he was
of”‘the§ suit property
the same under
registered deieedppttdated 9. 3. 53′?
V_Whethe1j:’2″$?5dei’eri€i.ant proves that he has
V_’:p’§’«:.la\;5Aji’:1V1ly soidv-the suit property to the 31″”
A _ d_efe.nda’nt_ under a registered sale deed
it pidatedfl 94?
‘Whethéer defendants prove that the suit is
as ;,_bai*red under Seal} C.P.C. and also
A * . _.uunde1’ 0.2, R.2 ope?
To what reliefs the parties are entitled to?
M
Issues in O.S.No.2-434/1997:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she
absolute owner of schedule C propei*ty’?W’ ‘ ” *’
2. Whether the plaintiff further.
she is entitled for mesne,
rate of Rs.500/- per.arr;’onth”‘fIjo1″I1 H .
till recovery of possessi’o.n’?»
3. Whether the c_nti’t1ed.:’for vacant
possession of schedjnle’_lV(:3 from
second _d.efen_da1§it? 1,» W
4. What _or{le1;’ or”‘.:l’6.(‘3\i*é33’-?i
3. Thereafter recorded common evidence
in both the l’rnatI;ersj_ i%o<heI'ein the second plaintiff in
1995 fexarnined himself as P.W.1 and in
supp.ort.»V'oi'~th'eiVr examined one J.Pushparaj, as P.W.2,
is to neighbour of the plaintiffs, residing in
..\'gfasan.th Nagarl, P.W.3, Smt.Kantha Bai, who is relative of
Vplaintiff, A.S.SeshachaJan1 and P.W.3 Srnt.Karuna,
'€'\('-'1
17'. In the light of the aforesaid finding, this Court.-find that
the Sale Deeds, which is executed by Sn1t.BhusPi-ariarnp in
or
favour of Sn1t.Nirrnala, pursuant to O12,
O.S.No. 108 13/ 1990 as and when byvvay caution
need not be taken on record in tlj1is~_v_procecAdiI1g arid the
application filed by plaintiff seeking" production the same
does not survive for consi'deratio'n'. " Hovvever, ascould be seen
in the affidavit filed in of Sale Deed
nominal Sale abundant caution to
ensure thatlfif Sale Deed in favour of
Madan executed by Madan Lal in her
favour ispyhveldto' genuine to convey a better and
clear property to Smt.Nirma1a, the said
However, in the light of finding of
vlhthis Colurt h_oid.inglExs.P–10 and 13-1 1 as concocted and sham
-…f._f’C’1′(A;;3l1Vj13}€V1jtS..Eiild confirming that N.T.Krishna Raj Continued to
_.the*o2vner of suit schedule property from the date of
‘Vipiirc-haise, i.e., right from 1953 till the disposal of the same _in
aforesaifi reasons’; ” _ A,
of the entire suit schedule property as owner, pursuant to
Sale Deed executed in her favour in Ex.D~17, whioh
confirmed by Smt.Bhusha.nam, W/0
executing another Sale Deed, Vdurirng “pende1icy”~of this’.
proceedings for better eonfirmpatioh’.Qf:t.-r,_rtIe O
the suit schedule property.
passed by the Court belvowpppin the same is
confirmed by disnaissinéfit by Sarangapani
brothers in R.F.A.«f§1.o;’89 u
19. With Sarangapani brothers in
R.F.A.No.89 The appeal filed by
Smt.Nirmal’a”‘«e4_’iI1vvR.F’§’A.PJo”I_.755/2003 is allowed for the
Sd/…
JUDGE