ADVERTISEMENT
Bangalore District Court
Rathnamma vs Papanna Papiah on 10 April, 2026
KABC010176082010
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-57) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026
: PRESENT :
Sri. I. P. Naik
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
C/C LVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
OS No. 6663/2010
PLAINTIFFS :- 1 Smt. Rathnamma
since dead by legal heir
already on record
W/o Late Venkataswamy,
Aged about 68 years.
2 Smt. Geetha
Aged about 55 years
W/o Janardhana
D/o Late Venkataswamy.
3 Smt. Sunanda
Aged about 54 years
W/o Ranganath
D/o late Venkataswamy.
2
Original Suit No.6663/2010
4 Sri Kishore Kumar
S/o late Venkataswamy
Aged about 53 years.
Plaintiff No.1 to 4 are
R/at No. 88, Sree Manjunatha
Nursery, Lalbagh Road,
Bangalore-560 027.
5 Smt. Sharadamma
W/o late Byrappa @ Byrareddy
Aged about 57 years.
6 (Suresh) dead by his L.Rs
6(a) Smt. Shoba
Aged about 40 years
S/o late Suresh.
6(b) Karthik.S.
Aged about 19 years
S/o Late Suresh.
6(c) Master Vijayaraghavendra.S.
Aged about 16 years
S/o late Suresh.
(The L.R.Plaintiff No.6 (c) is minor
represented by his mother as
natural guardian the plaintiff No.
6.(a).
7 (Dinesh) since dead by his
legal heirs
7(a) Smt. Bhagyamma
Aged about 38 years
3
Original Suit No.6663/2010
W/o late dinesh
7(b) Kum. Bindu.D.
Aged about 13 years
D/o late Suresh
8 (Ravi Kumar.B). since dead
by his legal heirs
8(a) Smt. Gowramma
Aged about 40 years
W/o late Ravi
8(b) Manjunath.R.
Aged about 18 years
S/o late Ravi
Both are residing at :
No. 1105, NGO's Colony,
Kamalanagar,
Bangalore-560 079.
9 Sri Satish.B.
S/o late Byrappa @ Byrareddy
Aged about 37 years.
Plaintiff No.5 to 9 are R/at
No. 1105, NGO's colony
Kamalanagar
Bangalore-560 079.
(By Sri. DRCR, Advocate,
Plaintiff 6 (a) - Sri RS, Advocate)
-V/s-
DEFENDANTS 1 (Papanna @ Papaiah)
dead by his Lrs.
4
Original Suit No.6663/2010
1(a) Smt. Narayanamma
Aged about 59 years
W/o late Papanna @ Papaiah
1(b) Smt. Rukmani
Aged about 43 years
D/o late Papanna @ Papaiah
1(c) Sri Nagaraj.P. @ Babu
Aged about 42 years
S/o late Papanna @ Papaiah.
1(d) Smt. Anusuya
Aged about 41 years
D/o Late Papanna @ Papaiah
Defendant No.1 L.Rs.(a) to (d)
are R/at No. 31/18, New No. 36,
Sri Venkateshwara Nilaya
1st Main, II cross
Choolarapalya
Vijayanagara
Bangalore.
2 (Muniyappa), since dead
by his Lrs.
(his legal heir brought on record
as Defendant No.3 and 4)
2(a) Smt. Bhagya
Aged about 52 years
D/o late Muniyappa
R/at Hargadde village
Jigani Hobli
Anekal Taluk
Bangalore Urban District.
5
Original Suit No.6663/2010
2(b) Smt. Radha
Aged about 50 years
D/o late Muniyappa
R/at No. 1/11,
"Sahana Nilaya",
5th Main, 6th Block
III stage, B.S.K.,
Bangalore-560 055.
2(c) Smt. M. Baby
Aged about 44 years
W/o Sri Suresh
D/o late Muniyappa (Hargadde)
& late Papamma
R/at Thindlu village
Sarjapur Hobli
Anekal Taluk
Bangalore Urban District-562 125.
3 Sri M. Suresh @ suresh Babu
S/o late Papamma
Aged about 45 years
4 T.K.Teja
D/o Papamma
Aged about 36 years
Defendant No.2 to 4 are residing
at : No. 1069, 6th cross,
Bandireddy Palya
Srirampura,
Bangalore-560 021.
And also residing at
Hargadde village
Jigani Hobli,
Anekal Taluk,
6
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Bangalore Urban District.
5 Smt. D. Saroja
W/o Devaraj
Aged about 60 years
R/at No.2, 2nd cross,
Muddappa Garden
Dayanandanagara
Srirampuram Post
Bangalore-560 021.
6 Smt. P. Saraswathi
W/o V. Ponnuswamy
Aged about 53 years
Residing at No.5,
6th cross, BandireddyPalya
Srirampura
Bangalore-21.
7 Smt. S. Marry
W/o D. Shekar
Aged about 36 years
Residing at No. 32, 1st cross,
Dayanandanagara
Srirampura
Bangalore-560 021.
8 Sri Vareed C.M.
S/o C.T.Mathay,
Aged about 52 years
Residing at No. 59/1,
Srirampuram,
Bangalore-560 021.
9 Smt. Jayamahadevamma
W/o Paramashivaiah
Aged about 59 years
Residing at No. 3/1
7
Original Suit No.6663/2010
6th cross, Bandireddy Palya
Srirampura,
Bangalore-21.
10 Smt. Gowramma
W/o Madaiah
Aged about 55 years
Residing at No. 1139
6th cross, Bandireddy Palya
Srirampura
Bangalore-21.
11 Sri Gangappa, since dead by
his Lrs.
S/o late Munivenkatappa
Aged about 69 years
Residing at No. 12 & 13
19th cross, Cubbonpet
Bangalore-560 002.
11(a) Sri G.Devaraju
Aged about 52 years
S/o late Gangappa.
11(b) Sri G. Prakash
Aged about 46 years
S/o late Gangappa.
11(c) Smt. Prabhavathi
Aged about 49 years
D/o late Gangappa.
11(d) Smt. Manjula
Aged about 40 years
D/o late Gangappa
The Defendants No.11 (a) to 11(d)
8
Original Suit No.6663/2010
are R/at No. 1/5, VI Cross,
IX main, Bandireddy Circle,
Srirampuram
Bangalore-560 021.
12 Smt. Kalpana.B.
W/o G. Prakash
Aged about 38 years.
13 Kum. Priyanka
D/o G. Prakash
Aged about 17 years.
14 Master Manoj
S/o G. Prakash
Aged about 12 years.
(The proposed Defendant No.13
and 14 are minor, represented by
his mother i.e. Proposed Defendant
No.12 Kalpana.B. W/o G. Prakash)
Defendant No.12 to 14 are R/at :
No. 27/1, M.S.Lane,
Narayanashetty Pate,
J.M.Road Cross, Avenue Road
Church,
Bangalore-560 002.
15 Smt. Shobha.D.
W/o Devaraj.D.
Aged about 51 years
R/at No. 1/5, 6th cross Road
4th Main Road, Bandireddy Circle
Srirampuram, Bangalore North,
Bangalore-560 021.
9
Original Suit No.6663/2010
16 Smt. D. Sumathi
Aged about 46 years
D/o J. Devaraj and Smt. D. Saroja
R/at No.2, 2nd cross,
Muddappa Garden,
Dayanandanagara
Srirampura Post
Bangalore-560 021.
17 Sri D. Jaishankar
Aged about 52 years
S/o J. Devaraj and Smt. D. Saroja
R/at No.2, 2nd cross
Muddappa Garden
Dayanandanagara
Srirampura Post
Bangalore-560 021.
(By Sri. HR, Advocate for D.1(a), (b)
& (d),
D.2 (a) & (b) -
D.3, 5 to 7, 9 and 10- Sri KMR,
Advocate,
D.8 - Sri JP, Advocate,
D.8(a), (b) and 11 (c) - Sri VC,
Advocate,
Proposed D.12 to 14 - Sri HN,
Advocate,
D.16 and 17 - Sri. RN, Advocate,
D.2(c), 4, 11 (d) - Exparte,
D.15 -
Date of institution of the suit 21.09.2010
Nature of the suit Partition, Separate
Possession & Declaration.
10
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Date of commencement of
05.09.2024
recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 10.04.2026
was pronounced
Years Months Days
Total Duration
15 06 20
-:J U D G M E N T:-
1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against
defendants for relief of partition, separate possession
and to declare that Release Deed, Gift Deed and
various Sale Deeds are not binding on their shares.
2. Description of the suit schedule property:
2.1. The property municipal No.4 (Old No.1140,
renumbered as 1469) Corporation No.1 admeasured
East-West 98ft and North-South 79ft, situated at 6 th
cross, Bandireddy Palya, Srirampura, Corporation
ward No.24, 3rd division Bengaluru. This property
bounded on following boundaries;
11
Original Suit No.6663/2010
East by Shanoboug property presently Road.
West by House of Nyathappa & Venkatappa.
North by Common passage and house of
Buddaiah and Kamaiah.
South by Shanoboug property presently Road.
------------herein after aforesaid property referred
Item No.1
2.2. The property municipal No.4 (Old No.1140,
renumbered as 1469) Corporation No.1 admeasured
East-West 30ft and North-South 35ft, situated at 6 th
cross, Bandireddy Palya, Srirampura, Corporation
ward No.24, 3rd division Bengaluru. This property
bounded on following boundaries;
East by Remaining property of Item No.1.
West by House of Venkatappa.
North by passage.
South by vacant Site bearing No.1469/198ft and
north-south 78ft
------------herein after aforesaid property referred
Item No.2
12
Original Suit No.6663/2010
2.3. The property municipal No.4 (Old No.1140,
renumbered as 1469) Corporation No.1 admeasured
East-West 68ft and North-South 98ft, situated at 6 th
cross, Bandireddy Palya, Srirampura, Corporation
ward No.24, 3rd division Bengaluru. This property
bounded on following boundaries;
East by Shanoboug property presently Road.
West by Property of defendant No.2 & 3, House of
Nyathappa & Venkatappa.
North by Property of defendant No.2 & 3,
Common passage and house of
Yarrappa, Buddaiah and Kamaiah.
South by Shanoboug property presently Road.
------------herein after aforesaid property referred
Item No.3
3. The pedigree of plaintiffs and defendant.
No.1 to 4.
(Ankappa)(dead)
(Common Ancestor)
↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
(Venkataswamy) (Papanna)(D.1) (Byrappa) (Smt, Papamma)
(1st son) (2nd son) (3rd son) (Daughter)
13
Original Suit No.6663/2010
The factual matrix of plaintiff's case is as under :
4. The plaintiff No.1 was wife of 1 st son and
plaintiff No.2 to 6 are children of plaintiff No.1 and 1 st
son of common ancestor. The plaintiff No.7 to 9 are
children of 3rd son of common ancestor. The defendant
No.1 was 2nd son of common ancestor. The defendant
No.2 to 4 are children of daughter of common
ancestor. During pendency of suit the plaintiff No.1, 6,
7, 8 and defendant No.1, 2, 11 are died, their legal
heirs are brought on record. The defendant No.5 to 17
are purchaser of properties. After death of Venkatappa
and Byrappa, the defendant No.1 became a Karta of
Hindu joint family consisted by plaintiffs and
defendant No.1 and their descendants, who are parties
to this suit.
5. The common ancestor was purchased item
No.1 property under registered sale deed on
14
Original Suit No.6663/2010
15.01.1940. The common ancestor and his family
members have executed sale deed on 23.11.1960 in
favour of Mallappa and C.M.Ashwthnarayana. On
19.08.1967 common ancestor had Gifted the Item No.2
in favour of his daughter i.e., Smt Papamma through
registered instrument. Thereafter Smt Papamma and
her family members were in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of Item No.2 property. The plaintiffs and
defendant No.1 succeeded to Item No.3 property. The
plaintiffs and defendant No.1 having 2/3rd share in the
Item No.1 property.
6. The lessees have filed suit against children
of common ancestor in O.S.No.642/1983 Before
learned Addl City Civil Court, Bengaluru. Said suit was
decreed and directed to refund the mortgage money
with interest. The children of common ancestor have
deposited the decretal amount with interest.
Meanwhile 1st son and daughter of common ancestor
15
Original Suit No.6663/2010
dead. Thereafter, the defendant No.2 to 4 have
colluded and created unregistered and concocted GPA.
Based on said created GPA, after death of Mallappa
and Ashwathnarayana the defendant No.3 got alleged
Bhogya Bidugade Pathra (Lease Deed) on 11.02.2002
without knowledge of L.Rs of lessees and L.Rs of
common ancestor.
7. After obtaining lease deed and GPA the
defendant No.3 was sold the Item No.1 property by
executed various sale deed in favour of defendant No.5
to 11. Thereafter, the defendant No.5 (a property
purchased by her) Gifted said property in favour of
defendant No.16 and 17 by registered instrument
on23.06.2005. During pendency of suit and interim
prohibition order in force, the defendant No.11 (a
property purchased by him) was Gifted the property in
favour of defendant No.11(a) and 11(b) through two
registered instrument on 15.09.2015. Later on
16
Original Suit No.6663/2010
defendant No.11(b) and defendant No.12 to 14 have
sold the said Gifted property in favour of defendant
No.11(a) and defendant No.15 through registered sale
deed on13.12.2015. The defendant No.5 to 11 have
created Gift Deeds and Sale Deeds in order to knock
off the share of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have
demanded their share in the suit properties. The
defendant No.1 was refused the demand of plaintiffs.
Hence the plaintiffs have filed present suit with
aforesaid reliefs against defendants.
8. In response to the summons, the
defendants appeared through their respective
counsels. The L.Rs of defendant No.1 i.e., defendant
No1(c) has filed his written statement. Wherein, he
admitted averments made in the plaint. Further, he
has made counter claim and sought for allotment of
his respective share in the suit properties. This
17
Original Suit No.6663/2010
defendant urged that, suit of the plaintiffs is bad for
non joinder of necessary parties.
9. The defendant No.5 to 7, 9 and 10 have
jointly filed their written statement. The defendant
No.3 has filed memo and adopted the written
statement of defendant No.5 to 7, 9 and 10. The
defendant No.8 and deceased No.11 have filed their
respective written statement separately.
10. On considering entire written statement of
defendant No.5 to 11, it is reveled that they have not
disputed the item No.1 property purchased by the
Ankappa under registered sale deed on 15.01.1940
and said Ankappa and his family members have
mortgaged the Item No.1 property in favour of
Mallappa and Ashwathnarana under registered
mortgaged deed on 23.11.1960.
18
Original Suit No.6663/2010
11. These defendants are specifically and
categorically denied that, after death of Mallappa and
Ashwathnarana, defendant No.3 got concocted and
created GPA and relinquishment deed from L.Rs of
Lessees. Further, denied that based concocted and
created GPA and relinquishment deed, the defendant
No.3 executed various sale deed in favour of defendant
No.5 to 11 without knowledge of plaintiffs. These
defendants specifically denied that the plaintiffs and
other defendants (descendants of common ancestor)
are joint possession and enjoyment of suit properties.
Further, denied that plaintiffs demanded share and
defendant No.1 was refused to make partition in the
suit property.
12. These defendants have taken specific
contentions that, after purchase of item No.1 property,
the common ancestor and his family members have
mortgaged the said property in favour of Mallappa and
19
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Ashwathnarana under registered mortgage deed on
23.11.1960. During life of common ancestor, he was
not taken coercive steps to get redeem the mortgaged
property from Mallappa and Ashwathnarana.
13. The daughter of common ancestor i.e., wife
of defendant No.2 and mother of defendant No.3 and 4
by name Smt Papamma was filed Civil Misc
No.642/1983 against male children (1 st son to 3rd son)
of her father/common ancestor and Mallappa before
learned XVI Addl City Civil Court, Bengaluru. During
pendency of case, Mallappa was died and his legal
heirs brought on records. Wherein these persons were
absent. Thereafter, learned XVI Addl City Civil Court
has allowed petition filed by Smt Papamma on
25.01.1991. Further, the learned court has directed to
Smt Papamma that pay mortgage amount of Rs
10,000/- along with interest of Rs 450/- total amount
of Rs 10,450/- for discharge of mortgage money.
20
Original Suit No.6663/2010
14. As per direction passed by learned XVI
Addl City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The legal heirs of
Mallappa and Ashwathnarana i.e., Smt Nagaratna
(Wife of Ashwathnarana) and Smt Lamxi (Sole
daughter of Ashwathnarana) have executed
relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No.1 and
GPA holder of deceased defendant No.2 and defendant
No.4. Thereafter, revenue records mutated in the name
of defendant No.2 to 4.
15. The defendant No.5 to 11 have verified the
records and registered instructions, they have
purchased the their respective properties through
registered sale deeds and they are bonafide purchaser.
16. The defendant No.5 has taken specific
stand that she has purchased Site bearing No.3
(property No1469/1) measuring 222.5sq ft under
registered sale deed on 11.02.2002. Thereafter, she
21
Original Suit No.6663/2010
has constructed the building. A revenue records
stands in the name of defendant No.5.
17. The defendant No.6 has taken specific
stand that she has purchased Site bearing No.6
(property No1469/1) measuring 450sq ft under
registered sale deed on 11.02.2002. Thereafter, she
has constructed the building. A revenue records
stands in the name of defendant No.6.
18. The defendant No.7 has taken specific
stand that she has purchased Site bearing No.5
(property No1469/1) measuring 728.50sq ft under
registered sale deed on 15.07.2002. Thereafter, she
has constructed the building. A revenue records
stands in the name of defendant No.7.
19. The defendant No.8 has taken specific
stand that she has purchased Site bearing No.4
22
Original Suit No.6663/2010
(property No1469/1) measuring 808.5sq ft under
registered sale deed on 22.07.2002. Thereafter, he has
constructed the four floor building. A revenue records
stands in the name of defendant No.8.
20. The defendant No.9 has taken specific
stand that she has purchased Site bearing No.2-A
(property No1469/1) measuring 629.25sq ft under
registered sale deed on 13.12.2002. Thereafter, she
has constructed the building. A revenue records
stands in the name of defendant No.9.
21. The defendant No.10 has taken specific
stand that she has purchased Site bearing No.2
(property No1469/1) measuring 1106.78 sq ft under
registered sale deed on 13.12.2002. Thereafter, she
has constructed the building. A revenue records
stands in the name of defendant No.10.
23
Original Suit No.6663/2010
22. The defendant No.11 has taken specific
stand that she has purchased Site bearing No.1
(property No1469/1) measuring 896sq ft under
registered sale deed on 12.12.2002. Thereafter, he has
constructed the building. A revenue records stands in
the name of defendant No.8.
23. The defendant No.5 to 11 have taken
contentions that after purchasing the their respective
site, constructed buildings. They are paying tax and
Khata stands in their name. They are actual
possession, use and enjoyment of their respective
buildings.
24. They plaintiffs are not in actual possession
and enjoyment of the suit properties. Therefore, a
Court Fees paid by plaintiffs on plaint is not proper
and sufficient. The suit of plaintiffs is barred by
Limitation. In order to harass, the plaintiffs have filed
24
Original Suit No.6663/2010
false, frivolous suit. Hence, prays for dismissal of suit
with exemplary cost.
25. On the basis of above rival pleadings, the
learned trial court framed the following issues : -
1) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are
entitled for 2/3rd share in item No.1 of
suit schedule properties ?
2) Whether plaintiffs further prove that
alleged release deed dated 11.2.2002 and
alleged sale deeds dated 8.2.2002,
11.2.2002, 15.7.2002, 22.7.2002 and
13.12.2002 respectively executed by
defendant No.3 in favour of defendant
No.5 to 11 are not binding on their
share ?
3) Whether valuation of the suit is improper
and Court fee paid is insufficient ?
4) Whether suit of the plaintiff's is not
maintainable ?
5) Whether present suit is time barred ?
6) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief of
partition and separate possession as
prayed ?
25
Original Suit No.6663/2010
7) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief of
declaration as prayed ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.07.2024
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
Gift deed dated 23.06.2005 executed by
defendant No.5 in favour of defendants
No.16 and 17 is null and void and not
binding on their share in suit schedule
item No.III property ?
2). Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
sale deed dated 13.12.2019 executed by
defendants No.11(b), 12 to 14 in favour of
defendants No.11(a) and 15 is null and
void and not binding on their share in suit
schedule item No.III property ?
8. What decree or order ?
26. The plaintiff N.9 examined PW.1 and
produced following documentary evidence in support
of plaintiffs' case;
Sl. No. documents Description of documents
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed
26
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of gift deed
Ex.P.3 to P.9 Copies of katha
Ex.P.10 to 16 Certified copies of sale deeds
Ex.P.17 to 20 Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P.21 Certified copy of HRRP No.
1600/1997
Ex.P.22 Xerox copy of document dated
11.2.2022
Ex.P.23 to P.25 Encumbrance certificates
Ex.P.26 Family tree
27. On other hand, the Defendants have
examined following witnesses:
Rank of witnesses Names of witnesses
DW.1 Vareed.C.M.
DW.2 Shivakumar
DW.3 D.Karthigeyan
DW.4 Sunith.S.
DW.5 N.Sunil
DW.6 Parthiban.P.
DW.7 G.Devaraju
28. The defendants have produced following
documentary evidence in support of their case:
Sl. No. documents Description of documents
27
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.D.2 & 3 Certified copies of kathas
Ex.D.4 Tax receipt
Ex.D.5 Endorsement of Sub
Registrar
Ex.D.6 Approved sketch
Ex.D.7 Bescom letter
Ex.D.8 to 13 6 Electricity bills
Ex.D.14 to 16 Receipt pertains to Gas
and water connection
Ex.D.17 Invitation card of House
warming ceremony
Ex.D.18 & 19 Two bills pertains to
telephone connection
Ex.D.20 Original Aadhar card
Ex.D.21 Certified copy of
Application form in Misc.
642/88
Ex.D.22 Endorsement
Ex.D.23 Certified copy of lease
release letter
Ex.D.24 Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.D.25 &D.26 Certified and copy of katha
Ex.D.27 & D.28 Encumbrance certificates
Ex.D.29 Tax paid receipt
Ex.D.30 to 35 Electricity connection
receipts
Ex.D.36 Muktharnama
Ex.D.37 General Muktharnama
Ex.D.38 Certified copy of sale deed
28
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Ex.D.39 Certified copy of gift deed
Ex.D.40 & 41 Certified copy of katha and
copy
Ex.D.42 Tax paid receipt
ExD.43 Encumbrance certificate
Ex.D.44 to 49 Six receipts
Ex.D.50 Certified copy of gift deed
Ex.D.51 Certified copy of katha and
copy
Ex.D.52 & 53 Tax paid receipts
Ex.D.54 Encumbrance certificate
Ex.D.55 & 56 Electricity bills
Ex.D.57 General Muktharnama
written by D.7
Ex.D.58 Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.D.59 & 60 Certified copy of katha and
copy
Ex.D.61 Tax receipt
Ex.D.62 & 63 Encumbrance certificates
Ex.D.64 & 65 Electricity bill paid receipt
Ex.D.66 General Muktharnama
Ex.D.67 Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.D.68 & 69 Certified copy of katha and
copy
Ex.D.70 Tax paid receipt
Ex.D.71 & 72 Encumbrance certificates
Ex.D.73 to 76 Electricity connection bills
Ex.D.77 Muktharnama
Ex.D.78 Certified copy of lease deed
29
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Ex.D.79 Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.D.80 & 81 Certified copy of katha and
copy
Ex.D.82 Tax paid receipt
Ex.D.83 & 84 Encumbrance certificates
Ex.D.85 to 88 Electricity connection bills
Ex.D.89 Original sale deed
Ex.D.90 Tax receipt
Ex.D.91 Death certificate of mother
of D.W.7
Ex.D.92 & 93 Original gift deeds
Ex.D.94 to 97 Certified copy of katha and
copy
Ex.D.98 & 99 Tax paid receipts
Ex.D.100 Death certificate of father
of D.W.7
Ex.D.101 Sale deed
Ex.D.102 & 103 Electricity bills
Ex.D.104 & 105 Water connection bills
Ex.D.106 & 107 Water tax paid receipts
Ex.D.108 & 109 Certified copies of sale
deeds
Ex.D.110 Copy of order in Misc. NO.
642/1983
29. Heard both side and perused written
arguments filed by plaintiffs.
30
Original Suit No.6663/2010
30. On considering rival pleading, ocular and
documentary evidence and hearing of the parties, my
answer to aforesaid issues as under;
Issue No.1 : In the Negative.
Issue No.2 : In the Negative.
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.4 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.5 : In the affirmative
Issue No.6 : In the negative
Issue No.7 : In the negative
Addl Issue No.1 : In the negative
Addl Issue No.2 : In the negative
Issue No.8 : As per final order
......for the following
:R E A S O N S:
31. Admitted facts as admitted by rival parties;
31.1 One Ankappa and his wife Smt Bachamma have
four children, namely Venkatappa, Papanna, Byrappa
and Smt Papamma.
31.2. The aforesaid Ankappa purchased the Item No.1
property under registered sale deed 15.01.1940.
31
Original Suit No.6663/2010
31.3. Ankappa, his wife Smt Bachamma and their two
children have mortgaged the item No.1 property in
favour of Mallappa and his elder son Ashwathnarana
under registered mortgage deed dtd 23.11.1960.
31.4 Civil Misc No.642/1983 filed for redemption of
mortgaged property i.e., item No.1. Said petition has
been allowed and ordered for redemption of item No.1
property after payment of mortgage amount of
Rs.10,000/- and interest of Rs 450/-.
32. The learned Advocate for plaintiffs submitted that
in this case there is no dispute in respect of item No.1
property purchased by Ankappa in the year 1940. In
order to prove this aspect the plaintiffs have produced
Ex.P.1 sale deed. In the year 1960 leased out the
property in favour of one Mallappa and his son
Ashwathnarayana. Later on they have filed O.S.No.
643/1983 for recovery of amount. The sons of
32
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Ankappa paid the amount to legal heirs of the
Mallappa and Ashwathnarayana. The suit properties
are joint family properties.
33. The learned counsel for plaintiff seriously urged
that Defendant No.3 colluding with legal heirs of
Mallappa and Ashwathnarayana created general power
of attorney and relinquishment deed, based these
documents, he had sold the entire properties in favour
of Defendants 5 to 11 under various sale deed, said
sale deed are not binding on the plaintiffs,
Venkatappa, Papanna and Byrappa who having share
in the suit properties. There is no partition in the
family of plaintiffs, defendant No.1. Further without
having rights the Defendant No.5 gifted the property in
favour of Defendant No.6 and 17 and deceased
Defendant No.11 sold the properties in favour of
Devaraju and Prakash. These gift deeds and sale
deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
33
Original Suit No.6663/2010
have successfully proved their case. Hence prays for
decree the suit of the plaintiffs as sought for. In
support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied
on following decision.
(2020) 9 SCC I
Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors
(2012) 1 SCC 656
Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd Vs
State of Hariana & Anr
(2016) 6 SCC 725
Narayana Vs Babasaheb & Ors
RSA No.1310/2006 (PAR) Dtd 09.02.2022
Bharamappa Huchappa Hadimani Vs
Mariyawwa W/o Guddappa Dabbannavar
34. As against this, the defendants No.5 to 17 are
appeared through different counsels, but their
submission is one and the same. After mortgaging the
property in favour of Mallappa and Ashwathnarayana,
during life time of Ankappa or his sons have not
redeemed the item No.1. They have wrongly pleaded
that lesses have filed the suit in O.S. 643/1983. But
the Papamma who is none other than mother of
34
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Defendants 3 and 4 was filed Miscellaneous 642/1983
under Sec. 83 of Transfer of Property Act for
redemption of Itme No.1. Accordingly, the learned 16 th
Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru, allowed the
petition filed by the Papamma and directed to her to
pay the mortgage amount of Rs 10,000/- and interest
of Rs 450/-. Later on legal heirs of the Papamma
have paid said amount through DD. The legal heirs of
Ashwathnarayana have relinquished the entire
property in favour of Defendants 2 to 4. These three
persons were absolute owner and possession of the
properties. After redemption of item No.1 and
purchased covered under various sale deeds by the
Defendants 5 to 11, they have constructed the
buildings by obtaining permission from the local
authorities. Further they are in actual possession and
enjoyment of the properties by paying revenue to the
State.
35
Original Suit No.6663/2010
35. The plaintiffs or Defendant No.1 (c) are not having
right, title and interest over the properties, the
plaintiffs have not paid proper Court fees. These
Defendants are bona fide purchasers. Without having
right, interest and title over the suit properties, the
plaintiffs have filed false, frivolous and vexatious suit
against these Defendants. Hence prays for dismiss the
suit with costs
Oral evidence and documentary evidence of the parties:-
36. In order to prove their respective case, the
plaintiff No.9 examined as P.W.1, he stepped into the
witness box and filed affidavit in lieu of examination-
in-chief wherein he has reiterated the allegations made
in the plaint averments. In support of his contention,
he has produced number of documents. He has not
produced original documents and also there is no
foundation for relying on secondary evidence. As
already noticed there is no dispute regarding item No.1
property purchased by Ankappa. There is a serious
36
Original Suit No.6663/2010
dispute regarding execution of relinquishment deed
Ex.P.22.
37. During cross-examination P.W.1 admitted
regarding purchase of the property by his grand father
Ankappa and also admitted that Ankappa mortgaged
the property in favour of Mallappa and his son
Ashwathnarayana. Further he pleaded ignorance
regarding his grand father Ankappa died prior to
redemption of mortgage. Further he pleaded ignorance
regarding Smt. Papappa filed Misc. Petition No.
642/1983 for redemption. Further he is not aware
about payment of mortgage money in favour of legal
heirs of Ashwathnarayana. He admitted that after
purchase of the property by the Defendants 5 & 11,
they have gifted and sold the property in favour of their
respective legal representatives.
37
Original Suit No.6663/2010
38. P.W.1 further admitted that the Defendant No.3
sold the item No.1 property in favour of Defendants 5
to 11 under different sale deeds. He pleaded ignorance
regarding mortgage of the property, redemption of the
property and relinquishment of the property. But he
taken contention that Defendant No.3 sold the item
No.1 property based on forged and concocted general
power of attorney and relinquishment deed.
39. The Defendant No.8 and general power of
attorney holder of other Defendants i.e.,
representative of purchasers are examined as D.W.1 to
7. They have stepped into the witness box and filed
affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief wherein they
have taken contention that they are bona fide
purchasers. On verification of registered and revenue
documents pertaining to the suit property, in their
cross-examination D.W.1 to 7 not disputed regarding
purchase of the item No.1 property by Ankappa.
38
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Further stated that Papamma also having rights in the
suit property. They are not produced general power
of attorney executed in favour of Defendant No.3 by
Defendant No.2 to 4. Further stated that wife and
daughter of Ashwathnarayana have executed
relinquishment deed in favour of Defendant No.2 to 4
under Ex.D.23. These witnesses deposed that after of
the property, they have constructed the residential
building with their respective sites purchased by them
under Ex.P.10 to P.16/Ex.D.5 to D.11.
Issue No.2, Addle Issue No.1 and 2 :
40. The plaintiffs have taken contentions that lessees
have filed suit in O.S.No.642/1983 against children of
Ankappa. Said suit was decreed and directed to pay
the mortgage money with interest. After death of
lessees i.e., Mallappa and his son Ashwathnarana,
defendant No.2 to 4 colluded with legal heirs of lesses
got created GPA and relinquishment deed from them
39
Original Suit No.6663/2010
on 11.02.2002. Based on said created GPA and
relinquishment deed, the defendant No.3 had sold the
Item No.1 by executing various sale deed in favour of
defendant No.5 to 11. During pendency of this suit and
in spite of preventive order is in force in respect of
alienation, defendant No.11 alienated the property in
favour of Prakash and Devaraj by executing Gift Deed
on 13.12.2019. The defendant No.5 Gifted property to
defendant No.16 and 17. Therefore, these sale deed
and gift deed are not binding on their shares.
41. In this case, the plaintiffs as well as defendants
have produced revenue records and other documents
which are got marked at Ex.P.3 to 9, Ex.D.2 to 5, 25 to
35, 40 to 49, 51 to 56, 59 to 65, 68 to 76, 80 to 88, 90,
91, 94 to 100, 102 to 107. These documents are not
title documents, based on these documents can not be
decide the rights-interest-title of parties. The
40
Original Suit No.6663/2010
documentary evidence can be consider for asserting
the possession of parties over property in dispute.
42. The defendant No.11 has produced the original
sale or relied primary evidence to prove his
contentions. The plaintiffs or other defendants have
produced certified documents i.e., secondary evidence
to prove their respective contentions without laying
foundation to rely on secondary evidence. The
plaintiffs have not disputing mortgage of Item No.1
property and sale of Item No.1 by defendant No.3
based alleged GPA and Relinquishment Deed in favour
of defendant No.5 to 11.
43. At this stage, for better appreciation of materials
placed by parties, it is just and proper to reiterated the
recitals of absolute sale deed/Ex.D.108 and mortgage
by conditional sale/Ex.D.109, reads thus;
41
Original Suit No.6663/2010
The recitals of relinquishment deed Ex.P.108
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಸಬ್ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟಾ್ ್ರ ರ್ ಆಫೀಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ ದಿ.15.1.1940 ರಂದು ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟ ರ್
ಆಗಿರುವ ಕ್ರ ಯಪತ್ರ ದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡಂತೆ ಬಂಡಿರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಪಾಳ್ಯ ದ ಮರುಪೂರು
ತಿಮ್ಮ ಯ್ಯ ನವರ ಸಾಕುಮಗ ಸುಬ್ಬ ಯ್ಯ ನವರಿಂದ ನಮ್ಮ ಪೈಕಿ ಅಂಕಪ್ಪ ನಾದ ನಾನು
ನನ್ನ ಸ್ವ ಯಾರ್ಜಿತದ ಮೊಬಲಗು ಕೊಟ್ಟು ರೂ 400 ಗಳಿಗೆ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ
(ಐಟಂ)ಷೆಡೂಲ್ನ ಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಿಸಿರುವ ಸ್ತಿ ರ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ಶುದ್ದ ಕ್ರ ಯಪತ್ರ ಕ್ಕೆ
ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೆ ೇನೆ. ಆ ಲಾಗಾಯ್ತು ಈ ಷಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತು ಮೇಲ್ಕ ಂಡ ಅಂಕಪ್ಪ ನಾದ
ನನ್ನ ಒಬ್ಬ ನ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಮಾಲೀಕತ್ವ ಕ್ಕೆ ಒಳಪಟ್ಟ ನನ್ನ
ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನಾನುಭವದಲ್ಲಿ ರುತ್ತ ದೆಂದು ಈ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತಿ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ವಿನಹ ನನ್ನ ಮಕ್ಕ ಳಿಗೆ
ಆಗಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ನನ್ನ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರಿಗೆ ಆಗಲಿ ಯಾವ ವಿಧವಾದ ಹಕ್ಕು
ಭಾದ್ಯ ತೆಗಳು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ವೆಂದೂ ಈ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ಸರ್ವ ಸ್ವ ತಂತ್ರ ವಾಗಿ
ಅನುಭವಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪರಭಾರೆ ಮಾಡಲಿಕ್ಕೆ ಸಹ ಅಂಕಪ್ಪ ನಾದ
ನಾನೋಬ್ಬ ನೇ ಸರ್ವ ಸ್ವ ತಂತ್ರ ನು. ಸ್ವ ತ್ತಿ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವ ಲ್ಪ ಭಾಗ ಇಂಪ್ರೂ ವ್ ಮಾಡಿ
ಹೊಸದಾಗಿ ಕಟ್ಟ ಡ ಕಟ್ಟಿ ಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ನನಗೆ ಮೊಬಲಗು ಬೇಕಾಗಿ ಬರದೇ,
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಸಿಟಿ ಶ್ರ ೀರಾಮಪುರದ 7 ನೇ ಮೇನ್ ರಸ್ತೆ ಮನೆ ನಂ.1056 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ಜ್ಯು ಯಲರ್ಸ್ ಮತ್ತು ಗಿರವಿ ವ್ಯಾ ಪಾರ ಮಾಡುವ ಷಾಸಂಪರ್ ರಾಜ್ ಕುನಲ್ ಮನ
ಕಚಾರಿಯ ಮಾಲೀಕರಾದ ರತನ್ ಚಂದ್ ದೌಲತ್ರಾ ಮ ಕಚಾರಿಯ ಇವರಿಂದ ರೂ
5000 ನಾನು ಸಾಲ ಪಡೆದು ಇವರ ಬಾಕಿಗೆ ಈ ಷೆಡ್ಯಾ ಲ್ನ ಕ್ರ ಯಪತ್ರ ಸದರಿಯವರ
ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಮೇಲ್ಕ ಂಡ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡು ಮಕ್ಕ ಳೂ ಸೇರಿ ಅದೇ
ದಿವಸ ಅಂದರೆ 19.6.1955 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟ ಸದರಿ ಕ್ರ ಯಪತ್ರ ವನ್ನು ಅದೇ
ದಿವಸ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಸಿಟಿ ದಕ್ಷಿ ಣ ಸಬ್ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟಾ ರ್ 1 ನೇ ಬುಕ್ 108 ನೇ ವಾಲ್ಯೂ ಮ್
198-201 ನೇ ಪುಟಗಳಲ್ಲಿ 1134 ನೇ ನಂಬರಾಗಿ ರಿಜಿಸ್ವ ರ್ ಮಾಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತೆ . ಸದರಿ
ಕ್ರ ಯದ ಮೊಬಲಗು 5000 ಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿ ಲ್ಲ . ನಮಗೆ ವಾಪಸ್
ಕ್ರ ಯಪತ್ರ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡುವುದಾಗಿ ನನಗೆ ವಾಗ್ದಾ ನ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಸದರಿಯವರು
ಮೊಬಲಿಗೆ ತಗಾದೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿ ರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಈ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತಿ ನ ಕಟ್ಟ ಡ ಕೆಲಸ
ಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗದೆ ಕಟ್ಟ ಡದ ಕೆಲಸ ಪೂರೈಸಲು ಇತರರಲ್ಲಿ ಕೈ ಬದಲಿ ಸಾಲಗಳನ್ನು
ಸಹ ನಾನು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ. ಸದರಿ ದೇಣಿಗೆಗಳನ್ನು ತೀರಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕಾ ಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ
ಇತರ ಖರ್ಚುಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ನನಗೆ ಜರೂರಾಗಿ ಮೊಬಲಗು ಬೇಕಾಗಿರುವುದರಿಂದ
ಮೇಲ್ಕ ಂಡಂತೆ ನನ್ನ ಸ್ವ ಯಾರ್ಜಿತದ ಹಾಗೂ ಈ ದಿವಸ ಪಾರಕನ್ ಚಂದ್
ದೌಲತ್ರಾ ಮ್ ಕಚಾರಿಯರವರಿಂದ ನನಗೆ ಕ್ರ ಯವಾಗಿರುವ ಇದರಡಿ ಷಡ್ಯೂ ಲಲ್ಲಿ
ವಿವರಿಸಿದ ಪೂರ್ಣ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ಈ ದಿವಸ ನಿಮಗೆ ರೂ 10000 ಗಳಿಗೆ ನಾನು ಶುದ್ಧ
ಕ್ರ ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿ ರುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ.
A recitals of Sale Deed Ex.P.109
ಈ ದಿವಸ ನಿವ್ಮಿು ಂದ ಶುದ್ಧ ಕ್ರ ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಪಡೆದು ನಮ್ಮ ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನಾನುಭವದಲ್ಲಿ ರುವ
ಇದರಡೀ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಿಸಿರತಕ್ಕ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ನೀವು ಕ್ರ ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಪಡೆಯಲು
ಅಪೇಕ್ಷೆ ಪಟ್ಟು ನಮ್ಮ ನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಷರತ್ತು ಗಳಿಗೆ ಒಳಪಟ್ಟು ಈ
ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ನಿಮಗೆ ರೂ 10,000/- ಗಳಿಗೆ ನಾವು ಕ್ರ ಯ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡಲು
ಒಪ್ಪಿ ನಿಮಗೆ ಈ ತಾರೀಖು ಹತ್ತು ವರ್ಷ ವಾಯಿದೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿ ರುತ್ತೆ ೕವೆ. ನೀವು ಈ
ಲಾಗಾಯ್ತು ನಾಲ್ಕು ವರ್ಷದ ಮೇಲ್ಪ ಟ್ಟು ಈ ಲಾಗಾಯ್ತು ಹತ್ತು ವರ್ಷದ ಒಳಗಾಗಿ
ರೂ 10,000/- ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀವು ನಮಗೆ ತಂದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿ ರುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಈ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತಿ ನ
ಕ್ರ ಯಪತ್ರ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟ ರ್ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಡುತ್ತೆ ೕವೆ. ಸದರಿ ಕ್ರ ಯು
ಪತ್ರ ಕ್ಕಾ ಗುವ ಛಾಪಾ ಕಾಗದ, ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟೆ್ ರೇಷನ್ ಫೀ ವಗೈರೆ ಪೂರ್ತಿ ಖರ್ಚು ನೀವೆ
ಕೊಡತಕ್ಕ ದ್ದು . ಈ ಕರಾರು ಷರತ್ತು ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ರೂ 10,000/- ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀವು
ನಮಗೆ ತಂದುಕೊಟ್ಟು ಈ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ನಮಿಂದ ನೀವು ಕ್ರ ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಪಡೆಯಲು ತಪ್ಪಿ
ದರೆ ಈ ವಾಯಿದೆ 10 ವರ್ಷ ಕಳೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಈ ಕರಾರು ರದ್ದಾ ಗತಕ್ಕ ದಲ್ಲ ದೇ ಈ
ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ಕ್ರ ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಕೇಳುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರ ಸಹ ನಿಮಗೆ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ .
42
Original Suit No.6663/2010
44. In view of non disputing the recitals of these
registered instruments, I have carefully gone through
recitals of sale deed/Ex.P.1 Dtd 15.01.1940 registered
under S.R.No1904/1939-40 executed in favour of
Ankappa. Sale Deed/Ex.P.8/Ex.D.108 Dtd 23.11.1960
registered under S.R.No.3480/1960-61 in favour of
Mallappa and his son Ashwathnarana and mortgage
by conditional sale deed/Ex.D.109 Dtd 23.11.1960
registered under S.R.No.3482/1960-61 infavour of
Ankappa, his wife Smt Bachchamma and their
children Papanna and Byrappa. Gift Deed/Ex.P.2 Dtd
19.08.1967 executed infavour of Smt Papamma. The
Relinquishment Deed/Ex.P.22/Ex.D.23 dtd
11.02.2002 registered under R.S.No.4647/2001-02 in
favour of defendant No.3 who is non other than of GPA
holder of defendant No.2 and 4. Sale Deed/ Ex.P.14/
Ex.D.79 Dtd 11.02.2002 executed infavour of
defendant No.6. Another sale deed/Ex.P.16/Ex.D.38
43
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Dtd 11.02.2002 executed in favour of defendant No.5.
Sale Deed/Ex.P.13/Ex.D.58 Dtd 15.07.2002 executed
infavour of defendant No.7. Sale Deed/Ex.P.12/Ex.D.1
Dtd 22.07.2002 executed infavour of defendant No.8.
Sale Deed/Ex.P.10/ Ex.D.63 Dtd 13.02.2002 executed
infavour of defendant No.11. Another Sale
deed/Ex.P.11/Ex.D.24 executed infavour of defendant
No.9.
45. The plaintiffs have not disputed that, the common
ancestor Ankappa, his wife Smt Bachamma and their
children Pappanna and Byrappa have executed
absolute sale deed in favour of Mallappa and his son
Ashwathnarana. As per registered instrument i.e.,
Ex.D.109 Mallappa and his son Ashwathnarana have
executed mortgage by conditional sale deed in favour
of Ankappa, his wife Smt Bachamma and their
children Pappanna and Byrappa According to recitals
of Ex.D.109, common ancestor Ankappa and his family
44
Original Suit No.6663/2010
members requires to pay Mortgage Money within 10
years and get re-convey the Item No.1 property in their
favour.
46. The plaintiffs have not produced the Mortgage
Deed/Ex.D.109 and Sale Deed/ Ex.D.78/108. The
best reasons known to them, why they have withhold
these important document, these document are very
important to ascertain the title of suit properties. The
common ancestor Ankappa and his family members
have executed Sale Deed/Ex.D.78/Ex.D.108 on
23.11.1960. This sale deed registered at 02:35pm in
Sub-Registar Officer, Bengaluru. According recitals of
this sale deed Ankappa and his family members have
sold Item No.1 property to Mallappa and his son
Ashwathnarana for Rs 10,000/- for repayment of loan
of Rs.5,000/- to Ratana Chand Doulatram Kataria and
hand loan of others. Later on at 02:45pm Mallappa
and his son Ashwathnarana were executed Mortgage
45
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Deed/Ex.D.9 in favour of said common ancestor
Ankappa and his family subject condition that, they
have to pay amount of Rs 10,000/- within ten years
(Mallappa and his son Ashwathnarana are called
mortgagees and Ankappa, his wife Smt Bachamma
and their children Pappanna and Byrappa are called
Mortgagors). Further, another important development
is that, on 19.08.1967 Ankappa was Gifted the item
No.2 property infavour of his daughter Smt Papamma.
47. On considering recitals of Sale Deed/Ex.D.108,
Mortgage Deed/Ex.D.109 and Gift Deed/Ex.P.2. This
Court has relied on important provision of Transfer Of
Property Act and Registration Act.
The Transfer Of Property Act
CHAPTER III
OF SALES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
Sec. 54. "Sale" defined.--
"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a
price paid or promised or part-paid and part-
promised.
Sale how made.--Such transfer, in the case
of tangible immoveable property of the value of one
46
Original Suit No.6663/2010
hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a
reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only
by a registered instrument.
In the case of tangible immoveable property of
a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer
may be made either by a registered instrument or by
delivery of the property.
Delivery of tangible immoveable property
takes place when the seller places the buyer, or
such person as he directs, in possession of the
property.
Contract for sale.--A contract for the sale of
immoveable property is a contract that a sale of
such property shall take place on terms settled
between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any
interest in or charge on such property.
CHAPTER IV
OF MORTGAGES OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY & CHARGES
58. "Mortgage", "mortgagor", "mortgagee",
"mortgage-money" and "mortgage-deed"
defined.--
(a) XXX XXX XXX
(b) XXX XXX XXX
(c) Mortgage by conditional sale.--Where the
mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgaged
property--
on condition that on default of payment of
the mortgage-money on a certain date the sale
shall become absolute, or
on condition that on such payment being
made the sale shall become void, or
47
Original Suit No.6663/2010
on condition that on such payment being
made the buyer shall transfer the property to the
seller, the transaction is called a mortgage by
conditional sale and the mortgagee a mortgagee
by conditional sale:
Provided that no such transaction shall be
deemed to be a mortgage, unless the condition is
embodied in the document which effects or
purports to effect the sale.
Sec.48. Priority of rights created by transfer.--
Where a person purports to create by transfer at
different times rights in or over the same
immoveable property, and such rights cannot all
exist or be exercised to their full extent together,
each later created right shall, in the absence of a
special contract or reservation binding the
earlier transferees, be subject to the rights
previously created.
Registration Act PART X
OF THE EFFECTS OF REGISTRATION AND
NON-REGISTRATION
Sec. 47. Time from which registered document
operates.--
A registered document shall operate from
the time which it would have commenced to
operate if no registration thereof had been required
or made, and not from the time of its registration.
48
Original Suit No.6663/2010
48. Keeping above provision of law and a recitals of
sale deed/Ex.P.78/108 was registered at about
02:35pm on 23.11.1960 keep in mind, I have
examined the recitals of this sale deed, Ankappa and
his family members sold the Item No.1 for Rs
10,000/-. Afterwords, Ankappa and his family
members have no rights-interest-title over item No.1.
Therefore, they have no right to alienate the item No.1
in manner. Further, no evidence on record that prior to
execution of Gift Deed/Ex.P.1 Dtd 19.08.1967, the
mortgage has been redeemed. In such circumstances,
Ankappa was no rights-interest-title over item No.2, to
gift said property infavour of his daughter Smt
Papamma. Therefore, it is held that Smt Papamma did
not acquired any rights-interest-title over item No.2
property by virtue of Gift Deed/Ex.P.2 Dtd 19.08.1967.
49. Next question regarding payment of mortgage
money by all legal heir of common ancestor or paid by
49
Original Suit No.6663/2010
children of Smt Pappamma only. The plaintiffs have
not produced single document, to show that
Venkatesh, Pappanna and Byrappa have paid
mortgage money during their life and also plaintiffs
have not produced single iota of evidence to prove that
they have paid mortgage money. They have relying on
relinquishment deed/Ex.P.22/Ex.D.23 executed by
Smt Nagaratna and her daughter Laxmi. These two
persons are wife and daughter of Ashwathnarana.
50. According to pleading of plaintiffs, in para No.9 of
the plaint and oral evidence of PW.1 as deposed in
para No.9 affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief
that, lessees have filed bearing No.642/1983 against
children of common ancestor for refund of mortgaged
money. Firstly, Mallappa and his son Ashwathnarana
are not lessees, both are mortgagees. Aforesaid
pleadings and evidence of PW.1 are contrary to
decision passed by learned XVI Addl City Civil Court in
50
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Civil Misc No.642/1983 in the month January, 1991.
In cross examination PW.1 deposed that as per said
orders, his father and uncles have paid mortgaged
money to Mallappa and his son Ashwathnarana.
51. The plaintiffs have not produced a copy of order
in Civil Misc No 642/1983. The defendant No.8 had
applied certified copies of petition filed in Misc
No.642/1983, its entire order sheet and order. As per
office endorsement, entire file of Misc No.642/1983
has been destroyed according to orders of learned
Registrar of City Civil Court, Bengaluru on 23.10.1999.
The defendant No.8 has produced a certified copy of
coping application filed on 18.06.2019 and got marked
at Ex.D.21. Therefore, this Court was marked zerox
copy of orders passed in Misc No.642/1983 at
Ex.D.110.
51
Original Suit No.6663/2010
52. Said Ex.D.110 orders copy is not easily legible.
Firstly, myself tried to read orders with help of
magnified glass, after asserting certain things, I have
gone through recitals of relinquishment
deed/Ex.P.22/Ex.D.23. As per the cause title of
orders/Ex.D.110, Smt Pappamma was filed petition
U/Sec.83 of Transfer Of Property Act against her three
brothers namely Venkataswamy, Pappamma, Byrappa
and mortgagee Mallappa, after his death, continued
against his legal heirs. In said proceedings, these
persons have not contested and failed to appear before
Court. During inquiry, learned XVI Addl City Civil
Court, Bengaluru was found that item No.1 property
purchased by Ankappa in the year 1940. In the year
1960 Ankappa, his wife Smt Bachamma and their two
son Pappanna and Byrappa have executed sale deed in
favour Mortgagees. Thereafter, mortgagees have also
executed a Mortgage by conditional Sale/Ex.D.109 in
52
Original Suit No.6663/2010
favour of Ankappa and his wife Smt Bachamma and
their two sons.
53. Further, no evidence on record regarding
payment of mortgage amount within stipulated period,
the common ancestor Ankappa or his legal heirs have
made any efforts to relinquished or redeemed the
mortgaged property from Mortgagees. After
ascertaining all these facts the learned XVI Addl City
Civil Court, Bengaluru has allowed petition by filed
Smt Pappamma and directed that, to deposit the
mortgage money. In spite of order, Smt Pappamma
was not made effort to deposit mortgaged money of Rs
10,450/- during her life time. Later defendant No.2 to
4 have paid mortgaged money to Lrs of Mortgagee
Mallappa and got relinquishment deed/Ex.P.22/
Ex.D.23 in their favour. The defendant No.3 in his
personal capacity and on behalf of defendant No.2 and
4 paid mortgaged money to wife and daughter of
53
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Ashwathnarana and got redeemed the mortgaged
property. The common ancestor, his wife and two
children have sold item No.1 in favour of Mallappa and
his son Ashwathnarana under sale deed Ex.D.108. It
means, the have no rights-interest-title until
redeemption of property. If once rights-interest-title in
immoveable property are transferred in accordance
with law, automatically changed its nature. The
common ancestor or his wife or sons have never made
any efforts to re-conveyed item No.1 after execution of
sale deed/Ex.D.108.
54. The plaintiffs have pleaded and PW.1 deposed
that, lessees have filed petition against children of
common ancestor. The plaintiffs have very cleverly
pleaded this fact without disclosing true fact before
Court and tried to mislead. As per recitals of
relinquishment deed and reasons assigned by leaned
XVI Addl City Civil Court, Bengaluru, it reveled that
54
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Smt Pappamma was filed petition U/Sec 83 of Transfer
Of Property against own brother and Mortgagee
Mallappa. The plaintiffs have intentionally not pleaded
true facts before this Court and they have suppressed
it.
55. Further, learned counsel for plaintiffs has relied
on Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High
Court of Karnatak, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. In
this Suit, the plaintiffs have not pleaded and not
proved that suit properties are Joint Hindu Property.
At the best, this Court presumed that descendants of
common ancestor Ankappa are members of Undivided
Hindu Joint Family, it is no one case that partition
effected between . There is no presumption under
Hindu Law that every property acquired by a members
of Undivided Hindu Joint Family is joint family
property. Therefore, the plaintiffs have very cleverly
pleaded about nature of suit properties.
55
Original Suit No.6663/2010
56. This Court has meticulously perused the recitals
of sale deed/Ex.P.1 and sale deed/Ex.D.78 & 108.
Wherein, the common ancestor himself stated that
item No.1 property is his own self acquired property.
Further, on pleading or evidence from the plaintiffs is
that, their ancestor having joint or inheritable
properties from their four fathers. Therefore, it is held
that the common ancestor was acquired the item No.1
without aid and assistance of joint family founds or
nucleus. Further it is held that item No.1 is not joint
family property of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1.
57. As per the recitals of sale deed/Ex.D.108
common ancestor along got absolute rights-interest-
title over item No.1 property, in spite of that himself,
his wife and two sons have sold item No.1 property for
sale consideration of Rs 10,000/- to Mallappa and his
elder son Ashwathnarana. As per Sec 54 of Transfer Of
56
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Property Act, common ancestor sold his rights-
interest-title over by receiving sale consideration of Rs
10,000/- to Mortgagees by name Mallappa and his son
Ashwathnarana and handed over the possession of
Item No.1 property to them on 23.10.1960. On same
day, mortgagees have executed mortgage by
conditional sale deed/Ex.D.109 infavour of common
ancestor Ankappa, his wife Bachamma and two sons
Pappanna and Byrappa. As already this Court held
that, these four persons have not made any attempts
to redeemed the mortgaged property from mortgagees.
Smt Pappamma and her legal heir have made attempt
to redeemed the item No.1/mortgaged property and
successfully got property under registered
relinquishment deed from legal heirs from mortgagees.
Therefore, Item No.1 property acquired by Smt
Pappamma and her legal heir, its nature of become
their absolute. Hence, it is held that the plaintiffs
have no rights-interest-title over the suit properties.
57
Original Suit No.6663/2010
The defendant No.5 and deceased defendant No.11
have lawfully acquired rights-interest-title over
properties/sites purchased by them. They have got
alienation rights over their respective site purchased
under registered sale deed/Ex.P.15/Ex.D.89 and sale
deed Ex.P.16/ Ex.D.38. Further, Gift deed executed
by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.16 and 17
and sale deed executed by deceased defendant No.11
in favour of his sons i.e., Davaraj and Prakash are
proper and correct. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1
are nowhere concerned to suit properties covered
under sale deed Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.16. Therefore, these
sale deeds and gift deed are not binding on plaintiffs.
The Accordingly, issue No.2, addl issue No.1 and 2
answered in affirmative.
ISSUE No.3;
58. The defendant No.5 to 11 have taken specific
contention that, the plaintiffs have not proper and
58
Original Suit No.6663/2010
correct Court fees. Therefore, I have carefully perused
the valuationslip, plaint and cross examination of
PW.1. It is not specific case of the plaintiffs that, suit
properties are join family properties and they are in
joint possession over on them. This Court already held
that item No.1 is absolute property of Smt Pappamma
and her descendants i.e., defendant No.3 and 4. After
purchasing the site covered under sale deed Ex.P.10 to
16, the defendant No.5 to 11 have constructed the
residential buildings by obtaining permission from
concerned authorities as owners. The electronic bills,
Gas bills, tax paid receipt disclosing the defendant
No.5 to 17 are actual and physical possession over
their respective sites purchased by them.
59. In the course cross examination of PW.1 himself
unequivocally admitted that the plaintiffs are not in
possession over suit properties. Further, suit
properties are not Hindu Joint Family properties. In
59
Original Suit No.6663/2010
such circumstances the plaintiffs required to value the
suit properties U/Sec 35(1) of KCF & SV Act. As per
valuation slip the plaintiffs have valued the suit
properties U/Sec 35(2) of KCF & SV Act is not proper
and correct. Accordingly, issue No.3 answered in the
affirmative.
ISSUE No.5:-
60. The plaintiffs have utterly failed to proved that
they are tenant in common or joint possession in suit
properties. The plaintiffs are nowhere concerned to
suit properties. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs
have to sought for relief of declaration and possession.
They have not questioned validity of sale deed/Ex.P.10
to 16 executed by defendant No.3 favour of defendant
No.5 to 11, simple they have sought for these sale
deeds are not binding on their share. In view of Art.58
of Limitation Act, the suit of plaintiffs is barred by
60
Original Suit No.6663/2010
limitation Act. Accordingly, issue No.5 answered in
affirmative.
ISSUE NO.1, 4, 6 and 7 :-
61. In this suit, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that
they having rights-interest-title over the suit
properties. Therefore, they are not entitled for relief
claimed by them including defendant No.1(c) and not
maintainable under Hindu law. Accordingly, issue
No.1, 4, 6 and 7 are answered in the negative.
ISSUE NO.8 :-
62. For the foregoing reasons and the plaintiffs
having knowledge of true facts of the suit i.e., their
common ancestor was sold his self acquired item No.1
property to mortgagees, defendant No.2 to 4 being legal
heir of Smt Pappamma who have got redeemed the
item No.1 by paying mortgaged money and they are
not in possession of suit properties, they have cleverly
61
Original Suit No.6663/2010
pleaded untruth by hiding real and true facts and
harassed the bonafide purchasers for more then ane
and half decade. Therefore, I am of the opinion to
impose exemplary cost to compensate innocent
purchasers. Hence, I proceed to pass following.
:ORDER:
The suit filed by plaintiffs is hereby
dismissed with cost, in all cost borne by
defendants.
The plaintiffs are directed to pay proper
and correct Court fees as per value of suit
property in the year 2010 within 30 days
from the date of this order.
SPONSORED
Further, as per power confirmed upon
me U/Sec 35-A of CPC imposed exemplary
cost of Rs 50,000/- payable to defendant No.5
to 10 and legal heir of deceased defendant
No.11 within thirty days from the date of this
order.
62
Original Suit No.6663/2010
Office is directed draw decree in above
terms, subject to payment of Court fees by
plaintiffs.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected, signed
by me and then pronounced in open court on the 10th day of April 2026)
(Sri. I. P. Naik)
C/C LVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-57), BENGALURU CITY.
63
Original Suit No.6663/2010
JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
VIDE SEPARATE ORDER
The suit filed by plaintiffs is hereby
dismissed with cost, in all cost borne by
defendants.
The plaintiffs are directed to pay proper
and correct Court fees as per value of suit
property in the year 2010 within 30 days
from the date of this order.
Further, as per power confirmed upon
me U/Sec 35-A of CPC imposed exemplary
cost of Rs 50,000/- payable to defendant No.5
to 10 and legal heir of deceased defendant
No.11 within thirty days from the date of this
order.
Office is directed draw decree in above
terms, subject to payment of Court fees by
plaintiffs.
(Sri. I. P. Naik)
C/C LVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-57), BENGALURU CITY.
