Bangalore District Court
Narayanamma vs A Sugandramma on 13 July, 2026
1 OS No. 25427/2008
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
KABC0A0009902008
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
COURT AT BENGALURU
(CCH.No.22)
Present: Sri. ONKARAPPA.R, B.Sc., LL.B.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2026
O.S. No.25427/2008
PLAINTIFF: Smt. Narayanamma
Aged about 46 years
W/o Late K.Gundu Rao
R/at No.6, 1st Cross,
Rathnamma layout,
Manorayanapalya
R.T. Naqgar, Bengaluru-560032
(By Sri.H.V.V.,Advocate)
VS
DEFENDANTS: 1. SMT. A. SUGANDRAMMA
Aged about 62 years,
Wife of Late. A.N. Annaiah
Reddy, Since deceased by her
LR's
1(a). Smt. Chandrakantha
Daughter of A. Sugandramma
Aged about 58 years
2 OS No. 25427/2008
Residing at No. 7/11, Maruthi
Extension, Madivala, Bengaluru-
560068
1(b). Smt. Pushpa
Daughter of A. Sugandramma
Aged about 55 years
Residing at No. 7/11, Maruthi
Extension, Madivala, Bengaluru-
560068
2. R. BHASKAR
Aged about 49 years, Son of Sri.
Ramaswamy Reddy Residing at
No. 4/3, Rathnamma Layout,
Manorayanapalya, R.T. Nagar
post, Bangalore-560032.
3. SRI. SATHYANARAYANA
REDDY
Aged about 54 years, Son of
Muniswamy Reddy, Since dead
by his LR's
3(a). Smt. R. Chandra Kantha
Wife of Late. Sathyanarayana
Reddy
Aged about 63 years
3(b). Mr. Vinay Sathya
Son of Late. Sathyanarayana
Reddy
3 OS No. 25427/2008
Aged about 42 years
3(c) Mrs. Sunitha Uday Reddy
Daughter of Late. Sathyanarayana
Reddy
Aged about 38 years
All are residing at No. 74,
Rathnamma Layout,
Manorayanapalya, R.T. Nagar
post, Bangalore-560032.
4. THE INDIAN BANK
Koramangala Branch, No. 512,
4th Cross, 6th Block,
Koramangala, Bangalore-560095.
Represented by its Manager.
5. SRI. A. VENKATARAMANA
Major
Residing at No. 41, 12th Cross,
4th Main, C.P. Layout, Wilson
Garden, Bagnalore-560030.
(D1(a) & (b) - DAN advocate
D2 - VSP advocate
D3(a) to (Counsel) - DAN
D4 - RB advocate
D5 - BNS, advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 06.03.2008
Nature of the suit Injunction Suit
4 OS No. 25427/2008
Date of Commencement of
recording of evidence 07.01.2016
Date on which judgment was
Pronounced 13.07.2026
Total Duration Year Month Day
18 04 08
( ONKARAPPA.R )
XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
: J U D G M E N T :
The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent
injunction and she sought for restrainment of the
defendants, their agents or anybody claiming any right
under or through them from interfering the possession of
the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
SCHEDULE
All that part and parcel of the residential property
bearing Municipal No. 6, situated at 1st Cross, Rathnamma
Layout, Manorayanapalya, Bangalore, now coming within
the limits of B.M.P. Ward No. 96, (Hebbal), Bangalore,
5 OS No. 25427/2008
measuring East to West: 30 Feet and North to South:
45+44/2 feet, in all 1335 Sq. Ft. and bounded on:
EAST BY: Property bearing Khaneshmuri No.5
WEST BY: Property bearing Khaneshmuri No.7
NORTH BY: Road and
SOUTH BY: Private property
2. Brief facts of the case as per plaint averments,
are as under:- the Plaintiff has purchased the site bearing
No.6, situated at 1st Cross, Rathnamma Layout,
Manorayanapalya, Bangalore, measuring East to West 30
Feet and North to South 45+44/2 Feet, in 1335 Sq.ft. from
Smt. A. Sugandramma vide Sale deed dated 22-08-05,
registered, before the Sub-registrar, Bangalore North Taluk.
Since then the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of
the said property which is more fully described in the
Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the
“SCHEDULE PROPERTY”. After so purchasing the said site,
the Plaintiff got the katha of the Schedule property changed
to her name and she is paying the taxes to Bangalore
Mahanagara palike in her name and subsequently by
6 OS No. 25427/2008
obtaining license for construction of the premises. The
Plaintiff as per the approved plan has constructed five
houses, out of which she is residing with her family in one
house, situated in Ground Floor. The other four houses have
been let out by the Plaintiff to separate tenants on monthly
rental basis. A few weeks back a few people came near the
Schedule Property and discussing about some purchase
transaction. The Plaintiff on hearing their conversation
enquired as to whom they are and they then narrated that
they have come on behalf of Fifth Defendant, who has
purchased the Schedule Property and the adjacent two
properties also. The Plaintiff being shocked about the
information told them that she is the owner of the Schedule
Property and she has not sold the same to anyone else. The
said people a request of the Plaintiff gave the address of the
Fifth Defendant and suggested to her to obtain the details
from him directly. Being shocked about the alleged
ownership of the Fifth Defendant regarding the Schedule
property, the Plaintiff approached the first Defendant from
whom she has purchased the site, she took sometime to
verify the information and then she would give the
7 OS No. 25427/2008
information. After few days, the first Defendant informed
that the Second Defendant had obtained a decree of Specific
Performance against the third Defendant in respect of the
Schedule property and the adjacent two properties bearing
No. 4 and 5 also. On further enquiry the Plaintiffs learnt
that the third Defendant, who was the previous owner of
the Schedule Property, had entered in to an Agreement of
sale dated 20-04-90. By virtue of which, the possession of
the Schedule property and the adjoining properties had also
been given possession of on the same day, upon receipt of
the entire sale consideration. The Plaintiff is further
informed that by virtue of the said Agreement to Sell, the
third Defendant had transferred all his right and interest in
the properties including the Schedule property, except
executing the sale deed, for which purpose certain
compliances was required to be obtain by the Third
Defendant. The first Defendant after giving the said
information further informed the Plaintiff that the third
Defendant after having so transferred his right, title and
interest in the Schedule property is alleged to have pledged
the site in the Schedule property and the adjoining
8 OS No. 25427/2008
properties bearing No. 4 and 5 and some other properties to
the fourth Defendant, as surety to a loan transaction. The
fourth Defendant alleging default in the loan transaction had
taken steps under Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act
and had auctioned the Schedule property and the adjacent
sites in favour of the fifth Defendant illegally. It is not in
dispute that there was an Agreement to sell between the
Second and third Defendant, where by the third Defendant
had relinquished all his rights together with possession in
favour of the second Defendant in respect of the site in the
Schedule property and the adjoining properties. The alleged
mortgaging of the site in the Schedule property and the
other properties mentioned in sale agreement by the third
Defendant in favour of the fourth Defendant is long after
the third Defendant had executed sale agreement. As such
the third Defendant had no right to create any encumbrance
on the Schedule property subsequent to 20-04-90.
Consequently, the fourth Defendant also does not get any
right in respect of such alleged subsequent mortgage as
well. Interestingly there is no such encumbrance recorded in
9 OS No. 25427/2008
respect of the Schedule property in the jurisdictional sub-
registrar office during the relevant period. Under the above
circumstances there appears to be collusion between
Defendants 3 to 5 in putting the Schedule property for
auction without the knowledge of the Plaintiff, who is very
much residing in the Schedule property. At no point of time
any body had come to the Schedule property and conducted
any proceedings including auction proceedings, as has been
said to have been done by the fourth Defendant. Though all
these information was made available by first and Second
Defendant, and when the Plaintiff insisted upon the first
Defendant to set right this confusion and illegal transaction,
she is only assuring to sort out the things and secure the
title of the Plaintiff in respect of the Schedule property, but
she has not taken any positive steps so far. In view of the
apprehension of the Plaintiff that the first Defendant may
not take expeditious steps to ensure that the title of the
Plaintiff is in no way affected, she is constrained to file this
suit to protect her title and interest. The Plaintiff is a
bonafide purchaser of the site in the Schedule property for
valuable consideration and she has invested huge amount in
10 OS No. 25427/2008
putting up five houses. In view of the improvements made
in the said site, the Schedule property is worth more than
Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore only). The first
Defendant informed the Plaintiff that on her verification the
auction sale conducted by the fourth Defendant given in
favour of the fifth Defendant in for paltry sum of about
Rs.1,15,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lakhs Fifty
Thousand only) as against the value of all the properties
would be about more than Four Crore and on this back
ground the first Defendant stated that the auction sale has
been conducted in collusion between Defendants 3 to 5 to
defraud bonafide purchaser like the Plaintiff. She has
gathered all these information recently, since the Plaintiff is
not aware of any steps taken by her to get the auctioned
process nullified and there by protect the title of the
Plaintiff in respect of the site in the Schedule property
conveyed by her, the Plaintiff is filing this suit. In view of
the fact that the Schedule property itself is worth about
Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore only), the act of the
fourth Defendant in allegedly auctioning the Schedule
property and the adjoining properties for paltry sum of
11 OS No. 25427/2008
about Rs. 1,15,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lakhs
Fifty Thousand only) speaks volume off the collusion
between the Defendants 3 to 5 to make unlawful gains to
benefit themselves in the name of the fifth Defendant. No
auction proceedings has ever taken place at the Schedule
property, obviously the said Defendants could have created
documents to show as if there had been an auction, which
has never held. Under these circumstances the fifth
Defendant does not get any right, title or interest over the
Schedule property belonging to the Plaintiff which is said to
be part of the alleged auction sale. As the Plaintiff has not
been able to secure a copy of the auction sale proceedings
and any further documents in that regard, she has not been
able to produce documents in this regard as of now.
Considering the above facts, it becomes crystal clear that
the Plaintiff right, title and interest is in no way affected by
the collusive acts of Defendants 3 to 5. As the fifth
Defendant by virtue of such collusive acts between the said
Defendants may forcibly try to disposes the Plaintiff and her
four tenants from the Schedule property, this suit is being
filed. The Plaintiff is having direct and subsisting right in
12 OS No. 25427/2008
the suit schedule property. The fifth Defendant by colluding
with the other Defendants is making hectic attempts to
detrimental to the interest of the Plaintiff. Under these
circumstances, the Plaintiff has no other alternative remedy
than to approach this court for her redressal. The fifth
Defendant has once again came near the suit schedule
property and told the Plaintiff that he along with his
supporters would take the possession of the suit schedule
property with force whatever may be the consequences. The
fifth Defendant is a powerful person having men and
material and also has the support of anti-social elements
that certainly dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule
property. The Plaintiff is a poor lady having no support to
the onslaught of the Defendants. The Plaintiff is in
possession of the schedule property exercising her lawful
right which she has acquired through registered sale deed.
The fifth Defendant has no right, title and interest of
whatsoever in respect of the Schedule property to interfere
with the possession of the Plaintiff. The suit is valued for
the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as per the separate
valuation slip annexed to this plaint. The suit is properly
13 OS No. 25427/2008
valued and court fee paid, is sufficient. Hence, the plaintiff
sought for decreed the suit.
3. In against the suit summons, 1 st defendant have
appeared through their choiced advocate. Defendant No.1
has chosen to filed his written statement. Wherein the
written statement defendant No.1 denied all averments of
plaint as false and concocted. Further, 1 st Defendant
contended, previously 2nd defendant was the lawful owner
of the suit schedule properties and he had entered into an
agreement to sale dated 20/04/1990 with 3 rd defendant. In
the said agreement to sale, the possession of the suit
schedule property was delivered to 2nd defendant.
Subsequently, when the 3rd defendant delayed in executing
necessary sale deed in favour of 2 nd defendant as per the
agreement to sale, 2nd defendant got filed a suit in O. S.
No. 16200/2003 against 3rd defendant for the specific
performance of contract in Civil Court and obtained decreed
the said suit and issued directions to the 3 rd defendant to
execute a registered sale deed in favour of 2 nd defendant. In
view of the about facts it is very clear that after due
verification and gone through the contents of the judgment
14 OS No. 25427/2008
and decree passed by the Civil Court, 1 st defendant has
purchased the suit schedule property from the 2 nd defendant
and he is bonafide purchaser. 1st defendant had no
knowledge about the alleged mortgage executed in favour of
the 4th defendant bank by 3rd defendant. There is no fault
on part of the 1st defendant in selling the suit schedule
property in favour of the 2nd defendant. 1st defendant acted
in bonafide manner. Moreover, 3rd defendant himself stated
in his written statement, he never mortgaged the suit
schedule property in favour of 4th defendant and the 3rd
defendant has also challenged the alleged mortgage before
the High Court in Writ Petition No. 146/2006 and the said
petition is pending for adjudication. Therefore, 4 th and 5th
defendant can not get clear and valid title over the suit
schedule property. Both 1st and 2nd defendants are bonafide
purchasers and there was no third party encumbrance at
time of sale transaction. Therefore, 1 st defendant had
purchased by investing her hard earned money and acquired
lawful right and possession in the suit schedule property.
The above documents produced by the 1 st defendant clearly
go to show, 1st defendant is the bonafide purchaser and
15 OS No. 25427/2008
whatever the transaction with third persons or 4 th defendant
bank subsequently created by 3 rd defendant are not binding
either on 1st defendant or on 2nd defendant. 1st defendant
does not dispute the averments made in Para 12 to 22 of
the plaint and there is no fault on his part in executing the
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 1 st defendant has acted
in good faith and has not suppressed anything to the
plaintiff. Under the above facts and circumstances, 1 st
defendant prays to dismiss the suit as against the 1 st
defendant in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Defendant No.2 appeared through their counsel on
virtue of the suit summons and he chosen to filed their
written statement. Wherein the written statement defendant
No.2 denied the averments of the plaint as false and
concocted. Further, 2nd Defendant contended, it becomes
crystal clear the Plaintiff right, title and interest is in no
way affected by the collusive acts of Defendants 3 to 5. As
the fifth Defendant by virtue of such collusive acts between
the said Defendants may forcibly try to disposes the Plaintiff
and her four tenants from the Schedule property, this suit is
being filed. The same is not within the knowledge of this
16 OS No. 25427/2008
defendant. This defendant occupied a portion of the
schedule property as a Tenant under the third defendant in
the year 1988, subsequent to this, this defendant entered
into an Agreement of Sale dated 20.04.1990 in respect of
three portions (3 sites) bearing No.4, 5 and 6, site formed
in Sy. No. 43/1 of Manorayanapalya, Cholanayakanahalli
Dhakle, Bangalore North Taluk, now Rathnamma Layout,
Manorayanapalya, R.T. Nagar Post, Bangalore -560032 for
valuable consideration of Rs.2.25,000/-and this defendant
paid Rs.2,00,000/- under the agreement of sale dated
20.04.1990 and Rs.25,000/- was adjusted towards the lease
amount which this defendant has paid to the third
defendant at the time of occupying a portion of it. And
further, the third defendant is also executed General Power
of Attorney in respect of the above said three sites in
favour of this defendants on 20.04.1990. Defendant NO.3,
deliberately failed to execute the register Sale Deed in
favour of this defendant as third defendant demanded for
more money from this defendant as this defendant had
already spent huge amount for renovation and construction
and maintenance of the building in spite of the repeated
17 OS No. 25427/2008
request and demands by ‘this defendant failed to execute
the registered sale deed in respect of the above said three
sites in favour of this defendants. With no other option this
defendant filed a suit O.S. No. 16200/2003 against the third
defendant before the 18th Additional City Civil Judge,
Bangalore, Mayohall unit and the said suit came to be
decreed in favour of this defendant on 23.02.2005 and the
court directed the defendant No.3 to execute register Sale
deed in favour of this defendant within three months from
the date of Judgement and decree passed on 23.05.2005.
Hence defendant No.2 prays to dismissal of the suit.
4. Defendant No.3 appeared through their counsel
due to suit summons on him. Defendant No.3 chosen to
filed his Written Statement. Wherein the written statement,
he denied the entire averments of the plaint as false and
concocted. Further, Defendant No.3 contended, no cause of
action for the suit. The cause of action one stated at Para
19 of the plaint are all imaginary, concocted for the
purpose of this suit. The averments made in Para 20 and 21
needs no comment. The court fee paid by the plaintiff for
the relief claimed by her is wrong and the valuation of the
18 OS No. 25427/2008
suit is not in accordance with law. Hence defendant No.3
prays to dismissal of the suit.
5. Defendant No.4 have appeared through their
counsel at before the court on the basis of suit summons
on him. Defendant No.4 have chosen to filed his Written
Statement. Wherein the written statement they contended,
the suit of the Plaintiff is totally misconceived, bereft of
merits is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the
same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The suit came to
be filed by the Plaintiff in collusion with the Defendant No
1, 2 and 3 with ulterior motives. The suit is bad for mis-
joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The Defendant
Bank No 4 has taken measures/steps/actions under the
Securitisation & Reconstruction Of Financial Assets &
Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter
called the “Securitisation Act“) through its Authorised
Officer designated under the Securitisation Act and not
through its Branch Manager. Hence, the description of the
representative of Defendant No.4 is improper and in correct.
As could be seen from the Plaint averments made at para
8,10,11,12,13,14 and 15 among others contained in the
19 OS No. 25427/2008
Plaint, the Plaintiff has virtually questioned/challenged the
actions/ steps/measures initiated and taken by the
Authorised Officer of Defendant No.4 under the provisions
of the Securitisation Act and the relief sought by the
Plaintiff is for injunction against the defendants including
the Defendant Bank. Therefore, the suit of the Plaintiff as
against the Defendant No.4 is not maintainable in law by
virtue of Section 34 of The Securitisation & Reconstruction
Of Financial Assets & Enforcement Of Security Interest Act,
2002 read with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure
and on this ground also the suit is liable to be dismissed in
limine. It is prayed that the Court be pleased to frame a
preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the
suit against the Defendant Bank and give its findings
thereon at the first instance. Since Section 34 Of The
Securitisation & Reconstruction Of Financial Assets &
Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that no
Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or
proceedings in respect of any matter which a Debts
Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered
20 OS No. 25427/2008
by or under Securitisation Act to determine and that no
injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority
in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance
of any power conferred under the Securitisation Act or
under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) with due respect to the
Hon’ble Civil Court it is submitted that the Hon’ble Civil
Court has no jurisdiction or powers to pass any order of
injunction restraining the Defendant No. 4 from taking
measures against the Schedule Property under the provisions
of the Securitisation Act. On this ground alone the suit as
against the Defendant No. 4 is liable to be dismissed. The
measures taken by the Authorised Officer of Defendant No 4
Bank against the Suit Schedule property under the
provisions of Securitization Act are perfectly in accordance
with law, legal and sustainable in law and therefore the
measures so taken by the Defendant Bank is not liable to be
interfered with in the above suit especially since it is only
the authority/Tribunal constituted under the Securitisation
Act alone have jurisdiction to go in to the matter in respect
of exercise of the powers by Authorised Officer of
21 OS No. 25427/2008
Defendant No.4 under the Securitization Act. The Plaintiff
has not exhausted the remedy available to her under the
Provisions of the Securitisation Act and approached the Civil
Court which do not have powers to deal with the
allegations made by the Plaintiff against the Defendant No.
4 in the matter of exercise of powers under Securitisation
Act. The plaint Schedule property and other properties have
been mortgaged by the Defendant No. 3 in favour of
Defendant No.4 Bank for the loans availed by the M/s.
Mahalakshmi Industries and its proprietor from the
Defendant No. 4 Bank and therefore the Pliant Schedule
property is a “secured asset” within the definition of Section
2(zc) of Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets
& Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and the
provisions of the Securitisation Act is/are applicable to the
plaint Schedule property. It is submitted that since the
Plaint Schedule property is mortgaged in favour of the
Defendant Bank, being a Mortgagee, the Defendant Bank is
a “Secured Creditor” within the definition of Section 2(zd)
of Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets &
Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, in respect of the
22 OS No. 25427/2008
plaint Schedule Property and it has exercised the powers
vested in it under provisions of the Securitization and Re-
Construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act 2002 by adhering to the provisions contained in
the said Act has/isproceed/proceeding against the plaint
Schedule property. the proprietor of Mahalakshm Industries
had obtained an OCC facility a sum of Rs.50,000/- from
Defendant No.4 on 03.01.1991 agreeing to pay interest
thereon at the rate of 14.5% p.a to be compounded
quarterly. Defendant No.3 in the present suit had offered
security for the said amount and executed an agreement of
guarantee dated 25.04.1991 guaranteeing the payment of the
said amount together with interest. Defendant No.3 had also
executed memorandum of deposit of title deeds on
25.04.1991 referring to the deposit of title deeds made by
him on 19.04.1991 and thereby had created equitable
mortgage of plaint Schedule property in favour of the
Defendant No.4 by deposit of original title deeds. Since,
M/s. Mahalakshmi Industries had committed default in
making repayment of the due, Defendant No.4 filed a suit
for recovery on 07.08.1991 against M/s. Mahalakshmi
23 OS No. 25427/2008
Industries along with other surety including the Defendant
No 3 in Original Suit No.2884/1992 on the file of the City
Civil Judge, Bangalore, which on constitution of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal came to be transferred to Debts Recovery
Tribunal and was numbered as OA No.663/1995. The Debts
Recovery Tribunal after considering the documentary and
oral evidence let in by the parties to the dispute, by its
order dated 25th March 2003 in 0.A.663/1995 allowed the
claims of the Defendant No 4 with costs and ordered issue
of recovery certificate. Under the said order, the Tribunal
directed the parties thereto, including the Defendant No.3
jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.20,91,615/- with
current and future interest at the rate of 23.5% per annum
from the date of the suit till the date of realization and
held that in the event of failure on the part of Defendant
No.3 and others to pay the amount decreed, reserved the
liberty to the Defendant Bank to proceed against the
schedule properties therein which is inclusive of plaint
Schedule Property belonging to the Defendant No.3. The
Defendant No 3 had preferred an Appeal in RA-19/2005 on
the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
24 OS No. 25427/2008
against the order dated 25th March 2003 passed in
0.A.663/1995 and Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal after hearing
passed an order dated 16th December 2005, dismissing the
Appeal filed by the Defendant No.3 and thereby confirmed
the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in so far as
Defendant No.3 concerned. Both the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, Bangalore and the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai while rejected the defence of the
Defendant No.3 have upheld the contentions of the
Defendant Bank that the plaint Schedule property and other
properties belonging to Defendant No.3 are mortgaged to
the Defendant Bank and that the Defendant Bank is entitled
to proceed against the plaint Schedule property and other
properties in exercise of its powers as Mortgagee. Thus it is
established that the plaint Schedule property is “secured
asset” within the definition of Section 2(zc) of Securitisation
& Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of
Security Interest Act 2002 and that the Defendant Bank is a
“Secured Creditor” within the definition of Section 2(zd) of
Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets &
Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, in respect of the
25 OS No. 25427/2008
plaint Schedule Property and that the provisions of the said
Act is applicable to the plaint Schedule property and that
the Defendant Bank is entitled to exercise the powers vested
in it under provisions of the Securitization and Re-
Construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act 2002 against the plaing schedule properties.
Admittedly it is the case of the Plaintiff that she had
purchased the plaint schedule property under a sale deed
dated 22-8-2005 from Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1
had questioned/ challenged the actions / steps/measures
initiated and taken by the Authorised Officer of Defendant
No 4 under the provisions of the Securitisation Act in ASA
294/007 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and sought the
Tribunal to grant the following relief’s: a) to direct the
Respondent No.1 and 2 restraining from dispossess or taking
possession of the schedule A and B properties of the
appellant and to set aside if any alleged notice issued under
Section 13(2) or 13(4) and Rule 8(1) of the Securitization
and Re-Construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act 2002 and its Ordinance by directing
the respondents not to proceed further for recovery of
26 OS No. 25427/2008
possession of the schedule A & B properties mentioned
herein below belonging to the appellant and consequential
relief/s. b) to grant the cost of the case. c) to grant such
other relief/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the
circumstance of the above case, in the interest of justice
and equity. Debt Recovery Tribunal was pleased to dismiss
the ASA 294/007 filed by the Defendant No. 1 and declined
to grant the similar relief’s sought for the Defendant No.1.
The Defendant No. 1 has not approached the Appellate
Authority/Tribunal constituted under the Securitisation Act
under Section 18 of the Securitisation Act to challenge the
Order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in ASA.
No.294/2007 and the said order has become final. Therefore
the Plaintiff who claims absolute right, title and interest
through Defendant No. 1 is not entitled to any relief in the
above suit. As could be seen from the order dated 25th
March 2003 passed in O.A.663/1995 the Defendant Bank has
exercised its rights as Mortgagee and obtained a Judgment
in its favour on 25th March 2003. Whereas, the Vendor
(Defendant No. 2 in the suit) of vendor (Defendant No. 1)
of the Plaintiff had acquired the alleged title in respect of
27 OS No. 25427/2008
the plaint schedule property only on 2-2005 under the sale
deed obtained by him through court in pursuance of the
judgment passed in O.S.No. 16200/2003 and sold the same
to Defendant No. 1 under a sale deed dated 23-3-2005 and
in turn the Defendant No. 1 had sold the Plait Schedule
Property to the Plaintiff on 22-8-2005. Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines sale as
follows:-“Contract for Sale: A contract for Sale of immovable
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 on or charge on such property.”
The Sale Deed obtained by the Vendor of the Vendor of the
Plaintiff through Judgment dated 23-2-2005 in
O.S.No.16200/2003 passed by the Civil Court, is a
fraudulent transfer as defined under Section 53 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 subsequent to the mortgage
in favour of the Bank and the Defendant Bank reserves its
right to initiate appropriate legal proceedings. Without
conceding its claims against the plaint Schedule property, it
issubmitted that a careful reading of the Judgment dated
23-2-2005 in O.S.No.16200/2003 passed by the Civil Court
28 OS No. 25427/2008
clearly establishes that the Civil Court has given a specific
finding that Vendor of the Vendor of the Plaintiff is not
entitled to the relief of declaration that he is in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the plaint Schedule property. It
is submitted that the Civil Court had rejected the relief for
declaration and decreed the suit only for specific
performance of the alleged contract dated 20-4-1990 sought
to be executed after 13 years from the date of alleged
execution. It is submitted that much prior to the initiation
of the suit in O.S.No.16200/2003 and much prior to
Judgment dated 23-2-2005 in O.S.No.16200/2003 passed by
the Civil Court, the plaint Schedule property and other
properties were mortgaged in favour of the Defendant Bank
by its owner the Defendant No 3 and the Defendant Bank
had exercised its rights thereon and had obtained judgment
in its favour. Thus, much prior to the Vendor of the Vendor
of the Plaintiff acquiring alleged interest in the plaint
Schedule property under the sale deeds pursuant to
Judgment dated 23-2-2005 in O.S.No.16200/2003, the
Defendant Bank has acquired interest and charge/interest
has been created by the owner of the said properties in
29 OS No. 25427/2008
favour of the Defendant Bank. Therefore, in law, the
subsequent alleged interest acquired by the Vendor of the
Vendor of the Plaintiff is subject to the prior charge over
the properties by the Defendant Bank. The law being that
“Buyer should beware”, if the Vendor of the vendor of the
Plaintiff had purchased the plaint Schedule property
subsequent to the order dated 25th March 2003 passed in
O.A.663/1995, he and subsequent to him the Defendant
No.1 and the Plaintiff are bound to discharge the liability
due to the Defendant Bank to acquire perfect title to the
plaint schedule property and they have benot done so in
spite of being aware of the measures taken by the
Defendant Bank. The Vendor of the Vendor of the Plaintiff
and Plaintiff having not discharged the liability to acquire
perfect title cannot at this belated stage after the Plaint
schedule properties in accordance with law are sold in
favour of the Defendant No. 5 and the Defendant No. 5
having acquired absolute right, title and interest in the
Plaint Schedule Property, cannot contend that she is the
lawful owner in possession and enjoyment of the plaint
schedule property. It is denied that the Defendant No. 1
30 OS No. 25427/2008
and 2 and the Plaintiff are bonafide buyers. In fact, the
Defendants No.2,1, and Plaintiff totally lack bonafides so
also the Defendant No.3. In view of provision of Section 54
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the alleged agreement
of sale dated 20-4-1990, the sale deed obtained by the
Defendant No.2 through Court, sale deeds obtained by
Defendant No. 1 from Defendant No. 2 and the sale deed
obtained by the Plaintiff from the Defendant No. 1
respectively had not created any interest on or charge on
pliant Schedule Property in favour of the respective
purchaser under the respective sale deeds aforementioned.
The Judgment dated 23-2-2005 in O.S.No.16200/2003 passed
by the Civil Court is nullity since the plaint Schedule
property and other properties being the “secured asset”
within the definition of Section 2(zc) of Securitisation &
Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security
Interest Act 2002 and that the Respondent Bank is a
“Secured Creditor” within the definition of Section 2(zd) of
Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets &
Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, in view of
Section 34 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of
31 OS No. 25427/2008Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002
the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, try,
adjudicate the suit in O.S.No.16200/2003 which pertains to
Schedule property which are the “secured asset”. In view of
Section 35 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of
Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002
neither the Defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 1 nor the
Plaintiff had or have prior or superior rights over the plaint
Schedule property than the Defendant Bank on the basis of
alleged instruments i.e. agreement of sale dated 20-4-1990,
under the sale deeds pursuant to Judgment dated 23-2-2005
in O.S.No.16200/2003 or under any of the documents
produced along with the Plaint. The Defendant Bank in
exercise of its powers under Securitisation Act had taken
symbolic possession of the plaint schedule properties and
thereafter sold, transferred and conveyed the Plaint schedule
property in favour of the Defendant No.5 and by virtue of
Section13 (6) of the Securitisation Act, the Defendant No. 5
has derived absolute right, title and interest over the plaint
schedule property and thus Defendant No. 5 is the absolute
owner of the plaint schedule property. The documents
32 OS No. 25427/2008evidencing the measures/steps taken by the Defendant Bank
and sale of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the
Defendant No.5. For the reasons stated supra and grounds
urged herein above, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief
sought in the Plaint. Defendant No 3 had dealt with the
plaint schedule property on executing the guarantee deed
dated 25.04.1991 and memorandum of deposit of title deeds
on 25.04.1991 referring to the deposit of title deeds made
by him on 19.04.1991 in favour of the Defendant Bank and
the Defendant Bank has enforced its rights and powers
under the said deed and the Defendant No 5 has become
the lawful owner of plaint schedule property. Therefore, the
relief of injunction sought by the Plaintiff is misconceived
and do not survive for consideration. Hence the suit is
liable to be dismissed.
6. Defendant No.5 also appeared through their
choised counsel at before the court on virtue of the
summons on him. Defendant No.5 chosen to filed his Written
Statement. Where in the Written Statement Defendant No.5
denied the case of Plaintiff as false and concocted. FurtherDefendant No. 5 contended, it is false to say that the
33 OS No. 25427/2008Plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the Schedule Property as claimed by her. The
Plaintiff is residing in the Schedule Property as alleged. The
address of the Plaintiff as shown in the cause title is also
incorrect. The Suit of the Plaintiff is a collusive suit that is
filed by the Plaintiff in collusion with Defendant No.1 to 3.
The suit is only an attempt to save the property which is
sold by the Bank under the provisions of Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
security Interest Act. It is false to say, the Plaintiff had
purchased the schedule site from the 1st Defendant on
22.8.2005 through Absolute Sale Deed as claimed. It is false
that after purchasing the said site, katha has been registered
in the name of Plaintiff and she is paying the taxes to
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and on obtaining licence the
Plaintiff had constructed five houses and that out of that
she is residing with her family in one house situated in
Ground Floor as alleged. The Plaintiff is put to strict proof
of the same. It is false to say that a few people went near
the Schedule Property and were discussing about purchase
transaction and on enquiry they told they have come on
34 OS No. 25427/2008behalf of 5th Defendant as alleged. It is false that the
Plaintiff approached 1st Defendant and 1st Defendant sought
time to verify the information and intimate the same
afterwards as alleged. It is false that the Second Defendant
had obtained a decree of Specific Performance against the
Third Defendant in respect of Schedule Property and that
the Third Defendant who was the previous owner of
Schedule Property had entered into an Agreement of sale
with Second Defendant It is false that by virtue of the sale
agreement dated 20.4.1990 the possession of Schedule
Property was given on receipt of entire sale consideration. It
is false that the Third Defendant had transferred all his
right, title and interest in the properties including the
Schedule Property except executing the Sale Deed for which
purpose certain compliances was required to be obtained by
Third defendant as alleged. It is false that the First
defendant informed the Plaintiff that Third defendant after
transferring his right, title and interest had pledged the
Schedule Property to Fourth Defendant as surety to a loan
transaction as alleged. However, it is true that the Fourth
Defendant had taken steps under Securitization and
35 OS No. 25427/2008Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
security Interest Act had auctioned the Schedule Property
and the adjacent sites in favour of Fifth defendant since the
loan was not repaid and after classifying the loan and the
property as non-performing asset the necessary action was
initiated under Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act. It
is false to state that as per the Agreement of Sale the Third
Defendant had relinquished all his rights with possession in
favour of Second Defendant in respect of Schedule Property
and adjoining properties as alleged. It is false that
mortgaging of the site in the Schedule Property and other
properties mentioned in the agreement of sale by the Third
defendant in favour of the fourth Defendant is long after
the Third Defendant had executed the Agreement of Sale, as
alleged. It is false that the Third Defendant had no right to
create any encumbrance on the Schedule Property
subsequent to 20.4.1990. It is false to say that the Third
Defendant had no right, title and interest to mortgage the
property in favour of Fourth Defendant and the mortgage of
the Schedule Site is a void document which is nullity in the
36 OS No. 25427/2008eye of law as alleged. It s false that the Fourth Defendant
does not derive any title over the suit Schedule Property
through the said document as alleged. It is false to say that
there is no encumbrance over the Schedule Property. It is
false to state that taking advantage of void and fabricated
document, the Defendants 3 o 5 in collusion have auctioned
the property with out the knowledge of the Plaintiff. It is
false to say that at no point of time any body came to the
Schedule Property and conducted any proceedings including
auction proceedings. It is false to say that the Plaintiff is
the bonafide purchaser and invested huge amount in putting
up constructions. It is false that in view of the
improvements made in the said site, at present the market
value of the Schedule Property is more than one Crore. It is
false to state auction sale was done in collusion between
the Defendants 3 to 5 to defraud the Plaintiff. It is false to
say no auction proceedings took place at the Schedule
Property and the Defendants have created documents to
show the auction had been conducted. It is false to state
that the Fifth Defendant has no right, title and interest over
the Schedule Property which is said to be part of auction
37 OS No. 25427/2008sale as alleged. It is false to allege that the Fifth Defendant
by virtue of such collusive act between the defendants
forcibly trying to dispossess the Plaintiff and her tenants
from the Schedule Property. It is false, the Fifth Defendant
is making hectic efforts to interfere with the possession of
the Schedule Property from last one week. When the
Plaintiff is not in possession there is no question of such
interfering. It is false, on 1.3.2008 Fifth Defendant and
some strangers went near the Schedule Property and
attempted to occupy the same and with great difficulty the
Plaintiff resisted with the help of neighbours as alleged.
There is no cause of action to the Suit and the one
mentioned in the Suit is false and baseless. The suit is not
properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient. Hence the
suit requires to be dismissed on this count alone. The relief
claimed by the Plaintiff is for injunction and a bare suit for
injunction is not maintainable under law. The property is
already conveyed in favour of this Defendant and without
seeking for declaration of title and cancellation of Mortgage
and Sale Deed by paying the Court Fee the Suit would not
be maintainable under Section 31 and 34 of Specific Relief
38 OS No. 25427/2008Act. Hence, the Suit shall fail on the count of
maintainability itself. In this matter the case urged by the
Plaintiff is already decided by the DRT which has got
jurisdiction to decide the lis and therefore the Suit is not
maintainable. One Mahalakshmi Industries had approached
4th Defendant for grant of loan and 3 rd Defendant herein
stood as guarantor. The said Mahalakshmi Industries and 3 rd
Defendant did not honour their commitments and did not
repay the loan amount. Therefore the said account and the
said property were treated as non-performing assets and the
Bank has decided to enforce security interest created in
favour of the Bank. Therefore proper notices were caused to
Defendants No.3 and Mahalakshmi Industries under section
13(2) of the said Act. Since they did not comply with the
demand with the said notice under Section 13(2) of the act,
the Bank has proceeded further and the possession of the
said property was taken by the Bank and the property was
also offered for sale to the intending purchasers from
general public. This Defendant having came to know about
the availability of the property and had given a bid of
Rs.1,15,50,000/-. Since the bid of this Defendant was
39 OS No. 25427/2008highest, the Bank had accepted the bid and this Defendant
had paid the entire amount and the sale certificate was also
issued by the Bank dated 13.11.2007. At this juncture at the
instance of Defendant No.1, who was unsuccessful before
Hon’ble DRT has approached this Hon’ble Court with
oblique motive by filing a Suit in O.S.No.27135/2007. But
since the Defendant No.1 herein could not get any interim
order in O.S.No.27135/2007, has set up the Plaintiff herein
for filing the present Suit. Therefore, this Suit is a result of
collusion between the Defendants 1 to 3 and hence it is
clear that the Plaintiff has not approached this Court with
clean hands. The entire exercise on the part of the Plaintiff
is at the instance of the Defendants 1 to 3. In order to save
the property which was mortgaged to the Bank and in order
to complicate the issue 2nd and 3rd Defendant had fabricated
a sale agreement dated 20.4.1990. What made the 2nd
Defendant to file the Suit for specific performance of the
Agreement after a period of 13 years is not forthcoming. It
is very clear that the said Suit in O.S.No. 16200/2003 was a
collusive decree obtained to defeat the rights of the secured
debtor. Therefore the said decree is not binding on the
40 OS No. 25427/2008Defendant No.4 and consequentially not binding on this
Defendant. How limitation period was saved for a period of
13 years to file the Suit for specific performance is not
forthcoming and therefore it is clear that the said decree is
a collusive decree obtained by playing fraud of Court and
therefore the said Suit in O.S.No. 16200/2003 is not binding
on this Defendant. Merely entering into agreement of sale in
the year 1990 will not prevent the Defendant No.3 from
entering into a mortgage Deed with the Bank in view of the
fact that the said Agreement dated 20.4.1900 is not
genuine. Even if it is genuine, the said agreement has no
value after a period of 3 years. Therefore it is false to say
that the mortgage deed entered into between the Bank and
the 3rd Defendant is not valid. Even if the Plaintiff is a
bonafide purchaser and she should have been careful to
know the mortgages as on the date of obtaining Sale Deed
from the Court of law. The property purchased by 2 nd
Defendant is subject to mortgage that was created in favour
of Defendant Bank and therefore it cannot be alleged that
the said mortgage is not binding on the Defendant No.2.
The Court while passing the Judgment and decree in
41 OS No. 25427/2008O.S.No. 16200/2003 was kept in dark about the said
mortgage and right of the said mortgage. Therefore the
Court had no occasion to look into the encumbrances
created and therefore the said decree was passed and hence
the same is not binding on 4th Defendant and consequently
no binding on this Defendant. Fraud was played by 3 rd
Defendant in collusion with Defendant No.2. Since
Defendant No 1, 2 and 3 were not successful in their
attempts now this Plaint is set up by them by executing a
nominal, sham document of sale in order to complicate the
issue. Therefore the Plaintiff has no right or entitled to any
relief as claimed by her. The case of the Plaintiff is totally
hit under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. A suit
was filed by the 2nd defendant on 20.9.2003 for relief of
specific performance of Agreement of Sale which was
executed in the year 1990. It is submitted that suit was
filed on 20.9.2003 by which time mortgage was created.
Further the Suit was filed after a lapse of 13 years and
decree was obtained which clearly shows that the Defendant
No.3 did not contest the matter and therefore it is clear
that it is a collusive suit. Further the property is purchased
42 OS No. 25427/2008during the pendency of the dispute between 3 rd Defendant
and the Bank. Therefore the transaction is hit under section
52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore the Plaintiff
acquired no right under the said sale deed which was
executed during the pendency of the Suit. It is an exercise
made by the defendant No. 1 to 3 through the Plaintiff.
Therefore the suit requires to be dismissed.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, my
predecessor in office has framed the issues in below:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she was
in lawful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property, as on the date of
suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves alleged
interference?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief
of Permanent Injunction?
4. What order or decree?
8. To prove the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff herself
examined as P.W.1 and she got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P35
documents. On the other hand, defendant No.5
43 OS No. 25427/2008A.Venkataramana examined himself as DW1 and he got
marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D9 document.
9. Heard the argument on both the sides. Perused the
records. Counsel for the plaintiff filed the written argument.
Counsel for 5th defendant relied the citation; 1)ILR 2013 KAR
380 – S.Malleshwarrao Vs Bokka Venkateshwarra. 2) SLP
(C) No.1989-1990/2024 – P.Elaiyappan Vs Natarajan and
Others.
10. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following:
:R E A S O N S:
11. Issue No.1 to 3:- Issue No.1 to 3 over lapped
with each other on virtue of the similar facts and evidence.
To avoid the repetition of facts and evidence in the
judgment, issue No.1 to 3 have taken in together conjointly
for the common discussion.
44 OS No. 25427/2008
12. Before I advert with the factual aspect on the
suit, that I make note of the present law which settled by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment
reported in 2009(II) OLR (SC) 388 ( Anathula Sudhakar Vs.
P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs and others) which reads
thus:-
13. Section 100-
Suit of permanent
injunction- Trial court
decreed the suit holding
plaintiffs in possession of
suit property and the
defendant had interfered
with their possession-
First appellate court held
that the defendant was in
possession of the suit
property and the plaintiffs
had not made out, even
prima facie, either title or
possession over the suit
property- High Court
allowed the second appeal
and restored the judgment
and decree of the trial
court- Appeal before Apex
Court- Discussing the
facts, contention and
provisions of law held,
45 OS No. 25427/2008
High Court exceed its
jurisdiction under Section
100 CPC, firstly in re-
examining questions of
fact, secondly by giving
into the questions which
were not pleaded and
which were not the
subject matter of any
issue, thirdly by
formulating question of
law which did not arise
in the second appeal, and
lastly by interfering with
the well reasoned
judgment of the first
appellate court which
held that the plaintiffs
ought to have filed a suit
for declaration- Judgment
of High Court Set aside.
14. From the above judgment it is to be learnt,
where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the
property is in dispute, or under a cloud or where the
defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of
dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to
sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of
injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud
46 OS No. 25427/2008
or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to
establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file
a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. Further
from the above judgment it also learnt, prayer for
declaration will be necessary only if the denial of the title
by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff’s title raises a
cloud on the title of the plaintiff to the property. A cloud
is said to raise over a person’s title, when some apparent
defect in his title to a property or when some prima facie
right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An
action for declaration is the remedy to remove the cloud on
the title to the property.
15. Based on above mandate of law that I have
taken the controversy for my discussion. On summarizing
the controversy, as per the evidence of PW1,, the Plaintiff
has purchased a site bearing No.6, situated at 1st Cross,
Rathnamma Layout, Manorayanapalya, Bangalore, measuring
East to West 30 Feet and North to South 45+44/2 Feet, in
1335 Sq.ft. from Smt. A. Sugandramma vide Sale deed
dated 22-08-05, registered, before the Sub-registrar,
Bangalore North Taluk. Since then the Plaintiff is in
47 OS No. 25427/2008
possession and enjoyment of the said property which is
more fully described in the Schedule hereunder and
hereinafter referred to as the “SCHEDULE PROPERTY”. After
so purchasing the said site, the Plaintiff got the katha of
the Schedule property changed to her name and she is
paying the taxes to Bangalore Mahanagara palike in her
name and subsequently by obtaining license for construction
of the premises. The Plaintiff as per the approved plan has
constructed five houses, out of which she is residing with
her family in one house, situated in Ground Floor. The
other four houses have been let out by the Plaintiff to
separate tenants on monthly rental basis. A few weeks back
a few people came near the Schedule Property and
discussing about some purchase transaction. The Plaintiff on
hearing their conversation enquired as to whom they are
and they then narrated that they have come on behalf of
Fifth Defendant, who has purchased the Schedule Property
and the adjacent two properties also. The Plaintiff being
shocked about the information told them that she is the
owner of the Schedule Property and she has not sold the
same to anyone else. The said people a request of the
48 OS No. 25427/2008
Plaintiff gave the address of the Fifth Defendant and
suggested to her to obtain the details from him directly.
Being shocked about the alleged ownership of the Fifth
Defendant regarding the Schedule property, the Plaintiff
approached the first Defendant from whom she has
purchased the site, she took sometime to verify the
information and then she would give the information. After
few days, the first Defendant informed that the Second
Defendant had obtained a decree of Specific Performance
against the third Defendant in respect of the Schedule
property and the adjacent two properties bearing No. 4 and
5 also. On further enquiry the Plaintiffs learnt that the third
Defendant, who was the previous owner of the Schedule
Property, had entered in to an Agreement of sale dated 20-
04-90. By virtue of which, the possession of the Schedule
property and the adjoining properties had also been given
possession of on the same day, upon receipt of the entire
sale consideration. The Plaintiff is further informed that by
virtue of the said Agreement to Sell, the third Defendant
had transferred all his right and interest in the properties
including the Schedule property, except executing the sale
49 OS No. 25427/2008
deed, for which purpose certain compliances was required
to be obtain by the Third Defendant. The first Defendant
after giving the said information further informed the
Plaintiff that the third Defendant after having so transferred
his right, title and interest in the Schedule property is
alleged to have pledged the site in the Schedule property
and the adjoining properties bearing No. 4 and 5 and some
other properties to the fourth Defendant, as surety to a loan
transaction. The fourth Defendant alleging default in the
loan transaction had taken steps under Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act and had auctioned the Schedule
property and the adjacent sites in favour of the fifth
Defendant illegally. It is not in dispute that there was an
Agreement to sell (Annexure ‘G’) between the Second and
third Defendant, where by the third Defendant had
relinquished all his rights together with possession in favour
of the second Defendant in respect of the site in the
Schedule property and the adjoining properties. The alleged
mortgaging of the site in the Schedule property and the
other properties mentioned in Annexure G by the third
50 OS No. 25427/2008
Defendant in favour of the fourth Defendant is long after
the third Defendant had executed ‘Annexure G’. As such the
third Defendant had no right to create any encumbrance on
the Schedule property subsequent to 20-04-90.
Consequently, the fourth Defendant also does not get any
right in respect of such alleged subsequent mortgage as
well. Interestingly there is no such encumbrance recorded in
respect of the Schedule property in the jurisdictional sub-
registrar office during the relevant period. Under the above
circumstances there appears to be collusion between
Defendants 3 to 5 in putting the Schedule property for
auction without the knowledge of the Plaintiff, who is very
much residing in the Schedule property. At no point of time
any body had come to the Schedule property and conducted
any proceedings including auction proceedings, as has been
said to have been done by the fourth Defendant. Though all
these information was made available by the first and
Second Defendant, and when the Plaintiff insisted upon the
first Defendant to set right this confusion and illegal
transaction, she is only assuring to sort out the things and
secure the title of the Plaintiff in respect of the Schedule
51 OS No. 25427/2008
property, but she has not taken any positive steps so far. In
view of the apprehension of the Plaintiff that the first
Defendant may not take expeditious steps to ensure that the
title of the Plaintiff is in no way affected, she is constrained
to file this suit to protect her title and interest. The Plaintiff
is a bonafide purchaser of the site in the Schedule property
for valuable consideration and she has invested huge
amount in putting up five houses. In view of the
improvements made in the said site, the Schedule property
is worth more than Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore
only). The first Defendant informed the Plaintiff that on her
verification the auction sale conducted by the fourth
Defendant given in favour of the fifth Defendant in for
paltry sum of about Rs.1,15,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore
Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) as against the value of
all the properties would be about more than Four Crore and
on this back ground the first Defendant stated that the
auction sale has been conducted in collusion between
Defendants 3 to 5 to defraud bonafide purchaser like the
Plaintiff. She has gathered all these information recently,
since the Plaintiff is not aware of any steps taken by her to
52 OS No. 25427/2008
get the auctioned process nullified and there by protect the
title of the Plaintiff in respect of the site in the Schedule
property conveyed by her, the Plaintiff is filing this suit. In
view of the fact that the Schedule property itself is worth
about Rs. 1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore only), the act of
the fourth Defendant in allegedly auctioning the Schedule
property and the adjoining properties for paltry sum of
about Rs. 1,15,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lakhs
Fifty Thousand only) speaks volume off the collusion
between the Defendants 3 to 5 to make unlawful gains to
benefit themselves in the name of the fifth Defendant. No
auction proceedings has ever taken place at the Schedule
property, obviously the said Defendants could have created
documents to show as if there had been an auction, which
has never held. Under these circumstances the fifth
Defendant does not get any right, title or interest over the
Schedule property belonging to the Plaintiff which is said to
be part of the alleged auction sale. As the Plaintiff has not
been able to secure a copy of the auction sale proceedings
and any further documents in that regard, she has not been
able to produce documents in this regard as of now. 15.
53 OS No. 25427/2008
Considering the above facts, it becomes crystal clear that
the Plaintiff right, title and interest is in no way affected by
the collusive acts of Defendants 3 to 5. As the fifth
Defendant by virtue of such collusive acts between the said
Defendants may forcibly try to disposes the Plaintiff and her
four tenants from the Schedule property, this suit is being
filed. The Plaintiff is having direct and subsisting right in
the suit schedule property. The fifth Defendant by colluding
with the other Defendants is making hectic attempts to
detrimental to the interest of the Plaintiff. Under these
circumstances, the Plaintiff has no other alternative remedy
than to approach this court for her redressal. The fifth
Defendant has once again came near the suit schedule
property and told the Plaintiff that he along with his
supporters would take the possession of the suit schedule
property with force whatever may be the consequences. The
fifth Defendant is a powerful person having men and
material and also has the support of anti-social elements
that certainly dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule
property. The Plaintiff is a poor lady having no support to
the onslaught of the Defendants. The Plaintiff is in
54 OS No. 25427/2008
possession of the schedule property exercising her lawful
right which she has acquired through registered sale deed.
The fifth Defendant has no right, title and interest of
whatsoever in respect of the Schedule property to interfere
with the possession of the Plaintiff. In support of her case,
PW1 got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P35 documents. Ex.P1 is the
original sale deed. Ex.P2 is the Special notice, Ex.P3 is the
endorsement issued by BBMP. Ex.P4 is Katha certificate.
Ex.P5 is the Khata extract. Ex.P6 to Ex.P12 are the 7 tax
paid receipts. Ex.P13 is the registered sale deed. Ex.P14 is
the khata certificate. Ex.P15, Ex.P16 and Ex.P21 are the
encumbrance certificates. Ex.P17 is the khata certificate.
Ex.P18 is the sanction letter issued by Bescom. Ex.P19 and
Ex.P20 are two letters issued by BWSSB. Ex.P22 is the tax
invoice. Ex.P23 to Ex.P30 are 8 photographs. Ex.P31 is the
CD. Ex.P32 to Ex.P35 are four electricity bills.
16. In its contrary it could also be seen from the
deposition of DW1 and if summarized the case of Defendant
No.5, according to Defendant No.5, they denied the
averments of the plaint and also contended, it is false to
say that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful
55 OS No. 25427/2008
possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property as
claimed by her. The Plaintiff is residing in the Schedule
Property as alleged. The address of the Plaintiff as shown in
the cause title is also incorrect. The Suit of the Plaintiff is a
collusive suit that is filed by the Plaintiff in collusion with
Defendant No.1 to 3. The suit is only an attempt to save
the property which is sold by the Bank under the provisions
of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of security Interest Act. It is false to say, the
Plaintiff had purchased the schedule site from the 1st
Defendant on 22.8.2005 through Absolute Sale Deed as
claimed. It is false that after purchasing the said site, katha
has been registered in the name of Plaintiff and she is
paying the taxes to Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and on
obtaining licence the Plaintiff had constructed five houses
and that out of that she is residing with her family in one
house situated in Ground Floor as alleged. The Plaintiff is
put to strict proof of the same. It is false to say that a few
people went near the Schedule Property and were discussing
about purchase transaction and on enquiry they told they
have come on behalf of 5th Defendant as alleged. It is false
56 OS No. 25427/2008
that the Plaintiff approached 1 st Defendant and 1st Defendant
sought time to verify the information and intimate the same
afterwards as alleged. It is false that the Second Defendant
had obtained a decree of Specific Performance against the
Third Defendant in respect of Schedule Property and that
the Third Defendant who was the previous owner of
Schedule Property had entered into an Agreement of sale
with Second Defendant It is false that by virtue of the sale
agreement dated 20.4.1990 the possession of Schedule
Property was given on receipt of entire sale consideration. It
is false that the Third Defendant had transferred all his
right, title and interest in the properties including the
Schedule Property except executing the Sale Deed for which
purpose certain compliances was required to be obtained by
Third defendant as alleged. It is false that the First
defendant informed the Plaintiff that Third defendant after
transferring his right, title and interest had pledged the
Schedule Property to Fourth Defendant as surety to a loan
transaction as alleged. However, it is true that the Fourth
Defendant had taken steps under Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
57 OS No. 25427/2008
security Interest Act had auctioned the Schedule Property
and the adjacent sites in favour of Fifth defendant since the
loan was not repaid and after classifying the loan and the
property as non-performing asset the necessary action was
initiated under Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act. It
is false to state that as per the Agreement of Sale the Third
Defendant had relinquished all his rights with possession in
favour of Second Defendant in respect of Schedule Property
and adjoining properties as alleged. It is false that
mortgaging of the site in the Schedule Property and other
properties mentioned in the agreement of sale by the Third
defendant in favour of the fourth Defendant is long after
the Third Defendant had executed the Agreement of Sale, as
alleged. It is false that the Third Defendant had no right to
create any encumbrance on the Schedule Property
subsequent to 20.4.1990. It is false to say that the Third
Defendant had no right, title and interest to mortgage the
property in favour of Fourth Defendant and the mortgage of
the Schedule Site is a void document which is nullity in the
eye of law as alleged. It s false that the Fourth Defendant
58 OS No. 25427/2008
does not derive any title over the suit Schedule Property
through the said document as alleged. It is false to say that
there is no encumbrance over the Schedule Property. It is
false to state that taking advantage of void and fabricated
document, the Defendants 3 o 5 in collusion have auctioned
the property with out the knowledge of the Plaintiff. It is
false to say that at no point of time any body came to the
Schedule Property and conducted any proceedings including
auction proceedings. It is false to say that the Plaintiff is
the bonafide purchaser and invested huge amount in putting
up constructions. It is false that in view of the
improvements made in the said site, at present the market
value of the Schedule Property is more than one Crore. It is
false to state auction sale was done in collusion between
the Defendants 3 to 5 to defraud the Plaintiff. It is false to
say no auction proceedings took place at the Schedule
Property and the Defendants have created documents to
show the auction had been conducted. It is false to state
that the Fifth Defendant has no right, title and interest over
the Schedule Property which is said to be part of auction
sale as alleged. It is false to allege that the Fifth Defendant
59 OS No. 25427/2008
by virtue of such collusive act between the defendants
forcibly trying to dispossess the Plaintiff and her tenants
from the Schedule Property. It is false, the Fifth Defendant
is making hectic efforts to interfere with the possession of
the Schedule Property from last one week. When the
Plaintiff is not in possession there is no question of such
interfering. It is false, on 1.3.2008 Fifth Defendant and
some strangers went near the Schedule Property and
attempted to occupy the same and with great difficulty the
Plaintiff resisted with the help of neighbours as alleged.
There is no cause of action to the Suit and the one
mentioned in the Suit is false and baseless. The suit is not
properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient. Hence the
suit requires to be dismissed on this count alone. The relief
claimed by the Plaintiff is for injunction and a bare suit for
injunction is not maintainable under law. The property is
already conveyed in favour of this Defendant and without
seeking for declaration of title and cancellation of Mortgage
and Sale Deed by paying the Court Fee the Suit would not
be maintainable under Section 31 and 34 of Specific Relief
Act. Hence, the Suit shall fail on the count of
60 OS No. 25427/2008
maintainability itself. In this matter the case urged by the
Plaintiff is already decided by the DRT which has got
jurisdiction to decide the lis and therefore the Suit is not
maintainable. One Mahalakshmi Industries had approached
4th Defendant for grant of loan and 3 rd Defendant herein
stood as guarantor. The said Mahalakshmi Industries and 3 rd
Defendant did not honour their commitments and did not
repay the loan amount. Therefore the said account and the
said property were treated as non-performing assets and the
Bank has decided to enforce security interest created in
favour of the Bank. Therefore proper notices were caused to
Defendants No.3 and Mahalakshmi Industries under section
13(2) of the said Act. Since they did not comply with the
demand with the said notice under Section 13(2) of the act,
the Bank has proceeded further and the possession of the
said property was taken by the Bank and the property was
also offered for sale to the intending purchasers from
general public. This Defendant having came to know about
the availability of the property and had given a bid of
Rs.1,15,50,000/-. Since the bid of this Defendant was
highest, the Bank had accepted the bid and this Defendant
61 OS No. 25427/2008
had paid the entire amount and the sale certificate was also
issued by the Bank dated 13.11.2007. At this juncture at the
instance of Defendant No.1, who was unsuccessful before
Hon’ble DRT has approached this Hon’ble Court with
oblique motive by filing a Suit in O.S.No.27135/2007. But
since the Defendant No.1 herein could not get any interim
order in O.S.No.27135/2007, has set up the Plaintiff herein
for filing the present Suit. Therefore, this Suit is a result of
collusion between the Defendants 1 to 3 and hence it is
clear that the Plaintiff has not approached this Court with
clean hands. The entire exercise on the part of the Plaintiff
is at the instance of the Defendants 1 to 3. In order to save
the property which was mortgaged to the Bank and in order
to complicate the issue 2nd and 3rd Defendant had fabricated
a sale agreement dated 20.4.1990. What made the 2nd
Defendant to file the Suit for specific performance of the
Agreement after a period of 13 years is not forthcoming. It
is very clear that the said Suit in O.S.No. 16200/2003 was a
collusive decree obtained to defeat the rights of the secured
debtor. Therefore the said decree is not binding on the
Defendant No.4 and consequentially not binding on this
62 OS No. 25427/2008
Defendant. How limitation period was saved for a period of
13 years to file the Suit for specific performance is not
forthcoming and therefore it is clear that the said decree is
a collusive decree obtained by playing fraud of Court and
therefore the said Suit in O.S.No. 16200/2003 is not binding
on this Defendant. Merely entering into agreement of sale in
the year 1990 will not prevent the Defendant No.3 from
entering into a mortgage Deed with the Bank in view of the
fact that the said Agreement dated 20.4.1900 is not
genuine. Even if it is genuine, the said agreement has no
value after a period of 3 years. Therefore it is false to say
that the mortgage deed entered into between the Bank and
the 3rd Defendant is not valid. Even if the Plaintiff is a
bonafide purchaser and she should have been careful to
know the mortgages as on the date of obtaining Sale Deed
from the Court of law. The property purchased by 2 nd
Defendant is subject to mortgage that was created in favour
of Defendant Bank and therefore it cannot be alleged that
the said mortgage is not binding on the Defendant No.2.
The Court while passing the Judgment and decree in
O.S.No. 16200/2003 was kept in dark about the said
63 OS No. 25427/2008
mortgage and right of the said mortgage. Therefore the
Court had no occasion to look into the encumbrances
created and therefore the said decree was passed and hence
the same is not binding on 4th Defendant and consequently
no binding on this Defendant. Fraud was played by 3 rd
Defendant in collusion with Defendant No.2. Since
Defendant No 1, 2 and 3 were not successful in their
attempts now this Plaint is set up by them by executing a
nominal, sham document of sale in order to complicate the
issue. Therefore the Plaintiff has no right or entitled to any
relief as claimed by her. The case of the Plaintiff is totally
hit under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. A suit
was filed by the 2nd defendant on 20.9.2003 for relief of
specific performance of Agreement of Sale which was
executed in the year 1990. It is submitted that suit was
filed on 20.9.2003 by which time mortgage was created.
Further the Suit was filed after a lapse of 13 years and
decree was obtained which clearly shows that the Defendant
No.3 did not contest the matter and therefore it is clear
that it is a collusive suit. Further the property is purchased
during the pendency of the dispute between 3 rd Defendant
64 OS No. 25427/2008
and the Bank. Therefore the transaction is hit under section
52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore the Plaintiff
acquired no right under the said sale deed which was
executed during the pendency of the Suit. It is an exercise
made by the defendant No. 1 to 3 through the Plaintiff. In
support of his case, DW1 got marked E.xD1 to Ex.D9. Ex.D1
is the certified copy of judgment dated 13.01.2020. Ex.D2 is
the certified copy of judgment and decree in OS
No.16200/2003. Ex.D3 is the office copy of legal notice.
Ex.D4 is the certified copy of judgment. Ex.D5 is the
certified copy of order of DRT in ASA 294/2007. Ex.D6 is
the certified copy of order of Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in WP No.146/2006. Ex.D7 is the bank statement
from 1.10.2007 to 31.10.2007. Ex.D8 is the bank statement
from 2.11.2007 to 30.11.2007. Ex.D9 is the certificate issued
by CA.
17. If it assimilated the controversy from the
pleadings and evidence, 3rd Defendant deceased
Sathyanarayana Reddy was be the original owner of suit
schedule property. As per the Plaintiff, suit schedule
property was the vacant site and it was sold by Defendant
65 OS No. 25427/2008
No.3 to 2nd Defendant under a sale agreement dated
20.04.1990 and in virtue of said sale agreement, 2 nd
Defendant R.Bhaskar got the exparte decree in against 3 rd
Defendant in OS.No.16200/2003 as per Ex.D2 judgment
copy. Based on Ex.D2 judgment copy R.Bhaskar sold the
vacant site to deceased A.Sugandramma under Ex.P13 sale
deed. Further, deceased A.sugandramma in turn sold such a
vacant site to the Plaintiff under Ex.P1 sale deed. Based on
Ex.P1 sale deed the Plaintiff got khata as per Ex.P2, Ex.P3,
Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P17 revenue documents and the
Plaintiff paid all revenue tax to such of the vacant site over
a vacant site as per Ex.P6 to Ex.P12 tax paid receipts. Also
case of the Plaintiff, the transaction of Ex.P1 sale deed, it
reflected in Ex.P15, Ex.P16 and Ex.P21 encumbrance
certificate and the Plaintiff being owner in possession of
such of the vacant site the Plaintiff constructed a house
after got valid license from the competent authority. Since
the Plaintiff have the building in the vacant site and also
such of the building it connected by electrical and water
connection as per Ex.P18 to Ex.P20 documents and Ex.P23
to Ex.P32 photographs. Hence according to the Plaintiff, the
66 OS No. 25427/2008
Plaintiff have been in the possession of suit schedule
property as on the date of filing of the suit. In despite it
came to the knowledge of Plaintiff a few week back to
filing of the present suit, the Plaintiff know it some people
came near the suit schedule property and discussing about
some purchase transaction and it finally, the Plaintiff learnt
title of the suit schedule property defected on virtue of
pledging of the same site by Defendant No.3 at before
Defendant No.4 and Defendant No.4 it initiated the
SURFASI act and auctioned the suit schedule property and
adjacent in favour of 5th Defendant illegally. Hence the
cause of action to the present suit arose to the Plaintiff in
against all the Defendants. On the contrary from the same
case record both the pleadings of Plaintiff and Defendants it
also evidence, Defendant No.3 deceased Sathyanarayana
Reddy who was being owner of suit schedule property, he
pledged suit schedule property and other properties at
before 4th Defendant bank as security to the loan. Since,
surety offered by 3rd Defendant to the loan raised at before
4th Defendant bank and on account co-extensive liability
caused on 3rd Defendant deceased Sathyanarayan Reddy, 4th
67 OS No. 25427/2008
Defendant initiate a SARFSI act proceedings 4 th Defendant
auctioned the suit schedule property at in the public and 5 th
Defendant being one of the highest bidder he purchased the
suit schedule property. Hence Defendant No.5 claimed he be
the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule
property. The present suit of the Plaintiff just for a
simplicitor injunction. Further, in the present suit no such
of the issue in related to the title of the property have been
framed and available in the record for discussion. The
Plaintiff claimed the title and possession over the suit
schedule property from 3rd Defendant deceased
Sathyanarayana Reddy as per Ex.D2 judgment and decree to
R.Bhaskar, R.Bhaskar executed the Ex.P13 sale deed to
Defendant No.1 deceased Sugandramma and in turn
Sugandramma sold the property to the Plaintiff under Ex.P1
sale deed. In the contrary the same title of the same
property have also devolved from the point of deceased
Sathyarayana Reddy at through the Defendant No.4 bank
under a SARFASI proceedings. With this background of
observation one thing is evidence, both Defendants and
Plaintiff claimed the title of the same property under a
68 OS No. 25427/2008
different flow of title from the point of original owner third
Defendant Sathyanarayana Reddy. Since both Plaintiff and
Defendant No.5 claimed the same property as per their flow
of title from the point of Defendant No.3 deceased
Sathyanarayana Reddy, the title of the very same property
it covers more cloud on its face. Since, this court have no
such of the authentication to discuss with respect to title of
both the Plaintiff and Defendant No.5 to the same property
under a suit for simplicitor injunction, this court have no
other option to negate the claim of Plaintiff as per the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court make referred in the
supra.
18. Further, if it taken up the same controversy to
resolve as per pleadings and evidence placed by both the
parties, Ex.D14 judgment copy passed in RFA No.1938/2012
by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka have also take its
own evidentiary value for determination of the controversy.
Accordingly, the relevant para No.22 and 23 of the
judgment in Ex.D4 RFA No.1938/2012 by the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka it extracted in the below;
69 OS No. 25427/2008
22. Further the present suit is
valued under Section 24(b) and
26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees
and Suit Valuation Act and even
the framing of the suit made for
declaration and permanent
injunction having cumulative
and negating effect of judgment
and decree passed by the court in
pursuance of the proceedings
ended in favour of defendant
No.2 (Bank).
23. The conduct and the sequence
of events establish how and why
the plaintiff has come to the
court for the relief sought, the
timing and the date of said
agreement by the said Bhaskar
filing a suit when there was no
opposition, exparte decree in
favour of Bhaskar and then sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff in
the context of date of the sale
agreement being 20.04.1990,
speak of volumes against the
plaintiff and his malafide
intentions. The suit apart from
being not maintainable lacks
grounds for reliefs sought. On
going through the materials on
hand, I find the very suit apart
from violative of Section 34 of
the Act, it does not appears to
have been filed for good reasons.
70 OS No. 25427/2008
19. If it go through the entire judgment of Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka preferred in RFA No.1938/2012 as
per Ex.D4 document, wherein the judgment it could be seen
the vendor of the Plaintiff, 1st Defendant by name deceased
A.Sugandramma challenged the validity of judgment passed
in OS No.27135/2007 by XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge,
Mayohall, Bengaluru. Important to note, though vendor of
the Plaintiff A.Sugandramma had a RFA at before Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.1938/2012 as per Ex.D4
wherein the same RFA, it dismissed by the same by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and upheld the judgment
and decree in OS No.27135/2007. Not in dispute vendor of
the Plaintiff, 1st Defendant A.Sugandramma had a suit for
declaration and permanent injunction in against Defendant
Nos.3 to 5 of this suit with respect to the suit schedule
property. Also not in dispute the suit in OS No.27135/2007
disposed off in between, vendor of the Plaintiff, 1 st
Defendant A.Sugandramma and Defendant Nos.3 to 5 also
others Defendant with respect to the suit schedule property
of this suit. Further not in dispute, the controversy with
respect to title and possession of the suit schedule property
71 OS No. 25427/2008
have already been adjudicated in between Plaintiff’s vendor,
1st Defendant and Defendant Nos.3 to 5 in OS
No.27135/2007. Since the controversy in between the
Plaintiff’s vendor 1st Defendant deceased A.Sugandramma
and Defendant Nos.3 to 5 of this suit, have already
directly and substantially in an issue in OS No.27135/2007
and same it already decided by the court of jurisdiction
including in the appeal jurisdiction, the same issue directly
and substantially kept pending at before this court with
respect to the same property, by the Plaintiff in against
Defendant nos.3 to 5 with respect to the suit schedule
property get shut down. As the suit of the Plaintiff barred
by constructive resjudicata as per Ex.D4 judgment passed in
RFA No.1938/2012, though Ex.P1 to Ex.P35 documents
speaks something of the Plaintiff’s case, such of the bar to
the present suit not permitted to appreciated the evidentiary
value of Ex.P1 to Ex.P35 documents. Accordingly, such of
the evidentiary value of Ex.P1 to Ex.P35 document not
come to the aid of plaintiff’s case. So from the above
observation, I answer issue Nos.1 to 3 in the Negative.
72 OS No. 25427/2008
20. Issue No.4:- For the foregoing reasons, I
proceed to pass the following;
: O R D E R :
Suit of the plaintiff, is
dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
No order as to cost.
In view of disposal of
the suit, pending interlocutory
applications if any do not
survive for consideration and
they stands disposed off.
(Dictated directly to the Stenographer on computer typed by her, corrected and
then signed by me and pronounced in the open Court on this the 13 th day of
July, 2026)
sd/-
[ ONKARAPPA.R]
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU:ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 : Narayanamma WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT: DW.1 : A Venkataramana DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 73 OS No. 25427/2008 Ex.P1 Original Sale deed Ex.P2 Special Notice Ex.P3 Endorsement issued by BBMP Ex.P4 Katha certificate Ex.P5 Katha extract Ex.P6 to 7 Tax paid receipt 12 Ex.P13 Registered sale deed Ex.P14 Khata certificate Ex.P15 & Two encumbrance certificate Ex.P16 Ex.P.17 Khata Certificate Ex.P.18 Sanction letter issued by BESCOM Ex.P.19 & 2 Letters issued by BWSSB 20 Ex.P.21 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.22 Tax Invoice Ex.P.23 8 Photos to 30 Ex.P.31 C.D. Ex.P.32 4 Electricity Bills to 35 DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENDANT:- 74 OS No. 25427/2008
Ex.D1 Certified copy of judgment dt.13.01.2020 in RFA
1938/2012
Ex.D2 Certified copy of judgment and decree in
O.S.No. 16200/2003
Ex.D3 Office copy of legal notice to Indian Bank with
original seal of Indian bank for having received
the same.
Ex.D4 Certified copy of judgment dt.03.03.2020 in RFA
1938/2012
Ex.D5 Certified copy of orders of DRT in ASA
294/2007
Ex.D6 Certified copy of orders of Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka in WP 146/2006Ex.D7 Bank statement from 1.10.2007 to 31.10.2007.
Ex.D8 Bank statement from 2.11.2007 to 30.11.2007.
Ex.D9 Certificate issued by CA.
sd/-
[ ONKARAPPA.R ]
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
