P. RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. JAYANTHIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and had filed a suit for permanent injunction contending that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Site No.52/A formed in portion of property bearing Sy.No.10/2 of B.Narayanapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The property was morefully described in the schedule to the suit. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the property from one C.Keshavamurthy, Raghunath, Diwakar, Balamma @ Bhanumathi and Smt.Amaravathi through their Power of Attorney Holder one S.A.Jayalakshmamma under a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2001. The plaintiff had also produced an encumbrance certificate in that regard. The plaintiff claimed that he was in peaceful possession of the property from the date of purchase and had put up a small shed on the suit property. He had also paid taxes to the local authority and had produced the tax paid receipts in that regard. It was the complaint of the plaintiff that the defendant who had no claim over the suit property was trying to interfere with the same and that on 14.06.2004; the defendant along with her henchmen came to the suit property and tried to interfere with the property. It is with difficulty that the plaintiff resisted such interference and therefore had approached the jurisdictional police who had in turn had characterized the dispute as a civil dispute and directed that the plaintiff should approach the civil Court and that it cannot be treated as a criminal case. It is that which prompted the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession in the suit property.

(3.) The defendant had entered appearance on service of summons and had filed written statement as well a counter claim to contend that the plaintiff was falsely claiming the property as bearing No.52/A formed out of portion of the land bearing Sy.No.10/2 of Narayanapura Village, as claimed in the plaint, and that the alleged sale deed dated 13.07.2001 was in respect of a non-existent property. The plaint averments were generally denied. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that the true facts were the property bearing No.52, house list No.135/3 was measuring 30 ft. east to west; 50 ft. north to south; was bounded on the East by house No.51, West by house No.53, North by road and South by Muniraju's property and that she had purchased the same and was the lawful owner. She had constructed a 300sq.ft. house on the said property. One Ratnamma, wife of Chennappa was the original owner of the property and she had formed a private layout and sold the sites according to a rough sketch prepared of the private layout, which was produced as Annexure-D to the written statement and the site in question was denoted in the sketch as site No.52 and the same was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 16.06.1983 by one A.Kumarswamy. Thereafter, A.Kumarswamy, son of Annaswamy, is said to have sold the very same site to the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 21.05.1992. The defendant had produced attendant documents such as an encumbrance certificate and tax paid receipts in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.52. It was claimed that she has been in continuous possession of the same. Apart from that she has also produced the development tax receipts as per Annexures-D5 & D6. The defendant also claimed that she had demolished an old structure existing on the property and had put up a fence around the entire property. It was also further contended that the defendant had also raised a loan by mortgaging the property to the State Bank of India, Ulsoor Branch, by deposit of title deeds and the endorsement issued by the Bank in that regard was also produced. The khatha issued by the municipality assigning a different number, which was 700, as per the khatha extract issued by the Mahadevapura Municipality was also produced. It was asserted that the sale deed produced and relied upon by the plaintiff was a bogus document and questioned the bona fides of the vendor of the plaintiff. It is in this fashion that the defendant sought to set up title to the property and sought to question the title claimed by the plaintiff.