A.S. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE K.S. CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. SMT V RUKMINI, W/O LATE S RAMACHANDRAN AND M/S. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal filed against the judgment and decree of dismissal passed in O.S. No. 388/2010 by 5th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, Bangalore. The property involved in this litigation is the land having municipal numbers 426/5, 426/6, 426/7 and 426/8 situated at Govindarajapura, Bangalore measuring East -West 145 ft North -South 60 ft. The boundaries are shown in the schedule of the plaint.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, inasmuch as she has purchased the same on 01.07.89 from lis previous owner late S. Ramachandran for the valuable consideration; ever since then she is in possession of the suit, schedule property as an absolute owner; she has paid the betterment charges to the corporation and the corporation has issued notice to her for assessment of tax; the plaintiffs vendor namely S. Ramachandran sold the property to the plaintiff free from any encumbrance or charge. The plaintiffs vendor died subsequent to the purchase and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are wife and the son respectively of the deceased Ramachandran: on 10.01.2000 the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 started asserting their rights and title over the property in question at 5.00 p.m. They asked the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property; the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 do not have any right title or interest over the suit schedule property; the plaintiff has learnt that the original documents under which late Ramachandran had purchased the suit property from Smt. Puttalaxmamma were given to 3rd respondent by way of collateral security for obtaining financial assistance; however, the plaintiff is entitled to get back the original documents pertaining to the suit schedule property from the 3rd defendant. Based on these averments the suit came to be filed by the appellant herein for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 or anybody on their behalf from interfering with his peaceful possession. The plaintiff has also sought for Mandatory injunction and direction to the defendant no. 3 to hand over the original title deeds of the property which are in the custody of the bank.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues: