IN THE COURT OF THE VII.ADDL.

, CITY CIVIL JUDGE

(CCH.NO.19) AT BANGALORE.

DATED THIS 18th DAY OF DECEMBER 2010

PRESENT

SRI. S.Y. IRANNAVAR, B.Sc., LLB (Spl.)

VII, ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE.

O.S. NO. 5722/04

Plaintiffs : 1. Kamalamma, aged about 56 years.

2. B.G. Jeevan Prakash, 35 years.
3. B.G. Gajendra Babu, 32 years.
4. Lakshmi Prasanna, 28 years.

Plaintiff NO.1 being wife and

Plaintiff No.2 to 4 are sons of Late
B..P. Guruvareddy and all are residing
At No.24, Devara Bisanahalli,
Bellandur Post, Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk.

V/s.

Defendant : Devareddi Basappa Dambal,

S/o. M. Basappa, 48 years, No.129,
Sree Venkateshwara Nilaya,
Club Road, Bellary District.

Judgment
2

This is a suit for declaration that sale deed dated 28/6/2004 does not

bind the plaintiffs on the ground that it is null and void, and for permanent

injunction against the defendants, not to interfere with plaintiff’s enjoyment

over the suit property.

2. The suit property is 2 acres 24 guntas in Sy.No.57/2 of

Devarabeesanahalli, Belandur Post, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South,

bounded on East by Sy.No.58/1, West 57/1, North – Ring Road, South –

remaining property of Sy.NO.57/2 (hereinafter referred to as suit property).

3. The case of plaintiffs is that plaintiff NO.1 is the widow,

plaintiffs 2 to 4 are sons of late B.P. Guruvareddy who was the original

owner of suit property which he got as item No.3 in a compromise dated

18/3/81, recorded in O.S. 412/80; before the Civil Judge, Bangalore District

for partition; filed against Papanna and others. On the basis of this

compromise decree, MR No.9/83-84 was mutated. On 27/12/98 Sri.

Guruvareddy having died, present plaintiffs inherited the suit property and

had the mutation by IHC21/2000-01. Plaintiff No.1 got the suit land

converted for non agriculture purpose, got the khata made in the name of
3

plaintiffs on the file of Bellandur Panchayath, formed 25 sites in suit survey

number, paid tax for all the 25 sites. Plaintiff No.1 further obtained plan and

license from Bellandur Village Panchayath and put up constructions in

portions of a property and let out the same to the tenants.

4. This being the situation, all the plaintiffs were surprised by the

public notice appearing in the Times of India and Prajavani edition got

issued through an advocate that his clients, were intending to purchase the

suit property, and called for objections to the same. The plaintiffs promptly

replied to the said notice, denying authorship of the public notice and also

their intention to alienate the suit property. But on 1/7/2004 few persons

tried to dispossess the plaintiffs, as a result they filed injunction suit in O.S.

4769/2004, on the file of CCH-16, and obtained an order of status-quo.

Then plaintiffs started receiving threatening calls, for their life. Hence they

are constrained to bring this suit, as interference was repeated on 22/7/2004.

Thus among other grounds the plaintiffs pray for a decree

5. On service of suit summons and emergent notice of TI

application the defendant through his lawyer, filed written statement and

objections as under:-
4

The suit is false, baseless, same is not maintainable. The

plaintiffs 1 to 4 before this court are impersonating true owners viz., Smt.

Kamalamma, W/o. Late Guruvareddy and her three sons. Some unknown

persons have filed present suit to have a wrongful gain and cause wrongful

loss to the true owners and this defendant, by put frothing false cause of

action. The title and possession of true owners viz., Smt. Kamalamma and 3

sons is not denied. The tile of Sri. Guruvareddy through compromise decree

is not denied. This defendant is a bonafide purchaser of suit property from

the original owners under registered sale deed No.7885/2004-05 dated

28/6/2004 registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Bangalore South. But the

plaintiffs before the Court are not the true owners but are imposters of the

true owners. It is further the case of the defendants that some unknown

persons have instituted O.S. 4769/04 against Sri. Allamaprabhu Yalagi and

Sri. Harekal Padmanabha Pai, making out false cause of action. The said

suit is also not maintainable. The allegations that defendant’s vendors are

imposters is denied. Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the above contention.

The averment made in various paragraph of the plaint are all false, baseless

and hereby denied. Plaintiffs are put to strict proof. Thus among other

grounds, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit.

5

6. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, issues 1 to 5

were framed, because it was a suit for bare injunction. The plaintiffs after

getting the plaint amended for adding reliefs of declaration, I have framed

two additional issues.

7. The plaintiff No.3 Sri. Gajendra Babu filed his affidavit

evidence as Pw.1. He got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P49. The Senior Sub-

registrar Sri. Yashodhara is examined as a witness for the plaintiffs as Pw.2.

The C.D. for sale deed No.7885/2004-05 dated 28/6/2004 is marked as

Ex.P50 and its true copy as P51. The finger [print expert Sri. K.

Lakshminarayana is examined as Pw.3. His reports were marked as Ex.P52,

P53 respectively with various sub markings wherein admitted and disputed

signatures were marked.

6

8. The advocate for plaintiff has filed written argument.

9. The issues and additional issues are as follows :-

1) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in possession of suit

schedule property?

2) Whether plaintiffs prove alleged obstruction?

3) Whether defendant proves that suit valuation is incorrect and

whereby plaintiffs have paid insufficient court fee?

4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for any relief?

5) What decree or order?

Additional issues :-

1) Whether plaintiffs prove that sale deed dated 28/6/2004

being vitiated by impersonation is null and void as

pleaded in para-14a of plaint?

2) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief of declaration as

sought?
7

10. My findings on the above issues for the reasons stated thereunder are

as under :-

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 and additional issue No.2 : Yes

Additional issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.5 : As per below final order.

REASONS

11. Issue No.3 : Since defendant challenges suit valuation and court

fee paid on plaint, burden is on him. However as he lead no evidence nor

cross examined Pw.1 Gajendra Reddy, I have to believe unchallenged

evidence of Pw.1 and averments made in para-22 of plaint and valuation slip

dated 4/8/2004, paying court fee of Rs.25/- U/s. 26(c) of Karnataka Court

Fee and Suit Valuation Act, on Rs.1,000/-; and also to hold that an additional

Court fee of Rs.25/- paid on amended plaint (relief) as correct. Hence I

answer this issue in the affirmative.

12. Issues 1, 2 and Additional issue No.1 : For sake of

8

convenience, these issues are taken together as they are inter linked; and

earlier suit for bare Injunction is now converted for declaration that sale deed

taken by defendant does not bind them, as they did not execute it, but

impersonating them some others have executed in favour of the defendant

and to declare it as null and void.

13. It is the case of plaintiffs they have inherited the suit property

Sri. Gurva Reddy on his death on 27/12/1998, because he got it by way of

compromise dated 18/3/1981 entered into with his brothers in partition suit

O.S. 412/1981. Then plaintiff got it converted for non agriculture purpose;

put up building in portion. They were surprised and shocked to notice a

public notice in newspapers as if they are selling suit property; started

enquiring, got issued reply notice in denying their intention to sell suit

property. As men from defendant on 1/7/2004 try to interfere and to

dispossess them filed this suit.

14. The case of defendant is that, plaintiffs 1 to 4 are impersonating

real owners with ulterior purpose of grabbing suit property. This defendant

purchased suit property from original owners under registered sale deed

5855/04-05 on 28/6/2004, he is owner in physical possession. Plaintiffs 1 to

9

4 are imposters, but not venders of defendant. In fact real owner Smt.

Kamalamma filed police complaint against imposters for taking action for

acts of forging, impersonation etc., As police did not take any action, have

moved Hon’ble High Court for suitable direction to police in W.P.

No.35840/2004. So plaintiffs are put up strict proof. So he prays for

dismissal of suit with costs.

15. It is significant to observe that the averments in written

statement have remained unsubstantiated, as defendant neither cross-

examined Pw.1; for challenging his oral and documentary evidence, nor he

lead any evidence.

16. With this background, I shall assess evidence of plaintiff who

relies on Ex.P1 to 49. He examined Pw.2 – a Sub Registrar, Bommanahalli

and got marked impugned sale deed stored in form of C.D.-4S Ex.P50; Pw.2

identified sellers as Denis Pinto and Sri K. Rudraiah. I believe this

unchallenged evidence and conclude that plaintiffs are able to prove that

they did not execute Ex.P50, but one Denis Pinto, Rudraiah, Smt.

Parvathamma and Ponnacha impersonated them.

10

17. Pw.3 Sri. Laxminarayana Assistant Director, FSL Lab is

examined. He deposes that on 5/4/2005, he received documents from S.P.

(H&B) Squad. C.O.D. Bangalore, in Crime No.250/04 of H.A.L. Police; for

examining disputed documents and give his opinion on questioned

signatures. He submitted his final opinion on 12/5/2005 as per original of

Ex.P52, as original report is submitted to Hon’ble High Court in

W.P.No.35840/2004.

18. A reading of his report goes to show that, plaintiffs 1 to 4

herein, who gave their admitted signatures, as E.1(a), E2(b), E3(c), E4(d),

did not write questioned signature on sale deed, as per Q1(a) to Q1(d) of

those persons whom plaintiffs are calling as imposters. This report of an

expert is marked as Ex.P52, signature with seal as Ex.P52(a) in

FSL/4754/QD – 156/2005 dated 18/5/2005.

19. Pw.3 also gave his additional report; on request of C.O.D.

Police investigating; in Cr. No.250/04 of HAL Police, after comparing

signature of suspectee one Sri. Chandrasekhar. The Additional report is

marked as Ex.P53. Pw.3 opined that, plaintiff NO.4 did not sign disputed

signature, but Sri. Chandrashekar has signed therein as per Q.1(d), Q.3(d)
11

and Q.3(d)(1).

20. Pw.3 has given reasons in support of his opinion that,

differences observed between the questioned and standard one are

fundamental in nature, and sufficient to express negative opinion, regarding

authorship of questioned signatures.”

21. I am of the view that, there is nothing to disbelieve,

unchallenged evidence of Pw.3, and his opinion Report supported by reasons

based on Scientific Test and result, because he is an expert in this field. His

opinion with reasons becomes admissible U/s.45 of Evidence Act. In the

result, I believe evidence of Pw.1, which finds support from expert’s

evidence and substantive evidence of Pw.2 the Sub-Registrar, who had

maintained photographs of vendors’ of defendant who admitted execution

and presentation of Ex.P50 in his office.

22. So, evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.3, in opinion, is sufficient,

substantiate case of plaintiffs, they never intended to sell suit property to any

body, much less to the defendant; and that 4 persons have actually

impersonated them before Sub-Registrar, as vendor’s of defendant viz., as

12

plaintiffs 1 to 4, whose photographs with signature taken to a sale deed as

executants.

23. In this background I shall consider oral evidence of Pw.1 with

his documents, including title deeds. To prove title, Pw.1 got marked, two

mother deed, viz., 1932 original deed Ex.P1, 1994 Sale deed in favour of Sri.

Papanna. The son of Sri. Papanna filed a suit for partition, which ended in

compromise decree on 18/3/1981 as per Ex.P3. Where father of Pw.1 was

allotted suit property and mutation extract was effected as per M.R. of 83-

84. Further after death of Sri. Gurureddy on 27/12/1998 (vide death

certificate Ex.P4), IHR 21/2000-01 was effected in names of plaintiffs 1 to 4

as per Ex.P6.

24. Plaintiff No.1 got suit land converted for non agriculture

purpose, by the order of Dy. Commissioner dated 11/9/2001 Ex.P7 and

formed a layout making 25 sites. She has produced RTC extract for suit

property from 1967 – 68 to 2002-2003. Ex.P8 to 16 from their continuous

title and possession. Pw.1 got khata to suit property on the file of Bellandur

Gram Panchayath for all the 25 sites of suit property in Ex.P17(1) to 17(24).

The demand register extract for 2001-02, for all 25 sites at Ex.P18(1) to
13

P18(24); the property tax receipts for 25 sites, as Ex.P19(1) to Ex.P19(24).

Then plaintiff No.1 obtained approved plan and license at Ex.P20, 21 and 22

and put construction. To prove these constructions, Pw.1 has produced and

got marked 8 photographs and negative films at Ex.P28 to 34 and negative

films as Ex.P35. Further Pw.1 produced Form-16 obtained from Sub-

Registrar for suit property for 29 years from 1/4/60 to 31/3/1989 at Ex.P26;

at another Form-16 at Ex.P27, for period from 1/4/1989 to 12/5/2004.

25. I am of view that above documents prove plaintiffs title and

possession of suit property, for sufficient longer duration, it is their ancestral

property, inherited by plaintiffs 1 to 4, after death of Sri. Guravareddy in

1998. It is significant to note that, in para-4 of written statement the

defendant admits title and possession of Smt. Kamalamma and her sons for

suit property, but contends that, they are his vendors for suit property under

sale deed No.7885/2004-05 dated 28/6/2004 and therefore he is bonafide

purchaser. So admitted facts regarding title need not be proved.

26. But defendant also contends that plaintiff 1 to 4 are

impersonating real owners who are his real vendor, and have filed false suit,

and he filed a police complaint. The plaintiff No.1 to 4 of this suit, for
14

impersonating, and forging and harassing him. At the same time the

plaintiffs contend that defendant’s vendor’s have impersonated them before

Sub-Registrar in creating sale deed No.7885/04-05. Thus considered, initial

burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that they never intended nor executed

sale deed for suit property.

27. For this Pw.1 relies paper publication and reply of their

advocate for challenging this public notice expressing their intention to sell

suit property. The Times of India news paper and Notice are marked as

Ex.P23, and Ex.P23(a) respectively. Reply notice at Ex.P24. Apart from

this Pw.1 got published another notice in Prajavani news paper dated

22/10/2003, that they never gave paper publication at Ex.P23, on the ground

that at no time they intended to sell suit property nor they authorized

anybody to give publication. I am of view that above circumstances go to

support case of plaintiff 1 to 4, despite this, defendants vendor’s

impersonated them; in creating sale deed. The matter reached height, when

writ of Mandamus was sought in W.P.35840/04 (gm) (Ex.P.42) by alleged

imposter of plaintiff 1 to 4, through GPA holder Sri. Padmanabha Pai,

wherein the present plaintiff sought to implead themselves in W.P. on the

ground that they are “real owners”. The W.P. is filed by imposters.
15

28. So Hon’ble High Court, directed Writ-petitioners to be present

physically in presence of real owners, to verify correctness of claim real

owners. As Writ Petitioners 1 to 4 failed to appear, despite, extending police

protection to them, to come from Sidlagatta to Bangalore; the Hon’ble High

Court, refused to a permission to withdraw W.P. for want of instruction to

GPA holder and ordered for C.O.D. investigation to file report before it vide

Ex.P43 the certified copy of order and order sheet in W.P.35840/04.

Accordingly a final report was filed as Ex.P44, by COD Police on 12/12/05,

before Hon’ble High Court. Considering said report Hon’ble High Court

under Ex.P45, disposed above W.P. on 31/1/2008, imposing costs of

Rs.25,000/- payable to real owners (plaintiff herein) and costs of Rs.15,000/-

to 1st respondent in W.P. – viz., Commissioner of Police; and steps be taken

for recovering of above costs from GPA holder Sri. Harekal Padmanabha

Pai.

29. So Crime No.250/04 of HAL Police was investigated into by

COD police, showing prima facie grounds against 10 accused person; and

were charge sheeted in C.C. 22676/2005, on the file of Xth A.C.M.M. Court

Bangalore, out of the 10 accused, the present defendant is A.2. His vendors
16

are imposters acted at instance of A-1 Allamaprabhu Yalagi, who had

entered into development Agreement for suit property by receiving Rs.50

crores. He never paid money of Rs.26 lakhs toA-6 Smt. Parvathamma; in

whose names 4 cheques were drawn, as shown in impugned sale deed;

because she was impersonating plaintiff-1 Smt. Kamalamma, mother of

plaintiff 2 to 4 and those cheques were recovered by COD police from

custody of A.1 Sri. Allamaprabhu Yalagi. The COD investigation also

disclosed that A-5 Dennis Pinto, A-9 Chandrashekar, A-10 K. Rudraiah

impersonated plaintiff 2 to 4 before the Sub-Registrar for admitting

execution of sale deed. It is also supported by evidence of Pw.2. Thus I

hold that charge sheet of COD makes case of plaintiff as probable, that they

never intended to sell suit property, nor sold it to the defendant, but Sri.

Allamaprabhu Yalki, on basis of forged the agreement alleged executed by

plaintiff 1 to 4, instigated A-5, 6, 9 – 10, to impersonate plaintiff 1 to 4, as

real owner-cum executants of sale deed No.7885/04-05.

30. Apart from this, I have personally compared photographs of

executants of sale deed No.7885/04-05 with admitted photographs of

plaintiff 1 to 4, in the original election identity cards of the year 2002, at

Ex.P36, 37, 48, 49 respectively. I am really satisfied to say that persons who
17

appeared as executants before Sub-Registrar, are entirely different from

plaintiff 1 to 4. Viewed from this angle, I conclude that, plaintiffs have

proved that they never appeared before Sub-Registrar to execute sale deed in

favour of defendant. So Ex.P40, Ex.P50, suffers from infirmity; viz., fraud

perpetrated on plaintiffs 1 to 4, by act of impersonation at the instance of

defendant’s vendor’s ie., A1 to A10 in above criminal case, which appears to

be pending. Thus this is no concluded contract of sale in between plaintiff 1

to 4 and the defendant; thereby sale deed stands vitiated by fraud, offence of

impersonation; and no sale consideration passed from the defendant to

plaintiff. In the result, right, title interest never passes in favour of

defendant. Apart from this the plaintiffs never parted with possession thus

they continue enjoy the suit property.

31. In this regard, plaintiffs are supported by finding of Civil Court

in an injunction suit in O.S. 4769/04 filed by present plaintiff against Sri.

Yalagi A-1 in criminal case, and the defendant No.2 therein Sri. Harkal

Padmanabha Pai (Writ Petitioner for fake owners). I am of the view that this

injunction decree ensures to benefit of plaintiff 1 to 4, as defendant herein is

claims, to be bonafide purchaser shown, as A.2 in COD charge sheet. So

judgment and decree of injunction in O.S. 4769/2004 at Ex.P46 and Ex.P47

18

respectively also binds the defendant herein.

32 So, I uphold contention of advocate for plaintiff. Thus Ex.P40

= Ex.P50 is fake sale deed which does not convey valid title to defendant is

liable to be declared as null, void and does not bind right, title, interest of

plaintiffs over suit property.

33. It also appears, that, defendant fails to contest the suit after

learning that COD police charge sheeted him that criminal case and filed

report in W.P. 35840/04, as rightly submitted by advocate for plaintiffs.

COD report reveals that, no such real owner (2nd set of persons) resided in

Siddalaghatta village, and they were men of A-1, impersonated by A-1,

made, to an on Harkal Pai to file W.P. and ultimately crime was unearthed.

Viewed from this in order clear cloud casted on the title of plaintiff, it is

necessary to grant relief of declaration as prayed (aa) and (ab). Also to grant

permanent injunction as plaintiffs are under threat of dispossession became

apprehension of dispossession is sufficient to grant the relief. I therefore

uphold contention of plaintiffs ie, the written argument, proceed to answer

issue 1, 2 and additional issue No.1 in the affirmative.

19

34. Issue 4, 5 and Additional issue No.2 : In the result I hold that

plaintiffs are entitled for a decree as sought and pass following

ORDER

(i) Suit of the plaintiffs stand decreed with costs.

(ii) It is declared that sale deed 28/6/2004, registered, at DOC-

NO-BAS-1-07885/2004-05, in the office of Sub-Registrar,

Bangalore South Taluk, impersonating the plaintiffs, does

not bind plaintiffs 1 to 4.

(iii) It is also declared that sale deed No.BAS-1-07855/2004-05

dated 28/6/04 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,

Bangalore South Taluk, is null and void.

(iv) The defendant, his agents, servants, henchmen or any

other persons claiming on this behalf are permanently

restrained from disturbing peaceful possession and

enjoyment of suit properties by plaintiff No. 1 to 4.

20

Office shall decree accordingly

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and then pronounced by me in open court today the 18th day of
December 2010)

(S.Y.IRANNAVAR)
VII ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
(CCH.NO.19) BANGALORE.

ANNEXURE

List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:

Pw.1 B.G. Gajendra Babu

Pw.2 Yeshodhara J.V.
Pw.3 Lakshminarayana

List of witnesses examined for the defendant:

NIL

List of documents examined for the plaintiffs:

Ex.P1 Original sale deed dated 13/5/32

Ex.P2 Original sale deed dated 3/4/44
Ex.P3 Certified copy of compromise petition
Ex.P4 Death certificate of Guruvareddy
Ex.P5 Genealogical tree
21

Ex.P6 Certified copy of mutation

Ex.P7 Order of Dy. Commissioner
Ex.P8 to 16 RTC extracts
Ex.P17 Form No.9
Ex.P18 Form No.10
Ex.P19 Tax receipts
Ex.P20 to 22 Sanctioned plans
Ex.P23 Public notice
Ex.P23(a) Relevant notice
Ex.P24 Office copy of reply notice
Ex.P25 Paper publication dated 22/10/2003
Ex.P25(a) Notice
Ex.P26, 27 Form No.16
Ex.P28 to 34 Photographs
Ex.P35 Negatives
Ex.P36,37 Election ID Cards
Ex.P38 Certified copy of plaint in O.S. 4769/04
Ex.P39 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S. 4769/04
Ex.P40 Sale deed dated 28/6/04
Ex.P40a Thumb register
Ex.P41 True copy of FIR in Crime No.250/04
Ex.P42 Certified copy of Writ Petition
Ex.P43 Certified copy of order sheet of Writ Petition
Ex.P44 Certified copy of final report
Ex.P45 Certified copies of orders in Writ Petition
Ex.P46,47 Certified copy of judgment decree passed in O.S. 4769/2004
Ex.P48,49 Original voters identity cards
22

Ex.P50 Certified copy of sale deed

Ex.P51 C.D.
Ex.P52 Reports with reasoning letters
Ex.P53 Report
Ex.P53a Signature

List of documents examined for the defendant :

NIL

(S.Y.IRANNAVAR)
VII ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
(CCH.NO.19) BANGALORE.