IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
AT ANEKAL
O.S. NO. _______ /2022
BETWEEN:
Smt. SHANTHAMMA,
Aged about 71 years,
D/o. Late. Muniyappa,
Residing at Banakal Village, Mudigere,
Chickamagalur, Karnataka-577 113. : Plaintiff
AND:
1. Smt. SHOBAMMA,
Aged about 72 years,
W/o. Late. Venkatesh.
2. Sri. MANJUNATH,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o. Late. Venkatesh.
3. Sri. Murthy,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o. Late. Venkatesh.
4. Sri. VISHWANATH,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o. Late. Venkatesh.
Defendants 1 to 4 are residing at
Gattahalli, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.
5. Sri. PRADEEP,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o. C.Gopala Reddy,
R/a. Shettihall Village, Marasur Post,
Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.
6. M/s. ADARSH DEVELOPERS,
A Registered firm of partner,
No.10, Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Rep. by its partner:
Sri. B.M.KARUNESH,
Aged about 56 years,
S/o. Late. B.M. Madaiah. : Defendants.
PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 26
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1. That the address of the Plaintiff for the purpose of service
of court notices, summons etc., by this Hon’ble Court is as given
in the cause title above.
2. That the address of the Defendants for the similar purpose
is as shown in the cause title above.
3. The plaintiff submit that one Bajanthri Narayanappa and
his wife Papamma (both are no more) had got 4 sons Viz., 1)
Venkataramaiah, 2) Muniyappa, 3) Krishnappa & 4) Venkatesh
and all are deceased. Further the said Muniyappa had only one
daughter Shanthamma (the plaintiff herein), the plaintiff
herewith produces the genealogical/family tree for the kind
perusal of this Hon’ble Court and the same is herewith produced
and marked as “Document No.1”.
4. That, the said Muniyappa during his lifetime had purchased
an immovable agricultural property bearing Sy. No.31/16-2,
measuring 02 Acres 20 Guntas in extent, situated at Gattahalli
Village, Sarjapua Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District by virtue
of a Registered Sale Deed Dated:1/3/79, Registered as Document
No.2017/78-79, Registered in the office of the sub-registrar,
Anekal from one Yellamma @ Rajamma and others, copy of the
same is herewith produced and marked as “Document No.2”
for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
5. It is submitted that, father of the plaintiff Muniyappa died
on 17/06/1993 leaving behind the plaintiff as his only legal heir
to succeed to all his estates. The deceased Muniyappa during
his lifetime sold 02 Acres out of 02 Acres 20 Guntas in Sy. No. Sy.
No.31/16-2, situated at Gattahalli Village, Sarjapua Hobli, Anekal
Taluk, Bangalore District in favour of one Ramaiah under a
Registered sale deed Dated: 23/02/1993, Registered as
Document No.3212/1992-93, Registered in the Office of the Sub-
Registrar, Anekal. The said Muniyappa retained 20 Guntas of the
said land, which is more fully and particularly described in the
schedule hereunder. Hereinafter for the sake of brevity the same
shall be referred to as "SCHEDULE PROPERTY". The copy of the
said sale Deed Dated: 23/02/1993 is herewith produced and
marked as "DOCUMENT NO.3".
6. The plaintiff submits that her father Muniyappa died on
17/06/1993, she was orphaned and since the plaintiff was
spinster and there were nobody to take care of the plaintiff,
some relatives of the plaintiff were residing at Banakal,
Mudigere, Chickamagalur gave her shelter and were taking care
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was often visiting the suit schedule
property and she had also appointed one Muniraju S/o.
D.Ramaiah of the same village to lookafter the schedule land.
The said Muniraju was cultivating the said land and contributed
some portion of the income to the plaintiff every year, as such
the plaintiff was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
schedule property uninterruptedly and without any let or
hindrance from whomsoever.
7. As things stood in this manner, the plaintiff as usual on
01/11/2022 came to Bangalore and visited the suit schedule
property, at that juncture she was shocked and surprised to see
some strangers levelling the land with the help of JCB, she
immediately contacted said Muniraju who was looking after the
said land. The said Muniraju was also shocked and expressed
that he is also unaware of the said developments. The plaintiff
questioned the strangers about their unlawful acts who disclosed
that they had purchased the said land and henceforth they are
cleaning the land for the sake of development. The plaintiff
resisted the illegal acts of the strangers with the help of the said
Muniraju and some villagers and also lodged a complaint with
the jurisdiction police station who declined to take action,
instead directed the plaintiff to approach Civil Court for
efficacious remedy.
8. The plaintiff without any other alternate and in order to
protect her interest over the schedule property she approached
the concerned authorities and obtained the revenue records and
also the Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the schedule land,
the plaintiff was shell shocked to learn that the suit land was sold
by her junior paternal uncle Venkatesh under a sale deed
dated:09/03/1995, Registered as Document No.4893/94-95,
Registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sarjapura in favour
of Defendant No.5. The RTC Extracts, E.C. and the sale deed
dated:09/03/1995 are herewith produced and marked as
“DOCUMENTS No.4,5 and 6” respectively.
9. It is relevant to state that the father of the plaintiff
deceased Muniyappa who died on 17/06/1993. Whereas the
younger brother of her father one Venkatesh the junior paternal
uncle of the plaintiff clandestinely after the demise of plaintiff’s
father Muniyappa and without the knowledge and consent of the
plaintiff and in collusion with the revenue authorities got the
revenue records of the suit land transferred in his name by
suppressing the true and material facts. Further it appears that
by virtue of IHC No.8/94-95 the said Venkatesh effected the
revenue records of the suit land in his name. The concerned
authorities have issued an endorsement dated:………. Stating
that the said IHC No.8/94-95 is not available in their records,
henceforth the said IHC No.8/94-95 is a sham, bogus and a
nonest document. The said Endorsement is herewith produced
and marked as “DOCUMENT No.7”.
10. The plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property is the
self acquired property of her father Muniyappa, after his demise
the said land is succeeded by the plaintiff, the only daughter of
deceased Muniyappa. Thus it is manifestly clear and evident
that except the plaintiff herein no one else have any manner of
right, title or interest over the schedule property. Thus the illegal
alienation made by deceased Venkatesh in favour of defendant
No.5 under a sale deed dated:09/03/1995 is ab-initio illegal,
sham, bogus and nonest in the eye of law. The defendants No.1
to 4 are made formal parties since they are the legal heirs of said
deceased Venkatesh and no relief is sought against the said
defendants. It is evidently clear that since Venkatesh himself
had no any right or authority over the schedule property, the
alienation made therein is also illegal and not binding on the
plaintiff, the said documents are fabricated with ulterior motive
to deprive and defeat the right of the plaintiff in respect of the
schedule property.
11. It is submitted that on further verification of the
Documents it was learnt that, the Defendant No.5 had entered
into Joint development agreement executed on 13/07/2007,
Registered as Document No.VRT-1-02328/2007-08, Book-1,
Stored in C.D. No.VRTD9, Dated:03/08/2007, Registered in the
Office of the Sub-Registrar. Varthur in favour of Defendant No.6
in respect of the suit schedule property, the said document is
herewith produced and marked as “DOCUMENT No.8”. Thus it
is abundantly and manifestly clear that the said Venkatesh
himself had no valid right, title or interest over the schedule
property and henceforth the sale deed dated:09/03/1995
executed in favour of defendant No.5 is illegal and the joint
development agreement dated:03/08/2007 entered between
defendant No.5 and 6 is also illegal and the said documents and
transactions are not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not a
party to the alleged sale deed dated:09/03/1995 or the alleged
joint development agreement dated:08/07/2007.
12. The plaintiff submits that she is a women and a senior
citizen and the schedule property is the only property which
belonged the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no support from any
person/s whomsoever and without the schedule property her life
becomes miserable. The fraudulent acts of her paternal uncle
Venkatesh is reprehensible and deplorable, the said persons
have taken advantage of her condition and helplessness and
allegedly created the said documents to deprive her legitimate
right over the schedule property, henceforth it is incumbent upon
this Hon’ble Court to declare the sale deed dated:09/03/1995
and the subsequent Joint development agreement
dated:08/07/2007 as illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.
Hence this suit for relief of Declaration.
13. The plaintiff submits that the defendant No.6 by engaging
large number of workers is changing the nature and character of
the suit land in order to develop and form residential layout and
dispose the sites in favour of third parties, the photographs and
the C.D. Produced makes it abundantly clear that the defendant
No.6 is altering the character of the suit land, in which event the
plaintiff shall suffer grave injustice, hence in light of the urgency
and gravity it is just and necessary for this Hon’ble Court to grant
ad-interim order of ex-parte temporary injunction prohibiting the
defendant No.6 from altering or changing the nature and
character of the suit land and thereby dispose the sites to third
parties. The Photographs and the corresponding C.D. are
herewith produced and marked as “DOCUMENTS No.9 and
10” respectively.
14. The cause of action for the suit arose on 01/11/2022 when
defendant No.6 interfered with the possession and enjoyment of
the suit land by the plaintiff and tried to alter the nature and
character of the same and subsequently with in the territorial
and pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
15. For the purpose of Court fees and suits valuation, the above
suit is valued as per section 24 (b) and section 26 (c) of the
Karnataka Court fees and suits valuation Act 1958. A separate
valuation slip is annexed herewith alongwith this plaint.
16. The plaintiff has not filed any other suit touching the subject
matter or for the similar relief before any other Courts in
Bangalore.
WHEREFOER, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to pass judgment and decree against the defendants in
the following manner:
a) To declare the plaintiff as the absolute, true and lawful
owner of the suit schedule property.
b) To declare the sale deed Dated: 09/03/1995, Registered
Document No.4893/1994-95, Registered in the Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Anekal, executed by deceased Venkatesh in
favour of Defendant No.5 as null and void and not binding
on the plaintiff.
c) To declare the Joint Development Agreement executed
between Defendants No.5 and 6 executed on
13/07/2007, registered as Document No. VRT-1-
02328/2007-08, Book-1. Stored in C.D. No. VRTD9, Dated:
03/08/2007, Registered in the Office of the Sub- Registrar,
Varthur as not binding on this plaintiff in so far as the suit
schedule property is concerned.
d) To restrain Defendants No.6 from interfering with the
plaintiff’s peaceful and lawful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property by way of granting permanent
injunction in favour of the plaintiff
e) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble court deems
fit to grant in favour of the plaintiff under the facts and
circumstances of the Case.
f) To award cost of the proceedings, in the interest of
justice and equity.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the immovable Agricultural
property bearing Sy. No.31/16-2, Measuring 20 Guntas out of 02
Acres 20 Guntas, Situated at Gattahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District and the same is bounded on:
East by : Property belongs to Ramaiah,
West by : Property belongs to H.V.Narayana Reddy,
North by : Property belongs to Ramaiah,
South by : Sy. No.31/16-1.
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
VERIFICATION
I, the plaintiff above named do here by state that, the contents of
the above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
information and belief.
ANEKAL
DATE: PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
AT ANEKAL
O.S. NO. _______ /2022
BETWEEN:
Smt. SHANTHAMMA, : Plaintiff
AND:
Smt. SHOBAMMA & Others : Defendants
AFFIDAVIT VERIFYING THE PLAINT
I, SHANTHAMMA, Aged about 71 years, D/o. Late.
Muniyappa, Residing at Banakal Village, Mudigere,
Chickamagalur, Karnataka-577 113, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as follows:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above case. I know the facts of the
case and hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit.
2. I submit that the averments made in plaint Paragraphs are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief.
Identified by me:
Advocate. Deponent
Anekal
Dated:
No. of corrections:
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
AT ANEKAL
O.S. NO. _______ /2022
BETWEEN:
Smt. SHANTHAMMA,
Aged about 71 years,
D/o. Late. Muniyappa,
Residing at Banakal Village, Mudigere,
Chickamagalur, Karnataka-577 113. : Plaintiff
AND:
1. Smt. SHOBAMMA,
Aged about 72 years,
W/o. Late. Venkatesh.
2. Sri. MANJUNATH,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o. Late. Venkatesh.
3. Sri. Murthy,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o. Late. Venkatesh.
4. Sri. VISHWANATH,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o. Late. Venkatesh.
Defendants 1 to 4 are residing at
Gattahalli, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.
5. Sri. PRADEEP,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o. C.Gopala Reddy,
R/a. Shettihall Village, Marasur Post,
Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.
6. M/s. ADARSH DEVELOPERS,
A Registered firm of partner,
No.10, Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Rep. by its partner:
Sri. B.M.KARUNESH,
Aged about 56 years,
S/o. Late. B.M. Madaiah. : Defendants.
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying
affidavit, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to grant an ad-interim order of ex-parte temporary
injunction restraining the defendant No.6, their men, agents,
servants or anybody claiming under or through him from
changing or altering the nature and character of the suit land
and thereby creating any encumbrance or third party interest
over the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever,
pending disposal of the above suit, in the interest of justice and
equity.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the immovable Agricultural property
bearing Sy. No.31/16-2, Measuring 20 Guntas out of 02 Acres 20
Guntas, Situated at Gattahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal
Taluk, Bangalore District and the same is bounded on:
East by : Property belongs to Ramaiah,
West by : Property belongs to H.V.Narayana Reddy,
North by : Property belongs to Ramaiah,
South by : Sy. No.31/16-1.
ANEKAL
DATED: ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
AT ANEKAL
O.S. NO. _______ /2022
BETWEEN:
Smt. SHANTHAMMA, : Plaintiff
AND:
Smt. SHOBAMMA & Others : Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
I, SHANTHAMMA, Aged about 71 years, D/o. Late.
Muniyappa, Residing at Banakal Village, Mudigere,
Chickamagalur, Karnataka-577 113, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as follows:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above case. I know the facts of the
case and hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit.
2. I have filed the above suit against the defendants for the
relief Declaration and ancillary relief of Injunction. The
averments made in the plaint may kindly be read as part and
parcel of this affidavit to avoid repetition of facts.
3. I state that my father deceased Muniyappa who died on
17/06/1993 had purchased 02 Acre 20 Guntas in Sy. No.31/16-2,
Situated at Gattahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District under a sale deed dated: Dated:1/3/79.
Thereafter on 23/02/1993 my father sold 02 Acres Out of 02
Acres 20 Guntas of the said land in favour of one Ramaiah and
retained the remaining 20 Guntas mentioned in the suit schedule
property.
4. I state that my father had never sold or disposed the
schedule property in any manner whatsoever to any person
whomsoever during his lifetime. I being the only daughter,
pursuant to the death of my father became the true, absolute
and exclusive owner of the suit property by virtue of inheritance
and succession.
5. I state that after the demise of my father I became orphan
and henceforth my relatives residing at Chickkamagalur District
took me to their village and were taking care of me. Eversince
then I am residing in the said address, however I often visited the
schedule property and I had also appointed one Muniraju of the
same village to lookafter the schedule property and he was
cultivating the same and contributed some portion of income
annually to me.
6. I state that as things stood in this manner on 01/11/2022
when I visited the suit schedule property some strangers with the
help of JCB were leveling the suit land, on enquiry they informed
that they had purchased the suit land. I was shocked by the
statement of the strangers and lodged a complaint with the
jurisdiction police but the police instead of taking action against
the strangers they advised me to approach Civil Court for
appropriate remedy.
7. I had no other option but to procure the documents
pertaining to the schedule property from concerned authorities
and institute the instant suit. On verification of the documents I
learnt that my junior paternal uncle Venkatesh by suppressing
the true and material facts and in collusion with the revenue
authorities had changed the revenue records of the suit land
after the death of my father by keeping me in dark and
clandestinely sold the same in favour of defendant No.5 under a
sale deed dated:09/03/1995, the said transaction is illegal and
not binding upon me since I am not a party to the alleged
transaction. Further defendant No.5 by virtue of the illegal
transaction has entered into Joint development agreement for
the purpose of development of the suit land under a joint
development agreement dated:08/07/2007 in favour of
defendant No.6. Thus it is apparently clear that the said
Venkatesh had no legal right to deal with the schedule property
and subsequently the said defendant No.5 does not enure any
benefit thereof and the illegal joint development agreement
between defendants No.5 and 6 is also has no legal sanctity or
validation.
8. In light of the above facts and circumstances it is clear that
the unlawful activity undertaken by defendant No.6 in the suit
land is illegal and in the event the said defendant No.6 changes
the nature and character of the suit land and dispose the sites
formed therein will lead to multiplicity of proceedings and my
legitimate right over the suit land will be completely defeated,
henceforth it is just, necessary, proper and reasonable for this
Hon’ble Court to grant an ad-interim order of ex-parte temporary
injunction restrain the defendant No.6 from changing or altering
the nature and character of the suit property and thereby
creating third party interest over the schedule land otherwise I
will be put to incalculable loss, injury and hardship on the
contrary no hardship or injury of any kind will be caused to the
defendants. I have a very good case on merits and the balance
of convenience lies in my favour.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to allow the annexed application, as prayed for,
in the interest of justice and equity.
I, the deponent above named do hereby declare and verify
that what is stated above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
IDENTIFIED BY ME,
ADVOCATE DEPONENT
Anekal
DATED:
THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
AT ANEKAL
O.S. NO. _______ /2022
BETWEEN:
Smt. SHANTHAMMA, : Plaintiff
AND:
Smt. SHOBAMMA & Others : Defendants
APPLICATION UNDER 6 RULE 14A OF THE CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE
I, SHANTHAMMA, Aged about 71 years, D/o. Late. Muniyappa,
Residing at Banakal Village, Mudigere, Chickamagalur,
Karnataka-577 113, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath
as follows:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above case. I know the facts of the
case and hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit.
2. I submit that the addresses of the parties furnished in the
cause title are true and correct.
PLAINTIFF
ANEKAL
DATE: ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF
