MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KAUSALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.243/2009.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are as under: The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of perpetual injunction stating that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and to restrain the appellant/defendant and its officials from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent/plaintiff. The subject matter of the suit property is house No.5932 situated at Vijayanagar 2nd Stage, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysuru. The respondent/plaintiff specifically contended in O.S.No.243/2009 that the suit schedule property was allotted to one Kariyappa by the appellant/authority on 06.06.1994 and was also put in possession of the said site. Subsequently, appellant/authority has executed title deed in favour of Kariyappa which was registered as document No.10122 in Book No.1. On 10.10.2005, Kariyappa sold the suit schedule property to Smt. C.M.Madhura for valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,61,500/- under registered sale deed dated 10.10.2005 and pursuant to alienation, the original allotee namely Kariyappa delivered possession to C.M. Madhura. Smt. C.M.Madhura got her name mutated to the property extracts. Smt. C.M.Madhura in turn sold the suit schedule property to one S.Shivaprasad Mada for sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- under registered sale deed dated 24.02.2006 and possession was also delivered pursuant to execution of registered sale deed. Said Shivaprasad Mada also got his name mutated in the property extracts on the basis of the registered sale deed. The said Shivaprasad Mada having acquired right and title over the site i.e., the suit schedule property approached the City Corporation, Mysuru seeking approval of plan. The authority approved the plan and as per the approved plan, the said Shivaprasad constructed residential house in the residential property. He also secured water connection and electricity connection from respective competent authorities. On 28.06.2007, the respondent/plaintiff's vendor namely Shivaprasad Mada sold the suit schedule property to the present respondent/plaintiff for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- under registered sale deed dated 28.06.2007 and accordingly, delivered possession of the residential house to the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff got her name mutated to the katha of the suit schedule property. The respondent/plaintiff is asserting her title by relying on the title documents and sanction order in favour of the original allotee namely Kariyappa.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/authority would contend before this Court that the relief of declaration granted by the Court below suffers from serious infirmities. He would submit to this Court that the findings recorded by the Court below that the appellant/authority has allotted the suit schedule property in favour of Kariyappa and consequent execution of registered title deed dated 06.01.2005 is erroneous. To buttress his argument, he would vehemently submit to this Court that respondent/plaintiff has not produced any original documents to prove that suit schedule property was allotted to Kariyappa on 06.06.1994. He would submit to this Court that the sanction order/allotment letter as per Ex.P-2 is forged and further the alleged sale deed executed in favour of Kariyappa is not a genuine document. On these set of grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/authority would vehemently argue and submit that respondent/plaintiff has failed to discharge her burden and establish the allotment in favour of Kariyappa and consequent sale deed by appellant/authority in favour of Kariyappa. He would urge before this Court that there are standard procedures contemplated in the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Rules, 1991 and relying on these rules, he would submit to this Court that the respondent/plaintiff has not at all placed any materials to show that sale deed dated 06.01.2005 in favour of original allotee namely Kariyappa was by following all prescribed procedures contemplated under the 1991 Rules. On these set of grounds, he would vehemently argue and submit before us that the documents relied on by the respondent/plaintiff are forged documents which would not create any right and title in favour of respondent/plaintiff and as such, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and the reasonings and findings recorded by the Court below deserves to be reversed which is in absence of legal evidence.