H. ANJANAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. SRI SUBRAMANYAM SINCE DEAD BY LRS, (SMT. CHAMUNDESHWARI D/O LATE SUBRAMANYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5829/2000. The suit in question was filed seeking for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction. The Court below has dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 15.12.2010. The plaintiff has therefore assailed the said judgment. The parties would be referred to in the same rank as assigned to them before the Court below for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing No. 3, (Assessment No. 41) situate at Moodalapalya village, Nagarabhavi Dhakale, Yeshwantpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The said property belonged to Sri Poojappa i.e., the vendor of the plaintiff who in turn had purchased the same from Sri B.M. Rajanna vide sale deed dated 05.05.1968. The said Sri Poojappa who had purchased the property is stated to have secured the revenue records in his name and thereafter formed a layout in the property bearing Sy. Nos. 41 and 67 which is now known as 'Kalyananagar' in Nagarabhavi. In that regard, the suit schedule site is one such site. The plaintiff therefore entered into an agreement of sale dated 18.02.1989 with Sri Poojappa and took delivery of the vacant possession on the same day. In consideration of the same, a general power of attorney and affidavit were also executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff accordingly got the khatha transferred to his name in the village panchayat and claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. Subsequently, Sri Poojappa is stated to have executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under which he acquired absolute right to the suit schedule property and also applied for transfer of khatha in the records of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.

(3.) THE defendant on being served with the suit summons, has appeared and filed the written statement. The case put forth by the plaintiff has been disputed by the defendant by contending that the agreement entered into as also the subsequent documents executed by Sri Poojappa are all false. On the other hand it is contended that the documents relied on are all created by the plaintiff in collusion with Sri Poojappa, Sri Lakkappa and Sri Krishnappa with malafide intention. The allegation that the defendant was interfering with the possession and had trespassed into the property on 24.08.2000 is also denied. The defendant contends that the plaintiff is a stranger to the defendant and no such site as claimed exists in the locality. The plaintiff by providing wrong description is attempting to grab the eastern portion of Site No. 79 formed out of Sy. No. 41 which belongs to the plaintiff who is in possession of the same since the year 1983.