C CHINNAPPA Vs. P CHANDRAMOULY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals, except R.F.A.No.569/2011 are filed by the defendant No.5 aggrieved by the judgments and decrees, all dated 24.5.2010 passed by the Court of the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.9554/2006, 10199/2006, 11245/2006, 4436/2006, 1042/2007, 10197/2006, 10195/2006, 10196/2006, 9556/2006, 10194/2006 and 10198/2006 decreeing the suits.

(2.) R .F.A.No.569/2011 is filed by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 3.2.2011 passed by the Court of the XVII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH -16), Bangalore in O.S.No.7887/2007 dismissing their suit.

(3.) THE narration of the facts of the first batch of appeals is with reference to O.S.No.9554/2006. In all of them, the identical judgments are rendered on the identical set of facts. To avoid the confusion, the parties are being referred to as per their ranks in the suit proceedings. The plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the judgment and decree, dated 4.9.2006 in O.S.No.7425/2006 and the judgment and decree, dated 26.9.2006 in O.S.No.8296/2006 are null and void and are not binding on the plaintiff in as far as they pertain to the suit schedule property. The further relief sought is for declaring that the documents created pursuant to the said decrees are null and void and are not binding upon him. He has also sought the permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff's case in brief is that the property bearing Survey No.50/2 of Hoodi Village measuring 3 acres 22 guntas originally belonged to Sri Dodda Channnappa. It has fallen to the share of the said Dodda Channnappa in the family partition deed, dated 18.7.1985. Dodda Channnappa along with his family members, including the first defendant, executed the registered general power of attorney in favour of the defendant No.6. The defendant No.6 formed the revenue layout on the said land carving out 91 sites of different measurements. One such site is sold to one Manickyam, who in turn sold it to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration. It bears site No.69, which is morefully described in the suit schedule. The plaintiff claims that the khatha is mutated in his name and that he has been paying the property tax regularly.