C KRISHNAPPA Vs. BIBIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 17.09.2009 passed by the Court of the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH -19) in O.S.No.9523/2006.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the land standing at survey No.25/3 of Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measured 7 acres 7 guntas, including 27 guntas of kharab land. Out of the said land, Syed Haneef Sab (the husband of the first respondent plaintiff and the father of the respondents plaintiff Nos.2 -6) purchased 2 acres 20 guntas, including 27 guntas of kharab land, from Abdul Kareem Sab by a registered sale deed, dated 01.08.1963. The appellant defendant purchased 1 acre 31 guntas out of the said 2 acres 20 guntas from Syed Haneef Sab, by a registered sale deed, dated 23.09.1991. The said Syed Haneef Sab passed away on 21.10.1994. The respondents plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 filed O.S.No.962/2006 challenging the sale deed, dated 23.09.1991 executed in favour of the appellant defendant. It is their case in the said suit that the land was never intended to be sold to the appellant defendant; it was only given as a security for the loan of Rs.70,000/ -, which Syed Haneef Sab had taken from the appellant defendant. By misrepresenting and committing the fraud and forgery, the appellant -defendant obtained the sale deed. O.S.No.962/2006 filed by the respondents is pending consideration before the civil court. In the meanwhile, the appellant defendant is alleged to have come near the suit schedule property (29 guntas of the land + 27 guntas of kharab land) standing at Sy.No.25/3 with his men with the motive of encroaching it and put up the compound. The respondents, pleading the said cause of action, filed O.S.No.9523/2006 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the appellant defendant.

(3.) THE appellant defendant filed the written statement. He states that on his purchasing the property measuring 1 acre 31 guntas from Syed Haneef Sab under whom the respondents plaintiffs claim, he has got the mutation entries effected in his favour. He is in physical possession of the said property from 1991 itself. He has got 1 acre 10 guntas of land converted for the non -agricultural purpose. He has also got 19 guntas of the adjoining kharab land granted in his favour. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court formulated the following issues: -