SHANKAR S R Vs. RAJAN SAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by defendants no.2 and 4, in the suit. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court, for the sake of convenience.

(2.) IT was the case of the plaintiff that he was the absolute owner of the properties described in the Schedule to the plaint. The same were house sites, said to have been purchased under two registered sale deeds dated 6.7.1995, from the first defendant. In that, under one sale deed, he had purchased two sites bearing no.46 and no.43 and under the second sale deed, he had purchased site no.44. These sites were said to have been formed in land bearing survey no.54 of Horamavu Agara village, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore South Taluk. It was claimed that the khatha in respect of the properties was made out in the name of the plaintiff and that he was paying taxes to the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), after the area in which the properties are situated came within its jurisdiction.

(3.) THE learned Senior Advocate Shri R.L.Patil, appearing for the counsel for the appellant, contends as follows: The sale deeds, under which the plaintiff is shown to have purchased the suit properties are said to have been acquired by the Vendor at an oral partition. However, there was no basis for the said claim by the vendor. The trial court has accepted the bald assertion and has unfairly suspected the appellant as having colluded with defendant no.1 in filing a suit for partition and having engineered a compromise, whereby the said defendant no.1, was allotted a share in land other than land bearing survey no.54 and thereby ensured that the plaintiff was deprived of the suit property. It is pointed out that there is no material placed on record to establish the oral partition claimed by defendant no.1, in the absence of which, there was no foundation laid to presume that the suit for partition filed by the defendants 2 to 4 was a collusive suit to deprive the plaintiff of the suit property.