G M VIRUPAKSHAPPA Vs. K R SHIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant No.1 filed the present writ petition against the order dated 11.08.2017 on I.A.No.7 made in O.S.No.77/2015 rejecting the application filed by the first defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The respondent Nos.1 to 6, who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court filed suit for declaration to declare that the alleged lease deed and common compound kararu patra deed 20.02010 said to be executed by the plaintiff No.6 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of plaint 'A' schedule property as void and not binding on the plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 and also mandatory injunction against the defendant No.1 to remove compound wall constructed in the plaint 'A' schedule property at his cost, failing which direct the defendant Nos.2 and 3 to remove the said compound wall, immediately and for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1, his men, relatives, agents, servants and all such other persons claiming interest through him, from entering into or interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 in respect of the plaint 'A' schedule property and to direct defendant No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 towards the damages caused to the plaint 'A' schedule property and grant a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant Nos.2 and 3, to immediately inspect the plaint 'B' schedule property and to regulate the construction of the building in the plaint 'B' schedule property as per the building license No.148/2013-14 dated 25.02014 and also as per the approved plan issued by them to the defendant No.1 and to take appropriate action against the defendant No.1 for the violation of the said building license and approved plan, etc., by raising various contentions contending that the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 are absolute owners of plaint 'A' schedule property and they have purchased the said property under registered sale deed dated 201.2014 and subsequent registered documents and contended that the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. Therefore, they filed the suit for the relief sought for.

(3.) The defendants filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. The defendant No.1 contended that he is the owner of the plaint 'B' schedule property. He has purchased it under two registered sale deeds dated 211.2009. The 'B' schedule property consists of a commercial complex and vacant space. The total extent of 'B' schedule property is East West : 63' feet North South : 301 feet + 271/2 feet, excluding the constructed commercial complex which had two floors i.e., Cellar and Mezzanine floor, there was a vacant space of about 50 feet. The plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 have taken documents purporting to be sale deeds of the property from the 6th plaintiff. While taking such documents they have described the property wrongly and have taken documents for the property which the 6th plaintiff was not at all having any right. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest to the entire 'A' schedule property which the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 have purchased and sought for dismissal of the suit.