IMPORTANT POINT
A plaintiff must specifically plead fraud with full particulars and cannot succeed in a claim without directly challenging relevant sale deeds; claims barred by limitation are unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

These batch of appeals are by the defendants questioning the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.6045/1989, thereby declaring plaintiffs as absolute owners and consequently, the Court has declared that the documents obtained by the defendants, if any, are collusive, fraudulent, colorable and nominal documents and they do not bind on the plaintiffs and consequently, relief of perpetual injunction is granted.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs have filed suit seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction. The subject matter of the suit are agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.45 measuring 11 acres 6 guntas, Sy.No.55 measuring 21 acres 7 guntas, Sy.No.56 measuring 12 acres 12 guntas and Sy.No.57 measuring 7 acres 12 guntas, all situated at Karivobanahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Plaintiffs contend that one S.P. Subbaraya Shetty was the original owner who was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The present plaintiffs claim to be the sons of Late S.P. Subbaraya Shetty. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that late S.P. Subbaraya Shetty has not meddled with the suit lands during his lifetime. Plaintiffs allege that after death of their father S.P. Subbaraya Shetty, the lands were not subjected to cultivation and therefore, they were left fallow. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants are not having any semblance of right and title with the suit schedule properties. Alleging that plaintiffs learnt that defendants have managed and fabricated the documents in their favour and have got their names mutated to the revenue records, suit is filed seeking relief of declaration and injunction.

4. Trial Court in absence of contest by the defendants dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiffs have failed to substantiate that they are the legal heirs of late S.P. Subbaraya Shetty. Plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, preferred appeal. This Court allowed the appeal filed and the matter was remitted back. Even after remand, there was no serious contest by the defendants. While some of the defendants filed written statement and cross-examined the plaintiffs, however, defendants did not chose to lead any rebuttal evidence. Trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed in the plaint.

5. Sri. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the defendants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal filed in RFA.No.343/2022 c/w 342/2022 referring to the documentary evidence placed by the plaintiffs has vehemently argued and contended that plaintiffs maternal uncle under compelling reasons had to sell the properties under registered sale deed dated 17.01.1946. Though this sale deed is not reflected in the RTC placed on record by the plaintiffs, however, the RTCs' at Exs.P-3 to P-8 clearly demonstrates that the property has changed hands by passage of time and third party rights are created. The alienations are clearly reflected in the RTCs' and in column No.9, several purchasers names are mutated to the RTC based on registered sale deed for valuable sale consideration. Therefore, he would contend that the suit in the present form seeking a declaration that the documents obtained by the defendants are fraudulent and concocted is not maintainable. He has further pointed out that plaintiffs on account of they being minor had to return to the maternal uncles village namely Malur and the documents produced at Exs.P-21 to P-29 clearly demonstrates that petitioners have done their schooling at Malur and at no point of time, resided at Bengaluru.

6. Referring to Ex.P-32, learned counsel has vehemently argued and contended that plaintiffs mother Sheshamma is married to niece of Kempu Shetty and therefore relations were cordial even upto 1961. T