Ownership of associated certificates follows property transfer; documentary proof is crucial in ownership disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.)

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2013, passed in R.A.No.109/2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur.

2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration that she is the absolute holder of TBGR certificate bearing No.2091703 and for the declaration that the alleged transfer of the said certificate from the name of plaintiff to the name of defendant No.1 by defendant Nos.2 to 4 is null and void, and not binding upon the plaintiff and mandatory injunction directing defendant Nos.2 to 4 to reissue and renew TBGR certificate and license in the name of the plaintiff.

3.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that she owns several properties in Abbur and Heggandur villages. In 2001, the plaintiff sold one of the landed properties in favour of the defendant No.1’s husband under a registered sale deed dated 15.06.2001, situated at Abbur village, measuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.94/6. Later, the revenue records were regarding the suit land transferred in his name. The plaintiff retained several landed properties, where she used to grow tobacco, and used to auction the same in defendant No.2’s platform through a TBGR certificate bearing No.2091703. The plaintiff, for renewal of her grower's registration certificate for the year 2004- 05, approached defendant No.2 and requested renewal of the TBGR certificate and license. The plaintiff came to know that her TBGR certificate and license had been transferred in the name of defendant No.1 by defendant No.3. Defendant No.2 refused to renew them in the name of the plaintiff by assigning reasons. It is contended that the plaintiff enquired into the alleged transfer of the said certificate and license in the name of defendant No.1 and came to know that the said transfer was made, based on the sale deed dated 15.06.2001. It is contended that the plaintiff never sold the TBGR certificate in favour of defendant No.1’s husband. The plaintiff was kept in the dark, and she knew nothing about the collusion of defendants Nos.2 to 4 with defendant No.1 in obtaining the TBGR certificate and license transfered in the name of defendant No.1. It is contended that the plaintiff is a poor widow with no support from anyone.

3.2. The plaintiff questioned defendant No.2 regarding the transfer of the TBGR certificate in favour of defendant No.1, but all efforts turned futile, and defendant No.2 did not yield to any of the say of the plaintiff. The transfer of the TBGR certificate and license by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, perverse, and capricious. It is contended that the plaintiff filed an application under Section 80 (2) of the CPC seeking permission from the Court to file a suit without issuing a notice under Section 80 of the CPC. Hence, prays to decree the suit.

3.3. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff was an unauthorised grower, and as per the policy, the plaintiff was issued a temporary sale permit (TSP) vide No.2091703 by the Auction Superintendent, APF No.4, Kaggundi in 1997. Subsequently, a separate TSP No.468703 was allotted in the place of TSP No.2091703 in 1999, for administration purpose. Platform No.61 of Kamalapur from defendant No.2 was established during 2003-04. It is contended that the plaintiff did not sell any Tobacco during the years 1999-2000 to 2001- 2002. On 11.01.2003, Sri. Kalegowda S/o Boregowda, along with his wif