The court emphasized that once a property is sold and assessed for taxes by the Corporation, it cannot later be claimed as part of a civic amenity site, establishing valid title for subsequent owners.

JUDGMENT :

V.SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Pavan Kumar for Sri. H. Defendrappa, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants who have challenged the validity of the judgment passed in O.S.No.2792/2001.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1 Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants with the following prayer in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'):

PRAYER

(a) Declare that the plaint schedule property does not form part of civic amenity Site No.1.

(b) Issue a direction to the defendants to transfer the khata of the plaint schedule property first in favour of the first plaintiff and then in favour of the second plaintiff.

(c) Grant such other reliefs and award cost of this suit.

SCHEDULE

Property bearing Site No.54, measuring 20' x 33' situated at 28^th Main, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 094 and bounded on

East by : Site No.53

West by : Road

North by : Site No.55

South by : Road.

3.2 Suit property was sold by the defendant, Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, in favour of one Smt. Rajeshwari, who is the vendor of the vendor of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed.

3.3 However, for reasons best known to them, there was no transfer of revenue entries in respect of the suit property.

3.4 Said Smt. Rajeshwari sold the property in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff by name Smt. Padvatammal on 25.08.1977. Plaintiff purchased the suit property from Smt. Padvatammal on 01.12.1981 and Smt. Padvatammal sold her 1/3^rd share of the property in favour of the first plaintiff. First plaintiff in turn sold the property on 30.06.1998 in favour of the second plaintiff. When the appellants applied for change of khata, the Corporation issued an Endorsement vide Exhibits P5 and P6 which reads as under:

ENDORSEMENT - EXHIBIT P5

With reference to his/her application dated 7.6.84 requesting for Transfer or Khata of Khata of Pre.No.54/35 in 28^th Main, 9^th Block, Jayanagar, DVN. No.60, Bangalore, Sri. K.V. Suraynarayana Rao, residing at No.44, Maruthi Extension, palace Guttahally is hereby informed the Katha will be done after Court decision received."

3.5 Then, a notice came to be issued to the Joint Commissioner, Bangalore Corporation vide Exhibit P7 by first plaintiff Sri. K.V. Suryanarayana Rao and another notice on 21.01.1998 vide Exhibit P7 and P8 and yet another representation vide Exhibit P9. When there was no change of khata in favour of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit with the aforesaid prayer.

3.6 Defendants/Bangalore Mahanagara Palike filed written statement opposing the suit by contending that the suit site is a Civic Amenity Site, meant for commercial purposes and therefore the khata cannot be transferred in the name of the plaintiff as the vendors of the plaintiffs did not possess the khata in their names.

3.7 In view of the rival pleadings, learned Trial Judge framed following issues;

(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule property does not forms the part and parcel of civi amenity site No.1?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to have transfer of khata in their favour witht respect to the suit schedule property?

(3) What decree or order?

3.8 In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, first plaintiff K.V. Suryanarayana Rao got examined as PW1 and placed on record 17 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P1 to P17 comprising of Letter dated 09.11.2001, certified copi