CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal filed by the deceased plaintiff/appellant under Section 96 of CPC, for setting aside the judgment of the Addl. City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore, herein referred as trial court in OS.No.2952/2008 dated

26.03.2014, for having dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. Heard the arguments of leaned counsel for the appellant and respondent. The ranks of the parties before the trial court retained for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that, the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.203 measuring 4 acres 11 guntas including 20 guntas of kharab situated at Haligevaderahalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk, herein after referred as suit schedule property from alienating or creating any third party interest and receive any compensation from BDA in respect of acquisition of suit schedule property.

4. The further case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is a renowed agri-horticulturist since 1968. One Madaiah @ Madappa was the khatedar of suit schedule property and being the kartha of the joint family, for himself and on defendant Nos.5 to 8 had entered into agreement of sale on 03.05.1991 and the plaintiff aggreed to purchase the suit schedule property for sum of Rs.6,04,000/- and paid Rs.3,22,000/- as advance amount and it was agreed to execute the sale deed within one month from the date of the property is released from the acquisition by the BDA. The plaintiff was put in possession, the said Madaiah @ Madappa executed the GPA on 31.05.1991, authorising the plaintiff to do all deeds for the purpose of getting denotifying the property from BDA. The said Madaiah @ Madappa died on 16.10.1997, by leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 8. The 1^st defendant said to be issued notice to the plaintiff by asserting they are in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property under agreement of sale and sale deed should be executed within one month from date of denotification. Therefore, suit came to be filed for seeking injunction.

5. The defendant No.2 placed ex-parte.

6. The defendant Nos.1, 3 to 8 filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and further denied that the agreement of sale and receipt of any advance amount from the plaintiff, they also denied GPA executed by Madappa in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that plaintiff misused the illiteracy and poverty and forged the documents and denied the entire averment in the plaint and contended that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant came to know that the plaintiff trying to get the land denotified before BDA has issued legal notice through their counsel. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. Based upon the pleadings the trial court framed the following issues;

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the basis of alleged agreement of sale said to be executed by the husband of first defendant?

2) Does the plaintiff proves that the defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

3) Does the plaintiff prove that the defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule property?

4) Does the plaintiff prove that the defendants are attempting to receive compensation to be awarded by BDA?

5) What order or decree?

8. To prove the case, the plaintiff examined his GPA holder as PW.1 and got marked 30 documents as Ex.P.1 to 30. And on behalf of the defendants, 5^th defendant examined as DW.1 and got marked 18 documents as Ex.D.1 to 18. After hearing the arguments the trial court answered the issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and ultimately dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs