Specific clauses in property deeds override general recitals, reaffirming the necessity for clarity in the reservation of rights.

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by defendant No.2 assailing the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No.9097/2013. The trial Court has declared the plaintiffs as the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and consequently, defendants Nos.1 and 2 are restrained from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. A mandatory injunction is also issued directing defendant Nos.3 and 4 to register the plaintiffs name as kathedars of the suit schedule property by assigning a separate corporation number to the suit schedule property.

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

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The subject matter of the suit is a vacant portion measuring East-West 24 feet and North-South 12 feet. This disputed property which is referred to as schedule property is part and parcel of property measuring East-West 42 feet + 40/2 feet and North-South 40 feet + 39/2 feet. Plaintiffs are the daughters of one late Patel Mariappa. Plaintiffs assert that the property was acquired by their father under registered partition deed dated 16.01.1933. The plaintiffs further claim that a portion of the property was sold to Maistry Bathyappa under registered sale deed dated 29.07.1945. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that despite sale deed in favour of Maistry Bathyappa, a portion of the property measuring East-West 24 feet and North- South 12 feet which is referred as suit schedule property was retained by the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs specifically assert that the said portion of the property was used as Srirama Bhajana Mandira.

Plaintiffs have further contended that the portion that was sold to Maistry Bathyappa was numbered as No.65/28 who in-turn has gifted the property to his daughter Muniamma @ Motamma. Plaintiffs assert that defendant Nos.1 and 2 who have purchased the property that was sold to Maistry Bathyappa cannot lay a claim over suit schedule property that was retained by the father of defendant No.1. Plaintiffs submitted an application to BBMP to rename the property as Srirama Bhajana Mandira. Similar applications were tendered to the revenue officials to mutate plaintiffs name. However, this application was countered by defendant No.1 by filing a similar application by asserting that she is the owner of the property. The plaintiffs therefore claim that the matter was referred to Legal cell and opinion was given that plaintiffs father Patel Mariappa had retained one room measuring 24ft X 12ft and an error was noticed wherein defendant No.1's name was wrongly entered in the revenue records. Plaintiffs therefore allege that defendant Nos.1 and 2 started asserting title over the disputed property though it belonged to the plaintiffs and tried to construct a compound wall. Plaintiffs therefore assert that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no manner of right over the suit schedule property and hence, present suit is filed seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction as well as mandatory injunction.

On receipt of suit summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have appeared and filed written statement. Defendants have stoutly denied all averments made in the plaint.

However, defendants admit the recitals in the sale deed.

Plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate their respective claims led in oral and documentary evidence.

The trial Court having examined the issues framed, and having assessed and appraised the oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and thereby declared plaintiffs as the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property. While answering issue No.2 in the affirmative, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating that there is interference by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and accordingly, injunction is granted thereby restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with plainti