Ownership claims based on unverified deeds are invalid when original sellers lack title; courts must ensure prior title validity before upholding further transfers.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2016 passed in R.A.No.18/2013 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2012 passed in O.S.No.109/2005 by the learned Principal II Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

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

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

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of plaintiff that the suit schedule property is a site property bearing No.59, Khata No.31, Assessment No.31 of Gidadakonenahalli village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet.

4. It is contended that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He has purchased the same from one Rangaswamy, the GPA Holder of Venkataramanappa, Munihanumaiah, Mayanna, Venkatachala,Venkatahanumaiah and Hanumantharayappa under a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2004 for a valuable consideration. Based on the said registered sale deed, revenue records were transferred to the plaintiff’s name. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

5. It is contended that earlier the land bearing Sy.No.31 of Gidadakonenahalli village measuring 5 acres 11 guntas was owned by Venkataramanappa, Munihanumaiah, Venkatachala, Venkatahanumaiah and Hanumantharayappa. The said owners and one M.Chandrashekar S/o Munivenkatappa formed a layout in the said land, i.e., Sy.No.31, and consisting of several sites with an understanding to sell the sites to prospective purchasers. It is contended that M.Chandrashekar sold site No.48 on 05/11/1990, and another site No.58 on 24.10.1990.

6. It is contended that, M.Chandrashekar knowing fully well that several sites have already been sold in favour of third parties, through him or original owners, he still obtained another sale deed dated 09.01.1991 regarding 4 acres 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.51 through the original owners to defraud earlier purchasers. Defendant No.1 and M.Chandrashekar colluding with each other, created the GPA dated 04.12.1995 regarding the sites sold earlier in 1991. The sale deed dated 04.10.2004 came into existence regarding the suit schedule property, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, resulted from fraud, and in collusion with M.Chandrashekar. Defendant No.2 entered the suit property, and tried to dig a foundation. Defendant No.2 has not acquired any title by the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the instant suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

7. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff vendors being the owner of land bearing Sy.No.51 of Gidadakonenahalli village, measuring 4 acres 11 guntas, had sold the said property under a registered sale deed dated 09.01.1991 in favour of Ramachandra Reddy, and one Chandrashekar, and the said land was acquired by Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as BDA for short) for the further expansion of Vishveswaraiah Layout and subsequently, BDA has denotified two acres of land in the said survey number. Further, BDA confirmed that 26 guntas of land, owned by defendant No.1, has been deleted from acquisition proceedings, and issued