ORAL JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the defendant questioning the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2017 passed by the XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.27), Bengaluru, in O.S.No.576/2012, thereby, the suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction is decreed.

2. The rank of parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.

3. The case of plaintiff in brief as per plaint averments are that;

3.1 The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property site No.32 morefully described in the schedule through registered sale deed dated 26.12.2011. It is stated that one Kakappa and his sons being the members of joint family were owners and in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.111 measuring 2 acres 28 guntas situated at Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, had acquired the said property in the name of Kakappa under registered sale deed dated 30.07.1956 and thereafter, the said joint family have formed layout and sold two such sites namely, Site Nos.32 and 47 each measuring into 40x30 feet through Kakappa in favour of one Doreraju under GPA and affidavit both dated 05.12.1985 and delivered the possession in favour of Doreraju and upon demise of Kakappa, the BBMP effected revenue records in favour of son Shamanna by selling property bearing No.111/32 for the site No.32. Said Kakappa sons as well as purchaser of Doreraju have sold the site No.32 measuring 30x40 feet in favour of plaintiff for the sale consideration under sale deed dated 26.12.2011 and thereafter, the plaintiff is in possession over the said suit schedule site. It is pleaded that necessary revenue records have been mutated in the name of plaintiff.

3.2 It is further pleaded that the defendant having no manner of any right, title, interest, possession, etc., over the schedule property on 12.01.2012 along with his other fellow men has made an attempt of interference and trying to trespass with the possession of plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file a complaint before the police, but the police have not interfered and directed to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

3.3 It is further pleaded that the defendant in order to snatch away the site No.32, which is schedule property, has got registered the sale deed dated 20.07.2011 through Muniyappa the alleged GPA holder of Kakappa falsely describing the number of site as ‘31’ measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of the sale deed dated 20.07.2011 and permanent injunction.

4. The defendant appeared through an Advocate and filed the written statement and pleaded that the plaintiff has stated false address in the cause title of the suit so as to say that the notice shall not reach the defendant. That the defendant denied all the averments in the plaint and it is denied that the Kakappa and his sons were having joint family status and sold the suit schedule property to Doreraju and thereafter to the plaintiff. It is also denied that the plaintiff had become owner of the suit schedule site through registered sale deed dated 20.07.2011. It is denied that the defendant had trespassed and is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff as false one. Also denied the fact that on 12.01.2012 the defendant started interfering in the suit site No.32 and further stated that the plaintiff has lodged a false complaint to the police.

4.1 It is the case made out by the defendant that Kakappa was the owner of the property and he had purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 30.07.1956 and has formed layout and alienated the entire property to the extent of 2 acres 28 guntas to the various persons during his lifetime of Kakappa and there is no land remains to the said Kakappa so as to alienate the same by his legal heirs. The defendant herein had purchased the properties Item No.30 under the registered sale deed dated 25.11.200