IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1614 OF 2010 (DEC/POS)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. DEVA SAGAYAM S/O LATE SRI. B. PENCHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.16, NEW MULTISTORIED BUILDING POTTERY ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE-560005.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP NAIK .K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O SRI. P.D. DHANLAL MAJOR Digitally signed R/AT NO.34 by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH SADASHIVA MUDALIAR ROAD COURT OF KARNATAKA MURPHY TOWN, ULSOOR CIVIL STATION BANGALORE-560008.

2. SMT. N. RATHNAMMA W/O SRI. C. ABBU MAJOR R/AT NO.17, 6^TH CROSS L.B. SHASTRY NAGAR INDIRA NAGAR

2^ND STAGE BANGALORE.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. GAJENDRA VASU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. V.A. MOHAN RANGAM, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;

SRI. H.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W, O-XLI-A AND XLI, R-1 &

2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.04.2010 PASSED IN O.S.2842/1988 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff No.3 assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.04.2010 rendered in O.S.No.2842/1988 on the file of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City.

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

3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under;

Plaintiff No.3, along with his mother and two siblings, instituted the present suit seeking a declaration of title, consequential relief of permanent injunction and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs sought to invalidate the title of defendant Nos.1 and 2 contending that the registered sale deed dated 05.03.1975 obtained by defendant No.1 from late B.Penchalaiah, the original allottee of the site through the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA') is sham, fraudulent, and illegal.

4. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that late B. Penchalaiah, who was a Government employee, was allotted a site bearing No.1015/C situated at Binnamangala, II Stage Extension, Bengaluru–38 by BDA under allotment letter dated 01.02.1975 (Ex.D.5). Pursuant thereto, BDA executed a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 18.02.1975 (Ex.D.44) and possession of the site was handed over to the original allottee on 20.02.1975. The total value of the site was Rs.3,467/-, which was payable by the allottee.

5. The plaintiffs further contend that in violation of the conditions of allotment and the lease-cum-sale agreement, late B.Penchalaiah alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 05.03.1975 for a consideration of Rs.4,000/-. The plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of the original allottee, have questioned the said alienation on the ground that their father was a drunkard and addicted to vices and that the defendants have brought into existence a fraudulent document. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 further alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2, who was consequently impleaded as a party to the proceedings.

6. By way of amendment, the plaintiffs also sought an additional relief of declaration and recovery of possession in the year 2001.

7. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their written statements contesting the suit. The defendants, inter alia, contended that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, particularly the Bangalore Development Authority, which is the statutory authority that allotted and subsequently conveyed the site.

8. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed approp