IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2043/2012

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI NAGARAJ B N

S/O SRI B. NARASIMHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

2.

SRI SRINIVASA

S/O B. NARASIMHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT

NO.14/33, 9^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK

NANDINI LAYOUT

BANGALORE-560 096.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE, A/W

SRI MANJUNATH M. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SMT. M.R. JAYALAKSHMAMMA

W/O LATE D.R. SRINIVASA SETTY

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

2

RESIDING AT NO.3527

5^TH CROSS, GAYATHRI NAGAR,

BANGALORE-21.

2.

M. PRAKASH R. PATIL

S/O LATE R.K. PATIL

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

NO.150A, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE,

WEST OF CHORD ROAD,

BANGALORE-560 086.

3.

SRI. HOMBEGOWDA

S/O MAYANNA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO.15, 1^ST CROSS,

MICO LAY-OUT, RAMANAHALI ,

KENGERI, BANGALORE SOUTH,

BANGALORE-60.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.V. SHYAM PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

V/O DATED 10.10.2018 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 HELD

SUFFICIENT THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION

R-2 PRAKASH M. PATIL; R-3 HOMBE GOWDA)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41

RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

5.11.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.408/2011 ON THE FILE OF XII

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE,

DECREEING

THE

SUIT

FILED

FOR

DECLARATION

AND

POSSESSION.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER

HEARING THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA, J., DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

3

JUDGMENT

Defendants No.3 & 4 have filed the present regular first

appeal against the judgment an decree dated 5.11.2012 passed

in O.S.No.408/2011 on the file of the XII Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH–27) decreeing the suit of

plaintiff for declaration and possession and declaring that the

sale deed dated 29.03.2007 executed in favour of defendant

No.1 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and the

defendants are directed to handover vacant possession of the

suit schedule property to the plaintiff within six months from the

date of decree by demolishing the construction made therein at

their own costs and further granted permanent injunction

restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s

possession.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to as per their ranking in the original suit before the Trial Court.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that:

Plaintiff

M.R.

Jayalakasmamma

filed

O.S.No.408/2011

on

12.01.2011 to declare that the sale deed dated 29.03.2007

executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 is null and

4

void, bad in law and the same is not binding on the plaintiff,

consequently to direct the defendants to deliver vacant

possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and

restrain them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff

in respect of the suit schedule property more fully described in

the plaint. The Plaintiff contended that the property bearing BDA

No.83,

Municipal

No.83,

old

No.10-69-83,

situated

at

Mahalakshmipuram,

further

Extension,

Bruhat

Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike Ward No.10, measuring east to west

(15.08+16.30)/2 meters; north to south (15.24+9.14)/2 meters

totally measuring 191.26 square meters more fully described in

the schedule was purchased by the plaintiff from the previous

owners under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.10.1969 and the

same was registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar,

Sriramapura, Bengaluru.

4.

The plaintiff intended to construct a residential house

on the suit schedule property and in that regard she approached

defendant No.1 for assistance and defendant No.1 informed that

he will arrange for availing loan from Sir M.Vishweswar