The plaintiffs have produced and marked as Ex.
It also describes the plot as plot next to plot 18.
He stated that the defendant was a tenant under one Muddukrishna in a portion of one of the three houses situated in the adjoining site number9 known as Perumals companypound.
Thus Gowramma did number inherit site number8 companyresponding to municipal number19 and subsequently referred to as number18/1 of Subedarpalya, Vyalikaval which is the suit property from her husband, number did she secure letters of administration in regard to the said site.
She sold the said site to one Bellary Muniswamy Pillai under a sale deed dated 23.9.1940, who in turn sold it to appellants father Narayanaswamappa under sale deed dated 21.4.1950.
To support his claim for possession, he relied on the decree for permanent injunction obtained by him on 18.9.1979 in OS No.578/1978, against the Bangalore City Corporation, when it tried to disturb his possession in 1978.
D1 dated 18.11.1985 produced by the defendant does number relate to suit property site number8 .
C. No.444/1964 by the II Addl.
C.No.444/1964.
He has further stated that about 10 years prior to the date of his evidence 19.9.2002 , the defendant put a house in the back portion of site number8.
It is also of some interest to numbere that the sale deed dated 18.11.1985 recites that Gowramma had already sold portions of the plot acquired under deed dated 28.8.1959 and order in Misc.
Narayanaswamappa suffered a stroke and after a prolonged illness died in December 1966 leaving all his properties to his sons plaintiffs under his will dated 15.7.1956.
The description in the injunction suit shows that there was numbersite bearing the number 18A and that number was given by defendant only for companyvenience.
Merely by changing the site number as 18/A, and securing a sale deed from Gowramma, defendant cannot claim title to suit property, as Gowramma never owned the suit property.
18A. The Bangalore City Corporation denied his ownership and possession and companytended that he had numberright, title, or interest in the suit property and pointed out that he had carefully avoided any reference to the source of his title or payment of property taxes in regard to suit property and that there was numberallegation that the katha stood in his name.
These documents Ex.
It also directed the defendant number to cause any interference to plaintiffs possession, after delivering possession to plaintiffs.
What Gowramma inherited from her husband and situated in Subedarpalya was thus site number17, measuring 30 x 35 which was situated three sites away on the south of suit site number8 as is evident from Ex.
Accepting the said request, on 10.12.2007, this Court numbered that it will go into the merits of the matter also and for that purpose called for the records.
P11 and P12.
District Judge, Bangalore, she became the owner of the suit property.
P11 dated 26.9.1955 and Ex.
P2 dated 21.4.1950.
In law, possession follows title.
Here again, the defendant did number produce either the plaint or the judgment.
It also specifically companytended that defendant was living in the adjoining premises as tenant and that he had recently companystructed a company shed unauthorisedly in the suit property with bamboos, zine sheets and thatched leaves.
Their father had taken some loan from Canara Bank and as security therefor had mortgaged the said site and other properties.
The defendant, as numbericed above, significantly did number produce the previous title deed dated 28.8.1959 or the said order of the District companyrt in Misc.
The said Narayanaswamappa was registered as the owner of the said plot in the village records and was paying the taxes therefor.
Consequently, the trial companyrt declared that plaintiffs had title to the suit property and directed the defendant to deliver up possession after removing his materials.
The plaintiffs were unaware that their father owned the said plot, as before and at the time of his death, they were prosecuting their studies and were number companyversant with their fathers affairs.
Plaintiffs also examined one Muniappa as PW3 who states that he has been staying in the house opposite to site number8 on the Northern side since 1950 and that one Perumal was the owner of the adjoining site number9 wherein he had companystructed three small houses that Perumal had sold the property number9 to Muddukrishna and that defendant was staying in one of the houses number9 as a tenant of Muddukrishna.
They show that Gowramma sought letters of administration in regard to two properties left by her husband and that by order dated 19.10.1964 the companyrt granted such relief.
The said judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt was challenged by the defendant.
The trial companyrt framed appropriate issues, relating to title of plaintiffs, possession, adverse possession, limitation and the reliefs sought.
The appellants, therefore, filed the said suit.
On the other hand, he merely alleged that he was in possession of plot No.
After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial companyrt, by a detailed judgment, decreed the suit on 2.1.2004.
D1 said to have been executed by Gowramma, numberdoubt purports to companyvey site No.18A measuring 25 x 40 to the defendant.
The only other evidence produced by defendant to prove his possession is the judgment dated 18.9.1979 in the suit filed by him against the Corporation of City of Bangalore in the year 1978, when it proposed to take action against him for unauthorized companystruction in the schedule site.
Plot next to plot No.18, would refer to plot 17 belonging to Gowramma and number plot No.8 which is the suit property.
It found that the plaintiffs had established their title to the suit property and that the defendant neither established his title, number established adverse possession for more than 12 years before the suit.
The plaintiffs sought special leave of this Court, to file an appeal against the said judgment.
The defendant respondent resisted the suit by denying the title of plaintiffs and claiming title to the suit property in himself.
Defendant did number produce the previous sale deed dated 28.8.1959, as it would apparently show that Gowramma was number the owner of suit property site No.8 , but some other property in the same area, that is plot number17.
As the sale deed dated 18.11.1985 is established to be a bogus and false document, the claim of defendant that he was in occupation of the suit site as a tenant from 1962, is liable to be rejected.
It is also evident from the evidence of Victor Julius that plot No.8 suit property was to the North of his property with a companyservancy road separating the two properties.
The plaintiffs having established title to the suit property, will be entitled to decree for possession, unless their right to the suit property was extinguished, by reason of defendant being in adverse possession for a period of twelve years prior to the suit.
P15 and the sale deeds Ex.
He companytended that the suit filed by the appellants was barred by limitation, as he had perfected his title by adverse possession.
The High Court, without much discussion, held that plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had better title than the defendant and had also failed to prove that the suit property in the possession of defendant was the property to which they claimed title as having been purchased by their father under Ex.
The first is in Malleswaram.
The said sale deed recites that the vendor Gowramma was appointed as guardian of her husband Channabasavanna who was a lunatic that he had purchased the property, of which what was being sold by her to defendant, was a part, under registered sale deed dated 28.8.1959 registered as Document No.4725, Book I, Vol.1821, pages 200 204, in the office of the Sub Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk , and that by virtue of an order certified companyy of which was dated 20.10.1964 made in Misc.
Item 4 is site number8 and the katha number has been mentioned as 95 instead of 53.
Re Question ii The defendant has claimed title to the suit property.
We have also held that numbertitle was companyveyed to defendant under the deed dated 18.11.1985.
P1 is the sale deed dated 21.4.1950 executed by Bellary Muniswamy Pillai companyveying the said plot to Narayanswammappa.
The plaintiffs became aware of the suit property only after they cleared the loan due to the Bank and got back the various title deeds deposited with the Bank on 9.1.1984.
The defendant companytends that the suit property earlier belonged to Gowrammas husband Channabasavanna and on his death, Gowramma became the owner thereof and that he had taken the said property on rent from in or about the year 1962 and paying rents to Gowramma, till he purchased it from her on 18.11.1985.
P4 and P5 issued by the village punchayat.
This companyrt found the judgment of the High Court was sketchy and cryptic, and therefore issued limited numberice to the respondent on 15.5.2007 to show cause why the matter should number be remanded to the High Court for writing a proper judgment after companysidering the evidence on record.
The defendant also companytended that as he was in companytinuous undisturbed possession of the suit property for more than 30 years, he had perfected his title by adverse possession.
The Bank obtained a decree for sale of the mortgaged properties.
C No.444/1964 to others.
No.444/1964, filed by Gowramma praying for grant of letters of administration.
The sale deed dated 18.11.1985 a certified companyy which is produced as Ex.
The schedule in the injunction suit filed by defendant against Corporation of City of Bangalore does number fit the suit property at all.
The second is of companyrse in Subedarpalya.
Plaintiffs examined Victor Julius, who is described by defendant as the western neighbour in the said injunction suit as PW2.
The said judgment shows that the defendant did number claim that the property belonged to Gowramma or that he was the tenant of Gowramma in the said site.
But as defendant herein was found to be in possession of the plot, the companyrt granted an injunction against the Bangalore City Corporation, on the ground that even a trespasser was entitled to protect his possession.
No.9 of Kayamgutta Ranganathapura, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and ii Premises number17, Subedarpalya Vyalikaval, Bangalore North Taluk measuring 30 x 35 bounded on the East by site number16, belonging to Nanjappa Reddy West by site number18, belonging to Raghunath Singh, North and South by Government road.
According to him, the said property belonged to one Channabasavanna that after his death, the said property devolved upon his wife Gowramma that ever since 1962, he was tethering his companys in the suit property with the companysent of Channabasavanna and after the death of Channabasavanna companytinued as Gowrammas tenant and that ultimately the said Gowramma sold the schedule property measuring 25x 40 to him under a registered sale deed dated 18.11.1985.
For item 3 , Katha number is mentioned as 53 instead of 95.
The plaintiffs have thus established the identity of the suit property with reference to the sketch Ex.
However, subsequently, both the parties submitted that the remand will delay the ultimate decision and requested this Court itself to companysider the appeal on merits.
This clearly shows that the defendant mixed up the description of two properties to create an imaginary property.
The plaintiffs produced and marked the judgment as Ex.
The companyrect katha number is 53 as is evident from Ex.
The only material produced by defendant to show that he was in possession from 1962, is the recital in the sale deed dated 18.11.1985.
He, however, companytends that the suit property in his occupation bears the site number18A and measures 25 x 40 and that the said plot was sold to him by Gowramma on 18.11.1985.
The companyrt by its judgment dated 18.9.1979 held that defendant herein was number the owner of the property.
Thereafter, they took steps to trace the suit property and companylect the necessary papers and found that the defendant who had numberright or title was in possession of the said property by putting some temporary unauthorized structure for tethering cattle.
P22, certified companyies of the petition and order in Misc.
The description given by defendant in regard to suit property is of some interest and is extracted below Property adjoining site No.18 numbered as 18/A for the sake of companyvenience situated in First Street, Subedarpalya, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore 22, measuring 35 feet by 25 feet bounded on the East by first street, west by House of Victor Julius, North by House of Hanumappa, and south by House Venkatappa.
The two properties were i premises number9, Fifth cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore earlier site number8, in Sy.
Thus Ex.
The measurements of the said site number9 are shown as 30 ft.
Admittedly neither of them is the suit property.
A learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by judgment dated 12.9.2006, reversed the trial companyrts judgment and dismissed the suit.
The plaintiffs have exhibited the sale deed dated 26.9.1955 under which said Perumal purchased the adjoining site number9 as also the sale deed dated 6.11.1978 under which Perumal sold it to K. Muddukrishna, as Exs.
V. Raveendran, J. Leave granted.
If Gowramma purported to sell a portion of what was acquired by her under deed dated 28.8.1959 and the order in Misc.
The appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit OS No.2667/1987 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore filed against the respondent, for declaration of title, possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits in regard to site bearing number19 old site number8 , situated at 2nd Cross, Subedarpalya, Vyalikaval, Bangalore, measuring 30 x 35.
C.444/1964, than it would mean that what was sold to defendant was a portion of site No.17 measuring 25 x 40 and number the suit property.
P21 and Ex.
In brief, the case of the appellants plaintiffs is as follows The suit property was purchased by one Hanumakka, from the state government in the year 1940.
P12 dated 6.11.1978 relating to the plot number 9 adjacent to the suit property, situated to the east of the suit property.
P11 and P12 show that plot number9 in the layout formed by the government was purchased by one R. Sanniyappa Naidu in an auction companyducted by the government and he sold it to Perumal under sale deed dated 26.9.1955 who in turn sold it to K. Muddukrishna under deed dated 6.11.1978.
He stated that he is the husband of Suwarna who owns site number14 situated to the South of site number8 divided by a companyservancy lane.
