Bangalore District Court
Prakash Reddy A Alias A Prakash vs Chinna Reddy H N on 19 July, 2025
KABC010069152018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.44), AT BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN,
B.Com, LL.B.(Spl.)
XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU .
DATED: THIS THE 19 th DAY OF JULY, 2025
O.S.No.1811 of 2018
Plaintiff: Sri. A. Prakash Reddy @
A. Prakash
S/o late Annaiah Reddy,
Aged about 63 years
R/at NO.38/16, 12 th Cross,
4 th Main, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru-560 030.
(By Sri. B.M.S.K., Advocate)
-VS-
Defendants: 1. Sri. H.N. Chinna Reddy
Aged about 60 years
S/o late R. Narayana Reddy
2. Sri. Naveen,
Aged about Major,
S/o H.N. Chinna Reddy
2 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
3. Sri. Rakesh
Aged about Major,
S/o of H.N. Chinna Reddy,
4. Ms. Rajeetha
Aged about Major,
D/o H.N. Chinna Reddy
All are residing at
T. Ramaiah Garden,
Hulimavu Village, Begur
Hobli, Bengaluru South-76.
(D1 to D4- V.S.,-Advocates)
Date of Institution of the suit : 07.03.2018
Nature of the Suit : Injunction suit
Date of commencement of : 16.01.2020
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 19.07.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
07 04 12
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
3 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
J U D G M E N T
That, the plaintiff has filed this suit for perpetual
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with possession & enjoyment of suit schedule
properties by the plaintiff.
The suit schedule properties described in the
schedule are as under :
SCHEDULE – ITEM NO.1
All that peace and parcel of immovable property
bearing site NO.53/5R1, khatha No.509, situated at
Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk, presently situated within jurisdiction of BBMP
and presently assigned PID No.509/53/5R1 and
renamed as “Someshwara LT GIS” 16833, Hulimavu
Layout, Bengaluru South measuring east to west 35
feet and north to south 100 feet and bounded on:
East by: Remaining portion of the same
property bearing khatha No.509,
H.L.NO.53/5-R2
West by: Property bearing Katha No.509,
H.L.No.53/5Q of Smt. Bharathi
North by: Private property belongs to Sri.
Muniswamy and Pillappa
South by: PWD Road
4 O.S.No.1811 of 2018SCHEDULE-ITEM NO.2
All that peace and parcel of immovable property
bearing site NO.53/5-R2, khatha No.509, situated at
Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk, presently situated within jurisdiction of BBMP
and presently assigned PID No.509/53/5/R2 and
renamed as “Someshwara LT GIS” 16833, Hulimavu
Layout, Bengaluru South measuring east to west 35
feet and north to south 100 feet and bounded on:
East by: Storm water drain
West by: Remaining portion of the same
property bearing khatha No.509,
H.L.NO.53/5-R1 retained by the vendor
North by: Private property belongs to Sri.
Muniswamy and Pillappa
South by: PWD Road
2) Factual Background in brief are as under :-
a. The plaintiff pleads that he is the absolute
owner in possession & enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties. The plaintiff and his brother A. Narayana
Reddy have purchased the suit schedule properties as
per two separate registered Sale Deed dated
11.03.1998 from H.N. Chinna Reddy – the defendant
No.1 herein. As on the date of execution of Sale Deed,
5 O.S.No.1811 of 2018plaintiff & his brother were in possession of the
properties. The plaintiff has also pleaded that before
sale of property H.N. Chinna Reddy-def No.1 had
entered into an agreement of sale coupled with
possession and agreed to sell the suit schedule
properties in favour of the plaintiff. It is the specific
case of the plaintiff that suit for partition was filed by
siblings of defendant No.1 herein at O.S.No.3506 of
1984 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru wherein
the suit schedule properties along with other
properties have been allotted to the share of 1 st
defendant H.N. Chinna Reddy. Thereafter, H. N. Chinna
Reddy has executed Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998 and
therefore, the plaintiff and his brother A. Narayana
Reddy have acquired right, title and interest over the
suit schedule property.
b. It is specifically pleaded by the plaintiff that
A. Narayana Reddy joint purchaser of the suit property
6 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
has executed two separate Release deeds dated
29.03.2000 in favour of plaintiff relinquishing his right
in the schedule properties. Consequent to execution
of Release deed plaintiff has become absolute owner of
entire item No.1 and 2 properties. Revenue records
pertaining to schedule properties have been changed in
the name of plaintiff and he is regularly paying the
taxes. The plaintiff has stated that in order to protect
his possession over the suit schedule properties, he has
also fenced stone post barbed wire fencing and
recently had constructed compound around the
schedule properties.
c. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he
was intending to put up a construction in the schedule
properties and therefore, had applied for permission for
construction and sanctioning of plan to the competent
authority as well as dug-up a borewell. The plaintiff
7 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
states that on 10.02.2018 plaintiff went near the
schedule property along with workmen and JCB to get
garbage dumped in the suit property cleaned so as to
start construction work. All of a sudden defendants
came and interfered with possession & enjoyment of
suit schedule properties and have also threatened
plaintiff and his workers of dire consequences if they
start construction activities. The defendant No.2 to 3
have supported 1 st defendant and prevented plaintiff
and workers from doing work in the schedule
properties. The defendants are not having any kind of
right, title or interest over the property and therefore,
acts of the defendants is without justification and they
have indulged in wrongful activities with an intention to
make wrongful gain. It is the case of the plaintiff that
H.N. Chinna Reddy-def No.1 herein himself has sold the
suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and
his brother, hence neither def.No.1 nor the defendant
8 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
No.2 to 4 are having right, title or interest over the suit
properties. Plaintiff claims that on 02.03.2018 he went
to the suit property to perform Pooja for starting
construction and at that time also 1 st defendant has
entered into suit properties interfered with possession
& enjoyment of suit properties by the plaintiff. Since,
defendants are illegally interfering and preventing the
plaintiff and his working from entering the schedule
properties, plaintiff has filed this suit for perpetual
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with possession & enjoyment of suit schedule
properties.
3) a. In response to summons issued, the
defendants have appeared and contested suit by filing
written statement. In the written statement the
defendants have denied that plaintiff is the absolute
owner in possession of suit schedule properties. The
9 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
defendants have also disputed that the 1 st defendant
has executed registered Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998 in
favour of plaintiff and his brother. The defendants
have also disputed that they have interfered with
possession & enjoyment of suit schedule properties. It
is specific claim of the defendants that the property is
belonging to the defendant No.1, he is in possession
and enjoyment of the same. The defendant No.1 to 4
have contended that since the date of partition 1 st
defendant is in possession & enjoyment of suit
schedule property along with other properties.
Signature and thump impression appearing in the Sale
Deed dated 11.03.1998 is not that of defendant No.1
and plaintiff has manipulated the documents. The
defendants have contended that they intend to initiate
proceedings against the plaintiff who has played fraud.
It is the specific case of the defendants that plaintiff &
defendants are related and taking advantage of the
10 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
same, the plaintiff has created Sale Deed which is now
being relied upon by him in the court. Sale Deed is
forged document and it has to be referred to the
Forensic Department to take thump impression and
signature. The defendants have contended that since
they have not executed the Sale Deeds in favour of the
plaintiff, they are the still owners in possession of the
suit schedule properties. As plaintiff is not in
possession of the suit property and the Sale Deeds
through which plaintiff is claiming right over the
property are forged, defendants have contended that
the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and
liable to be dismissed.
b) It is submitted by the defendants that recently
i.e, in the year 2009 they have dug a borewell in the
schedule property and on 05.02.2018 defendant No.2
carried out leveling of land using JCB and cleaned the
garbage in the site, to construct a compound on
11 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
northern side since owner of the adjacent site was
attempting to encroach 8 square feet from the back
and to avoid that illegal encroachment defendant No.2
carried out the JCB work and dig trenches. Later on
defendant No.1 to 3 using workmen fenced the stone
post barbed wire fencing on the northern side. The
defendants have contended that bills are raised on
26.02.2018 in the name of 2 nd defendant and he has
also paid charges of the JCB work. It is submitted by
the defendants that they were busy in preparing yearly
temple grand at Hulimavu Village since they are
offering puja to Dodamma Devi Temple which is
practice carried out from the time of their ancestors,
no incident happened as claimed by the plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendants have contended that there is
no cause of action to file this suit and as defendants
are the owners in possession of the suit properties, suit
is liable to be dismissed.
12 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
4) By considering pleadings and documents
produced by the parties, my learned predecessor in
offi ce had framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiff was in
lawful possession of suit
property as on the date of suit?
2. Whether the alleged interference
is true?
3. What order or decree?
5) In order to prove the burden cast upon the
plaintiff to prove the above issues, plaintiff got himself
examined as PW.1 and he has produced 25 documents.
PW-1 is not subjected to cross examination. The
Defendants have also not adduced oral or documentary
evidence.
6) On 16.06.2025 counsel for defendants had
filed memo of retirement, thereafter I have heard
counsel appearing for the plaintiff.
13 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
7) Perused the documentary evidence and in
light of arguments advanced and my findings on the
above issues are:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affi rmative
Issue No.2: In the Affi rmative
Issue No.3: Plaintiff is entitled for
relief of perpetual
injunction & as per final
order, for the following:-
REASONS
8) Issue No.1 :- That, plaintiff is before this
court seeking relief of perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with
possession & enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties. Suit properties are non-agricultural land-
vacant sites. To be entitled for relief, plaintiff has to
prove that he is in lawful possession & enjoyment of
suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the
suit. Though defendants have filed written
statement, they have not participated in further
14 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
proceedings. The fundamental principle of law is that
the plaintiff when he comes to Court must prove his
case and he must prove it to the satisfaction of the
Court. His burden is not lightened because the
defendant is absent or not contested the case. On
the other hand, the responsibility increases. When
the defendant is set ex-parte or does not contest by
cross examining the witness or does not lead
evidence, the burden is heavy on the Court, as it
would not have the advantage of defence. Therefore,
the Court should be extra careful in such cases and
it should consider the pleadings, & evidence and
should arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff
has made out a case for a decree. Keeping this
principles in mind, I have perused the oral and
documentary evidence in detail.
15 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
9) Plaintiff who is examined as PW.1 has
reiterated the contents of the plaint in his
examination-in-chief affi davit. Plaintiff has produced
25 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.25. Ex.P.1 and P.2 are
the original Sale Deeds dated 11.03.1998. The Sale
Deed dated 11.03.1998 is duly executed by Chinna
Reddy H.N., in favour of plaintiff A. Prakash and A.
Narayana Reddy and same is registered in the offi ce
of sub-registrar Bengaluru South. I have perused
the recitals of Sale Deeds in detail. It is stated in the
Sale Deeds that H.N. Chinna Reddy defendant No.1
herein has sold the suit item No.1 and 2 properties
as per Ex.P.1 and P.2 for a consideration amount of
₹.1,25,000/- each. There is a recitals in the Sale
Deeds that entire consideration amount is paid to
the seller and seller has already handed over the
possession of the schedule property to the
16 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
purchasers. Sale Deed is duly executed in
accordance with provisions of Registration Act.
10) In the case of Rattan Singh v. Nirmal
Gill, reported in (2021) 15 SCC 300 : 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 936 Hon’ble Apex court has observed as
under :
33. To appreciate the findings arrived at
by the courts below, we must first see
on whom the onus of proof lies. The
record reveals that the disputed
documents are registered. We are,
therefore, guided by the settled legal
principle that a document is presumed to
be genuine if the same is registered, as
held by this Court in Prem
Singh v. Birbal [Prem Singh v. Birbal,
(2006) 5 SCC 353] . The relevant portion
of the said decision reads as below :
(SCC pp. 360-61, para 27)
“27. There is a presumption that a
registered document is validly executed.
A registered document, therefore, prima
facie would be valid in law. The onus of
proof, thus, would be on a person who
leads evidence to rebut the
17 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
presumption. In the instant case,
Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut
the said presumption.”
(emphasis supplied)
In view thereof, in the present cases, the
initial onus was on the plaintiff, who had
challenged the stated registered document.
11) It is clear from the above decision it is clear
that under the provisions of Registration Act, the
registered documents are having presumptive value to
the effect that, same is executed by the executant by
understanding the contents of the document. The onus
of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads
evidence to rebut the presumption. In the present case
the defendant has not adduced any oral evidence nor
cross examined PW-1. Sub Registrar during the course
of discharge of offi cial duty has endorsed that he has
inquired with seller-def.No.1 and executant has
admitted that he has executed the sale deed.
18 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
12) Next question considered by me is Whether it
is necessary to examine attesting witness to prove
execution of sale deed. In the case of Bayanabai
Kaware v. Rajendra, (2018) 1 SCC 585 Hon’ble Apex
court observed as under :-
18. We agree with the reasoning of the
High Court. In our opinion also, the re-
spondent was able to prove the sale deed
and was, therefore, rightly held entitled
to claim decree for possession of the suit
land on the strength of the sale deed
dated 29-12-1981 (Ext. P-31) against the
appellant. It is for the reasons that,
firstly, the execution of the sale deed
does not need any attesting witness like
the gift deed, which requires at least two
attesting witnesses at the time of its ex-
ecution as per Section 123 of the Trans-
fer of Property Act, 1882; and secondly,
Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872,
which deals with the examination of the
attesting witness to prove the execution
of the document, does not apply to sale
deed, which is governed by Section 54 of
the Transfer of Property Act.
Therefore in the opinion of this court there is no
necessity to examine witnesses to prove the due
19 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
execution of sale deed. In the light of presumption and
evidence of PW-1, I am of the view that the sale deed
dated 11.03.1998 were duly proved.
13) The defendants though contended that by
playing fraud upon the 1 st defendant, the Sale Deed has
been executed, have not led oral or documentary
evidence Ex.P.15 is certified copy of the plaint in
O.S.No.3337 of 2018. It is clear from Ex-P15 that 1 st
defendant has challenged the validity of Sale Deed and
to declare Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998 is null and void
obtained by act of forgery, fabrication, impersonation
by the defendants. The plaintiff or defendants have not
produced any documents to show that what is the
stage of O.S.No.3337 of 2018. On Verification in the
CIS, it is clear that the suit filed at O.S.No.3337 of 2018
has been dismissed by allowing application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the plaintiff herein / defendant
20 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
No.4 of that suit. So, the declaratory suit filed by the
defendant No.1 challenging the validity of Sale Deed is
dismissed and therefore, coupled with presumption and
decision in O.S.No.3337 of 2018 it is clear that Sale
Deeds dated 11.03.1998 are legal and valid in all
respect. Therefore, the plaintiff and his brother A.
Narayana Reddy have acquired right, title and interest
over the suit schedule item No.1 and 2 properties as
per registered Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998.
14) I have perused Ex.P.3 and P.4 Release
deeds dated 29.03.2000. It is clear from registered
Release deeds marked at Ex.P.3 and P.4 that A.
Narayana Reddy who is the joint purchaser of suit
schedule properties under registered Sale Deeds dated
11.03.1998 has relinquished his share in the schedule
properties in favour of another joint owner the plaintiff
herein. The relinquishment/ Release deeds have been
21 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
duly executed by A. Narayana Reddy and same are
registered in the offi ce of sub-registrar Bengaluru
South. In view of Ex.P.3 and P.4 Release deeds plaintiff
who had purchased the suit schedule property along
with his brother A. Narayana Reddy has become the
absolute owner in possession of the suit property. The
defendant NO.1 who was the owner of the property has
lost his right over the properties in view of execution
of Sale Deeds dated 11.03.1998 and as such, plaintiff is
the owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
15) In pursuance to Sale Deeds katha was
changed in the name of plaintiff and he has paid taxes
to the concerned department which can be seen from
Ex.P.5- Tax paid receipts. So, from the unchallenged
oral evidence of PW.1, documentary evidence, i.e,
registered Sale Deeds dated 11.03.1998 and Release
deeds dated 29.03.2000 the plaintiff is able to establish
22 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
that he has purchased the suit schedule property from
defendant No.1 and he is in lawful possession &
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Anathula
Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 : it
is held by Hon’ble Apex court that if the property is a
vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or
enjoyed, in such cases the principle is that possession
follows title is required to applied. If two persons claim
to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to
establish title thereto will be considered to be in
possession, as against the person who is not able to
establish title. Applying the above principles, in my
considered opinion when defendant No.1 has sold the
schedule properties to the plaintiff and his brother
through sale deeds, plaintiff has become the absolute
owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
Therefore, I am of the considered view that plaintiff by
producing cogent documentary evidence has proved
23 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
that he is owner in possession of suit properties.
Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the Affi rmative.
16) Issue No.2:- This issue is framed with
respect to allegation of interference. The plaintiff has
clearly deposed that defendants have interfered with
possession & enjoyment of suit schedule property and
also interrupted the JCB escalation work which plaintiff
intended to carry out in suit schedule properties. The
defence taken by the defendants and filing of suit by
the defendants against the plaintiff clearly shows that
they had intention to possess the suit schedule
properties. Apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff
that defendants may dispossess him from the suit
property is suffi cient cause to file suit for perpetual
injunction. Therefore, in my considered view, plaintiff
is able to prove the interference also. Hence, Issue
No.2 is required to be answered in Affi rmative & in
favour of the plaintiff herein.
24 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
17) Issue No.3 : This issue is framed with
respect to entitlement of reliefs claimed. While
answering issue No.1, I have concluded that plaintiff is
the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties
The act of interference is also proved by leading
evidence of PW.1. That apart, contention taken by the
defendants makes it clear that they had intention to
possess the suit schedule properties which is already
sold by 1 st defendant in favour of plaintiff and his
brother A. Narayana Reddy. This being the case, the
plaintiff who has proved his possession over the
properties, is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction
in order to protect his possession. There is no
impediment under Specific Relief Act or any other law
for the time being in force to grant the relief in favour
of the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff has shown that he is
entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly, this issue is
answered.
25 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
18) In view of the discussions and conclusion
arrived at issue No.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is
liable to be decreed with cost. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following:-
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed
with cost.
It is ordered & decree that the
defendants are restrained by perpetual
injunction from interfering with peaceful
possession & enjoyment of the suit
properties by the plaintiff.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcript thereof
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on
this the 19th day of July, 2025.)(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
26 O.S.No.1811 of 2018ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiffs:-
P.W.1 A. Prakash Reddy @ A. Prakash
II. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:-
NIL
III. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiffs:-
EX. P-1 Registered sale deed, dated
11.03.1998
EX. P-2 Registered sale deed, dated
11.03.1998
EX. P-3 Registered release deed,
dated 29.03.2000
EX. P-4 Registered release deed,
dated 29.03.2000
EX. P-5 Four tax paid receipts
EX. P-6 Encumbrance certificates
to 11
EX. P-12 InvoiceEX. P-13 Certified copy of plaint in
O.S.No.3298/2018EX. P-14 Certified copy of written
27 O.S.No.1811 of 2018statement filed in
O.S.No.3298/2018
EX. P-15 Certified copy of plaint in
O.S.No.3337/2018
Ex.P.16 Certified copy of written
statement in the said suit
Ex.P.17 Encumbrance certificates
to 20
Ex.P.21 Property extracts
& 22
Ex.P.23 Tax paid receipts
& 24
Ex.P.25 Certified copy of sale deed,
dated 05.01.1989IV List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:
NIL
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
28 O.S.No.1811 of 2018
[ad_1]
Source link