O.S.No. 6003/1999 " Suit "Page No. 21 to 28 of File.

BEFORE THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE : BANGAORE
O.S. No. 6003 of 1999.


Plaintiff:
The Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building
Co-operative Society Ltd., High Court Building, Bangalore, by its
Secretary.

Defendants :

[1] M. Muniyappa S/o Junjappa,
Age: Major, R/o Allalasandra,
G.K.V.K. Post, Yelahanka Hobli.
Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.

[2] Muniverranna, S/o Late Nanjappa,
age: Major, R/o Allalasandra,
G. K. V.K. Post, Yelahanka Hobli.
Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.

UNDER SECTION 26 AND UNDER VII RULE 1 & 2 CPC.

The plaintiff above named begs to state as under:-

[1] The address of the plaintiff for the purpose of service of notice, summons, etc. is that of its counsels Shri. M. Sivappa, B. Sc., B.L., Advocate, No. 1, 5 and 14, Parakal Mutt Building, Tank Bound Road, Bangalore.

[2] The address of the defendants for the said purposes are as mentioned in the cause title above.

[3] The plaintiff is a registered House Building Co-operative Society under the Karnataka Co-op societies Act, and registered in the year 1983 with registration No. JRB/ KCH 39/49/4916/83-84, dated 11-08-1983. The plaintiff's society has been formed with the above intention of providing houses sites and houses mainly to the persons working indifferent courts in the State. After the registration and formation of the society, the promoters took steps to acquire suitable lands for formation of the layout for proving house sites during 1983-84 by going around for suitable place. At that time, it was found that lands in Allalsandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur plantation might be suitable. The villagers of the said Allalasandra Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur plantation came forward offering their lands to be purchased/acquired by the plaintiff-society for the formation of layout and house sites. The plaintiff considered the said offer made by number of villagers who have come forward offering their land in block as a compact area of about more that 200 acres and an account of the same, the plaintiff decided to purchase and acquire lands in the said villagers of Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation, which was facing main road Bangalore - Bellary, in different Sy. Nos. from several villages.

[4] The 1st defendant is one of such persons who along with other villagers offered to sell his land in Sy. No 98/7, measuring one acre 7 guntas in favour of the plaintiff, situated at Alallasandra village, more fully described in the schedule below, pursuant to the offer made by the 1st defendant and after negotiation with his and other villages in respect of the large extent of land, the plaintiff agreed to purchase and acquire the said property and on negotiation, the price came to be fixed at Rs. 80,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the 1st defendant entered into an agreement dated 22-12-1984 to sell the land belonging to him of Sy. No. 98/7 and also agreed that the plaintiff could get acquired the said land through the machinery of Government by initiating the acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, the 1st defendant agreed to sell the said land in favour of the plaintiff and as well as agreed for the plaintiff have it acquired though the Government machinery proceedings in the acquisition proceedings. The 1st defendant received the Blanca sale consideration at the time of acquisition proceedings after 4[1] and 6[1] Notifications. The plaintiff herewith produces the agreement of sale executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff as document No. 1.

[5] The plaintiff took steps for initiating the acquisition proceedings to acquire the lands which were agreed to be sold by the land owners including the 1st defendant tot he extent of 192 acres. Pursuant to steps taken by the plaintiff to have the lands acquired by the Government, the Government issued a Notification under sec. 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire large extent of land. however, whiled issuing notification No. 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act, those lands in question and some other lands which actually came into the middle of the lands notified for acquisition were left out by mistake in the Notification issued for acquisition. Thereafter, final notification was also issued acquiring the lands in favour of the plaintiff society. However, in respect of the lands which were left over from acquisition proceedings, the plaintiff made correspondence with the Govt. to acquire the remaining land in respect of which the owner entered into agreement with the plff. For sale of such lands as well as consenting for acquisition through acquisition proceedings as left out lands being situated in the midst of the acquired lands as pocket lands.

[6] In the meanwhile, all the owners who have entered with agreement with the plaintiff for sale of lands for formation of layout for residential purposes has delivered possession to the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to proceed with the formation of layout including the 1st defendant of the suit schedule property, as the sellers have agreed to sell the lands. Even ultimately if the acquisition is not materialized for the purpose of formation of layout. Under the agreement the 1st defendant has also agreed that whatever manner the plaintiff society would desire to get the title of the land agreed be sold such document could be executed including the sale-deed whenever the 1st defendant is called upon to do so. Since the 1st defendant has also agreed for the plaintiff to get the land acquired no time limit was fixed for execution of the sale deed. Pursuant to the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff.

[7] The plaintiff-society thereafter with regard to the remaining extent of 70 acres of lands, correspondence with Government by addressing the letter dated 18-01-1991 to all the concerned persons and authority including the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the Revenue Minister, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Land Acquisition Officer, Secretary/ Commissioner, Government of Karnataka, explaining the details the need and urgency of acquisition of these lands including the suit schedule lands A copy of the said letter is produced herewith as Document No. 2,. After long correspondence, representation and personal approach, by the office bearers of the plaintiff-society, the Government has agreed to acquire the said lands including the suit schedule property. The Hon'ble Chief Minister passed the order directing the Revenue Commissioner to take immediate action to acquire the remaining lands including the suit schedule property as sought for by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also directed to a representation to the Revenue Commissioner along with the list of Sy. Nos. and extent of lands to be acquired. The plaintiff submitted a list of Sy. Nos. with extent to be acquire. A copy of the same is produced herewith as Document No. 3. It is submitted that the Govt. of Karnataka approved the acquisition of additional lands of an extent of 45 acres 33 1/4 guntas as per order No. RD. 29. AQB. 91, dated 18-05-1993 and directed the Spl. Deputy Commissioner to acquire the said land in favour of the plaintiff. This includes the suit schedule property. A copy of the said Order is produced herewith as Document No -4.

[8] The Spl. Deputy Commissioner, B'lore District has addressed a letter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, in LAQ ICR. 1/93-94, dated 14-07-1993 directing to start the acquisition proceedings in favour of the plaintiff-society, a copy of which is produced herewith as Document No. 5. Pursuant to that the Special Land Acquisition Officer addressed the letter to the plaintiff - society to furnish the details of the lands to be acquired with Sy. No. sketch, I. L.R.R. agreement and other details. A Copy of the said letter is produced herewith as Document No. 6. Subsequently, a Performa form of acquisition was also submitted to acquire the lands, a copy of which is produced herewith as Document No. 7. Again on 30-12-1993, a letter was addressed by the plaintiff-society to the Special Land Acquisition Officer requesting to issue 4 [1] Notification in respect of the lands remaining un acquired as per correspondence. A copy of the same is produced herewith as Document No. 8. However, for the reasons best known to he authorities, the issuance of Preliminary Notification was not done and continued the correspondence at the same stage. Again the plaintiff addressed a letter to the Hon'ble Revenue Minister dated 30-07-1994 referring to Govt. letter FD. 29. ACB. 91, dated 18-05-1993 according approval of the acquisition of the lands stated above, and sought for acquiring the land along with list submitted in that behalf. A copy of the said letter dated 13-07-1994 is produced as Document No. 9. Similarly to letter was addressed by the plaintiff-society referred to the earlier correspondence and orders of the Govt. on 24-10-1996 requesting to issue Notification under Land Acquisition Act to acquire the land as per Government order approving the acquisition of the lands in favour of the plaintiff-society. A copy of the said letter is produced as Document No. 10. Thus, the proceedings for acquisition in respect of the remaining lands which have been agreed to the sold by the land owners in favour of the plaintiff-society including the suit schedule land is pending before the Authority. As per the Government/order, the Deputy Commissioner has to issue a Preliminary Notification to acquire these lands in favour of the plaintiff-society.

[9] The plaintiff submits that after owner of the lands entered into agreement of sale, delivered possession to the plaintiff authorising the plff. To develop the same as a layout and accordingly, the plaintiff started developing the entire lands acquired and un acquired lands as the owners delivered possession and made a layout by forming a road, providing drainage, under-ground sewerage drainage by laying sewerage pipe line, water supply line and formed a full developed layout forming sites and giving site Nos. by spending crores of rupees . The said formation of layout went on for years, which includes even the suit schedule property. By formation of layout, all the agricultural lands including the suit schedule property ceases to be agricultural lands and lost their character as such. The plaintiff by formation of sites giving site Nos. has also allotted sites in favour of his members, sale-deeds were executed and allottees were put in possession the Khata of the sites were also entered in the municipal records of Yelahanka Municipality as municipal lands, and site tax was levied and collected by the municipality . The suit schedule land lost its character long back and formed a part of sites carved out and it cannot be identified as agricultural land.

[10] The plaintiff-society which came into possession of the suit schedule property along with other lands in pursuance of the agreement of sale in lawful manner has altered its position to its produce in proceeding with the formation of layout and sites and also has allotted the sites in favour of its members. All this has been done with the knowledge of the 1st defendant.

[11] The plaintiff submits that the Govt. has now taken a decision in respect of acquisition of lands in favour of House Building Co-op society. That in future permission be accorded for the lands being directly acquired by the society and permission in that behalf could be accorded as required under the Land Reforms Act in respect of the society which have already been requested for acquisition and the matter is pending with the Government as per letter Date: 23-01-1998. A copy of which is produced herewith as Document No. 11.

[12] The Plaintiff submits that the 1st deft. Taking undue advantage of the delay in initiating acquisition proceedings by the Govt. by issuing preliminary and final notifications under the Land Acquisition Act began to act adverse to the interest of the plaintiff and in collusion with the 2nd defendant herein purported to create a document in favour of the 2nd defendant styled as "Indenture of sale-deed" . But, actually it is not a sale-deed and specifically mentioned" The vendor has not received any consideration and the purchaser has not paid any amount on the consider action is /fixed for registration" have created sham collusive, invalid and inoperative document as absolute sale-deed date 17-03-1999 and it purported to be a rectification deed stated that the 1st defendant shown as vendor as /in respect of Sy. No. 98/7 those stands in the name of vendors mentioning wrong Sy. No. .. though in fact the purchaser are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of same as that of Sy. No. 98/7 upon which the vendor has no manner of right, title and interest, much lees possession. In the earlier paragraph of the said document it purports to mention that the 1st defendant said to have purchased the land in Sy. No. 98/2 from the original owner Doddaramaiah under a registered sale-deed dated 06-07-1964 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas and further stated that on the very same day the purchaser viz. The 2nd defendant herein said tohave purchased a portion of land measuring 1 acre 8 guntas in Sy. No. 98/7 and further claimed that the vendor Doddaramaiah said to have mentioned Sy. No. wrongly of property Sy. No. 98/7 instead of Sy. No. 98/2 and further claimed that property Sy. No.98/7 is stated to be wrongly mentioned tried to create the said document as absolute sale deed playing fraud. It is submitted that the 1st defendant has no right to execute any such rectification deed as absolute sale-deed after 35 years. But, it is created with the sole object to defeat the right of the plaintiff-society under the agreement of sale by the 1st defendant which is not permissible in law. The 2nd defendant did not derive any title by virtue of the sale-deed said to have been executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. It is absolutely false that the 2nd defendant has purchased the Sy. No. 98/7 from the one Doddaramaiah as claimed by the defendants in their fraudulent, collusive and manipulated document dated 17-03-1999. Further it is submitted that the 2nd defendant is never in possession of land at any time. When this land agreed to be sold by the 1st defendant in the year 1984, and thereafter when the 1st defendant delivered possession to the plaintiff and subsequently taking possession, the plaintiff developed this land along with the other lands and formed layout, the 2nd defendant could not have kept quiet for 15 years, if really the 2nd defendant was in possession as fraudulently claimed by them . In view of the same, the so-called absolute sale deed dated 17-03-1999 by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in a sham fraudulent collusive document which did not create any right in the 2nd defendant. It is a sham transaction and it is void. The copy of the same is produced on Document No. 12.

[13] The plaintiff submits that in terms of the sale-agreement dated 22-12-1984 executed by the 1st defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to have the sale-deed executed in his favour, in fact, after the Government has taken the decision during January-1998 instead of acquiring the land agreed to be purchased, informed the plaintiff to acquire the land by obtaining a sale-deed and for which purpose permission is granted to acquire title under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The plff. Called upon the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed and have it registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar or any other documents or deed conveying the suit schedule property, the 1st deft. Went on promising to execute the absolute sale-deed conveying title to the plaintiff. However, of late in connivance with the 2nd defendant, has not only evaded to execute the absolute /sale-deed in terms of the agreement of sale conveying title to the plaintiff, has now fraudulently created documents in favour of the 2nd defendant and set up the 2nd defendant to claim that the land belongs to the 2nd defendant, and thus the 1st defendant evaded to copy with the terms of the agreement of sale . The plaintiff has also been ready and willing to perform its part of the contract, but the 1st defendant subsequently during the month of March, 1999 tried to avoid to perform his part of contract, though in law he is/not entitled to do so. The plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff in part performance of sale agreement being put in possession has completely developed the land for a period of 15 years by making layout, fully developed with sites, roads and all amenities and the defendants being not in possession are making all efforts to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment. It is submitted that he 2nd defendant by virtue of the sham document date: 17-03-1999 approached the A.D.L.R., Bangalore, to measure and demarcate the so-called land which did not exist as agricultural land and could not be indentified as agricultural land and illegally in collusion with the survey authorities, tried to interfere with the plaintiff's lawful possession and it allottees in the guise of effecting survey. Such acts of the defendants are illegal and unjustified. The Defendants are required to be restrained from interfering with the lawful and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property along with other properties by the plaff.

[14] It is submitted that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated: 22-12-1984 executed by the 1st defendant as the 1st defendant has agreed to execute the sale deed or any other deed documents apart from agreeing for the land being got acquired by the plaintiff at any time and by executing by the plaintiff at any time and by executing whatever document required when called upon to do so-without any limit of time. In view of the same, the purported sale-deed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant executed on 17-03-1999 is not binding on the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant did not derive any title under the said document. It is submitted that as there is no time limit fixed in the agreement of sale for conveying title by executing the sale-deed or any other deed/deeds in favour of the plaintiff the agreement subsists. It is now only during March-1999 when the 1st daft. Tried to create the document in favour of the 2nd defendant purported to create right in favour of the 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant is deemed to have evaded the execution of the regular sale-deed conveying title to the plaintiff and in view of the same, the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale. Hence this suit.

[15] The cause of a action for the suit arose on 22-12-1984 when the 1st defendant executed the agreement of sale and when the 1st defendant tried to revoke the said agreement of sale purporting to convey the suit schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant on 17-3-1999 and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and also during January, 1998 when the Govt. of Karnataka permitted the House Building Co-operative society to directly acquire the land instead of compulsory acquisition and when the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same in the guise of survey, and demarcation of the land in the month of July, 1999 and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

[16] The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 94,000/- being the agreed value for whichthe suit schedule property was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff and hence the court fee paid under section 40 [A] of Rs. 6205 of the Karnatka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, and for consequential permanent injuction, valued under section 26 [C] of the K.C.S. & S.V. Act of Rs. 1000/-, the plaintiff has also paid a court fee of Rs. 25/-. In all, Rs. 6230 had been paid on the plaint.

[17] The plaintiff has not filed any other suit on the same cause of action in any court.

Wherefore, the plaintiff prays for a Judgment and Decree.

[a] Directing the 1st defendant to execute and register the sale-deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff-society, and in case the 1st defendant fails to execute the registered sale-deed by appointing an officer of court to execute and register the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.

[b] Restraining the defendants or any other person/s claiming theme or through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and persons claiming under the plaintiff.

[C] Hold that the sale-deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd deft. Without consideration dated 17-03-1999 registered as No. 832/99-2000 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka Bangalore North taluka, is not binding on the plaintiff.

[D] Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble court deems fir to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding the cost this suit.

S C H E D U L E

All the piece and parcel of land bearing Sy. No. 98/7, measuring 1 acre 7 guntas, situated at Allalasandra, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore -District, bounded on the.

East by : Sy. No. 98/9,
West by : Sy. No. 92/92,
North by: Sy. No. 98/6,
South by : Sy. No. 98/8,

Which is now formed part of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited layout with roads and sites formed in vast area of 192 acres.

VERIFICATION

I, S. SureshKumar, the Secretary, do hereby declare that what is stated above, is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

-Sd-

Plaintiff. Bangalore, Dated: 03-08-1999

Top