- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.585 OF 2010

C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL Nos.586/2010, 587/2010 & 588/2010

RFA No.585/2010

Between:

Sri V.Srinivasa Prasad S/o Sri Vaman Bhat Aged about 30 years R/at No.76, “Srinivasa”

I Stage, AGB Layout Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore – 560 086 … Appellant (By Sri Padubidri Mohan Rao, Advocate) And:

1. Sri S.N.Krishnaiah Setty S/o Sri S.Narayana Setty

Aged about 49 years Proprietor Sri Balaji Krupa Enterprises No.456, 6th Cross 5th Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore – 560 010

2. Sri L.Narendra Prasad S/o Sri C.V.L.Shastry Aged about 36 years R/at No.29/A 9th Main, RMV Extn.

- 2 -

Bangalore – 560 080 3. Sri A Harry Bai S/o Sri Anthony Peter

Aged about 42 years R/at No.163 Behind Holy Cross Church BEML Nagar Post KGF – 563 115 … Respondents

(Sri D.R.Ravishankar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Sri Diwakar, Advocate for Sri K.Suman, Advocate for respondent No.2 Respondent No.3 - served)

*****

This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.8835/2006 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, (CCH-16) dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.

RFA No.586/2010

Between:

Sri V.Srinivasa Prasad S/o Sri Vaman Bhat

Aged about 30 years R/at No.76, “Srinivasa” I Stage, AGB Layout Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore – 560 086 … Appellant

(By Sri Padubidri Mohan Rao, Advocate)

And:

1. Sri S.N.Krishnaiah Setty S/o Sri S.Narayana Setty

- 3 -

Aged about 49 years Proprietor Sri Balaji Krupa Enterprises No.456, 6th Cross

5th Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore – 560 010 2. Sri L.Narendra Prasad S/o Sri C.V.L.Shastry Aged about 36 years

R/at No.29/A 9th Main, RMV Extn. Bangalore – 560 080 3. Sri C Raju S/o Sri Javaraiah

Aged about 51 years R/at No.718, 4th Cross Raghavendra Block Srinagar, Bangalore – 560 050 … Respondents (Sri D.R.Ravishankar, Advocate for respondent No.1

Sri Diwakar, Advocate for Sri K.Suman, Advocate for respondent No.2 Notice to respondent No.3 dispensed with)

*****

This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96

of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.88362006 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, (CCH-16) dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. RFA No.587/2010

Between:

Kumari V.Nidhi D/o Sri Vishwanatha Tantri Aged about 14 years Being minor represented by

- 4 -

Her mother and natural guardian Smt. V.Sudha R/at No.76, 2C Cross I Stage, AGB Layout

Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore – 560 086 … Appellant (By Sri Padubidri Mohan Rao, Advocate)

And:

1. Sri S.N.Krishnaiah Setty S/o Sri S.Narayana Setty Aged about 49 years Proprietor

Sri Balaji Krupa Enterprises No.456, 6th Cross 5th Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore – 560 010 2. Sri L.Narendra Prasad

S/o Sri C.V.L.Shastry Aged about 36 years R/at No.29/A 9th Main, RMV Extn. Bangalore – 560 080 … Respondents

(Sri D.R.Ravishankar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Sri Diwakar, Advocate for Sri K.Suman, Advocate for respondent No.2)

*****

This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.88382006 on the file of the

XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, (CCH-16) dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.

- 5 -

RFA No.588/2010

Between:

Kumari V.Nidhi D/o Sri Vishwanatha Tantri Aged about 14 years Being minor represented by Her mother and natural guardian Smt. V.Sudha

R/at No.76, 2C Cross I Stage, AGB Layout Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore – 560 086 … Appellant (By Sri Padubidri Mohan Rao, Advocate)

And:

1. Sri S.N.Krishnaiah Setty S/o Sri S.Narayana Setty Aged about 49 years

Proprietor Sri Balaji Krupa Enterprises No.456, 6th Cross 5th Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore – 560 010

2. Sri L.Narendra Prasad S/o Sri C.V.L.Shastry Aged about 36 years R/at No.29/A 9th Main, RMV Extn. Bangalore – 560 080

3. Sri K.H.Irfanulla Khan S/o Habibulla Khan Aged about 38 years R/at No.14/1, I Cross 1st Block, Byrasandra

- 6 -

Jayanagara Bangalore – 11 … Respondents (Sri D.R.Ravishankar, Advocate for respondent No.1

Sri Diwakar, Advocate for Sri K.Suman, Advocate for respondent No.2 Notice to respondent No.3 dispensed with)

*****

This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.88372006 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, (CCH-

16) dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. These Appeals coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the unsuccessful

plaintiffs questioning the correctness and legality of the

judgment and decree passed by XVII Additional City

Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.Nos.8835/2006,

8836/2006, 8837/2006 and 8838/2006, dated

9.12.2009, whereunder plaintiffs suits (O.S.Nos. 8835,

8836 & 8837/2006) for declaration and perpetual

injunction and O.S.No.8838/2006 for perpetual

injunction, came to be dismissed.

- 7 -

2. Applications for additional evidence under Order

XLI Rule 27 CPC in I.A.2/2010 have also been filed in

all these appeals seeking production of 18 documents

more fully described in the schedule to the respective

applications. Under the said applications, as already

noticed hereinabove, plaintiffs are seeking for

production of 18 documents and they are as described

herein below:

Sl. No. Date Description

1. - Hissa Survey tippani of Sy.No.33 of Sampigehalli village showing the division of Sy.No.33 between Narayanappa and his brothers

2. - Village map of Sampigehalli Villgae

of Yalahanka Hobli

3. - RTC of the land bearing Sy. No.33/1 for the period 1966-67 to 1992-93, showing the name of M.Narayanappa as the owner and

after him Byramma, Jayagopala Gowda and Chandrashekara Gowda in the owners and cultivators column

4. 16.1.98 General power of Attorney executed

by Smt.Byramma, Jayagopala Gowda and Chandrashekara Gowda, in favour of Sri. S.N.Krishnaiah

- 8 -

Setty (1st defendant)

5. - Layout plan of Sy.No.33/1 and 34 of Sampigehalli, showing the suit sites

6. 28.5.2001 Copy of registered sale deed

executed by the 1st defendant S.N.Krishanaiah Setty as the General Power of Attorney holder of Byramma, Jayagopala Gowda and

Chandrashekara Gowda

7. 6.9.2004 Tax Assessment extract issued by the Byatarayanapura Town Municipality

8. 6.9.2004 Challan showing the payment of Tax to the Byatarayanapur Municipality for the year 2002-03

9. 6.9.2004 Challan showing the payment of Tax to the Byatarayanapur Municipality

for the year 2003-04

10. 5.3.2009 Tax paid receipt issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for the year 2008-09

11. 23.12.2009 Property Tax paid receipt for the year 2009-10

12. 29.3.2010 Encumbrance certificate showing the sale transactions made by the 1st defendant as the general power of

attorney holder of Byramma, Jayagopala Gowda and Chandrashekara Gowda, conveying the sites bearing Nos.58/A, 55, 50, 63, 67, 64 and 68 in favour of different persons

- 9 -

13. 23.3.2010 Encumbrance certificate of the site

bearing No.68 showing the suit site No.51 as the Eastern boundary

14. 13.9.2001 Certified copy of the sale deed

executed by Byramma, Jayagopala Gowda and Chandrashekara Gowda represented by their Power Attorney Holder the 1st defendant –

S.N.Krishnaiah Setty in favour of one Sri Balaji Singh, conveying site No.68 showing site No.50 and 51 situated as the Eastern side

15. 13.9.2001 Certified copy of the sale deed

executed by Byramma, Jayagopala Gowda and Chandrashekara Gowda represented by their Power of Attorney Holder the 1st defendant – S.N.Krishnaiah Setty in favour of one Smt.Premaleela, conveying site

Nos.66 and 67, showing site No.51 situated on the Eastern side of site No.67 sold therein

16. 22.6.2001 Certified copy of the sale deed executed by Byramma, Jayagopala

Gowda and Chandrashekara Gowda represented by their Power Attorney Holder the 1st defendant – S.N.Krishnaiah Setty in favour of one Smt.Thimmamma @ Shanthamma, conveying site No.50

showing site No.51 situated on the northern side

17. 3.3.2001 Certified copy of the sale deed executed by Byramma, Jayagopala Gowda and Chandrashekara Gowda

- 10 -

represented by their Power Attorney Holder the 1st defendant – S.N.Krishnaiah Setty in favour of one Sri Krishnaprasad S/o Sri

S.Sridhara Acharya, conveying site No.47, in the said layout formed in Sy.No.33/1 of Sampigehalli Village

18. - Photographs with negatives

3. Heard the arguments of Sri Mohan Rao, learned

counsel appearing for the appellants,

Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.1 in all the appeals and Sri.Diwakar,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.K.Suman for

respondent No.2 in all these appeals. Notice to

respondent No.3 in RFA Nos.586/2010, 587/2010 and

588/2010 has been dispensed with. In RFA

No.585/2010, Respondent No.3 is served and

unrepresented.

4. It is the contention of Mr.Mohan Rao, learned

counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs, that

Trial Court committed a serious error in dismissing the

suit and not considering the material evidence available

- 11 -

on record in proper perspective, namely, sale deeds

produced by the plaintiffs which were marked as Exs.P1

and P7, relating to site Nos.51 and 56, which has

resulted in prejudice to the plaintiffs claim. He would

elaborate his submission by contending that Trial Court

committed a serious error in not considering the oral

evidence of the plaintiffs relating to loss of original title

deeds and to establish this fact, plaintiffs had produced

the copy of the police complaint as per Exs.P3 and P9,

respectively and the public notice issued pursuant

thereto as per Exs.P4 and P10; Trial Court committed

serious error in rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs on

the ground that the original title holders, namely,

Shriyuths Jayagopal Gowda, Chandrashekhar Gowda

and Smt.Byramma were not examined and the said

issue did not arise at all, in as much as, the subsequent

purchaser in whose favour sale-deed relating to suit

property was executed namely, defendant No.3 had not

appeared before Trial Court, and filed his written

statement or contested the claim of the plaintiff; trial

- 12 -

Court having ordered for clubbing of the cases and

recording a common evidence it ought to have taken

judicial note of the fact that plaintiffs had produced the

certified copy of the sale deeds relating to site Nos.52

and 57 and it ought to have marked the said documents

suo motto and contends that in respect of site Nos.51

and 56, which had been produced and marked as

Exs.P1 and P7, clearly indicated that the oral testimony

of PW1 was corroborated by documentary evidence;

General Power of Attorney holder viz., first defendant

has not denied the execution of sale deeds in favour of

plaintiffs and neither he has proved his right in

executing the sale deeds in respect of the very same suit

schedule properties in favour of defendant No.3, as

General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.2 or

defendant No.2 had proved that he possessed title to

the suit schedule property and as such he had executed

the power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 and

thereby, defendant No.1 executing the sale deed in

favour of defendant No.3 and as such trial Court ought

- 13 -

to have drawn adverse inference against the defendants;

in view of the fact that defendants 1 and 3 having not

denied the execution of the sale deeds in favour of

plaintiff trial court ought to have decreed the suit; non-

examination of attestors to the sale deed, was not fatal

and Trial Court ought to have presumed the execution

and authenticity of the general power of attorney

executed by the erstwhile owners in favour of defendant

No.1 by raising presumption under Section 84 of the

Indian Evidence Act; plaintiffs are in actual and

physical possession of the sites in question which are

vacant and to deprive right of the plaintiffs, defendants

1 and 2 have created the sale deeds in favour of

defendant No.3, subsequently and sale deeds executed

by first and second defendants in favour of third

defendant being subsequent to sale deed of the

plaintiffs, Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit by

cancelling the said sale deed executed by defendants 1

and 2 in favour of defendant No.3; as such he contends

the Trial Court has passed an erroneous judgment

- 14 -

calling for interference at the hands of this Court and

prays for judgment and decree of the Trial Court to be

set aside and appeal be allowed or in the alternate he

submits, in view of additional evidence being sought for

by producing additional documents matter be remitted

back to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication to enable

the plaintiff to establish that their vendors, namely, the

persons who had executed the power of attorney in

favour of defendant No.1 had title to the suit properties.

5. Per contra, Sri D.R.Ravi Shankar, learned Counsel

appearing for respondent No.1 would support the

judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and

though he initially contended that suit itself is not

maintainable on account of plaintiff not seeking for

adjudication of sale deeds being declared void and

prayed for cancellation of sale deed alone having been

sought and as such appeal was not maintainable, he re-

traced his steps and sought leave of the Court to urge

this ground before the trial Court with a liberty to file

written statement, since, first defendant has not filed

- 15 -

his written statement, in the event of application for

additional evidence being allowed and matter being

remanded back to the trial Court. As otherwise, he

would submit that judgment and decree passed by the

trial Court is based on proper appreciation of material

evidence available on record and it does not suffer from

any infirmities whatsoever. He contends that findings of

the trial Court are neither contrary to facts nor contrary

to material evidence, and as such prays for dismissal of

these appeals.

6. Sri Diwakar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf

of Sri K.Suman, for respondent No.2 would also support

the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and

prays for dismissal of these appeals.

7. After considering the submissions made by

learned Advocates and on perusal of judgment and

decree passed by the trial Court, I am of the considered

view that following points would arise for my

consideration:-

- 16 -

1. Whether application - I.A.No.2/2010 filed by plaintiff / appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w. Section 151 of CPC is to be allowed and

if so, whether the matter requires to be remanded to the trial Court in its entirety or partially namely to record findings on the additional documents produced?

2. Whether the common judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.Nos.8835/2006, 8836/2006, 8837/2006 and 8838/2006 is based on due and proper appreciation of evidence on record or it suffers from any material irregularity calling for

interference by this Court? And, if so, whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is to be affirmed or reversed ?

3. What Order?

8. Facts in brief leading to the filing of these appeals

can be crystallized as under by referring to the parties

as per their rank in the trial Court.

9. Plaintiffs filed in all four suits

O.S.Nos.8835/2006, 8836/2006 and 8837/2006

seeking for cancellation of the sale deeds dated

27.04.2004 executed by first defendant for and on

behalf of second defendant in favour of third defendant

- 17 -

and to restrain defendant No.3 or others claiming under

him or through him from interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs suit schedule

sites namely site Nos. 51, 52 and 57. Plaintiff in

O.S.No.8838/2006 sought for perpetual injunction

against defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein, namely to

restrain the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s

peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule site

namely site No.56.

10. On service of suit summons, second defendant

appeared and filed his written statement. Defendant

No.1 in all the suits and third defendant in

O.S.Nos.8835, 8836, 8837/2006 and second defendant

in O.S.No.8838/2006 were placed exparte. In the

written statement filed by second defendant plaint

averments came to be denied and he sought for

dismissal of the suit. Trial Court by order dated

28.09.2007, directed for clubbing of all the suits namely

O.S.Nos.8836/2006, 8837/2006 and 8838/2006 with

O.S.No.8835/2006 and for recording of common

- 18 -

evidence. The guardian of plaintiff in

O.S.No.8838/2006, filed affidavit evidence and

additional affidavit towards examination in chief and

said witness was treated as P.W.2.

11. On the basis of pleadings of parties, trial Court

framed issues. In O.S.Nos.8835/2006, 8836/2006 and

8837/2006 following issues came to be framed.

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he

is the owner of the plaint schedule site?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the

first and second defendants in collusion with each other have

fabricated and created the sale deed dated 27.04.2004?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the

sale of the plaint schedule site by the first and the second defendants

in favour of the third defendant is fraudulent and illegal?

4. Whether the defendants prove the

court fee paid is insufficient?

5. What decree or order?

- 19 -

12. In O.S.No.8838/2006, following issues came to be

recasted by the trial Court during the course of

judgment and they read as under:-

1. Whether plaintiff proves that as on the date of suits she was in possession of suit schedule premises?

2. Whether plaintiff proves there is interference by the defendants?

3. What Order or decree?

13. In O.S.Nos.8835/2006, 8836/2006 and

8837/2006 plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1. In

O.S.No.8838/2006 the mother of the plaintiff as natural

guardian of plaintiff got herself examined as PW.2.

Plaintiffs in all produced 14 documents and got them

marked as Exs.P.1 to P.14. Defendants did not lead any

oral evidence and no documents were produced on their

behalf. On appreciation of evidence of parties, trial

Court dismissed the suit which is now assailed in the

present appeals.

- 20 -

FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT:-

14. Trial Court dismissed the suits on the ground that

plaintiff was not been able to establish the title of their

predecessors and no documentary evidence was placed

before court to consider the claim of plaintiff; sale

deeds produced by plaintiff have not been proved; no

evidence available to establish that plaintiff’s vendor’s

had any title to the suit schedule property. On these

grounds, trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

15. If Point No.1 formulated above is answered in

affirmative, i.e., in favour of the plaintiff - appellant in

its entirety and matter requires to be remanded to the

trial Court, then it may not be necessary to examine

point No.2. As to whether entire matter requires to be

remanded back to the trial Court or for the purpose of

securing additional evidence only it requires to be

remanded is being examined. Thus, point No.1

formulated herein above is taken-up for adjudication

first.

- 21 -

RE: POINT NO.1:

16. Perusal of documents produced along with

application for additional evidence when read in

conjunction with the affidavit filed in support of said

application, it would indicate that undisputedly suit

schedule properties are vacant sites. Plaintiffs in

O.S.No.8235, 8836 and 8837 have claimed to have

purchased site Nos.51, 52 and 57 from the predecessor

in title Shriyuths Jayagopal Gowda, Chandrashekara

Gowda and Smt.Byramma, through their power of

attorney holder Sri S.N.Krishnaiah Shetty. Evidence on

record would indicate that all the three sale deeds were

produced before the trial Court namely certified copies.

However, for reasons best known, only one sale deed

namely sale deed relating to site No.51 came to be

marked as Ex.P.1. Though sale deeds relating to site

Nos.52 and 57 were produced, they were not marked.

As observed herein above, common evidence has been

recorded in all the suits, which was not the exercise

which could have been undertaken by the trial Court.

- 22 -

In fact trial Court in the judgment itself has observed

that such an exercise should not have been undertaken

and it is because of confusion that was created,

documents have not been marked though available on

file to examine at whose fault this situation has emerged

would not serve any fruitful purpose.

17. Be that as it may, additional documents now

produced along with application for additional evidence

are the documents issued by revenue authorities which

would indicate that there is some nexus to suit schedule

properties. Some of the RTC’s indicate the name of

kathedar and tiller named as Narayanappa or

Narayanagowda, property taxes have been collected by

Municipal-Council, Byatarayanapura from plaintiff.

However, this Court would not embark upon an enquiry

to ascertain as to whether they actually relate to suit

schedule properties or otherwise, since any such

enquiry if conducted and finding given thereon by this

Court may prejudice the rights of both parties. Further,

defendants have not had an opportunity to rebut such

- 23 -

evidence. These documents are also not marked and

defendants have seriously disputed these documents

though objections have not been filed to the applications

for additional evidence. It would suffice if the matter is

remanded to the trial Court to consider these

documents produced by way of additional evidence by

the plaintiff to the defendants to rebut said evidence

and also by reserving liberty to both parties namely,

plaintiffs and defendants to prove their respective

contentions. The documents now sought to be

produced way of additional evidence may have a direct

bearing and impact on the issues formulated by the trial

Court for its adjudication and as such it would be in

the interest of both the parties that matter be remanded

back to trial Court for adjudication afresh by

considering the additional documents now produced by

plaintiff by way of additional evidence, so that trial

Court would be able to ascertain by analysing both oral

and documentary evidence and to arrive at a

conclusion about plaintiff’s vendor possessing title to

- 24 -

suit property to convey it in favour of plaintiff since trial

Court has dismissed for suit on that ground alone.

18. It is also not in dispute that first defendant had

not filed written statement before trial Court and he had

been placed exparte. However, before this Court first

defendant has appeared and has defended the judgment

and decree passed by trial Court. In view of subsequent

developments namely, plaintiff having produced above

said documents by way of additional evidence, it would

be necessary in the interest of justice that first

defendant should also be afforded an opportunity to

putforth his defence by filing written statement within

an outer limit of 30 days from the date of first hearing

which will be fixed during the course of this order.

Second defendant would also be at liberty to file

additional written statement if any, and if so advised.

19. Though learned Advocate appearing for second

defendant has contended that in O.S.No.8838/2006

judgment and decree passed by trial Court be

- 25 -

sustained, I am not inclined to accept the said

contention for reasons more than one namely, (i) trial

Court has not accepted the documents produced by

plaintiff, as noticed herein above, only on the ground

that plaintiff had not been able to demonstrate that

predecessor in title of plaintiff had possessed valid title

to the suit schedule property. In view of the fact that

plaintiff is now being permitted to lead additional

evidence by producing the documents above referred to

and any finding given by the trial Court on those

documents would necessarily have a bearing on the

contentions raised by the parties in O.S.No.8838/2006

also, judgment and decree passed by trial Court in

O.S.No.8838/2006 also requires to be set aside and

matter requires to be remanded back to trial Court for

disposal afresh.

20. Point No.1 formulated herein above is answered by

holding that matter requires to be remanded to the trial

Court in its entirety and it is further clarified that entire

judgment and decree has to be set aside for

- 26 -

adjudication afresh in view of the documents now

produced by plaintiff by way of additional evidence

would have direct bearing on the issue of title of

plaintiffs. In view of liberty having been given to first

defendant to file written statement and liberty having

been given to second defendant to file additional written

statement, no prejudice would be caused to defendants

1 & 2 particularly when 3rd defendant has neither

contested the suit or these appeals and in whose favour

suit schedule properties having been sold.

In view of the aforesaid discussion I.A.2/2010 filed

by appellants/plaintiff in the above appeals are hereby

allowed and matter is remanded back to trial Court by

setting aside the judgment and decrees passed by trial

Court.

RE: POINT NO.(2):

21. Point No.2 is not required to be adjudicated on

merits and answered since point no.1 is answered in

favour of plaintiffs and matter has been ordered to be

- 27 -

remanded to trial Court for fresh adjudication. As

already observed herein above, trial court having arrived

at a conclusion that suit was being dismissed only on

the count of plaintiff having not established title of their

predecessor and now by way of additional evidence,

plaintiffs having sought leave of the Court to produce

documents as additional evidence and as the matter

having been remanded back to trial Court for

adjudication afresh, judgment and decree passed in

O.S.Nos.8835 to 8838/2006 requires to be set aside in

its entirety and accordingly it is hereby set aside.

RE: POINT NO.(3):

22. For reasons aforesaid, following order is

passed:

(1) RFA Nos.585/2006, 586/2006,

587/2006 & 588/2006 are hereby

allowed and judgment and decrees

passed in O.S.Nos.8835/2006,

8836/2006, 8837/2006 and

8838/2006 by XVII additional City

- 28 -

Civil Judge, Bangalore, dated

09.12.2009 are hereby set aside.

(2) Matters are remanded back to trial

Court for adjudication of the suits

afresh.

(3) Appellants/plaintiffs are permitted to

produce the documents now sought to

be produced along with I.A.2/2010 in

all these appeals by way of additional

evidence and it is needless to mention

that trial Court shall permit plaintiffs

to mark only such of those documents

which are admissible in evidence.

(4) Both the parties are at liberty to lead

evidence.

(5) First defendant is at liberty to file

written statement if so advised within

30 days from date of appearance before

Court and second defendant is also at

- 29 -

liberty to file additional written

statement if any.

(6) Parties are also at liberty to amend the

pleadings.

(7) The parties namely plaintiffs and

defendants 1 & 2 shall appear before

trial Court on 25.04.2013 without

waiting for any fresh notice.

(8) Trial Court shall issue fresh suit

summons to third defendant for

appearance.

(9) Interim order granted by this Court on

28.06.2010 which is to the effect that

respondents (defendants) shall not

alienate, encumber or alter the nature

of the properties described in the

schedule to I.A.No. 1/2010 in all these

appeals, shall be in operation for a

further period of three months from

today within which time plaintiffs shall

- 30 -

make necessary application before trial

Court seeking similar relief and

defendants would be at liberty to file

objections to said application. Trial

Court would be at liberty to pass

orders on merits without being

influenced by its earlier judgment or

orders passed by this Court.

(10) Registry to transmit the records to

jurisdictional court forthwith.

(11) Parties to bear their costs.

Sd/- JUDGE AHB/nvj/sp