Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 643 (KAR)

P. B. Pathy v. S. Pandurangam

2011-06-24

ARALI NAGARAJ, N.K.PATIL

body2011
Judgment : ARALI NAGARAJ, J. 1. This RFA is by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.4721/1998 on the file of learned XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.28) (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court” for short). Appellant-defendant has challenged in this appeal legality and correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 18.7.2006 passed in the said suit decreeing the suit of the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) and directing the defendants 1 and 2 therein (appellant and respondent No.2 herein) to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within a period of 3 months from the date of the decree. 2. Stated in brief, the case of the plaintiff is as under: (a) The suit schedule property originally belonged to one Sri. C. Ramachandra Rao. After his demise, his two sons, namely, Sri. Ramakrishna Rao and Sri. R. Vitthal Rao inherited the said property and thus they became its joint owners in possession. .(b) After the death of their father, the said Ramakrishna Rao and R. Vittal Rao sold the suit schedule property through registered Sale Deed dated 22.8.1940 to one A. R. Srinivasarangachar. Thus the said A.R. Srinivasarangachar became the owner and possessor of suit schedule property. After his purchase, the said property, which was bearing site No.46/3, was assigned a new No.58/A and an endorsement dated 29.12.1961 to that effect was given to the said A.R. Srinivasarangachar by the City Corporation of Bangalore. The khatha of the suit schedule property came to be transferred in the name of the said A.R. Srinivasanangachar. Thereafter, he continued to pay the Corporation Tax regularly to the City Corporation Bangalore. Copies of the said sale deed and endorsement are furnished at Annexures A and B respectively. Xerox copies of the tax paid receipts for having paid the tax to the Corporation by the said A.R. Srinivasarangachar are also produced. All these documents clearly establish that the said A.P. Srinivasarangachar had absolute and perfect title to the suit property. .(c) The suit property measures 60 feet East-West and 30 feet North-South. The said A.R. Srinivasarangachar sold the same to the plaintiff for valid sale consideration under two sale deeds dated 20.3.1986 and 17.07.1986. The site under each sale deed measured 60 feet East-West and 15 feet North-South. .(c) The suit property measures 60 feet East-West and 30 feet North-South. The said A.R. Srinivasarangachar sold the same to the plaintiff for valid sale consideration under two sale deeds dated 20.3.1986 and 17.07.1986. The site under each sale deed measured 60 feet East-West and 15 feet North-South. On the relevant dated of registration of the said sale deeds, the plaintiff’s vendor delivered all the documents pertaining to the suit property and put the plaintiff in vacant possession thereof. Photostat copies of the said sale deeds are produced. .(d) As on the date of the purchase of suit property under the said sale deeds, there were three squares of house with Mangalore tiled roof and the same was in dilapidated condition. Ever since the date of purchase of the suit property, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of it. From the encumbrance certificates pertaining to the said property the plaintiff was satisfied that during the period from 1.10.1966 to 9.12.1986 the same was not encumbered and the vendor of the plaintiff had perfect title thereto. .(e) After the purchase, the plaintiff got the khatha of the suit schedule property transferred from the name of his vendor to his name. Plaintiff has produced khakha certificate dated 01.10.1986 at Annexure-K. The plaintiff got approved, from the City Corporation of Bangalore, the plan, in L.P.No.425/86-87 dated 27.05.1987, to put up a construction on the suit property and it was valid up to 26.5.1989. Plaintiff has produced original sanctioned plan. The plaintiff continued to pay to the City Corporation, Bangalore the taxes in respect of the suit property in his name and he has produced receipts for having paid tax for the period from 1988 to 1996. All these documents clearly establish that plaintiff has been the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having his valid titled thereto. .(f) 1st defendant viz., P.B. Pathy, being the resident of Ramachandrapuram area, used to make his false claims to the vacant sites situate at the said area by producing false, sham and concocted documents and harass the residents of the said locality. He filed O.S.No.2067/1987 against this plaintiff making false claim that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and that the plaintiff is interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He filed O.S.No.2067/1987 against this plaintiff making false claim that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and that the plaintiff is interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The said suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.10.1991 and thereafter he got the same restored by filing Misc.No.904/91. However, in spite of availing sufficient opportunity, he did not lead any evidence, nor did he produce any document to prove either his possession over the schedule property or his ownership thereto and therefore, the said suit (O.S.2067/1987) came to be dismissed again for non-prosecution on 20.02.1996. .(g) During the pendency of the said O.S.No.2067/87 the first defendant herein, through the 2nd defendant, got O.S.No.2556/1989 filed against the plaintiff herein contending that 1st defendant herein is the owner of the schedule property and that 2nd defendant herein is its tenant and that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant herein are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the 2nd defendant. In the said suit, this plaintiff was arrayed as defendant No.1. This plaintiff herein filed his written statements in the said case contending that he is the absolute owner in physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The said suit (O.S.2556/1989) also came to be dismissed. .(h) On 20.12.1996, the defendants herein illegally trespassed into the schedule property with the help of their henchmen and rowdies, put up a hut. In spite of repeated demands by the plaintiff and also the efforts made by him to make them to vacate, they did not vacate the schedule property. When the plaintiff lodged his complaint before the police of Srirampuram Police Station against the defendants, the said police, instead of taking action against the defendants, advised the plaintiff to take the matter to the Civil Court. The defendants have no manner of any right, title or interest in the schedule property. They occupied the schedule property by force on 20.12.1996. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking a decree directing the defendants to vacate the suit property and deliver vacant possession of it to the plaintiff and declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. 3. They occupied the schedule property by force on 20.12.1996. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking a decree directing the defendants to vacate the suit property and deliver vacant possession of it to the plaintiff and declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. 3. 1st defendant contested the case of the plaintiff by filing written statement dated 4.12.2000 and additional written statement dated 6.3.2006 contending as under: i) The entire Sy.No.67 of Kethamarnahalli Village, Yeshavanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk totally measuring 28 acres 07 guntas was purchased by the said Ramachandra Rao from one Smt. Chinnamma under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.7.1920 and the suit property is part and parcel of the said survey number. The plaintiff has deliberately not disclosed this fact. It is not correct to contend that after the demise of Ramachandra Rao, the suit schedule property came to be in possession and enjoyment of his sons namely Ramakrishna Rao and Vittal Rao. The said Ramachandra Rao had mortgaged entire Sy.No.67 in favour of one Nanjappa Setty and the said Nanjappa Setty had been in possession of it. The mortgage was a usufructuory mortgage for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-. ii) Since Raniachandra Rao committed default in the repayment of the loan secured under the aforesaid mortgage, Nanjappa Setty filed O.S.No.8/36-37 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore and obtained a decree, which was confirmed in appeal that was filed by the said Ramachandra Rao before the High Court of Karnataka. The said land was purchased by the mortgagee Nanjappa Setty himself in the Execution case No.129/40-41. Thus the said Nanjappa Setty became the absolute owner of the entire Sy.No.67 of Kethamaranahalli. iii) In view of the above facts, Ramakrishna Rao and Vittal Rao, the two sons of Ramachandra Rao, could not inherit any title to the said land. Therefore they had no right to sell the schedule property in favour of A.R. Srinivasarangachar. Therefore the said A.R. Srinivasarangachar could not acquire any title to or possession over the suit property. The sale deed said to have been executed by the said Ramakrishna Rao and Vittal Rao in favour of said A.R. Srinivasarangachar and the two sale deeds said to have been executed by the said Srinivasarangachar in favour of the plaintiff have no legal status. The sale deed said to have been executed by the said Ramakrishna Rao and Vittal Rao in favour of said A.R. Srinivasarangachar and the two sale deeds said to have been executed by the said Srinivasarangachar in favour of the plaintiff have no legal status. They could not pass on any title to the said property in favour of the plaintiff. The documents such as property extract, tax paid receipt produced by the plaintiff are of no consequence. iv) Though it is true that 1st defendant filed O.S.No.2067/1987 against the plaintiff herein for permanent injection, it is not correct that the said suit was filed falsely against him. Dismissal of the said suit for non-prosecution does not in any way help the plaintiff herein to support his case. The allegations of the plaintiff in respect of filing of O.S.No.2556/1989 by the 2nd defendant are not correct. Since the 2nd defendant has been in possession of the suit property as its tenant, he filed the said suit against this 1st defendant and also the plaintiff. v) The allegation that the defendants herein illegally trespassed into the schedule property on 20.12.1996 and put up a construction on it are not true. This defendant has been in possession of the suit property and he inducted the 2nd defendant as his tenant. Therefore, there was no occasion for either of the defendants to commit trespassed into the suit property. The averments of the plaintiff as to filing of his complaint before the police of Sriampuram police station in respect of alleged trespass by the defendants herein are of false. The plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the present suit against this defendant. He is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the present suit. vi) Late Ramachandra Rao and his two brothers namely Mannaji Rao alias Puttu Rao and Venkata Rao constituted a joint family. Subsequent to the purchase of entire Sy.No.67 of kethamarnahalli by Ramachandra Rao, he and his said two brothers partitioned the same. They formed number of plots in the respective portions of the said survey number which fell to their shares. Two of such sites, one measuring 100 feet East-West and 250 feet North-South and the other measuring 128 feet East-West and 75 feet North-South were sold by them under two different sale deeds dated 20.12.1930 to B.T.C. Papanna, the father of 1st defendant. Two of such sites, one measuring 100 feet East-West and 250 feet North-South and the other measuring 128 feet East-West and 75 feet North-South were sold by them under two different sale deeds dated 20.12.1930 to B.T.C. Papanna, the father of 1st defendant. The present suit schedule property is a small portion of first of the said sites. Copy of the sale deed is produced. vii) During his lifetime, Ramachandra Rao obtained permission for conversion of the said land Sy.No.67 for non-agricultural purpose. The said permission was subject to certain conditions. Since Ramachandra Rao committed default in complying with some of the said conditions, including payment of conversion fine, the Deputy Commission, Bangalore, passed an order under Section 64 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act dated 25.8.1934 resuming the Sy.No.67. The two sons of Ramachandra Rao namely Ramakrishna Rao and Vittal Rao challenged the said order of resumption by filing O.S.No.53/49-50 in the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore. Since the said suit was dismissed, they filed R.A.No.76/55. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal by its judgment dated 22.7.1960, copy of which is produced. Thus it could be seen that whatever title Ramachandra Rao had in Sy.No.67 was lost by him. Therefore, he had no title in the said survey number to convey to A.R. Srinivasarangachar. viii) There is a construction in the suit property, which was made nearly 40 years ago. It was in the possession and enjoyment of B.T.C. Papanna and also the defendant herein. B.T.C. Papanna died in the year 1968. This 1st defendant succeeded to the estate of his father Papanna which includes Sy.No.67 purchased by him in the year 1930 under the Registered Sale Deeds referred to above. This 1st defendant leased the said property in favour of the 2nd defendant. This 2nd defendant has been in occupation of suit schedule property as a tenant. Since more than 20 years he is running his business in the said property under the name and style Sri. Jayaramanjaneya Sofa Works. Thus, it is this 1st defendant who has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff has neither title to, nor possession over the suit property. ix) The suit is barred by limitation. This defendant’s father came in possession of the suit property in the year 1930 and then put up the construction about 40 years ago. Thus, it is this 1st defendant who has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff has neither title to, nor possession over the suit property. ix) The suit is barred by limitation. This defendant’s father came in possession of the suit property in the year 1930 and then put up the construction about 40 years ago. After his death, the 1st defendant acquired the title to and possession over the same. Even if the plaintiff establishes his any right to seek possession of the schedule property from this defendant, the same is barred by limitation. x) The relied of declaration of title to the suit schedule property, which the plaintiff has sought for by amending his plaint, cannot be granted to him in view of the above facts. This relief of declaration is hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. 4. 2nd defendant, though appeared through his Counsel, did not choose to file his written statement. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following six issues and two additional issues and recorded its findings as shown against each of them. 6. On appreciation of oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the documents at Exs.P1 to P29 placed on record by the plaintiff and oral evidence of DW1 (1st defendant) and the documents at Exs.D1 to D15 produced by the 1st defendant, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff declaring that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and directing the defendants to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within a period of 3 months from the date of decree. The correctness of this Judgment and Decree is challenged in this appeal by the 1st defendant. 1. 7. We have heard the arguments of Sri. M.S. Varadarajan, learned Counsel for the appellant-1st defendant and Sri. U. Panduranga Naik, learned Counsel for 1st respondent-plaintiff. Perused the impugned judgment and decree and also entire 1. Sl.No. Issues 1. Does the plaintiff prove his exclusive title to the suit property? 2. Does he prove that the defendants are in illegal occupation of the suit property? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. Whether the plaintiff had no cause of action for the suit? 5. Is the plaintiff entitled to possession of the suit property? Sl.No. Issues 1. Does the plaintiff prove his exclusive title to the suit property? 2. Does he prove that the defendants are in illegal occupation of the suit property? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. Whether the plaintiff had no cause of action for the suit? 5. Is the plaintiff entitled to possession of the suit property? 6. What order or decree? Additional issues Findings Wthat Ramchandra Rao had no valid title over the suit schedule property and in turn his sons Ramakrishna Rao and Vittal Rao had no right to convey title to A.K. Srinivasa Rangachar the vendor of the plaintiff? hether defendant No.1 proves 2. Whether defendant No.1 proves that Court Fee paid is not sufficient? Negative Negative Findings Affirmative Affirmative Suit is in time Affirmative Affirmative As per final order material found in the records obtained from the Trial Court. 8. Sri. M.S. Varadarajan, learned Counsel for appellant-1st defendant, strongly contended that entire Sy.No.67 totally measuring 28 acres 07 guntas of Kethamarnahalli village, of which the suit site has been a part, was originally owned by the said Ramachandra Rao and the same came to be resumed by order dated 25.8.1934 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Bangalore, as the said Ramachandra Rao committed default in complying with some of the conditions imposed on him while according permission for conversion of the said land for non-agricultural purpose and thus the said Ramachandra Rao lost his title to the said land and as such he had no title whatsoever to convey to the said A.R. Srinivasarangachar, but the Trial Court, ignoring these facts has erroneously decreed the suit of the plaintiff. He further contended that since the said A.R. Srinivasarangachar could not get any title to the suit property the plaintiff also, who claims that he purchased the suit property from the said Srinivasarangachar under the sale deeds, Exs.P1 and P2, could not get any title to it and therefore, the impugned Judgment and Decree declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner thereof deserves to be set aside by this Court by allowing the present appeal. He also contended that in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff has to prove his title and his suit cannot be decreed on the ground that the defendant does not prove his title to the property in question inasmuch as, in such a suit, title of the defendant to the suit property could not be relevant. 9. Per contra, Sri. U. Panduranga Naik, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff contended that the oral evidence of plaintiff as PW1 and that of PW2, the son of plaintiff’s vendor. A.R. Srinivasarangachar, clearly establishes plaintiffs case that his said vendor purchased the suit property under registered sale deed Ex.P3 from the two sons of the original owner Ramakrishna Rao on whom the said property had devolved on the demise of their father and the said A.R. Srinivasa-rangachar executed Exs.P1 and P2 sale deeds and sold the suit property to the plaintiff for valid consideration and all the said sale deeds have remained totally unchallenged till this date and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. He further contended that he has produced the Tax paid receipts for having paid the property tax in respect of the suit property ever since the date of his purchase thereof, on the other hand, the defendant has miserably failed to substantiate his contentions that the said survey number was portioned between late Ramchandra Rao and his two brothers namely Mannagi Rao alias Putturav and Venkatrao and that father of the 1st defendant namely B.T.C. Papanna purchased two sites formed in the said survey number, one measuring 100 feet x 250 feet and the other measuring 128 feet x 75 feet and the. suit schedule property is a small portion of 1st of the said sites. While contending so, he further submitted that on proper appreciation of the evidenced placed on record by the respective parties, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and therefore the impugned Judgment and Decree does not call for any interference in this appeal. 10. While contending so, he further submitted that on proper appreciation of the evidenced placed on record by the respective parties, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and therefore the impugned Judgment and Decree does not call for any interference in this appeal. 10. Having heard the arguments of learned Counsel for both the sides, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are as under: “Whether the Trial Court is not justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff established his absolute title to the suit property and illegal trespass committed by the 1st defendant and thus he is entitled to a declaration as to title to the said property and recovery of possession thereof from the defendants”. 11. As could be seen from the averments in the plaint it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to one Sri. Ramchandra Rao after his demise it devolved on his two sons namely Ramakrishna Rao and Vitthal Rao and the said two sons sold the same under the registered sale deed dated 22.8.1949 to one A.R. Srinivasa-rangachar who in turn sold the same to the plaintiff under two registered sale deeds dated 20.3.1986 and 17.7.1986. Further, it is his specific case that initially the suit property was bearing site No.46/3 later it came to be assigned with a new No.58/A and thereafter renumbered as 58/1 and that ever since the date of his purchase of the suit property he has been paid property tax as evidenced from the Tax paid receipts. The plaintiff has got himself examined as PW1 and his witness, namely A. Rajanna the son of plaintiff’s vendor A.R. Srinivasarangachar as PW2 and has relied upon Ex.P3 copy of sale deed executed by Ramakrishna Rao and Vittal Rao the two sons of original owner Ramachandra Rao in favour of plaintiffs said vendor, Exs.P1 and P2 the two sale deeds executed by the said A.R. Srinivasarangachar in favour of the plaintiff in respect of sale of the suit property. 12. 12. We have carefully read the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also the recitals in Ex.P3 the sale deed dated 17.8.1949 executed by the said two sons of late Ramakrishna Rao, the original owner of the suit property, in favour of plaintiffs vendor and also the recitals in Exs.P1 and P2, the two sale deeds executed by the plaintiffs vendor in favour of the plaintiff. The recitals in Ex.P3 sale deed disclose that the suit property was bearing site No.46/3 and it measures 60 feet East-West and 30 feet North-South. It is mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint that the suit property was bearing old No.46/3 and later on it came to be renumbered as 48/A and thereafter 58/1 and that it measures 60 feet East-West and 30 feet North-South. As could be seen from the description of the suit property in the schedule Annexed to the plaint and its description under Ex.P3, the boundaries shown in Ex.P3 tally with the boundaries shown in the schedule. 13. Exs.P1 and P2 are the copies of two Registered sale deeds dated 20.3.86 and 20.7.86 executed by A.R. Srinivasarangachar in favour of the plaintiff. Recitals therein clearly establish the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was bearing old No.46/3 and thereafter it came to be given the number 58/A and then another new number 58/1. As could be seen from the description of the properties conveyed to the plaintiff thereunder, their measurements and boundaries as stated therein tally with those mentioned in Ex.P3 sale deed and also the schedule annexed to the plait. PW2 A. Rajannu, who is none other than the son of plaintiff’s vendor A.R. Srinivasarangachar, has stated in his evidence that two portions of suit property were sold by his father in favour of plaintiff under the registered sale deeds Exs.P1 and P2 for valid consideration and that on both the occasions of execution of the said sale deeds he was present and signed both the sale deeds as a witness. He has further deposed that plaintiff was put in actual and physical possession of the sites sold under the said sale deeds. 14. Ex.P4 is the original certificate issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer Corporation of city of Bangalore on dated 21.9.1985. He has further deposed that plaintiff was put in actual and physical possession of the sites sold under the said sale deeds. 14. Ex.P4 is the original certificate issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer Corporation of city of Bangalore on dated 21.9.1985. This document discloses that as on the said date of certificate the suit property was bearing old No.58/A and new No.58/1 and was situate at 2nd main road, Ramchandrapuram and it was held by A.R. Srinivasarangachar. Thus, it is clear from this document that immediately before execution of Exs.P1 and P2 the two sale deeds, by the said A.R. Srinivasarangachar in favour of the plaintiff the suit property was held by the plaintiffs said vendor. Ex.P5 is the receipt issued by the bill collector/inspector of BCC Municipality. It reveals that plaintiff’s vendor paid Tax in respect of suit property bearing No.58/1 for the year 1985-86. Ex.P6 is another Tax paid receipt and it establishes that plaintiff’s vendor paid tax in respect of the suit property for the year 1986-87. Ex.P7 is the original certificate issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer Corporation of Bangalore on dated 1.10.1986. This document disclosed that the suit property bearing No.58/1 situate at 2nd main road, Ramchandrapuram stood in the name of the plaintiff Sri. S. Pandurangam. Exs.P8 to P18 are the tax paid receipts for having paid property tax by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property for the years from 1987-88 to 2000-03. Ex.P19 is the copy of sanctioned plan, Ex.P26 and P27 are the copies of encumbrance certificates, Ex.P28 is the City survey extract. These documents clearly establish that the suit site was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs vendor namely A.R. Srinivasarangachar and after the plaintiff purchased the same under the sale deeds Exs.P1 and P2 it continued to be the property of the plaintiff. Thus it is clear that the plaintiff has establish through oral and documentary evidence that his case as pleaded in his plaint. 15. Thus it is clear that the plaintiff has establish through oral and documentary evidence that his case as pleaded in his plaint. 15. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the 1st defendant that Late Ramachandra Rao and his two brothers, viz., Mannaji Rao alias Puttu Rao and Venkata Rao, constituted joint family and they partitioned amongst themselves Sy.No.67 of Kethamaremanahally, totally measuring 28 acres 07 guntas and thereafter the said brothers of late Ramachandra Rao formed layout comprising of several residential plots in the land that fell to their share and B.T.C. Papanna, the father of 1st defendant purchased two sites formed in the said layout under two different sale deeds both dated 20.12.1930. After the demise of his father, the 1st defendant became the owner thereof and suit schedule property is a small portion of one of the said sites. 16. In support of his above case 1st defendant though has produced Ex.D1 sale deed executed by the said Mannajli Rao alias Puttu Rao and his brother Venkata Rao on dated 20.12.1930 in respect of sale of two sites in favour of father of 1st defendant’s, he has not produced any legally acceptable documents to show that the suit property had been a portion of one of the said two sites purchased by his father under the said sale deeds. On a careful reading of the recitals in the Ex.D1 it could be seen that one of the sites sold under it measured 300 feet East-West and 250 feet North-South and the other site measured 128 feet East-West and 25 feet North-South. Thus it is clear from these measurements shown in Ex.D1 sale deed that they do not tally with the measurements of the two sites as stated by the 1st defendant in his written statement and also his affidavit sworn to as his examination-in-chief. Further, Ex.D9 copy of sketch showing formation of layout of several plots in Sy.No.67 of Kethamaremanahally village, Bangalore North Taluk, relied upon by the 1st defendant, does not reveal that it is an authenticated copy. It does not bear any seal of the office or signature of the officer issuing the same. It does not also reveal that it had been approved by the competent authority. Therefore, based on these document it could not be held that suit had been part and parcel of Sy.No.67 of the said village. It does not bear any seal of the office or signature of the officer issuing the same. It does not also reveal that it had been approved by the competent authority. Therefore, based on these document it could not be held that suit had been part and parcel of Sy.No.67 of the said village. Besides this, the recitals in the sale deed at Ex.P3, whereunder the plaintiff’s vendor purchased the suit property from the sons of original owner Ramchandra Rao and also the recitals in Exs.P2 and P3, the two sale deeds executed by the plaintiff’s vendor in favour of the plaintiff, do not disclose that the suit site had been a portion of Sy.No.67 of Kethamaremanahally as contended by the 1st defendant. 17. Thus it is quite clear that the 1st defendant has miserably failed to establish that the suit site had been a portion of Sy.No.67 of Kethamaremanahally, Bangalore North Taluk. Therefore, even if it is held that the entire land in the said survey number had been resumed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, under his order dated 25.8.1934, the said resumption order was challenged by the said two sons of Ramakrishna Rao in O.S.No.53/49-50 before the learned District Judge, Bangalore and said suit came to be dismissed and R.A.No.76/55 filed by them aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit also came be dismissed by High Court of Karnataka, it could not be held that by reason of the said resumption, had any relevancy in respect of the suit site. 18. As to the possession and enjoyment of the suit site by the plaintiff since the date of his purchase under Exs.P1 and P2 sale deeds there is oral evidence of plaintiff himself as PW1 and that of PW2 the son of vendor of the plaintiff. Besides this Exs.P8 to P18 the tax paid receipts and other documents produced by the plaintiff clearly establish that the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit site since the date of its purchase till 20.12.1986 on which date the defendants 1 and 2 are alleged to have trespassed into it. 19. Besides this Exs.P8 to P18 the tax paid receipts and other documents produced by the plaintiff clearly establish that the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit site since the date of its purchase till 20.12.1986 on which date the defendants 1 and 2 are alleged to have trespassed into it. 19. As to the alleged trespass by the defendant into the suit site, the plaintiff has averred in his plaint that on 20.12.1996 both the defendants 1 and 2 with the help of henchmen and rowdies, illegally entered into the suit site and put up a hut and that, though he lodged his complaint before the police of Srirampuram Police Station against the defendants, the said police, instead of taking action against the defendants, advised the plaintiff to take the matter to the Civil Court. The plaintiff has reiterated these averments in his affidavit sworn to as his examination-in-chief. 20. It is the specific case of the defendant that he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property and that about 40 years ago he erected a shed on the said property, inducted the 2nd defendant as tenant and that since the past 20 years, 2nd defendant has been his tenant. 21. Though the 2nd defendant appeared in the instant suit through his Counsel, he has not chosen to file written statement denying the specific allegations made against him by the plaintiff as to the trespass alleged to have committed by him along with 1st defendant on 20.12.1996. If it is so that the 2nd defendant has been tenant under the 1st defendant since the past 20 years nothing prevented the 1st defendant either from getting the 2nd defendant examined as his witness in support of his case or from producing any document such as lease agreement or the counter files of the receipts issued by him to the 2nd defendant for having received rent from him etc. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly recorded its findings that the defendants disposed the plaintiff on the said date and consequently the plaintiff lost his possession over the suit property from the said date. We do not find any reasons to interfere with these findings. 22. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly recorded its findings that the defendants disposed the plaintiff on the said date and consequently the plaintiff lost his possession over the suit property from the said date. We do not find any reasons to interfere with these findings. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, while answering the points raised for our consideration in the ‘negative’ and against the appeallant-1st defendant, we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserved to be dismissed and the impugned Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court deserves to be confirmed. Hence, we pass the following ORDER The present appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.4721/1998 on the file of learned XIV Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH No.28), Bangalore, is hereby confirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs.