JUDGMENT H. BILLAPPA, J.-This appeal by the LR's of one of the LR's of the original plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 9.3.2010, passed by the XXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 5372/2003. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 3. Aggrieved by that, the appellants who are the LR's of one of the LR's of the original plaintiff have preferred this appeal. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are; The original plaintiff Sri. Memboob Shariff filed suit in O.S. No. 5372/2003 for a direction to the defendant No. 10 to cancel three fraudulent sale deeds which stand in the name of the 1st defendant and to direct the 7th defendant to cancel khata which stands in the name of the 1st defendant. The case of the original plaintiff was that he is a absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing No. 1A, New No30, East Street (Vajara Puttanna Garden), Neelasandra, Bangalore having acquired the same through judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 3782/1986. The property originally belonged to one Puttachari. He sold the property in favour of Sri. Abdul Kareem through registered sale deed dated 23.07.1894. Abdul Kareem constructed a dwelling house. Thereafter, Abdul Kareem transferred the property in favour of his Smt. Khadham Bibi in lieu of Mehar through registered document dated 05.11.1912. The sale deed was conditional that the property shall continue for three generations. The khata of the suit schedule property stood in the name of Abdul Kareem till 1999. 5. After the death of Abdul Kareem, Smt. Kadham Bibi remained absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Smt. Khadham Bibi was issueless. After her death, the property came to her eldest sister Smt. Manju Bee. After the death of Manju Bee, the suit schedule property came to the original plaintiff Sri. Mehboob Shariff and his title is declared in O.S. No. 3782/1986. 6. It is stated, the original plaintiff let out the property to several tenants. He also executed lease deeds, collected advance and rents. He filed number of cases against the tenants for recovery of rents and eviction etc., The plaintiff has paid the tax. 7. Mehboob Shariff and his title is declared in O.S. No. 3782/1986. 6. It is stated, the original plaintiff let out the property to several tenants. He also executed lease deeds, collected advance and rents. He filed number of cases against the tenants for recovery of rents and eviction etc., The plaintiff has paid the tax. 7. On 17.07.2001, when the plaintiffs son Athaulla Shariff went to the Corporation office for payment of taxes he was surprised to know that the khata of the suit schedule property stands in the name of Smt. Gulnaz Begum, the 1st defendant. She is a total stranger. The plaintiff came to know that fraudulently the sale deeds have been executed in favour of Smt. Gulnaz Begum. She has registered sale deeds from the vendors who had no title or interest in the suit schedule property. 8. It is stated, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. He has been filing cases and executing leased deeds in favour of several tenants. Smt. Gulnaz Begum has not issued any notice to the tenants. The tenancy is not attorned. The sale deeds are fraudulent documents. After coming to know about the transfer of khata the plaintiff made representation to the Assistant Revenue Officer on 17.07.2001. Legal notice dated 20.07.2001 has been issued to the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. On 14.08.2001, the plaintiff submitted necessary documents through GPA holder. The plaintiff also filed petition for cancellation of khata standing in the name of 1st defendant. 9. It is stated that notice dated 7.2.2002 was issued to the plaintiff by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Koramangala, Bangalore asking the plaintiff to be present on 15.02.2002. Similarly, notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner calling upon the plaintiff to be present on 12.04.2002. The 1st defendant was also summoned. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the petition of the plaintiff for cancellation of khatha. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for a direction to the defendant No. 10 to cancel three fraudulent sale deeds which stand in the name of the 1st defendant and to direct the defendant No. 7 to cancel the khata which stands in the name of the 1st defendant. 10. The 1st defendant has filed her written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that one Sri. Puttachari was the owner of the suit schedule property. He sold the suit schedule property in favour of Sri. 10. The 1st defendant has filed her written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that one Sri. Puttachari was the owner of the suit schedule property. He sold the suit schedule property in favour of Sri. Abdul Kareem through registered sale deed dated 6.5.1894 and possession was delivered. Sri. Abdul Kareem sold the suit schedule property in favour of his wife Smt. Khadam Bibi through registered sale deed dated 31.10.1912 and possession was delivered. 11. Smt. Khadam Bibi was issueless. She bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of Sri. Syed Peer Saheb under a 'Wasee-at' and put him in possession of the suit schedule property. Sri. Syed Peer Saheb sold the suit schedule property in favour of Smt. Sakeena Bi through registered sale deed dated 6.1.1921 and put her in possession. Smt. Sakeena Bi in turn sold the suit schedule property through registered sale deed dated 7.10.1929 in favour of Smt. Aasiya Bi and delivered possession. Smt. Aasiya Bi sold the suit schedule property through registered sale deed dated 4.11.1930 in favour of Smt. Halema Bi and she was put in possession. Smt. Haleema Bi had no sons. She had three daughters namely Smt.Zainab Bi. Mehrunnisa and Fathimabi. She divided the suit schedule property into three portions through settlement deed dated 15.03.1962. Smt. Zainab Bi, Mehrunnisa and Fathimabi were in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 12. Smt. Fathima Bi sold her portion of the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant through registered sale deed dated 18.7.1986 and delivered possession. Smt. Mehrunnisa sold her portion of the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant through registered sale deed dated 6.7.1986 and delivered possession. After the death of Smt. Zainab Bi, her daughter and sons Smt. Sharfunnisa Begum, Sri. Shaikh Anwar and Sri. S.K. Ameer sold their portion of the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant through registered sale deed dated 13.9.1991 and put the 1st defendant in possession. The 1st defendant after acquiring title through registered sale deeds got the khatha transferred in her name. The plaintiff has no right or title to the suit schedule property and has filed a false suit. Therefore, the 1st defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 13. The 1st defendant after acquiring title through registered sale deeds got the khatha transferred in her name. The plaintiff has no right or title to the suit schedule property and has filed a false suit. Therefore, the 1st defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 13. The defendant No. 10 has filed written statement denying that the plaint averments and contending that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of CPC. The sale deeds have been registered after following procedure prescribed under law. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 14. Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 have filed their written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that the suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under Section 482 of KMC Act 1976. The khatha stood in the name of Sri. Abdul Kareem. Later on, in the year 1999, it has been transferred in the name of the 1st defendant based on title deeds. The defendant Nos. 7 to 9 have no power to decide title. The review petition has been rejected after carefully considering the documents. Therefore, defendant Nos. 7 to 9 have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 15. The Trial Court has framed the following issues:- 1. Do plaintiffs prove that deceased Mehboob Shariff became owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the decree passed in O.S No. 3782/1986 referred in the plaint? 2. Was the transfer effected by Jamadar Abdul Kareem in favour of his wife Smt. Khadam Bi towards mohar under deed dated 31/10/1912 a conditional one as alleged in the plaint? 3. Did Smt. Manju Bibi succeed to the suit schedule property upon the death of her sister Smt. Khadar Bi as alleged in the plaint? 4. Was the suit schedule property validly bequeathed by Khadam Bibi in favour of her nephew Syed Peer Saheb, under a will as alleged in para 5 of W.S of 1st Defendant? 5. Was deceased Mehaboob Shariff exercising acts of ownership as alleged in the plaint during his life time? 6. Did 1st defendant derive ownership and possession over suit schedule property under sale deed dated 6/7/1986, 18/7/1986, 13/9/91 executed by Mehrunnisa, Smt. Fathima Bi and children of deceased Zainabi respectively? 7. Is the khata of schedule property standing in the name of 1st defendant liable to be cancelled? 8. 6. Did 1st defendant derive ownership and possession over suit schedule property under sale deed dated 6/7/1986, 18/7/1986, 13/9/91 executed by Mehrunnisa, Smt. Fathima Bi and children of deceased Zainabi respectively? 7. Is the khata of schedule property standing in the name of 1st defendant liable to be cancelled? 8. Is the suit against 10th defendant bad for non issue of notice u/s 80 CPC? 9. Is the present suit for cancellation of sale deed and khata in favour of 1st Defendant no maintainable as pleaded by Defendant No. 1 ? 10. Is the suit property valued and the Court fee paid is sufficient? 11. What decree or order? 16. The Trial Court answered issue numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 in the negative, Issue Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 in the affirmative and consequently, the suit has been dismissed. 17. Aggrieved by that, the appellants who are the LR's of one of the LR's of the original plaintiff have filed this appeal. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Further he submitted that the evidence on record clearly shows that the original plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property has come to the original plaintiff through his mother Smt. Manju Bee. The property originally belonged to one Puttachari. He sold the property to Abdul Kareem. He in turn sold the property to his wife Khadam Bibi through registered sale deed. Khadam Bibi was issueless. Therefore, the property came to her sister Smt. Manju Bee. After the death of Smt. Manju Bee, the property came to original plaintiff Sri. Mehboob Shariff. He was the owner of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. In O.S. No. 3782/86, the settlement deed has been declared as void. Therefore, the sale deeds in favour of the 1st defendant are not valid. The impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law. 19. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference. In O.S. No. 3782/86, the settlement deed has been declared as void. Therefore, the sale deeds in favour of the 1st defendant are not valid. The impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law. 19. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly dismissed the suit and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference. Further he submitted that the plaintiff has sought for a direction to the defendant No. 10 for cancellation of sale deeds without issuing any notice under Section 80 of CPC. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Further he submitted that Sri. Puttachari was the owner of the suit schedule property and he has sold the property in favour of Abdul Kareem. Abdul Kareem has sold the property in favour of Smt. Kadham Bibi. Smt. Khadam Bibi was issueless. She has bequeathed the property in favour of Sri. Syed Peer Saheb. He has sold the property in favour of Smt. Sakeena Bi. She in turn has sold the property in favour of Smt. Aasiya Bi. Thereafter, Smt. Aasiya Bi in turn has sold the property in favour of Smt. Haleema Bi. The daughters of Smt. Haleema Bi, i.e., Smt. Zainab Bi, Mehrunnisa and Fathimabi have divided the property through settlement deed dated 15.03.1962. Thereafter, Smt. Meharunnisa and Fathima Bi and children of Smt. Zainab Bi have sold their portion in favour of the 1st defendant. She is the owner of the suit schedule property. She is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Khatha stands in the name of 1st defendant. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit. The impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference. 20. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 21. The points that arise for my consideration are: 1. Whether the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of CPC? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for interference? Point No. 1: 22. 20. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 21. The points that arise for my consideration are: 1. Whether the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of CPC? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for interference? Point No. 1: 22. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a direction to the defendant No. 10 to cancel three sale deeds which stand in the name of the 1st defendant and further to direct the defendant No. 7 to cancel the khatha which stands in the name of the 1st defendant. Defendant No. 10 is the Sub-Registrar. Section 80 of CPC provides that no suit shall be filed against the government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after issuing notice in writing. In the present case, no notice has been issued to defendant No. 10 under Section 80 of CPC. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 23. The trial Court has framed issue No. 8 regarding maintainability of the suit. It has answered issue No. 8 holding that the suit was bad for non-issue of notice under Section 80 of CPC. It does not call for interference. Point No. 1 answered accordingly. The suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of CPC. Point No. 2. 24. The trial Court has held that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deeds dated 6.7.1986, 18.7.1986 and 13.9.91. 25. The plaintiffs have examined PWs. 1 and 2. PW1 has reiterated the plaint averments. PW2 in his cross-examination has virtually supported the case of the 1st defendant. 26. The plaintiff has produced exhibits P1 to P19. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Judgment in O.S. No. 3782/96. Exhibits P2 and P3 are the sale deeds dated 22.7.1894 and 31.10.1912. Exhibits P4 and P7 are the tax paid receipts. Exhibits P5, P6 and P8 are the Encumbrance certificates. Ex.P9 is the Certified copy of the sale deed dated 6.7.1986. Ex.P10 is the letter dated 27.9.2000 issued by the BBMP. Exhibits P2 and P3 are the sale deeds dated 22.7.1894 and 31.10.1912. Exhibits P4 and P7 are the tax paid receipts. Exhibits P5, P6 and P8 are the Encumbrance certificates. Ex.P9 is the Certified copy of the sale deed dated 6.7.1986. Ex.P10 is the letter dated 27.9.2000 issued by the BBMP. Exhibits P11 and P12 are the endorsement and intimation issued by the BBMP. Ex.P13 is the letter dated 17.7.2001. Ex.P14 is the copy of the legal notice. Exhibits P15 and P17 are the complaint and representation for cancellation of khatha. Ex.P18 is the plan. Ex.P19 is the affidavit. 27. The first defendant has examined DW1 and Exhibits D1 to D18 have been marked. Ex.D1 is the Power of Attorney. Exhibits D2 to D4 are the sale deeds dated 6.5.1894, 22.7.1894, 31.10.1912. Ex.D5 is deed dated 6.1.1921. Exhibits D6 and D7 are the sale deeds dated 7.10.1929 and 4.11.1930. Exhibits D8 to D10 are the settlement deeds dated 15.3.1962. Exhibits D11 to D13 are the sale deeds dated 6.7.1986, 18.7.1986, 13.9.1991. Exhibits D14 to D17, D19 and D20 are the tax paid receipts. Ex.D18 is the certificate issued by the BBMP. 28. From the evidence on record, it is clear, the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Puttachari. He has sold the suit schedule property in favour of Abdul Kareem through registered sale deeds dated 6.5.1894 and 22.7.1894, i.e., Exhibits D2 and D3.Abdul Kareem in turn has sold the suit schedule property in favour of his wife Smt. Kadham Bibi through registered sale deed dated 31.10.1912, i.e., Ex.D4. Through 'Wasee-at' the property has been bequeathed in favour of Sri. Syed Peer Saheb by Khadam Bibi and he has executed the sale deed in favour of Smt. Sakeena Bi as per Ex.D5 on 6.1.1921. Smt. Sakeena Bi has sold the property in favour of Aasiya Bi through registered sale deed dated 7.10.1929 as per Ex.D6. Smt. Aasiya Bi in turn has sold the suit schedule property in favour of Smt. Haleema Bi through registered sale deed dated 4.11.1930 as per Ex.D7. Smt. Haleema Bi through settlement deeds dated 15.3.1962 as per Exhibits D8, D9 and D10 has settled the property amongst her three daughters Smt. Zainab Bi, Mehrunnisa and Fathimabi. Smt. Mehrunnisa has sold her portion of the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant through registered sale deed dated 6.7.1986 as per Ex.D11. Smt. Haleema Bi through settlement deeds dated 15.3.1962 as per Exhibits D8, D9 and D10 has settled the property amongst her three daughters Smt. Zainab Bi, Mehrunnisa and Fathimabi. Smt. Mehrunnisa has sold her portion of the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant through registered sale deed dated 6.7.1986 as per Ex.D11. Smt. Fathima Bi has sold her portion of the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant through registered sale deed dated 18.7.1986 as per Ex.D12. Children of Smt. Zainab Bi have sold their portion of the suit schedule property to the 1st defendant through registered sale deed dated 13.9.1991 as per Ex.D13. From this it is clear, the 1st defendant has purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deeds as per Ex.D11, D12 and D13. She is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Khatha stands in her name. She has paid the tax. 29. The plaintiff contends that the suit schedule property has come to him through his mother Smt. Manju Bee. According to the plaintiff, the property originally belonged to Sri. Puttachari. He has sold the property in favour of Sri. Abdul Kareem. He in turn has sold the property in favour of his wife Smt. Khadham Bibi. Smt. Khadham Bibi was issueless. Therefore, the property has come to plaintiff's mother Smt. Manju Bee, the eldest sister of Khadham Bibi. After the death of Smt. Manju Bee, the property has come to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also contends that he has acquired the suit schedule property through the judgment passed in O.S No. 3782/86. It is difficult to believe this. In fact O.S. No. 3782/86 has been filed by Athaulla Shariff the son of the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff has not filed O.S. No. 3782/86. The said suit has been decreed in part holding that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property. The settlement deeds are not valid. The decree passed in O.S. No. 3782/86 is an ex parte decree. The 1st defendant is not a party to the suit in O.S No. 3782/86. The vendors of the 1st defendant have not participated in the proceedings. Two of the sale deeds have been executed prior to the filing of the suit in O.S. No. 3782/86. The decree passed in O.S. No. 3782/86 is an ex parte decree. The 1st defendant is not a party to the suit in O.S No. 3782/86. The vendors of the 1st defendant have not participated in the proceedings. Two of the sale deeds have been executed prior to the filing of the suit in O.S. No. 3782/86. Therefore the plaintiff cannot contend that he has acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of the judgment passed in O.S No. 3782/86. Smt. Khadam Bibi has bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of Sri. Syed Peer Saheb. He has sold the property in favour of Smt. Sabeena Bi through registered sale deed dated 6-1-1921 as per Ex.D5. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the property has come to him through his mother Smt. Manju Bee cannot be accepted. The material on record clearly shows that the 1st defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit. The impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference. There is no merit in this appeal and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.