Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1047 (KAR)

P. Rajalakshmi v. M. Lakshmesh

2014-12-05

B.S.PATIL

body2014
Judgment : 1. These three appeals arise out of common judgment dated 31.03.2008 passed by the learned XII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, decreeing the suit O.S.No.5634/1980 filed by the plaintiff - Lakshmeesha seeking relief of declaration, possession and mandatory injunction. 2. R.F.A.No.882/2008 is filed by Remco Industrial Workers House Building Co-operative Society - the 1st defendant. R.F.A.No.887/2008 is filed by the 20th defendant - C.N.Rangaraju, and R.F.A.No.902/2008 is filed by defendants 9, 10(a), 11(a), 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23 & 24. 3. As all the arguments are advanced in R.F.A.No.882/2008 by learned Counsel appearing for all the parties in these three batch of appeals, all these appeals are disposed of together by this common judgment referring to the facts stated and contentions urged in R.F.A.No.882/2008. 4. Plaintiff - M.Lakshmeesha filed the suit against all the appellants and certain others arraying in all 24 persons as defendants seeking relief of declaration of his title in respect of 1 acre 12 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No.305/2 of Kempapura Agrahara, Bangalore City, for possession and also for mandatory injunction against the 20th defendant (appellant in R.F.A.No.887/2008) for removal of the construction put up by him. 5. According to the plaintiff, Sy. No.132/2 of Kempapura Agrahara Inam village being an inam land stood vested in the State in terms of the provisions contained in Mysore (Personnel & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, with effect from 01.02.1959. It was a jodi village wherein all the jodidars had interest to the extent of their shares. Smt. B.C.Subbalakshmamma was one of the jodidars and had 1/7th vruthi in the said jodi village. She applied to the Deputy Commissioner for Inams Aboliton, Bangalore, for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of her share in all the lands. She was conferred occupancy rights to an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas in Sy. No.132 in Case No.IA1.BN.37/1968-69 vide order dated 09.12.1969, pursuant whereof, the revenue authorities inspected and measured the land, prepared a sketch showing the exact portion of land in enjoyment of B.C.Subbalakshmamma and it was found that actual extent in her possession was 1 acre 12 guntas. No.132 in Case No.IA1.BN.37/1968-69 vide order dated 09.12.1969, pursuant whereof, the revenue authorities inspected and measured the land, prepared a sketch showing the exact portion of land in enjoyment of B.C.Subbalakshmamma and it was found that actual extent in her possession was 1 acre 12 guntas. Based on the report, sketch, statements and also mahazar submitted to the Tahsildar by the Revenue Surveyor, an order was passed on 20.05.1972 accepting the mutation in the name of B.C.Subbalakshmamma for 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy.No.132/2 which was latter assigned new number as Sy.No.305 and after survey, the land held by B.C.Subbalakshmamma was demarcated and assigned Sy. No.305/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas. 6. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased this land Sy. No.305/2 from B.C.Subbalakshmamma vide registered sale deed dated 10.06.1975 and was put in possession, whereupon, a fence enclosing the land was erected. Officials of the 2nd defendant - Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'BDA') attempted to interfere with his possession in order to form a layout purported to have been sanctioned in favour of the 1st defendant. This made the plaintiff to cause a legal notice issued to the BDA. Thereafter, officials of the BDA did not interfere with the plaintiff's possession. But, the members of 1st defendant-Society attempted to take forcible possession, which made the plaintiff lodge a police complaint. The 1st defendant-Society claimed rights to an extent of 4 acres 2 guntas in Sy. No.305. As agreed before the police, the land was surveyed. The report of the Survey Superintendent was not in favour of the 1st defendant-society. The Society filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.212/1976. An order of temporary injunction was obtained which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. Based on the order of temporary injunction, the 1st defendant took forcible possession. Hence, the suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff and for consequential reliefs was filed by way of present suit. 7. The plaintiff further contended that claims for registration of occupancy rights made by the 1st defendant-Society and its predecessors-in-interest were negatived by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore, and Appeal No.267/1976 filed by 1st defendant before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner granting occupancy in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff -Smt. Subbalakshmamma was dismissed. 8. The 1st defendant-Society denied the plaint averments. 8. The 1st defendant-Society denied the plaint averments. While admitting the nature of the land as inam land of the jodi village, the plaint averments that all the jodidars had interest to the extent of their respective shares and that Smt. Subbalakshmamma was one of the jodidars was denied. The factum of grant of occupancy in favour of Subbalakshmamma for 1 acre 3 guntas of land in Sy. No.132/2 was also denied contending that she was never in possession of any portion of the land. It was urged that the Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition indeed passed an order in favour of Subbalakshmamma granting 1/7th share to an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas under Section 9(1) of the Inams Abolition Act, observing that the said grant was subject to the rights of any other person including that of the Society and its vendors whose applications for grant of occupancy rights at that stage had been allowed and the matter was pending in appeal with regard to levy of premium. The defendant further urged that the Special Deputy Commissioner made it clear in the order that grant in favour of Subbalakshmamma was subject to availability of any land in the survey number. 9. 1st defendant denied the mutation proceedings and the revenue survey conducted and the sketch prepared by the surveyor pleading that it was not aware of the same. The defendant pleaded ignorance regarding purchase of the land by the plaintiff from Subbalakshmamma and his title and possession asserting actual possession of the land with the Society. Though dismissal of the appeal filed by the 1st defendant before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was admitted, it was urged that the same did not confer any right in favour of the plaintiff as the Deputy Commissioner granted the land to Subbalakshmamma imposing conditions. 10. The 1st defendant-Society contended that City Improvement Trust Board (for short, 'CITB') had formed layout in the suit land and also other survey numbers and handed over possession of the same in its favour, whereupon the Society sold sites formed in the land in favour of 21 persons. It was urged that two sites were reserved for constructing society building and sites for constructing shops were allotted to the other applicants. It was urged that two sites were reserved for constructing society building and sites for constructing shops were allotted to the other applicants. 1st defendant further urged that the land had been converted for non-agricultural purpose in 1973 and Subbalakshmamma had challenged the conversion before the KAT by filing a revision petition, belatedly. 11. By way of amendment to the written statement on 16.11.2006, the society contended that it acquired several lands including Sy. No.305 to an extent of 24 acres 36 guntas as per sale deed dated 02.12.1974 executed by Remco Company Ltd., in favour of 1st defendant-Society. That Sy. No.132/2 measured 4 acres 2 guntas, out of which, 1 acre 3 guntas was granted in favour of one Muniyappa by the Special Deputy Commissioner in the year 1965 and he was in possession of the same. The said Muniyappa sold along with other lands, the land in question in favour of Remco Company, which inturn sold it in favour of the 1st defendant-Society. It is stated by the 1st defendant that when the land was in the name of M/s. Remco, the then Mysore Government had notified the land for acquisition on 22.07.1971 including other lands in Kempapura Agrahara. M/s. Remco requested for de-notification. The CITB informed that action would be taken for withdrawal of the final notification and the 1st defendant-Society was asked to get the land converted. Therefore, the land purchased by the 1st defendant was converted. 12. The 1st defendant further stated that the CITB formed a layout by collecting Rs.19 lakhs and delivered possession to the 1st defendant, whereupon 1st defendant allotted sites to its members. It was urged that Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had remanded the appeals preferred by the 1st defendant to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal. Thus, it sought for dismissal of the suit. 13. The 2nd defendant-BDA also filed its written statement stating that Sy. No.305 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas was notified for acquisition for formation of layout called R.P.C. & Chord Road as per the notification dated 22.07.1971. Award was passed for Sy. Nos.305 & 306 measuring 4 acres 28 guntas and 13 guntas, respectively, but only 26 guntas of land was taken possession by the CITB. The remaining area of 4 acres 18 guntas had to be de-notified for Remco Society as per the Board's resolution dated 12.01.1973. Award was passed for Sy. Nos.305 & 306 measuring 4 acres 28 guntas and 13 guntas, respectively, but only 26 guntas of land was taken possession by the CITB. The remaining area of 4 acres 18 guntas had to be de-notified for Remco Society as per the Board's resolution dated 12.01.1973. It further contended that whatever interest the plaintiff had, was lost due to acquisition proceedings. 14. The other defendants claiming to be the allottees and purchasers of different sites formed in the land in question filed written statements narrating the details regarding the allotments made in their favour and the sale deeds executed. 15. Defendants 19, 20, 21 & 22 did not file their written statement. On 22.09.1981, the Trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that B.C.Subbalakshmamma was conferred occupancy rights in respect of 1/7th share in old Sy. No.132/2 of Jodi Kempapura Agrahara village by Special Deputy Commissioner as alleged in para-2 of the plaint? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that B.C.Subbalakshmamma was in possession and enjoyment of her 1/7th share in Sy. No.132/2? (iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that 1/7th share in Sy. No.132/2 of B.C.Subbalakshmamma measure 1 acre 12 guntas in the survey as alleged in para-3 of the plaint and assigned Sy. No.305/2? (iv) Whether the plaintiff proves that he purchased the said land (Sy. No.305/2) from B.C.Subba-lakshmamma on 10.06.1975 and put in possession as alleged in para-4 of the plaint? (v) What is the effect of the order of dismissal in appeal No.261/1975 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal? (vi) Whether the suit valuation is to be made on the market value of the property as on the date of the suit and court fee is to be paid on the market value as contended in para-13 of the written statement? (vii) Whether the plaintiff was aware of the conversion of the land into non-agricultural land in 1973? If so? (viii) Is plaintiff is estopped from contending that it continued to be an agricultural land? (ix) Is the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction sought? (x) What order or decree? 16. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and his vendor Smt. Subbalakshmamma as PW-2 apart from two other witnesses PWs-3 & 4. He produced and marked Exs.P-1 to P- 24. None of the defendants led any evidence at that stage. (ix) Is the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction sought? (x) What order or decree? 16. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and his vendor Smt. Subbalakshmamma as PW-2 apart from two other witnesses PWs-3 & 4. He produced and marked Exs.P-1 to P- 24. None of the defendants led any evidence at that stage. However, the 1st defendant-Society produced and marked Exs.D-1 to D-10 in the course of evidence of the plaintiff's side. On 30.10.1986, the suit had been decreed on an earlier occasion declaring the title of the plaintiff over 1 acre 3 guntas of the suit land, but relief of possession sought was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff had to file a suit for partition and recover possession of the land from out of the schedule property which measured 1 acre 12 guntas. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, plaintiff and the 1st defendant had preferred R.F.A.No.747/1986 and R.F.A.No.191/1987, respectively. This Court allowed R.F.A.No.747/1986 filed by the plaintiff and dismissed R.F.A.No.191/1987 filed by the defendant and decreed the suit as prayed for. 17. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant preferred Civil Appeal Nos.992-993/2007 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court. A direction was issued to the Trial Court to consider the effect of the order granting occupancy rights in favour of Muniyappa as per Ex.D-3 on the subsequent grant dated 09.12.1979 made as per Ex.P-1 in favour of the erstwhile inamdar. The Trial Court was further directed to identify the land under the two grants by framing necessary issues and providing additional opportunity to both parties. 18. After remand to the Trial Court, the 1st defendant-Society amended its written statement. The other defendants who had not filed their written statement earlier, also filed their written statement and issues were re-cast as under: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property? (ii) Whether plaintiff proves that he has been unlawfully dispossessed by the 1st defendant and/or its members from the suit schedule property? (iii) Whether defendants prove that the land in Sy.No.132/2 of Jodi Kempapura Agrahara village was the subject matter of grant of occupancy rights to a tenant by name Muniyappa in an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas? (ii) Whether plaintiff proves that he has been unlawfully dispossessed by the 1st defendant and/or its members from the suit schedule property? (iii) Whether defendants prove that the land in Sy.No.132/2 of Jodi Kempapura Agrahara village was the subject matter of grant of occupancy rights to a tenant by name Muniyappa in an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas? (iv) Whether 1st defendant proves that Muniyappa was conferred occupancy rights by the Special Deputy Commissioner as per order dated 28.05.1965 in respect of Sy. No.132/2 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas of Jodi Kempapura Agrahara village? (v) Whether 1st defendant proves that Muniyappa sold the suit schedule property along with other lands to Remco factory in the year 1973 and thereby conveyed a valid title as well as possession of the suit schedule property to Remco factory? (vi) Whether the 1st defendant proves that Remco factory obtained permission for conversion of use of land from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purposes? (vii) Whether the 1st defendant proves that Remco factory sold the suit schedule property with other 24 acres of land to the 1st defendant, which is a Society of its workers for construction of a housing colony and put the 1st defendant in possession thereof? (viii) Whether the 1st defendant proves that it has acquired a valid right, title and interest over the suit schedule property? (ix) Whether the 2nd defendant-BDA proves that the suit schedule property was the subject matter of acquisition in favour of the 2nd defendant and that an award was passed in respect of the suit schedule property also? (x) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that it has passed any resolution notifying the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant-Society? (xi) Whether the 1st defendant proves that it has been put in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? (xii) Whether the defendants prove that identity of the suit land covered by earlier order dated 28.05.1965 containing grant of occupancy rights in Sy. No.132/2 in an area of 1 acre 3 guntas in favour of the tenant Muniyappa and the identity of the land in the grant dated 09.12.1969 (Ex.P-1) made in favour of erstwhile Inamdar for the same Sy. No.132/2 with the same extent or area of 1 acre 3 guntas, is one and the same? No.132/2 in an area of 1 acre 3 guntas in favour of the tenant Muniyappa and the identity of the land in the grant dated 09.12.1969 (Ex.P-1) made in favour of erstwhile Inamdar for the same Sy. No.132/2 with the same extent or area of 1 acre 3 guntas, is one and the same? (xiii) Whether the defendants-1 to 24 prove that the 1st defendant has formed a layout in the lands in Sy. No.268, 269, 270, 305, 307, 308 & 309, including the suit schedule property? (xiv) Whether defendant No.19(a) proves that the defendant No.10 was the absolute owner in lawful possession of Site No.39/99 and that thereafter the defendant No.10(a) became the absolute owner and is in lawful possession and enjoyment of Site No.39/99? (xv) Whether defendant No.11(a) proves that the defendant No.11 was the absolute owner in lawful possession of Site No.39/100 and that thereafter the defendant No.11(a) became the absolute owner and is in lawful possession and enjoyment of Site No.39/100? (xvi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and possession as sought for? (xvii) What order or decree? 19. Further evidence was led by the plaintiff. He was cross-examined by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant-Society examined its Vice-President as DW-3. Some of the other defendants also examined themselves and produced several documents. 20. On consideration of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court has held that plaintiff successfully proved his title to the property and his unlawful dispossession by the 1st defendant. The Trial Court has also found that defendants proved that Muniyappa was granted occupancy rights for 1 acre 3 guntas of land by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 28.05.1965, but it failed to prove that Muniyappa sold the suit schedule land to Remco Factory during 1973. 21. The claim of the 1st defendant that Remco Factory sold the suit property along with other lands measuring in all 24 acres to the 1st defendant-Society and put the 1st defendant in possession was held not proved. The assertion made by the 2nd defendant-BDA that the suit schedule land was subject matter of acquisition and that an award was passed and that it was resolved by the CITB to de-notify the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant-Society was held not proved. 22. The assertion made by the 2nd defendant-BDA that the suit schedule land was subject matter of acquisition and that an award was passed and that it was resolved by the CITB to de-notify the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant-Society was held not proved. 22. As regards the additional issue framed pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court regarding the identity of the suit land covered by the earlier order dated 28.05.1965 granting occupancy in favour of Muniyappa and the grant made on 09.12.1969 in favour of the erstwhile inamdar for the same survey number for an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas, the Trial Court has clearly noticed that this contention was taken up for the first time before the Apex Court and the same was not part of the pleadings when the matter was pending before the Trial Court or before the High Court in the earlier round. The Trial Court has also noticed that though there was no whisper in the pleadings and evidence, such a contention was advanced before the Apex Court and after remand, the defendant raised such a plea by way of amendment, therefore, an issue was framed placing the burden on the 1st defendant. The Trial Court has recorded a specific finding holding that the land granted in favour of Muniyappa, Sakamma and Lakshmamma were separate and distinct from the land granted to Subbalakshmamma and merely because both the lands granted in favour of Muniyappa and Subbalakshmamma were of the same extent, it could not be said that both the lands were one and the same. 23. The Trial Court has recorded findings holding that 1st defendant allotted sites to its members without there being any acquisition as per law and has pushed its members into serious problems. It has also recorded a finding that Remco Company had no right to sell the property of Smt. Subbalakshmamma to the 1st defendant who had no right to form the layout in the said land with the help of CITB and therefore, the order of injunction granted against the plaintiff in O.S.No.212/1976, New No.1443/1980 did not come in the way of the plaintiff claiming lawful possession of the suit land in the present suit. 24. 24. Regarding the identity of the property, the Trial Court has compared the boundaries of the suit schedule land mentioned in the plaint schedule to the boundaries described in the sale deed -Ex.P-16 and to the evidence on record which disclosed that Subbalakshmamma got demarcated the land granted in her favour through the revenue authorities as back as in the year 1972 vide Ex.P-12 and secured mutation entries preceded by survey sketch duly prepared. The Trial Court has further found that 1st defendant failed to establish that the land granted to Muniyappa and to Smt. Subbalakshmamma were one and the same. 25. The Trial Court has referred to the temporary injunction granted in the present suit restraining the defendants from putting up any construction vide orders passed as back as in the year 1980-81. It has recorded a finding that ample material was produced to show that from 1935 ancestors of Smt. Subbalakshmamma were jodidars of several lands including the suit land culminating in the grant of occupancy rights. As regards the claim made by Subbalakshmamma before the Deputy Commissioner requesting to determine the extent of land to which she is entitled to be registered as occupant, the Trial Court has found that the same could not be taken to contend that Subbalakshmamma was not herself sure regarding her entitlement for the suit land. It only meant that she sought for determination of her share with regard to the existing area in the land because there were many lands for which other inamdars and tenants had sought for occupancy and that the same had to be viewed in the context of the fact that jodidars or inamdars were not actually cultivating the lands but they were collecting the land revenue from the tenants and in addition the lands had not been surveyed by the Government and no proper records had been maintained. 26. The Trial Court has further found that the judgment in O.S.No.212/1976, New No.1443/1980 did not operate as res judicata for the present suit. It has ultimately held that though Subbalakshmamma executed sale deed in respect of 1 acre 12 guntas in favour of the plaintiff, but as per Ex.P-1, the Special Deputy Commissioner had granted occupancy rights only in respect of 1 acre 3 guntas, therefore, the claim of the plaintiff had to be restricted only to the said extent of 1 acre 3 guntas. 27. 27. The 20th defendant had put up construction as claimed by the plaintiff himself. He had asserted in his written statement that his site bearing No.39/96 was situated in Sy. No.305/3 and not in Sy. No.305/2, but he did not lead evidence. Plaintiff also did not lead any evidence in that regard. The Trial Court proceeded to hold that if any construction had been made in Sy. No.305/2, the plaintiff was entitled for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction, particularly because all the sale deeds had been executed after filing the suit of 1976 and also the present suit in the year 1980. 28. Mr. Shanmukhappa, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st defendant-Society - appellant in R.F.A.No.882/2008 has urged the following contentions: I. It is evident from Ex.D-6 - deposition of Subbalakshmamma before the Deputy Commissioner that admittedly she was not in possession of any of the lands and that they had been acquired by the CITB. II. As per Ex.P-1 - order passed by the Deputy Commissioner granting occupancy rights in favour of Subbalakshmamma, the grant was subject to availability of the extent in the various survey numbers and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner himself was not sure whether the suit schedule land was available for grant. III. That after remand, the Trial Court ought to have placed the burden on the plaintiff regarding identification of the land, but the burden was erroneously placed on the 1st defendant to prove the identity of the land granted in favour of Subbalakshmamma and the one granted in favour of Muniyappa. IV. As there is no boundary mentioned in the order granting the land in favour of Subbalakshmamma, plaintiff failed to establish that the suit schedule land was the one which was granted to Subbalakshmamma. V. It is urged by him, that in Ex.P-24 -Application filed by Subbalakshmamma, it has been wrongly asserted by her that the land in question was not granted to anybody else, whereas in fact it had been already granted in favour of one Muniyappa. Total extent of land in Sy. No.132 is 4 acres 2 guntas. In Ex.P-24, she has stated that many acres of land in those survey numbers had been registered in favour of others. She did not claim any extent in Sy. No.132. Total extent of land in Sy. No.132 is 4 acres 2 guntas. In Ex.P-24, she has stated that many acres of land in those survey numbers had been registered in favour of others. She did not claim any extent in Sy. No.132. In fact, she sought for determining the extent of land to which she is entitled and register her name as occupant. There is no answer to the court question as to what happened to the remaining extent of land in Sy. No.132/2 even assuming that 1 acre 3 guntas had been granted in favour of Muniyappa in 1965. VI. It is contended by the Counsel that Remco Company conveyed no objection for conversion of the land as per Ex.D-81; the BDA sanctioned layout as per D-82; sites were released by the CITB and allotments were made by 1st defendant in favour of its members and hence on the date of filing of the suit, there was no land available in the possession of the plaintiff for granting possession in favour of the plaintiff. VII. Learned Counsel has relied on the judgment in O.S.No.1443/1980 to contend that there is a specific finding in paragraph 17 that Sy. No.305 was purchased by Remco and therefore, there was no land available for the Deputy Commissioner to confer occupancy rights in favour of Subbalakshmamma. VIII. Counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment in the case of AANAIMUTHU THEVAR (DECEASED BY LRS) VS ALAGAMMAL & OTHERS - AIR 2005 SC 4004 , to contend that bar of constructive res judicata is applicable to the present suit because of the dismissal of O.S.No.1443/1980 filed by the plaintiff although the said suit was only for permanent injunction as it was founded on title and title to the property was directly or substantially involved in the former suit. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of SULOCHANA AMMA VS NARAYANAN NAIR - 1994(2) SCC 14 and YAJAMAN GOWRAIAH VS N.V.S.SHIVARAM - ILR 2009 KAR 2105 for the same proposition. 29. Mr. Mahabaleshwar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in R.F.A.No.902/2008 who are none other than the allottees from the Society which is the appellant in R.F.A.No.882/2008, has supported and adopted the contentions urged by Mr. Shanmukappa. 30. Mr. 29. Mr. Mahabaleshwar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in R.F.A.No.902/2008 who are none other than the allottees from the Society which is the appellant in R.F.A.No.882/2008, has supported and adopted the contentions urged by Mr. Shanmukappa. 30. Mr. Suman, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent takes me through the pleadings, evidence and the special leave petition filed before the Apex Court which is marked in evidence at Ex.P-25 and the judgment of the Apex Court remanding the matter to the Trial Court. He urges that although it is contended before the Apex Court in the special leave petition that Remco Factory purchased Sy. No.132 from the heirs of Muniyappa and other co-owners, even after remand, the defendants did not produce the sale deeds under which Remco Factory purchased the said land. 31. He has further urged that even in the sale deed dated 02.12.1974 marked as Ex.D-18 under which Remco Factory is shown to have sold the land in question along with other lands in favour of the 1st defendant-Society, it is recited therein that the factory was conferred with occupancy rights by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 10.09.1974, but the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded. After remand to the Deputy Commissioner, jurisdiction was changed and the Tribunal was vested with the right to determine the question regarding grant of occupancy rights. Though the 1st defendant urged that the Tribunal had passed an order in the year 1985 in favour of the factory, neither such order passed by the Tribunal was produced, nor the dates and other particulars of the order was mentioned before the Apex Court. Even after remand, no such order passed by the Tribunal was produced. On the contrary, Mr. Suman submits, grant of occupancy rights in favour of Subbalakshmamma was challenged by the Society before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 03.08.1976 in Appeal No.267/1976 as per Ex.P-13. Therefore, once the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner attained finality, the Civil Court cannot go into the validity of the order, because of the bar enacted under Section 9 of the Karnataka (Personnel & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, and the judgment rendered in the case of STUMPP SHULE & SOMAPPA PVT. LTD. VS S.M. CHANDRAPPA & ORS. -1985(2) KLJ 483. 32. LTD. VS S.M. CHANDRAPPA & ORS. -1985(2) KLJ 483. 32. With regard to the identity of the land granted to Subbalakshmamma and the one granted to Muniyappa, Mr. Suman contends that the appellant-Society has not claimed right under Muniyappa but it claimed right under the factory which inturn had sought for grant of occupancy rights, and had lost. It is his further contention in this regard, that even if the question of identity has to be considered, in the absence of the Society producing any evidence to show that the land granted in favour Subbalakshmamma was the same as the one earlier granted to Muniyappa, the so-called identity crisis still remained as a bare assertion of the defendant without any proof. 33. Mr. Suman further contends that there is nothing produced to show when and how the land bearing Sy. No.132/2 measuring 4 acres 2 guntas was acquired. Evidence of Suresh - DW-3, after remand from the Apex Court, does not throw any light as he does not speak to any contents of the documents and does not whisper about the identity crisis in the examination-in-chief. He urges that mere marking of the documents pertaining to acquisition such as Exs.D-8 & D-9 will not prove the acquisition of the land for the CITB, in the absence of any evidence by the BDA. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANOTHER VS RAM PAL SINGH BISEN - (2010)4 SCC 491 . 34. Mr. Suman contends that the 1st defendant-Society has indulged in fraudulent misrepresentation both before the Apex Court and before the Trial Court, in as much as, although at no stage it was contended in the pleadings regarding the identity of the property alleging that the property granted in favour of Muniyappa was the same as the one granted in favour of Subbalakshmamma, such a contention was taken in the special leave petition and even after remand, on the said ground of identity crisis, no evidence was adduced by the defendant, thereby pushing the plaintiff to untold agony subjecting him to protracted litigation. He further points out in this regard that though it was stated before the Supreme Court in the special leave petition at Col. He further points out in this regard that though it was stated before the Supreme Court in the special leave petition at Col. No.30 in Ex.P-25 that the order of the Land Tribunal had been passed in 1985, the said order was not produced nor the said fact has been substantiated. Hence, there is total misrepresentation on the part of the defendant-Society. 35. Learned Counsel Mr. Nataraj appearing for the 20th defendant-appellant in R.F.A.No.887/2008, contends that 20th defendant has purchased Site No.39/96 which was part of Sy. No.305/3 and not Sy. No.305/2. He is critical of the observations made by the Trial Court in paragraph 52 of the judgment holding that if it was found that any construction had been put up in Sy. No.305/2, plaintiff was entitled for mandatory injunction for removal of the said construction. He, therefore, submits that in the absence of proof by the plaintiff that Site No.39/96 was formed in Sy. No.305/2, there was no cause of action against 20th defendant and the suit ought to have been dismissed against him. 36. Having heard the learned Counsel for all the parties and on careful perusal of the pleadings and the evidence on record and the judgment under challenge and also keeping in mind the judgment rendered by the Apex Court while remanding the matter to the Trial Court, the points that arise ;for consideration in these appeals are, (i) Whether the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No.132/2 measuring 1 acre 3 gutnas of Jodi Kempapura Agrahara village, later on re-numbered as Sy. No.305/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas granted in favour of Subbalakshmamma by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams vide Ex.P-1 dated 16.09.1961 is the same as one granted in favour of Muniyappa vide Ex.D-3 - order dated 28.05.1965 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has proved that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and has been unlawfully dispossessed by the 1st defendant? (iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction? (iv) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court against the 20th defendant appellant in R.F.A.No.887/2008 is unsustainable? (iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction? (iv) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court against the 20th defendant appellant in R.F.A.No.887/2008 is unsustainable? (v) Whether the defendants - appellants/allottees in R.F.A.No.902/2008 who have paid the consideration and even put in possession of the property are entitled for any relief in law and/or in equity? 37. Point No.1:- At the outset, it is relevant to notice that the suit was instituted on 22.09.1977. The Trial Court, on an earlier occasion, by judgment and decree dated 30.10.1986 decreed the suit declaring the title of the plaintiff over 1 acre 3 guntas of the suit land while declining the relief of possession on the ground that the plaintiff had to file a suit for partition and recovery of possession of the land. This judgment and decree was challenged by the plaintiff and also the 1st defendant-Society in R.F.A.No.747/1986 and R.F.A. No.191/1987, respectively. This Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal filed by the 1st defendant and decreed the suit as prayed for, vide its judgment and decree dated 06.09.1996. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant-Society preferred C.A.No.992-993/1997 before the Apex Court. It was contended before the Apex Court by the 1st defendant, for the first time, that identity of the property in respect whereof occupancy rights had been granted in favour of Muniyappa as per Ex.D-3 and subsequently in favour of Subbalakshmamma the vendor of the plaintiff was in serious doubt and therefore, unless the said question was addressed, the controversy could not be resolved. The Apex Court remanded the mater to the Trial Court with a direction to the Trial Court to consider the effect of the order granting occupancy rights in favour of Muniyappa as per Ex.D-3 - order dated 28.05.1965 and the subsequent grant dated 09.12.1969 made as per Ex.P-1 order in favour of the inamdar - Subbalakshmamma. A direction was also issued to the Trial Court to identify the land under the two grants by framing necessary issues and providing additional opportunity to both parties. 38. After remand, the 1st defendant-Society amended its written statement and contended that the 1st defendant-Society acquired 24 acres 36 guntas of land including the land comprised in Sy. A direction was also issued to the Trial Court to identify the land under the two grants by framing necessary issues and providing additional opportunity to both parties. 38. After remand, the 1st defendant-Society amended its written statement and contended that the 1st defendant-Society acquired 24 acres 36 guntas of land including the land comprised in Sy. No.305 under a registered sale deed dated 02.12.1974 from Remco Factory which inturn had acquired the entire extent from different landlords including Sy. No.132/2, new No.305 measuring 4 acres 2 guntas and out of the said 4 acres 2 guntas, 1 acre 3 guntas was granted in favour of Muniyappa by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in the year 1965 and he was in possession of the same along with other lands. It is this Muniyappa, according to the 1st defendant, who sold the same in favour of Remco Factory. The defendant-Society further contended by way of amendment of the written statement that the said extent of 24 acres 36 guntas was proposed to be acquired by the State, but M/s. Remco requested for de-notification for which CITB agreed and on the assurance that the land will be de-notified in favour of the factory and as suggested by the CITB, the land was got converted for residential purpose, layout plan was got approved from the CITB, sites were formed and only thereafter, the defendant-Society allotted sites to its members. It, therefore, contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff alleging that the suit schedule property was allotted to the erstwhile inamdar -Smt. Subbalakshmamma in the year 1969 was baseless because the schedule property had been already granted in favour of Muniyappa in the year 1965 itself. 39. The Trial Court, as directed by the Apex Court, framed necessary issues in Additional Issue No.12, which reads as under: "Whether the defendant No.1 proves that identity of the suit land covered by earlier order dated 28.05.1965 containing grant of occupancy right in Sy. No.132/2 in an area of 1 acre 3 guntas in favour of the tenant Muniyappa and the identity of the land in the grant dated 09.12.1969 (Ex.P-1) made in favour of erstwhile Inamdar for the same Sy. No.132/2 with the same extent or area of 1 acre 3 guntas, is one and the same?" 40. After remand, evidence of DW-3 - Suresh, is adduced by the defendant-Society. No.132/2 with the same extent or area of 1 acre 3 guntas, is one and the same?" 40. After remand, evidence of DW-3 - Suresh, is adduced by the defendant-Society. Defendants did not make any effort to examine the legal representatives of Muniyappa or the person who allegedly purchased the land granted in favour of Muniyappa from Muniyappa. Even the sale deed evidencing sale by Muniyappa or his legal representatives in favour of Remco Factory was not produced and marked. DW-3 - Suresh who claimed to be the Vice-President of the defendant-Society has stated in his affidavit evidence before the Court, that Muniyappa sold 1 acre 3 guntas of land out of 4 acres 2 guntas in Sy. No.132/2, new No.305 for which occupancy rights had been granted in his favour as per Ex.D-3. DW-3 apparently pleaded no personal knowledge of the purchase of the land from Muniyappa or from his legal representatives. He has only stated that Remco Factory sold 24 acres 36 guntas of land including the land Sy. No.132/2 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas as per Ex.D-18 -sale deed. Absolutely no attempt has been made by the defendant-society to prove that what was granted in favour of Muniyappa was the same portion that was later on granted in favour of Subbalakshmamma. On the other hand, it is evident that out of land bearing Sy. No.132/2 measured 4 acres 2 guntas, 1 acre 3 guntas was granted in favour of Muniyappa. Therefore, what remained in the said survey number was another extent of 2 acres 39 guntas. Unless the 1st defendant-Society proves that the portion that was granted to Muniyappa was the very portion which was re-granted in favour of Subbalakshmamma vendor of the plaintiff, by establishing the actual boundaries of the land granted to Muniyappa and the one granted to Subbalakshmamma, there could be no inference or presumption in favour of the defendant because there remained another 2 acres 39 guntas in the same Sy. No.132/2 after deducting the portion granted to Muniyappa during the year 1965. 41. Therefore, there was land available for grant in favour of Subbalakshmamma to an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas. Despite an opportunity expressly provided after remand and despite a specific plea taken by way of amendment of the written statement after remand, 1st defendant has failed to adduce any evidence in this connection. 41. Therefore, there was land available for grant in favour of Subbalakshmamma to an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas. Despite an opportunity expressly provided after remand and despite a specific plea taken by way of amendment of the written statement after remand, 1st defendant has failed to adduce any evidence in this connection. It is true plaintiff has approached the Court seeking declaration of his title over the suit property and burden is on him to establish his title. For this purpose, he has produced the sale deed executed by Smt. Subbalakshmamma in his favour vide Ex.P-16. He has produced the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams granting 1/7th share in Sy. No.132/2 in favour of Subbalakshmamma vide Ex.P-1. In fact, Subbalakshmamma in her application given to the Deputy Commissioner, has sought for grant of occupancy in respect of not only Sy. No.132, but also other lands to the extent of her share. She has not stated the actual extent for which she sought for occupancy. She requested the Special Deputy Commissioner to ascertain the extent as per her share. 42. After the Deputy Commissioner passed the order on the request made by Subbalakshmamma, the Tahsildar has ascertained the exact portion of land in the possession and enjoyment of Subbalakshmamma. The land has been surveyed through the official surveyor. It was found that the land Sy. No.132/2 corresponded to New Nos.305 & 472 and thus, two survey numbers together measured 8 acres 12 guntas and out of this extent 5 acres 23 guntas was previously registered in the names of Muniyappa and others and the balance remaining was 2 acres 29 guntas. Thus, 1/7th share of Subbalakshmamma was worked out at 1 acre 12 guntas and her name was entered for the said portion in the revenue records by effecting mutation entry. But, in view of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner granting occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre 3 guntas, the Trial Court has found that the plaintiff was entitled for only 1 acre 3 guntas and nothing more than that. 43. But, in view of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner granting occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre 3 guntas, the Trial Court has found that the plaintiff was entitled for only 1 acre 3 guntas and nothing more than that. 43. Thus, it is apparent that while the plaintiff was able to establish his title over the property traceable to the re-grant of land made in favour of Inamdar -Subbalakshmamma who inturn sold it to the plaintiff under registered sale deed - Ex.P-1, defendant failed to prove that the same portion of land was earlier granted in favour of Muniyappa and that it is the said portion which was purchased by Remco Factory from Muniyappa and thereafter sold in favour of 1st defendant-Society along with other lands totally measuring 24 acres 36 guntas as per Ex.D-18. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the negative holding that there is no material to establish that what was granted in favour of Muniyappa was the same portion which was sold in favour of Subbalakshmamma. Therefore, the grant made in favour of Muniyappa vide Ex.D-3 has no effect on the grant made in favour of Subbalakshmamma as per Ex.P-1. 44. I must hasten to add here that the grant in favour of Subbalakshamma by the Deputy Commissioner did not mention the boundaries of 1 acre 3 guntas of land granted in her favour. In fact, she did not seek grant of any specific extent of land within the specified boundaries. It is only after the grant by the Deputy Commissioner, she has approached the revenue authorities and got the survey conducted and mutation entries effected. This position appears to have been misused by the 1st defendant-Society in including the said portion of 1 acre 3 guntas granted to Subbalakshmamma while forming the layout. The defendants/appellants in R.F.A.No.902/2008 who are the allottees have been put in possession of the sites formed in this portion of the land. They have paid the value of the sites to the Society out of their hard earned money and have secured khatha in respect of the sites allotted to them. Therefore, it is these allottees - appellants who are the ultimate victims in this litigation apart from the plaintiff being made to suffer on account of the illegal acts of the 1st defendant-Society. Therefore, it is these allottees - appellants who are the ultimate victims in this litigation apart from the plaintiff being made to suffer on account of the illegal acts of the 1st defendant-Society. Therefore, the interest of the appellants-allottees requires to be kept in mind and a balance has to be struck while passing the final judgment. 45. Point Nos.2 & 3:- Ex.D-18 is the sale deed dated 02.12.1974 produced by the defendant-Society under which the defendant-Society claims to have acquired title from Remco Factory. The recital in the said deed states that the factory purchased the properties from the tenants who had been conferred with occupancy rights by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 10.09.1974 in respect of the lands mentioned therein vide Order Nos.AI.617, 622, 624, 650, 660, 686 of 195960 dated 10.09.1974. But this order dated 10.09.1974 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner has been set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. After remand, as the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner was changed and vested with the Tribunal, the 1st defendant claimed that the Land Tribunal had passed an order in the year 1985 in favour of the factory. No such order of the Land Tribunal is produced. Even after remand of the case to the Trial Court for trial of the suit afresh, there is no attempt made to produce the said order. Nor any particulars in that regard are furnished. Therefore, the basis of the claim made for title of Remco Factory is founded on a very slippery and unsubstantiated assertion. 46. In so far as the grant made in favour of Subbalakshmamma by the Deputy Commissioner, the same was challenged by the defendant-Society before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on 03.08.1976 in Appeal No.267/1976 vide Ex.P-13. It was neither contended nor established before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal that what was granted in favour of Subbalakshmamma was the very portion already granted to Muniyappa. Hence, as the grant made in favour of Subbalakshmamma has attained finality, it binds the parties, particularly the 1st defendant. If the contention of the 1st defendant is accepted, then what it could not achieve before the Tribunal could be allowed to be achieved in the civil suit. Section 9 of the Mysore (Personnel & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, bars such a recourse. If the contention of the 1st defendant is accepted, then what it could not achieve before the Tribunal could be allowed to be achieved in the civil suit. Section 9 of the Mysore (Personnel & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, bars such a recourse. Useful reference can be made in this regard to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of STUMPP SHULE & SOMAPPA PVT. LTD. VS S.M. CHANDRAPPA & ORS. - 1985(2) KLJ 483, particularly paragraphs 12 and 22 to 25, wherein this position has been made clear. 47. As regards the contention urged based on the decree of injunction obtained in O.S.No.1443/1980 against the plaintiff, a perusal of paragraph 15 of the judgment makes it clear that the Court was conscious of the fact that it was not concerned about the title of the suit land and was mainly concerned over the actual possession of the suit land on the date of the suit. Therefore, as is evident from the observations made at the end of paragraph 15 of the said judgment, there was no convincing evidence led by the plaintiff -Remco Industrial Workers Housing Society - 1st defendant herein to show where exactly the land in dispute was located. The court, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was impossible for anybody to point out the land in dispute in Ex.P-8. Hence, observations made in the said judgment cannot operate as res judicata, particularly because in paragraph 21 of the said judgment, it is further emphasized that there was nothing to show that the permanent tenants had been registered as occupants and they were competent to sell the properties in favour of Remco Factory. 48. The Court in the said suit, proceeded on the basis that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to establish all those facts as it was not a suit for declaration of title. The court found that prima facie there was material to hold that plaintiff therein had legal right to remain in possession of the suit land. 49. In the light of the above, the contention urged by the Counsel for the appellant-1st defendant regarding bar of res judicata by referring to the judgments in the case of GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE NAULAKHA VS UJAGAR SINGH & OTHERS - AIR 2000 SC 3272 and SAJJADANASHIN SAYED MD. B.E. EDR. (D) BY LRS. 49. In the light of the above, the contention urged by the Counsel for the appellant-1st defendant regarding bar of res judicata by referring to the judgments in the case of GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE NAULAKHA VS UJAGAR SINGH & OTHERS - AIR 2000 SC 3272 and SAJJADANASHIN SAYED MD. B.E. EDR. (D) BY LRS. VS MUSA DADABHAI UMMER & OTHERS - (2000)3 SCC 350 , cannot be accepted as the said judgments have no application to the facts of the present case. 50. The contention urged by the Counsel for the 1st defendant-Society that in Ex.P-1 -order passed by the Deputy Commissioner the grant in favour of Subbalakshmamma was subject to availability in various survey numbers is incorrect. A perusal of Ex.P-1 does not show the same. The further contention urged by Mr. Shanmukhappa, learned Counsel for the 1st defendant-Society that the Trial Court ought to have placed the burden on the plaintiff regarding the identification of the land, but the burden was erroneously placed on the 1st defendant to prove the identity of the land granted in favour of Subbalakshmamma and Muniyappa, does not make any difference to the matter, in as much as, after remand, the plaintiff filed his affidavit evidence on 17.10.2006 clearly stating that in view of the order passed by the Apex Court and framing of additional issue, he was rendering his further evidence on the additional issue framed. He has stated in paragraph 3 of his affidavit that lands in Sy. No.132/2 of Jodi Kempapura Agrahara was never the subject matter of grant of occupancy rights to the tenant by name Muniyappa in an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas. Even the alleged sale by Muniyappa in favour of Remco Factory during the year 1973 of the land Sy. No.132/2 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas is denied as totally false. The claim of the 1st defendant that Remco factory sold the suit schedule property along with other 24 acres of land to the 1st defendant or put the 1st defendant in possession thereof is denied as false. He has stated that there was no de-notification by the BDA of the suit schedule property in favour of 1st defendant-Society. He has asserted his absolute title over the suit property. 51. This witness is cross-examined on 27.10.2006. He has stated that there was no de-notification by the BDA of the suit schedule property in favour of 1st defendant-Society. He has asserted his absolute title over the suit property. 51. This witness is cross-examined on 27.10.2006. The suggestion made to this witness that the suit land was granted to one Muniyappa in the year 1965 has been denied as false. He has admitted the suggestion that his vendor Subbalakshmamma had 1/7th share in Sy. No.132/2. But has denied the further suggestion that when the said land was granted to Subbalakshmamma there was no actual land available to grant in her favour because it had been already granted to Muniyappa. 52. The 1st defendant-Society has examined its Vice-President one G.J.Suresh on 25.01.2007. He has denied grant of occupancy for the suit land in favour of Subbalakshmamma. He has urged that the mutation proceedings were not at all binding on the 1st defendant as the 1st defendant was not a party to the said proceedings and as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition was a conditional one subject to availability of land in the said survey number. He has referred to acquisition of the land by the then Mysore Government as per Preliminary Notification dated 22.07.1971; the request for de-notification made by M/s. Remco and the consent given by CITB for withdrawal of the final notification for 25 acres of land with a direction to obtain conversion of land for residential purpose and thereafter, approached the CITB with a layout plan and the subsequent conversion of the land in Sy. No.305 measuring 4 acres 2 guntas by collecting conversion fee. He has also spoken about the submission of the plan to the CITB for approval and the approval of the plan vide resolution dated 07.01.1976, formation of layout by collecting Rs.8,50,000/- from the society as per receipt dated 20.10.1997 and subsequent payment of Rs.11 lakhs totally amounting to Rs.19 lakhs towards charges for formation of layout. He has urged that after forming the layout, the layout was delivered in favour of the society, thereafter the defendant-Society allotted the sites to its members. 53. He has produced the order of conversion dated 01.10.1973 as Ex.P-79, the sale deed executed in favour of 1st defendant-Society by the Management of Remco on 02.12.1974 as Ex.D-80. He has urged that after forming the layout, the layout was delivered in favour of the society, thereafter the defendant-Society allotted the sites to its members. 53. He has produced the order of conversion dated 01.10.1973 as Ex.P-79, the sale deed executed in favour of 1st defendant-Society by the Management of Remco on 02.12.1974 as Ex.D-80. Letter dated 05.12.1972 issued by the Secretary, Planning Authority, Bangalore City Planning Area expressing No Objection for proposed conversion in respect of the lands including the suit schedule land which is marked as Ex.D-81. Sanction accorded to the private layout in favour of the 1st defendant vide order dated 06.12.1977 as per resolution No.999 of the BDA is produced at Ex.D-82. The report of the Court Commissioner in O.S.No.212/1976 filed by the 1st defendant against the plaintiff is produced as Ex.D-83(c). Ex.D-85(a) is the statement showing the dimension of sites formed in the layout belonging to the 1st defendant-Society including the suit land, issued by the Assistant Engineer, Private Layout Sub-Division, CITB, Bangalore. Ex.D-88 is the modified layout plan belonging to Remco which was produced in O.S.No.212/1976 and was marked as Ex.P-8. 54. The other defendants viz., the purchasers from the society have also adduced their evidence and have produced and marked documents such as sale deeds and possession certificates evidencing their possession over their respective sites formed in the layout and also other documents. These documents have been marked from Exs.D-90 to D-170. 55. Ex.P-8 is the notification dated 19.12.1961 issued under Section 18(1) of the City Improvement Act, 1945, notifying that the lands specified in the schedule to the said notification were required for public purpose for formation of layout between Magadi Road and Chord Road. It also shows that improvement scheme for the layout between Magadi Road and Chord Road had been completed. Land bearing Sy. No.132 which totally measured 10 acres 12 guntas has been shown there. The documents produced by the allottees disclose that registered sale deeds have been executed in their favour and possession certificates have been issued including registration of khatha in respect of the sites purchased by them. 56. Land bearing Sy. No.132 which totally measured 10 acres 12 guntas has been shown there. The documents produced by the allottees disclose that registered sale deeds have been executed in their favour and possession certificates have been issued including registration of khatha in respect of the sites purchased by them. 56. Regarding interlocutory application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for production of additional evidence: Certified copy of the sale deed whereunder Muniyappa and his wife had executed sale deed dated 20.11.1962 in favour of Remco Industry allegedly transferring the suit schedule property in favour of the factory is produced. Though the suit is of the year 1977 and the matter was remanded by the Apex Court to the Trial Court for leading fresh evidence, the defendant-Society did not produce this document nor lead any evidence with regard to the same. During the year 2013, this application is filed before this Court. Absolutely no grounds are made out to allow this application. However, as the document is the certified copy of the sale deed which could throw some light on the controversy, to the limited purpose of finding out whether the property sold by Muniyappa is the same as the one claimed by the plaintiff, I have looked into this document. There is no mention of the boundaries of the land sold by Muniyappa. Nor Ex.D3 - grant order in favour of Muniyappa contain any boundaries so that both could have been compared. There is absolutely no material to show the boundaries of the land granted to Muniyappa. There is also nothing to show that he paid the premium. Ex.P-13 - order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 19.12.1969 shows that challenge to Ex.P-1 laid by Remco has been dismissed, whereas Subbalakshmamma has got the boundaries of her land identified and fixed. Hence, the certified copy of the sale deed which is sought to be produced will not in any manner improve the case of the defendant-Society. Hence, the application is rejected. 57. It emerges from the narration of the facts and the discussion made above, that the defendant-Society has failed to establish that the land granted to Subbalakshmamma was the very land earlier granted in favour of Muniyappa. However, it is quite clear that the Society has formed layout by taking over possession of this land as well. 57. It emerges from the narration of the facts and the discussion made above, that the defendant-Society has failed to establish that the land granted to Subbalakshmamma was the very land earlier granted in favour of Muniyappa. However, it is quite clear that the Society has formed layout by taking over possession of this land as well. The formation of layout has been made only after the grant in favour of Subbalakshmamma and after the sale deed in favour of plaintiff was executed. Therefore, findings recorded by the Trial Court holding that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the land by the Society does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 58. If there was valid acquisition of land, an award could have been passed and compensation would have been paid to the plaintiff or to his predecessor-in-title. If there was de-notification of the land, the same would be evidenced by a gazette notification. Though such a plea has been taken by the defendant-Society, it has not produced any such notification. Therefore, it is clear that plaintiff has established his title to the property and his dispossession from the same. The defendant has failed to establish that the suit property was the same as the one granted in favour of Muniyappa. Point Nos.2 & 3 are answered accordingly. 59. Point No.4:- In so far as the 20th defendant-appellant is concerned, his specific plea that the site allotted to him does not form part of Sy. No.305/2, but it formed part of Sy. No.305/3 is not disputed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court also does not record any positive finding holding that the site allotted to 20th defendant and the construction put up by him in the said site was part of Sy. No.305/2. In such circumstance, although 20th defendant has not entered the witness box and has failed to lead any evidence, it has to be held that plaintiff has failed to establish that the site allotted to the 20th defendant was part of Sy. No.305/2. The judgment and decree passed to this extent which is adverse to the interest of 20th defendant requires to be set aside. Point No.4 is answered accordingly. 60. Point No.5:- During the pendency of this appeal and keeping in mind the long and chequered history that this case has, an effort was made regarding settlement. The efforts made did not yield any result. Point No.4 is answered accordingly. 60. Point No.5:- During the pendency of this appeal and keeping in mind the long and chequered history that this case has, an effort was made regarding settlement. The efforts made did not yield any result. The ten allottees who are the appellants in R.F.A.No.902/2008 have invested their money believing the representation held out by the defendant-Society and were even put in possession of the respective sites and the khatha of the said sites have been also entered in their names in the records of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. It is apparent from the facts stated and the findings recorded above that the appellants in R.F.A.No.902/2008 are innocent persons who have invested their money and purchased the sites from the defendant-Society bona fide believing that the society was entitled for the land and the land was acquired for the purpose of the Society. The whole mistake is attributable to the defendant-Society because it has got the layout formed without the suit land being validly acquired/taken over. Thus, appellants-allottees have been fighting the litigation for the last more than two decades. The plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title - Subbalakshmamma have also marginally contributed to the confusion as the order granting occupancy in favour of Subbalakshmamma did not mention the boundaries and the grantee - Subbalakshmamma got the land granted located through the revenue officials by survey and measurement. To add to this, there was an order of injunction against the present plaintiff which enabled the Society to proceed with the formation of layout and allot the sites. In these peculiar circumstances, the interest of the allottees has to be partially protected without doing injustice to the plaintiff. 61. It is submitted at the bar that substantial portion of the suit property has been taken over for the purpose of construction of metro rail and the amount of compensation payable has to be worked out by the authorities and the same has to be paid to the persons entitled. The ten allottees who are before this Court in R.F.A.No.902/2008 are, therefore, held entitled to receive 30% of the amount of compensation payable in respect of the ten sites and the remaining amount shall be received by the plaintiff. The ten allottees who are before this Court in R.F.A.No.902/2008 are, therefore, held entitled to receive 30% of the amount of compensation payable in respect of the ten sites and the remaining amount shall be received by the plaintiff. So far as the rest of the land forming part of 1 acre 3 guntas which is acquired by the Metro, the plaintiff being the lawful owner shall be entitled for full rights over the same. The defendants are directed to hand over possession of the same to the plaintiff. Therefore, in modification of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the following order is passed. ORDER i) R.F.A.No.882/2008 is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule land and is entitled for possession of the same is confirmed. ii) R.F.A.No.887/2008 is allowed. The judgment and decree in so far as it pertains to the site allotted to 20th defendant, is set aside making it clear that the said site allotted to the 20th defendant has nothing to do with the suit schedule land. iii) The allottees-appellants in R.F.A.No.902/2008 are together held entitled to receive 30% of the compensation payable to the acquired portion proportionate to the sites allotted to them, which shall be distributed proportionately amongst the ten appellants, keeping in mind the extent of site allotted to them. R.F.A.No.902/2008 filed by the allottees is partly allowed, only to the extent stated above. iv) Parties to bear their respective costs.