JUDGMENT : The legal representatives of the defendant in O.S.No.3947/1990 on the file of XXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, have preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2002. 2. The relationship between plaintiffs and the original defendant Abbaiah Reddy is shown in the pedigree as given below: DODDAOBALAPPA (Died long back) S-1 S-2 Hanumappa (Dead) Appayanna (Dead) Son Annayyappa (Died 15 years back) Venkataswamy Reddy (Died 25 years back) B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy (Died on 15.01.1980) Abbaiah Reddy (Deft.) Fostered son Jayaramareddy TWO SONS 1. Chinnaswamy (Plaintiff No.1) 2. R. Munireddy (Plaintiff No.2) 3. From the pedigree it is seen that Hanumappa and Appayanna were the sons of Doddaobalappa. Annayyappa was the son of Hanumappa, and Venakataswamy Reddy, B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy and Abbaiah Reddy were the sons of Appayyanna. On 31.8.1938, there took place partition among Annayyappa, Venkataswamy Reddy, B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy and Abbaiah Reddy. The suit property is 4 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2 of Doddabanasawadi Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. In the partition dated 31.8.1938, the Western portion of the suit property fell to the share of Venkataswamy Reddy and the Eastern portion to B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy. Since this land was a Kayam Gutta and Jodi Inam land, after coming into force of Karnataka (Personal Land & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’), the suit land vested with the Government and thereafter B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy claimed occupancy rights by making application to the concerned authority. The occupancy right was also granted. Then Venkataswamy Reddy, to whom the Western portion of the suit property had been allotted, died and his son B.V. Srinivasa Reddy sold the Western portion to B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy by executing a sale deed on 30.8.1969. Thus B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy became the absolute owner of the entire suit property. He was actually in possession of 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2, but ½ gunta land on Eastern side was utilized for formation of road and only 4½ guntas of land remained with the possession of B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy. He died on 15.1.1980 and his sons i.e., the plaintiffs succeeded to their father’s property. The defendant attempted to dig the earth in the suit property for laying foundation and then to construct a building. He died on 15.1.1980 and his sons i.e., the plaintiffs succeeded to their father’s property. The defendant attempted to dig the earth in the suit property for laying foundation and then to construct a building. In the aforesaid partition no part of suit property was given to the defendant, yet he interfered with the plaintiffs’ possession and therefore the plaintiffs brought a suit seeking declaration of their title in respect of suit property and consequentially they sought for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession. 4. The defendant, in his written statement admitted that his brother B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy claimed occupancy rights in respect of entire 4 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2 after coming into force of the Act and that the occupancy right was also granted to him. But he contended that B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy claimed occupancy right on his behalf and also on behalf of the defendant. Defendant denied that Ramaswamy Reddy bought Eastern portion of land on 30.8.1969. The entries found in the revenue records are contrary to his rights. Therefore they do not bind him. He has further contended that he has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as a separate owner right from the day the partition took place on 31.8.1938 and even after the grant made in the name of Ramaswamy Reddy according to the Act. He pleaded that he was in possession of the suit property continuously, openly and adversely to the interest and knowledge of B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy and therefore he became the absolute owner of the suit property. Denying the plaintiffs right to claim declaration of title, he set up counter claim seeking a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the suit property and also permanent injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 5. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the counter claim pleaded by the defendants. They stated specifically that after vesting of the Inam lands with the Government, only those persons who were interested and in possession of the vested lands could apply for grant of occupancy rights. Their father B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy applied for re-grant in his individual capacity. At that time the defendant did not raise any objection and therefore he could not contend that the suit property would belong to him. 6. The trial court framed seven issues. Their father B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy applied for re-grant in his individual capacity. At that time the defendant did not raise any objection and therefore he could not contend that the suit property would belong to him. 6. The trial court framed seven issues. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to conclusion that the plaintiffs were able to prove their title in respect of the suit property and also the interference caused by the defendants. Its findings are that according to the plaintiffs, the Eastern portion of the suit property was allotted to their father in the partition that took place on 31.8.1938 which is evidenced by document Ex.P.1. But their plea actually does not find support from Ex.P.1 because as per the recitals found there, the Western half portion was allotted to Venkataswamy and the Eastern portion to the original defendant Abbaiah. Having observed so, the trial court further relied upon Ex.P.12, a sale deed dated 21.11.1956 which indicates that the defendant sold two pieces of lands that he had obtained to his share as per Ex.P.1 in favour of plaintiffs’ father, B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy for Rs.300/-. Considering the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.12, the trial court held that the property that was sold to B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy was none other than the land that was allotted to his share in Sy.No.22/2. Thereafter on 30.8.1969 B.V. Srinivas Reddy, son of Venkataswamy Reddy sold 2 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2 to B.H. Ramaswamy. This 2 ½ guntas of land was the piece of land that was allotted to Venkataswamy Reddy in the partition as per Ex.P.1. Thus B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy became the owner of entire suit property by virtue of these two sale deeds. The trial court has also referred to the proceedings initiated by B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy pursuant to vesting of land with the Government after coming into force of the Act. Ex.D.11 is the application made by B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy claiming occupancy rights not only in respect of suit property but also the lands in other Survey numbers 22/1, 321, 265 and 266 etc. B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy claimed occupancy right in respect of 4.5 guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2. Ex.D.11 is the application made by B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy claiming occupancy rights not only in respect of suit property but also the lands in other Survey numbers 22/1, 321, 265 and 266 etc. B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy claimed occupancy right in respect of 4.5 guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2. The trial court has relied upon the other documents viz., Ex.P.6, P.8, P.10, P.11 and P.13 and came to conclusion that occupancy right was granted in favour of B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy and thereafter the revenue records were mutated to his name. Its further conclusion is that Ramaswamy Reddy made application claiming occupancy right in his individual name and not on behalf of the joint family and that the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the competent authority under the Act. 7. The trial court further referred to the suit, O.S.3962/2000 filed by Gowaramma (DW-2), the wife of the defendant. This suit was for specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 05.09.1977 said to have been executed by B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy for selling 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,500/-. The land comprised in the agreement was the very same land that had been sold to B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy by the defendant as per Ex.P.12. The suit for specific performance would further prove that the defendant had earlier sold his property and delivered its possession to B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy. The trial court concluded that all these transactions would conclusively establish the fact the plaintiff’s father became the absolute owner of the suit property and thus their title was established. Making a reference to the plea of adverse possession taken up by the defendant, the trial court held that such a contention cannot be appreciated. If really the defendant was in possession of the suit property he could have made an application to the competent authority under the Act for grant of occupancy rights. He did not do so. Moreover the defendant does not admit the ownership of the plaintiff to appreciate his defence regarding adverse possession. The very fact that the defendant set up counter claim seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against the plaintiffs would show his intention to interfere with plaintiff’s possession and therefore the plaintiffs would be entitled to decree of permanent injunction. 8. Moreover the defendant does not admit the ownership of the plaintiff to appreciate his defence regarding adverse possession. The very fact that the defendant set up counter claim seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against the plaintiffs would show his intention to interfere with plaintiff’s possession and therefore the plaintiffs would be entitled to decree of permanent injunction. 8. Assailing the findings of the trial court the learned counsel for the appellants argued that according to the partition deed dated 31.08.1938, 2.5 guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2 was allotted to the defendant. This was a ‘Kana LAND’ (Thrashing yard). No piece of land in Sy.No.22 was allotted to the plaintiffs’ father. The boundaries given in the partition deed clearly show that Western portion was allotted to Venkataswamy Reddy and the Eastern portion to the defendant. The findings given by the trial court that plaintiffs father became the owner of entire extent of 4 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2 are not correct. The documents produced by the defendant have not been considered and evidence has not been properly appreciated. Still the legal representatives of the defendant are in possession of 2.5 guntas of land. Therefore it is his argument that the judgment of the trial court is erroneous and should be set aside and suit dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the trial court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit. It has appreciated the evidence correctly. After the partition took place in the year 1938, Srinivas Reddy son of Venkataswamy Reddy sold 2¼ guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2 to B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy. This is not disputed. As per Ex.P.12 the defendant sold two bits of lands measuring 36 x 72 ft. and 18 x 72 ft. to B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy. These two pieces of lands were the very same land allotted to the defendant in the partition dated 31.8.1938. This is not questioned by the defendant. Therefore B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy acquired ownership over 4½ guntas of land. The boundaries given in the two sale deeds should be considered to arrive at a conclusion that the land that B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy purchased was none other than the suit property in Sy. No.22/2. This is not questioned by the defendant. Therefore B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy acquired ownership over 4½ guntas of land. The boundaries given in the two sale deeds should be considered to arrive at a conclusion that the land that B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy purchased was none other than the suit property in Sy. No.22/2. Further he referred to Exs.P8, 13 and 14 to argue that B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy applied for grant of occupancy rights in accordance with provisions of the Act and occupancy right was granted in his individual name. On the basis of this order, mutation was accepted in the name of Ramaswamy Reddy as evidenced by RTC extracts. After death of Ramaswamy Reddy, mutation was effected in the names of the plaintiffs. Therefore, all these documents very clearly show that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners being in possession of the suit property. The defendant and his legal representatives went on filing suit after suit in respect of suit property but no where they succeeded. Very fact that defendant’s wife Gowramma instituted suit of specific performance against B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy shows that the defendant had no right over the suit land. Referring to the conduct of the legal representatives of the defendant, he argued that on 19.5.2001, i.e. during the pendency of the suit the legal representatives of the defendant sold the property in favour of one Ashok R Jain who has come on record in this appeal as respondent no.3. The sale is not valid as it is hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, he argued that the appeal is devoid of merits and it has to be dismissed. 10. Since this is a first appeal, the evidence needs to be re-appreciated to examine whether the findings given by the trial court are sustainable or not. PW1 is the first plaintiff. In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed on lines with the plaint averments. He produced 17 documents as per Exs.P1 to P17. In this appeal the respondents/plaintiffs made an application as per I.A.1/2018 seeking to produce some documents by way of additional evidence. But, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he would not press this application and therefore it was dismissed. Of the 17 documents that the plaintiffs produced, Ex.P1 is the copy of the partition deed dated 31.8.1938 which is not in dispute. But, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he would not press this application and therefore it was dismissed. Of the 17 documents that the plaintiffs produced, Ex.P1 is the copy of the partition deed dated 31.8.1938 which is not in dispute. If this partition deed is perused, what is forthcoming is that the suit property was allotted to Venkataswamy and Abbaiah Reddy, ie., the original defendant. The Western portion was allotted to Venkataswamy Reddy and Eastern portion was given to Abbaiah Reddy. The trial court has held that the plaintiffs’ plea that their father was given the Eastern portion is not forthcoming in the partition deed and this conclusion is correct. However, the trial court has considered other documents. Ex.P5 and P12 are important. Ex.P5 is a copy of the sale deed dated 30.8.1969 under which Venkataswamy Reddy sold 2 ¼ guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2 to plaintiffs’ father B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy. In the schedule of this sale deed, the Eastern boundary is shown as “Nimma Jaminu” (your land which is referable to purchaser B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy). Ex.P12 is a sale deed dated 21.11.1956 executed by Abbaiah, i.e.,the original defendant in favour of plaintiffs’ father B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy. The property comprised in this sale deed consists of two pieces of lands, one measuring 36 x 72 feet and another measuring 18 x 72 feet. These two pieces of lands are said to be part of Sy.No.22/2 of Doddabanasawadi, Krishnarajapura Hobli. If the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed are compared with the boundaries of the ‘Kana land’ given to the share of defendant-Abbaiah, it is not impossible to draw conclusion that he sold the very same ‘Kana land’ to his brother Ramaswamy Reddy by executing Ex.P12. But with regard to Ex.P12, the point that requires to be noticed is that the plaintiffs do not state anything in their plaint about their father having purchased two pieces of lands in Sy.No.22/2 from the defendant. The rule of appreciation of evidence is that no amount of evidence is worth consideration unless there is a pleading to that effect. If this is applied, Ex.P12 cannot be considered. But, for this reason itself the effect of Ex.P12 does not vanish since it is a registered sale deed. The written statement is also silent about this sale transaction. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not argue this point. If this is applied, Ex.P12 cannot be considered. But, for this reason itself the effect of Ex.P12 does not vanish since it is a registered sale deed. The written statement is also silent about this sale transaction. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not argue this point. Even if Ex.P12 can be ignored for want of pleading, there are other documents with the help of which certain inferences can be drawn with regard to plaintiffs’ title. The plaintiffs speak about their father having applied for grant of occupancy rights after the entire land vested with the Government pursuant to coming into force of the Act. It is not in dispute that B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy applied to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition. Ex.P13 is the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner registering B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy was a kadim tenant in respect of land in Sy.No.22/2 and other lands. Ex.P14 is an endorsement issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner to the effect that B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy was a cultivator of the land. Thereafter on the basis of this order, revenue entries were made in the name of Sri B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy as evidenced by Ex.P6, P7 and P8. It is not the case of the defendant that he was the cultivator of the land on the day when the land vested with the Government. His only contention is that occupancy right was not granted to B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy in his individual name, for Ramaswamy Reddy represented the joint family and made an application in that capacity. This contention does not stand because there was disruption of the joint family in the year 1938 as per Ex.P1. It appears defendant also did not challenge the order of Special Deputy Commissioner when Ramaswamy Reddy asserted right over 4 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2. He only filed the suits in the civil courts. As has been rightly held by the trial court, the civil court cannot decide the validity of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams. Therefore, all these proceedings clearly indicate that B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy became the owner of entire 4½ guntas of land in Doddabanaswadi Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli. After death of Ramaswamy Reddy, his sons, i.e., plaintiffs succeeded to the suit property and they are the absolute owners. Therefore, all these proceedings clearly indicate that B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy became the owner of entire 4½ guntas of land in Doddabanaswadi Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli. After death of Ramaswamy Reddy, his sons, i.e., plaintiffs succeeded to the suit property and they are the absolute owners. If the line of cross-examination of PW1 is seen, what is found is only suggestions in the background of written statement averments being given to him, and they are all denied by him. DW1 is the original defendant who in his examination in chief asserted what he stated in the written statement. DW2 is the wife of DW1. In her examination-in-chief she stated that 4 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2 belonged to her. Through her, Exs.D10 to 13 were marked. Ex.D11 does not help the defendant in any way because it is the certified copy of petition given by Ramaswamy Reddy to the Special Amaldar for Inams Abolition claiming occupancy in respect of land in Sy.No.22/2 and 321. The oral evidence of the defendants do not establish his case. The other documents got marked by DW1 as per Exs.D1 to D8 also do not establish the defendant’s right or title over the suit property. Therefore, even by ignoring Ex.P12 a clear conclusion can be drawn that B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy was the absolute owner of the property and after his death the plaintiffs succeeded to the plaint property. Their title gets established. 11. With regard to interference it has to be stated that the very conduct of the defendants in staking a claim over the suit property and setting up counter claim shows that their interestedness to interfere with plaintiffs’ right and possession. The conclusion drawn by the trial court judge in this regard stands to reasoning. I do not find any good reason to differ from the findings of the trial court. 12. It appears that respondent no. 3 Sri Ashok R Jain appears to have purchased the suit property during pendency of the suit. This sale is hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. If he has purchased the very same suit property, he gets no right or title. 13. With the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs and it is ordered accordingly.