JUDGMENT : S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J. Both these appeals arise out of the impugned common judgment and decree dated 14.11.2024 passed in O.S.No.25028/2022 and O.S.No.25029/2022, whereby the said suits filed by the respondent – plaintiff against the appellants – defendants was decreed by the trial court in favour of the respondent – plaintiff against the appellants – defendants. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff filed the instant suits for permanent injunction and for other reliefs against the appellants in relation to the suit schedule immovable property involved in both the suits. The said suits having been contested by the appellants – defendants, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned common judgment and decree, decreeing the suits filed by the respondent against the appellants, as hereunder:- ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs in OS.No.25028/2022 and OS.No.25029/2022 are hereby decreed with costs. The defendants are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of both suits schedule properties. Draw Decree accordingly.” 3. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that during the pendency of the aforesaid suits before the trial court, the appellants – defendants have jointly filed one more suit in O.S.No.3252/2023 against the respondent – plaintiff herein and others seeking comprehensive relief of declaration, injunction and other reliefs etc., in relation to the very same suit schedule property and the larger extent of the property comprised in Sy.No.76 measuring 31 guntas, out of which, the present suit schedule property is situated. The aforesaid comprehensive suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and possession and other reliefs, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ex.D88, reads as under:- “MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII, RULE-1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE The plaintiffs above named humbly begs to submit as follows: 1. The address of the plaintiff for the purpose of service of notices summons, etc., from this Hon’ble Court is as shown in the cause title above and that of their counsel Sri.J.Prakash, Advocate, No.315, III Floor, Kurubarasangha Building, 2 nd Main Gandhi Nagara, Bengaluru – 560009. The address of the defendant for the purpose of service of notice as stated in the cause title. Mobile No.9880432986, email-jprakashadvs69@gmail.com. 2. The address of the defendant for the purpose of service of notice as stated in the cause title. Mobile No.9880432986, email-jprakashadvs69@gmail.com. 2. The plaintiffs submit that the one Hotte Mariyappa is the propositus of the family of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 11. It is further submit that the said Hotte Mariyappa having four sons namely(1) Munivenkatappa, (2) Pillannaiah @ Venkataramanappa, (3) Venkataswamy @ Papanna and (4) Muniswamy Mogappa. All the four sons and their respective wives are also no more now. For the better understanding of the relationship of the parties the Genealogical Tree is produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and marked as DOCUMENT No.1. The first son late Munivenkatappa having a wife by name Smt. Munlakkayamma @ Akkayamma ang his only son Krishnappa and one daughter Lakshmamma, she is also no more now. The said Krishnappa having a wife by name SV having two sons and two daughters i.e., plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are before this Hon'ble Court. 3. The Plaintiffs further submit that the property bearing Survey No.76 having totally measuring 3 Acres 4 Guntas was purchased under the sale deed dated 6.1.1908 on behalf of the joint family by the propositus as stated about. The same is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.2. After the death of Sri. Hotte Mariyappa (propositus) the four sons of said Hotte Mariyappa having divided all the joint family properties orally in the year 1940 and they are residing separately and enjoyment of the same and got the revenue entries in respect of the properties as per the oral partition held between four brothers. Thereafter, in the above said Survey No.76, as per their oral partition the said four sons having equally divided themselves and everyone got each 31 Guntas of the property in the Survey No.76 of Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. 4. The Plaintiffs further submit that after the oral partition their names have been entered in the revenue records separately and they have also sold their shares to third parties. On 8-4-1943 the soris of late Hotte Mariyappa, l.e., 2 son late Pillannalah Venkataramanappa, 3 son Late Venkataswamy papanna and Late 4th son Muniswamy Mogappa have sold theirshares in Survey No. 76 in favour of one Venkataramanappa S/o lakshmalah in respect of 2 Acres in Survey No.76. On 8-4-1943 the soris of late Hotte Mariyappa, l.e., 2 son late Pillannalah Venkataramanappa, 3 son Late Venkataswamy papanna and Late 4th son Muniswamy Mogappa have sold theirshares in Survey No. 76 in favour of one Venkataramanappa S/o lakshmalah in respect of 2 Acres in Survey No.76. In the said sale deed the said Munivenkatappa who is the first son of late Hotte Mariyappa and also the grand-father of the plaintiffs has not included and in the sald sale deed it is very clearly stated that on the Northern side of the property belongs to Munivenkatappa that is Guntas of land in Survey No. 76. This aspect shows that there is a partition effected in the joint family by dividing and allotting each 31 Guntas of the said Survey Number. The said aspect is very clear that there is no joint family was existed as on the date of the 8- 4-1943. The copy of the said sale deed dated 8.4.1943 is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.3. 5. The plaintiffs further submit that Grand-father of plaintiff namely the said late Munivenkatappa, S/o late Hotte Mariyappa and his son Krishnappa, S/o Late Munivenkatappa having got share of 31 guntas as per their oral partition they have sold said 31 Guntas of land in Survey No.76 on 21-3-1952 in favour of one Gowramma jointly. The said registered sale deed is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.4. It is further submit that after death of Sri. Munivenkatappa whatever the land i.e., 31 Guntas of land in Survey 76 in favor of Gowramma, the said property again repurchased by the wife of Munivenkatappa, i.e., Late Smt. Muniakkayamma @ Akkayamma and his son Late Krishnappa, S/o Late Munivenkatarappa from the said Gowramma jointly on 27.09.1957, the certified copy of the said sale deed is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.5 Since from the date of the sale deed, the plaintiffs and his father, mother and grand mother were continued in possession of the suit schedule A property absolute owners. The names of Muniakkayaima Akkayama Encumbrance Certificate and I.T.C. The khata also stars in her son Krishnapp has been entered in the revenue records toy names in respect of 31 guntas of land. The names of Muniakkayaima Akkayama Encumbrance Certificate and I.T.C. The khata also stars in her son Krishnapp has been entered in the revenue records toy names in respect of 31 guntas of land. The said revenue document are also produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.6 TO 9(A) TO It is further submit that the said revenue documents shows the names of the grand-mother of Smt. Muniakkayamma Akkayamma and the father of the plaintiffs namely Krishnappa up to the year 1991. These documents will clearly shows that this property absolutely belongs to Grand-mother of the plaintiffs and father of the plaintiffs and this property is not the joint family property of late Hotte Mariyappa and Defendant No.1 to 9. 6. The Plaintiffs further submit that on 10-1-1981 the said Muniakkayamma @ Akkayamma was died and after the death of said Akkayamma the revenue entries continued in the name of the Krishnappa, S/o Late Munivenkatappa. The said Krishnappa, 5/6 Munivenkatappa also died on 29- 10-1989. The copies of the Death Certificate of Muniakkayamma Akkayamma and late Krishnappa produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.10 and 11. The said revenue entries continued upto the year 1991 in the name of Krishnappa. However, the first defendant P. Ramaiah who is the son of late Venkataswamy Papanna who is not the members of the Plaintiff's family by misrepresenting before the Revenue Authorities he got the mutation and IHC khata in his name in respect of 31 Guntas of land in Survey No.76 belongs to the Plaintiff's family on the fraudulent intention. However, the said aspect is not within the knowledge of the late Krishnappa and his wife Smt. S.V. Kempamma, because said Krishnappa was also died on 29-10-1989. 7. The Plaintiffs further submit that after the death of Plaintiff's father late Krishnappa on 29-10-1989 the revenue entries also continued in the name of plaintiff's father. The first defendant without having any right, title or interest in the suit schedule 'A' properties i.e., 31 Guntas in Survey No.76 got the IHC khata No.4/1990-91 in his name. thereafter he applied for the conversion of the land for residential purpose before the concerned authority. The Deputy Commissioner has converted the land along with another 2 Acres 14 Guntas along with this 31 Guntas of land totally the extent 3 Acres 4 Guntas in favour of the 1 st defendant. thereafter he applied for the conversion of the land for residential purpose before the concerned authority. The Deputy Commissioner has converted the land along with another 2 Acres 14 Guntas along with this 31 Guntas of land totally the extent 3 Acres 4 Guntas in favour of the 1 st defendant. All these aspects are not within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their mother Smt. S.V. Kempamma. Even then the Revenue Authorities have not issued any notice to the mother of the plaintiff, who is Smt. S.V. Kempamma, W/o Late Krishnappa, when she was also alive along with the plaintiffs. Thereafter, she came to know about these malafide revenue entries. The plaintiff's mother Smt. S.V.Kempamma, w/o Late Krishnappa has challenged the IHC Khata No.4/90-91 proceedings. The said IHC Order has been challenged before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub Division in R.A(A)9A/2001-02. The Assistant Commissioner, passed the orders on 29-05-2003 stating that the said mutation entry in respect of 31 Guntas in the name of the 1st defendant is totally illegal and set aside the same and directed the Tahsildar to incorporate the name of the mother of the plaintiffs in the revenue entries. Accordingly the revenue entries effected in the name of S.V. Kempamma who is the mother of the plaintiffs also died on 25-12-2011. The copy of the death certificate of Smt.S.V. Kempamma is produced and markedas DOCUMENT No.12. It is further submit that after the death of Sri.S. V. Kempamma, the revenue entries were continued in the name of plaintiff No.1 and 2 as absolute owners and in continues possession of the suit schedule 'A' property. The said revenue entries have not been challenged by the Defendant No.1 to 10. Hence, the order of the Assistant Commissioner is final in this regard. The copy of the order of Assistant Commissioner passed in its appeal in RA(A)9A/2001-02 dated 29-05-2004 is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.13. 8. The plaintiffs further submit that when such being the case the defendant No.1 to 9 colluding with the Defendant No.10 created a fraudulent agreement which is not within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and their father and mother an unregistered notarized document dated 6-1- 1989. The said date has been later on rectified by the defendant No.10 mentioning as 6-11-1989. In the said document there is no mention of names of plaintiffs nor his father and mother. The said date has been later on rectified by the defendant No.10 mentioning as 6-11-1989. In the said document there is no mention of names of plaintiffs nor his father and mother. However, the said document is an undated document created by the defendant No.1 to 10 behind the back of the plaintiffs. The copy of the same is herewith produced as DOCUMENT No.14. It is further submit that the defendant No.1 to 10 they themselves have created one consent letter which is undated is also produced as marked as DOCUMENT No.15.The said documents are no way concerned to the plaintiffs and their parents. 9. The Plaintiffs further submit that the said defendant No.1 to 9 have also executed a General Power of Attorney which is unregistered dated 6.6.1989 in favour of defendant No.10. in the said document also the names of the plaintiffs and names of their father and mother also not been shown. The said document is created by the defendant No.1 to 10 to grab the valuable property of the plaintiffs with the malafide intention. The said documents are not within the knowledge of these plaintiffs and their parents in respect of land measuring 31 Guntas in Survey No.76 Hongasandra village, i.e., schedule 'A' property. It is further submit that on 6.6.1989, the said defendant No.1 to 9 executed an unregistered Notarized General Power of Attorney in favour of C.V.L. Shastry, S/o Venkatasubba Shastry. In the said document also the names of the plaintiffs nor the name of the Krishnappa and S.V. Kempamma is shown. The said document is also produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.16.It is further submit that one consent letter which is undated and unregistered document has also been executed in favour of defendant No.10 by the defendant No.1 to 9. In the said document the names of the plaintiffs and his father and mother are not shown. The plaintiffs have not signed any such document. The said documents also created behind the back of the plaintiff's the same is not within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their mother and father. Thus, the said document is not binding on the plaintiffs in any way. It is further submit that the defendant No.1 to 9 also executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No.10 on 28-2-1992. Thus, the said document is not binding on the plaintiffs in any way. It is further submit that the defendant No.1 to 9 also executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No.10 on 28-2-1992. In the said document the names of the plaintiffs has not been shown and the said document is not within the knowledge of these plaintiffs and their parents and they have not executed the said document in favor of defendant No.10, hence the said document is not binding on the plaintiffs and the same is marked as DOCUMENT No.17 and it is further submit that the defendant No.1 to 9 have also execute a registered cancellation of the General Power of Attorney executed earlier i.e., dated 28-2-1992 has been cancelling the General Power of Attorney dated 29-01-1996. The said document is produced and marked as DOCUMENT NO.18. 10. The plaintiffs further submit that the 1st defendant after getting a forged mutation in his name applied for conversion of the said land before the Deputy Commissioner dated 17-12-1991 in respect of 3 Acres 4 Guntas including the 31 Guntas of Suit Schedule 'A' property belongs to plaintiffs. It is further submit that the defendant No.10 as a society has got a permission from the concerned authority to form the layout. The copies of the proceedings held before the Government of Karnataka and the copy of the Official Memorandum dated 17-12- 1991 and also the sketch accepted by the BDA dated 4-12- 1995 is produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and marked as DOCUMENT No.19 and 20. These documents are prepared behind the back of the plaintiffs and these documents are not binding on the plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule 'A' property. 11. The Plaintiffs further submit that the said documents are not binding on the plaintiffs in respect of 31 guntas of suit schedule 'A' property in Survey No.76 of Hongasandra village, Begur Hobli. There is no consent from the plaintiffs or his father or mother in respect of the document executed by defendant no.1 to 9 in favour of Defendant No.10. As stated above, as all the above documents are created with the fraudulent intention to grab the valuable property of the Plaintiffs that suit schedule 'A' property. 12. There is no consent from the plaintiffs or his father or mother in respect of the document executed by defendant no.1 to 9 in favour of Defendant No.10. As stated above, as all the above documents are created with the fraudulent intention to grab the valuable property of the Plaintiffs that suit schedule 'A' property. 12. It is further submit that defendant No.1 to 9 after executing all the forgery documents including the property of plaintiffs (31 Guntas of land in Survey No.76) in favour of Defendant No.10, the defendant No.1 to 10 by colluding with each other have filed suit for injunction against the Secretary of the defendant No.10 for bare injunction claiming the possession of the land in Survey No.76 claiming suit schedule 'A' property in O.S.No.3825/1996. The filing of the said suit is not within the knowledge of these plaintiffs. However, they have made the plaintiff No.1 and 2 as a parties a SL.No.12 and 13. In the said suit these plaintiffs have not signed any vakalath or the pleadings because filing of the said suit itself is not within the knowledge of these plaintiffs. The said suit was dismissed by rejecting the prayer of the Defendant No.1 to 9 (plaintiffs No.1 to 11 in O.S.No.3825/1996). The copy of the same is produced before this Hon'ble Court along with the copy of the plaint for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, the said judgment and decree is not binding on these plaintiffs. The same is marked as DOCUMENT Nos.21 and 22. 13. It is further submit that the mother of the plaintiffs after getting our revenue entries and khata in her name in the year 2004. She filed a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.10198/2005 against the first defendant and also defendant No.10 by seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants schedule property i.e., 31 Guntas in Survey No.76. In the said suit defendant No.10 appeared before this Hon'ble Court and submitted that by producing the above stated document No.14, 15, 16 to 20 executed by defendant No.1 to 9, as stated supra that these plaintiffs have not executed any such document. The said suit has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Court by its judgment dated 17-8-2010, on the basis of the judgment passed in O.S.No.3825/1996, where there is no any pleadings in respect of the property of 31 Guntas belongs to the Plaintiffs. 14. The said suit has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Court by its judgment dated 17-8-2010, on the basis of the judgment passed in O.S.No.3825/1996, where there is no any pleadings in respect of the property of 31 Guntas belongs to the Plaintiffs. 14. The Plaintiffs further that the plaintiff No.1 and 2 have questioned the Conversions order seeking to cancel the Conversion of Land bearing Survey No.76 measuring 31 Guntas which belongs to the Plaintiff in the Conversion Order dated 17-12-1991 passed in favour of the 1st Defendant by the Assistant Commissioner and also by filling an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.133/2016, the Appellate Tribunal has not entertained the said appeal for the prayer to cancel the conversion of the land in name of the plaintiffs in respect of 31 Guntas in Survey No.76, however the said order dated 9-8-2019 has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.41890/2019 (KLR-RES). In the said Writ Petition, the 1^{st} Defendant who is also arrayed as party. The Hon'ble High Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case is in the Writ Petition has called the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District to done the needful as the prayer made by the Plaintiffs, but however the Deputy Commissioner who appeared before the Hon'ble High Court as second respondent and filed an affidavit, the once the Conversion Order passed in respect of a land cannot be taken back because the revenue has been already collected by the Government. Hence, the benefit of conversion dated 17-12-1991 will be given in favour of the petitioners who is the plaintiffs before the Hon'ble Court. The orders of the Hon'ble High Court has narrated at para No.5 of the order as hereunder: "In view of the order of this Court passed on 21-10-2019 and the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, Urban District, Bengaluru, dated 4-11-2019, the Writ Petition is disposed of holding that the benefit of Conversion order dated 17-12-1991 is applicable to the petitioners by virtue of the order dated 29-05-2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Ordered Accordingly'. The said order is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.23. 15. The Plaintiffs further submit that after passing of orders in the Writ Petition Advocate for the Plaintiffs who has appeared in R.F.A.No.1985/2010 blindly withdrawn the same on 4-9-2020. Ordered Accordingly'. The said order is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.23. 15. The Plaintiffs further submit that after passing of orders in the Writ Petition Advocate for the Plaintiffs who has appeared in R.F.A.No.1985/2010 blindly withdrawn the same on 4-9-2020. The copy of the same is produced before this Hon'ble Court and marked as DOCUMENT No.24. 16. The Plaintiffs further submit that the defendant No.10 after getting all the documents in favour of the Society they have executed several sale deeds in favour of the members of the Society i.e., Defendant No.11 to 26, which is located in the land belongs to these plaintiffs in Survey No.76 measuring 31 Guntas i.e., the suit schedule 'A' property. The plaintiff further submit that the Defendant No.1 to 9 without having any right, title or interest, possession over the suit schedule 'A' property, they have executed documents No.14 to 20 in favour of defendant No.10 did not convey any title because the defendant No.1 to 9 does not have any kind depending upon the said documents cannot execute any kind of sale deeds in favour of Defendant No.11 to 26 in the suit schedule 'A' property. Therefore, the Defendant No.11 to 26 are made as parties by challenging the sale deed executed in their favour and the said sale deeds executed in favour of D11 to D26 are not binding on the Plaintiffs. 17. The Plaintiffs further submit that this Defendant No.10 executed sale deed in favour of Defendant No.11 dated 18-12-1992 and the marginal land abutting the said site executed the sale deed for 59 X 30 feet on 30-09-1996 measuring totally 1770 square feet bearing Site No.305 presently comes under the BBMP Khata No.91/78/305. However, the defendant No.11 in turn sold the said site in favour of Defendant No.12 under the registered sale deed dated 5-7-2019. The copies of the same are herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.25, 26 and 27. It is further submit that the said defendant No.11 has also filed a suit for bare injunction against the plaintiff No.1 and 2 seeking an injunction to restrain and not to interfere with his possession in O.S.No.450/2008. The said suit was decreed in favour of defendant No.11 against the said judgment and decree a Regular Appeal is filed and the same is still pending before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The said suit was decreed in favour of defendant No.11 against the said judgment and decree a Regular Appeal is filed and the same is still pending before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. In the said suit, the defendant No.11 stated that the sites were formed in Survey No.191, however the said suit schedule property was located in Survey No.76 measuring 31 guntas of land belonging to the plaintiffs. The copy of the judgment and decree is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.28. Hence, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.450/2008 is not binding on the Plaintiffs. 18. The Plaintiffs submit that Defendant No.13 also purchased the site from Defendant No.10 Society on 27- 11-1992 in respect of Site No.306 totally measuring 1770 square feet. The schedule of the said site is hereunder, East by: Site No.324, West by: Road, North by: Site No.307 and South by Site No.305. The said site is also formed according to the Society the said site is situated in Survey No.191. However the said site is actually situated in he land belongs to plaintiffs i.e., land in Survey No.76 measuring 31 Guntas. The said defendant No.13 also filed a suit for bare injunction which is decreed in his favour, the same is also challenged in Regular Appeal R.A.No.10/2017. However, the defendant No.13 has sold the site in favour of Defendant No.14 and 15 under the registered sale deed dated 19-08-2009, the same is produced before this Hon'ble Court as DOCUMENT No.29, 30 and 31. 19. The plaintiffs further submit that the husband of defendant No.16 and father of defendant No.17 and 18 one Late Syed Hidayattaulla, S/o Syed Khasim who has also purchased the Site No.238 towards East in Survey No.76 totally measuring 1228.50 square feet as per the sale deed dated 7-11-1994, the said site also situated within the area of 31 Guntas in Survey No.76 belongs to the plaintiff. The defendant No.10 at the time of executing the sale deed, the schedule has been mentioned in respect of Site No.238 as East by: Site No.237, West by: Site No.239, North by Road and South by: Site No.236, but the Defendant No.10 executed a Rectification Deed in respect of the schedule of the Site No.238 on 23-4-2014 stated that the schedule for Site No.238 in Survey No.76, East by Site No.237, West by: Site No.238A, North by: Road and South by: Private Property. The said rectification is very clearly shows that the same is situated within the area of 31 Guntas of the land belongs to the plaintiffs. The entire boundaries of the said site was changed after 20 years the execution of the sale deed dated 7-11-1994, the Rectification Deed executed 23-04-2014. The copies of the sale deed dated 7-11-1994 and also Rectification Deed dated 23-04-2014 are produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT No.32 and 33. The said sale deed and rectification deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. 20. The Plaintiffs further submit that the said Syed Hidayatulla, S/o Syed Khasim who is the husband of defendant No.16 and father of Defendant No.17 and 18 was died on 4-2-2020. The said Syed Hidayatulla was never in possession of the site No.238 since from the date of execution of the sale deed by the defendant No.10 in favour of him. He never comes to the possession of the same and he never plaintiffs continued in the possession of the same and he never disturbed the possession of the plaintiff and never claimed the possession right, title interest in respect of Site No.238, which is located in Survey No.76 measuring 31 guntas. It is further submit that the said Syed Hidayatulla died on 4-2-2020 as per the defendant\ No.16 who is the wife said Syed Hidayatulla and defendant No.16, 17 and 18 as claimed as the legal heirs of the said Syed Hidayatulla and they have got the khata in their names and they have sold the said site each half site in Site No.238 in favour of defendant No.19 and 20 i.e., Sri. R. Jayachandra Reddy - Defendant N.19 Sri. R. Jayachandra Reddy - Defendant N.19 Sri. Suresh Babu-A - Defendant No.20 under the registered sale deed dated 29-06-2020 which is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Bommanahalli as document No.BHM-1-00947-2020-21 dated 29-6-2020 and another sale deed dated 29-6-2020 executed by defendant No.16, 17 and 18 in favour of Defendant No.20 as document No.BHM-1-00949-2020-21 dated 29-6-2020. The said documents are produced and marked as DOCUMENTS No.34 and 35. The same are not binding on the plaintiffs. 21. The plaintiffs further submit that the defendant No.19 purchased the site No.238 measuring 1228.5 square feet, which is the actual measurement of the site No.238. It is show that East to West: 39 feet and North to South: 25+38/2 Feet. However, the sale deed dated 29-6- 2020 in favour of the Defendant No.19 measurement shows that the Site No.238 shown as 'A' Schedule property, totally measuring 1228.50 square feet. The defendant No.19 purchased 630 square feets out of the said Site No.238 (totally measuring 1228.50 square feets). The schedule shows that measuring East to West: 18 Feet and North to South: 32+38/2 Feet, however, the execution of the said sale deed by defendant No.16 to 19, excess of the measurement at East to West and also North to South in favour of this defendant No.19 that itself shows that they are located in the 31 Guntas of suit schedule 'A' property on the eastern side belongs to the plaintiffs. It is further submit that the Defendant No.19 after purchasing the site he has filed the suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.25028/2022 before the Hon'ble City Civil Court. (CCH-21) after Hon'ble Court was heard both the parties granted temporary injunction in favour of defendant No.19. The said interim order granted on 20-01-2023. After passing of an interim order in favour of defendant No.19 he is trying to put up compound to the said site in over night by collecting huge construction materials. By the said incident it is very much clearly shows that the defendant No.19 without possession has filed the suit for the relief of bare injunction which is belongs to the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs have filed M.F.A.No.1980/2023 challenging the order dated 20-1-2023. By the said incident it is very much clearly shows that the defendant No.19 without possession has filed the suit for the relief of bare injunction which is belongs to the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs have filed M.F.A.No.1980/2023 challenging the order dated 20-1-2023. The Hon'ble High Court after perusing the same disposed of the said MFA by granting an order of statusquo as not to put up any construction in the schedule site until disposal of the suit in the schedule site, the copy of the said order is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.36. the same is once again raised the cause of action for filing the present suit for Declaration, Possession and Mandatory injunction against the defendants before this Hon'ble Court. It is further submit that in the sale deed dated 29-6-2020 executed by Defendant No.16 to 19 in Site No.238 stated that the portion of the site No.238, however the said Defendant No.16 to 19 have executed the sale deed without having possession over the site No.238, because the husband of the defendant No.16 herself is not having any possession over the said site. Hence, the said documents executed by the defendant No.16 to 19 in favour of defendant No.19 is not binding on the plaintiffs as these plaintiffs have not executed any documents in favour of defendant No.1 to 10 and also in favour of this defendant No.16 to 19. 22. It is further submit that the Defendant No.20 also purchased the Site No.238 formed in Survey No.76 located in measuring 31 Guntas belongs to the Plaintiffs, from defendant No.16 to 19 on 29-6-2020 and he is also kept quiet after purchasing the property upto 2023 he is filed suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.25029/2023 before the City Civil Court No.21. However, the sale deed dated 29-6- 2020, document No.BMH-1-00949-2020-21 dated 29-06- 2020 shows that the defendant No.20 purchased the very same seller that defendant No.16 to 18 in respect of Site No.238. Further the defendant No.20 has filed the suit for injunction against the plaintiff No.1 and 2 for bare injunction in O.S.No.25029/2022 against the plaintiff No.1 and 2 for bare injunction in O.S.No.25029/2022 before the City Civil Court (CCH-21) in the said suit also the temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the defendant No.20. Further the defendant No.20 has filed the suit for injunction against the plaintiff No.1 and 2 for bare injunction in O.S.No.25029/2022 against the plaintiff No.1 and 2 for bare injunction in O.S.No.25029/2022 before the City Civil Court (CCH-21) in the said suit also the temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the defendant No.20. After obtaining interim order he has started to put up illegal construction in overnight, the same is shows that the defendant No.19 and 20 along with his vendors since from the date of purchase of the year 1994 are not in possession over the suit schedule property, however after granting an interim order dated 20-1-2023 they are trying to put up construction in the suit schedule 'A' property obtained as site No.238 the same is in possession of the plaintiffs since from 1951 i.e., 31 Guntas of land in Survey No.76 as per the schedule 'A' property shown in the suit. The order dated 20-01-2023 is challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in M.F.A.1334/2023 the Hon'ble High Court has passed the order to modifying the interim order passed by the Civil Court by granting an order of statusquo and directed the defendants herein as not to put any construction until disposal of the suit. The said order of the Hon'ble High Court in M.F.A.1334/2023 is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.37. Therefore, it shows that the said sale deeds and changing of schedule and measurement itself shows that the plaintiffs since from the beginning they are continued in the possession of entire 30 Guntas even though the defendant No.10 formed the layout by converting the land. Therefore, it shows that the said sale deeds and changing of schedule and measurement itself shows that the plaintiffs since from the beginning they are continued in the possession of entire 30 Guntas even though the defendant No.10 formed the layout by converting the land. The defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 to 9 have colluded each other with the society behind the back of the plaintiffs and their parents all these documents executed, therefore the plaintiffs continued to struggle and protect their possession in the suit schedule 'A' property, however though the earlier the suit filed by the mother of the plaintiff for bare injunction in O.S.No.10198/2005 was dismissed because the Hon'ble Court has also came to conclusion that they have already suffered the decision of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3825/1996 there is no pleadings and no order against these plaintiffs, these plaintiffs are denying the filing of the said suit and also the said suit is not within the knowledge of this plaintiffs because the said suit is filed by the defendant No.1 to 9 by suppressing the plaintiffs and they themselves have signed the pleadings and also the Vakalath. The said signatures found in the pleadings and the Vakalath is not belongs to the plaintiffs. Thereafter continuously the suits have been filed by the defendant No.11 to 20 shows that they are by filing of the injunction suits they want to come and enter into the property belongs to the plaintiffs by virtue of the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.10 on the General Power of Attorney executed by defendant no.1 to 9 in favour of the Society. but these plaintiffs and their parents never executed any such document in favour of the society nor in favour of the Defendant No.1 to 9. Hence, the said sale deeds totally null and void and also not binding on these plaintiffs and their parents. 23. The Plaintiffs submit that the defendant No.21 A. Gopalan has also purchased the site No.239 from Defendant No.10 Society, as per the registered sale deed dated 12-08-1993 who is represented as G.P.A holder of defendant No.1 to 9 in Site No.239 formed in Survey No.189. The said document of the sale deed is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.28. 23. The Plaintiffs submit that the defendant No.21 A. Gopalan has also purchased the site No.239 from Defendant No.10 Society, as per the registered sale deed dated 12-08-1993 who is represented as G.P.A holder of defendant No.1 to 9 in Site No.239 formed in Survey No.189. The said document of the sale deed is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.28. The measurement of said Site is East to West: 40 Feet and North to South: 60 Feet showing the schedule i.e., East by: SWD, West by: Site No.239 A, North by: Road and South by: site No.235. Earlier as per this sale deed the said site was not situated in Survey No.76 and it is not located in the suit schedule 'A' property claimed by the Plaintiffs as per their schedule shown in the suit. However, the defendant No.10 changed the schedule and also the Survey Number as per the Rectification Deed executed by him in favour of this defendant on 11-9-2008 under the registered Rectification Deed dated 11-9-2008. This Rectification Deed the said Site No.239 situated in Survey No.75 and Survey No.76, the schedule shows that East by: SWD, West by: Site No.239A, North by: Road and South by: Site No.236. The earlier sale deed executed in favour of this Defendant No.21 dated 12-8-1993 shows in Survey No.189 again as per this Rectification Deed dated 11-9-2008 this Site No.239 shows in Survey No.75 and 76 after fifteen years of execution of the original sale deed (12-8-1993). In the schedule also they have changed on the Southern side instead of Site No.235, the Site No.236 has been shown. The said schedule itself shows that earlier this site has been not located in Survey No.76 after the Rectification deed dated 11-9-2008 the site is shown in Survey No.76. The said defendant No.21 is not at all in possession even today, since from the date of the purchase but the plaintiffs are in continuous possession of the said Site No.239 which is located towards eastern side of 'A' schedule property i.e., 31 Guntas in Survey No.76. Actually the plaintiffs are in possession of the said\ Site No.239. Now the schedule defendant No.10 in the Rectification Deed. The said copy of the Rectification Deed is produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court and marked as DOCUMENT No.39. The said sale deed and Rectification Deed are not binding on the plaintiffs. 24. Actually the plaintiffs are in possession of the said\ Site No.239. Now the schedule defendant No.10 in the Rectification Deed. The said copy of the Rectification Deed is produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court and marked as DOCUMENT No.39. The said sale deed and Rectification Deed are not binding on the plaintiffs. 24. The plaintiffs submit that the defendant No.22 also purchased the site from Defendant No.10 Society under the registered sale deed dated 13-8-1993 of Site No.236 is located on the western side of the suit schedule 'A' property which is the area of 31 Guntas of suit schedule 'A' property, however the defendant No.10 Society stated that the said site is formed in Survey No.189 measuring East to West: Sixty Feet and North to South: Forty feet and schedule shows that East by: Site No.349, West by: Site No.236 A, North by: Road and South by: private Road. However, the said schedule and measurement has been rectified on 18-10-1996 showing that East measurement has been rectified on 18-10-1996 showing that East to West: 51.5 Feet and North to South: 52 feet in all 297.55 square yards, bounded on East by: site No.349, West by: Site No.236 A; North by: Road and South by: Private Land. Thereafter, the said document has been once again rectified on 4-6-1998 before the Sub-Registrar stating that the site has been situated in Survey No.189 showing that East to West: 51.5 Feet and North to South: 52 Feet in all 297.55 square yards and the boundaries of the said site has been changed (Site No.236) bounded on East by SWD (instead of Site No.349), West by: site No.235 (Instead of Site No.236A), North by Site No.239 (instead of Road) and South by: Road (instead of private land). After all these rectification this site No.236 is actually located in Survey No.76 In the measurement of 30 guntas which is belongs to the plaintiffs. Therefore this defendant is not in possession in respect of Site No. 236 which is actually located in Survey No.76 measuring 30 guntas. Therefore, the said sale deed and Rectification Deeds executed by defendant No.10 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The said documents and marked as DOCUMENTS No.40, 41 and 42. 25. Therefore this defendant is not in possession in respect of Site No. 236 which is actually located in Survey No.76 measuring 30 guntas. Therefore, the said sale deed and Rectification Deeds executed by defendant No.10 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The said documents and marked as DOCUMENTS No.40, 41 and 42. 25. The plaintiffs submit that the defendant No.23 has also purchased the site from defendant No.10 who is the GPA holder of defendant No.1 to 9 under the sale deed dated 7-12-1992 in Survey No.191, site No.304 measuring East to West: 50 Feet and North to South 30 Feet and also showing totally 166.66 square yards. The schedule of the same is East by: Site No.326 and 325, West by: Road, North by: Site No.305 and South by: Site No.303. However this site also located in Survey No.76 of 31 Guntas towards East: since of the suit schedule 'A' property i.e., 31 Guntas in Survey No.76, which is belongs to the plaintiffs. Hence, the sale deed executed by the defendant No.10 in favour of this defendant is not binding on the plaintiffs, the same is produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court as DOCUMENT No.43. 26. The plaintiffs submit that the defendant No.24 has also purchased the site from defendant No.10 as per his sale deed dated 13-7-1993 bearing Site No.239A measuring East to West: 40 Feet and North to South: 60 Feet, in Survey No.189, however they wrongly showing as Survey No.189, however the said site is actually situated in Survey No.76 of suit schedule 'A' property i.e., 31 Guntas said site is situated on the eastern side of the suit schedule 'A' property in 31 Guntas of Survey No.76. the said sale deed executed by defendant No.10 in favour of the defendant No.24 is not at all binding on the plaintiffs. The said sale deed is produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.44. 27. The Plaintiffs submit that the Defendant No.26 has purchased the site bearing No.235 formed out of Survey No.75 situated at Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now comes under the BBMP Limits, MICO Layout. The said site is measuring East to West: 30 Feet and North to South: 50 Feet measuring 1500 square feet under the registered sale deed dated 28- 9-2012 from the Vendors. The said site is measuring East to West: 30 Feet and North to South: 50 Feet measuring 1500 square feet under the registered sale deed dated 28- 9-2012 from the Vendors. The said vendors father and husband have purchased the Site No.235 from defendant No.10 under the sale deed dated 28-9-2012 from his vendors. The said vendors father and husband have purchased the Site No.235 from defendant No.10 under the sale deed dated 18-6-1992, the defendant No.10 Society has executed the sale deed in favour of one Narasimhaiah registered as document No.1381/1992-93, Book-1, pages 155 – 156 volume No.3551 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, thereafter the legal heirs of said Narasimhaiah sold the same in favour of this defendant No.26, however this site is also located in Survey No.76 measuring 31 Guntas on the western side. However, in the sale deed the society defendant No.10 shown this Site in Survey No.75, the same is not correct, hence the said sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. Therefore, the said two sale deeds dated 29-5-1992 and also the sale deeds dated 28-09- 2012 is produced before this Hon'ble Court and marked as DOCUMENT No.45 and 46. 28. The Plaintiffs submit that the suit filed by the defendant No.1 to 9 against the defendant No.10 in O.S.No.3825/1996, in the said suit, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 has been made as parties of plaintiff No.12 and 13. The copy of the plaint is produced herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and marked as DOCUMENT No.19 and In the plaint itself the defendants herein who is the plaintiffs No.1 to 11 in O.S.No.3825/1995 categorically states that there is joint family existed between them (Defendant No.1 to 9). These plaintiff No.1 to 4 are not the members of the family of Defendant No.1 to 9, as on the date of filing the suit in the year 1996, there is no joint family was existed, in the year 1940 itself there is an oral partition as stated supra, the properties have been divided between the sons of late Hotte Mariyappa and as per the documents stated of the sale deeds executed in the year 1943 by the father of the 1 st defendant and two others sons excluded the 1 st son Munivenkatappa who is the grand-father of the plaintiffs have sold the same. In the said document it, it is categorically admitted on the southern side land of 31 Guntas is belongs to the plaintiff's grand-father Munivenkatappa. The copy of the sale deed of 1943 itself shows that each and every son of Late Hotte Mariyappa have sold 31 Guntas each as the share came to their favour and the same has been sold three sons of Hotte Mariyappa and said grand-father Munivenkatappa has not been questioned by any of the family members, as absolute owners they have sold the property of their shares and later on there is repurchase by the parties. The same itself shows that there is no joint family existed between the sons of late Hotte Mariyappa who is the propositus of the plaintiffs family. Hence, the question of getting IHC khata No.4/1991 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of land measuring 31 Guntas in Survey No.76 belongs to the Munivenkatappa who is the grand-father of the plaintiff and later the property comes in the year 1957 in the name of grand-father Muniakkayamma @ Akkayamma, later on it will continued in the name of Krishnappa who is the father of the Plaintiffs. On such being the case, only on the change of revenue entry IHC 4/91-92 in the name of the 1 st defendant behind the back of the plaintiffs and their parents the conversion has been done long with other measurement of 2 Acres 14 Guntas available for the share of other three sons of late Hotte Mariyappa has been converted by said defendant No.1 on 17-12-1991 for non-agricultural purpose. All these facts are not within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their parents only when the defendant No.10 was trying to form a layout as per the documents stated above, then only the mother of the plaintiffs Smt. S.V. Kempamma has looked into the same and got the revenue documents thereafter she knows that the forged IHC khata was made in favour of the 1 st defendant in respect of 3 Guntas in Survey No.76 which belongs to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, they have appeared before the Tahasildar and Assistant Commissioner and have filed the appeal and challenged the said illegal revenue entry. The said IHC khata was held in year 1991 after the death of father of the plaintiffs namely Krishnappa. Thereafter, they have appeared before the Tahasildar and Assistant Commissioner and have filed the appeal and challenged the said illegal revenue entry. The said IHC khata was held in year 1991 after the death of father of the plaintiffs namely Krishnappa. However, the plaintiffs and their mother Smt. S.V. Kempamma is not having worldly knowledge about all these proceedings, because they have continued without any interference of anybody in the suit schedule 'A' property. Thereafter, the revenue entries came in the name of mother of the plaintiffs, the R.T.C and mutation is very much clearly shows that they are in possession of the entire 31 Guntas of suit schedule 'A' property (31 Guntas). However, the said S.V. Kempamma also died on 25-2- 2011 on the said event as male members of the family that is plaintiff No.1 and 2 have got the IHC khata, mutation and RTC changed in their names. The copies of the RTC and mutation extract are produced as on today is continued in respect of 31 Guntas showing the possession of the plaintiffs. Hence, all these aspects as stated supra, the plaintiffs are the absolutes owners having the right, title and interest over the property and continued possession of the same. 29. The Plaintiffs further submit that the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Court in O.S.No.450/2008 and another O.S.No.456/2008 filed by defendant No.11 and 13 in the said suit itself the Hon'ble Courts has find a fact that the plaintiffs has to file a suit for such a relief as prescribed under the law to evict the defendant No.11 and 13 by due process of law, even though Regular Appeals are also pending before the Hon'ble Courts. Even though in the said suits the defendant No.11 and 13 stated that as per their sale deed the sites formed in Survey No.191, however, the one of the Secretary of Defendant No.10 Society one Shivakumaraiah appeared as a witness as PW-2 and stated that these the sites are situated in Survey No.76 i.e., the suit schedule 'A' property measuring 31 Guntas. The said admission itself shows that the said two sites which belongs to defendant No.11 and 13, now the same is claimed by defendant No.19 and 20 is within the location of suit schedule property i.e., 31 Guntas in Survey No.76, therefore the Society cannot execute such sale deeds without having proper schedule to locate the said sites. The layout sketches shows some other location of the sites sold in favour of Defendant No.11 to 23, however the said sites were situated in Survey No.76, measuring 31 Guntas belongs to the plaintiffs. At the instigation of the Society these site holders trying to put up construction by way of filing the injunction suits against these plaintiffs and trying to encroach upon the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiffs. The right of the plaintiffs cannot be denied on the said forgery revenue entry of the property in Survey No.76 measuring 31 Guntas which belongs to the plaintiffs. 30. The plaintiffs states that as per the sale deed obtained father and grand-mother from one Gowramma, the document is also produced herewith and later on the schedule shown after changing the entire area except this 31 Guntas the schedule is mentioned as 'B' schedule. The rest of the sites situated in the area of 31 Guntas in shown as Schedule. These sites are only situated in the area of 31 Guntas of Survey No.76 Hongasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now the property comes under the area of BBMP, hence, this Hon'ble Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, the present comprehensive suit for Declaration, Possession and Mandatory Injunction. 31. The cause of action for the suit arose continuously in this case right from filing of the Appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.9A/2001-02 order dated 29-5-2003 and further the suit filed by the mother of the plaintiff to O.S.No.10198/2005 and also the disposal of Regular First Appeal No.1985/2010 is withdrawn on 4-9- 2020 and also subsequently the suits filed by the Defendants No.11 and 13 in O.S.No.450/2008 and also O.S.No.456/2008 and thereafter the suits filed by the defendant No.14 and 19 in O.S.No.25028/2022 and O.S.No.25029/2022 before the Hon'ble City Civil Courts, thus the cause of action is continuous due to the continuous fraud played by the defendants No.1 to 10 above litigations and interference by the defendants in the suit schedule 'A' property. Finally, on 20-01-2023 when the defendant No.14 and 19 have forcibly trying to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule 'A' property. Subsequently on 20-3-2023 when the defendants illegally interfered with the peaceful possession and possession enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule 'A' property. The property is situated within limits of BBMP. The Suit schedule property is situated within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 32. That the suit is valued as per the valuation slip and the fixed Court fee is paid on the plaint. 33. That the plaintiffs had not filed any other suit except the present one, and not initiated any other proceedings either before this Hon'ble Court or before any other court and no other suit or proceedings is pending in respect of the suit schedule property on the same cause of action. PRAYER WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree; (a) To declare that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the suit schedule 'A' property. (b) To handover the possession of the suit schedule 'A' property in favour of the plaintiffs by demolishing the illegal compound and constructions if any erected by the defendant No.11 to 20, by granting the relief of mandatory injunction. (c) To grant the consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule 'A' property. (d) To declare that the undated and unregistered sale agreement executed by defendant No.1 to 9 in i.e., Document No.14 executed by defendant No.1 to 9 in favour of defendant No.10 in respect of Survey No.76, measuring 3 Acres 4 Guntas including 31 Guntas of suit schedule 'A' property later on date was given by defendant No.10 as 6-1-1989 is not binding on the plaintiffs. (e) To declare that the unregistered consent letter executed by the defendant No.1 to 9 in favour of defendant No.10 dated 6-1-1989 is not binding on the plaintiffs. (f) To declare that the unregistered General Power of attorney dated 6.6.1989 executed by Defendant No.1 to 9 in favour of one C.V. L. Shastry, S/o Venkatasubba Shastry in respect of land bearing Survey No.76 including 31 Guntas of land belongs to the Plaintiff claiming as suit schedule 'A' property is not binding on the plaintiffs. (f) To declare that the unregistered General Power of attorney dated 6.6.1989 executed by Defendant No.1 to 9 in favour of one C.V. L. Shastry, S/o Venkatasubba Shastry in respect of land bearing Survey No.76 including 31 Guntas of land belongs to the Plaintiff claiming as suit schedule 'A' property is not binding on the plaintiffs. (g) To declare that the registered General Power of Attorney dated 28-2-1992 executed by defendant No.1 to 9 in favour of defendant No.10 Society Secretary namely one Sri. Anantharamu, the same was registered before the Sub- Registrar, Bommanahalli (Jayanagar), Bangalore South Taluk as document No.467, volume No.31 Book-IV, pages 64-65 is not binding on the plaintiffs. (h) To declare that the registered sale deed of Cancellation of General Power of Attorney dated 29-1-1996 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bommanahalli, Jayanagara, as document No.1728/95-96, book volume No.1 is not binding on the plaintiffs. (i) To declare that the proceedings before the Government of Karnataka in respect of approving the Official Memorandum dated 4.12.1995 for Issuing the layout sketch and also approved by the BDA the said documents marked as DOCUMENT No.16, 17 and 18 are not binding on the plaintiffs. (j) To declare that the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3825/1996 dated 16-10-2004 is not binding on the plaintiffs. (k) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 18-12- 1992 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of Defendant No.11 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, as document No.5001/92-93 of Book-I, pages 69 to 70, Volume 3637, as not binding on the plaintiffs. (m) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 5-7- 2019 executed by Defendant No.11 in favour of defendant No.12 registered in the office as document No.BGR-1-02061-2019-20, Book Volume No.1 stored in C.D.No.BGRD475 dated 5-7-2019, as not binding on the plaintiffs. (n) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 27-11- 1992 executed by Defendant No.10 in favour of Defendant No.13 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk, as document No.4532/1992-93, Book-1, Volume No.3691, pages 197 to 198, as not binding on the plaintiffs. (p) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 13-9- 1996 executed by Defendant No.10 in favour of Defendant No.13 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk, as document No.2668/96-97, Book-I, Volume No.4308 Page No.13-14 dated 23-12-1996 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (p) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 13-9- 1996 executed by Defendant No.10 in favour of Defendant No.13 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk, as document No.2668/96-97, Book-I, Volume No.4308 Page No.13-14 dated 23-12-1996 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (q) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 19-08- 2009 executed by defendant No.13 in favour of defendant No.14 and 15 in respect of Site No.306, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara (Begur) as document No.BGR-1-03104-2019-20, Book Volume No.1, stored in C.D.No.BGRD508 dated 19-8-2019 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (r) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 7-11- 1994, executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.16, and father of defendant No.17 and 18, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk as document No.5329/94-95 of Book-1, volume No.3887, Pages 15-16, as not binding on the plaintiffs. (s) To declare that the registered Rectification Deed dated 23-04-2014 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of husband of Defendant No.16, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Begur, Bangalore South Taluk, as document No.BGR-1- 00338-20-2014-15 of Book-1, stored in C.D.No.BGRD243 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (t) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 29-06- 2020 executed by Defendant No.16 to 18 in favour of Defendant No.19 in respect of portion of the site No.238, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara (Bommanahalli) as Document No.BMH-1-00947/2020-21, Book Volume No.1, stored in C.D.No.BMHD1182 dated 29-6-2020 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (u) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 29-06- 2020 executed by defendant No.16 to 18 in favour of Defendant No.20 in respect of portion of the site No.238, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara (Bommanahalli) as document No.BMH-1-00949/2020-21, Book Volume No.1, stored in C.D.No.BMHD1182 dated 29-06-2020 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (v) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 12-07- 1993 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.21 in respect of Site No.239, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara (Bommanahalli) as document No.1704/93-94 in pages 1, 5 and 6 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (v) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 12-07- 1993 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.21 in respect of Site No.239, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara (Bommanahalli) as document No.1704/93-94 in pages 1, 5 and 6 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (w) To declare that the registered Rectification Deed dated 11-09- 2006 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.21 in respect of Site No.239, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bommanahalli as document No.3308/2008-09 in book Volume No.1, stored in CD.No.BMHD356 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (y) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 12-7-1993 and executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.22 in respect of Site No.236, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, as document No.1711, Book No.I, Volume No.3752 pages 177 to 178 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (z) To declare that the registered Rectification deed dated 4-6- 1998 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.22 in respect of Site No.236, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, as document No.1493/98-99, Book No.I, pages 1 to 6 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (aa) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 7-12-1992 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.23 in respect of the Site No.304, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, as document No.4806, Book No.1, Volume No.6 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (ab) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 24-1-1994 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of husband of defendant No.24 (Gopalakrishna Nair) in respect of Site No.264, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, as document No.4144/90-91 Book-I, Volume No.3763 at pages No.133 and 134 as not binding on the plaintiff. (ac) To declare that the registered Rectification Deed dated 21-12-2015 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.24 in respect of site No.264, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk as document No.BGR-1-06491-2015-16, Book No.1, stored in C.D.No.BGRD272 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (ac) To declare that the registered Rectification Deed dated 21-12-2015 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.24 in respect of site No.264, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk as document No.BGR-1-06491-2015-16, Book No.1, stored in C.D.No.BGRD272 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (ad) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 13-7-1993 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of husband of defendant No.25 in respect of Site No.239A, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, as document No.1733/93-94, Book No.1, at pages No.2 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (ae) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 18-6-1992 executed by defendant No.10 in favour of vendor of defendant No.26 in respect of Site No.235, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, as document No.1381/92-93, Book No.I, at page No.155 to 156 as not binding on the plaintiffs. (af) To declare that the registered sale deed dated 28-09-2012 executed by LRs of Vendor Narasimhaiah in favour of Defendant No.26 in respect of site No.235, registered in the office of the Sub-Register, Bangalore South Taluk, s document No.BMH-1-05361-1-2012-13, Book No.1, Stored in C.D.No.BMHD589 dated 28-09-2012 as not binding on the Plaintiffs. (ag) Pass such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity and, (ah) Award the cost of the suit and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances. (ag) Pass such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity and, (ah) Award the cost of the suit and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances. Advocate for Plaintiffs Plaintiffs : SCHEDULE -A All that piece and parcel of the converted land bearing Survey No.76 measuring 31 Guntas at Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now comes under the BBMP limits, having boundary bounded on: Direction Description East Sarakari Marave Halla at present MICO layout formed in survey No.191 (Begur) West Land of Hongasandra Reddigara Annaiah presently the MICO Layout formed in Survey No.191 (Begur) North Land belongs to Badagi Munishammappa, presently the MICO Layout formed in Sy.No.191 (Begur) South Property of Pillanaiah s/o late Hotte Mariyappa and his other two brothers in Survey no.76 (excluding Munivenkatappa) SCHEDULRE-B All that piece and parcel of the site bearing No. 305, bearing BBMP Khatha No. 91/78/305 measuring East to West: 59 Feet and North to South: 30 Feet formed in converted land bearing Survey No.191(2 Acre 21 Guntas) of Begur Village and Hobli, Bangalore Taluk, by the Bengaluru Mico Shramajeevi Karmikara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bengaluru, presently under the jurisdiction of Bruthath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru, Bangalore, together with all rights, appurtenances, whatsoever underneath or above the surface and bounded on the (Actually the same is situated on Eastern side of Survey No.76 of 31 Guntas of 'A' Schedule property) Direction Details East by Site No.325/324 West by Road North by Site No.306 South by Site No.304 SCHEDULE-C All that piece and parcel of the site bearing No.305, presently bearing BBMP Khata No.92/79/306 measuring East to West:59 Feet and North to South: 30 Feet in all measuring 1770 square feet, formed in converted land bearing Survey No.191(2 Acre 21 Guntas) of Begur Village and Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, by the Bengaluru Mico Shramajeevi Karmikara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bengaluru, presently under the jurisdiction of Bruthath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru, Bangalore, together with all rights, appurtenances, underneath or above the surface and bounded on the: (Actually the same is situated on Eastern side of Survey No.76 of 31 Guntas of 'A' Schedule property) Direction Boundary East Site No. 324 West Road North Site No. 307 South Site No. 305 SCHEDULE-D All that piece and parcel of the Western Portion of the property bearing site No.238, in converted Sy. No.76 (3 Acres and 04 Guntas) B.B.M.P. Katha No.857/843/829/76/238, measuring East to West: 18 Feet and North to South: 32+38/2 Feet, totally measuring 630 square feet of Hongasandra Village and Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, in the layout formed by the Bengaluru Mico Shramajeevi Karmikara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bengaluru, presently under the jurisdiction of Bruthath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru, Bangalore, and the same is bounded on the: (Actually the same is situated on Eastern side of Survey No.76 of 31 Guntas of 'A' Schedule property) Direction Description East Remaining portion of the same Site No.238 West Site No.238A North Road South Private Property SCHEDULE-E All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing Site No. 238, in converted Sv. No.76. (3 Acre of 04 Guntas) B.B.M.D Katha No.857/843/829/76/238, in the layout formed by the MICO Shramajeevi Karmikara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Nivamitha, Bengaluru, measuring East to West: 39 feet and North to South: 25+38/2 Feet, totally measuring 1228.50 Square feet situated at Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District, presently within the jurisdiction of B.B.M.P. Bangalore bounded on: (Actually the same is situated on Eastern side of Survey No. 76 of 31 Guntas of 'A' Schedule property) Direction Site/Location East Site No. 237 West Site No. 238A North Road South Private property SCHEDULE-F All that piece and parcel of Site No.239 in Survey No.189 (as per the Rectification Deed dated 11-09-2008 Survey Number is shown as 75 and 76 (3 Acres and 01 Gunta) of Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West: Forty Feet and North to South: Sixty Feet, and the same is bounded on: (Actually the same is situated on Western side of Survey No.76 of 31 Guntas of 'A' Schedule property) Direction Description East S.W.D West Site No. 239A North Road South Site No. 235 (As per Rectification Deed dated 11-09-2008 is shown as Site No.236) SCHEDULE-G All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing No.236, in Survey No.189, (3 Acre and 01 Gunta) in the layout formed by MICO Shramajeevi Karmikara, Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bengaluru, measuring East to West: 60 Feet and North to South 40 Feet. (As per rectification deed dated 4-6-1998) site is measuring East to West: 51.5 feet and North to South: 52 Feet) situated at Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District, (Actually the same is situated on Western Side of Survey No.76 of 31 Guntas of 'A' Schedule property) Direction Description East Site No. 349 (As per Rectification Deed dated 4-6-1998 S.W.D) West Site No. 236A (As per Rectification Deed dated 4-6-1998 Site No. 235) North Road (As per Rectification Deed dated 4-6-1998 Site No. 239) South Private land (As per Rectification Deed dated 4-6-1998: Road) SCHEDULE-H All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing site No.304, in Survey No.191 (2 Acres and 26 Guntas), in the layout formed by the MICO Shramajeevi Karmikara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 50 Feet and North to South: 30 Feet, situated at Hongsandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District (Actually the same is situated on Eastern side of Survey No.76 of 31 Guntas of 'A' Schedule property) Direction Description East Site No. 326 and 325 West Road North Site No. 305 South Site No. 303 SCHEDULE-J All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing site No.264, in Survey No.75 (2 Acres and 36 Guntas), in the layout formed by the MICO Shramajeevi Karmikara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Nivamitha, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 30 Feet and North to South: 31+53/2 Feet (as per the Rectification Deed dated 21-12-2015 North to South: (51+53)/2 totally 1560 square feet situated at Hongsandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District (Actually the same is situated on Western side of Survey No. 76 of 31 Guntas of 'A' Schedule property) Direction Description East S.W.D West Site No.263 North Site No.26 (As per Rectification Deed dated 21-12-2015: Site No.265 and 266) South Road SCHEDULE -K All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing site No.235, in Survey No.75 (2 Acres and 39 Guntas), in the layout formed by the MICO Shramajeevi Karmikara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bengaluru, measuring East to West: 30 Feet and North to South: 50 Feet, in all measuring 1500 square feet situated at Hongsandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District (Actually the same is situated on Western side of Survey No.76 of 31 Guntas of 'A' Schedule property) Direction Details East by Site No.236 West by Site No.234 North by Site No.239 South by Road SCHEDULE-L All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing site No.239A, in Survey No. 189 (3 Acres and 01 Gunta), in the layout formed by the MICO Shramajeevi Karmikara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bengaluru, measuring East to West: 40 Feet and North to South: 60 Feet, situated at Hongsandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District (Actually the same is situated on Western side of Survey No.76 of 31 Guntas of 'A' Schedule property) Direction Boundary East Site No.239 West Site No.240 North Road South Site No.234 5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent jointly submit that in view of filing the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.3252/2023 seeking comprehensive reliefs by the appellants and the respondent and others in respect of Sy.No.76 measuring 31 guntas, both the appeals may be disposed of relegating the parties to work out their remedies in the aforesaid suit by leaving open all contentions to be urged before the trial court in the pending suit, which shall proceed and decide the matter without being influenced by the findings and observations made in the impugned common judgment and decree. 6. In view of the joint submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of both the appeals by relegating the parties to work out their respective remedies by leaving open all contentions to be urged by both sides of subject properties in O.S.No.3252/2023 and by directing the trial court before whom the said suit is pending to dispose of the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the findings and observations made in the impugned common judgment and decree. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff submits that in view of the order of temporary injunction passed in the present appeals, the ongoing construction of the respondent has come to a standstill and the respondent may be directed to complete the construction subject to the condition that the respondent shall not claim any equities in this regard and that the said construction to be put up by the respondent henceforth would be final outcome of pending suit in O.S.No.3252/2023. The said submission is placed on record. 8. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Both the appeals are disposed of without interfering with the impugned common judgment and decree dated 14.11.2024 passed in O.S.Nos.25028/2022 and 25029/2022 by the trial court. (ii) The respondent – plaintiff is permitted to complete the ongoing construction on the suit schedule property, subject to the condition that no equities shall be claimed by him and the same would be subject to the final outcome of the pending suit in O.S.No.3252/2023. (iii) The trial court before whom the suit in O.S.No.3252/2023 is pending, is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the findings and observations made in the impugned common judgment and decree. (iii) The trial court before whom the suit in O.S.No.3252/2023 is pending, is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the findings and observations made in the impugned common judgment and decree. (iv) Having regard to the fact that the dispute pending between the parties since 1996, the trial court is directed to dispose of the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.3252/2023 within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) The amount of Rs.10 lakhs deposited by the appellants pursuant to the order dated 03.03.2023 passed in MFA No.1330/2023 and MFA No.1334/2023 shall be invested in a Fixed Deposit and the same shall be subject to final outcome of O.S.No.3252/2023.