JUDGMENT : V. SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Smt.Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Advocate for Smt.A.R.Soujanya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Senior Advocate for Sri Yadunandan N, learned counsel for respondent No.1(a), Sri Punith C and Sri Narendra Babu H.L., learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in the present appeal challenging the validity of the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 20.02.2006 passed in O.S.No. 3162/1994 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 3. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 4. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 5. Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.3162/1994 for the relief of declaration that he is the owner of an immovable property detailed below (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’) and to restore the vacant possession of the suit property after demolishing the unlawful structure, and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up any construction on the suit property. “All that piece and parcel of the vacant land formed out of Survey No.255 of Doddabanaswadi village, Krishnarayapuram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru, measuring 0.11 guntas or 30’x 40’ and bounded as follows: East by: The plaintiff’s vendor’s land, West by: Road, North by: Plaintiff’s vendor’s land, South by: Plaintiff’s vendor’s land.” 6. Plaintiff contended that he is the absolute owner of the suit property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 28.05.1980. After purchase, revenue entries were mutated and he is paying the taxes. 7. Plaintiff further contended that he entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant on 16.09.1988 for total sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- subject to other terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement. 8. On the day of the agreement plaintiff has received Rs.10,000/- as advance sale consideration and handed over the original documents of the suit property viz., registered sale deed, khatha extract and tax receipts. 9. It is further contended that the defendant left for gulf country and stayed back for longer period as she was employed there and she assured the plaintiff that she would send the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction as early as possible. 10. 9. It is further contended that the defendant left for gulf country and stayed back for longer period as she was employed there and she assured the plaintiff that she would send the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction as early as possible. 10. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the defendant committed breach of contract by not complying with clause 3 of the agreement of sale, which reads as under: “3. The sale transaction and registration of the sale deed shall be completed within a period of 30 days from this date. The time is the essence of this contract.” 11. It is also contended by the plaintiff that the defendant neither paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- nor got the sale deed registered in her favour. But manipulated the sale agreement by contending that she has paid Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff by illegally concocting an endorsement above the signature of the plaintiff. 12. It is further contended that the defendant also trespassed on to the suit property and started digging the trenches with an intention to put up the foundation and taking advantage of pendency of the suit, completed the illegal construction without any authority and thus sought for the suit relief. 13. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement by contending that plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit property and is not in possession of the same. 14. Defendant contended that by virtue of the agreement of sale, plaintiff sold the suit property after receiving entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- in two installments of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.30,000/- and what remains is plaintiff to execute the sale deed in her favour. 15. It is also contended by the defendant that the contention of the plaintiff that there is violation of clause 3 of the agreement of sale is incorrect and defendant has not committed any breach of contract nor concocted the endorsement. 16. Defendant denied that she trespassed into the suit property. But it is the plaintiff who put her in possession of the suit property after receiving the entire sale consideration and sale deed alone is to be executed by the plaintiff which the plaintiff went on postponing and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 17. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, following issues and additional issues were raised. 17. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, following issues and additional issues were raised. “ISSUES (i) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves interference by the defendant? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? (iv) What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES (i) Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration that he is owner of suit schedule property? (ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction to demolish structure put up by the defendant in suit schedule property? (iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit schedule property?” 18. In support of the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and did not place any documentary evidence on record. 19. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 it has been elicited that, the plaintiff came into contact with the defendant/D.W.1 through a person who was holding the contract for construction of the building, by name, Jayaraj/D.W-2. He has answered that he is acquainted with Jayaraj since 1988. He admits that he has got four children and recently, he had performed the marriage of his daughter. However, due to matrimonial dispute, his daughter returned to the paternal home. 20. He specifically answered that after getting acquainted with the defendant, he sold the suit property in favour of the defendant for total consideration of Rs.40,000/- and received Rs.10,000/- as earnest money on 16.09.1988. 21. He admits his signature on agreement of sale/Ex.D.1 also signature of the defendant. He has answered that he purchased the suit property from Appanna and Chinnanna. He admits that the photographs of the suit property are marked as Exs.D.3 to 12. He admits that in the photographs Exs.D.11 and D.12, husband of the defendant is also seen and there is a house constructed in the suit property. 22. He admits that his elder brother-Babulal Jain arranged for purchase of the suit property from Appanna and Chinnanna. Said Babulal Jain also purchased portion of the suit property in the very same land. 23. He has answered that his relationship with Babulal Jain is now strained and he is not visiting his house. Plaintiff further admits that by way of original sale deed in respect of suit property marked as Ex.D.13 he purchased the suit property from his vendors viz., Appanna and Chinnanna. 24. 23. He has answered that his relationship with Babulal Jain is now strained and he is not visiting his house. Plaintiff further admits that by way of original sale deed in respect of suit property marked as Ex.D.13 he purchased the suit property from his vendors viz., Appanna and Chinnanna. 24. He admits that the tax assessment extract issued by the Banaswadi Group Panchayath is marked as Ex.D.14 and tax assessment extract as Ex.D.15. He admits the tax paid receipt and building licence are marked as Exs.D.17 and 18. He admits that the property is now within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City Corporation. 25. He admits that there is an endorsement in agreement of sale/Ex.D.1 that sum of Rs.30,000/- has been paid to him. But, he denied that Jayaraj attested Ex.D.1. He has answered that he has paid tax in respect of the suit property upto 1988 and after 1988 he has not paid the taxes to the suit property. 26. On behalf of the defendant, Smt.Geetha Rangaiah- defendant is examined as D.W.1. She has filed affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief. She has placed on record the special notice issued by the Bengaluru City Corporation as Ex.D.19. 27. In her cross-examination, she has specifically answered that Ex.D.1(c) is the signature of the plaintiff in respect of the agreement as well as the endorsement (shara) with regard to payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-. 28. She has answered that the agreement came to be executed on 16.09.1988, whereas, balance sale consideration was paid on 26.09.1988 and date has been mentioned as 26.09.1988. She has answered that on 16.09.1988, sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid as agreement was completely prepared, but actual execution of the agreement took place on 26.09.1988 on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-. 29. She has answered that she has not issued any notice seeking enforcement of contract of sale. 30. She admits that in Ex.D.17 there is no signature of plaintiff. She denied that Exs.D.15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are false documents. 31. She has answered that she is acquainted with Jayaraj(D.W.2), but he is not her relative. She admits that Jayaraj lives in Ashoknagar. He took lead in getting the agreement executed and Jayaraj lives in Ashoknagar. She denied the suggestion that only Rs.10,000/- was paid and balance sum of Rs.30,000/- was not paid to the plaintiff. 32. 31. She has answered that she is acquainted with Jayaraj(D.W.2), but he is not her relative. She admits that Jayaraj lives in Ashoknagar. He took lead in getting the agreement executed and Jayaraj lives in Ashoknagar. She denied the suggestion that only Rs.10,000/- was paid and balance sum of Rs.30,000/- was not paid to the plaintiff. 32. Sri Jayaraj is examined as D.W.2. He filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, wherein he has deposed that the plaintiff entrusted the work of construction of his house and since plaintiff was in need of money for construction, plaintiff decided to sell the suit property. At that juncture, he came to know that defendant was in search of a suitable site. Hence he introduced the defendant to the plaintiff and after negotiation, the transaction was fruitful and sale consideration was fixed at Rs.40,000/-. 33. He further deposed that as per the understanding between the plaintiff and defendant, sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the plaintiff on 16.09.1988 by the defendant and balance sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid on 26.09.1988 and agreement was executed by the plaintiff including the endorsement. He has stated that he has signed as a witness to the agreement of sale-Ex.D.1 on 26.09.1988 though the agreement was prepared on 16.09.1988. 34. It is further stated that defendant went to the gulf country thereafter. It is further stated that entire sale consideration was paid in his presence and site was demarcated and boundaries were fixed. 35. He further deposed that one of the vendor of the plaintiff viz., Chinnanna was also present at the time of demarcating the boundaries and defendant was put in possession of the property and foundation was dug. The defendant, after obtaining proper licence, constructed a house and she is residing in the said house along with her family members much prior to 1994. 36. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that he put up the construction for the plaintiff in the year 1987-88. Earlier to that he knew the defendant for few years and he introduced the defendant to the plaintiff. He has further answered that plaintiff was intending to sell the suit property and therefore, he took lead in the transaction. 37. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff had sufficient funds at all times. Earlier to that he knew the defendant for few years and he introduced the defendant to the plaintiff. He has further answered that plaintiff was intending to sell the suit property and therefore, he took lead in the transaction. 37. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff had sufficient funds at all times. He has specifically answered that agreement between the parties took place on 16.09.1988 and at that juncture, defendant paid Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff. However, he has answered that on 16.09.1988, plaintiff did not subscribe his signature to the agreement and the bond writer by name Mohan prepared the agreement on 16.09.1988. 38. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff did not receive balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-. He admits that he has filed an eviction case against the defendant and said suit was decreed in favour of his daughter. 39. One of the vendors of the plaintiff viz., Chinnanna is examined as D.W.3. In his affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief, he has stated that he was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.255 wherein the suit property is carved out. He has stated that on 28.05.1980, he sold the suit property to the plaintiff and plaintiff was put in possession of the property. 40. He has further stated that plaintiff in turn sold the property in the year 1988 in favour of the defendant for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. He has further stated that when the defendant was inspecting the suit property, he went and objected for the same stating that plaintiff is owning him a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Later on, defendant agreed to pay the said amount and he received Rs.3,000/- from the defendant. He demarcated the suit site and construction took place in the suit property. 41. He has stated that he has marked the place for laying the foundation. At that time, plaintiff, Jayaraj, husband of the defendant and defendant were present. He has stated that defendant has put up the construction in the suit property after obtaining licence from the concerned authority and as on today, there is a building existing in the suit property. 42. In the cross-examination, he has answered that he did not have any business transaction with the plaintiff in the year 1980 except purchase of the site by the plaintiff in a sum of Rs.6,000/- from him. 43. 42. In the cross-examination, he has answered that he did not have any business transaction with the plaintiff in the year 1980 except purchase of the site by the plaintiff in a sum of Rs.6,000/- from him. 43. He has further answered that Rs.1,000/- was paid as advance and at the time of execution of the sale deed between him and plaintiff he had paid Rs.3,000/- and plaintiff was required to pay the balance amount. He has answered that he has not issued any notice to the plaintiff demanding the balance sale consideration. 44. The above evidence on record is sought to be re- appreciated by the learned counsel for the appellant to allow the appeal. 45. On close scrutiny of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the plaintiff makes out a case that Ex.D.1/ agreement of sale is not supported by entire consideration and thus, plaintiff is to be declared as lawful owner of the suit property and entitled for injunction against the defendant? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference from this Court? (iii) What Order? 46. REGARDING POINT Nos.1 AND 2: On perusal of material on record, it is crystal clear that appellant/plaintiff was the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from Appanna and Chinnanna by way of a registered sale deed. It is D.W.2-Jayaraj who constructed the house of the appellant, mediated between the appellant/plaintiff and defendant for the sale transaction. 47. Jayaraj has deposed before the Court that when he was constructing the house of the appellant/plaintiff, there was financial crunch for the appellant to proceed with the construction and therefore, appellant expressed his willingness to sell the suit property. Since Jayaraj was aware of the need of the defendant to purchase a house site, he introduced defendant to the appellant and suit agreement came into existence on 16.09.1988. 48. It is unequivocal say of Jayaraj/D.W.2 as well as plaintiff/P.W.1 that on 16.09.1988 a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid as advance sale consideration. 49. But balance sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid on 26.09.1988 and then, appellant/plaintiff signed the sale agreement, is deposed by Jayaraj and D.W1. Plaintiff has denied the same. 50. The endorsement found in Ex.D.1 is disputed by the appellant. But signature is made by the appellant beneath the endorsement. 49. But balance sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid on 26.09.1988 and then, appellant/plaintiff signed the sale agreement, is deposed by Jayaraj and D.W1. Plaintiff has denied the same. 50. The endorsement found in Ex.D.1 is disputed by the appellant. But signature is made by the appellant beneath the endorsement. It is the say of the appellant that when he signed Ex.D.1, there was no endorsement and it is a concoction. In other words, signature on Ex.D.1 is admitted by the appellant but endorsement is denied. 51. It is in such circumstances, the evidence of Sri Jayaraj assumes importance. Financial crunch of the appellant is admitted by him in his cross-examination as his daughter had returned to paternal house on account of strained relationship in the matrimonial home. 52. Therefore, respondent/defendant who was total stranger got introduced by the D.W.2-Jayaraj to the appellant and entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- being paid on 16.09.1988 and 26.09.1988 is evidenced by the sale agreement. 53. Chinnanna, vendor of the appellant is examined as D.W.3 before the Court who deposed that at the time of marking the boundaries of suit site, he was present and appellant was due in a sum of Rs.3,000/- in respect of sale he made in favour of appellant. He collected Rs.3,000/- from the defendant and allowed the defendant to lay the foundation. 54. Admittedly, Chinnanna is a stranger insofar as respondent/defendant is concerned and why would he support the case of the defendant is a question that remains unanswered on behalf of appellant. 55. Likewise, when appellant has admitted that it is Jayaraj who mediated the sale transaction, having supported the defendant and specifically stated that entire sale consideration came to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, mere say of the appellant that he did not receive balance sum of Rs.30,000/- and therefore, suit is to be decreed cannot be countenanced in law as it is nothing but self serving testimony. 56. Further, photographs placed on record would depict that there is a house constructed on the suit property and defendant is in possession of the suit property. 57. All these material evidence has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment while dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. 58. 56. Further, photographs placed on record would depict that there is a house constructed on the suit property and defendant is in possession of the suit property. 57. All these material evidence has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment while dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. 58. Even after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, except the statement made by the appellant on oath that he did not receive the entire sale consideration, there is no other material placed on record which would advance the case of the appellant to any extent much less in getting the suit decreed. 59. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence on record placed on behalf of the defendant that entire sale consideration is paid and defendant was put in possession of the suit property and there is construction and defendant and her family members are living in the suit property. 60. Thus, in view of the above discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative. 61. REGARDING POINT No.3: In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs.