Plaintiffs:

1. E.S Srishilan Aged about 21 years

2. E.S. Krishna Aged about 19 years
3. Kamala Aged about 16 years
4. E.S. Venkatarangan Aged about 14 years
5. Vijayalakshmi Aged about 11 years
The suit is originally filed before civil judge Bangalore, in [Link]. 95/1981 in the
form of Pauper. Said suit was dismissed for default by order dated 21.01.1987
Later on same is restored to its original stage by order passed in Mis. No. 18/1981
The entire file is transferred before this court and suit is renumbered as [Link].
290/1994

Originally there were only two defendants

[Link]. Dodda Arasappa S/o Srigirappa (Since died by his LR's)
1 (a). Patalappa Aged about major S/o Late Dodda Arasappa Arasappa
(Deleted as per order of court dated 07-03-2014)
1 (b). Ramakrishna Aged about major S/o Late Dodda Arasappa
1 (c). Kanakamma S/o Late Dodda
1 (d). Rajamma Aged about major S/o Late Dodda Arasappa
1 (e). Puttamma S/o Late Dodda Arasappa (Deleted as per order of court
dated 07-03-2014)
2. Smt. Embar Padma W/o Vembar Srinivasachar Aged about 40 years No.22,
Sheshadri Road, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru
In the course of trial defendant No.3 is added as party to the suit as per the order
of court dated 12.01.1985

3. [Link] Arasappa S/o Singarappa (Since Died by his LR's)

3 (a). Mr. Chithappa S/o Chikka Arasappa Major
 3 (b). Sri. Chikka Patalappa S/o Chikka Arasappa Major
(Since Died by his LR's)
3 b(a).Sri Ramesh S/o Late Chikka Patalappa
3 b(b). Sri. Siddesh S/o Late Chikka Patalappa
3 b(c). Shivakumar S/o Late Chikka Patalappa
3(c). Sri. Singarappa S/o Chikka Arasappa Major

The defendant No.4 is also added as party to the suit as per order of the court
dated 08.03.2016
4. M/S Telecom Employ Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Office No. 23, 1st
floor Neharunagar Main road Bengaluru. 20 R/by its Sri. Manjunatha C.V

As there was proceeding pending before the land tribunal Devanahalli, as per the
LRF No. 51/1974-75, the present suit was directed to be stayed until disposal of
LRF No51/1974-75 as per the order of court dated 25.01.1997

Again on 04.07.2008 the suit came to be dismissed for non- prosecution. There
was [Link] No. 18/2010 to restore the suit. After enquiry, once again suit is
came to be restored to its original stage as per order in Mis. No 18/2010.
Since, the proceeding pending before Land Tribunal Devanahalli has been
disposed off and attained its finality. The present suit is proceeded.

The plaintiffs are the son of Late Vembar Srinivasachar

The defendant No.2 is wife of said Late Vembar Srinivasachar and the mother of
the plaintiffs.

Late Vembar Srinivasachar possessed land bearing [Link].150 and 151 situated in
Bettanahalli village, Kundana, Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, as shown in the suit
schedule as an absolute owner

On 15-10-1960, 1st defendant entered into an agreement and took over the
possession of the suit properties for the purpose of planting casurina trees
Late Vembar Srinivasachar died on 02-10-1969 leaving behind plaintiffs and
defendant NO.2 as his surviving heirs.
The plaintiffs and defendant No.2 were not aware the transaction took place
between the Vembar Srinivasachary and defendant No.1, in respect of suit
properties. Later on, they came to know that, there was a agreement dated 15-10-
1960 in respect of suit properties.
When the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 visited the suit properties, they have seen
that, there were casurina trees of 8 to 9 years old. The 1st defendant without
knowledge of the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 and taking advantage of ignorance of
the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and without any authority, raised casurina tree
in the suit properties and failed to intimate the same to the plaintiffs and
defendant No.2 as per the agreement dated 14-05-1969
It is further submitted that, the 1st defendant left the possession of the suit
properties by handing over the suit properties to the deceased father of the
plaintiffs. In spite of same the defendant No.1 resumed possession and raised
casurina trees by taking advantage of death of father of the plaintiffs

The 1st defendant is also setting up hostile title to the suit properties. It is further
submitted that, the 1st defendant had also sold casuarina tree about 2 years of
before failing of suit which is of worth Rs. 60,000/-.Therefore,the plaintiffs and
their mother defendant No.2 are entitled get Rs. 30,000/- from the 1st defendant

Since the defendant No.1 is not tenant and is in unlawful

possession of the land. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed above
suit praying for recovery of possession of
land, for means profit and for the permanent injunction
restraining the 1st defendant from cutting and removing standing
trees in the suit properties.

After filing of suit, suit summons issued to the defendant No.1 and 2. The
defendant No. 1 appeared through his learned counsel. The defendant No.2 did
not appear inspite of service of summons. Hence defendant No. 2 has been placed
ex-parte.

In the course of trail defendant No. 3 and 4 have been added as party to the suit.
The defendant No.1 denied the case of the plaintiff. It is contention of the
defendant No.1 that, the land in question was leased to 1st defendant in the year
1960. Since, then the defendant No.1 continued to be in possession and there is
no stipulation to hand over the said land to any body. It is further submitted that,
the land in question is tenanted land.

Since the land in question is tenanted land, which is exclusive jurisdiction of land
tribunal under Land Reforms Act. Therefore the court has got no jurisdiction.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit

The defendant No.3 has also denied the claim of the plaintiffs. It is contended
that, the land in question the leased in the name of 1st defendant who is the elder
brother of the defendant No.3 and khartha of joint family, the family property of
the defendant No.1 and 2 continued to be in joint possession till the partition
between them. On partition of their properties, the suit properties fallen to the
share of defendant No.3, since then the defendant No.3 has been in possession of
the suit properties.

It is further contended that, the land in question is tenanted land, therefore this
court has got no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is further contended that,
land Tribunal Devanahalli Taluk has granted occupancy right in favour of the
defendant No.3 as per LRF 51/74-75 which was challenged by the plaintiff before
Hon'bel High Court of Karnataka in W.P. NO. 3893/1983.

The Hon'bel High Court of Karnataka remand said matter to the Land Tribunal
Devanahalli,for fresh adjudication. therefore, this court has got no jurisdiction try
the suit.

It is submitted that, the plaintiff has filed false, fictitious suit to obtain wrongfully
gain and to abuse the process of this court. Hence prayed for dismissal of suit.

Further the defendant no.3(c) has plead ignorant as to the relationship of the
plaintiffs and defendant no.2. He denied that said Vembara Srinivasachary is
absolute owner of the suit properties. He Further denied the agreement dated
15.10.1960. It is also denied the entire case of the plaintiff. Apart from that, it is
contended that, the plaintiffs has not complied the direction of the court passed
in [Link]. 18/2010, It is defence that, the defendant has became absolute owner
of the suit property by hostile title. Thus, prayed for dismissal of suit.

The defendant No.4 in his written statement has follows

The plaintiff has suppressed material facts before the court. Therefore, the
plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs from court. The suit of the plaintiff is time
barred one, there is no cause of action for filing of the suit and it is only imaginary
one. The defendant No.4 has contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is bad for
non joinder of necessary parties as the plaintiffs are very well know the
transactions taken place in respect of suit properties.
The suit properties have been converted for non agricultural purpose as per the
order of the Special Deputy Commissioner vide No. ALN:SR226/2004-05 dated 25-
07-2005 and there is no existence trees in the suit properties.

It is contended that, the defendant No.3 sold the land in Sy. NO.150 measuring 4
acre 38 guntas and land in Sy. NO. 151 measuring 5 acre 38 guntas in favour of Sri.
Narayanaswamy S/o Nanjappa under register sale deed dated 20-04-20005. said
Narayanaswamy sold the property in Sy. NO. 150 measuring 4 acre 38gunts as per
register sale deed dated 31-08-2005 in favour of one Sri. E.S Satish Kumar S/o
Esturi Subbaiah Shetty. Said E.S Satish Kumar executed sale deed in respect of land
in Sy. NO. 150 measuring 4 acre 38 gunta in favour of Sri. Lakshmipuram
Muralidhar S/o Ramachandra Rao and others through register sale deed dated 04-
03-2006.
As far as property in Sy. NO.151 is concerned It is submitted that, the Sri.
Narayanaswamy S/o Nanjappa has executed sale deed in favour of one Sri. M.
Naveen kumar in respect of sy. No. 151 measuring 2 acre 20 guntas as per register
document dated 31-08- 2005. said Naveen Kumar in turn, sold the same to one
Sri. Mannem Venkateswarulu and Sri. Kondra Kondareddy as per register sale
deed dated 04-03-2006. Further, said Narayanaswamy executed sale deed in
respect of remaining 2 acre 20 guntas in Sy. NO. 151 in favour Smt. Padma, who
sold the property acquired under sale deed dated 31-08-2005 in favour of
Kandakuri Sampath Kumar and another as per registered sale deed dated 04-03-
2006. The 4th defendant acquired the 2 acre 20 guntas each in Sy. No. 151 from
Sri. Munnem Venkateshwarulu and Kondra Konda reddy as per two deferent
registered sale deed dated 01-06-2006.
Since, then defendant No.4 has been possession of the properties acquired as per
registered sale deeds dated 01-06-2006. It is further submitted that, defendant
No.4 has also got obtained confirmation dated 05-08-2009 and 24-08-2011. Thus,
as per above sale deeds and confirmation deeds the defendant No.4 become
absolute owner in possession of the suit properties. The 4th defendant is bonafide
purchaser of the suit properties from earlier owner for valuable consideration.

The 4th defendant formed residential layout by getting approval from competent
authority and also sites of separate dimensions is made. Out of said residential
layout some of the sites have been sold in favour of the prospective purchaser and
purchaser are in occupation and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs are never
in possession of the suit properties. the plaintiffs filed false suit. hence prayed for
dismissal of the suit.

pleadings of the parties, following issues and additional issues were framed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are entitled for Rs. 30,000/- as
damages, from the defendant as claimed in para 5 of plaint?
2. Are they entitled for the injunction as sought by them in para 6 of plaint?
3. Are the plaintiffs entitled for the possession of the suit lands as prayed by
them?
4. Are they entitled for the mense profits?
5. Is the suit barred by the decision of the land Tribunal?
6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 133 of the K.L.R.
Act?
8. Are the plaintiffs entitled for the reliefs sought?
9. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES DATED 08-09-2016
1. Whether the 4th defendant proves that, he is in possession and enjoyment
of 2 acres 20 guntas of suit property as bonafide purchaser by virtue of the
sale deed registered as per the No. 1832/2006-07.

Note:- additional issue dated 08.09.2016, is altered to the effect that, whether
defendant No.4 proves that, 4th defendant is bonafide purchaser of the suit
properties? since, the alteration of does not prejudice to either of the parties as
they have lead the evidence to that effect. even either of the parties have orally
submitted during the course of argument that, additional issues may be altered to
the effect mentioned above and they have got no evidence, if additional issue is
altered to the above extent. Thus, additional issue is altered.

After going through the pleadings, relevant documents and the arguments, I
answer above issues as hereunder:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative.
Issue No.2 : Does not survive for consideration.
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.4 : In the Negative.
Issue No.5 : Does not survive for consideration.
Issue No.6 : In the does not survive for consideration.
Issue No.7 : In the does not survive for consideration.
Issue No.8 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Additional issue:1 : In the negative.
Issue No.9: As per the final order for the following:

REASONS
It is case of the plaintiff that, the suit properties are originally belongs to the father of the
plaintiffs and husband of defendant No.2 by name Late Vembar Srinivasachar. Said Sri. Vembar
Srinivasachar entered into registered agreement dated15-10-1960 with defendant No.1 in
respect of suit properties for the purpose of planting casurina trees and take care same and to
fell the casurina tree. After the felling of the trees , the defendant No.1 had to handover the
possession of the suit properties to the said Sri. Vembar Srinivaschar. Said vembar srinivachar
died on 02.10.1969, the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 did not aware agreement dated
15.10.1960, thus the defendant No.1 taking undue advantage of death of said Sri Vembar
Srinivaschary and ignorance of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 continued to be in passion of
the suit properties and raised the casurina tress, and also fell and sold tress so raised in the suit
properties for rupees 60,000/-, thus, the defendant No.1 is under obligation to pay Rupees
30,000/- . Further it is the case of the plaintiff that, when the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2
visited to the suit properties, they witnessed that, there were cuasurina trees of 8 to 9 year old
and the defedant No.1 is trying to cut and sell the same, therefore, sought injunction against
defendant No.1, not cut standing tress in the suit properties, and for the mesne profit. 21. In
support of the claim of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 got enter into witness box by filing chief
examination affidavit and got examined as Pw1 in his chief examination affidavit, Pw1 has
reiterated the plaint avarements. The Pw1 has also got Ex.P1 to 10 documents.

22. It is not in disputed that, the suit properties are purchased by the father of the plaintiffs and
husband of defendant No.2 as per the sale deeds as at Ex.P6 and 7. It is undisputed that, there is
agreement dated 15.10.1969 as per Ex.P3 between the original defedant No.1 and the said Sri.
Vembar Srinivasachar. 23. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that, even after the completion of the
agreement as per Ex.P3, the original defendant No.1 without any lawful authority had continued
to be in possession of the suit properties and raised the casuriana trees and fell and sold the
same for Rs 60,000/-. The burden of proving the fact that, the original defendant No.1 had raised
the casurina tress in the suit properties is upon the plaintiff. Pw1 has stated on oath that, the
defendant No.1 continued the possession of the suit properties, and had raised the cusurina
trees and fell and sold the same for Rupees 60,000/-.

It necessary to mention that, claim of the defendant No. 1 and 3 that, the, the suit properties are
tenanted properties, as such original defendant No.3 has acquired the suit properties as per the
grant made by the Land Tribunal Devanhalli, is of no avail for the reason that, Hnrble High court
of Karnataka in W.P No. 2538 of 2003(LR) has quashed the Order Passed by the Land tribunal
Devanahalli dated 05.10.2002 and said order has attained its finality. Said document is marked as
Ex.P8

[Link] stated above, It is for the plaintiff to establish that, the defendant No.1 had raised causrina
trees in the suit properties and same is fell and sold by the defendant No.1 for Rupees 60,000/-.
Pw1 in his chief examination has reiterated said fact. The defendant No. 3 and 4 have cross
examined Pw1, they have denied factum that, there been raising, felling of the trees by the
defendant No.1. In the cross examination, Pw1 has stated that, the defendant No.1 had fell and
sold the causrina trees in the year 1978 for Rupees 60,000/-, which, he came to know through
the villager. Pw1 has not stated in specific as from whom he came to know said fact. Further, the
plaintiff have not made any effort to examine them villager as witness, so to through the light on
the said aspect.

33. Further, plaintiffs sought for relief of permanent injunction to restrict the defendant No. 1,
from cutting the standing tress. Since the plaintiffs have not established that, there were
standing tree in the suit properties. Further it is also clear from the evidence before the court,
even it is conceded by the plaintiff that, nature of the suit properties have been changed , nd suit
properties are converted for the non agricultural properties, there for relief claimed by the
plaintiff as to restraining from cutting of trees become anfractuous. Hence, issues No.1 and 4
answered in negative and same issue No. 3 does not survive for consideration.

38. It is pertinent here to mention that, during the pendency of the present suit, the suit
properties have been sold to the different purchasers. Finaly the entire suit properties are
purchased by the defendant no.4, M/s Telecom employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
The defendant No. 4 has filed the application seeking permission to come on record as it has
purchased the suit properties from its previous owners. Thus after considering the same, said
society is added as defendant No.4

39. The defendant No. 4 has taken contention that, there has been sale deeds in respect of the
suit properties . Further contended that, the defendant No. 4 has formed the layout of
residential sites of deferent dimension. And some of sites have been sold to the prospective
purchasers, it is also taken contention that, the previous vendors of the suit properties and the
purchasers of the sites from defendant No.4 have not been made as parties to the suit .
therefore the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of the proper and