1 . SRI v. KRISHNA SON OF LATE VENKATANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 143/1, NAYANDAHALLI
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2023 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2017 (INJ) REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 169 OF 2017 (INJ) IN RFA NO. 458/2023 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. V. KRISHNA SON OF LATE VENKATANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 143/1, NAYANDAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD BANGALURU-560039. (BY SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, A/W SRI. G. PANDURANGA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . SRI. RANGASWAMY S/O SHIVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 16, 2ND CROSS ANUBHAV NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI BANGALURU-560072. 2 . SRI. S KRISHNAPPA SON OF SRI. M SIDDAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS ...APPELLANT 2 2(A) SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE S. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2(B) SRI. PURUSHOTHAM .K S/O LATE S. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2(C) SMT. PUSHPALATHA .K D/O LATE S. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2(D) SMT. DEEPARANI .K D/O LATE S. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.24, 4TH CROSS SIDDALIGESHWARA NILAYA BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT NAGASHETTY HALLI BANGALORE-560 060. 3 . SRI. H. RADHAKRISHNA SON OF HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 18/1 9TH MAIN, 4TH A CROSS K N EXTENSION, YESHWANTHAPURA BANGALURU-560022. [VIDE COURT ORDER CAUSE TITLE AMENDED] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.T. VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2(A-D) AND R3) THIS RFA FILED IS UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.01.2023 IN OS NO.2416/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE V 3 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. IN RFA NO. 168/2017 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI KRISHNA V SON OF LATE VENKATANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.61/1 1ST CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 004. (BY SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, A/W SRI. G. PANDURANGA, ADVOCATES) ...APPELLANT AND: 1 . S. KRISHNAPPA SON OF SRI. M SIDDAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(A) SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE S. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 1(B) SRI. PURUSHOTHAM .K S/O LATE S. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 1(C) SMT. PUSHPALATHA .K D/O LATE S. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 1(D) SMT. DEEPARANI .K D/O LATE S. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT 4 SIDDALIGESHWARA NILAYA BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT NAGASHETTY HALLI BANGALORE-560 060. [VIDE COURT ORDER CAUSE TITLE AMENDED] …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. H.T. VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-D)) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.01.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.2836/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. IN RFA NO. 169/2017 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. KRISHNA .V S/O LATE VENKATANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO. 61/1, 1ST CROSS CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 004. (BY SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, A/W SRI. G. PANDURANGA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . B. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE SHIVARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO. 16, 2ND CROSS ANUBHAVANAGAR ...APPELLANT 5 NAGARABHAVI ROAD BANGALORE - 560. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.T. VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.01.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.2838/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.07.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. JUDGMENT These three appeals arise out of three independent suits, while the subject matter in all the three suits is common. Though suits are independently decided by the trial Court, this Court deems it fit to club all the three appeals and pass a common judgment as the evidence led in all the three suits are relevant and the admissions elicited in all the three suits have to be read together. 2. For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties in O.S.No.2416/2014 shall be referred. 6 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff, V. Krishna, instituted a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.2416/2014, contending that he is in lawful possession of the suit property measuring 13 guntas, which originally formed part of Sy.No.60. The said survey number measuring 4 acres 2 guntas was acquired by the State Government to facilitate the formation of a residential layout by ITI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited. According to the plaintiff, since there was no specific scheme framed by the Society, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into post-acquisition, wherein the Society voluntarily relinquished 13 guntas in favour of the plaintiff. This portion of land was allegedly re-conveyed to him free of cost. The plaintiff further averred that out of the 13 guntas, he gifted a portion measuring 35x80 ft. to his son, Naveen Kumar, through a registered gift deed, and that the remaining 8 guntas continues to be in his exclusive possession. It was 7 also asserted that Naveen Kumar constructed a residential building on the gifted portion, while the remaining area is vacant. Alleging interference, the plaintiff claimed that defendants Nos.1 and 2, who are members of the ITI Housing Society, made attempts to unlawfully encroach upon the suit property by deploying machinery with the intention of erecting a public structure. Upon further enquiry, the plaintiff discovered that defendants Nos.1 and 2 had mutually executed sale deeds in favour of each other during their tenure as office bearers of the Society, and were now asserting possession based on such documents. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their written statements. Defendants Nos.1 and 2, in their defence, denied the plaintiff’s title and contended that once the land was acquired by the State and handed over to the Housing Society, the plaintiff ceased to have any right or interest in the land. They alleged suppression of material facts 8 by the plaintiff and asserted that the suit was filed to harass them and disturb their legitimate possession. They specifically relied on registered sale deeds dated 07.04.2003 and 16.06.2003, under which they claimed to have lawfully acquired title to their respective portions of the suit land. Defendant No.1, B. Rangaswamy, filed a separate suit for injunction in O.S.No.2838/2014 against the plaintiff V. Krishna, asserting possession and ownership over a site measuring 60x40 ft., based on the registered sale deed dated 16.06.2003. He placed reliance on a possession certificate dated 07.08.2003 and katha issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to support his claim of lawful possession. Similarly, Defendant No.2, S. Krishnappa, filed O.S. No.2836/2014, also a suit for injunction simplicitor against the plaintiff, claiming ownership and possession over another portion of the property based on the registered sale deed dated 07.04.2003. He relied upon a possession certificate 9 dated 25.05.2003, the BBMP katha issued in his favour, and tax payment receipts to substantiate his possession. All the three suits were independently contested and prosecuted by the respective parties. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced in each case. Plaintiff V. Krishna contested the suits filed by defendants Nos.1 and 2, while they, in turn, contested the suit filed by him. Despite the interconnection of subject matter and parties, the suits were not clubbed and were disposed of separately by the trial Court. In O.S.No.2416/2014, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, holding that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 08.01.1996 (Ex.P-1) and the alleged re- conveyance/allotment of 13 guntas did not vest any valid title in the plaintiff. The MoU was found to be an unregistered document, and the trial Court therefore discarded the same as inadmissible for the purpose of proving title. Consequently, 10 the plaintiff’s claim for injunction was rejected by judgment and decree dated 12.01.2023. Conversely, in O.S.No.2838/2014 and O.S.No.2836/ 2014, the trial Court decreed the suits filed by defendants Nos.1 and 2 respectively, and permanently restrained the plaintiff, V. Krishna, from interfering with their peaceful possession over their respective sites measuring 60x40 ft. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff V. Krishna and the counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1 and 2. There was no contest by defendant No.3 in the suit filed by plaintiff in O.S.No.2416/2014. Records also reveal that defendant No.3 filed an injunction suit against plaintiff V. Krishna, which was dismissed for non-prosecution which is marked at Ex.P-5. 5. On meticulous examination of the records, the following points would arise for consideration. 1) Whether the finding of the trial Court in O.S. No.2416/2014 that the plaintiff, V. Krishna, has failed to 11 establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property measuring 8 guntas, and that Exs.P-1 and P- 2 do not confer any legal right or title, suffers from perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court? 2) Whether the finding of the trial Court in O.S.No.2838/2014 that defendant No.1, B. Rangaswamy, has established lawful possession over the suit property based on the registered sale deed dated 16.06.2003, is perverse or otherwise unsustainable in law, so as to warrant interference? 3) Whether the finding of the trial Court in O.S.No.2836/2014 that defendant No.2, S. Krishnappa, has established lawful possession over the suit property based on the registered sale deed dated 07.04.2003, suffers from any perversity or error warranting appellate interference? 4) Whether the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds for this Court to accept and rely upon the additional evidence sought to be produced under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Finding on Point Nos.1 to 3: 6. From the material placed on record, certain foundational facts stand admitted and undisputed. The State 12 Government, under a notification dated 25.02.1985, proposed to acquire several parcels of land, including Sy.No.60 measuring 4 acres 2 guntas, which was admittedly owned by the family of the plaintiff, V. Krishna. This acquisition was undertaken for the purpose of facilitating the formation of a residential layout for the benefit of members of the ITI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited. The fact that the said land belonged to the plaintiff’s family and that the acquisition was to benefit the Housing Society is not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were at one point of time office bearers of the said Housing Society. These facts were not seriously contested during trial and are borne out by the pleadings and oral evidence on record. 7. The plaintiff, in support of his claim of continued possession and re-conveyance of land, relied on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed by the ITI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited, which is marked as Ex.P-1. A perusal of Ex.P-1 reveals that, following 13 the acquisition of Sy.No.60, the Society passed a resolution to allot the eastern portion measuring 13 guntas to the plaintiff’s family free of cost, presumably as a gesture of accommodation or settlement. Pursuant to the said resolution, an allotment letter (marked as Ex.P-2) was issued in favour of the plaintiff’s family. Both Exs.P-1 and P-2 are signed by C. Venkatappa, who was then serving as the President of the Society. 8. However, this Court finds that the evidentiary value of Exs.P-1 and P-2 must be weighed in conjunction with Ex.D- 7, the approved layout plan, which assumes significant importance in determining the question of lawful possession and title. While the plaintiff claims possession over a contiguous extent of 13 guntas, defendants Nos.1 and 2, who previously held office as Presidents of the Society, base their title on registered sale deeds and claim possession over defined sites. 9. A certified copy of the approved layout plan is produced and marked as Ex.D-7. Upon a closer examination 14 of Ex.D-7, it becomes evident that there is no mention or demarcation of a site measuring 60x40 ft. as claimed by defendant No.1. The layout discloses the existence of only 30x50, 30x40, and odd-dimensioned sites. This discrepancy casts doubt on the specific claim of defendant No.1 regarding the size and identity of the site in his possession, especially when viewed in the light of his own oral testimony. 10. Turning to the oral evidence, defendants Nos.1 and 2 were examined as DW.1 and DW.2, respectively. The cross- examination of DW.1 (B. Rangaswamy) is particularly significant. Specific questions were posed to him regarding whether the site claimed by him, measuring 60x40 ft., is identifiable in the approved layout marked as Ex.D-7. In response, DW.1 admitted that he was the President of the Society during 2001-2002, and crucially, he also admitted that he was unable to identify or locate his claimed site of 60x40 ft. in the layout approved by the competent authority. This admission materially undermines his assertion of lawful 15 possession over the suit schedule property. The relevant portion of his cross-examination reads as follows: "It is true that I have produced Ex.D7 in my evidence. Now the witness is shown Ex.D7 and asked to identify the site formed measuring 60x40 feet. Witness says I do not know. It is false suggest that ITI House Co-operative Society has not formed the site measuring 60x40 feet and knowing fully well I am deposing falsely. It is true that Ex.D1 contains the measurement of site 60x40 feet." 11. The next set of crucial admissions emerges from the proceedings in the two connected suits filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 namely, O.S. No.2838/2014 and O.S.No.2836/2014 respectively which shed considerable light on the bona fides of the defendants in asserting ownership over the respective sites, each measuring 60x40 feet. The plaintiff has consistently alleged that defendant Nos.1 and 2, while functioning as Presidents of the ITI Employees Housing Co-operative Society at different points in time, executed sale deeds in favour of each other, 16 thereby attempting to acquire title over portions of the land initially acquired for public purpose. 12. Specifically, the allegation is that defendant No.1, B. Rangaswamy, while serving as President, executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, S. Krishnappa, in respect of a site measuring 60x40 feet. Reciprocally, defendant No.2, during his tenure as President, executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 for a similar site. These mutual transactions are placed on record in O.S.No.2416/2014 and marked as Ex.D-1 and Ex.D- 17 respectively. 13. This reciprocal arrangement wherein two office bearers of a Co-operative Society dealing with public property allocate sites to one another raises serious concerns about conflict of interest, abuse of position, and the validity of the underlying transactions, especially in the absence of any resolution from the Society or evidence of allotment through a lawful and transparent process. 17 14. It is in this context that the cross-examination of defendant No.1, who is examined as PW.1 in O.S. No.2838/2014, becomes highly relevant. During cross- examination, pointed questions were posed to him regarding the origin and basis of the sale deed executed in his favour by defendant No.2. The admissions elicited in this context reinforce the plaintiff’s contention that the transactions were not rooted in any lawful allotment or authority, but rather reflect collusive and self-serving actions of the defendants in their capacity as Presidents of the Society. 15. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW.1 (defendant No.1 in O.S.No.2416/2014 and plaintiff in O.S.No.2838/2014) is extracted below: "The sites were allotted to the members of the Society on the basis of seniority of membership. I have not produced any document to show that the Society has allotted me the suit site." 18 16. The next relevant extract of cross-examination is extracted, which reads as under: "Ex.P-1 sale deed stands in my name was executed by then President of Society by name Krishnappa. It is true that, the Krishnappa referred above by me is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2836/2014. It is true that, when I was the President of the Society, I had executed the sale deed in respect of subject matter of suit in O.S.No.2836/2014 in the name of Krishnappa. It is true that, Registrar of Co-operative Societies submitted the report that during the Presidency of myself and Krishnappa it was alleged that we have acted illegally in respect of registration of site in the name of myself and in the name of Krishnappa. It is true that, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had directed, the Society to cancel the sale deed stands in the name of myself and also Krishnappa. The Society had served notice to myself and Krishnappa on the orders of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who directed to cancel our sale deeds. For the notice issued by the Society, myself and Krishnappa had preferred an appeal before Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies challenging the notice. The Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies after hearing our appeal from both sides, passed the orders holding that the sale deeds stands in the name of myself and Krishnappa are valid 19 and in accordance with law. It is true that, I have not produced that order copy passed by Joint Registrar. Witness volunteers that he would produce that order copy to the court." 17. The cross-examination of defendant No.2 in O.S.No.2836/2014, wherein he is the plaintiff is also relevant. The same is extracted as under: "……….It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false. I had paid the amount in the year 1979. I paid Rs.1500/- for the first time. I had paid so for the site measuring 30 X 40 feet. I had preferred an application narrating the fact that my family consist of more members with a request to allot a bigger site and I preferred so to the Secretary concerned. That my said application being considered bigger site of the measurement of 60 X 40 was allotted. I had adduced document to substantiate my application and request as above mentioned. It is not true to suggest that the Secretary had absolute power in the matter of allotment of and distribution of sites. Witness volunteers, it was a President who had the suggested power. The bigger site was allotted to me by the President. Sale deed was registered by the then President by name Rangaswamy. 20 It is true to suggest that, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies had filed a report by mentioning that I being the then President and the then President Rangaswamy by colluding with each other have allotted sites to each other. I do not know the fact that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies had even recommended for the necessary and suitable action against me at the instance of Society. That no action was taken in this behalf. That pursuant to order of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, we have preferred appeal which ended in our favour and I was also produced the relevant order before this court. We preferred the appeal before the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Society himself. Question: According to the plan adduced by you at Ex.P.13 sites with the measurements 50 X 30, 30 X 40 and odd sites other than the sites measuring 60 X 40 were formed? Answer: BDA plan was approved and copy of the approved plan is submitted. Question: I put it to you though site of the measurement of 40 X 60 being not formed, documents have been created reflecting the fact of formation of sites of the measurement 40 X 60. Answer: I deny. 21 Question: I put it to you Ex.P.13 does not have the site bearing No.686. Answer: I deny. Question: I put it to you that the photographs adduced by you at Exs.P.7 to P.10 do reflect the vacant portion and same do not reflect the fact of formation of sites. Answer: True." 18. Upon meticulous appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court finds that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.01.1996, marked as Ex.P-1, and the consequent allotment letter, marked as Ex.P-2, though unregistered, cannot be brushed aside in their entirety. While it is true that these documents do not confer legal title, they nevertheless possess evidentiary value for collateral purposes, especially in the context of a suit for injunction simplicitor, where the primary issue for adjudication is lawful possession, not title. 19. Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 were admittedly executed by the then President of the ITI Employees Housing Co-operative 22 Society, and their contents have not been repudiated or challenged by the Society at any point in time. These documents reflect the Society’s voluntary act of allotting 13 guntas to the plaintiff’s family post-acquisition, and no evidence is brought on record by the defendants to demonstrate that the Society ever withdrew, revoked, or denied the execution of these documents. Thus, even if not enforceable as title deeds, these documents serve as relevant evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim of possession over the suit schedule property. 20. Further, a significant aspect of the case is that neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 has laid any claim over Sy.No.60 during the course of trial. The approved layout plan, marked as Ex.D-7, clearly does not reflect the formation of any site measuring 60x40 feet, which is the very dimension of the site claimed by each of the defendants. The cross-examinations of both defendants, who were examined in the respective suits, contain unequivocal admissions that no official allotment order exists in their favour and that they had 23 reciprocally conveyed sites to one another during their respective tenures as Presidents of the Housing Society. This pattern of conduct reveals a highly irregular and self-serving exchange of properties, which appears more in the nature of a “barter arrangement”, executed by defendants by misusing their positions of authority within the Society. 21. It has also been successfully elicited during cross- examination that the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 were subjected to scrutiny by the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, pursuant to allegations of illegalities in the registration of these sites. The Registrar, upon enquiry, found that both defendants, during their respective terms as Presidents, had indulged in mutual conveyance of sites in violation of established norms, and accordingly directed the cancellation of the said sale deeds. The defendants have attempted to rely on the outcome of an appeal purportedly filed before the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies, wherein they claim that the cancellation orders were set aside and their sale deeds upheld. 24 22. However, critically, neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 has produced a copy of the order passed by the Joint Registrar, despite claiming that the order was rendered in their favour. The oral testimony contains only a bare assertion, unsubstantiated by any supporting documentary evidence. In the absence of production of the appellate order, the defence cannot take refuge under such claim. More importantly, even assuming such an order exists, it does not ipso facto establish valid title or lawful possession, particularly when the sites in question are not identifiable within the approved layout plan (Ex.D-7), nor supported by any formal resolution or allotment register maintained by the Society. 23. Furthermore, both defendant Nos.1 and 2 have admitted in unequivocal terms in their respective depositions that they do not possess any official allotment order issued by the Society, nor any documentation to show that the sites claimed by them were regularly allotted in accordance with the Society’s rules, which clearly 25 prioritized seniority of membership. Their entire claim rests on the registered sale deeds executed by each other during their tenures as President. A close scrutiny of the layout plan (Ex.D-7) further weakens their case, as there is no formation of any 60x40 ft. sites within the sanctioned plan. The sites claimed under Exs.D-1 and D-17 are not traceable to any particular plot demarcated in the approved layout. This lack of correlation between the documentary title and actual layout renders their possession unauthorized and lacking legal foundation. 24. In contrast, the plaintiff, though unable to establish title in the strict legal sense, has produced documents and led evidence sufficient to establish lawful possession for the limited purpose of sustaining a claim for injunction. In suits of this nature, the Court’s inquiry is confined to whether the plaintiff is in settled possession and whether such possession is sought to be disturbed without due process of law. The MoU (Ex.P-1) and the allotment letter (Ex.P-2), though unregistered, are contemporaneous records 26 executed by the Society and support the plaintiff’s claim of long-standing possession. 25. It is also significant to note that the Society itself has not instituted any proceedings against the plaintiff challenging the MoU or the allotment. In fact, the suit filed by the Society against the plaintiff was dismissed, and this is evidenced from the certified copies of the judgment marked at Exs.P-9 and P-10. These facts, taken cumulatively, strengthen the plaintiff’s claim to peaceful and lawful possession, whereas the defendants’ claim is riddled with admissions of impropriety, lack of allotment, and absence of layout conformity, which fundamentally erodes the credibility of their asserted rights. 26. Accordingly, point Nos.1 to 3 formulated above are answered in the affirmative. Finding on Point No.4: 27. In view of findings recorded on point Nos.1 to 3, this Court is of the view that additional evidence is not 27 necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute that has arisen for consideration. This Court having come to conclusion that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not acquired right based on sale deeds obtained by them, plaintiff's reliance on additional documents is of no consequence. Accordingly, point No.4 is answered in the Negative. 28. Conclusions: (i) On a comprehensive reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the trial Court, particularly in O.S.No.2416/2014, suffer from manifest perversity and legal infirmity. The trial Court has summarily discarded Ex.P-1 (Memorandum of Understanding) and Ex.P-2 (Allotment letter) on the ground that they are unregistered documents and therefore inadmissible, without appreciating that in a suit for injunction simplicitor, such documents are relevant and admissible for collateral purposes, particularly to prove long-standing possession. The trial Court’s narrow 28 view of admissibility overlooks the settled principle that possession can be protected even in the absence of title, so long as it is lawful and peaceful. (ii) The trial Court further failed to appreciate the undisputed fact that the ITI Housing Society itself has never repudiated or questioned the authenticity of Exs.P-1 and P-2, nor initiated any proceedings to cancel or nullify the allotment of 13 guntas made to the plaintiff’s family. On the contrary, the Society's own suit against the plaintiff was dismissed, as evidenced by Exs.P-9 and P-10. These crucial facts, which go to the root of the plaintiff’s possessory rights, were either ignored or glossed over by the trial Court, resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice. (iii) Equally perverse is the trial Court’s acceptance of the title and possession claimed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Exs.D-1 and D-17, without scrutinising their own admissions that, (a) there is no allotment order in their favour, (b) the sites measuring 60x40 ft. are not found in the 29 approved layout (Ex.D-7), and (c) the sale deeds were executed reciprocally by them while holding the office of President. These admissions expose a clear abuse of authority and suggest that both defendants colluded to allocate Society land among themselves in violation of cooperative principles and without any governing resolution or membership-based entitlement. The trial Court's failure to draw adverse inference from these startling admissions and documentary inconsistencies reflects non-application of mind and acceptance of tainted transactions, thereby vitiating its findings. (iv) Moreover, the trial Court did not properly assess the impact of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies' direction to cancel the sale deeds, nor did it insist on the production of the alleged appellate order said to have reversed that direction. The defendants' failure to produce this crucial order should have been viewed with suspicion, but was instead overlooked. This again reflects a material omission in 30 appreciating the burden of proof and undermines the legality of the sale deeds on which the defendants' suits are founded. (v) In view of the above findings, this Court is constrained to hold that the trial Court’s approach is not merely erroneous, but one that reflects perversity in the appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary. The Court below failed to properly apply settled legal principles relating to injunction, possessory rights, and fiduciary misuse by office bearers of cooperative societies. Such findings, being patently unsustainable in law and on facts, call for appellate interference. 29. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed; (ii) The judgment and decree dated 12.01.2023 passed in O.S.No.2416/2014 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru 31 (CCH-13), the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017 passed in O.S.No.2838/2014 on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-45) and the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017 passed in O.S.No.2836/2014 on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-45) are hereby set aside; (iii) Consequently, suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.2416/2014 is decreed and the suits filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.Nos.2838/2014 and 2836/2014 respectively are dismissed; (iv) Draw decree accordingly; (v) Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA